Loserman was a strong choice for Gore, almost helped him carry FL by increasing Jewish turnout in S FL.
Edwards probably made little difference either way, NC was one of only 3 states where Bush’s share of the vote (not % margin which declined in many States thanks to no Nader) declined from 2000, it declined by .01 and Kerry’s increased by .38.
Palin helped in some ways and hurt in others but in no way is she responsible for McCain losing. If he had chosen Loserman (or any pro-choicer let alone a DEMOCRAT) I’m told the convention would have rejected it, which would have been an* historic embarrassment for McCain. Loserman’s successful nomination would have lead to a large number of turd party votes and probably gained McPain relatively few in return. I presume he was made aware that convention would not be keen on a pro partial birth abortion democrat and so dropped his ridiculous idea.
McCain learned nothing from Andrew Johnson I suppose. Lincoln should have kept Hamlin.
*Auh, what are your thoughts on “a historic” vs. “an historic”?
I’ve always thought that “a historic” sounds correct but never used it, having only seen “an historic” in publications.
I’m very conscious of exactly what I’m writing because I have that internal conflict. It will haunt me through life, I fear.
Since McQueeg had no intention of running a “winning” campaign against Zero, methinks this stunt of picking a far-left Dem running mate was explicitly designed for a landslide loss.