As we entered October, I asked a series of questions that I said would go a long way towards determining the winner of the presidential election. Now that results are in, it is worth taking a look at these questions yet again to try and determine what happened over the past month. Here is the first: Did Sarah Palin matter?
After the vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin became much less of a factor in the race and we returned to the familiar situation in which the top of the ticket drives the conversation. But there is no question that Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket has had a much greater influence than that of most modern vice-presidential nominees.
On August 29th, John McCain chose to gamble - and he did so in a big way by picking Palin as his running-mate. His decision immediately revived his struggling campaign, and she energized the conservative base, something that was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a McCain victory. At the same time she failed to attract independents and suburban women to the Republican ticket. As the novelty factor wore off, Palin’s public image deteriorated and the electorate became increasingly uncomfortable with her selection.
I firmly believe that the McCain campaign was right to take a gamble of this magnitude. The campaign was stuck playing catch-up since the first days of the general election. McCain advisers had very few cards left to play. One of the only ones they could control was the vice-presidential pick. The names that were circulating in the Republican veepstakes - Romney, Portman, Pawlenty - might have been strong picks in any other year, but they were not going to provide McCain with the shake-up he needed.
But the way in which they decided what gamble they should take and how they should implement was wildly incompetent.
A gamble by definition can go either way, and it is impossible to predict whether it will radically change the game or turn to an unspeakable nightmare. Yet, this is not to say that it should just be taken lightly without careful consideration: Risks should be calculated, potential drawbacks should be considered and back-up plans should be ready. That a plan is risky is all the more reason to weight it carefully; that its outcome is unpredictable is no excuse for rushing through the decision-making process.
In other words, a gamble should never be made impulsively.
Yet, the Palin choice was nothing if not impulsive. As we long suspected and Scott Draper’s behind-the-scenes account confirmed, it was made in a hurry with inadequate vetting. And from the very first days of September, it proved to be a distracting drip of daily revelations.
First came the flood of reports about her past, her record as Mayor and Governor. Here we learned how inadequate the vetting process was, and not because of the huge amount of revelations we were getting but because of the McCain campaign’s inability to counter those revelations. When the press started reporting that Palin had supporting Pat Buchanan or that she had belonged to the Alaska Independence Party, it took the GOP a long time to find the (arguable) holes in those stories; a simple Nexis search of her name might have alerted McCain aides to those minefields beforehand, allowing them to be prepared to fire back at any misleading reports within minutes rather than days.
Second came Palin’s disastrous interview with Katie Couric which undermined the seriousness of her candidacy for good; all the GOP had left to hope for was that she not sink the McCain campaign, and she performed well enough at the vice-presidential debate to avoid that fate. But then came P.R. disaster of her shopping spree - and The New York Times is now reporting that those were her own decisions that shocked the RNC, unlike what Palin said at first when Politico broke the story - which proceeded to damage her image as an average “hockey mom.”
What ended up truly hurting Republicans was the increasingly public civil war within the McCain campaign. Controversies surrounded Palin’s freelancing (what was up with her stunning protests about her own campaign’s decision to pull-out of Michigan), and The New York Times’s story about the relations between Palin and McCain has a wealth of stunning information (for instance Palin’s insistence at delivering a speech before McCain on Tuesday night, only to be shot down by Schmidt and Salter).
As the duo plummeted in the polls, the firing squad grew into a frenzy; McCain advisers had apparently decided to lay the blame on Palin and the governor’s allies are determined to save her national ambition. This dynamic is sure to lead to even more leaks to the press over the next few weeks, as the GOP’s internal dissensions will spill in the public arena.
It is of course debatable whether any vice-presidential nominee ever has an impact on voters. But it is hard to deny that Palin became a drag to her ticket. (Much of it is McCain’s fault for tapping her when she was so obviously not ready for the big stage, but those are questions that Republicans should settle between themselves.) At the very least, Palin cost McCain precious news cycles at a time he could not afford to waste a single day - all the way to the mid-October troopergate report that led to negative headlines across the country a mere three weeks before Election Day.
At worst, Palin so worried wavering Democrats and independent voters that it sent them to Obama’s side. In an election in which Republicans were hoping to win Clinton supporters, firing a shot in the culture war was sure to repel many of the lifelong Democrats who had been left demoralized by Hillary’s loss; and picking a nominee with little experience was bound to backfire given that one of the main reasons many independents were not sure about Obama was his own lack of preparedness. The national exit polls leave no doubt that all of Palin’s talk of mayoral experience did little to reassure voters: a full 60% of respondents said that Palin is not qualified to be president if necessary, and Obama won 82% of those voters.
McCain’s age, of course, magnified the importance of Palin’s pick, and while past vice-presidential nominees had limited impact (just look at 1988) there was tremendous public attention surrounding the Alaska Governor: Her one debate got more viewers than any of the presidential debates, and her convention speech drew almost as large an audience as Barack Obama’s address. All of this makes the latter scenario far more plausible.
Meanwhile, whether Republicans come to think that Palin was an overall boost or a hindrance, will be a crucial factor in whether she has a chance to capture the Republican nomination in 2012 or in 2016.
Palin was a net negative for McCain. I know from personal experience that there were three colleagues of mine in North Carolina who voted for Obama because of Palin. She repelled them and the way she was chosen was also a big factor. Remember Obama won North Carolina by 14,000 (final tally pending) so those 3 voters I know of are important because they are surely not the only three in the state who felt this way.
Palin did energise the base but Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative media were energising the base about Ayers, Resko etc so the base would have come out and voted anyway for McCain. Therefore Palin was not really necessary.
Although I am not a Romney fan, he would have been the better bet - he could have campaigned and been interviewed without a champerone (McCain had to sit in on most Palin interviews). He looked Presidental, was obvious intelligent and had economic experience. I think the issue around McCains 7 houses and being out of touch hit Romney’s chances.
Palin was a gamble they did not need - she obviously didn`t work out and I think she will try and run in 2012 but Jindal and Huckabee will split the christian right vote and Romney will win the nomination. Anyway Obama in 2012 will be hard to beat unless he screws up. Presidents usually get a second term.
I agree with Taniel that McCain had to take that risk, and still, no one except Palin would have changed the dynamic of the race, which before her picking was in bad shape and starting to see strong signals of an eroding and lethargic GOP base.
The problem was the execution and preparation/handling of Palin, and both sides (McCain and Palin) are guilty of that
On the other candidates, I still think Romney was not going to be a good choice, but Pawlenty or Ridge could have helped carry and/save some midwest states, that at the end proved what sunk McCain (he lost in the West and VA, NC, but let’s remember he decided early to focus in the midwest, only to lose it completely)
Palin still has future. She’s a capable governor, and is very charismatic and has a strong connection with the people. I don’t agree with her ideologies, but I think she can be the face of the GOP in the future. She should not be thinking in 2012. 2016, if she plans it well, can be where she is competitive, but she needs to come back to AK, finish her term, and then go for a national platform either in the Senate or the RNC.
Whether Palin was a boost or hindrance to the McCain campaign will be determined in the next few months as the campaign entrails are disected.
What may have had more impact on the voters was the cynical way in which she was chosen. The idea that the VP for a 72 year old nominee for POTUS was chosen for political reasons ONLY and was not even given a cursory vetting said much more about McCain than her shopping spree or geographic knowledge.
It gave me a good idea of how a McCain administration would have run the country. It is not a pretty picture.
As to whether she will run in 2012; I assume she will. She can, like most politicians, be reabilitated, she is a natural politician and will speak for the remaining base of the Republician party (non college educated whites).
Dan Qualye was not rehabiliated and I don`t see how Palin would be. Yes she is popular in Alaska (although not the most popular Governor in the Union anymore), but Alaska is different to the lower 48 - they vote for a convicted criminal for Senate, they are used to having multiple thousand dollar rebate checks from their oil wealth. Much easier to be popular when you can give out big, fat checks. She is shallow, unengaged and not a deep thinker. Yes she is “charismatic” but she likes to play hard (”palling around with terrorists”), seems to like to spend ($150,000 on clothes for her, her husband and children when she was expected to spend only $20,000). She may run in the future but people like Huckabee and Jindal will be much stronger candidates. For goodness sake she couldn`t even answer the question “waht newspapers do you read?” - “all of them” she replied after a long pause.
I agree with Fritz that uneducated white voters are the base of the GOP, unfortunately for the GOP that is a shrinking proportion of the electorate and the GOP will not win nationally just relying on poor white people as this election showed.
Palin was only a brilliant pick for about a week as her announcement took all of the Greco-Roman momentum away from Obama, but that illustrates a problem with the McCain campaign. They were only concerned about winning the news cycle that day. She managed to excite the Republican base, and upset liberals, which excited the Rep. base, but that base is shrinking terrible smaller.
Mike Murphy was right, McCain needed ticket splitters to win, so the Palin pick in that regard was horrible. They tried to paint her as a person like the Hillary Clinton voters, but she wasn’t. I’m convinced McCain would have done better with Connecticut’s governor or either of Maine’s Senators.
The base would have not have been excited, but you tell them you appoint justices to SCOTUS like Scalia and tell them how much of a liberal Obama is. The two more moderates could make the case that they would better serve that the country. It might not have worked, but it would have made a better play for the middle than the current strategy.
Romney and Lieberman would not have worked, because of the number of houses debate and a mass republican revolt against a lifelong Democrat, respectively.
Back to Palin, she’ll go back to Alaska and maybe run for Ted Steven’s Senate seat or just be governor. She’ll try in 2012, but after she loses the Iowa caucuses to Huckabee, she’ll have a hard time winning the nomination.
“She energized the conservative base, something that was a sufficient but not a necessary condition for a McCain victory.” I think you mean necessary but not sufficient. At any rate, here’s my take:
Palin is pretty, photogenic, and has many charismatic qualities. She’s the Aubrey Hepburn of the GOP. But she wasn’t ready for the spotlight. McCain deserved to lose because there were others much more qualified whom he might have chosen: Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole, Linda Lingle, among many others. He could not pick any Pro-Choice Republican, however; the convention would have been in total disarray, and Dobson, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. would have skewered him. The point is, there really were better choices, but he didn’t make them.
Palin will no doubt run in 2012, but the bad press she’s earned will come back to haunt her, and it’s hard to see how such a polarizing figure stands a chance against an incumbent Obama. 2016? That’s more likely.
I still think that with any other VP candidate McCain would have lost even bigger. It was a risk that he had to take, but one that played badly in the midwest and west at the end (economic crisis + Palin gaffes)
I don’t see Huckabee as a real competition for Obama. If Obama messes up in economy and/or Irak, maybe Romney, Pawlenty or even Palin or Giulani can run…
If McCain wanted to ‘take a gamble’ he should have picked Huckabee
Of all the Republican candidates, Huckabee was the most appealing
He was something of a populist (not a rabble rouser, like Palin) and seemed sympathetic to the little guy
Obama would still have won, but Huckabee might have made things closer
Romney would have helped during the Financial meltdown
Thank god, McCain picked Palin
I hope she haunts the Republicans in 2012 !!
Obama vs Palin ??
BRING IT ON !!
“Dan Qualye was not rehabiliated and I don`t see how Palin would be.”
Most politicians “can” be rehabiliated. John McCain was reborn after the Keating five affair. I expect even John Edwards will return after a few years in the penalty box.
If Palin goes to school and gets an education she can return in four or eight years and be very a very good politician. The Senate has lots of people who got elected on name recognition alone (think Jim Bunning) who can barely find their office.
As well I was wrong in my assessment of the Republician base. It is really older rural white non-college educated whites.
In 2012 and onwards if the Republicians play only to this base they will be out of office no matter how good a candidate they nominate.
Sarah Palin/Alan Keyes 2012
They will secure the base but lose the country!
Perhaps the larger question should be asked at this point: Can the Republican party survive? Perhaps they may survive, but will be doomed to minority status permanently. Let’s not forget that even political parties have a life-span. Remember the Whigs?
In 2012 and onwards if the Republicians play only to this base they will be out of office no matter how good a candidate they nominate.
I agree. But what indications are there that Palin would play outside of that base?
She’s belittled city dwellers, those living in the northeast, and anyone with a resume. Those who believe in a progressive tax system (including John Stuart Mill) are apparently “socialists” to be cast out of society. She’s tried to replay the culture wars when younger voters, even evangelical younger voters, care less and less about it. She has divided us into “real America” and everyone else–except that “everyone else” is in the majority, and that majority will be bigger in 2012 than it is today.
Perhaps McCain would have lost by more than he did had he selected someone other than Palin. But he’s done far more harm to the party in the long term as the Democrats peel off the moderate wing and leave Republicans in danger of being in the thrall of a sector that’s increasingly radicalized (”terrorist!” “socialist!”) but dwindling in number.
I believe competition is good, and when the Republicans come back, I’d rather have it be the non-lunatic wing of the party. Democrats had a similar discussion in 2004 as to whether they needed to be even more liberal or more centrist. I think the answer was that they had to become more pragmatic and inclusive. But if Republicans back Palin’s approach, I think it will be damaging for their party and for the nation. And that’s the real downside to McCain’s selection.
of course the GOP will survive, and at some point will become majority again. Remember this country is still conservative and center-right oriented. If Obama and Dems have a successful government, then the country will slowly tilt to the center left, and then the GOP would need to shift to more center and moderate positions.
Fritz - John Edwards will not be rehabiliated, he will not be a contender for any cabinet position never mind for 2016 primaries.
Felipe - I do not believe that McCain would have lost more with any other candidate. She alienated key voting demographics - women, independents etc so she was a net negative. I have colleagues who would have voted for McCain/Pawlenty or Romney or someone else other than Palin (or some other extreme Conservative/Religious Right person).
She alienated key voting demographics - women, independents etc so she was a net negative. I have colleagues who would have voted for McCain/Pawlenty or Romney or someone else other than Palin (or some other extreme Conservative/Religious Right person).
Yes, but there are plenty of sites online where people post that Palin is the only reason why they bothered to vote for McCain instead of staying home.
Without hard data, it’s hard to say whether she was a net positive or negative. There are anecdotal stories to support both positions.
dsimon - I agree there are anecdotal stories for both sides but look at the polling of women where Palin was very unpopular and Obama did better with women than either Gore or Kerry. Maybe coincidence but maybe not. The GOP base would turnout because of the supreme court and the rantings of Hannity and Limbaugh - they may not have been happy voting for McCain but they were very happy to vote AGAINST Obama.
If Palin runs for President in 2012, at least she has name recognition going for her… but that may not work in her favor