Aces Full of Links

Predicting Palin

Patti sent along a link with some recent poll results:

Fifty-four percent of Americans say they would be not too likely or not likely at all to vote for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin if she runs for president in 2012 while 43 percent would be very or somewhat likely to support her , according to a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted July 6.

Of course, the jaw-dropping part of that story is not that Americans are not running to the hyperventilating soon-to-be-ex-governor of Alaska to lead us to a future of prosperity. It is, rather, that 43 percent of those polled would be at least somewhat likely to vote for her for president. One wonders if the question was worded thusly: "How likely would you be to vote for Sarah Palin in a presidential election if her opponent was Satan himself? Not at all likely? Somewhat Unlikely? Undecided? Somewhat Likely? Very Likely? or 'You Betcha?'"

I can't tell you Sarah Palin's political future because not even Sarah Palin knows what she's going to do when she wakes up tomorrow morning, so predicting her actions or how her adoring fans will react to those actions is an exercise in futility. It amused me that the above-mentioned poll was also asking whether people thought she would run for the presidency. 61% of respondents thought that it was at least somewhat likely that she'd go for it in 2012. Sure, why not? Who can tell? Who would have thought last year or even last month that she would announce to the world, in a speech about how horrible quitters are, that she was quitting the job Alaska voters elected her to and casting off the responsibility she agreed to take on?

What it comes down to is this: since Sarah Palin was thrust into the national spotlight, she's proved herself to be one of the least stable leadership figures ever to come to our attention.

I'm only an armchair pundit, and only a sometime armchair pundit at that, but my post-game of the 2008 election is that everyone thought it was going to be a change election, McCain raised his profile by going the "wildcard" route and it backfired in the end. His choice of VP increased interest in his campaign with a certain segment of his electorate which (in my uncharitable opinion) is not only distracted by bright, shiny objects but also likes to see things blow up.

Meanwhile, the economy was tanking and the swing portion of the electorate decided that they wanted the more stable candidate¹. I think that the American voter gets a fairly good read of the stability of a candidate. Who can tell what course a president will take once he or she is in office? Ideology can give way to pragmatic concerns, the Congress can assert its authority, and opinions can change. But a person's reaction in the face of challenge and their stability is a trait that people look for, and it's a trait that can be seen during a trying presidential campaign.

Every indication from Palin's video resume is that she is intemperate, fickle, attention-seeking and easily bored. If there is a time when "conservative" comes to mean "willing to shirk responsibility because the job isn't fun anymore" then Palin's star will again be on the rise. If there is a time when the swing voters in this country feel the need to elect a president who will steer a crooked course, roll the dice on our future, and blame David Letterman if it all goes to Hell, Palin will be a shoo-in.

1. Despite the whooping about socialism, Obama is practically an avatar of stability. In manner, he's the most moderate president we've had in decades. As president he's showing a tendency to act boldly... but those bold efforts are toward preserving stability. It turns out that undefined change has a very wide interpretation. The swing voters sensed this before the election, and so far it looks like they got what they wanted. Meanwhile, the ones who are most disappointed in Obama are those who were looking for really radical liberal changes, and those who were looking to lampoon really radical liberal changes. We can debate McCain's stability, but I think that he was seen as a much more stable candidate before he took a chance on Palin. I don't think that the more perceived-as-stable candidate always wins, but I think there are times when this is more important to people. In 2012, I think the GOP will be trying to convince us that we're headed down a dangerous road and we need radical change in the other direction, so it may well be that GOPers choose a more revolutionary candidate.