Prognosticating Palin’s Presidential Plans

This is a tough one to read, because there’s just too much data to incorporate. On the one hand (and about a thousand other people have made this point), it doesn’t make sense for Sarah Palin to run, because to do so, she’d have to give up both a heap of cash, and renounce her decidedly unpresidential, but otherwise influential punditry platforms. (We’re running this alliteration to the ground.) Note, too, that Fox suspended Gingrich and Santorum’s contracts, until they decide whether or not they’ll run, but not Palin’s.

On the other hand, if you frame this question as a battle between Palin’s ego and her intellect, it’s pretty clear which one comes out on top. HotAir is taking that side, and rationalizes away this particularly damning point: she’s planned to skip the first primary debate at the Reagan library!

The kind-of-creepy Allahpundit explains this move away as particularly good posturing: it looks better to honor the memory of fallen soldiers, doesn’t it, than it does to stroke your own ego to a national audience, especially when the field is likely to remain fairly nebulous for some time. Well sure, but it’s the rare pro ball team that lets spring training run through the first game of the season. At some point, you have to actually take a swing.

For now, InTrade puts her chance of running at 45%. It’s almost worth buying, for the sheer hilarity of taking a short position against American democracy. If you’re buying, maybe hedge by picking Pawlenty, a likely draw for Palin voters in her absence, as the eventual nominee.

By the way, InTrade also gives her 9% to win the nomination, and 3% to win the office.



  1. victorydave1 · ·

    Your Right Shara is making too much money for now, She wants to run but only after the money slows down. Then as an X president the money will flow like water.

  2. If she does decide to run the only safe bet will be that the time Democrats devote to talking about her will be inversely proportional to her chances of winning.

  3. So the more that we talk about her the more likely she is to win? Have to disagree with that.

    1. No – I’m suggesting that the less likely she is to win the more you will talk about her.

  4. Eh, maybe. She’s sort of like Christine O’Donnell writ large. A chance to demonstrate just how wonky you guys have become.

    1. Most of us view Palin as our version of Operation Bodyguard.

  5. That would be clever, if you even had an Operation Overlord. Tim Pawlenty is a poor substitute for the First Division.

    1. To be quite honest, at this point I am starting to think that even Gingrich could beat Obama next year. I’m having trouble recalling a President that was less involved than this one. Maybe Buchanan?

  6. I’d take that bet. 2012 will be a cakewalk. It may not look that way now, though.

    1. The deck is already stacked:

      Add to that Obama’s complete absence of leadership on policy for the last year…But hey, I appreciate your optimism.

  7. These things aren’t worrying when the alternative is an absence of policy :)

    1. In this political climate I disagree. The Right just wants to see Democratic plans rolled back. The Left isn’t getting any progress because their elected leader is on vacation. Other than the folks like yourself who are still drinking the kool-aid who is really being pleased by anything he is doing?

  8. I love how in one thread you insist Obama’s doing it all wrong, and in another, that he’s doing nothing at all. I guess the policy office has been silent since the end of the lame duck session, but that’s not a year.

    1. He’s doing it all wrong by doing nothing.

      – HCR: Punted to Reid and Pelosi and found himself defending a complete turd going into the midterms

      – Gitmo: No leadership, complete moral failure.

      – DOMA: Punted to Congress

      – Budget: No leadership, pissed off his own side

  9. Isn’t this just a way of saying you don’t personally like his policy choices?

    1. No – that’s a given on most of them. What I am saying is that his abdication of leadership reposnibility will make for a hard defense of his administration in 2012.

    2. oneiroi · ·

      You can play that game with any president.

      Congress played the majority of the role here, this cabinet member or adviser was the brain behind this or that, see the president did nothing!

  10. Fortunately, the only group the voters distrust more than the administration is the entire Republican Party.

    1. Yeah – I noticed that last November…

  11. That’s all very interesting, but I think we all know 2012 will be decided primarily by one thing, the unemployment rate. And that’s heading downwards, if slowly, so…

    1. Here’s the thing: If it below 7% or so then people will begin to shift their focus to other issues. Like HCR, foreign policy or social issues. None of these favor the President. If the unemployment rate is above 7%, Obama gets the blame.

    2. Thing is, those are issues that voters on the Left and the Right care about. But what about the independents? I don’t really see that, and they after all tend to sit with the deciding votes, barring really unusual circumstances.

      1. Independents clearly favored the GOP in 2010. We can speculate about why but I don’t think the unemployment rate was the only factor.

      2. Unemployment was still rising, or at least stagnating up to the midterms. I think that was a very important factor, further contributing to the drop in support that the party in the White House always suffers. Basically, people voted for Republicans because they weren’t Democrats or incumbents, not because of any particular preference for Republicans as such.

        But if the economy and unemployment have improved noticeably by this time next year, and I think there’s a good chance of that, then I expect the Republican challenger will have a very hard time, regardless of who it is.

        1. I’m not convinced the employment outlook is going to be all that much better but let’s hope.

          I wonder though – is it correct to assume that the President will get credit for an improved job market?

        2. I think it tends to go that way, and even if Obama’s approval isn’t the best at the moment (though not the worst either), it’s at least still way ahead of Congress’s, so probably people would be more inclined to shift credit his way.

          I do see a weak point in the deficit, though. If no serious action has yet been taken on that by next year, that could be an opening for the Republicans to exploit. Not that they’re doing much about it beyond rhetoric, but then again, blame tends to go towards the White House just as well as credit.

          1. I think it would be pretty interesting to see the President putting the national unemployment rate up against a governor from a state with a slightly superior rate.

            Perhaps Indiana?

          2. That’d be a dumb comparison. But not so dumb as to fail to convince your average independent voter. Sigh!

            1. Why not? If the President is running on an improved employment rate certainly a governor can claim that too.

            2. A state economy is infinitely less complex than a national economy.

              1. Isn’t a national economy really just a sum of 50 state economies? And if those states are less complex that means a governor plays a more direct role in that economy.

            3. As far as Mitch Daniels is concerned, he doesn’t have the hair to be President.

              Seriously though, it would be interesting to look at how important their state track record actually has been for Presidential candidates coming from governorships, such as Reagan or Clinton.

              Obviously it must have some impact, but on the other hand, there must also be limits on how important it is. Otherwise, say, Dave Heineman from 4.2% Nebraska would be the frontrunner already. Accomplishments on the state level don’t necessarily translate very well to the national level, and probably most people realize that.

              Of course, those that don’t would vote for Sarah Palin.


              1. Daniels is extremely popular in Indiana – even among liberals – so I would think that would transfer to a national stage, but who knows.

                Executive experience (or any experience really) was certainly not a factor in the election of our current President so I guess previous employment is irrelevant.

                1. Well, not irrelevant, but these things come in waves. After WWII there was a long stretch of Presidents coming out of Congress – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, etc. But then starting with Carter, it switched over to governors; every single one except G.H.W. Bush, in fact.

                  So it’s very interesting that we now have a previous senator in the WH again, not to mention that several other major personalities of 2008 (McCain, Clinton, Edwards) were also senators.

                  So the question is whether this is a move back to a preference for legislative candidates, or just an outlier.

                  1. Given the GOP field they certainly seem to be moving back toward executives. The GOP still really likes governors.

  12. More still approve of the Affordable Care Act than disapprove; and an overwhelming majority wanted it done (or done better) than not done at all.

    In the end this is so much navelgazing. But 2010 can’t be generalized to 2012, just like 2002 didn’t dictate 2004.

    1. And I don’t think the current field of GOP politicians that are actually campaigning doesn’t reflect the GOP contedors we will see at the end of the primaries.

      1. Double negative above. I meant “…the current field of GOP politicians that are actually campaigning doesn’t reflect the GOP contedors we will see at the end of the primaries.”

  13. Personally, I’d prefer Paul to Palin.

    1. Paul sounds less crazy now than he did in 2008.

%d bloggers like this: