Dude, she was the freaking VP on the Republican ticket. The media didn't give her the stage/microphone/limelight. John McCain (or his campaign managers) did.
When you get into the spotlight and make a lot of noise, typically the spotlight doesn't go away. For both good and bad reasons, she attracts viewers, viewers bring money, etc. Blaming the media here is dumb.
Please have a progressive Dem run against Obama in the Primary? Let's face it Obama will win the Dem nomination. Obama will almost surely win the general election. If necessary he will keep Guantanamo, extend the tax breaks for the rich, give more money back to Wall Street, talk constantly about deficits, avoid any conatamination with the Wisconsin or government employee unions, try to make the case for nuclear power cautiously (good luck!) etc. Who should run againt Obama in the primary so we can at least have a discussion among Democrats? I think it is important. One thing an election should be about is educating the voters about the issues. Obama left to himself will just be cautiously making compromises to win, trying to cautiously put forward a postion slightly more humane than the GOP and ignore any bully pulpit or educator role.
How many elections have even happened in the age of 24 hour news networks where getting such a job (or even such supposed "vicious attacks") are even possible? Maybe 2 elections?
A black democrat being drawn further to the left by a primary challenge sounds a little risky, especially since blue dogs would want one of their own in there as well. Anti-war and anti-health care in his own party in 2012, sounds like '48 or '68 type cluster****.
Taking outlier polls and using them to show how McCain was going to win in 2008 worked oh so well for you last time, so it makes sense to do it again, right?
Guys, Romney is going to get the nomination. I think you can almost put it in the bank if Romneycare doesn't derail him or some surprise disclosure doesn't pop up. The rest of the GOP field is pathetic and Romney will take it by default. Plus, he learned a lot in 2008 and will be more careful about making so many enemies. The GOP establishment doesn't like surprises and Romney is a safe choice. He'll be the 2012 version of Bob Dole, except he'll be taken seriously and I doubt he gets obliterated if unsuccessful. To close the sale, it's important he gets tea partiers on board soon. Sarah Palin has cooked her own goose many times over and she never had a chance to begin with. She's in it for the money as some right-wingers have already figured out. Sideshow Sarah. Pathetic drama queen. Michelle Bachmann has zero chance. Nuff said. The establishment cringes. Newt Gingrich is a flaming joke. I don't think the establishment has forgiven him for what happened in the early 90s, nor should they. He has Landslide Loser tatooed in capital letters on his forehead, like the others above. Haley Barbour impaled himself to such an extent that I can't take him seriously now. I used to give him a legit chance. Rick Santorum belongs in Newt's category. Why is he wasting his time? Perhaps his legit goal is to be V.P. or get a cabinet position (ugh). Mike Pence and John Thune would have been intriguing choices, but neither guy is running. Very unfortunate (in this swing voter's opinion). I would also strongly consider Mitch Daniels but he's made statements that have hurt his chances to get nominated. Tim Pawlenty has a chance if Romney falters, but what about him inspires people on a national scale?
I don't think Romney has any chance with the Tea Partiers - they won't stand for RomneyCare. That said, I think Romney's situation is the opposite of Obama in 2008. Obama needed the race to quickly lose candidates and get down to Obama vs Hillary. He was the anti-Hillary and needed to coalesce all those votes. If Edwards stayed in the race any longer than he did, I think Obama was going to be in trouble. Romney is the Hillary in this scenario. If it comes down to someone-semi-sane vs. Romney, I think Romney loses. If 6 or 7 candidates stay in it and keep splitting all the anti-establishment vote, Romney can keep winning states with 25-35% of the vote and end up at the top. He needs all these crazy people to run and split the Tea Party and other anti-establishment voters.
What semi-sane candidate did you have in mind? It has to be somebody specific that is already on the board. The GOP establishment won't back a latecomer. I think Romney will get it and "make amends" with tea partiers by choosing one as a running mate. I don't think 6-7 candidates will split anything. Maybe one or two others at best. GOP nominations aren't the complete free-for-alls that you see on the Dem side sometimes. I think right-wingers would unite fairly quickly on ONE anti-Romney candidate they liked most. The best that person could do is pull Romney to the right, not defeat him. Besides Romney, which one or two do you think has the best chance? Or do you believe a darkhorse could emerge? I doubt it very much.
The GOP generally doesn't do darkhorses, but given the quality of candidates, I think if there was ever a year to have one, I'd think this would be it. That said, I think Huckabee vs. Romney, Newt vs. Romney, or Pawlenty vs Romney could result in Romney losing. He really doesn't have the support of tea partiers, social conservatives, or fiscal conservatives. So he's just kind of the "well, there's no one else" candidate. But I think those 3, if they run the right campaign, could collect enough from each major group to beat Romney if it was just them vs. Romney one on one. That said, if they all run, along with Palin/Bachmann/etc to split out some of the crazies, I think that Romney has a solid 25-35% that he can rely on while the others split the rest of the votes. Newt & Pawlenty would take some fiscal conservatives; insane tea partiers would go to Palin and Bachmann; social conservatives would go to Huckabee and Santorum; etc.
Newt has no chance at all (IMO) and is truly delusional. He's really giving it his best shot but ain't no way he can get the nomination. He's the kind of candidate the Dems can turn into swiss cheese. Huckabee won't get it either because there is a weirdness factor. Sometimes he says stuff that shocks me in a positive way; other times I've wondered if his head is screwed on. There are also enough GOP insiders that seriously don't like him (from 2008). He doesn't seem to have broad support outside of evangelicals. Could be wrong, but I don't truly consider him a legit candidate. If Pawlenty can break out from obscurity, he might have a legit shot, whether Romney crashes or not.
I think this part about the Dems is where we disagree. I agree that he'll be a terrible general election candidate, but I think the rabid GOP base doesn't care about that right now. There are some years where parties try to pick the candidate with the best chance to win (McCain in 2008, Kerry in 2004) despite not really liking them. Then there are other years where they pick the candidate that really excites them (Obama 2008). I think this is one of those years where the GOP wants a candidate that checks all the boxes and energizes them, despite the fact that it's going to lead to failure. We saw this in the primaries with all the Sharon Angle types that got nominated, and without a dominant "he really can win!" candidate out there, I think the GOP leans in that direction again in 2012.
The "rabid" GOP base doesn't single-handedly choose their candidate and 2012 won't be any different. If the establishment rejects Newt and throws their weight behind someone else, he is toast. When a few mega-money insider heavyweights signs up for Newt, I'll change my mind. I also don't think he excites their base all that much. He's a worn-out old piece of furniture and isn't the type of newer face on the party they are looking for. Too much baggage. IMO, Newt is running this time because he knows it's now or never. For people like him, they have to try. Don't underestimate the "rabid" base. Their anti-Obama sentiment is very strong and, come decision time, nominating a good candidate will weigh heavily against purity.
Ouch! Rand Paul on Newt's war position I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives.
