Bizarrely, It’s Working
Wait until Andrew sees this one:
Some of McCain’s biggest gains in this ABC News/Washington Post poll are among white women, a group to which “hockey mom” Sarah Palin has notable appeal: Sixty-seven percent view her favorably and 58 percent say her selection makes them more confident in McCain’s decision-making [bold mine-DL]. Among those with children, Palin does better yet. And enthusiasm for McCain among his female supporters has soared. White women have moved from 50-42 percent in Obama’s favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift in the margin that’s one of the single biggest post-convention changes.
Men may respond more favorably to Palin, but it seems that there is a definite contingent of white women voters who are susceptible to the blatant pander and have responded just as McCain hoped they would. According to the ABC News poll, McCain has also made up huge ground among Midwestern voters, which suggests that my initial assumptions that the choice would not draw more women and would hurt McCain in the Midwest were wildly off. It’s true that I have been warning of Obama’s failure since February, but I really did think that a VP selection this off the wall would damage the candidate who made it. It still seems to me that this Palin boost will ebb as she becomes better known, and I think the choice will ultimately prove to be a liability. Right now, though, it is looking clever.
I’ve been following the Palin posts here with interest. As usual, Daniel’s writing is artful and his ideas are thought-provoking.
I’m slower than he, and I’m still thinking through the elevation of Sarah Palin. Not because I’m tempted to vote McCain/Palin. That won’t happen unless McCain can apply his hatred of war, which appeared sincere in his acceptance speech, into at (a minimum) the inclusion of some Scowcroftian realists into his circle, to assuage the fear that McCain dreams of riding the Big One down the bomb bay over Teheran, Moscow, or Karachi.
I do question Daniel’s use of the term “pander.” It’s what politicians do, in a democracy. Politicians know that many voters are permanently tuned into WIIFM (What’s in it for me?), and they offer, or pretend to offer, whatever will bring various groups into a coalition big enough to elect them. The practice may sour one on mass democracy, but there it is.
It’s a pander, I suppose, when it’s insincere to the point that everyone but the most clueless of rubes knows the promise iis blather and will not be kept. There will be no constitutional amendment on marriage. The US Embassy in Israel will not be moved to Jerusalem. The gummint will not send every deserving student to college. We will not generate all our electricity from renewables in 10 years.
Was Palin nominated out of political calculation? Of course. So was Biden, and so were LBJ and Bush 41, to name a few. And if McCain wins, we really will have a Vice-President Palin.
One can say, perhaps, that the country would be better served with someone else, although the disappointed suitors seem a sorry lot (Tom Ridge? Fuggedabadit). If McCain named Palin to garner votes, ain’t that the way it’s spozed to be?
Grumpy,
I think that what astounds many people, Daniel perhaps included, is the nakedness of the … pander, calculation, whatever you want to call it. Each of the other persons you named was at least a plausible president. Palin … even her her strongest defenders can’t make an argument on that score that passes the laugh test.
I will be curious to see how the numbers will work once Palin’s abortion position becomes more known. She didn’t mention abortion in her announcement or her keynote, and I believe that was intentional. With Obama running commercials speaking of McCain ending abortion – one could wish – I imagine they had internal polling showing weakness. Open appeals on abortion won’t help him with Catholics, so this does present a problem for him.
Of course one doesn’t want to make too much over low information numbers. As Palin has to state her positions more and she leaves her honeymoon, she will surely start offending voter groups. With her instinctual libertarianism, I think she ultimately doesn’t help in the midwest; libertarians don’t play well in the Great Lakes.
MZ Forrest said:
“With her instinctual libertarianism, I think she ultimately doesn’t help in the Midwest; libertarians don’t play well in the Great Lakes.”
Um, she tried to ban books. She was governor of a truly socialist state–where natural resources are collectively owned, with development rights contracted out to private companies, at the cost of ever increasing rents paid to the government, which are distributed to the people like welfare.
That’s why she’s the most popular governor in the country. She’s a Sugar Mommy who showered Alaskans with a resource royalty windfall (thanks to energy prices). Also, as Daniel mentioned, she’s demonstrated ineptitude in managing projects and reluctance in taking responsibility for failures.
Hostile to free speech, abuser of power, overseer of a socialist economy which she uses to buy the approval of the citizenry?
She’s America’s own Hugo Chavez. And this is the GOP’s new standard bearer of limited government conservatism?
echoing Andrew Sullivan, is this an episode of South Park?
If she’s what’s now considered to be “instinctually libertarian”, excuse me while I jump off a bridge.
That you don’t believe she is one doesn’t make it so. Your typical northwest politician is a libertarian. One of Reason’s writers goes over her here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_libertarian_case_for_palin.html
Your points are almost entirely incidental to Palin’s governance. I do however agree that the Alaskan governorship is largely without difficult choices.
I guess your argument is that everything is relative. Fair enough. I read the RCP piece, which seemed to boil down to “she’s not as bad as the rest of ‘emâ€. But I’m not convinced.
I think there’s a misunderstanding here of what “culturally libertarian†means. It means nothing. Small “l” libertarianism is a political philosophy, concerning the appropriate use of violence in a society, nothing more. “Lifestyle Libertarianism”, whether it be cosmopolitan libertinism or “rugged individualism†of the outdoorsy sort, is not synonymous with libertarian politics. Everybody believes in their own personal freedom and personal preferences. At best, Palin is arbitrarily and selectively libertarian, and merely a fine reflection of the cultural environment in which she was raised.
But it’s all moot anyway, as her inclusion into the McCain campaign tragically ends her career as any kind of libertarian, and possibly as a decent human being. Whatever her personal beliefs, she is now compelled to carry water for the campaign, defend and represent its neocon agenda. I think it’s safe to assume that whatever about her responsible for her “libertarian†appeal would be compromised in this endeavor; this is what’s called “selling outâ€. I’d love to be wrong, and witness a crisis of conscience in Sarah Palin. I wouldn’t bet on it.
If she actually buys into the neocon platform, as she appears to be doing, there is nothing redeemable about her politically. She would do to “libertarian” what Bush did to “conservative”.
My other points might have been incidental to her governance per se, but they’re surely not incidental to the argument that she’s libertarian. Alaska is, in fact, a largely socialist state, and Palin did, in fact, achieve her immense popularity by emulating Hugo Chavez (unwittingly). If she is libertarian on particular issues, well that’s nice, but not comforting in the least. Thanks, Sarah, for not choosing to aggressively pursue the destruction of people’s lives for smoking a virtually harmless plant, what a favor!
In the end however, I know that your perspective on this question will prevail over mine in this bizarre political landscape, as it contributes to the de-fanging of libertarianism into something completely quaint and non-threatening.
Grumpy Old Man – you’re bang on the money about the need for an overriding injection of Scowcroftian – even Kissingerian – realpolitik. The apparent neoconservative hold on McCain’s foreign policy is worrisome, to say the least. It’s amazing how, when you consider the competence of the James Baker/Brent Scowcroft era in foreign policy, how sorry the current lot looks. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that a Vice-President Palin will possess the knowledge or chops to be any sort of meaningful influence on which direction a McCain administration will lean towards (though, if I were a betting man, the Kristol faction would receive my dineric backing).
Each of the other persons you named was at least a plausible president. Palin …
I realize this is probably a minority viewpoint, but there are some of us who are not at all afraid of President Palin.