9.28.2008

McCain Is Stuck With Palin

Commentators on the left, right and center, reacting with near-horror to Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric, have each suggested that John McCain ought to put Palin on the next flight to Ketchikan, and replace her with another vice presidential nominee.

Now, none of these folks are necessarily arguing that this would be a good move for McCain electorally. They instead seem to be arguing, in essence, that it would be good for the country (how small-minded of them!).

But could such a move actually help McCain at the ballot box? My feeling is absolutely not, for several reasons:

1. Destroys Base Morale. No matter how well this is spun -- Palin withdrew to tend to her family because the liberal media are big meanies! -- Palin remains a major reason why conservative activists are showing up every day to make phone calls for John McCain. And to remove her from the ticket now would be a slap in the face. Now, I had argued before that McCain essentially ought to call the base's bluff -- nominate someone who appeals to independents, and almost literally dare them to vote for Barack Obama. But that was at least assuming that McCain would have a full two months or so to smooth things over, and convince them that Tom Ridge (or whomever) wasn't such a bad guy. If McCain were to drop Palin now, however, a lot of these folks would be heartbroken -- and a lot of them would not turn out, particularly if an Obama victory appeared inevitable anyway. Not only would this hurt McCain, but it would also harm downballot candidates; the odds of Democrats finishing with 60+ Senate seats or 260+ House seats would increase markedly.

2. No Obvious Alternative. If the Republicans had some obvious next-runner-up like Hillary Clinton sitting on the sidelines, this maneuver might become more viable. However, they do not, which is part of the reason that Palin had been picked in the first place.

With less than zero time for a roll-out of the replacement, he would almost have to be a familiar brand name. Mitt Romney? With the nation's attention focused on the economy, he'd seem to be the most likely choice, but a lot of people don't like him, and "Bain Capital" is not exactly compatible with "Main Street". Besides, would Romney really want to associate himself with what would probably be a losing ticket, when he could instead position himself as Mr. Fix-It in 2012? Rudy Giuliani? He's tested.ready.now but that's moving in the direction of national security credentials at a time the country is interested in other things. And talk radio would revolt. Joe Lieberman? I'm not even sure that McCain could pull that off even if he wanted to; some prominent members of the RNC (who have a veto) might object, happy enough to throw what they'd think to be a losing nominee under the bus for the sake of preserving the conservative movement. Fred Thompson? Actually might be the least-bad alternative, as he rehabilitated his image some with a strong convention speech. But he ran perhaps the most indifferent campaign in modern history, and the last thing the Republicans need is another VP nominee who doesn't seem particularly serious about the office of the Presidency. Which brings us to...

3. McCain Has Overplayed the Game-Changer Card. McCain already runs the risk of his campaign appearing to be something of a three-ring circus, with Britney Spears in one ring, Palin in another, and the "suspension" of his campaign in a third. To replace Palin now might make his campaign seem like a farce. And when was the last time the candidate who was the butt of more jokes won the election? Possibly 1992, but the presence of Ross Perot -- not to mention Dana Carvey's terrific George H.W. Bush -- made the comedy inherent in that election more or less an equal opportunity affair.

Finally, while there isn't much hard evidence to go on, there is this: George McGovern went from 19 points behind Richard Nixon in a Gallup poll taken in mid-July 1972 -- just after Thomas Eagleton had been nominated at the Democratic convention -- to a -26 in early August after he had dumped Eagleton from the ticket.

425 comments

Steven said...

AD IDEA

THE GAMBLER:

Picture footage of McCain throwing the dice in a craps game slow motion, as we read this statement that McCain made in his biography:

"I make them (decisions) quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."

Right after the baritone voice finishes reading this statement..we cut to raPId fire images of foreclosures, coffins draped in flag...cutback to dice flying through air......cut rapid fire images of poverty, sarah palin and war, cut back to dice landing on table....

Screen goes black narration voice says:

McCain is willing to gamble with our future...Are you willing to take a chance on John McCain?!


something like that!

thoughts?

SvK

prof skunk said...

Remove Palin and take away all our fun? No, the full Grecian tragedy must be allowed to unfold, with McCain and his apparatchiks exposed for the frauds they really are. The die is cast (or dice are rolled) and McCain has laid his bets, so the house cannot allow him to now withdraw (using language here that McCain will understand). I'm gunna enjoy these next few weeks. The gods have chosen the path. Let the actors follow the script while we mere mortals enjoy the performance.

RedHawksO4 said...

There is no way he dumps here. There's really no choice now. Yes, I'm sure he would like to do it all over again, but hindsight is 20/20. It was a gamble he had to make!



Tracking Poll Update: Obama +6.5

Mylegacy said...

Palin will do MUCH better as Palin than Tina Fey does. The expectations for her are SO low she cannot help but do better than expected.

Remember, she is IGNORANT not STUPID. Have a look at her Alaskan debates - she was not bad when she knew what she was talking about.

Since she's being coached by Bush's Neocan mafia - Biden MUST turn everything she says to something like, "That's what Bush has been doing for 8 years and what McCain wants to do for the next 4." DO NOT attack HER. ALWAYS refer everything she says back to Bush and McCain and then DEMOLISH the idea and the philosophy or DEREGULATION - TRICKLE DOWN that got us in the mess we are today.

wartank777 said...

This election is done, I see no reason for any of the prospective VPs to ruin thier chances of a future run. Also, FT is by far the worst choice. Two 70+ year old white men who don't seem to care about the common man? Stupid choice.

-W_C

Deadpixel said...

Palin is the smartest woman in America, she will clean Biden's clock. Watch and see, then all of you will have to bow down to queen Sarah! She will rule this world with christian justice.

mCcAIN lANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ben said...

Politics be damned, McCain has stated that his weakest area is the economy. Palin obviously is no help on the economy. McCain needs to replace her with Mitt Romney, who was the one Republican who understands economics quite well.

Who knows, bringing in Romney could even help at the ballot box.

Ben said...

McCain, if you are out there, REPLACE PALIN WITH ROMNEY. Now is the time to think about economics!!

Marcus said...

I can't wait until Thrusday. If Biden busts out laughing at one of her responses it might be the funniest moments in debate history.

Has anyone ever been laughed off stage during a debate?

marc said...

I worry about Huckleberry. He is a skilled con artist and commands the religious right.

Deadpixel said...

Marcus it can't be Biden that laughs at her it has to be the audience that laughs her off stage. Otherwise the media will attack Biden.

ly_yng said...

"And when was the last time the candidate who was the butt of more jokes won the election?"

Um, 2004?

Maybe I'm young, but I'm having a hard time seeing how any presidential ticket could have been more made fun of than Bush/Cheney. I mean, the fact that the guy is essentially a 40 year old frat boy is hilarious enough, but tack on the fact that he actually chose The Penguin as his running mate! Even with Gore and the sighs and the lockbox in 2000, it's a tough argument to say Bush got made fun of less.

couchpotatoxxx12 said...

This demonstrates what the Palin pick has done for McCain:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

All the typical republican turf, now solidified. All the leaning republican states? Now they're toss-ups or leaning Obama. Not a very smart decision, especially since he probably had almost all of the base anyway.

McCain has no chance anymore. He's pulled too many "game changers", people won't take him seriously anymore, just like nobody took him seriously when he suspended his campaign.

Matthew said...

Is there any polling data on what percentage of voters won't vote for McCain with Palin, but will vote for McCain without Palin?

I don't think it is Palin as such that is the drag---it is what Palin brought to the fore. Instead of being the elder statesman, McCain appeared haphazard and confused. Palin was just one symptom of that.

quantman said...

McCain is still the fighter pilot-
Shooting wildly from up above, hoping he hits something!

Thank God he is not firing nuclear missiles, given that his bombs are 'bombing'!

Imagine someone with this kind of temperament as Commander-in-Chief for 4 years. If he wins, He will probably start a war with both Iran and Russia; Goodbye World Economy for at least 50 years!

Virginia Conservative said...

Huckabee has a pretty good talk show gig right now. Plus he criticized McCain's stunt.

Andy JS said...

It's important that - ridiculous though Palin's selection as VP candidate is - Obama & Biden don't allow themselves to ridicule McCain and Palin in any way. If they do, they could find the sympathy factor losing them the election.

ozzie said...

Nate wrote, "To replace Palin now might make his campaign seem like a farce."

It's too late for that. The McCain campaign is already beyond parody. On SNL last night, Tina Fey didn't even have to write any new material for her opening comedy sketch. She literally quoted Sarah Palin, and it was hilarious.

Perhaps we should ask if there is anything that McCain could do at this point to make it appear that he is serious about leading our country. Right now he has some work to do to catch up to the standard set by H. Ross Perot in terms of being a credible candidate.

such sweet thunder said...

This probably has already been said, but Fey's Palin-Couric interview was a work of art. I've never seen anything like that: A comedian using the words of an actual interview to illustrate how brutal a candidate performed.

Scathing.

Sedi said...

I don't know why people ever brought up the idea of ditching Palin. It isn't feasible and hasn't been since the day that she was nominated at the convention. It might not have been feasible ever. McCain gambled with Palin, pure and simple. There was a chance for the huge wave of excitement, which he got. There was a chance that she wasn't quite prepared enough for job, which also seems to be the case (though I'm reserving final judgment until after Thursday's debate). If McCain drops Palin, he has virtually zero chance of winning. With Palin he has [...checks today's number...] a 19.5% chance of winning.

Mr. X said...

There is absolutely no way this will happen short of an unforeseen "October surprise" related to corruption or the like. Having invested so much in her, the social conservatives would go ballistic on McCain for pulling the rug out from under them.
Moreover, McCain would be defenceless against the narrative of "bad judgement" that would define the coverage of the race for a solid week at absolute minimum, and possibly right through to election day.

pygmy_owl said...

Romney?? Hell. If you really want to shake this fucker up, replace Palin with Hillary.

jakam said...

Is there any polling data on what percentage of voters won't vote for McCain with Palin, but will vote for McCain without Palin?

I don't think it is Palin as such that is the drag---it is what Palin brought to the fore. Instead of being the elder statesman, McCain appeared haphazard and confused. Palin was just one symptom of that.


It doesn't matter. The people who may have been inclined to vote for McCain but were chased away by the recklessness of the Palin pick won't be wooed back if he now dumps her...there is still the matter of the questionable judgment of ever selecting her in the first place. That doesn't go away, even if Palin does.

Thad Beier said...

Another interesting angle is "What is best for Sarah Palin?" From all that I've read in the last month, I would lay long odds that is the only question on her mind.

She is extremely ambitious, and has no qualms whatsoever about letting down the team once she gets what she wants.

If she really wants to be President someday, she may easily decide that it would be best to plead some kind of emergency and go back home to Alaska, bide her time, and work on her resume and global education. A catastrophic debate performance Thursday would really foreclose any opportunity for future higher office.

Virginia Conservative said...

Where is PeteKent?

pygmy_owl said...

Having said that, the whole campaign is a farce. McCain is certainly a gambler. The ad idea is a good one, though a bit too heavy-handed. Just a few tweaks to the message would do just fine. And that can suit the entire message:

the passing of Hail Marys, the rolling of dice, the craps playing, the fiscal imprudence....

This can just reappear and reappear. There's no need even to call attention, as the NYTimes has, to the connections between McCain's staff and the gambling industry.

dvdmgsr said...

Is this even worth discussing? File dumping Palin under "No Effing Way" and "The Kind of Thing That Overzealous Obama Fanboys Like to Fantasize About".

As others have said here, she is very likely to exceed expectations in the debate. Biden needs to follow the same tactic Obama did against McCain, and take a Xanax beforehand so he doesn't swallow his foot whole trying to respond to every half-baked statement. Obama fans might hope that Pailin will pull a Caitlin Upton, but she probably won't, and regardless you can bet that she isn't going to impress people with her potential statespersonship. There is no reason to belabor this.

quantman said...

PeteKent shot himself! RIP!

NC_voter said...

Don't you guys understand? McCain's team DID ask Huckabee to be the VP, and he declined. He recognized a loser ticket and didn't want to be branded like that should he be interested in running again in the future.

This will come out eventually I hope. Most likely after the election...

torisen said...

Mike Huckabee.

McCain can improve his chances with Huckabee, if he can convince Palin to withdraw and expresses appropriate regret.

- Won't lose the support of the base.
- Adds appeal to moderates, after Huck's very successful run on the national entertainment shows (especially Colbert)
- Adds bipartisan populist credibility
- Already vetted by the media

He said...

This proud devil-dog Marine is voting for McCain.

I polled some of my Marine buddies last night in the barracks, and the vast majority are for McCain.

We heroes who fight and die for this great country aren't fooled by Obama's Marxist Communism Islamist extremism ideology.

US MARINE CORE DO OR DIE!
SIMPER FI

couchpotatoxxx12 said...

"Romney?? Hell. If you really want to shake this fucker up, replace Palin with Hillary."

Do you honestly believe Hillary would accept the nomination? Please say this is a joke.

jakam said...

Another interesting angle is "What is best for Sarah Palin?" From all that I've read in the last month, I would lay long odds that is the only question on her mind.

She is extremely ambitious, and has no qualms whatsoever about letting down the team once she gets what she wants.

If she really wants to be President someday, she may easily decide that it would be best to plead some kind of emergency and go back home to Alaska, bide her time, and work on her resume and global education. A catastrophic debate performance Thursday would really foreclose any opportunity for future higher office.


All that assumes that she's aware of the clueless mess that she is. I see no evidence.

Ordinarulo said...

A part of me always thought McCain could have gotten away with a moderate pro-choice Republican this year. Olympia Snowe would have won. The Christian Right weren't going to vote for Obama, and they're conditioned to go to the polls.

However, with Palin, he's captured the hearts and imagination of the edge. In particular, the Pentacostals. Their only taste of leadership, heretofore, was John Ashcroft. Snubbing Palin, now, could seriously injure turnout among the 10% of America that is Pentacostal, and the 20% who are otherwise Charismatics. Even Huckabee doesn't get to the Pentacostals like one of their own. Romney would be worse.

The other thing, is, as bad as McCain is sitting right now, a replacement VP would have to be someone with *NOTHING* to lose, politically. Romney and Huck want to run again, and don't want on this loser ticket. Giuliani best fits the bill, there.

Jack said...

I don't agree that McCain would have to pick someone familiar because there is no time to roll out the replacement. In fact, perhaps the opposite is true. Palin was an unknown before she was selected but wildly popular in the first few days after the announcement. It's only after a while that her favorability numbers dropped.

Lincoln said...

Agreed. Dropping Palin now would be a sure disaster, and not nearly as fun of a disaster.

http://threelinepunditry.blogspot.com/

brian_molina said...

First post - love this site.

The only scenario I think could happen is Huckabee. They announce Palin is leaving the ticket to focus on her family and he steps in. The social consertatives would still have reason to come out.
Doesn't McCain HATE Romney?

Amol said...

Nate, you forgot to mention the immense logistical and legal problems that removing Palin from the ballot might present. With electoral laws varying so much from state to state, if McCain found a new running mate, many ballots would still have Palin's name on them, while others would have the new nominee's.

Paul said...

Palin: Can't live with her. Can't live without her.

jakam said...

Doesn't McCain HATE Romney?

Yes, but I don't think Huck thinks much better of McCain.

jakam said...

Nate, you forgot to mention the immense logistical and legal problems that removing Palin from the ballot might present. With electoral laws varying so much from state to state, if McCain found a new running mate, many ballots would still have Palin's name on them, while others would have the new nominee's.

Not to mention that many people have already voted.

Kelroy said...

I posted this a couple threads ago, but what do you think of Bristol Palin's wedding having any effect? According to this article, "McCain would be expected to have a front-row seat at the wedding," and states that "the campaign would be shut down for a week." While I don't necessarily believe any of that, the wedding would be another interesting gamble for sure.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4837644.ece

Deadpixel said...

PeteKent is hanging out with all his pals in the forest...

Yes, PeteKent is an Ent.

quantman said...

Only a new war can shake things up for McCain now, or God forbid some nutjob who does to Obama what Huckabee joked about the NRA meeting!

Other than these 2 scenarios, it's curtains for McCain. If the House Repubs vote for the Bailout Bill their base will sit out the polls, or do a protest vote against them and go for Bob Barr in a huge way, thus giving Democrats huge huge pickups in the House races!

Wow, what a turn of events! The Conservative Base will turn on the House Republicans! Dream scenario, from my standpoint!!

And Bush will leave with approval ratings under 25%. The Bush family name will be Shit forever!

Ed said...

He -

What's the diffirence between a straight marine and a gay marine?


A six pack!

interstices said...

McCain is similar Boise State, running trick plays an all in the Fiesta Bowl. But remember Boise State used the trick plays at the end to win it. McCain has been running trick plays just to keep up, to stay in it.

Mike V said...

Not to be incredibly morbid, but if she were to die, that would probably help the republicans. McCain could then choose Romney to pick up the the economy vote (I think people would like a competent businessman for the economy, regardless of not jiving with "Main Street"). All the core would still vote in memory of Palin. Not to mention the additional pity voters.

Not saying it's likely . . . but Cheney's already committed plenty of crimes, so who knows what he's capable of . . .

I still can't believe McCain didn't pick Romney. He could have actually run on the issues and potentially had the edge on both economy and foreign affairs.

torisen said...

Hey, He -

Sounds like we should investigate a possible reverse-Bradley effect in the armed forces!

Charles Crook said...

Palin's place on the ticket is no longer under McCain's sole control. He doesn't have the authority to drop her from the ticket now that the convention officially approved her.

He could, of course, "encourage" her to resign so that the party could choose someone else.

But he doesn't believe in icebergs. Full speed ahead.

Ed said...

If Palin were to leave, the replacement woudl have to be acceptable to the Village, no questions asked. How about Cheney?

pygmy_owl said...

It was a joke. But you must confess, it would really make the punditocracy explode.

eve said...

Since McCain is stuck with Palin, he should ask Tina Fey to do the debate.

:)

ajbeecroft said...

I think this year's VP debate will really test the concept of "debate expectations." At this point, the expectations for Palin are lower than they've ever been for any candidate on a presidential ticket -- as someone put it the other day, she'll exceed expectations if she manages not to burn the podium down.
But with expectations this low, she can exceed expectations while still performing very, very, badly. It's always struck me as odd that debates are measured in terms of expectations, rather than in terms of achievement. This debate might provide a test case: if Palin performs better than the Couric interview suggests she will, but still performs badly (i.e. doesn't look like she's ready to step in and be president), it'll be interesting to see the reaction to the debate, from both the media and the voters.

Charles Crook said...

Tina will have to reprise her role this weekend; I wonder who will impersonate Biden in the SNL debate skit.

Poker Samurai said...

---Palin will do MUCH better as Palin than Tina Fey does. The expectations for her are SO low she cannot help but do better than expected.---

While it's advantageous to lower expectations, there is a limit. Palin has gone past this limit to the point where instead of the lower expectations allowing her performance to be graded as better than it is, the lower expectations will cause her performance to be graded as WORSE than it actually is.

Mistakes that would have been allowed to pass will be pounced upon and shown in heavy rotation because the media narrative is no longer that she's an underestimated fighter, it's that she's an abject idiot. Anything she does well will be seen as rehearsed, anything she does wrong will be amplified 100 fold.

Juris said...

I'll say this for Ketchikan. It has an international airport.

Todd Dugdale said...

I'm sure that The Crypt Keeper is available for Fourth Branch duty. He was in Paris Hilton's ad, after all. He would also make McCain look young by comparison.

kth said...

The main reason dumping Palin is a bad idea is that, as terrible a choice as she was, McCain himself is the reason for the nosedive, not her.

Nobody's going anywhere, and the game isn't changing. All Team McCain can do is play out the string and wait for the inevitable.

Guancous said...

I think I'll watch the Cubs game live on Thursday and save the VP Debate for after I get home.


Official post debate ads from John McCain and Barack Obama over at Heartless and Brainless. Click the banner for more stories!

Olon97 said...

Given the projected chance of a McCain victory being non-0 (who knows how effective voter suppression efforts have been / will be?) I would really like to see him replace Palin.

A premature Palin presidency would be disastrous for America, and while I won't vote for McCain, I would think more fondly of his overall career legacy if he did the right thing.

H IN FLORIDA said...

Does anyone know if Palin can be legally removed from the ballot at this late of a date? Several states already have opened early voting and many states have started sending out absentee ballots.

Regardless of the legal issue, there is nobody to replace her. Romney, Huckabee and the rest know that this is a losing ticket and don't want anything to do with it. Are any of them even out campaigning for McCain?

PorridgeGun said...

Dump Plain? Not when the McCain campaign are giddy at the prospect of an October Surprise: Bristol & Levi's Shotgun Wedding!!!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/28/yet-another-distraction-the-mccain-campaign-plans-bristol-palins-wedding/




SNL does Palin again

http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/snl-does-palin-again.html



Jack Cafferty pretty much sums it up. Unfortunately, Wolf Blitzkrieg pretty much sums up the McCain Media

http://samsedershow.com/node/3863

AnotherMike said...

Yes, but I don't think Huck thinks much better of McCain.

Huckabee was downright deferential to McCain when he was still running for the Republican nomination. Perhaps all just an act to get the VP slot. But, I'm inclined to believe Huckabee really does like and respect McCain and at a minimum gets along with him.

Lincoln said...

Politics is all about pretending you have strength that you don't. Admitting you messed up your VP pick would be instant death.
http://threelinepunditry.blogspot.com/

eve said...

I think who the republicans would most like to drop is McCain.

Scrap the whole ticket and Put Huck in with Bloomberg. Huckleberry has the executive experience and relates great to main street. Bloomberg in charge of the turnaround.

Of course, it's too late for any changes.

Go Obama!

Sarah McPlain said...

Hay everybuddy. Make sure to toon into my big debate this week! It's going to be AWESOME :) :) :) I no a lot about the banking crisis two. I can see an ATM right across the street. That's even closer than Rusha!!! LOL. OK, gotta go back and cram some more for my BIG DAY!! Wish me luck. I luv u all!!!!!!!!!

Virginia Conservative said...

Huckabee is on the public record criticizing how McCain has been running his campaign. I think they had a falling out.

PA John said...

HE, if you're going to impersonate a Marine, at least spell "Marine Corps" and "Semper Fi" correctly, you tool.

PorridgeGun said...

One thing I hate about Palin... typos ("Plain").

corey said...

He can't even really remove her can he? Early voting has started in many states. Votes for a McCain/Palin ticket don't count towards a McCain/Whoever ticket.

Virginia Conservative said...

We vote for electors, not the candidates.

Lincoln said...

" I think who the republicans would most like to drop is McCain.
"

That is a good point. McCain is hardly wowing voters and is maybe more of a drag on the top than Palin is on the bottom.

Triggur said...

I think he could actually pull it off if-- not to sound conspiratorial-- Palin's family experienced some kind of terrible tragedy of a magnitude that nobody would scoff at him changing horses... and he chose someone with reasonable credentials. Frankly Condi Rice, despite being a Bush minion, has enormous qualifications in this regard-- years of experience already in the whitehouse-- and would also attract a number of black and female voters as well. It would all probably work pretty well for him were it not for persistent rumors of her homosexuality; I think most of the conservative bases' heads would explode if suddenly a gay black female president were running their country.

Obliterati said...

@He:

You're still spelling "Semper" wrong dumbass.

couchpotatoxxx12 said...

John McSame and Sarah Plain!

eve said...

One thing I hate about Palin... typos ("Plain").

that wasn't a typo

hurn0003 said...

Palin won't leave the ticket, it simply won't happen.

As an Obama supporter I am torn, I like that Palin is on the ticket because she is killing McCain's chance at being president, but as an American even a 20% shot that she could be our VP makes me physically ill. The idea that your Pres or VP should be someone that you want to have a beer with is so ridiculous that it makes me want to strangle TV empty suits when they comment on it.

But there isn't a clean way to get Palin off the ticket. I am sure McCain would love a do over but it just can be done. I would suggest to her that she not go on any hunting trips with Cheney prior to the election.

L Lawson said...

If he dumps her, he dumps her this week and he dumps her for Giuliani.

That'll only drop McCain further in the polls, but it'll shake things up--which is all McCain cares about at this point.

AnotherMike said...

No way McCain dumps Palin. Besides the very good reasons mentioned by Nate, it would only emphasize mcCain's biggest problem right now--the poor judgment of John McCain.

McCain's campaign made a real mistake by hiding her away. By doing so, they really put a huge media emphasis on her interviews. If they had just allowed her to sink or swim from the start, she would have made mistakes, but there wouldn't be the same focus on them that there is now.

Matt W said...

She CAN technically be replaced, because the popular vote on NOV 4 does not select the Pres or VP. It almost doesn't matter what names are on the ballot.

She will not be replaced unless she dies.

McCain is willing to do anything to win this election, but I am guessing he will draw the line somewhere on the not crazy side of killing his runningmate

Jen said...

Poker Samurai said:

"Mistakes that would have been allowed to pass will be pounced upon and shown in heavy rotation because the media narrative is no longer that she's an underestimated fighter, it's that she's an abject idiot. Anything she does well will be seen as rehearsed, anything she does wrong will be amplified 100 fold."

I think this may be right. If it was just the left dismissing her I think it would help her in the expectations game. However, since most of the media has now decided that the storyline is "Palin is unprepared and a political lightweight" they will be looking for things that reinforce their pronouncements. Of course, Hannity will call the debate for her as a kindred blow-dried spirit.

AnotherMike said...

BTW, I think Palin will do OK at the debate. Everyone will say that she exceeded expectations, but that Biden won. The key for Team Obama is for Biden not to be too aggressive in attacking her or otherwise create a SNL moment that changes the narrative of Palin is unready.

quantman said...

Obliterati:

We all saw that spelling error again and again! What does that tell you? He's just an impostor.

never was one!

L Lawson said...

@ Obliterati

He also spelled 'corps' wrong in Marine Corps.

craigw5 said...

AUTHENTICITY is the single most important thing a candidate has to have. McCain lost his by picking a running mate who is so demonstrably unqualified for patently political reasons. When he did this, McCain disqualified himself.

It made a joke out of his motto "Country First". (unless he meant "Country" music: stay tuned)

To pick anyone, even Huckabee, at this point would be even worse because it would show him to be, not just a cynical opportunist, but a RECKLESS one, as well.

For Republicans, there's only one thing worse than being a crook, and that's being an incompetent crook. (It's why they love Reagan to this day. He's the only one that truly got away with his crimes.)

politicalcynic said...

In the last several days we have seen Mr. McCain state "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" while Wall Street melted down, make a bizarre decision to try to delay the debates when he did not need to do so, reverse course and attend the debate, blast into delicate negotiations like a white-hatted cowboy when he did not know the facts, and then, when backed into a corner of his own making, take an irrational and defensive response during the debate by being rude and denigrating to Mr. Obama.

This is a man who does not know how many homes he owns, does not know the basics of economic theory and clearly did not do a good, "Presidential" job when vetting his VP candidate.

Mr. McCain's behavioral pattern is to take major risks-without knowing the facts or thinking things through.

While Mr. Obama may admittedly be "cool" and "intellectual" in many respects, and while I, like many, had concerns about his experience when he was nominated, I have come to believe that he is a far better choice for President. The last thing this country needs is another horse riding "wanna-be hero" who is likely to "decide quickly" to jump off a cliff and hope that the rest of us will follow him like electoral lemmings.

So if you are honestly concerned about "risks", look at the candidates' BEHAVIOR during the last several weeks and not their WORDS. Mr. McCain's behavior during this campaign shows that he is a gambler-and we cannot afford to let him gamble with our economy, our military or our lives.

Juris said...

He He He He and Buds:

"SIMPER FI"???????????

You may have been to a marina. You may have tasted a marinade. You may have seen a Mariners game. Or been to Marin County.

But you are no Marine! You can't even spell the Marine motto. Fknijit.

PA John said...

I polled some of my Marine buddies last night in the barracks

don't ask, don't tell?

kth said...

Spelling lesson for fake marine:

'Semper' is Latin for 'always', and forms part of the Marine motto, "semper fidelis", or "always faithful"

'Simper' means to smile in a silly manner, as if giggling. It has a connotation of servility or effeminacy. So "simper fi", actually probably not a mistake but unwittlingly describes fake marine to a T.

STepper said...

There is no legal impediment to McCain removing Palin. While there may be a political one.

Under the 12th Amendment we are voting for "electors" committed to certain candidates. But at McCain's ipse dixit Palin can be replaced and the electors can vote on McCain's new choice.

So, get it out of your heads that people are voting "for McCain and Palin." They are not. If they were, this would be a popular vote election and Nate's polls would be a lot simpler.

Joey said...

A few thoughts:

1) If McCain dumped Palin and picked up Romney, I think the backlash would last a few days to a week until he spun it. He could turn it around and say it shows GOOD judgment because he recognized she would not be the best fit for America and that Romney would be able to help us in our economic crisis or some bull like that...

2) I understand that the debate will be a forum in which we haven't seen Palin yet, so I understand not making a call on it. But I think the Republicans are kidding themselves here. No one is going to say she did exceedingly WELL at the debate. It's only going to be whether she did better or worse than expected, and the expectation is pretty low. What are the Republicans gonna say if she bombs it? I mean it's really their LAST hope for her to redeem any bit of her disastrous campaigning. How are they gonna spin the ticket after Thursday??

3) Getting rid of Palin would have to have a purpose. She DOES have a purpose: she's getting him votes he wouldn't have gotten (although losing him some he would have, too). If he dumped her, the replacement would have to be:
a) someone strong on the economy
b) someone SOMEWHAT well versed in foreign policy (he covers it and anyone would be better than her)
c) someone who could pull in the ultra conservatives/evangelicals
d) someone who could help pull in the indies who right now are looking pretty blue.

politicalcynic said...

Ok-just gotta say it:

Juris-he didn't mean SEMPER-he meant SIMPLE. And he was not posting the Marine Corps. motto-he was describing his own intellectual motto.

filistro said...

Remember how much fun it used to be when Nate posted one of these "Sarah Palin" threads, and how it would instantly shoot up to 700 posts?

Sigh...

That's just SO two weeks ago, isn't it?

Matt W said...

Stepper said...
"So, get it out of your heads that people are voting "for McCain and Palin." They are not. If they were, this would be a popular vote election and Nate's polls would be a lot simpler."

We would also have something approaching a democratic method of selecting a president. As it stands we do not.

Lincoln said...

"BTW, I think Palin will do OK at the debate"

Agreed, because the format of the debate will let her be fine. She won't get a bunch of follow up questions, like in an interview... and the format won't allow Biden to really question her.

Matt W said...

I think the comment treads are slowing down because the republicans show up, get depressed by the numbers, and have to leave the site

InkStain said...

"We would also have something approaching a democratic method of selecting a president. As it stands we do not."

And one of the two dominant forms of living (rural) in America would never be relevant in presidential politics again. Yippee.

GregM said...

This is a somewhat off-topic question:
What site do you guys use for following live election returns?

During the primaries, I mainly used CNN.com, which seemed to be pretty "up-to-date" and frequently updated, though it wasn't perfect. (I sometimes went to individual state Dem/Rep. party websites which, in general, seemed to be the best.) Results on Yahoo News generally seemed to lag the results on CNN.com. Obviously there are others like CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, etc., but I never really checked them out. I'm wondering if there are any sites you guys would recommend.

Mark said...

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for McCain. I really do think he is a decent guy. He damn well should have been president in 2000; he certainly would have done much better than Bush Jr.

The Palin think is a nightmare. The title of this post is so accurate - He's stuck. There is a chance she could come out of the debate without completely embarrassing herself, but its a long shot.

The really bad thing for McCain, now that the brief Palin bubble has burst, is that he has only scored one major point all year that turned the polls his way. That being the Obama-celebrity ploy. You have to credit him with that one; it made the media turn the microscope on itself and balance the POV. It also got voters second guessing themselves and the polls gradually moved his way. But now that Obama has held his own in a debate people seem to see he's not risky or dangerous. It's a very steep uphill climb from here.

One think is for certain: I'm getting my popcorn ready for the Palin Show this week!

liforcerenewal said...

ANYONE who wants to help-out this week in Cleveland, Please doNot Hesitiate! There are plenty of things to do....All week is same day vote/regisyter, 'til the 6th of October. If tYou have a car/van/sportscar...You are needed to help drive people to and from the cuyahoga county board of elections! It would be quite helpful!!

miyamotomusashi said...

Seriously guys, if you can't tell that He was trolling you really need to stop putzing around the internet.

He's not a Marine, and he's not acting like a Marine. He's just trying to get you all in a tizzy. And it's worked magnificently.

Fatih said...

I don't believe that Palin has hurt or will hurt Mccain a bit.
A simplified formula for winning the general election would be, win your party's base + win your pary's moderates + win some indepents.
Palin brought the conservative base home, Mccain wasn't able to do that. But that's not the problem. It was Mccain's
job right from the beginning to win his party's moderates and independents.
That's the reason Mccain was put on the top of the GOP ticket in the first place, because he was the only rep,
who could win the election in 08.
Therefore its his own fault and not Palin's that he couldn't reach across the aisle.

Jen said...

I find myself feeling bad for Palin once in a while. I would not want to look a fool in front of America and be the butt of jokes. Then I catch myself.

1. She could have turned McCain down. Her ambition seems to have overriden her sense.

2. She does not seem to be embarassed about her lack of knowledge and mental sophistication, so why should I be?

3. Am I maybe being a little sexist by feeling sorry for her? I enjoyed every single tiny bit of ridicule heaped on W's head and wish there had been more. Why do I not feel the same when the ridicule is about Palin? Is it because she is a girl? If you want to be taken seriously, the bottom line is you have to be able to hang with the big boys and take the shots.

shadowguidex said...

"We vote for electors, not the candidates."

Some states legally require their electors to vote for the name of the candidates they represent as stated on the ballots on voting day. Some states don't require it per se, but make it a crime to NOT vote for the person they represent. Other states let them vote for whoever they want, assuming that they will always vote for their candidate.

InkStain said...

"What site do you guys use for following live election returns?"

The state election body's web sites are good.

Matt W said...

"And one of the two dominant forms of living (rural) in America would never be relevant in presidential politics again. Yippee"

Every vote would count the same. In the current system rural and urban votes only count in certain states. In other states neither votes really matter. The worse part though is that some voters get disporportional representation in the electoral college, not because they are rural but because they are from small states.

Matt W said...

In California my vote A. does not count because it is not a swing state, and B. is worth less than 1 vote in any other state as measured in voters per elector.
This is an unfair, bad, outdated, system.

Makes elections more interesting though

PorridgeGun said...

Two examples of librul media bias - courtesy of NBC's Tom Brokaw and Roger "McLovin" Simon of Politico.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/28/meet-the-press-brokaws-fairness-facts-pulled-out-of-thin-air-to-make-mccain-look-better/


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/28/mclovin-politicos-roger-simon/


I can't believe this motherfucker Brokaw is moderating the 2nd presidential debate.



The MSM are desperate to reclaim their HORSE RACE. Wolf, John King and the rest of CNN's ExxonMobil cronies were in deep shock when the snap polls and focus group's overwhelmingly declared Obama the winner.

Ed said...

What I think is interesting and scary is had McCain selected her in the spring, kept it a secret and spent the summer prepping her, we probably would not be having this conversation right now.

Of course this just points back to John McCain's poor, seat of the pants, judgement.

InkStain said...

"Every vote would count the same"

And the urban votes would dominate. No non-homogenous country of the size of America would ever, nor should they ever, go to a direct election like you are talking about.

"In the current system rural and urban votes only count in certain states."

And, in general, the rural votes get a boost.

"In other states neither votes really matter. The worse part though is that some voters get disporportional representation in the electoral college, not because they are rural but because they are from small states."

*sigh*

And what do the small states look like? Have you been to them? :)

The entire point of the electoral college is to give a boost to small, rural states.

sniperct said...

What happens if one of the major presidential candidates were to pass away before the election were held? Or worse, passed away as president-elect after the election but before assuming office? Has either event ever happened before?

Bruce in AK said...

McCain should have picked Huckabee if he wanted to rally the base. But its too late now. Too bad McCain didn't actually ask more politically oriented Alaskans what they thought about Palin. Her base in Ak is the religious right and people who don't pay much attention to politics. She's burned a lot of people in both parties, and I'm not talking about the corrupt ones.

I actually think Palin may do okay in the debate though; she debated well in Alaska by being charming and by ducking every question with some vague generality, usually off topic. The debate format they are using may help her.

InkStain said...

"In California my vote A. does not count because it is not a swing state,"

In a national election, unless the election literally comes down to a single vote, your vote won't count eitehr.

" and B. is worth less than 1 vote in any other state as measured in voters per elector."

Working as intended.

"This is an unfair, bad, outdated, system."

Yes, no, no.

Lincoln said...

Okay, this is the last time I'll post a link to my dumb blog, but here is my summary of this:

John McCain appears stuck with vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Her absence would bring swift destruction for his campaign, so he will opt for the slow destruction of her presence.


But hey, he brought this on himself with an insane, unvetted pick

Mark said...

I have to agree with Jen's comments above - I feel sorry for Palin as well. Politics aside, I think she's a good person and probably quite a formidable opponent in her own back yard of Alaska. She really should have thought this through a bit more before accepting. But I guess if John McCain calls you up and says he thinks you are qualified then perhaps you just have to trust his judgement. I mean, he would have thought this through, right? Oh well...

jakam said...

The worse part though is that some voters get disporportional representation in the electoral college, not because they are rural but because they are from small states.

And every state has two senators no matter how many people live in it.

So what?

The House represents the People in the American government. A person is a person, no matter whether they're 4"6" or 6'2" or weigh 96 pounds or 400 pounds.

The Senate represents the States in the American government. A state is a state, whether it has 800,000 people or 8,000,000, or whether it covers 2500 square miles or 250,000 square miles.

Presidential elections are democratic in every sense at the state level, and the US is comprised of the Union of 50 sovereign states (plus a capital district), each of which holds a presidential election.

kth said...

Saying that rural life is "one of the two dominant forms of living in America" is like saying vegetarianism is "one of the two dominant dietary forms in America". Insofar as it is, it's only because it's a binary opposition: you either live in town/eat meat, or you don't.

But like vegetarianism, only a tiny fraction of the country lives in rural areas; if you count the people who work in rural areas, and aren't living there for essentially sentimental reasons, the number is tinier still.

Matt W said...

Ink,
There are a lot of small states on the East Coast that are not really "rural" and there are a lot of "rural" people locked up in big states.

Lincoln said...


"This is an unfair, bad, outdated, system."

Yes, no, no.


Here is why the system is dumb:

its intention, as I understand it, was to make all states count and thus not have small states be ignored by candidates.

Part of the goal here is to get candidates to not take states for granted and to have to travel around and be everywhere.


But obviously this has failed. Instead of small states being ignored, ALL states are ignored except for a few swing states.

I don't see how that is a better system.

sniperct said...

Related to the Electoral College discussion now going on, what are the odds of no one reaching 270 if all 50 states allotted their votes like Nebraska or Maine?

Because I think the proportional allocation would be much more fair, but might open up entirely new and entertaining nightmare scenarios.

Obliterati said...

@Ed:

You are exactly right. A prepped and ready Sarah Palin would have been a nightmare scenario for the Obama campaign. If McCain would have spent the summer slowly raising her public profile, getting her briefed, and scrubbing away some of her baggage...well, I'm glad it didn't happen that way.

I still think she's going to do fine at the debate. I mean really, if she can avoid drooling and shitting her pants she will have wildly exceeded expectations.

Matt W said...

"In a national election, unless the election literally comes down to a single vote, your vote won't count eitehr."

This is just a stupid argument. I expect more from you. But OK, let's say "our votes" rather than "my vote"

Lincoln said...

You are exactly right. A prepped and ready Sarah Palin would have been a nightmare scenario for the Obama campaign. If McCain would have spent the summer slowly raising her public profile, getting her briefed, and scrubbing away some of her baggage...well, I'm glad it didn't happen that way.


Overall I agree with you, but there is a flip side to this:

She wouldn't have generated crazy excitement. She woouldn't have dominated the news as a surprise pick. And the Obama team would have had a lot of time to explain to undecided voters that Palin is a nutjob who thinks men and dinosaurs walked the earth together and wants to outlaw abortion for rape victims.

InkStain said...

"But obviously this has failed. Instead of small states being ignored, ALL states are ignored except for a few swing states."

Very few states are being ignored. Look beyond the media hype of "FLORIDA AND OHIO!!!!!!" and see what actually happens.

"But like vegetarianism, only a tiny fraction of the country lives in rural areas; if you count the people who work in rural areas, and aren't living there for essentially sentimental reasons, the number is tinier still."

Semantics. Rural doesn't automatically mean a farm, many towns are rural. And like it or not, New York City has vastly different needs from government than Montana, and the electoral system needs to address that.

Again, I challenge you: Find a large, modern country that isn't fairly homogenous that has a national direct election. They don't exist, because it's a bad system.

"There are a lot of small states on the East Coast that are not really "rural" and there are a lot of "rural" people locked up in big states."

Fair point, but removing the electoral college would effect the American west a lot more than the non-NY East Coast.

Matt W said...

Sniperct,
would you still give two bonus votes to small states?

GregM said...

Inkstain said: The state election body's web sites are good.

Yeah, I guess they are generally probably best for the most recent results. Is this where the news networks usually get their results from? The downside is you have to go to a different website for each state's election you are interested in.

Forgot to mention...another thing I liked about the CNN site was that towards the end of the primaries, they had some nice interactive maps showing results by county. Are there any other sites that have something similar (in case CNN doesn't have it on Nov. 4th for some reason)?

schief9999 said...

He: Are you sure your wife hasn't been posting on your account without your knowledge? If you're as hard core as I think you are, you'll catch my drift.

InkStain said...

"This is just a stupid argument. I expect more from you. But OK, let's say "our votes" rather than "my vote""

Whose votes? I'm not sure where you are getting at.

If your contention is that votes in California don't count because it won't swing the state (which seems odd, because how do we know they are going somewhere if not from voters?), how is that different from saying nobody's vote counts in a national election because they won't swing the difference?

Matt W said...

"Again, I challenge you: Find a large, modern country that isn't fairly homogenous that has a national direct election. They don't exist, because it's a bad system."

Tell me ink,
Are there any that have tried?

Virginia Conservative said...

The system is fine.

It ensures that a President has to have broad-based support of several regions, not just racking up big margins in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

InkStain said...

"Are there any that have tried?"

Dunno, I'm not *that* big of an expert on world politics :) But that's the same argument libertarians and anarchists use :)

Virginia Conservative said...

We're no more indirect/"undemocratic" than how a Parliamentary system elects it's PM.

liforcerenewal said...

It's time for you guys/girls to "grow a pair"! This Palin chick is public enemy #1 to all life on Earth except for Human Babies...Even then, once they turn 18, it's off to the oil wars! This woman instated aerial gunning of wolves/bears with a 150$bounty for each foreleg presented, tried to de-list polar bears...and for what? $$$ that's what "@#%k her!" The Supreme Being don't like ugly.
~Special council for the Trees...

Jen said...

I just looked at your profile Inkstain; you are from Illinois. Are you not tired of Ohio getting all the Presidential play?

Matt W-

I guess it is only fair that our vote counts less in California, since we do get to live in the best state. :)

Lincoln said...

InkStain said...

"But obviously this has failed. Instead of small states being ignored, ALL states are ignored except for a few swing states."

Very few states are being ignored. Look beyond the media hype of "FLORIDA AND OHIO!!!!!!" and see what actually happens.


Well maybe your definition of ignored is different than mine.

State specific ads are only shown in a handful of states normally. Visits to states by the candidates in the last few weeks are almost entirely to a handful of states.

This election is a tad different since so many states are maybe up for grabs (but "so many" still only means like a dozen).

In past elections almost no money is pumped into states outside of "FLORIDA AND OHIO" (and a few others0

jakam said...

Related to the Electoral College discussion now going on, what are the odds of no one reaching 270 if all 50 states allotted their votes like Nebraska or Maine?

Because I think the proportional allocation would be much more fair, but might open up entirely new and entertaining nightmare scenarios.


Allocating electoral votes "like Nebraska and Maine" and "proportional allocation" are two different things.

The Nebraska/Maine system assigns votes by congressional district. That would actually be an improvement.

Proportion allocation is something that Colorado ponders a while back. Proportional allocation is stupid because in states where the vote is close, it renders states with an odd number of EVs with essentially 1 electoral vote and states with an even number of EVs with essentially no electoral votes.

Colorado has 9. If it had passed the proportional system it considered, almost any potential outcome would end up with such that 4 of its EVs would go to the (D), 4 would go to the (R), and the 9th would go to the winner, effectively leaving Colorado with only 1 electoral vote up for grabs.

Matt W said...

"removing the electoral college would effect the American west a lot more than the non-NY East Coast"

Most of the rural states in the west are not competitive. Colorado would still garner attention in a popular election because there is a concentration of people there

Poker Samurai said...

---The House represents the People in the American government. A person is a person, no matter whether they're 4"6" or 6'2" or weigh 96 pounds or 400 pounds.---

Sure, but each Rep doesn't represent the same number of people. So some people have more representation, even in the House.

In Wyoming, 500,000 people are represented by one rep and two senators. The votes of citizens of Wyoming are hugely more valuable than those of the citizens of California in any federal election, including the House.

Diogo said...

"Again, I challenge you: Find a large, modern country that isn't fairly homogenous that has a national direct election. They don't exist, because it's a bad system."

Brazil? India?

Matt W said...

Jakam,
you are forgetting about the 2 bonus votes

Virginia Conservative said...

India is Parliamentary. It's President is a figurehead.

Brazil has only done it for 20 years, and it's not exactly a mature democracy. And still, half the size of the USA.

soozzie said...

McCain's whole campaign has been stream-of-consciousness, so there's no way to tell what he might do. (Think about that as a presidential approach.)

I think he knew he had lost the election after the Dem convention, and this really was his Hail Mary, just to have something going on for the rest of the campaign so he wouldn't have to just slog through. Remember, when he chose her, the economy was just bustling along without a care in the world, and he had heard everything Obama had to dish out already. If she had been the dream candidate he thought she was, she might have pulled it out for him.

But he failed to vet her and made certain assumptions -- that she was of at least average intelligence, and moderately articulate (he had met her for 15 minutes, after all). If those assumptions had been true, he might have muddled through without disgracing himself, or even made a respectable showing. So at that point she seemed fun and unthreatening, and a good (young, religiously right) counterpoint to him.

From what little we can see, she is not improving in the articulate area. It seems she is not actually interested in international affairs (or even national ones for that matter), so she feels fine as the McCain pros tear their hair out. She really is so vapid that I doubt she is even fully aware of her ineptitude. People criticize Bush for not being curious, but she has just plain shut down -- her mind is not just closed, but hermetically sealed.

If replacing her were the only off-the-wall possibility that McCain might do during the campaign to salvage his candidacy, I'd say he would not replace her. But he has almost daily erupted with one stunt after another, and completely obliterated his reputation as an honorable guy in the process. He has obviously lost all perspective already -- so it wouldn't surprise me if she were suddenly called back to Alaska. Then he could take Lieberman as the only guy to "reach across the aisle" and help him manage the Wall Street/Main Street fiasco jointly.

But I have an ugly feeling that there is an October surprise waiting -- even if he doesn't know what he might try yet, and it isn't going to be the shotgun wedding, which will be an uncomfortable embarrassment if it actually does happen. He's got to do something, and I don't think we will like it.

Virginia Conservative said...

How come no one complains about a PM being elected in a backroom party caucus as an "undemocratic" way to elect ones chief executive?

hurn0003 said...

As far as expectations go, I think there is a limit to how far the McCain camp can lower them. The way they marketed her in the beginning demonstrates they had NO idea who she really was. They misconstrued her record in Alaska and built her up when they had her criticizing Obama as uninformed and inexperienced. Can you imagine the reaction to that same speech now, knowing what we now know?

You have to understand this is a much different situation than her debate in Alaska. She is not able to say whatever she wants, she has to stick to McCain's line not her own. She obviously struggles when asked to stick to that line. She can't stay on message and sound intelligent at the same time. She starts to babble and try to throw out parts of lines she has been taught but without any semblance of coherence. But as the Pakistan question shows, if she strays she risks contradicting McCain's positions.

Jen said...

"It ensures that a President has to have broad-based support of several regions, not just racking up big margins in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago."

Why shouldn't the places with the most people have the most influence?

InkStain said...

"Most of the rural states in the west are not competitive. Colorado would still garner attention in a popular election because there is a concentration of people there"

But you are missing the point. The point isn't whether a state is competitive, it's what kind of candidates we are choosing from.

Do you think McCain would give two flying flips about the conservative base if there weren't a ton of EVs in those small state?

Like it or not, rural, socially conservative Americans make up a large chunk of the country and they deserve a system that ensures they have pull in the electoral process. As long as we use a winner-take-all presidential system, disproportionate EVs is the best way we have to do that.

"I just looked at your profile Inkstain; you are from Illinois. Are you not tired of Ohio getting all the Presidential play?"

I actually moved to North Dakota about a month ago (first time I've ever lived outside of Illinois). But Ohio is mostly irrelevant this year, it's a fringe swing state at best.

jakam said...

Jakam,
you are forgetting about the 2 bonus votes


Yep, you're right. So instead of most states having either 0 or 1, they'd have either 2 or 3.

Matt W said...

Jen,
Indeed :)
Still not fair though

Poker Samurai said...

---Proportion allocation is something that Colorado ponders a while back. Proportional allocation is stupid because in states where the vote is close, it renders states with an odd number of EVs with essentially 1 electoral vote and states with an even number of EVs with essentially no electoral votes.

Colorado has 9. If it had passed the proportional system it considered, almost any potential outcome would end up with such that 4 of its EVs would go to the (D), 4 would go to the (R), and the 9th would go to the winner, effectively leaving Colorado with only 1 electoral vote up for grabs.---

Thanks, genius. Are you really oblivious to the obvious counterargument that states that are in no way in doubt would be involved in the election in a significant way as opposed to essentially being spectators? My vote for President, and those of my nearest 20,000 neighbors will be entirely meaningless. Obama will win my state by 20 regardless of what I do.

InkStain said...

"Why shouldn't the places with the most people have the most influence?"

Consent of the governed.

If you want a country like that, balkanize the country, because there's no point in rural America being a part of a country where they have no electoral weight.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Why shouldn't the places with the most people have the most influence?"

Because then there would be zero check on popular passions. And that really doesn't fly unless you want to abolish the Senate, too, which would mean the small state get raped.

Lincoln said...

"It ensures that a President has to have broad-based support of several regions, not just racking up big margins in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago."



This seems like a somewhat funny argument since New York (east coast), Chicago (mid-west) and LA (west coast) are all in very different regions...

Virginia Conservative said...

A lot of city Governments (mine included) require a mayor to win a majority of the City Council districts instead of the popular vote for the same reason (though in this one, it's racial--to give minorities a bigger voice).

Poker Samurai said...

[b]
How come no one complains about a PM being elected in a backroom party caucus as an "undemocratic" way to elect ones chief executive?[/b]

Because it isn't in any way? Just a guess.

Virginia Conservative said...

They're all urban. None of them are rural.

If you want to a abolish the EC and the Senate, just make it Parliamentary. But that has its "undemocratic" elements, too.

Virginia Conservative said...

Why should a bunch of party professionals choose the chief executive?

Why not have the people directly chose him?

Obliterati said...

Soozie says - "But I have an ugly feeling that there is an October surprise waiting"


Maybe. Looks like Rezko's getting ready to sing to the feds. I'm pretty sure if Obama had anything to worry about, someone would have already found it. But still...I get nervous whenever Rezko's name is being mentioned by the press.

Glen said...

Even worse

Picking Palin for the VP position has not only locked them out of the possibility of switching the VP candidate, even worse, it denies them any flexibility in what they can do if the top of the ticket needs to be replaced.

The problem is clearest for the scenario in which McCain becomes incapacitated, most likley for health reasons, before the election. While the RNC would really, really not want to see Palin replace McCain at the top of the ticket, because at the top spot, she becomes a real liability with swing voters, replacing her with anybody with any centrist appeal would, as this blog post outlines, outrage the base. It would be much worse than not having named her, or any favorite of the radical conservative wing of the party, to the VP spot in the first place.

But putting her in the second spot also took away their freedom to have McCain take a powder on purpose. Of course they couldn't have McCain withdraw for openly tactical, political purposes, they would have to pretend it's a health issue. But his age and cancer history create an ongoing perfectly good excuse, available anytime they care to use it, that his health requires him, for the good of the country, to withdraw.

Of course, withdrawal as a strategem would fail absolutley if it looked at all contrived, and as per point 3), McCain has, largely by naming Palin, already overplayed his game-changer card. People would suspect a contrivance in a withdrawal blamed on ill health now, unless there were some obvious new health developement.

If they could get away with such a strategem, it would work like this. They would want to do this if, a few weeks out, it looked pretty clear that McCain was going to lose. The idea would be that the withdrawal, and the VP nominee riding to the rescue, so to speak, suddenly thrust into the top spot, might generate enough sympathy for this newly presidential nominee to pull ahead. And he would stay there in the lead because the excitement of this story would suck all the oxygen away from any competing story about the election, at least for the one or two weeks left before Election Day. Finally, this new nominee would, if this were done less than two weeks prior to Election Day, still be in their honeymoon period with press and public, a factor that would act in synergy with the sympathy effect.

But this scenario is off the table with Palin playing its Woman on a White Horse role. A safe, if bland, VP nominee like Romney could pull it off. But Palin has trouble being taken seriously as president even by pundits and politicos who usually tout the straight Republican line. Her fitness for the presidency would become the story.

Lincoln said...

Like it or not, rural, socially conservative Americans make up a large chunk of the country and they deserve a system that ensures they have pull in the electoral process. As long as we use a winner-take-all presidential system, disproportionate EVs is the best way we have to do that.

ink: as your own post admits, the "pull" given is disproporionate to the size of these groups.

Why should we have a system that gives certain groups/areas MORE pull than they would have proportionately?

Your argument seems a little confused to me. You say that social conservatives make up a ton of the country but then claim they need a special system to rig it so they get more pull than they would have with direct votes.

If they make up a ton of the country, then they would have a ton of pull because they would have a ton of votes.

If they don't make up a ton of the country I fail to see why they should get extra pull.

Virginia Conservative said...

Not to mention the leader picked will be some old party hand that's been in politics for decades.

So much for "change" in that system. Barack Obama would never make it this quickly.

InkStain said...

As mentioned, India's nationally elected president is a figurehead. They use a real modern democratic system: Parliamentary Representation (we could do that too if we didn't have a sentimental attachment to an 18th-century document).

Brazil is the one country trying it, and the results are still pending.

Mike V said...

"Or worse, passed away as president-elect after the election but before assuming office?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President-elect

"An example of the practical effect of the official status is found in the U.S. Constitution's provision that if the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person."

Diogo said...

Brazil half the size of the USA? Brazil is larger than the lower And it only needs to be done once to show it can be done. And while the current democratic system there has only been in place for 20 years, they had direct elections for president from 45-64.

Now, if by "half the size" you mean population, then there is also Indonesia.

Virginia Conservative said...

Population, diogo, not land area.

Land area doesn't matter.

Virginia Conservative said...

Indonesia will probably be under a military dictatorship again within twenty years.

Lincoln said...

Virginia Conservative said...

They're all urban. None of them are rural.

If you want to a abolish the EC and the Senate, just make it Parliamentary. But that has its "undemocratic" elements, too.


Or, you know, we could just have a direct vote. Or we could have a law making electoral votes go to the popular vote winner. Or we could split electoral votes by congressional districts.

Etc. etc.

The choice isn't electoral college or parliamentary system. False dichotomy.

Matt W said...

I actually don't have a problem with the state by state part. I have a problem with the unequal representation in the electoral college. A vote in WY is more that three times as represented as a vote in large states. WY needs something, I am fine with that, but 3x?
Plus this argument of geographic territory is tenuous. I thought you were actually on more solid ground with the rural urban argument, ink.

Virginia Conservative said...

I think there should be a law requiring the candidate that won the state to recieve those electoral votes automatically.

Faithless electors need to go.

jakam said...

Why should we have a system that gives certain groups/areas MORE pull than they would have proportionately?

So are you troubled by the very concept of the Senate?

Wyoming has as much Senate representation as California, even though California has 60 times as many people.

InkStain said...

"ink: as your own post admits, the "pull" given is disproporionate to the size of these groups. "

Yes. That's intentional. Working as intended :)

"Why should we have a system that gives certain groups/areas MORE pull than they would have proportionately? "

Because otherwise they would be dominated, a literal second-class citizen in the political world. There would be no point in them being a part of the country at all.

Countries that want to encompass large swaths of land and diverse cultures have to concede concessions such as this.

"Your argument seems a little confused to me. You say that social conservatives make up a ton of the country but then claim they need a special system to rig it so they get more pull than they would have with direct votes. "

Specifically, rural America. The fact that right now they are the social conservatives is sort of irrelevant.

"If they don't make up a ton of the country I fail to see why they should get extra pull."

Because they are a unique area with unique needs. The government that works for New York and California does not automatically work for Montana, North Dakota, even Iowa.

Matt W said...

Diogo's got a good point. Lula da Silva received more votes than any other candidate for president in the history of the planet

Diogo said...

What will happen in 20 years doesnt matter, unless your claim is that they will be like that because they have no EC, which is nonsense.

hurn0003 said...

InkStain said...

"But you are missing the point. The point isn't whether a state is competitive, it's what kind of candidates we are choosing from.

Do you think McCain would give two flying flips about the conservative base if there weren't a ton of EVs in those small state?"

Yes, he would still have to get his base motivated in order to win. In fact he would have more motivation as winning by 20+ points in those states would be an important way to rack up extra votes.

The elimination of the electoral college would basically result in a nationalizing of the campaign. You would see even more TV advertising and much less time spent with direct campaigning by the candidate.

The focus would instead be on cost of advertising per potential vote. Is the cost of media per person cheaper in area x or area y.

But being from the South Dakota myself, we get no attention because we vote ourselves out of relevance because we always go GOP. So for me, my vote would matter more if there were a popular election, since as it is, my vote counts 0.

Virginia Conservative said...

If you want to abolish the EC because it is undemocratic, at least be consistent and abolish the Senate, too.

Virginia Conservative said...

Without the Senate that SS privitazion plan would be law, and Bush's judges would have never been blocked.

So think for a minute, libs, before that sounds like a good idea to you.

kevinofburbank said...

The only name that concerns me is Hick-He-Be.

That would retain the deranged religious extremists, and of course McCain needs them.

The woman vote would not respond well. But what are you gonna do?

But Hick-He-Be has that everyman thing going, so that would work.

Plus, he's a vicious prick. McCain should respond well to that.

borderpeak said...

I think Steven's idea of the gambler ad, (post #1) is excellent. Its terrific straight forward but it has legs too. A lot of people don't know McCain loves to gamble. So, when people talk about it and someone tells them it’s more than a metaphor they will go "wow". Just the thing, clever for those tuned in, a jolt to the dolts. Way to go Steven, named after the first Christian martyr, thinking for the cause.

ajbeecroft said...

Virginia Conservative said...

How come no one complains about a PM being elected in a backroom party caucus as an "undemocratic" way to elect ones chief executive?

Well, I'll bite here. That is, indeed, how some parties in some parliamentary systems choose their leaders. But that's certainly not true of all parties in all countries. In Canada, for example, party leaders are chosen at national conventions with delegates selected by the party members in each of the 308 ridings (electoral districts). The system, in other words, works very similarly to the way in which the two major American political parties choose their presidential candidates.
And the electoral college doesn't really do anything to help rural voters, except by accident. It isn't designed to do so either, it's designed to benefit small states. So you might want to consider the question of why city-dwellers in Wilmington DE get more of a say in presidential elections than do farmers in central Pennsylvania. Or why residents of Las Vegas get more say than farmers in the Central Valley of California. If the goal is to give rural voters a disproportionate influence on the outcome of elections (and I'm not sold on the merits of that goal), then surely there's a more efficient way to do so than through the existing electoral college.

NYCDEME said...

Hello ALL - I am new here, but I have been involved in
politics for most of my life. If I may, I would like to add that I have been absolutley astonished
since that Friday that Mccain introduced Palin and
equally astonished ever since at her lack of anything that even resembles a quilified VP or
for that matter the "P".

Up untill a few years ago, I actually had allot of respect for Mcain but that
has vanished and I (we) can
only hope the DEMS hold up
and come through on 11/4.

I will look forward to joining in on futher discussions throughout the
rest of the campaign.

Matt W said...

Virginia Conservative said...
If you want to abolish the EC because it is undemocratic, at least be consistent and abolish the Senate, too.

Here here!
I am all for eliminating outdated and unfair compromises from our nations government.

InkStain said...

"Yes, he would still have to get his base motivated in order to win. In fact he would have more motivation as winning by 20+ points in those states would be an important way to rack up extra votes."

20-point margins in rural states get you diddly squat in the national election.

"The elimination of the electoral college would basically result in a nationalizing of the campaign. You would see even more TV advertising and much less time spent with direct campaigning by the candidate."

Not a chance. It would focus all advertising in areas with high population densities, where it would be most cost effective.

"The focus would instead be on cost of advertising per potential vote. Is the cost of media per person cheaper in area x or area y."

Agreed. But don't forget about personal appearances, rallies and GOTV efforts, all of which would become ignored in smaller areas.

"But being from the South Dakota myself, we get no attention because we vote ourselves out of relevance because we always go GOP. So for me, my vote would matter more if there were a popular election, since as it is, my vote counts 0."

As usual, that makes no sense. Your vote does count.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Here here!
I am all for eliminating outdated and unfair compromises from our nations government."

What state do you live in?

jakam said...

since as it is, my vote counts 0.

No it doesn't...it's part of the 270. Just not a swing part.

Every state is entitled to a certain number of electoral votes that count towards the total. It isn't entitled to have its electoral votes be the decisive ones.

Matt W said...

"Without the Senate that SS privitazion plan would be law, and Bush's judges would have never been blocked.

So think for a minute, libs, before that sounds like a good idea to you."

Um, we still need the chamber, but we should allocate the senators differently.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Um, we still need the chamber, but we should allocate the senators differently."

Why? That's undemocratic.

The House is closest to the people. What the people want, should get passed! Now!

InkStain said...

"I am all for eliminating outdated and unfair compromises from our nations government."

Then I'm all for letting the homogenous areas of the country govern themselves, and to hell with uniting disparate states.

Matt W said...

VC,
I am a registered voter in California... I live elsewhere

Virginia Conservative said...

You need federalism in a large country.

Virginia Conservative said...

Well, no wonder you want it.

But Iowa? They'd get raped. Ditto Delaware. And Maine. And...

jakam said...

I am all for eliminating outdated and unfair compromises from our nations government.

Then you're also in favor of abolishing the United States. Because it never would have formed without the bicameral nature of Congress (one where each person is equal and one where each state is equal), and it wouldn't survive if it were taken away.

Virginia Conservative said...

The Senate can go only if the small states get to leave the Union.

Jen said...

"Because then there would be zero check on popular passions. And that really doesn't fly unless you want to abolish the Senate, too, which would mean the small state get raped."

Why get rid of the Senate? That is what is supposed to help the small states. The electoral college was just supposed to prevent the great unwashed masses electing someone completely unsuitable, since people like Alexander Hamilton were afraid of the masses judgment. I would say the election of Bush shows that the electoral college was not functioning as designed since in 2000 it overuled the will of the people and put in someone unsuitable.

The whole small state protection garbage is the excuse that is used to keep the electoral college, not why we have it to begin with.

"How come no one complains about a PM being elected in a backroom party caucus as an "undemocratic" way to elect ones chief executive?"

Probably because as Americans we don't have a PM. :)

But if we did, I would be on line complaining about that too! I am glad that we do not pick our nominees like that anymore.

Diogo said...

VC
you cant really compare the senate and the presidency. The presidency is a winner takes all election, and most states have winner takes all rules for EC.

A better comparison would be that a party wins all congressional seats in a state if they get most votes there.

Because the problem is two fold: the EC in itself, and the winner takes all by state.

I live in a conservative district in Georgia. Liberals might as well not have the right to vote, as no presidential candidate is ever going to stop here, campaign here or even care about the pressing issues here.

Lincoln said...

Because otherwise they would be dominated, a literal second-class citizen in the political world. There would be no point in them being a part of the country at all.

By your logic dozens if not dozens of dozens of social groups are "literal second-class" citizens in the political world and thus they have no point being in the country at all.

Why should said social conservatives get special pull that these other groups don't get?

And plenty of regions get left out too. A simple urban/rural dichotomy doesn't present a good picture of america.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Why get rid of the Senate? That is what is supposed to help the small states."

Because its undemocratic!!!one11

Why should Wyoming get as much representation as California!?

Joey said...

"Colorado has 9. If it had passed the proportional system it considered, almost any potential outcome would end up with such that 4 of its EVs would go to the (D), 4 would go to the (R), and the 9th would go to the winner, effectively leaving Colorado with only 1 electoral vote up for grabs."

But isn't that how it SHOULD be? If the equivalent of 4/9 of the population voted one way, should they have to give up their 4 votes to the majority, at that level anyway? If all states proportioned their votes that could change elections considerably.

Virginia Conservative said...

If you want to argue that EVs should be allocated proportionally, there's a good argument for that. Better than the one for direct election.

Virginia Conservative said...

Proportionally instead of winner-take-all, that is. Like the primaries.

Matt W said...

Jakam,
There is a huge difference between updating a system and eliminating a nation.
There are other compromises we could make that would be more fair and nobody has to be so doomsday about it. It is not blasphemous to say that our constitution is imperfect.

Arkansas Traveler said...

I'm an Obama supporter, but Palin's going to perform well at the debate. She's dangerous in this format, and people don't much care about the facts based on the first debate. I'd be happy to come out of Thursday where we're at right now.