The actual effect of this convention won’t really be known until probably Monday. That’s when the three-day tracking polls will cover Friday-Sunday, i.e., a sample completely after the convention. If CBS is any indication, the GOP could have a titanic bounce, but that’s a big “if.”
In many ways, though, the 2008 campaign is in uncharted waters. Not just in the historical realm (after all, this will be the first time in history that the winning ticket will not include two white males), but in the rules of thumb that have guided politics for decades.
The last time a Vice Presidential candidate was such a vital part of a major party campaign was 1952, when Richard Nixon was Ike’s only link to an angry and demoralized GOP base. We tend to forget Nixon’s importance back then, but he was the first World War II veteran to run on a national ticket. In 1988, Quayle became the first baby-boomer on the national ticket, which is the real reason the media went after him so viciously.
Even then, however, Ike didn’t really need Nixon, nor did Bush need Quayle. McCain, by contrast, clearly needs Palin – and he knows it. Palin brings an energy and an excitement to the campaign that McCain could never generate on his own. Thus we are faced with one ticket led by a gifted orator backed by an “experienced” hand, while the other is led by a tried-and-true safe pair of hands backed by a game-changing dynamo.
To find the last time we had a campaign like that, you have to go back two centuries, to the end of the 19th (1900), when the Democrats had the fiery and brilliant William Jennings Bryant, backed by Adlai Stevenson, Sr. (who had actually served as VP under Grover Cleveland), while the GOP went with incumbent William McKinley and national newcomer Teddy Roosevelt. FWIW, McKinley-Roosevelt won; McKinley was murdered in September 1901, and the rest is history.
So, in reality, there is no real historical precedent here (to give you an idea, in 1900, the birth states of McCain, Obama, and Palin were still territories).
Making matters even more complicated, 2004 was supposed to be a realignment year. The Constitutional era in America (1788-present) has seen dramatic political shifts every 36 years (1824, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968). In some cases (1824 and 1968) it took some time for the effects to be realized, but the tectonic plates always shifted every three dozen years – until 2004.
This bring us more questions. Was realignment accelerated (i.e., it happened in 2000)? Or delayed (it’s coming in November)? What does it mean for Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin? If the realignment is on the way, will be a generational one? A regional one? Will backers of Hillary Clinton return to the Democrats? Defect this fall to block Obama and give their champion another opportunity? Begin a long, slow walk to the GOP? What will the two parties emphasize in 2009 and beyond? Will the Republicans refocus on limited government? Or abandon it for a European-style Christian Democracy? Will the Democrats extend their social libertarianism to economic issues? Or move in a more socialist direction? How will the party’s decisions affect each other? How will the election shift these answers?
Honestly, I have no idea.
