How The GOP Brand Lost The Election

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 08:45:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

There are innumberable variables in how an election is decided and generally speaking, it is not easy to isolate what factor "cost a candidate the election." This election, however, it seems to me a fairly easy exercise. John McCain lost this election on September 15, 2008. On September 15, 2008, Barack Obama had a slight lead over McCain in the polls (if you prefer the RCP average, then you would say McCain was leading.)So what happened?

On September 15, 2008 Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy after the federal government refused to bail it out. That was the beginning of the meltdown on Wall Street that led to the bailout that was passed in late September. It signalled the terrible economic times we are now facing are going to get worse, much worse. And John McCain said:

[T]he fundamentals of our economy are strong . . .

Thus in one fell swoop John McCain confirmed every bad thought the country had about Republicans when it comes to economic matters - uncaring, incompetent, out of touch and only worried about the wealthy. Barack Obama capitalized on this - he became quite the partisan Democrat then (in fairness, he has been quite the partisan Democrat since the Convention):

Sen. Barack Obama seized on McCain's assessment of the health of the economy, blasting the Republican for being "disturbingly out of touch" with the reality that everyday Americans face.

"I just think he doesn't know," Obama said in Grand Junction, Colo. "He doesn't get what's happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works.... Why else would he say, today, of all days -- just a few hours ago -- that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong? Senator -- what economy are you talking about?"

By September 18, Obama had moved ahead in the RCP average. By October 1, Obama had opened up a 5 point lead in the RCP average. It has never been that close since. Currently, Obama leads by nearly 8 points in the RCP average.

So, as much as some people want to keep thinking this election is about Sarah Palin, I have to repeat Carville's refrain - "it's the economy, stupid." And when "it's the economy" - that's good news for Democrats.

And while Obama is now a lock to win the Presidency, Democrats are likely to gain another 30 seats in the House and perhaps even achieve a filibuster proof Senate.

It is the GOP brand that has lost this election. McCain and Palin are merely along for the ride.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Palin: Disingenuous, a Dissembler and Distorter of Her Record | The Polls - 10/25 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

How The GOP Brand Lost The Election | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If you prefer the (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 08:56:14 AM EST

DKos track, the results are similar.

Also, on September 18, I wrote:

McCain needs a new game changer. Right now, "it's the economy, stupid." If that does not change by Election Day, this election is over.

: o/t re daughters and schools (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Cream City on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 02:18:33 PM EST

so delete at will, BTD, after seeing this -- but I meant to post it to you on some open thread or another after your comments the other day on schools, girls, etc. For a constructive "kit" on how to work with schools to get the most from them for our daughters and everyone's kids -- a kit I took into my kids' schools a decade ago, and the administration and teachers appreciated it -- see this from the AAUW.
It's a followup to the AAUW's landmark survey that revealed the extent of need for change in how we educate for a better future -- better teachers and better results for all of their students. If only we do a better job on educating future politicians and future media, it will be a start.

You can say Obama got lucky (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Saul on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 08:56:29 AM EST

Before the economy meltdown the race was razor thin. Had it not been for the bad economy that fell like manna from heaven in favor of Obama (since the incumbent administration will always get the blame or praise for the economy) then this race would have stayed razor thin.

Still, I hate to consider the current economic (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:02:15 AM EST

situation as in any way lucky or good for anyone. We just have to keep making the point that it is, unfortunately, the inevitable result of false Republican greed and hypocrisy.


Oh you don't think that (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Pepe on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:16:17 AM EST

Democrats profited from the real estate boom and it's subsequent mortgage related Wall Street melt down? They certainly did both in and out of politics. And not enough of them in office did anything to put a stop to it 5 years ago when it started to raise it's ugly head. Most Democrats just stood by in the face of the pending disaster. That the Republicans by virtue of holding the WH got 100% of the blame is only because most voters are ill informed and always blame whatever happens on who is in the WH. Not saying the GOP is innocent, far from it, but that same holds true for the Democrats both in and out of office.


Insulting (none / 0) (#19)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:30:43 AM EST

Oh you don't think that Democrats profited from the real estate boom and it's subsequent mortgage related Wall Street melt down?

I did not say anything like that. Insulting.

Most Democrats just stood by in the face of the pending disaster.

I agree with that. Even worse, most Democrats have capitulated to the current brand of Republican economic "principles."


You didn't mention Democrats (2.00 / 0) (#23)
by Pepe on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:48:33 AM EST

so I did. Had you I never would have had to mention them. Your post put it all on the Republicans and now you take offense to correction of your post? That is silly.


Misreading (5.00 / 0) (#25)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:52:13 AM EST

Apparently you read "Republican" in my post to mean Republicans and not Democrats. What I found insulting is what seemed like an effort to twist my words beyond recognition.


ROTFLMAO (1.00 / 0) (#30)
by Pepe on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST

Thanks for letting me know your purpose here is to play games. I won't bother with you anymore.


: Who's playing games? (5.00 / 0) (#31)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM EST

Making a beyond obvious point as if its a correction is what is silly. You actually believed your question was valid?

As well they should. (5.00 / 6) (#8)
by rooge04 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:13:41 AM EST

This economic meltdown is utter PROOF that Republican ideology is completely wrong. I mean you have Greenspan admitting that pure, unadulterated capitalism is bad! The right got Bush...and he was their perfect Republican candidate--free markets, no regulation etc. Bush has PROVEN just how terribly Republicans govern the economy (not to mention every other sector of life). You have the American public now yearning for more public programs. Americans are now realizing that hey, universal healthcare sounds pretty great and not communist at all.

It's a terrible thing because as much as I hate this economic uncertainty and people losing jobs etc...the silver lining is that it snapped this country out of the complacency of unregulated markets where the rich get richer and the poor think that's okay.


McCain = Epic Fail (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 08:59:49 AM EST

What constitutes filibuster-proof? (5.00 / 8) (#6)
by Demi Moaned on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:05:34 AM EST

Count me as one who doesn't think there's a magic number of seats held (e.g., 60) that achieves this in light of the demonstrated willingness of Democrats in both chambers to rally behind the Republicans on just about any controversial issue.

If Democrats in Congress understand that the spell is broken and that they have nothing to fear from the tired slogans of soft on terror, big government, tax and spend and such like, then they should be safe from filibusters even with only 57 seats, as they will always be able to pick off Republicans worried about their reelection chances

But if they still cower before the right-wing noise machine, which will not disappear, then even 60 seats will be insufficient.

well (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:07:15 AM EST

Obama lead the race for all but two weeks of the past six months. The only serious McCain spike was the convention. At that point you have to either believe it was a bounce or a realignment. I think it was a bounce that was destined to fall given Palin's poor performance.

The economy helped to run up the score but the natural state of the race seems to have been an Obama lead.

It is clear (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Pepe on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM EST

that Obama didn't win the election on his own that is for sure.

That the GOP brand is badly tainted is something that even they go on TV and say so the is just common knowledge at this point. Given that Obama be ahead by 20 points but isn't because there are still legitimate doubts about him.

All this enthusiasm for his sudden Progressivism is badly misplaced. The only thing that changed with him in the last few months was his rhetoric, not his philosophies. he never ran a populist campaign until populism seemed an easy path to the WH. Then the laundry list came out but don't take it to the bank. We all know Obama is corporate owned if you look at who has given him the big bucks over the years.

As for McCain's comments that the fundamentals of our economy are strong - he is right. Nothing has changed with the general sound structure of America's capitalism except that greed took over as it has in the past. Take out the greed and we would not be where we are today. But our basic fundamentals are strong and have not been damaged and anyone who says they are not strong does not understand economics or has a funny definition of fundamentals.

Greed requires regulation and we will see shortly with a Democratic Trifecta in DC if they are serious about reigning in greed with regulation or if they are all pandering to us as they have done so many times in the past. I'd bet on the latter.


Define sound.... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
by kdog on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST

decline of manufacturing, rising unemployment, trade deficits, weak dollar...I'm no economist, but I can't call that sound pepe, I call that a toilet-paper tiger being artificially propped up with bailouts and Chinese loans.


The things you mentioned (none / 0) (#20)
by Pepe on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST

are a result of American policies not the internal fundamentals of our economy. Apples and oranges.

If you want to assign blame for the things you mentioned look to the Free Traders and those who support them, they are the cause of what you mentioned.


I don't know what is more internally fundamental.. (none / 0) (#24)
by kdog on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:49:48 AM EST

than the massive decline in manufacturing we've seen over a generation.


And just what is causing that (none / 0) (#27)
by Pepe on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:55:17 AM EST

if not what I mentioned - Free Trade? Are you not listening to the voters in Ohio and similar states? They seem to know and understand something you don't.


Right... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by kdog on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 12:04:31 PM EST

our trade policies, greed, and other factors have rendered our economy unsound.

The factories are closed, the machinery shipped away or left to rot.


And yet (none / 0) (#33)
by Pepe on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 02:01:22 PM EST

the fundamentals of our economy remain strong as long as those policies I mentioned are fixed. Curbing Free Trade, and re-regulation would go a long way to a quick economic recovery for the middle class.


: you have yet to define (none / 0) (#39)
by sj on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 03:39:10 PM EST

what you consider the fundamentals that are sound. Until you do, this all so much white noise.

Actually it was "supply side economics" (none / 0) (#41)
by hairspray on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 04:27:24 PM EST

The GOP in 1980 decided that in order to stop labor's rising wages which stimulated supply, they would simply make credit very cheap and available and IT would stimulate supply. And it did. People were able to buy so much on credit and then the wives went out to work when labor's wages stagnated and stimulate the demand keeping the spending side going. In the meantime the loss of regulation and globalization led to the dismantling of our manufacturing base to cheaper labor countries. Now we are paying the piper. I just don't think either candidate is going to be able to fix that anytime soon, McCain less so than Obama.


Last night on PBS News Hour (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by Coral on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST

David Brooks said it was over--that Obama had it sewn up. Is this a 2008 version of the fat lady singing?

: I hear the 2008 fat lady is (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:50:24 AM EST

good. Real good.

: I surely hope he is right... (none / 0) (#52)
by sallywally on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 08:14:26 PM EST

Brooks has been a loyal right-winger straight through, though, and I still can't help thinking that he's always saying what the Republicans want said.....

When the economy is so bad that (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by ruffian on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 10:01:16 AM EST

the presence of 300,000+ troops and contractors participating in two wars is eclipsed as an issue in the election, McCain never had a chance. I agree that he got a little bounce from the convention, but that was soon erased by he and the Republicans brand's demonstrated incompetence on the economy. Why people want to use Palin as a whipping girl when they have Greenspan and the entire Republican economic establishment is beyond me.

Palin is the scapegoat (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Manuel on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST

for the Republican establishment. By dstancing themselves from her, they maintain some influence. A new New Deal is what we need but as long as Democrats join the establishment Repubicans in Palin bashing, we are less likely to get it. Furthermore, the Democrats need to come up with some solutions on the economy. If they don't, they risk creating a backlash.

Overall, I'd be more pleased if it were the establishment Republicans who were the scapegoats.


I agree (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by lilburro on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:48:19 AM EST

and if Palin becomes the scapegoat, there will be a lot of disappointment and anger about that from people Dem and Republican. It opens the doors for another female Republican politican to tap into the frustration about the way Palin is being treated and launch a compelling campaign. Which will inevitably suck, because she's a Republican.


Why wouldn't it open doors (none / 0) (#35)
by Cream City on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST

for a Dem woman?

Discuss. :-)


Who do you see on the horizon? (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 03:00:48 PM EST

Of course, that is the question (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Cream City on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 03:47:58 PM EST

as the Dem woman who seems to have come out best in this campaign is . . . Donna Brazile. There 'tis.

I've had some fascinating discussions with Dem women in the pipeline about both parties' pipelines. But this is not at all the place for such discourse. It does seem that not much has changed since, say, 1916 -- although wasn't that an interesting harbinger of the Western strategy? :-)


: Must I google? How about a little (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:37:26 PM EST

exposition on 1916 and Western strategy? Thanks.

Maria Cantwell's statement (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM EST

re why she voted against the FISA revise:

Cantwell, D-WA

But is she another Feingold, i.e., doomed to failure as a Presidential aspirant?


Maria Cantwell votes with the Republicans (none / 0) (#55)
by MoveThatBus on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 12:20:16 AM EST

on every aggressive topic. She's my Senator and I take the time to write to her prior to votes and post-voting to try to understand what drives her. Not sure why she doesn't just switch to the party she's more closely aligned with.

I met her several times when she did her 1 term as a Representative and found her to be very quick with excuses.

I know no democrats who I talk politics with who intend to help Cantwell get re-elected.


: Interesting. Wonder why she (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:15:31 AM EST

voted against FISA.

I think (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by lilburro on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM EST

McCain's "how many houses do you have" scandal/gaffe contributed in its way to McCain's disaster. McCain saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" may've reminded people of his own inattention to his major wealth, leading people to say, "Man, this guy IS a d*ck." McCain is sheltered from the economy.

the funny thing is that Cindy McCain (none / 0) (#43)
by of1000Kings on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 05:13:20 PM EST

was recently interviewed in a magazine (Redbook, or Good Housekeeping, can't quite remember) and she stated that she and John are just normal people, struggling with the same problems as your normal Joe or Jane, ie: paying A mortgage, paying for food, putting gas in a car, etc...

it was almost laughable...since when did being a person with 100+M make you a normal joe/jane, struggling to pay bills and keep gas in the car...

man, the economy must really be bad if even the SUPER ELITE like the McCains have to worry about paying the mortgage and the cost of gas and food...


No doubt... (none / 0) (#46)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST

...it is very taxing struggle for her to have to pay someone else to take care of those petty everyday kind of things.


: Bahahaha! (none / 0) (#48)
by lilburro on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST

The trouble is (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Dadler on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 10:54:41 AM EST

...right now the Republican brand and the Democratic brand are all but indistinguishable. When Dems start talking about genuinely bringing the manufacturing base back to this country, and speaking about how unfathomably stupid we've been to destroy our own employment base so much, maybe I'll believe it. As it stands, Dems represent much of the same useless crap Repubs do -- from regressive taxation to telling American workers to take their minimum wage job and shut up about it. From b.s. free trade to stinkier militarism, the Democratic Party brand is just as rank and fetid as the Repubs. If it weren't, we'd have an actual plan of action right now. We have none.

: the elected officials could make one step (none / 0) (#44)
by of1000Kings on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 05:14:42 PM EST

that would lighten some of my concerns about the decisions they make:
criminalize lobbying...
nuff said...

My view is (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by rilkefan on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 10:55:57 AM EST

that McCain was lost coming into the race - Obama is a fine candidate, McCain is a poor one, and Bush is a millstone around any R neck. Plus the press went for Obama, as could be seen coming from far away by clear-eyed observers. McCain wasn't getting any attention, and just couldn't compete. Palin got him visibility and a shot. Maybe in the end she hurt him, but going with a safe pick would have obviously lost. It's like a busted position in chess - you can play what might be the best move which leads to a known easily lost endgame, or you can play something maybe dubious but at least presenting practical chances. It's a time-honored strategy, but it doesn't help against the strongest competition.

For me the analysis ends with this line ... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:38:57 AM EST

On September 15, 2008 Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy

After this point, no Republican could win this election.

Not Reagan, not Nixon (even with a whole bag of dirty tricks), not Eisenhower and I bet even Lincoln would have thrown in the towel.

Without the Lehman Brother's failure, and all that followed, McCain had a chance.

With it, he had no chance.

The Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by TomStewart on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:54:46 AM EST

don't seem to know how to run a campaign about real issues. The usual hate, fear and smear tactics are not getting any traction as people are too worried about the economy to pay attention to the usual nonsense. The times are against the Repubs, but they don't seem to know what to do about it. This is the McCain campaign in a nutshell. They don't know how to run anything but a Rove campaign, which is just the usual repub nonsense from Goldwater on up, but on steroids.

Maybe if McCain had ran against the brand and been the 'Maverick' (TM) that he pretended to be, he might have got some traction, running an Obama campaign before Obama could. His entire campaign has been about playing to his base and not the general electorate. It's been the most insecure, 'love me please' campaign I've ever seen, never finding any traction on any issues because they ignored the issues everyone cared about. If he had gone outside the box, maybe, but that would have involved some real, innovative thinking, and you won't find that with the 'I wish I was Rove' crowd. McCain is done as a politician.

McCain'll serve out his term, and go home to Arizona to complain about the heat and how the dems are screwing up this country. Maybe he'll approve the galleys of his latest ghost-written book, blaming everyone but himself for his lousy, disgraceful campaign, and then fade away, angry and bitter, in big shorts and black socks.

How the Dems lost true democracy (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by dutchfox on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:56:06 AM EST

Amy Goodman in Truthdig

Change Big Donors Can Believe In

Obama's campaign is credited with receiving an unprecedented number of small donations from among its historic 3.1 million donors. Campaign manager David Plouffe says the campaign's average donation is under $100. A Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows, though, that only a quarter of this vast number of donors fall into the "small" category (under $200), which is a smaller percentage than that achieved by George Bush in his 2004 run.

Obama and the Democratic National Committee created the Obama Victory Fund, to which donors could give $28,500. As The Washington Post just reported, the Democrats found that sum too limiting, so they created the Committee for Change, which allows donors to give up to $65,500. That's a helluva lot of change.

Sen. Obama said, "I have been a longtime advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests." Regardless of who the winner is, the next president will enter the White House with a long list of major donors to thank.

Public financing of campaigns (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Cream City on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 02:26:49 PM EST

died on June 19, 2008.


public financing shouldn't be instituted (none / 0) (#45)
by of1000Kings on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST

until there is some way to figure out what to do with 527's and such...

any money spent by outsider organizations needs to be addressed...in what way, I'm not sure, but all I know is that I want to limit special interests, not make them more important by instituting public finance...


Ha. A little late for that! (none / 0) (#49)
by Cream City on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 05:55:39 PM EST

Uh, public financing was instituted. You don't pay taxes and see that box on the form?

And it was an improvement, before it faced de facto death this year.


: you'll have to forgive me... (none / 0) (#53)
by of1000Kings on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 08:22:27 PM EST

I try to forget that I pay taxes considering there shouldn't be taxation without representation, and unfortunately I have no representation in my state...only D or R...no I...

Humorous comments about "THE" economy (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by wurman on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 01:25:36 PM EST

The mis-named "fundamentals" of the USA economy are obviously not sound; Sen. Obama parried Sen. McCain's foolish comment with one thrust, Sen. Biden's 3-letter word, "job-s." The reported job losses (from Dept. of Labor well-massaged statistics) & the actual, fundamental job losses during the last 7.9 years are phenomenal--& is a story ignored by the lame stream media.

In a mixed economy that tends to be capitalistic, for the most part, the incredible compromises of the capital markets for the most recent 5 years has been devestating. Bu$hInc reduced "capital" gains in the apparently stupid hope that this would inject capital into various segments of the economy--it didn't. It seems as if all that lost tax revenue went into speculative investments by some ridiculously hapless gamblers.

Huge tax breaks for BigOil, allegedly to free up capital for re-investment into exploration & research, resulted in such things as an Exxon-Mobil annual report that indicated no budget for exploration. Go figure.

From the very first foolish tax rebates by Bu$h xliii & his thugs, to the most recent so-called "economic stimulus" package, the GOP policies have been a steady destruction of the fundamentals of our economy. The wars in Iraq & Afghanistan have been "off-the-books" disasters for the USA economy.

Obama has, now, successfully put that albatross around McCain's neck.

My problem with this is that the situation is far worse than it appears.

My hope (for changes) is that Sen. Obama has the leadership skills to undo the insanity of our rightwingnutz psycho government of the past 8 years, and that the Democratic Party can put cabinet officers & deputies in the various positions who have the chops to re-establish the fundamentals of the USA economy.

If things work out well, & the Obama administration does "save" America from the burglars, bandits, & bunglers of Bu$hInc, then perhaps the Democratic Party can trash the GOP brand name for a hundred years.

Still missing the point about Palin (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by s5 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM EST

You say Palin has nothing to do with it, yet in every single endorsement for Obama since the financial crisis hit, Palin has been cited as a major reason for supporting Obama. Why? Because of how the Palin pick reflects on McCain's judgment.

In the middle of a significant crisis, judgment and steady leadership matter. By exposing Palin as a fraud, it points back to McCain's judgment and ability to lead. If McCain had chosen someone like Romney, it would have been more difficult to argue that he isn't taking the job of governing seriously.

So, yes. Palin matters because of what picking her says about McCain. Was Palin the only factor crushing McCain's hope for the presidency? Of course not. It's much more complicated than that. But as his first major presidential decision, his choice of running mate undermined his entire argument as being the steady, experienced hand in a crisis.

My theory by M. H. Hawkeye. Brackets Mr, brackets. (2.00 / 1) (#50)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 06:11:04 PM EST

This election is going to fracture the GOP. They'll either be left with just the "social conseratives" with the moderate/reasonable Republicans finding new identities or the SC's will split to form a new party with the likes of Palin and Bachmann being the flag bearers. Likely the Pro-Amerian Party or some such.

That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.

: hopefully the 'social conservatives' (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by of1000Kings on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 06:45:14 PM EST

will branch out into a new party, so that they can be singled out for what they are...

Well (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:02:21 AM EST

This is the tracker I'm using now I've shortened the start date and excluded many of the polls I consider junk. Thing looks over to me.

And yes, McCain could not likely have done worse if he had intentionally tried to lose.

BTD (none / 0) (#47)
by AF on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 05:37:41 PM EST

You were right about Obama in the primaries.

You were right about Obama in the general.

You were wrong about Palin.

Two out of three ain't bad!