Here's some of the story, it was short so I had to snip it up in order to be only half the words per the rules:
It's been debated for five years, and the conventional wisdom has generally concluded that Sarah Palin... hurt Sen. John McCain's chances to beat then-Sen. Barack Obama for the presidency with her outsized and controversial personality.I think that Katie Klonoscapi's first question to Palin after the election was did you hurt McCain's chances.... in the final analysis, the former Alaska governor helped McCain by attracting more voters to the ticket, crushing a mainstream media view.
...she attracted wider press attention than most prior veep candidates...
"Palin had a positive effect on McCain," according to the new Palin analysis in the authoritative Political Research Quarterly.
"Palin did not have a negative effect on McCain's voter share overall, nor did she result in eroded support for McCain among critical swing voters such as independents and moderates," the duo wrote.
Their analysis picked apart a recent report that Palin drove off voters and was uniquely divisive, claiming it was flawed.
And the media still parrots that, even thought she brought out a couple of million voters for McCain.
Of course ACORN and various other voter fraud tactics won the election for Obama.
Twice.
The "duo" spoken of in the article is two political science professors from Bradley University in Peoria, Ill who did the analysis.
Full story at link.