| The CW narrative is wrong about something very fundamental: polling is NOT showing Obama underperforming among "white Democratic women" - it has shown him underperforming among white Democrats - all white Democrats. Incidentally, it looks like there's a big bounce building among this group, likely thanks to the 1-2-3 punch of selecting Biden as VP, Clinton's great speech, and Obama's great speech that followed (see here for some numbers). But even if the bounce could be reversed, the fact that this group includes all white Democrats, not just women, suggests a rather fundamental insight.
Instead of a narrative in which white women are angry that Hilary lost, and are angry on the basis of gender/identity politics... we get a narrative in which white Democrats are angry that Hilary lost, and are angry just because they liked her better.
As an aside, this indicates that Hilary Clinton's speech was even more brilliant than I realized: by asking the eloquent and pivotal question, "Were you in it for me? Or were you in it for them [all the people who need help]?" she forced these wavering Democrats to confront that yes, in fact, they were "in it for her" at least a little bit... and that maybe that sort of identity- and cult of personality-based political decision-making wasn't the best way to go after all.
But what are the implications of this truer narrative (in which white Democrats were voting for Hilary because she's Hilary, not because she's a woman), on McCain's pick of Sarah Palin specifically? It means his strategy won't work, because it's based on the idea that these disaffected women will now vote for him because of his historic female Veep. Putting aside the fact that few people really vote for a Veep (only against one) anyway, it's apparent to me that since Clinton's voters were not primarily voting for her on gender grounds, they won't suddenly up and vote for McCain on those grounds either. Case closed. The only way he could make inroads on these people would be to pick a Democrat, not a woman!
But it gets better still. There's huge, and I mean HUGE, potential for a backlash narrative to emerge here (ideally, shortly after the RNC, when the media will have digested the Palin puff-pieces... hmm, Palin puffs - sounds like a delicious snack).
This is a classic and damning gender narrative: a young, more conventionally attractive, underqualified woman is picked to "replace" or "stand in for" an older, more qualified one. In this story, Palin is the trophy wife on McCain's arm (she'd be his second trophy, actually), while Clinton is the martyred and noble older woman. Or, for a non-marital metaphor, Palin would be the young blue-collar employee that keeps her mouth shut and stays in the boss's good graces, while Clinton is Lilly Ledbetter. I freaking love the potential here. Let's make them both pay for this one.
Net Impact: Neutral, or hurts McCain if the Democrats have any guts.
McCain strategy: rebrand the Republican Party, focus on youth and outsider status
This will fail. In a similar vein to the gender-pandering, this rebranding will be perceived by most as a purely political ploy, and will not hold that much weight in the election. People don't vote for the VP anyway - they vote for the president (though they may vote against a bad VP choice).
There will be a short boost of "maverick drooling" (or, instead of "Malkovich Malkovich?", you get "Maverick? MaverickMaverickMaverick!") from the media... but it won't last much beyond the convention. McCain doesn't even get separate or reinforcing bounces out of the VP and the convention, with the happening so close together (this happened to Obama too), and of course, Hurricane Gustav is going to muddle everything up even more.
Better still, this ties McC's hands on one of his favorite attacks - that Obama is inexperienced and not ready to lead. There's so much new counter-ad fodder here it's unbelievable (Cute Narrator: "If someone with 16 years of state House experience and 4 years in the Senate for one of the largest states in the Union isn't ready to lead, how can someone with only a couple years running a city of 5,000 people and a state with a few hundred thousand?").
Net Impact: Hurts McCain.
McCain strategy: emphasize reform as a kind of "change"
This will fail.
Number 1: McCain can't out-reform Reformer Obama. It will look like he's adopting Obama's ideas (what Dems do with DLC triangulation) - and will look like he has none of his own (news flash...).
Number 2: McCain will open himself up to a revival discussion of all the ways in which he IS corrupt - see Exhibit A, the Keating Five embalmed and on display.
Number 3: Sarah Palin may not be "clean" herself. It looks like she got her sister's ex-husband fired from his state patrolman job out of vengeance. That's gonna look great on national Democratic ad buys.
Net Impact: Neutral or hurts McCain.
McCain strategy: secure Alaska
This ought to work. But as far as I'm concerned, it's the main thing he gets out of this pick - not very impressive. Possibly, there might also now be coat-tails for down-ticket Republicans - Ted Stevens (Senator Tubes? I don't think so) and Don Young/Chris Parnell (maybe, I hope not because I want that House seat! if it's Young, then definitely not, because she tried to sink him by supporting Parnell). And seriously - McCain has to secure ALASKA? Ouch.
Net Impact: Helps McCain.
So move along everybody, there's nothing to see here - just another snapshot of the continuing implosion of a cynical party of plutocrats and zealots that haven't gotten the memo, about just how soundly they are going to lose this election come November. |
