Well the idea is that this mythical “base” of millions of people that hasn’t voted in a Presidential election since 1988 because all of our candidates are RINOs (and lets be honest, GWB was a RINO to a lot of people) would turn out for Palin or a Palin-alike.
Even if that’s true, the likely effect would be to turn out 5% more Republicans in Mississippi or Texas, which would increase EV totals by....nada.
And you’d certainly lose more moderate votes than base votes you’d gain in places like Ohio and Virginia.
Yup, you are right.
Thanks for posting these numbers.
their goal was simply 271. They get to 271, they win regardless of the national percentage. It was never about a majority, it was always about 271.
Unless someone can figure out a way to make states like NY, CA and TX competitive, it has turned into a ten state election and the reality is that we need a very aggressive presence in those states year round, collecting data, testing models and testing messages.
That isn’t cheap.
You wouldn't lose "moderate" votes; you'd lose liberals who are spoon-fed whatever the MSM tells them -- liberal sheep. The problem is the press, who frames the language and the terms, and has (in effect) a "go-to" laundry list of smears with which to attack any Republican who shows signs of successful populism.
It's why we get RINO squishes in the Senate, while retaining the house: the press can dog-whistle masses of unthinking liberal vermin (like you, or your nuclear physicist anti-Palin friend from Virginia you mentioned on the other thread) from the blue centers to swamp the vote against any conservative.
The left has not just marched through the institutions willy-nilly: they concentrated on taking the key policy or funding positions among all societal organs which shape and disseminate opinion: and their first care was to bend opinions back ("crimethink") to marginalize, and make stereotypable, any principled opposition to their goals; or even to make it criminal in law, by proffering members of selected victim groups as spokespeople or power holders in key positions.
The key is to take back the youth and the press; and this is the more difficult simply because of the Marxist, totalitarian mindset of the intellectual left, which brooks no dissent, and cannot be shamed into allowing even token conservatives a seat at the table, nor allowing any of their own to stray from the fold "political correctness." (Larry Summers was the youngest PhD recipient in Harvard's history, I'm told; but one remark about innate gender differences and he was out on his ear; while Elizabeth Brown made unsubstantiated, likely-lieing-through-her-teeth claims of being part Indian to make it onto Harvard Law's faculty, while representing corporate clients such as Dow Chemical, and is hailed as a Champion of the oppressed.)
Cheers!