Who's Afraid of Sarah Palin?

by: Syrith

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 13:27

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

McCain strategy: win election by exploiting Democratic primary divisions and crass gender politics

My take: This will fail.  McCain is ignorantly falling for the same conventional wisdom as so many in the media - but his assumptions are false, false, false.  

The CW narrative goes like this: "Obama and Clinton had a nasty primary fight, and lots of white Democratic women ('PUMAs' and their sympathizers) are skittish of Obama as a result.  Even if Clinton's speech this week began to reassure these women, they can still be peeled off, by appealing to McCain's incredible Maverickosity so that they ignore their Democratic Party instincts, and by appealing to their desire to elect a woman to executive federal office, an opportunity they were denied by Obama's defeat of Clinton."  Sounds scary, right?

Too bad my good friend Mr. Actual Polling Results tells me a different story.  

(full analysis, reader poll, and additional McCain strategies and rebuttals below the fold!)

Obama confirms Biden on CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

by: paulhogarth

Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:56

"Barack Has Chosen Joe Biden to Be His Running Mate"

[Fundraising Button]: "Send Him a Welcome Note"

Bayh for Veep--an argument FOR him, believe it or not

by: mtayl

Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 15:54

Of the two, I think Bayh is the superior pick, and here's why:

First, let's address his problems. He is clearly on the wrong side of the Iraq war--he didn't just vote for it, but was very neo-con in his behavior in 2002 and 2003. Though he has moved (with public opinion) to the left, increasingly pushing for more accountability, calling early on for Rumsfeld's departure, and now finally seeming to embrace the Democratic position of withdrawing, carefully, all troops, he's had to do a bit o catching-up.

HUGE problem, right? Obama's defined by his anti-Iraq-war stance, right? Wrong. Obama's defined amongst progressives and Democrats as the anti-war, anti-lobbyist Democrat who will take on some of the establishment forces that have been hurting not just our country but Democrats in particular. While he's shifted right lately, this is who a lot of his still consider him to be.

But I don't think it's how the public at large perceives him. They see him as a charismatic and smart leader who is a Democrat and will hopefully change the economy, plus someone who, generally speaking, has been prescient on calling out Bush's failed foreign policy. In that sense, while Bayh isn't perfect, he starts to fill in some key gaps for Obama, and reinforce other ones.

So getting back to Bayh's Iraq problem, note that:

1) The war is less salient every day this campaign goes on.

2) Obama, not Bayh, is running to be Commander-in-Chief. I actually think having an older, white, more "seasoned" Washington hand on his ticket as EVIDENCE of Obama's superior judgment, someone who would constantly say "I was wrong, the conventional thinking was wrong, this war was wrong," would be a HUGE boon. It's not enough for the "presumptuous" (read: uppity) Obama to talk about how smart he was. Bayh is the perfect white bread messenger for that concept: WE fucked up on Iraq, so let's follow this guy who got it right. It's OK to follow him, because I am too. Look how calm, white, and patriotic I am.

You can't overestimate the cultural validity that Bayh provides, and while these political considerations might seem cynical, they matter. And I think they'll work.

Finally, I think Bayh actually functions to REINFORCE Obama on two key points: youth, and geography. They are both handsome, young, and, in their own ways, charismatic. Bayh is quieter, even bland, but he commands a positive presence nonetheless. You don't need excitement, Obama can provide that. He won't overshadow the nominee like Edwards almost did at the 2004 DNC.

Geographically speaking, Bayh is another Midwestern candidate, reinforcing Obama's heartland appeal (look how strong Obama is compared to Kerry in the Midwest). I think they'd take Indiana by a few points, and Bayh would help solidify Obama's stranglehold on the Great Lakes region, putting Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin out of play for good. He'd also help in rural Ohio.

Finally, as Nate at 538 tried to point out, Bayh (partly because he planned on running for president) has moved further and further to the left in the last few years, and, for where he is, is a decently progressive Democrat. While he definitely has some of that centrist, "post-partisan", DLC in him, so does Obama. They'd reinforce each other, and Bayh has held the line on enough causes (gay marriage amendment, Bush tax cuts, etc.) in such a hostile environment that I think he'd be a decently progressive leader. He's no Max Baucus, people.

Ok, ok, so maybe I'm drinking the Kool Aid. But while I agree with a lot of the criticisms of Bayh that are being made, I think these are some important factrs that work in his favor, and these are worth discussing.

Agree? Disagree? Angry at me for being a DLC plant? (I'm not!) Discuss.

Veepstakes: What about Dean?

by: FearItself

Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:14

instead of "balancing" the ticket to compensate for his flaws by, say, selecting a member of the old, northern, liberal establishment as his running mate, he picked another young, white, DLC southerner who had run a virtually identical campaign four years earlier.

Out-of-the-box way for Obama to get his mojo back: Announce the Veep Now

by: Matt H

Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 18:37

Before you ask me what I'm smoking, let me put forth the reasoning behind it.

First, Obama is in a problematic position because of the results of 3/4. Although he hasn't lost any of his pledged delegate lead over the last week, the losses on Tuesday ended his super delegate momentum and allowed the majority of them some breathing room. The remaining super delegates are much more likely to let this thing play out. And after Mississippi there will be nothing but talk of Pennsylvania, a state which favors Clinton. None of which means Obama won't come out on top in the end but he could certainly use an external shock between now and Pennsylvania to get those super delegates to come over to his side.

Choosing a VP would allow him to take charge and fight back at the same time. It would make the argument that Obama's in the driver seat. It would allow him to have his cake and eat it too by sticking a hardy shiv into Hillary without going negative. It would be a new and unusual political move. It would change the media narrative in the run-up to Pennsylvania.

It would give him an advocate who he gets to use against both HRC and McCain. Maybe that advocate would be a bulldog (Webb); maybe that advocate would have national security expertise to take on the current two-against-one he's getting from McCain and Hillary (Zinni, Webb, Clark); maybe that advocate would be from a battleground state (Kaine or Sebelius); maybe that advocate would be from a big, important state that HRC has won (Brown or Boxer); maybe that advocate would be an advocate for the working class (Brown, Feingold); maybe that advocate would be a female who would greatly help raise his electability against McCain(Sebelius or Boxer). There's obviously a lot of overlap and obviously a lot of pros and cons to be made about the above examples. And there are no doubt a lot of missing names. It's not intended to be comprehensive.

There are any number of ways a good veep pick could positively alter the media CW now. Of course, people would say it's a cocky, premature, insulting thing to do. It's certainly against tradition. Whatever. Unless it's against the rules, I say do it.