New Hampshire: How ’bout we blow your minds and hold our primary three months from now?

posted at 8:15 pm on September 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

Nothing’s set in stone up north, but Florida officially moved its own primary to January 31st today so the early-state dominoes are about to fall. Here’s the first domino, already wobbling. New Hampshire’s potentially much more of a Christie state than a Palin state, so of the two late entrants, this would hurt him more than her. But of course, if New Hampshire moves up to December, Iowa’s going to move too to retain its pride of place. And Iowa’s probably a must-have for her if she gets in.

This year, it’s a Christmas caucus!

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who has unilateral control to set the Granite State’s date, moved up the presidential primary filing period to begin Oct. 17 and ending October 28, signaling the New Hampshire primary contest will be moved up in the calendar.

“Unfortunately, we’ll be unable to have the upcoming presidential primary on the second Tuesday in March and will continue to honor the tradition of our first-in-the-nation presidential primary,” Gardner told NBC News. “Because we cannot rule out of the possibility of conducting the primary before the end of this year, we are, regrettably, as we were four years ago, forced to move the presidential candidates filing period to October.”

Until today, the first ballot deadline was Florida’s on October 31. New Hampshire just shaved three days off that window. (There’s no deadline for Iowa because it’s a caucus.) And even for the later primaries, there’s not as much time left as you think:

Furthermore, the number of hoops candidates must jump through to get on some states’ ballots means it is likely already too late to enter the 2012 fray, said Matthew Sanderson, who helped with balloting issues for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. In Virginia, for instance, candidates have until Dec. 22 to submit the signatures of 10,000 qualified voters, including 400 from each congressional district. The Virginia State Board of Elections recommends that candidates collect 15,000 to 20,000 signatures and 700 from each district “because many people who are not registered to vote will sign a petition.”

Mr. Sanderson said the drop-dead date is fast approaching. A late entry, he said, is not “impossible, but it does make success harder to achieve.”

Christie could get this done, I assume, because some of his core support is coming from fabulously wealthy Republican donors who can bankroll the staff needed to get the petitions done. Palin, whose organization is more DIY and heavily dependent on small donors, may have a tougher time. As for why Florida would move its primary up knowing that the RNC will penalize it by subtracting half of its delegates, two reasons. One: New Hampshire and South Carolina will also lose half their delegates by moving up to stay ahead of Florida, so to some extent the cost is spread. Two: Who cares about the delegates? Unless the GOP race goes down to the wire in the spring, the nomination won’t turn on those lost delegates. It’s more important for Florida to be seen as an early kingmaker than to retain all of its convention votes.

Via Newsbusters, here’s video of NRO’s Robert Costa, who hears from Christie’s people that you-know-who is “closer now to running than he ever has been.” The AP and the Newark Star-Ledger are hearing more or less the same thing. The decision might be made this weekend or early next week, but we’ll know soon. As for Palin, I’ve seen no signs. But Red State is keeping a solitary vigil

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

I see the same thing when I read your anti-Palin rants of how weak of a candidate she is, while perpetually insisting she couldn’t possibly win.

I have to quote Shakespeare: “Methinks thou doth protest too much!”

Get over the fear-you’ll sleep better.

Don L on October 1, 2011 at 8:03 AM

Of course you would imagine that is my point…..you are a lunatic Palin worshiper.

Do us a favor will ya…..when your tinfoil hat receives the next batch of super secret communications from Wasilla, inform us all immediately! We are sitting on pins and needles waiting to see when the next deadline for her aqnnouncement will be!

The lot of you are frappin idiots.

ROTFLMMFAO!

csdeven on October 1, 2011 at 8:55 AM

RedState’s hoopla today isn’t about Palin; Erickson is calling out her supporters.

Lawdawg86 on September 30, 2011 at 8:46 PM

If that is true – Erickson is an even bigger AH than I thought. What a smart move – p*ss off the supporters of a candidate you’re positive doesn’t have a chance of being selected.

Does he think this is going to encourage any of the Palin supporters to look favorably on Perry? If he does, he must have found that pitcher of KoolAid the Obots drink from.

katiejane on October 1, 2011 at 8:55 AM

kingsjester on October 1, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Whaada madder? Did the traffic on your ridiculous blog hit the dumps again?

I told you that you needed to go get yourself a copy of “Blogging for Dummies”.

csdeven on October 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM

I rest my case.

kingsjester on October 1, 2011 at 8:59 AM

rational.

kingsjester on October 1, 2011 at 8:19 AM

A word most Nistas cannot define.

CW on October 1, 2011 at 9:12 AM

I rest my case.

kingsjester on October 1, 2011 at 8:59 AM

This one really needs to find a new pasttime–or get laid. A hug or something. Running around naked with unwashed, matted hair and smearing poop all over the place is not a charmed life. I feel embarrassed for AP and Ed at this point. Really. I do.

RepubChica on October 1, 2011 at 9:14 AM

I wasn’t clear in my last post, KJ. I’m talking about csdeven.

RepubChica on October 1, 2011 at 9:25 AM

I rest my case.

kingsjester on October 1, 2011 at 8:59 AM

You need to give the 2 people who visit your lame blog a rest from your idiocy.

csdeven on October 1, 2011 at 9:33 AM

HA has made a troll one of the biggest fishes in the pond by feeding it daily.

SurferDoc on October 1, 2011 at 9:33 AM

I have an idea! (Doesn’t that make me presidential material?)
How about we have the elections during October with full Halloween costumn required, and with disguised voices and inflections. Then we can just deal with the proposals instead of the faces.

Romney could wear the Sinatra suit, because he sings a different tune every day.

Perry, could hold a flashlight in the dark with rapidly fading batteries.

Sarah Palin, could dress as a cleaning women with a big broom(with a hidden ammo magazine in the handle).

Christie could dress as a starving waif. Ann Coulter could dress as his mother. (I promised myself no obesity jokes)

Obama could dress as Dumbo or Dr, Mengale, or Stalin or as the first black messiah.(he has lots of choices)

If Hillary runs: a mountain climber (Sir Edmund) or Monica (blonds look better in blue dresses. Or a marine taking sniper fire.

Perry could wear five silver cones and become a fallen star.

Karl Rove could run as the Wizard of Oz (pulling levers from behind the curtain)

Newt Gingrich needs to dress as the Ghost of Elections Past.

Herman Cain could well dress as a railroad worker – who gets this nation back on track.

Al Gore could return as Mr. Greenjeans.

Joe Biden could play a standup (show em who you are) comedian.

Don L on October 1, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Just a reminder – as of Sept. 30, according to Sarah’s OWN WORDS - she still hasn’t decided yet.

fossten on October 1, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Romney could wear the Sinatra suit, because he sings a different tune every day.

Don L on October 1, 2011 at 9:37 AM

LOL. That one is funny :-)

Cain can be Herma-Cain. He blows through FL, making a lot of noise. Then he disappears, leaving a mess behind.

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 9:51 AM

powerpro on September 30, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Yes she did. Do you really eel there are no legitimate reasons for resigning a governorship or are you ignoring the facts because they don’t fit your narrative?

I know why she says she resigned. Because ethics investigations were overwhelming her and costing the state of Alaska money. To me it looked like surrender.

As for doing little to prepare, I guess you missed out on the whole 2010 election thing, huh? Or how she’s taken the lead on pretty much every major issue? Or that she’s composed extremely well thought out policy positions on complex issues such as the debt, quantitative easing and oh yes…Obamacare, for starters?

Some of you make it appear that Palin led the 2010 tsunami and if not for her the Dems would still control Congress. That is a huge stretch. The Town Halls, the Tea Party rallies were spontaneous uprisings, not guided by her. Indeed, I went to a rally hosted by Herman Cain. She failed to endorse Dino Rossi who was running against Patti Murray and instead endorsed Clint Didier, who among other failings, has a Ron Paul view of foreign policy. She endorsed Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle because she’s such a maverick. Going rogue cost us Senate seats. Glenn Beck also spent a lot of time talking about the debt and QE2. Does that make him presidential material? I’ll give her a star for Death Panels.

I think her family were a major consideration. I also think that since she can’t show her hand yet, she’s forced to give some kind of response.

So she’s being deceptive and stringing you all along.

No it’s not. It’s called reality. As for any idiot knowing these things…you seem to not understand what she was saying. So who’s the idiot again?

I understand what she was saying! She’s just not that into the job. That is a disqualifier from the get go. Time to withdraw her application.

Two things. Not wanting to be beholden to special interests does not mean she’s not interested. She just wants to do things the right way and for the right reasons.

Bromides.

Two…how is she selling herself now?

She’s selling herself by trying to find a way to stay in the news and make megabucks once she announces she’s not running.

Do you know her story at all? How she had to go toe to toe with big oil and how she took down major political figures? There’s nothing insincere about it. That you suggest otherwise tells me you don’t know a thing about her actual record.

Yes I know her story! she did all that. What was the end result? Where’s the oil pipeline? Who is the Senator from Alaska? She got behind Joe Miller who had not been properly vetted. It ended up being a huge embarrassment. Her decision making abilities are highly questionable. What would a Palin cabinet look like? Who are her trusted advisors? I can’t trust her judgment.

What utter drivel.

Ha! Pot/kettle. Both Palin’s and Powerpro’s platitudes are drivel.

I’m obviously wasting my time trying to educate you with facts. You’re too interested in engaging in demagoguery to care or be swayed by the truth.

More drivel. What “facts” have you educated me with? You’ve provided opinions.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:04 AM

I get it: you don’t like Palin and you don’t think she’s qualified. So why spend any time at all talking about her? I don’t think I want (Candidate X) as President, so I don’t pay him/her any mind.

Your obsession is weird. There are a couple of hundred million Americans who aren’t running for President. If one or two of them are not, in your opinion, qualified, why give them a second thought?

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Palin DID NOT endorse Sharron Angle in the primary. She endorsed Angle in the general against Reid. You’ve been told that repeatedly.

NoNails on October 1, 2011 at 10:12 AM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Anti-Palinistas exist because and only because Palinistas exist.

When the mirror gets smashed, and you see reality, you may not be in any condition to vote for the Republican nominee for POTUS, and thus, Obama may win.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Anti-Palinistas exist because and only because Palinistas exist.

When the mirror gets smashed, and you see reality, you may not be in any condition to vote for the Republican nominee for POTUS, and thus, Obama may win.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 10:24 AM

What?

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:25 AM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:25 AM

It’s like this. Atheists only exist because theists exist. If everyone were an atheist there would be no need for the word :-)

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 10:27 AM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:25 AM

If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 10:28 AM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Aw, sorry you have to be subjected to the rare dissenting opinion about Ms. Will She or Won’t She who is the topic of daily daily threads at Hot Air. And to be clear – I did like her very much once upon a time. I think she is damaging the G.O.P., so yeah, I care.

Palin DID NOT endorse Sharron Angle in the primary. She endorsed Angle in the general against Reid. You’ve been told that repeatedly.
NoNails on October 1, 2011 at 10:12 AM

No I have not been told that, but stipulating for a moment that you are correct (I have to check) can’t wait to hear your spin on Clint Didier and COD.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:30 AM

I understand plain speech. Maybe someone can translate for me.

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Re: atheists.

As far as I can tell, if you don’t believe in God, you’re done. No need to continually discuss it. There’s plenty of other stuff to think about.

If you say Palin is damaging to the GOP. You must think she will win the primary if she enters the race. You’re right.

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Your obsession is weird.
poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:11 AM

It’s an obverse kind of cultism. The monotonous memes, monomaniacal focus, total absence of empathy, total inability to modulate critique, and now the latest, the bi-polar projection and justification — seen above — “we only exist because you exist.” This is how Leftists self-justify their own necessity and behavior, by having established in their minds and projecting outward the heretical and dangerous monster that must be destroyed (from which we must all be saved).

It is most clear in analyzing the “quitter” meme. In no case is this critique ever framed around any honest, empathetic realizations which would advance, deepen and strengthen the argument and even humanity and rationality of the critic, i.e., “I understand what Palin was facing in Alaska, recognize that it was objectively unprecedented, but here is where she went wrong, and here is what she should or could have done.” Instead it is a pathologically limited — fearfully narrowed — attack; a cultist’s repetition, mantra.

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 10:44 AM

NoNails on October 1, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Okay, it appears that you are correct about Palin and Angle. That being said, I’m not getting the impression she did much to help Sue Lowden. Maybe she didn’t want to upset the Tea Party who were all-in for Angle?

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:47 AM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM

True about atheists, except for the pesky evangelicals.

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 10:51 AM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:11 AM

You are clueless.

The discussions surrounding St Palin the Victimized are generally attempts to bring the Palin worshipers back from their delusional psychosis. Their arguments for her are so void of rational thinking it begs to be addressed in an attempt to get them to explain why their beliefs are rational. The problem is that every time one of them open their mouths, it is clear that there is no rational logic behind their beliefs. It’s quite comical watching them do the mental gymnastics required to be so willfully obtuse.

csdeven on October 1, 2011 at 11:05 AM

No I have not been told that, but stipulating for a moment that you are correct (I have to check) can’t wait to hear your spin on Clint Didier and COD.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Since you read and comment on every thread that is remotely about Palin, you certainly have been told numerous times that Palin DID NOT endorse Angle.

I have no spin about her endorsements of Didier and COD. She knew Didier was a long shot (she said so) but wanted to help him because she liked his platform over his competitors. Her endorsement of COD was as much a non-endorsement of Castle. Besides, exit polling showed that Castle would have lost too, so your contention that Palin cost the GOP a Senate seat is garbage.

NoNails on October 1, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Okay, it appears that you are correct about Palin and Angle. That being said, I’m not getting the impression she did much to help Sue Lowden. Maybe she didn’t want to upset the Tea Party who were all-in for Angle?

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:47 AM

There’s no “appear” to it. I am correct. Palin’s father and brother worked to get Tarkanian the nomination. Palin stayed completely out of the primary.

NoNails on October 1, 2011 at 11:11 AM

CUDA

Metro on October 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM

CUDA

Metro on October 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM

LIONS

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 11:28 AM

LIONS

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Grizzly Bears

derft on October 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM

derft on October 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Welcome the cheering section :-)

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 11:37 AM

LIONS

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Grizzly Bears

derft on October 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Arctic Foxes

kingsjester on October 1, 2011 at 11:41 AM

derft on October 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM

kingsjester on October 1, 2011 at 11:41 AM

LEMMINGS

csdeven on October 1, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Hate.

Burning, seething hate.

So sick of these “pride of place” podunk states picking the candidate for the rest of us.

Midas on October 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM

csdeven on October 1, 2011 at 11:43 AM

First post of yours I ever enjoyed. That was funny.

derft on October 1, 2011 at 11:49 AM

First post of yours I ever enjoyed. That was funny.

derft on October 1, 2011 at 11:49 AM

:-)

csdeven on October 1, 2011 at 11:54 AM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:11 AM
You are clueless.

The discussions surrounding St Palin the Victimized are generally attempts to bring the Palin worshipers back from their delusional psychosis. Their arguments for her are so void of rational thinking it begs to be addressed in an attempt to get them to explain why their beliefs are rational. The problem is that every time one of them open their mouths, it is clear that there is no rational logic behind their beliefs. It’s quite comical watching them do the mental gymnastics required to be so willfully obtuse.

csdeven on October 1, 2011 at 11:05 AM

If the arguments in her favor are so weak, what are you worried about? Where’s Tim Pawlenty today? Weak candidates get weeded out quickly.

If, as you seem to think, Palin is a poor candidate supported only by delusional worshippers, then you have nothing to fear. You must believe that she will win the nomination if she runs, otherwise you’d be telling me why some other candidate is the best choice this election.

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM

If SP is the Republican nominee for POTUS she will lose in a landslide, possibly taking the Republians in Congress down with her.

If she runs and does not get the nomination, lots of Palinistas may stay home and not even vote, causing Obama to win.

That is our concern.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM

If SP is the Republican nominee for POTUS she will lose in a landslide, possibly taking the Republians in Congress down with her.

If she runs and does not get the nomination, lots of Palinistas may stay home and not even vote, causing Obama to win.

That is our concern.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Who is your favorite candidate and why is he or she the best choice in the coming election?

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Metro on October 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM
MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 11:28 AM
derft on October 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM
kingsjester on October 1, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Lovesick fanboys

LEMMINGS

csdeven on October 1, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Speaking truth to power!

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Dear Sarah,

Aren’t some of these people here on HA wierd? They actually think that you’ve come all this way to announce that you are not running for President. How stupid can these bipeds be?

I’ve got your nose, yes I do, I’ve got your nose

is how you skillfully “play” with the enemies of our beloved Constitution — the enemies of our Country, foreign and domestic. While the foolish “witto cutsie pies” are giggling, you deftly yank their liberal security blanket out of their sticky witto hands, pull their vile rug of corrupness out from under them, kick them out the door, slam it with a back kick while dusting off your hands. As your feeble critics’ jaws drop you casually say, “Next question?” You are so cool.

Sincerely,

We the People

Landon Thompson on October 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM

*corruptness

Landon Thompson on October 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Your obsession is weird.
poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 10:11 AM
It’s an obverse kind of cultism. The monotonous memes, monomaniacal focus, total absence of empathy, total inability to modulate critique, and now the latest, the bi-polar projection and justification — seen above — “we only exist because you exist.” This is how Leftists self-justify their own necessity and behavior, by having established in their minds and projecting outward the heretical and dangerous monster that must be destroyed (from which we must all be saved).

It is most clear in analyzing the “quitter” meme. In no case is this critique ever framed around any honest, empathetic realizations which would advance, deepen and strengthen the argument and even humanity and rationality of the critic, i.e., “I understand what Palin was facing in Alaska, recognize that it was objectively unprecedented, but here is where she went wrong, and here is what she should or could have done.” Instead it is a pathologically limited — fearfully narrowed — attack; a cultist’s repetition, mantra.

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Well put. Thank you.

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 12:54 PM

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM

You have not stated that you agreed or disagreed with what I stated. Please do so.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM

No better account of the cult-like thinking, its fear and its concurrent need to efface Sarah Palin — as well as its internal contradictions.

It should also be pointed out that this is exactly — EXACTLY, in tone and substance — the argument made within republican circles against Ronald Reagan in 1979.

How can she become the nominee if she’s so weak, flawed, damaged, disliked, inadequate, a quitter, a diva, etc?

But if she doesn’t become the nominee, the assertion is that her supporters will sit out the election sufficient to influence the general election.

But if she has so many zealous supporters, wouldn’t her nomination be earned and wouldn’t she be well-placed to win the general?

I see there is absolutely no contingency or possibility — even allowance — for Sarah Palin’s success through what we all purportedly accept as our primary and national election process. There is no trust in the system, the people, the country. This is the preemptively categorical truth: “There is no way for Sarah Palin to win or succeed, and should not be.” What we have here is an implicit argument for her political and psychic eradication.

Let them all run, let them all say what they believe and show their records, and let’s see who carries the day. This is who we are.

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Lovesick fanboys

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 12:37 PM

You’re new around, aren’t ya :-)

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

If SP is the Republican nominee for POTUS she will lose in a landslide, possibly taking the Republians in Congress down with her.

Her RCP Average is 12.8 pts behind Obama. Rick Perry’s is 7.6 behind Obama. So that extra 5 pts 13 months out of the election is what makes you swoon for one candidate and tremble in fear at the prospects of nominating another? With Perry’s current trajetory, in another month she very well may be polling better than him. I wonder what your new electability concerns will be then. FWIW she does better v. Obama than Newt, Bachmann, or Santorum, a dramatic improvement from her previous standings.

If she runs and does not get the nomination, lots of Palinistas may stay home and not even vote, causing Obama to win.

That is our concern.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I’m sick of this tired, disengenuous argument. There may be a few misguided Palinistas who stay home if she isn’t the nominee, and they are idiots, but the same is true for a small percentage of supporters of any candidate. If you are so concerned about people not voting for the nominee, you may want to start paying attention to Rick Perry’s pollster showing 74% of Republicans don’t want Palin to run and other polls showing 20% of Republicans will vote for Obama over her. It definitely sounds like there are scenarious out there where Republicans will cut off their noses to spite their faces, but they happen to be the opposite of the one you are asserting.

Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

<blockquotepoplicola on October 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM

If SP is the Republican nominee for POTUS she will lose in a landslide, possibly taking the Republians in Congress down with her.

If she runs and does not get the nomination, lots of Palinistas may stay home and not even vote, causing Obama to win.

That is our concern.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM
Who is your favorite candidate and why is he or she the best choice in the coming election?

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM
>

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM

You have not stated that you agreed or disagreed with what I stated. Please do so.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM

You didn’t ask a question, I did, and you haven’t answered it.

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Let them all run, let them all say what they believe and show their records, and let’s see who carries the day. This is who we are.

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Right on!

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM

I agree whole heartedly. Who’s stopping anyone?

MJBrutus on October 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Standard ABP: I believe Palin is an unelectable albatross who will get blown out in a crushing landslide. However, I also feel that any mechanism whereby my theory may be proven wrong is too risky to attempt.

Convenient.

Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Her RCP Average is 12.8 pts behind Obama. Rick Perry’s is 7.6 behind Obama. So that extra 5 pts 13 months out of the election is what makes you swoon for one candidate and tremble in fear at the prospects of nominating another? With Perry’s current trajetory, in another month she very well may be polling better than him. I wonder what your new electability concerns will be then. FWIW she does better v. Obama than Newt, Bachmann, or Santorum, a dramatic improvement from her previous standings.

Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

*silence from the electability fetishists* Perry is starting to suck wind after what is really minimal “vetting” and media exposure (no major interviews to speak of). So I don’t see how Perry’s this ultra-electable savior that his devotees seem to think.

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Still waiting to read about your favored candidate. Who should be our next President and why?

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 1:12 PM

*silence from the electability fetishists* Perry is starting to suck wind after what is really minimal “vetting” and media exposure (no major interviews to speak of). So I don’t see how Perry’s this ultra-electable savior that his devotees seem to think.

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Yup. We have to make sure we win, so as you have pointed out many times we should just forego the primary and pick whoever polls the best. Right now Mitt has the best RCP average. Mitt is is. Enjoy everyone!

Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM

To win the general election you have to get a majority of voters. Having a zealous group of supporters is not nearly enough.

Christine O’Donnell got the nomination for Senate in the primary, with her zealous supporters, and lost in the general election.

Be aware that if Sarah were the nominee, the vitriol directed towards her would be 10,000 times worse than it has been up until now. She is Satan to the left. She would be in a living hell during the campaign, and would not survive it.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Be aware that if Sarah were the nominee, the vitriol directed towards her would be 10,000 times worse than it has been up until now. She is Satan to the left.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Hmmmm…now why do you think that is? Some random target the left picked out to direct hate and vitriol toward? Or is it because they’re afraid of her charisma and drawing power? And why aren’t they quite as “hateful” toward Romney or Perry? Or Bachmann or Cain?

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:21 PM

To win the general election you have to get a majority of voters. Having a zealous group of supporters is not nearly enough.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM

I get it, you’re an Obot, right?

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM

I get it, you’re an Obot, right?

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Based on his arguments and his need to inject COD into the discussion, I am thinking more likely he is an Aceinista.

Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:21 PM

You did not say that what I said is true or not. Please do so.

Sarah symbolizes everything the the left hates. She is a “real American” from small town America. She is Christian. She had too many babies. She did not go to Harvard. And she is feminine and vulnerable. She has the personality and presense of a regular person, not a politician. All of the above = SATAN.

No, they aren’t afraid that she can beat them. They are going after SATAN because she is SATAN.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:30 PM

…………… and trying to dethrone Black Jesus.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Based on his arguments and his need to inject COD into the discussion, I am thinking more likely he is an Aceinista.

Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Not directing this toward Really Right, but maybe “Ace ho” might be a better term for the Ace buttboys.

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM

You did not say that what I said is true or not. Please do so.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:30 PM

What, about the vitriol? What are they going to throw at her that hasn’t already been thrown at her? And what makes you think that, if Perry or Romney get the nomination, they are somehow going to be immune if they stand any chance of winning?

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:33 PM

What, about the vitriol? What are they going to throw at her that hasn’t already been thrown at her? And what makes you think that, if Perry or Romney get the nomination, they are somehow going to be immune if they stand any chance of winning?

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Haven’t you heard? Obama and the Media don’t mind if he loses, as long as it isn’t to Palin.

Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 1:36 PM

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Isn’t this beneath you? No, it’s not.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Really Right,

last chance — who is the best candidate for President and why?

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 1:41 PM

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Isn’t this beneath you? No, it’s not.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Are you kidding? That post of mine is Shakespearean compared to the usual run of comments at AoSHQ.

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 1:43 PM

If SP is the Republican nominee for POTUS she will lose in a landslide, possibly taking the Republians in Congress down with her.

If she runs and does not get the nomination, lots of Palinistas may stay home and not even vote, causing Obama to win.

That is our concern.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I believe the anti-Palinistas are “over-concerned.”

listens2glenn on October 1, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Sarah symbolizes everything the the left hates. She is a “real American” from small town America. She is Christian. She had too many babies. She did not go to Harvard. And she is feminine and vulnerable. She has the personality and presense of a regular person, not a politician. All of the above = SATAN.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:30 PM

I appreciate this understanding. I am not being sarcastic. As a former Leftist – a hardcore Chomsky Leftist — I would like to assure you of my simple lessons from experience: the Left is shaken to their core by Sarah Palin and are not psychologically equipped for the kind of fight she will take to them. Leftists are brittle, insecure and fearful people – not remotely as formidable as one might suspect — and this fight which they fear above all things must be fought now to end their spell of fear on America.

For all the reasons you cited in your preamble, Palin vs. Obama is the inevitable, cathartic and conclusive struggle of the post-modern era.

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Be aware that if Sarah were the nominee, the vitriol directed towards her would be 10,000 times worse than it has been up until now. She is Satan to the left.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM

So what? Sounds like resume enhancement to me.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Well put rrpjr.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Great post. And thanks for the insight. Former lefties who are now conservatives are valuable assets. David Horowitz also comes to mind. You sound like you are cut from the same cloth.

Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Be aware that if Sarah were the nominee, the vitriol directed towards her would be 10,000 times worse than it has been up until now. She is Satan to the left.

Really Right on October 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM
So what? Sounds like resume enhancement to me.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM

You can rub an apple only so much before it begins to really shine!

If we don’t put up a candidate that both party’s insiders hate and fear, we’re done for anyway. I say, don’t run against them, strike the fear of the Lord into their souls for what they’ve done to this nation.

Go Sarah!

Don L on October 1, 2011 at 2:23 PM

rrpjr, Thank you for sharing your story. You are awesome.

Landon Thompson on October 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Since you read and comment on every thread that is remotely about Palin, you certainly have been told numerous times that Palin DID NOT endorse Angle.
NoNails on October 1, 2011 at 11:08 AM

I am not on every Palin thread and I have NOT been told she didn’t endorse Angle. I only recall discussing Sharron Angle once and not being happy with her candidacy. However, since Angle was the Mad Hatter at the Tea Party and I do know that I’ve been told that Palin is the leader of the Tea Party, I guess I assumed incorrectly.

But gee, what a great job her father and brother did, huh!

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Thanks, that’s very kind.

David is an inspirational figure. For those who haven’t ever read his books, you are in for a treat. “Radical Son” may be the definitive story of the journey from Left to Right.

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Since you read and comment on every thread that is remotely about Palin, you certainly have been told numerous times that Palin DID NOT endorse Angle.
NoNails on October 1, 2011 at 11:08 AM

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/sarahpac-spreads-its-wealth/

The list is a who’s-who of the Tea Party movement, including Joe Miller in Alaska, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky. Each got $5,000. Christine O’Donnell in Delaware received $10,000.

I believe that Palin had a lot of problems with the 5K that Merck gave to Perry. Why looky here she gave 5K to Angle and 10K to OD.

I know I know….. it is part of her long planned brilliant strategy to be chosen by the electoral college without even running…

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Sarah is not running.

I just can’t wait for the speculation to end.

KMC1 on October 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM

I just can’t wait for the speculation to end.

KMC1 on October 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM

It will never end. Even when she drapes herself in the flag one more time to announce she won’t run, she will let her followers down easy with talk abut keeping up the fight, etc. This will help set up the unprovable meme for all time that “If only SP had run the country would be much better”.
Brilliant marketing strategy that keeps her speaking fees up and may get a third book off the ground.

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Radical Son” may be the definitive story of the journey from Left to Right.

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Agreed. Anybody here who hasn’t already read “Radical Son“, please do so.
It’s a perspective that’s hard to come by, and it WILL enlighten you as to what our homegrown communist anarchists are capable of.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Sarah is not running.

I just can’t wait for the speculation to end.

KMC1 on October 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Even if I knew for absolute positive certain that she’s NOT going to run, I would still want to promote the illusion that she’s going to (maybe) attempt a write-in campaign, just to drive the opposition nuts.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2011 at 3:05 PM

I believe that Palin had a lot of problems with the 5K that Merck gave to Perry. Why looky here she gave 5K to Angle and 10K to OD.

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Hmmmm…and the connection is…what?

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Hmmmm…and the connection is…what?

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Well for starters she backed three losers – inconvenient fact her supporters don’t like to talk about irt endorsements. Overall she had about 55% of endorsees who won — many of those cakewalks and never close to begin with. Secondly, accountability counts – if she gives money to a looney candidate is it not fair to question her judgment (sort of like questioning Perry’s integrity for taking a campaign donation).
But go ahead with your expected pretzel logic to excuse her from being treated like anyone else.

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Good. Move it up to Thanksgiving.

The only way this system is ever going to change is if it gets too absurd to ignore.

HitNRun on October 1, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Well for starters she backed three losers – inconvenient fact her supporters don’t like to talk about irt endorsements.

Hmmm, sure she backed losers…as did just about everyone else who endorsed candidates.

Secondly, accountability counts – if she gives money to a looney candidate is it not fair to question her judgment (sort of like questioning Perry’s integrity for taking a campaign donation).
But go ahead with your expected pretzel logic to excuse her from being treated like anyone else.

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Let’s see…her PAC donating money to candidates is exactly equivalent to Merck donating to Perry’s campaign. Talk about pretzel logic…

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 3:25 PM

This will help set up the unprovable meme for all time that “If only SP had run the country would be much better”.

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Sort of like the unprovable “If McCain had only chosen Mitt…” crap that we’ve been hearing on and off since 2008.

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Of course the key difference is that sentiment is couched in a more academic way. No one expects McCain to run again.
However, Some Palin fans have a deep emotional investment in the idea of her running. It clouds their judgment and reaction to legitimate criticisms, almost guarantees their response will be “Liar”, “What about Obama?”, “You hate women”, or “you dirty liberal”. Notice that the legitimate criticism is never addressed.
That is called dodging the subject which the hard core palinistas have made an art of.

Sorry that rational discussion about a candidate upsets you so much. Even the despised morning Joe put out a clip recently in which he showed Palin mischaracterizing what Megyn Kelly and Juan Williams said about her. Turns out she was wrong not them.
But your reaction will be to criticize the character of Joe instead of address the facts. I expect that as I expect the sun to rise tomorrow — that is just the way it is in Palinville.

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 3:41 PM

However, Some Palin fans have a deep emotional investment in the idea of her running. It clouds their judgment

Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 3:41 PM

You have a deep emotional investment in your hatred of the woman, and it clouds your judgement to the extent that it leads you to conclude that a donation made by a PAC — which is the purpose of a PAC — is equivalent to donation made by a corporation, perhaps for some sort of preferential treatment, perhaps not.

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Well for starters she backed three losers – inconvenient fact her supporters don’t like to talk about irt endorsements.

Balanced by the fact that she backed over 60 winners!

Secondly, accountability counts – if she gives money to a looney candidate is it not fair to question her judgment…Bradky on October 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM

She didn’t ask her supporters to give money to her PAC to support candidates but asked us to give to her selected individual candidates ourselves.
Her PAC also gave to these candidates separately.

As usual, Leftist trolls like Bradky reserve the right to argue their own set of “facts.”

Jenfidel on October 1, 2011 at 6:31 PM

rrpjr on October 1, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Kataklysmic on October 1, 2011 at 2:21 PM

I am a huge fan of David Horowitz and I believe Radical Son, (which I read in ’99 and have loaned out to countless friends) is a must read, but I do not see Palin as the natural heir to the anti-Leftist mantle – not with her populist talking points about Big Corporations, Big Donors, “Special Interests”, windfall profit taxes she imposed on Big Oil in Alaska, and so forth.

Just found some good analysis here about her “anti-capitalist” shtick, which includes analysis of her support for Project Labor Agreements. Highly doubtful Horowitz would support that….

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Just found some good analysis here about her “anti-capitalist” shtick, which includes analysis of her support for Project Labor Agreements. Highly doubtful Horowitz would support that….

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Would somebody please get David on the phone?

I’d settle for hearing him discuss whatever disagreements he may have with Sarah on any of the many talk shows available.

listens2glenn on October 1, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Just found some good analysis here about her “anti-capitalist” shtick, which includes analysis of her support for Project Labor Agreements.
Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Isn’t it curious to find this link posted by another Palin hater?

Apparently, your pal at Red County (linked above) has made this story up all by himself and it’s not linked to Palin or reality in any way except in his mind.
I Googled “Project Labor Agreements Sarah Palin” and the first 10 hits all went to Red County.

Jenfidel on October 1, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Would somebody please get David on the phone?
listens2glenn on October 1, 2011 at 7:50 PM

That would be nice. rrpjr, The former leftist who commented here at Hot Air made claims about Palin. My comment was in response to that assertion.

Jenfidel on October 1, 2011 at 8:03 PM

This person isn’t my pal, Pal! And I never said he/she was “linked to Palin” (what kind of response is that anyway??). Now, am I misrepresenting Palin when I say she uses populist talking points to attack “Big Corporations”, “Big Donors”, “special interests” and even “Big Oil, or am I quoting her directly?

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Jenfidel on October 1, 2011 at 8:03 PM

OOPS. From a pro-Palin site “Palin 4 America”. This is meant to be a compliment:

Two years ago almost to the day, I [Sarah Palin] was thrilled to meet with union members at the Alaska AFL-CIO Convention in Anchorage to sign important job-creation legislation related to the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. As a former card-carrying IBEW sister married to a proud former IBEW and later USW member, it was a great moment for all of us. Our Alaska union brothers and sisters helped build our state! Many of them risked their lives to complete our infrastructure, including the Trans-Alaska Pipeline that stretches over treacherous mountain ranges from the North Slope oil fields to Valdez. By signing that job-creation bill surrounded by union members, I was paying tribute to them and acknowledging that they would be valued partners in the construction of Alaska’s long awaited natural gas pipeline. I was honored that day to receive a standing ovation from them for signing a bill that provided a Project Labor Agreement to bring good jobs to these good men and women …

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 8:54 PM

What’s the matter with Kansas Project Labor Agreements?

No doubt this was written by “Red Country”./

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Sorry – Here’s the link to Palin 4 America’s rave reviews of Palin and unions.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Heh…the obsessive is obsessing again.

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Just found some good analysis here about her “anti-capitalist” shtick, which includes analysis of her support for Project Labor Agreements. Highly doubtful Horowitz would support that….

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 7:07 PM

She’s a far-right loon one minute, a raving closet Socialist the next. It’s really hilarious.

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 9:15 PM

She’s a far-right loon one minute, a raving closet Socialist the next. It’s really hilarious.

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 9:15 PM

I never claimed she was a “far right loon”. Nor have I claimed she is a “Socialist”. However I have said many times that I am wary of her embrace of Populism.

Now, do you have anything to say about Project Labor Agreements, or is your commentary limited as usual to a whole lot of nothing?

Heh…the obsessive is obsessing again.

Ha! Look at this!:

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 9:13 PM
ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 9:15 PM

You know what the difference is between my comments and yours? I provided facts and information because Jenfidel didn’t trust my original source. My 4th comment was to provide a missing link. So, you had 2 comments filled with idiotic opinions, I had 3 filled with factual information.

ME 1, YOU 0.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5