Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, whats the deal?

Why have American Voters turned on her so much? I know there have been some scandals, but then, she is a Politician so that really should be a given.

Again, no real agenda behind this other than trying to better understand something which (being British) is absolutely nothing to do with me!

I wasn't impressed to begin with... but I'd say it's because she claimed to be one thing, and was quite quickly proven to be a liar, cheat, and manipulator of high caliber... you know, like the senator from Alaska.

They haven't turned on her. From what I've been reading she is more popular with Republican voters than McCain.

She was tossed in at the last minute from out of no where and we were supposed to just love her. Some people did at first but the honeymoon is starting to wear off and they realize their bride-to-be is still a politician.

Well, there are at least three levels to it.

First, there's the policy reasons. She's a hard core right wing republican, with unabashedly conservative views on many issues that some moderates have drifted away from (things like global warming and intelligent design).

Second, there's the strategic/political reason. After the above became clearer, the media began to realize that there is only one reason to pick somebody like her: to fire up the base. So, it means either McCain thinks that his base was underwhelmed by him (which I think they are) or he thinks that the GOP base is larger than it actually is. While the fundamentalist wing of the GOP likes her, they also aren't wild about McCain. The paleocons (classical small government/socially moderate to conservative types) dislike Palin a lot, they also dislike that she's splashy. Moderates were repulses by the insinuation that she was meant to woo Hillary voters (a bad call if true, and bad vetting if they didn't intend that perception). Liberals became even more fired up because Obama/Biden becomes, by default, more left wing after her introduction.

Third, she's a pretty personally comic figure. This has worked in the past for Veeps like Quayle and even candidates like W (who almost nobody took seriously but loved him in 2000 regardless). She projected a hopelessly outmatched grasp on the issues, she was skewered mercilessly by political satirists, and she reminds everybody of the Supermom in the PTA that is incredibly self righteous and obnoxious.

Essentially, she was a hail mary pass (a play in football where you simply heave the ball deep because you're losing, so you need a miracle to win), and like most, she didn't connect. McCain wanted somebody that would do the following:
1) convince the christian Base to come out to vote
2) Add excitement and charisma to the campaign
3) Cancel out the "hey, we could elect the first black president" factor.
4) Reach out to white working class voters that favored Hillary over Barack.
5) Add vitality and youth to allay fears of his age.

To an extent, Palin was a Camel: the horse built by committee. There is no way any one candidate could have done all of that, and instead of focusing on shoring up McCain's biggest weaknesses with a solid pick, they went for broke with a choice that tried to fix everything at once. Unfortunately, Palin has some deep rooted flaws such as a lack of experience, the string of minor scandals, and her personal nastiness.

She enjoyed a honeymoon at first simply because she was genuinely media friendly: attractive, poised, fun. Once everything else came out, well, things got a bit more toxic.

this is why I think shes a scum bag. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/



on a side note I like mccain, and would never vote for obama. So its good old ralph nader for me!

The polls show people don't think she's ready. The largest newspaper in her own state endorsed Obama and inferred she'd be out of her league.

She also has the highest unfavorable rating of any of the four candidates. Addressing a crowd in a "red" (i.e. GOP-leaning) state, she said something along the lines of how nice it was to be in a "pro-American" state. Pretty insulting stuff if you're in a blue state. She's a very polarizing figure.

Here's the backstory on her nomination.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/27/081027fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1

Also, McCain's people are apparently starting to think she's gone "rogue."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702544.html

I tend to agree that McCain shouldn't trust her. But then that just shows he shouldn't have picked her. Palin didn't get him one vote he wasn't already going to get. Ultimately, McCain didn't show enough guts to pick a moderate and tell the religious right where to shove it.

A column I read today summed it up pretty well:

"For some odd reason, most Americans are not finding, as Barnes wrote, that Palin "exudes a kind of middle-class magnetism." Instead they find her out of her depth and exuding an unfathomable -- not to mention unearned -- self-confidence. If it weren't for the Boys on the Boats, she'd be her biggest fan. "

Personally, based on her internal approval numbers and the exodus of the GOP intelligentsia, I'd say it was her general lack of preparedness/intelligence/experience that did her in. She'll do well inside a party of the faithful, maybe well enough to make a run at the 2012 nomination, but I'd say her presence in the near political future will be limited. She seems destined to be a perennial also-ran. At least so long as she continues to appear unreflective. Something I expect will be difficult for her to change as her basic body of beliefs necessitate an unreflective mind.

As an addendum, what is GOP people are referring too? Is it a think tank of some kind?

Grand Old Party, another name for the Republican Party.

Palin didn't get him one vote he wasn't already going to get.

What are you nuts Look at the numbers attending mccain's rallies before and after the anouncment of palin as VP.

She was a brillaint political move, she netted mccain the angry women vote (all the Clinton supporters that now hate obama thanks to clintons effective political ads) . The problem is she is a horrible public speaker and she has some really bad skeletons in her closet.

Kilkrazy wrote:They haven't turned on her. From what I've been reading she is more popular with Republican voters than McCain.

No, some have definitely turned on her. The "intellectual" side of the party has -- guys like George Will. The moderates have too.

Clthomps wrote:

Palin didn't get him one vote he wasn't already going to get.

What are you nuts Look at the numbers attending mccain's rallies before and after the anouncment of palin as VP.

She was a brillaint political move, she netted mccain the angry women vote (all the Clinton supporters that now hate obama thanks to clintons effective political ads) . The problem is she is a horrible public speaker and she has some really bad skeletons in her closet.

The 'angry women vote', as you call it, was largely negated by the economic crisis. People who are reflective enough to fight for women's rights for legitimate reasons are probably reflective enough to understand that the Neo-Liberal economics McCain is advocating actually caused the crisis. On the flip side, if they are not reflective enough to understand the economic crisis, they are probably also not reflective enough to advance a GOP candidate who seems to front women's issues. If anything your 'angry women' would not have voted at all. Indeed, because it became so easy to characterize McCain as being indecent for thrusting Palin into the light and subjecting her to scrutiny it is very likely that Palin gave the 'angry women' back to Obama.

In the summation Palin was a known commodity, or at least should have been one to the McCain camp. Selecting someone irrespective of their real personal make-up is not a brilliant political move, it is an act of desperation. Had McCain picked someone like Lieberman or Ridge he still would have been able to mobilize the majority of the GOP base, while simultaneously denying Obama much of the strength he gains from an actively right-wing ticket. True, it has always been an uphill battle for the GOP, but Palin was a critical misstep which betrays a lack of adaptability within the Republican Party.

Clthomps wrote:What are you nuts Look at the numbers attending mccain's rallies before and after the anouncment of palin as VP.

She was a brillaint political move, she netted mccain the angry women vote (all the Clinton supporters that now hate obama thanks to clintons effective political ads) . The problem is she is a horrible public speaker and she has some really bad skeletons in her closet.

No, I'm not nuts, I look at data. These articles are old, but I'm quite confident the trend hasn't reversed.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846443,00.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/10/07/with-palin-effect-fading-polls-find-women-sticking-with-obama-in-swing-states.html

She has the highest unfavorability rating of ANY of the candidates. FWIW, I think she's a pretty good public speaker. She's bad in interviews.

I don't have any particular data to support this (at least at the moment), but I imagine that the general up-swing in Palin's internal approval is being caused by the departure of moderate Republicans. Basically, as people jump ship, the size of overall party contracts and artificially inflates the percentage of favorable ratings. This is supported by her generally low opinion scores, and the increased turn-out at GOP rallies.

dogma wrote:Had McCain picked someone like Lieberman or Ridge he still would have been able to mobilize the majority of the GOP base, while simultaneously denying Obama much of the strength he gains from an actively right-wing ticket. True, it has always been an uphill battle for the GOP, but Palin was a critical misstep which betrays a lack of adaptability within the Republican Party.

Absolutely. McCain ran as a "maverick," but didn't ACT like one. There's a B.S. test with this stuff. Voters sniffed his "maverick" label and found it stank. In 2000, the guy was a bit of a maverick and someone moderate voters could get excited about. I dunno what happened to that guy, but I might have voted for him.

Bill Clinton was actually a moderate Dem. Reagan knew how to court his famous "Reagan Democrats." And I can't imagine either of them being worried that their base would somehow abandon them because of their moves to the middle. Again, the B.S. test applies. You say you're a commanding leader...well, why didn't you act like one?

Well it all is a mute point, It would take an act of god for a republican to win this election cycle.

gorgon wrote:
Absolutely. McCain ran as a "maverick," but didn't ACT like one. There's a B.S. test with this stuff. Voters sniffed his "maverick" label and found it stank. In 2000, the guy was a bit of a maverick and someone moderate voters could get excited about. I dunno what happened to that guy, but I might have voted for him.

Bill Clinton was actually a moderate Dem. Reagan knew how to court his famous "Reagan Democrats." And I can't imagine either of them being worried that their base would somehow abandon them because of their moves to the middle. Again, the B.S. test applies. You say you're a commanding leader...well, why didn't you act like one?

Truth be told I don't think McCain has been changed by the campaign. Rather, I think it is a testament to the real extent of the GOP's right-wing bias that he was unable to run on a centrist ticket. It would take a truly commanding personality and intellect to overcome the kind of corruption in the Republican establishment that the last 8 years has fostered. McCain isn't the man to do it, and I expect there isn't a single politician in the world who would be more capable. I actually feel a little bad for him.

Oh well, he still has his concession speech. And, given the man's notorious temper, I suspect this might be a farewell for the ages. One last stake into the heart of a beast which raked him over the coals for the sake of its own delusions.

Edit: spelling, punctuation

Seeing where the GOP goes from here should be interesting. I'd guess that while the religious right will still want their ideological purity, the rest of the party will just want to get elected. Factor in the demographic challenges the GOP will face in the years to come, I have to think we'll see the religious right's influence wane.

It could very well be Palin in 2012 before that happens, though.

If she sucks so badly (as the US media seems to universally portray her) why did she have the highest approval rating of US governors (within their own state) pre nomination. (I don't know if the numbers have held up since the nomination).

There was a large media bias against Hillary Clinton, and it seemed to just shift to Palin, whilst Obama continued to cruise on in his rosy coloured world of change...

I've yet to see Saturday Night Live parodies making out Obama as an idiot but there are plenty appearing for Palin...

Mostly the male Washington insiders don't like the idea of an outsider moving into their turf witout as much as paying homage to them and their respects.

Interestingly enough this past weekend on a variety of political shows, the female talking heads were solidly behind her in respect to the 'Diva' comments. Many center right/left jounalists came out and openly defended her and said she was being set up by the McCain people as the reason for their failure (I say perceived failure because Obama up 5% somehwere isn't really up if you remember from the primaries).

IMO she appears to be a female version of Ronald Reagon. Plain spoken, tough talkin' and out of the normal Washington loopholes. Reagon was widely criticised for being 'dumb' all 8 years he was there. I remember an SNL parady in his 2nd term where Reagon was given an outward appearance of folksy and whimpish (just as the left constantly portrayed him) and behind the cameras Phil Hartman played him as driven, calculating, demanding, in charge and take no prisoners approach to governing) She could do without forcing the comparison down our throats, but in the future she could have ridden in from the West to cleanse the diasporia in Washington after 4-8 years of Democratic rule. Maybe this VP run has tarnished that, maybe it hasn't.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:If she sucks so badly (as the US media seems to universally portray her) why did she have the highest approval rating of US governors (within their own state) pre nomination. (I don't know if the numbers have held up since the nomination).

There was a large media bias against Hillary Clinton, and it seemed to just shift to Palin, whilst Obama continued to cruise on in his rosy coloured world of change...

She exposed corruption as a member of the oil/gas commission in Alaska then ran an anti-corruption campaign after the extremely unpopular Frank Murkowski (Former governor). She also raised taxes on oil companies in Alaska...so every man, woman, and child in Alaska will receive a $3,269 check. Sounds socialist to me! . Her numbers have slipped considerably since Troopergate.

There might be another reason too

gorgon wrote:

dogma wrote:Had McCain picked someone like Lieberman or Ridge he still would have been able to mobilize the majority of the GOP base, while simultaneously denying Obama much of the strength he gains from an actively right-wing ticket. True, it has always been an uphill battle for the GOP, but Palin was a critical misstep which betrays a lack of adaptability within the Republican Party.

Absolutely. McCain ran as a "maverick," but didn't ACT like one. There's a B.S. test with this stuff. Voters sniffed his "maverick" label and found it stank. In 2000, the guy was a bit of a maverick and someone moderate voters could get excited about. I dunno what happened to that guy, but I might have voted for him.

Bill Clinton was actually a moderate Dem. Reagan knew how to court his famous "Reagan Democrats." And I can't imagine either of them being worried that their base would somehow abandon them because of their moves to the middle. Again, the B.S. test applies. You say you're a commanding leader...well, why didn't you act like one?

It isn’t just about getting the support of your base, I don’t think anyone out there was worried the values voters were going to vote for Obama, but in making sure they actually go out on election day and vote for you. It also increased markedly the number of volunteers turning up at campaign branches, and nothing is as important to winning an election as volunteers making contact with the public.

That was the big reason to bring Palin on-board. Well, that and her narrative (hockey mom just like you goes to the capital and takes on the fatcats in both parties) fitting in nicely with McCain’s campaign angle. There was arguably also a plan to bring on disgruntled Clinton voters, but I doubt they expected to get many, and they’ve gotten very few.

To a large extent, I think it’s worked. She has fired up the base and brought volunteers into campaign branches, and did manage to close the race for a while there. But when there’s no great enthusiasm for the Presidential candidate, you’re following on from a terribly unpopular incumbent, and the economy is in free fall there’s only so much a VP selection can do.



Oh, and to the OP, the reason Palin is unpopular is because she’s spent most of her time attacking Obama, and dismissing the groups that are voting for him. Now, Obama is hardly a sacred cow and bashing liberals is hardly uncommon, but when all you’re doing is attacking that’s all people associate you with. It tends to make you less popular, long term.

DarthDigler wrote: IMO she appears to be a female version of Ronald Reagon. Plain spoken, tough talkin' and out of the normal Washington loopholes. Reagon was widely criticised for being 'dumb' all 8 years he was there. I remember an SNL parady in his 2nd term where Reagon was given an outward appearance of folksy and whimpish (just as the left constantly portrayed him) and behind the cameras Phil Hartman played him as driven, calculating, demanding, in charge and take no prisoners approach to governing) She could do without forcing the comparison down our throats, but in the future she could have ridden in from the West to cleanse the diasporia in Washington after 4-8 years of Democratic rule. Maybe this VP run has tarnished that, maybe it hasn't.

Reagan did well because he was surrounded by intelligent people. That said, his personal lack of relevant knowledge left him beholden to the collective will of his advisers. He wasn't able to make a convincing case for denying any funding, and so government outlay increased massively; driving up the national debt. His inability to hear a dissenting voice lead the Conservatives to lionize his administration style, and the general 'rightness' of their ideological mode of thought. He is the textbook case for putting an intelligent man in the Office of the President. Its hard to have conservative movement which is inclusive of all its member's wishes.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So, whats the deal?

She is everything good about the word woman, while your main female democrat, Billary, is everything bad about the word woman.

She is beautiful, has gorgeous features. She has 5 kids (think about that while thinking about the first point) and stands up for herself. While Billary is ugly as sin, with everyhting short and round including her hair. She is also not very feminine compared to Palin.

Palin is also very motherly, almost like a schoolteacher, while H.C. is just....a pissy liberal feminazi.

People make lack of experience a talking point with her, but look at Hussein, yet to so much as open his first lemonade stand.

Also, the media left got blindsided by his choice. In order to save face, they spin it. It isn't the media that is the fool for not seeing her coming, it's McCain who is for choosing her

In defense of Palin, no one has asked about the legitimacy of the children of any of the other candidates, whether they are being unfit parents by working instead of taking care of the kids, or where their clothing was acquired. Absent PanamaG above, the responses so far have been from those that would have been opposed to any Republican. While PanamaG is equally onesided (no offense meant PanamaG) it is a counterpoint. Frankly most of the attacks on her have been grossly partisan, grossly personal, and just gross. Its representative of the problem of modern politics. The foam at the mouth types and gotcha media do not argue the issues, they attack personally (edit: and that occurs on BOTH sides).

DarthDiggler wrote:Many center right/left jounalists came out and openly defended her and said she was being set up by the McCain people as the reason for their failure (I say perceived failure because Obama up 5% somehwere isn't really up if you remember from the primaries).

I think the important thing to watch is how the GOP turns on *McCain* after the race. They're already doing it. Palin's the fave of the social conservatives, and in their eyes she's going to walk away clean. She's been accused by some in the McCain camp of going rogue in order to protect her future over this particular election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/us/politics/29palin.html?_r=1&partner=msnbcpolitics&emc=rss&oref=slogin

You're also kidding yourself if you think this is going to be a close race. That's not gloating, that's an opinion formed due to overwhelming evidence.

@PanamaG - are you really naive enough to think that if you keep referring to Barack Obama by his middle name that a few more gullible twits will go down the 'oh, he's called Hussein, so he must be a muslim terrorist' route?

Do you think if I refer to the GOP ticket as 'Sidney' and 'Louise' that people's views about them will change in a negative way?

Or are you just irrationally xenophobic?

Frazzled wrote:In defense of Palin, no one has asked about the legitimacy of the children of any of the other candidates, whether they are being unfit parents by working instead of taking care of the kids, or where their clothing was acquired. Absent PanamaG above, the responses so far have been from those that would have been opposed to any Republican. While PanamaG is equally onesided (no offense meant PanamaG) it is a counterpoint. Frankly most of the attacks on her have been grossly partisan, grossly personal, and just gross. Its representative of the problem of modern politics. The foam at the mouth types and gotcha media do not argue the issues, they attack personally (edit: and that occurs on BOTH sides).

It's hardly a counterpoint. His argument consists of;

She's pretty
She fits her gender role (as we've defined it)

Our argument;

She doesn't appear to be very bright


Who's the sexist?

PanamaG wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So, whats the deal?

She is everything good about the word woman, while your main female democrat, Billary, is everything bad about the word woman.

She is beautiful, has gorgeous features. She has 5 kids (think about that while thinking about the first point) and stands up for herself. While Billary is ugly as sin, with everyhting short and round including her hair. She is also not very feminine compared to Palin.

Palin is also very motherly, almost like a schoolteacher, while H.C. is just....a pissy liberal feminazi.

People make lack of experience a talking point with her, but look at Hussein, yet to so much as open his first lemonade stand.

Also, the media left got blindsided by his choice. In order to save face, they spin it. It isn't the media that is the fool for not seeing her coming, it's McCain who is for choosing her

So, according to that rationale, my Mum is everything bad about the word woman as well, having had only 2 children (well, and a half if you count my other brother/sister who didn't quite make it). Oh, add in, she's only 5'4", not exactly slim.....

And yet she is still Married to my Dad, having had no marriage problems at all, and both my brother and I are both 6 foot plus, healthy and strong. But hey, because she's not paid well enough to worry more about appearance than bills, she ain't no woman.

edit by mod: debate the point, attacking other dakka users is forbidden and a temporary suspension will be issued if it occurs again