dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

FTN wrote:So the people who initially thought the Palin choice was "great", "fresh", and "smart" still agree? I mean, I know its an intricate point, but you'd think the potential VP would know the actual role of the VP.

I'm not sure how she hurt his ticket, it's kind of like trying to prove a negative. We'd have to be able to somehow determine where he'd be in the polls if he had selected Romney or whomever. I don't think anyone here expected him to win, so it's hard to argue that he'd be winning now if he selected someone else anyway. His only real jumps in the polls surrounded his slection of her as VP, and the convention where she played a big roll in the end. If the best he can claim occurred in the 2008 election are his two jumps in the polls, it's tough to argue that she didn't play a role in both.

I don't know how exactly one would quantify it, but I do think she hurt, in at least two and maybe three ways.

One, the sense among independents that she isn't qualified is really damaging--both because McCain's no spring chicken and has some health concerns, so the prospect of her taking office isn't at all beyond the realm of the plausible, and because it says something about his judgment.

Two, while she fired up the Republican base, she also fired up the Dem base--and this isn't a good year for the Rs to run a base polarization strategy. The Dem base is bigger, evidently deeper-pocketed (if for no other reason than because Obama opted out of public financing), and more highly motivated. And if you believe that antipathy is a more powerful motivator, Palin provided that--which wasn't really there with McCain.

The possible third way is opportunity cost. If he'd picked Romney, he would have had a more compelling surrogate on economic issues. If he'd picked Ridge (almost wrote "Lidge"...) or Lieberman, he would have reinforced the bipartisan/post-partisan messaging--which would have helped him make the closing argument that voters shouldn't give the Democrats unified control of the federal government, and probably would have preserved his amen corner in the media, which I think deserted him over Palin more than any other one thing.

(Admittedly, Lieberman might have ginned up as much agita on the left as Palin has. But I don't think Romney or Ridge or Pawlenty, all former/current blue-state governors, would have done so.)

This all seems like a lot to give up to make James Dobson happy.

dajafi wrote:I don't think there's anything "wrong" with this, but it's interesting and, I'm guessing, unprecedented:

The RNC "appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August," reports Politico.

The McCain campaign "declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing."

Said a spokeswoman: "The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent."

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:I don't think there's anything "wrong" with this, but it's interesting and, I'm guessing, unprecedented:

The RNC "appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August," reports Politico.

The McCain campaign "declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing."

Said a spokeswoman: "The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent."

I agree with your insinuation that only wealthy people with classy wardrobes should run for office. Not everyone can afford a $400 haircut or a nice variety of pantsuits, and these people should not be representing us in office. The everyday working man (or woman) can't just roll out in his customary jeans and t-shirt on the campaign trail; they need to have the means to buy nice clothing, and they need to feel comfortable wearing appropriate, formal attire. And why should the electorate be forced to pay for these haircuts and nice suits when you have a good number of well-dressed multimillionaires who are willing and able to dress the part, people like Mitt Romney, Ross Perot, and Mike Bloomberg. We should establish a minimum wealth requirement to run for higher office. That may keep all the peons and thousandaires with <$250K incomes from where they don't belong, on the Senate Floor and in the Oval Office. Unless you're paying the maximum marginal tax rate, you can't properly allocate those taxes to your pet projects.

Additionally, I'm disappointed she's not keeping her clothing after the election win:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... n-won.html

mpmcgraw wrote:So are we still pretending Werthless isn't a republican so that his opinion seems more valid or has his cover been blown yet?

Werthless wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:So are we still pretending Werthless isn't a republican so that his opinion seems more valid or has his cover been blown yet?

I'm just pleased that people now recognize my name. One of my first posts in the politics thread was in response to a PtK post, and the first reply was "who are you."

Houshphandzadeh wrote:re: Werthless

I've usually thought your posts were fairly balanced, but you've got to be kidding there. $150,000 for a wardrobe, really? Equating that to a $400 haircut? $150,000?

Werthless wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:So are we still pretending Werthless isn't a republican so that his opinion seems more valid or has his cover been blown yet?

I'm just pleased that people now recognize my name. One of my first posts in the politics thread was in response to a PtK post, and the first reply was "who are you."

mpmcgraw wrote:

Werthless wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:So are we still pretending Werthless isn't a republican so that his opinion seems more valid or has his cover been blown yet?

I'm just pleased that people now recognize my name. One of my first posts in the politics thread was in response to a PtK post, and the first reply was "who are you."

did i say that? that sounds like something id say.

Werthless wrote:And what does sartorial mean? My dictionary just gives me a lame meaning, relating to the Latin orgin meaning "tailor."

"Of or relating to a tailor, tailoring, or tailored clothing"

Do you mean I am sensitive to items concerning clothing?

A document provided to Washington Whispers from a House GOP official shows that they could lose a net 34 seats. That means the Democrats would have a 270-165 advantage in the 111th Congress.

An internal poll from Sen. Barack Obama's campaign in Pennsylvania has him just two points ahead of Sen. John McCain, according to The Hill.

"WILK radio host Steve Corbett said Tuesday he obtained an Obama campaign e-mail about the internal poll showing a tight race." The Obama campaign "wouldn't confirm the internal poll numbers, but said that the e-mail was sent without permission."

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:If Obama wins, what is Jon Stewart going to do?

Hopefully start mercilessly making fun of Obama and pointing it out when he lies or $#@! up.

I think everybody has gotten so used to the comprehensive tribalism of Bush-era politics that we've forgotten it doesn't have to be that way.