What McCain's Advisors Tried to Accomplish by Choosing Palin -- Why They Will Fail
By choosing Sarah Palin as the Republican candidate for Vice-President, McCain's all-lobbyist high command showed us three things about their analysis of the state of the race:
* They understand that if the current campaign dynamic continues they will lose. The New York Times' most recent analysis shows 172 electoral votes solidly in Obama's camp, and 79 leaning to Obama. That would leave Obama needing only 19 of the 60 electoral votes they categorize as "toss ups." Obama shows slight leads in most of these "toss up states." Campaigns that are confident in their current game plan don't throw long "Hail Mary" passes like the Palin nomination.
* They have come to agree that the basic premise of Obama's candidacy is correct: that in an electorate where 82% of the voters think the country is on the wrong track, the need for change trumps experience.
* They recognize clearly that the "enthusiasm gap" among their base voters dogs their chances for success. Democrats are mobilized, their base is positively apathetic.
Palin's selection was intended to change the dynamics of the race. It had three goals:
1). First and foremost it was intended to energize the party's grassroots, right wing evangelical base. This is the one goal it might actually help achieve. Early reports show that the selection of the ultra right wing, anti-choice Palin thrilled the James Dobson's of the world and their followers. This will increase the importance of the superb field mobilization efforts the Obama Campaign is developing in the 18 swing states -- and especially Ohio and Michigan. It also reemphasizes the enormous importance of the voter registration efforts being conducted by the campaign and many Democratic leaning organizations.
2). Second, Palin's choice was intended to reframe the McCain-Palin ticket as "pro-change." McCain's high command hoped that in and of itself the appointment of a relatively young, dynamic woman would help reframe the appearance of his candidacy. But here their gambit will ultimately fall flat.
More than anything else voters want change in our economy. They are sick of the status quo because their incomes have dropped and prices have increased. They believe that their kids are staring at a future of less opportunity than their own. They know that this is not the American dream.
The problem is that Palin completely supports the Bush-McCain economic program that in seven and a half years has taken Americans from the most prosperous period in human history to a period of economic stagnation and decline.
And when it comes to foreign policy -- the other area where voters really want change -- she brings nothing at all.
In other words Palin's appointment does nothing to alter the basic dynamics of the race: the choice between more of the same, or the change we need.
3). Finally, McCain's advisers hoped to use the choice of Palin to attract women. But there is a real question whether it will attract a net increase of women voters aside from consolidating the conservative women they would likely have gotten anyway.
Many of the Democratic women who had backed Clinton were positively insulted by the notion that they would back anyone with two x chromosomes, no matter what her positions on crucial issues -- not matter how thin her resume. A Denver Post editorial paraphrased Lloyd Bentsen's famous line from his debate with Dan Quayle: "I served with Hillary Clinton. I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine. You, Sarah Palin, are no Hillary Clinton." In initial polling from Gallup, among Democratic women -- including many who supported Hillary Clinton - 9% say that Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, and 15% less likely - a net negative of 6%.
Palin will have no appeal among independent women in places like the Philadelphia or Detroit suburbs that are strongly pro-choice and anti-gun. The fact that she denies the importance of global warming and planned to sue the EPA to prevent the Polar Bear from being added to the Endangered Species list will seal the deal.
In fact, in early polling, men are more likely to be impressed by Palin than women.
But that's not all. Palin's nomination also carries with it a number of major new problems for McCain.
Most importantly it completely eliminates any advantage McCain had on the question of "experience" and cuts the legs out from under his entire "not ready to lead" attack on Obama. To quote Jake Tapper of ABC, her lack of experience makes Barack Obama look like Robert Byrd. Just 20 months ago she was the part time mayor of Wasilla - a town of 9,000. Unless you count living in a state that is across the Bering Straight from Siberia, she has zero experience with anything remotely resembling foreign or security policy. And she has only been Governor of Alaska for two and a half years.
Voters want their leaders to be on their side. In this case that means they must favor the change people believe they need. But they also want a threshold level of experience -- demonstrated ability as a strong effective leader -- especially from a President. Barack Obama spent eight years as a State Senator (representing a district 10 times as large as Wasilla), and four years in the U.S. Senate. In addition he has demonstrated his abilities as a strong effective leader by organizing one of the most effective campaigns for President in American history. He has shown his ability to hire great staff, to manage a sprawling 50 state organization, and effectively communicate and inspire millions of Americans.
His recent trip to Europe and the Middle East, his effective campaign, his depth of knowledge of the issues, his temperament and judgment -- have begun to convince most voters that he has passed the "commander-in-chief" test.
It will be hard for most American's to imagine Sarah Palin as Commander-in-Chief. That's not because she is a woman. People can now easily imagine Hillary Clinton in that role. It's because they have no reason on earth to believe that she could fill the role of the most powerful leader in the world.
I originally thought that Palin's choice would take the question of experience off the table in this race. Now I believe it will put that question back on the table -- in reverse. It will also serve to reemphasize the ever present question of McCain's age. At 72 the actuarial tables say he has a little less than a one in six chance of not surviving his term. And that doesn't account for his history of health problems. That means that if Americans vote for the McCain-Palin ticket they have to seriously consider that she has at least a one in six chance of actually serving as commander-in-chief. Already, by 44% to 29%, the Rasmussen poll shows that they do not believe she is ready to be President.
By eliminating any advantage on the experience question, McCain has placed the full focus of the debate right where we want it: do Americans want the change we need, or more of the same. If that's the debate election day, we will win hands down.
Finally, McCain chose a running mate that is currently under investigation for using here position as Governor to settle a score with her ex-brother-in-law who was also a state trooper. This investigation may provide a good portion of the narrative that defines Palin for most Americans. It will raise three questions in voter's minds:
* Abuse of office for personal ends. Alaska's former commissioner of public safety claims that the Governor fired him -- at least in part because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law who was involved in a bitter custody case with her sister.
* Vindictiveness. Palin's crusade against her ex-brother-in-law (who - in fairness -- does not sound like a very nice fellow) has apparently gone on for some time. Voters like tough. They don't like vindictive and mean.
* Administrative ability. Palin's replacement for commissioner of public safety had to resign two weeks after she appointed him because he had been reprimanded for sexual harassment in a previous job. So much for her ability to vet appointees.
Of course the final question the Palin appointment raises is McCain's own judgment and administrative ability. McCain had only talked to his new running made twice before he asked her to join the ticket. Someone said yesterday that they knew their barista at Starbucks better than McCain knew the person who -- if he were elected -- would be a heart beat away from stepping into the most powerful position in the World. What was he thinking?
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on Amazon.com.
Read more reaction from HuffPost bloggers to John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Who is Lloyd Bentsen? Ah yes, now I remember. He's the guy who LOST to Dan Quayle. Lloyd Bentsen's point in that debate failed to capture the true thoughts and motivations of the electorate. With all due respect, the analysis of reasons for female voter crossover from Clinton to Palin may also be incomplete and fail to capture the thoughts and motivations of women voters. Women voters are not a monolithic, single litmus issue voting block. Many, many issues move them to make their decisions. For example, the economy consistently ranks high on the list of concerns of women yet does not figure prominently in the analysis of women in this article.
Now that is just disingenuous. Lloyd Bensten did not lose that election Ronald Reagan won it. Trying to use the loss of the Democratic ticket as somehow dismissing the charge that Qualye and Palin both do not have any of the things that made Kennedy or Clinton popular.
Obama is correct on one item. The powers that be need changed. It's not the oval office that has the control strings on spending. Both parties should be ashamed on how they spent our future!
IF she represents a frugal government so much the better.
I think the deadwood in Washington should be removed from both parties!
Charter member of the "Throw the all the bums out of office regardless of the party".
The problem is there hasn't been a truly conservative fiscal Republican since Goldwater.
People call Dems Tax and Spend, the record shows that Dems do not raise taxes any more than cost of living, and often less than that if at all... yet have the best record for increasing the income of those in the bottom 75%, as well as increasing GDP.
The Reps since Reagan have cut taxes and spending the money anyway. You have to ask yourself is whose taxes are being cut... try the top 50%... which sounds great until you notice that those who outside of the nations top 10% are receiving a tax cut of about 5% while those in the top are getting tax cuts of about 15-20%. They don't decrease spending, they aren't even keep it flat, but increase spending.
Republican leaders (not the voter base) don't believe in government rule and therefor do not know how to effectively rule. They are trying to "starve the beast." What this means they actually want the US government to go bankrupt or collapse, so everything is done by the private sector... it is precisely why the Republican leaders become lobbyists, were lobbyists, served on boards of directors for multinational corporations, or end up on the board when they leave office. They want money for themselves, they enact legislation which is in *their* best interest, not in the nations, not in the peoples.
Country first my ass.
McSame and his nutcase advisors have shamed the party of Lincoln choosing this poster child of Big Oil
as his VP running mate The least they could have done is shown some wisdom and concern for our country by chosing someone with national/foreign policy experience to backup t6his elderly candidate with health issues. Its Rovian influence over again. i thought the GOP so=leadership would have deported him long ago considering the great harm he did to the Party and Country as Bush's alter ego!! The ploy of picking a nasty, extremist "babe" with zero experience will appease the nutty Right but not fool most of the electorate.
When did EXPERIENCE become the quintessential prerequiste for becoming President? When were the words "depending upon his/her experience" added that to the often heard phrase,"anyone can grow up to be President of the United States? Because if experience is the first concern, this country has had many Presidents who didn't met that qualification - including some would say the greatest, Abraham Lncoln, and almost all would say the worst , George W. Bush.
The reasons II am against Sarah Palin have absolutely nothing to do with her political experience, or lack thereof, however.
If she was picked to be McCain's side-kick under some misguided assumption (you know what they say about assuming anything) that she could capture angry Hillary's supporters, then that decision was another in a long list of bad thinking..
Sarah Palin is the anti-thesis of Hillary. That anyone whose job it is to monitor the political climate would seriously think she could compete equally with Obama for Hillary's supporters should quit their day job. Because that decision was conceived in delusion, causing me to question again whether any intelligence and rationality remains in the Republican Party. There'e no question that honor and integrity vacated the premises years ago.
What every young person and their parents should be worried about when it comes to McCain is that he is going to draft all the young people in the military services, I agree with those who enlist because they want to but I do not agree with the youth being drafted to fight another war and war is all McCain seems to know. I have never heard him mention the word peace, all I hear from him is war, war, war. So each and every young person must realize he will surely reactivate the draft and he will take your children, brother, sisters and all your family members because he is a MAVERICK. More like a WAR MAVERICK if you want my opionion. So just think about it.
This woman is scary. It would be great if Hillary would go after her for Barack & Biden. After all, Palin did say Hillary was "whining" during the primaries. It would seal the deal with me that Hillary really wants Barack to win.
Yes,. Indeed... What was he thinking? Was it a deep held belief that the Democrats are truly the ones to lead this nation out of it's despair? I sure hope so.
The best reason of all not to vote for McCain/Palin:
Study Shows Link Between Skin Cancer and Higher Incidence of Other Cancers Not Related to the Skin
By Kelley Colihan
WebMD Health News
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=92184
Is it me or does she loaded in that photograph as a newscaster?
The choice of Palin demonstrates that McCain continues a Republican policy of hiring people who are not qualified for important positions.
Michael Brown, whose ran a horse show association, was appointed head of FEMA, where he could botch the response to Katrina.
Monica Goodling, fresh out of a low-ranking law school, is selected to do the hiring of career Justice Department employees. She ends up breaking the law by applying political litmus tests to career hires. (More on her in a moment.)
Harriet Miers, Bush acolyte who was so unqualified for the Supreme Court that both coonservatives and liberals reacted against her.
Then there is the "troopergate scandal," in which Palin end up firing the police commissioner because he wouldn't fire her former brother-in-law, a state trooper involved in a custody dispute with Palin's sister. This scandal echoes the Justice Department firings of US attorneys who would not use their power to further Republican electoral ambitions, another scandal in which the unqualified Monica Goodling was involved. This scandal also brings to mind the allegations that former Alabama governor Don Seigelman was railroaded into prison by Karl Rove and his contacts in the federal attorneys office in that state.
There is nothing at all "new" or "maverick" about McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. It just shows that he is already committed to the same kind of government of Republicans, by Republican business and political interests and for Republicans.
Thanks for an honest and insightful article on Governor Palin. This is the kind of responsible journalism that is desperately needed in the mainstream media. Most of the networks and printed media are turning a blind eye toward Palin's extremist views on education, environment, global warming and here real relation to big oil. The truth remains the truth rather people recognize it or not.
The viewpoint of the mainstream media is that the truth is only what they recognize and find fit to pass on to the public..
All your reasons for thinking Paln will fail are overridden by some important facts: First of all, Palin was president of her local PTA. This gives her much more experience than Obama. And she blew the whistle on her political enemies, which Obama has never done. And she won a beauty pagent, somehting Michelle might do, but Barack doesn't have a chance at. And, as Fox News points out, Alaska is right next to Russia, so she has plenty of foreign experience. So ask yourself, how can a woman with so much qualification fail at competing against Obama and Biden?
President of the PTA of Wasilla, Alaska does NOT give her any more experience than Barack Obama. IF she had been the president of the SCHOOL BOARD it wouldn't do the trick either. I'd be MUCH more impressed if she had been president of the SCHOOL BOARD of say--Anchorage. Blew the whistle? You mean 'destroyed them', don't you? Sending letters to people saying that they 'impeded her governance' isn't whistle blowing. PART-TIME MAYOR? Dealing with Russian fishing vessels? That gives her 'foreign policy experience'? Being Governor of a state that is next to a TERRITORY (the Yukon) of Canada doesn't give her foreign policy experience either.The GOVERNING of the TERRITORY of the YUKON is done by the CANADIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. And-since when does winning a Beauty Pagaent qualify one to be nominated and possibly elected to the SECOND HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY? Beauty pagaents are GREAT ways for girls from small towns to get the $$ to go to College and possibly even move out of their small town-but not necessarily qualifiers for Vice President of the UNITED STATES. And what about Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey-Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole for crying out loud? She has less experience than any ONE of them, much less combined. NOPE! Pat Schroeder and Margaret Chase Smith are rolling in their GRAVES! SHAME ON THE REPUBLICANS! SHAME ON McCAIN!
What?
OMG, I sure hope that post was a joke!
That, my dear, is what you call irony. Or sarcasm, or parody.
After campaigning against Obama using "inexperience" as a watchword, how can McCain and the Republican Party now chose Pavin..............with no more experience than Obama..seems to me that her experience didn't go far enough when it comes to being a mom to five............How many more of her children 'might' become pregnant due to her neglect being a public figure?
Let's correct something. Obama's perceived "inexperience."
These polls were taken from 8/29 to 8/31:
Registered Voters:
CBS News: 48% Obama, 40% McCain (781 people polled)
CNN: 49% Obama, 48% McCain (927 people polled)
Gallup Tracking: 49% Obama, 43% McCain (2,733 people polled)
Likely Voters:
Rasmussen Tracking49% Obama 46% McCain (3,000 people polled)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Keep in mind that Obama is counting on newly registred voters.
This is the best analysis of the pro's and con's of selecting Palin that I have read, far better than anything the political pundits are saying on TV. In their favor, they are afforded much beyond sound bites, but I don't know a one as astute as Mr. Creamer. i wish I could get my fence-straddling friends to read it, but they aren't online. Mmm...think I will print it out for them. Thanks.
I agree. Even though I disagree with the conclusion and the essential arguements, the post was well organized. But, excellent form does not diminish this as simply opinion and DNC talking points. For example the phrase " heart beat away from the presidency" is saturating MSM outlets and WWW blogsites everywhere. The Republicans have chosen their better candidate to run for President. The Democrats have chosen their better candidate to be a heart beat away from the presidency.
Don't project your collective hope that Biden will step in and carry Obama until he figures out what he's doing and assume that Republicans will do the same.
If your fence-straddling friends will vote for Obama because Palin is inexperienced, then maybe they should stay home on election day.
As one who grew up in Alaska, I find it fascinating to learn how much how many of you know about our state and our politics. Very few people up there think she is ready or qualified to be president, and that number drops off sharply when you eliminate people she appointed to their current post. Alaskans have a great deal of pride in our home state, but harbor no illusions that it is representative of anything outside of Alaska itself.
Obama picked someone who, worst case, could step in and run the country.
McCain, who is far more likely to need a backup, picked someone who is not. If that is not a factor in your vote consideration, you should stay home on election day.
The right wing propaganda and attack machine has already put out the talking point that Palin has more executive experience than Obama. It was all over the Sunday news shows and not refuted by Brokaw or any of the so called mainstream media pundits.
Aside from the scary thought of her facing down Putin or Iran, if anything happened to McCain (even scarier but not as obvious, McCain facing down these enemies) it was a pretty bold and probably effective choice.
It reinforces McCain's dishonest Maverick label, and seperates him from Bush to the uninformed voters.
It motivates the religious right to get out the vote. And it is going to get many uninformed women to vote Republican. Maybe even some young people. Anybody else he picked would not bring them any new votes. She might. The Democrats have to figure out a way to attack this unqualified VP choice without offending women. Not an easy task. and it will be hard for Biden to attack her.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
