Sweet. This kind of thing shows the idiocy of pundits who explain not what they think of the speech, but what they imagine the public at large will think of the speech.

It makes sense that her speech would upset independents. It was the polar opposite of Obama's "Little League in Blue States, gay friends in Red States" rhetoric from 2004. Palin wants Red and Blue America to fight it out.

People who consider themselves Purple might be annoyed by this.

People who consider themselves Purple might be annoyed by this.

Good observation, and a good point on the direct contrast to Obama's speeches.

I'm not sure how well the whole "a hockey mom is a pit bull with lipstick" rhetoric will play. Does anyone actually like the over-obsessed sports-mother who treats her children's competitive ambitions as a proxy for her own? Among a group of people from Michigan, I can imagine a lot of them recognized the type.

As I said, though, in the thread below: if you believe that Republican policies are popular, then her speech seemed like a good one. If you believe that the answer is trying to reassure voters that the next four years won't be like the last 8, then the speech failed.

I thought it was a very red-meat-for-the-base speech, but given that your typical American isn't given to spontaneous chants of "Drill baby drill" or "NBC", I didn't really see the independent appeal either. Whereas Obama's speech seemed tailor-made for that, those lines about "we may not agree on x, but we can agree on y" and so forth. I really do try to look at these things objectively when sizing up whether or not the mythical middle America would like her, but I have a hard time finding the door to the parallel universe from which Republicans view things, so it's hard to do.

I find all of the liberal hand-wringing about this speech baffling. It was awful. Sure, a pundit or a strategist could love it - it pushes all their buttons. It was political and bare-knuckled and feisty, all delivered with a smile. Pundits admire this ability to stick the shiv with a smile above all else, but I don't know anyone who genuinely likes it as a characteristic.

The fact is, she was a smug, dishonest, self-satisfied, demagogue. Honestly, can anyone imagine any convincible person watching that thinking "yes, she could be President?" I kept trying to figure out who she reminded me of throughout and it just finally hit me this morning - she's a more articulate, more smug, George W Bush.

I really don't think that the average American is going to look at this woman and be enamored. I think what commentators are confusing for likeability is the fact that she didn't come across as a drooling idiot. So she's confident and can smile while speak in complete sentences. People may even think she's not as incompetent as they suspected. But likable? I don't think so. I thought she was shrill and nasty, her nasal twang was irritating and her angular face unpleasant. Sure, I'm not her base, but I know people like that on my local school board and PTA, and nobody likes them.

It shouldn't be a surprise that independents might hate Palin's speech. In today's ideologically and partisanly polarized America, to be independent is essentially to not have an ideologically consistent worldview or to not be that passionately concerned with issues of partisan advantage. Such people would look at Palin last night and overwhelmingly see someone who is "not like me".

What I'm interested in is seeing what effect Palin has on women voters. Because my observation is that while women as a whole aren't quite as liberal as liberals want to believe, many moderate women and even some slightly conservative women have visceraly negative reactions to hardcore right-wing women like Palin.

Mike

her nasal twang was irritating

I listened to most of the speech on the radio and I found her voice highly annoying. She sounds like Marge Gunderson with a chip on her shoulder.

she introduced her values completely cloaked in gleeful mockery and cruelest sarcasm and intellectual dishonesty... and clearly , she thinks in the most shallow of terms about the complex world we find ourselves in.
i read the text, but couldnt bear to watch more than a few minutes of her speech.
if america falls into the hands of mccain and palin, it will be a day for deepest concern and grieving.

The participants in that article brought this up a few times - let's see how she does with some really tough questions, let's see how she does in a real debate.
But I really doubt we will ever see this. I think the GOP will keep her far, far away from anything that isn't totally safe and softball. Ben Stein, a conservative diptard if there ever was one, was on tv last night looking pretty glum about Palin. He said that to bring her up to speed they would have to put her in a pod like the Superman baby and have continuous education tapes playing to saturate her brain. He said that Kissinger would have to babysit her 24/7 and keep her from saying something really stupid.
The expectations for the VP debate are already set comically low, so as long as she doesn't totally crumble she will get a pass. But I bet we never ever see her face a real tough Q&A deal in front of a big audience, ever.

Why am I not surprised by this?

She fires up the bast big time, but when Democrats outnumber Repubs in ID by more the ten points and the current Republican president has an approval rating that on a good day hovers around 30 percent, that ain't going to win an election these days.

It's only anecdotal at this pont, but I've noticed from Hillary supporters who haven't really bought into Obama and independents who loved McCain 8 years ago that Palin manged to enrage them in a way I don't see from my hard-core liberal friends.

Palin might get Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson worked up, but I think the long term effects of the pick is to make Obama/Biden look like the serious, safe pick in the eyes of many swing voters. McCain made a Hail mary pass who may have cost him the only thing he had going: the comfort of a safe, familiar figure.

I think also we caught a break by Rudy going over on his speech. THey had planned on running a soft-focus, tug at the heartstrings piece on Palin before her speech. This would have served as their first chance to introduce her to the public. Instead they had to cut it and go straight into her fire-breathing attack.

I find all of the liberal hand-wringing about this speech baffling.

Speaking as a liberal, I was wringing my hands because I had no idea how the speech would play out. Since I disagreed with everything she said, the only feedback I had were the big lines she delivered and how the speech flowed.

In that sense, she delivered a few good lines and gave a good, solid speech. Now, all the partisan stuff and her policies were going to annoy me, but that's because of what biases I have going into the speech. I had no idea if they would annoy independents as well.

After reading these reactions, I feel better. Not because I thought the speech was good or bad, but because I had no idea how it would play to someone who didn't go into it not liking McCain/Palin and the Republicans already.

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Osama Bin Ladin?

Lipstick.

I had no idea if they would annoy independents as well.

One of the things that struck me about the Obama campaign after the Iowa caucuses was the realization that people actually believed all of his stuff about "change" and "the smallness of our politics." He had read the tea leaves of the electorate correctly, calibrated a message towards that, and the message really resonated with voters, and they flocked to him. The reason Palin's speech was weak is because it went against the prevailing zeitgeist.

The Republicans, who, of course, agree that Republican policies are good ones and that we should have more of them, loved Palin's speech. But since most people aren't Republicans, and the national sentiment is one that believes that the country needs to change course, a speech like Palin's is one that swims against the tide. When you realize that the fundamentals for the Republican party are very poor this election cycle, Palin's speech suddenly appears completely incongruous. Of course independents are annoyed: this isn't the stuff they want to hear.

What a commercial for the Democrats: the corrupt former mayor of New York followed the corrupt former mayor of Wasilla. And how many lies did Palin deliver?

Fiscal conservative - sure, leaving Wasilla $22 million in debt, after raising taxes 38% and spending 33%. That's my kinda fiscal conservative!

Bridge to Nowhere - yes, Sarah, you did support it, despite your biographical rewrite

Opposed pork - not according to John McCain, who three times had her on his annual list of "objectionable earmarks"

And that's the most obvious three lies in the speech. I estimated that there were 15-20 more.

Thank you, Sarah, because you showed exactly how moderate and maverick McCain really is. He's now the prisoner of the know-nothing hard right fundie jihad, and you just won the election for Barack Obama! Heckuva a job!

"liberal hand-wringing"

Actually, it's not 'hand-wringing' -- it's the sound of us banging on doors in the battleground states convincing people to vote for Barack Obama.

That's the sound of a liberal 'hand-'ring' this time round.

As to her speech, it was a mixture of anger and negativity. Its only appeal is with the few people who bothered to show up for the RNC or the dwindling audience on tv.

For VP they needed an "Obama" -- someone conciliatory who could speak to both 'red' and 'blue' America. Predictably however, they opted for Dick Cheney Jr. instead.

All this midwestern liberal can say is, Hallelujah!

The voice to me evoked "Barb", the character from Prairie Home Companion who's always talking about ketchup with her husband. I don't always get Prairie Home Companion.

The voice to me evoked "Barb" . . . .

How dare you impugn the good name of Barb? What Gov. Palin needs is a good helping of ketchup: nature's relaxing, soothing salve for partisan bickering.

[Speaking of P.H.C., wasn't it a bit jarring for the RNC to be in St. Paul? It was like the Prairie Home Gestapo.]

But since most people aren't Republicans

Latest Rasmussen poll gives the Democrats a net advantage of 5.7 percentage points, 33.2% Repubs vs. 38.9% Dems. This is a much larger advantage than in 2004 (1.6 points) and is, indeed, one of the largest on record.

I gotta admit, I liked the red-meat last night--especially Rudy--but it does seem that the Dems have the advantage in this cycle. By a significant margin. It may fall like it did in 2004 (from a high of 4 points to a low of 1.6 by election day), but it's got a lot further to fall right now. So, it seems unlikely.

Of course, the Republicans could always just steal the election. Heck, it's worked before!

As for the base at the Convention itself, I've got to say that whoever designed the logo was prescient. The, um, tumescent elephant captures the vibe perfectly.

Building on Tyro's excellent observations about the mood of the electorate...

Last Friday, the GOP introduced Palin as a broadly-appealing addition to the ticket, someone who'd run on being a reformer and a "regular mom", emphasizing McCain's maverickosity and his outsider status. She'd appeal to independents as a sensible, anti-corruption executive, and pull in some Hillary supporters because of her gender and appealing family story.

Over the course of the last week, people from the print media to the pundits to the blogosphere did a little research into her, and discovered that Palin is, in fact, a corrupt, lying wingnut.

The GOP went into a defensive crouch, hid her in a cocoon to keep her from having to discuss anything with the media, or answer any questions about anything significant.

Last night she emerged from her cocoon...as a hard-right partisan. Not exactly what the GOP had promised last Friday, probably in part because the "regular mom reformer" rap was falling apart due to the facts of her (previously unvetted) record in public office.

If the GOP had planned to run this kind of campaign, why the hell did they nominate McCain instead of Tancredo or Rudy or even Mitt? And since McCain was in that cocoon with her over the past week, what will he have turned into by the time he speaks tonight?

Wasilla: where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.

...Interestingly, the independents were universally negative...

Eight or ten interviews is your basis? Did you see where all of these people were from?

You mean pitching you entire campaign and convention right at the 20% of people who think Bush is a great President and this country is on the right track, doesn't endear yourself to people who aren't on the far right? Whouda thunk? I guess McCain just thinks the base is enough.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/

i love el viajero, because in his postings, one sees the simple-minded posturing that substitutes for thought on the right.

try reading, el viajero: a panel was assembled. the independents on the panel were universally negative. so yes, what ezra wrote accurately captured what was reported, and that's right, it wasn't a sample of thousands of people.

but the fact that even this small sample showed a visceral negative reaction to someone reading a well-crafted bunch of right-wing hooey is revealing....

I don't trust the Ramussen partisan breakdown. His house effect tilts Republican.

Here is a more accurate reflection of the partisan breakdown by Pew:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

Earlier this year they noted:

"By comparison, in 2004 about equal numbers of independents leaned toward both parties. When "leaners" are combined with partisans, however, the Democratic Party now holds a 14-point advantage among voters nationwide (51% Dem/lean-Dem to 37% Rep/lean-Rep), up from a three-point advantage four years ago."

Hence why I dont get their decision with Palin.

She sounds like Marge Gunderson with a chip on her shoulder

Actually, she sounds more like Stuart's mom from MADtv.

Is that an Alaska accent? She sounds like a cross between a Minnesotan and a Canadian.

El Viajero asks if we have seen "where these people were from." Humorously, the answer is that every single independent quoted from that panel lives in a swing county in a swing state.

incidentally- this from daily kos:

North Dakota is in play:

http://www.dakotapolitics.com/blogPost.asp?PostId=10915

This is why her speech last night was again- a big mistake and lost opportunity.

Eight or ten interviews is your basis? Did you see where all of these people were from?

I live in the area, so I can tell you where all "those people" are from, and the general political bend of that area:

Sterling Heights: Reagan Democrat area, blue collar

Southfield: Business area, lots of money, decently conservative

West Bloomfield: Very conservative, lots of money.

Berkely: Lower class, more liberal, tends toward blue collar

Royal Oak: Money, high Jewish population, mix between conservative and liberal.

Beverly Hills: Trends conservative.

All in all, a good mix from the area that the Free Press got, and a good sampling of the area of the state where most of Michigan's votes come from. Bad news for McCain.

Salvo - Wikipedia says Southfield is majority (middle class) Black.

Yes, Southfield is more Democratic than it used to be, although it's still a business community at heart. Anyway, we're talking about independents here.

It makes sense that her speech would upset independents. It was the polar opposite of Obama's "Little League in Blue States, gay friends in Red States" rhetoric from 2004. Palin wants Red and Blue America to fight it out.

she took a mayoral race that was nominally non-partisan (and generally about basic logistical, quality-of-life issues) and made it all about god, guns, and abortion

I can't believe people still fall for that kind of thing. Does anyone actually think that the mayor of Wasilla is going to outlaw abortion?

made it all about god, guns, and abortion
In other words she called for people to cling to their guns and religion instead of facing their problems.

"I can't believe people still fall for that kind of thing. Does anyone actually think that the mayor of Wasilla is going to outlaw abortion?"

If it fits their emotional identity, then the answer is yes. If people were logical, there wouldn't be a race right now at all.

I'm clinging to my religion and guns....but only when Obama speaks to Elites in San Francisco. When he's in Scanton, I'm a totally different person.

I told you, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a red meat speech to right wing audiences from someone billed as a 'new kind of a Republican' was going to turn of indies.

If it energises the base, then it's likely to turn off independents. That you had GOPpers creaming themselves and Dems opening their wallets last night said all that was necessary.

Also remember that she had an accent that some people might associate with Fargo, but a complete lack of Minnesota nice. In Minnesota.

Mike Lux at Open left just posted his thoughts, and after I read them I thought "yeah, he's right." Basically his point is that the biography of her speech conflicted with the tone and nature of the rest of her speech. She started off talking about how she is small town, and understands small town values, but morphs into this DC republican attack dog. I wonder, as I also grew up in a small town , what will be the perception of the strident nature of her speech?

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/09/dont-look-now-a.html, just to point out that the classification of independent may have been stetched....

This is a pretty good, GOP-style headline (if I do say so myself).... :)

Palin and Giuliani ridicule Catholic charity work