I disagree.
While she kept conservatives from staying home, I believe she turned off many voters with her "gollee gee" persona. Like it or not, people think high office requires a "studied seriousness".
Bubbly won't cut it.
As for Jindal, he needs to be able to communicate - something McCain is lacking. To win votes nowadays, a politician must have looks and an actors' stage presence. "Merely" having good ideas isn't enough. Time will tell if he has the ability.
Which is why they voted for Barack "143 days in the Senate and doesn't know how the capital gains tax works" Obama? Good grief.
If you're right (and I doubt that) and people will choose a Marxist over a conservative because she's "bubbly," we might as well fold the tent now.
If we Republicans are so out of touch that we like her better than Alaskans (91% approval rating with 65% very favorable) and she turned off enough voters to lose the election, we might as well fold the tent now.
I don't think that you're going to find any data that support the idea that Palin was amajor drag on this ticket, but the thing is, if you're right, we're a permanent minority because there is no one we can field who will do any better. I don't buy it.
Lastly, the fact that so many down-ballot conservatives won the day (my county went for Obama by 7 points after going red for the last three elections but elected our three Reagan conservative legislators in landslides) shows me that Americans had no real idea what they were voting for on Tuesday, though they thought they did. That means it wasn't our candidates that lost this for us so much as it was a custom, individualized fantasy candidate (not the real Obama) that won it for the Dems.