Low Expectations

[babylonsister]

http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/low-expectations.php

Low Expectations
2 October 2008
Conor Clarke



Why should Sarah Palin benefit from the fact that the media expects her to do poorly against Joe Biden?

Low expectations might be the secret to happiness, but are they the secret to winning an election? The McCain campaign must be hoping so, and the Democrats are crossing their collective fingers that it won't be the case. But just about everyone seems to agree that Palin's gruesome performance in last week's interview with Katie Couric has given the Alaska governor an advantage in tonight's VP debate. CNN's Gloria Borger says that the bar that Palin must clear is "on the floor" and NBC's Savannah Guthrie commented this week that the McCain camp will be pleased as peaches if Palin "just survives." One Wisconsin political scientist told the press that Palin should be fine so long as she can avoid an "embarrassing massacre," as if she were about to debate Genghis Khan.

As a matter of historical prediction, these pundits are almost certainly right: Sarah Palin will be the happy beneficiary of low expectations. When you're near the bottom it's hard to go anywhere but up. (Sixty percent of the public now thinks Palin does not have the experience to be president.) And yet it seems equally true that low expectations are the wrong standard to apply to tonight's debate. In part this is because the media's expectations can be self-fulfilling: predictions can influence outcomes, especially when the people making the predictions are the very same people interpreting the outcome. And since the questions of who "won" the debate is almost entirely a matter of interpretation, doesn't the press have an incentive to prove itself right?

But the more important problem is that Palin is not running for vice president against herself (evidence from the Couric interview to the contrary), and the yardstick of past performance isn't the most important one. She is running against Joe Biden and, if we're trying to figure out who won the debate, she should be compared to him. When voters punch their ballots on November 4, they won't be deciding between the Sarah Palin who bluffed and fumbled her way through the Couric interview and the Palin who will appear onstage in St. Louis tonight. They will be choosing between two tickets, and they should pick the most qualified.

There are no prizes for being the most-improved candidate, even if voters can glean something valuable from improvement. There should be only one prize: for being the best candidate. Or at least that's what I'd like to expect.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

1. I'd like to see

Joe Biden co-opt a couple of her previous statements, especially her response to conservative interviewer Hugh Hewitt about "Joe Six-pack". When I read that, all I could think of was popping an ice-cold beer and sitting on a front porch . . . with Joe Biden.

It is likely that we'll see her slinging zingers and insults, as well as a few poorly constructed sentences composed of repeated words, words repeated, and then repeated again with finality.

[Demeter]

2. I'm Sure Expectations Are Not Yet Low Enough

Unless being completely incompetent is a good thing for your candidate.