sarah palin

Oh man. Those pesky prank calls. A radio station in Quebec, Canada did the dirty work, posing as French President Nicolas Sarkozy:

Shouldn't someone who is running for the second highest office in the United States be able to tell this is a prank?

This can't be good for John McCain's temper.

Over the past few weeks we have seen the McCain campaign flailing, as the economic crisis has forced its way into the political dialogue, forcing McCain and the Republicans to talk about an issue with which they have absolutely no credibility.

We've seen the outcomes expressed in a few ways. We've all seen Obama skyrocket in the polls, as voters have been more impressed and comfortable with his approach to the economy -- perhaps because he understands it. Here is a graph from Open Left yesterday of both candidates' support in an average of four tracking polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, Hotline, R2Kos):

We've also seen the revival of the dream of capturing a filibuster-proof 60 Senate seats thanks to a surge in Democratic support. Races in Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Oregon are trending heavily blue.

But it's the implicit that truly shows the enormity of the last few weeks in this campaign.

Like the effects of McCain going negative so early. Marc Ambinder gets it:

One worry for Republicans is that McCain has already gone too negative too quickly; you never pull out the strongest punches against your opponent until the very end; it's hard to get tougher than the kindergarten ad... or over-the-top statements about Obama not being fit to lead.

McCain's advisers, perhaps thinking they were listening to their inner-Karl Rove, have already waged the character war in May, June, July, and August. It knocked Obama on his heels for a while, but he and his campaign survived. How do you top those blistering attacks from earlier this summer? Apparently, if you're Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign, you start pounding even harder on the character message, even if it means 1.) citing a source you've disparaged as a pro-Obama advocacy organization, and 2.) exaggerating the scope of the story to make it fit your shrinking narrative. One problem with this approach for the McCain campaign is that Americans have already seen and heard this ad nauseum, and so, to them, it's boring. The other is, unlike the past couple elections, the Democrats are organized and ready to strike back:

The economic crisis could actually be the catalyst of the downfall of the "Nixonland" politics of cultural resentment that reigned for the past forty years. Todd Beeton from MyDD hits the nail on the head here:

So far throughout this entire election cycle, remarkably, we've seen facts and rationality win out over fear. Will that continue over the next 30 days? It's clear that Palin's reference to plural "terrorists" (no comment, of course, from the McCain campaign on who these other terrorists Obama is "palling around with" are) and her evocation of racial cues in her speech yesterday are intended to make people fear Barack Obama, to portray him as "the other" but for that strategy to work, they need the nation to be its old 2004 self. Again, too bad for John McCain, not only is the country in a much different place than it was just 4 years ago, but the left is far better organized with a media infrastructure that has been able to effectively hit back against such attacks in real time. This isn't 2004 anymore.

Todd is right on all of those points, especially when we examine Palin, who just may be the best representative of Nixonland politics since the man himself. Talk about playing up cultural resentment, fear in ordinary, everyday Americans -- Palin's last month and a half of practice at this traditional brand of Republican politics has made perfect. But, again, it's 2008, and it's not working this year. In an economic crisis, it turns out lipstick, hockey moms, and Joe Six-packs aren't what they used to be.

I'll go further than Todd, though, and argue that another significant reason why 2008 is so different than 2004 is the presence of Millennials in the electorate. Jerome Armstrong interviewed Michael Hais and Morley Winograd, the authors of Millennial Makeover, in April. One of the questions Jerome asked Hais and Winograd dealt with the positioning of Millennials in the electorate -- were enough of them able to vote to actually make a difference?

Only third to half of the Millennial Generation will be eligible to vote in 2008. Wouldn't that point to 2012 as the election where this generation will have its greatest impact? On the other hand, if you look at the years of realignments, 1828-1860 was 32 years, 1860-1896 was 36 years, 1896 to 1932 was 36 years, and 1932 to 1968 was 36 years. Now, it's been 40 years since 1968. And we could be looking at 44 years if it winds up being 2012 for the realignment.

Certain fundamental demographical facts about Millennials make it likely that 2008 will be the realigning election. There are currently about 100 million Millennials ranging in age from 5 to 26 years old, making it America's largest generation. Millennials now comprise about one-third of the U.S. population, a percentage that will only grow in coming years as members of older generations pass from the scene. Given the fact that many Millennials will not yet be able to vote this year, it is certainly true that the full force of this huge generation will be most strongly felt in elections beyond that of 2008. Nevertheless, we argue that Millennials will have a decisive impact this year. This will be due, in large part, to the unity of the Millennial Generation. Millennials, unlike Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers, are not sharply divided along gender, racial, or ideological lines. Moreover, a clear majority of Millennials identify as Democrats, while the two next older generations are divided fairly evenly between the two parties. Assuming that the Millennial Generation retains its unity, it should provide the decisive balance between the more sharply divided older generations in 2008 and beyond.

Historically, realigning elections occur when a new group of voters enters the electorate in significant numbers for the first time and their unified attitudes tip the balance of power decisively to one party or the other. Keep in mind that in American presidential elections a 53/47 victory is considered decisive. Consequently, a realigning generation's numbers don't have to be overwhelming to cause this outcome. Normally, in the subsequent national election after the realignment, this shift in party fortunes and policy attitudes is ratified by an even larger victory for the newly dominant party. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt won big in 1932, but the New Deal realignment was reaffirmed in a much larger landslide in 1936. Richard Nixon won relatively narrowly in 1968, but he won in a landslide in 1972, reconfirming the electoral shift to the GOP. Whichever party wins in 2008 will do so clearly, and then will likely win a landslide victory in 2012, bringing with it a mandate for sweeping changes in policy that will be debated intensely in the years between the first victory and the second.

Emphasis added. I think we should also remember that Millennials not only are more unified in their political preferences than previous generations, but they're also more serious -- more meritocratic and pragmatic -- in their approach. They want the best product for its money. There's clearly a job that needs to be done, and rebuilding the country is going to take a huge effort. Millennials, an optimistic, can-do, collaborative generation, want someone who's willing to take on the challenge and prove their competence in doing so.

So when we revisit the latest McCain campaign strategy, is this mold of young voters really going to be convinced that the best hope for our country during these troubling times is the candidate who won't even talk about it?

Not only is this campaign slipping away for McCain, but he's quickly becoming a Herbert Hoover -- the candidate who tried to push away and resist destiny; the candidate who maintained that deregulation was the best way to go; the candidate who said the fundamentals of the economy are strong; the candidate who was the weakest on using the latest technology of his time; the candidate who just didn't understand.

It's not 2004 anymore, John. Things are changing.

In Thursday night's debate, Sarah Palin told America that she favored dropping assets connected to the Sudanese government within the state's large investment fund as a means of protesting the genocide occurring in the country. But, of course, she was misleading.

ABC News looked into this claim, and found out that she was -- shock! -- against divestment until it was politically convenient for her to be for it.

The Gara-Lynn Sudan Divestment bill was reviewed in February at a public hearing. A Palin administration official testified against it:

"The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination," testified Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner, before a hearing on the Gara-Lynn Sudan divestment bill in February. Minutes from the meeting are posted online by the legislature.

The minutes are here in case you're interested.

It took some time, but Palin finally came around to it, even if it was very late in the legislative year.

Gara said that after it was clear the bill had stalled, he and others pressed the administration directly on Sudan divestment.

"We were outraged," Gara recounted. "We went to the Commissioner of Revenue and said, 'What the hell are you guys doing? This is genocide. We're going to keep pushing this until we divest."

Two months later, at the end of the legislative session, the administration softened its position. Appearing before a Senate committee which was considering a companion measure to Gara's bill, Palin's Revenue commissioner, Patrick Galvin, stated the administration supported such a measure, though it hoped to amend the bill to allow for investments held indirectly, for example in index funds.

And Palin is supposed to appeal to the youth vote for the GOP?

Thanks to WireTap, here's how passionate youth feel about the ongoing genocide in Sudan:

Three years after the United States classified the situation in Darfur, Sudan, as a genocide, students are still organizing to make sure the crucial cause doesn't get ignored. In April, two thousand white-clad activists played dead in Boston Commons for five minutes of silence. In December, thousands of students worldwide fasted to raise money to fight rape in the African region. STAND, a student anti-genocide coalition, helped organize those events and hundreds of others this year. Students have been signing petitions, lobbying representatives, staging events -- anything to keep Darfur in the news. And the coverage has paid off. Companies have started divesting in ventures that support the government that allows the genocide to continue, and awareness is at an all-time high. As long as the violence rages, so will the activism. "The world has been slow to act to protect the people of Darfur," said STAND student director Scott Warren, "so students across the globe will be taking protection into their own hands."

Don't play politics with Sudan, Ms. Palin.

I've never heard of Anderson Analytics before, so take this with a grain of salt, but in a poll of 1,000 students, they found that Sarah Palin's presence on the ticket did not help McCain draw support among college students generally, or among young women attending college:

Stamford, CT (PRWEB) September 30, 2008 -- According to the Anderson Analytics GenX2Z College Poll, 60% of college students (ages 17-34) prefer Senator Obama while only 25% prefer Senator McCain.

Interestingly, the choice of Sarah Palin does not seem to have helped McCain much among female college students. Females were significantly more likely than their male counterparts to prefer Obama (62.9% of females vs. 55.4% of males preferred Obama while only 23% of females vs. 28.4% of males preferred McCain).

The overall 34% youth vote difference between the two candidates is larger than what has been reported in earlier polls among youth. To benefit from the lead, Democrats need to ensure that these students actually visit the polls on Election Day.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow night's debate. Each new Katir Couric interview with Palin that comes out is another nail in the GOP coffin. All Biden has to do is sit back, direct his attacks at Bush and McCain, and say as little as possible. Sarah Palin will self-immolate during the 2 minute response periods when she won't be able to rely on straight talking points (or look foolish doing so).

What I've been reading today...

• A Politico piece looks at the meltdown's impact on student loans.
• An extremely large coalition, Election Protection 2008, is now on the scene this fall to protect voters rights.
• Obama continues his ascent in today's Gallup tracking poll; he now leads McCain 50-44.
• Barack Obama's going to debate camp in Florida this week.
• MyDD has the details on the unveiling of a Voter Suppression Wiki. Check it out.
• My home state (Ohio) is in the middle of trying to make itself more marketable for businesses, but there seems to be no mention of a lightrail system or other infrastructure discussions that would go a long way toward approaching their goal.
• Paul Rosenberg at Open Left looks at all facets of the Palin Plunge.
• A nice summary of the youth outreach effort this year by Peter Dreier at Huffington Post.
• The Guardian looks at student organization on American campuses.
• Usher co-authors a piece with Tom Nelson, also at Huffington Post, on service-oriented Millennials coming together with members of the Silent Generation and older Boomers, to make a difference.
• McCain adviser: We'll balance budget by 2013, even after bailouts. That's not budgetary policy we can believe in, my friends.

Here on Future Majority we have talked about the new school of evangelicals, the political shift of young evangelicals, and Obama's young evangelical outreach. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate has reinvigorated the discussion of what is going to happen with young evangelical voters.

Obama's relative strength with young evangelicals was causing a lot of distress among the crazy conservative elder evangelicals. An article on Jusiper quoting one of these evangelicals shows just how freaked out they are:

This generation is not the "Joshua" generation, it is the "Judas" generation. They are not Christians, they are devils. The Church should hang its' head in shame that we have produced generation after generation of apostates who have disgraced the name of Christ by sniffing after devils like Obama like animals in rutting season. Fortunately, our Lord is a mighty God who can conquer Satan and these minions of his regardless of how few true believers remain.

Young evangelicals haven't been lock-step with their older counterparts. Surveys have shown young evangelicals as more accepting of homosexuality, and that they are not single-issue voters on abortion issues, but also are concerned about the war in Iraq and social justice.

McCain's selection of Sarah Palin was supposed to energize the evangelical base, seeing as though she believes that a few thousand years ago people were dinosaur hunting instead of moose hunting, yet it appears that the reaction of young voters to Palin is mixed.

It seems that young evangelicals are starting to split into three camps, similar to the philosophical split of the country: conservative, progressive, and moderate. While the conservative evangelical youth are more excited about the Republican ticket with Palin, the progressive-leaning evangelicals aren't nearly as impressed. To them, Palin's selection undercut McCain's claim to be "country first" and independent-minded.

One of the wild-cards being talked about is the effect that Bristol Palin's pregnancy will have on young voters. Some think that it will help young voters relate to the ticket, which frankly I think is stupid. I think a possibility is that young evangelicals who have actually remained abstinate may be turned off by it.

The point is that even with Palin on the ticket Obama has a good chance at pulling a significant portion of the young evangelical vote. With McCain effectively giving up on young voters and Obama doing significant outreach to both youth and evangelicals, we have the opportunity to succeed by putting in superior effort.

What are your thoughts on Palin's effect on the evangelical youth vote? Share in the comments.

From last night's Saturday Night Live:

Excellent job by Tina Fey. Not much more can be said.

[CROSS-POSTED FROM MICHIGAN YOUTH POLITICAL ALLIANCE]

Obama's message of hope and change has reached out to millions of young voters, and I do not understand how some people can not understand why. Republicans think it might have to do with the age of the candidate, so they bring in Palin. Now, she may be "young," but she certainly does not bring nearly the same understanding to issues that concern youth voters the most as Obama does.

With a young population experiencing piled-up college debt and the pressure of finding new jobs, they refuse to believe that a continuation of the current administration could be the solution, especially since John McCain barely shares the compassion Obama does for education and job growth. Our youth have also become disillusioned by the failed policies of the Iraq War and have felt the stress of escalating costs of health care within their families. Who deals with these issues with an eye out for how we feel? I don't see McCain caring much about what we think. The latest Gallup polls from September 7 reveal our thoughts exactly--60% favor Obama while only 32% favor McCain.

But putting all political affiliation aside, will youth participation shock us this election season?

Here's a great example of the media spoiling for a fight that just isn't there. The Wall Street Journal has a dizzying piece in today's edition suggesting that Sarah Palin is the GOP's ticket to connecting with young voters and cutting into Obama's sizable lead among our peers. The only problem is that almost every fact in the piece disputes that thesis.

Here's a rundown on why I'm not buying it.

With colleges back in session and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on board as the Republican vice presidential nominee, social conservatives are intensifying efforts to woo young voters, a demographic they once all but conceded to the Democrats.

The article certainly isn't talking about the McCain campaign here. If you go to the McCain/Palin website, there is not student or youth section to be found. As far as I know, they have no field plan for reaching out to young voters, and with only 50 odd days before the election, almost no time in which to execute a new plan from scratch:

Sen. Obama has spent well over a year building ties to young voters and college campuses. Young voters are notoriously hard to get to the polls, unless they're repeatedly contacted in person. "It's not clear," Mr. Green said, "that the McCain campaign has the infrastructure."

So who, exactly, is going to be connecting with young voters on behalf of the campaign?

At a string of Christian rock concerts in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the nonprofit group Redeem the Vote plans to mobilize voters by interspersing the music with calls to end legal abortion.

The antiabortion group Students for Life, meanwhile, has announced plans to flood YouTube with videos urging young people to activism in the fall campaign.

Ah, Christian Right groups looking for some hot culture war action! Only problem is, most young people don't care about the culture war. They've got bigger fish to fry like Global Warming and a tanking economy that threatens their debt-ridden future:

They plan to focus their youth effort on a few issues, including abortion. Although voters of all ages rank abortion quite low as a political priority, polls show the under-30 crowd is receptive to strict limits on abortion, and young evangelicals -- potential swing voters this election -- are more conservative than their parents on the issue.

...

Pew Research Center poll from 2006 found that 46% of people age 18 to 30 believe abortion should be banned outright or permitted only in a few circumstances. But that still means more than half support legal abortion. And many young people know someone who has made the choice to end a pregnancy; some 600,000 abortions a year are performed on women under 25.

So how effective has Palin, the GOP's new culture warrior, been so far in converting young voters to the Republican nominee?

Polls taken after the Republican convention don't show Sen. McCain cutting into the Democrats' lead among young voters; his support hovers around 33% in that group. But conservatives aren't giving up.

To recap:
Lacking any infrastructure with which to reach out to young voters, Sarah Palin is going to help the McCain campaign eat into Obama's lead among young voters. This will happen because conservative christian groups will hold a few one-off concerts, possibly after voter registration deadlines have passed, and targeted to voters who were never going to vote for Obama anyway. These concerts will focus on an issue of little voting significance to Millennials. So far, there is no evidence that Palin's presence on the ticket or these strategies will have any impact on the race.

And how did the Wall Street Journal frame this article?

Right . . .

I'm not sweating this one . . .

Even though Trojan Condoms launched its Evolve America tour last April, the safer sex campaign still made quite an appearance at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. Calling it the "condomvention" Trojan's bus rolled into Denver, Colorado for a huge party the first night of the festivities.

With special guests including Ja Rule, Spike Lee, Alan Cumings, Josh Lucas, Tony Goldwyn, and Gloria Reuben, the party started with open bar and a little comedy.

The Evolve tour targeted delegates, sexual health advocacy groups, policymakers and the presidential candidates themselves, urging them to acknowledge safer sex issues and get them on the political and social agendas.

According to the International Business Times, the tour is designed to engage Americans directly by pledging to use a condom every time and sign a petition for change. This, they say, is in light of:

"condom advertising restrictions on network prime time television in effect, and over a billion dollars spent on abstinence-only education that does not advocate condom use..."

There are two tours continuing from the conventions. Evolve Yourself and Involve Yourself plan to crisscross the country through the final months of the Presidential campaigns.

"Trojan Evolve is a call to action," says Jim Daniels, Vice President of Marketing for Church & Dwight Co Inc. "We're quite literally going city to city asking Americans to pledge to use a condom every time, sign a petition for change and help turn the tide on the unhealthy state of sexual health in this country."

See my video on the campaign below and take the pledge at TrojanCondoms.com

Editorial rant: Why is it that we don't see Democrats hitting the GOP on how these programs didn't work and opposing them because republicans still want to do abstinence only education?? if 90% of American is for comprehensive sex education ... then why aren't we standing up and saying - so are democrats and republicans aren't. Just curious why more people aren't pushing this issue given new facts, data, the Trojan tour, and .... need I mention the VP's own little at home experiment?

Crossposted from Wiretap Magazine