| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Did Palin Hurt McCain?
Crossposted at Right Minds
As Obama starts his presidency, people wonder about the fate of the other memorable politician of the 2008 election, Sarah Palin. She divides opinion like no other political figure since Hillary Clinton—liberals see her existence as a symptom of everything wrong with the Republican party, while most conservatives are fiercely protective of her and see Palin as their best hope for the future. But both sides have one thing in common—everyone is trying to understand the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin.
In order to understand Palin, it is crucial to get the facts straight. It seems to now be accepted as incontrovertible fact among liberals that Palin hurt John McCain’s candidacy, and was (and is) a major liability to the Republican party.
First, exit polls indicated that Palin was not a liability for McCain. (Though the accuracy of exit polls is very, very doubtful). About sixty percent of voters said she impacted their decision, and more (though not that many more) of those voters voted for McCain than Barack Obama. So it isn’t as if Sarah Palin drove many voters away from McCain.
The real reason for McCain’s defeat was the economy. (At least, the economy sealed his fate—the election was always an uphill battle for him, and he very well could have lost even in a bull market). The economy started to worsen in the middle of September. John McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign to deal with the economic crisis on September 24th. It was on September 26th that McCain fell out of the margin of error in the Rasmussen tracking poll, and never recovered.
In retrospect, it seems that one of John McCain’s fatal blunders was his decision to suspend his campaign to try to fix the financial mess. When he announced his decision, I wrote that “[s]uspending his campaign is a bold move by McCain; one that will either succeed spectacularly or fail miserably.” It seems safe to say that it failed miserably. John McCain lost because of the economic collapse, not because he picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
So why does the media focus on Palin’s role in McCain’s loss? Because Palin’s story was the most (or one of the most) interesting narrative of the election, and too many in the media would rather focus on an interesting story than an accurate one. It is much more interesting to attribute McCain’s loss to his selection of an inexperienced, attractive hockey mom than to boring economic issues.


Comments
No way, no how was it Palin's fault.
Let me be the first liberal to catagorically state Palin was not responsible for the loss. Did she help the campaign? Not really, for every voter she attracted, she repelled another. It was a wash. And all the other possibles probably would have done no better or worse than that. There was no "savior pick" in the available field. McCain would have lost big with anyone else on the ticket.
After Obama beat the Clinton machine it was pretty obvious that only an A+ candidate with an A+ team had any chance against his juggarnaut. McCain was a B- at best, and his campaign team (the last of the three) were D. I read a quote from a very old pol speaking off the record at the Rep Convention. "It seems like everyone of these McCain guys is working one pay grade up from the job they are actually qualified for."
That was the best description I saw all campaign season of why McCain was losing. His guys weren't total incompetents. They just got brought up from the minor league to the big dance one season before they were ready. The subtle but critical difference really showed over time in unforced errors. Most notably the "campaign suspension" that never really was.
this is what you get when your staff is
lobbyists and crazies.
He would have been a lot closer to Obama with Romney as vice. SoCons might have boycotted the heretic ticket though.
McCain's fatal blunder...
...was going around telling everybody he was a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. But when the crap hit the fan during the Wall Street bailout debacle, he showed his base he was really a Franklin D. Roosevelt Republican. After that point, his candidacy was never again in serious contention
ex animo
davidfarrar
Why McCain Lost
As much as I hate agreeing with a parasite like Phallus Morris, the only reason McCain lost was because he voted for the bailout.
Had McCain voted against the bailout; he'd be President today.
If the Toe Sucker said it....
...it's bound to be wrong. There are many pundits and sites that posted long lists of Dick's wildly off the mark predictions of what was going to happen. I don't suppose his hindsight is much sharper than his foresight.
But if you believe that the bailout vote was the only important factor. Cool by me. Assemble that same crack squad of McCain operatives for 2012, and let's have us a little rematch. Personally, I don't think those guys could get reincarnated Ronnie Reagan himself elected.
Keep in mind that Dick's electoral map (as seen on Hannity and NotHannity) had McCain winning, with about 15 toss ups the week before the election when everybody, including Karl Rove, had Obama over 300 EV. Dick did assign states randomly a few days before the election, to save face, and still ended up with a map that was the most inaccurate of any shown on national TV.
(No subject)
Dittos
n/t
This is what truly puzzled me...
I'm not a liberal but will echo artigiano to confirm that I also don't believe Palin was responsible for the loss. But I was struck by your use of the phrase "while most conservatives are fiercely protective of her" because it brought to mind the most puzzling aspect of her candidacy for me.
She herself made much of the 'pitbull with lipstick' image at the convention, what a 'fighter' she was, etc. Yet from that point on, the entire theme was that she needed to be "protected" from any questions, by the campaign itself. Protected from what? From whom? Why? What was being protected? And most importantly: if she had to be 'protected' during the campaign, who were we to assume would be 'protecting' her should she have to assume the office of POTUS? Wouldn't it then be her job to protect us, not the other way around?
I'm not being snarky; it was a complete mystery to me how or why anyone outside the unquestioning base was expected to feel comfortable with her when we were literally being told she was too delicate to engage and had to be protected from any questions. I would be genuinely interested to hear how that was supposed to be effective for her.
southroners takin' over the party.
you know,t h e white folks who marked down that they were South American on the census.
they lick that chivalry all up.