Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
Here's an argument I got into last night, curious what people's opinion might be. We all know that, around the time of the Repub. Convention, McCain took over in the polls. This lead didn't last long, though, as Obama has surged over the past two weeks.
How much of Obama's surge do you think is tied to the economic developments, and how much is the sheen coming off of Palin (which one could argue was why McCain took back the lead in the first place)?
Personally, I think it's around 90% economy, but two guys I was arguing with thought 50/50.
|
McCain took around a 3 point lead after the convention. I think once the public vetting of Palin was complete, it was back to almost exactly even. Then a bit of a change from before both conventions, where the race was within the margin of error but Obama definitely had the lead. That's a pretty significant contribution from a VP on the ticket.
That's why I posted yesterday that I think this could have been the first race where the VP helped decide the election. This isn't to say something still couldn't happen but if things continue on this path and the economy continues to be top of voter's minds, McCain is done and Obama wins. Short of McCain picking Warren Buffet to be his VP, he was going to be screwed.
As soon as the economy collapsed, particularly with a lot of people looking at deregulation as a big cause and with the GOP still symbollic as the party in power over the past 8 years, it became a giant millstone around McCain's neck and has sunk him to 6-8 points down.
So, yes, Palin's "shine wearing off" affected the race but the economy was a larger factor.
SI