James Pethokoukis thinks so. So do I.
And as he notes, if there's a Palin bubble, it's unlikely to pop before the election, given that it took a year and a half for Obama's to do so...
This is why I've never thought Obama electable, though I hadn't accounted for Sarah. But she just means that there will be coatskirt-tails...
Which will be a good thing in the Senate.
I disagree. Palin will receive a lot of exposure in the next few weeks. If there is a "bubble" (that is, if ignorance of her keeps her ratings up), it'll show up. I wouldn't make those kinds of claims without seeing how she holds up. She hasn't given a lot of speeches or gone through the debate with Biden. She's also a good target for an October surprise since she hasn't been exposed to a vigorous election. Obama may also be susceptible. He hasn't really been challenged in his contests.
Having said that, Obama really fell a lot in Intrade. He's barely over 50% now. McCain chosing Palin hurt him a lot.
As you say, it depends on how she holds up. I've read some comparisons with the bounce that happened when the democrats chose a woman. That bounce was pretty short lived.
It will be interesting to see when she's allowed to have interviews on her own. I've read that she's being kept away from one-on-one situations at the moment.
Stuff Happens:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/scandal_at_the_department_of_the_interior.php
Drill Baby Drill...
"I've read some comparisons with the bounce that happened when the democrats chose a woman. That bounce was pretty short lived."
Nobody took Ferraro serious, the 84 election was a foregone conclusion.
I see Anon continues his piercingly accurate linkage. Clearly, Palin is responsible for the spate of corruption in the Bush administration.
The debates will make or brake Palin. When the press gets a shot at her, they will have to be careful not to appear like they are still on a witch hunt (they will be) or the backlash continues. Still, I'll take a caribou shooting hockey mom over Joe "what's my gaffe count today?" Biden.
Mike has it right. I remember. Reagan was so far ahead that Mondale was widely seen as making a wholly symbolic gesture. I vaguely recall people wondering whether Ferraro might reject the offer as humiliating, the equivalent of being offered the Chancellorship of Germany in May 1945 just after the Fuhrer shot himself, and with the Red Army about to bulldoze Berlin.
What happened this year is completely different, inasmuch as McCain was barely (if at all) behind, and perhaps even closing the gap. There were plenty of people -- I'd say most of the right-side i-punditry, frankly, from Instapundit through the Power Line guys and half the NRO people -- whose first thought about McCain's Palin pick was he's just thrown away an election he might have won. Most are, of course, rowing back from that assessment pretty quick.
I was wondering when the first person would make the first Ferraro comparison, and I figured they would forget that Mondale was at the top of that ticket. Fair enough, Ferraro was about the only thing going for the Democrats that year, but the VP of Jimmy Carter never had a chance. I really don't think you can compare the two elections.
"I've read some comparisons with the bounce that happened when the democrats chose a woman. That bounce was pretty short lived."
Nobody took Ferraro serious, the 84 election was a foregone conclusion.
IIRC, Reagan won 49 states in 1984. There was nothing Ferraro or anyone else could've done to win that election.
I asked the question a couple weeks ago about how commentators treated Ferraro verses Palin. To the best of my knowledge, Ferraro only had 5 years on the House of Representatives when she was tapped to be Mondale's VP choice. I don't recall anyone questioning her lack of experience or scandal-mongering her family history. If someone has the resources to do some archive searches (can get expensive), it'd be interesting to see how some of the long-time commentators and journalists who're trashing Palin now treated Ferraro then. I'd be willing to wager the difference would be dramatic.
In the 84 election Mondale got the District of Columbia and his, and mine, home state of Minnesota. I believe, and I might be wrong, the winning percentage in Minnesota was under 60% for him.
"I've read some comparisons with the bounce that happened when the democrats chose a woman.
Yea, cause all those people were like, "A woman in contention for nomination?" and then realized it was Hillary! and they went, "oh" and went back to watching Oprah.
Larry J :"If someone has the resources to do some archive searches (can get expensive), it'd be interesting to see how some of the long-time commentators and journalists who're trashing Palin now treated Ferraro then."
You can do a 1984 new search on Google and come up with a lot of headlines on Ferraro without paying for the articles. For the most part the headlines on her were positive.
You can do a 1984 new search on Google and come up with a lot of headlines on Ferraro without paying for the articles. For the most part the headlines on her were positive.
Thanks. I figured that most articles from 1984 would be buried in pay-per-view archives if available at all. If time permits, I'll see what I can find. I'd like to see what some of the older pundits who're trashing Palin today said about Ferraro then. I rather doubt many of them were claiming she was too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
What I find interesting, and may make comparisons to past bubbles problematic. When Sarah was pick the whole punditry cycle seemed to jump into "internet time" I think that upswing happened much quicker than would of happen pre-internet. Obama seems not to have gotten that effect in his primary, despite the large use of the internet that his campaign made.