Interesting thing that I’ve noticed all day with McCain’s choice of Governor Palin as his running mate.
It SEEMS like the GOP “attack Dog” over the next 3 months will be Conservative Women. (Like Bay Buchanan above).
At least today, Conservative Women have been all over the place defending Palin’s choice.
Smart “strategy”?
Just coincidence?
Thoughts?
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Thoughts?
Mufasa[/quote]
Seem’s to me that conservative women would support this choice as they would agree with Palin on many issues?
So would Conservative Men.
(Maybe they were mostly on the Radio and computer today?)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
So would Conservative Men.
(Maybe they were mostly on the Radio and computer today?)
Mufasa[/quote]
Here’s my amateur breakdown:
Truly conservative men and women were voting for Mccain already if for no other reason than to deny Obama the whitehouse.
Truly liberal men and women wouldn’t vote for Mccain and against Obama probably even if Margaret Sanger were his running mate and a conservative women would be an enhanced minus in their case anyway.
Left leaning Hillary supporters are anybody’s guess. He may pick a few up. Especially those who are pissed at Hillary,s treatment by the party like the P.U.M.A. crowd. He may get some more of them.
Right leaning women who were supporting Hillary primarily because of gender will vote largely for Mccain now.
Some very conservative men and women who were either not voting or voting 3rd party in protest of Mccain’s shaky conservative credentials will probably give him a second look now.
In the end the vice presidential nominees don’t usually have much influence on the outcome. However, this time around may see the heftiest VP influence ever because of the upside down Dem ticket and a very conservative young woman on the GOP ticket so we’ll see.
All of this is as of 11:33pm on August 29th. One million things can change between now and next week nevermind November. 2 weeks is a lifetime in election year politics.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
So would Conservative Men.
(Maybe they were mostly on the Radio and computer today?)
Mufasa
Here’s my amateur breakdown:
Truly conservative men and women were voting for Mccain already if for no other reason than to deny Obama the whitehouse.
Truly liberal men and women wouldn’t vote for Mccain and against Obama probably even if Margaret Sanger were his running mate and a conservative women would be an enhanced minus in their case anyway.
Left leaning Hillary supporters are anybody’s guess. He may pick a few up. Especially those who are pissed at Hillary,s treatment by the party like the P.U.M.A. crowd. He may get some more of them.
Right leaning women who were supporting Hillary primarily because of gender will vote largely for Mccain now.
Some very conservative men and women who were either not voting or voting 3rd party in protest of Mccain’s shaky conservative credentials will probably give him a second look now.
In the end the vice presidential nominees don’t usually have much influence on the outcome. However, this time around may see the heftiest VP influence ever because of the upside down Dem ticket and a very conservative young woman on the GOP ticket so we’ll see.
All of this is as of 11:33pm on August 29th. One million things can change between now and next week nevermind November. 2 weeks is a lifetime in election year politics.
[/quote]
how’s this for a politically incorrect thought:
there’s a lot of women out there who seem to make serious decisions based on emotion and emotion alone … so it’s just barely possible that some otherwise liberal or left of center women who’d normally be predisposed to vote democrat might just vote for McCain simply because of a female VP candidate …
but that’s probably pure wishful thinking on my part …
Well - there hasn’t been a conservative male voice inside the beltway since Gingrich left.
If the men don’t have the balls to speak up and stand for something, let the women do it.
Bay was the “funniest”? (if Bay could ever be perceived as “funny”!) I’ve seen her in years today.
I could swear she was having an on-screen orgasm taking about Palin!
Mufasa
RJ:
You could be right; but it sure was DAMN strange to see all these Conservative Women defending the Palin choice AD NAUSEUM …with very few male commentators/pundits in site.
Mufasa
Michel Martin
Michel Martin brought up a VERY interesting point yesterday.
Men are often in a “lose-lose” situation when debating women (Heck…men certainly know that! But on a serious note, she was talking about social/political debate).
She states that they simply don’t come off well when debating women.
It really showed up yesterday, as just about EVERY male that was “split screened” debating the Palin pick (often with a conservative women) came off with a patronizing “feel”.
Conservative men faired no better with female anchors. One pundit told female anchor Betty Nguyen that he was “surprised” that she questioned the Palin pick…because (sticking foot in his mouth!)…“she was a women”.
She went off.
(Something very similar happened with Campbell Brown).
It was an interesting news day! (I was off work, by the way!)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
RJ:
You could be right; but it sure was DAMN strange to see all these Conservative Women defending the Palin choice AD NAUSEUM …with very few male commentators/pundits in site.
Mufasa[/quote]
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose… to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
Rom 8:28-29
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Well - there hasn’t been a conservative male voice inside the beltway since Gingrich left.
If the men don’t have the balls to speak up and stand for something, let the women do it.
[/quote]
Those were the days huh? Newt, Dick Armey, JC Watts, B-1 Bob Dornin (there’s a president), JD Hayworth, hell even Bob Barr back then. Man those idiots, meaning the entire party, really blew a golden opportunity to get some momentum. They started out OK, but as soon as they got the executive branch they went to sleep. There was 911 after all, which will shake up anybody’s legislative agenda, but they really went over a cliff.
A couple of really stupid beliefs drove this, IMO. Or actually it’s really just one general stupid belief that manifested itself in at least two ways.
First, many Republicans, certainly including Bush, believed that now having both the Congress and the White House, they could keep their own voters and gain Democrat-type voters by funding programs Democrat voters like to extents never before seen. Then these Democrat voters would see that Republicans give them the spending they want, instead of being the mean social-program Scrooges that they always thought Republicans to be, and would switch to voting Republican.
Of course, this was incredibly stupid: Republicans could and did increase spending on given programs by 40% or more, but only to be constantly accused by the in-the-tank-for-the-DNC media of cutting spending on social programs, and just about every Democrat-type voter would remain convinced that the Republicans cut the spending that they want and therefore they still need to vote Democrat.
(Yes, the media and the Democrats really are able to get away with calling large increases “cuts” and they do indeed completely fool most of the public with this.)
Secondly, but same sort of thing, many Republicans including Bush decided that if only they gave amnesty to illegal aliens (though not calling it amnesty) they would win Hispanic voters over to the Republican Party forever.
This was incredibly stupid, not to mention condescending. First, the idea that Hispanic US citizens generally favor laxity for illegal aliens is false, and the idea that those Hispanics that for other reasons choose to vote Democrat would switch to Republican just because amnesty to illegal aliens was granted during a Republican administration was just completely whacked.
And any concept that illegal aliens, on being made legal during a Republican administration, would likely for that reason vote Republican was just beyond stupid.
So these two major planned expansions of their voter base – buying votes with Democrat-style spending, and supposedly winning over the Hispanic vote by granting amnesty – were just total failures.
Which they really should have known they would be.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A couple of really stupid beliefs drove this, IMO. >>>[/quote]
I don’t know if I ever thought of it in terms that black and white, but you’re right.
Part of all this public confusion stems from the sheer volume of legislation streaming through the Hill these days in both quantity and bloat, actually for quite a while.
Obama can say that Mccain voted with Bush 90$ of the time without actually lying, but simply not include the fact that the vast majority of these bills are inconsequential from a big policy standpoint and he and Biden either voted for them too or in Obama’s case voted present half the time.
Also, COMPROMISE is standard procedure. In order to get something you want you have to vote for bills with other stuff you don’t want so they can say “look how he voted on this” when in reality you may not favor that particular article at all, but only voted for it in the larger bill because of the other stuff you did want.
The Clinton campaign hammered Bush with this in 92 and it took him until the last week of the campaign to point it out. The budgets are the worst. They’ll include mountains of spending for bullshit and then if you veto it because of that they pick and choose the parts they know people have a soft spot for and say you vetoed THAT when it was actually the overall budget.
And yes the media will report it thoroughly spun to appear the way the Dems need it to. I used to have a pair of NY Times headlines hung up on my refrigerator when we lived in NY. This was right after the GOP takeover of the house and senate in 94. One read [quote]REPUBLICAN PLAN TO GOUGE MEDICARE[/quote] and the other from a few days later read [quote]DEMOCRAT PLAN TO TRIM MEDICARE[/quote] Both were of course decreases in the increase, but the difference was 2/10 of one percent.
You’d think these political pros would know better.
Oh, I’m sure the NYT knows exactly what it’s doing when it does these things.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Oh, I’m sure the NYT knows exactly what it’s doing when it does these things.[/quote]
I mean, going along with what you were saying, the Republicans should now that regardless of what they do it will be spun negatively and their campaign of appeasement wouldn’t work and would only serve to frustrate their base.
Oops! Afterwards I did figure that that could well have been your meaning. Sorry 'bout that.
Yes, the Republicans should have known.
Two days after the announcement, it still seems like Conservative Women are still “leading the charge”.
( And Bay STILL looks and sounds like she is having an orgasm! But hey! Maybe that’s just Bay!)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Two days after the announcement, it still seems like Conservative Women are still “leading the charge”.
( And Bay STILL looks and sounds like she is having an orgasm! But hey! Maybe that’s just Bay!)
Mufasa[/quote]
As you know by now I’m all for whatever keeps Skippy outta the Whitehouse so I’m hoping for momentum. The thing is though the conservative talking heads are going to report this as a fatal game changer no matter what so hearing them do just that is no surprise.
Also, we have no polling data at all until tomorrow that I know of and even then it will be first impression driven only. Nobody knows her. The non bounce for Obama after Biden was meaningful because everybody has known Biden forever.
I don’t want to come off like I think I’m the final word on any of this, but I have been watching this stuff for a while now and national polls don’t mean nearly as much as state polls, especially from the swing states. What matters is if she can help him pick up some must win states and national polls can’t tell us that. Not to mention were still a couple centuries out from the election in political terms.
Bush-1 had like a high 80s approval rating after the first gulf war and 8 months later lost to Bubba though Ross Perot did have a deciding hand in that. The point is, in February it looked like the Dems would be better off forfeiting the election to avoid embarrassment, even if Perot were in the race and in November won the presidency.
That race showed the power of the media.
As an illustration of the media’s power, every news magazine one could find and every newspaper (and probably TV, but I wasn’t watching TV) was referring to Clinton as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination before the first vote was cast in the first primary and at a time when the nation, generally speaking, had no idea who he was.
It was a case of self-fulfilling prophecy. Persuade the voters that this is the guy that is going to win, that every other candidate is a no-hoper (No pun intended), and then for a whole lot of them, that is the way they are going to vote.
Similarly, I expect the media was worth at least 10 or quite likely 20 points to Clinton in the general election.
Of course, Obama will enjoy this effect also.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
That race showed the power of the media.
As an illustration of the media’s power, every news magazine one could find and every newspaper (and probably TV, but I wasn’t watching TV) was referring to Clinton as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination before the first vote was cast in the first primary and at a time when the nation, generally speaking, had no idea who he was.
It was a case of self-fulfilling prophecy. Persuade the voters that this is the guy that is going to win, that every other candidate is a no-hoper (No pun intended), and then for a whole lot of them, that is the way they are going to vote.
Similarly, I expect the media was worth at least 10 or quite likely 20 points to Clinton in the general election.
Of course, Obama will enjoy this effect also.[/quote]
No doubt about it. How well I remember. The TV and radio news were calling states and the race for Clinton on election day well before it was clear that he would win for just that purpose.
It didn’t help that GHWB looked like he wasn’t sure that he still wanted to be president half the time and didn’t really come to life until the end of the campaign or that Clinton, it must be said, is a master campaigner. Worthless president, but very able campaigner. At least for himself.
I would have preferred it if he stayed in Hope. From Little Rock the major news media created, promoted, campaigned for and coronated him from start to finish.