Yes, another Palin post.1
I fully understand that the vast majority of McCain supporters find themselves in the position of simply having to ignore Palin’s lack of experience and, more importantly, her lack to date of actually engaging intelligently in the major questions of the day. I fully and totally understand that in a two-party race, voters have no choice but to cast their lots with the candidate who most closely mirrors their general policy preferences, and that sometimes means averting eyes to particularly bad aspects of one’s chosen candidate.2
What I find interesting (indeed, fascinating on one level and very frustrating on another) is the cognitive dissonance displayed by some in support of her selection. There is almost no evidence to date that she is ready to be the President of the United States (something that one would like a veep to be ready to be). And yet, if this is pointed out, there are attacks on the one doing the pointing out (not real defenses of Palin’s readiness–and where defenses are offered they are non-substantive, such as saying she is the next Reagan or the next Truman). Note: if one wishes to assert that Palin is a good choice for veep, some positive evidence in that regard is needed, not wild fantasies about might be.
Her answer on foreign policy experience discussed the other day was a joke and here’s her response on the bailout proposal:
If you do not wish to view the video, or prefer to read the transcript,3 here’s the response
COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?PALIN: That’s why I say, I like ever American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout.
But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americas. A
And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. ALl those things under the umbrella of job creation.
This bailout is a part of that.
To watch/read that and come away with the sense that she has even a basic grasp of the situation requires a great deal of charity, if not self-delusion. And is she looking at noted during the response? if someone can translate that, or make a cogent argument that it is a legitimate response, I would love to read it.
Sarah Palin is a pefect embodiment of what I termed a long time ago the Deion Sanders Effect4: the idea that we will often support (even like) someone only because they are on our team. As I wrote at the time:
We too often treat politics like a spectator sport–everything is seen in terms of whether it helps our side move the ball forward or not. If our side says it, it is good; if the other side says it, it’s bad. Such thinking diverts us from genuine, efficacious public dialogue. We altogether seem too interested in making sure our side scores (or, at least, that the other side doesn’t) than we are in actually having a worthwhile discussion about what our national priorities should be, and what solutions are needed to address them.
I don’t expect Republicans to en masse vote for Obama because of Palin–for any number of reasons that would be an odd expectation to have. What I would like to see, however, is some intellectual honesty about her selection and her qualifications.
- The main reason for another Palin post is that usually one such post leads to comments supporting Palin that I find baffling, leading to a need to even further explain myself. Plus, I am likely also responding to market forces, insofar as it is clear that I am getting more traffic from more Palin blogging. As such, I suppose I should ride the Palin Bubble as long as I can. Of course, once the Palin bubble bursts, and traffic plummets, I fully expect that the federal government will come bail me out by passing a law requiring low-level employees (I’d settle for that) to click on PoliBlog during their coffee breaks, so as to shore up my flagging traffic. [↩]
- Yes, I also understand that there are third party options, and arguments to be made in regards to supporting them over the Big Two. I am not going to engage that debate at the moment, real thought it is. [↩]
- Source: Think Progress [↩]
- If the Deion ref is out of your experience, here’s my basic explanation:
When Deion played for the Falcons he was an annoying, preening player–but he didn’t bother me all that much, because that Falcons didn’t matter to the Dallas Cowboys. When Deion signed with the 49ers, he became extremely annoying. Indeed, he was perhaps the most annoying football player ever. However, when he signed with Dallas, why, he sure did seem to calm down–not quite as arrogant as he used to be. When he was helping make Larry Brown into a Super Bowl MVP he was the salt of the earth, right ?(at least if one was a Dallas Cowboys fan). And the funny thing is that he got all annoying again when he signed with the Redskins.
There days the appropriate analog would be Terrell Owens–who is a lot less annoying catching TD passes as a Cowboy than when he did the same thing for the 49ers and Eagles. [↩]
September 28th, 2024 at 1:58 pm
Maybe Palin just has different policy views than McCain? To give her the benefit of the doubt, here she is basically saying the bailout should include job creation and health care provisions.
Why isn’t anyone asking McCain if the reason he didn’t support the compromise hatched last week was because of the lack of these elements mentioned by his running mate? It seems to be a legitimate question if we are supposed to consider her a serious candidate.
September 28th, 2024 at 2:05 pm
That is a very charitable interpretation, to be sure–although not a wholly unreasonable one. Still, I am highly doubtful of that possibility, as it seems to me that she is simply bs’ing her answers. And it seems that she is saying that the bailout will do these things, not that it ought.
(but, of course, I suspect you concur with that assessment).
September 28th, 2024 at 5:50 pm
In class this week I was talking about George Wallace’s populism. I think the problem of judging Palin is that her real appeal is to Western populism. It is an odd fit with McCain but her choice was about the base and populism. Just like with Wallace it the more academics criticize her the more it makes her popular. This may be crazy but I think this is why she is still view by McCain as a big plus.
September 28th, 2024 at 6:02 pm
I would concur that she represents a type of Western populism. I can even see how such a populism might help McCain.
However, the vehicle of Palin strikes me as a rather inadequate one.
Put it this way: she is a populist, but to date has been an incompetent one.
September 28th, 2024 at 7:16 pm
Intellectual honesty from Republicans? The same people who oppose abortion but favor the death penalty. I thought life was sacred. They want smaller government and less intruding on individual’s lives, but again favor a ban on abortion.
A republican politician accused of impropriety almost always has defenders among the GOP faithful, A democrat doing the same impropriety is automatically guilty.
Consistent intellectual honesty from either the left or right would truly be shocking.
Bill
September 28th, 2024 at 7:20 pm
Let’s put it this way, FM, I would like to see some intellectual honesty not so much form politicians (a mostly, if not totally, hopeless cause), but from supporters and commentators who, at least in some cases, ought to know better.
September 29th, 2024 at 10:21 am
Politicians rarely answer the question they’re asked. They tend to answer a related question that fits their world view. This was what Palin was trying to do, relate the question with a few nice buzzwords that she’s been told to use frequently. I have no doubt that looking at the transcripts of Friday’s debate would give the same type of swell sounding non answer.
The problem here is that it’s not politically correct to criticize the intelligence of either McCain or Obama or Obama’s running mate (I think Obama still has a running mate, but can’t remember his name right now). Obama ventured into the McCain intelligence criticism with the internet ad but then backed off when veterans and seniors took offense. And anybody who says anything against Obama is a racist. Within a day of any mention of lack of grasp of issues the columns dealing with “troubling racial stereotypes” would appear, followed soon afterwards by the demands for apologies and sensitivity training. Heck, even prosecution could result.
There’s are about 3 stereotypes for all conservatives on the national stage — they’re either dumb (Reagan, Ford, Quayle, Palin, GW Bush), evil (Nixon, Cheney), out of touch with the common man (GHW Bush, McCain), or sometimes more than 1 category (Bob Dole hit the out of touch and evil, GW Bush sometimes lands in the evil, depending on the columnist).
Someway liberals never find these classifications a problem.
September 29th, 2024 at 10:25 am
It is accurate to say that Governor Palin is an incompetent populist. That seems to be the best defense available. Overall, not comforting.
Time for her to “shore up” her responses to valid, important questions in my opinion.
September 29th, 2024 at 10:57 am
Buckland,
Yes, but not all evasions are created equal.
And btw, I have never said that Palin was dumb. I think she is unprepared and has not given these issues sufficient thought. There is a difference.
BTW, I would note that you aren’t actually defending Palin, but rather deflecting the criticism to a question of media templates.
September 29th, 2024 at 11:56 am
I, too, would not argue that Sarah Palin should ever be considered dumb. To the contrary, she has shown herself to be bold, determined, success-oriented, and willing to adapt to challenging circumstances.
I do not think, however, that she has demonstrated the sort of competence regarding national and worldwide issues a vice-presidential candidate needs to exhibit. This shows a lack of preparation and a fair amount of self-deception, but not necessarily a lack of intelligence.
September 29th, 2024 at 12:05 pm
I think, given the actual situation, that I can succeed with an even weaker defense, that concedes your point but makes it irrelevant. McCain was never going to win.
If the next Presidential term is as ugly as I expect it to be regardless of who wins, and if Obama wins, and if Republicans always nominate the most obvious choice, then attacking Palin as unprepared right now, in 2024, doesn’t help you because she still gets elected President four years from now. You need to convince everybody she’s unfixably stupid, then maybe you’ll only get Romney.
September 29th, 2024 at 12:50 pm
she still gets elected President four years from now
A curious claim, I must say.
September 29th, 2024 at 4:00 pm
Why, exactly?
September 29th, 2024 at 8:02 pm
Aaron,
Well, I don’t see here as the most obvious choice, and she is doing nothing at the moment to position herself as a frontrunner.
Further, historically the losing VP candidate rarely (if ever?) comes back to be their party’s nominee the next go ’round.
Here are the last several:
2004: Edwards
2000: Lieberman
1996: Kemp
1992: Quayle
1988: Bentsen
1984: Ferraro
The 1980 losing veep nominee, Mondale, went on to be the nominee in 1984, but of course he had also been the sitting vice president.
September 30th, 2024 at 9:54 am
Dr, Taylor,
You’re looking at the wrong set of candidates. Here’s the list to consider in regard to a theoretical Palin ’12:
Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower.
Since 1952, every successful Republican presidential candidate has come into the race with major name recognition. The trend runs mostly in the other direction for Democrats (Carter, Clinton, Obama).
September 30th, 2024 at 11:26 am
Ted,
I don’t see any analogy to be made between those candidates and Palin.
Bush I: veep of a highly popular president (not to mention one of the most impressive resumes of any candidate for president ever, just in objective terms: member of Congress, CIA Director, Ambassador to China, etc.).
Bush II: twice-elected governor of a large state, obvious linkage to Bush I after 8 years of Clinton
Reagan: governor of a large state, spent years on the radio and elsewhere building political capital. Almost won the nomination in 1976.
Nixon: Again, was the veep, amongst other things.
Eisenhower: victorious Supreme Allied Commander in WWII
So which one is Palin supposed to be?
Really: to try and compare Palin to any of these candidate is highly problematic.
(Note: Alaska is big geographically, but is a small state).
September 30th, 2024 at 5:23 pm
Reagan.
She’s the person conservatives in the Republican base are enthusiastic about.
That being Governor of Alaska is less impressive than being Governor of California is a given, but doesn’t really matter. Even if conservatives liked Schwarzenegger, he can’t be President. The size of Alaska will matter less than the incumbent’s approval ratings. If I’m right to be as pessimistic as I am about the next four years, that’s already a lost cause.
Of course a President Obama can get a lot of slack by blaming everything on Bush, but that will only go so far.
September 30th, 2024 at 8:33 pm
Aaron,
I must confess, it is this kind of argument that makes it difficult for me to take Palin defenders seriously. Yes, Palin is currently exiting the base, but where is the evidence that she is prepared for the roughly two-year (if not longer) campaign that will be needed to obtain the 2024 GOP nomination?
Beyond that, she has exited the base because a) they aren’t excited about McCain and desperately want to be excited about something, and b) she gave a red meat speech at the RNC. Beyond that, what’s the argument in her favor as a vp candidate, let alone as the heir to Reagan?
And it does matter that Reagan was from a large state, held the governorship for two terms, fought a hard battle for the nomination in 1976, as well as having a record for writing and giving speeches and commentary during a long career. That is supposed to compare to one speech at a convention + a partial term as governor of a small state and time in city government in a small town?
Such a comparison makes no sense.
October 2nd, 2024 at 7:52 pm
And where after Obama’s red-meat convention speech four years ago was the proof he was prepared to win the Democratic nomination in 2024?
But Illinois is bigger, etc. To a certain kind of political analyst, which it seems you are, a political situation has to have an exact precedent before it has a right to exist. But you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter if or how Sarah Palin matches any previous Republican nominee. It matters that she’s popular enough with the Republican base that the nomination will be hers if she wants it.
October 2nd, 2024 at 8:07 pm
Look, regardless of what one thinks about Obama, it is impossible to make the argument that he hasn’t thought about the issues. To date, the evidence suggests that Palin hasn’t/
And, to be fair, Obama’s ’04 speech was hardly a “red meat” speech.
To a certain kind of political analyst, which it seems you are, a political situation has to have an exact precedent before it has a right to exist. But you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter if or how Sarah Palin matches any previous Republican nominee. It matters that she’s popular enough with the Republican base that the nomination will be hers if she wants it.
Aaron,
You’re the one who had her with the nomination in 2024, and you were the one who proclaimed her Reagan-like.
Beyond that, however, it isn’t that I can’t conceive of something new, it is that I require some form of evidence to back the argument. You are not presenting a cogent, evidence-based argument. You are instead dealing in hopes and vague possibilities.
Yes, she is popular right now with the GOP base (although that is eroding). At the moment, being popular with the GOP base won’t be enough to win this year, and while she may be able to run for and win the nomination in 2024, there is no evidence to date that she has the requisite tools to accomplish that feat.
October 3rd, 2024 at 12:14 am
You demanded that I identify which previous Republican nominee she most resembled. Which is a stupid demand that has nothing to do with anything, but I answered anyway, and in answering tried to redirect the conversation to something relevant, which is the fact that the base loves her, and that this is not eroding (certainly not after tonight). Sure, she spent a lot less time producing this result than Reagan had in 1980, and even if she starts running all but full time immediately after McCain loses, by 2024 she will still have spent less time than Reagan did. So what?
The Republican nomination in four years is hers if she wants it.
October 3rd, 2024 at 7:01 am
You demanded that I identify which previous Republican nominee she most resembled.
Well, no.
I asserted that it was a curious claim that she was automatically going to be the nominee (in #12 above).
You asked why.
I noted that the historical trend indicated that it would be strange for a losing vp nominee to be the party’s choice the next time around (#14).
Another reader (#15) asserted I was looking at the wrong list of candidates and named all the GOP winners–which made no logical sense, given the context, but I went with it. I listed the resume highlights of each candidate, and asked Ted which one she was supposed to be.
You then jumped back in (#17) and asserted: “Reagan.
“She’s the person conservatives in the Republican base are enthusiastic about.”
Not only is that hardly overwhelming evidence for your position, I never asked you directly (let alone “demanded”) that you make a selection.
And now you simply assert that “the base loves her” and that is enough to then assert “The Republican nomination in four years is hers if she wants it.”
You are hardly making a strong case. I can fully accept that, in your opinion, “The Republican nomination in four years is hers if she wants it,” but simply repeating your opinion isn’t an argument.
There is no evidence to suggest, at this point, that Palin has the talents and tools needed to run a nearly two-year campaign to get the nomination in 2024. Further, there is no evidence that she would not be seriously challenged by other aspirants, all of whom have been fund-raising connections and experience.
Palin can’t name her news sources nor any Supreme Court cases beyond Roe and her foreign policy experience is nil.
I would note, btw, that the “base” allegedly loved Fred Thompson. The “base” also was gung-ho (or so it seemed) for Phil Gramm many years ago.
Indeed, the GOP candidate this go ’round who was considered the least popular with “the base” was John McCain. Last time I checked, he won the nomination.
Also: the main reason, to follow on from that last point, that Palin is exciting the base, is that they aren’t excited about McCain and they want to be excited about something.
She gave one red meat speech, she’s pro-life and she didn’t blow the debate. This is supposed to be enough to propel her to the GOP nomination 2024? If so, the party is in more trouble than I thought it was.
October 3rd, 2024 at 1:54 pm
To make it very simple for you: you win the Republican nomination by getting the most delegates to the Republican National Convention. You get delegates by having the support of Republican primary voters and caucus-goers. Now who participates in Republican primaries and caucuses? Right. Your strained historical comparison is, as usual, beside the point: this year the conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee, both of whom alienated a major part of the conservative movement. Are you seriously arguing that Romney as VP would have produced the same result?
It seems you ARE seriously arguing that because you personally feel that conservatives’ enthusiasm for her is unearned, it somehow doesn’t count. That makes no sense. It doesn’t matter at what length and in what detail you explain exactly why you consider it unearned. Earned or not, it exists.
You’re also getting basic facts wrong. She was asked to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe she disagreed with, not any other case at all. She negotiated a major oil pipeline deal with Canada, which is technically a foreign country. And no, the fact that someone came up with a stupid talking point about Russia doesn’t nullify the fact that she has more real diplomatic experience than the top of the other ticket. Not that the amount of foreign policy experience she has actually matters for the topic at hand, which is not, remember, whether you feel she’s qualified, but what Republican voters are most likely to do four years from now.
There are plenty of reasons Palin could run an winning campaign, starting with the fact that she beat a sitting governor and a former governor (yeah, I know, it doesn’t count because…). And yes, again, conservatives’ enthusiasm for her matters, a lot. It means that she will have a huge lead going in in terms of ground game and small donors. It means she starts out with higher numbers than the other candidates. These facts mean that big donors who are interested in backing the winner (because, to put it bluntly, they’re trying to buy influence) will give her more attention than other candidates. Unless the rest of the field very quickly narrows to one person, no other candidate will even come close.
October 3rd, 2024 at 5:30 pm
Aaron,
You ignored basically everything that I said. However, I will try to further my argument anyway.
Your basic argument appears to be: the past tells us nothing and that you like Palin, ergo: she’s a shoe-in for 2024.
However, you are also missing the fact that in 2024 there will be more candidates running than Palin to split up the votes in those primaries and caucuses–other Republicans, many of whom will also excite the base. If your contention is that she is the only member of the GOP who will pursue the nomination in 2024, then fine, your’re right: she’ll be the nominee.
At a minimum the notion that one can easily predict the political landscape in four year is a dubious one–which is the main reason I said your claim was odd in the first place and I have tried to explain why.
Indeed, the very fact of Palin herself, i.e., a politician who came out of nowhere (and whom you now like so much that you think she will be the nominee) undercuts your very argument, as no one would have predicted that she would be the veep nominee four years ago, because no one knew she existed. (Think about it: you are telling me that you know, right now, that Palin will be the nominee in 2024, yet the odds are that unless you are from Alaska, you yourself had not heard of Palin in 2024).
I stand corrected on the exact nature of the SCOTUS question, but my basic point remains intact. BTW, based on her convention speech it would seem that she disagrees with the Boumediene v. Bush (as does McCain) and yet she couldn’t conjure that one.
October 3rd, 2024 at 8:52 pm
After reading your first few paragraphs it’s clear to me you didn’t read my reply at all.
October 3rd, 2024 at 9:46 pm
As you wish.
I have tried to engage you on these issues, but I am not sure what else I can do. Since i directly conceded one of your points from the middle of your post, it would seem that I must’ve read something.
Mainly it seems you are unwilling to directly address my argument and instead wish to simply assert your position.
October 3rd, 2024 at 11:33 pm
I answered you almost point by point. You said I ignored everything you said.
I said, “Unless the rest of the field very quickly narrows to one person, no other candidate will even come close.” You absurdly characterized me as saying that she’ll be the only candidate.
Now you’re saying you’re the one who tried to engage and there’s nothing else to do? You’re right about the latter part.
October 4th, 2024 at 8:23 am
The line about her being the only candidate was sarcasm.
And no, you did not answer me point by point.
Really all you did was the following:
-Point about the GOP base votes in the primaries. Indeed, that is true. I am not sure how that bolsters your argument.
-You then pointed out that Huckabee and Romeny were factors in the race. As I noted, there will be such candidates in the future.
-I agree that I misstated the SCOTUS answer, but maintained it did not really change my point.
Again: your whole argument is predicated on the notion that conservative enthusiasm for Palin right now is guaranteed to sustain itself until 2024. Not only is excitement an ephemeral thing, you don’t know that political conditions four years in the future. And again: Palin herself is an example of how the unknown comes into these races every four years. Also, you have given no good reason why the historical pattern will be broken by Palin.
October 4th, 2024 at 1:34 pm
I see you finally got around to reading my post, but not to actually paying it enough attention that you could respond reasonably.
If this is how you “engage” you’d be better off if you just stopped.
So. You don’t see how people who love Palin voting in elections where she is a candidate is going to help her win. You do know what voting is, right?
You’re now reduced to arguing that something as surprising as McCain’s choice of her is going to keep her from winning the nomination. Well, maybe. The unexpected always happens, but you’re betting on it happening to one particular person and having one particular effect, when by definition you don’t know what it is. But we do know that Vice Presidential picks are made by one person and nominations are made by lots of people as part of a prolonged process. Which one do YOU think is more likely to be a surprise?
See, you’re making my argument as dogmatic as yours. You might reread my first post: I said “if… and if.. and if…”. You’re saying it won’t happen, period. You are the one claiming definite knowledge of the future, and I’m the one pointing out it isn’t necessarily going to be the way you say. But somehow the indeterminate nature of the future helps your case because you already know the effects that the unknowns are all going to have. Interesting.
Now, I also explain specific campaign advantages she has, and you ignored them. Or rather, denied that I ever said those things. You know, you’re not very good at this whole “conversation” thing. Maybe you should work on it. But I will repeat myself, and add a few more for good measure: volunteers, small donors, free media, buzz, and as a result of these, big donors. Yes, maybe she’ll wait so long she squanders these and then jump in at the last minute. (Are you happy? I qualified it. Of course not: you demand I “know” she won’t win and therefore “know” that something, anything, will stop her.) And again, candidates like Romney and Huckabee (and probably one or both of Romney and Huckabee themselves) don’t help your case: a large number of candidates favors the one who already has a connection with conservative activists and who will be getting lots of free media. The other candidates will be sucking up each others’ oxygen. Some number of Republican voters will have reservations about Palin: how is splitting them up three or four ways going to help you?
October 4th, 2024 at 2:03 pm
*sigh*
You originally stated:
f Republicans always nominate the most obvious choice, then attacking Palin as unprepared right now, in 2024, doesn’t help you because she still gets elected President four years from now.
I will concede that there was an “if” in the statement. However, I was basically making the assertion that it is unclear (at best) that Palin is the “most obvious choice” in 2024.
Indeed, as I said was:
You responded with:
I have been trying to explain why for quite a while now.
You state in the comment above:You’re saying it won’t happen, period.
I haven’t never stated that it was impossible that she will get the nomination, just that she is far from the most likely choice in 2024. My contention has been that it is a stretch to assert that she will be the nominee (or even likely to be) in 2024.
I said in comment 14:
That is hardly an assertion that she won’t get it no matter what.
What I have argued, consistently, is:
-It would defy the historical pattern.
-She does not have a true base of support to build upon into 2024. She could, perhaps, build one, but the fact that a lot of “the base” loves her at the moment simply isn’t enough. Again, the base loved Phil Gramm in 1996 and he didn’t even make to to Iowa and a lot of the base loved Fred Thompson, and we know how that turned out.
Some other point:
You state: You’re now reduced to arguing that something as surprising as McCain’s choice of her is going to keep her from winning the nomination.
Where did I say that?
You state: The unexpected always happens, but you’re betting on it happening to one particular person and having one particular effect, when by definition you don’t know what it is.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. All I have said about the unexpected is that Palin herself illustrates how difficult it is to project four years forward. She is the very definition of an unexpected surprise.
You state: I also explain specific campaign advantages she has, and you ignored them.
No, I discounted them. You whole argument is, as best as I can tell, predicated on the notion that a) she is popular right now with the base, and b) that that popularity will sustain itself sufficiently to take her to the nomination in 2024.
You state: But I will repeat myself, and add a few more for good measure: volunteers, small donors, free media, buzz, and as a result of these, big donors.
She doesn’t have a volunteer base or a donor base at the moment–they belong to the McCain campaign. These things dissipate after a given campaign and have to be reconstituted. Palin will not automatically inherent the McCain volunteers and donors and such from McCain. Indeed, many of them will end up working for/supporting other candidates in 2024. It always works that way. Indeed, her lack of experience on the national stage will make it difficult to create that infrastructure. This is not a slam, nor a criticism, just a fact.
Again, that is part of the point of comment #14–the losing veep nominee doesn’t simply take the foundation build by the top of the ticket and then add on four years later.
And back to comment #14: it has to count for something, and I think it is something you are ignoring, that the last time a losing veep nominee went on to win the party’s nod the next time was 1984 and then the nominee had actually been the Vice President. Nixon kind of did in in 1968, but that was after not running in 1964. He, too, was the VP. I honestly do not think that there is a case of the losing party’s VP nominee going on to win the party’s nomination the next cycle. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying it is highly, highly unlikley.
In re “buzz”–that is ephemeral and is hardly enough to propel a candidate from one cycle to the next. And all candidates have, to one degree or another, access to free media.
You state: Are you happy? I qualified it. Of course not: you demand I “know” she won’t win and therefore “know” that something, anything, will stop her.
I demanded that when?
In re: Huckabee and Romney. I bring them up because what they illustrate is that in a situation where the nomination is open (i.e., there is no incumbent) then there will be a number of contenders for the nomination. if Obama wins in ’08, then there will be a large number of GOP candidates in 2024. If Palin is one of them, then she will have to compete with them.
Also: Huck and Mitt are useful to illustrate that the candidates that “the base” supposedly prefer don’t always win (and you argument is that Palin is the candidate of “the base” and that gives her a likely shot at the 2024 nomination). Again, as noted already, McCain was not “the base’s” candidates, yet he is the nominee.
While it is true that I am not a Palin fan, my assessment of her chances of being the nominee in 2024 are not based on my preferences.
Would it make you happier if I stated that I also think that if Obama loses that it is unlikely he will be the Democratic nominee in 2024? I think he has a better chance than normal for a repeat, but I still think his chances won’t be very good.
It goes without saying that if McCain loses that he will not be the nominee in 2024 (but, I said it anyway
.
October 4th, 2024 at 3:18 pm
I will concede that there was an “if” in the statement.
Astonishing.
However, I was basically making the assertion that it is unclear (at best) that Palin is the “most obvious choice” in 2024.
Because of a lack of exact precedents. But these aren’t court cases, so the kind of evidence you’re asking for is irrelevant.
You state: You’re now reduced to arguing that something as surprising as McCain’s choice of her is going to keep her from winning the nomination.
Where did I say that?
And then:
All I have said about the unexpected is that Palin herself illustrates how difficult it is to project four years forward. She is the very definition of an unexpected surprise.
Uh huh.
If you were logical, a general appeal to “the unexpected” would cut both cases, that she either is or isn’t the most obvious choice.
You state: I also explain specific campaign advantages she has, and you ignored them.
No, I discounted them.
Wrong. You said, “Really all you did was the following:” and did not mention them. Saying, in so many words, that I had not done what I had done. Unless in your private lexicon “really” means “all I care to interact with” rather than anything to do with reality.
You whole argument is, as best as I can tell, predicated on the notion that a) she is popular right now with the base, and b) that that popularity will sustain itself sufficiently to take her to the nomination in 2024.
Now, I know you read where I said, “Yes, maybe she’ll wait so long she squanders these and then jump in at the last minute.” So why should I take anything you say seriously?
She doesn’t have a volunteer base or a donor base at the moment–they belong to the McCain campaign. These things dissipate after a given campaign and have to be reconstituted. Palin will not automatically inherent the McCain volunteers and donors and such from McCain. Indeed, many of them will end up working for/supporting other candidates in 2024. It always works that way. Indeed, her lack of experience on the national stage will make it difficult to create that infrastructure. This is not a slam, nor a criticism, just a fact.
She is, once again, a person who beat a sitting governor and a former governor. And she doesn’t have experience at setting up a campaign infrastructure? Is that even meant to be taken seriously?
You seem to need to invent strawmen, being unable to answer my actual points. The point isn’t that she’ll inherit McCain’s network. The point is that her connection to conservatives now gives her a head start. If she chooses to take advantage of that head start, she will make it very difficult for any other candidate to catch up. Especially if there are many other candidates.
In re: Huckabee and Romney. I bring them up because what they illustrate is that in a situation where the nomination is open (i.e., there is no incumbent) then there will be a number of contenders for the nomination. if Obama wins in ‘08, then there will be a large number of GOP candidates in 2024. If Palin is one of them, then she will have to compete with them.
Also: Huck and Mitt are useful to illustrate that the candidates that “the base” supposedly prefer don’t always win (and you argument is that Palin is the candidate of “the base” and that gives her a likely shot at the 2024 nomination). Again, as noted already, McCain was not “the base’s” candidates, yet he is the nominee.
Everything wrong with this conversation in a nutshell: you make a fallacious argument, I answer the argument, you ignore my answer and merely repeat the original fallacy, I am obliged to repeat my refutation.
Here it goes again: Huckabee and Romney were chasing the same voters. You seem to be under the impression that having more conservatives in the race means that it was more likely that one of them should have won. Which would be an astonishing failure on the part of a poli sci professor, if true.
Palin starts with higher name recognition than virtually any possible rival, which means that other candidates are playing catch up. The more of them there are, the less able to compete with Palin any individual candidate is. And you need one particular candidate to beat Palin, not other candidates in general. You do understand why, don’t you?
October 4th, 2024 at 5:41 pm
Tell you what: if in four years she is the nominee, I will be more than happy to dedicate a post to how you were right.
And I am not being sarcastic.
I really don’t know what to say beyond that.