Will Palin be a net gain or net loss for McCain?

[Eraserhead]

I'll have to wait to see the polling, but I have to admit that I see the potential.  In theory, McCain could have just gotten 33-35% of the Democratic base.  We'll see in about a fortnight.

I really hope this is a joke... but sadly I know it isn't.

[Lunar]

My personal odds have Palin at a net loss, where the odds of her seriously/slightly hurting the ticket are greater than her odds of seriously/slightly helping it.

I can just imagine a beautiful ad run next week in the swing states:
[Game show music]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Insert or take out "facts" to maximize her kookiness, celebrity status, but to minimize backlash (like maybe not mentioning McCain's age).

The only one of those comments that matter is the Buchanan support, which is even vaguer by comparision to Obama's vigorous support from Wright and Ayers.

Seriously, making fun of the fact that she comes from a small town makes you, and Democrats in general, like a complete pricks.

As for the "investigation for corruption" -- attacking the gov for firing a commissioner who defended a rogue state trooper. That's a real winner.

I intentionally made the charges actually sound like an attack ad, the stuff in the <quote> is NOT what I believe.  Attack ads aren't really famous for being rational or truthful dude.  But good job not figuring that out and instead just calling me a prick.

[Third Party]

Net loss. She has very little experience.

I'll have to wait to see the polling, but I have to admit that I see the potential.  In theory, McCain could have just gotten 33-35% of the Democratic base.  We'll see in about a fortnight.

No, female (and most male) Democratic voters will not vote for an anti-choice Republican like Palin. Even Tom Ridge would have been a better selection for seeking Democratic voters. In addition, Palin is a Creationist and an Evangelical fundamentalist. Far too extreme.

[Smash255]

net loss.  Not like the other choices were good ones, but this will hurt.  The republicans didn't seem to learn from their mistakes from 06.  They didn't lose because Republicans & conservatives stayed home (because they didn't) or because they didn't vote GOP (they did).  the GOP lost because they got their asses handed to them by moderates and Independents.

McCain has put himself very close to Bush (not good for the moderates and Independent vote).  While conservatives weren't that happy with McCain, his problems as far as winning an election is concerned is in the middle, not the right.  So what does he do, pick a hard right conservative.  Thats not going to help him in the middle and play right into the Dems hands at showing McCain isn't the moderate he pretends to be.

You are seeing things in the context of liberalism vs. conservatism.  We must look at things from a perspective of the status quo vs. reform.  Sarah Palin reinforces McCain's image as a maverick.  Hell, nobody expected Palin to get the pick.  Even her gender is unconventional. 

McCain had a choice with his running mate, a choice how to run the campaign.  Either a conventional campaign from the Bush/Rove playbook, or playing a completely different game - of appealing to the middle, to independents, to former Clinton supporters.  He chose the latter.  We'll see how it goes.

I don't see how this appeals to the middle, independents or Clinton supporters, she is way too far to the right to have any real appeal to the Clinton supporters or the middle. 

[Storebought]

My personal odds have Palin at a net loss, where the odds of her seriously/slightly hurting the ticket are greater than her odds of seriously/slightly helping it.

I can just imagine a beautiful ad run next week in the swing states:
[Game show music]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Insert or take out "facts" to maximize her kookiness, celebrity status, but to minimize backlash (like maybe not mentioning McCain's age).

The only one of those comments that matter is the Buchanan support, which is even vaguer by comparision to Obama's vigorous support from Wright and Ayers.

Seriously, making fun of the fact that she comes from a small town makes you, and Democrats in general, like a complete pricks.

As for the "investigation for corruption" -- attacking the gov for firing a commissioner who defended a rogue state trooper. That's a real winner.

I intentionally made the charges actually sound like an attack ad, the stuff in the <quote> is NOT what I believe.  Attack ads aren't really famous for being rational or truthful dude.  But good job not figuring that out and instead just calling me a prick.

Can't take it back. The tone of your orginal post made manifest that you, in fact, supported Democrats' efforts to make fun of her regional origin. Not at all cool.

I stand by my contention: Obama has noted elitist pretentions. Attacking Palin because she hails from the sticks (like most Americans, even the ones who later move to the city or have country relatives) only accentuates it.

[Lunar]

My personal odds have Palin at a net loss, where the odds of her seriously/slightly hurting the ticket are greater than her odds of seriously/slightly helping it.

I can just imagine a beautiful ad run next week in the swing states:
[Game show music]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Insert or take out "facts" to maximize her kookiness, celebrity status, but to minimize backlash (like maybe not mentioning McCain's age).

The only one of those comments that matter is the Buchanan support, which is even vaguer by comparision to Obama's vigorous support from Wright and Ayers.

Seriously, making fun of the fact that she comes from a small town makes you, and Democrats in general, like a complete pricks.

As for the "investigation for corruption" -- attacking the gov for firing a commissioner who defended a rogue state trooper. That's a real winner.

I intentionally made the charges actually sound like an attack ad, the stuff in the <quote> is NOT what I believe.  Attack ads aren't really famous for being rational or truthful dude.  But good job not figuring that out and instead just calling me a prick.

Can't take it back. The tone of your orginal post made manifest that you, in fact, supported Democrats' efforts to make fun of her regional origin. Not at all cool.

I stand by my contention: Obama has noted elitist pretentions. Attacking Palin because she hails from the sticks (like most Americans, even the ones who later move to the city or have country relatives) only accentuates it.

Well, the internet makes it difficult to discern tone.  I intentionally exaggerated the charges in the attack ad to be like all attack ads, that is, logically ridiculous.  I thought it was apparent but you chose to refute it.  She obviously has a record of reform and an outside image that will be run as a theme on her convention night and in the campaign.  When I say "beautiful ad" - that is sarcastic dawg.

I do think there might be a way to make her seem more kooky than rural since rural Alaskan culture might be quite a bit different from what resonates in the heartland.  Anyway, I'll leave you be, enjoy the internet.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Net gain.

Will she help with swing voters? Not much, but unless McCain picked someone who alienated the base, courting the swing vote was always going to be his job, not his running mate's.  However, Palin secures the GOP base for McCain and will help him with those portions of the swing vote that he was ill-suited to go after.

As far as issues voters are concerned, Palin locks down the base for McCain in a way none of Paulenty, Romney, Ridge, nor Lieberman (to name the list of usual suspects many pundits had in their short lists) could have done, and I can't see where voters who are strongly pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-drilling, or anti-war would have been voting for McCain no matter who McCain picked.

For character voters, Palin is of the four nominees, the one that most resembles how a typical American voter likes to think of themselves.

As for the gender issue, I seriously doubt that there are normally many voters who would cast their vote solely because of it, but the long Democratic primary season between two candidates with few substantive policy differences has raised the sensitivity of some voters on that point.  To the degree Palin helps here, it will be more a case of causing Hillary voters to stay home than of having them vote for McCain over Obama.  As such, that effect won't show up directly in the exit polling.

[Beet]

Both gain and loss.

Usually the Vice Presidential pick brings a gain to the ticket because the Vice President will offer some combination of qualities where the Presidential candidate wants to shore himself up or reinforce himself. That was the case with Bush in 2000, Gore in 1992, Dukakis in 1988. The only question is how much the Vice Presidential candidate helps. In 2004, Kerry-Edwards was superior to Kerry alone, but not by much. Only rarely is it (Quayle 1988, Ferraro 1984) that the Vice Presidential pick casts a negative light on the top of the ticket, and even more rarely (1972) disaster.

Palin obviously brings advantages that she will appeal to women, and she is a young, likable person who has never been part of D.C. who contrasts with McCain's insider Senatorial biography and softens his mature, gruff, military image.

Her disadvantages are equally obvious in that she possess only 1.5 years of statewide elected experience in a tiny state. In the immediate Rasmussen poll, just 29% thought she was qualified to be President. Palin's job in the upcoming weeks and months will be to improve these numbers and avoid making any mistakes that could reinforce them.

Her extreme politics are at odds with her image, and it's still difficult to know how this will play. My hunch is that it will help shore up some of the evangelical base, but at the same time turn off some Jewish and moderate voters, and may, perversely, help energize some of the very social liberal groups that may have fell on the Clinton side in the primary. But whatever impact is going to be at the margins.

[KeyKeeper]

Net Nothing or just a little gain with the base of the Republican Party. As the election rolls on, the Democratic Party will paint Palin as another Bush.

[Reluctant Republican]

I think she’s a net gain. At the very least, she’s really unified the base, and I think we’ll see evangelicals vote for McCain that might otherwise have been leery. At the same time, I think there more likely to do voter outreach and try to get out the vote now that one of their own is on the ticket. As for the women thing, I think women will be split on how they view the choice. Many women will see this as a pandering move and won't be swayed and might even be alienated a bit , but I think there will be some women who will now give McCain another look, at least, and many of this group will decide to vote for him. And most people who are concerned about Palin’s inexperience were not going to vote for Obama anyway. If "experience" means so much to them, they’ll be voting McCain.

So I think this is a net gain, I’m just not sure how big of one. It’s doubtful I think that this will swing the election or anything, but in the end I think it has made McCain’s job a little bit easier.

[J. J.]

Net loss. She has very little experience.

I'll have to wait to see the polling, but I have to admit that I see the potential.  In theory, McCain could have just gotten 33-35% of the Democratic base.  We'll see in about a fortnight.

No, female (and most male) Democratic voters will not vote for an anti-choice Republican like Palin. Even Tom Ridge would have been a better selection for seeking Democratic voters. In addition, Palin is a Creationist and an Evangelical fundamentalist. Far too extreme.

Probably not.  Before she was on the ticket, 28% of Clinton's voters were supporting McCain.  Palin has given those people a reason to stay.  30% were undecided.  Palin will swing some of those; how many is a guess at this point.

It's between a very minor plus to a larger plus, but the potential was there.

I'm a bit like the Imperial Officer that tells the Grand Moff Tarkin that, at the Battle of Yarvin, there might be a danger of the Rebel attack working.  There is potential, but nothing more at this point.

[Brittain33]

I'm going to skip the gut check and look at the facts we have for the 36 hours since this happened.

Palin has shored up McCain among the social conservatives he absolutely needs to get to the polls for him to win, and has also juiced his fundraising.
McCain won the news cycle away from Obama's speech for the weekend.
The pick has been greeted with a mix of press, as much negative as positive, in contrast to Biden.
McCain sacrificed the "not ready/not experienced" criticism.
Palin created an opening to appeal to some women while closing off the ticket to pro-choice women, who probably wouldn't have come over anyway. (I concur with others that there was no option for McCain to choose anything but a solid pro-lifer.)
She displaced Romney, an unassailable plus. 

What this adds up to is in the eye of the beholder and how people choose to view the ticket. I know how I feel, and I've been assured by many people here they disagree, and so it goes. I remember convincing myself that Teresa Heinz Kerry wasn't a bad thing and the people who thought she was a negative could go hang, and Palin isn't an actual liability yet like Teresa became.

[Nym90]

Net loss. She has very little experience.

I'll have to wait to see the polling, but I have to admit that I see the potential.  In theory, McCain could have just gotten 33-35% of the Democratic base.  We'll see in about a fortnight.

No, female (and most male) Democratic voters will not vote for an anti-choice Republican like Palin. Even Tom Ridge would have been a better selection for seeking Democratic voters. In addition, Palin is a Creationist and an Evangelical fundamentalist. Far too extreme.

Probably not.  Before she was on the ticket, 28% of Clinton's voters were supporting McCain.  Palin has given those people a reason to stay.  30% were undecided.  Palin will swing some of those; how many is a guess at this point.

It's between a very minor plus to a larger plus, but the potential was there.

I'm a bit like the Imperial Officer that tells the Grand Moff Tarkin that, at the Battle of Yarvin, there might be a danger of the Rebel attack working.  There is potential, but nothing more at this point.

I think it's insulting to them to say that Clinton's supporters who were supporting McCain have been given a "reason to stay" as well as to say that Palin is a net plus with undecided Clinton supporters as this automatically assumes that they will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. Picking someone like Ridge or Lieberman would've been a much better way to appeal to Clinton's supporters, since those candidates would've actually agreed with Clinton on at least one major issue (most, in the case of Lieberman).

So no, Palin doesn't help with Clinton supporters, because they'll be smart enough to know that what's between her legs matters less than what's in her head. Picking an extremely conservative running mate was actually the best possible way to drive away Clinton's supporters.

Palin does help with the base. She doesn't help with swing voters except those who only care about things like gender and don't care about issues (and that will go both ways, as some misogynistic men will swing away from McCain, probably just as many voters total as the women who switch to McCain).

[Torie]

Let me say again, Palin has yet to be tested. It is too early to arrive at any judgment. If she proves articulate and intelligent, and can handle the curve balls, and gets up to the speed on the issues, she will be a home run maybe. If.

[Vsanto5]

no change, I dont think he has picked up any new voters net gain.  Although we could be in for a small bounce.

[Sam Spade]

Let me say again, Palin has yet to be tested. It is too early to arrive at any judgment. If she proves articulate and intelligent, and can handle the curve balls, and gets up to the speed on the issues, she will be a home run maybe. If.

You may say it plenty, but I don't know whether anyone will listen.

[Nym90]

Let me say again, Palin has yet to be tested. It is too early to arrive at any judgment. If she proves articulate and intelligent, and can handle the curve balls, and gets up to the speed on the issues, she will be a home run maybe. If.

You may say it plenty, but I don't know whether anyone will listen.

Oh, I agree, completely. How she'll perform is of course the great unknown, just as it is with every VP pick, especially inexperienced ones.

But if Republicans believe Palin appeals to Clinton's supporters, that just goes to show how out of touch they are (I suppose they figure since they supported Clinton, they can't be too bright, right?). Not that I mind if they go ahead and vastly underestimate their intelligence.

The great number of threads and posts about Palin do seem vastly out of proportion to the impact of the selection, however. No VP candidate, no matter how good or bad, really has much effect on any election. I would guess that a spectacular VP pick as opposed to a horrible one would make a difference of 2 percent nationally, max.

It would make far more sense to devote a dozen threads of 20 pages each to McCain and Obama's position on health care, or education, or the environement, etc. Things that, you know, will actually matter a lot more in the end to the outcome of the election.

[Sam Spade]

Let me say again, Palin has yet to be tested. It is too early to arrive at any judgment. If she proves articulate and intelligent, and can handle the curve balls, and gets up to the speed on the issues, she will be a home run maybe. If.

You may say it plenty, but I don't know whether anyone will listen.

Oh, I agree, completely. How she'll perform is of course the great unknown, just as it is with every VP pick, especially inexperienced ones.

But if Republicans believe Palin appeals to Clinton's supporters, that just goes to show how out of touch they are (I suppose they figure since they supported Clinton, they can't be too bright, right?). Not that I mind if they go ahead and vastly underestimate their intelligence.

I already said where the impact was - I think Clinton supporters, especially pro-choice single women are completely off the radar.  But they were always off the radar.  See here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=81775.msg1693682#msg1693682

[Nym90]

Let me say again, Palin has yet to be tested. It is too early to arrive at any judgment. If she proves articulate and intelligent, and can handle the curve balls, and gets up to the speed on the issues, she will be a home run maybe. If.

You may say it plenty, but I don't know whether anyone will listen.

Oh, I agree, completely. How she'll perform is of course the great unknown, just as it is with every VP pick, especially inexperienced ones.

But if Republicans believe Palin appeals to Clinton's supporters, that just goes to show how out of touch they are (I suppose they figure since they supported Clinton, they can't be too bright, right?). Not that I mind if they go ahead and vastly underestimate their intelligence.

I already said where the impact was - I think Clinton supporters, especially pro-choice single women are completely off the radar.  But they were always off the radar.  See here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=81775.msg1693682#msg1693682

Well, you aren't a Republican, so thus I wasn't directing that at you. I agree that you are much more astute than J. J. in this (and most other as well) political analysis.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What do you say?  I say net nothing.

Going to second that. She seems like another Ferraro to me.

Didn't Ferraro hurt a bit?

VERY small net gain.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Gain, absolutely

[Ronnie]

Gain, absolutely

I thought you said you weren't supporting McCain/Palin anymore?