Talk Elections

You hear about how Palin was a disaster for the ticket and cost him votes, but is that true at all? What states did Palin cost the ticket? If McCain had picked a Pawlenty, Romney or Ridge would he have done any better?

She cost McCain NC and possibly IN. Probably no other states, though.

I would say IN and FL.

I don't think Caribou Barbie really lost Indiana for McCain, which is a pretty socially conservative state from what I gather from reading posts about the state on this site. I just think the Obama campaign targeted Indiana more than McCain who pretty much wrote the state off and just assumed that it would go red as it had for the past 40 years. The drawn-out Democratic primary probably helped Obama as well in terms of registering new and more voters (thanks Hillary :)).

She may have cost McCain North Carolina after she made those stupid comments down there about being in the "pro-American" parts of the country. Reminds me of that bimbo Nancy Pfotenauer who went on MSNBC and claimed that Northern Virginia wasn't the "real" Virginia because it wasn't "Southern in nature" i.e. full of racist rednecks and Bible-thumping hillbillies. Divisive comments like this usually doesn't play well with Independents.

I think the snow princess cost him Pennsylvania, if any of the "battleground" states. If you look at the counties around Pittsburgh/Allegheny County, they swung more Republican but the Philadelphia suburbs swung much more Democratic. From what I read on here, Southeast Pennsylvania is trending Democratic and I don't think the voters there really vote with their Bibles so Palin's good ole downhome folksy hockey mom appeal probably didn't do anything here but turn off independent voters who don't care about abortion or "the gays." If McCain had selected someone more socially moderate like the pro-choice Tom Ridge (obviously), he may have carried Pennsylvania, but I doubt it, but a Ridge selection would have possibly reduced the margin by which Obama carried the Keystone State (but of course, we all know that a pro-choice Republican stands about a snowball's chance in hell at being on a presidential ticket let alone in the party itself today it seems).

http://()

STRONGLY DISAGREE!!!!!!!!!

Palin helped McCain and without her he would've lost about 54-45 and lost in a couple other conservative states. She helped to get out the GOP base who never liked McCain to begin with.  Bush is the one who cost McCain votes.

I think Palin cancelled herself out. She enthused conservatives, yes, but she totally motivated Independants and Liberals to go out and vote for Obama.

I totally agree as well.

Liberals would have never voted McCain anyhow. Independents broke Obama due to the Financial Crisis. If you recall the polling numbers post Palin pick and convention, many pollsters had McCain
ahead of Obama and this with Palin on the ticket.

I think Palin cost Obama Montana, Missouri, and possibly one or both of the Dakotas.  There's also the off-chance that Obama would have put more effort into Alaska if the female W hadn't entered the fray (remember all those weird polls from the late summer?).

As for what she cost McCain, she may have cost him North Carolina but I think Obama won all his other states without her help.  She may have boosted his margin of victory but I don't think he would have lost any of the other states he won without Palin in the race.

Palin cost McCain votes, period. Her clearly not ready for prime time lack of gravitas and knowledge, combined with McCain's age and health issues, cost moderate persuadable votes. Anecdotal evidence is generally crap I know, but for what it's worth I can think of multiple voters I personally know for whom the idea of Palin being one septuagenarian heartbeat away from the Oval Office was a major or deciding factor in their voting for Obama.

Yes, Palin energized the conservative base upon her nomination. But does anyone think that the litany of socialism, birtherism, secret Muslim, etc. etc. would've kept the conservative base from getting worked up to defeat Obama? Almost any other conservative McCain chose could've done about the same.

Palin's choice was a gamble to attract PUMA voters and shake up the race by injecting excitement into a campaign that was consistently down in the polls. And after the briefest of media honeymoons and convention bounces it backfired badly soon after Palin started to actually, you know, talk.

Palin was essentially a "Hail Mary" VP pick, which was what McCain needed at the time. He needed to attract the most amount of media attention possible, appease the conservative base, and to an extent it worked.

The problem is, Palin herself was poor on the stump and acted "on her own" at times, contradicting the top of her ticket. Palin energized conservatives, but cost McCain "experience" voters, and probably other independents.

Now, the question is, who would have been a good VP pick for McCain?

In all honesty, I don't know if that question can be answered. I suspected that Ridge would've gotten it, but he was pro-choice and I don't know how that would be received. Remember though, McCain was set to run with Lieberman up until the last minute.

I think Kay Bailey Hutchison would have been a great vice presidential selection, but she is somewhat pro-choice so that automatically eliminates her. If he wanted a female, he could have selected Elizabeth Dole, but she was struggling to hold her own Senate seat, so I'm not sure. Trying to think of some other prominent GOP females - the Sisters of Maine would have been good choices but they're in the same bag as Hutchison, pro-choice and pro-gay so no chance in hell the Republicans would support them. As for House members, I don't know many too prominent GOP women aside from Palin's lunatic twin sister Michele Bachmann, the only person I know of who makes Sarah Palin look like she has a double-digit IQ.

She's saving him in Arizona right now.

Basically my opinion.

Palin served her purpose. 

Still, I'd rather he have picked Ridge or Lieberman.  I hate hearing her shrill and "folksy" voice on the news every day.

John Thune probably would have been one of McCain's best options. Thune was a hadcore cosnervative, which would have pleased the base. Simaultenously, his nice guy persona would appeal to moderates. Not to mention that he isn't as stupid as Palin and thus isn't as prone to making large gaffes.

Which articulates my point - no female energized & appeased the base except for Sarah Palin and Bachmann - the latter is merely a representative, which raises concern in the case that McCain dies during his Presidency.


The problem is, the media reaction would have been "John Thune, South Dakota" and the voters' response would've been "yawn." McCain needed something big. Unfortunately for him, Sarah Palin was simply too gaffe-prone.

The thing is, Thune might not have initially caused as much excitement as Palin did, but I think that as the American people would have gotten to know Thune throughout the camapign, both moderates and conservatives would have liked him to a large extent. Thus, I think that if the financial crisis would not have occured, a McCain/Thune ticket might have achieved an upset victory. Thune would have gradually given McCain extra support, in contrast to Palin, who immediately gave McCain a lot of support and then helped him lose a lot of support. Even with the financial crisis, I think that Thune would have prevented McCain from losing IN and NC and might have caused McCain to lose by 4-6% in the PV (even though McCain would have still lost by a decent margin in the end).

I agree with comments about Thune.  Also, Hutchison would have failed to alienate so many more educated folks as at least being qualifed to become President.  My hunch is that she would have cut Obama's lead in NY, PA, OH, and CA, but not have changed any states except possibly NC and FL.  Oh, TX would have been a much larger margin of victory for McCain, as well.

In regards to Hutchison, even though she might have helped McCain with moderates, she would have hurt him with conservatives. Thus, I don't think she would have been able to flip FL or NC to McCain.

McCain could have prevented himself from IN and NC, if he did something other than sleep in Pennsylvania for the last month of the campaign.

Again, Thune would have locked up conservatives and had that "nice, handsome guy" image, but he just didn't generate the same buzz that a female candidate would have. Thune, in hindsight, very well may have been the better VP pick, but hindsight is 20/20. Were I in McCain's spot at the time, I probably would've done the same.

Dallasfan and Rochambeau are actually both right. :)

Other than a brief convention bounce where polls showed him pulling even or very narrowly ahead, McCain was consistently behind in the polls for the entire campaign. Dallas was spot on in describing Palin's pick as a necessary Hail Mary designed to fundamentally shake up the race.

That said, Palin being utterly not ready for prime time clearly blew up in McCain's face and cost him votes, and probably a couple states (though nowhere near enough to change the outcome). Thus Rochambeau is right that someone like Thune would've been a much better choice, albeit in 20/20 hindsight.

In an election with Obama's popularity involved there are alot of people who could've helped McCain. Other than Palin the only candidates I could see helping McCain more are Huckabee and Romney. The latter of which is overqualified anyways.

Mitt Romney, who served one term as Governor is overqualified?

I guess six months in office is the new quota for being Vice President...

No you're wrong he served two two year terms as governor. Secondly, over qualification can also mean that they outshine the actual candidate and Romney would've outshined McCain just as much as Palin. And yes for breaking a tie in the senate as your full time job, I'm satisfied with 6 months governing a state. Now you're going to bring up the Palin factor. Let me tell you something! Sarah Palin had and still has more governing experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden put together. So there!

People do not vote for the v.p. candidate. They vote for the top of the ticket. V.P.'s dont do anything, if that was the case Dukakis would have beat Bush in 1988.

VP is not a top 25 issue. However, Palin had more governing experience than Biden, Obama, and McCain put together. Somebody disagree!

Joe Biden served on the City Council of New Castle County, Delaware, from 1971 to 1973, home to some 500,000 people.

Sarah Palin had served a year and a half as Governor of Alaska during her time in office.  She governed over just 100,000 more people than Biden did.

Not to mention that Biden served 36 years in the Senate (from 1973 to 2009), represeanting a state with nearly a million people near the end of his Senate term.

I thought he meant executive power.  However, Biden had more executive experience as a County Councilor than Palin did as Governor, which is damned pathetic.

He did not govern!

And she helped the McCain ticket.

Helped him lose by a bigger margin, yes.

Having "governing" experiewnce does not necessarily make someone a great President. Bsuh Jr. and Carter were popular governors, but very bad Presidents.

He did as County Councilor, and he served more time than Sarah Palin.

Also, if you are part of the government, you govern.

Blindly ignoring facts presented to you is not the proper way to debate.

governing as part of the senate, ok that's not at all what I am referring to so we have apples and oranges here. Palin had been governor of a state and none of the other 3 had.

Joe Biden governed nearly as many people while a County Councilor as Palin did as Governor.

good for him he didn't govern a state though. it's funny how we agree on some forums and disagree on other forums but hey that's democracy at work.

Doesn't matter. He still governed a large city which is almost as populous as Alaska.

This huge emphasis on "executive experience" as the be all and end all for judging a would-be president's resume came about on the 2008 campaign as the GOP tried to have its cake and eat it too; simultaneously defending a woefully unprepared and unqualified candidate like Palin, but still try to hit Obama on the experience issue. It was fun watching campaign hacks sounding as if an assistant manager at Kinko's was superior experience for the Oval Office than being Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair.

Although Palin energized many conservatives, almost all of those conservatives would have voted for McCain (with less enthusiasn, though) if Palin was not on the ticket since they would not want to see a liberal Muslim socialist in the White House. On the other hand, Palin alienated many moderates and independents and caused many of them to vote against McCain. Thus, she hurt McCain more than she helped him.

If anyone hurt the McCain/Palin ticket it was Bush.

That's true, but Palin also hurt McCain's chances. Not to mention Greenspan since he was the one who blew up the housing bubble in the first place.

The housing market meltdown was staged for years to take place a few weeks before the 2008 presidential election. President Bush had his own bill in 2003 and the democrats fought it til the bill died in the senate. In 2005 McCain had his own bill that was voted against by both sides. The democrats had that up their sleeves for years. Not to mention Chris Dodd was the highest recipient of their loans with Obama coming in at number 2. They could've panicked 10 years earlier too. The collapse was bound to happen due to interest rates being too low and too many ppl being allowed to take out loans who had no intention on paying them back. The policies go back to Jimmy Carter.

Republican Fed Chair Alan Greenspn was the one who made interest rates too low for too long in the first place, though.

Well yes that is a part of it. Chris Dodd and Barack Obama should thank him.

Bush Jr. should also thank Greenspan for pumping up the economy enough for him tog et reelected.

Your saying the democrats plotted it? It was the democrats fault when Clinton deregulated the housing market, and entire suburbs turned into ghettos with in just a few shorts years. Had uncle that had a nice little house in a quaint suburb in 2000 that appraised for $130,000 in 2002 he sold it for 69,000. The Clinton administration is to blame for this debacle.

The economy is run by the ppl. Not pumped up by the government. Unless you're talking about interest rates and loan qualifications. The economy turned around as a cycle in 2003-2004. If Greenspan was whipping something up then I would like to thank him!

Yes Clinton put Carter's plan on steroids which allowed those of low incomes to qualify for loans that they had no intention on paying back. Republicans were spineless in their efforts to stop this. Bush called on congress to resolve this in 2003 and McCain had his own bill 2005. The democrats wanted to blame capitalism and greed because they know that the left in this country is too unsophisticated to know better. It was actually greed from ppl who were living above their means.

I agree with people living above there means, but I disagree the dem's plotted it. Bush had a majority in 2003 and couldnt get it passed?

Yes just like the tax cut he wanted was reduced to 350 billion, he couldn't lower the amounts of frivolous law suits, couldn't get social security privitized, and couldn't open up ANWR. Say what you want about these issues. My point is that there weren't enough Republicans in congress for him at any point. They were probably receiving loans from Fannie/Freddie too and would have been deemed as making it harder for the poor to get loans.

So the meltdown was "staged for years" to occur just before the 08 election, presumably to help the Democratic candidate win?? And the Democrats managed to do this in through 2003-05 while the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress?

You've officially jumped the shark with this post. Congratulations!

You're not understanding what I'm saying. It was in their pocket for years and played at their right time. They could've played it before or later. They would look so horrible with Obama's messianic campaign ending in a crucifixion without resurrection that it had to be done. Fannie/Freddie cried for help along with the Layman brothers at just the right time.

OMG!!!

Again, how was this "in their pocket for years" when:

a) during the time period you described the GOP had firm majorities in the House and Senate, plus Bush in the White House; and

b) how would the Democrats prepare in 2003-5 for "Obama's messianic campaign" when Obama wasn't even in the Senate for most this period, let alone a presidential candidate.

You really, really need to step back and take a few deep breaths before posting again.

Bush would not have been blamed for it in 2004 and in 2000 Clinton would have been blamed  and it would've cost Gore the election. It would've hurt Clinton before that. In 2004 the election was all about social issues and the War on Terror. Bush called on congress in 2003 to act on it and that would've come out in the 2004 election.

Derek, just really, DIAF...for the sake of the human race (don't want your tainted genes in the pool), just....nevermind, its not worth getting mod reviewed, but seriously, you're a damned fool.

nice rebuttle, do you have a source?

Palin may have cost McCain Florida. McCain is a moderate GOP old sunbelter after all.  Hard to see the religiously insane, dumber than a box of rocks Palin playing well outside the already solidly Republican Panhandle. He'd have lost with or without her. It just wasn't that close that the Veep made much deifference.

Way to insult people ^^.

Don't worry, we all think you're dumber than a box of rocks, too.

Just for you, semocrat, here's a list of the Republican women currently serving in the House:

1.   Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA-45)
2.   Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL-5)
3.   Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-18)
4.   Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL-13)
5.   Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS-2)
6.   Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI-10)
7.   Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN-6)
8.   Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO-8)
9.   Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC-5)
10.   Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC-9)
11.   Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH-2)
12.   Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK-5)
13.   Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN-7)
14.   Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX-12)
15.   Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA-5)
16.   Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV-2)
17.   Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY-AL)

17 Republican women compared to 56 Democratic women (and that's not counting Delegates from places like DC or Guam, many of whom are also women, all Democrats).

The others are right in saying that none of these women are (or at the time, were) prominent enough to be considered for VP (then again, Palin herself wasn't either). I will say this, though: out of all the Republican women currently in the House, only one of them strikes me as someone who could run for president or vice president someday, and she's running for Governor this year (therefore leaving the House): Mary Fallin. Call me crazy, but I can see it happening should she be elected Governor this year (which is extremely likely).

Cathy McMorris Rodgers is another one I can see going down this path as well, but she went to an unaccredited bible college (Pensacola Christian College in Florida) a la Bob Jones University so...I don't know. But she seems to have a brighter future as well.

But at the end of the day, I'm more focused on the Democratic women (albeit in a totally non-gay way, as I'm a straight chick, which I know you're not ;) )

(PS, in case anyone's interested, I'll do a list of all the Democratic women in the House too)

How many votes did Palin cost McCain?  Not very many, and they were mostly in states like Massachusetts that McCain wasn't going to win anyway.

Yes that's true too. What's the point of losing Massachusetts by 20 or 25. There isn't a difference. When only considering democrat states, Palin cost McCain. However, she did more than plenty to help him in GOP states.

Sarah Palin suggested, for all her homey image, the sort of person who might have had a temper tantrum that could have led to a fatal stroke or heart attack for John McCain, after which we would be stuck with someone wholly unsuited to be President because of her . Sure, 2008 was a bad year for the GOP -- but as late as September 2008 the race seemed winnable for John McCain. Then the economy went sour.

1. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN). Sure, that would have put two old men on the top of the ticket, but that would have been insurance. Lugar might have been a dull campaigner, but at the least he was well respected throughout the Midwest. He wouldn't have been as scary as Palin.

Lugar would have definitely have flipped Indiana, might have kept Virginia (which like Indiana hadn't voted for a Democratic nominee for President since 1964), Florida, and North Carolina from careening away as they did and might have made Michigan and Pennsylvania legitimate swing states late in the race. 

2. either Senator Susan Collins or Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Anomalous Senators in Maine, they had to do something right. Sarah Palin did not lose to her gender.

3. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH). Another old guy, he had plenty of experience in elected politics as Mayor of Cleveland (a very Democratic city) and as Governor of Ohio.  Definitely flips Ohio and Indiana, puts Michigan and Pennsylvania in play, and likely.

4. Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL). Much better than his brother -- more competent and with little corruption. He could have made "Blame Bush" strategies backfire. 

She almost certainly cost him Florida. 

I highly doubt Jeb Bush would've helped, but Richard Lugar is interesting for a pick. While I do think Palin helped amongst conservatives and ultimately helped him in the election, I think Mike Huckabee would've been good for the base as well. Voters would've seen another conservative governor to McCain's right.

Palin may have energized the Republican base, but she also energized the Democratic base and offended too many moderates. Moderates ultimately decide the election. She may have gotten more people to vote for her in states that had no reasonable chance of going for Obama, but she lost swing states like Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina by offending urban sophisticates. Her "Real America"  gaffe that pretended that rural America was real and urban America was not so real lost votes in urban and suburban America.

The Hail Mary pass is typically the difference between winning 20-18 and losing 25-13. The alternative to throwing the Hail Mary pass is losing 18-13, which late in the game means the same thing as lowing 18-13. It is a high-risk gamble at any other time than the end of the game or at the least the half. Sending out every eligible receiver to make the catch is to practically ensure an interception run-back for a touchdown. Had Senator McCain known of her deficiencies as a campaigner he would have gone with someone else.  Without her he might have lost 273-267 (Gore 2000 + NH + CO) instead of 365-173.

He may have won FL and that's it or Ohio is a possibility. After the financial meltdown, McCain wasn't lucky to become Walter Mondale or even Bob Dole. No Palin = Obama 55 McCain 45 plus Missouri and Montana fall to Obama. Palin energized the GOP and never underestimate what someone like that can do to help the party. Conservatives like myself may have stayed home on election night.

Two ways I wanna answer: Which states did Sarah Palin help John McCain? Which states did she "cost" John McCain?

I have to look at the five states that actually shifted Republican (for the John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket): Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia. With Okla. and W.Va. nearly identical in the 2008 vote (compared to 2004), I'm not so sure Palin made all the difference. I think she must have been a big part of Ark. going the opposite direction of the country: 10 points further for the GOP. (The female vote in Ark. stuck it to Obama: 39%, down from 49% for 2004 John Kerry.) La. may apply, but to a lesser-dramatic degree, because both genders shifted more Republican. Tenn. women shifted to Obama, 47% in the former presidential bellwether state (compared to 2004 John Kerry getting 43% of their vote); it's men who may have explain why the McCain/Palin ticket did better than George W. Bush/Dick Cheney: Obama got just 36% of their vote, compared to Kerry getting 41%.

Where Sarah Palin might've been really effective, in a state that otherwise would've gone for Barack Obama, was probably in Missouri. The southeastern part of the state actually shifted more Republican, and they pretty much battled with Kansas City and St. Louis areas to keep the state from flipping. (Obama garnered 50% of the female vote, 48% of the male vote; 2004 John Kerry reaped 45% of the female vote, 47% of the male vote.) As for Sarah Palin costing John McCain in Indiana and North Carolina: these two were considered targets, potential flips, well before Palin joined the ticket in late-August 2008. But of these two, I'd choose N.C. Women voted for Obama with 55% of their N.C. vote (2004 John Kerry received 46%, even with the state's U.S. Senator, John Edwards, his running mate)—stronger than other classic swing states like Florida (52% female vote) and Ohio (53%). Even better than other then-GOP bastions Virginia (53%) and Indiana (52%). Obama's 55% of the female N.C. matched Iowa.

Palin helped McCain in every state that McCain won. The Obama states Palin hurt McCain. The country was very divided on her. I still think overall McCain could've lost by 10-12 points without her.

lol

You think he would've done better or worse?

You think that he'd do better or worse without her?

I think he would have done a little better. Even though Palin got a lot of conservatives energized, almost all of them would ahve still voted for McCain because they wouldn't have wanted "a librul Muslim socialist" to end up anywhere near the Oval Office. However, I think that Palin did cost McCain some support among more moderate voters due to her stupidity and rightwing views. I think that Palin cost McCain more support than she delivered, and thus I think she slightly hurt McCain's election numbers.

give it up. Bush cost McCain votes, not Palin.

Both of them cost McCain votes.

Palin cost him votes with some democrats and independents, but added to his base which was needed. Alright I guess she cost him the vote of Colin Powell.

The GOP base was going to vote for McCain anyway since they wouldn't have wanted a "baby-killing librul Muslim socialist" in the Oval Office. I agree that Palin did cost McCain a lot of votes with Democrats and independents. Many women who supported Hillary planned to support McCain, but once they saw how stupid Palin was they decided to support Obama instead since they felt that Palin made all women seem this stupid.

No, many of them would have stayed home if McCain had chosen some "moderate" loser like Lieberman or Romney or Giuliani.

All those GOPers are either pro-abortion or were pro-abortion, though.

Exactly so more GOP voters would stay home in theory. I don't know that the GOP needs to be motivated like the democrats do though. We don't have college kids who sit around and get drunk all the time who would have to be really pushed to make it to the polls. We used to not have as many senior voters who were sometimes not able to make it for other reasons relating to health. Many people who aren't motivated and end up dependent on the government tend to support the democrats but how many of them say "oh it's raining, let someone else vote?" So voter turnout isn't as much of an issue for Republicans. Just ask Jesse Jackson who was busing people in Philadelphia in 2000.

If McCain would have picked a smart, competent pro-lifer, he would have still encouraged his base to vote for him in large numbers without alienating moderates and independents.

He did just that.

No, he didn't. Palin is very stupid and incompetent, and thus she cost McCain a lot of moderate and independent voters.

149 votes.

Exactly.

Meg Whitman is probably the best.

Michael Bloomberg would also have been a great choice, since it would have proven him to be a "maverick," and, after all, who knows more about the economy than Michael Bloomberg?

Keep your opinions to yourself. She's not stupid, she just doesn't talk in circles and has a great understanding of our constitution.

This is a political forum. Why would I keep my opinions to myself? And frankly, no offense, but my opinions are less biased than yours. And I bet Palin doesn't even know who was the Father of the U.S. Constitution. I mean, she doesn't read newspapers.

I agree to a certain extent with Derek in that she probably didn't swing any conservatives or hard GOPers to Obama. However she likely alienated many Independents and moderate suburban Democrats. As far as her intelligence, well I think that the verdict is in and it's pretty hard to argue who is smarter, Palin (Univesity of Idaho, 1987) or Obama (Occidental College, Columbia University and then Harvard, Palin doesn't even have a masters!).

As far as who would be better? On paper Huckabee, though he didn't get along with McCain. I would also say Newt Gingrich, John Thune, or John Hoeven. Anyone with a strong pro-life record and no major negatives. That would eliminate Romney (Mormon), Graham (immigration reform), Ridge & Lieberman (abortion), or Mel Martinez (Hispanic).

I actually agree with Derek. Palin turned out her "mama grizzlies" and actually gave McCain a fighting chance in socially conservative states. If McCain had chosen Ridge, Lieberman, Pawlenty, Romney, it could've been an extremely boring ticket and would've lost even more.

Meh. Does anyone really think Obama wasn't sufficiently demonized by the right--and would have been just as much without Palin--that the base wouldn't have turned out about the same with another generic pro-life conservative on the ticket? The only advantages Palin brought were a temporary burst of enthusiastic volunteers in the week after her selection (who admittedly probably didn't stop showing up even when the wheels fell off her campaign), and switched Alaska's 3 electoral votes from North Dakota-like semi-competative status to safe Republican. The damage she did by alienating moderate Republicans and making swing voters afraid of her being one septegenarian hearbeat away from the Oval Office was far greater.

She certainly didn't help him in places like Virginia and North Carolina and Florida.

She also mostly appealed to right-wingers in states that wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

Horrible, horrible running mate.

The idea of a conservative woman as a running-mate is actually a masterstroke... Bush did very well with women in 2004 - but Palin was the wrong one...

She enthused hardcore conservatives... good, McCain's biggest weakness... but her clear lack of intellectual curiosity and her being an embodiment of all negative conservative stereotypes... sent moderates and liberals fleeing from McCain (groups that McCain could have eaten into).

I don't think Palin shifted votes to Obama from McCain- those who liked her were probably never going to vote for Obama. I do think her presence hurt McCain in NC, IN, OH, FL but I don't think it would have changed the results... but the size of the some of the margins.

Apparently if you subtract the number of people who didn't for McCain because of her from those that decided to turn out because of Palin, she helped McCain slightly.

Palin could have cost him key support in Florida in areas that voted for Bush but were reluctant to vote for Obama before she was placed on the ticket. I would have to say she cost McCain key support in the Philadelphia suburbs of Pennsylvania and in Allegahany County (Pittsburgh) although  some of the surrounding counties voted for Kerry in 04 then McCain in 08. So if he would have won the Philly suburbs he may have narrowly carried the state. Clinton carried this state by 10 pts thus the reason McCain had targeted it, he believed Obamas support was soft. The philly suburbs are areas that are trending less socially conservative then they were 20 years ago and Palin was a poor fit this in addition to being grossly unqualified for VP. She also killed McCain's chances in New Hampshire a state he had always been very popular and in a state where Clinton defeated Obama.

I think she helped him hold onto critical conservative support and turned them out in Montana and Missouri which helped McCain win those states very narrowly.

So when you total it up Pennsylvania, Florida, and New Hampshire were likely must wins for McCain and in my opinion she lost key votes for him in these places.

She cost McCain enough votes to flip North Carolina, Indiana, and possibly Florida. She may have helped McCain with the Republican base, but she also alienated many Independents who would have likely voted for McCain otherwise.

Maybe some here or there, but its ridiculous to claim that McCain lost because of Palin or even lost a single state because of her. Maybe Indiana and North Carolina but thats it. The election turned the way it did because of the economic crisis.


Voinovich?
Far too old. McCain needed to balance age on the ticket not double down on it.

The McCain campaign didn't even anticipate that places like IN and VA would be as bad as they were and didn't put the effort he should have to counteract Obama's efforts in them. There was far more to McCain losing, then Palin. And he would have won with her had the economy not been heading down hill. Quayle didn't tank Bush 41 in 1988 and Palin would not have been enough on her own to sink McCain.

I doubt McCain would have won given the direction of the economy throughout all of 2008.  Remember that the unemployment rate had moved from 4.4% in mid 2007 to 6.1% by August 2008. 

And it would have made a difference, McCain should have personally called Bush and asked him to guarantee Lehman's assets so they could sell it to Barclays and avoid a crisis.  If McCain really wanted to win, this is what he would have done. 

You really think those states would be tossups with Clinton in 2008 of all years? LOL The biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression?  She would have trounced McCain by as much as (or more) then Obama did. She would have made a better president in my opinion. As for Palin she cost McCain critical support from centrist and independent voters. He also did not win many of the "Clinton Democrats" which was part of her purpose on the ticket.  She alienates as many or more people then she unites. McCain ran a worse campaign then Dole 96 and thats saying something!

I agree with that. :)

I agree with that too.