A lot of the immediate analysis has been focusing on Sarah Palin's selection as a play for the female vote, particularly, the disillusioned Hillary vote. I believe this entirely misses the point. It is about giving conservatives something to vote for rather than something to vote against. The goal is to close the enthusiasm gap and make Republicans feel that (i) they are also making history and (ii) they are voting for the future, rather than regressing by choosing a grizzly 72-year old.
To this point, it was always a fallacy to believe that everyone who voted for Hillary in the primary would vote for her in the general against a more conservative candidate. And for those voters, Obama could never have done anything to win their vote. It has always also been a fallacy to assume Hillary was the sole possessor of the key to the female vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think the other thing to note about Palin is that she has a very low threshold to cross given all the talk about how new she is to all this. The way things are setup now, all she has to do is NOT commit any gaffes and she will be fine. She does not have to prove to particularly adept at say, foreign policy.
Now, if she shows even some measure of competency in that area (and she very well might, given the likelihood that too many people are underestimating her), it will come across pretty much as a hit out of the park.
Absolutely; I think it's going to be very hard for her not to overperform especially at the debates. Remember how low the bar was for George Bush when he went up against Al Gore.
Post a Comment