Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Unfortunately it cost them votes. I was planning on voting for McCain before the hijinks that ensued after the GOP convention.

Not to say that went for all of his voters, however. Many voted for McCain because of Palin. Many voted for McCain in spite of Palin.

Regardless, there's another thread about this topic.

Ultimately, since the stimulus bill has passed, we'll have to wait and see what the effects are. I wouldn't call this the Great Depression, but who knows where we'll bottom out if we haven't already.

I do know it's ridiculously hard to find a job right now.

It's interesting hearing your point of view on the matter. I know some people who were going to vote for McCain but changed their mind when Palin was selected. I can't even imagine what McCain must be feeling right now. I'm sure he's kicking himself. They picked Palin to get the female vote, Obama didn't do the same, and now he's the one in the White House.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

It's interesting hearing your point of view on the matter. I know some people who were going to vote for McCain but changed their mind when Palin was selected. I can't even imagine what McCain must be feeling right now. I'm sure he's kicking himself. They picked Palin to get the female vote, Obama didn't do the same, and now he's the one in the White House.

If they picked her for the female vote they failed miserably.

It's debatable why he picked her. Many think it was an effort to consolidate the conservative republican base, since oftentimes McCain is characterized as too moderate or liberal. I would think this is more likely.

If that is the case then they didn't fail as miserably as they did if they picked her for the female vote.

After all, it's not like this was a landslide election for Obama. It was a pretty hard fought battle. So to say that Palin hurt McCain that badly would mean the same as saying that McCain would have had the election in the bag had he not picked Palin.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that in my case, Palin tipped it. Not so for live-in, he was always an Obama supporter. Also not so for a lot of the people I know who would traditionally vote republican who voted for Obama this year.

My dad's been a republican for 40 years. This was his first time voting for a Democrat. I can tell you he didn't give a flying fig about Sarah Palin, or Joe Biden for that matter.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

If they picked her for the female vote they failed miserably.

It's debatable why he picked her. Many think it was an effort to consolidate the conservative republican base, since oftentimes McCain is characterized as too moderate or liberal. I would think this is more likely.

If that is the case then they didn't fail as miserably as they did if they picked her for the female vote.

After all, it's not like this was a landslide election for Obama. It was a pretty hard fought battle. So to say that Palin hurt McCain that badly would mean the same as saying that McCain would have had the election in the bag had he not picked Palin.


My dad's been a republican for 40 years. This was his first time voting for a Democrat. I can tell you he didn't give a flying fig about Sarah Palin, or Joe Biden for that matter.

Many people speculated that he brought Palin on board as a way of pulling in the Hillary Clinton supporters once she did not win the nomination.
As much as I like Obama, deep down I think McCain would have won if he had chosen Mitt Romney, or even that other female Republican (sorry, can't remember her name right now..I think she may be a governor).

I'm curious though as to what made your dad change? I know you said he didn't give a flying fig about Palin...so was that his main reasoning?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Many people speculated that he brought Palin on board as a way of pulling in the Hillary Clinton supporters once she did not win the nomination.
As much as I like Obama, deep down I think McCain would have won if he had chosen Mitt Romney, or even that other female Republican (sorry, can't remember her name right now..I think she may be a governor).

I'm curious though as to what made your dad change? I know you said he didn't give a flying fig about Palin...so was that his main reasoning?

On my dad, besides the actual issues and who lined up where with his changing views (retirement really has changed him a lot!), he thought McCain was A. Too old, and B. Looked like a pervy old man. LOL.

If female voters really went over to McCain when he chose Palin, that shows that those female voters really don't care about the issues. At all. Because Palin and Clinton are on starkly opposite ends of the political spectrum.

And anyone with half a brain who cares to look can see that.

I'm telling you, political commentators are often not worth their salt. McCain's people are not that stupid, and they don't think voters are that stupid. More likely, it was because she's conservative. The fact that she had a vagina and is hot were a plus.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

On my dad, besides the actual issues and who lined up where with his changing views (retirement really has changed him a lot!), he thought McCain was A. Too old, and B. Looked like a pervy old man. LOL.


I'm telling you, political commentators are often not worth their salt. McCain's people are not that stupid, and they don't think voters are that stupid. More likely, it was because she's conservative. The fact that she had a vagina and is hot were a plus.

LMAO at pervy old man. I didn't think he looked like a perv. I just thought he looked...embalmed.

I got sick of hearing about Palin fulfilling the "naughty librarian" stereotype for some men. As in she takes her hair down, shakes it, removes the glasses, and gives a BJ in the library stacks.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Many people speculated that he brought Palin on board as a way of pulling in the Hillary Clinton supporters once she did not win the nomination.

I think you're probably at least partially right, but it seems like there was at least a little more strategy involved. This view ("bringin' in the womens" as it were) was popular speculation at the time, but as inept as McCain's camp was in the "small-picture" stuff, I'd be shocked if they made this poor of a "big-picture" maneuver - it seems much more likely that Palin was intended to motivate the base with someone who could play both "attack dog" and "snake charmer" while McCain reached across the aisle for moderates. Sort of a "good cop/bad cop" thing, with the added bonus that the bad cop would be what most "common" American males would consider attractive. Remember: attractiveness matters.

It seems like this plan was not so much ill-conceived as ill-executed, since Palin went absolutely balls-to-the-wall beyond what I think McCain envisioned (and the Newsweek piece seems to back this up). She got off the leash, as far as what the McCain camp expected.

The thing is, as insane as this plan sounds in retrospect, it appeared to work for a brief moment - McCain's post-convention bump was large and quite real, and seemed to portend good things. However, once the buzz died down and the questions grew louder, Palin simply couldn't keep the ball rolling, and McCain's guys saw the writing on the wall and bailed.

It probably wouldn't have mattered, given the state of the economy at the time, but it sure would have helped to bring in someone (ANYONE) with real economic experience (like, as you noted, Romney).

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think you're probably at least partially right, but it seems like there was at least a little more strategy involved. This view ("bringin' in the womens" as it were) was popular speculation at the time, but as inept as McCain's camp was in the "small-picture" stuff, I'd be shocked if they made this poor of a "big-picture" maneuver - it seems much more likely that Palin was intended to motivate the base with someone who could play both "attack dog" and "snake charmer" while McCain reached across the aisle for moderates. Sort of a "good cop/bad cop" thing, with the added bonus that the bad cop would be what most "common" American males would consider attractive. Remember: attractiveness matters.

It seems like this plan was not so much ill-conceived as ill-executed, since Palin went absolutely balls-to-the-wall beyond what I think McCain envisioned (and the Newsweek piece seems to back this up). She got off the leash, as far as what the McCain camp expected.

The thing is, as insane as this plan sounds in retrospect, it appeared to work for a brief moment - McCain's post-convention bump was large and quite real, and seemed to portend good things. However, once the buzz died down and the questions grew louder, Palin simply couldn't keep the ball rolling, and McCain's guys saw the writing on the wall and bailed.

It probably wouldn't have mattered, given the state of the economy at the time, but it sure would have helped to bring in someone (ANYONE) with real economic experience (like, as you noted, Romney).

I agree.
As inane as it sounds, I also think McCain was going for the historical factor too...first female VP and all. That certainly seemed to get people revved up.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I agree.
As inane as it sounds, I also think McCain was going for the historical factor too...first female VP and all. That certainly seemed to get people revved up.

Geraldine Farraro.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Geraldine Farraro.

Right.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Geraldine Farraro.

I'm aware of her but she was only a candidate.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

If they picked her for the female vote they failed miserably.

It's debatable why he picked her. Many think it was an effort to consolidate the conservative republican base, since oftentimes McCain is characterized as too moderate or liberal. I would think this is more likely.

I think it's a combination of the two. People were operating under the mistaken assumption that McCain wasn't conservative, so the party was trying to fight that popular assumption...Palin was vocal enough on the socially conservative issues that the far-right base would embrace her.

If he was just looking for a woman, as I've said before on the board, I would have rather it had been Kay Hutchison. Her economic policies would have worked with the "base," but she probably would have been considered too liberal socially (as she's spoken out in favor of Roe, and to some people, the social discussion begins and ends with abortion). Plus, she's in her mid-to-late 60s, and I think McCain wanted someone more youthful on the ticket.

I disagreed with too many of Obama's policies to consider voting for him, but the Palin choice was extremely disappointing to me. I'm hoping that in the next 2 years (before mid-term elections) and next 4 years (before the Presidential election), the party is able to re-group.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I disagreed with too many of Obama's policies to consider voting for him, but the Palin choice was extremely disappointing to me. I'm hoping that in the next 2 years (before mid-term elections) and next 4 years (before the Presidential election), the party is able to re-group.

And although you might disagree, I think it's a shame that the McCain campaign was Palin's debut on the national stage.

I think her policies are a lot less socially conservative than they were framed. I think she actually has kind of a western libertarian streak when it comes to most social issues and the government's role, but maybe because of how the campaign needed to use her, that wasn't the message that got out.

Being resolutely anti-abortion holds a lot of people to the party too even though the current perspective is that it hurts more than it helps. While it hurts the party to seem neanderthal, if the party backs off social issues and presents no contrast on those points, there's a big group of people who will be up for grabs every election who are presently really reliable GOP voters. It's a gamble I'm not sure will pay off and since it reverses a position the party has held for a long time, building a real sense that the GOP in its core principles doesn't want to be the morality police will take time.

Maybe Jindal sells intellectually attractive socially conservative positions next time around.

ETA: okay, maybe it's not a big block of voters, but I think a significant number of people who have pulled the level for the GOP nationally in the last 10 years have done it because of social issues. If the party wants to drop them because they have come to realize that they really aren't the government's job and that's a principle to build a party around, that's one thing, but if it's just a cost vs. benefits analysis with voters, you've got to figure out what you are selling instead of the social programs the Dems have got. "We'll leave you alone" may not be enough in a hostile economic climate.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I don't think the social programs worked to right the economy; however, they did drastically improve our quality of life.

I don't know that that's the case - I still think it was more the war and the increase in production that improved the country's quality of life. It's probably all academic anyway, because of the closeness in time between FDR's social programs and the start of US involvement, but I'm very hesitant to give any great weight to FDR's social policies and their ultimate effect on the country.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It isn't accurate. This is not a pure capitalist system.

Ok, glad I'm at least on the right track with that one. That's about the extent of my knowlege of economics.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And although you might disagree, I think it's a shame that the McCain campaign was Palin's debut on the national stage.

I think her policies are a lot less socially conservative than they were framed. I think she actually has kind of a western libertarian streak when it comes to most social issues and the government's role, but maybe because of how the campaign needed to use her, that wasn't the message that got out.

Being resolutely anti-abortion holds a lot of people to the party too even though the current perspective is that it hurts more than it helps. While it hurts the party to seem neanderthal, if the party backs off social issues and presents no contrast on those points, there's a big group of people who will be up for grabs every election who are presently really reliable GOP voters. It's a gamble I'm not sure will pay off and since it reverses a position the party has held for a long time, building a real sense that the GOP in its core principles doesn't want to be the morality police will take time.

Maybe Jindal sells intellectually attractive socially conservative positions next time around.

ETA: okay, maybe it's not a big block of voters, but I think a significant number of people who have pulled the level for the GOP nationally in the last 10 years have done it because of social issues. If the party wants to drop them because they have come to realize that they really aren't the government's job and that's a principle to build a party around, that's one thing, but if it's just a cost vs. benefits analysis with voters, you've got to figure out what you are selling instead of the social programs the Dems have got. "We'll leave you alone" may not be enough in a hostile economic climate.

I agree that Palin wasn't brought into the best situation; if you're bringing a relative unknown onto the national stage, you'd better know EVERYTHING about their record, their tendencies, etc., because the press is going to jump all over them. The last thing the press wants is a lack of knowledge on a candidate, and they'll do all the digging they can to get a complete picture of the person.

I agree that backing off the abortion issue risks losing a portion of the party; but honestly, where would that portion have gone? Would it have voted Obama? Would they have gone third party (like to that nutty guy Baldwin)? I'm not sure. I'm probably not the best person to ask, though, because I have my own biases on the social issues: I think abortion is a complete non-issue (I can't see a scenario where Roe would be overturned or where there would be a national ban on abortion), and I think the Government should stay out of social issues as much as possible.

Something that I've been saying for a while is that the party has to do something to keep the "intellectual base," so to speak...people in highly intellectual professions (professors, doctors, lawyers, etc.), as the party seemed to want to get away from that, especially during the Convention. I think the Dems did a better job of balancing their message to blue collar and white collar, while the Republicans seemed to almost give up on the intellectual crowd in an effort to appeal to other parts of the party. Maybe that was a response to the fact that the Democrats were running an intellectual for President, I'm not sure.

[UGAalum94]

I think a lot of them would be happy to vote for Democrats on other issues. Once the contrast on social issues is gone, there's no reason not to. (I don't think they will seek out obscure third parties who they know won't affect policy, but maybe I'm wrong.)

The only national ban I can imagine is something after fetal viability, and it seems like that would be close to automatic but it hasn't been. But even prohibiting taxpayer funding is something to support if you're morally opposed, and it's something that Democrats don't try to ensure. It's something that could also fit under kind of a get the government out of people's private moral lives umbrella. You choose; you pay. I also think there's a position to be staked out for rights of conscience for health care professionals and institutions which might have white collar appeal.

But in some ways, it seems to me that we're kind of talking about issues dealing with branding more than substance. Image and identification are important, but the real GOP crisis seems to occur in office when there's no real sense of direction about policy or how to actually carry things out.

This may be even more obvious at the state level in Georgia where the geniuses in the general assembly were trying to do away with taxes that pretty much generated revenue at the county level, without any consideration at all for how counties would provide the services dependent on those funds and which the voters were counting on.

There's a fundamental crisis of competency before we even get to how to make the image more appealing.

Fortunately, although that's a ridiculous choice or words, from strictly a party loyalty angle, the Democrats seem to have problems equally as bad or worse right now.