Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As Andrew Sullivan notes, John McCain's appeal has always been toward political moderates and independents rather than the hardcore conservative base. His political calculation was that he could appeal to enough of those moderates, particularly the Reagan and Clinton Democrats, that he could win the election as long as he didn't lose too much of the base.
The problem is that he knew he still had to find some way to energize the base and keep them in his camp and the way he did that, I think, is with Sarah Palin. And it worked. Her nomination clearly energized the religious right base and got some enthusiasm going on his right flank. But that also appears to have pretty much destroyed his appeal to the middle according to a New York Times poll.
And yet, no group has responded more negatively to McCain these past seven weeks than independents. McCain's unfavorables among independents have soared from 24 percent to 44 percent in seven weeks. Palin has also turned them off, after a promising start. Her unfavorables among independents have jumped 14 points since she started campaigning.Among Republicans, her favorables are down 8 and unfavorables up 10.
What has happened in the last 7 weeks? Palin has joined the ticket. Political moderates and independents tend to be pragmatists who don't much like either party. They tend to vote for the person they think can best handle the job. And frankly, I think Palin scares the hell out of them. They don't think she's qualified to clean the White House, forget about occupying it. And they're right.
Politics
Comments
Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are.
the clothes are not worth $150,000
Most of them haven't even left the belly of the campaign plane.
Posted by: Sarah Palin | October 24, 2008 9:45 AM
Has there been a vice-presidential candidate in the last 50 years who is less qualified to take over as president in the event of an untoward event? To compare this bimbo with Goldwaters' choice, Bill Miller or Bush Is' choice Dan Quayle is an insult to Miller and Quayle. But I'm sure that Prof. Heddle will be along to remind us that maybe Joe Biden plagiarized a speech 20 years ago.
Posted by: SLC | October 24, 2008 9:54 AM
Sarah, it makes it so much better that you overspent on clothes that you aren't actually wearing. That makes you so frugal.
Seriously, what does she mean they are not worth $150,000? Did they tip 40%?
Posted by: Odie | October 24, 2008 10:01 AM
Oh, I think Mr Heddle is too busy experiencing starbursts at the mere mention of the words "Palin 2012" to worry about Biden these days. :)
As for picking Palin. If McCain had actually taken the time to figure out a pick which would have been enthused the base without seeming like a naked pander, then he probably would not be in this predicament.
I suspect the McCain campaign will be remembered as losing for two things:
1) The last-minute Palin pick
2) The "suspension" of his campaign for the economic crisis.
(Note: if there is to be a no. 3 on the list, the it will be the factor that allowed him to pull off a last minute upset -- not that it's likely).
Posted by: tacitus | October 24, 2008 10:13 AM
Anyone else remember Pat Nixon's "plain Republican coat"? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 24, 2008 10:16 AM
Tacitus,
You're exactly right about the two things that defined the McCain campaign. I wonder if the Palin pick actually caused the suspension, remember he happened to suspend his campaign between the time Palin interviewed with Couric and the time it aired. As a political stunt, it shedded a little bit of exposure from the awfulness of the interview. Except CBS decided that a slow drip-drip of short interview segments was better for them.
At that point, McCain's campaign was taking on water from all sides (with the initial bailout failing to pass) and all they had were a couple of leaky buckets and a ladel to try to bail with.
Posted by: Odie | October 24, 2008 10:25 AM
This is where the McCain campaign did not follow the Rove 2004 strategy. Rather than attempting to maximize voter turnout of social conservative voters with an extremist VP pick, the RNC should have worked to get wedge issues on state ballots in swing states. People forget that Bush ran and was framed as a center-right candidate (ludicrous yes, but that was how he was marketed by Rove, especially in 2000, with keeping up the dialogue even through this year).
In 2004 Michigan had a proposal to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage and in 2006 we had a proposal to ban most affirmative action plans. Similar intiatives were applied in other swing states where the experts concur that a key, possibly the key, to Bush winning overall in 2004 was that Ohio had an exceptionally high rural voter turn-out out for a gay marriage ban, supported by feet-on-the ground Republican operatives working to get them out, even working the day of the election.
Given I'm a social liberal, I'm giddy they mucked up the Rove strategy by merely going psycho with the presidential campaign.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 24, 2008 10:34 AM
Just doing a little parking lot polling last Sunday, it doesn't appear Palin has even worked with the evangelical base. There was only one bumper sticker for McCain/Palin. There were still seven from Bush?Cheney 2000. Yes, McCain is still going to win this District by 20,000 votes. But he needs to win it by 70,000 due to heavy turnout downstate. If he can't up the turnout among evangelicals, McCain is toast.
It will be close (49-47 or so) but I'm ready to put NC in the Obama column.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 24, 2008 10:53 AM
Michael, it still would have been tough, given the sleepless nights many are having over the economy at the moment.
Colorado has a proposition near and dear to the Republican base's heart -- defining a fetus as a person under their state constitution -- and yet it looks as though the Democrats will sweep all the major races in James Dobson's home state (how sweet is that!).
So, while I agree that McCain botched any chance of repeating what Rove did (not that he was able to stop the Dems in 2006 either) I'm not sure it would have made much difference in the end.
Palin was probably a better pick for McCain than Lieberman (I just don't see how Lieberman would have enthused anyone, even Clinton Democrats) but there were much better picks than her out there that would have balanced his ticket without tossing the Independents overboard.
Posted by: tacitus | October 24, 2008 10:54 AM
A week after Palin was chosen - I made my decision to vote for Obama. But it wasn't just the Palin decision - McCains entire campaign started falling apart. Regardless of Obama's positions - he has run a masterful organization. But I can't subscribe to a majority of the Democrats or Republican's official positions. All I can hope for is Obama doesn't screw up.
(however - not voting for Al Franken but I made a promist not to vote for Colmen so I guess its Barkley)
Posted by: yoshi | October 24, 2008 10:57 AM
To be fair, the economy also cratered. It's hard, I think, to separate out the overall feeling of "Blame the incumbents" -- which most people see as Republicans -- for the state of the economy from the effect of much of anything else, the Palin pick included.
Having said that, the other data you cite is certainly relevant and, I think, pretty damning on its own. But I think it's a gross oversimplification to think that Palin doomed the ticket when the fundamentals have shifted in such a large way unconnected to anything either candidate said or did.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | October 24, 2008 11:37 AM
tactitus - I absolutely agree that state wedge issue proposals alone is not enough to overcome the Bush failures in this election. However, it is a proven arrow in the quiver they haven't seemed to have coordinated using as much as they did in 2004 ,to their detriment.
As an ex-Republican who left the night of the Palin convention; I did my homework after the Palin announcement to see who would have been a better complement on the ticket in terms of being ready for the Presidency and filled-out the ticket on economic competence given's McClain's lack thereof. With the exception of Romney, none of the tested and proven candidates in the GOP were anti-abortion rights, both male and female, and Romney is perceived as not to be trusted on this issue by social conservatives.
I think this is one of the untold stories in the GOP, which is that the abortion/social issues appears to be single-handedly driving out the competent Republican politicians to be supplanted with more incompetent social conservatives. Palin is only aggravating this situation and will so if she remains a national player within the party (where I predict she won't be).
I firmly believe there is a correlation between competence and social conservatism, though it's been my observation only, I don't have any data to support such an assertion though I believe its so rife as to be self-evident. One method to perceive this is to see how committee assignments in Congress are divied up. The policy assignments that require quantitative aptitude are almost always assigned to more technical commitees and staffed mostly by moderates like Judd Gregg (finance, commerce) while the social conservatives congregate around committees that are hot-button politically, e.g., judiciary. The GOP however is losing talent to fill the technical spots, so I see their incompetence accelerating and was a primary factor for me leaving the party.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 24, 2008 11:42 AM
I meant to say, "NEGATIVE correlation between competence and social conservatism" in the first sentence of my last paragraph above.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 24, 2008 11:57 AM
I think McCain also made a strategically very stupid decision to run a clearly dishonest campaign.
Independents have a discerning nose for bulls__t after inhaling the redolent aroma of the Bush administration for the past 3000 years.
Obama has won hearts and minds not only for his demeanor but also for being careful to speak carefully and honestly.
After an eternity of Rovian reality-inverting NewSpeak, just hearing Obama string together cogent sentences that actually jive with the actual world is a heady experience.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 24, 2008 1:06 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 24, 2008 1:43 PM
Sarah Palin is coming by to visit me on Sunday night. Take that, Heddle! All the starbursts are mine, all mine!
Since my Dad has been a Republican since LaGuardia, the local party mailed us a ticket... Or I could go to choir rehearsal. Decisions, decisions...*
*Tactical note to McCain '08: All of us evangelical voters are in church on Sunday night. Good call with the scheduling.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 24, 2008 4:20 PM
This is almost piling on:
Palin stylist draws higher pay than policy adviser
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 24, 2008 4:28 PM
kehrsam,
Not...Fair...
Those tickets should go to Real Americans™. Patriotic Americans. From Pro-American parts of the Country! Calvinists! Not profligate Biden supporters!
On the other hand, go! She'll svengali you, which will be a net pickup of two votes.
If you get to shake her hand, don't wash---ever!
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 4:34 PM
Heddle: I really thought a Calvinist would take that better. But, don't worry, the ticket has to redeemed at party headquarters before you get the real ticket. Presumably while there you have to waterboard someone to prove your bona fides. Since I have no desire to be waterboarded again (High School sucked), I gave it to a Republican friend. Besides, I really do have choir rehearsal to attend. =;D
Kurt
Posted by: kehrsam | October 24, 2008 5:39 PM
mrroberts (quoting me) said:
And replied:
Wow. Dude, that was the setup for the joke. I like you, I really do. It's okay, just take a couple of deep breaths.
Oh, and the fact that precious metals are excellent commodities for investments says precisely nothing about their utility as currencies.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 24, 2008 5:57 PM
Sorry, pasted that into the wrong thread.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 24, 2008 5:59 PM
Michael Heath at 10:34. Nice analysis. I hadn't thought of it that way, but now I will.
Gingerbaker, are you sure independents have good bullshit detectors? Party politics aside, I hope you're right. Apparently, however, I'm much more cynical than you. (That's probably to your credit.)
Heddle. Funny. Really. I suppose the good thing about Calvinism is you can afford to have a sense of humor. No point worrying about whether you've ruined your salvation by making a dirty joke (which worry was more or less the dominant theme of my adolescent years). Doesn't explain Jonathan Edwards, but I wouldn't want to hold you responsible for that particular cretin.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 24, 2008 7:26 PM
Re Michael Heath
One of the most telling examples of the Rethuglican rejection of intellectual competence is the assignment of members to a joint committee on global climate change. House minority leader Boehner was approached by Michigan Representative Vernon Ehlers and Maryland Representative Roscoe Bartlett who offered their services. Boehner turned them down on the grounds that they were too likely to accept the premise. Representative Ehlers has a degree in physics and formerly taught the subject at Calvin College; Representative Bartlett has a degree in organic chemistry and formerly worked for the USDA. Effectively, Mr. Boehner is telling us that he has no need of anybody with technical expertise on this panel. Just for the information of Mr. mroberts in the unlikely event he is following this thread, both of these gentlemen are devout members of conservative Christian congregations.
Posted by: SLC | October 25, 2008 9:03 AM
SLC - Thanks for sharing. I'm aware of this given I read Chris Mooney's excellent book about the The Republican War on Science, which has many other examples that are equally insidious.
To pile-on your point even further; Sen. Inhofe - Chairman of the Senate Committee that oversaw the climate change debate, consistently stacked the deck in Committee hearings with expert testimony. While climatologists are overwhelmingly supportive of the current peer-accepted theory, Inhofe would almost always have more denialists testify than climatologists, almost none of these denialists were climatologists but instead lobbyists or general scientists getting paid to be lobbyists by energy companies.
Mooney also did a fine job of describing the root cause that allowed the Senate to manufacture and publish propaganda even the experts in the Federal Government rejected. He went through the story of Newt Gingrich and the Class of '94 Republican Congressmen getting rid of the group of scientists that provided unbiased counsel to Congress on where science stood on certain matters.
This allowed GOP majorities to make the science appear to be whatever they wanted it to be. Robert Kennedy's "Crimes against Nature" and the recently published book on Cheney, "Angler", also both go deep into showing how the GOP Executive branch were able to promote viewpoints as if they were controversial or scientifically accepted when the opposite was the case.
The reality that fact-driven politicians are getting driven out of GOP leadership positions is a primary reason I left the party, especially given the party's endorsement of the Palin nomination at the Convention; I see no hope of any future competency from the GOP.
A prime example of this phenomena is the dearth of talent available to run as VP on the McCain ticket that was anti-abortion rights. Certainly there is a correlative relationship between competence and being ardently against abortion rights, we saw it in the dearth of VP candidates that weren't pro-choice. I would argue it's a causal relationship, given that social conservatism is self-defined as adherence to faith-based dogma rather than reason and evidence.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 25, 2008 9:31 AM
Apropos of Mr. Heaths' last comment, attached is a link to a jeremiad by PZ Myers on the speech given by Governor Palin yesterday. Ole PZ was at the top of his form. Apparently the governor attacked spending for research on fruit flies and PZ points out her ignorance on the subject with no holds barred.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/sarah_palin_ignorant_and_antis.php#comments
Posted by: SLC | October 25, 2008 10:18 AM