What Palin means for Republicans

There were some posters that questioned why I called Palin a "gamechanger" candidate. First off, as I said, she has to pass the 'media test' or otherwise, she'll have changed the game in a negative manner for the GE. But as for how she's a potential positive gamechanger for McCain, we only need to review the numbers on whats the matter with Republicans this year.

McCain's "very favorable" ratings have been stuck all year. They reflect a Republican base that is in the dumps. On the otherhand, Palin is of and from the Republican base, and if she passes the media gauntlet, she'll succeed in changing this race for McCain. You only need to look at what she did for McCain's fundraising numbers, $10M in a couple of days, to realize she has this potential.

A large part of why Obama is ahead of McCain throughout the year has been because of the disparity of Democrats to Republicans in the sample. There is always a Democratic advantage, and many times its 8-10 percent. Take the recent CBS poll that found Obama up 48-40.

If you look into who they are polling, partisan-wise, you'll find a make up of 26% Republican, 35% Democrat, and 38% Independent. Underlying that 9% partisan advantage is an assumption of a a massive underlying shift in the electorate-- one that has happened since 2000 and 2004, and even since the 2006 midterms.

In the last two presidential races, this was the exit polling of partisan voters:

                04       00

Democratic      37       39      
Republican      37       35
Independent     26       27
From that, all things being the same, we could project a 38-36 Democratic over Republican advantage in turnout in 2008, and Independents would make up the rest, at 27 percent. But CBS finds the Democrats at 35 percent, 3 percent below, and Republicans even further down, at 26 percent, having fallen a full 10 percent.

Now, many of us would not be shocked at this. Things are not the same, and one might point to the '06 mid-term election as a pre-confirmation of the 08 projected numbers, but they really don't confirm the shift at all:

               06     04     00

Democratic     38     37     39      
Republican     36     37     35
Independent    26     26     27
In fact, as you can see in the exit poll above of House votes, they just confirm the decades trend, with enough of a slight improvement to have shifted battleground races to the Democratic Party.

Enter 2008, and the CBS poll is projecting that Independents become the largest political block in 2008:

               08     06     04     00

Independent    38     26     26     27
Democratic     35     38     37     39      
Republican     26     36     37     35
CBS is not alone in this, they have a similar partisan makeup I've seen in other polls, because they reflect the 2008 GE climate in the abstract. See Rasmussen: (For the month of August, the targets are 40.6% Democrat, 31.6% Republican, and 27.8% unaffiliated. For July, the targets were 41.4% Democrat, 31.5% Republican, and 27.1% unaffiliated).

Here's the reality of what Palin means:

Palin’s selection – and the overall sharpening of McCain’s campaign in recent weeks – clearly is firing up the GOP rank-and-file. While the 73% of Democrats who say they are voting for their candidate with enthusiasm was reflected in the record turnout for the primaries in the spring, it is interesting to note that 57% of Republicans now say they are eager to vote for McCain. Previous surveys have not shown this level of GOP enthusiasm.
My guess is that all the hype and research around Palin this week is all serving the purpose of making her stage on Wednesday even bigger. And from the looks of it on Saturday, she'll knock it out of the park for Republicans. Not for you and I, that's not what the aim here it-- its Republican voters of the past 8 years that are now saying they are Independent, but really lean Republican when they vote. In the end, the Palin pick is a bet that Barack Obama has a higher threshold to cross for their vote than does what Sarah Palin adds to John McCain.

Then there's the talk about Palin being the Eagleton of Republicans. This is wishful thinking, and denial of whats going on-- all wrapped up into one big long Labor Day political junkie echo chamber thats morphed into exactly the sort of hubris which Joe Trippi warns. If you want to learn about how the right feels about Palin (and McCain), read more of Byron York and less of TPM and Jeralyn. I get the point, which Jeralyn makes below in the comments of her thread, about why she's hyping up a 'drop-out' date for Palin:

She's energizing the radical right and evangelicals who will pump a ton of money into McCain's campaign. The Republicans were apathetic and resigned to a probable loss, now they are excited.
It's true.

Still a big 'if' on whether Palin passes through the media gauntlet without losing her national credibility. They will not settle for a Wed. speech either, but will also want to test her in a scrum (this is where Quayle became Quayle). But this gets to the larger point, of whether the Palin pick has the potential to shake-up the entire election. I doubt it, but not to the point where I'd entirely discount it from happening. Especially now that the Republicans have their evangelical conservative base excited.

Tags: Sarah Palin (all tags)



Re: What Palin means for Republicans

I still feel you are wrong, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.  

Didn't Quayle become Quayle when he bombed his intro speech?  Or do you mean that the Intro started the ball and the press conference was the final nail in the coffin?

by yitbos96bb 2008-09-02 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

You think I'm wrong in Palin energizing the Republican base?  Do you have anything to back up that opinion?

As for Quayle, I only recall the press conference. The deer in the headlights look is memorialized as he was cornered in that scrum.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

No, you're not wrong there.  She energized the base.  However, George Bush energized the Republican base too.  That does come at a cost and no abortions for a raped women, no sex education, and censorship of libraries are not popular positions.

by thezzyzx 2008-09-02 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Your point of bringing in Bush points exactly to what I argued in the post above.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Bush had his manufactured security creds, Palin does not.  That cuts a lot of her potential away.

Bush was all 911 all the time.  Palin would terrify people in that context.  Not the same.

by mady 2008-09-02 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

On the other hand, she has the VPILF factor going for her.  I'm not sure what it says about the state of our union that that domain was registered months ago...

by username 2008-09-02 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

The first big difference here is that Bush successfully ran (among Republicans and Independents) as a moderate, as a "Compassionate Conservative", as someone who was middle-of-the-road centrist.

The second big difference is that Bush had fewer and smaller skeletons in his closet than Palin has thus far. He was generally well thought of in Texas (admittedly, the governor is not all that powerful here, but still), even among Democrats. No abuse of power allegations, no memberships with unsavory groups, etc.

There's no question at all that Palin has fired up the base. If they get their way, she's there for the long haul. If you have any questions about that, listen to right-wing talk radio.

On the other hand, there's little question that moderate Republicans are more than a little worried. Delegates, operatives, regular folks -- it seems to go up and down the party. There are quite a few reports of increased division within the Republican party.

In short: Bush drew the Republican party together in 2000, and in 2004 he was a rallying point. Palin is doing the opposite. She has extremely limited appeal to the business and moderate wings of the party, and the conservative base is just nowhere near big enough to elect a President (see Pat Buchanan's run). The conservative base is more than big enough to lose them an election, though.

Her problem is essentially intractable from how I see it; anything she does to placate moderates will be seen as a sell-out from conservatives. I think she'd just lose both. And to whatever extent we keep hearing more scandals, she's just peeling off more moderates.

As has been oft said, people don't vote for VP. That's true. But VP nominations can split or heal parties. And -- strongly, in this case -- VP nominations can reflect on the judgment of the presidential candidate. In this case, I think it's causing conservatives to think better of McCain, but pretty much everyone else to think worse of him. That only actually hurts him if it drives his perceived judgment below Obama's, for the people in question, but I think that's starting to happen.

I think she's going to give a pretty good speech (that few but the base will hear, given the lack of interest in the Republican convention and the distractions). I'd still give some odds that she never makes a speech at all; insiders are going to be watching the poll numbers extremely closely over the next couple days. But assuming she does, she'll give a speech that will keep the base fired up and won't do much at all to move the rest.

My guess is that after that it'll be drip, drip, drip of scandals for the next two months, driven almost entirely by the media rather than the Obama campaign. It's going to keep McCain off message when he needs to be on message. The base isn't going to care about any of that.

The irony here is that we were all worried about a divided Democratic party and the Republicans having their act together. This one decision may, along with stellar performances by Obama and both Clintons in Denver, have completely reversed that, and we may have a very strong Democratic party versus a divided Republican party in some amount of chaos.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-02 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

bush had dui's and he was a frat boy cheerleader and he was a terrible debater, but he was the guy you want a beer with. Sarah will get Republican women to go to the polls.  She'll bring in money and volunteers.

But the main point of her is to come, she'll remind everyone of the primary and she'll have a way of bringing up Barack's 'issues' that had seemingly been laid to rest as old news.

She's also a girl, and she's news, the media and the bloggers can't stop talking about her.  McCain is boring, Sarah incites interest.  It almost seems that Barack is running against her, and no one thought Joe was very interesting or things John is running against Joe.  

by anna shane 2008-09-04 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

I think she will shake up the entire election but then end result will be a net negative for McCain. Sure the extreme right wing abortion-clinic-bombing types are thrilled about this pick, but there are reasonable Republicans who are horrified that someone who's political experience is roughly equivalent to being in the PTA for a few years then running a state with a population of a small city, like being Mayor of say Albuquerque, for 2 years doesn't prepare you to be POTUS. They would rather sit this election out, vote Democratic, or vote third party. I'm in a profession with mostly well educated Republicans and a minority of progressive Democrats and this is the unanimous sentiment I've heard from the Republicans so far. I don't know all the Republican demographics, but the educated wing has to be at least the same size, if not vastly larger, that the abortion-clinic-bombing wing.

As distasteful as it may seam, its probably vitally important for some brave 501c to point out over and over again that a two time Melanoma survivor of McCain's age has about a 1 in 4 chance of living for 4 more years and only a 1 in 10 chance of living 8. It may sound cold but it's backed up by life insurance actuary tables. So, if McCain-Palin are elected, there is at least a 70% chance and probably a 90% chance that Palin will be POTUS # 45. That should scare some sense into every Republican with a college education, even if it is from the University of Idaho.

by BeekerDynasty 2008-09-02 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Oh, jeez you are nuts!  Those cancer statistics are total batshit.

I  think Jerome is right.

For the last two years she has been governor of Alaska, with a budget of $11 Billion and over 25,000 employees. So it doesn't stack up that poorly.

Before that she was head of Alsaska's Oil and  Gas Ethics Commission.  It was her performance there that helped her beat Mukawski by over 30%.

The way to take her down is on the issues. Not her pregnant daughter or even lack of experience (although it is a decent argument but double sided)

by dMarx 2008-09-02 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

yes, and bring up McCain when you mention her, she's getting too much attention, she's too newsy.  She's another McCain, isn't one more than enough?  

by anna shane 2008-09-04 04:47PM | 0 recs
Are we them?

Jerome happens to be right in this instance -- there is nothing to be accomplished in shooting the messenger.

These are low information (single issue) voters. Palin excites them. Does it excite them enough? Probably not, but time will tell.

by iohs2008 2008-09-02 07:24AM | 0 recs
If she gives the same stump speech...

...she's not going to move anyone.

The only thing that impressed anyone in that speech was the bridge to nowhere reference and that's been proven to be a lot more problematic.

So far, the net effect of this pick seems to be to extend Obama's bounce.  Rasmussen has him at his highest total ever today.

by thezzyzx 2008-09-02 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

Really, are you the targeted Republican in the know of what was impressive there?

Biden didn't bump Obama's numbers either. This is still Obama's bump and has nothing to do with Palin.

From Rasmussen: "Despite all the national attention that has been focused on Sarah Palin, public perceptions of the Alaska Governor have changed little in the last few days."

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

She's been out on the stump for 4 days now.  Two of her speeches have been on news channels.  So far, she hasn't exactly been helping McCain's numbers.

She could redeem herself on Wednesday, yes.  I am worried about that.  However, her appeal to the base is that they know her beliefs.  She's been very quiet about them on the stump.  The question is now if she has to talk about them in public.

Of course her, "Look at my cool, exotic family," stump speech might play differently now.

by thezzyzx 2008-09-02 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

I agree with Jerome since day one it was about GOTV,

the GOP base was lethargic, this was not good when it would come down to who got people out to vote.

and now they are getting excited, and some idiot bloggers, but mostly the MSM, are missing the real stories to cover the sexy stuff.

she lied about earmarks,
she lied about the Bridge to nowhere

THIS is what there should be front page blogs about EVERYWHERE.

get the media to discuss this!

by TruthMatters 2008-09-02 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

Sorry, too busy talking about Bristol Palin, can't discuss real issues.

by dMarx 2008-09-02 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

I expect the focus will be on reform, and she'll likely attack Obama-Biden as well, probably use 'more of the same' against Democrats and Republicans alike.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

And this is why I'm not terrified about Palin.  Cautious? Sure, anything can happen.  But terrified?  No.

I'll agree that this is a game changer, but the game that has changed is McCain.  He was doing the branding game.  The entire convention was about how Obama wasn't ready to lead.  It was going to build up from his August attack and knock Obama down.  Now that's gone.

McCain is now trying to say that he's the REAL change and - according to you - that Obama is more of the same.  Maybe someone will buy that, but it seems like a long shot to paint Obama as more of the same.  

McCain was making gains on Obama and the DNC destroyed that.  Now he's starting from scratch with 2 months until the election.  Sure it's possible that he'll do it, but if he doesn't get a convention bounce - and a convention spent asking questions about Palin is making that less likely - we're left with a few debates and the possibility of a disaster.

Did he energize his base?  Yes.  But that came at a cost.  

by thezzyzx 2008-09-02 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

also note that for the McCain Campaign to do the change successfully they would have to be nearly flawless,

and this campaign is not.

I doubt they can handle changing their message 180 and this VP doesn't help, we all saw the tucker video of him being asked for 1 executive decision she made as the Commander of the Alaska Guard.

he got the base, but he wont get independents with this, and thats what he needs to win in the end.

by TruthMatters 2008-09-02 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

That is the smart attitude I think.  

But McCain did what he had to do.  Playing it safe wasn't going to win. It is a Democratic year.  He had to do the "hail Mary."

Risky, yes. But McCain is playing the hand he has been dealt.

by dMarx 2008-09-02 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

Why would reform be a winning issue?  The McCain-Palin ticket has no expertise on the economy and a debatable advantage on national security, due solely to McCain.  Is "reform" even among the top 20 important issues this cycle?

by rfahey22 2008-09-02 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

Read the actual Rasmussen numbers:

If McCain's strategy was to reach out to women voters, however, thus far it hasn't been successful. The night after the announcement, slightly more women voters viewed Palin as the right choice for McCain's running mate, but now 41% say she was not, versus 36% who still believe she was a good choice. Forty-one percent (41%) of women say they are less likely now to vote for McCain because of Palin, as opposed to 31% who say they are more likely to support him. Women voters were essentially even on this question in the earlier survey

Men still back McCain's decision. Forty-one percent (41%) say she was the right choice, while 37% disagree. Earlier, men favored the decision by a 43% to 31% margin. Forty-three percent (43%) of men voters say they are more likely to vote for McCain because of his choosing of Palin as a running mate, but 34% say they are less likely to do so. This is a jump in support from the earlier survey.

OK that last sentence is good news for McCain, but that's it.  I don't see going from 43/31 to 41/37 (is Palin the right choice) being a small change.  Neither is going from even among women on more/less likely to vote to a 10 point deficit.  Her unfavorability rating went from 26% to 36%.  These are large moves.

by thezzyzx 2008-09-02 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: If she gives the same stump speech...

she's given him a bump of five percent of pug women. she's brought in money and she dominates the news. It used to be John who? will it now be Barack who?  

by anna shane 2008-09-04 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Yesterday afternoon on CNN they spent most of the time from the convention floor talking about two things: her daughter's pregnancy and her hiring of a lawyer. Not exactly the way they wanted to roll this thing out to the national media. I think that the only people who will end up "energized" by this are people that were never going to vote for Obama anyway. If these folks are nominal independents than the race might be closer than I expect it to be, but I think in the end this pick will do nothing but show that McCain has very bad judgement and a temperment not suited to the big chair.

by wasder 2008-09-02 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Yesterday afternoon was Labor Day too.

Look, I'm not throwing a wet blanket on the idea that Palin is failing the media test. She may will be, even though I've seen them turn on a dime for a speech and a press avail before, that met their standards.

And you are right, about who would wind up being "energized" in the end for McCain. But that wouldn't have happened with just McCain, only with the choice of Palin as VP.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

McCain's obvious lack of vetting is setting off alarm bells in the media.  one good speech is not going to stop them from digging into what is clearly a fertile field of undiscovered materials. It will become obvious to everyone that McCain knew next to nothing about this person. Also, nothing I have seen from her so far gives me any indication that she will knock the doors of Wednesday.

by wasder 2008-09-02 06:23AM | 0 recs
What Palin has really wrought

She has woken up the Traditional Media to investigate the McSame ticket. McSame has been skating whilst Obama has been scrutinized to death. Now the hounds are being loosed on these rethuglicans with a real thirst for blood! I don't know if Obama's great speech triggered them or the obvious terrible choice of Palin but I do know it's happening. He and Palin are in for some serious questioning from now on. This I believe is going to be far more important to the compaign than invigorating the evangelical base.

by eddieb 2008-09-02 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

no, she gets the evangelicals voting and giving money and praying in circles.  She can attack Barack with impunity.  

by anna shane 2008-09-04 04:50PM | 0 recs
The Vice President to Nowhere

a great round-up of where things stand with Palin:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/20 08/09/02/the-vice-president-to-nowhere/

by suzenews 2008-09-02 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

what is pissing me off is she is getting a pass!

she lied about earmarks
she lied about the bridge to nowhere!

cover this you morons in the media, we don't care about the 17 year old unless you plan on talking about how Abstinence only doesn't work.

The Effing media will turn her into a victim and it will be democrats fault how?

THEY ARE IGNORING THE REAL STORIES, just because the media loves sex sex sex.

stupid MSM

by TruthMatters 2008-09-02 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

we don't care about a 17-year old being pregnant, but a lot of people out there do.  the same way a lot of people cared that John Kerry said he was "for it before he was against it" and Al Gore sighed while George Bush was making an ass of himself in the debates.

i think the way to play the 17-year-old thing is to say "this just shows you that anyone, even a kid from a loving family like the Palins can get into trouble.  This doesn't mean that these kids are morally corrupt somehow, this is just a part of life.  The problem is that many, many kids aren't as fortunate to have a prosperous and loving family.  For those kids, we need to try to be there.  That's what the Palins don't get.  That's why abstinence-only and cutting social programs are not the right way to go."  Something like that.

by the mollusk 2008-09-02 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Well put!

by nintendofanboy 2008-09-02 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

yep, and she'll get that pass until the election. Not fair, but she will.  Barack also got a pass, but his was in the primary.  It's timing.  

by anna shane 2008-09-04 04:52PM | 0 recs

I agree with Jerome.  That doesn't happen often.

Listen, I was saying that Palin was McCain's only chance for awhile before it happened, and I'm kinda angry with myself for suggesting it if, as it seems to many, the opinions and research of bloggers did have something to do with the choice.

Honestly, I didn't think he'd be allowed to do it by the Old Boys' Network.  What I didn't really take into account is that the GOP masters probably think that they can control Palin if something happens to McCain.  They might be able to... I don't know.  To all accounts, Palin is the true religious fundamentalist that the Bushes only paid lipservice to being.

It's a huge gamble, and Palin may yet surprise us... and possibly in a very bad way, like when George W. Bush surprised us with his casually banal evil.

Right now, the media is in feeding frenzy over Palin and the Republican convention is in shambles due to the hurricane(s).  I don't know what we can do to make sure the baseline tracks lower after everything dies down except keep pounding on the fact that she's not as big a reformer as they're making her out to be, the PTA is not the same as the Illinois State Senate, and that she's essentially the beneficiary of institutionalized Alaskan Republican corruption, as evidenced by her unconditional support from Ted Stevens.

On a side note, I keep getting this sinking feeling that Stevens is going to be exonerated by his trial.  The entire thing is just far too staged, and I don't trust the Justice Department one bit.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-02 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans


I think the failure of your analysis is evident when the negative effects of picking a red meat religious right candidate are considered. Sure, Dobson and crew come on board, but the indys are bound to be further turned off by McCain/Palin and Republican governing in general.

McCain's numbers among women actually went down. Running Palin is a lot like the Illinois GOP bringing over Alan Keyes to run against Obama in 2004. Religious right conservatives love Alan Keyes too. But Illinois doesn't have enough of them, and the US looks a lot more like Illinois than it does Alaska.

I think 2004 gave the wrong impression about the ability of the religious right to win elections.

by wengler 2008-09-02 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

I also think "energized" or not, these are the type of good old fashioned Americans who come out and vote and will invariably support any Republican over any Democrat for president.

I think this really exposes McCain's positions on social issues, positions many low-information/independent voters probably didn't know about.

I'm betting it'll turn out a net minus, especially because it undermines the who experience message, not to mention her many scnadals.

by nintendofanboy 2008-09-02 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

She may fire up the base, but I think it will hurt him with independents/moderates. Not because of her extreme right wing views(she doesn't come across that way, at least not yet), but a lot of people I talk to( albeit, not very scientific) were worried about Obama's lack of experience, but now worry about Palin becoming president. Further, it looks like an opportunistic decision on McCain's part, which doesn't speak well to his character. Most women i talk to see this as a cheap ploy.

by Mr Sifter 2008-09-02 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

"It looks like an opportunistic decision on McCain's part, which doesn't speak well of his character. Most women I talk to see this as a cheap ploy."

Good point.  This is so transparant and cynical.

I put this right up there with supporting W in 04 and flipping-flopping on torture.

For these reasons I take a little solice in the fact that even if he wins, he is unlikely to ardently oppose the Dem congress, since he is apt to follow along with anything popular at the time.

by nintendofanboy 2008-09-02 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Can you see the debate where Obama replies to a question about Palin's experience relative to his own. McCain looks at him and says "Well, Senator, I would have asked you to to take the job but you weren't available and Senator Clinton had already turned me down!" Slap shot of the debate. Stop comparing Palin's experience to Obama's, it is a loser!

by 2maddogs 2008-09-02 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

It seems to me the easiest way to determine whether Palin will help McCain in the votes department would be to ask McCain-leaning independents which issues are they most concerned about.  If the answer is National Security or experience, I think McCain handed Obama the election.  If the answer is values, abortion, and the like (meaning that it was the evangelical base that was trending independent), then we can pretty much all agree that Obama never had a chance to begin with.

My opinion, the numbers just don't add up.  The evangelical base was always going to vote for McCain, and his soft support is among more traditional republicans interested in electing someone who isn't a complete fuck up.

by enozinho 2008-09-02 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Disagree.  The fundie base was probably just not going to vote.  They were not going to turn out in big numbers for McCain.  Now, probably they will.  Will it matter?  Is this a big enough voting block to swing the election?  Well, they made it close enough to steal for Bush.  Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I'd hope there are fewer of them and more science-based indies these days, but who knows?  The Repub party has a neat trick - through their malfeasant governance, they create their own base.  The worse the economy, the more people turn to god.

by milton333 2008-09-02 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

An increase in 'uncommitted' in party affiliation is very significant.  When 'Reagan Democrats' made their shift, they did not (my recollection on the source of this is one of Kevin Phillips' later books) say out loud they were Republicans, they said out loud they were uncommitted, and that let them vote as they saw fit. Republican, as it happens.

The Republican base, the antiabortion girlkillers who would leave our daughters to bleed to death on pool hall backroom pool tables, seems unlikely to be the people who are drifting out of the party towards 'uncommitted', unless they are considering Chuck Baldwin.  They were the people who were despondent, and who may be mobilized by McCain-Palin, but they were not given a reason to say they were something other than Republican.

And, having invoked the named of Kevin Philips, I would urge readers to examine his first book, to see what real political analysis looks like, even if you do not like his conclusions as to where America was going, and his early 1980s book not usually mentioned in his later books explaining that the Conservative Revolution had in fact failed as a political effort, thanks to Richard Nixon --who might be described as Bush Zero.

by phillies 2008-09-02 06:01AM | 0 recs
Here is why you are wrong

1. The major media is starting to challenge her reform cred. Articles this morning in the New York Times are showing how little she was vetted. People are starting to ask why she lied about the Bridge to Nowhere, for example. And why she supported earmarks in Wasilla and claimed not to later.

2. The evangelical Christian base NEVER LEFT the Republican Party. The people who moved to Independent status are more secular Republicans angry at Bush's incompetence and the Christian Right's takeover of the party.  Ironically, the only reason McCain is close among Independents is that he appeals somewhat to those former Republicans.

3. McCain may not have excited the evangelical base before, but he never explicitly pissed them off. On the single issue of abortion - which is THE issue for evangelicals - McCain has been fine all along. Polling shows him doing little worse than Bush among this group. Exciting the base may bring in money (which won't matter as much at this stage) and may help with volunteering, but it won't bring many more votes.

4. You forget that a lot of McCain voters like him because they think he is more "serious" than Obama. These folks bought in entirely to the Obama as celebrity charge. The Palin pick completely undermines the judgment and temperament of McCain in their eyes. Read Frum, Ponnuru and Krauthammer and you'll see what I mean.  

I know you like to be the proverbial wet blanket around here and it's always important to remain grounded. But I think you are overestimating just how important an excited evangelical base is in 2008.

by elrod 2008-09-02 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Here is why you are wrong

Great post. You said exactly what I was thinking, but in fewer words.

Palin will eventually depress the Republican base, not excite it. And she is definitely not going to win over any independents. In their eyes, her total inexperience, one step away from the presidency, makes her a dangerous choice for vice president. Not risky--dangerous.

by Covin 2008-09-02 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Here is why you are wrong

I don't read those guys to figure out what is happening, they are the last to know. You can see what's happening by looking at the fundraising and organizing numbers. We'll see how the polls read it in a few weeks.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Here is why you are wrong

You may not read them, but a lot of people still do, my allegedly undecided mother, who could be swayed by picking a woman, still reads the dead tree media.  People who are posting to MyDD know what's going on, but you look at traditional media to see what kind of message McCain is or isn't getting out there, and right now, he's not getting a very good message out there.

by auronrenouille 2008-09-02 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Too clever by half.  This is a disaster that no one in the GOP now wants.  Fired up base vs. a week of bad coverage during the convention. No way does it help.

by ft 2008-09-02 06:02AM | 0 recs
It's a voting 'bloc'

Not 'block.'

And anytime a VP choice takes attention away from the top of the ticket it's bad. Especially this kind of attention.

by Jim J 2008-09-02 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a voting 'bloc'

but which top of the ticket is it taking attention away from...

by dtaylor2 2008-09-02 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

I saw a poll that said over 60% of those polled didn't have an opinion of her because they didn't know enough about her yet.  Nobody will know what effect she is going to have until after she speaks at the RNC. Maybe even later.

by ND1979 2008-09-02 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Good point, I agree with that... all that's going on now is partisan flag waving.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Excellent point. Sarah Palin gets a turn at bat, whether we like it or not. I posted that immediately on several sites as soon as I saw progressive sites thrilling to ridicule her.

There's plenty of evidence that she has pull among undecided voters, particularly within her own party. No one expected her to win more than 50% in the 2006 GOP primary, a 3-way primary. I was following that race closely and I was stunned. Then in the general election vs. Knowles she won by 7.6% when the polling average had it much closer, in the 3 range. However, as I've posted many times, Alaska statewide polls always overstate the Democrat by many points, so in that case Palin probably held her ground or gained slightly, more than any type of significant gain.

Her approval rating at one point this year was in the 90% range.

I'm always baffled when posters are so confident in dismissing someone as a lightweight. It's pathetic handicapping. Do you really think Sarah Palin is going to whiff her convention speech? LOL. She's been well known and in the public eye in Alaska since her high school basketball days. That's 25 years of preparation including TV work as a sportscaster, something that fits very well with packaging thoughts and delivering to an audience.

A week from now Sarah Palin will have a considerably higher national profile and approval rating. My right wing friends have been more upbeat since the Palin announcement than any point in the year, other than perhaps the Wright period for Obama. This isn't supposed to be easy, an open race for the presidency, and the opponent didn't hand us a gift.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-09-02 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Jerome, I have to disagree on at least one point. She might be motivating the Republican base now, but what about after the truth about her record comes out? Will Republicans still be so enthusiastic after all her many, many gaffes, mistakes, and misjudgments come to light?

I suspect that, for a time, she'll get a free pass from Republican supporters. For a time, her positions on social and tax issues will earn her fervent support from the Republican base.

But she is not going to win any Democrats or independents. Democrats? Well, that should be obvious. She's an anti-feminist, by all accounts. Democrats who vote for McCain because of Palin are clearly not inclined to vote for Obama anyway.

As for independents, her record is important. She might energize former Republicans at first, but after they learn that she really does represent more of the same from the Republican party, they are going to lose a lot of enthusiasm.

This is all assuming that the Obama campaign is not afraid to begin criticizing her.

She has a brief chance to define herself on Wednesday. We'll see what kind of speaker she is, but from what I've seen so far, she is not impressive. Palin sounded like she was reading a list of sentences at her VP announcement; it didn't sound like a speech.

She might be able to hold her own against Biden in the debates when it comes to social issues, but what happens if they ask her about foreign policy? She'll get blown away. She'll embarrass the McCain campaign for picking someone who has zero experience or knowledge of foreign policy and security issues.

I'd be surprised if she doesn't make some kind of glaring gaffe about a foreign leader, or blatantly ignorant remark about international history.

I think the Republicans could have easily gotten the same boost from social conservatives from another vice presidential candidate, without the enormous baggage that Palin possesses.

by Covin 2008-09-02 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

...but what about after the truth about her record comes out?

Yea, how many times have I heard that line.  Look, she's not running for President, and won't be scrutinized as much as whats going on in the blogs.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

I disagree....This election has turned out to be a contest on judgement, and in McCain's first major decision as the GOP nominee he chose a relative unknown.  The MSM wants to know why, and if this "itchy trigger finger" is a reoccurring theme with McCain.

She will be scrutinized to the max, just to find out if McCain went through the proper vetting procedures or made a pick to piss off Bush/Rove because he couldn't pick Lieberman.

The narrative has already been set by the media.

by hootie4170 2008-09-02 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

I think you couldn't be more wrong. No one knows who Sarah Palin outside the blogs. It's FOR that reason that she will be looked at a lot harder than Joe Biden, who, for the most part, has been in the spotlight literally for decades.

Sarah Palin instantly became the center of attention when McCain foolishly made her the surprise pick. Caught off guard, Americans are going to ask who Sarah Palin is. They aren't just going to look at those McCain-Palin bumper stickers and dismiss the second name. Ain't gonna happen.

by Covin 2008-09-02 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Totally disagree.  Whiny or not these people were going to vote for McCain.  What he needed was for Indies and disaffected women to vote for McCain.  The pols (except for Rasmussen) are now moving towards Obama with women LESS likely to vote for McCain now.  This was a BADBADBADBADBAD move for McCain

by scytherius 2008-09-02 06:20AM | 0 recs
Rasmussen has Obama at 51% today

And Palin's negatives are climbing fast.

Palin is not selling well outside the base.

by elrod 2008-09-02 06:57AM | 0 recs
Spot on

A voice of clarity amidst all the gleeful mocking - admittedly well-deserved on the face of it - of Gov. Palin and the McCain selection process.

It is quite possible that overall the selection will blow up in McCain's face if the media frenzy over the various "scandals" drives away very large numbers of true independents, more than it drives up right-winger/fundie enthusiasm.  

One point made in the diary that does not feel correct, however, is the notion that it is indie-declaring, GOPer-behaving folks that she brings home.  No.  She drives up enthusiasm and turn out of proudly-GOPer declaring voters who were not contributing sweat and dollars to McCain and were possibly not going to vote in '00 and '04 numbers.  My instinct tells me that crowd responds with "yes, GOPer, but not enthused" rather than "indie" but actually GOPer behaving.  The crowd mobilized by Palin has no shame about declaring GOPer, as the argument presumes.  Still, driving up the fundie and right-wing intensity is no small accomplishment, as the $10 million and the gushing of the Dobsons of the world attest.  I doubt any volume of mistakes and scandals related to Palin will drive the fundies away; she passes on the issues they care about and those issues do not include such trivial factors as competence, integrity, or consistency, as the 30% for Bush has proven.  Still, if the family problems, which we should let the media pursue, without getting our hands dirty, tamp down enough fundie enthusiasm to seal the election we may look back on the selection fondly.  These are those who are squeamish about her daughter's pregnancy, non-Biblical motherhood (?), maybe the AIP business, and possibly other issues.  

To my mind Team McCain must have hoped to rather quietly signal to the base with the pick without turning off the indie voters they will need, over and above '04, because we have increased registration and enthusiasm.  They tried to thread the needle by selecting a fundie they wanted to package as an appealing working mother to attract non-fundies.  The longer media is focused on her various issues, the less likely this is to pass, and this is showing up in the polling.

So there are really two underlying questions here.  One, can McCain hold onto enough indies and Clinton-voting, Obama-hating voters in the face of his selection to push him over the top?  Two, is the increasing mobilization of the base sufficient to win, as in '04, given the electoral map, popular vote be damned?

At this juncture I believe the answer to both questions is no.  But the logic behind the choice is that a yes to the first but no to the second ensured McCain went down to defeat.  McCain had to do something to fire up the base or defeat was inevitable.  On that front he has succeeded.

This is the main reason why the Eagleton solution strikes me as improbable in the extreme.  Not only is it too late, not only would it signal a crippling lack of competence by McCain, it would positively crush fundie support unless he found another wacko, and there aren't enough candidates that might, just might, reflect the requisite wackiness while potentially not turning off the additional true indies McCain needs to win.  Even Huckabee I think will not pull it off.  There is no chance Palin will be dumped.

The narratives that have a chance to help here, and many others have noted the same thing, are McCain = rash and impulsive and McCain = politics over country.

by Trond Jacobsen 2008-09-02 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Spot on

OK, I probably over-stated that part to imply its the whole. I don't think its the case that the underlying numbers have shifted from Republican to Independent, and that explains it all; some have, but that's not the larger dynamic at work. The larger is that the evangelical protestant vote has said they were not voting. Dobson sitting on his hands. They are the ones that have become engaged now.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 08:29AM | 0 recs
I agree she's a gamechanger.

People discount the evangelical base getting fired up.  That WAS Bush's ground game, and the WEREN'T working for McCain.  Sure, they were going to vote for him, but the ground game that won Bush Ohio wasn't there for McCain until now.  Where McCain could attract 1000 people to a rally, and get the resulting media coverage, with Palin he's now drawing over 10,000 people to successive rallies, and he's making news.  

What I've seen of her suggests shes intelligent, articulate and charasmatic...ie...no Dan Quayle, and no Geraldyne Ferraro for that matter.  We need to assume she's going to be an asset to McCains campaign.  If we take her seriously, and she blows up, what have we lost?  NOTHING.  But if we sit around waiting for her to blow up and she's competent and proves popular, we've lost time.  The election is still Obama vs McCain, keep focused on that and not the distraction of Palin.  

by jimotto 2008-09-02 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree she's a gamechanger.

I agree that we need to assume she will be an asset.  Doesn't mean she will be, but as you point out, what have we lost by doing this.

Given the bad press Palin's received, I think the bar for her is dropping to the point where she just needs to prove she can read from a teleprompter semi-successfully.  

Let the press do its job.  They smell blood right now and will be digging furiously.  This is an opportunity for go-getter reporters to move ahead by breaking a "shocking" revelation.  If that happens, great.  I certainly wouldn't count on it tho.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-09-02 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree she's a gamechanger.

I don't understand why exposing Palin for what she is isn't considered "Taking her seriously". The repugs have taught us the importance of framing a candidate. That is what the blogesphere is doing right now! The TM is busy trying to out do the blogs. They are doing a pretty damn good job framing her as a liar and a fraud. As far as focusing on McSame vs Obama? Obama can just stand back and let them self destruct. Remember Palin is McInsane's choice and the more info we get about his decision making the better for the Dem ticket.

by eddieb 2008-09-02 07:44AM | 0 recs
Still Trying

to get someone to tell me how not voting for the GOP in 2004 because of their experience in fighting terrorism keeping us safe, has become such a non issue based on her non-quals.

Also trying to figure out we have to "lower" the bar when dealing with Ms Palin.   I say let's give it to her like we would if she was Mr Palin with the same credentials.   If the GOP has issues with us taking it to a woman, then we simply throw the old line out about the Iran, North Korean and Russia President's won't hold back on her, why should we.

by Monkei 2008-09-02 06:30AM | 0 recs
by mady 2008-09-02 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Today's Rasmussen

So Rasmussen's post Palin numbers are better than the post convention numbers.  This initial data point (and it is too early to jump to conclusions) would argue against Jerome's argument.  Perhaps she brings in more money and evangelical enthusiasm but costs McCain as far as wider appeal.

by NMMatt 2008-09-02 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Today's Rasmussen

Yes, that could be the case. They may fail at what I called the 'media test' but still do well in rising the base.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Jerome is right that Palin is exciting to the Republican base and changes the dynamics of the race in that regard.  I'm not so convinced as he is (and he always seems convinced that we're going to loose for some reason) that this is a net plus for McCain.

I think she completely neutralizes the only good argument the McCain campaign had with the truely undecided - Obama's relative inexperience.  I'm not so sure that she brings more evangelicals to the McCain ticket than she pushes true independents and leary Democrats to take the leap of faith on Obama.

Bush won in 2004 because of very high evangelical turn out (which I doubt a VP can deliver even if she does improve McCain's numbers) and his national security cred with independents.  He got a bare majority of independents.  To win, Palin needs to deliver both groups to McCain above what he can get himself - a tall order for a VP selection, much less one with as much apparent baggage as Palin.

by NMMatt 2008-09-02 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Don't be fooled, brother. The fundies will vote in large numbers because their masters need them to keep Republicans in power. They will look for any reason at all to start loving McSame because they need him to retain power. It is all that matters to them and they won't let it go without a fight.

by Spiffarino 2008-09-02 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

I think the fundies were going to vote McCain anyhow.  Not they way they did for Bush, and not with the same passion (or should I say Passion) or enthusiasm, but they were going to show up on November 2.

by the mollusk 2008-09-02 08:50AM | 0 recs
Rasmussen has new partisan numbers

Democrats 38.9%
Republicans 33.2%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/mood_of_america/party_af filiation/partisan_trends

For the tracking updates in September the target is 39.7% Democrat, 32.1% Republican, and 28.2% unaffiliated. It is very encouraging that it was 40.6%, 31.6%, 27.8% last month and Obama just jumped to a six point lead despite there being fewer Dems.

by conspiracy 2008-09-02 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen has new partisan numbers

Thanks for the update. The bounce did happen for Obama post-convention.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Sorry Jerome, you are wrong.  her membership in the Alaskan independence party is a deal breaker.  This is a woman who has proven to put American second (or even further behind).  

I do not doubt that she is firing up some elements of the base, but at the same time she is going to do a lot to shrink that base even further.  

by gavoter 2008-09-02 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

I agree.  That AIP thing has the potential to really blow up, though it really hasn't yet in the MSM for some reason.  It is very curious to me why her teenage daughter's pregnancy is all the media wants to talk about.  That is pretty much irrelevant, but participation in a successionist party is VERY relevant.

by NMMatt 2008-09-02 08:01AM | 0 recs
Also agree

It is the perfect response to the "America First" slogan.

by conspiracy 2008-09-02 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Also agree

it's almost frightening, like they are offering us the severed head of their campaign on a platter.

if these stories don't die down immediately after her speech, i don't think they can recover.

by Metrobot 2008-09-02 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Yea, whatever. You sound like the flip of those that claim Obama is responsible for whatever Wright said.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-02 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

I don't see it. Rev. Wright was doing a standard Ezekiel-style hellfire'n'brimstone shtick. "America is doomed, DOOMED, unless she repents of her sins!" Sen. Obama could thread the needle easily: "Well, he does get carried away sometimes, but you know he's got a point when he says that we could have made more progress against racism." Followed by, "Oh, my! Now he's gotten even more carried away! I don't agree with that at all!"

But Ezekiel-style rhetoric doesn't work as well in the political sphere. The Hand of God isn't going to reach down and move Alaska into some other country. If Alaska becomes independent, that's going to be the work of specific human beings with specific loyalties. I don't know where Gov. Palin's loyalties lie, but I'm really looking forward to hearing her try to explain them!

by mazement 2008-09-02 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

So Palin is not responsible for the political stances that she takes?   this is nothing like the Wright issue.  If she was working with a secessionst movement, that is a conscious choice she made.

And look how many right wing preachers condemn America, except they do it when they think America is not doing enough to bash gays and feminists.

by gavoter 2008-09-02 09:36AM | 0 recs
I believe the GOP base will be discouraged

as Palin's unreadiness for the job, and McCain's total incompetence in choosing her with no vetting, is revealed. You can tell that journalists are shocked by how unprepared the McCain campaign was to deal with the numerous stories that came out over the weekend.

Yes, most evangelicals will vote for Palin. But the business wing of the Republican Party, the suburban moderates, etc. will watch her flail and wonder why McCain picked someone so obviously not ready for prime time.

I have serious doubts that McCain will be able to match Bush's GOTV in 2004. Even if he does, Obama's GOTV will be light years ahead of what Kerry had going (with America Coming Together and MoveOn duplicating the efforts of coordinated campaigns in many states).

McCain had no great options for VP, but Palin was a particularly bad choice for him.

by desmoinesdem 2008-09-02 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

It is the Fundy influence in the GOP that moved their moderates into Indys and Indys into Dems.

Hell..let them fire up Dobson et all.

I am loving every second.
Fuck Theocracy!

by nogo postal 2008-09-02 07:15AM | 0 recs
Palin's Dominionist Cred

Jerome, I think your analysis is spot on. We let our guard down at our peril. I also think it is precisely why we must continue to "brand" Palin before the GOP can get its pants on.

McCain has made a colossal error. He could have chosen any of several hardcore uberfundies from among experienced Republicans, but he chose one that he didn't personally loathe or vice versa. This speaks volumes about his decision-making skills and his temperament and those are two really big mallets to use against him.

I agree we should concern ourselves with Palin's potential, but simultaneously we must also keep playing offense.

by Spiffarino 2008-09-02 07:20AM | 0 recs
Interesting point.

While I don't doubt Palin has pumped up the GOP base, keep in mind McCain was tamping down their expectations by continuously floating the pro-choice trial balloon.  There was a palpable fear among many arch conservatives that McCain would pick a pro-life running mate, which they feel would have spelled doom for the entire Republican platform, not just John McCain's single election.  McCain needed to plug a weak spot with social conservatives and this is exactly what he achieved with Palin.  Unfortunately for McCain, it's probable will Obama hold onto most of his young evangelical support, who are less concerned with social policy, which will narrow the gap with evangelical support.  When you talk about the evangelical GOTV effort, young evangelicals are a major part of that: they're the ones making phone calls and knocking on doors.

Ultimately I see it as a bad pick for McCain due to the fact that it violates the prime directive Republicans set for winning this election: this election is a referendum on Barack Obama.  Right now, things look more like a Referendum on Sarah Palin, and unfortunately she doesn't hold up as well as Barack in this regard.  

by Homebrewer 2008-09-02 07:27AM | 0 recs

er by "pro-life" i meant "pro-choice", they were worried he'd pick a pro-choice running mate.

by Homebrewer 2008-09-02 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting point.

Exactly.  She is not only taking the focus off Obama, she is neutralizing the core argument against him.  Obama doesn't even have to win the experienced vs. Palin argument (though he obviously does), the fact that we're even debating this almost completely neutralizes it.

by NMMatt 2008-09-02 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Palin energizes her base, but terrorizes moderate women.  Independent women support sex education in school.  They do not want their teen age daughters to get STDs or get pregnant.  Gov Palin may get their sympathy, but not their vote.

by Spanky 2008-09-02 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Palin won't be dropped. Right now the Lugar/Hagel wings of the party are in full revolt (and will almost surely vote Obama) but if Palin is dropped the Social Conservatives will be sitting home. As the Semi-Rational Republicans aren't that big, it's better to sink with the social conservatives.

But while the SCs are enthusiastic (though I guess some are not) there are not enough of them--and we need to hammer that McCain WANTED to choose Lieberman or Ridge, that Palin was his sop to social conservatives. McCain still hates them but needs them to win.

Will they be suckered? Probably but I like many others, was completely de-energized by the betrayal on FISA. With the SPEECH, and the return of the Righteous Idiots (many of whom I know personally, I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church) I am energized to destroy them.

by MNPundit 2008-09-02 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

The social conservatives I know were all going to vote for McCain anyhow.  Or at least they said they were going to.  But they certainly weren't "fired up and ready to go".  And they certainly couldn't have filled an 80,000-seat stadium in Colorado to see McCain speak.  Those people are probably more enthusiastic now, but I think you make a great point that this may come at the expense of Independents who were flirting with the idea of voting for McCain.

The best way, in my opinion, for Democrats to counteract this is to point out that McCain caved to the far right wing of his party on this one.  And this is just the beginning.  There's no reason to think he'll put pro-government watchdogs in place at any of the regulatory agencies.  Make him respond to this by saying he's for tough regulation.  Make the fiscal conservatives doubt him then.

by the mollusk 2008-09-02 08:46AM | 0 recs
You can add ARG to the mix

Obama leads by 6, 49-43. How crap does Zogby have to be when even ARG is better?


by conspiracy 2008-09-02 08:13AM | 0 recs

Another gem from Jerome.  

1.  Who cares if the Republican base is energized?  That base has contracted significantly.  They still don't like the top of the ticket and this isn't going to change dick.

2.  Your pro-McCain posts are getting as obvious as your pro-Clinton bias a few months ago.  Just announce you're a PUMA and be honest.

3.  If this is your site, try cleaning it up a bit.  Does having a delegate counter make any sense AFTER the convention?  

The result of picking Palin is going to be tremendous damage to McCain in two ways:

1.  He can't possibly argue the experience argument anymore.

2.  His gimmick pick is obvious and insulting.  To women and to independents.  This pick alone could torpedo his already slim chances.

God damn has this site gone to the friggen dogs.

by SpanishFly 2008-09-02 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Great post, Jerome.  Front-pagers like this are why I started coming to MYDD in the first place!

by the mollusk 2008-09-02 08:41AM | 0 recs
Great analysis. I agree on the Palin effect

on GOP base, especially on the social conservative wing of the pary. However I think you missed on the Palin backlash effect from the Democratic and independent moderates. The more folks know about Palin's extreme social views, there is a likelihood that social moderates and progressives, including the remaining HRC supporters who were holdouts, are going to rally around Obama/Biden ticket. I think McCain is likely to damage his independent moderate image (things that fly well in places like New Hampshire) as well as his decision making ability are likely to be questioned with this choice..

Palin choice along with the GOP election platform (Schafly was on NPR today boasting that this is most conservative platform issued by Republican Party ever) are designed to energize GOP base but likely to alineate independent moderates and Democrats that McCain wished to appeal...

by louisprandtl 2008-09-02 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Hilariously, Intrade opens a "Will Palin Be Dropped From The Ticket" buy. Now trading at 13%!

by animated 2008-09-02 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Yeah, and if you want a reference point, that 13% is roughly the same price as the Republican ticket carrying Maine.

Actually, it's good news. Intrade has got more dummies than I estimated if that number is 13%.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-09-02 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

Image means so much to people who don't read blogs, or even a newspaper very often, which is a lot of people. She's already been sold as the pioneer woman, business-like manager, heroine, maverick, and values Mom. It's all stuff that a lot of under-informed Independents seem to love, based on my impression of that group. And conservatives know enough about her to be delighted. Hopefully, she'll implode on her own, or Republicans themselves or media may bring her down, without lefties having to defend ourselves against media-amplified wingnut charges of unfair elitist attacks on the Western heroine, the good middle-class American, and motherhood. Seems like a reckless, but possibly politically brilliant, campaign stunt which may pay off well for McCain, no matter that she is totally unqualified and wrong about everything. She's perfect for a simplistic, but effective, Rove evocative image campaign based on TV footage with sound bytes.

by DeanOR 2008-09-02 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

a) Your house of cards is based on assuming partisan breakdown. I think you are wrong. I think CBS/Ramussen are wrong. We won't know whether I am right until Nov 2008. There is certainly the new Democratic voters and indies voting in Democratic primaries. The fact that those voters are now consolidating behind Obama. Etc. But I don't see the point of arguing with you.

b) Ask a lot of indie women that you know- n ot the DC crowd, but real low info voters what they think? My guess is that will tell you a lot more than y our guess work.

c) The data right now disagrees with your views about the impact of Palin, and its more likely she will hurt rather than help. The problem remains she is a ticking time bomb. But, more than that, she's become a catch 22 for McCain.

You probably will conclude this is all partisan. It's not. it's actually having seen these dynamics in reverse as a Democrat. What really surprises me here is that you don't feel the same way. That we have been on the end that's being screwed over in an election cycle due to the dynamics of the race. How does Mccain- for example- thread the needle of gender politics between his base and moderate/independent women? I don't see it. Perhaps you do. Hint:her boobs aren't enough. I have indie women friends- some of them conservative leaning. They aren't all that impress. One of the things I've discovered is that women ae much more harsh of other women, than men.

by bruh3 2008-09-02 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: What Palin means for Republicans

2 questions about this analysis.

1. Does anyone really believe the $10m figure?

2. Why is this evidence of "Grassroots support" for McCain/Palin among conservatives? Seems to me that analysis is as much political junkie echo chamber as the overheated writing at TPM. In my state, NV, not only does no one know her but the only people I've heard speak with any excitement about her were those who get daily talking points emails.

by desmoulins 2008-09-02 03:13PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads