Matt asked why I thought Palin was a bad choice, and I promoted this from the comments due to length.
First of all: huge disclaimer. I think the vast majority of voters vote for the top of the ticket. Very very rarely does the VP selection make a real difference in the outcome of an election. In this case, the two VP candidates "control" a sum total of six electoral votes (combined!), both from safe states. There's no electoral argument for either, and the effect of a great choice or terrible choice is going to be quite muted, I think.
The first rule of choosing a running mate, however, is to "do no harm," and I think Palin does that, on several levels.
Experience -- McCain's central narrative has been that he has the experience to be President and Obama does not. The pick of Palin destroys McCain's central and most potent attack against Obama. It may be that McCain has decided to give up on that line of argument (seeing that it did not work for Hillary), or to trade off that argument for the positives that Palin does bring.
Youth -- Man, she's young. Not as young as Jindal, but seeing he standing next to McCain really reinforces McCain's age, which is of interest to voters, especially since it brings up the "What if?" thought. Is she really ready to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency? (McCain has long joked that the chief duty of the VP is to inquire every day on the health of the President. I don't think we'll hear that joke from him any more.)
Ethics -- She ran as a "good government" reformer, but has a Troopergate scandal of her own (that I have actually been following for a few months). It's still early enough in the investigation that it probably won't be too greatly linked to her in the next 67 days, but it is a bit surprising that McCain would pick someone with an active ethics investigation.
Contrast -- Man, she's gotta debate Biden, and she may be the least qualified VP debater since Stockdale. She will benefit from the low expectations thing, and Biden will have to be careful to avoid a Lazio moment. I expect he will not be too aggressive, and will re-direct his sharpest attacks on McCain to avoid an appearance of bullying. Still, they have clearly written off the VP debate as a "winnable" night for the GOP.
Cynicism -- this seems a pretty transparent ploy to pick a female VP to try to appeal to disaffected Hillary voters. Given her hard-right credentials, it's hard to see that gaining much traction,
Unknown -- nobody knows who the hell she is. Sure, we'll all learn, but she doesn't bring strength to the ticket on day one like Biden, Gore, Cheney or Lieberman did.
There are some positives, to be sure:
She's a surprise. Lotta buzz there. Nice job by the McCain team.
She's very hard right and very well known among the christian right. She is a vocal pro-lifer and a creationist to boot. I think the real reason she was chosen was as a sop to the culture warriors who have been so ambivalent on McCain himself. The parallel between Palin and Quayle is almost exact in that respect (but palin is smarter for sure).
One good thing is that she would certainly not have the clout in a McCain white House that Cheney does. It will be nice to see the power of the VP's office fade back towards its traditional level.
The other interesting thing is that neither McCain or Obama picked a "reinforcing" running mate; both went to a mate whould would plug a perceived weakness. Palin is an olive branch to conservatives and an attempt to win over women (who typically vote democratic by 10+ points). A reinforcing pick would have been a Lieberman or another tough veteran neocon. Contrariwise, Obama could have picked a young political outsider to cement his change message, but he chose Biden for the gravitas thing. Not sure there's a "right" answer to the dilemma, but it is interesting that both candidates came to the same conclusion this year.
First of all: huge disclaimer. I think the vast majority of voters vote for the top of the ticket. Very very rarely does the VP selection make a real difference in the outcome of an election. In this case, the two VP candidates "control" a sum total of six electoral votes (combined!), both from safe states. There's no electoral argument for either, and the effect of a great choice or terrible choice is going to be quite muted, I think.
The first rule of choosing a running mate, however, is to "do no harm," and I think Palin does that, on several levels.
Experience -- McCain's central narrative has been that he has the experience to be President and Obama does not. The pick of Palin destroys McCain's central and most potent attack against Obama. It may be that McCain has decided to give up on that line of argument (seeing that it did not work for Hillary), or to trade off that argument for the positives that Palin does bring.
Youth -- Man, she's young. Not as young as Jindal, but seeing he standing next to McCain really reinforces McCain's age, which is of interest to voters, especially since it brings up the "What if?" thought. Is she really ready to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency? (McCain has long joked that the chief duty of the VP is to inquire every day on the health of the President. I don't think we'll hear that joke from him any more.)
Ethics -- She ran as a "good government" reformer, but has a Troopergate scandal of her own (that I have actually been following for a few months). It's still early enough in the investigation that it probably won't be too greatly linked to her in the next 67 days, but it is a bit surprising that McCain would pick someone with an active ethics investigation.
Contrast -- Man, she's gotta debate Biden, and she may be the least qualified VP debater since Stockdale. She will benefit from the low expectations thing, and Biden will have to be careful to avoid a Lazio moment. I expect he will not be too aggressive, and will re-direct his sharpest attacks on McCain to avoid an appearance of bullying. Still, they have clearly written off the VP debate as a "winnable" night for the GOP.
Cynicism -- this seems a pretty transparent ploy to pick a female VP to try to appeal to disaffected Hillary voters. Given her hard-right credentials, it's hard to see that gaining much traction,
Unknown -- nobody knows who the hell she is. Sure, we'll all learn, but she doesn't bring strength to the ticket on day one like Biden, Gore, Cheney or Lieberman did.
There are some positives, to be sure:
She's a surprise. Lotta buzz there. Nice job by the McCain team.
She's very hard right and very well known among the christian right. She is a vocal pro-lifer and a creationist to boot. I think the real reason she was chosen was as a sop to the culture warriors who have been so ambivalent on McCain himself. The parallel between Palin and Quayle is almost exact in that respect (but palin is smarter for sure).
One good thing is that she would certainly not have the clout in a McCain white House that Cheney does. It will be nice to see the power of the VP's office fade back towards its traditional level.
The other interesting thing is that neither McCain or Obama picked a "reinforcing" running mate; both went to a mate whould would plug a perceived weakness. Palin is an olive branch to conservatives and an attempt to win over women (who typically vote democratic by 10+ points). A reinforcing pick would have been a Lieberman or another tough veteran neocon. Contrariwise, Obama could have picked a young political outsider to cement his change message, but he chose Biden for the gravitas thing. Not sure there's a "right" answer to the dilemma, but it is interesting that both candidates came to the same conclusion this year.
2 comments:
Agreed it's all interesting. One other trap to be laid, which I'll point out that Obama's camp already fell for, is attacking her inexperience. She has more executive experience than all other three candidates combined. She has exactly as much executive experience as Obama has legislative experience--actually more if you count his state legislature service and her mayoral service.
I agree that it's interesting that both candidates went for foils. In McCain's case, her youth and outside-Washington credential *does* reinforce his maverick stance.
If she doesn't totally blow up in a debate, I think she's a net positive.
Actually, I agree that it's a net positive for McCain too -- since it clearly was what the right was waiting for to mobilize on his behalf. Dobson endorsed him today, finally, and the right-wingers interviewed on NPR were just thrilled.
I think McCain threaded a very dangerous narrows here. He needed to pick a VP to engage the right, but didn't want one that was too obviously and attackably conservative. This is Rick Santorum dressed up in an attractive disguise. Given the corner he was boxed into -- he just couldn't pick Lieberman -- he took the lemons and made lemonade.
Post a Comment