Post-Election Palin

Fox News reported today that win or lose on Tuesday, Palin will be around for a long time. She believes, essentially, that she's put up with enough crap from the media, voters, and almost everyone else around her that come Tuesday, she'll keep pushing for more. 

A lot of the criticism Palin has received along the campaign trail is what she claims is double standards of sexism. Palin is criticized for her wardrobe, and doubted because she has a family. To address this, she said simply, she'd probably face the same thing that a male candidate would miss when he's away from his family for a couple of days. 

That reminds me of the Vice Presidential debate, where Palin was trying to USE her family to gain sympathy: she's a working mom with lots of kids and a granddaughter on the way. Unfortunately for her, Biden shot back with a background story of his own family, and even choked up for a bit. It was Palin's mistake to not address this during the debate, but it confuses me more now to hear Palin complaining that she's being held to double standards.

Wasn't she the one bringing up family in the debate? Biden simply could not understand what it was like to raise a family as a mother, except that he did know what it's like to be a single parent. Whoops, Palin! Wasn't Palin the one to bring up her hockey mom status? And yes, Palin, male candidates get criticized for their $400 haircuts just as much as you do (Thanks, Kerry).

Even if she doesn't win on Tuesday, Palin should be looking forward to a future of criticism of every part of her life, whether it is a double standard or not.

Polls for Prom Queens

The Wall Street Journal brings up a good point: we’re getting addicted to polls.

We watch them constantly, analyze them for mistakes and biases, and then spread the gossip. If someone isn’t convinced this election is more of a high school prom queen competition than any other election cycle, then just look to our obsession with polling. Every little thing that a candidate does, or some even that happens on the national level, can be explained through poll results. “Obama is up in Florida? Well, that’s because Palin spent so much RNC money on her clothes.” And we pick apart the sources of our gossip, too. “I look at the Drudge Report every single morning and spend three hours talking about how much Drudge sucks.” This makes as much sense to me as making following around the girl who starts rumors in your fifth period geometry class.

We forward emails, we send links, we print polls out, we highlight them, we talk about them, we argue about them, and we even exaggerate them. We can’t stop checking them, and can’t stop using them to prove other people wrong. We get excited when our candidate does well, and frustrated when he can’t seem to capture a state. We make up reasons why certain demographics are voting one way, or explain it away as the poll’s bias. We love polls. And that love consumes us.

But would we be America without some sort of celebrity obsession? This election has given us the resources and opportunities to become addicted to polls, through websites like Pollster.com, RealClearPolitics.com, and FiveThirtyEight.com. We can gauge how popular the candidates are and worthy of that sparkling tiara.

Record Turnout Predicted

CNN reported Wednesday that 2.2 million people have voted using absentee ballots, which could be a signal for record numbers of participation in the election. Usually, early voting is indicative of turnout on Election Day, so we can look forward to a high level turnout.

I’m wondering if early voting has anything to do with a widespread attempt to avoid crowded polls, or an impatience/anticipation to cast votes, or even a laziness to head to the polls. In a society that values immediacy and direct results, it makes sense that we would want find out who wins already. We know which ticket we’re voting for, and our decision isn’t going to change in the next two weeks.

 

CAN WE JUST GET THIS OVER WITH ALREADY?

Palin's New Clothes

Controversy has erupted over the price Palin pays to look good. Why do we care how much Palin is paying, if it’s coming out of her own pocket?

Because it’s not. A Politico article reported that the RNC has invested $150,000 in Palin’s wardrobe, which has upset Republican donors.

It started with the infamous Japanese glasses, at $375 per pair. It went on to a shopping spree at Saks Fifth Avenue for about $50,000 and $75,000 at Neiman Marcus, according to a Washington Post article.

This is interesting to me, because it plays with the lines of legality regarding campaign finance, which is supposed to be McCain’s strong policy stance—just look at McCain/Feingold, or BCRA, and his acceptance of public funding in the GE, when Obama turned it down.

Anyway, it’s too bad for Palin that she’s getting criticized for her clothes. The campaign announced that Palin will donate the clothes to charity once the election is over, so essentially she only gets to look good for less than two more weeks. Yes, GOP, I too would rather have a well-dressed Vice Presidential nominee than a well dressed Vice President.

The bright side is, the Republican Party will be forced to unite in the face of criticism. But that’s the same logic as, “negative ads teach voters more about candidates than policy ads”: does that mean we should continue it?

Why do we criticize John Kerry when he gets $400 haircuts, or when Hilary Clinton spends $6,000 on a makeover? They are under public scrutiny almost every minute of every hour of every day for years, and under even more scrutiny if they get into office. Maybe it costs that much to make you look like you’re not working on 2.5 hours of sleep, or you haven’t eaten anything but coffee and muffins in the last 34 hours. I’ve never been on the campaign trail, so I wouldn’t be able to tell you what lengths I would go to ensure that there isn’t an article in the New York Times about my four grey hairs, or the bags underneath my eyes, or the worry lines that seem to have appeared out of nowhere. But spending donors money on knee high boots? Sorry Palin, I know those boots were made for walking, but not for walking over your Party’s donors.

Will the REAL America please stand up?

Yesterday, Palin apologized for the misunderstandings that arose by her use of the terms “pro-American areas” and “the real America” in her North Carolina speech this weekend, according to a CNN interview.

What exactly does pro-American mean? Does that mean that the other parts of the country are anti-American, or just neutral? If small, rural towns are examples of America at its finest, then are big cities America at its worst?

Or is “the real America” inclusive only of the parts that will vote for the McCain/Palin ticket, and the “fake America” is voting for Obama/Biden? And if the Democratic ticket wins, will they be leading a fake, anti-American America?

Does being a secessionist, and believing Alaska should be its own country make you anti-American? In that case, her husband should reevaluate his level of Americanness.

So, you can see why her comments have been problematic. I’m not sure many voters like to be referred to as anti-American just because they aren’t from a small town, aren’t in the military, don’t work in factories, or aren’t voting for McCain. Sure, it may have energized small town voters, but her comments pissed everyone else off.

To clarify, Palin MEANT that “the best of America isn’t confined to our nations capitol,” according to spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. Palin didn’t mean to offend so many people with her real, pro-American comments.

Then again, a lot of offensive remarks are unintentional. Does this give her leeway? We’ll see in twelve days!

Where's my October Surprise?

October Surprises have been significant in elections past, like Johnson’s announcement of halting bombing in Vietnam, or the release of an al-Qaeda tape five days before the 2004 elections.

This year, I feel like I’ve been ripped off. This election has been filled with so much Freak Show that I was looking forward to October. Well, it’s almost three weeks into October and I’m still waiting. Granted, if it happens, it’ll probably be in the last week of October, but I’m still antsy!

Unfortunately, The San Diego Union Tribune reported that, “Longtime political analyst Stuart Rothenberg said last week that only a major terrorist attack or some personal scandal involving Obama could ‘force the American public to take a collective pause’.”

Maybe the surprise is that there is no surprise, which would be as anti-climactic as Palin’s boring Cold Open. 

Super-influential Super-stars

Let’s go back to that celebrity thing: why the hell do we care how they vote? Okay, so it makes sense if famous politicians endorse particular candidates (like Powell announcing his endorsement of Obama this past weekend, or Lieberman’s endorsement of McCain). But should the views of the elite have a profound impact on the way we vote?

Yes and no. Yes, because generally (with exceptions, of course) politicians know how the government works, and can tell when a policy or candidate will be effective. And no, their interests may differ from ours. Why would I support a candidate that wants to tax me, a college student going into severe debt, and not the celebrity with his own talk show making millions of dollars an episode? Good question.

By the way, polls show that neither Palin’s SNL appearance or Colin Powell’s Obama endorsement had a profound impact on numbers. 

Palin Opens Cold in a Cold Open

SNL hasn’t reported higher ratings in 14 years than when Palin appeared on Saturday night. I'm not sure why, she was probably the least interesting person I've seen on SNL... ever. Maybe her presence legitimized her as a target of their jokes, or made it "okay" to tease her. Even though SNL was way tame in comparison to the previous three cold opens featuring Tina Fey as Palin.

Not that I didn't enjoy her appearance. My two favorite parts: 1) when Alec Baldwin mistakes Palin for Tina Fey and ends up trash talking her, then Palin responds and says Stephen Baldwin is her favorite Baldwin (he’s a conservative Chrisitian) and 2) the Palin rap.

But why would Palin agree to do an appearance on a show that has mocked her three times already during this election season? It worked for former President Clinton, who showed up on MTV and played his saxophone on TV. Palin is the relatable candidate, and by appearing on SNL, she’s appealing to a more diverse audience than the usual conservative Republican base that she already controls. It’s comforting to see a candidate with an easy-going side, rather than a negative attacker of the opposing ticket. She even danced to the Palin rap, which included “All the mavericks in the house, put your hands up! All the plumbers in the house, pull your pants up!” (in reference to the now famous Joe the Plumber of the final Presidential debate).

While some people think Palin’s appearance helped the Republican ticket, not everyone agrees. An ABC News article quotes Bob Thompson, a professor at SUNY, as saying, "I think the work she needs to do is not the kind on a comedy show. It would be great if she could go on a snobby serious discussion show and blow everybody away. You ultimately want to distance her from Tina Fey, not point out how similar they are." Will the jokes backfire? In some sense, they already have. Fey’s impersonations have created a caricature of Palin has become increasingly popular and influential. But then again, maybe Palin will start to gain sympathizers who feel she’s getting picked on.

 

Either way, if it was a politically savvy or if it was foolish, it still made me chuckle. 

Presidential Dance Off

My lacrosse coach once made our team perform our “go-to” in front of our entire team. A go-to is the dance move or moves you can fall back on at a club or dance when you A) run out of moves, or B) are trying to attract a dance partner. Go-tos are important, but not static. They can change depending on the situation, or what shoes you wear that night.

Earlier this week, Fox News reported that McCain is unveiling a new stump speech, the go-to of candidates. So McCain either A) ran out of moves, or B) is trying to attract voters.

Rather than a sprint to the finish line, maybe this is a signal that the Republican ticket is grasping at straws. They’re about six points down with only three weeks to go. Is this sudden shift in stump speech telling of the McCain/Palin ticket’s breakdown?

Or could this be the turning point for the Republican ticket? US News & World Report said his new speech has received positive coverage.

And as Obama is “measuring his drapes” McCain says, “But they forgot to let you decide. My friends, we’ve got them just where we want them.”

My go-to has always been pretty effective, but sometimes they just don’t cut it. We’ll see how low McCain has to limbo in this dance-off for votes.

Ouch! Palin bump turns into a bruise.

Yahoo! Polls report that McCain’s decline in public image polls are also reflected in Palin’s decline in public image. Last month, people who said Palin made them more likely to vote for McCain exceeded those who said they were less likely by 14 points. This month, it is down to 3 points.

Mark Halperin and John Harris’ The Way to Win describes the most important Trade Secret during the Presidential Election: The presidential candidate who better keeps control of his public image wins the election. The McCain/Palin ticket is letting the image of supposed honest politics slip away quickly.

Of course, the image quote applies to ‘her’, too, but the McCain/Palin ticket is failing evenly, on both sides of the ticket. If I had to guess, I’d attribute this to the spike in negative ads. The Republican is making a last ditch attempt to grasp at straws to get more support. Some advice? Negative ads disaffect voters! No one wants to see you clawing at Obama’s face, while he stands there and takes it, ESPECIALLY if you have the facts wrong (Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was notorious; there is little plausibility they were working together, no matter how hard you try to link them).

Palin, stop focusing your speeches on Obama bashing! America barely knows you, and we don’t want to know you as “that woman who wasn’t qualified and was too busy letting her audience call Obama a terrorist to tell us what she believes in.”

You have 18 days to get in control of your image. Ready, set, go!

Side note: the picture above is from moremuslimthanobama.com. Hilarious.

Would McCain vote for Palin?

In last night’s final presidential debate, Senator Obama and Senator McCain were asked the question: Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president?

McCain’s answer included this: Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin, they know she’s a role model… for women.

If Obama had said, “Joe Biden is a role model… for men,” I think that would have surprised a few people. Just because Palin is a woman doesn’t mean she can’t be a role model for boys and men, too.

This is just paraphrasing, but McCain says:

“She cuts taxes, she reforms, she knows about energy, she reforms, and she’s a breath of fresh air. Did I mention that she is a reformer? And she has a special needs child, I’m proud of her. And her husband is a manly man.”

McCain, did you forget to answer the question? What happens if she becomes president? She can only be fresh breath for so long. Is Palin ready to be the President?

According to a PBS poll, the results are split. This isn’t an accurate poll, so take the results with a grain of salt. Palin’s approval ratings have significantly lowered since the Republican National Convention. As we learn more about her, can we say that we have more confidence that she can lead our country as one of the most powerful people in the world if something were to happen to John McCain?

Does John McCain even think that Palin can lead if he died? Just watch his face:

PUMA attacks Palin!!!!

In an interview with CNN, Hilary Clinton discussed her opinion on a woman in the White House. She said,

“Well, I would like to see the very first woman in the White House who I agree with and who I think has policies that would really fulfill the goals that I have for our country. Of course it's exciting to have a woman on the ticket. The Democrats had a vice presidential candidate as a woman back in 1984. The Republicans did it this year. But that, in and of itself, is not enough reason, and really no one will shatter that ceiling until we have a woman serving as president or vice president. But I am going to be supporting women and men with whom I agree -- who I believe have the right policies and the right ideas about what's best for America.”

Despite the “Palin bump” and what some seemed to see as a shift in party support because of the introduction of a woman on the ticket, Palin’s nomination actually helped to reunify the Democratic Party. Many people thought that women would vote for Palin to see a woman in office, despite her “anti-woman” record and policies. Former Clinton supporters have seen the danger of electing the McCain/Palin ticket, and chose to support Obama in response, after their boycott of support because of their disappointment in Clinton’s loss.

The “Puma Effect”, as explained here, was comprised of Clinton supporters who had boycotted Obama. PUMA stands for “Party Unity My Ass,” and it had hurt Obama in the early summer. Strangely, it’s the Pumas that have supported Obama that have pushed him ahead in polls in key states.

 

What's the difference between Palin and a Puma?

Lipstick? 

Celebs Gone Political

Matt Damon has been in some pretty awesome movies, and therefore I value his opinion on politics. Joking, but here’s the video:

What most people got out of it was the comparison of Palin’s campaign to a bad Disney movie. The trailer:

 I think it’s interesting how a lot of people do value celebrity opinion. They have connections in high places; they must understand the political arena. Or, celebrities actually KNOW politicians, and so they must know their true character. Celebrities have money; they must want to spend it supporting the right candidate. I want to be like Angelina Jolie, so I’ll adopt a bunch of babies and vote for the candidate she votes for.

Who knows why people listen to Matt Damon. Sure, he makes some good points, but why value his opinion over a political scientist?

Maybe it’s because Matt Damon has never looked like an idiot debating on network television. Matt Damon isn’t bashing his ideology into my head and telling me what I want, how I want it, and why I want it. Or maybe I don’t watch the news, I only watch entertainment television, so that’s what I’m exposed to. What ever the reason, I think that how some of us overlook the opinions of academics speaks to this huge disconnect we feel with the media. The media are the ones supposed to be HELPING us make our decisions, not causing our apathy.

When Victoria Beckham influences my choice of shoe more than CNN, I can sleep at night. But when she influences my choice of candidate, I think I’d rather eat my shoe. And when I think of how many people look to Entertainment Tonight to get their political news, I want to stick their shoes in unpleasant places.

And lastly, to address the Democratic bias of Celebrity Politics, Republicans say this:

"It's not surprising that the Barack Obama and his celebrity supporters continue to tear down Gov. Palin with little more than blatant name-calling. It's clear they're threatened by a candidate who actually has a record of achieving reform and change, while Barack Obama just talks about it." – Maria Comella, spokesperson for Palin.

Oh Maria, don't get too offended. I don't care what they say about Palin, I only care what kind of shoes she wears. 

Feminists for Life or Women Against the Right to Abortion?

“All abortions should be banned except when the mother’s health is in danger. That includes cases of rape and incest. Abortion is an atrocity.”

Well, according to Palin and the Feminists for Life (FFL), an organization that argues that being a pro-life feminists isn’t as paradoxical as it seems. Palin has been a member since 2006.

For the rest us, it’s hard to separate anti-abortion from anti-feminism. It seems like feminism is necessarily tied to the right for women to control their own bodies. How can Palin support an ideology that forces a victim of rape to carry her unwanted child to term? Did Palin choose to keep her son diagnosed with Down syndrome for political purposes? I doubt that is the case, but these are questions on voters’ minds, especially since one in five Clinton supporters are voting for Palin. Does it make sense that just because Palin is a woman, she should be supported by women? It depends on your definition and degree of feminism. With such a plurality of feminisms, it depends on to what degree you believe Palin will progress gender equality in office. If taking away a woman’s right to abortion isn’t your idea of progressing women’s equality, then you should probably reconsider your decision to vote for Palin just because she can give birth.

The Maverick Drinking Game

Anyone taking shots for any time Palin said “maverick” would have been six-shots in by the end of the VP Debate. Add Biden’s criticism of McCain as a maverick, and you’d add nine more shots. But by the end of the debate, you didn’t have to be drunk to have lost sense of the word “maverick.”

Who won? For Palin, the debate wasn’t about winning. Her goal was to survive, and in that sense, it was a successful debate. She held her own with the more experienced Biden. And although she avoided some questions and fell into her talking-point comfort zone (energy, energy, and energy), she did well in avoiding embarrassing herself as well.

Good training, McCain campaign.

The VP debate was quicker, and more interesting than the Presidential debate. Biden was on top of his facts, legitimizing his cocky style (how many times does Joe Biden need to refer to himself as Joe Biden? Let’s avoid the third person, Joe Biden). In all, both candidates met their expectations, a success for both candidates. The VP debate may not have altered the Presidential race significantly, but it’s reassuring to know that America isn’t a heartbeat away from getting screwed over. 

I was impressed by the difference in Palin's performance from her interviews to the debate. She seemed to finally have a foundation of understanding (although an unstable foundation) on a number of policy issues, not just oil. After all, a maverick needs to know the conventions before they can be unconventional ("maverick" SHOT!)

VP Showdown

It’s right v left. It’s GOP v Dems. It’s woman v man. It’s young v old. It’s innovation v experience. It’s Palin v Biden. 

The stage for the Vice Presidential debates is not set on even ground. Not in the same way that McCain had to stand on a stool, but in the expectations set for the VP picks. Biden is experienced, smart, quick, witty, and aware of national issues. Palin has no debate experience on the national level, and after her interview performances, she has set low expectations.

Is this part of the McCain/Palin strategy? Palin sandbags interviews, but at the last minute astounds the nation by her performance in the VP debates! Palin conquers the confdent and experienced Biden in a historical upset! Sounds like some horse race pieces, but fits with the pattern of daring moves by the McCain campaign. 

What we need to keep an eye out for are the VP nominee’s pitfalls. For Biden (according to the NY Times), it’s his “legendary loquaciousness”. He loves to rip on Republicans, but will need to tread lightly during the second national debate with a female nominee. For Palin (according to the CS Monitor), it’s her evasion of answering questions she’s unfamiliar with. Her network interviews have shown us her penchant for the “nonanswer”.

Both candidates have lots to gain. With a strong understanding of their ticket’s policy positions, the ability to articulate them, and a capability to relate to the crowd, either candidate could reinforce support for their party’s Presidential nominee. Any slip-ups, hesitations, gaffes, or obliviousness could seriously hinder their ticket.

Good luck Palin and Biden, we’ll be watching closely.

For a video on VP debate style, go here!