The Palin Brand - hope posting this isn't too provocative, but thought this was an interesting piece worth reading.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Thats brilliant! Man, why did the Daily Show take two weeks off!?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We shouldn't forget though that the New York Times has no love for Palin in the first place.
I wish they'd write an editorial about Michael Palin
I'd love to sit next to him on an airplane.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The New York Times has no love for Palin for some very decent reasons, and they go a bit beyond her contempt for the media and for the city and state of New York. Anyway, this editorial is not shy about characterizing Palin as a cynical luddite attacking the media for reasons of vanity and cash profits. That's not an extraordinarily tough case to make.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: I was not suggesting that the New York Times is all wrong, but I remember clearly as I used to read their editorials daily that the day McCain announced her as his running mate they were positively dripping with venom before they could find any sort of justification for it.
I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin in any sense of the word, but I also think the NYTs was a bit too fast to get the hate train rolling.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Can you link the editorial you're referring to? I never saw it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While I'd hardly say they liked her, this editorial from right after the announcement is hardly dripping with venom:
edit: maybe you're referring to this one? It is several days later, after there was more time to form a judgement. NYT Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Somebody actually tried to get away with stealing a speech from Obama? That seems a bit hopeful considering how many people have heard his speeches.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Somebody actually tried to get away with stealing a speech from Obama? That seems a bit hopeful considering how many people have heard his speeches.
Part of the whole: "these people are blindingly stupid" point of the editorial. Such brash and unapologetic hypocrisy is "the Palin Brand"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
fugu13: I think it was the later written three days later after the first you linked.
Now in the interest of full disclosure the moment I read about Sarah Palin I was surprised and then quickly disappointed, but I didn't feel like the NYTs or TWP were ever less than critical of her as a candidate.
But since she was a terrible choice I guess I should rescind the idea that they weren't ever going to like her. I guess we can never know because there isn't a universe where Sarah Palin is a good candidate.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I just remembered Ms. Palin spending a lot of time condemning then Senator Obama as being "just a Celebrity, not a politician." Now she is the one who is surrendering her political life for that of a celebrity.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Somebody actually tried to get away with stealing a speech from Obama? That seems a bit hopeful considering how many people have heard his speeches.
You're giving Obama too much credit. The speeches he gives aren't his own. Palin can give a speech with a one word crib note on her hand. Obama stumbles when the teleprompter crashes.
I don't really care for Palin. I agree with most of her positions but I can't stand listening to her. I hope she never runs for political office again. Her best roll is as a political commentator.
Linking a New York Times Blog doesn't carry any more weight than the comments on Hatrack.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Posts at Hatrack actually carry a lot of weight with me. Or at least they used to...
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Agreed. I have much respect for the intellectual honesty and consistency here....even from people I disagree with.
Hatrack doesn't have an agenda, unlike the New York Times. Hatrack has people expressing their ideas. The New York Times picks and chooses what it thinks is news worthy. They ignore stories that are against their ideals and trump up non-stories to benefit their ideals.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The New York Times is wonderful for many things. Their political coverage and their disdain for large portions of America is distinctly not one of them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're one to talk about disdain. As usual, the ad hom against the Times works much better than anything substantive you might have contributed, like why anything they said in those editorials was wrong. But you haven't done that. Neither of you. You haven't even tried. It's easier to whine.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but I didn't feel like the NYTs or TWP were ever less than critical of her as a candidate.
I must ask, what exactly should one expect? It was so utterly clear from the first moment that she was a disastrous choice (before she even opened her mouth, you understand, but on a political level and her experience alone, a disastrous choice), that I think it probably took a fair amount of restraint from the Times to not lead off with "WTF?: Palin named VP candidate."
The day she was appointed it took me approximately an hour of research to understand what a mistake her candidacy was. Are they required to give her one freebie editorial before they pounce? What function would that serve? Why would their readership trust them if they pulled their punches? Why would anything they had to say matter if they didn't share their opinions in the editorial section? And before you snap back with "give her a chance-" she was already a public figure, and that which she had done up to that point was more than fair game- it would have been negligent to ignore it. Part of the idiocy of her candidacy was that the public was so unfamiliar with her exploits in Alaska, each piece of negative news hit with a resounding splash- one for which no spin or filter had ever been applied, or needed outside of Alaska. McCain took a problematic person and turned her into a problematic giant in one day- the problems just look 100 times bigger on national tv, and all of them were new to everybody.
I was constantly put off by this game the Palin camp played throughout the election. The accusation that the media was being, not unfair, but *not nice,* as if she needed their niceness in order to shine through with her better qualities. One could easily discern from everything she said that niceness was an absolute necessity- that if one were the least bit uncharitable with anything she said or did, her house of cards would fall down. The victim complex stacked on top of the penchant for lying and prevaricating made Palin's relationship with the media intractable. That was not the media's fault. Those lies had been told already, and her approach to the massive immovable object that is the media proved that she was not, herself, an unstoppable force. And anyway, she thrust herself and was thrust at the behest of others into a spotlight she had no business inhabiting, and never should have been given the chance to jump into. Extraordinary circumstances with absurd results- the whole thing was just an unfortunate business.
[ May 31, 2010, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You're one to talk about disdain. As usual, the ad hom against the Times works much better than anything substantive you might have contributed, like why anything they said in those editorials was wrong. But you haven't done that. Neither of you. You haven't even tried. It's easier to whine.
Whistled.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Seriously? You're going to whistle that? I think it would help if you got punished for wasting Pj's time, because there's no way he's going to come down on your side.
Seriously Kat, wow.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Seriously kat people here have been far more ruder to me and I don't whistle it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's not even a matter of being rude. It was a genuine criticism, and it was well placed. She just didn't like it because she's a whiner. Yes Kat, you are a whiner. Always have been.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It's not even a matter of being rude. It was a genuine criticism, and it was well placed. She just didn't like it because she's a whiner. Yes Kat, you are a whiner. Always have been.
Whistled.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Good times on hatrack.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
whistled
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: whistled
whistled for whining to pj by whistling
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: whistled
whistled for whining to pj by whistling
whistled for whining to pj about whining
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
anyway, I want to comment on the OP's article.
It is surprising to me actually how consistently terrible Palin's vetting has been. And I don't mean surprising normal. I mean surprising for Palin. Like I already anticipated her political involvements to be in poor taste, but this is just beyond the pale.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: whistled
whistled for whining to pj by whistling
whistled for whining to pj about whining
Whistled for being meta.
For being meta...
quote: for being
quote: META
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: anyway, I want to comment on the OP's article.
It is surprising to me actually how consistently terrible Palin's vetting has been. And I don't mean surprising normal. I mean surprising for Palin. Like I already anticipated her political involvements to be in poor taste, but this is just beyond the pale.
Whistled for being on topic!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Megan Fox
Whistled for being sexy. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: Megan Fox
Whistled for being sexy.
Whistled for brutish heteronormative piggery
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hell no Megan Fox is overrated and over hyped, she's average looking at best, MovieBob says it best.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
It's more than a little disturbing that there's a significant portion of the electorate for which things like substantive, real-world application of the principles candidates espouse doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as expressions of admiration and hatred for the "right" groups.
In what world does dropping out of the gov's seat because you find the job too hard to take leave anyone thinking you're qualified for the highest elected position in the world?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think that's a bugbear you need not concern yourself with. A Palin candidacy would be an unmitigated disaster for whoever might choose to finance or run it. We don't need to worry about Palin- she is too weak politically and intellectually to be a serious candidate. Granted, a lot of people support her right now, but she'd never win a Presidential race.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I thought the same thing about Bush II. I won't make that mistake again.....
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I thought the same thing about Bush II. I won't make that mistake again.....
This.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I thought the same thing about Bush II. I won't make that mistake again.....
Interesting point, but think back on it. Bush was a dufus, but was he anywhere near this kind of unmitigated disaster? He was also far more moderate than Palin is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
He got elected a second time.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yep.
I think Bush II was far smarter than people thought he was. I am fairly smart, yet I stumble over words all of the time. Lack of pronunciation skills doesn't make you stupid. It just makes you SOUND stupid.
Trust me, I know.
But there have been a lot of people who have underestimated me because of stupid things like that, and most of them were very wrong to do so. It is easy, maybe TOO easy, to mock things like that and not realize that the person you laugh at will end up being your boss one day.
Or POTUS.
I doubt Palin could get elected, but I won't sit back and say nothing because I doubt it. I'll work actively to make SURE it doesn't happen, because we can't AFFORD it to happen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Bush II had a pretty good engine running behind him.
He also had the benefit of an apathetic, milquetoast constitchency* in one of the most boring election-day choices in american history
*o brother where art thou reference
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Hearing about things like Bush's refusal to read newspapers or learn of the different factions in Iraq caused me to feel that the man probably wasn't the brightest bulb. He did have a lot of intelligent people behind him. Unfortunately, those people were also far more partisan and unscrupulous. I think Bush himself was stubborn, occasionally vindictive, and decidedly out of his depth, but probably not himself an awful human being.
Palin displays a similar lack of competence, but she's also learned all the most disquieting tricks of the political playbook of the last twenty years or so: stay on message, blame the questioner if you're wrong or don't know, repeat yourself until you're believed, spin deficits like being ignorant or out-of-touch into being an "outsider" or a "maverick", connect your image to qualities that your audience sees as virtues but will never actually demand to see demonstrated (especially if attacking those credentials could be spun as an attack on the "virtue" rather than the candidate)... She's the perfect front for people who have decided that ignorance of the greater world is patriotic, those for whom even a five-minute interview is too long for their attention spans. She gives a great sound bite, and she casts aspersions on all the right people.
I hope you're right, Orincoro. But if someone like Rove were to decide she was worth backing, powers help us all. Hers is not the face I want representing the United States in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Bush's mass appeal was naturally much greater than Palin's. Bush could draw in a lot of centrists, and he was never a polarizing figure, at least, not in the first election. Plus, he had the benefit of no one knowing who is was, which allowed for a lot of benefit of the doubt on a number of issues. He also laid off the demonizing, to a degree, in the first campaign. By the time the second campaign came around, he was a known quantity, but he had a lackluster opponent in that election, and he had a war on his hands that he could wave the bloody shirt over.
Palin is a known quantity. Her unfavorable numbers have been high for months now. She's polarizing by choice, extreme in her language, demonizing in her opposition to even the simplest of issues, and has no respect for her opposition. The only similarity I see between her and Bush is that they both use a zen-like appreciation for being clueless as a tool to gain support from a subsection of the population.
I think the thing is, she isn't going to gain any support in a campaign. She's an awful campaigner, we've seen it. And she's basically been campaigning for herself since the end of the election, with no success except among the people who already supported her. She doesn't have the support to with the national GOP nomination, and she wouldn't spoil things by running as an independent. I think there's a good chance she'll be the VP candidate again in 2012. She'll be paired with a centrist GOP moderate. She can't attract moderates, and the far right needs a reason to come out on election day. It's a good, smart pairing.
She has power, and controls an interesting subsection of the voting populace, but it's not big enough to win an election, and she isn't good enough to win over the rest. Instead, she'll end up being a power broker of sorts to whoever she's paired with.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Palin was thoroughly vetted. The DNC sent a multitude of lawyers to her home town to dig up dirt. Palin was a disaster of a candidate. Although I agree with her on many fronts, politically, she's a nightmare.
The DNC sent many lawyers to Wasilla Alaska to dig up dirt on her, without effect. If only a fraction of those lawyers were sent to Chicago and the media was interested, Obama would be dirty.
Looking forward to the Blagoyavich trials and the pay to play Sestak deal. Illinois is the most corrupt - pay to play - state in the union. Our president came from there. He didn't rise to power without playing that very same game. Joe Sestak is the tip of the ice burg. Just wait until Blago's lawyers subpoena Rahm Emanuel.
Watergate was much less obvious than this situation, but the media isn't going to approach it.
We have a pretender at the throne, the emperor wears no cloths.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I think Bush II was far smarter than people thought he was. I am fairly smart, yet I stumble over words all of the time. Lack of pronunciation skills doesn't make you stupid. It just makes you SOUND stupid.
This. Having poor speaking abilities, especially when on the spot, can be incredibly frustrating. There is an assumption that social ability and even practical intelligence is linked directly to how well people can speak. We're okay with geeks stumbling over their words, but someone trying to step out of geekland must be entirely fluent.
Sometimes brains don't work like that!
(I'm defending my poor speaking abilities, of course. Never got that bit of my brain in gear as a kid. Now it's borked.)
As for Palin, the NYT has no obligation to be nice to Palin. They only have the obligation to be truthful. Provided none of what they printed was false or misleading, they are doing their jobs in informing the country about certain facts.
This doesn't hold up when the news in question isnt true and is even worse when it's deliberately misleading or false.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Palin was thoroughly vetted. The DNC sent a multitude of lawyers to her home town to dig up dirt.
No, Mal, you are simply mistaken. You assuming it is so, because she was chosen as a VP candidate. McCain's advisers and campaign runners have admitted both publicly and privately that she was not vetted thoroughly enough, and that her candidacy was a mistake for that, among other reasons. Heilemann and Halperin's Game Change, among other writings based on interviews with most of the key personel has born that out very clearly. You have of course not done your homework.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
One of the most depressing and frightening things about America today is that Palin could run for President and have a small but real chance of winning. I despair for my country's current values.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sarah Palin does not stand a statistically significant chance of winning.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: One of the most depressing and frightening things about America today is that Palin could run for President and have a small but real chance of winning. I despair for my country's current values.
That actually is precisely what keeps me optimistic about our system for electing officials. I want to live in a country where somebody like Barack Obama and Sarah Palin who are both different in so many ways still have a chance of winning.
I think what would have me cheering in the streets would be to eliminate first past the post primary systems, a complete restructuring of all our congressional districts by a group of geographers with no ties to either political party, and the elimination of party affiliation next to candidates names on ballots.
The amount of interesting candidates and platform policies would increase to the point there wouldn't be newspaper room to discuss it all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Hearing about things like Bush's refusal to read newspapers or learn of the different factions in Iraq caused me to feel that the man probably wasn't the brightest bulb. He did have a lot of intelligent people behind him. Unfortunately, those people were also far more partisan and unscrupulous. I think Bush himself was stubborn, occasionally vindictive, and decidedly out of his depth, but probably not himself an awful human being.
When they study the effective failure of his presidency, hopefully it will focus more on this than on the visceral failures. he was, effectively a figurehead groomed for the presidency without independently possessing the awareness necessary for the job. And he was integrated in and utilized excellently by a crew of very, VERY intriguing post-Kristol political powerhouses who wished to use his presidency as a springboard for the ascendancy of a movement that has now, resultingly, become remembered mostly in a pejorative sense: neoconservatism.
the underbelly of David Addington, Grover Norquist, Yoo, etc — There's where the real stories lie. What comes out about them provides the most useful narrative about these people's ultimate goal, and what they were willing to do to 'accomplish' it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
There are a lot of people who like Palin, and a lot more who would vote for her as Republican nominee simply because they refuse to vote non-Republican. I don't think it would be at all likely that she would win, or even get the nomination, but I wouldn't say that it's impossible, and that is rather frightening.
Perhaps I should just say that the fact that millions of people think she's qualified to be our President depresses me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here's the state of sarah palin right now: the only favorable metric that could propel her to republican nomination for presidency is the current wave of anti-establishment furor which is hitting both sides of the american political spectrum (albeit not equally: in the GOP's case, it's causing something of a wave of ideological purification that works against moderates) and which could be utilized to possibly give her an inching into G.O.P. candidacy for presidency.
However, winning the national election is a different matter. Current electoral analysis indicates that Obama could screw up so bad as to get his disapproval rating into a majority (and an approval rating as low as, I think, 43) and still conceivably be said to win against Palin.
Since Obama is going to be the candidate running, and that's extremely unlikely to happen, and you factor in the difficulties between her winning the primary and then the difficulties in winning the presidency now that she's firmly scared the crap out of moderates with an image of "Bush II 2: now dumber, folksier, and more aggressively ignorant"
well
we're talking lightning strike possibility.
/ this is all subject to change over time, of course, but, thats the state of the sarah right now.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Thank goodness for small favors Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Either way, I think it will be fascinating to watch.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think if Palin did win the nomination, it would be the most interesting time I've ever been alive.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Lyrhawn: Interesting because she won, or that she couldn't win unless it were already the most interesting time? Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Perhaps in the sense of the alleged old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (albeit not equally: in the GOP's case, it's causing something of a wave of ideological purification that works against moderates)
I would say the extremists are working to purge both parties. The netroots have pushed Sestak, Halter and others pretty hard as a way of getting rid of Democrats who aren't sufficiently supportive of progessive causes.
Also, on the OP, in the NM gov primary Palin endorsed the more moderate candidate (Susana Martinez) who did happen to beat out her opponent (showing that moderates can win primaries in this year, as long as they're not also incumbants). She's also endorsed Carly Fiorina over the more Tea-Party-ish Chuck DeVore, and it looks likely that'll work out for her, too.
<aside>Does anyone know if Carly Fiorina is related to Morris Fiorina? I hadn't noticed the identical last name until I typed it out just now.</aside>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Lyrhawn: Interesting because she won, or that she couldn't win unless it were already the most interesting time?
Yes
I think the campaign would be extremely interesting. And I think giving Palin's followers a major national voice would be interesting, because something would change. Either they'd collapse in their failure, or they'd feel energized in their loss and would try even harder.
I really think there'd be a reckoning. I think a race between Palin and anyone would magnify the divisions in this country to such a degree that we either collapse, or we confront them, but either way nothing would be the same. She isn't a great communicator, and she isn't going to build bridges. She's going to tell America how we're divided, and then she's going to try and politicize it for personal gain. Sometimes you have to make an injury worse before you can fix it. And sometimes doing so kills you. I think either way, it wouldn't be a "normal" election.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (albeit not equally: in the GOP's case, it's causing something of a wave of ideological purification that works against moderates)
I would say the extremists are working to purge both parties. The netroots have pushed Sestak, Halter and others pretty hard as a way of getting rid of Democrats who aren't sufficiently supportive of progessive causes.
Why do people feel the need to constantly equivocate about what the political parties are doing in relation to each other? It's always "both parties" doing everything. Well, I'm sorry, there is indeed constant pressure from the farther left to move the party left, but there is also pressure from the moderate left to keep the party moderate. The Republican party has disengaged much more thoroughly from moderate roots in the last few years. It's much, much worse. There's a very good reason the Republican party votes in a block to obstruct legislation, and there's a good reason why that was not done to anywhere near such an extent by democrats. Just by looking at the former Republicans who are now democrats, it's clear that the democrats offer at least some place for moderates an even conservatives in their circle. They caucus with Lieberman- do you think the Republicans would caucus with someone who broke ranks with them so dramatically? I don't happen to think so.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Ori-
You may be right; but I was just responding to Samp's assertion that the anti-establishment fervor wasn't impacting moderate Democrats like it was Republicans. Maybe I misunderstood his assertion; rereading it he only says it's occuring disproportionately among Republicans, which again might be true, I'm not sure. I just thought I'd point out that there have been moderate Democrats losing their jobs this election cycle due to challenges from the left, just as there are Republicans losing primaries due to challenges from the right. I've only heard of a couple (e.g. Oliverio in WV) losing due to challenges from the center. I'd be interested in a quantitative analysis of how many Democrats have lost vs. how many Republicans and a comparison to previous trends, etc.
But, to your point, I wasn't speaking about Republican obstructionism in general, or the degree to which the Republican party as a whole fails to be reactive to moderate views. Only the degree to which we're seeing a purge in this year's primaries in both parties, in favor of more partisan candidates.
BTW, it may be useful to remember why Lieberman is an Independent and thus less obligated to support Democratic causes. He was challenged from the left by Ned Lamont in an effort by the netroots to punish him for his lack of partisan purity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Whether challengers are winning or losing is the key issue then. There are always challenges from the far right and left in a lot of elections, so it should be taken as writ that there will be challenges. I think, though, that democrats are not moving towards "partisan purity" with nearly the kind of zest Republicans have had for some time. The Republican party is getting smaller, mind you, and the democratic party grew larger over the last 10 years- it's 30% bigger than the Republican party, nationally speaking.
And further, in comparing these "far left" candidates with the "far right," we need to define our terms carfully. The far-right today is in favor of regressive taxes, in favor of state-sponsored religion (in some cases), vehemently anti-immigration, etc. The platform of the far right is a huge departure from the middle right. What qualifies a leftist democrat as "far left" these days, if you buy into the idea of John Kerry and Barack Obama being "far left" (this according to such like as Rush Limbaugh) then the far left is interested in very moderate policies: a mixed economy, a balanced budget, immigration reform, social reform, health care reform. In the spectrum of Western politics as a whole, American democrats are not ultra-liberal by any stretch. European voters still regularly give parlimentary seats to communists, and socialist parties are in power in many countries.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
From what I can tell from quick internet searches, the partisan gap you're pointing to was a transitory effect at the end of Bush's tenure. Since then the gap has shrunk significantly; more recent estimates indicate something more along the lines of a 5-10 million person advantage for Democrats. Furthermore, it seems to be largely self-reported and to not include "leaners," i.e. those identifying as independents but who usually or always vote one way or another. Most political scientists (at least those I'm familiar with) feel leaners should be included when viewing parties ideologically rather than organizationally (as in this conversation).
I don't know that there's an adequate absolute basis on which to quantify "far right" versus "far left." Currently Dennis Shor (University of Chicago) and also Kenneth Poole (UCSD) are doing interesting estimates of partisanship from an academic perspective. If I (rather than Rush Limbaugh) were to look for an exemplar of the far left, it wouldn't be President Obama (who was quite liberal as a Senator, but has largely pursued policies with centrist support as President). John Kerry is significantly more liberal, but still not as liberal (to my mind) as someone like Dennis Kucinich. But I don't know how to compare the relative extremism of Kucinich's cabinet-level Department of Peace to Ron Paul's elimination of the income tax. Or, for that matter, whether to categorize Ron Paul as "Far Right." Through an economic lens, he's certainly the best example of radicalism on the right; but from the perspective of civil liberties his views are more consistent with MoveOn.org than Dick Cheney.
As a final note, I find comparisons between the US and European nations' politics highly suspect. I think that making cross-national comparisons is largely quantitatively unsupportable. For instance, I could point out that anti-immigration, nationalist movements in the Netherlands, France, the UK and (increasingly) Scandinavia have gained as much or more traction than they have in the US (even considering the recent furor in AZ). Or that abortion is significantly more regulated throughout Europe than it is in the US. Or that several liberal European democracies (all of Scandinavia, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, etc.) also have state religions, something that you point out as an extreme right position. I'm not sure how to weigh the various differences to determine absolutely whether one nation's politics is more or less "left" than another's. I think it's sufficiently hard to come up with a coherent scale for intranational politics that a similar scale for international politics seems a bit of an overreach. That won't change the conventional wisdom that Europe is "left" and the US is "right," but I don't think the conventional wisdom is sufficiently nuanced in this case.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're right about that of course, I mentioned Europe only as a gross example- and I really only meant that in terms of economics, because the historical peculiarities make social comparisons thorny and fruitless (like having state religions but predominant non-observance, as an example). Still and all, the western political realms do have a real effect on American politics, and we *are* considered more conservative than most European nations in most concerns.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (albeit not equally: in the GOP's case, it's causing something of a wave of ideological purification that works against moderates)
I would say the extremists are working to purge both parties.
Not really. The Democratic party is 'tenting' and leeching in towards the middle and largely becoming more diverse, even with a bit of backlash against the blue dogs and westy dems. The GOP's demography and primaries have been pushing the party further to the right and turning moderacy or even just not being pure-right-wing enough into a liability -- we first got a taste of that with early split-vote debacles that gave dems seats they should have never had.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Broad generalizations of far left and far right are troublesome because there are too many different categories where you can be far to the left on one, and far to the right on another, and still be ideologically well-formed. Someone can be in favor of gay marriage, and separation of church and state, which would make them a mainstream social liberal in my mind, and then on the other demand small government in terms of taxation and spending, which makes them a mainstream conservative to me. Domestic (Social or economic) and Foreign policies, should be evaluated independently, or statistics don't mean a thing, because the centrists of the nation don't fit into comfortable well-defined boxes and labels.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: we first got a taste of that with early split-vote debacles that gave dems seats they should have never had.
Like what happened in Hawaii. To the Democrats.
I mean, you might be right, and from a rhetorical level the rabid right seems much more central to the current narrative than the radical left. If you want to tabulate the primaries and special elections so far and show me how moderate Republicans are being forced out in significantly higher proportions than moderate Democrats I'll certainly believe you. But my anecdotal exposure to the data doesn't currently support that assertion.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Also, back to the OP, if current polling is indicative (which it may not be; primary pollilng is notoriously noisy) Palin will have endorsed winners in both the IA (Terry Barnstad) and SC (Nikki Haley) governor primaries. Both are moderate, mainstream, "establishment" candidates running against populist, angry, "extremist" candidates. Add to that Carly Fiorina's (likely) victory over DeVore (and Campbell) and last week's victory for Martinez in the NM GOP primary, and you have a string of several moderate candidates who were endorsed by Palin and have gone on to defeat challenges from the right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nate Silver had a great article on 538 about Republicans running to the right and Democrats running to the left. By and large he concluded that Republicans running to the right won't be nearly as successful as they think it will be. But, as far as which party has a bigger problem with their moderates, it's the Democrats. Dozens of Blue Dogs tout themselves as social liberals but fiscal conservatives, but you wouldn't know it from how they are running their campaigns. They'll have to run to the right to fend off middle of the road Republicans in right-leaning districts, and a couple of dozen of them won't succeed.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's a Times article outlining anti-establishment challenges from both parties in today's primaries. Of note: * in the NV GOP gubernatorial primary, the Tea Party-endorsed governor Gibbons is likely to be upended by the more moderate Sandoval
* in the AR DEM senatorial primary, the moderate Lincoln is likely to be upended by the more extreme Halter
* in a CA DEM representative primary, the moderate Jane Harman is somewhat likely to lose to the progressive Winograd
* in a SC GOP representative primary, the (relatively) moderate Inglis is somewhat likely to lose to more conservative opposition
The more I look at this (and I've looked at it quite a bit this afternoon), the more I'd say the Democrats are even more energetically purging moderates than the Republicans are. Whether it's Case in HI, Specter in PA, Davis in AL, Lincoln in AR, or Harman in CA, the truth is that moderate Democrats are being pushed out in favor of more extreme candidates. Perhaps it's been less of a story because progressive activists are less fond of preening for the news cameras than conservative activists, but the effect seems at least as great.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Why, because you can supply a few anecdotes? As I said, take it as rote that there will always be challengers, and come to that there will always be changes and upsets. The idea that the dems are purging moderates is laughable though, certainly the idea that they're doing so faster than Republicans. The voters follow their own unique agendas, and it can be very local, and very personal. You don't make a compelling case. Now the idea that the voters are choosing more progressive candidates? Sure, why not. That's barely a case for saying anything intelligent about what the party is "doing" in any real sense.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I'm not saying this is any different than any previous cycle, and I have no sense of historical trends. But this is more than simply anecdote; I've somewhat systematically gone through the primaries and special elections that have already occurred and that are occurring today, and where I could find data it pointed to moderate Dems being slightly more likely to be punished by voters than moderate Reps. I think it's odd, it may simply be noise and local factors, but it's what the data shows.
<edit>And to clarify, I'm in no way wedded to this conclusion; I'm fine with being wrong, and I freely admit that my data gathering, while systematic, is quite sparse. So if someone can provide me better data demonstrating Samp's assertion, I'm glad to accept it. But with my limited time, this is the conclusion I've come to.</edit>
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Now the idea that the voters are choosing more progressive candidates? Sure, why not. That's barely a case for saying anything intelligent about what the party is "doing" in any real sense.
Sorry, I missed this the first time I read your response. All I'm talking about is the primaries, not overarching party strategies. When I said "the Democrats are purging moderates" I meant that Democrat voters are choosing more progressive candidates; in most cases, the party leadership is opposing those moves (cf Obama campaigning for Specter, offering jobs to Romanoff, etc.).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I may very well have to eat my words after the primaries tonight. In early returns it looks like Lincoln will hold on against Halter. Meanwhile the ME GOP will nominate the Tea Party candidate (LePage) over two more moderate contenders, along with Tom Graves (TP-affiliated) victory in the special in Georgia. Although Tom Rigell looks to have won in a closely-watched VA house primary against a challenge (or multiple challenges) from the right.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Palin is finished, even for conservatives. Palin has entered the realm of Sean Hannity, she is no longer a serious political figure. She'll be a potent political commentator but she is no longer a political leader.
This is a distinction the right can make, that the left cannot. The left considers Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Rush Limbaugh political leaders.
The right realizes that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Rush Limbaugh make a living "in politics" as speakers. Palin has joined their ranks.....It's more profitable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mal, who are you to say what the Left does or does not consider? What qualifies you to make that statement about a group you neither sympathize with nor understand?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think it's a pretty flimsy analysis. I would say the primaries yesterday showed a move to moderation for the Democrats (relative to earlier results), but I wouldn't say that's true for the Republicans. Things like Angle's victory in NV and Inglis' 2nd place finish in SC, along with the races I pointed to earlier all point that the TP-styled candidates were able to pull in a lot of primary votes (likely to the detriment of the overall Republican party, at least short-term).
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"What qualifies you to make that statement about a group you neither sympathize with nor understand?"
The number of discussions this applies to here at Hatrack is breathtaking. Thanks, Tom, for asking this question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's only a useful question insofar as it might have an answer, IMO.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Palin is finished, even for conservatives. Palin has entered the realm of Sean Hannity, she is no longer a serious political figure. She'll be a potent political commentator but she is no longer a political leader.
This is a distinction the right can make, that the left cannot. The left considers Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Rush Limbaugh political leaders.
The right realizes that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Rush Limbaugh make a living "in politics" as speakers. Palin has joined their ranks.....It's more profitable.
Hi there. Liberal, leftist, tree hugging socialist here. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, to me, are no more political leaders than Rush Limbaugh is to you. I think the irony might be, that the left thinks whackos like Hannity and Limbaugh actually speak for the right, and the right thinks that Sharpton and Jackson speak for the left. It might be the case that neither generalization is true. Jackson and Sharpton might be leaders to a subset of the left, but not to the whole. I'd rather throw my lot in with Howard Dean.
SenojRetep -
As far as Democratic purges go, I'm not sure that's the whole truth. Specter is particularly a bad example. He's neither a centrist Republican or Democrat; he's an opportunist who goes whichever way he feels will get him the nomination and the win. I suppose that's neither here nor there. In general, Democrats have a bit of a chasm between the the broad center of the political spectrum, and the center of their own caucus. There are dozens in the Blue Dog caucus who could probably run on the exact same platform they won on, but run as Republicans, and they'd win. Rahm Emmanuel spent a lot of time as the DNC's talent scout trying to fight extremely right leaning Democrats in GOP districts to try and get the Dems back in the majority, and it worked, but now a major faction in the party are barely right of center Democrats who vote with Dems on a couple social and economic issues here and there but still have to keep their Right cred alive to win reelection.
If you mean purge as in, solidly Democratic districts are electing candidates further and further to the left of the incumbent, I'd have to do more reading, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence of this. In general, I don't think you have quite the variance in the Democratic party that you have in the GOP. For every Ron Paul in the GOP, there's a Dennis Kucinich in the Dems, but by and large not of them are radical reactionaries. They stick to a pretty moderate leftist agenda.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think it's a pretty flimsy analysis. I would say the primaries yesterday showed a move to moderation for the Democrats (relative to earlier results), but I wouldn't say that's true for the Republicans. Things like Angle's victory in NV and Inglis' 2nd place finish in SC, along with the races I pointed to earlier all point that the TP-styled candidates were able to pull in a lot of primary votes (likely to the detriment of the overall Republican party, at least short-term).
It's kinda plugging for my overall analysis, but mine is more longitudinal. I don't think anything happening in THESE primaries is really a shift towards centrism. Like I'd mentioned, there's been a bit of a backlash against the righty Democratic Party candidates, because people in the Dem caucuses are really frustrated with the lack of progress made to a more left-wing shift of things and want the legacies of 2000-2008 dismantled as soon as possible.
Right now, any primary which isn't a story about teaparty-candidate-ousts-or-challenges-establishment-candidate is actually pretty interesting, such as the Honolulu special election rules situation, Orly Taitz (what the ffffff) and Reid facing a serious threat in his district (ahhh)
All so exciting! The G.O.P. has less than a 20% chance of retaking congress at this point. let's see if the jobs report or the BP situation mollifies those numbers!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'd put the GOP's chances of actually gaining a majority of the senate significantly below 20%. That number has to depend on some fairly unlikely outcomes. Besides, a percentage chance doesn't really sum it up very well- it gives the impression that there is an actual 1/5 chance of it happening, when the real scenario is that a lot of things will have to go right for the republicans from this day forward, and a lot of things very wrong for democrats, to make that happen. That number is just a projection of current polling- that doesn't tell you much.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Oops. Bet some people wish they'd heard about this yesterday before the primary.
Summary: Just selected SC Democratic nominee for US Senate facing felony obscenity charges for allegedly showing lewd photos to a Univ. of S. Carolina woman and suggesting they go up to her dorm room. Says he won't back out of the race.
quote:"The Democratic Party has chosen their nominee, and we have to stand behind their choice," [Greene] said. "The people have spoken. We need to be pro-South Carolina, not anti-Greene."
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)