Did Sarah Palin Lose the Election for McCain?
Did Sarah Palin lose the 2008 election for John McCain?
It should first of all be said, that even before the meltdown of the financial markets in September, the 2008 presidential election was the Democrats to lose. President Bush’s approval ratings were in the tank and most people blamed the Republican Party for a host of perceived ills.
And while I always believed that John McCain, because of his penchant for working with people from across the aisle, his strong record for frugal spending, and his status as a hero, was the only Republican who could win this year, it was always a mission improbable.
McCain could likely only have won this year if his Democratic opponent pulled a bonehead mistake and if his own campaign was savvy, polished, and attuned to the sentiments of the American electorate. McCain’s opponent never made a mistake and McCain’s campaign was disorganized, leaky, and seemingly incapable of devising a coherent theme or rationale for putting the Arizona senator in the Oval Office.
To lay blame for McCain’s loss on Palin then, isn’t fair. But, it seems to me, she’s a good symbol of what went wrong with McCain’s uphill quest to become president.
What Went Wrong #1: McCain and his handlers were always too concerned with how the “base” felt toward the Arizona senator. It bothered them that there was no depth of passion among the GOP who take their philosophical cues from people like Rush Limbaugh.
But, here’s the deal: When people go to their neighborhood voting booth, there is no “depth of passion” slot on the ballot. You only vote for candidates, sometimes enthusiastically and sometimes not. No matter how tepid their feelings for McCain, there was never any chance that the neocons were going to vote for Obama or, had she been the nominee of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton.
Intent on shoring up a base that would simply not have abandoned him in the fall though, McCain spent lots of time wooing the “dittoheads,” as some call themselves, and others on the right of his party, rather than trying to build his appeal among other “woo-able” US voters. And it was, in part, to appeal to “the base” that McCain chose Palin to be his running mate.
McCain wasn’t alone among the contenders for this year’s GOP presidential nomination in exhibiting a fixation on this base. Over the last two election cycles, with the wins engineered for President Bush by Karl Rove, Republicans had become believers in what I’ve called Rovian Minimalism. I described it this way on March 5:
It’s a minimalist, get-out-the-base strategy. The idea is to excite the base by throwing out lots of red meat, plenty of references to Ronald Reagan, and lots of hot button issues and then squeak by.
I went on to write in that piece, that:
this year, with concerns over the economy rising and frustration with the war continuing, the Republican nominee needs to expand the party’s base. John McCain cannot do that by energizing a shrunken Republican base that puts off the very people he will need to win in 2008, persuadable independents, Dems, and Republicans who regard Bush’s domestic and national security policies as betrayals of conservative and Republican principles.
What Went Wrong #2: I am wary in saying this, but I think that it’s true that John McCain panicked. At one level, I know how laughable it is for me to say this about a certifiable war hero who used to land jets onto aircraft carriers and went through hell in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.
But we’ve seen this movie before. John Kerry, in spite of the “swift boating” to which he was subjected in 2004, is a certifiable hero.
Neither Kerry nor McCain scare easily. But something happened to both of them once they got close to their White House dreams.
Four years ago, a friend of mine who had voted for George Bush, watched John Kerry’s concession speech, an address that was human, eloquent, and compelling. After seeing it, my friend told me, “If I’d seen that in Kerry during the campaign, I would have voted for him.” Many Obama supporters I’ve heard from in the past twenty-four hours reacted similarly to McCain’s concession speech on Tuesday evening.
Like Kerry before him, not wanting to blow his big chance, McCain did desperate things like “suspending” his campaign to address the financial crisis, making a big deal of little things like “lipstick on a pig,” and asking someone who had been governor of a tiny-population state for less than two years to be his running mate.
The latter move denied McCain one of his most potent arguments against Obama, the fact that the Illinois senator, had little national experience. And, as Palin fumbled through her interview with Katie Couric and the McCain people seemed to want to insulate her from scrutiny, caused voters to question McCain’s judgment.
If every play called by a football coach was the Hail Mary pass, people would begin to suspect that his approach was all tactic and no strategy, all flash and no substance, all panic and no direction.
In the end, McCain’s campaign for president was swamped by an economic tsunami. But by the time the financial crisis erupted, the convince-able non-Republican voters had already started to tune John McCain out.
He hadn’t pitched his campaign to them and he never presented a coherent case for electing him.
Sarah Palin didn’t cause those two things to happen; she just symbolized them.
[I didn't post this on my personal blog.]
13 Responses to “Did Sarah Palin Lose the Election for McCain?”
I mostly agree, but would add that Palin hurt him with the 60% of the voting public who rightly saw her as not ready for the vice presidency.
McCain did panic after the Democratic convention, when he felt he had to seize back the momentum. There was still a possibility that Hillary supporters were not ready to back Obama, and he might be able to capitalize on their anger. He also knew that he did not have the right stuff to turn out the base the way Bush had in 2000 or 2004. He lacked Obama's superior fundraising and organizational skills and did not appeal to conservatives as strongly as Bush had.
He picked Palin, and then realized that she had a poor level of knowledge on both domestic and world affairs.Fox and Newsweek are now reporting that she didn't understand that Africa was a continent, not a country, and didn't know what countries signed on to NAFTA. His staffers attempted to keep her hidden from the press and tried to coach her before she was allowed to give selected national interviews, but it didn't work. In the end Palin was both a tremendous strength and a huge liability to the campaign.
It really bothers me that so many conservatives were willing to overlook her obvious shortcomings to get one of their own on the ticket.
The bad I heard from others about Palin was almost entirely from those already in the Obama camp. The idea that she didn't know that Africa was a continent is absurd and the kind of dodgy crap that you too often hear from partisans and it's sad that some people believe it. Look out of the four she had the least experience campaigning and it did show, she also had great natural talent and that came across. 6 more months and she could give Obama a workout and really trash Biden. You could see that it was very new and that she was feeling her way into it and got a very good response from lots of people. There is a lot to compare her to early Obama. Would another candidate served better? Easy to second guess, I like Jindal myself, but it's doubtful it would of mattered.
EE:
The sources on “the Africa thing,” which I also view skeptically, were people in the McCain camp, reported by Cameron of Fox News. That means the story doesn't come from Obama people, but disgruntled McCain people.
EEllis-
She blew several key interviews with the press– remember she couldn't name a SCOTUS case other than Roe v Wade and couldn't think of the publications she reads?Palin was the person who bragged that Putin's head flies over Alaskan air space as proof of her foreign policy credentials. At the end it was difficult to see the difference between her and her caricature on SNL.
Obama didn't have anything to do with that.
Excellent post Mark, however, one point you didn't mention was how severely Palin undercut McCain's experience argument. I know it didn't work so well for Hillary, but McCain seemed to be making some headway with it before September. I also must wonder if he would have behaved so erratically if he had more confidence in his VP. Look, I hang out with a lot of Conservatives. Most voted for McCain but of the ones who didn't Palin's toxic combination of arrogance and ignorance was what sealed the deal for Obama. A more (dare I say intellectual) VP would have made McCain seem more re-assuring.
Regarding the sources of all the anti-Palin stories, I heard that they are coming from people in McCain's campaign with ties to Romney. It makes sense, who else has more motive to tear down Palin.
Palin hurt McCain horribly because of what her selection, and how it came to be, said about John McCain. It let his desperation show. everyone know that those willing to put themselves through the wringer of a Presidential campaign want the job very, very badly.
But, you cannot come across as desperate for the job. It is a large part of what killed Kerry's campaign (OK, a part – there were so many shortcomings in his attempt it is hard to label any one as key).
Certainly other Presidents have been elected with light-weight VP's on the ticket (Bush/Quayle). But the obvious lack of vetting, her ignorance on key issues, the playing of the gender card her selection indicated, the pandering to the base (who never really liked him, but would not dream of voting Democratic) rather than going with his real choice of Lieberman cost him both the maverick and the moderates, and McCain's age making his VP selection more critical than others all worked against him.
Prior to the economic meltdown, he just might have had a chance. But not with Palin. So, while you cannot say she cost him the election, I think you can say he could not win with her as his running mate.
Austin Roth. Exactly. Polls show that McCain started dropping fast the day after the Curic interview which was before the economic meltdown.
On the day that McCain said “The fundamentals of the economy are basically strong,” I remarked in my blog that one comment may have handed the election to Obama. At that time, back in mid-September, McCain was still running off the convention high, the polls were neck-and-neck, and FiveThirtyEight was even giving McCain a better-than-50% chance to win the election. It was during that week, as the markets plunged, that the final and ultimate unravelling of the McCain campaign began, and it was that week that there was a sharp and sudden drop in McCain's polling numbers.
I'd love to pin McCain's loss on Sarah Palin's ugly head. She is a horrible, horrible person, and she did a lot to damage the McCain campaign. But she did not cause McCain to lose – she only exacerbated the loss. Even if McCain had picked an insert-wonderful-and-competent-republican-name-here candidate instead of Palin, he still would have lost. However, it might have been a much narrower victory without her.
You have got to be kidding me. Where to start.
Kritt11: The only reason 60% said she wasn't ready for the VP was that the McCain campaign refused to defend her and refused to let her defend herself. At the time of the pick, the vast majority of the American people said she was a brilliant pick.
“He picked Palin, and then realized that she had a poor level of knowledge on both domestic and world affairs” and your reason for that is….?? (crickets chirping). Yeah, I thought so.
“Fox and Newsweek are now reporting that she didn't understand that Africa was a continent, not a country, and didn't know what countries signed on to NAFTA.” And you heard the from ? Oh that's right. McCain staffers who ran one of the worst campaigns ever and then had to pin a loss on someone so they could work again. Not the most reliable people IMHO.
“His staffers attempted to keep her hidden from the press and tried to coach her before she was allowed to give selected national interviews, but it didn't work” No, it didn't and that was the problem. You notice that once she “went rogue” and told the staffers to shove it up their you-know-what's, McCain started to climb back into the polls. It was Palin that turned his ship around at the end, just too late.
Well, themandownthehall– you must be part of the 40%!!. I don't
believe you put someone with minimal to no knowledge of foreign
affairs in the position to be a heartbeat away. Palin united the
party's base but united the rest of the country against her.
I totally agree McCain ran a terrible campaign- but he also picked
someone who not only had the wrong experience for the international
problems we are facing, but who turned off liberals, moderates and
Independents. Conservatives with a conscience like Peggy Noonan and
Chris Buckley admitted that she was unsuited. The rest ignored her
obvious failings and fell in love.
She's an able politician but after the election, you have to have some
substantive knowledge. Also her ethical problems at home were not a
good sign of what was to come- especially for a reformer. Just look at
the split she caused in the GOP, whereas Obama's pick of Biden was
acceptable both to his supporters and to many outside the party,
because of his 30+ years of experience in Washington.
Mandownthehall…Though you give a full throated defense of Palin, there are a couple of things you did not mention.
Like the fact that she did not know what the Vice President's job was. She got the question twice.
She gave a “policy speech” where she talked about the wasteful spending of money on fruit fly research. We know what we know now about Autisim because of…wait for it…FRUIT FLY RESEARCH.
Ms. Ultra Executive had NO effect on her staff whatsoever. Where was her executive ability to discern whether or not she had a true call from a Head of State? Regardless of whether the staff put the phone in her hand, did nothing kick in with her to make sure this was a true call?
Well, ok that was awhile ago. Let's deal with the present. The hurried press release of her innocence in Troopergate at the 11th hour has now been proven false.
She doesn't have a enough media savvy yet (which is UNBELIEVEABLE) to do a interview someplace other than where they grind the turkeys.
When she goes on a show like Meet the Press, The No Spin Zone with Bill O'Reilly or anybody who is not going to give her a powder puff interview then she will start to look like she is serious. She has gotten by on her looks and her personality for so long that she never had to do anymore than smile. That day was over when she was chosen as VP nominee. The only one who didn't know that was Sarah Palin.
Listen, she energized the base. But obviously you needed more than the base to win. If she is truly serious about being someone on the national scene, then she needs to STUDY THE COURIC interview EVERYDAY. Research every question she got asked that she messed up on which would be ALL OF THEM. Stop sounding like “Talking Points Barbie” and hire someone to work with her on her presentation.
1.
Bad choice all around, he could of added diversity to the ticket with either, Jindal, Romney (first mormon) or some of the other potential GOPs out there. In fact in hindsight, Romeny would of been a great choice due to his great economic background during the beginning of the economic crisis. Obama picked Biden due to his Foreign Affair credentials and experience, and Palin really didn't add anything to the ticket other than she being a woman. The fact that she was a stupid woman was McCain's fault.
here ya go, eric and dawn…there are dozens of articles like this.