Prospect theory and vice-presidential nominees
I’ve been slow to blog about John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for the following reasons: I was at APSA. Everyone at APSA kept asking me about Palin, and I was too busy attending APSA to think about it for a little while. My first, snarky instinct upon hearing the pick was “Danielle Quayle” — which ...
I've been slow to blog about John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for the following reasons: I was at APSA. Everyone at APSA kept asking me about Palin, and I was too busy attending APSA to think about it for a little while. My first, snarky instinct upon hearing the pick was "Danielle Quayle" -- which isn't really fair to anyone involved -- Quayle had served Congress for twelve years before Bush picked him. Since almost everyone at APSA is supporting Obama, the conversations about Palin were juuuust a little skewed to her negatives. Surprisingly, however, I see that part of William Kristol's New York Times column today pretty much captures my impression of the pick: There are Republicans who are unhappy about John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. Many are insiders who highly value — who overly value — “experience.” There are also sensible strategists who nervously note just how big a gamble McCain has taken. But what was McCain’s alternative? To go quietly down to defeat, accepting a role as a bit player in The Barack Obama Story? McCain had to shake up the race, and once he was persuaded not to pick Joe Lieberman, which would have been one kind of gamble, he went all in with Sarah Palin. That's largely correct. Despite poll numbers indicating that it's a close race, both campaigns know that the contours of this race are stacked heavily in Obama's favor. And this fact led to different factors in their VP selections. Barack Obama picked Joe Biden mostly because he was concerned about governing after the election; it was a risk-averse decision. John McCain picked Sarah Palin in the hope that she helps him win the election; it was a risk-loving decision. Kristol, naturally, thinks Palin is a risk that will pay off. I'll reserve judgment for a spell. AFTER A SMALL SPELL: Wow, the McCain campaign has done some fantastic vetting here.
I’ve been slow to blog about John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for the following reasons:
- I was at APSA.
- Everyone at APSA kept asking me about Palin, and I was too busy attending APSA to think about it for a little while.
- My first, snarky instinct upon hearing the pick was “Danielle Quayle” — which isn’t really fair to anyone involved — Quayle had served Congress for twelve years before Bush picked him.
- Since almost everyone at APSA is supporting Obama, the conversations about Palin were juuuust a little skewed to her negatives.
Surprisingly, however, I see that part of William Kristol’s New York Times column today pretty much captures my impression of the pick:
There are Republicans who are unhappy about John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. Many are insiders who highly value — who overly value — “experience.” There are also sensible strategists who nervously note just how big a gamble McCain has taken. But what was McCain’s alternative? To go quietly down to defeat, accepting a role as a bit player in The Barack Obama Story? McCain had to shake up the race, and once he was persuaded not to pick Joe Lieberman, which would have been one kind of gamble, he went all in with Sarah Palin.
That’s largely correct. Despite poll numbers indicating that it’s a close race, both campaigns know that the contours of this race are stacked heavily in Obama’s favor. And this fact led to different factors in their VP selections. Barack Obama picked Joe Biden mostly because he was concerned about governing after the election; it was a risk-averse decision. John McCain picked Sarah Palin in the hope that she helps him win the election; it was a risk-loving decision. Kristol, naturally, thinks Palin is a risk that will pay off. I’ll reserve judgment for a spell. AFTER A SMALL SPELL: Wow, the McCain campaign has done some fantastic vetting here.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
