Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarkboy
Here's a thought: What if the pick of Palin is the Republican's thinking ahead?
I know this may be attributing too much forethought to them, but if I put on my "Karl Rove" hat for a moment, my thought process would go something like this:
To me, Palin is not about winning in 2008, it's about winning in 2012 or 2016. It's more of a sacrificial move than anything else.
|
Considering what has been revealed about the decision to pick Palin, it sounds like McCain himself basically ignored the rest of the party and his advisers. It is a huge bet to begin with and it wasn't even assured that people would like her. (Beside, she appeals to the base at a time when the republican tag is poison and independents don't like her at all.)
Ignoring that logic, the question then becomes why Palin? Of all the Republican female governors, why her? There are ones with far better resumes and who could have done something in 2012 like Obama did with his speech in 2004.
Quote:
1. This year republicans are toast. The only way to win would be some giant fuck up by the democrats or a big terrorist attack inside the country a week before election day (and that might not be enough).
|
I think there is a fair way that the republicans could have actually won this election. The problem is it would require them playing the odds even more than they are currently and focusing on the few states that truly matter. (When I say fair, I mean without resorting to gutter politics and playing the "If I say a lie enough times, it becomes true" card.)
Quote:
It's already been noted that with hillary not in the race anymore, there aren't really any big-name women left on the political stage. "If not hillary, then when?" everyone is asking. So they put Palin on the ticket now, and this introduces her to the country and provides a first tempering. Then, keeping her in the public eye for the 8 "obama years" she becomes the true knight of the republican party. An experienced, 52 year old female republican candidate who the democrats would have no one but owhite men to counter.
|
It is being argued that Hillary is certainly viable for 2016. She will just be out of her prime since the Clinton name would have been 16 years ago at that point. I've also seen it argued that Hillary is viable for 2012 if Obama does not win and it is clear that the republicans somehow deliver a victory that can't blamed on her.
They actually have to remove Palin from the public eye after the election if she loses. She is under leveled, lacks an aerial attack, and is not wearing fire absorbing armor in a dungeon where everyone can fly and breathes fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cors8
I highly doubt McCain would be willing to follow that plan, if he had any pride at all.
Also, 2012 or 2016 is very long time. A lot of things can happen politically. Obama came to prominence in 2004. A new Democratic woman could just as easily come to the national stage and challenge Palin. I think there are a few female Democratic governors who could rise to challenge her, especially on experience. A state with a population of less than a million becomes less impressive when you compare it to the lower 48 states.
|
Equally, there are a few republican women out there who easily could rise up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
There are two types of fox news viewers, those that watch to have their views confirmed and those that watch to find something they disagree with. They like to pretend most of their viewers fall into the first catagory and their ratings somehow represent some sort of evidence that Americans support their right wing ideals, though I suspect the second group is larger than they would like to admit.
|
Reminded of
this quote:
Quote:
Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes a day. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Pig Vomit: How could this be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given: "I want to see what he'll say next."
Pig Vomit: All right, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.
Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?
Researcher: Most common answer: "I want to see what he'll say next."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Just a note: Nearly all of them use teleprompters, Republicans and Democrats alike. As explained by several news media, (so far, I count CNN, MSN and Fox reported this)
|
The media usually takes great care not to show the teleprompter. The people working the cameras at both conventions, especially the RNC, seemed to have trouble with this.