Will Choosing Palin Negatively Effect Future GOP Female Candidates?

IOW, will the choice of her, in all her glory, make the GOP hesitant to pick other women for VP etc in future?

There are many qualified and able Republican female office holders (I’m much too lazy today to make a list). But I have been wondering if her gaffes, misstatements
and odd naivety will hurt OTHER candidates who happen to wear skirts and lipstick (no Guiliani jokes please). Sexism is not dead, so I’m wondering if her performance will be used as a rationale for not promoting other females. Thoughts?

I suspect that this is the real answer, here. Palin was picked to drag in a certain element of the Republican party that mcCain feared would simply sit out this election. From that limited perspective, it seems to have been a good decision. However, I suspect that among the movers and shakers of the party, that cynical action was seen exactly for what it was and I doubt that it will hurt the prospects of other GOP women. Palin is pretty much sui generis and is very unlikely to be seen as “typical” of women, women politicians, or women GOP politicians.

True, especially since one of the arguments against her has been that the GOP did have some competent female candidates for the ticket.

If so (and I’m not doubting it), it is a step, no–maybe even a stride? I think eve 10 years ago, we would have heard that this was “proof” that women aren’t able (or “ready”) to lead. The criticism seems to be personal against Palin, not generalized to all women.

For this, I am thankful.

I really don’t think so. There are just too many qualified Republican women out there. Here’s one.

I’m getting an impression that there is a groundswell coming from young people (such as my Marine son) who basically ignore race & gender. I hope I’m right. It’ll be good for the Republicans.

I would agree with this. Women are still being held to a higher standard perhaps though. The kids don’t care if a girl plays football, but the bitch better be able to catch the ball.

Actually, I think it’ll have just the opposite effect. Now that Republican women can see that the electorate will see them as viable candidates with a real chance, I think there will be more than one woman who throws their hat in the ring for the Republican nomination in the primaries in 2012. And when that happens, Sarah Palin will be humiliated off that stage.

I think the next major time you see a woman on the Republican ticket, it’ll be someone who ran for the Presidency and was therefore “vetted” by public and media exposure. Even if she’s eventually picked for the VP spot instead of the Presidential nomination, the party will know there won’t be any surprises.

I think it will stop candidates from choosing women as gimmicks or tokens, but should not affect the credibility or viability of female candidates in general. There are a number of Republican women who McCain could have chosen who would not have fallen prey to the kind of pitfalls or criticism that Palin has.

Condi Rice would not have been suckered by any fake Sarkozy phone calls.

I think your premise that the GoP thinks that Palin hurt their chances is mostly baseless. My prediction (barring the outside chance of McCain winning) is that Palin will become a more important part of GoP politics.

Good point.

Incompetent and stupid males of both parties have been put forth for centuries, and it hasn’t stopped the parties from putting forth members of that sex so now that it has been started for women, I don’t think it will keep competent women out of the races, or incompetent ones either for that matter.

Its really hard to say wether Palin has been a net positive or negative for the McCain campaign. Its undeniable that she has truly energized their base, i wouldn’t be surprised if there was as many republicans voting for Palin as there are for McCain. The thing is though McCain needed a lot more than his base to win, and Palin has definitely been a negative among independants and moderates. I don’t doubt that Palin will be very popular in the coming years, and i honestly look foward to it because her rabid fan base will make sure she wins primaries but her lack of appeal to absolutely anyone else will sink her in the end.

Damn straight. :wink:

The word does not mean what you think it means. What you mean is “affect”. Different words, different meanings.

related Q: Did Choosing Ferraro Negatively Effect Future Dem Female Candidates?

I wonder what people feel about this… (It has been 24 years.)

Well, that’s what I was thinking of–will it be another 24 years before we see another female VP or Presidential candidate or either party?

I think not, not due to Palin, but due to all the other “middle managers” in political office and Hillary. (middle managers meaning state senators, congressmen, governors and senators). I hope not.

Dr Deth–I was referring to women(not the GOP), not just GOP women. However, since Reps tend to be more conservative, a disinclination to putting up female candidates would tend to effect/affect(see below) that party more than the Dems.
I see quite a bit of sexism re the treatment of Palin. I can’t stand her, but that doesn’t mean I agree with any attack is warranted re a female(or any) candidate.

sailor: explain, please. My dictionary say “affect” is to have an effect. So if I had written the title as “Will the Choice of Palin Have a Negative Affect Re Future Female Candidates?”, would that have been correct or is that backwards? (that is, it’s a negative effect, but negatively affects?)
I never had a problem with affect and effect until I started posting here and by god, I can no longer figure out which one is “right”. I now have trouble with lay and lie as well.

Correct usage is either " will negatively affect", or “will have a negative effect”.


Thanks. Good thing I’m not a candidate! :wink: :smiley: