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.
Bump
She is what made the medicine go down!!
I don’t know how many times I’ve said this, but the Dems and their MSM were hoping to crush McCain in a 49-1 state landslide. Palin ruined their hopes. They knew she did it and ever since they fear her, that’s why they beat down on her and continue to do so even today. She represented a fresh change and no one in DC wants that.
Great point.
Here's some of the story, it was short so I had to snip it up in order to be only half the words per the rules:
It's been debated for five years, and the conventional wisdom has generally concluded that Sarah Palin... hurt Sen. John McCain's chances to beat then-Sen. Barack Obama for the presidency with her outsized and controversial personality.I think that Katie Klonoscapi's first question to Palin after the election was did you hurt McCain's chances.... in the final analysis, the former Alaska governor helped McCain by attracting more voters to the ticket, crushing a mainstream media view.
...she attracted wider press attention than most prior veep candidates...
"Palin had a positive effect on McCain," according to the new Palin analysis in the authoritative Political Research Quarterly.
"Palin did not have a negative effect on McCain's voter share overall, nor did she result in eroded support for McCain among critical swing voters such as independents and moderates," the duo wrote.
Their analysis picked apart a recent report that Palin drove off voters and was uniquely divisive, claiming it was flawed.
And the media still parrots that, even thought she brought out a couple of million voters for McCain.
Of course ACORN and various other voter fraud tactics won the election for Obama.
Twice.
The "duo" spoken of in the article is two political science professors from Bradley University in Peoria, Ill who did the analysis.
Full story at link.
bttt
If Palin, Obozo, Carter and McLame were in the same room, she would be the only man.
She would be the only one worth anything that is for sure..
On balance, she didn’t hurt that ticket, and she hasn’t hurt the party. It’s amazing that anybody wants to argue this anymore.
It was no mistake. The Yacht Club members are very deliberate.
Amazing? You've seen the way the RiNO's skewer and vilify her. They want her politically dead, forever.
I voted for Sarah and the old coot.
McCain drove me nuts with his support of Obama during that campaign.
He beat himself by muzzling Sarah. She was his only chance and probably could have pulled it off if he hadn’t insisted on meeting spit in the face with a hanky, a smile, and a “my friend”...
-- for certain sure Romney was so far over the line that at least two life-long Republicans personally known to me, who had heretofore NEVER declined a Republican on any ballot, one in 35-plus years of voting and the other in well over 50 years of voting, refused to vote for Romney -- it was THE FIRST TIME THEY HAD EVER DECLINED A REPUBLICAN ON ANY BALLOT OVER MANY DECADES OF VOTING.
McCain (via Palin) got both those votes four years earlier; Romney was too much. I think the claim/data that Romney got more votes than McCain is BULLSH*T. Romney was an even worse choice than McCain, and he DESERVED TO LOSE. Therefore, he DID. And rightly so.
I voted for Sarah.
I hoped the old Manchurian Candidate would sod off in his term, and she would become President.
Sarah was worth at least 10 million votes for McDogPoop.
Sarah will be President No. 45.
She has more testicular fortitude than the entire GOP-E.
I keep saying Ted Cruz will be the first to endorse a Palin presidential run in 2016!
McCain would have suspended his campaign and held a national townhall to talk about what a great guy the opponent was if he had gotten too far ahead.
I think he was looking for a way to lose.
NO ONE wanted a McCain sign or bumper sticker at our local GOP HQ, until he picked Palin! Then we ran out constantly
Sarah made voting for McCain palatable, at least temporarily
Should have been Sarah alone
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.