a blog about news, politics and sport
Hmmm interesting analysis. I'd agree that Palin was a gamble but I'm not sure that it "failed". McCain was never the maverick and outsider he tried to paint himself as: he is a decades-long career Senator who was just a pain in the butt (as our US friends would say) to his Party Whips. Big difference.Palin probably pulled in a few percentage points from the core Rep base who most likely would have stayed at home if McCain had picked Lieberman (which I think was a temptation for McCain).I've said over on my blog that I'm going to watch the dust settle before a really big Op-Ed on where the Republicans should go, but you mention the need for a heavyweight to emerge to lead the GOP...any names in mind? Huckabee and Romney are scary ideas. I wanted Duncan Hunter in the primaries as the best of the worst but he's not a big political beast in any respect.Palin has two years to build herself up...or someone else also has two years to start a campaign for 2012. Could she build a country-wide base? No idea which is why I'm going to sit back and watch the fallout for a bit.If anyone thought that this year was dirty then wait for the campaign in four years' time.
I'm not sure if this campaign was dirty. The attacks on Kerry in 2004 seemed to me to be harder and more sustained than any on Obama this year. John McCain seemed to be very careful not to let things get out of hand. Fighting the 'dirty' campaign was largely left to the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.I'm sure you're right that 2012 will be a more aggressive campaign by the Republicans, but they will have to judge the mood of the electorate carefully. If, in very difficult circumstances, an Obama Presidency progresses and is successful then a strident and dirty campaign may not work.But for sure, the Republicans will learn from the defeat. They are bound to go for a younger, more media savvy candidate and will be working very soon to mobilise their grass roots base in the same way Obama did this time around. They will have learnt and understood the power of oratory and ideas to inspire.But one of the problems the Repubicans do face is that there is no obvious candidate to do this. The current leadership all are part of the 'old guard' of the party. One of the fascinating things to watch over the next couple of years is to see who will merge or whether the Republicans will descend into self destruction as the Tories did after 1997.But you are correct in that we will need to wait a couple of years before we can really assess how politics in the US will change, if it changes at all.
Post a Comment
2 comments:
Hmmm interesting analysis. I'd agree that Palin was a gamble but I'm not sure that it "failed". McCain was never the maverick and outsider he tried to paint himself as: he is a decades-long career Senator who was just a pain in the butt (as our US friends would say) to his Party Whips. Big difference.
Palin probably pulled in a few percentage points from the core Rep base who most likely would have stayed at home if McCain had picked Lieberman (which I think was a temptation for McCain).
I've said over on my blog that I'm going to watch the dust settle before a really big Op-Ed on where the Republicans should go, but you mention the need for a heavyweight to emerge to lead the GOP...any names in mind? Huckabee and Romney are scary ideas. I wanted Duncan Hunter in the primaries as the best of the worst but he's not a big political beast in any respect.
Palin has two years to build herself up...or someone else also has two years to start a campaign for 2012. Could she build a country-wide base? No idea which is why I'm going to sit back and watch the fallout for a bit.
If anyone thought that this year was dirty then wait for the campaign in four years' time.
I'm not sure if this campaign was dirty. The attacks on Kerry in 2004 seemed to me to be harder and more sustained than any on Obama this year. John McCain seemed to be very careful not to let things get out of hand. Fighting the 'dirty' campaign was largely left to the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
I'm sure you're right that 2012 will be a more aggressive campaign by the Republicans, but they will have to judge the mood of the electorate carefully. If, in very difficult circumstances, an Obama Presidency progresses and is successful then a strident and dirty campaign may not work.
But for sure, the Republicans will learn from the defeat. They are bound to go for a younger, more media savvy candidate and will be working very soon to mobilise their grass roots base in the same way Obama did this time around. They will have learnt and understood the power of oratory and ideas to inspire.
But one of the problems the Repubicans do face is that there is no obvious candidate to do this. The current leadership all are part of the 'old guard' of the party. One of the fascinating things to watch over the next couple of years is to see who will merge or whether the Republicans will descend into self destruction as the Tories did after 1997.
But you are correct in that we will need to wait a couple of years before we can really assess how politics in the US will change, if it changes at all.
Post a Comment