As someone who’s been following the news closely the last few years especially since Palin entered the scene, It's been interesting to note that most people that are now arguing that she’s unelectable are the same people that have called her uninformed on the issues and ignorant for the last three years since she was chosen as VP.
She has proven to be right on every topic since, from Obamacare and death panels to energy policies and taxes etc. etc. so the argument suddenly changed from her being uninformed to being unelectable. How can someone decide if she is or isn’t electable when countless predictions from political handicappers in the past have been proven time and time again as wrong?
Charlie Cook predicted shortly after Obama’s inauguration that the Dems would gain seats in the senate in 2010. Less than two years later, they lost 6 seats.
This is not a one time example. This happens repeatedly.
I’ve never seen sooo many people arguing that someone is unelectable. Have you never heard of campaign ads, rallies, and debates? When Palin ran for mayor in Wasilla she ran against an incumbent Republican and won. She then took on the incumbent popular governor in Alaska from her own party without her party’s support in a primary, followed by a general election with a former Democrat Governor whom she succeeded in overcoming.
Suddenly, Palin has become so damaged and Obama so perfect that she absolutely can’t beat him and shouldn’t even try to run? At every primary the voters split between several candidates with the most popular winning. However, once the primary is over, the party unites behind the victorious candidate.
Are you bashers out there suggesting the party should pull a NY-23 where the party chose their own candidate without a primary?
No comments:
Post a Comment