Lathander wrote:Rags,
The election is for President, not Vice President. Ever since the voting for Vice President was changed near the beginning of our country, the VP has not been very important. Look at all the wrecks that have been VP. The only one I know of that got tossed was the guy that admitted to getting shock therapy.
Ahh, interesting. That's a tactic I hadn't even considered. Sure, your guy is relatively inexperienced and holds some radical views, but that's ok because the Vice President position
isn't very important. I mean, it's not like the Senate is in danger of needing a tiebreak or anything, right? And the Vice President never weighs in on matters of policy, like energy or national security or immigration. And certainly, the Vice President is a relatively trivial position when you consider that your ticket is also nominating the oldest candidate in history, with a history of health problems.
No, it's cool. Palin isn't a very good pick, but she'll work because the VP job doesn't matter.
Another thing, if you look at Dems, you guys always have the better person at the bottom of the ticket. Look at Dukakis/Bentsen and Carter/Mondale. Even Clinton/Gore was similar; Dems usually have to bolster their street cred with the masses with their VP instead of the liberal fringe.
When the Dems put their featured candidate on the bottom of the ticket, they lose elections. Clinton/Gore was very much about Bill Clinton. Gore was influential on his own and had a lot of political sway during and after his tenure as VP, but the presidency was very much about the guy at the top. This election is similar... we're excited about Obama, and Biden was an excellent choice as VP to help round out some of Obama's deficiencies.
Biden serves to give some weight to Obama in the experience area, plain and simple. Trouble is we don't elect a VP, we elect a President. Hell, if we elected VP's, Lloyd Bentsen would have won; he was very good. Also, Obama's ego didn't let him do what he should've done and bring Clinton on to his ticket. Beside the fact he is the most liberal person in the Senate, his hubris and anti-woman attitude will be his undoing in this race. I still think Obama will win the largest portion of the popular vote, but we could be seeing Obama peaking way too early.
I don't think passing over Clinton had anything to do with Obama's ego. Clinton is a divisive figure within the Democratic party... even now, her supporters are threatening to cast spite votes for McCain because their candidate lost the nomination. And besides, she spent so long during the primary campaign slashing away at Obama that I can't imagine how she could come on board the ticket without essentially admitting that she was full of it. Obama made the right decision. Clinton might be a political powerhouse, but her campaign was ineffective and she made it all but impossible for herself to align with Obama at the end of it.
So McCain needed someone with executive experience, Christian cred, and fit within a reformer/maverick theme. Palin fits all those. She is a governor with alot of energy experience. She has run a small business. She has great credibility with the Christian right. She had a Downs baby when 9 out of 10 of them are aborted because she believes in the beauty of life. Finally, she is a strong woman, and Obama and the Dems just gambled with Hillary's 18 million voters. If McCain/Palin can just pull away 20 to 30% of Hillary's voters, it's game over.
Palin has energy experience, but to say she has "executive experience" is laughable. ESPECIALLY since experience is the central point of the Republican campaign against Obama. I think you really need to take your pick here... is experience important or not? You've got to pick a stance and support it, without trying to invent reasons why experience is a critical factor for our guy and not yours.
You're right, McCain sorely needed someone who could pander to the Christian right more effectively. They're the Republican base, and it was amusing to watch McCain bumble and flip-flop on issues until he finally started striking a chord with some of the more conservative voters. His "maverick" image is all but gone; you can't be a maverick when your party base wants things to remain exactly the way they are. His VP pick is going to have to deal with some touchy subjects before she'll be accepted by the "moral majority" though... that unmarried, pregnant daughter is already raising eyebrows. And of course, *I* don't think such a thing is a very big deal... but then again, I don't base my votes on things like "family values" :)
Just look at the map in the link I posted. McCain just needs to win 2 out of OH, PA, and MI and he's a shoe in. Even if McCain only wins one of those three, he is still very hard to beat. Personally, I think he will win OH and MI. And that is how you win in politics!
Your link is gone. However, I can post this one:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... in/?map=10Michigan is polling 4% in favor of Obama, and Pennsylvania is polling 5% Obama. Ohio is closer, and will probably tip to McCain.
Virginia's going to be an interesting state to watch. We have a Democratic governor and we put a strong Democrat into the Senate in 2006. The wealthy counties around DC are all strongly (60-80% or more) Democratic, while the rural areas in the south and west parts of the state vote Republican (with small pockets of Democratic voters around the major universities). However, VA has gone from an 8 point Bush lead in 2004 to a dead heat in 2008. Virginia is still on the GOP's list of "easy votes," but this might be the year we get a surprise.