What I read during campaign season was that GOP candidates in blue or purple districts were avoiding Palin and any association with her. Now nobody's going to actually come out and say don't show up, because this will get the Palin supporters to vote against that guy. But the vibe is basically that Palin is toxic in certain districts and her support would actually undermine the GOP candidates running there because it would suppress GOP turnout while raising Democratic turnout. You could say that these districts are full of RINO's, and you would be right. But without RINO pols in RINO districts, we have no House majority.
Yeah, I read the same thing about Palin endorsements. The thing is though, those articles came from organizations like The Daily Beast, WaPo, Salon, etc. and their predictions turned out to be wrong. For example, a 2010 Daily Beast article mentioned Nikki Haley, Kelly Ayotte, Michael Grimm, and John Gomez. Of the four, only John Gomez lost.
In 2012, Sarah Palin’s endorsement success rate was 75% where Karl Rove’s was 1%. No, that’s not a typo - one percent. When you read articles like that, examine the source and the motive.
Are there districts in which Palin’s endorsement is toxic? Sure, but we aren’t likely to win those seats anyway. In the end, Palin’s endorsement is a net positive. Suggesting otherwise is either wishful thinking by the left or intentionally misleading by the center-right squishes.