In the absence of some sort of scandal about to come crashing down on her head, I simply don’t know what to make of Gov. Palin’s resignation. I can buy the argument-just-that if she is going to be campaigning intensively for national office, it’s in many ways a more honest thing to step down than to neglect the duties for which she is currently being paid by Alaska’s taxpayers. That makes her value-for-money, not a quitter.
However, if the reason she is resigning now is indeed a run in 2012, it looks wildly premature. Her base is already in the bag; she now needs to convince the skeptics that she could be an effective president – and the best way to do that would have been to make a good job of running Alaska, to shed the flakiness, and, dare I say it, to read up on a few things. She’s an intelligent person, and she’s an individual who has been treated to a degree of media vilification that goes well beyond any reasonable norm, but she has yet to demonstrate that she has what it takes for the White House. Doing the rounds of the rubber chicken echo chamber (there are no metaphors that I will not mix…) to the hosannas of the faithful is not the way to go.
As for whether yesterday’s news represents just the latest stage in a wider ‘crack-up’ of the religious right, Heather, I doubt it: Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin. Sure, she appears to be a somewhat religious woman, but, unlike, say, Mike Huckabee, I never detected a great deal of evidence that she had much interest in imposing those specific views (or their derivatives) on the population as a whole.
Finally, we should not be afraid of candidates with the populist touch. In the end, it’s what a candidate says that should count, not how he or she says it. If it takes a bit of aw shucks to defeat Obama-a clever populist in his own right-in 2012, so be it.
. she isn’t that popular and her occupation of mindspace is equivalent to britney spears outside of her base.
This very well might be the case, however, this phenomenon produced spectacular results for Obama and even a spot-on ad that linked his vacuous celebrity to that of Paris and Britney didn’t diminish his popularity. If we’ve really entered into a celebrity driven political culture, where lack of record gives a candidate advantage compared to being hung by their record, then Palin’s celebrity works to her advantage. Right?
this is why i like analyzing data…. :-)L
I’m with you on this point. I wish more quant bloggers could get gigs as mainstream pundits, because I’m sorely tired of pundits spouting conventional wisdom. I like original thought backed by evidence, not the insider opinions based on whim, bias or style. Further, the definitive declarations I keep reading are making me cross-eyed. No one knows shit and the only test of predictions are real world results.
your general point is probably valid. but britney spears can be broken down into two eras: “virgin” britney, and “post-federline” britney, which have different valences. all politicians are a mix of these depending on who you’re talking to, but the independents are the ones who matter since they’re the swings. when i meant palin occupies mindspace like britney spears i meant post-federline britney. eg:
Favorable / Unfavorable
Sarah Palin: 46 / 45
Do you think that Sarah Palin is fit to be President?
37% Yes, 55% No
Did Sarah Palin’s announcement that she will resign part way through her term as Governor of Alaska make you more or less likely to support her in a possible future campaign for President?
30% More likely, 57% Less likely
eg
If Sarah Palin were to run for president in 2012, how likely would you be to vote for her?
43% Very/Somewhat likely
54% Not too/Not at all likely
Does Governor Palin’s decision to resign make you feel more favorably toward her, less favorably toward her, or does it not affect your opinion either way?
9% More favorably
70% No effect
17% Less favorably
News coverage of Palin has been:
9% Unfairly positive
28% About right
53% Unfairly negative
and here’s her trend last fall.
perhaps you’re right. but i sure don’t see her being some awesome political force with these data. she has the name recognition of an incumbent, and so usually it is hard to get people to change their negative impressions because people aren’t that interesting in politics. the part of sarah palin’s life that people are into as compelling is the tabloidish junk.
she does benefit by comparison with the other options. but it’s a long way out ’till 2012. i suspect the field is going to get thick.
I’ve never seen a Palin-like phenomenon before- a failed VP who only months after the election is occupying so much mindspace and is considered by many the de facto challenger to the President.
andrew jackson after his 1824 “loss” is how you are describing above (though in the details his situation was different). i don’t think she’s an andrew jackson obviously.
come to think of it, there are actually some good analogies in the era before 1848 to what you are describing above. i think there are big differences in the system though. i don’t think the analogies are useful since no one really knows the history (e.g., “the american system” is unknown to the public).
she does have the base tied up.
but i sure don’t see her being some awesome political force with these data.
What does that data tell us? It tells us what is going on right now, so if someone is making a prediction based on this data and that prediction is for an election next week or next month, then I’ll give more credence to that prediction than I would to a prediction for an event that is a year or two or three or more in the future. There’s a difference between saying that Palin can’t be elected President today and saying that Palin is done in politics, and most of the commentary I’m reading is making very definitive declarations about far future events based on current data. I’ve got no quarrel with the first type of prediction but I see a lot of predictions taking the form of the second type. Example – Bill Clinton was not popular at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, but saying that he would never be popular again because of the scandal is an unsupportable position.
she has the name recognition of an incumbent, and so usually it is hard to get people to change their negative impressions because people aren’t that interesting in politics.
But clearly people are interested in celebrity. Obama is constantly on the cover of magazines, far more than past presidents who were merely ordinary, rather than god-like creatures. Palin’s status today puts her in the same league as Obama. What the deal will be in 3 years, none of us have a clue. My gut tells me that Palin’s favorables-spread will increase, because lack of policy news will be good news, and that Obama will transition into net negative unfavorable, because he’ll be held accountable for his policies. Secondly, I can’t see how the media can keep up the blowjob relationship they have with Obama for the next 3 years when much of the public is already noticing and objecting.
Let me respond in kind to the data driven analysis. The public perceptions on the type of coverage that Palin is getting is shifting:
she does have the base tied up.
If that’s the case, then as you noted in an earlier comment, she’s assured of ~ 45% of the vote and needs to work on wooing the independents. One advantage she does have is that she made some predictions about Obama’s policies if he took office. If those policies turn out to be unpopular then it’s hard to say that Palin was stupid and wrong for accurately predicting Obama’s future course of action. Being right about an unleashed Obama gives her a tool that can be used to pry some disaffected independents away from Obama.
Example – Bill Clinton was not popular at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, but saying that he would never be popular again because of the scandal is an unsupportable position.
hm. are you sure about this re: clinton’s popularity.
he new poll finds 53% describing the news media’s coverage of Palin as “unfairly negative,” while just 9% say it has been “unfairly positive” and 28% say it has been “about right.”
i think that’s true. it’s obviously unfairly negative. the same poll shows that people don’t have a high opinion of her two. those data were the link i provided, i don’t think they’re dispositive at all in terms of what i’m saying. just because people don’t have high opinions of someone doesn’t mean they want that person destroyed (most people aren’t evil).
If that’s the case, then as you noted in an earlier comment, she’s assured of ~ 45% of the vote and needs to work on wooing the independents.
any republican has 45% of the vote tied up. at least. the main variables in which party wins the in 2012 are exogenous.
re: clinton, yeah, you’re wrong. well, perhaps you have different standards re: popularity. he was never popular with republicans, but that’s different from the general public (kind of a point i’m trying to make here….)
There’s a difference between saying that Palin can’t be elected President today and saying that Palin is done in politics, and most of the commentary I’m reading is making very definitive declarations about far future events based on current data. I’ve got no quarrel with the first type of prediction but I see a lot of predictions taking the form of the second type.
i’m not making any of those sorts of grand claims, so there’s really no point is arguing about that with me. most political commentary is entertainment with minimal (or negative) value-add. i used to watch the “mclaughlin group” in elementary school so i got a good sense of that.
hm. are you sure about this re: clinton’s popularity.
I think that Clinton’s low point in popularity occurred at some point after the Lewinsky affair broke and then started to recover. Today, as an ex-President, I’m under the impression that his popularity is higher than it was at any point during the scandal and during the impeachment process. If you have contrary data then I’ll withdraw this example.
any republican has 45% of the vote tied up. at least. the main variables in which party wins the in 2012 are exogenous.
No disagreement here. I’ll just add that the 45% floor of vote might remain stable regardless of candidate but the army of volunteers, and their enthusiasm, are factors that are dependent on the specific candidates, and that these “assets” are likely to translate into votes. When Obama had people from Australia, the UK, and Canada coming to the US in order to knock on doors for his campaign, those efforts had to yield some type of marginal gain. Compare to the phoned-in efforts that characterized many of the McCain volunteers. As I noted above, Palin, today, commands a depth of support that other primary contenders can’t match. Here again, her Palinistas are more appropriately matched against Obamaniacs. Romneybots don’t seem to have that same fevered intensity. I simply don’t see how having die-hard believers acting for Palin harms her in any respect.
I think that Clinton’s low point in popularity occurred at some point after the Lewinsky affair broke and then started to recover.
you’re wrong. look at the data at the link please. i knew anyway before i looked at the data that his low point was in the fall of ’94, i was just curious of the lewinksy affair showed a correction in the second term. i used to be into politics. but even the summer of ’98 didn’t show much of a dip from the link provided. from what i recall the public supported clinton and felt he was being persecuted. the polling seems to support my recollection.
my assumption is that like al gore palin has a low ceiling because of the negatives. personal negatives are hard to get rid of once accrued. some poll numbers are due to the economy or current political circumstances, but others are baked into the cake in terms of candidate perception. you could make the case that palin being forced into the “attack dog” role last fall increased her negatives, but how they got there might matter less than the fact that they did get there.
of course you think that the negatives can be reversed. you’re welcome to your opinion. but it isn’t insane to think that they can’t be.
re: clinton, yeah, you’re wrong.
You’re right. Clinton’s highwater mark for popularity was achieved on the very day that he was formally impeached. After the consequences of the process set in his popularity dropped to 58% and then slowly climbed back to 66%.
Hey, this should be good news for Governor Sanford.
Hey, this should be good news for Governor Sanford.
different target audience. i think it is likely that a democrat is going to be more damaged if they get caught being involved in a shady business deal which results in environmental damage than a sexual peccadillo. also, the perception was that clinton was an adulterer from the beginning. sanford damaged his brand. though from what i can tell john ensign’s behavior was much more creepy….
I was trying to make a joke about Clinton’s popularity high water mark occurring on the very day of his impeachment. I don’t think that Sanford can salvage his reputation in the near term.
you’re welcome to your opinion. but it isn’t insane to think that they can’t be.
I hope that my argument hasn’t been coming across that way and I’m trying to avoid making definitive predictions in Palin’s favor.
and so usually it is hard to get people to change their negative impressions because people aren’t that interesting in politics.
Here’s one data point from a non-traditional form of polling ( I make no comment on the reliability or validity of the data):
Update on the Palin memoir: I was correct when I said elsewhere that two versionsn of it would be published. The first, in which she recounts her life and discusses Alaska (no mention of any discussion of policy) will be published next spring by HarperCollins. The second version, released simultaneously with the first, will be the memoir with additional (unspecified) Christian material. It will be published by Zondervan, the Bible-publishing arm of HarperCollins.
because I’m sorely tired of pundits spouting conventional wisdom. I like original thought backed by evidence, not the insider opinions based on whim, bias or style. Further, the definitive declarations I keep reading are making me cross-eyed. No one knows shit and the only test of predictions are real world results.
Right on TangoMan! I’ve enjoyed this exchange.
Why does the Time Magazine cover have a picture of Palin with Obama’s secret service code name superimposed on top? Are they being witty?
Tango, I know you’re being tongue-in-cheek, but trust me, some of her weirder acolytes will build up some kind of humongous conspiracy theory about this.
In any case, I think she’d probably be pleased about being called a renegade.
During the Clinton administration, Time had a photo of Hillary on the cover. It was positioned so that, to some people with overheated imaginations, the “M” in time looked like a pair of devil horns. I can’t be the only person who remembers this, nor the fuss about it.
It is amazing to me that people can coolly discuss Palin’s political future while completely bracketing the main issue: she speaks and reasons like a teenager. http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1013hm.html
Palin’s resignation speech was just one non sequitur after another, leaving aside its nauseating attempt at moral righteousness. Our reason and capacity for language are our most precious attributes; I don’t understand the indifference to whether our political leaders have the capacity to express ideas clearly, at the very least because such capacity is some measure of one’s clarity of thought.
HM, something I’ve noticed about Palin’s most fervid supporters is that they claim to understand perfectly every word she’s saying. (Apparently I’m not that smart, because I don’t.) The fact that she’s not particularly articulate is part of her appeal for them. So is the rube persona. And so are the illogic and the moral righteousness. Her supporters not only identify with her; they’ve actually merged identities with her. “I am Sarah Palin” is one of their mantras. I’ve never seen anything like this. They’ve created a goddess in their own image and worship her.
It is amazing to me that people can coolly discuss Palin’s political future while completely bracketing the main issue: she speaks and reasons like a teenager.
Be that as it may, you seem to be employing the perfect is the enemy of the good strategy. The polar opposite of Palin is now sitting in the White House, a smooth talking chap who makes many women weak in the knees, and who articulates, all the wrong values, layered deep underneath majestic, scripted prose. Obama’s rhethoric soars to the sky as he promises Transparent Government and then, later, with his Rhetoric-Fu he distracts his critics as he reneges on his pledge. Meanwhile, the teenager from Alaska, states simply that she believes in Transparent Government and then she implements Alaska Checkbook Online.
I don’t believe that slick talking is a necessary condition for higher office. As has been pointed out, Biden has that talent and he certainly sounds intelligent and informed to non-experts in the subject he’s pontificating about, but when you strip down his statements you see that the guy is bullshitting completely.
When a choice between style and substance is required, I’m more comfortable coming down on the side of substance. So, while you’re amazed that so many folks prefer substance over style, I’ll join you in a state of amazement and wonder why so many folks prefer style over substance.