Why Talking About Sarah Palin is a Big Big Mistake for Democrats
September 15, 2008
I’m as guilty as the rest of us. I want to cash in on the Google search terms and the attention frenzy that has followed John McCain’s VP pick almost nonstop since it was announced.
But I’ll tell you all this now: the one sure-fire way for Democrats to lose the election this year is to talk about Sarah Palin.
There’s a scene in the movie Thank You For Smoking where Nick Naylor sits with his son Joey in California, eating ice cream. This is where Joey gets a quick tutorial in winning arguments:
“So you think chocolate is the end all and be all of ice cream, do you?” asks Nick.
“It’s the best ice cream. I wouldn’t order any other,” says Joey
“Oh, so it’s all chocolate for you, is it?” asks Nick.
“Yes, chocolate is all I need,” says Joey.
“Well, I need more than chocolate,” Nick launches into a speech. “And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream and that, Joey Naylor. That is the definition of liberty.”
“But you didn’t prove that vanilla was the best,” Joey protests.
“I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong. And if you’re wrong, I’m right,” Nick answers.
Winning an election is like winning a court case or an argument about ice cream. It’s about controlling the conversation and making sure that people aren’t thinking about the right things when they make their decision.
There’s been a lot of speculation about the political tactics behind picking Palin. I’ll tell you what it is. Palin is designed to attract two groups of voters:
- The socially conservative Republican base
- People who don’t figure out that she’s the Vice Presidential candidate
So far, the Republican strategy is succeeding brilliantly. They’ve snagged the single-issue conservative voters by bringing in a candidate that aligns strongly with their views. They’ve at least temporarily reframed the entire election by getting people to choose between Palin and Obama, instead of McCain and Obama.
And they’ve pulled the rest of the conservative base back in line by making them forget that voting in this election is as simple as asking yourself that one, all-important question: are you better off than you were 8 years ago?
For most Americans, the answer is a resounding no. And that includes the Republican base.
This is a guest post. About the Author:
Jason writes about newspapers and journalism at Eat Sleep Publish. To learn more about the future of publishing, subscribe to his blog.
If you would like to write a guest post for TeresaCentric, leave a comment below. As our first guest poster, Jason gets to pick the next person to write a guest story.
The Palin shine is wearing off a little as lie after lie after lie is revealed. I don’t think the Republicans will be able to keep her sequestered from reporters for long enough to fool enough voters before the voting begins. She’s starting to be shown as a fraud candidate, and while focusing on her too much might be an issue, letting all this slide would be a bigger problem.
BTW, put me down as interested in a guest post.
I pick…myself!
Ok probably not. Thanks for sharing your blog, T!
[...] out more by reading my guest post on TeresaCentric. Tagtastic: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share [...]
Daniel - I hope you are correct. My larger point is just that I hope we democrats don’t lose track of the important issues and get caught up in a social-issues fight with the republicans again.
Of course, the economy is doing some of that work. Unfortunately.
Daniel: Jason has designated you as the next guest poster. Drop me an e-mail with your post and I’ll put it up.
Easy for me to chime in after Nov. 4th, but I think you’re oversimplifying.
Winning a national election isn’t like winning a court case or an argument about ice cream. It’s a complex, dynamic balancing act wherein campaigns compete to persuade vast, overlapping demographics, special interests, and ideologies.
It shouldn’t have been a question of whether Democrats chose to discuss Palin. It was about how, when, and to whom they chose to make their arguments. I know it’s obvious, but the same fact about someone can be appealing to one group and repulsive to another.There are some groups who will be turned off by her views on abortion. Others that will be aghast that she couldn’t name a single periodical she reads. And yet others will take those two arguments as proof that she’s precisely the kind of woman needed to stir things up in D.C.
You’re right to suggest that Palin was a political gimmick meant to energize the conservative base (whatever that is these days). I even agree that the Dems would’ve been wrong to focus their arguments (at least in some sweeping sense) on the differences between Obama and Palin’s social-policy perspectives.
But Palin was also tragically vulnerable, and not bringing her weak points to light would have been just as suicidal for Dems as following your advice and focusing solely on McCain.
Again, my opinion is that it was a question of whom Dems said what</em) to—and how.
I agree. I think the Dems should have attacked Palin and should continue to as long as she occupies the national stage with her current lack of knowledge and radical views.