The Near Impossibility of President Ron Paul

Now the rest of the GOP field has peaked too early, people are adopting that predictable position - through nothing more meaningful than a crude process of elimination - that maybe the Republican nomination is Ron Paul's for the taking. This I doubt; what I find even more doubtful is that Paul would be a credible contender in a straight contest with Obama.

Before I explain why, let me explain my own thoughts on Paul. Yeah, he's dead right on some things - and I've been very impressed with his reasoned and non-bellicose approach to foreign policy, which is a great thing coming from a (nominal) Republican. I have little time, though, for his anti-abortion stance or for his apparent god-bothering. But hey ho. No candidate is perfect, and he's the best of a truly atrocious bunch. So while I wouldn't go so far as to say I want him to win - such passion over a deeply predictable contest that I will not be able to vote in strikes me as utterly pointless - but I suppose I would prefer him to. So why am I so dismissive of his chances?

Well, quite simply (and really rather obviously) what I want does not impact on reality in any meaningful way. Reality does not conform to my wishes. And the reality is that the deck is stacked against Paul to a massive extent. He is unlikely to win the nomination for his party, since even if he does win some early upset victories then the Republican establishment will intervene in favour of a much more mainstream and middle of the road candidate. I reckon there will be a replay of the 2004 Democrat primary campaign, where the genuinely interesting (although possibly a little barmy) Howard Dean was swiftly marginalised by the much more pedestrian yet mainstream John Kerry. The nomination will probably be Romney's; he's a safe pair of hands who will not damage the party too much even as he hands victory to Obama.

But suppose Paul did get the nomination - what then? Well, Obama would crush him. The Democrat electioneering machine would spend all of its time telling the American people that Paul is some sort of dangerous radical who would leave innocent people to get ill and die without health insurance. Hell, they could even outflank on the issue of security. Yeah, those charges might be false, but so what? Since when have presidential elections been about taking the high road? The Obama campaign would do everything they possible could to make Paul into a Goldwater for the new millennium, while simultaneously painting their guy to be solid, dependable and statesmanlike for the cameras.

Perhaps a truly great communicator could make libertarian ideals appeal to the American masses; the problem is that great communicator is not Ron Paul. Sure, he manages to avoid sticking his foot in his mouth most of the time, but that is not enough to win enough Americans over to what is potentially a radical realignment of the nature of government and state in their country. Plus, he's up against Obama, whose pompous speaking style manages to add gravitas to even the most anodyne and meaningless of pronouncements. Again, yeah, you can argue that this is unfair, but it is also reality. A Ron Paul presidential campaign might be enough to provoke a misled American people into handing a reluctant landslide to Obama.

Paul's best hope for next year is that his stance and policies in some way influence the Republican programme; in other words, that the long process of explaining his version of libertarianism begins. Then the next time a libertarian runs for the Republican nomination, these ideas are more mainstream and people are more likely to understand them and get behind them. It could be enough to get a Republican libertarian nominee in 2016 or 2020. It will certainly help to wrest control of that party away from the Christian fundamentalist path that Bush Junior put it on. But President Paul remains deeply unlikely to the point where it is basically an impossibility. It might comfort some libertarians on both sides of the Atlantic to pretend otherwise, but unfortunately it remains a pipe dream that helps them to escape from a political reality that remains stubbornly immune to the penetration of libertarian ideals into the political mainstream.

Rick Perry: Intellectual Giant

Sarah Palin: Not Running For President

The phrase "thank fuck" prings to mind. Now she can get back to doing what she does best - pontificating about politics, rather than actually engaging with it. Or whatever it is the slack-jawed lackwit.

Now, just for Perry. And Bachmann. And... so on.

Defending Sarah Palin

I'm guessing that if I looked out the window I'd see pigs looping the loop in the air, because I'm about to do something that I never thought I'd do and makes me faintly nauseous. I'm going to defend the crass Sarah Palin.

Defend her in a limited way, of course. Defend her against the recent allegations that are perhaps best summed up in this paragraph:

As for these disclosures, McGinniss claims that Palin snorted cocaine off an overturned 55-gallon drum during a snowmobile excursion, slept with college (and later NBA) basketball star Glenn Rice when she was an unmarried 23-year-old sports reporter (McGinniss talked to Rice for the book and he confirmed the relationship) and had an affair with Brad Hanson, Todd Palin's business partner, apparently as payback for her husband's infidelities. (Both Palin and Hanson, he notes, have denied the affair.)

Now I have no problems with these sort of allegations. The fact that Palin has snorted coke and slept around a bit is her own business, frankly. I don't even care if she has been having affairs behind her husband's back - that is between him and her. None of these reflects on her ability to be president. What does - and the reason why I think she is horrifically unqualified for high office - is her almost all-encompassing ignorance combined with the fact that she perfectly represents the empty and dangerous politics of style rather than substance. The problem is what she does in public, not what she has done in private. The problem, to put it in a much more profane way, is not who she has apparently been fucking, but the fact that she is a fucking idiot.

So there it is - a defence of Palin from someone who cannot stand her. But it is utterly depressing that what will probably finish the Palin show once and for all is not the fact that she has time and time again paraded her stupidity in public, but the utter irrelevancies of what she may have done in her private life.

A Palin Candidacy?

I’m pretty sure that I haven’t missed an announcement, so I guess that Sarah Palin has yet to declare her candidacy for the Republican nomination for President. This makes me wonder whether she is actually going to do so.

In a sense, it might be wiser for her not to declare and sit this one out. The field for the nomination is crowded, and there are already two slightly loopy candidates in that field – one of who looks and sounds a lot like Palin but with the added advantage that she didn’t fuck off half way through a term as an elected representative. To some extent Palin has been out-manoeuvred by Bachmann. Furthermore, if Palin runs and fails to even get the nomination, then her brand of simplistic redneck nonsense will be damaged. She won’t such a hot ticket if her record reads “National Elections Fought: 2. Won: 0”.

Then there’s the fact that Obama, while weakened, still looks like the most likely victor from next year’s general election. He has the massive advantage of incumbency and the fact that, while he’s been a disappointment to many, he hasn’t been an absolute catastrophe and his policies are only truly execrable to those who wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances anyway. Palin is unlikely to win the nomination; she’s also unlikely to win the White House even if nominated.

There’s a sense in which it would be better for Palin to wait for 2016, when there’ll be much more of a level playing field. But then she risks the fate of Hillary Clinton in 2008 – of being a presumptive nominee for so long that the idea of her candidacy becomes boring, and the space is therefore created for a more charismatic stalking horse to come along and steal the nomination and, maybe, even the White House.

So in a sense Palin is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. So I reckon she should go with the latter option. Continue the Sarah Palin show across America. Then again, I’m biased as I think that the idea of President Palin is utterly terrifying and should be avoided at all costs…

My Preference for the 2012 US election

Over the past couple of weeks, both in the comments section here and in my inbox, I've had people either expressing incredulity that I am not supporting one candidate or the other in the upcoming presidential election or asking me who I do actually support. So let me go on record and say this: I support no-one.

Two reasons - firstly, the choice before America is particularly unedifying this time around. Obama will almost certainly represent the Democrats despite being an increasingly compromised and uninspiring president. On the Republican side it is either charisma bypasses like Mitt Romney or total loons like Bachmann and Perry. The best they've got is Ron Paul, but he just seems to be a desperate choice that some libertarian's latch on to and as far as I am concerned, he offers little in the way of charisma or ability to actually win the nomination or the presidency. As far as I am concerned he's the least worst of a bad bunch; therefore, if he gets anywhere, he will therefore represent the least worst option - but I'd be very surprised if that actually happened.

The second reason is implicit in what I've written above - this is the choice before America. I'm not American; I'm not eligible to vote either in the primaries or in the general election. Therefore, unlike when this country goes to the polls, I don't feel duty bound to compromise myself and go with a candidate I'm not entirely convinced by. I'm happy to offer commentary on what will be a looonnng campaign for the control of the White House, but that's about it. Those looking for support from someone with precious little influence and no vote in the upcoming elections would do best to look elsewhere.

Rest assured, it isn't just Rick Perry with illiberal ideas vying for the Republican nomination, as this video shows:



Try to ignore the irritating presenter and marvel at yet another contender utterly unsuited to the office they are trying to attain.

Why Is Rick Perry So Terrifying?

The news that Rick Perry has joined the race for the Republican nomination for President sends a shiver down my spine. He is exactly the sort of politician that the US does not need – a bellicose God-botherer who is perfectly happy to send the mentally retarded to the execution chamber despite commandments in his religion like “thou shalt not kill”. He’s for freedom, just so long as it is economic – if you’re gay and you want to marry someone of the same gender, your freedom should be curtailed in the strange worldview of this Christian fundamentalist. And while I’m pretty liberal when it comes to gun laws, I can’t help but feel doing something like this makes you look like a total dickhead:



But Perry is not alone in many of these opinions; increasingly, these represent the sort of stances that a Republican candidate must take if they want to have any chance of being successful. So why is Perry particularly terrifying?

I think it is the fact that he is George W. Bush but Bush Junior turned up to 11. From what I’ve seen and heard of Perry, he makes Bush Junior – the worst President of the United States in living memory – look like a subtle and nuanced thinker in whom you could have complete confidence. And that is what makes Perry such a dangerous option for the Republicans and, if nominated, the US as a whole. After all, we know how it ended for George W. Bush. Why on earth would anyone want to replicate the sorry farrago that was Bush Junior’s presidency? Or, even worse, risk an even more extreme version of it?

And it is this sort of candidate who makes Obama look like the best option. Obama is a weak, compromised president but he does at least come across as far saner than many of his Republican rivals. And this may well be the factor that gets him a second term – not that he’s any good, but just that he’s less mental than those he fights elections against.

So to any Republicans reading this and preparing to vote in next year’s primaries – Rick Perry: just say no.

A Request...

...to Ron Paul supporters - please, please, please stop sending me shit about Ron Paul's money bombs. I don't have the cash to spare and even if I did I would spend it on candidates based in this country, not the US. And even if I did have the cash to spare and you'd got the right nation, I'd still be unlikely to give money to a candidate with practically no chance of winning.

Thanks.

Thatcher Snubs Palin

It would take a hard heart not to laugh at this: Margaret Thatcher refusing to meet Sarah Palin. From a no doubt completely unbiased report in The Guardian:

It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher's frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me:

"Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."

While I would agree with the ally's analysis, I rather suspect that the old, frail Thatcher actually has very little time and energy for politics these days and therefore would rather not spend it meeting feckless wannabes for the Republican nomination.

But it is worth stressing just how different Thatcher and Palin are once you get beyond the fact that they are both female and are typically described as right-wing. Thatcher attended a top university before entering Parliament. She then spent well over a decade in various political positions, including party spokesperson and Education Secretary before taking a risk and challenging a former Prime Minister for the Conservative Party leadership. She then acted as Leader of the Opposition for several years before becoming Prime Minister about two decades after she first actively entered politics. Compare this with Palin, who was plucked from relative obscurity by an old man in a hurry and thrust into the political limelight. All she had to do for this celebrity is read from an autocue and wink occasionally. She didn't even complete her term as Governor, preferring instead to take the Sarah Palin show on tour across America. Whatever you think of her policies, Thatcher always appeared to be in politics to get things done. Palin appears to be in politics to build up the cult of personality and publicity that exists around her.

As I say, I suspect Thatcher is just too old and frail to be meeting up with potential Republican nominees. But if she was going to do so, I really doubt that Palin would be at the top of the list.

The Pitiful Republican Candidates

I find it difficult to argue with this:

Shortly after the debate, Esquire quoted John Weaver, the longtime McCain strategist, scorning the GOP field as "the weakest since 1940." The New Hampshire debate provided plenty of evidence for his conclusion that the Republican Party "is nowhere near being a national governing party."

The truth is that no-one currently in the fray for the Republican nomination next year - including the ever ignorant Sarah Palin, whose constant flirtation with the concept of running for President has now become so tiresome that she is being eclipsed by her own clone -looks remotely credible as a candidate who might just be capable of taking the White House from Barack Obama. And the end result at this rate will be that Obama, like Bush Junior and Clinton before him, will be re-elected not because he is any good, but because his opponents are godawful no-hopers.

The Barack Obama European Tour

Sounding like an ageing supergroup doing one last tour to top up the pension funds rather than a credible politician undertaking vital diplomatic missions, Obama's doing a tour of Europe. No doubt this is entirely about important work and nothing to do with his re-election campaign. I know, I know, I'm joking - but the Barack Obama Re-Election Tour of Europe would have been too obvious even for this blatant attempt to look like a statesman with international credibility while the opposition party in your country haven't even got around to the serious mud-slinging that will inevitably happen before they choose their nominee for President next year.

Much like Nixon visiting China and the USSR in the run-up to the 1972 election, this is just the start of a campaign to convince enough voters in the US that Obama is a credible statesman who is also a safe pair of hands. And given the state of the Republican party at the moment, it's probably going to work.

The 2012, Made In America Barack Obama Mug

I wonder whether he's had one of these sent to Donald Trump?

Donald Trump; Definitely Not Going To Be President

Apparently, Donald Trump wants to spend more time with his business interests rather than running for US President. I rather suspect, though, that his main concern (despite protestations to the contrary) is the fear of losing. After all, he's a brand - and an ignominious defeat to someone like Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries would damage that brand. As well as potentially damaging his colossal ego. Because he would never have made it all the way to being the nominee, and therefore the man Obama will defeat next year. He was not, and will never be, a credible candidate for the highest office in the US.

But Trump isn't the only one to opt of the race to be beaten by Obama - the ever idiotic Mike Huckabee has said "all the factors say go, but my heart says no." Whatever the fuck that might mean. As far as I can see, rather like Trump, what he actually means is that the factors are really saying no. He knows he would lose (again) if he decided to run. Wouldn't win the general election. Mainly because he wouldn't even make it to being the nominee. Last time, he lost to a grumpy old man. This time, who knows who he would lose to? The only guarantee would be that he would lose...

Of course, all of this reduces the field of potential Republican nominees. And actually makes it much less mental. Now all we need is for Sarah Palin to say she's not running and we might end up with a field of sane, if rather dull, people vying for the nomination. Which probably won't lead to a Republican President come 2013, but will also mean that the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan hasn't been completely captured by its loopy, extremist elements.

Mitt Romney - Republican Front-Runner?

You know, with regard to the Republican nomination for next year’s presidential election, I keep on hearing the name Mitt Romney being mentioned as the frontrunner. And for the life of me, I can’t work out why.

Part of the reason is that Mitt Romney is not an inspiring candidate. In fact, when I think of the name Mitt Romney, all I can think of is the man who strapped a dog to the roof of his car before setting off on a long journey. And that sort of thing doesn’t immediately make me think “oh, he’d be a good president”. Or a credible candidate for the presidency.

Of course, he’s far saner than some of the other potential candidates – and yes, I’m talking about Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee here. He might be dull, insipid and uninspiring (with a penchant for unintentional [?] animal cruelty, but at least he looks and sounds like a credible (if deeply boring) candidate for the presidency. Which maybe why, given his track record of failure when seeking the Republican nomination, he has become the frontrunner.

There’s a precedent for this, of course. A US political party faces the prospect of having to run a presidential campaign with someone far away from the centre ground. Therefore, they take action, and the establishment moves to embrace a much more mainstream candidate. It happened to the Democrats, for example, in 2004, when the more radical Howard Dean (who, for a long-time seemed destined to be the nominee) was replaced by the much more mainstream (and much more pedestrian) John Kerry.

Which is the point – if nominated, Mitt Romney will be the Republican’s answer to John Kerry. And we all know how John Kerry’s bid for the presidency ended…

Predictions and the 2012 Presidential Election

Ok, since it has started, let’s talk about the Presidential 2012 Election in the US. Of course, making any sort of prediction about a contest that is still well over a year away is always going to be fraught with difficulty and risk, but here’s my headline prediction: Obama will win. Comfortably.

Sure, his first term has hardly been covered in glory, and those who saw him as something like the second coming of the Messiah have had a rough fall to earth. But it has also been lacking in disaster, and has arguably gone better than the first terms of both Bush Junior and Clinton (both of whom won comfortable re-elections). Furthermore, the remarkable electoral machine that took him from little known Senator to President is gearing up again. Every day now until November 2012 the President will be campaigning by default. Every time he appears on the TV it will be reinforcing the concept of Obama as President. In the meantime, little known or compromised Republicans will be vying to become the nominee. They will be fighting not only against each other but also against the awesome power of incumbency.

Plus, I rather suspect that while the narrative of the last Presidential Election was that it was an exciting, unpredictable contest, the narrative will be that this coming on is a boring, predictable race. Given what the polls are showing, Obama will coast to re-election. The stories will be about what is going wrong with the Republican campaign, why it isn’t gaining traction, why it isn’t going anywhere. Like the Kerry campaign or the Dole campaign.

There is always the risk of a rogue element, however. A third party candidate, like Anderson in 1980 or Perot in 1992, could make a difference. As could a serious scandal involving Obama. But the one rogue element that won’t make a difference to the outcome is Sarah Palin. Far from guaranteed the nomination if she runs (an anybody-but-Palin campaign looks like a distinct possibility), she also simply won’t connect with the majority of moderate Americans who make someone the President. Sure, she has passionate followers in the Christian Right, but she is too divisive a figure (and too intellectually shallow) to be a credible candidate in a national election. History has shown that the Presidential candidates from the extreme wings of either party tend to crash and burn – see McGovern and Goldwater. Palin would join them in the background of the history books. Which is why Palin should seriously consider whether it is actually in their best interests to run. After all, she has her own little niche in US politics. A defeat in a Presidential election would tarnish her image, particularly since that would leave her record as involved in 2 Presidential campaigns, and being on the losing ticket in both of them.

Change will come; it will come in 2016, when Obama can’t run again.

In what is probably the least surprising news story you'll hear all week, Barack Obama is going to run for a second term. And as things stand, he'll almost certainly win:

Despite shedding some support, polling by the Pew Research Center suggests Mr Obama is in a stronger position at this stage than either Bill Clinton or George W Bush, both of whom went on to win re-election convincingly.

In polling carried out in March, some 47% of registered voters said they would like to re-elect Mr Obama, with just 37% saying they would vote for an as-yet-unknown Republican candidate.

Of course, this news - while utterly unsurprising - does have one significant downside. It effectively fires the starting gun on a contest that is still over a year and a half away. Such is the insanity of modern US electoral politics...

The Bollocks People Talk About Politics Part 1*

"Well, you know the Mayan Prophecies, well, they say that the world will end in 2012 - and that's when Sarah Palin could become President!"

This is, of course, bollocks. Firstly, it is based on two big assumptions. Firstly, that the Mayan Prophecies will defy the record set by prophecies through the millennia by being accurate. This seems unlikely - not least because no fucker can decide what those prophecies actually mean. Secondly, this idea assumes that Palin will (a) run for President, (b) be nominated by her own (or, indeed, any) party and then (c) beat Obama at the actual election. There is no evidence that even (a) will occur - and it is a big leap from there to seeing her inaugurated as President.

But it is the little matter of the inauguration that truly shits on the idea that Palin is in some way a realisation of the end of the world in 2012 - if she ran/got nominated/won then she would become President in... 2013. After the supposed end of the world. See, US presidents are elected in one year, then actually take the office in the following year. Hence Reagan served as President from 1981 to 1989, Bush Snr from 1989 to 1993, and so on. There's a transition period in the US - something we just don't do here in the UK unless Gordon Brown is desperate to cling to power there is a hung parliament.

Don't get me wrong, I think President Palin is a terrifying idea, and I would far rather any Palin presidency took place after the world had ended rather than before. But there is nothing at all in the idea that she will be the fulfillment of the 2012 doom-mongering - in the highly unlikely event she is elected in 2012, she will be able to do bugger all about it until 2013.

*Both on da interwebs and in real life, so hyperlinks to particular testicular talkers on the subject of politics will not always be forthcoming.

The US Mid-term Elections in Perspective

How different it must all have looked to Obama two years ago. Then, he had just been elected by a legion of adoring followers. He had won the most convincing victory for a Democratic presidential candidate in a generation. And his followers seemed to think he was poised to be one of the greatest presidents of all time.

Now, he's just another president - kicked senseless by an electorate angry over the economy and his apparent failure to make "change" and "hope" actually mean something. He had a lot of political capital when he was elected, but large swathes of that were spunked away over health-care reform. He's battered, he's on the ropes but - and this is the crucial bit - there is no reason to think that's he given up or is defeated.

So, despite all the right-wing crowing on both sides of the Atlantic about "one-term Barry", I think it is far too early to write off Obama. And I still believe that in another two years time, Obama will be celebrating a comfortable win at the 2012 Presidential election. There are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, the mood of the electorate at mid-term elections tends to be very different to how they vote at Presidential elections. It is one thing to vote for a Tea-Partier in a Senate or House election, another to do the same for a presidential candidate. On both sides of the Atlantic, voters like using these sort of elections to fire a warning shot across the bows of their leaders. That is no guarantee that they are willing to actually dump them at the next election. Blair took kickings at local and by-elections; the British people still managed to elect that egregious idiot a number of times.

Secondly, this was not (quite) the comprehensive drubbing of the Democrats many were expecting. They lost control of the House, but not the Senate. Harry Reid kept his seat. The likes of Christine O'Donnell were (mercifully) rejected by the voters. The Democrats are battered, and bruised but not down and out. Furthermore, the heady rhetoric of many Republican candidates about "taking America back" means they will have to do a great deal to meet their campaign promises - and if they don't, they can expect the same sort of kicking next time out that Obama has received for not living up to the empty campaign slogan of "change".

Furthermore, there is tension within the Republican party between the mainstream and the Tea Party. And there is a real danger for that party that, come the Presidential primary season, a long drawn out battle will be fought between a mainstream Republican candidate and a Tea-Party member. If this happens (particularly if, as seems very likely, Obama will be renominated without a fight) then the spectacle of the Republican party in the run up to November 2012 will be bitter infighting. It's one of the key rules of modern politics - divided parties seldom win. As things stand, the Republican party lacks a clear message and a clear strategy. It consists of a party with two separate, and not necessarily compatible, wings eyeing each other up warily. And it is going to take a lot of compromise to get that party to unite behind one individual presidential candidate - and there is no guarantee that this candidate will be credible.

Finally, Obama has one massive advantage - incumbency. For the next two years, he could effectively campaign for re-election from the White House, showing that he is presidential, a real leader and with every pronouncement he makes heading to the top of the news bulletins. Contrast with the Republicans, who don't have a figurehead and aren't likely to have one for a good eighteen months. Obama has two years in which to get that formidable publicity machine that got him elected in the first place going again. As long as he understands that the voters aren't happy, he can do something to change that in his favour.

So I think Obama will re-election, and history has shown time and time again that presidents who suffer mid-term setbacks can go on to win again, sometimes by landslides. Of course, nothing is set in stone, and the Republicans may yet turn this muted victory into the start of a real campaign to take back the White House. But the Republicans aren't as strong or as united as they might appear to be, and Republican triumphalism over this election win is likely to be as damaging to their cause as apparent Democrat complacency was after Obama's win in 2008.

The Tea Party, Palin and The Republican Nomination

Some interesting commentary from Mark Mardell on the Tea Party successes in Republican primaries:

Both the polls and senior Republicans suggest that Tea Party favourite Christine O'Donnell hasn't a hope of winning the seat. But the Republican voters wanted her as their candidate nonetheless.

So when people tell you that Sarah Palin will not win the nomination in 2012 because she cannot beat President Obama, remember it is grassroots Republicans who make that decision, not party strategists or commentators.

There's a curious tension between the Tea Party and the Republicans; there is a sense in which each wants to co-opt the other, despite the fact that they are not actually compatible. I reckon this struggle will continue right up to the 2012 election; however, I don't doubt that the Republican party will end up absorbing the Tea Party movement. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way these things go.

Mardell's right, of course - if the Republican grass-roots want an unelectable candidate, then they can nominate one. And this may well be the way in which Palin wins the nomination in 2012. Yet the more I think about, the more I would sound a note of caution about assuming Palin will be the 2012 Republican nominee. While it is true that both parties in the US have nominated inept candidates (Goldwater and McGovern spring to mind), they have noted the result of this - landslide defeat. And you can see recent examples of how even the party faithful have ultimately decided to choose the credible candidate over the unelectable. That's why the likes of Howard Dean and Mike Huckabee - despite being the favourite for a substantial minority of their respective parties - were ultimately passed over in favour of more mainstream (and perhaps less inspiring) candidates. Despite the lack of a credible alternative at the moment, I suspect that this is what will happen with Palin; in the end, the party will almost certainly choose a more credible candidate than Palin because, ultimately, they want to beat Obama - not hand him a landslide re-election.