Daniel Larison says:
Do we really think that most Republican primary voters are more likely to nominate a woman for president than Democratic voters were two years ago? Do we really think that Republicans would prefer the less qualified candidate because she is a woman? Wouldn’t many Republicans want Romney to succeed to prove that the GOP is not dominated by religious conservatives who will not support a Mormon candidate? Wouldn’t that impulse to show religious tolerance overwhelm any impulse to promote Palin beyond her ability just to get credit for nominating the first woman nominee? If the 2012 nomination contest comes down to a head-to-head fight between Romney and Palin, there appears to be every reason to think that Romney prevails.
Scott Gallupo responds:
Does he beat her in New Hampshire? Let’s assume, given his New England ties, that he does. Throw in Michigan for identical reasons. Then comes South Carolina. And then Super Tuesday. Assuming Huckabee doesn’t run, Palin will crush Romney in Dixie, and she has obvious “Mama Grizzly” appeal in the Mountain states.
The Midwest and the Northeast will be competitive. There will be an anyone-but-Palin factor—but, in an open contest, this vote will split in any number of directions. Maybe that, plus the “It’s his turn” default thinking that seems to dominate Republican primaries, is enough to lift Romney in 2012.