Presidential elections are awfully difficult to predict four years in advance. The 2008 election made that very clear. Still, the Republicans are thinking hard about the next one, especially since no clear front runner has emerged. I'd like to ponder about two of the potential contenders, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin.
I previously thought there was no way Palin will get the nomination in 2012. Though the base loves her, I figured they'd wake up and begin to think practically by the time the primaries roll around.
I've since come to the conclusion that she'd make an excellent sacrificial lamb if Obama is still popular in 2012. From listening to her in post-election interviews and from talking to some of her supporters, what has struck me is how deeply in denial they all are. They refuse to admit she had any negative impact on the ticket (though at the same time they claim the media destroyed her image). Their official line is that Palin helped soften a defeat that was inevitable given Bush's unpopularity and the economic meltdown.
That isn't totally wrong. There's no question Palin excited the right-wing base and continues to do so. But she also turned off numerous independents and moderate Republicans. Nobody has ever won a presidential election by appealing exclusively to the base of a party. Some might argue 2004 was an example, but that would be mistaken. Since it was a very close race, a slew of right-wing voters might have been just enough to put Bush over the edge, but he still had plenty of support from independents and moderates (though less so than Kerry).
Explaining this to Palin fans is like talking to a brick wall. They believe with firm conviction that she's the best thing that happened to the Republicans in a long time, and that the media elites are the only thing standing in her way. That level of conviction could propel her to the nomination in four years. She's the only candidate I could imagine being delusional enough to think she could beat a popular president. Who cares about the polls? They're as much a manufactured media creation as Barack Obama.
I wouldn't write off Jindal at this point, even after his poorly received speech. He's only 37, and is a genuine newcomer, having just three years in Congress and one as governor. If he captures the White House in 2012, he'll become the youngest president in history. If he waits till 2016, he'll still be younger than Obama is now. Even if he waits till 2040, he'll be younger than McCain is now! In short, he's got a long road ahead of him.
I just find it intriguing that Republicans looked to him as a potential redemptive hope. What is the appeal? One of the unwritten rules in politics is that if you don't have experience, you need a good dose of charisma--at minimum. I have heard people describe Jindal as charismatic, but in this speech he came off stilted and awkward. As a member of Toastmasters, I've acquired an increasing appreciation for the challenges of public speaking. It's a craft that can be cultivated, but some people just have an instinctive sense of how to connect with an audience, while some people don't. Even Palin has a resonant speaking voice and a smooth, natural delivery. That's why so many people failed to notice how big a disaster she was until she entered unscripted territory.
The sense I get with Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Michael Steele is that the Republicans are so desperate to find a conservative answer to Obama they'll seize on any good-looking fresh face in their party who's either a minority or a woman. And that says a lot about how superficially they understand the Obama phenomenon.