Sarah Palin needs to go far away

[Drake Tungsten]

There is evidence that Sarah Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket has hurt McCain with some voters; she is the top reason voters give for having switched their support from McCain to Obama.

This seemed like a good piece of evidence at first blush, but it turns out to be from CBS exit polling. I remain unconvinced.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course, the polling data from that period indicates McCain's bounce into the lead didn't have as much to do with Palin as it did being the typical post-convention bounce for a candidate. It was already waning before the economic crisis hit.

RNC Convention was in September. The poll lead was a month later. That's one hell of a post-convention bounce.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

I would expect to see 100 percent on the Democrat side. That would mean assuming a representative sample, that roughly 10 percent of republicans still voted for McCain, despite the fact that they thought Palin was unprepared.

And in a possible indication that the choice of Ms. Palin has hurt Mr. McCain’s image, voters said they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people for his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.

Well duh. More voted D than R. We'd expect to see this to be the case.

There is evidence that Sarah Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket has hurt McCain with some voters; she is the top reason voters give for having switched their support from McCain to Obama.

Also expected. These are Obama 'moderates'.

Forty-six percent of likely voters now say having Palin on the ticket makes them less likely to support McCain -- up 14 points in just the past month and more than double what it was in early September. And among those who call the candidates' age an important factor in their vote, more, 61 percent, say Palin makes them less likely to back McCain.

Again, coming from the democrat side.

Read the caveat. It doesn't say much at all.

As I said, I certainly don't think it cost McCain the election, but I wouldn't say it's outrageously absurd to suggest that Palin cost him 1-2% extra.

The key polls are the ones that aren't found. What percentage of republicans are more or less likely to support McCain, after he chose Palin? We don't see it here.

[Guynemer]

*wink*

Christ, I had forgotten about that... what a complete cluster**** the McCain-Palin campaign turned into after she came aboard.

[Boris Godunov]

RNC Convention was in September. The poll lead was a month later. That's one hell of a post-convention bounce.

Ben, can you ever be right about anything? ****.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php?xml=/flashcharts/content/xml/08USPresGEMvO.xml&choices=Obama,McCain&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=more&from_date=2008-08-01&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=1&points=&trends=&lines=

McCain's aggregate lead lasted about two weeks, maybe a little less. Not a month, you moron.

[Boris Godunov]

Ben: As usual, you're picking an irrelevant tangent and arguing it as if it were salient. Nobody said Palin didn't garner more votes for McCain among base Republicans. The point is that she cost him even more among other groups.

Hell, Palin drove Democrats to vote for Obama that were prepared to just sit it out: namely, disgruntled Clinton backers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/13/AR2008101302376.html?nav=rss_print/asection

Whatever gains McCain got from Republicans who liked Palin were offset by Independents and Democrats who hated her.

McCain got a bounce in early September because of the convention, with its positive coverage and, yes, from the Palin pick--before America knew anything about her. Once America learned she was a gibbering idiot, she wasn't helping him anymore--quite the opposite.

[-Jrabbit]

A 'landslide' of 53 percent.

Although, to be fair, the best showing since LBJ in '64.

It was 365 to 173. That's 67.8 percent.

I don't believe I said anything about the popular vote. Try to stay on point.

Don't make me dredge up all the Republican claims of a "landslide" and/or "mandate"in 2004, which had considerably thinner electoral AND popular margins.

[Boris Godunov]

Christ, I had forgotten about that... what a complete cluster**** the McCain-Palin campaign turned into after she came aboard.

Not that it was so great before that.

There was the brilliant decision to have McCain be on TV as Obama clinched the nomination, so McCain would have his "Cottage-Cheese-on-Lime-Jello" address to a small group of snoozing seniors be upstaged by Obama's rock concert-like victory celebration.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben: As usual, you're picking an irrelevant tangent and arguing it as if it were salient. Nobody said Palin didn't garner more votes for McCain among base Republicans. The point is that she cost him even more among other groups.

Well sure. She was polarising. She helped McCain with the base and cost him some independents. The base support who came out in support of him, is far more significant than the PUMAs. If you are bringing up the PUMAs, than you have to also bring up the conservatives who did not want to vote for McCain.

[Ben Kenobi]

It was 365 to 173. That's 67.8 percent.

Sort of like Bush's landslide in '00?

Don't make me dredge up all the Republican claims of a "landslide" and/or "mandate"in 2004, which had considerably thinner electoral AND popular margins.

Sore Loserman again. Man, how many times did we hear that the real election stats were the 'popular vote'?

I'm sorry JRabbit. We took too much crap for the last 8 years over the 2000 election. Popular votes do matter, and the 'Obamaslide' was 6 percent. Big whoop.

Reagan, now there's a landslide.

[Ben Kenobi]

Man, pollster.com

Real accurate poll there. 10 point gap for Obama.

If we adjust those polls to the reality (improve McCain by about 5 points), we get a month where he was in the lead.

[SlowwHand]

So, let's discuss.

How epicly stupid was McCain for picking Palin?
How epicly stupid were the people who supported Palin?

How stupid was it to put in a dude that would leave the country in dept for the next 100 years?
I think it's funny as **** that you bring up a dead issue, when Obama's approval rating is dropping as fast as loinburger's pants at a dickgirl convention.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dead issue? She just released a book, Slow. Pay attention!!

[Ramo]

Man, pollster.com

Real accurate poll there. 10 point gap for Obama.

If we adjust those polls to the reality (improve McCain by about 5 points), we get a month where he was in the lead.

Predicted Obama-McCain margin: 7.9%
Actual margin: 7.2%

[-Jrabbit]

We took too much crap for the last 8 years over the 2000 election.

Ben, you are forbidden to use "we" in reference to U.S. politics until you move here and naturalize.

Thanks for once again ignoring every fact of my post and bringing up a collection of off-topic points.

I will return now to my previous policy of addressing you directly only in the Sports Sub.