Did McCain Forfeit the Election with Palin Pick?

There has been a lot of talk about the disaster that is the Presidential Campaign of John McCain, but that's the nature of disasters - they get your attention - which brings me to the subject of this post.

Before the conventions, the conventional wisdom among the professional pundit class was: if John McCain can make the election about Barack Obama, then he had a shot at winning. Assuming that this was a correct assessment, 3 big factors occurred that derailed this strategy for McCain, only one of which McCain had any control over: Sarah Palin, the financial crisis and Barack Obama.

At the end of August, the media narrative was all on Obama, arguably to the detriment of McCain who seemed to be struggling to get a message across. Of course, we now know McCain really had no message besides warmed over 1980's deregulation and tax cuts and "winning" in Iraq, all of which had been (Iraq) or was about to be seriously exposed to even the casual observer as fatally flawed. Nevertheless, the media obsessed over one question: could Obama bring in the Hillary hold outs? Even after a highly successful Democratic Convention, the answer media gave was not yes, but a skeptical maybe.

The focus of the media and the public then turned to McCain (for the first time in months) thanks to the Republican Convention and he made the worse possible decision he could. Lets assume for a moment that Sarah Palin was actually qualified to be Vice President (pardon me while I gag at the thought of actually writing that). Palin was a bad pick for the sheer fact that she took the focus off Obama and put it on McCain, well actually on Palin herself, but the effect was the same. That McCain and his advisors did not anticipate this is simply political malpractice.

I am still aghast at how they thought that choosing an unknown female governor was not going to draw attention from Obama. Palin's "newness" (and being a woman) turned her into the biggest political celebrity in the country (and made Obama look almost boring for a time). How the McCain brain trust could have possibly thought this was a good thing after a summer's worth of "celebrity" attacks on Obama is beyond me. Remember the media narrative was whether Obama was ready to be President and whether the country was ready for him. By picking Palin, McCain completely changed that narrative.

Yes, Palin's meager experience seriously undermined McCain's experience argument. But that is not the point. Nobody knew who she was! Nobody (well maybe Kristol and a few political junkies) - not even some of McCain's own staff, as we learned from the New York Times this week. At the time, it made no sense to me (it still doesn't) for two reasons: first, the professional political pundits and media (McCain's "base") don't like to appear to be surprised (which I suspect they interpret as being "shown up") and second, the voters, no matter how much they gripe about the political process and vetting of the primaries and general election, nevertheless accept it as they way it is done.

If you are running for President or Vice President there are certain hoops you have to jump through - experience as a leading corporate executive or as a state executive or senior legislator (i.e. U.S. Senator or Congressperson), "X" number appearances on Sunday morning shows (and yes, nobody watches them but they are still an informal institution), "X" number of appearances supporting the presumptive nominee, "X" number of news interviews, etc (and there are some short cuts - you can always be a failed aspirant for your party's nomination but even then, you have probably jumped through the hoops during the primaries). But, with Palin there was none of this. Governor Bobby Jindal had jumped through many of these hoops, so did Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina - all three very little known outside political junkies and professional pundits - and all three would have been considered "surprise" picks.

Palin, on the other hand, was in a category so far out of the ballpark it still boggles my mind. It was such a risky move that it required a near perfect political performance - all before she even opened her mouth in public to accept the selection. If they really wanted Palin, she should have been out doing appearances in support of John McCain the entire summer. This would have, at a minimum, given the press and the public the opportunity to get to know her and attempted to satisfy the requisite "hoops" required. If she had done this, it may have helped blunt some of the disasters that came after her selection (well...maybe not - she still is totally unqualified). Instead, she was plucked from obscurity from some Alaskan backwater.

Of course, she and McCain blew it so bad I have begun to seriously consider possibility that McCain wanted to lose the election. The obvious lack of serious vetting, the spur of the moment selection, the teenage pregnancy, the flagrant abuse of power as Governor of Alaska to further a personal vendetta against Palin's ex-brother in law, the refusal to have a news conference, the shockingly awful Catie Couric interview, the lack of any serious thinking or policy positions on national issues, the $150,000 wardrobe, the $28,000 make up artist. Not to mention the horrid and vile manner in which she has campaigned. All told, proof positive of two things: Palin is totally unqualified to be the Governor of the least populous state in the union, let alone Vice President, and John McCain's judgement is seriously flawed.

In any event, lets assume that Palin is not the disaster she has proven to be and in some fantasy world passed the minimum threshold "qualified to be vice president" (i.e. the Dan Quayle Threshold - stupid but not scary stupid). The next big factor McCain ran up against was the financial crisis.

In hindsight, it is obvious that McCain blew the response to the financial crisis. Yes, his economic philosophy is warmed over Reganism, which is now proven to be disastrous in large doses. Yes, McCain did not help himself with the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" speech. Yes, he has a hero complex and, like superman wanted to swoop into Washington to save the day.

But, the campaign suspension and the White House conference with House Republicans might have worked. McCain could have done one of two things at that White House meeting - either opened his mouth and actually engaged Obama and the House Republicans to try and get something done or, kept his mouth shut, walked out of the White House into a herd of TV cameras and denounced the bailout as a flawed giveaway to wall street and that he was with the House Republicans and would work to defeat it to get something better.

Would either of these actually helped solve the financial crisis? Thats not the point. Politically, one or the other action could have shown McCain to be either someone willing to work to help get things done or, the maverick who bucks the President from his own party on principle. Either of these would have drawn a line in the sand that Obama would have to answer. McCain's suspension gambit could have worked. But, he essentially did nothing and ended up looking erratic and, in the end, causing more harm than good as the financial bailout was stalled by his actions (and the Republican House) for several days.

As an aside, and I suspect the Obama campaign would never want to tout this as a political accomplishment, but their whole strategy with respect to McCain and the financial crisis was masterful. With some help from McCain's inaction and unwillingness to either take a stand or work to pass the bailout, they were able to essentially lay the blame for the loss of billions of dollars when the stock market tanked on McCain's erratic behavior. Of course, they never really came out and put it in those terms, but that was clearly the message they were pushing.

Finally, that brings us to the one factor McCain had no control over: Barack Obama and really the point of this (apologetically long) post. Because, despite the totally unqualified Vice Presidential pick and her litany of disasters, despite the erratic nature of John McCain's decision making, the conventional wisdom from mid summer is still true: this election is still about Barack Obama and he has come through with flying colors. If John McCain had picked a qualified VP, if his campaign suspension had actually accomplished something - he still could not have overcome "the strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand" of Barack Obama and his juggernaut of a campaign.

After Obama's string of primary wins, when it became apparent to most rational people (sorry for the dig) that he would be the nominee, I argued to those who would listen that this election, because of the disaster of the last eight years and the demographic advantage democrats now have, would be very similar to the Reagan - Carter election in 1980. For those not around, Reagan had a similar hurdle to overcome - he had to convince the voters he was not a total lunatic and would be a responsible choice for President. In 1980, Reagan didn't do this until the (only) Presidential debate in late October. But after that debate, what was up to that point a close election, became a rout.

Like Reagan in 1980, Obama passed the threshold after the debates and with 10 days to go, it is looking like it might be an Electoral College rout. Today Obama has an 8 point average national lead in the polls, he's competive in every battleground left on the map (all of which are states that voted for Bush in 2004) and some red states that nobody would have thought as battlegrounds and, check out these numbers from this week's New York Times/CBS poll:

Do you think Barack Obama has the right kind of temperament and personality to be a good president, or not?
Yes: 75%
No: 19%

Now, this poll had Obama beating McCain, 52% to 39%, which means a significant percentage of people who said they were going to vote for McCain believe Barack Obama has the right temperament and personality to be a good President (By the way, McCain's numbers on the temperament were 50 % Yes, 45% No).

What this all means is that this election has been about Barack Obama. While the voters were unsure of his temperament, it was a close election. Many of the professional pundits (and some democrats) spent the summer worrying about why, if this was such good year for Democrats, Obama was not up by 10 in the polls. Well, since the first couple of debates, Obama has essentially been up by 10 and its remained that way for the past few weeks. It is looking more and more like the election of 1980.

Now, there are still 10 days to go. Something could happen to change everything. People could get complacent and not vote (note to all you McCain supports: I'd be quite happy if you stayed home on November 4) or external events could make people re-think their comfort with Obama. But, I think the conventional wisdom (and the McCain campaign) is coming around to the fact that Obama will be the next President.

So, my answer to the question posed in the title of this post is No, John McCain did not forfeit the election with his pick of Sarah Palin. Barack Obama is going to win because of who he is. What is left to do is to make it happen on November 4.