It was NOT the financial crisis that defeated McCain. Here's proof.

[Hamlette]

Lehman Brothers went under on September 15. By that time, McCain/Palin had lost the post convention bounce that occurs every election. I'd be willing to bet they went down faster than most but I don't know that.

Between the high on September 7 and the point McCain went back to where he was when he named Palin you have the Gibson interview and the world starting to realize Palin was a fraud. By then people knew she did not say no on that bridge (notice how she used that in every speech for a week or two and never after that?) During that same period McCain went on the View and got called on his lies and lied some more. He got called on his despicable ad on Obama and sex education (shocking considering the press had never called him out on anything before that) and his outrage over Obama's lipstick on a pig comment fell flat.

It was not the economy, although he went down even further when his reaction to the economic problems was so odd and scary and Palin kept falling with the Couric interview and the $200K shopping obsession.

So when Pat Buchanan, or anyone else, says Palin helped the ticket and McCain only lost because of the economy, think of this chart.

[jberryhill]

1. The effect is more pronounced than you suggest

A poll reported on Day X is based upon polling conducted prior to Day X, and typically up to Day X-3.

[Quantess]

2. ssshh.

Let everyone go ahead and think Palin helped McCain. She wants to run for president in 2012, and we don't want to discourage her.

[Hamlette]

9. that's what I thought about W

I did not believe in a million years Americans would elect that complete light weight. He could not put a sentence together. His life had been a complete failure. He'd been a drunk. His military service was nothing to be proud about.

When they said they would nominate George W Bush I said: "bring it".

Never again.

Never

again

The GOP is absolutely insane. It is controlled by big BIG, HUGE money interests and they just need a puppet. Any puppet will do. They will let Sarah shop 'til she drops as long as she goes along with their desire for loot and treasure.

Don't even think it. Those idiots would do it.

[Quantess]

11. Good point, I forgot about that.

And, in 4 years a dedicated person can learn a lot toward appearing presidential. She could cram a lot of foreign policy and basic knowledge in 4 years.
:scared:

[Sherman A1]

3. Someone on Fox News pointed out that their numbers started dropping

after the Couric interview. The economy and the stunts with the campaign just pushed things on further down a road that was pretty much already a sure thing. Once she started being questioned by the press and we got to know her a bit, it became obvious she was not ready for prime time and spoke to his judgement in picking her.

She was the petard that he hoisted himself upon.

[Hamlette]

10. as usual, Fox is wrong. The Couric interview was on 9-23 and started airing on 9-24

some of the worst stuff didn't come up until the next week (what newspapers do you read?)

[Sherman A1]

12. NY Times , CSM, Washington Post and St. Louis Post Dispatch

Gosh, I am sooo sorry I missed the date. I was merely pointing out what was said on a Fox report.


My apologies... Oh, Wise One....

[Awsi Dooger]

4. Obama had a natural recoil after McCain peaked following the convention

Many of us predicted it before the GOP convention, that McCain would move into a tie or narrow lead, then Obama would resume the lead once the bounce faded.

That's exactly what happened, then the economic crisis got in the way and artificially bumped Obama's lead. I don't think Palin had much to do with anything at that point.

In a cycle with this type of Democratic situational advantage, there was no such thing as a legit McCain lead. That's why sites like 538 that tried to pretend McCain was the mathematical favorite in early September were the definition of wacky. I was betting Obama heavily at the same point 538 was asserting McCain was well above 50%. That's why it was so laughable when Nate Silver went on Olbermann and tried to claim his site was driving the bettors. The best wagers are against the polls, not with the polls. You don't get any value wagering in the direction of the polls. Every clapping seal dunce can see where they are going. Value is grasped when you understand long term situational factors overwhelm flimsy current polling, particularly at that point in a cycle with a long way to go.

Minus the economic collapse, Obama likely wins by 3-4 points, not the 6 he managed.

[Curtland1015]

5. While I certainly don't think it was the sole reason, it would be crazy to say it wasn't a factor.

I'm not saying the OP said it wasn't at all... but of course it was part of the "whole" of Obama being re-elected.

[malaise]

6. Great post

K & R

[jimlup]

7. Can't we push the idea that Obama won on his on merits?

Rather than McCain lost because he ran a terrible campaign?

Personally, I think both are true but I'd suggest we push that Obama won on his merits as McCain is now a footnote in history but Barack represents us.

[earthlover]

8. it was a perfect storm....

Yes, the souring economy was a big factor in Obama's victory. Anyone who can deny this probably actually believes in the Tooth Fairy.

But there were other factors going on too. One, Obama ran a masterful campaign, Biden played his role with great skill, Palin turned into a negative for McCain, and McCain ran an unfocused campaign.

The turning point? "That one"....and McCain wandering around the stage in the debate.

[ErinBerin84]

13. thank you!

So sick of the Pat Buchanans of the world not being called out for that talking point.