ChrisWeigant.com

Will Palin Go Rogue?

[ Posted Monday, September 12th, 2011 – 15:17 UTC ]

"What will Sarah do?" has been a question on the minds of many in the run-up to the Republican primary season next year. Definitively figuring out the answer to this question is a fool's game, however, because Sarah Palin continually shows the ability to surprise the punditocracy, the public, and the Republican establishment. Only Palin herself is ever confident of knowing what Sarah will do next, in other words.

But that certainly doesn't preclude the rest of us from having fun trying to figure her out. Palin has stated that she will (finally!) announce whether or not she's going to jump into the Republican primary race by the end of this month. Expectations were high that she might just announce her intentions a week ago, at an appearance at a Tea Party event in Iowa. Once again, Palin declined to do so.

Palin's got three options, in essence. Number one, throw her hat in the ring and vie for the Republican presidential nomination against the field. Number two, announce it's been a big tease all along, and she won't be running -- and, likely, that she's going to hold off endorsing any candidate "for now," in a naked effort to keep her teasing of the media going strong for months to come. But there is a third option she might opt for, which seems (upon examination) to have a lot of potential upsides for Palin, and relatively few downsides: running as a third-party candidate.

Some might dismiss this as wishful Lefty thinking. To be honest, it would indeed be good news for Democrats if Palin decides to make a third-party bid. The prospect of splitting the Righty vote in the general election might just guarantee a second term for President Barack Obama. Which would be a downside not only for the Republican Party, but also for Palin herself, since she would likely be treated as a pariah from then on by a big segment of the Republican base (much as Ralph Nader is now seen by many Democrats).

But, putting all that aside, let's examine the situation from Palin's point of view. Assume, for the sake of argument, that Palin is intent on running for president (if you don't make this assumption, then the rest of the argument -- and the rest of this column -- becomes irrelevant). She's got two paths to take to win the White House -- run as a Republican, or run as some sort of Independent.

If she runs as a Republican, she must win not one but two elections -- the primaries and the general. This means not only taking on Romney, Perry, and all the rest, but it also means participating in the Republican nomination contest. She'd be expected to debate, in other words. She'd be required to stand on a stage with a pack of other Republicans, and compete on the level of answering questions from moderators. Running as an Independent would avoid all of that. The only debate stage she'd expect to appear on would be one with Barack Obama and a single Republican, next fall. Running as an Independent would mean her name would move straight to the general election battle -- with no chance her candidacy would be derailed early next year.

The biggest hurdle to running independently is getting your name on all the state ballots, though. It takes a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of signature-gathering efforts to do so. Each state has their own arcane election laws, many of them heavily slanted towards protecting the dominance of the major two American political parties. Which makes this a big hurdle indeed. Palin could tackle this in one of three ways, however. She could attempt to convince an already-existing third party to nominate her (the Libertarian Party springs immediately to mind). She could rouse her supporters to jump through all the hoops of getting her name on the ballot (on the "Sarah For President Party" or whatever she decides to call it), and hope she gets onto at least 40 or 45 state ballots, at a minimum. Palin could also use her army of supporters to make a bid to muscle in on one of the third-party organizations that are currently trying to get their nascent parties on the ballot (the one which is attempting to nominate a candidate via internet voting would likely be the Palinistas first target to co-opt). The first and last of these choices seems the more likely for Palin to attempt, because either would save her time and money.

Running as an Independent would seem -- to most political commentators and Washington establishmentarians -- as a huge mistake for Palin. This is yet another upside, seen from the point of view of Palin herself. She can't stand the pundits and the insiders, remember. She isn't afraid of bluntly letting them know this, either. Confounding these two inside-the-Beltway groups would be a source of continuing delight for Palin. She would revel in the opportunity to play the cat among the pigeons, once again. Defyin' the lamestream media, and defyin' the Washington bigwigs would be lotsa fun, oh, you betcha!

Seriously, though, so far such defiance has paid off enormously for Palin. She can't utter a word or a Tweet without reams of articles being written to decrypt what Sarah's thinking, and what she'll do next. This article you're reading right now is proof enough of this fact, although there is plenty of other proof out there for the media's fascination with all things Sarah. If Palin ran as an Independent, this would virtually assure that this media obsession would continue for another fourteen months. To say nothing of the consternation it would cause over at Republican Party headquarters. It's pretty easy to picture the eventual Republican presidential nominee offering Sarah just about anything to convince her to end her campaign and come back to the party fold. If the concept of "President Perry" causes Lefties to have nightmares, imagine what "Secretary of [fill in the blank] Palin" would add to the mix? Palin's third-party candidacy would give her enormous leverage over the Republican Party establishment, which again can only be seen as an upside from Palin's point of view.

What got me thinking about the possibility that Palin may "go rogue" with a third-party campaign is the timing. The window of opportunity for Palin to jump in the Republican primary race -- and still have a viable chance of winning -- is creaking shut. It has not yet closed entirely, though. If Palin is truly thinking about running in the GOP primaries, she could even be seen later as one smart cookie for waiting so long. Think about it -- Palin's main rivalry for the Republican "I'm not Mitt Romney" candidate slot has evolved while she's been playing coy. Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman were anointed "serious candidates" by the punditocracy early in the race. At this point, though, Pawlenty has already dropped out and Huntsman is simply not taken seriously as a candidate by anyone outside of your average Washington cocktail party. From the Pawlenty and Huntsman period, the competition then developed into a race between the other two major Tea Party candidates -- Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Bachmann had her moment in the sun, but is now fading fast in the polling. She may turn out to have been a one-trick pony (although there's still a chance for her to stage a comeback, admittedly). Meanwhile, Rick Perry's on the ascent in a big way.

Palin may, however, be playing the same waiting game with Perry that she successfully seems to have used on Bachmann. Rick Perry's rise in the polling could be followed by a dive, if he says something so outside the pale that not just average Americans recoil, but Republican base voters as well. He could flame out, in other words. If he does so in the next few weeks (which will have lots of chances for him to do so, with a heavy debate schedule), Palin could capitalize on a Perry gaffe by quickly jumping in the Republican race and stealing his thunder. With both Perry and Bachmann exposed as flawed to the Republican electorate, Palin would be in excellent shape to instantly become the main "I'm not Romney" candidate out there. At this point in time, Palin is already regularly out-polling Bachmann with Republican primary voters -- without even getting into the race (Palin seems to be picking up a lot of Bachmann's former support, in fact). If Perry took a hard fall, Palin could easily move up from the number three slot to number two (or even to frontrunner status).

But that's all assuming Perry has a meltdown. He's already survived one debate without saying anything that freaked out the Republican base (at least, in the scanty polling done since this debate -- time will tell if his Social Security comments eventually do his standing in the polls some harm). He's a good campaigner, say all the Texas folks who have watched his career so far -- so Perry simply can't be counted out in any way. He is, after all, the current frontrunner.

If Perry continues his strong showing (and Romney continues his slide in the polls), Palin may decide to sit out the Republican race. Battling against a fellow Tea Partier wouldn't be nearly as much fun as taking on Romney in a head-to-head matchup. If Palin ran as an Independent, she could avoid having to take on Perry until much later, assuming Perry wins the GOP nomination. If the 2012 race shaped up as "Perry v. Palin v. Obama," then Perry and Palin would spend much more energy trying to outdo the other's attacks on Obama than on attacking each other.

Of course, the path to actually winning the White House has almost never been that of a third-party candidacy. The Electoral College is set up to avoid this sort of thing, after all. Ross Perot got one out of every five votes cast in 1992, and he got precisely zero electoral votes. Palin has got to be aware of this. The real question is whether she would care or not. Which gets into the question of reading her mind -- something nobody's ever been very successful at doing (myself included, to be completely fair). Would Sarah Palin elect to go down in a (self-perceived) blaze of glory in 2012, or will she choose to take the more-standard route of vying for the Republican nomination? Will she get in at all, or has the past few months (years?) been nothing more than a monstrous tease? Will she "go rogue" on the Republican Party, the punditocracy, and the entire election? Or is this all some sort of late-summer Liberal fantasy my brain has dreamed up?

In other words, we're right back to where we started: What will Sarah do? One way or another, we should all know by the end of this month.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

28 Comments on “Will Palin Go Rogue?”

  1. [1] 
    dsws wrote:

    Assume, for the sake of argument, that Palin is intent on running for president

    Stipulated for the sake of argument. She's not, but stipulated.

    She's got two paths to take to win the White House -- run as a Republican, or run as some sort of Independent.

    "Some sort of independent" is not a path to the White House.

    Which gets into the question of reading her mind -- something nobody's ever been very successful at doing (myself included, to be completely fair).

    Me too. Or me neither, or something. Anyway, my prediction has already been proven wrong. I said she would form a committee early, raise a pile of campaign money, drop out early, and use the money both to play kingmaker (or Mama Grizzly maker) in other elections and to enhance her plausibility as a candidate in 2016.

    Or is this all some sort of late-summer Liberal fantasy my brain has dreamed up?

    'Fraid so.

  2. [2] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    At first I thought Palin was following in Trumps footsteps and using the threat of running as a tool to get a better contract out of Fox. Now I think she has become the rights Al Sharpton. Destined to media whore at any event vaguely related her till the end of time...

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, mark THIS day on the calender...

    Bashi and I agree!!

    About Al Sharpton anyways.. :D

    Michale.....

  4. [4] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    I really wish I could bust someone's bubble, unfortunately, I'm already on record as saying that Bachmann was going to cut Perry off at the knees. Which leads me, at any rate, to question my perspicacity at predicting wingnut actions.

    That having been said, I can't see Palin in the race at all. I think she is lazy. Campainging at the top of the ticket is hard work. It's no fun to be hacked at by people who actually are good at what they do (politics).

    On the electability front, she has the highest negatives in history and there is no way for her positives to increase. I don't think she has a chance at the R nomination, and its not because she has waited so long. I don't buy the argument that Perry and Bachman are currently enjoying the Palinista vote. I think Perry has expanded far beyond that vote. Further, I'm not sure that Palin could take them back if she did try ... and that assumes she doesn't indulge in any debates.

    I'll go a step further. I doubt that Palin will be a "Fox analyst" after the election next year. She's just not that good and frankly, not that interesting (have you ever actually SEEN one of her political segments?). Irrespective of the your political positions (or lack of them) she is boring.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    That's a pretty good analysis and I can't find any fault with it...

    Except for one teeny tiney thing....

    The Left has elevated underestimating Palin to a national past-time..

    Nothing Palin achieves will surprise me anymore...

    One only has to look at Palin's broad bipartisan appeal prior to the 2008 Election..

    THAT is the real Palin and she was a formidable politician.

    And, considering the recent NY Time OpEd, it's looking like that Palin might be coming out..

    Time will tell...

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    "Broad bipartisan appeal"?????

    Then how was Obama able to open the biggest can of whupass on McCain since Bush/Dukakis?

    "Certainly one of the most prevalent reactions to Palin's run as vice-presidential nominee was her appeal to base Republican voters, a conclusion that is reinforced by the current data showing that 76% of her fellow Republicans would like her to be on the national scene in the years ahead. The negative reaction from Democrats is not unexpected, but the tepid reaction from independent voters might give Palin pause as she contemplates her future."

    Nov 8, 2008

    gallup.com/poll/111883/no-clamoring-palin-become-national-political-figure.aspx

    I also take issue with the "the Left has underestimated" statement. You are correct that the "Left", which includes Karl Rove, has definitely underestimated her staying power, but there is nothing in her head to underestimate I would expect that a constant presence on Rupert Murdock's "news" network might a TEENY-TINY bit to do with her current supposed influence.

    And on a slightly different tack, I haven't seen any huge efforts by anyone to get her endorsment. Which is not surprising seeing as how in 2010 she made 64 endorsements and 31 lost (20 in the general 10 in the primaries). In the baseball, a record of 33 and 31 over three years gets you a smaller contract. Who says baseball doesn't reflect reality??? Furthermore, 16 of the 20 general election losses were TP.
    washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/

    She is a cult figure. And has been from the start. She was not a formidable politician, she was not a politician at all, except in the most narrow of definitions. Kinda like Ralph Nader without brains. As for her current formidableness, well, just ask Joe Miller.

    Whether or not she will enter the ring in any capacity is, as you have most correctly noted "...Nothing Palin achieves will surprise me anymore..." Although I wouldn't use the word achieves, I would use the term attempts.

    You and I completely agree on one thing, though: "Time will tell...".

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Broad bipartisan appeal"?????

    Ahem....

    "One only has to look at Palin's broad bipartisan appeal prior to the 2008 Election.."

    Palin enjoyed the HIGHEST approval rating of any governor in the US...

    She was greatly admired in Alaska by Democrats as well as every day Americans..

    It was only after the Hysterical Left got their hooks in here after her ascension to the VP nomination did her ratings start to suffer...

    The best indicator of her worth as a politician and as an American is her "stats" prior to the 2008 election...

    And those are, across the board, positive.. HIGHLY positive across the political spectrum..

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would expect that a constant presence on Rupert Murdock's "news" network might a TEENY-TINY bit to do with her current supposed influence.

    Really??

    Murdoch is forcing all the other media outlets to chase Palin down incessantly and hang on her every belch??

    Who do you think Murdoch is??

    Eliot Carver??? :D

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    dsws wrote:

    She was greatly admired in Alaska by Democrats as well as every day Americans

    Except for the 99.7% of "every day Americans" who had never heard of her, prior to the 2008 election. Or is "Americans" supposed to be a contrast with "Democrats", instead of contrasting Americans overall with only Alaskans?

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    You can split hairs all ya want, but the simple fact is Palin was a great governor for Alaska and she enjoyed bipartisan support from her constituents..

    Why can't the Left give credit where credit is due??

    Contrary to the Left's perception, Palin is NOT the Wicked Witch Of The West...

    Where does this unabashed and illogical hatred come from??

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    I was going to respond point by point, but ya know what? Why bother?

    I don't argue with true believers because they don't argue ... they state and expect you to believe. By arguing, you validate the points they make.

    You win, Michale. You are right. I am wrong. Sarah Palin is the best thing since cut bread.

    'Nuff said.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    I don't argue with true believers because they don't argue ...

    Actually, I am as politically agnostic as they come.

    It's you who come across as a political ideologue..

    Why do you hate Palin so much?? Simply because she is a conservative??

    It's like Protestants hating Catholics simply because they are Catholic. Yet both are religious fanatics who see themselves as having god on their side.

    So it is with political fanatics.. On the Left, fanatics hate Palin simply because she has a different set of beliefs and values.

    On the Right, they hate Obama simply because he has a different set of beliefs and values..

    Me? I am in the middle forsworn to no political party or ideology. That allows me to call 'em as I see 'em unfettered by fanatical dogma...

    Give me ONE good reason why the Left hates Palin so much..

    Just ONE *good* reason..

    You win, Michale. You are right. I am wrong. Sarah Palin is the best thing since cut bread.

    The issue is not whether Palin is the Wicked Witch Of The West or the best thing since cut bread..

    The question is, what has she done to be so vilely and disgustingly attacked? Not only herself, but her CHILDREN as well!?

    According to all reports, prior to the 2008 Palin was respected by Democrats in Alaska..

    What makes them wrong and you right about Palin??

    If you don't want to answer, that's fine... But I think it's more of a situation that you don't have any facts to back up the hatred..

    That's fine too.. :D

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a lighter note....

    I came across a tagline that I just HAVE to share with ya'all... :D

    "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine."
    -Abraham Lincoln

    :D

    Now just tell me that wasn't funny!

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    speaking of going rogue... anyone who wants to hear yours truly lecture the florida redistricting committee:

    http://thefloridachannel.org/watch/redistricting/307/Redistricting%20Hearing%20-%20South%20Miami/

    my speaking time is around 1:09

    senator gaetz responds around 2:45

    (i said fair districts aren't that hard to draw and tend to look basically rectangular, and he misinterpreted it to mean it's easy and every single district must be a perfect rectangle. he was kind-of a jerk, but i have him on camera promising that if my students' work is good then it'll be used and he'll pay for the bus to bring them.)

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give 'em hell, NYpoet!!! :D

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    dsws wrote:

    "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine."

    No way that was Lincoln. Gotta be either Mark Twain or Shakespeare.

    --

    There shouldn't be districts. Voters should get to choose which seat to vote for.

  17. [17] 
    dsws wrote:

    Oh, as for the content of the "Lincoln" quote -- it's not true. A credible source is no more or less credible when they're speaking on the telephone or printing words on paper, or posting stuff on the internet.

    I can't tell you it wasn't funny, though, because it is.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, as for the content of the "Lincoln" quote -- it's not true. A credible source is no more or less credible when they're speaking on the telephone or printing words on paper, or posting stuff on the internet.

    Oooohh I dunno...

    With a telephone or words on a printer, there is a degree of culpability and responsibility..

    If I call you on the phone, I KNOW it is YOU that is saying such and such..

    The Internet doesn't have that level of responsibility, as the twits from #attackwatch surely prove... :D

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    dsws wrote:

    One can post anonymously online, certainly. But normally when you find a quote online it's from a source that obviously owns its domain name, like britannica.com. And even on here, where we mostly don't know each other's real names, we do have a reasonable impression of each other's credibility.

    And on the telephone if I intended to say X and it got a little garbled so that you heard Y, there's no record to look at to clear things up.

  20. [20] 
    dsws wrote:

    As far as I know, Sarah Palin was a reasonably popular governor. But "great"? What did she do to achieve greatness, even by the standards applicable to a half-term governor with about the same number of constituents as Mayor Menino has?

    Her manner is grating to many liberals. She comes across as not only somewhat phony (remember the winking?) but deliberately divisive.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as I know, Sarah Palin was a reasonably popular governor. But "great"?

    She had the highest approval rating of any governor in the 50 states..

    I'de say that qualifies as "great"... But that's just the political agnostic in me...

    Her manner is grating to many liberals. She comes across as not only somewhat phony (remember the winking?) but deliberately divisive.

    Do you know the story of Job?

    Seems Job was getting a little peeved about all the bad luck that he had been having. So, Job went before the Lord and asked, "Lord, what have I done to earn such misfortune?".
    The Lord looked down upon Job and said, "I dunno. There's just something about you that pisses me off."

    What you are saying is that there is just something about Palin that pisses the Left off..

    Is that REALLY grounds for such vile and vindictive hatred??? Not only directed at Palin but also her family!!??

    Seriously??

    I thought liberals were all about peace and love and inclusiveness and live and let live...

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    And on the telephone if I intended to say X and it got a little garbled so that you heard Y, there's no record to look at to clear things up.

    Good point...

    I stand corrected..

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    She comes across as not only somewhat phony (remember the winking?) but deliberately divisive.

    Jeezus, dsws.. You are describing practically every politician that comes down the road.. :D

    So, why is it that Palin deserves special ire for allegedly being that way and REALLY divisive Democrats like Carson, Waters, Wilson etc etc are given a pass??

    Have you considered the possibility that Palin is NOT intentionally divisive, but rather that's simply how the Left perceives her??

    It's a well known fact that humans project unto others their own faults...

    So, if the Left accuses Palin of being divisive perhaps the Left is simply projecting their OWN actions and thoughts and feelings upon Palin..

    Something to think about, eh? :D

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    dsws wrote:

    and REALLY divisive Democrats like Carson, Waters, Wilson etc etc are given a pass??

    Who?

    Maxine Waters has some name-recognition, but Carson and Wilson are such common names that I actually don't know who you're talking about.

    Sarah Palin by contrast was in line to be one very shaky heartbeat away from the presidency, and has had a very high profile ever since.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Carson was the one who said that the GOP wants to lynch black people.

    Wilson said that the Tea Party is "the enemy"...

    Now, I don't know what YOUR definition of "divisive" is, but......

    Sarah Palin by contrast was in line to be one very shaky heartbeat away from the presidency, and has had a very high profile ever since.

    And that makes her divisive??

    You still haven't pointed to one single thing that Palin has done to deserve the vile hatred from the Left...

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sarah Palin by contrast was in line to be one very shaky heartbeat away from the presidency,

    And I would venture to say that she would have been a HELLUVA lot better of a President than Barack Obama.

    At least Palin had some actual executive and leadership experience...

    As the state governor with the highest approval rating in the nation..

    It's assured that she definitely couldn't have done worse.. Even if she did/will bomb Houston.. :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/palinpres.jpg

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    dsws wrote:

    I am not divisive to any significant extent, in national politics. You are not divisive to any significant extent, in national politics. We are in no position to divide or unite the nation. We can cast our votes, send our small donations, volunteer our own time, and write letters-to-the-editor, but we do not have a national audience or a billion-dollar budget.

    Ditto for Hobson and Molson, or whatever the names were of those nobodies you mentioned.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am not divisive to any significant extent, in national politics. You are not divisive to any significant extent, in national politics. We are in no position to divide or unite the nation. We can cast our votes, send our small donations, volunteer our own time, and write letters-to-the-editor, but we do not have a national audience or a billion-dollar budget.

    Troo dat... :D

    Ditto for Hobson and Molson, or whatever the names were of those nobodies you mentioned.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on their importance.. Carson was just handed the prestigious MDDOTW award, so his name should at least ring a bell or two..

    Sadly, CongressCritters like Wilson, Waters and Carson are becoming more and more representative of the Left as a whole...

    I miss the good old days when liberals tried to kill people with kindness.. Back then, it was easy to tell the liberals from the conservatives....

    These days you can't tell them apart without a playbill...

    "Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals."
    -Yarnek, STAR TREK TOS, The Savage Curtain

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.