Would Sarah Palin Do THAT Badly If She Was Nominated In 2012?

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

I don't support Sarah Palin in 2012, and I don't think that she would win, but would Sarah Palin's nomination really be the opportunity for Obama to win in a 400+ EV landslide? She has conservatives fired up, and I doubt she'd lose the South or the conservative west. Of course, it really depends on how the economy is doing, but if she continues to fire conservatives up, I see the map looking something like this:

She'll certainly alienate moderates and independents, which is why she loses, but I doubt she loses in THAT big of a landslide.

[Poundingtherock]

Why would she lose Nevada or Missouri?

She's stronger than Angle and Obama's poll numbers are weaker than Reid's in Nevada.

Missouri is pretty much the same situation as North Carolina and even PPP found her endorsement to be stronger than Obama's in North Carolina.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_901.pdf

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No, nowhere near as badly as people here expect. People are forgetting that it would still be a referendum on the disastrous presidency of Obama, not just about Palin.

With regard to your map I really don't see Palin losing a tea party-friendly state like Montana, especially while winning North Carolina and Indiana. Nor do I think Obama has much of a chance in Arizona against anyone at this point, at least not breaking 50%.

[Lief 🗽]

No, she will win the election, though likely only by one or two states.

[tpfkaw]

She's a weak candidate, and never before has any person besides Richard Nixon post-Watergate and Herbert Hoover received such a nonstop barrage of character assassination as she, but she'd still win or at least make it close.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Actually you guys are right about the map. Oh well, the election's even closer!

[feeblepizza]

She would win by the skin of her teeth.

[Dr. Cynic]

She's a weak candidate, and never before has any person besides Richard Nixon post-Watergate and Herbert Hoover received such a nonstop barrage of character assassination as she, but she'd still win or at least make it close.

I'm back to Australia then. I seriously would mourn for this country with her at the helm and I could no longer live here. I'd take any other Republican almost that has a shot at the nomination before her.

[Eraserhead]

Why would she lose Nevada or Missouri?

She's stronger than Angle and Obama's poll numbers are weaker than Reid's in Nevada.

2010 poll numbers = 2012 poll numbers?

Obama underpolled by an extreme amount in NV in 2008, by the way. Remember how he ended up carrying the state by about 13 points even though many of the polls showed it to be fairly close?

Also, you seem be conflating the electorate that turns out during a midterm election with the electorate that turns out during a presidential election.

[minionofmidas]

Lol hackfest.

[memphis]

No, she will win the election, though likely only by one or two states.

Doing a beet imitation?

[Skill and Chance]

No, she will lose, maybe not by the Goldwater margin, but she will lose decisively.

If such an election were possible, Sarah Palin would have even lost to Hoover in 1932.

[Lief 🗽]

No, she will win the election, though likely only by one or two states.

Doing a beet imitation?

It's pretty clear that the economy isn't getting better between now and 2012, and Obama isn't winning with 8-9% unemployment, no matter how crazy his opponent is. Nominating Palin instead of Romney or Thune is the difference between a narrow Obama loss (i.e. 2004, but switch Ohio) versus a landslide Obama loss (something like 1980, though Obama winning CA, NY and IL will inflate his EV somewhat).

[opebo]

Why would she lose?  Americans love her.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

even if she could win, she would do worse than Thune or Pence.  The best thing for the GOP would be if Palin got pregnant in the Summer of 2011.

[opebo]

even if she could win, she would do worse than Thune or Pence.  The best thing for the GOP would be if Palin got pregnant in the Summer of 2011.

That wouldn't preclude running, would it?  I mean, 'the rebirth of America' and all that.  And anyway she's running against one of Them.

[Dan the Roman]

No, she will win the election, though likely only by one or two states.

Doing a beet imitation?

It's pretty clear that the economy isn't getting better between now and 2012, and Obama isn't winning with 8-9% unemployment, no matter how crazy his opponent is. Nominating Palin instead of Romney or Thune is the difference between a narrow Obama loss (i.e. 2004, but switch Ohio) versus a landslide Obama loss (something like 1980, though Obama winning CA, NY and IL will inflate his EV somewhat).

Saying Obama wouldn't win with a 8-9% unemployment is absurd like much of the historical stuff(ie. the House never flipping without the senate). While interesting, it is not an iron-law, and more an observation of where politics was at the time. Obama leads Palin right now among a likely-vote pool that is far more pro-GOP than the 2012 electorate ever will be.

And if there is one way to remove the enthusiasm gap, its someone like Palin as nominee. This is not to say economics don't matter. But to assume that the average voter is so stupid that they can not simultaneously feel dissapointment/frustration with Obama and horror at the thought of Sarah Palin as US president is to treat the electorate with utter contempt. In all seriousness, is being forced to work as a paralegal for the next two years going to somehow make a kid who graduated from a top school in 2007 or 2008 suddenly decide to vote for Palin. Or will they not vote in 2010, and then drift back into the voter pool as Palin's likely circus of a campaign divides the country.

I would actually inverse this. The economy will not determine whether or not Palin loses. Four years of a bad economy is quite simply not enough to produce that scale of a shift in the electorate regardless of whether unemployment is 9% or 14%. What it will determine is whether it is close or a blow-out. But there are too many people for whom the prospect of Palin in office is a joke, and who doubt she would improve anything even if they think a Republican generally would.

[Poundingtherock]

Actually, that voter screen isn't tight at all and the actual sample isn't dramatically different from 2004.

The 2008 electorate no longer exists.

[Penelope]

Before Debates:

After Debates:

Result:

[Yelnoc]

I agree with Odysseus.  Obama vs. Palin would be like Clinton vs. Quayle.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Simple answer, yes.

She has a fervent following that makes a lot of noise, but doesn't actually reflect much at all.

She makes GWB look intellectually curious, and at least Bush had the Repub establishment behind him... they know she's an electoral disaster waiting to happen.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Lol hackfest.

I agree.

The US dislikes Palin by a margin of 52% to 37%.  Obama isn't nearly that unpopular.  Even then, his approval ratings arn't that different than Clinton or Reagan's ratings within the first 2 years (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx).

[Fuzzybigfoot]

After Debates:

Or something along these lines.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see her winning Iowa. Not with people like Thune, Pence, Barbour or Daniels in the race. Iowa is the state you have to work voter by voter. Advertisements and speeches won't do it. You have to do town halls, and you have actually do the old fashion retail politics. I see her coming in strong maybe leading at points but collapsing as voting time in IA approached. She hasn't addressed her substance issue and I think that most of the voters will come to the conclusion that she is not Presidential material. That will be made easier with the presence of someone like Pence or Thune in the race.  

Reagan lost the state, despite living there for several years and came back in NH. I don't see Palin winning NH, the demographics are just horrible for her in NH.

Who becomes the nominee will depend on who wins in IA and SC. If Thune wins both, then he is the nominee. If Thune wins IA, and Barbour or Palin in SC, then likely Romney will win if he won NH by winning FL and the big states down the road, as well as all the  NE and intermountain west.

As for Palin as the nominee, she would do well and thus hold IN, MO and NC but she wouldn't do much better anywhere else. She will be crushed in the Southwest and Midwestern states like WI, OH, and MI.

[exopolitician]

The woman is clueless, shes a terrible debater/public speaker/interviews, and shes only fanning the flames of a "possible 2012 Presidential Run" due to her celebrity ambitions. Shes a joke, and thankfully, most [not all] Americans can see that. Thus yes, she would do THAT badly if she were nominated in 2012.