« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Voting BBQ
There's a soft of gut-check, litmus-type question which is frequently pondered in American electoral politics. It's the question: "Who would you most like to have a beer with?" Bill Maher calls this "voting barbeque."
The blogosphere is typically too clever by half. We've seen it in the way George W. Bush has been perennially underestimated as a fool, despite being able to accomplish nearly everything he's set out to do (Hell, he nearly got <i>Harriet Miers</i> on the Supreme Court). We're seeing it again in the immediate dismissal of Sarah Palin.
I'm watching Larry King right now. I can't stand Larry King (or CNN for that matter), but this is how the low-information voter is involved in the election. They're selling Sarah Palin like crazy. She's a hometown girl. She's painting houses, shopping in the local grocery store. She's shooting an AR-15.
Edward Bernays founded the industry of public relations on a simple observation: Most people don't make decisions based on a rational evaluation of empirical information. People make decisions based on emotion.
People vote BBQ.
How likely do you think it is that the average American can see themself sharing a beer with Sarah Palin?
Comments (103)
Sharing a prayer breakfast, maybe.
August 29, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Highly likely. It doesn't matter.
I do think many women will be appalled at the tokenism. and the pandering. A friend of mine joked that they're going after the frat boy vote.
Women are angry.
1. there were and are far more qualified candidates.
2. Can you honestly say a man with her qualifications would have got the job?
August 29, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some women are angry. Some are angry at, as they describe it, the "treatment of Hillary Clinton" or "how the democratic process played out."
I'm not sure that this characterization is particularly meaningful. "Women are angry" is a little general, don't you think?
As for your #1, if you're paying attention to how the GOP is selling this then you need to reckon with it. She's a Washington outsider. She's a maverick in her own right. The MSM still gives McCain a pass with the maverick card and the McCain campaign thinks they can expand on this.
Strategically, I think the experience question becomes neutralized here. McCain can't really continue to flog experience, but this likewise won't be a significant weakness for Palin.
At any rate, that's not what I'm asking. Low-information voters don't think like this. It's all about likability. Hometown girl. PTA. Beauty pageants. High school basketball. Political reformer. Wanna have a beer?
Likewise, I don't think #1 is relevant. Will it resonate with the average voter? More importantly, will it resonate with low-information, swing-voters?
August 29, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A Little general?"
Well, no. Women are angry. I don't think I've ever seen a worse case of tokenism since maybe the 1970s, and I believe in calling anger "anger."
Perhaps the "low information voter," (how quaint) is as you say, but isn't that a tad elitist of you? Are you so much more intelligent and above it all that you must hold your friends and neighbors in such contempt?
I have a better "general" view of my fellow citizens. They don't want some token woman a heartbeat away from the presidency. Now if he'd picked Jodi Rell of Connecticut, I wouldn't be saying this. He didn't. He picked a beauty queen who got elected because ALASKA hadn't anything better to offer. (At least not on that ballot). McCain could have put his country first and picked a competent woman OR man. The fact that he chose to pander, and that she accepted, says very little of either of them.
Excuse me, I'm off to have a PBR with LisB. We'll just have to see how it all rolls out.
August 29, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, have it your way. Women are angry. That's not only a generalization, but a heavily presumptuous one at that, but you don't have to seriously entertain my premise if you don't want to. I suppose you can just spout the DNC line on Palin and ignore it, though I'd suggest checking out clearthinker's thread if you're interested in a broader perspective.
How does you superior general view of your fellow citizens mesh with two back-to-back elections of George W. Bush? They don't want Palin "one heartbeat away" (nice talking point), but they're okay with two consecutive terms of Dubya? A quarter of US citizens are functionality illiterate. Most that do read do so at a sixth grade level. People watch TV. Do you consider CNN to be informing voters? This is where swing voters get their information.
I'm not saying that I don't think this is a pander. It is. The question is, will it work? You seem to be confident that women are angry and that voters will reject it. I hope you're right.
August 29, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi DF!
I don't know if this pander to women will work because I am not convinced that's what it is. Let me explain: The type of woman who is impressed with Palin is the type of woman who was going to vote for McCain anyway. When she compared herself to Hillary Clinton I started spewing Snapple out of my nose. What a joke. If she is Hillary Clinton, I am Clarence Darrow. Progressive women are not impressed by her and are insulted by the notion that he thought he could win female votes by picking just any woman. Progressive women are also repulsed by her position that abortion should be performed only in back alleys, even in the case of rape. Stay-at-home moms will be put off by her "I am too important to take maternity leave" bullshit. No maternity leave? Not only a put-off but makes me think she has a mental defect. That just isn't normal, period. And women of all stripes are amenable to being put off by her self-righteous lecturing about how her Down's Syndrome child is a gift from God. Don't misunderstand me: The decision whether to abort or to keep a fetus that has tested positive for Down's Syndrome is personal and there is no right or wrong choice. But she presents her decision as the only correct one and does it in an obnoxious, self-righteous way.
Extremely conservative women might be put off by her failure to stay home, but they didn't need to be pandered to anyway. They are in McCain's camp no matter what. (I realize the conventional wisdom is that McCain somehow has to woo social conservatives, but I think that's bullshit. Just because he isn't who they would have picked does not mean they are considering voting for Obama, and it does not mean they will stay home. Those voters never stay home. Those voters are in McCain's camp all the way and don't need a John Birch Society/Caring Pregnancy Center nutjob as VP to stay in his camp. Where the hell else will they go?).
So I don't know what this pick really is, beyond a novelty that was crafted in a desperate attempt to knock Obama off the front page after the greatest convention speech in history, and to dominate the post-convention news cycle in an effort to blunt the bump. Really, I am not sure there is much more to it than that. If this was really an effort to attract Hillary voters, McCain should fire his pollsters.
My sister came up with an interesting theory that I have seen others floating on HuffPo: This pick is designed to fail, a la Harriet Myers. In late to mid-October she will bow out citing personal reasons having to do with family (such as a special needs child) and he will make a strong pick like Tom Ridge when there is no time left for another debate and little time left for vetting. Why would he do that? Perhaps to lull the Dems into a false sense of security, perhaps because he knows an October Surprise is coming, perhaps to minimize the amount of time that Biden stands in direct comparison to a Tom Ridge or a Mitt Romney, etc. I don't know. I just know this pick baffles me.
August 30, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting possibility you predict, libgirl -- a short-term termporary veep-pick fake-out.
I gotta say, I get the feeling they're fumbling around right now. This move seems like desperation, but everyone's nervous about allowing the Republicans to put us off our guard.
This campaign is crippled, for sure -- it just remains to be seen how crippled it is.
August 30, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I don't think that this is reducible to a simple pander. I've offered some of my thoughts on what may be going on here below.
I'd agree with you that I don't think that the majority of those that supported Hillary Clinton will be swayed by this. I will say that I've personally spoken to a number of women who have stated that they want to see a woman in high office in their lifetime, period. Whether this desire will sway them to pull the lever for a woman whose values are likely at odds with their own remains to be seen. We also shouldn't forget that there are conservative women out there who may well identify with Palin.
I think you really have to look at this as a potential game-changer, whether or not it becomes that, because I think that's how the McCain campaign intends it. Your thoughts about a last minute change are certainly interesting, but, while this year has been nothing if not unpredictable, it seems awfully risky to bank on changing your ticket at the last minute. I'm also not sure if this would be legal with respect for the laws in place that deal with deadlines for balloting.
August 30, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
She found out the child had downs syndrome when she was 4 months pregnant. That is too late to have an abortion. I assume she would have made the same choice had she known in under 3 months but it's a bit of an exaggeration to imagine her carefully weighing the option.
August 30, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's change the word from abortion to termination of the pregnancy. And this can certainly be done at 4 months or even later.
August 30, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repicking the VP will be a disaster and history shows it: McGovern torpedoed himself on the whole Eagleton issue.
He couldn't win for losing at that point.
First you show poor judgement in picking the candidate. Then you show lack of loyalty.
No, that theory doesn't hold water at all.
August 30, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. It looks shite.
August 30, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should also say that to simply reduce it to a pander is perhaps to play the political fool here.
August 29, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, call it clock management.
I think Palin will implode before the convention. Your "illiterates" won't want her being VP because they're also bigots and neanderthals. Right? Be honest, now.
CTs thread is a lame attempt at justifying the unjustifiable, enjoy the exercise in futility. I'm not giving this newscycle to Mccain on a golden platter.
Here's a spot of "broad" thinking for ya smart guy:
You want it both ways. Pick something and argue it, because if Americans are stupid enough and basically functioning illiterates, then you have to take the whole package which includes sexism and racism, right? Now, either she's a smart pick that idiot sexist Americans will embrace, a PTA mom with an infant that she plans on abandoning (that will set real well with these idiot American women--not) who signed a gay rights bill and married out of her race. (quite out of character for them to support anyone like that BTW. Remeber McCains black baby?) Sorry, that scenario defies logic.
Or maybe, just maybe, McCain has no intention on doing anything but yanking your chain and controlling the news cycle with a bad pick who has a handy scandal ready to go, in order to obliterate any press after Obamas speech of the century.
As for anger, you are projecting, not me, go and read what the women in the cafe are saying, go read what conservative women are saying. No one likes pandering or tokenism, especially as blatant as this.
Maybe, just maybe, you aren't all that much smarter than these illiterates you condescend to. Maybe they know when they're getting taken for a ride in the McCain/Rove express.
PLEASE don't tell me how stupid my fellow citizens are when you buy into McCains narrative hook, line, and sinker and don't have the sense to see the cliff right in front of you. Who's controlling the clock on the news cycle? McCain, and you are helping him do it.
Stick that in your latte and snort it.
August 30, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You touch on some of what I am saying: This pick is baffling. It looks designed to fail. Like Harriet Myers. You pick someone who is so grossly out of her league, and then replace her with an equally unpalatable choice who appears better in comparison to the woman he is replacing. And she has a built-in excuse for bowing out: "I didn't realize how much time this would take away from my family, and I have a special needs infant to care for."
I don't think she will implode, however, until mid to late October. The later the better for McCain so there is less time for vetting and direct comparison to Biden for the replacement pick (especially if the replacement is Pawlenty or Romney).
Your thoughts?
August 30, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I think is that his aim was to remove any discussion of Obama's speech. That speech was pure gold. McCain did what he set out to do, as Obama did with his speech. McCain stopped our discussion and the media coverage cold. Initially I thought Palin wouldn't last until Halloween, but now I'm not sure she'll last the week. I'm monitoring the comments on right wing blogs and have seen a few disparaging comments hastily removed. They are falling over themselves trying to manage the message, but the backlash will happen. That Vogue cover she did will shortly be the most popular photo on the net.
I'll take Palin seriously when she shows up at a press conference suckling her infant. Otherwise, she's nothing but a poser.
August 30, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really think you could tone down the rhetoric. I don't think DF is being elitist as you seem to insist. He's doing something smart: asking how this plays with people who get the majority of their information from cable tv 'news' programs. Plus, DF is an upstanding and valuable member of the group, so take a deep breath, will ya? THanks.
August 30, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't drink lattes. I like my coffee black. You apparently like your reasoning black and white.
Is this your first rodeo? National elections are won in the middle. Ask yourself this: What is a "swing voter"? They tend to be de facto centrists, working class and they tend to get their information from television. They also tend to vote from the gut, so to speak. It's not that everyone is stupid or illiterate, but some people don't really read. If you actually believe voters are being informed by their televisions then I suppose you ride your sense of indignation right into November. How did that work out for you when all of your dignified fellow citizens elected Dubya for term two?
You're not gonna let McCain grab the news cycle? And you'll prevent this how? From your comments on this blog? Laughable.
August 30, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's laughable is navel-gazing to the point of having your nose stuck up the GOPs ass.
Congratulations, dumbass.
What have I done to help out those "low information voters?" Started a website and spent weeks helping to defeat further media consolidation, lobby for higher standards on what is and what isn't news, phone banked and talked to these same "low info" voters one on one. Oh, and made fun of elitist snobs on popular blogs, just like I'm doing now.
What have you done except what the GOP hope you'll do, like taking Palin seriously?
As for Maher, he agrees with me. Not you. I suggest you check youtube and his opening monologue
August 30, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are taking a comedy show as an endorsement of your views?
Does that make you the clown of this board?
August 30, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF brought it up.
Still laughing?
August 30, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I brought up an observation he's made about the voting public. If you think he's wrong, then kindly explain 2004. Or read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?. Then read this. Then think.
Then get back to me.
August 30, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotcha.
August 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, you spent whole weeks helping to "defeat media consolidation"? That's amazing! Forgive me for speaking out of turn to a working class hero. That's something to be. And you started a website? Fuck me! Sorry, bro. I had no idea.
I'm not taking Palin seriously. Despite your protests against McCain grabbing the news cycle, you're still here blogging about her. Who's getting played by the GOP again?
I watch Maher. Every week. Here's a clue about Maher: His audience isn't low-info voters. You can't get the jokes unless you follow the game.
Is this your first Presidential election? I ask that because you sound like you just began your crusade to single-handedly change the world.
August 30, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute! There's gotta be a weird, distorting undercurrent going on in communication between you two.
I'm familiar with both of your comments -- and I would swear that you two are actually political allies.
Between you and me, Bwakfat, I'm also impatient with some of the respectful analysis being given to this story, but I think people around here are honestly trying to figure out why McCain would do something that looks so.....stupid. Anxiety (and bitter experience) prevents a lot of us from being quick to dismiss.
You're right that McCain is using this to divert media attention from Obama's speech. We knew he was timing his announcement to shift media attention, so we knew it was coming....we just didn't know he was going to do something so baffling.
And though (as you point out) he may have succeeded in generating a lot more media noise with this pick than we could have imagined with the other predicted picks, he has significantly damaged his strategy and appeal on many different levels. So he has achieved a short-term, small victory, but he has paid for it with long-term, possibly irreparable damage.
38 million people tuned in to Obama's speech, not counting C-SPAN and PBS viewers. The Republicans may succeed in dulling the impact Obama's speech had in the short-term, but unless this Palin person ends up somehow being so miraculously dazzling that she convinces voters to overlook everything else that's wrong with the Republican platform -- and candidate McCain, any strategic value gained from this move will evaporate...and probably quickly.
In the meantime, please be patient for just a couple of days while we deal with our incredulity.
August 30, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a good egg, Ms. Laura.
=)
What I am tired of, and increasingly disgusted with, is the wholesale snobbish put down of Americans that have the toughest row to hoe. They're the ones whose sons and daughters are in Iraq. They're the ones who work two and three jobs and don't have time to fool with navel gazing and excessive news watching. They are the salt of the earth and worthy of our humble respect, not condensation. Sure GW got two terms, did he get them without vote manipulation? Doubtful. Should it have been that close? No.
The reason it was was the snobbish attitude of far too many progressives that they were somehow smarter, wiser, etc. Until that elitist nonsense stops, we'll continue to lose elections, and those elections will continue to be too close. and open to manipulation . If Democrats want the respect of low info voters, they'll have to show a little. These aren't "low information voters," they are folks fed up with being pissed on. Bill Clinton got that, I believe Obama gets that, and the GOP certainly gets that.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. It's good folks like you that'll help Obama win this election.
August 30, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks the only condensation here is on the inside of your skull.
August 30, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally getcha. You're right -- progressives do need to be more empathetic and avoid the elitist sounding analysis that (perhaps unintentionally) is disrespectful of so many American voters. "Low-information voter" is term that was initially used to describe the very people you speak of -- but in a sensitive, respectful way. It wasn't intended to imply that they are stupid voters -- they're just not politically engaged. Unfortunately, I think a more negative connotation has evolved for that term, and it's a shame.
There are lots of reasons voters avoid getting deeply engaged in following politics. As you point out, some people are just too damn busy with their lives to be able to devote the time to focus on politics.
I used to be one of those voters, until Abu Ghraib and Hurricane Katrina made me so enraged I could no longer emotionally tolerate my extremely low-level political involvement.
It's important that we try to speak with more empathy when we have these discussions, because it's easy to sound (whether we intend it or not) disrespectful when we speak in grand, generalizing terms about real people when we're trying to analyze this stuff.
So I appreciate your attempt to bring this back to our attention. We'll (progressives) refine our communication and avoid needlessly insulting and alienating voters if we try to remain mindful of how we sound to those people we attempt to politically analyze.
August 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I knew you "got it" from some of your other comments, and I'm thankful you're on this blog. There isn't one thing pretentious about you, and I appreciate that.
Explain it to the others for me, apparently I can't communicate that well, but i don't got a ton of high falutin' degrees in communication. I see Biden and Obama are touring the rust belt. My other comfort is that I think they get it, too. Somehow I'm not sure they'd appreciate OPs like this and the majority of OPs since 11:30 yesterday morning.
I gotta go phone bank, thanks for playing peacemaker. I now return this OP to it's elitist navel gazing.
=)
August 30, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be far more interesting if you would actually defend any of your bullshit, but you can just keep calling me an "elitist" if that's all you've really got. (BTW, every time you call someone an "elitist" a lobbyist gets a lifetime country-club membership.)
I'm still waiting for you to explain to me, in the context of your brilliant salt-of-the-earth political theory, how it is that John Kerry lost in 2004? Let me guess, it's because John Kerry was condensating[sic] to them. People vote on issues, right? They would have voted their economic interests, but John Kerry was an effete, wind-surfing, faux-veteran elitist from Massachusetts. They're really well-informed issues voters, but they just won't be looked down by the Ivy League likes of John Kerry.
Did you have to wipe the apple pie off of your fingers before you typed all that "toughest row to hoe" nonsense?
August 30, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not politically engaged" is dead on. They watch a few hours of MSM a week and take *that* as gospel. I think the *vast majority* of people, once they see this candidate, will be turned off. They have to do the work themselves sometimes but, lawd, its a neverending struggle.
August 30, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the racists in OH and PA in the Dem party?
Or the highly religious Dems in the deep South?
Or the morons that still thought Barack was a Muslim -- in March of 2008!?!??
It is your sense of noblesse oblige that is the problem.
Being poor doesn't give you any special insights. Many poor people are ignorant -- and sometimes because they really don't care.
Just as the GOP makes the foolish claim that everyone who is poor is lazy, the Dems make the foolish claim that everyone who is poor is industrious.
Not all poor people are good, not all rich people are evil.
And if you really want to know why the Dems have repeatedly lost elections, it's because the Dems have forgotten about the middle class. And you know what? In major cities, the middle class can earn $150K/year/family and not be "wealthy" -- and still live in fear of diminished lives of their children.
That's why Obama is so popular with them: he remembers that plenty of the voters are above the poverty line but still below the upper tax bracket.
I know you don't see it this way -- you were a Hillary supporter. But now that the primary season is over and done with, perhaps it's time to take a step back and figure out where Obama is pointing the party. Until you take care of the people who actually pay the majority of the taxes in this country, you will continue to lose elections.
August 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa! Hope you'll walk back from some of these characterizations, CT. Please read my comment just above yours. It's not that simple.....
August 30, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laura,
Some voters are ignorant -- and "low-info voter" becomes a meme that lumps these people in with those without information.
The GOP has been masterful at getting the Dems to buy into the fear of being called "elitist" -- to the point where Hillary was using it to discuss other Dems in the primary season.
We so often complain that intelligence isn't really valued in our society and is often viewed with suspicion. And then we panic how the US time and again ranks low among Western Nations in education and ability.
And then we get afraid of saying the obvious.
Just yesterday I was talking to a right-leaning couple (who are, by the way, very pleased with the choice of Palin). This being CA, they were going to a gay marriage this weekend. I pointed out, very politely, that Palin was against same sex marriage. But it was good they were being supportive of their friends.
Well, that really bothered them. They hadn't thought about their going was "supportive". I spent the next 15 minutes in silence, and hearing them tell me what they weren't being hypocritical.
Now, when I say I was silent, I mean I said nothing. In fact, I kept trying to change the topic of conversation, but they kept trying to prove to me that they weren't hypocrites.
Now, these people are stupid in that they didn't consider how their views are linked together and didn't see an internal contradiction. Did I call them "stupid"? No. But clearly my comment showed to them just how "stupid" they were. Best part? No one got heated, I was always smiling, they were clearly upset but couldn't even articulate way - but they weren't upset with me.
Listen to talk AM radio and hear what many in the country are thinking -- and see if you think these are "low info voters". On the contrary, they have plenty of information -- it's their analytical skills that are lacking: and that makes them stupid.
We need to stop pulling out the equivalent of the Hollywood fantasy of the streetwalker with the heart of gold.
If people are upset about their being left behind economically, it should be pointed out to them that their votes put them in that situation. If they didn't vote, they are even worse.
Now, it would be political suicide to say this on the campaign trail. But I don't see what the problem is for pointing out the obvious here.
Some voters don't have all the info. However, the Internet has cured that -- and most libraries do have Internet access these days. These are low-info voters and they aren't stupid.
Some voter's have limited perspectives and act like children without an understanding of cause/effect (which can create economic ruin) or the ability to empathize (which causes racism). These people are stupid. If it's because of a learning disability, that's something to be dealt with in another way. But if it's because of a willful, arrogant ignorance and no humility in seeking more information, then, I see no reason to coddle their misperceptions: they deserve what they get.
August 30, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, CT. But you assume that I am fearful of being called elitist. I don't want to encourage fear of speaking out -- just employing some empathy. And being mindful about losing our message because the audience gets distracted by an offense they perceived but you didn't intend. Your exchanges with other posters here are a good example. Your train often goes off the track, and it's a shame. You offer many thought-provoking analyses that might get rejected -- not because of the substance -- but because of the way it's presented.
Yeah, you're right that this is not the campaign trail, and that we should be able to have frank discussions on this blog. But being frank doesn't have to exclude using some empathy.
I appreciate your using a personal experience to relate your position to me. In return, I'll use my own experience to relate my position to you:
I have two older brothers who, by most standards, are intelligent, decent, caring men. But they are completely sold on the right-wing construct of our society, what's wrong with it and why, and the Republican prescription for "fixing" it. I can't bring myself to decide, like you say, "well, they've gotten what they deserve," because (1) we've all suffered from their judgment errors and clearly not all of us deserve it, and (2) they're my family and I love them. As much as it pains me that they stubbornly cling to a political view that's been cynically sold to them by people who don't give a rat's ass about them -- it actually hurts my feelings sometimes -- I can't bring myself to give up on them. I have trouble putting into words how frustrating this situation is for me. Sometimes I feel downright panicky -- I just want to grab them by the collar and shake them and scream "You've surrendered your judgment and trust to a bunch of crooks!" But I have to try my best to remain compassionate, and as patiently as I can, try to persuade them, with reason and respect, to re-evaluate the way they view our politics and our government.
Empathy. It's important to us it here at TPM as well as on the "outside," in real life. Without it, we risk losing the power of our message to personality conflicts, and we risk alienating people we need to reach.
August 30, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Hillary non-hater, maybe, not a supporter. Never sent her a dime, sorry. I sent Obama maybe $150. That hurt, but I did it.
I'm a whomever the Dems-throw-up-there supporter, like many of my neighbors and friends.
Attitudes like yours make it hard to pull the lever for a Dem, but I'll get over it.
August 30, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it makes you feel better, I've been called a GOP troll on these boards.
Go ahead: throw the lever.
August 30, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Fair enough, dude, Thanks for the chuckle.
Finally got my list, 20 minutes late, not bad. Have a great evening.
August 30, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not an undercurrent at all. I started with a premise to examine and the chicken just wants to call names. Nothing weird or distorted about it.
This is the third Bush term I've lived through, but I'm a latte drinking elitist for observing that people vote on likability and emotional appeal and not on issues. 85% of America thought that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, but I'm condensating[sic] to my brave, bold, salt-of-the-earth fellow citizens (who elected Bush twice) when I question whether they'll be taken in by this gambit.
Interesting to hear an Obama supporter use "latte drinker" as an insult. Everything old is new again.
August 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think the conflict between you two is more about a lack of clarity between you two in communication (add in and build on frustration and perceived slights), and not based on your actual intent (or Bwakfat's). Like I said, you two should be political allies.
August 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well "scare quotes", calling me "smart guy" and telling me to put it in my latte and snort it aren't exactly the hallmarks of civil discourse to me. The chicken is rude and obtuse here, plain and simple.
Having that said, I would gladly listen to you as to where I've been short on clarity here.
August 30, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me DF, I think you've always been clear.
My purpose is not to defend where Bwakfat has been offensive toward you. It's to point out (to both of you) that the pique that has ignited between the two of you might be avoided if the two of you were less apt to react negatively to minor flaws in each others' messages, and a little more patient and tactful in your exchanges.
I think there's a lot of energy and valid insight lost on these threads due to unnecessary and avoidable conflict.
Think of energy lost on an inferior conduit...that's what I'm thinking when I look at our communication skills around here. (And I'm thinking of pretty much ALL of us TPM Cafe posters.)
August 30, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what is our poultry pal's message? From what I can read it's that I'm an elitist/idiot for talking about what Palin's nomination could mean at all and, if I was as smart as a chicken, I would just laugh it off. Am I missing anything?
August 30, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking about communicating techniques.
Using this thread, let me give you an example:
Bwakfat's primary concern is over the energy being devoted to discussions about Palin and the fact that it's diverting attention away from Obama's acceptance speech.
I can sympathize with that concern, can't you? So my suggestion to you, from the beginning, would have been to start there, and then make your point about the danger of being too quick to judge and dismiss the meaning of McCain's veep pick.
See what I'm talking about? You might've made your point without getting entangled in this exchange of insults. And then, Bwakfat might have started giving this some thought; and instead of continuing to resist your point, might have contributed some good grist for the mill.
August 30, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I can't sympathize with that concern at all. My point has nothing to do with Obama's acceptance speech and I don't feel the need to pay homage to it before discussing what does concern me. I assume everyone saw it (we've already discussed that over 38 million did). It was great and all that. Meanwhile, the game is afoot. The TPM Cafe does not equal the news cycle.
August 30, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You miss my main point. It's about effective communication, wasted energy, and lost opportunities. I just used the specifics to illustrate my main point.
Obviously, I need to hone my own skills! Maybe I'll do a better job on another day.
August 30, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"and the chicken just wants to call names"
Priceless.
August 30, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"and the chicken just wants to call names"
Priceless.
August 30, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really wish you read my thread. It wasn't about justifying the choice -- it was thinking about why the choice was made.
This plays into your next remark:
No, I will tell you your fellow citizens are stupid:
People voted against their economic interests multiple times when electing Reagan and other GOPers.
A majority of people in this country elected GWB in 2004 AFTER the disaster of 2000-2004.
Smug Dems think they know so much yet lose election after election.
And you couldn't even get the point of my blog.
And if you think that anything on TPM "controls the news cycle", you truly have no perspective on the world.
August 30, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got the point. You want to help the GOP. You did.
Mission accomplished.
McCain picking Sarah Palin doesn't deserve this frenzy of navel-gazing, it deserves a belly-laugh and dismissal. How's it feel to be a tool? In middle America they'd have a term for it. A humble piece of farm equipment. Don't get what I'm sayin?
Ha!
Yeah, thought so. You don't get middle America, but I must say they get you.
August 30, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you get a good belly-laugh out of the Swift Boaters? Who's being too smart for their own good here?
August 30, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whose writing posts about Palin instead of Obama?
You can be a force for good. Give it a try and get back to me.
=D
August 30, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, James Dobson just announced that Palin has swayed him and that he put his full support behind McCain, but you're probably right. Palin should probably just be laughed off. Nothing to see here. It's in the bag.
I wrote about Obama plenty during the primary. Get some sense. People at TPM don't need to be convinced about Obama and you're being willfully obtuse. My post is about considering what Palin means to the GOP strategy. Sorry, but ridicule and questioning McCain's sanity, as you suggest on Des's thread, aren't winning strategies. Fortunately for us it seems that Axelrod and Plouffe might actually understand something about managing message via media.
Dismissing a move by Rove is like dismissing a move by Kasparov. You do so at your own peril.
August 30, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bwakfat:
What do you think they were talking about in the Obama camp as soon as the news came out?
Do you think they were strategizing? Or is that helping the McCain camp as well?
You didn't get the point of the post -- the point was to pick at what angles McCain would use with this pick and how the Obama/Biden team might counter.
That was explicitly written several times in the comment section.
And you wonder why the Dems haven't been able to mount a serious, scarily overwhelming campaign until Obama.
August 30, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The result was you elevated this nothing joke into something she just... ain't.
Hey, the GOP is politically saavy, they don't need any help from Dem elitist eggheads. Here's a buck, buy a clue.
August 30, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but you can't, as you say, have it both ways. Are they politically savvy or aren't they? I thought they just made an entirely laughable move in selecting Palin? Which is it?
Since you've apparently bought their narrative ("Dem elitist eggheads"), hook, line and sinker, I already know the answer.
August 30, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add to this the $1,200 plus checks (I've read as high as 1,600) that went out to every Alaskan man woman and child, their take from the oil companies.
The faithful who gather on the campaign trail are going to be hearing A LOT about those checks, I'd wager. They're going to hear about these checks ad nauseum, and it's going to play fully as well as the gas tax holiday, which even got Hillary Clinton on board it was initially so appealing.
And they're going to hear about Palin's cheery estimation of billions of barrels of oil beneath Alaska and how she's all for drilling the life out the state -- to solve our energy crisis. Vote McCain/Palin: they've got the solution to energy independence.
It's potentially quite dangerous. People are going to vote from their wallets this year and there is NOTHING that Americans seem to care about more about than the price of gas. Even healthcare seems to come second.
So the truth of global warming, the truth of peak oil, the truth about the cost of oil extraction everywhere other than those places where it bubbles up through the sand and how that affects the price at the pump -- all these things have to be vigrously explained to the american public. And explained again. There are some low information voters on whom the truth will be lost, no matter how many times it's repeated. But there are other voters, low infomration as well but less anti-rational and closed-minded, who may not simply turn a deaf ear.
August 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Instead of being so sure that this is going to blow up in McCain's face we need to be thinking more than one move ahead. To assume that this is just some wild hay-maker is to be hit by it. They didn't do this on accident or simply out of desperation. Karl Rove has not retired. What's he thinking right now?
August 30, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's see.....
Would I have a beer with a person who believes that the earth was created intelligently just a few thousand years ago?
Most likely not.
Would I have a beer with a person who believes that abortion is wrong, even if the woman who is having the abortion is having it because she's a victim of rape or incest?
Definitely not.
Would I have a beer with a "token female" unknown and unvetted future President of the United States of America just because she represents "change"?
Hell no.
I'll drink alone, thanks.
August 29, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, DF, you have been missed. Thank you for voicing the concerns I've been raising all day to myself (and the cats, but they ain't listening) and stating them in a clear, Republicans-might-even-understand manner.
August 29, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My damn cats don't listen to me either.
Who does your hair? I LIKE!
August 29, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still around, but the Cafe wasn't enough to hold my interest in the face of summer pursuits. It got very boring and repetitive around here after Obama clinched it. Didn't stand a chance when weighed against backpacking, camping, wake-boarding, hiking, fishing, traveling the coast, etc. Took something interesting to grab me again.
August 29, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. DF should seek consent of the group before a prolonged absence.
To hell with the cats, get a dog.
August 30, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should've come over to my post where we were discussing them, LisB. ;-)
August 30, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah heck, I'll have a drink with you.
I agree her positions are vile, but she's GOP, so that is to be expected. That doen't bother me. What I find unacceptable is the thought that she is head and shoulders above anyone else and the best pick for our country.
The thought is utterly laughable. It seems like people are bending over backwards trying to make her into something she's not. What I am hearing from women is disgust.
It really shows McCains attitude towards women. If they're good looking, they're good as a side-kick. I can't see her doing much more than making quaint little goodwill visits to friendly countries.
What else is she even remotely qualified for?
August 29, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't he at least have picked a chick from Fox News who's been following the stories every day for the past four years??
August 29, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That might have made the tokenism a tad more transparent, but I think folks "get it," LisB.
Cheers
August 29, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a signal that they weren't gaining ground with Experience versus Change. They're ceding experience. Expect them to stop flogging it, but they'll be happy to use it as a defense if anyone decides to criticize Palin with it. Conway and Castellanos both had it cocked and loaded this evening.
This move does a few things. It grabs the news cycle back for McCain the day after Obama's big night at the DNC. It's going to keep grabbing it because Palin is an unknown quantity. Somehow McCain kept this quiet and the MSM is flat-footed. They didn't have a narrative ready for her, so they're busy trying to put together her life story. So far, it's glowering.
It's an obvious play, at least in part, for female voters who still harbor deep feelings of resentment and disenfranchisement. Will it stick in two months? I don't know. Maybe among women who only care about seeing a woman in high office. The question is, how many of them are there? There are at least a few.
The other play that I see at work here can be summed up in one word: Maverick. McCain still gets a free-ride with the maverick card and he's looking to expand that narrative. Experience won't trump change this year. He hasn't been able to get a leg up like that. Rove and company know they have a headwind this year and that a 50/50 split on election day isn't in their favor. This is a bid to snatch the narrative. They want change, but the story is now going to be that Obama can't give you the change you desire. McCain, the maverick, and the maverick Governor of Alaska can, though. They're political reformers.
Stop worrying about whether it's true. Will it play in Peoria?
August 29, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that out of the gate it will play, yes. I think people will see her and say "hey, she's a regular gal. and not hard on the eyes, either." and that's one reason she shouldn't be brought low right now -- it would be like slapping a stranger, totally shocking and people would rise (emotionally) in her defense.
but I think there's a good chance that once the newness is gone and people return to thinking about how they can't afford gas and that the country is in the shitter, I think they may look at her (and the old man) and think: this ain't good. she doesn't "have it."
maybe I'm dreaming, but I feel that if you superimposed her on a picture of a meeting with Putin or someone else, you'd look at this picture of the Beauty Queen and the Despot and think: he's going to eat her for lunch.
and one side note: if there are any avid video folk reading, I'd love to see a 2 minute montage of clips of John McCain and clips of George Bush doing their respective, insipid (Bush) and creepy (McCain) laughs. Perhaps with the overlay of "they've had so much fun these last 8 years that they'd like another 4. has it been fun for you?"
August 30, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin is a threefer - First, like DF said, choosing her hijacks the news cycle possibly until the election; then, a very close and possibly tied second is that she shores up the base; and coming in a distant third are whatever women they can snag from the Hillary pool.
The whole concoction will be included in a "Best of Rove" book some day.
August 30, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I don't want to have a beer with her either, but that's not what I'm getting at here. I'm trying to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, namely the type of voter that's being targetted with this move. If we entertain Bill Maher's assertion, how does this play?
August 29, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
just what do you have against beer?
August 29, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jack nothin'! In fact, it's Friday night and, by the look of my clock, beer-thirty!
Up, up and away!
August 29, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may have something here, DF. But I'm not so quick to accept Mahr's assertion this time. It's a different year, the electorate has different (and deeper) anxieties, and we have different candidates.
More people are paying attention this year than in past elections. Look at primary turnouts. And as much as I admire Gore, he's not nearly as exciting and inspiring as a candidate as Obama is.
BTW, good to see you again. :-)
August 29, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I forgot to add -- if you're going to use Larry King's show as a basis for your analysis, you should know that King has shown himself to be a rather obvious McCain supporter.
Just sayin.
August 29, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but he pretty much lets surrogates from both sides run their mouths.
I don't watch cable news for analytical content, I watch it to see how they're telling the story. I want to know what the subtext is.
August 29, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly hope this is the case. I'm still a little disturbed by the primary polls showing such a large number of voters who were willing to admit that they wouldn't vote for him because of his racial background. I'd also be a lot more comfortable with a bigger national lead for Obama. Maybe we'll see a big bounce for him next week or the week after from the convention, but this play by McCain may put a dent in that. He's re-grabbed the news cycle and it's going to stick in part because Palin is unknown. Everyone is going to be talking about her because they have to figure out who she is.
More than anything I just wanted to ponder McCain's pick in a different context. I know that I don't feel inclined to take Palin seriously, but I'm not the target of this gambit. McCain just made a game changing move and the chorus around here seems to be singing an early demise for Sarah Palin. I think that given the history (Rove hasn't retired), this is a strategic mistake for supporters of Obama. It should be considered more deeply than what I've seen today. All war is deception.
August 29, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm uneasy about being overly dismissive too.
But I keep thinking this is just the best pick they could muster out of a list of pretty poor veep picks. I really think they couldn't do any better than a really weak choice.
I saw a very good post here today that didn't get enough notice. In case you didn't get a chance to read it, you might find it interesting:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/the-dead-cat-bounce-why-this-p-2.php
I've been disappointed in polls so far, too. Especially polling questions about voter preferences on national security, economy, and energy policy. Like you, I believe there are a lot of (very) low-information voters out there who are basing their answers on very hazy memories of McCain's old mythological "maverick" image. I keep thinking that if more people "got to know" Obama, they would quickly and happily choose him over McCain.
Did you see the reports that Obama's acceptance speech had at least 38 million viewers? That's not counting people who watched on C-SPAN and PBS. I'm hoping that'll go a long way toward getting more people comfortable with Obama.
August 29, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the ratings for Obama's acceptance speech are heartening. I'm quite certain that making this announcement the day after Obama packed Invesco was no accident.
August 30, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you and I have talked about Bernays and the Manufacture of Consent before, so I agree with your premise. To take the ball and run with it, we live in a much different media environment from the one that would nuke someone like Quayle. Corporate media consolidation is greater; professional journalistic standards are nonexistent; RNC media insulate voters from contradictions, scandals, lies. She would have to violate one of the RNC taboos on live TV in order to be discredited in the eyes of the voters you mention.
My daydream is for a debate implosion. (Wayne's World doodleidoo noise)....
Biden: "And I cannot believe that Governor Palin would refuse to help the poor suffering Christians in Mozehkistan! How can she believe that Christian Mozehks are better off under terrorist rule?!! This is unbelievable."
Palin: "This is just not true. I have always supported the Christian Mozehks, and all the Mozehk people yearning for democracy. In fact, we need to do more to support the Mozehks, both in terms of aid and military assistance."
Biden: "There is no Mozehkistan. Pwnd."
August 30, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This election will be over if Biden actually has cause during a debate to say, "Pwnd."
August 30, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How likely do you think it is that the average American can see themself sharing a beer with Sarah Palin?
The average American male knows that Sarah Palin is waaaaaay out of his league. But he imagines that if she had eight or ten beers first then ... maybe!
August 29, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they'd rather have a beer with Joe Biden, honestly. I also think it's a little premature to call this a game-changer just because it's somewhat unexpected and she's a woman (the media was looking at Palin earlier in the season and dismissed her pretty quickly as unqualified and potentially scandal-plagued). I suppose it could be, but the verdict is hardly in on that. Palin's a hardcore conservative, a Bush Republican on most issues, and the Obama campaign is already pushing that idea. I'm also not sure Alaskan ruralism is something voters in the Rust Belt will identify with. Culturally, Northern Exposure isn't Pure Country by any stretch.
I do think you're alsolutely right about how the Republicans will try to frame her. I'm just not sure they'll be successful enough (especially with a little pushback) to make a difference in the context of a VP candidate. We'll see!
August 30, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I don't drink beer. So that leaves me out of the whole thing.
Having watched some clips and heard some discussion of her on PBS today I would say that people like her. She will excite the republican party which McCain had problems with. She is a breath of fresh air for them. She is smart. I think she will be formidable to some degree. I think she will sway some votes and turn away some votes and it's hard to tell which will be stronger.
She is stretching herself considerably to learn how to be the governor of Alaska according to one of her colleagues there. I do think that she simply would suck as a president. She is strong but she is would not be formidable to other nations as I think Hillary could be. John is too old to make this anything but more terrifying... What a mess. I think we who support Senator Obama will have a hard fight on our hands and every single person helping to bring in every single vote will make a difference.
August 30, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF, don't see you commenting as frequently as you used to. I miss it; you were a good voice. Uh. Rectify that or something.
August 30, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This voting BBQ thing is absolutely right and is why I am so worried about this.
All day long I found myself in conversations predicting, analyzing might mean to various voting groups. Tried to use logic and rational thought. I seemed to just end every conversation with, "then again, forget all that. These are the people that voted for Bush twice."
August 30, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF-
Unfortunately I see people not only having a beer (more likely in this case lemonade or sweet tea) with her, but also as her being the one organizing the backyard BBQ. I don't know if this will be enough to persuade the LIVs to vote against their own self interests again, but I think this could be trouble for Dems in rural and outer suburban areas. She definitely comes across at first look as the "one of us" Mrs. Smith gives them hell in Washington candidate. You and I can see past the naivete and absurdity of this choice, but if she is kept insulated by the MSM and if some false sense of being attacked unfairly in one sparsely-watched debate is manufactured, will the general electorate get it? As a commenter on clearthinker's thread wrote, I think McCain is going "all in". Obama, I believe is a pretty good poker player though and with a decent hand.
Still, I am baffled by this choice and like libgirl I have this feeling Palin won't make it to November. I have heard reports that Romney and Pawlenty are pissed. And what the hell is in Gov. Crist's closet? Is this all just test-marketing? Not much time for that.
I do, however, completely understand your explanation for your absence.
August 30, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I work with women like Sarah Palin. They're attractive and professional and I initially admire them. Then you find that they have weird evangelical ideas. They can run a department effectively and proudly display their bible school diploma in their office.
Having strong faith, you would think they would be tolerant of other's foreign ideas, understanding of other's superstitions. But no, they are firmly and fiercely stuck in their world-view. I'm not necessarily asking for moral-relativity from them, just some flexibility in imagination.
Needless to say, our conversations flounder and our sense of humors clash.
So maybe just one beer with Palin.
August 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word. I know women like her too. They are dirty fighters.
August 30, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
From a Seattle Times report:
The article is here http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008147904_palin30m0.html
and contains quotes from other Alaska politicians who know her. The Republican Senate President in AK is from Wasilla (Palin was Mayor there) and says that when she heard Palin was chosen she wanted to call McCain's capaign and tell them they "should have done more homework" considering the investigation she is currently under.
But it's that first quote that sums it up. It's come down to this now in America. Who'd of thought it would come down to the ability to hunt while being a hockey mom as a qualification to be commander in chief?
Paul Begala was on CNN last night and made an interesting comment. He said that when people plan for their future they plan for what will happen to their families in the event of their death. Would John McCain leave his children to this woman in the event of his death after only meeting her once 6 months ago? Probably not but he will leave 300 million Americans in her hands. He said that as a Dem he is happy with McCain's choice but as An American with family in Iraq he is terrified.
August 30, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this. Great addition to the thread and it gets right to the heart of what I'm talking about.
I don't care how much you might like Obama's policies, and I say this as someone who is largely in agreement with them, you have to recognize that elections aren't won on policy. Obama's success is due largely to his incredibly magnetic charisma. I've frequently disagreed with Billy Glad, but he'll tell you that politics is emotion. If you watch this game for long without understanding this then you aren't really paying attention.
I heard Begala make this statement last night and I thought it was quite interesting as well. When I try and read into what he's saying I think that he means he feels on perfectly solid ground when sitting in front of the camera and arguing this choice against his GOP counterparts. But why is he terrified? He's terrified because he also sees a credible threat.
August 30, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
When he said as a Dem it makes him happy I assume he means that the choice is a poor one for McCain. He is terrified at the thought of Palin at the helm in the event of McCain's death. But true, the terrifying aspect means he recognizes it as a genuine possibility.
The fact that people vote on the basis of gut and personality gives the media extreme power. They can take the same person and portray them as a devil or a saint depending on what photos and quotes they use and their commentary. Continually showing Al Gore getting a bit miffed in a debate made him look bitchy and it cost him votes.
I honestly don't know what to think, Bush winning in 2004 threw me for a loop. He looked as bad then as he does today. The media sunk Kerry, will they do the same to Obama? Will they (omitting Fox) be balanced? Will they go as hard on Palin as they would a man? I don't know, I'm stunned. But in my gut I think the choice of Palin was a very good thing for Dems.
August 30, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF:
Great blog as usual. And you were able to bring out a few folks who pointedly didn't post on my similar topic yesterday. ;-)
We've heard so much in anger about "not gloating" from the Hillary supporters, and also were chided along the same lines from the Obama camp.
And yet, here we are, many of us already "gloating" over the win in November. You'd think that these smug Democrats would remember the following:
1976: Carter beats Ford only barely mostly tied to the Nixon pardon. (This should have been a much wider victory.)
1980: Reagan beats Carter, redefines the electoral map. Carter couldn't even hold on using incumbent status.
1984: Reagan demolished Mondale and the Democratic party.
1988: Bush becomes the first sitting VP to get elected president since Martin Van Buren over Dukakis as the Dems continue to implode.
1992: Clinton beats Bush, but without a majority, in a 3-way race. Consensus is that Ross Perot (who garnered about 20% of the vote) is the real reason why Bush goes down in defeat.
1996: Clinton uses popular incumbent status to beat Bob Dole. Despite this, popular vote for Congress tips to GOP.
2000: Gore can't make a decisive victory over Bush (couldn't carry his own state) and has election decided by other means
2004: Bush has even more turnout than in 2000 and defeats Kerry.
2008: Traditional Dem machine supports Hillary Clinton but is defeated by Barack Obama.
I'd give this record about an F+.
It's not over until it's over.
Of course, I have the problem of spouting the unpopular views. ;-)
August 30, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, I tried to post a comment along these lines on your post, but I was getting database errors and they never showed up. I was trying to avoid being another inadvertent multi-poster so I decided to just start my own thread with it, but yours was great food for thought.
You also seem to have a perennial obsession with those pesky little facts. You should know by now that they have no place in political discourse!
August 30, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many would like to share a beer with her, mostly men. This pick is for the male bible and gun constituency.
August 30, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, I honestly think they over estimated any response from Hillary's supporters. The first polls are in and as you say, men view her much more favorably than women:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003844485
August 30, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She will appeal to the rightwing, which is disproportionately men.
This is a base-pandering VP.
I think she will either be irrelevant or possibly damaging for everyone else.
But most of all, it ruins McCain's only argument against Obama. A really stupid move from that perspective.
August 30, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count James Dobson among them.
August 30, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like my post says this is like the Bush-Cheney tickey except REVERSED. There is a reason the right is so energized by this pick you can just call he a compassionate conservative.
August 30, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the GOP pulls this off the electorate will be just like Walter Sobchak, throwing out a ringer for a ringer. Who will reform the reformers?
August 30, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walter would hate this ticket. He was in 'Nam, dotcha know...she's not ready to go toe-to-toe with the nihilists (Putin, Ahmadinejad, etc)....
August 30, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sure about that?
August 30, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Cindy McCain likes her. Heh.
I would not have a beer with her. But then I am a liberal. I cannot believe McCain picked her. I wish I had time right now I'd write a post on the top 10 reasons why a Alaskan hockey mom should be the next VP of the USA. Reason 1, she wants to cut spending. Reas on 2, she wants tax cuts. and so forth. Reason 3, she's not interested in foreign policy, etc, etc.
See, I think McCain picked her because 1) in a fit of jealousy (yes, I think McCain is a jealous, vindictive buzzard) he picked her to take attention away from Obama's fab speech. Or, 2) no one else would accept!!! ok. I'm out of here.
Good to see you back, DF. ;)
August 30, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment