5
   

Hockey Moms vs. Soccer Moms

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 01:44 pm
@Robert Gentel,
It does, I agree.

I started to write another long post but I realized midway through that I was basically just saying the same things over again. (As in -- "Swiftboating?" Pshaw. She's an unknown, out-of-left field pick, she was going to get media attention, and I think that overall the mainstream media attention was responsible and necessary, highlighting actual problems. Cue deja vu.)

Nate Silver:

Quote:
In the end, will McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin help or hurt the G.O.P. ticket?

Her favorability ratings have declined by ten or fifteen points in the span of a week. She’ll play well among “Perot independents” out West, and she obviously took Alaska out of play, but in a lot of places her résumé may seem thin. McCain had to take a risk because he was so far behind, but it was a big risk. It violated the first rule of picking a vice presidential candidate, which is “Do no harm”"she’ll turn off a lot of voters. Vice presidential nominees are usually very likable. People forget now, but even Cheney had high favorability scores when he was picked in 2000.


http://harpers.org/archive/2008/09/hbc-90003596
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2008 08:03 am
@sozobe,
Quote:
But a third of independent voters now indicate they are less likely to support McCain because of Palin, compared with 20 percent who said so in an ABC poll a month ago. Palin now repels more independents than she attracts to McCain. The share of independent women less apt to support McCain because of the Palin pick has more than doubled to 34 percent, while the percentage more inclined to support him is down eight points.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100103600.html

I do think that unless she utterly crashes and burns (which could happen) there is likely to be an uptick in her popularity after the debate tonight. The bar has been set soooo low that I think she's very likely to exceed expectations.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2008 09:01 am
@sozobe,
a couple of mmmm amusing articles
or mebbe not amusing

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/how_palin_mccains_kryptonite_could_still_take_the_debate.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/the_top_ten_excuses_sarah_pali.html

Quote:
We all know Sarah Palin is going to beat all expectations in the vice-presidential debate tomorrow night, because when you are trying to clear a bar that's already on the ground, it's really hard to not jump high enough. But still, many (including staunch conservatives) are beginning to discuss the possibility of eliminating her from the McCain ticket. Though it has long been argued that this would be political suicide, McCain strategist Steve Schmidt has already proven that he's able to take the sourest lemons and make them into fabulous, audacious lemonade. He's actually a short-term polling genius, and depending on timing, a stunt like dropping Palin could give the McCain camp another giant boost. We know you think we're crazy, but let us give you some potential scenarios in which a Palin departure could be turned by the McCain campaign into a plus. Behold, a top-ten list!


from the list (lots of imbedded links in the article)

Quote:
9. She could fall on her own sword and claim that 5-month-old Trig is her daughter Bristol's baby. Let's be clear " this wild Internet theory has been discarded by the Times and other reputable sources. But feigning its truth would thrill liberal bloggers, who might give McCain a pass in their glee over being correct on a widely held, secretly fervent belief. It would be the ultimate contrarian surrender " and Andrew Sullivan would basically die. Also, back in Alaska, she might just get another pass for trying to protect her daughter. If she used to be starring in a Disney movie, she'd now be starring in a Lifetime movie!


Quote:
2. She could decide McCain isn't conservative enough for her. Sarah Palin is so hard right that to her, neither evolution nor the morning-after pill even exist. It would be completely legitimate for her to explain that, after studying up on the positions of McCain, he is not conservative enough to her tastes, and she would not want to be a part of his administration. Sure, this would rattle the base, who flocked to McCain after her appointment, but it would give him an opportunity to endlessly rattle off his conservative credentials again. And it would reassure independents that he truly is a maverick, and allies with no strict ideology. You can just imagine the key moment, during which McCain asks her to sign a statement with him opposing ANWR drilling. Palin shouts, "That's a negative, Ghost Rider, those oil fields are full," and then moments later he issues the statement anyway, forcing her to yelp and spill coffee on herself.


#9 is THE best. G'bye Mr. Sullivan!
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2008 10:20 am
@ehBeth,
Tres amusing. :-)

Palin's not going to leave.

In fact, wrote about it here:

http://observationalism.com/2008/10/01/will-sarah-palin-be-on-the-ticket-november-4th/

(And was arguing with Andrew Sullivan's take that she wouldn't be on the ticket in November -- is the nymag guy suggesting that Sullivan would die of happiness?)
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2008 10:24 am
@sozobe,
nope
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2008 10:27 am
@ehBeth,
Hee, just read the whole top 10, love it... Smile

Quote:
7. God could tell her it's not her time. Seriously, who is she to argue with God? And who are you? (No, seriously, who are you " do we need to get a witch doctor in here?)
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2008 05:05 am
@Robert Gentel,
I think I had this all wrong.

I agreed that Palin was a liability if allowed to campaign but did not think Palin would be a net negative if she was kept in the closet except for debates and though she wasn't kept off camera and served up some monster gaffes I think she's just so mind-numbingly uninformed about everything she's asked that it's a liability.

I think there are a lot of conservatives who are sick of having people who are stupid (Palin) or who are popularly perceived as stupid (Bush) represent them and am now starting to believe that this is prevalent enough that she would have been a downside even off camera.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2008 06:47 am
@Robert Gentel,
Yep.

I think she'll have a couple of bounces yet -- maybe she'll finally have a decent answer in an interview, or otherwise give people who REALLY want to like her an opportunity to do so.

Plus I think it's still too early for tracking polls to catch a post-debate bounce.

Also things might swing too far -- she might become so entrenched as a figure of ridicule that the pushback people arrive ("hey, don't be mean to her!")

But yes, net negative, whether she's in front of the camera or not.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2008 07:45 am
@sozobe,
But...she must have had SOMETHING...to be elected governor of Alaska, right?

Or...is Alaska, or state governorship, such a totally different beast from anything to do with national politics, that it is like a different planet?

Or (as with state premierships in Oz) is it a totally individual thing?

Re bounces.....if it is only people already determined to like her, isn't it a flatline rather than a bounce?

Doesn't a bounce imply new (if transient) supporters?

Is there a sign of a bounce?

I'd have thought the "don't-be -mean" people were already mobilized.

Be interesting to see any bouncing.





sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2008 08:00 am
@dlowan,
I think Alaska is really really different in a few ways.

One just has to do with her curiosity level. As far as I can tell, she lives in Alaska and is interested in Alaska. I don't actually think she's stupid in an across-the-board way -- I just think she's more interested in the power and prestige of being a vice president than in the issues she'd need to deal with as VP or president. (And the trajectory of VP is usually intended to be towards P, even if nothing happens to the prez. See Bush, George H.W.)

Plus, it sounds like she was swept to power in Alaska in a situation where the incumbents were having serious problems. I don't know how strong her competitors were. I read stuff about her gubernatorial debates where she trapped an opponent in a sloppy lie/ contradiction pretty handily.

But especially, Alaska is rolling in oil lucre. It's kind of hard to mess up right now. (That's not always true, they've had harder times, but right now gas prices are high.)

I think she has charisma and local knowledge that allowed her to sound a lot smarter than she does now on local (Alaskan) issues.

Plus Alaska is large geographically but it's small in terms of population -- there aren't necessarily the range of issues involved in governing Alaska that there are in governing California, say. (California's extreme so just say Minnesota even.)

I don't think she has the kind of curiosity that will allow her to absorb and synthesize much of the bigger stuff, beyond regurgitating talking points.

That is, I think she's far more likely to be effective on a local level than a national (not to say international) level.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 05:43 pm
@sozobe,
Karen Tumulty wrote:
The Women's Vote Revisited

That's why they call them swing voters.

When I wrote about the women's vote in dead-tree TIME a few weeks back, in the days after the GOP convention, our polling was showing that there was indeed a decided "Palin effect." John McCain and Barack Obama were running dead-even among women voters overall, and among older, non-college-educated white women--who are classic swing voters, and a key demographic that both parties are watching closely this year--McCain enjoyed a commanding 18-point advantage.

But no longer. In the latest TIME poll, which is part of our "How America Decides" series (it is featured in the upcoming dead-tree issue, though I don't think there's a link on TIME.com yet), Obama has opened up a 19-point lead (56-37%) over McCain among likely female voters. He even leads narrowly (48-45%) among white women--a group that George Bush won by 11 points in 2004. Among married women, whom Bush won 57-42% over John Kerry, Obama is ahead 51-42%. Our pollster Mark Schulman notes that no Democratic presidential candidate in recent history has had numbers that strong with married women and white women.


http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/the_womens_vote_revisited.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/15/2021 at 06:41:33