Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA
Thanks, although I have to admit I'm not entirely convinced of it myself quite yet.
To go down that road requires me to buy into a stipulation that I'm not sold on (i.e. "it had to be McCain") but if you work from that premise it seems to be you're suggesting that those influenced votes are about the person not the party. Well, we see how well that's going. Meanwhile you've got the least motivated & unhappiest group of voting R's in over 20 years, some number of which are almost certainly staying home having given this up for dead. If you're a down ballot R, that's a problem, and in theory you should get roughly the same number of votes from the "for the man, not the party" types regardless. Seems if I were an R who lost in the 1% range tonight I'd be pretty pissed about how things (beyond your control) worked out at the top of the ticket. Makes me wonder if there won't be some internal backlash over that situation two & then four years down the road.
And for our D's, I'm not suggesting this is an entirely unique situation by any means. I'm sure demotivated D's stayed home in the past, the difference being that I don't think it was so much because of the dissatisfaction with your nominee at the time.
|
Jon, in your opinion, had McCain chosen a running-mate with moderate leanings instead of Palin, would the republican base be enthusiastic about voting for republican candidate? I'm in the group that thinks that if McCain hadn't chosen Palin, this would be a much tighter race.