Home > General > Elites Way Off on Palin Electability: Part 3 – Components of Victory Part A

Elites Way Off on Palin Electability: Part 3 – Components of Victory Part A

In part 1 I explored the foundation of a Palin path to victory and explained the fluidity of polling. In part 2 we explained the 5 big issues of 2012 and why Palin was best suited to handle them. The 3rd reason the elites are wrong about Sarah Palin is because she is the only one who can meet every necessary requirement, every component of victory. This is broken down into several parts due to length. Part A follows.

Here’s the hard one, and the first of the four components of victory: Be Conservative. Simple enough, right? If anything is certain in the primary race, all of the candidates will say all of the right things, and usually the same exact things. But in order to win, candidates can’t just say they are a conservative and ask you to trust them. They have to be believable. Hilariously watch Donald Trump as he attempts to explain his 3-week-ago conversion on life issues. Conveniently he is now staunchly against government healthcare (after claiming earlier that his chief disagreement with the GOP is on Universal Healthcare, which he supported), and he has had sudden changes on pretty much every other issue. Romney was a pro-abortion universal healthcare enactivist. His sudden conversion to being pro-lifer (just in time to run for president!) was good enough to win the endorsement of Meghan McCain, an anti-social-issues “republican.”

Romney’s biggest problem is that he argues that his healthcare plan was okay because it was done at the state-level and not the national level. His attempt at making a federalist argument is fine, but it does not change the fact that the plan was based on liberal principles, which is the problem. And to defend the bill today is to defend the liberal principles of that bill. And how could he trash a national version of his plan that is based on a similar foundation? Obama would thrive at backing Romney into a wall on this one.

Mike Huckabee might be the second-most conservative candidate of the viable ones, but his record on immigration (one of the big 5) is spotty. Gingrich is perhaps the most shady and shallow candidate of them all. Ed Kilgore had a fascinating piece about Gingrich at The New Republic website. If you haven’t read it yet, it is well worth it. And this isn’t to bash all of the non-Palin candidates, it is to place a realistic expectation on the weak points that voters agree with the conservative position. And if they are shaky on the big 5 issues, Obama will tear them apart, and they will be on the defensive. (Not to mention the grassroots support and money that would be fragile). And this isn’t to bash all of the candidates. I like most of them, but don’t think they are the most electable, nor are they conservative enough, despite media declarations on both accounts.

One thing is for certain: all of the candidates will have changed at least one of their positions from the past, and it is impossible to argue that that is never okay. I’ve either changed or have become more conservative on several issues. Most conservatives welcome conversions from holding liberal ideals to holding conservative ones. Some of the most popular conservative activists, authors, politicians, and radio hosts were once ardent liberals. But the problems occur when you appear to change your position out of convenience or for the sake of electability rather than because you actually believe in what you are saying. McCain realized the people were against him on amnesty, so after leading the crusade for amnesty he was suddenly a border hawk. Conservatives viewed him as a phony and he suffered both monetarily and at the ballot box.

It would be hard to argue that Palin is not conservative enough based on her decades-long record in Alaska. Other candidates are sufficiently conservative (Bachmann, Cain, etc.) but might lack the other 3 necessary components of victory. And to win it all, you need them all. Many try to argue that Palin is “too conservative.” Certainly, Palin is no more conservative than Obama is liberal. And in a nation where self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by 2-1, the only error would be, as history has shown, not being conservative enough.

Winning Republicans have always been conservative and losing ones have been “moderate” or “electable.” Reagan and George W. Bush both ran on unapologetically conservative platforms (though Bush would fall off the wagon completely in his second term, I remember while working on his campaign in 2004 the conservative and how excited everyone was). The only other Republican winner, Bush 41 received one courtesy term on the coattails of Reagan, and then was soundly booted from office for raising taxes.

Bob Dole was your typical beltway, establishment, moderate Republican. And he lost. John McCain, he of moderation, compromise, and electability, was never able to lock in the conservative vote. He managed to get 3 million fewer votes than the supposedly bumbling idiot, Bush43, who ran as a conservative. McCain was simply out-conservatived by Obama. Sure, Obama preached hardcore liberalism when in front of his liberal crowds, but what was Obama’s number 1 campaign talking point on TV and debates? How about: “For 95% of you, your taxes will not go up, or they will be lowered.” It was a lie, but that’s all he said. Over, and over, and over again. McCain had no response.

On most of the issues broadcast widely, Obama and McCain were too similar. They both pledged to cut the deficit and reduce spending. They were both in favor of amnesty. They both supported bailouts of the bank and auto industry. They both opposed same-sex marriage. They both believed in global warming. They both opposed the Bush tax cuts for the “rich.” McCain would later change his tune on amnesty and tax cuts, but it was too late, and conservatives didn’t believe him. Barack Obama positioned himself as a moderate Democrat and McCain positioned himself as a moderate Republican. Given the choice between an uneventful establishment republican and a fresh and “exciting” new face, the people chose the latter. McCain gave the voters no reason not to. As a result, he lost by 10 million votes.

If the Republican candidate can start out by winning every conservative vote and the Democrat starts out by winning every liberal vote, the Republican starts the election with a 42-21 edge. You would only need a small fraction of “moderates” to pull out a win. How can being too conservative be a negative? Especially when a strong majority of people agree with you? 2010 saw the most conservative sweep ever in congressional, gubernatorial, senatorial, and state house elections. And that is somehow not the model to follow?

Being conservative is just one element needed to score a general election victory in 2012. But, the other three are also necessary, and I believe only one candidate can bring in all 4 elements. Indeed, the first element is a main factor in being able to bring in the other 3 elements. Part B of the Components of Victory: The $750 Million Woman.

Advertisements
Categories: General
  1. Bill589
    April 2, 2011 at 12:09 am

    Many politicians repeat TPM conservative talk, and SAY they have the fortitude needed to implement right changes. Sarah Palin lives TPM conservative talk, and SHOWS she has the fortitude needed to implement right changes.

    Sarah has stood up to corrupt Republicans, and corrupt oil companies, and anybody else in order to do her job and serve the people. She shows no fear of the Obama regime including the press. For more than two years, she has been THE target – putting herself in political harm’s way. She has shown the fortitude others can only promise.

  2. April 2, 2011 at 12:14 am

    Great article. Just found you.Placing the big 5 on the path to the White House is brilliant. Very well written. Thanks.

  3. PhillyCon
    April 2, 2011 at 7:53 am

    Pollinsider:

    Great post. McCain was also for closing Gitmo. I don’t remember what his stance on rendition, whether he agreed with Obama on that or not.

    McCain “shutting down” his campaign and going to DC hurt him as well. I honestly wondered if his advisers weren’t secretly working for Obama. It seems very few people on the McCain campaign, except for Palin, had any desires of winning.

    Another component of victory-competant staff who don’t leak and undermine their own ticket?

  4. PhillyCon
    April 2, 2011 at 8:03 am

    The dirty little secret never reported or talked about: “the non-Palin” candidates (to use your term) have more baggage and problems than Palin.

    It seems that she has more “baggage” b/c of the media and Leftist obsession. The others don’t receive such scrutiny b/c they don’t feel threatened by a Newt, Huck, or Romney candidacy. You have illustrated why.

  5. Gabriele
    April 3, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Great article. And i agree with Bill589 100%

  1. April 1, 2011 at 11:17 am
  2. April 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: