Obama/Palin 2016/2012

Assuming the McCain/Palin ticket loses, what is to be predicted of Sarah Palin after the loss? Also, if McCain/Palin do pull out a victory, what is to happen to Obama.

Two statements have really sparked this thought, the first came on this board from Lookout or Merc who mentioned some possible conspiracy theory about Kerry getting nominated so Obama could be raised for the job and questioning if something similar will happen for the Republicans next chance they get.

The second came from a New York Times editorial by William Kristol who said

Who knows what would follow a President Obama and a Democratic Congress? Here’s one possibility: President Sarah Palin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03kristol.html?ref=opinion



I would describe Sarah Palin as the Republican reactionary symbolic leader to Obama and the Democrats. Both people appeal greatly to their base and will get loyal followers for years to come no matter the outcome of this election so I am interested in hearing what people think will happen to those two after the election.


I don't think much will happen with Obama. He is loved and at the point where unless he does something completely stupid (or becomes president), he will always have a large support from the country and will probably have a good chance next election. He can gain experience and become wiser in his decision making. The only way I can really see him fading out is if McCain's policies greatly help the economy and solve all the problems (impossible).


Palin is much more in the air. She was not known at all before the RNC and now has become a Republican celebrity almost but not quite on par with Obama. Since she has a large fan base within most conservative regions, it would also make sense after eight years she could practice and become a very successful presidential candidate if Obama fails and more people turn back to the conservative base.
She could also just be a one-hit wonder.

Thoughts?

After Palin's poor showing on the national stage I seriously doubt there is much in her future in that situation unless she gets a lot more experience under her belt. And here is how she might do it. Take Ted Stevens job away from him at the next election cycle. Stevens is still popular, even in the face of his conviction and he certainly could be re-elected. I think she is looking for a seat in Congress.

I am not much into conspiracy bs, but given there are some who feel that a super majority win by the the Dems, including the President, would almost promise and follow on win by Republickins in the future. Sort of like, "let them have it, they will screw up so bad people will flock back to our side next time." Not sure if I entirely believe that but that is the thinking I have heard.

TheMercenary;500459 wrote:

Sort of like, "let them have it, they will screw up so bad people will flock back to our side next time."

More like, we've fucked things up so badly, they'll never be able to make people happy before the next election cycle.

Well, ya, that too.

The angling for 2012/2016 starts immediately, and everyone tries to imagine how the next horse race will work, but it's always wasted time as history guarantees that the political landscape changes completely every two years. It could shift Palin's way, or against it.

In four years she could be a formidable competitor, with four more years of experience along with four more years of understanding the media and communication. It would also take a re-do of her image.

And hopefully a speech coach who can take some of that lower-middle class twang out. I think it would be hard to live with that voice. Of course I said that about Hillary so perhaps it's just my anti-woman bias coming out. (That's what J would say so I'm saying it for her) ((No hon, there are plenty of powerful women who have voices I don't object to.))

Palin will spend the next few years getting lots of airtime as she builds herself to run for the next election. She will draw a lot of focus off the other candidates and look like a shoe-in for the nomination as her camp deftly pushes aside the "fake conservatives". That will continue until roughly a year before the convention when the wheels will fall off and Newt Gingrich will step into the breach and win the nomination.

Either that or she'll already be a heartbeat away from the office.

piercehawkeye45;500440 wrote:

Assuming the McCain/Palin ticket loses, what is to be predicted of Sarah Palin after the loss?

She will be put forward as a front man for wacko extremists just like Dan Quayle.

Even though I doubt this will happen in the next decade, but urban renewal and a change in the demographics in the United States may force a change in conservative's base views.

It may just be my limited experience but it seems that the middle class, espeically ones my age, are starting to move back towards the city, enjoying the urban lifestyle. I believe this will continue and because this demographic group tends to be very liberal, it will spread its influence to more of the newer urban middle class. Palin seems to sit well with more suburban and rural America but a change in demographics may force the Republicans to shift gears away from their current target audience and include the yuppies.


The other factor will be overall demographics in the United States. As of now, under 50% of the US population under five years old are white and this will not change so people of color, who generally vote Democrat, will begin to have more and more influence.



I don't know if these will have a significant outcome in the next non-incumbent election (2016), but I believe it will in the elections after that.

piercehawkeye45;500575 wrote:

It may just be my limited experience but it seems that the middle class, espeically ones my age, are starting to move back towards the city, enjoying the urban lifestyle. I believe this will continue and because this demographic group tends to be very liberal, it will spread its influence to more of the newer urban middle class.

If true, then how did someone from the Texas backcountry end up a Washington insider? How did a cowboy from Wyoming become so powerful in Washington?

I see no reason to believe where he comes from or where others live makes a politician any more or less desirable. Dick Van Dyke did a movie called Lonesome Rhodes where a backroad hick quickly becomes a powerful and national radio personality.

This new form of politician may remain common in America if people do not see through it. Simply train a 'front man' to reply with standard responses to keywords. George Jr did this. The movie W. demonstrates how Karl Rove refined him from a politician easily baited into one who could appear so decisive.

We have watched Sarah Palin get same training while remaining attached to McCain's side. She clearly has little grasped of how the world works. But she is being trained to appear knowledgeable which may make her a potential frontman (spokesperson) for some back room power broker(s).

LOL!!! I'm sorry. She's one dog that can't even be trained. It amuses me to think this would even be brought up as a serious topic.

She will always be a governor from Alaska, and that is all. She was played as a political card, and that's it. Done. It will be curtains for her soon and it won't be long before she is forgotten. She'll stay in her "neck of the woods" and that's it. She was used and it will be over soon.

tw;500763 wrote:

If true, then how did someone from the Texas backcountry end up a Washington insider? How did a cowboy from Wyoming become so powerful in Washington?

That wasn't my point. I am saying that in the next few decades I will expect to see rural America, which tends to be conservative, have less and less influence in elections and be forced to change their base. Whether a politician comes from New York City or a town of 50 in Wyoming has no effect on the overall views of the country.

That is why I think the new conservative push for small towns is short-sighted. It may be purely reactionary, which I have a feeling it is, but they should begin to change in the next few decades to support the views of the next generation.

piercehawkeye wrote:

It may just be my limited experience but it seems that the middle class, espeically ones my age, are starting to move back towards the city, enjoying the urban lifestyle.

People your age aren't actually the middle class. They are either the dependents of middle-class families, or they are earning their own way entirely in which case they are making a relatively low income.

To which you say, "Ah, but they are educated, and can be reliably predicted to be middle class in another 10-15 years."

To which I say, sure, but once you give them 10-15 years, a mortgage and a couple of kids, you may find they aren't as liberal as they were in their college years.

Yes, but I want to focus more on living demographics on this.

My first premise is that middle class individuals living in urban areas tend to vote more democrat while suburban and rural middle class individuals tend to vote more republican.

My second premise is that I am predicting that middle class demographics will become more and more urban for various reasons.

Using basic logic, it would tell us that the middle class will be become more democrat.

Which would also tell us that the current type of small town conservatism we see with Palin and McCain will become completely overpowered by the urban population.

So, in order to stay alive, a new type of conservatism will need to arise in the next few decades.



My second argument is very similar.

The first premise is that people of color tend to vote democrat.

The second premise is that with immigrants and new borns, people of color will have larger numbers than whites.

So, conservatism will need to change in that respect as well.



My two very broad predictions.

piercehawkeye45;500980 wrote:

That wasn't my point. I am saying that in the next few decades I will expect to see rural America, which tends to be conservative, have less and less influence in elections and be forced to change their base.

You are suggesting that a generation inspired by "Sienfeld" and "Sex in the City" are the future of political power? I am confused why this was not always a political power force or why this 'force' is currently becoming stronger. What changed?

Cicero;500959 wrote:

LOL!!! I'm sorry. She's one dog that can't even be trained. It amuses me to think this would even be brought up as a serious topic.

She will always be a governor from Alaska, and that is all. She was played as a political card, and that's it. Done. It will be curtains for her soon and it won't be long before she is forgotten. She'll stay in her "neck of the woods" and that's it. She was used and it will be over soon.

I doubt that.

Unfortunately we get her back.

gee thanks America :)

How did your state manage without her for these past couple months? Did everything fall apart?

Clodfobble;500994 wrote:

To which I say, sure, but once you give them 10-15 years, a mortgage and a couple of kids, you may find they aren't as liberal as they were in their college years.

In many ways I am more liberal than I was 10-15 years ago. At least in that I am more aware of what I believe in and why. Then again, I don't have a mortgage or kids - maybe that's the entry point for conservatism.

How did your state manage without her for these past couple months? Did everything fall apart?

We were just fine.

tw;501293 wrote:

You are suggesting that a generation inspired by "Sienfeld" and "Sex in the City" are the future of political power? I am confused why this was not always a political power force or why this 'force' is currently becoming stronger. What changed?

My prediction is that middle class individuals will start to move from the suburbs to renewed urban areas and that process will in turn change the political spectrum of the United States.

While I don't believe it will be the driving force behind the switch I do believe that gas prices can have the possibility and influence to greatly change the demographics of the urban/suburban areas. When gas prices reach a certain level, many will not be able to afford to drive twenty minutes one way to work and another the way back.

So in response to this, we either have to find very fuel efficient cars, heavily rely on mass transit, or move back towards the city.

Fuel efficient or alternative fuel cars may provide a solution in terms of price but workers will still have to spend 40 minutes+ driving to and from work. Questioning if that drive is worth it will be another leading factor.

Relying heavily on mass transit would be a good solution but unrealistic in my mind. Even if we could cut the time from getting to a suburban drop off point to an urban drop off point to five minutes, the workers will still have to spread out and go to their different jobs throughout the city, which will take much longer than fifteen minutes. Unless we somehow change city planning so people working in one area of the city lives by a certain drop off point I don't see this being a realistic solution.

Moving back to the city will be the last solution. Price and time spent going to and from work will drop down to nearly zero. If this happened new schools will be built and families will be able to live in nice condos. Not the same as a suburban or rural home but it will be satisfactory to many.


So what I can see happening is that some workers will start moving back towards the city (the rich and lower middle class(??) first) and then when urban renewal goes into full swing, it will become more preferable for many to live in the city than suburbs so more middle class individuals will move as well.

The other force will be a second "white flight" type thing. Right now I see the inner suburbs turning into slums and as more urban communities become "renewed", the current residents will be forced out to live in the now cheaper suburbs. Once the income level drops and the area starts to become slums, the rest of the middle class will be forced out not wanting to deal with the problems that come with living in a slum.



So when the middle class starts to become more urban, the political views of many will start to shift as well. I don't think it will be drastic, but it will be enough to change the base of the Republican Party. People will become more socially acceptable and socially liberal. Economics I cannot predict but I assume the change from large homes to condos will change some views but I'm not positive.