The CW is that most people vote for irrational reasons. If that is true, then is it not rational to select a candidate for irrational reasons like: she's an attractive woman and mom who practices what she believes about the sanctity of life? Or that she comes from an energy producing, freedom loving, final frontier state? Or that, as a governor, she has executive experience that the other ticket does not have? You can't get much farther from the Beltway that Alaska.
How do you know there aren't more people who will vote against her because she's an attractive woman?
and mom who practices what she believes about the sanctity of life?
There are also people out there who are not pro-life, and people who might think a mom of 5 is not what we need as CinC and leader of the greatest superpower on the planet.
Or that she comes from an energy producing, freedom loving, final frontier state?
How many votes do you figure that wins her? Any?
Or that, as a governor, she has executive experience that the other ticket does not have?
About twenty months of experience. What was she before that, and how much experience in her last position? And how did she leave it?
You can't get much farther from the Beltway than Alaska.
So which is it, you want experience or virginity? Experience, but not with Washington? Why is that good? And if that's good, is lack of experience in the global arena also good? I mean, if it's good that she doesn't know beans about handling Pelosi, is it even better that she hasn't a clue about how to deal with Putin?