From a New York Times article on where the campaigns are competing comes this.
Some campaign officials hope that Ms. Palin, an Alaskan, can broaden the ticket’s appeal in the Northwest, possibly gaining traction in states like Oregon and Washington, as well as shore up Mr. McCain’s standing with social conservatives who had, up to now, been lukewarm at best about his candidacy.
By this logic, Joe Biden should help to deliver Texas and South Carolina to Sen. Obama. Of course, he won’t, and the idea that a hard-right social con like Palin would do anything to help McCain in blue territory like the northwest is the kind of stupid that passes for Republican strategy nowadays.
Let’s go to the tape.
Oregon
2004: 52-48 Kerry
Current Bush Approval: 32%
Washington
2004: 53-46 Kerry
Current Bush Approval: 30%
If she helps anywhere, Palin will help in red states like North Carolina, where McCain is now being forced to spend campaign money in defense because Obama is so close to him there. Now the New York Times could have easily fact checked this absurd assertion from Team McCain. They have the vast research resources of the NY Times whereas I only have The Google. And yet…
UPDATE: Meant to add this
Oregon current polling: 48-42 Obama
Washington current polling: 50-39 Obama
By comparison Sen. McCain has a 3 point lead in North Carolina
Had the reporter in question actually recently visited any city along the I-5 corridor (where the bulk of the people live in both of those states), they’d have realized what utter tripe this is. Maybe a few more of those “US OUT OF THE UN” folks in the countryside will turn out because they have a figure they feel they can trust now, but that will be a drop in a rather empty bucket.
So sick of reporting like this. “Campaign officials hope,” “Insiders believe,” “Some say,” “A source within the camp pulled the following out of his/her ass,” etc., etc.
Incidentally, for a finger on the pulse of conservative Oregonians (who tend much more toward the libertarian side), talked to one of my managers the other day about the Palin pick. He pretty much said, in short, “Who cares, she has to do what he says anyway.” But he was still sticking to his original plan of voting McCain as a sort of no-vote on Sen. Obama.
Please tell him to use his no-vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr instaed. I mean, if he’s a Libertarian, why wouldn’t he vote for babar anyway?
Because all the scare tactics about the Evil America-Hating Socialist have worked just that well. I get the sense that, for the deeply conservative, this isn’t so much about electing their candidate as defeating Sen. Obama, however slim a prospect that may be in this state. McCain has at least a better chance than Paul or Babar. So goes the thinking anyway.
Local talk radio remains unconvinced. The little guys have refused to jump on McCain’s wagon, while the biggies have gone the Hannity route (attack until he’s the candidate, and then choose what you regard as the lesser of two evils). It seems the greater one’s audience grows, the more flexible one’s principles become. But the countryside types (the ones I’ve talked to, anyway) prefer what they regard as the non-sellout little guys, which leads me to believe Gov. Palin won’t be bringing them out in droves.
“we’ll pretend Sarah isn’t a secessionist”-NYT
They’re grasping at straws if they’re talking about Oregon and Washington.
Montana and the Dakotas might be a different story though. One of the big stories this year has been the collapse of the Republican vote in those three states, which the Republicans won by an average of 25% four years ago. All three are now neck and neck.
Have voters there been holding off until someone like Palin got on the ticket? Then those states might be off the table for the Democrats now. Or do they have a different reason for turning away from the Republicans? North Dakota was polled recently and Obama’s support is holding steady – in fact he’s leading by a bit.
I don’t know many people from those three states, but I’ve gotten the idea that there are a lot of Ron Paul-type Republicans there, and using Palin to smother the convention Paul was organizing in Minnesota might have done the G.O.P. more harm than good. I’m not booking those states for the Democrats in November yet, but I think their chances are pretty good.
Parthenon:
“I get the sense that, for the deeply conservative, this isn’t so much about electing their candidate as defeating Sen. Obama,…”
That might explain (i.e, are you ever right about that!) why McCain’s urgent fund appeal of a week or two ago was framed entirely in how we agree on the importance of stopping Obama. If there was anything about what a good President McC will be, I missed it. OK, I really might have, you don’t think I read the whole thing, do you? But you don’t have to read the footnotes to see the frame.
Oh, and take some comfort in the money they’re wasting in mailing this stuff to people who get on their mailing list by contributing money — to their sworn enemies.
They’re using an old playbook. Whenever they spoke of Bill, there was always a negative adjective in front of his name. Even though Bill had an approval rating approaching 70%, he was usually titled “The embattled, (or controversial, or unpopular, …) president, Bill Clinton…”