Losing the Base
National Review’s Kathleen Parker on The Palin Problem:
Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain?s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood ? a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.
Palin didn?t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.
It was fun while it lasted.
Palin?s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I?ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I?ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there?s not much content there. Here?s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: ?Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we?re talking about today. And that?s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.?
When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama?s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: ?I?m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who?s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who?s actually done it??
If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
If Palin were a man, we?d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she?s a woman ? and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket ? we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.
What to do?
McCain can?t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP?s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.
Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
Do it for your country.
I thought it was the Left that was supposed to suffer from “PDS.”
September 26th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
“No one hates saying that more than I do.”
Yeah, and I have this bridge for sale…
September 26th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Left finds out what politicians are, is surprised. Bush does it, Obama does it, Biden does it, McCain does it, Carter and Reagan did it, Adlai Stevenfrickenson did it.
Oh, and watch the “smart” quotes. I mean, the selection she picked is far from somehow horrifying, but forgetting something Saysuncle bitched about earlier doesn’t make you look like you actually cared for the whole five seconds it took to copy and paste.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I find the editorial interesting mainly because it comes from a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who only three weeks ago was gushing about Palin. So this is fundamentally different than the frequent liberal criticism of Palin that we’ve been seeing.
Side note: gatt, are you really referring to the National friggin Review as “the Left?”
September 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
One thing we must not forget is that we don’t know what Palin ACTUALLY said IN FULL… What we have in hand is the final product after substantial editing.
Whether the initial product is consistent with what has been presented publicly is unknown.
The televised Palin-Gibson interview appeared to show a woman who was not sure of herself, who was “out of her depth”. However, analysis of the full transcripts of the Palin-Gibson interview (published online by ABC) showed a Palin that was cogent, sincere, and confident. There were two Palins that arose from that interview, and the one televised to the world was far from the reality.
Some conservatives, I am afraid, are easily led around the nose by the information “gatekeepers” within broadcast media.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Oscar:
Sorry, but I’m not buying. I don’t really think it’s some kind of “selective editing” that makes this look bad. It reminds me of when I used to give bullshit answers on essay tests I hadn’t studied for…
September 26th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
No, I’m referring to you. Finding the National Review as surprised by anything — up to and including the sky being blue — is not particularly bad betting odds, especially with Mrs. Parker.
I assumed you actually agreed with the assertion that those two quotes were somehow evidence of Palin being a particularly empty suit, as far as the political stage goes.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Id take a mute who can lead over an sweet talker who had no idea what he is doing any day to lead my country…
September 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Tgirsch, we’ve seen ABC news take an answer that said NATO’s response to attacks on Georgia or even NATO members should be met with mere economic sanctions, and turn it into what was widely reported by the political sphere as recommending a War On Russia.
I don’t have the transcripts available and can’t follow the dialogue. I’m not going to say that’s the case here until I know for sure. It’s not so much political bias when it does happen, as it is the natural results of having to quickly cut down a real interview to fit between Britney’s snatch and the latest dog bites man story… but it’s increasingly realistic to be suspicious on both sides.
And, again, that sort of crap is par normal. I don’t like it when Obama gallops around on his Change unicorn and spewing rainbows out the mighty steed’s Hopehole, or when McCain does his mini-Dean look and proudly charges the ever-so-well-emplaced political sphere, but being surprised by that sort of political crap is pathetic.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
gatt:
From my own perspective, I’ve yet to see any substantive answer from Palin where she appeared to have a handle on what she’s talking about. But this post isn’t about me. I have several conservative (but not Jesusy-conservative) friends who are “embarrassed” by Palin, and they’re not surfing the liberal blogosphere all day long looking for nits to pick.
Frankly, I think there’s still too much focus on Palin — the bigger fish is McCain, who (with the notable exception of Iraq) changes positions so much, he makes John Kerry look like a stalwart paragon of principled resolve. Too much Palin-bashing is a losing recipe (cf., Dan Quayle).
Again, I found this interesting primarily because she’s starting to lose at least some of the people who initially were her biggest cheerleaders.
And all that aside, your personal mission in life is to be contrarian. If I had linked a pro-Palin piece, you’d be arguing against me on that, too.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
but, but, but…I thought the entire right side of the spectrum was in complete lockstep following marching orders issued every morning by evil mastermind Karl Rove.
Why…this whole thing would lead one to believe that people on the right are actually capable of…gasp!…independent thought!
Which may actually lead to…perish the thought…differences of opinion! Oh NOES!
September 26th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Yah, praising with faint damms. Parker is what you call one a them, er, what’s the word, it’s right on the tip of my tongue, oh yah, RINO!
Shame they are a protected species, what with McCain and all. At any rate, I’ll take Palin and whatever driveby media created “warts” over any of the good ole’ boys McCain had to chose from.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Mostly. Echo chambers, despite the human neurological biases, are not overwhelmingly good things.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Echo chambers, despite the human neurological biases, are not overwhelmingly good things.
Yes, but here you’re arguing with the echo rather than against it.
Post these objections over at my main blog, and then you’re disturbing the echo chamber!
September 26th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
…
*taps away at Open Debate thread*
…
What?
September 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I agree. More posts like this one, please.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Yeah, I guess Palin doesn’t have the succinctness of Joe Biden. (Roll eyes)
September 26th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I pretty much stand by what I said last go round on this…guys, why is it so hard to just offer the Palin thing up?
She’s a nice looking woman who respects the RKBA. Leave it that and you come out ahead. Act like the very candidate who’s running and hiding from unscripted time in front of cameras is actually a coherent, well read intellect is ridiculous (they’re hiding her for a reason…just accept it and get on with your life). Pretending she’s not out of her depth just makes you look like a partisan hack (and this is coming from a guy who’s not voting for either major party).
September 27th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Sebastian-PGP, I’m not sure why you think openly admitting to your intent to throw away your vote gives you any extra credibility on (1) who is or isn’t a political hack or (2) just about anything else. Care to elaborate?
September 27th, 2008 at 2:10 am
“Frankly, I think there?s still too much focus on Palin”
- Yeah, thanks for making the above point by making a post trying to convince her supporters not to vote for her.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:08 am
What exactly is “throwing your vote away”? Is that supposed to be insulting or coy? Not sure why that’s supposed to be compelling to somebody who finds both candidates unpalatable.
In any event, the point would be that I’m not in the bag for either candidate, so when I tell ya that all this groaning and moaning from folks that are, like you, about Palin actually being some sort of intellectual reservoir, it ain’t coming from somebody with a partisan point of view. In fact, since I’m an RKBA voter, I’m actually arguing against interest, making my position all the more compelling.
I’d think all that would be practically self-evident, but since we’re discussing the obvious, maybe you can repair your own credibility on 1) what throwing a vote away is (other than not using it) or 2) just about anything else.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Actually, if you read Parker’s earlier pieces, it’s obvious she was just jumping on board. Conservatism really has nothing to do with it. It’s the elitists vs. the popularists, those who think we should be governed by a professional class of politicians vs. those who think “of the people, by the people, for the people” really means what it says. Meagan MacArdle, Heather MacDonald, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, all supporters of rule by the elite.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Hmmmmm.
As a hard-right fiscal conservative I personally take anything said or written by any “conservative” pundit with a great deal of salt and never base my opinion on what they say/write.
The problem is the same one that happens to conservative politicians who go to Washington. They get captured by the system and slowly but surely become Washington insiders and thus elitists.
I don’t have a problem with Palin doing mediocre in interviews. Frankly if I were in charge I’d tell her to do mediocre in interviews to lull the other side into a level of complacency. Because the interviews aren’t all that important. What is important is the debate between the VP candidates.
I plan to make my judgments after the debate.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am
For the sake of argument, let’s all agree that Palin is out of her depth, ok?
Now, what does that say about all the anointed people who ran the train off the tracks before she even got on board?
Looking at it that way, her shortcomings, real or imagined, don’t appear to be any more disabling than those already displayed by her supposed betters.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Sebastian-PGP:
Not voting, or voting for Candidate #3 in a two-way race.
Neither. It’s simply telling it like it is. Either McCain or Obama will be our next President. Voting for one or the other will influence the outcome, ever so slightly. Voting for anyone else is a waste of your own time and that of the vote counters who will have to read your meaningless ballot.
It shouldn’t be, to someone who finds them equally unpalatable. If that’s your view, you might as well throw your vote away.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:57 am
It always makes in uncomfortable when Xrlq and I agree on anything.
I will say that there are some very limited circumstances where it’s not a total waste to vote for a third-party candidate, to wit:
1. When you genuinely have no preference at all between the two viable candidates (not bloody likely), OR when you live in an overwhelmingly “safe” state for one candidate or the other.
AND
2. When that third-party candidate otherwise has significant support, and maybe has a chance of hitting the magical 5% number (at least, I think 5% is magical in some way — something about automatically qualifying that party for the next election’s ballot/debates/etc., or something, but maybe I’m imagining that.)
If you live in a close state, however, I’d say that voting third party (or not voting) is actually worse than throwing away your vote — it’s implicitly casting your vote for the “favorite” in your state. (i.e., if you live in a state that generally votes Democratic, but the race is very close this year, not voting or voting third party is just as good as voting for the Democrat.)
Meanwhile, Dan:
thanks for making the above point by making a post trying to convince her supporters not to vote for her.
And where, exactly, do I say how people should/shouldn’t vote? The point of the editorial, whether you agree with it or not, isn’t that “you shouldn’t vote for McCain with Palin on the ticket”; it’s “Palin is a liability for McCain,” i.e., she’s likely to turn away more people than she attracts, once people see more of her. In other words, it’s not about what the author thinks voters ought to do, but what she thinks they will do. She thinks Palin’s going to cost McCain the election.
For whatever little it’s worth, I don’t really agree with that assessment. I think Palin’s the only reason McCain got any sort of GOP convention bump, but her novelty is wearing off, and we’re now more or less right back where we were before.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Actually tgirsch, my point was that if you were commenting on how too much attention is paid to Palin instead of McCain, than why post an editorial that is about Palin?
But the big story should by why Bush term III is not being blown out of the water by “he who is a community organizer, like Jesus Christ.”
September 27th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
A vote is an expression of opinion in a poll. If someone believes that both parties are/have been fucking up royally and wants to express that opinion by voting for a third party then it is not “throwing away a vote”–regardless of anyone else’s opinion on the matter.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“…it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem.”
Markie Marxist sez: “Exactly! I can’t believe that NRO agrees with us Marxists, but she really is a problem! Instead of being all cautious and careful about what she says while she’s learning the ropes, she should run around shooting her mouth off and talking nonsense like our problem child, Joe Biden. Then our big “O” would have a better chance. I’m glad NRO sees things our way for a change, but I don’t think it’s going to last.”
September 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Except, as T points out, you’re missing a few things. For one, I live in MD. The state that’s going Blue no matter what ya do. Functionally there’s no difference between voting for McCain or Barr.
Secondly, you’re missing that there are other ways to exert influence via a vote. The two big parties are often impacted by the relative strength of third party candidacies. Think I’m wrong? Do a google for these guys “Ross Perot” and “Ralph Nader”. You might have heard of them. A stronger Libertarian Party would keep the two big dogs honest on plenty of important issues, including the RKBA.
What’s more, both of T’s conditions apply in #1. I don’t like either candidate. MD’s already in the bag by a double digit margin for a candidate I *really* don’t like. In other words…got nuttin but love for ya, but you’re full of shit on this point re: tossing away a vote. If you’re gonna tell it like it is, at least be informed about “it”.
So, all that being settled, rest assured that my viewpoint on Palin should serve to inform the rational voter–I’m not criticizing her because I like Obama and Biden, I’m criticizing those of you who are making yourself look like boobs AND probably actually hurting your cause by pretending she’s something that a great majority of the world can see that she’s not.
My only quibble with T here is pretty well summed up by Magus–even if MD was a close state, the moral requirement to send the big parties a message by making them respect third parties outweighs the need to cast a vote for either candidate when they’re both pretty bad.
I used to refer to McCain as “my favorite Republican” when he actually was a maverick. Fuck that. As many conservative commentators have noted, the McCain that earned the respect of so many on both sides has sold his soul. It’s kinda sad to watch. The results might not be good for the one issue that I really care about, the RKBA.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Actually Palin is doing her job as a VP candidate. She brings in the crowds and pushes McCain. I do not think McCain is doing her any favors by keeping her sequestered. She needs to get out and do the normal give and take with the reporters on the trail.
She is a professional politician for 15 years. She knows how to to this but McCain is too protective and she is too careful trying not to step on his message. She probably has a lot of different opinions than McCain.
The interviews have in contrast been a major item rather than just part of the campaign and the reporters are doing extreme gotcha. I have never seen such hostile interviews and editing as Couric and Gibson for a new candidate. Biden and Obama never faced such intense and condescending questioning.
Palin has the talent of charm and charisma, let that flourish in the normal repartee on the trail and she will charm these reporters to her side.
I do not expect her to be Kissinger or Rice about foreign policy, as long as has has the right instincts and attitudes about America and use of foreign power.
I believe I have been reassured that she will make the right decsions since she believes in America and it’s rightness and goodness. She knows not to appease tyrants and enemies.
Obama not so much, he wants to be liked by Europe too much.He is too naive about the world and Palin never gave that naive impression. Plus she understands Russian ambitions to control the pipelines and oil to intimidate Europe. So that is more than most democrats can understand.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Hmmm.
And let me point out:
If you voted for John Edwards for VP in 2004 then you’ve got no basis to argue against Palin now.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I do not think McCain is doing her any favors by keeping her sequestered.
If you voted for John Edwards for VP in 2004 then you?ve got no basis to argue against Palin now.
Really? Have you seen this.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
As a Concerned Christian Conservative Republican ?, it seems to me that anything subject to Media Editing is suspect.
The Media would make Christ’s Sermon on the Mount sound like it came from an inexperienced community organizer with a little judicious editing.
I don’t trust the Media, and I don’t watch TV. I’d rather read full transcripts and make up my own mind.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Fair enough. I suppose one could argue that since you’re in a state that is not remotely competitive (mine isn’t, either, but don’t tell Obama that), you might just as well treat the election as though it were an opinion poll, and in that case, vote your conscience. In fact, I would have no quibble with you if that were ALL you were suggesting, i.e., that voters in safe states should vote their consciences but voters in competitive states or even remotely competitive ones (i.e., those where an upset is unlikely but not implausible) should hold their noses and vote for the lesser evil (or, if they can’t bring themselves to do that, to vote against the greater one).
Funny how you say that, given that I was a Libertarian Party candidate myself in the year of Pee-Rot, and accomplished exactly the same thing at the local level that he accomplished nationally. All it got us was two years of an NRA B-rated buffoon serving in place of the A+ rated Republican who otherwise would have won handily. IOW, I learned the hard way the very same lesson you have yet to learn at all. I guess some lessons were only meant to be learned the hard way.
The Nader analogy is even sillier. What on earth lesson were the Democrats supposed to have learned from Ralph Nader? That they needed to come back four years later with a candidate who was even further to the left than Gore was, so they could reclaim the Nader vote but alienate more voters in the center and lose the general election by a bigger margin than before?
September 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Don’ cha’ just love a good cat fight? All these jealous gals are just seething that the first woman within reach of the Executive branch can shoot big game with Ted Nugent and make lipstick look better than Angelina Jolie. Women are so petty in their drama.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:35 am
The far left were peeing in their pants three weeks ago. Now they are declaring victory.
Premature on both instances. It is nip and tuck and the finish line in a long way away.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Speaking of silly analogies:
What lesson is that, exactly? That voting for the gunshow loophole myth believing “assault weapon” hating panderer who’ll sell us out first chance he gets is important in a state that he can’t win in a million years? That occasionally the major parties need to be kept honest is something you don’t believe anymore? If those are the lessons you’re offering, don’t be surprised if I don’t sign up for that class.
Save the condescension for someone less informed, please. Pretty clearly 3rd party candidates can be quite important, and the RKBA is certainly an issue where they can be useful in holding people’s feet to the fire.
Talk about silly, thanks for making my point for me by way of you missing it entirely. Pretty clearly he had a dramatic effect on the election, meaning people weren’t just “throwing votes away” (a concept I see you didn’t even bother to defend…you mentioned it like it was a disease I was admitting to having…ridiculous). As for the lesson they learned, it’s pretty obvious it didn’t take–when you run weepy-meepy political machine spineless dweebs who don’t make strong, assertive, affirmative cases for their own candidacy, you don’t do well on the national stage. In any event, my point was hardly that the Dems should run candidates like Nader. I thought it pretty obvious that I was merely refuting the idea that 3rd party candidates aren’t influential and that votes cast for them don’t matter.
From the beginning I’ve been making one overarching point here: Palin isn’t a superhero, she isn’t even above average in any way I can see except maybe for being pretty aesthetically pleasing for a woman her age with that many rugrats. And yet the conservosphere is full of folks who seem unwilling to concede that point, which strikes me as ultimately detrimental to the campaign as a whole because it perpetuates her shortcomings as a media talking point.
You seemed to want to question that by suggesting that my arguments aren’t meritorious because I don’t share your fervent adherence to the two party system and lesser evil-ism. I’ve simply pointed out that A) your “throwing your vote away” argument won’t pass even a perfunctory sniff test based on recent memory and B) you’re misinformed about why I’m casting my vote. In any event, seemed pretty clear you were more interested in coming after me than defending Palin. In sum, 1) I see little reason for the childish insistence that she’s something she’s not, 2) 3rd party candidates can be important, especially to people like me who are essentially single issue voters in an election where your pet issue isn’t something either major party’s candidate is particularly good on, and 3) so fuckin what even if I am wrong on any of that? It’s my fucking vote. Get over it.
We about done here? Spend less time going after me and more time going after gun grabbers, please.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Oh, and FWIW, I’m not entirely averse to the argument that in a close state where one candidate is better than another on your issue, then yeah voting for the lesser evil isn’t unimportant. If I were in a battleground state, I probably could be talked into voting for McCain as a vote against Obama on the RKBA. Anymore I am almost a single issue voter there.
I’m just saying the blanket assertion that I’m “throwing my vote away” lacks merit.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Actually no, it isn’t. Nor does voting “send a message.” In order for either to be true, you’d have to have a little comment box there so you could write in why you voted the way you did.
A vote is a vote. Period. Not a message. Not an expression. Just a vote.
September 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Um… yes it is. By definition a vote is an expression of opinion.
Here are some definitions of “vote” for you to review:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4h5gal
September 28th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Sebastian-PGP:
There’s only one major candidate in the race who hates “assault” weapons, and trust me, he will carry your state.
With all due respect, anyone who thinks McCain is an “assault” weapon hater, despite having voted against the ban both times, definitely qualifies as among the less informed.
“Fervent adherence” to reality, indeed. You’re screeching and moaning as if I had said the two party system is a good thing. It’s not. It is, however, reality. Rational people accept reality and make the best of it. Irrational people insist on taking the world as it should be, rather than as it is, and wonder why nothing good ever comes of it.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Sebastian-PGP:
Actually, Nader voters in 2000 did something far worse than “throw away” their vote. They cast their vote in an unquestionably counterproductive fashion. Unless you think there are a fair number of Nader voters who prefer 8 years of Bush to 4 years of Gore. I suspect there are a whole lot of them kicking themselves and wishing that gee, maybe they had thought about what’s practical and chosen the lesser of two evils.
Look, you want third parties to have more influence in electoral politics? Then fight to change the constitution to eliminate plurality victories — require a true majority of votes to win a seat. Or better yet, fight for a parliamentary system of government, where parties get proportional representation.
In the meantime, I think you’re setting your sights pretty low if you’re content with just being the Pittsburgh Pirates all the time.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Dude, please.
This is getting boring. You’re right, after having once voted to extend the AWB he know says he’s against AWBs (the kind of jonny come lately flipflop before it before he was against it stuff we reject from Obama).
If you really think he won’t sign an AWB to garner political capital…well, ok. I wouldn’t bet the next two mortgage payments on it. Whatever makes you feel better about the lesser evil.
Ahem.
I’m not screeching at all, I’m rationally and calmly pointing out that, in point of fact, you DID make a blanket, unqualified suggestion that failing to comply with it is “throwing my vote away”, which I later showed to be utter bullshit.
And the reality is, we have a couple of parties that really suck–and that on key issues like the RKBA, third parties at the very least can keep them honest, shape the discussion, and make the rubes in the two big parties sit up and take notice. Ignoring the parts of “reality” that you don’t like and repeating the same obvious omissions over and over ad nauseam doesn’t make your argument more compelling. As I pointed out, even you’ve conceded that 3rd parties certainly can’t be ignored by way of your own experience. It just makes you look silly to admit as much but then suggest that I’m the one ignoring “reality” when you’re the one suggesting 3rd parties don’t matter. The “reality” is that part and parcel of the 2 party system is that 3rd parties can shape the nature and often the result of the election.
Tgirsch, I was hardly suggesting that Nader’s movement in 2000 was a good thing for the Democratic party. I was simply pointing out what you’ve reinforced, that 3rd parties are hardly negligible.
Not sure what relevance your last sentence has since it appears to be addressing a position nobody here holds, least of all myself.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I was hardly suggesting that Nader?s movement in 2000 was a good thing for the Democratic party. I was simply pointing out what you?ve reinforced, that 3rd parties are hardly negligible.
That’s fine, but that’s not what I was arguing. What I was arguing was that in your examples of third-party candidates impacting the outcome of an election, the effect is virtually always counterproductive to the agenda of the third-party that those voters support. In what tangible ways did “punishing” the GOP by helping to get Clinton elected advance the agenda of Perot voters? In what tangible ways did playing the spoiler for Gore and ushering Bush into office advance the Green Party agenda?
The answer: It didn’t, and in fact, it was almost directly counterproductive to the agendas of those voters. In the best/worst case, all you’re doing by voting third party is playing the spoiler and ruining it for somebody else, without doing yourself any tangible good (hence the reference to the late-season Pittsburgh Pirates).
So I ask again: In what way does that third-party vote help your cause at all, other than acting as a giant F-U to the party that’s much closer to your position (though having the gall to not be perfect) on the issue most important to you?
I’m a pragmatist, and at the end of the day, all that matters is how your actions move you closer to your objectives. I fail to see how voting third-party does any such thing.
It continues to surprise me that people feel so strongly about it, though. I’ve had lengthy debates about this with people in comments here and also here.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Well, hell. Since a conservative group that can never be pleased by any Republican politician isn’t pleased, I guess I’ll have to vote Democrat this year.
/sarcasm
September 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
No, according to Seb-PGP, you should vote third party this year. Barr 2008!
September 29th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Now, everyone knows I was being sarcastic, but that was just *mean*.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:15 am
T–
My motivation is showing Democrats that it’s great that they respect several civil liberties…but they tend to forget the most important one of all in my book. And it’s showing the GOP that while it’s nice they tend to agree with me on the RKBA, their adherence to the right wing religionazi agenda is a real problem.
Both parties need to do a better job respecting civil liberties and individual freedom. My vote for a party focused on doing just that seems a perfectly reasonable objective, thank you very much.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I should say, a perfectly reasonable action or step toward that objective.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I understand what your motivation is; I just don’t understand what good it does. If you send a message that your intended recipient doesn’t get, what have you accomplished?
As I wrote several comments ago, I don’t have an inherent problem with tilting at windmills, as long as you realize that’s what you’re doing (and to about as much effect).
September 29th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
What have we accomplished? We’ve shown that nobody everybody buys into the current either/or, Dem or GOP choice. We’ve shown that 3rd parties aren’t going anywhere. We’ve shown that, if they don’t get the message, we need to try harder in the future. What, you think if I vote for Obama he’s going to get the message on the RKBA? You think if I vote for McCain he’s going to get the message on cowtowing to the Religious Right?
They’re not getting the message either way. Although I could probably make a pretty decent argument that the Obama nomination represents the Dems getting a good portion of the Nader message (and that the Palin nomination is a nod to the RKBA movement, and thus a clear indication they’re getting the message that Barr could flank them there and do damage…so I think your premise is flawed anyhoo).
I don’t see the failure of 3rd party candidates to win as a sign they should hang it up. I see it as a sign that they need to persevere and keep getting the message out. I guess I don’t see where it’s written that I’m any more likely to advance the RKBA movement by being a cheap date and selling my vote to McCain for bottom dollar.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
What, you think if I vote for Obama he’s going to get the message on the RKBA? You think if I vote for McCain he’s going to get the message on cowtowing to the Religious Right?
I think that the time to argue those issues is between elections (and certainly during the primaries), not during them, when the field has already been narrowed to two. Riffing off Xrlq for a moment, I think we should play the game the way it exists, not the way we wish it existed. And yes, that means voting for the least of evils when it comes to general elections. The primaries are the time to
cut off your nose to spite your facestand on “principle” — the general election is a lousy time to do that, unless you genuinely have no preference whatsoever between the two viable candidates.And for the record, I don’t think third party candidates should “hang it up.” I think they should start small, however, and gain support at the local level. Worry about actually winning seats at some level of government instead of going for the whole enchilada (POTUS) and then effectively disappearing for another four years.
Winning and losing elections is the only thing that matters to politicians, and so when Party A loses an election, they’re not going to start looking at fringe groups to see how they can court them — they’re going to look to the middle, to see how they can court them. And most of the time, that means moving further away from the fringe groups, meaning, again, that you’ve only managed to accomplish something counterproductive.
As previously stated, in your state, it won’t matter much. But in close states, it can matter a great deal, and in those cases, the results are almost never what the third party voters really wanted.