Senator Palin?

So, it looks like despite his felony conviction, Ted Stevens will still be elected again to the Senate. If his appeal fails, he will almost certainly be tossed out of the Senate. Where Sarah Palin comes into the equation is the interesting part. While she can't appoint herself as she is the governor, she could resign and have her replacement make her a Senator. Personally, if that happens and the hardcore fundie wing of the Republican Party starts gravitating towards her, I think it might be the final nail in the spike for the Republican Party.

I'm not sure the Republican party will elevate her at all. As of yesterday they are now trying to destroy her reputation. Spreading rumors about the new wardrobe and the money that was spent on it. They are saying now she spent upwards of $200k. This includes $20k for Todds clothes and another $20k for her kids clothing. Rumor has it they are sending lawyers to Alaska to take an inventory and then take the clothes back. McCain campaign aids are saying that she had them use their own credit cards for her shopping sprees and they are now looking for money to pay these bills!


We shall see how people react to her now.

If they like Obama they should react well,

I keep saying and each day I know i'll be shown more right on this

Palin turned on McCain because his people tried to silence her opinions and treat her like an idiot, he appointed her ONLY because he thought a Pretty Lady would help him and didn't even want her to be a person.

Her whole stupidity thing was to screw him over...

The McCain camp actually making an issue over money?

Just another sign they know she screwed them...

Ever hear of a republican being mad, or most politicians about money blown wrongly ...

Hillary, turned a plane around from the Bahamas to fetch her daughters homework once!!!

It's ridiculous anyway, you would need the clothes to represent the country, it's not actually a foolish expense, her looks Mattered in this, it was about the only thing turning any heads on the Republican ticket anyway...

They are going to complain about the one thing either McCain or Palin did that got any positive attention during the whole campaign...

Palin looking sharp was about all the had going for them!!!

No, Palin screwed them over, it's nothing but revenge

and the Barracuda is smarter, despite what everyone thinks than McCain... watch it all get lost in the media to Obamas cabinet picks over the weeks.

McCain was so bright and experienced and... whatever, She was the only one interesting on that ticket for good or bad... the Media followed her gaffes and all like puppy dogs, she rose further in 8 weeks than McCain did in 20 years

And many people hate her, but those that like her... she has a cult of personality behind her, something McCain has never had, the guy excites no one...

Even wanting a republican, the reaction was Oh G-d McCain?

Guys a bore, shows over, end of career and barrack didn't bury him...Palin did, they are just being sore about it.

Yes I do get the strong feeling she will run for senator. I dont see the republican party electing her as nominee come 2012. I mean she could try but there is only so much the conservative base can do, even in their own party. But yes senator does seem like a reality for her, and I think Alaskans will vote her in overwhelmingly.

As for Joe the plumber, I really dont see him getting into congress, even in his own county. But who knows, this election is a shocka compared to the one anticipated in 07'.

From what I've read she would have to run for special elections in two months, and Stevens(not even popular in his own party) is probably gonna be throw out during the lame duck congressional session.

The thing I find most interesting about election day in Alaska is not only were the % the same as four years ago, you'd think they'd vote for McCain/Palin a lot heavier. But it was the only state where voting was down from 2004, which is really shocking considering there Governor was on the ballot.

Stevens isn't senator elect yet. Early voting and mail-in ballots still have to be counted in Alaska and as the article I'm about to link points out, he only has a 3,200 vote lead. Not only that 9,500 early votes have to be counted and 50,000 mail-ins.

www.fivethirtyeight.com...

Here is the thing.


Republicans are trying to villify her, because they realize that although she did her part at the convention to rouse the base, she is now the symbol for everything that has gone wrong with the republican party.

Therefore, they (the republicans) are going to use her in the true meaning of the word scapegoat, they will throw all of their political "sins" on her, and then sacrifice her. They have to have a turning point where they say goodbye to what they were and say hello to a new era in the republican party. And so they are trying, not only to put the blame on someone, but also to marginalize the ideals she symbolizes.

My guess is that the next major candidate for president in the republican party will be a true fiscal conservative who also projects the image of a thoughtful leader. Someone who is inclusive and represents the morals as laid out in the constitution, not by any particular holy book.

One thing that was very decided in this election, is that the Republicans HAVE to win votes in the cities. There is just not enough Republican voters in small town and rural America for them to exclude the Citizens who live in Cities.

I think we can definitely say goodbye to the Dubya/Palin type of politicians and political tactics. This election really sounded the death knell for the Anti-Intellectual based political tactic.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by HunkaHunka]

She may be the symbol of the campaign loss in 2008 but her fellow Alaskans certainly wont see her that way. She will be voted in as senator by her state, whether republican or independent.

I hope she does something.

She represents the non Elitist, pro family, and middle income portion of the Republican party, which is the real base of the party.

People like Bush, Cheney, McCain do not represent the base and are out of touch with the base. One of the main reasons the base would not support McCain was because he is so out of touch, but Palin energized the base.

So regardless what the media says, she has support from the real people among Republicans. What I mean by "real people" are people who know what its like to struggle to pay bills, who as couples make less than $100,000 or even less than $60,000 a year, often own firearms for hunting, often are blue collar workers, and are very very patriotic. Many of these families have relatives who serve or have served in the military as enlisted personnel. They know what sacrifice and service is to one's country.

Many of those people feel a disconnect with Bush and McCain, who are very wealthy and live in a very different world.

So hopefully she sticks around.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


If they focus on the cities then they alienate the rural areas.

The truth is its not the cities. There are plenty of cities that vote conservative, but they are predominantly in the South.

What we are witnessing is a divide, not unlike the divide that lead to the first civil war.

Between the foundation of the country and the civil war, the Southern states were continually alienated and ignored. Issues were tossed to the side that more and more infuriated the south.

If we follow that route and ignore large segments of the country, we will find ourselves in a giant mess a generation or two from now.

All in all in it may be futile though to keep parts of the population united. There are some things people will not compromise on. Like before one segment will try to pressure another and it will tear the nation apart literally.

The best thing that can be done is to give people representation. If "rural" or conservative people are ignored and not represented they will become radical and very loud.

If you want to tear the nation apart go ahead, ignore the rural areas, ignore the conservatives, and ignore those with values. If you want to unite the country give those rural areas and conservatives a voice, let them participate, and be represented as a part of this nation.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Only 22% of the nations counties voted republican more, than in 2004. There isn't a divide it's a shift. Republicans got 14% of the undecideds while Obama got 13%. With 40% of the nations electorate registered democrat, as opposed to 37% in 2004, and 32% of the nations electorate being republican, as opposed to 2004.

Obama won the Popular vote 53% to McCains 46%, and by 8 Million votes.

What did Bush, and the rest of conservatives, call it in 2004 when he got 50.7% and only won by 3 million.?
O that's right a mandate, so what does Obama have then? A SUPER MANDATE?

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
If you want to tear the nation apart go ahead, ignore the rural areas, ignore the conservatives, and ignore those with values. If you want to unite the country give those rural areas and conservatives a voice, let them participate, and be represented as a part of this nation.

Totally agree.. too bad they couldnt do the same when they had their man in power.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by southern_Guardian]

reply to post by djpaec


There was a shift in certain areas, but you cant lump everything all together like that. It has to be broken down by state and broken down demographically, including unregistered and registered non voters.

What is happening is the same nonsense that lead up to the civil war. Between the revolution and the civil war, the North had a much higher population density than the south. It had larger cities and higher populations. They dominated the nation's policies. They consistently ignored or pressured the southern states.

In modern times we have the major population centers having a much larger influence in the nation, from New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. These high population density states are far more liberal than the less population dense southern states.

They have pressured rural, conservative, and especially southern areas with volatile issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues.
These rural and conservative areas are feeling like the south before, helpless and ignored. They feel they are a minority that is not being represented.

53% of a vote is not a mandate to ignore and pressure the other 46% of the country.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

If they focus on the cities then they alienate the rural areas.

The truth is its not the cities. There are plenty of cities that vote conservative, but they are predominantly in the South.

So that's why the Republicans have been ignoring the cities?

I'm not sure about the rest of the south, but all of the Cities in GA were blue. All of the rural areas were red. That pretty much summed up the election for every state I happened to look at.

Now there may be some out there, but I couldn't find any red cities.


The point here is that the Republicans have marginlized the cities as elitists when in fact the cities are just progressive and ahead of the curve.

This is a trend as more and more people live in cities than ever before.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


80% of our population is in cities so I think they can ignore Rural areas if they want, which they don't.

img.photobucket.com...

Is that enough of a break down for you? I can start busting out the statistics how Obama made inroads with all but 3 demographics, as opposed to kerry.(based on race, annual income, age gender, and religion) The only demographic he lost points with were voter 65+, gays and lesbians(down to 70% from 77%) and those that claim 'other' religion. There's a reason Obama won states like Indianna and Virginia, which havn't voted democrat since 1964.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


And alot of Democrats hope she does something to. She also symbolizes all the things the Republican party has done to alienate a lot of people over the years. She's an ill educated person who would seemingly govern with her Bible first and the Constitution second.

Is this the answer you wanted? It's the typical Sarah Palin answer.

www.nypost.com...

Personally I think she would be a good president for the reasons Mike Boyd stated above, though I think the media and the left would rake her over the coals on the issue of separation of church and state because ... well, because of reasons like the article I referenced above.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I hope she does something.

She represents the non Elitist, pro family, and middle income portion of the Republican party, which is the real base of the party.

When I think of a non-Elitist, middle-income mom, I don't imagine her spending 200 thousand dollars on a new wardrobe. Sorry ...

Unless of course, that is middle income within the Republican Party! heh..

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Or owning a plane.