With conventional wisdom believing Hillary Clinton has a greater than 50% chance of being the 2016 nominee, does that mean Republicans will be pushed to counter with a female on the GOP ticket? If they were, who would that female be?

Report from Cheat Sheet:

Will Sarah Palin run against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election? No, it’s safe to say that she likely won’t. Though, as she said herself when asked, “never say never.”

That hasn’t stopped back and forth discussion on whether or not she should run, on whether or not the idea has merit. When it comes down to it, Palin’s resurgence has to do with a number of things. She’s being suggested as a solution to the GOP’s failure to compete with Democratic candidates, and failure to reach potential voters by alienating possible swing votes with overemphasis on certain issues, and underemphasis on others. She’s female and has played a prominent role in past presidential elections, running as Vice President to John McCain, so when Republicans scramble for a woman’s voice in their party that could compete with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her name is near the surface.

Of course, that doesn’t make her the only woman in the Republican party being considered for a roll in 2016. Kelly Ayotte’s name has been batted around quite a bit for the Vice Presidency, though on who’s ticket is still uncertain. “Ayotte could turn the ‘war on women’ narrative into a punch line,” said Steve Schmidt, manager of John McCain’s 2008 bid, to The Daily Beast. “In the category of those really talented women who can really break into the next level, I think Kelly Ayotte stands out. She has a lot of skills. There’s no on-the-job training and she clears that hurdle.”

If Sarah Palin ran and didn’t outright win the nomination, is there anyone who would risk giving her the number two spot given her baggage from 2008? I think there is a zero percent chance. Kelly Ayotte or another rising female Republican star, on the other hand, there is certainly as good a chance as any on that possibility.

14 COMMENTS

    • I agree with Sam, that a “me too” move of having a woman on the GOP ticket would be seen for what it is.

      But over the weekend, I did think of something. The memory of George W. Bush is still too fresh, so there is a significant anti-Bush feeling in the country. And Barbara Bush has said the country shouldn’t be run by only two families, anyway. Jeb has also said he’s not “ready.”

      SO–what if this is what is really going on:

      Jeb runs to make the Bush-Clinton situation more blatant. So Dems start to look for an alternative. Hillary will be too old to run next time–and would be seen as a two-time loser, so if she’s dropped, she’s don. But Jeb would still be young enough to run in 2020–and the memory of W would be buried.

      OR–just having Jeb run will make Hillary less attractive, because of the Bush-Clinton cabal. But ONE of them could run, so if she drops out, he would have a much better chance.

  1. Since when has the GOP become the copycat party? The DNC runs a black man so we have to run a black man. The DNC runs a woman so we have to run a woman, too? Where is our political creativity? How about nominating the first Hispanic for the Presidency instead? Ted Cruz for President in 2016! A dynamite unbeatable ticket might be Cruz/Pence (that’s former Indiana Governor – prior to that Congressman – Mike Pence) to win

  2. As I said earlier I have yet to see any candidates FROM EITHER PARTY that I feel has the “Gravitas” for the position. And as Sam said “It is far to early for us to get into details for or against any candidate”. To much can happen between now and then.

    With that being said republicans are tearing down every Chevy because they don’t handle like a Porsche….when all you have to offer in return is a Ford or Honda. In other words if you criticized President Obama as being ONLY A ONE TERM SENATOR OR NOT BEING BORN IN THE UNITED STATES be prepared for the same attacks against Senator Cruz and Paul. They have the same credentials !

    • Surf: Actually, Oprah would have been a good Senate candidate. It fits in with her ambitions, and she is greatly respected by all kinds of people.

      • I don’t believe that Oprah is as respected or loved as some might believe. And she is almost as racist as Melissa Harris-Perry, she just hides it well. Oprah could certainly win a seat in Congress from the state of IL.

  3. This is off-topic, but we have a new sex scandal:

    http://www.hannapub.com/ouachitacitizen/news/article_dce7369e-be77-11e3-9b86-0017a43b2370.html

    Vance McAllister of Louisiana was caught on a surveillance tape kissing a staffer.

    It was quite a kiss (as you can see at the link), but since when is a kiss a crisis? My guess is that there was a lot more to it, and McAllister has learned that denying things just drags it out, and makes you look like a liar in addition to being a cheat.

    Ordinarily, I would say, cripes, leave the guy alone. But this is another case in which the guy did a holier-than-thou campaign. So it is worth discussing because of the hypocrisy, not just the smooch.

    As a side-bar, it’s scary that the camera in your OWN office can be used against you!

  4. We’ve talked about Stephen Colbert on here, so I’m stretching the topic here. . .

    I just heard that they’re picking Stephen Colbert to replace David Letterman. I think that’s a big mistake. A lot of people didn’t get that the Colbert on the Colbert Report was a parody, so some think he’s a rightwinger (a conservative website used his graphics), while others didn’t get his irony, so they think he’s a leftwinger.

    They should have picked Jimmy Kimmel. Imagine a direct challenge of Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel. THAT would have been something to see.

    I think Colbert will hold Letterman’s office, but he’s too sophisticated for most people (he recently sang on Broadway), so Fallon will take the timeslot. Shoulda picked Kimmel.

Comments are closed.