HOW STUPID MUST A POLITICAL PARTY BE THAT RUNS 'FECKLESS JOHN MCLAME' FOR ANY PUBLIC OFFICE....... 
IT JUST DEFIES BELIEF
Posted on 11/30/2013 12:34:27 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
For over five years, a consistent media claim has been that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin hurt Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008 and that he would have fared better with anyone else on the ticket besides her.
A recent study by political science professors at Bradley University debunks this claim concluding instead that Palin was a net plus for McCain including with independents and moderates.
The first serious study on this matter was conducted by University of Central Florida political science professor Jonathan Knuckey and was published in Political Research Quarterly in April 2011:
Using data from the American National Election Studies, this article addresses whether the Sarah Palin affected vote choice in 2008. Findings indicate not only that evaluations of Palin were a strong predictor of vote choice—even when controlling for confounding variables—but also that Palin’s effect on vote choice was the largest of any vice presidential candidate in elections examined dating back to 1980. Theoretically, the article offers support for the proposition that a running mate is an important short-term force affecting voting behavior. Substantively, the article suggests that Palin may have contributed to a loss of support among “swing voters.”
In their response published in PRQ in October, Bradley University's Edward M. Burmila and Josh M. Ryan took Knuckey's data to reach a far different conclusion:
Our analysis shows that the data do not support these findings. We find that respondent evaluations of Palin have a positive effect on McCain vote choice, even among independents and moderates, and Palin’s effect on the election outcome is comparable with ten of the last fifteen vice-presidential nominees.
Burmilia and Ryan introduced their study:
In a recent issue of this journal, "The 'Palin Effect‘ in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election" by Jonathan Knuckey addressed a substantively interesting question: did the selectionof Sarah Palin negatively affect John McCain‘s share of the vote (Knuckey 2012)? In line withthe conventional post-election narrative and other research on the ―Palin Effect‖ (see Elis, Hillygus, and Nie 2010), the article concludes that Palin hurt McCain among key moderate andindependent voters. Specifically, the article makes three claims. First, Palin had a measurable, independent effect on the presidential popular vote in 2008. Second, she hurt the McCain campaign by driving away independent and moderate voters. Third, Palin is a uniquely divisive figure and her effect on the presidential vote was larger than any recent vice-presidential nominee.
Burmilia and Ryan debunked claim one:
The interaction term is not significant and there is no feeling thermometer rating for Palin that produces a negative and statistically significant slope on McCain vote choice for independents or moderates. In fact, the slope is positive, though not statistically significant for all Palin feeling thermometer values. For Republicans, any rating of Palin results in a statistically significant positive effect on McCain vote choice although there is no increase in effect size as a Republican rates Palin more positively. Excepting independents who are neutral toward Palin (near 50 on the thermometer), the positive effect of Palin rating on vote choice among independents is not statistically different from Republicans. The same is true for ideology. There is never a statistically significant negative effect of feelings toward Palin on McCain vote choice conditional on ideology. As before, there are no statistically significant differences between conservatives and moderates. The substantive interpretation is clear: the positive relationship between McCain vote choice and feelings for Palin is not conditional on party identification or ideology. Not only is there no negative effect for independent voters on feelings toward Palin, there is no meaningful difference between Republicans and independents on how feelings toward Palin affected McCain vote choice. Our analysis reaches a different conclusion from the original paper; we find that the positive relationship between the Palin feeling thermometer and the likelihood of voting for McCain does not depend on a voter‘s ideology or party affiliation. Therefore the results call into question the major conclusions of the paper; Palin did not have a negative effect on McCain‘s vote share overall, nor did she result in ―eroded support for McCain among critical `swing voters‘ such as Independents and moderates, (2012: 286-287).
The study's conclusion:
Sarah Palin was a highly visible and polarizing figure in the 2008 presidential election. She generated media attention and attracted praise and criticism beyond what is usually given to vice-presidential nominees. It is logical to assume, as popular post-election wisdom did, that her impact on the outcome of the election was also greater than previous running mates. "The 'Palin Effect' in the 2008 Presidential Election" uses survey data to support that conclusion. Our reading of the article respectfully argues that the data do not support the key findings, which are:
1. That there is a negative conditional effect of feelings toward Palin on likelihood of a McCain vote among independents and moderates. We find that using marginal effects, as is appropriate for cross-sectional data, shows that Palin had a positive effect on McCain vote choice, and based on our model specification, may have had a positive, conditional relationship for independent voters.
2. That Palin‘s impact on vote choice was the largest among all recent vice-presidential candidates. We find that when confidence intervals are included, Palin‘s effect was not necessarily the largest among the nominees since 1972.
As such, the Palin-hating media are again wrong.
Color me very unsurprised.
I loathed McCain and was determined that he was going to be the first GOP candidate in my life that I refused to vote for. The selection of Palin changed that in a split-second, and I cast my vote (for HER) with a level of enthusiasm that I had not experienced since the days of Ronald Reagan.
A study wasn’t necessary. It was obvious to anyone with a brain paying attention that it was only as close as it was because of Palin. McCain got about 60-million votes. 10-million of those voters wouldn’t have crossed the street to shake his hand. They voted for Palin. Without her, McCain gets a Mondale type beating.
She brought 20 points to the table, I don’t care what anyone says.
My state GOP coordinator echos the sentiment that because of her, McCain lost 20 points.
He lost 20 points, because he was campaigning for Hussein.
He did everything he could to throw the race.
He was a palooka, plain and simple.
Same here. Captain Queeg disgusts me but Sarah gave me hope that all was not lost.
It was McCain who damaged Palin, not vice versa. I wish she hadn’t run with him, because after four more successful years governing AK, she would have made the ideal candidate in 2012. What might have been...
I make this exact point every time somebody starts in on Palin's intellect. It generally causes them to short circuit for a second or two as they recognize the truth and then have to quickly reroute the hate through a new logic path in their brains.
Little John got more votes than Romney did. Without Palin
Little John would just been a Rino HOBBIT.
I am not at all surprised by this, as hubby and I voted for Palin -— not McCain. He just happened to be on the ballot with her.
Joe is sexy. That’s the meme they trotted out in 2012.
Romney received about a million more votes than McCain.
HOW STUPID MUST A POLITICAL PARTY BE THAT RUNS 'FECKLESS JOHN MCLAME' FOR ANY PUBLIC OFFICE.......
IT JUST DEFIES BELIEF
McCain, Romney, Dole, (and even both Bushes). The (s)Hits Just Keep On Comin’.
I totally agree with that. That’s why it has been so hard for me to buy into the ‘she owed him’ line.
She did him a massive favor by agreeing to be tainted by being associated with him on his ticket. Then his crew mistreated her. He said nothing. Dissed her when she was mentioned for a run herself.
What more did/does it take to see this guy for who he was and is?
Without Palin he would have lost by another 15-20 points easy.
He’s the worst candidate the party has nominated in the history of the Republican Party.
Frankly, I saw McCain for who he was and realized he would have given Palin the Lyndon Johnson (ex: John and Robert Kennedy’s treatment of him) treatment after Kennedy had won.
John would have relegated her to emptying the trash, and not contributing to any worthwhile policy decisions.
There’s no way her views would have fit into his plans.
She should have simply refused to lift his campaign up. I’ve never faulted her for joining the ticket, but if you get right down to it, she wasn’t going to improve his terms in office.
And let’s not forget the instaneous boost in campaign contributions that began on the eve of her nomination/acceptance speech and continued throughout the campaign. The RNC and Mac’s folk were sure happy to publish the big inflow for about two weeks. Sure would like to see the number of dollars that rolled in earmarked as being donated because of Gov. Palin. Mine certainly were.
Once Gov. Palin’s consistent ability to outdraw the Groper nominee, they shut the hell up and started presenting their hind quarters to the mystery mullah. And proceeded to sandbag and ambush Gov. Palin. I will never forget nor forgive the silence of the RNC, GOP, and the previous GOP contenders as the MSM stooped to the lowest and vilest personal attacks on the Gov. And her family. Not one man among them remained a steadfast ass-kicking defender to the end of the fight. Not one. Will despise these so called men til my dying day.
Not according to this Freeper post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2956841/posts
“McCain got MORE votes in 2008 than Romney in 2012. In fact, McCain got 2,124,424 MORE VOTES than Romney !!”
Obama got 9 million more votes the first time around than the second time.
oh, please! Don’t pass off this crap here. Geez...
Out of the four people on the 2008 ticket, Sarah Palin was the only one who was reasonably sane, and the only one reasonably qualified to be President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.