If you were a GOP leader and you Had to lose an election, wouldn't you decide to lose it in a way that limited the damage a loss would do to your party's brand?
Considering how damaged the GOP's brand is already, wouldn't you really have two choices:
- Win Big and with the overwhelming support of the American People (unlike 2000 & 2004)
OR
- Lose well- provide a scapegoat and do some damage to democrats advantages in future elections
You might want to put your tinfoil hats on for this one, but I think I might be on to something.
The GOP have made a lot of strange bizarre political moves of late and I think it might just all add up to one thing.
This Pew Research article
details how American views towards electing women are shifting.
Are voters ready to elect a female president? On one level, the question would appear to be settled. In February, Gallup found 88% saying they would vote for a well-qualified woman for president. Contrast this with public opinion in 1969, the year Clinton graduated from Wellesley College. At that time, just 53% said they would support a well-qualified female presidential candidate.
But, Here is the money quote:
On average, Democratic female candidates for senator and governor won 51% of the vote in their elections; Democratic male candidates in the control group won 47% of the vote.
There are no signs that female Republican candidates receive a similar advantage. In the 15 races observed where a female Republican faced a male Democrat, the Republican women did no better than a comparable sample of male Republican candidates. More specifically, women voted for female Republican candidates about as often as they did for male Republicans.
Patterns of gender support in Senate and gubernatorial races suggest that the strong backing that Mrs. Clinton is getting from women is typical for female Democratic candidates for high office.
Emphasis added by me.
Did you catch that? There are no signs that female Republican candidates receive a similar advantage. Female Democratic candidates are the politicians that can win a competitive race just because they are women. That is a powerful advantage.
Now, back to my original question: if you were a leader of the GOP and you Had to lose a presidential election wouldn't you choose to lose the election in a way where you could blame the whole loss on one person who has no real political future anyway? Wouldn't you choose for your fall guy someone who won't drag anybody else down with her, or anybody else of "real value"? And, wouldn't it just be great if that fall guy were a woman and she actually made Americans Less accepting of female candidates for office?
After the democratic primary, women politicians were almost a fad, and according to the Pew Research Institute only democrats have the advantage when it comes to female candidates.
My point is that Republicans have something to gain (long-term) from large scale media coverage of Palin, because we can all agree, she was and still is a ridiculous & unbelievable choice for McCain's VP.
I feel the same way as everyone else here, I love that Palin is McCain's VP but I don't think Palin was an accident.
Nobody likes a loser and this election could be an overwhelming landslide for democrats. Considering how damaged the GOP brand is today, 5 weeks before this election, a democratic landslide in 2008 could possibly provide democrats with an avenue towards dominating political rhetoric in America for generations. The implications of that are Huge and cannot be overstated.
I believe Republicans realize this and they plan on using Sarah Palin as a scapegoat for the brand.