Seriously, is Sarah Palin a lock for the 2012 republican nomination?

[TheGoodBits]

I was talking about this a couple weeks ago. Palin actually would have had a legit chance in this field.

[Predicto]

I was talking about this a couple weeks ago. Palin actually would have had a legit chance in this field.

I guess, if your end game is to be the GOP nominee and lose 48 out of 50 states in the general election.

[TheGoodBits]

I guess, if your end game is to be the GOP nominee and lose 48 out of 50 states in the general election.

I would hope she wouldn't win any outside of Alaska.

But then again, isnt that what the GOP field is heading for right now anyway?

They hate Mitt. They will fight tooth and nail to keep him from being the nominee.

Newt is a scumbag and they all know it. He's going nowhere fast IMO.

Paul is the only one they like to get excited for, and I'm convinced he wouldn't get more than 35% in a general election.

[@DCGoldPants]

This crop of Republican losers are the worst bunch to ever run for the presidency.

The Final 4 are all beatable, though I wonder how Paul would do as a third party candidate.

I'm not a Paul guy. But if he ran 3rd party, I'd vote for him. But its more about wanting somebody other than a D or R to get the largest % possible.

[Larry]

I guess, if your end game is to be the GOP nominee and lose 48 out of 50 states in the general election.

Isn't it?

[Thiebear]

I think the potential difference here is that the 2011-version of Huckabee/Romney are falling out earlier. If Santorum shows poorly in South Carolina and withdraws, I think Romney is beyond screwed (if he's not already).

---------- Post added January-20th-2012 at 09:11 AM ----------

I think Paul could got > 20%; which would make him the most successful 3rd party run in history (Perot at 18.9 in '92). As others have noted on here before though, that could really damage his son's standing in the GOP so he's not going to do it.

Paul is not 3rd party and has been republican forever? So he can't be the most successful 3rd party.

Unfortunately I can't see any of them beating President Obama other than Mitt Romney and thats only due to the current economy.

If the Republicans take the Senate and keep the House due to seats in play.. I can't see getting the WH also.

[Predicto]

I would hope she wouldn't win any outside of Alaska.

She wouldn't win Alaska. They actually know her up there.

She actually would win five or six states. South Carolina, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Mississippi and Alabama probably.

[Mickalino]

I'm not a Paul guy. But if he ran 3rd party, I'd vote for him. But its more about wanting somebody other than a D or R to get the largest % possible.

If Paul runs as a 3rd Party candidate, wouldn't a vote for Paul essentially be a vote for Obama ?

[Predicto]

If Paul runs as a 3rd Party candidate, wouldn't a vote for Paul essentially be a vote for Obama ?

Nope. Many of Paul's voters are young socially liberal people. To put it as a stereotype, they care more about legalizing marijuana than any other issue. They are not drawn to traditional GOP candidates. They are drawn to Ron Paul, and want to change the GOP completely.

If Paul were not there, they would not vote for Newt or Romney or (especially) Santorum. They would vote for Obama, or no one.

[88Comrade2000]

I think the potential difference here is that the 2011-version of Huckabee/Romney are falling out earlier. If Santorum shows poorly in South Carolina and withdraws, I think Romney is beyond screwed (if he's not already).

---------- Post added January-20th-2012 at 09:11 AM ----------

I think Paul could got > 20%; which would make him the most successful 3rd party run in history (Perot at 18.9 in '92). As others have noted on here before though, that could really damage his son's standing in the GOP so he's not going to do it.

I think Paul could garner a solid second place finish in a three way with Obama and Romney.