Been having a discussion with some collegues about this and wanted to open it up to you guys, since it might be a different take on disscussions you've been having:

Sarah Palin hasn't declared her candidacy to become the Republican Presidential nominee, but as far as I know she hasn't ruled it out either. Her recent actions are similarly equivocal in that they could be an attempt to build up public support for a run or not.

Here's the question for you: if she has decided not to run, are her recent antics actually damaging the chances of the Republicans regaining the White House by diverting attention away from the actual candidates?

Whatever you may think of Obama, it is a historical precident that a sitting president with no primary challenge from within his own party tends to have a big advantage when seeking re-election, as shown by the sheer number of incumbents thus re-elected. So surely his challenger will need every advantage he/she can muster to defeat Obama, and one of these is a high public profile. But at the moment I think it is fair to say that Palin has the highest profile of any senior Republican, and is therefore distracting media attention away from the others.

Regardless of whether you want Palin to stand or not, or Obama to be re-elected or not, I can't help but feel that Palin may prove to be more of a hinderance than a help to the Republican Party over the next 18 months. Discuss.

I think the Palin maneuver is brilliant. I do like the energy she produces, but do not support her candidacy. She is taking fire from the media, and saving the eventual nominee pressure. Meanwhile, she energizes the base. Wins all around.

Javelin wrote:Regardless of whether you want Palin to stand or not, or Obama to be re-elected or not, I can't help but feel that Palin may prove to be more of a hinderance than a help to the Republican Party over the next 18 months. Discuss.

She won't run. As soon as the primary season begins in earnest, she will become an asterisk--inconsequential to the campaign, other than speeches and fund-raising.

In the unlikely event that she does run, I think she pretty much guarantees the field will remain divided, giving Romney a virtually unimpeded path to the nomination.

Her moment to run and have an impact has passed. Bachmann, Cain, and maybe even Perry will fight for what might have been the Palin block of voters.

Seems like a good position to take. She can be around the fray but not risk her career. She may even get to anoint someone. But at the same time gets to keep her powder dry for a 2016 run should Obama hold.

danivon wrote:Seems like a good position to take. She can be around the fray but not risk her career. She may even get to anoint someone. But at the same time gets to keep her powder dry for a 2016 run should Obama hold.

More likely: she'll have to run for an intermediate position--like the Senate.

I agree with Brad and Steve.

Here antics right now help the Republican nominees because it keeps the media off their backs for a few months more.
I have also read that she will be moving to Arizona and running for the Senate seat John Kyl is vacating.

Interesting points guys, and the opposite of what I had thought. After all, compared to her the other prospective nominees aren't well known and are thus in some desperate need of media attention to raise their public profiles. With Palin taking so much of the media attention, I would have thought that the other candiates are pretty annoyed with her right now as she might be harming their chances.

This logic does fall down once the field is narrowed to only the one who will stand against Obama, but until then my feeling is that she may be more harm than help to the Republican cause.

Also, Steve, I saw you posting on another thread recently in which you seemed rather agitated at how much (mostly negative) attention Palin was recieving from the mainstream media. You were entirely correct in stating that the level of attention and criticism she has been recieving recently is ridiculous, especially when compared to other figures in actual and current positions of power. So, given how illogical and ridiculous this attention seems to be now, why assume that it will stop once the main race gets underway? Given recent events I'm not sure that she'll even be able to move out of the limelight to make way for the actual contender even if she wanted to - and that can only harm his chances.

Javelin wrote:So, given how illogical and ridiculous this attention seems to be now, why assume that it will stop once the main race gets underway? Given recent events I'm not sure that she'll even be able to move out of the limelight to make way for the actual contender even if she wanted to - and that can only harm his chances.

Actually, that's fairly simple. Once there is a nominee, the MSM will focus all their gunfire on him/her. Why? Because they have to in order to give their man, President Obama, every opportunity to be re-elected.

That's just obvious. I know, I know--some won't agree.

Well, let's see. As recent examples, I would ask how much play Bachmann's John Wayne gaffe received compared to some of Obama's gaffes. Or, whether the fact that he disregarded Petraeus' recommendations entirely, while trying to say he listened to the commanders on the ground. In other words, will the MSM portray the Afghanistan policy for the naked political approach that it is? I seriously doubt that.

Javelin wrote:Interesting points guys, and the opposite of what I had thought. After all, compared to her the other prospective nominees aren't well known and are thus in some desperate need of media attention to raise their public profiles. With Palin taking so much of the media attention, I would have thought that the other candiates are pretty annoyed with her right now as she might be harming their chances.

They don't need it yet. The campaign has barely gotten started. This part of the campaign is about whooing the party faithful. The activist that do all the work and the money people that finance the campaigns. Most of the candidates will already be known to those types so don't really need the media attention. It is not about whooing the voters yet. That will not happen until September or October.

By the time it will be focusing on the voters, Sarah Palin will be out and the media will focus on the actual candidates.

Russ, there is a narrative right now that Pawlenty is on decline because he is boring and didn't have the guts to say to Romney's fact what he comfortably said in an interview. Meanwhile, Bachmann is a rising star because she is bright, from the right, and a fresh face, so to speak. Is that media narrative about mainstream popularity, or is that narrative about fundraising and the party faithful?

Good question Monte. I think it is a little bit of both. I mean it is never too early to start trying to build a name for yourself in mainstream popularity but at this point the focus is one the party faithful. Without the party faithful, you can not run a campaign because you will not be able to staff or finance it.

I think the dual nature of what I am saying goes especially double for some one like Bachman. She needs the exposure on both ends of the party faithful/general public spectrum.

The problem with getting the mainstream attention too early is that history kind of shows the early frontrunner can crash and burn if they peak too early.

The problem with getting the mainstream attention too early is that history kind of shows the early frontrunner can crash and burn if they peak too early.

Time for scrutiny will inevitably lead to scrutiny. Try as some might to "manage their message" given enough time a candidate does need to have some substance. Is that why candidates "crash and burn" ? Or is there some other reason?

There are all kinds of reasons, I suppose. An early leader is putting their head above the parapet. Often it's the 'new' that attracts people. But with 'new' you also have an unknown. Once a spotlight is put onto a candidate's past, or they have to demonstrate their capabilities over a full campaign rather than in just the way they open it, or as rivals find a way to prise open the cracks and exploit weaknesses, such 'newness' can become tarnished. It doesn't always happen, of course.

And this also means that if there's an established front-runner or two for the six months before Iowa and New Hampshire, by the time of the caucuses and primaries, they become 'old', and some other guy (or gal) becomes the 'new' at just the right time.

I've not seen much about Bachmann, but there is a weakness that has nothing to do with her being a woman, or her personality, and can't be put down to 'hatred'. It's the question of her denying ever benefiting from Federal money.

It's easy to be against welfare and for the taxpayer, but when it comes out that you and your partner took tens of thousands of dollars from a farm you part-own (which got a bunch of government subsidies), and that the company you and your partner own gets $30,000 from the State and Federal taxpayers to subsidise training costs, it rings a little hollow.

But still, I think Palin will mark time on this and let Bachmann run. Over here we call it the 'Stalking Horse' strategy.