Why Palin over Lieberman, or maybe the idea of the "respectable loss."

I just want to float this out as a theory.

Let's go back a few weeks and do some imagining on the John McCain vice presidential selection process. The broad picture painted by the press is that McCain had been wanting Joe Lieberman for months, but that he had talked out of it by "advisers" on the Sunday night before the Wednesday when he decided on Palin.

Let's look at the two very different paths we're talking about.

My assumption of John McCain's thinking is that he believed Lieberman might well help him claim more of the center (although I'm a little dubious of that,) and that, despite the anger on the right, enough of those base Republicans would still show up to give him a shot at winning. Again, dubious, but you understand the logic.

However, take just a minute to think what that even slightly depressed evangelical/Republican base turnout could mean on all of those close downballot races.

Many of those "in trouble" and "near trouble" are fairly long term Congressmen and Senators who have a long history of winning 55/45 redistricted districts by staying hard right and relying on the Republican base to pretty much guarantee them through.

While McCain might believe he could pull of "centrist Maverick," all those downballot Republicans who have historically committed themselves to fundamentalist Republicanism certainly could not. Facing the possibility of an increased new voter turnout by the Obama folks, and a depressed Republican turnout by a Lieberman choice, suddenly they're in the stew and left, without national help, to try and drag their voters to the polls.

This, I would argue, was the objection to the McCain-Lieberman ticket. Not so much an ideological block as a "what it could cost the party" block, especially when, even at best estimates, McCain was looking at a 30-35% chance of winning.

On the other hand, Palin pulls out the evangelicals but doesn't help in the center, which likely makes McCain's race harder, but also likely makes all those downballot races in the 55/45 districts more solid for the Republicans (possibly preventing a 60 seat Dem Senate.)

The logical question is then "Why Palin? Why not Romney or Pawlenty or anyone else?

Look at the response she has gotten, even before her speech. Possible illegal use of office as Governor of Alaska, no practical foreign experience whatsoever, a pregnant underaged daughter, and still the right has put itself through ridiculous contortions so that they can still love her.

McCain recognized that he was losing, and not by some small margin, and while Romney and Pawlenty might please the base, and keep the Republican turnout from being depressed, they certainly wouldn't fire that same base and get turnout back up to 2004 levels.

He picked Palin because, in the "respectable loss" scenario forced on him, she was his best slight chance of not destroying the party and still trying to win through he 2004 base plus turnout model.

Frankly, I don't think that 2004 base plus campaign is enough for him to win, but it may be enough to keep him from going down as the man who cost the GOP 40 house seats, and 9 Senate seats.

If he had picked Lieberman, every bit of blame for every lost seat would be dumped onto his legacy. He would be remembered in Republican infamy.

Just a theory I'm chewing on. Feedback?