Hello all. I'm pretty new to the site and this is my first diary, so let me know if I'm breaking any rules anywhere in this post.
I keep seeing diaries pop up telling us to be wary of a better-than-expected Palin in tomorrow's debates. While it's fun to jump at shadows, everything I've seen thus far makes me feel that these concerns are pretty unfounded. Follow me below the jump for more...
Timing. For the last week, it seems like every diary that's not arguing about the bailout is making the case that Palin is sandbagging. She's flubbed her previous interviews, the logic goes, to rope-a-dope us into a knockout blow during the VP debate. This logic is, for lack of a better word, dumb.
From the moment that she was added to the ticket, Palin has been the last best chance for John McCain to win this election. Voters have flocked to her in a way that they never did for the Maverick, infusing his campaign with much-needed energy and hope. Over the past month that enthusiasm for Palin has waned for all but her most committed supporters as a direct result of her reticence with the national media and her disastrous interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. Her unfavorables now outweigh her favorables, and she's seen as more of a hindrance to his election efforts than a help. This fall from grace, along with with the financial crisis, has turned a two-point lead for McCain into anywhere from a six- to nine-point deficit. Why would McCain knowingly give up all of his momentum two months away from the election for a slim chance at gaining it back a month later?
The idea that this is all some brilliant strategic move by the McCain campaign to lull us into a false sense of security is ludicrous. Early voting has begun in swing states like Ohio. Many people's minds are already made up by this point. And historically, very few people actually care about the results of the Vice Presidential debate (see: Benson, Lloyd). No candidate, no matter how much of a gambler, would willingly hamstring his campaign's most valuable resource in September for an unlikely chance to pleasantly surprise the voters in October. The timing for such a strategy makes no sense.
You keep saying "expectations game." I do not think that phrase means what you think it does. People keep saying that the Republicans are playing the expectations game. But this isn't how I've ever seen the expectations game played. If you want to lower expectations for a candidate, you don't have the candidate herself do it. You get an aide, an "unnamed source within the campaign," or one of your talking head buddies on CNN to drop a few hints that your candidate isn't doing so hot. You do it that way so that the candidate herself doesn't negatively impact the voters while you're lowering their expectations. And at the same time, you point out how good your opponent is at debating, to raise expectations for him.
In this case, it's not just campaign staff lowering Palin's expectations, it's Palin herself. She came across as vapid and easily confused in both the Gibson and Couric interviews, and in doing so had a direct effect on voter's perceptions of her, driving her unfavorables higher than her favorables. And at the same time, the McCain campaign is going hoarse calling Biden a "gaffe machine" and a blowhard every chance they get. If they are playing the expectations game, they're doing it in a way that no one has ever tried before.
Scope. Simply put, the relative scope of possible topics for a gubernatorial debate pales in comparison to the vast list of things that are fair game in a Vice Presidential debate. Heck, a Vice President's expected knowledge dwarfs the amount of knowledge that a Senator is expected to have at his command--see McCain's inability to locate Spain or Venezuela on a map for evidence of that.
Does anyone here seriously think that as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin had an informed and detailed opinion on the effect of default credit swaps on the national economy? The correct timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq? The best diplomatic policy to pursue with Iran? The effect of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act on the relationship between investment and savings banks? Of course not! She didn't have the inclination to learn these things, or a reason to do so.
And unlike when she ran for Governor, Palin doesn't have the better part of a year to learn these things. Instead, she's been given a little over a month...and during that month, she's also been expected to give stump speeches, visit the U.N., see her son off to Iraq, interview with Gibson, Hannity, and Couric, etc., etc. As a law student, I can tell you that there's a limit to the amount of information that even the smartest student can absorb during a month. There's no way that Palin has had enough time to get more than a glossy sheen of information on any of these many issues, so she'll be reduced to talking points and guesswork. And talking points and guesswork haven't worked out too well for her thus far.
Demeanor. Here's where we can all take a lesson from last week's presidential debate, where John McCain taught us that being standoffish and sarcastic does not win the hearts and minds of the moderate voter. Having watched the gubernatorial debate, I can tell you that Sarah Palin only offers more of the same, and that her prickly demeanor will play equally poorly with those undecided voters in the middle.
Think back to her performance at the Republican Convention. She was derisive, dismissive, and sarcastic for the entire speech, and while that may have riled up her base, it made me and a lot of other voters out there sick. She did the same thing at the gubernatorial debate. One of the hallmark moments from that contest occurred when the moderator asked Palin if she would hire either of her two opponents for a government job. Palin's response (courtesy of RF):
Smiling at Halcro, who recited reams of statistics by rote, Palin observed that the businessman "would make the most awesome statistician the state could ever look for."
As the debate audience laughed, Palin pivoted to Knowles, who had started his political career as an Anchorage restaurateur. "Do they need a chef down in Juneau?" Palin asked, smiling as she turned the verbal knife. "I know Mr. Knowles is really good at that."
What an asshole! Does anyone actually think that insults like that are going to come across well to undecided and independent voters?
So let's all chill out a little bit. I know that we've been screwed by Rove and Republicans in the past, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, you know? Sometimes things are exactly what they seem. I'm pretty sure this is one of those times, which is why I'm looking forward to the debate tomorrow. Let's hope I'm right.