Friday, October 31, 2008

P.T. Barnum Was Wrong On Sarah Palin

The Sarah Palin debacle contains a lesson for trial lawyers. It's a lesson on playing a trial straight, without shtick. And a lesson that runs contrary to what legendary showman P.T. Barnum was alleged to have said:

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

Today a New York Times / CBS pol shows that the public doesn't believe Sarah Palin is ready for the job. According to this NYT story (Growing Doubts on Palin Take a Toll, Poll Finds):

All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favor Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee.

And according to this CBS story:

A third of voters saying the vice presidential nominees will factor in their vote, and here the Democrats have the edge: While 74 percent say Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden is prepared to be vice president, just 35 percent say GOP counterpart Sarah Palin is prepared for the job.

The lesson to draw from this mess? Argue the evidence. Jurors will feel insulted if you do otherwise. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily explain how and why voters did what they did in other elections.)

The quote, by the way, most likely wasn't Barnum's, but belonged to H. L. Mencken. If you decide you want to believe what you read on the Internet.

Labels: Politics, Trial Practice

posted by Eric Turkewitz
Permanent Link

Comments:

H. L. Mencken not P.T. Barnum

# posted by  Anonymous : November 02, 2008 8:51 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  
<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>

posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.