I'm not gonna debate you, Jerry! Politics thread.

by **dajafi** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 01:26:45

The other guy on FiveThirtyEight.com evidently shares my concern that Biden will commit a "Sinatraism" in debate with Palin:

One reason I've been arguing to Nate all week that McCain might need to pick a woman once Biden was picked is that while Biden has the ability to hit hard, would he hit a woman hard? And with specifically Palin, who is young and attractive, does it bait Biden into some kind of stray condescending comment about her youth and looks that would make many people furious, particularly women?

Call it the "gorgeous broad" mentality. Biden's got a bit of that Sinatra-ism, where he refers to his wife as "drop dead gorgeous" and it sounds like that's the way Biden most naturally expresses himself. But that's his wife. Biden can get away with that. With Palin, he might find himself giving a comment that in his mind sounds like a compliment, but comes out all wrong.

He also provides some strategic context for the "risk" McCain chose to take:

If McCain and Obama each consolidate their bases at the same percentages, Obama wins. There are now numerically more Democrats, and independents favor Obama. Before the conventions, McCain had moved past Obama, mostly because many women in Hillary Clinton's coalition had failed to warm to the Democratic nominee. Obama was stuck at 83% of his base and McCain had moved from a tie into 87% consolidation. Had this week's Denver convention not been as successful from a unity standpoint, McCain might not have needed as much to go for broke. If Obama secures his base, wins indies (as he's easily doing) and dominates in the ground game, game over for McCain. Demographically, the mountain is too steep to climb.

So what does McCain do? He picks a woman specifically to aim a wedge at the Obama base. It's a demographic pick - all about gaming the vote and little about governing. This is not the resume of a male candidate that would be acceptable. There is a small but legitimate chance Joe Biden will say something that can be used to call the Obama ticket a sexist one. Biden, of course, will and should be coached to restrain any such "stray comment" impulse in which he is wont to indulge.

But even if Biden (or anyone else) doesn't take the bait by dismissing her in a condescendingly sexist way, putting a woman on the ticket may give other Democratic women who don't want to vote for Obama a real reason to cross over. People aren't as undecided when it comes to politics as they claim, a recent study argues. They just haven't found an articulable reason to capture their decision. If some Democratic women don't really want to vote for Obama, identity politics may provide them with an affirmative, articulable reason to do so. McCain is old, and Palin could very easily become the next president by default.

I don't think it gives anything away to admit the truth of what I bolded here. After all, isn't it worth a little cynical politicking to save the country from the (possibly Muslim) socialism to which Comrade Obama is hell-bent on subjecting us?

by **CalvinBall** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 01:28:59

TomatoPie wrote:
seke2 wrote:I don't think Obama supporters are necessarily contending that he has all this amazing experience. But he has a perspective, a world-view, and he's had about 6-8 years in the public eye to show the world what he wants to do. He's taken a stance on just about every notable issue and people know what he's about.

Perhaps Palin has those same things, and perhaps she's the Republican Obama...but 60 days is a very, very short time for her to convince people that her inexperience doesn't matter. Because obviously, most of Obama's supporters (myself included), are willing to overlook his relative inexperience because of his inspirational leadership abilities and his goals (whether or not he has the prior experience to necessarily make all of those goals a reality).

6-8 for Saint Barry, 13 for Gov Palin. And executive experience, which is totally mising on the Obama CV.

Does being a mayor of a small town really count? They deal with things like how many parking meters to install and angry neighbors.

by **swishnicholson** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 01:31:58

dajafi wrote:The other guy on FiveThirtyEight.com evidently shares my concern that Biden will commit a "Sinatraism" in debate with Palin:

I somehow missed this post before I made mine. That this feeling is apparently a bit widespread hardly makes me feel better, or better about Biden as the choice.

by **dajafi** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 01:33:19

Wow. David Frum seemsto have some of the same thoughts I've had:

The Palin choice looks cynical. The wires are showing.

John McCain wanted a woman: good.

He wanted to keep conservatives and pro-lifers happy: naturally.

He wanted someone who looked young and dynamic: smart.

And he discovered that he could not reconcile all these imperatives with the stated goal of finding a running mate qualified to assume the duties of the presidency "on day one."

Sarah Palin may well have concealed inner reservoirs of greatness. I hope so! But I'd guess that John McCain does not have a much better sense of who she is, what she believes, and the extent of her abilities than my enthusiastic friends over at the Corner. It's a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.

Here's I fear the worst harm that may be done by this selection. The McCain campaign's slogan is "country first." It's a good slogan, and it aptly describes John McCain, one of the most self-sacrificing, gallant, and honorable men ever to seek the presidency.

But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

edit: In a print column, he offers this summary on the question you guys have been arguing:

Ms. Palin's experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall

.

by **CalvinBall** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 01:37:45

Good find Dajafi. This line is really good and I think the best way to go about attacking the choice.

"But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance. "

by **dajafi** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 01:44:05

CalvinBall wrote:Good find Dajafi. This line is really good and I think the best way to go about attacking the choice.

"But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance. "

That's probably too rational and/or involved an argument for a campaign style that's edging ever closer to Paula Abdul and Simon Cowell. It reminds me a little of the ads Dukakis ran in 1988. Somewhat prompted by the Quayle pick, but more probably by the specious attacks ("Dukakis won't say the Pledge of Allegiance! Some prison official in his state furloughed a black guy who killed a white chick!! Gaaaahhh!!!"), he ran a series of commercials that essentially tried to communicate that the Bush campaign was manipulating voters.

While arguably true--the 15 year-old dajafi sure thought so--it turned out that people don't like being told that they're being manipulated.

I think Obama can win by keeping the focus on the proven awful results of the Republican policies home and abroad favored by Bush and McCain, and presenting himself as the broadly acceptable, more-mainstream alternative. Putting it super-simply, the way things have lined up this year means that he doesn't have to tear them down to win; they have to tear him down.

by **pacino** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 06:42:27

dajafi wrote:The other guy on FiveThirtyEight.com evidently shares my concern that Biden will commit a "Sinatraism" in debate with Palin:

One reason I've been arguing to Nate all week that McCain might need to pick a woman once Biden was picked is that while Biden has the ability to hit hard, would he hit a woman hard? And with specifically Palin, who is young and attractive, does it bait Biden into some kind of stray condescending comment about her youth and looks that would make many people furious, particularly women?

Call it the "gorgeous broad" mentality. Biden's got a bit of that Sinatra-ism, where he refers to his wife as "drop dead gorgeous" and it sounds like that's the way Biden most naturally expresses himself. But that's his wife. Biden can get away with that. With Palin, he might find himself giving a comment that in his mind sounds like a compliment, but comes out all wrong.

He also provides some strategic context for the "risk" McCain chose to take:

If McCain and Obama each consolidate their bases at the same percentages, Obama wins. There are now numerically more Democrats, and independents favor Obama. Before the conventions, McCain had moved past Obama, mostly because many women in Hillary Clinton's coalition had failed to warm to the Democratic nominee. Obama was stuck at 83% of his base and McCain had moved from a tie into 87% consolidation. Had this week's Denver convention not been as successful from a unity standpoint, McCain might not have needed as much to go for broke. If Obama secures his base, wins indies (as he's easily doing) and dominates in the ground game, game over for McCain. Demographically, the mountain is too steep to climb.

So what does McCain do? He picks a woman specifically to aim a wedge at the Obama base. It's a demographic pick - all about gaming the vote and little about governing. This is not the resume of a male candidate that would be acceptable. There is a small but legitimate chance Joe Biden will say something that can be used to call the Obama ticket a sexist one. Biden, of course, will and should be coached to restrain any such "stray comment" impulse in which he is wont to indulge.

But even if Biden (or anyone else) doesn't take the bait by dismissing her in a condescendingly sexist way, putting a woman on the ticket may give other Democratic women who don't want to vote for Obama a real reason to cross over. People aren't as undecided when it comes to politics as they claim, a recent study argues. They just haven't found an articulable reason to capture their decision. If some Democratic women don't really want to vote for Obama, identity politics may provide them with an affirmative, articulable reason to do so. McCain is old, and Palin could very easily become the next president by default.

I don't think it gives anything away to admit the truth of what I bolded here. After all, isn't it worth a little cynical politicking to save the country from the (possibly Muslim) socialism to which Comrade Obama is hell-bent on subjecting us?

If this election hinges on whether Biden calls her hot or not(of which I've noticed EVERYONE else has done) I think I want to resign from the United Stats of America.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 07:56:49

I think the hotness meme, as far as I can tell being pushed by Republicans, is going to backfire bigtime. Fawn Hall was a competent secretary, but no one remembers that now. If this pick was designed to get "bitter Hillary supporters" to turn away from McCain, the fact that she's attractive and hasn't had to run the gauntlet that Hillary did is going to put a stop to that as well. I've already heard one Hillary supporter react with anger and indignation about this pick as cynical and manipulative.

It's going to undercut all the "celebrity Paris Hilton" nonsense as well, though that's a good thing.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 08:02:50

You guys are focusing on the woman thing too much and overlooking that she makes the base happy because she's got a reputation of being very fiscally and socially conservative, and she's also a reformer. Taking on the party in Alaska. A suitable sidekick to the Original Maverick.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 08:05:30

jerseyhoya wrote:You guys are focusing on the woman thing too much and overlooking that she makes the base happy because she's got a reputation of being very fiscally and socially conservative, and she's also a reformer. Taking on the party in Alaska. A suitable sidekick to the Original Maverick.

But do you think she was chosen just because she was a social conservative?

By the way, if I'm an SNL writer, I've got a skit already where there's all these white guys sitting around talking about important stuff, and she's in charge of the coffee, even though she knows more and is smarter than the fat white Republicans she's serving.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 08:25:51

I just have this feeling that the McCain/Palin ticket will go down in history the same way Mondale/Ferraro did. It smacks of loser.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 08:40:24

CalvinBall wrote:Does being a mayor of a small town really count? They deal with things like how many parking meters to install and angry neighbors.

While Truman was a US Senator, and David McCullough has made a heroic effort to demonstrate he was not exclusively a Pendergast handpuppet in that role, his resume did not really shine much more brightly than Palin's.

So I'm conflicted. I sincerely do not believe the Presidency (let alone the VPidency) actually requires a plethora of resume-burnishing accomplishments most of the time. A genuine engagement with the possibilities as well as the responsibilities of the roles seems to be more critical to substantive performance (the current resident's shortfalls on these counts may be instructive) than toolsyness.

But I am also a sucker for making percentage bets, and attending to probability.

Ah, screw it - Mr. President, with the French dandling Carla Bruni before the eyes of a drooling world, we cannot allow a "babes in the statehouse" gap!!

by **The Red Tornado** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 08:42:17

Warszawa wrote:I just have this feeling that the McCain/Palin ticket will go down in history the same way Mondale/Ferraro did. It smacks of loser.

They will get a lot more electoral votes than Mondale/Ferraro ever did-I think they only got Minnesota and DC

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 08:51:00

I think all the "waa! small town!" stuff is going to/may already be backfiring. Seen through the lense of the progressive movement the criticism makes sense, but I think the overall complaint plays to the stereotype that liberals are elitist. This election, more than others, is awash with hypocritical criticisms from one side to the other. The party proclaiming the fresh faced change of Obama and minimizes his thin non-governing experience one day is riding the other inexperienced candidate a day later. I'm waiting for someone to argue that Obama was at least a senator a year longer than Palin was governor.

Look, Biden is Obama's BSD compared to McCain's Palin pair of boobs. They're both incredibly pandering and meant to sure up support among the fringes - one is no more pandering than the other.

Being a mayor or governor for a few years is light years closer to the job of being president compared to twaddling through the senate for 60 years or however long McCain and Biden (+ Obama) have been doing it.

by **Laexile** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 08:54:50

TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:You guys are focusing on the woman thing too much and overlooking that she makes the base happy because she's got a reputation of being very fiscally and socially conservative, and she's also a reformer. Taking on the party in Alaska. A suitable sidekick to the Original Maverick.

But do you think she was chosen just because she was a social conservative?

Yes. He needed to find a social conservative who wouldn't turn off independents and could reinforce his message of reform. That she's a woman regarded as an up and comer so much the better. I understand the criticism of her skimpy resume, but Obama's isn't really any longer. He's spent half his senate term running for president. She could undercut the McCain mantra "ready from day one," but if you believe that she'll need to be ready from day one, because McCain has a foot in the grave, I don't think you were inclined to vote for McCain anyway.

Yes, he's 72, but he hasn't had any major life threatening medical problems like Joe Biden or Dick Cheney had. Roberta McCain is still going strong at 96 while Barack Obama's mom passed away. You just never know about these things.

Her resume presents a challenge. They need to prove that's just what they need, instead of shying away like Obama has. Al Gore got it right when he pointed out Abe Lincoln's resume was eerily similar to Obama's. A long resume hasn't always been necessary for a President or VP. FDR had only four years of elected office when he became President. Lincoln, Grant, Eisenhower, Wilson, Jackson, Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt each had less experience than FDR. Four of the last five presidents hadn't held elected office in Washington.

The whole "he picked a woman to pander" gets to me. We'd hear the same thing if he picked Bobby Jindal, a Hispanic, or African-American. Almost any pick other than an old white guy could be seen that way and he'd have gotten criticized for not being progressive if he picked an old white guy like Romney.

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 09:40:48

Wow. Forget about how evil Republicans are and how George Bush detonated all of the levees and ordered that the black people should not be evacuated from New Orleans and all - how bad does it suck if you're the organizer of the RNC and you know a mother effer hurricane is about to hit New Orleans. What do you do?

I can see Keith Olberman just slobbering at the idea of being able to intersect images of Republicans waving "We :h:

McCain" signs with rape gangs and cannibalism (and demolition experts) going on in New Orleans.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 09:43:16

VoxOrion wrote:Wow. Forget about how evil Republicans are and how George Bush detonated all of the levees and ordered that the black people should not be evacuated from New Orleans and all - how bad does it suck if you're the organizer of the RNC and you know a mother effer hurricane is about to hit New Orleans. What do you do?

I can see Keith Olberman just slobbering at the idea of being able to intersect images of Republicans waving "We McCain" signs with rape gangs and cannibalism (and demolition experts) going on in New Orleans.

I prefer the notion that this hurricane is a reminder from God that we should not vote for Republicans. The timing is just too perfect.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 09:47:51

Mountainphan wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
Mountainphan wrote:And your proof that she is lacking in "mental horsepower"? How about some substance to back up your vapid posts for once. Or am I getting too serious?

You haven't begun to be serious. Take a very basic marker - educational attainment. Palin: U Idaho journalism degree. Obama: Harvard Law, president of the Law Review.

You're seriously prepared to put her on Obama's level? No, you're not; you're just trolling.

I'm not sure if you're some amalgam of lax, tpie, cshort, and mpmcgraw, or not, but I have to hand it to you - you're more tiresome, faster, than any of them

Again, you fail to provide a substantive response, instead throwing out an accusation of trolling. I guess I didn't fully realize the impact the Palin choice has had on you until now.

Palin believes in teaching creation science. Automatic disqualification for intelligent in my mind.

by **seke2** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 09:54:11

TomatoPie wrote:
seke2 wrote:I don't think Obama supporters are necessarily contending that he has all this amazing experience. But he has a perspective, a world-view, and he's had about 6-8 years in the public eye to show the world what he wants to do. He's taken a stance on just about every notable issue and people know what he's about.

Perhaps Palin has those same things, and perhaps she's the Republican Obama...but 60 days is a very, very short time for her to convince people that her inexperience doesn't matter. Because obviously, most of Obama's supporters (myself included), are willing to overlook his relative inexperience because of his inspirational leadership abilities and his goals (whether or not he has the prior experience to necessarily make all of those goals a reality).

6-8 for Saint Barry, 13 for Gov Palin. And executive experience, which is totally mising on the Obama CV.

And all but 1.5 of those 13 were running a town of like 5000 people where it seems like her biggest issue was whether or not to build a sports stadium. I think that Obama's political experience trumps hers, except for maybe the last 1.5 years. Even as governor of Alaska, she only has, what, 500k constituents? That's less than Obama has ever had in any of his major roles. Definitely true that she had executive experience and Obama didn't, but we've had Presidents who didn't have executive experience before and they haven't all been disasters.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 09:58:52

I would say the problem with Palin's executive experience is that unlike most governors who seek the Presidency or Vice-Presidency, she hasn't been there long enough to demonstrate executive skills. Typically, you choose a governor who is widely credited with making things measurably better in the state he governed. Giuliani, Huckabee, even Bush all could take credit for successful initiatives during their term. There's no way 1.5 years as governor makes that possible.

Archived

I'm not gonna debate you, Jerry! Politics thread.