Palin’s Purge

Interesting anecdote within the great Newsweek inside the campaign series:
McCain’s advisers had been frustrated when Palin refused to talk to donors because she found it corrupting, and they were furious when they heard rumors that Todd Palin was calling around to Alaska bigwigs telling them to hold their powder until 2012. The day of the third debate, Palin refused to go onstage with New Hampshire GOP Sen. John Sununu and Jeb Bradley, a New Hampshire congressman running for the Senate, because they were pro-choice and because Bradley opposed drilling in Alaska. The McCain campaign ordered her onstage at the next campaign stop, but she refused to acknowledge the two Republican candidates standing behind her. McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin (perhaps once a week when they were not traveling together, estimated one adviser). Aides kept him in the dark about Palin’s spending on clothes because they were sure he’d be offended. In his concession speech, McCain praised Palin, but the body language between them onstage was not particularly friendly. (Palin had asked to speak; Schmidt vetoed the request.)

Both Sununu and Bradley lost their races in New Hampshire. Moreover, Palin seems to misunderstand one of the core priorities of presidential elections: building broad coalitions. As explained eslewhere in the article, many New Hampshire Republicans are in fact pro-choice. 

Democrats are not going to interrupt purging efforts like this or the one going on at Redstate. 

I’m a bit surprised that the reaction to losing an election is to shrink your coalition by kicking people out.

Sphere: Related Content

Let The River of Dirt Flow: The Palin Edition

Words do not do this hit job justice:

Yeesh.

Clearly the campaign really soured on her.

Sphere: Related Content

Official Election Day “Until There’s a Winner” Liveblog

And here is the liveblog, if you are having trouble viewing email us (mail)…

Sphere: Related Content

2008 Election Results (President, Senate, House)

Here are live, up-to-the-minute, results for the presidential, Senate and House elections…

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: Sarah Palin Holds Election Day Press Conference

Sarah Palin held a (finally) held a press conference after casting her vote in Alaska. Per usual, she makes as little sense as possible, and the press never fails to as bad a job as possible. So, kudos all around

Sphere: Related Content

Election Day AM Liveblog

8:07: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and even Bill Ayers have all already voted. Why haven’t you? 

8:09: Morning Joe is pretty dull today.

8:11: Voting turnout is uniformly high, it seems, from early indications. A line in Madison was over a block long.

8:14: Bill and Hillary Clinton, celebrity voters.

8:26: Interesting point on MSNBC: If Obama wins, there’ll be no African-Americans in the Senate.

8:35: Joe Scarborough just said that no Republicans in Congress really supported the Iraq war: that if Bush ever vetoed a budget, they would all turn against it. That’s certainly not what Republicans ran on in 2002 and 2004, and even 2006. It was only after that election that Rumsfeld was replaced, despite wide signs that he needed to be removed before hand. I don’t think Scarborough’s analysis holds up. Also, if someone said that about Democrats, that they didn’t support the war but just did it to get their pork passed, the uproar would be huge, justifiably. Do Republicans care more about pork than war? That’s the implication of what Scarborough is saying. Just a really disingenuous argument, in my opinion.

8:49: Problems in Virginia and elsewhere:

According to reports from OurVoteLive, some precincts in Virginia are equipped with fewer voting machines than expected, while many voters are simply reporting that voting machines are “not working.” In Reston, there have been reports of paper ballot scanners malfunctioning. A few voters in Richmond report that the electronic machines in use told the voters their votes for president had been recored when, in fact, the voters had not voted for president yet.

Get that fixed.

9:07: Morning Joe is shocked that Obama is campaigning in Indiana today. But McCain is also campaigning in a couple of states today.

9:11: Harold Ford talks about unkowns being competitive in state races. Does he regret not running against Lamar Alexander?

9:16: Early non-scientific indications are that turnout is officially insane.

9:17: Joe Scarborough thinks all election lawyers are just out to turn a buck. That’s borderline offensive, and I’m pretty shocked no one on set has nothing to say, especially with voting fraud and problems really high on the minds of both parties.

9:26: More on exit polls: Nate Silver here, Mark Blumenthal here. Ignore them. They are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

9:44: In case you were wondering, Obama’s grandmother’s vote will count. Philosophically, I think it’s a good idea to count votes by people who subsequently die. I don’t really want the government to be in the business of deciding who lives long enough to be qualified to vote. Anyone voting today could die later in the day. Hopefully not, though.

9:48: How sad is it that Dan Rather has to be a guest on MSNBC to ask Chuck Schumer a question. Also, the question is stupid, asking if the party will move to the left. The new House and Senate members are uniformly more conservative than the general Democratic caucus that exists. The locus of power will move to the left, but the Democrats will move to the right. This is not particularly controversial or hard to understand, unless you’re a discredited former news anchor, apparently.

10:03: Speechless:

But when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer talks with Candy Crowley from the Obama headquarters in Chicago on Tuesday evening, the correspondent could simultaneously appear in the New York studio—at least as a 3-D hologram. Really.

This is too much. Way, way, way too much.

10:07: Sarah palin is voting from a helicopter.

10:14: John McCain is voting, and the camera crews are going nuts. Will he vote for Obama? THat’d certainly be the maverick move.

10:45 No recent updates because there’s nothing more to update. It seems we’ve reached some sort of equilibrium where any new information will be of less and less use. So I;m going to break for a while, pick up some things, and return here later, in a new post.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (11/02/08)

In this podcast, we discuss projections for election day and reflect on the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain in order to glean insight into how they would serve as president.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: John McCain, Cindy McCain on SNL

AUDIO: Sarah Palin Pranked By Montreal Radio CKOI’s Masked Avengers

On November 1, Marc-Antoine Audette and Sebastian Trudel, also known as the “Masked Avengers”, pranked Gov. Sarah Palin.  They convinced the VP nominee that she was speaking with French President Sarkozy.

It’s pretty funny, have a listen (and no, this is not fake; it’s the real Sarah Palin)…

A spokesperson for Gov. Palin issued the following statement about the call:

“Gov. Palin received a phone call on Saturday from a French Canadian talk show host claiming to be French President Nicholas Sarkozy. Gov. Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy, and other celebrities in being targeted by these pranksters. C’est la vie.”

Sphere: Related Content

Inside Sarah Palin’s Mind

Do you want to know how Sarah Palin thinks on her feet? Then read how she read her speech as opposed to how it was written. It sounds a bit awkward as I write it, but click through and read the first paragraph. it’s riveting.

Sphere: Related Content

2012 Watch: Who Is In The Mix For a (Possible) 2012 GOP Nomination?

Over at Donklephant, Justin lists three candidates for the 2012 GOP nomination should McCain lose as expected, after looking at the Newsweek poll: Palin, Romney, and Huckabee. I have a single, major problem with his analysis: It’s too early to narrow it down to frontrunners. The Newsweek poll numbers are useful, but solely for the purpose of seeing how deep Palin is loved among Republicans. It shows she has a lot of ground to make up.

So, for a more thorough listing, here’s some other contenders for whom there is credible evidence of interest in a run:

Bobby Jindal (La. Gov)

Haley Barbour (Miss. Gov.)

Tim Pawlenty (Minn. Gov.)

Newt Gingrich (Former Speaker of the House)

And the longer shots:

John Sununu

Richard Burr (N.C. Sen.)

Jon Huntsman (Utah Gov.)

Jim DeMint (S.C. Sen.)

Jeff Sessions (Ala. Sen.)

David Petraeus (General, Centcom)

And the wildcard:

Jeb Bush (Former Gov., Florida)

Frankly, we don’t know which way the party will go, which will be a significant factor in who gets nominated. Obama was not at the top of many lists.

It’s far too early to guess anything but who is in the mix. The next two years will be spent building support networks, gathering donors, and getting a base of support. Palin and Huckabee in particular have no extended donor base of their own. Huckabee is starting with his Huck Pac, but clearly has a ways to go. Palin needs to get a group of trusted advisors and build a nationwide support network - and I doubt that McCain will be much help in that. Moreover, she’ll have to do that while governing a state far removed from the traditional areas of either financial or logistical support. Early primaries are biased towards the Midwest and east.

Can she do it? Sure. After Obama’s quick rise, it’s prudent to never say never. But it’s not going to be easy, and the tone of the campaign - being based on Nobama instead of about any idea in particular - makes her chore more difficult. The Democrats were all about Bush in 2004, but Obama’s convention speech was still about a postiive idea. Can Palin find a rationale to put her at the top? Or will she try to get the nomination based on the old Republican notion of being next in line?

That said, it’s too early. This election still needs to be had. At this point it’s more interesting to see who would be in the mix.

Sphere: Related Content

October Surprise! Stevens Is Guilty

Ted Stevens, guilty of corruption. This, of course, shifts the advantage back to him in the coot off. Robert Byrd, the ball is in your court.

And it also makes this video all the more embarrassing:

Sphere: Related Content

The Final Countdown: 8 Days Until Election Day

With 8 days left until election day, here’s a quick roundup of what’s going on…

• Obama will campaign in Canton, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania today.  Biden will campaign in Greeneville, North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina and New Port Richey, Florida today.

• McCain will campaign in Dayton, Ohio and Pottsville, Pennsylvania today.  Palin will campaign in Leesburg, Fredericksburg and Salem, Virginia today.

• Desperation continues to spread in conservative circles.  Rove recognizes the bleak situation McCain is in, but doesn’t really have any good ideas on how he could bounce back.  Hewitt’s blog has a sad post that tries to flip all the election coverage for real: “If MSM Isn’t Trustworthy, Why Are Conservatives Trusting The MSM 8 Days Out?” Because failing to recognize reality is the best way to win this election, right?  Kristol offers some advice for McCain, but not before invoking Foch.  Foch!

• Josh Lyman says that it is your “duty to get Obama elected”.  Oh celebrity endorsements.

• As the election draws near, there is a deafening silence in the liberal blogosphere on Obama’s plans for Afghanistan.  Has that ship already sailed?  Does everyone just blindly accept the need to substantially increase troops there?

• Palin and The View co-host Elizabeth Hasselback sit down with Sean Hannity for an interview scheduled to air tonight.  Hasselback? Really?  Why does the campaign insist on Palin doing this awkward joint interviews?

• Bloomberg’s Al Hunt scolds both candidates for sugar coating reality a bit.

• If Obama wins, is there a role for Axelrod in the administration?  Ben Smith explores this.

• Morning Show summary here.

Sphere: Related Content

Defenestration Powerline Blog: Hinderaker Needs A History Lesson On His Own Blogging And Campaigns

John Hinderaker over at Powerline blog apparently has little conception of history - both United States electoral history and his own as a blogger.

Today, he lambastes Sullivan and other Palin critics as sexist in a post titled “Barbarians at the Gates — of the White House.”  He begins:

I don’t think there is any precedent in our history for the shameful manner in which the Left has treated Sarah Palin.

Oh, yes there is silly man.  Putting aside recent elections for a moment, campaigns in the distant past were incredibly vicious with far more abusive charges being thrown around by supporters and journalists.  But, I don’t really have the patience to detail history that Mr. Hinderaker clearly has no desire to learn.  Perhaps he would be more interested in some of his own historical contributions to the precedent of treating female candidates in a “shameful manner?”

In a post written by a different Powerline blogger mocking Pelosi’s book, Know Your Power: A Message To America’s Daughters, Mr. Hinderaker chimed in by comparing the ‘girl power’ theme of Pelosi’s book to the Spice Girls, and asks which spice girl Pelosi would be.  Here’s a different Powerline post, again not written by Mr. Hinderaker, criticizing Pelosi’s family/career management.

How about Mr. Hinderaker opining on previous female presidential candidates?  I’m sure his criticisms were limited to policy/substantive disagreements, I mean they must have been, otherwise, how could his sensibilities be so affected by all the recent anti-Palin hullabaloo?  Speaking about Carole Mosereley-Braun back in 2003, Hinderaker wrote:

I suppose it hardly needs be said that if Ms. Moseley-Braun were a one-term Senator of the white male persuasion, defeated in his re-election bid and unheard from since, it would not occur to anyone to suggest him as Presidential material. Think Larry Pressler. Only I think he served two terms. In fact, the only reason why Ms. Moseley-Braun is taken even remotely seriously by anyone is that she is a black woman. Will the day ever come when we can put this hypocrisy behind us?

Oh, so many levels of wrongness.  The absurdity behind his call to put hypocrisy behind us is axiomatic and reinforced by the whiny, historically inaccurate post that is the subject matter of this defenestration.  But, serving in the U.S. Senate for 6 years doesn’t qualify someone as serious presidential material, unless they’re a black woman; however, serving as the Governor of Alaska for 2 years does qualify someone as serious, regardless of their gender?  By Hinderaker’s own standard, it seems that Palin is deserving of 3x as much mockery than Braun because she has held a high office for 1/3 the time that Braun has.

Hinderaker missed one of the Democratic primary debates back in 2003, but coincidentally enough, he was more than happy to re-post Andrew Sullivan’s thoughts on Mosely-Braun’s performance:

Moseley-Braun is a complete embarrassment. She has nothing to say except “I’m a black woman.” She is, of course, an insult to black women, most of whom do not respond to life’s problems by reiterating ancient boilerplate about helping kids and moving forward.

I bet Mosely-Braun would be relieved to know that the harsh criticism she received from the likes of Hinderaker didn’t actually take place, because, all of the criticism Palin has received is totally unprecedented.

I could continue offering examples of ridiculous criticisms espoused by Hinderaker and others at Powerline blog, but I think I’ve demonstrated my point on both accounts.  Hinderaker not only ignores election history (or just doesn’t know it), but he also ignores his own.  Back to his post…

He sharply criticizes Andrew Sullivan’s recent “Red, White and MILF” post and then adds:

I can remember when Sullivan was a respected journalist, not a gutter smear merchant and borderline pornographer. His descent exemplifies the Left’s decline in recent years to a baboon-like level of discourse. The vileness of much of what passes for political “argument” on the Left has to be seen to be believed. The worst impulses of human nature have been not just unleashed, but rewarded. If you haven’t looked at web sites like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish, you have no idea what the phrase “gutter politics” really means.

Nowhere has the vileness of the Left been more sickening than in its treatment of Governor Palin.

Now, let me be clear.  I think some of the criticisms levied at Gov. Palin are completely ridiculous and have sexist motivations behind them.  Not the majority, but some.  No need to go into detail here, since it isn’t relevant for this post, also, I don’t think it is a particularly big factor in her political treatment.  Nevertheless, I agree that Sullivan peddling videos that mix sexual overtones and Palin are completely absurd.  I abhor that kind of stuff, regardless of which candidate is on the receiving end.  I also applaud anyone, including Hinderaker for being sensitive to sexism and being willing to point it out when he sees it.

That said, the inferences and conclusions that Hinderaker draws from Sullivan’s post are result of logical leaps the distance of the Bering Strait.  To an extent, I agree that left-leaning sites on the blogosphere can get pretty nasty at times, but in fairness to them and as exemplified by Hinderaker’s own past absurd criticisms: how long can they be expected to stand idle while baboons toss feces at them, before they climb into the cage and get baboon-like in retaliation?

Again, I agree that the standard for what passes as political argument these days can be depressing and mind numbingly low at times (for a great example of vile in the political area, take a look at this email penned by Hinderaker).  But, Hinderacker and the other folks at Powerline are complicit in the peddling of this Novocaine.  If he at least acknowledged his own past writings that are similar in kind to the ones that he is lambasting, I would not be defenestrating Hinderaker right now, but praising his self awareness.  He didn’t.  So the verdict?  Defenestration.

(Given Mr. Hinderacker’s evidenced lack of historical knowledge, here’s some background on the inspiriation for our defenesetration of blog’s section, so he’ll know what we are talking about)

Sphere: Related Content

Homogenizing The Electorate: Look At The Data, Not an Imaginary Story

 

Data is the lifeblood of not only analysis, but also of conscience. The more information you have, the better informed your opinion can be, presumably. For Jennifer Donohue of the Huffington Post, facts should be disregarded in lieu of a good story, which most often insults anyone who thinks rationally about issues.

Jennifer Donahue supported Sen. Clinton in the primaries, and seems to be upset that she did not win. That’s obviously a fair opinion to have - I have close relatives who feel the same way. But she seems intent of yelling about it at odd junctures. For instance, she wrote the following one month ago,

Young voters, 18-29 years old, are registering at a higher rate than any other age group. They gave Obama the nomination, despite consistent national polling that showed Senator Clinton ahead from the start.

Now the same polling shows a dead heat, after a month of showing McCain ahead. The only way to understand current polling data is to discard it.

Young voters surely helped Obama, but Clinton did not hold leads throughout the process: the Gallup tracking poll was very much split. In the end, the accepted opinion from even inside the campaign is that the failure to contest caucus states cost Obama.

But it’s not just that. The article is about cell phone voters. There’s been some very good stuff done by Pollster and Nate Silver on cell phone voters. But 500 words about how the youth will all send a protest vote on the economy is both useless and pointless, and it seems gratuitous to drag Clinton’s defeat as a jumping off point.

Finally and most importantly, her conclusion is absurd. Disregarding poll numbers is a trap. They should not be disregarded, they should be adjusted, or considered within the margin of error. Polls are not an all or nothing affair - either being accurate or being useless. Quite the opposite. Each poll has a use, but factors including the sample size, question wording, target audience, etc. must be considered. Again, I point to Pollster and Silver, and a number of others. (Tom Jensen’s PPP blog is very informative.)

She continued the trend of marginalizing the data today:

There is still a gender split in New Hampshire. Husbands are shaking their heads, annoyed by what they feel is the hijacking of McCain’s message by the far right. But sleeping next to them are their wives, who shout Sarah and “drill, baby, drill” at the same rallies they drag their husbands to.

These women are not Democrats. They are Republicans and “Undeclared” voters. Four out of five Democrats in New Hampshire have lined up behind Obama, regardless of gender. If McCain were to win New Hampshire, much of the credit would have to go to Palin for energizing Republicans and independent voters.

She’s apparently a big fan of identity politics, which I loathe on face. Moreover, the data just isn’t there to support her strange assertions.

From the UNH poll today, which Jonathan Martin calls the best around. Here are some statistics, aside from the topline numbers showing Obama up 54-39.

Favorability ratings:

Candidate	Favorable	Unfavorable
Barack Obama	61%	29%
Joe Biden	54%	27%
John McCain	48%	42%
Sarah Palin	39%	48%

The poll also broke it down a bit demographically (download the report from the page linked above):

6. Obama and Biden get their highest favorability ratings from Democrats, young voters, those with higher levels of education and proponents of legal abortion.
7. McCain and Palin get their highest favorability ratings from Republicans, older voters, religious voters, and abortion opponents.

To hear Donahue tell it, everyone pails in comparison to the popular Palin. In reality, she’s consistently the candidate with the worst favorability ratings. All that is true is that she has excited the base. That has uses - more excitement will have more turnout. And it would be really useful in a 2004 type election that was only about the base. But that’s not this year. Women are smarter than to just side with Palin because of “drill, baby, drill.” In fact, I’m offended a bit at how Donahue portrays these women voters, who are apparently smarter than she thinks they are.

Specially regarding Obama’s favorability - since Donahue makes it the crux of her argument, here’s some breakdowns:

Demographic	Favorable	Unfavorable
Men	58%	32%
Women	64%	26%
Republicans	22%	59%
Democrats	91%	6%
Independents	65%	22%

Donahue says Palin is the powerhouse in the state. Her numbers:

Demographic	Favorable	Unfavorable
Men	44%	45%
Women	35%	51%
Republicans	77%	13%
Democrats	11%	77%
Independents	36%	43%

Barack Obama is more popular than Sarah Palin by far. Moreover, the lynchpin of her argument is that women are flattered by Palin but men are not. That is also incorrect - she’s consistently more unpopular among women than men is virtually every poll I have looked at.

What Jennifer Donahue does is not journalism. It’s homogenizing the electorate into one story that may or may not be true (in this case, it’s most certainly not true) for the sole purpose of telling a story to fit her agenda. The agenda in this case seems to be questions Obama’s appeal among independents or to promote implicitly the conception of identity politics. Unfortunately for Ms. Donahue, women in real life have not been drawn to candidates solely by identity politics, because they valued principles more. Now, when principles and idealism overlap, THEN you see the results of identity politics (I’m sure GOP women will turn out at a high rate this year, just like the African American vote).

But identity politics is not a component to swing voters. It’s a sweetner at the end.

Frankly, when I think of the GOP base, I don’t think of New Hampshire. It has gone to the GOP when the GOP seems more moderate. When it’s a base election (as in 2004) recently, it succumbs to it’s demographics and tends to be more Democrat. Point being, there’s very man reasons to think John McCain could compete there, under different circumstances. There’s very few reasons to think Sarah Palin in an asset in the state.

Why did she speak to bigger crowds? Because she appeals to the GOP base that was even to the right of McCain in the primary. That’s the reason. But you can’t get a long form essay out of that, so instead we get this hypothetical story about women being turned on like Rich Lowry by Palin. Shameless.

Sphere: Related Content

McCain’s Terrible Strategy, Part 894

Al Giordano makes a great point:

The irony of the week is that with their recent divisive statements about “pro-American parts of the country” and “anti-American parts of the country,” about “real Virginia” and “fake Virginia,” and an assist from that whack-job Congresswoman in Minnesota who wants an investigation of what she calles “anti-American” members of Congress, Obama’s rivals have served up the perfect introduction to the return of his 2004 convention speech, making it seem new and fresh all over again.

The way you beat Obama is the way you beat any politician the public likes but has doubts about: you adopt his message and then add some value to it. By the end of the primaries, Clinton had done this (change + a fighter). This is also what Kerry did in 2004 to beat Dean (Dean is all about standing up for values but Kerry did the same in the trenches).

McCain actually has the history to out-Obama Obama. But starting with his choice of running mate, he’s run completely away from that, and more towards turning out the base. It’s not going to work, and in essence gives Obama the dream closing stump he wanted, without making it seem forced. All for what? To pander to a few thousand voters?

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: Chuck Todd Speculates on Rift Between McCain and Palin

Sphere: Related Content

Will Clothes Cost Palin a Tax Cut?

Via Ben Smith, it is reported that Sarah Palin’s wardrobe expenses count as income under the federal tax code. As someone currently taking Tax I, this seems pretty obvious.

Her Alaska salary is reportedly $81,648. Add in the $150,000 of clothes, and her income for the year would be $231,648. 

Taking that over to Obama’s tax calculator and … she will probably not get a tax cut anymore; she would without the clothes, though. (I’ll not that I have no idea what Todd Palin made in the past year, and do not particularly have an inclination to find out.) She would have lower taxes under Obama’s plan just using her income as Governor. (Again, sans anything from Todd.)

Incidentally, I think this account of the need for the wardrobe is fair. But I’d still argue that these constitute income.

Postscript: John McCain opposed these types of purchases when he was a lowly Senator.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »