I feel like this article finally gets the real point and impact of the Palin selection:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/13016.html
McCain seems to have found a way to energize the evangelical wing of the Republican party. It's about guns in the rust belt and abortions in the south. Will McCain dispense with his moderation on these issues to compliment Palin or are social conservatives going to have to ignore the presidential debates?
One other thing interesting about this article, what's with social conservatives using the F word in sound bites?
Posts
Bailey Hall
This is where the magic happens
Welcome
This blog will host a continuing dialogue regarding national politics and political communication theory. Its creation was inspired by the Spring 2008 Political Communication graduate seminar at the University of Kansas but will assuredly transcend this purpose and earn international acclaim for the insight contained herein. Enjoy the reading and post freely, even if you are not associated with the seminar. After all, what is political communication if not democratic.
Ben Warner
Ben Warner
5 comments:
This will be a long post, but I am curious as to your responses....
My bias on this is that I had hoped he would do something "daring" and make this an interesting race (some of you might have heard me say that at some point lately) -- and I thought he had the room (read: nothing to lose) to pick someone different for the R party, preferably a woman, and shake the whole thing up. I wonder, however, if the impact is actually more complex than "just" getting the conservatives on board. Ben, your article suggests it brings pro-lifers and the NRA supporters -- but what about firming up moderate Republican women who are soccer moms and not wed to either issue mentioned above, but wed instead to security concerns? Yet, they didn’t find anything in McCain (same old picture: old white guys running the show… which is why they were considering Obama until Thursday night when they were left underwhelmed). What about the conservative Dems who are hawks on foreign policy and the economy, but also lean pro-life? And what about those young people who aren’t particularly liberal, but didn’t want to have to vote for the oldest ticket in history.
Regarding Hillary supporters, this offers an alternative for those who are not excited about the liberalness or "same old politician"-ness that Biden brings to the Obama ticket, the perception that Obama is taking this for granted, and because quite simply no one in the media’s elite spotlight “talks” to them right now.
Here is an article that offers perhaps more insight than bias re: the pick: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083002377.html
And an interesting one about young Obama supporters being a little disheartened after the convention:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/us/politics/31vote.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
(If you can’t click on these from here check out Real Clear Politics under “political news and analysis” – these are the Washington Post and NYT articles in that section for Sunday)
My initial reaction was surprise that someone so conservative was chosen. But after reading around the 'net a bit, I agree that galvanizing the conservative base is a big benefit of choosing Palin and, given the selection of Biden, having a woman on the Republican ticket can help counter the perception that the GOP is a
'good old boys' club.
I think the idea that Palin would appeal to Hilary's supporters is an interesting one and her quote during her address to the DNC almost indirectly addresses this. When she said something to the effect of 'are you in this for me or for the issues', that quote could be easily applied to the Palin question. While, as a woman, the thought of a woman in a position of power is an appealing one, the thought of supporting her just because she is a woman (even though she goes completely against my stance on several issues) is ridiculous. So, I'm interested to see how many of Hilary's supporters do jump ship, given that Palin's platform seems to be so different from Hilary's.
The argument over her experience level is going to be interesting as well, especially given all the flak that has been thrown Obama's way.
I still feel that, regardless of what this may be about for the McCain camp, its lasting impact will be on the base. I even question that. When the dust settles and they get over the excitement of being included in the ticket, McCain is still a moderate on some of their core issues (unless he flip-flops like he did on drilling, tax cuts and torture). I will add this caveat, if she is party to a major gaffe or a scandal hits (the new baby actually belongs to her daughter, she gets indicted because of the brother-in-law fiasco, she said something crazy a while ago and no-one knows it yet) then her lasting legacy may be permanently tanking the McCain ticket.
I think Hillary supporters are unlikely to be moved. Katy hit it on the head here. If they were still unconvinced after the convention then there was probably no getting them. However, putting an ardent pro-lifer on the ticket, especially when the nomination raises questions of tokenism, is more likely to drive away the kind of ardent Hillary supporter that may have voted for McCain to spite Obama.
Soccer moms are a different story, but they do tend to favor gun control (always afraid of the next school shooting) and are perhaps (remembering Shafley) among the most likely to think Palin's kids are too young for her to be thinking about office. As ironic as it is, I believe suburban moms contribute as much to the glass ceiling in politics as anyone. It was frustration with this reality that prompted Hilary's famous "baking cookies" gaffe.
Finally, I bet a big reason McCain did this was to halt momentum that was building from the convention and minimize Obama's bump. He was said to be having trouble filling 10,000 seats for his speech. This certainly changes the whole discussion about the campaign, all the talk is about McCain and Palin. From that perspective it's worked brilliantly. It does seem desperate to me though. Look at this
"On the potential downside, the drama was evidently entirely genuine. The fact that McCain only spoke with Palin about the vice presidency for the first time on Sunday, and that he was seriously considering Lieberman until days ago, suggests just how hectic and improvisational his process was. "
This quote is from a fairly well reasoned article from Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12997_Page2.html
Also, be sure to check out this youtube clip, the first 15 seconds. This wasn't that long ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loUHRv3ipLE
It makes me wonder, if McCain/Palin wins, will Palin surpass Cheney as the most influential VP of all time........
I'm totally fascinated by this development. It's such an interesting trade off. The Republican ticket gets a number of key things it was clearly lacking, but they have to jeopardize some of their firepower to do it. I think the notion that the Palin-pick was an offensive move, rather than a defensive ploy was fairly accurate - even if the quote came from Rush Limbaugh. They do give up some ground on the experience appeal, since any comments regarding Obama's inexperience have an implicit link to Palin's even more paltry credentials, but she is unquestionably a "Home Run" for social conservatives and the uninspired corners of the Republican base.
I have a hard time imagining there are more than a tiny hand-full of Hillary supporters who would ever consider supporting a anti-abortion conservative like Palin just because she's a woman. Conservative "soccer moms" on the other hand, who may have quietly appreciated what Hillary's candidacy did for the advancement of women, may be thrilled with this shake-up.
Lastly, the Republicans are going to have an interesting time making a case for Palin as a competent successor to their septuagenarian candidate. Has anyone heard credible sources claiming the party is pressing McCain to commit to a one-term presidency? I heard something along those lines in the post-DNC coverage.
I think J.D. makes an interesting point about Palin as an offensive vs. a defensive pick. While my instinct is to believe that a VP pick does very little in getting a candidate elected as I hear from many of those Sunday morning political analysts, I still think about motivation on behalf of McCain and the Republican party and what exactly that motivation is/was. I don't think I can answer that question here, but the following could be a possible piece of the answer.
The question still remains; does this pick help or hurt McCain. I think it is obviously too early to tell. However, as Micahel Moore said (and I know he is a bit on the "why don't you shut your mouth" side sometimes), if McCain believes Palin will get female independent, undecided, or former Clinton voters to jump on his ticket, then he is insulting women across the country. To believe that women would vote from someone because of her gender and not her positions on key issues is quite presumptive. Maybe that can spark some debate and I think it could be an interesting discussion. Feel free to check that clip out below (it is a ways in at the 5:50 mark, if you watch it all you will want to reach through the screen and try to shave off that disgusting beard):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzEN73Cfjrg
However, I think we can feel good about her foreign policy experience due to the in-depth analysis of the Fox News crew in the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwWGS73v4_k
In all seriousness, Palin I sure will hold her own in the debates and be a strong presence throughout the campaign. Let this post be a catalyst for some fun discussion.
Cheers!
Post a Comment