No, she shouldn't be president. She is a lightweight compared to numerous other potential Republican candidates.

The country gets one shot -- one shot -- to undo the immense damage Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al have done. We can't roll the dice with Palin.

While I agree the more pressing question is whether Palin *should* be President, I don't find your examples regarding electability and polling data persuasive at all.

Palin is one of the very few -- only? -- potential 2012 candidates who has actually run on a nationwide ticket. Her numbers aren't depressed by voter unfamiliarity -- everyone knows who she is, and almost everyone has a pretty strong opinion about her, one way or the other. Indeed, of all the 2012 polling numbers pitting a Republican hopeful against Obama at this early stage, I would argue that the Palin-v.-Obama numbers are the most trustworthy in terms of their predictive value. Simply put, most people believe they have enough information about both candidates to say with confidence which way they would vote two years from now.

That's not to say it's impossible to move the needle to some extent, but once a voter is willing to tell a pollster that he has an "unfavorable" or "negative" opinion of a candidate, it is exceedingly difficult -- almost impossible, even -- ever to win that vote. Palin's negatives/unfavorable ratings, especially with independent voters, make her "virtually unelectable," as the PPP put it recently. And *more* exposure -- especially via reality television -- seems like the precisely wrong prescription for winning over independents and other conservatives who are disappointed and/or appalled by their current celebrity, showhorse-over-workhorse President.

No kidding, flenser. It's not like Obama limped across the finish line in 2008. That phrasing -- "to have a prayer of winning the presidency four years later" -- is bizarre, considering the historical closeness of 2000, the relative closeness of 2004, and the controversial Bush presidency in general. And by 2008 -- especially after the September financial crisis -- it was crystal clear that, barring a miracle, a Dem would win the White House, whether he/she was a DLC member or a Communist.

Here's proof that the Republicans are not "really, really right wing." Right this moment, the Editors of NR are declaring themselves fearful that a few of what they call "pork-friendly" Republican Senators will collude with the Dems to pass a $1.1 trillion dollar "middle finger" to the voters, in spite of the recent historic shellacking. If that's what a "really, really right-wing" party does, we are in even more trouble than is already apparent.

Any comparison of Palin with a come-from-behind or relatively unknown Democrat is presumptively invalid, for the following reasons.

The Democrats have had and will have the media to beat the drum for them, while ignoring their flaws. The media has done and will do just the opposite to any Republican. With Palin, they will do it with a vengeance.

And her total inability to think on her feet and give substantive responses to substantive questions will simply confirm the negative impressions fostered by the media. The more exposure she gets, the more her numbers will go down.

She would probably be a decent president, because she can surround herself with right-thinking experts. But, I don't think she can get elected.

"Good heavens, this Carter guy can’t even break 40 against the guy who pardoned Nixon?! He’s finished."

That's not very good polling analysis. The rule-of-thumb is that if the incumbent, who everybody knows, is polling below 50%, he's in trouble. You could see Ford was at risk of losing when he only managed 46% against Carter.

Palin's problem is that unlike Carter in 1976 or Obama in 2008 she's not an unknown. Everybody has heard of her and her negatives are high.

The question is not "Can she be elected". Almost anybody can be elected under the right circumstances. Just look at Carter and Obama. The question is how high are the obstacles between her and winning the election. And the answer is - pretty darned high.

The question is whether you'd prefer a 40% chance of getting Palin in the WH over a 50% chance of getting e.g. Pawlenty there.

No, much better we have John Thune the earmark king, Mike Huckabee the cap-and-trade king or Mitt Romney the health care king. Maybe we should just wait and see who the MSM nominates as the GOP candidate.

"I cannot be convinced that someone who could not top 53% of the popular vote was untouchable"

Well, that's part of the problem. Obama was pretty much the worst case scenario for Democrats -- radical liberal, no experience, questionable friends and associates -- and he STILL got 53% of the vote.

I agree McCain was cringe-inducing, but it's difficult to see how any other Republican, given the circumstances, does well enough to win.

The 2004 scenario is a close one. Voters were open to replacing Bush. The Democrats nominated a French-looking guy who wore spandex while wind-surfing. No, we'll keep the cowboy.

This time around un-exciting and un-offensive, dry wit, straight sentences, plain American principles, no spandex, no French pretense. Good chance. 52-48.