The Hill:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the front-runner to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, according to online oddsmakers.
Despite a slew of negative press this fall about Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) running mate, online gaming site Superbook.com puts Palin’s odds at 3.5-1, the best among Republican hopefuls.
Other top GOP contenders include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose odds are set at 4-1, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, at 5-1.
Former Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), who is now governor of Louisiana, has a 6-1 shot of claiming the nomination.
BetUs Sportsbook lists Palin and Mitt Romney as co-favorites.
I said before the election that whether John McCain or Barack Obama won, whoever takes the helm in January might be in for only one term because the next four years will be rough, and Obama has already received heavy criticism from the far far left for his cabinet picks, so his performance in the next term will determine how much support he keeps from that faction of the Democratic party.
With that said, had McCain/Palin won in 2008, I would have favored Palin to be the nominee chosen for 2012 while McCain stepped down.
Since Obama won, I think the two younger rising stars of the GOP, Palin and Bobby Jindal from Louisiana could stand to wait until the 2016 race before tossing their hats into the ring, so to speak. It will give them both time to accrue the experience needed to bring the full force of the party and supporters behind them as a joint ticket or behind either one of them singularly.
Allahpundit from Hot Air thinks that barring a "catastrophic first term", Obama will be a shoe in for reelection.
Barring a catastrophic first term, The One will be heavily favored for reelection, leading young’uns like Jindal and Palin to bow out and bide their time until 2016.
He has a point but I disagree with the premise.
First off, just using Obama's economic plan as an example, we have seen economists tell us his agenda is unattainable and he cannot implement the "feel good" plans he has brought to the table.
Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.
That is a recipe for disaster which is why I disagree with Allah's premise that catastrophe can be avoided for Obama in the first place.
That is but one example, but the economy is likely to be the deciding factor in how Obama's term as president is perceived in the next four years. The economy was the main factor when I previously said whoever won November's election would in all likelihood be a one term president.
Palin and Jindal would both do well to focus on 2016 and let 2012 take care of itself one way or another. On that, I agree wholeheartedly with Allah.
.
