Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OHelix
"I don't really understand your logic here, unless your quoted "PUMAs" is referring to democrat PUMAs."

Nothing difficult about it. Palin brought votes to (and back to) McCain, including some democrats, that he would not have landed otherwise.

"However I think the loss was due to the number of Rebublicans who were convinced to deny their support (by not voting or voting third party) to McCain prior to announcing his selection of Palin."

That may indeed be true, given the analyses on total turnout by comparison to previous years---but that is McCain's fault, not Palin's.

223 posted on 11/06/2008 12:09:58 PM PST by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies ]


To: Wonder Warthog
That may indeed be true, given the analyses on total turnout by comparison to previous years---but that is McCain's fault, not Palin's.

I certainly agree it was not Palin's fault. Palin was a huge net plus for McCain since the announcement. But, I disagree with the poor turnout being McCain's fault. There were many discussions and those who said they would not vote or vote third party ignored the reality that doing so would throw the election to Obama. The blame is on them.

The time to vote your conscience is in the primaries, not the general election. If you don't have enough votes to win in the primaries, you don't have enough votes to win in the general.

Parliamentarian tactics don't work in a winner take all system. It's kind of like trying to haggle at an auction when someone is out bidding you.

224 posted on 11/06/2008 12:24:36 PM PST by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson