Despite not knowing many, or even any, of the characters involved, watching some of the Tea Party’s high-fiving, whooping and hollering candidates each get put to the electoral sword is highly satisfying indeed.
Sharron Anglein has pulled defeat from the jaws of victory against Harry Reid in Nevada, out-of-her-depth Christine O’Donnell barely got a look-in in Delaware and the California Governor candidate managed to blow £160m and still come up short. Lovely. How d’ya like them apples, Ms Palin?
Not that the current situation can be painted as good news for Barack Obama and Team Democrat; the Tea Party did make some impressive gains. The Democrats are losing the debate, possibly mostly due to the political cycle. However, some respite is in evidence through the lack of an attractive Republican for the US to revolve around.
What continues to get me is how the supposedly religious right can vote for tax cuts, smaller state Governing and a very individualist approach to society. It’s all a far cry from any sort of commitment to love thy neighbour…
Anyway, the worst news for Obama today? Sarah Palin now cannot possibly be the Republicans’ Presidential candidate. Surely. Right?
#1 by Malc on November 3, 2010 - 9:23 am
Your interpretation of the result is slightly different to mine. Sure, their candidates (well, the more “lively” ones) failed to get elected, but they have made an impression on the debate. I guess its the power versus influence argument again. The Tea Party are now a feature of US politics (and, I imagine, that is as much to the chagrin of moderate Republicans as it is to Democrats).
However, your conclusion, hedged though it is, might come back to bite your ass. At the moment, there’s no way she’s going to announce – it keeps getting her column inches and paid to tour the country. If she were to announce, that would dry up and she’d spend the next 24 months not raising much money at all. But I’m pretty sure Palin will try to win the Republican nomination… and may well get it, given how influential her Tea Party are.
Also… word of warning: don’t be surprised if she beats Obama in 2012. You heard it here first if she does.
#2 by Jeff on November 3, 2010 - 12:07 pm
Palin beat Obama? I heard it hear first but I’m just hoping I heard it here last!
And yeah, I was still taking in the result when I wrote the post (also while squashed into a London bus cos of tube strike, but that’s another story). Any party to feature so prominently after only 2 years in the business is remarkable so your probably giving a fairer assessment than I.
I just think Palin is awful. At least she’s not a witch….
#3 by Malc on November 3, 2010 - 12:49 pm
Oh, she is awful. But look at the nature of the defeat the Democrats have taken – the House has changed hands back to the Republicans, and their majority in the Senate (which had been verging on fillibuster-proof a year ago) has been squeezed dramatically. One of the reasons is that people don’t think Obama has done enough on the economy and are pretty pissed at him.
If the Republicans are smart, they’d pick her. I still think McCain picking her as a VP candidate was a shrewd move – it gave her some experience and more of a public persona. And yes, she’s nuts. But in 2 years time, the first black President is old news… and the first female President has potential. Add in the “disappointment” of Obama’s Presidency… and we got a ball game.
#4 by Jeff on November 3, 2010 - 1:03 pm
Ok, the result was bad but it was the same in the 90s before Clinton romped home for a second term. Isn’t this just the natural order of political cycles? 2012 is still a close call you’ve got to say, though it of course depends on who is competing.
Surely reasonable Republicans would rail against a Palin presidency? A moderate, male or female, would cover more of the centre ground and a flailing Obama would have no chance.
Against loose cannon Palin and her jaw-dropping lack of understanding of world affairs? Well, I can hear the chants of ‘four more years’ already.
If Sarah Palin wins in 2012, I’m moving to Mars.
Then again, maybe Obama will step down after 4 years, he doesn’t look like he’s enjoying it after all. You may get your first female President after all.
What odds on Hillary Clinton winning in 2012?
#5 by Malc on November 3, 2010 - 1:46 pm
Maybe… and I’m in no way denying it would be loopy. I’m just not convinced she wouldn’t win. Also – in your 1990s scenario, who did the Republicans run against Clinton? Bob Dole – hardly an inspiring choice! I’m not saying Palin is inspired, just that she has attractions which the Republican base may go for.
Fire up the rockets…
#6 by Malc on November 3, 2010 - 1:47 pm
BTW, you can take the “fire up the rockets” as either you preparing to leave for Mars or Palin preparing to invade Iran/ North Korea/ Libya/ Russia… (delete as applicable)
#7 by richard on November 3, 2010 - 11:16 am
Jeff, I think the religious right interpret the “love thy neighbour” stuff as “love thy crony/relative/those in your own crowd, and to heck with the rest”, rather than in the broader respect that we’re used to on this side of the pond, with its socialist implications.
Quite which is truer to the original intention, I wouldn’t like to say!
#8 by neil craig on November 4, 2010 - 12:20 pm
The California woman was actively not a Taxed enough Already movement member. Being female does not automatically make one a Palin supporter. In the other 2 leaders of the Republican political machine opposed their own official candidate. This would be like David Cameron opposing Conservative party “cast iron” policy on a referendum except that in America the popular will still gets through.