It’s good to see The Atlantic doing serious reporting on the Eagleton Scenario. I will continue my Eagleton Watch until Sarah Palin accepts the nomination and appears in her scheduled debate with Joe Biden. I figure that once she debates Biden it will be officially too late to replace her on the ballot. Eagleton lasted for eighteen days in 1972 until media howling about his treatment for depression pressured George McGovern to replace him with Sargent Shriver. McGovern went on to get his ass handed to him in the November elections.
For two generations a bunch of pansy-ass former liberal pundits have wrung their hands about how hippies and peaceniks took over the party and nominated George McGovern. But the real reason McGovern got killed is because he totally screwed up his vice-presidential pick and undermined peoples’ confidence in his competence to lead the nation in a time of war and conflict with the Soviet Union. John McCain has made the exact same blunder. The question is whether he will look to McGovern’s example as a reason not to replace Sarah Palin. After all, McGovern only wound up confirming the widespread opinion that he had screwed the pooch with Eagleton. The obvious take-away from that piece of history is that McCain cannot expect to get a mulligan on this piece of crap decision even if he asks for a do-over.
For this reason I do not believe that John McCain will ever decide it is in his own best interests to throw Palin under a bus. But it may not be completely up to McCain because his own interests are not synonymous with the interests of the Republican Party or its nearly 50 senators and nearly 200 representatives. Those 250-odd politicians and aspiring politicians have to face townhalls and skeptical reporters and they have to toe the party-line and sell themselves to the public. If the polls start to line up against them (and they look bad enough already) those politicians are going to be begging McCain to stop the bleeding and stop forcing them to defend the indefensible.
In such a scenario, McCain would be caught in a whipsaw between the party activists that largely support Palin and the elected officials that are pleading for their jobs. If Palin gets dumped it won’t be because of pressure from the base of the party, but pressure from elected officials, big party donors, allies in the press, and business interests that are petrified at the prospect of immense Democratic majorities.
In other words, watch the polls. There is a very small chance that Palin will get dumped at the convention. But if she makes it through the convention, look to see if Obama starts showing a commanding lead in previously competitive or Republican states. Look to see if that is transferring down to Senate and House races. If it is, look for a revolt. That is how it will play out.
yeah
That’s the news I’ve been waiting for: Obama breaking 50%.
Grab some popcorn, as they say.
This is by far the craziest campaign I have ever seen, and I’ve been watching since the mid-sixties. I think we’re seeing the last throes of the party of Lincoln, frankly.
I know people have been saying one party or the other are done for many times in the past, but I just can’t see how this explosive coalition — which was always an unlikely and fragile one — can sustain itself much longer.
I’m getting more and more addicted to this site.
So, assuming that:
… are you saying that the best outcome for the greater good of progressives is for Palin to remain on the ticket? In other words, is your assessment that dumping her increases the margin of McCain’s defeat but keeping her increases the margins in the House and Senate?
What am I saying?
I think McCain screwed himself. He was never likely to win, but he opened up the chance that he will be crushed. He can’t fix things by dumping Palin because this reflects on his judgment, but he might mitigate the brand-damage to the GOP down-ticket by dumping her.
Is it really a surprise? McCain shoots craps.
At a high-roller’s table.
That’s not the gambling addiction we need, my friends, not when is the control of nuclear weapons at stake.
So he appears Fd either way? Awesome. I need to read again Hunter Thompson’s great book on the 72 election. He talks in detail about the Eagleton pick. I saw you comparing him to Bayh awhile back. I am sure there are several quotes from it that could apply to this Palin situation.
There are so many unanswered questions about Palin and they are all fair game. We have not even heard this woman talk in an solo interview yet before she is accepting the nomination for VP? crazy.
The ethics scandal with all of the personal family drama will not end. I want to know more about her fishy birth experience in April. The details are murky and would not pass the smell test to most women who have birthed children.
Eagleton and Dowd watch should keep you busy with regular material for awhile Booman.
Really? Even without Eagleton, it seems, McGovern was doomed. Not that it wasn’t a huge strike against him, but I would call it “a reason,” not the “real reason.”
Aside from that, brilliantly put. It would appear that the smart, tactical approach would be to get her off the ticket before the end of the convention, when the campaigning really starts. But I doubt the Republican party has that kind of foresight.
I think Palin stays on the ticket, barring some new and particularly damaging revelations. As you say, McCain isn’t going to dump her on his own initiative. And the other scenario seems far-fetched to me. Are you really expecting that voters in, say, Maine are going to turn against Susan Collins because John McCain made an unforced error in his VP pick? That doesn’t make any sense to me. What does make sense is that Palin’s presence on the ticket would increase turnout among hard-core Christian voters and, perhaps, blue-collar Republicans and thus actually help some beleaguered incumbents.
I see nothing McCain can gain by making a switch. There are data points for candidates winning after making poor VP choices (Agnew, Quayle). The Eagleton precedent is a strong disincentive for a VP nominee ever to be dumped again.
Also, I was shocked to see “pansy-ass” used as a pejorative on this site. I think you should change that.
New damaging revelations?
I think the ones we’ve already learned about are disqualifying enough. She tried to ban books at a public library, she’s been a poor financial manager both as mayor and as governor, and she’s a liar (ie. “thanks but no thanks on the bridge to nowhere”).
Oh, and the total lack of any foreign policy experience is pretty shocking considering we are fighting two wars right now.
I expect her to do fine in her speech tonight. After all, she just had to read a teleprompter without losing her place. So expect the Wolf Blitzers and Chris Matthews to think she did a bang-up job.
The real question comes when she starts having press conferences. I’d like to hear her thoughts on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Putin, health care, tax incentives, etc. I’m sure she’s hitting the books right now, but it is hard to prepare for this kind of scrutiny in only a week. Even much better politicians than Palin have had trouble developing a command of policy.
Confirmation of your suspicions:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/palin-prepares-speech-for_n_123476.html