« a devastating loss | Main | twittering the french revolution »

July 04, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I'm glad you pointed out the jabbering mess that was her speech. Obviously the U.S holds it's best public speakers in high regard and the U.S electoral system gives great speakers as big an advantage as any other country, yet it still tolerates this rubbish.
I was wondering if anyone who was as elementary in their (prepared) speech could feature as prominently British politics?


One Australian state, Queensland, was led for almost 20 years by Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a jibbering verbal wreck and right-wing evangelical nutcase whose strangled syntax, verbless sentences, and loony ideas would have made Palin sound like Timothy Geithner. But he stayed in office because of an extreme electoral jerrymander (not of his own devising) which allowed him to win office with just 25% of the (compulsory) vote. I don't know of any comparable politician in a country with majority voting.

Rob Hyndman

The difficulty with the rational actor theory is that it does not account for her haste and unpreparedness, nor the seemingly deliberate manner in which she snubbed or jilted some of her most ardent and useful supporters.


Yes, although I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the decision she's arrived at is rational (ie it maximises her self-interest) even if there are some seemingly irrational - or 'baffling' - aspects to the way she arrived at it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

brain food

american politics

british politics


my other places