In the wake of Sarah Palin's nomination, a surprising number of people -- some of whom weren't even operating in bad faith -- suggested that the smart thing to do when faced with a popular political opponent would be to avoid attacking her, lest the attacks cause a backlash. Looking at the Research 2000 tracking poll data, however, confirms common sense -- when you attack someone, she becomes less popular.
I was one of the people who urged the Obama campaign not to attack Palin (if I was arguing in bad faith, I wasn't aware of it) in the wake of the convention, and I still think it was good advice; in fact, I also think it's advice that the Democratic ticket has largely taken over the past week-to-ten days. Palin's fall, I suspect, has been driven primarily by negative press reports on her Alaska career (with the anti-Palin notebook dumps in the Times and the Post leading the way), ongoing coverage of the still-simmering Troopergate scandal - and especially by her widely-watched, none-too-impressive interview with Charlie Gibson, which aired the day her slide in the polls began. The Obama campaign, meanwhile, has busied itself going after McCain - for lying in his ads, for being out of touch on the economy, etc. etc. - and avoiding the "she's just a small-town mayor" attacks that they trotted out immediately after the Palin pick was announced. Or at least that's been my impression - it's possible that there's been a barrage of anti-Palin fire from the Obama camp that I've missed, but by and large it seems like they've been doing a decent job of just getting out of the way, and leaving it to the media (and Palin herself) to undo her initial spike in popularity.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.