[counterpunch]

Dewey vs. FDR-Truman —> Dewey vs. Truman
Stevenson vs. Eisenhower —> Stevenson vs. Eisenhower
Carter-Mondale vs. Reagan —> Mondale vs. Reagan

These were all rematches, and considered so by the voters and historians.
And they all ended the same way: the two-time losers lost even bigger the second time around.

McCain-Palin vs. 0bama —> Palin vs. 0bama would be no different.

It doesn’t matter who was on the top of the bottom of the ticket.
What matters is they were on a ticket that already lost to their opponent.

[Niteflyr]

It doesn’t matter who was on the top of the bottom of the ticket.

Oh brother...well...sorry but it does to me and most people I know personally....

[SoConPubbie]

These were all rematches, and considered so by the voters and historians.
And they all ended the same way: the two-time losers lost even bigger the second time around. McCain-Palin vs. 0bama —> Palin vs. 0bama wou

Yes they did.

But the obvious problem with your analogy is that none of them were conservatives.

And our country calls itself conservative by a 40% to 22% margin, so your analogy is fatally flawed.

[SoCalPol]

You really find facts get in your way.
Your mantra won’t help you.

[Arthur McGowan]

You are leaving out relevant data. Carter was a failure, so he lost to Reagan. Reagan was a roaring success, so he beat Mondale. Stevenson was a blowhard phony who never read a book in his life, while Eisenhower was a war hero and a reasonable success as President. So what if the Democrats ran Stevenson twice?

Obama is already crashing and burning, and the left wing of the Republican Party is also crashing and burning. Palin’s popularity is increasing slowly.

There’s no “law” that rematches must turn out like the match. Ford could have beaten Carter in 1980, for instance.