Gallup Sees Palin as Attempt to Solve McCain’s “Women Problem”

This is nothing new. The Democratic Party appeals more to younger voters and minorities than the Republican Party. And younger voters and minorities are less likely to be married than older white voters. The GOP's "family values" campaign over the last few decades only reinforces this.

I would guess that, since these high-powered campaigns do their own polls and focus-groups, the McCain campaign decided they needed a woman as the answer to something.

Apparently, it was kind of a last-minute decision. Maybe they would have been better off waiting a few more days and doing a little more research on Palin.

Or, maybe they just needed to do something drastic to cut off whatever bounce--it seems to be fairly large--Obama was getting from the convention.

After thinking it through, I can't remember a Vice Presidential candidate who helped very much. Not Edwards, Lieberman, Kemp, Benson. Quayle, an acknowledged poor choice, didn't hurt. As a southern man in his 40's, Gore was cut from the same cloth as Clinton. Cheney, for all the controversy since, seemed neutral.

It's possible that because McCain is so old, his Veep will matter more than usual. In that case, my first impression is that Palin is a lightweight not ready to be President. But I imagine her selection means many female voters will give more consideration to McCain than they otherwise would have done.

As I said in another comment, I'm sure Republicans will treat her seventeen months as Governor of Alaska as if they made her FDR in 1944. (The last thing they'll do is concede McCain's hypocrisy about the experience argument in making this choice.) I also imagine they'll treat her as if she should be taken by the voters as the moral equivalent of Hillary Clinton. (I further imagine they'll treat themselves to an enormous, resentment-mongering pity party if that doesn't work out.)

Democrats will find plenty to complain about.

I'm inclined at this point to call Palin a wash.

But I'm no prophet, as my record of commentary here at TMV will prove.

Here's another thought to chew on this morning. Every election year we see the sad, inevitable studies showing that far too many voters really are completely uneducated on the issues and on the actual positions and qualifications of the candidates. Even given the myriad problems with the Palin nomination, which I've already documented here yesterday, combined with her paper thin experience, will there be a certain number of independent female voters and feminist supporting males who will look at the names on the tickets and just say, "Oh! Cool! There's a woman running!'' and just vote the McCain ticket, positions on women's rights be damned?

Of course Palin is meant to appeal to white married women and maybe older unmarried white women. Please when discussing gender differences in voting, separate out whites from non-whites. Since non-whites vote overwhelmingly Democratic, they screw the the results. If you look at white males, Obama is far behind. However, since they demographic group is shrinking relative to the overall population, the Democratic Party feels free to ignore it except for the homosexual, Jewish, or urban elite white males.

That margin re: unmarried women should be expected to grow. More than 1/2 of the women in the country are unmarried and groups like Women's Voices Women Vote, among several others, have been pushing for a few years now for single women's issues to become voiced and known.

James Fallows says we should consider Palin as a choice like Clarence Thomas, not Dan Quayle.

Thanks, George! Post updated with the Fallows link. Interesting stuff there. I'll have to ponder for a while. (*puts on his Pinky and the Brain hat.)

Both McCain and Obama are closet misogynists.

So there's your "women problem". It doesn't take a ton of bricks for women to see a man who, in action (not words), just doesn't give a fig about treating women as equals.

By the time we're old enough to vote, we've met hundreds of males who fit that description. By the time we're in middle age, we've met thousands. I guess repetition sort of hones the "radar" so-to-speak.

I repeat: both McCain and Obama are closet misogynists. Closet, not openly...well...maybe McCain..

"By the time we're old enough to vote, we've met hundreds of males who fit that description.'

Sil, I would like to formally apologize for all of the times I may have inadvertently referred to you using a male pronoun. I'll try to keep that straight in the future.

Superdestroyer, FYI my white 40 something, traditional Catholic lifelong Republican husband who wrote in McCain in 2004 is about ready to vote for Obama. He is very disappointed in McCain's reversals on torture and other policy reversals. In his campaign, Obama has a staff of smart people who learn from their mistakes. The lack of drama, and disruptive turn over appeals to my husband in a big way. Obama showed he picks people because of their abilities not their ideologies and he doesn't surround himself with yes-men. My engineer husband who likes things that work, is very impressed.

So, was the pick of Joe Biden as Obama's running mate an effort by Obama to solve his "Man Problem"?

Maybe thats why he dissed Hilliary.

Both McCain and Obama are closet misogynists.

McCain has had some very public fits of misogynists. He called his wife a c**t. He made fun of Chelsea's looks. He dropped his old wife for a younger richer one.

And Obama called someone sweety. That's damning evidence right there.

"Palin has served in elective office longer than the Illinois senator and for most of that time, since she was elected mayor in 1992"

Come on. Not all "elective office" qualifies one for the presidency. How about coroner or school board? This is a laughing point being trotted out as a talking point. Mayor of a town under 10,000? Please.

"Is Barack Obama actually the “Sex and the City“candidate? "

Jazz, that characterization strikes me as a profound misunderstanding of this demographic. How many of these unmarried women do you think are rich, gorgeous metrosexual women in Manolo Blahniks? Many are single moms and most others are struggling trying to make it on one income. Let's not confuse sitcom with reality.

Obama's positions give single moms the prospect of guaranteed and affordable health care and college education for their children that seems now so distant as they try to make the mortgage and buy the gas and food without a financial partner. The same is true of lower income married couples with children. Right now, in America, having a child is the single greatest predictor that a person will face bankruptcy. And unexpected medical costs is the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy. That's GOP style "family values," where "personal responsibility" means "you're on your own."

Most people in this country are not in the financial stratosphere that benefits from Bush/Cheney/McCain policies. They are in some degree of financial stress, while watching the truly rich getting favor after favor and gliding through these economic hard times. The GOP looks like a party that works for the rich and special interests. It doesn't care about the majority of the country and seems out of touch with the hardship most are now facing.

Barack Obama is the American Idol candidate. That's what he and his campaign have been all about. The speech spectacle refinforces this obvious fact.

I hope the lefties remain mainly naive and idealistic and don't relapse into their usual hatred and scumminess that will include sexist and worse attacks on Palin, but I and all reasonable people know and fear the worst. The standard pathological and wrongful behaviors of the Left are compounded this year because of that extra childish attitude of entitlement we're going to see that will forcefully drive the hatred in any vicious reaction to anything the GOP does that is right and threatens to keep the Dems out of the White House for at least four more years, four years that this year the worst of the lot on the Left believes they're entitled. The Messiah owns the White House already; how dare this be contested in any serious way that may threaten to be successful!

DLS,
Do you honestly think it's a bad thing that people like Barack Obama enough to watch his POLITICAL speeches? You and McCain are just jealous.

"Jazz, that characterization strikes me as a profound misunderstanding of this demographic."

That was really just a throw-away, light hearted line, and the only reference that jumped to mind when thinking of the concept of "single women." Sorry if it was offensive somehow.

DLS--

OMG!!!

Remind me again--which party is the party of swift-boating? The party of Karl Rove? The party making an issue of somebody's middle name?

Nice try, though!

I don't believe Obama "dissed" Hillary Clinton. So many Dem voters this year are as children, expecting what they don't own or have any right to expect; that was true earlier for Clinton voters, who never accepted Super Tuesday ...

and as I've accurately reported yesterday and again today, it's something we see this year with Dems in general.

You were likely to win in 2000 and you remain likely to win this year, but you blew it big time in 2000 (Gore losing to Dubya in the debates!!!) and gave hope to Bush and to America. (and you were scummy to try to steal what you lost that year -- the Dems' Party of Crooks, Losers, and Scum in America (D) reputation was fortified -- congratulations!) and this year is no different. McCain is weak but he's actually stronger than Bush. His own psychological effect and phenomenon is that of persistence and survival: he treads water, often flailing pitifullly, but he HAS NOT SUNK. And in Palin he has not merely a life preserver but an excellent vessel to employ (no matter how and how much the angry losers and shitheads in this country attack her), and as long as they avoid stupid mistakes, McCain, Palin, and the GOP now have made this a real contest (particularly when, as so many realize even if they won't admit it, that many of what Obama and the Dems threaten in their list of vague or evasive promises will be costly and counterproductive at best, and so if the GOP offers anything decent as an alterative, you'll see many swing voters consider voting GOP). McCain and Palin need to push reform (they already are not copycats of Bush, the most stupid lie uttered this election year). If they offer us cost reduction and simplification as basic reforms of Washington in addition to ethical reforms, higher-quality, better-morals, fearful-of-tax-parasitism voters will consider voting GOP in large numbers.

There you go again, being not only illogical but silly, Chris. Your "speeches" remark was ridiculously superficial. It was a totally unnecessary American Idol, contemporary entertainment-laden Super-Bowl-Style lurid spectacle. As I already have said (your emotional immaturity probably inhibits comprehension), the speech itself was fine and even righties were telling each other (callers on radio shows and such) that the speech was great and Obama is a splendid orator and highly telegenic. But there was no need for the politico-tainment nonsense with predictable Hollywood-style PC-join-the-crowd musicians and all the rest. And Obama has been always first and foremost and sometimes _only_ about slick packaging and appearance, style far, far, far above what little substance he has revealed.

Go ahead and return merely to looking at him and listening to him and enjoying it.

The Republicans are far from clean. They pale compared to the Dems on ethical failings and misbehavior. The Republicans are largely a party that is dysfunctional, often feebly aping the Dems with big government (middle-class entitlements more than anything aimed at the poor or at special interests are what underpins the Dems' power and influence in this country), often making stupid mistakes ("the Stupid Party" is not said about the Dems, after all). This year (at least prior to the Palin selection, which has completely changed this game), McCain has appeared throughout to be the next Bob Dole, a weak, dull, unappealing candidate to non-liberal voters who has surprised us by doing better, not worse, than he has been predicted to do. (He's treading water but he has not sunk yet, as I have said.)

Now with Palin the GOP is definitely in the game and hopefully they'll push first and foremost reform in Washington, not only ethical reform but *** SPENDING REDUCTIONS *** and corresponding reduced interventionism by Washington, which is what so many Americans have long wanted and demanded. If McCain and Palin push lobbying reform, earmark suppression, reduction of department sizes or functions -- Americans would have _real_ Hope [pun intended] for _real_ Change [pun intended]. (The GOP should coopt, yes, "hijack," those two words used emotively by Obama to mean something _real_, as I have begun to describe here.)

We can laugh at objects that address Obama's blunders in the past or potential liabilities -- a tire pressure gauge or an arugula-leaf lapel pin as humorous props at Obama's earned expense. But even better, I thought yesterday while on the road after learning of the VP selection, would be the following to carry to the GOP convention and to be worn and held high as the (*** REAL ***) symbol of Change and Hope with this pair of GOP candidates:

*************** THE VETO PEN *****************

It's up to McCain, Palin, and the GOP if they want to show more _initiative_ and even _vitality_ now and make this the serious contest it has become if they only will act.

DLS: *** THE VETO PEN ***

That's a good idea! Certainly much better than the tire gauge and the arugula pin. But again, if the investigation into Palin's behavior doesn't go well I suspect it will be all for naught. That one thing alone could cause McCain to lose in a landslide.

So I guess my first question to you is... do you agree with that? The second is... do you think it was worth the chance?

McCain has obviously gone all in with this pick -- and he's done it with a weak card. It's pretty clear that if she's found culpable of wrongdoing his chances are very close to nil. On the other hand, even if she's eventually exonerated he also has to assume that in the mean time more cross-over voters will warm up to her than will abandon him because he was so reckless. And I'd say that's by no means a foregone conclusion.

Also, it appears he's put ole' Karl Rove in a pretty tough spot. Rove has been on the spotlight for a couple of weeks now criticizing Obama for various "what ifs" -- what if Obama picks some lightweight like Kaine? What if Obama picks someone that provides a tactical advantage during the campaign rather than one that would help him govern? Of course, as it turned out, Obama didn't do either of those things. But McCain did. My guess is, Rove is stewing in his juices -- as are many others in the GOP hierarchy. When watching Lindsay Graham's appearance with Wolf Blitzer earlier today I got the impression that Graham was having a hard time defending his good friend John.

I don't blame him. Unless something incredible this way comes, I have lost all confidence in McCain's ability to right his ship. To one extent or another I could handle the dissembling, the occasional slip of the tongue, the moving further right for political purposes, and all that. I really thought he was going to tack back to the left a little to recapture his mavericky image with his VP pick and after the convention. But that doesn't seem possible anymore. Worse, with Palin he's gotten into reckless disregard for country territory. And that really pisses me off.