Well, I think Nixon’s existence alone probably didn’t help. Then there was Ford’s habit of wrestling himself to the ground, at least according to Chevy Chase. You rarely can look at a single factor and say “That’s the thing that won or lost the election.” Some people, including me, were very excited about Jimmy Carter. Remember, the really bad stuff of the late seventies hadn’t happened yet (and very little of it was stuff Carter had control over anyway - he didn’t do anything to raise oil prices or to put the Shah of Iran in power, and it was Viet Nam that probably caused the malaise in the military, not Jimmy Carter) .
ETA:
The right wingers would probably invade immediately.
Has Palin, in your opinion, had just one “dazzling” appearance in front of the national media? She’s jumped on stage very late in the game, so one would presume it’s on her to make an impressive sell during the few weeks at her disposal. Except she hasn’t. She hasn’t even tried.
On the other hand, Biden is pretty much a known entity. He’s shown his colors, you can look up his history, he doesn’t have to prove himself in 6 weeks or so. Is he gaffe-prone? You betcha. So is GWB. So was Reagan.
But all three of those, even when completely and utterly making a mess of a sentence or garbling an anecdote, all three tended to have a point buried in there somewhere. Biden fucked up on Roosevelt being on TV during the Great Depression, but there was a (somewhat banal) point, i.e., that leadership was needed. GWB’s infamous “Fool me once, garble garble garble” quote (my paraphrase) conveyed an idea - a trite one, but there was communication happening. Some signal in the noise.
Look at Palin’s interviews again. It’s as if someone made a magnetic poetry set with Republican talking points and threw it at their fridge. There’s no there there.
Seriously, what point, if any, was she trying to make about her being Governor of Alaska counting as foreign policy experience? Could you make it out? Because I sure as hell couldn’t. And it wasn’t a mean question, it was a softball. “Here, ’ I’ll give you your own talking point to elaborate on.”
Incidentally, Palin is declining in the polls:
(Also, it’s best to look at trends in polling rather than on poll or another, to compensate for statistical error.)
If Palin were to resign, who would replace her? Methinks that it would have to be somebody friendly to evangelicals, otherwise they would bolt, having their champion snatched away from them.
Ashcroft is one candidate. Ralph Reed is another. Robertson is way too old. Orrin Hatch is too Morman. I don’t think Rick Santorum would fly.
See the problem? Is there any plausible evangelical conservative with pre-requisite qualifications for the presidency?
Ding! We have a winnuh! I’ll lay good money that you’re right. If the GOP doesn’t like who they’ve got to go against Obama in 2012 (assuming he wins this time around), they’ll do a repeat of what they did with Dole: Let the White House stay in Dem hands and retake Congress.
I have little respect for Ms Palin, but I do pity her. It can’t be fun or even pleasant to be where she is right now. I think she cannot quit or step down–not only for what it would do to McCain, but also what it would for women. God knows I don’t agree with her, but she made her choice. If you can hide your pregnancy for 7 months and govern a state with a Down’s baby, there is no reason to not be VP. IOW, the time for her to have made that decision is past (barring something drastic with Trig, that is). It would make almost every CEO say to themselves: see, you put women in this position and they bag on you. Forget 'em. She is stuck being the poster child for something she most likely is not altogether comfortable representing: the aspirations of ALL American women.
I can see the conservatives spinning it into Dedicated Mom etc. The thought makes me queasy.
Except that right now, CEOs can say to themselves: see, you put women in this position, and they’re idiots (Not all of them will, but some of them will). So I’m not sure we’re all that much better off.
We can take sides all we want, but the reality remains. McCain was too clever by half. He stoked the base when he needed to (how else was he going to?). He upstaged Obama’s convention speech (anyone care about that poll bounce now?). And these days he has to sleep with the whore he bought.
As I say at most weddings, this is going to end in disaster. It is going to crash down, somethin’ fierce, next Thursday. It will be the kind of thing that makes you turn your eyes away. It is a very, very rare thing that a politician on this scale comes so unraveled and is so exposed under the national spotlight. In fact, I suspect this is the only occasion in our lifetimes that we will witness something so blood-all gory as this.
I almost want not to watch. But human nature being what it is…
Yes, Palin should resign as she is manifestly unqualified for the Presidency at present. Perhaps in 5 years she will be up to the job. But perhaps she won’t.
I don’t dislike Palin: I know lots of people who are not presently qualified to be President – heck, everybody I know personally is presently unqualified.
If Palin resigns, McCain will probably lose. But candidates have put country before power in the past. Wendell Willkie refused to demagogue against the war during the 1940 campaign, because he thought the issues were too serious and he had a strong sense of personal integrity.
The alternative is to pursue both honor and popularity and secure neither.
So the matter will be left to the voters. It will be interesting to see which Republicans rise to the occasion and which vote for somebody manifestly unqualified for the Presidency. It’s a test of character.
But we will know, given the results of the election. Character is what you do in the dark. If the Reps won’t vote for her in the numbers that make McCain win, I think it will say something (positive) about the end of the insane partisanship that has been with us since Reagan was elected.
Here’s another one featuring some critical conservative voices. Y’know, in case anyone actually wants to address the question without resorting to handwaving.