[Antoninus]

It wasn’t her fault he lost, but the theory that she could attract enough votes to beat Barack 0bama was tested, and it failed. By nearly 10 million votes and 10 points, no less. If she was the only thing making John McCain competitive, she sure didn’t do a good job. They lost in a certified landslide.

Since when did the term "landslide" start to be used on electoral victories in the 7% range?

And since when did the choice of a VP make that much difference for a candidate? Before 2008, the consensus was that it didn't make that much difference. But now, suddenly, Palin was the reason McCain lost? If you maintain that, you are an absolute idiot. Palin only cost McCain votes he was never going to get anyway--the beltway and northeastern elites.

All I can say is one thing--there were a lot of conservatives I know personally who were all set not to vote for McCain. I was one of them if he had chosen Mitt Romney as his VP. Because of the choice of Sarah Palin, I voted for McCain and was able to convince many others to do likewise.

She did make a difference in 2008 and it was very positive.

[counterpunch]

But now, suddenly, Palin was the reason McCain lost?

I guess you didn't see where I said “It wasn’t her fault he lost” even though that's the first thing I said and you even included it in your reply...

Palin did not cause McCain to lose.
But she didn’t help him win, either.
And that means she doesn’t have what it takes to attract the sort of votes we’ll need to defeat 0bama.