I lost a dollar on this one. I'd bet he was going to pick Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. I was certain it would be a woman with media and voter appeal. The fact that I was so close makes losing that dollar even more painful.
But what was I thinking? Kay's almost as old as McCain, and is not loved by the pro-life conservatives McCain needed to woo. If I had just thought it through, I could have been a dollar richer today.
Damn.
__________________
Just because you have the right, that doesn't mean it is right.
Well... November will tell whether he made the right decision. Palin was certainly not a "safe, expected" choice, but I think that Grimaldi is correct in terms of the logic of why she was chosen.
Conservative
Palin will certainly help with McCain's shaky relationship with the religious right. While McCain has tried to mend fences from 2000 when he totally ripped evangelicals, there is a lot of distrust there. Whether McCain felt that he needed to shore up support within that element of the GOP or whether it was part of a deal, who knows? Even better, while conservative, it doesn't appear that she is from the Rush & Associates brand of conservativism.
Female
Do women vote as block? No. Will some swing voters (not just women) view this ticket more favorably because there is a woman on the ticket. Likely. Are there people who would be disinclined to vote for a ticket with "two white guys" on it? I think the conventional wisdom is "yes." The Democrats passed over much better qualified white men to get to Obama and Clinton. Discussions on f.net have also pointed to there being a lot of votes out there that would not consider a ticket with two white guys. People might not vote for the ticket because Palin is a woman, but they will not rule the ticket out for lack of diversity.
Young
Whether this is good practice or not, many VP candidates haven't been the most experienced available. A Biden/Obama ticket would have been more palatable than Obama/Biden. I agree with Grimaldi that attacks on Palin on the basis of inexperience will raise similar questions with respect to Obama, but she is in the second slot, not the first.
I think that McCain probably needed some youth on the ticket. His biggest weakness, I believe, is not only that he is old, but that he comes across as old. Two old white guys would be a particularly tough sell in this election.
Unknown
This is often a good thing for VP candidates. Winning in November is not about getting people to vote for you, it is about getting people not to vote against you. It is desirable to have someone who doesn't have a strong negative reputation. Biden may well rip her up in debates, if the GOP agrees to a VP debate, but Biden comes in with a well established "very liberal" reputation.
Outside the Beltway / Traditional Political Circles
McCain and Biden both are long term senators. Obama is part-way into the Washington scene. Someone who is "not Washington" is a plus.
I think that there is a degree of risk in this choice, but I don't think it crazy. A lot will depend on who she actually is and how she actually presents. If there is a debate and Biden chews her up and spits her out, it will probably have been a bad choice. If she hold her own and people come away impressed with her, her other attributes will be a positive to the campaign. YMMV.
__________________ --Be merciful to those who doubt. Jude 22.
Obama may or may not be qualified for a long list of things. He's made a case for lots of them, but one thing we can all agree on is that Barack Obama is qualified to be under the public microscope. After a brutally long primary and a considerable schedule since, Obama does pretty well under the public eye. In fact, some of the more recent attacks on Obama have been preeeetty ridiculous He had his shirt off on a beach!! He gave a speech in front of Greek Columns!! If anyone is bothering to make those attacks, it shows that perhaps they're searching for variety, and not coming up with much.
One thing that Sarah Palin has NOT had to deal with is a grueling schedule under the mass media view. I wouldn't want to do it. I really wouldn't want to do it if I had 5 kids, regardless of how old they were. I wouldn't do it well-- I'd get grouchy, belligerent, and I would say some pretty dumb things. Palin's a somewhat risky choice just because she hasn't done it before. (.... I think... go ahead and prove me wrong.) Unless the Pres dies (which we have to admit is somewhat more likely with a President McCain than previous presidents), the VP is mostly important during the election. And we don't know what kind of campaigner she is, especially not under these conditions. Previous candidates are better known.
We'll have to wait and see, I guess.....
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
I really wouldn't want to do it if I had 5 kids, regardless of how old they were. I wouldn't do it well-- I'd get grouchy, belligerent, and I would say some pretty dumb things.
It is amazing how true this is. When I ran for office, it was amazing how quickly my kids picked up on the fact that anything I did in public in the nature of "being a parent" was under scrutiny. If they misbehave, it makes you look bad, so they misbehave to just to try to get benefit from it. If you are sitting in McDonalds and they "need a talking to," you are completely on public display and everybody has opinions about whether you were too firm, not firm enough, etc.
Her campaign skills will definitely be challenged. We will see how she does.
__________________ --Be merciful to those who doubt. Jude 22.
Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson View Post
*Something about the South, Clinton, and women voters*
You know, you might come across as a bit more industrious if you would comment upon a post in a way that shows that you really have read it through, and respond to it, rather than your perception of what you think the poster was writing.
Just a thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidLazy
I don't think it is fair to think Hillary = women voters. She got there because she is someone, not because she is a woman.
1. Hillary is one woman who is a voter, not several.
2. Numerous people who have claimed (on the web) to have been her voters and fans have stated in no uncertain terms that her very femaleness was the deal-maker in their opinion. (To others, it was the other way around.)
3. Whether something is fair or not is completely beside the point that I was making. I was only concerning myself with whether the running mate choice was rational from a vote-getter perspective, and factually true as fair as can be known. Fairness is totally beside the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidLazy
These are the results from the primary,
Let's look at the South,
out of all MALE voters...
VA--- -------Hillary 39%, Obama 60% N. Carolina---Hillary 39%, Obama 58%
S. Carolina---Hillary 23%, Obama 54% Georgia------Hillary 27%, Obama 70% FL-----------Hillary 42%, Obama 38% Tennessee---Hillary 47%, Obama 44% Alabama-----Hillary 41%, Obama 57% Mississippi---Hillary 38%, Obama 61%
Louisiana----Hillary 33%, Obama 54%
out of all FEMALE voters...
VA--- -------Hillary 39%, Obama 60%
N. Carolina---Hillary 43%, Obama 55%
S. Carolina---Hillary 30%, Obama 54%
Georgia------Hillary 33%, Obama 65%
FL-----------Hillary 54%, Obama 31%
Tennessee---Hillary 58%, Obama 38%
Alabama-----Hillary 41%, Obama 56%
Mississippi---Hillary 39%, Obama 58% Louisiana----Hillary 38%, Obama 58%
So, of those 9 states, Obama did better among the males in 6, and better among the women in only 1. For Hillary, the stats are 0-7. A noticeable gender spread, in my book. BTW: what happened to the Texas votes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidLazy
So... Attracting female voters and/or Southern votes by picking a unknown woman?
I said nothing about attracting Southern votes by choosing Palin. Of course you are confused, you appear to have not read the post you are responding to with sufficient care! At least one hopes that is the reason, other explanations are less palatable to consider.
To spell it out: I was hinting that the voter turnout among Caucasian southerners might be lower than in recent POTUS elections, since they might feel disenfranchised due to not having, for the first time in 36 years, one of their own on a major party ticket.
Yes, I believed, and still do so, that the running mate choice was done with great consideration with regard to getting female votes. You are of course entitled to your opinion if you disagree with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidLazy
The best woman lost the female votes in most Southern states...
The idea of women would vote for a woman regardless of issues is greatly overestimated, and unfair to women everywhere.
Whether the idea is overestimated is beyond my knowledge, but I would assume that the McCain camp has studied the topic extensively with focus groups and the like. Likewise, if you think that you know more about that than either camp, do think so.
Again: this is not an issue of fairness. If this helps sway the electorate a percentage point or so, then might be what does the trick. If it infuriates a bunch of women who would not have voted for McCain anyway, then is no electoral loss to the GOP.
I am not claiming that all women will vote for the woman, no matter what. What I am claiming is that there are some female voters for which a double-male ticket is a dealbreaker, and that there are enough of those voters so that it makes electoral sense to cater to them.
Originally Posted by damianip
Go here and check for yourself. I leave it to you to separate the wheat from the chaff. As with all government procedures, there's a lot of fluff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by link
No items were found for the search " Sen Obama Barack 01763"
Seems like a pretty accurate summary of major accomplishments.
You obviously have trouble adapting to the vagaries of the internet. The URL was truncated by the F.Net editor.
__________________
"He is a man of splendid abilities but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight." "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats."
Because the presidency is not an entry level position. The president is the leader of the United States and by extension the leader of the free world. He/She has power to shape the course of the world for decades to come. As such, we expect the person holding that position to have significant experience, a track record showing all the qualities that are expected (intelligence, good judgement, integrity, wisdom, etc), as well as a record of achievements showing not only that he can lead on the scale needed, but that he can lead while keeping the promises he/she made. Like I said, NOT an entry level position.
Your turn, show how Obama meets those requirements? Or, am I asking too much as "subjective" qualifications for presidency?
.
I guess McCain views the VICE presidency as an entry level position...
I am not claiming that all women will vote for the woman, no matter what. What I am claiming is that there are some female voters for which a double-male ticket is a dealbreaker, and that there are enough of those voters so that it makes electoral sense to cater to them.
Which is the odd thing about this choice.
Palin undercuts the 'experience matters' arguement - although I am at a perpetual loss to work out what it is exactly that does or does not qualify you - which was one of McCain's strongest lines against Obama.
She may shore up the conservative vote, but given McCains prior voting record it was unlikely he was ever going to pick a supreme court justice who might support Roe vs Wade. I suspect that regardless of his choice social conservatives would have held their noses and voted for him since he represents the best chance of getting the supreme court they have dreamed of.
So given your arguement, which is probably fair, why would he pick this VP?
It is not as if there were no other candidates who ticked the 'historic ticket' box.
That post was not direct-at/argue-with you, rather, just adding some number to the analysis and provide my view on it, since issue of southern and women voters came up earlier. Here is another theory I have,
Quote:
Originally Posted by keith
Which is the odd thing about this choice.
Palin undercuts the 'experience matters' arguement - although I am at a perpetual loss to work out what it is exactly that does or does not qualify you - which was one of McCain's strongest lines against Obama.
She may shore up the conservative vote, but given McCains prior voting record it was unlikely he was ever going to pick a supreme court justice who might support Roe vs Wade. I suspect that regardless of his choice social conservatives would have held their noses and voted for him since he represents the best chance of getting the supreme court they have dreamed of.
So given your arguement, which is probably fair, why would he pick this VP?
It is not as if there were no other candidates who ticked the 'historic ticket' box.
I think McCain wants to lose this election, by embarrassing GOP. He is actually secretly working with Democratic party and Obama to bring the White House back into Democratic's hand and for a better America... a payback for what they done to him and his family years ago (2000 Primary attacks) and lately (Limbaugh attacks back in February).
__________________
"Agh, that's roping milk." -Mr. R. Johson, October 22nd, 2008
Palin undercuts the 'experience matters' arguement
Not when the relevant experience is executive experience.
Obama has plenty of 'experience'. It's just criticized as being the wrong kind for a position involving command rather than collegial consultation...
However, apart from her experience as a governor and her gender----neither of which I suspect will end up being very consequential to the outcome of the election---the choice leaves me as nonplussed as Obama's choice of Biden...
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Palin undercuts the 'experience matters' argument - although I am at a perpetual loss to work out what it is exactly that does or does not qualify you - which was one of McCain's strongest lines against Obama.
No, she does not undercut the only argument that matters to the voter segment that McCain is going after, if I am correct in my hunch.
To those voters, gender of those on the ticket is the only primary interest. They will vote for a ticket which they consider gender-appropriate, if at least one of the major parties offer such a ticket. If exactly one major party offers such a ticket, they will vote for that ticket, all other issues non withstanding. If, and only if, both or neither major party offers such a ticket they will base their choice on other considerations, such as Roe/Wade, CP, Alaska drilling, the economy, how long soldiers should be kept in Iraq, what have you.
Do I like that voters set their priorities in that way? In a word, no. However, priority-setting is for the individual voter to do, and as much as I may dislike it, there is nothing that I can do about it.
How many voters are there that think like that? No idea, but my hunch is that they are sufficiently many so that they can tip at least one or two of the swing states. Anyway, there are doubtless specialists within the McCain camp who do polling 24/7, and have a much better grip on that issue that all of the posters in this thread combined. If Palin flips Florida to be solid red, then that alone would be enough so that the McCain camp would think that she has done more than her share for the entire presidency.
Oh, and directly on the "Experience matters" argument: Should Obama win, he would have to be a leader from day 1. Palin OTOH, should McCain win, can do good enough by simply seeing to it that papers are shuffled in the senate, and avoiding to make big public goof-ups. Considerable difference in responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keith
She may shore up the conservative vote, but given McCains prior voting record it was unlikely he was ever going to pick a supreme court justice who might support Roe vs Wade. I suspect that regardless of his choice social conservatives would have held their noses and voted for him since he represents the best chance of getting the supreme court they have dreamed of.
So given your arguement, which is probably fair, why would he pick this VP?
It is not as if there were no other candidates who ticked the 'historic ticket' box.
If he considers himself a maverick, would not this be the most mavericky (is that a word?) move possible?
Her sheer obscureness could be exactly what he was going for. By announcing his pick in the last days of the DEM convention, he could break into the news cycle. Had he chosen someone well-known (Rudy G, Condi?) then the papers would have rolled out the pre-written articles on "McCains VP pick" and gone right back to covering the convention. Now, the papers were forced to write new articles about an unexpected choice, and dig up whatever info there is on her. That takes time, which the journalists can not spend on covering the convention. Soon, the GOP convention is starting, but Obama can not announce Biden again. No obvious counter.
There is historical precedence also. Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle were not exactly obvious guesses before they were announced by their respective GOP presidential candidates.
I lost a dollar on this one. I'd bet he was going to pick Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. I was certain it would be a woman with media and voter appeal. The fact that I was so close makes losing that dollar even more painful.
But what was I thinking? Kay's almost as old as McCain, and is not loved by the pro-life conservatives McCain needed to woo. If I had just thought it through, I could have been a dollar richer today.
Damn.
Not to mention that she hails from Texas. Sure, it is a big state on the electoral map, but it safe red anyway. Not like she could swing her home state from the Dems. Also, Texas (together with some other big states - NY, Mass, CA, etc) have strong negatives among voters from other states. Ever heard anyone positively hating Alaska and its inhabitants, to the point that they would disregard a ticket with an Alaskan on it? By contrast, how often have you heard people say (or see them write) pejorative stuff about Texans and Texas?
Not when the relevant experience is executive experience.
...if you wish to split the hair that way fair enough, but I suspect that a ongoing debate about prior qualifications no longer plays quite so strongly after this appointment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata
Obama has plenty of 'experience'. It's just criticized as being the wrong kind for a position involving command rather than collegial consultation...
.. and again, she has two years of executive experience (not counting the mayor thing), so while executive experience may represent an essential quality for office it is not yet clear that she really gained any - I guess we will have to wait for the details of her governance in Alaska.
Of course if executive experience of any sort is essential it counts against three out of the four. So does that make the McCain ticket only half as bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata
However, apart from her experience as a governor and her gender----neither of which I suspect will end up being very consequential to the outcome of the election---the choice leaves me as nonplussed as Obama's choice of Biden...
Both choices make sense from a 'shore up the base' perspective.
Palin is to McCain is as Quayle was to Bush. Both were candidates suspected of being the wrong sort of conservative - their VP picks were designed to reassure. It certainly didn't back fire on Bush so it may work for McCain.
Biden may well rip her up in debates, if the GOP agrees to a VP debate, but Biden comes in with a well established "very liberal" reputation.
Debates are all about the expectations game.
When Biden and Palin go into their first debate, who is everyone expecting to win (and win big)? All Palin has to do is avoid being completely crushed and she (and the GOP) wins. If she even comes close to holding her own they win big. And some debate formats will come close to guaranteeing a near-neutral result unless she works fairly hard to shoot herself in the foot.
The more talk there is about how Biden will rip her up the better it is for the GOP.
-B
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Every time the media or the democrats focus on whether Palin or Obama is the least-qualified to lead the country, it's another small victory for McCain.
I don't know if McCain intended that, but the effect of shifting the argument to "Obama's just as inexperienced as Palin, so McCain can't argue about experience any more" is in retrospect a work of genius. I love how the Obama team (and many others') first reaction has been to basically say "your VP is just as inexperienced as our candidate!" McCain must be loving it.
__________________
Just because you have the right, that doesn't mean it is right.
I find her selection very interesting. I don't think anyone could have predicted this candidate, or understood it's motivations, however, there are logical and logistical reasons that I've worked out a bit, maybe there's more:
Alaska is considered to be wild and pioneer territory, open to new ideas and just North of California which is perceived as being sorta new, 'cutting edgy' but becoming entrenched already.
Alaska has oil which is the hot topic of the nation right now; and we've usually selected candidates hailing from traditionally south/western states which were percieved as being wild/new/frontier.
While McCain may seem old his selection is so young, it's not even understood yet. I think that's the reason we can't really figure it out.
During elections, we think about whether or not a vice president will be able to handle the office should anything happen to the Commander in Chief. For example when one of our Presidents had a Gall bladder operation, the VP took command for a few hours. There's nothing wrong with that, and in fact I think it makes us look like we have a better system.
The Democrates picked a strong VP Candidate - but with the Republicans. we don't know how strong she is, so we have to develop a strong profile..... like did she fly fighter jets in the Airforce or something? Or. are the Republicans selecting a 'weak-link' in order to just blow the whole race and let Obama take the lead. In fact the Repubs are now making a decision to Post-pone their 'party' until further notice- maybe in the spirit of brotherhood and unification they should just nominate Obama themselves by acclaimation and be done with it.
I lost a dollar on this one. I'd bet he was going to pick Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.
Hell, he could've gone for Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer, for that matter....or even Hillary herself....wouldn't THAT be a fine mess to watch work out?? All THREE of those women have FAR more experience in the hallsof power than Palin.
She could be a great choice and we just don't know it yet....I'm not too concerned about troubles with her legislature....NO politoco's ever truly clean anyway.
OR she could be utterly unsuited for the center seat if they win and McCain dies in office.
Then again, Biden himself may be in that position as well....because you know EVERY racist nutjob now has crosshairs on Obama...
Unfurl: Message for you Sir! 
Linear Mode
