Let’s go over some math:
Obama won with 53% of the vote - he now has about 8-10% points less now in approval rating. That means, there is a crucial middle that will go with the ebb and flow of elections, depending on a number of factors and these are people who will determine the outcome of an election. You can tell yourself all you want that Palin can get most of these people against Obama, but polling data indicates otherwise. And, I don’t even think there’s any amount of mayhem he can still unleash on us still that would move the needle further against her. These independents want to vote with us - this is still a center-right country but may vote against us if they don’t “like” the person we put up there (even if her positions on the issues is identical to someone they prefer). So, you can gamble all you want with Palin, but it is going to be a tremendous risk in a year where this man has no business getting reelected.
If democrats never got elected in national elections and republicans did with 70% of the vote, you know I’d agree with you and we should start purging all the RINO’s for fear they dilute the message. But, that’s not the reality we live in.
It never mattered in Delaware if we ran Christine O’Donnell or an experienced conservative, relatively baggage-free politician like Jim DeMint. Castle would have been the best we could have hoped for, and now we have the bearded marxist instead. Palin had nothing to do with DE. You’re not going to turn a deep blue state bright red especially when your candidate is running commercials saying she’s not a witch.
We can cut funding to Obamacare, but the problem is once it’s on the books, a democrat congress can start funding it again. It is very unlikely the filibuster rules will change. So where does that leave us? If we have 55 senators in 2013, do you honestly think we’re getting it repealed? Maybe D’s will be under such pressure that they’ll at least allow a vote, maybe not. I’m starting to think our best shot is Justice Kennedy, who I think stands a fair chance of pulling out the rug on this thing.
My friend you speak with much wisdom....
He went from 88% - 90% approval ratings -- so strong that all the "realistic" Dem candidates ran for the tall grass, leaving the field open for Bill Clinton -- to losing to Bill Clinton in a year and a half or so.
What's funny is that the RINOs do the same selective amnesiac, whatever-argument-plays-at-the-moment tactics that the left does.
When Palin lost, it was "you purists ran away and left us in the lurch and the Arctic Hillbilly drove away the middle."
Then when she got attacked personally by a torrent of knowingly frivolous lawsuits to the point she had to drop out of the Governor's office, it became "that's the end of THAT dingbat, and good riddance."
Then when she wrote a best-selling book and went all over the country promoting it, it was "how *crass* to make money off of your fame when your fifteen minutes is *over*, beyotch."
Now its "she's unelectable."
Yeah, right. Refresh the timeline, and the comments her detractors make look like spoon-fed talking points.
Remember when the Carter campaign in 1980 ran ads with "man-on-the-street" interviews saying "I'm voting for Carter, he won't get us into a nuclear war."
And then 1983's The Day After complete with Reagan soundalike over the radio saying "God bless America" after the nukes have hit.
And yet the Berlin Wall fell -- due to Reagan -- without any nukes exchanged.
Over time I've learned not to rely on ex cathedra announcements from the cognoscenti and the chattering classes.
Oh, and speaking of Delaware ? Why aren't Biden and Obama taking full credit for their visits stopping the COD campaign?
Cheers!