“You can’t even get that fact straight. It was 66,862,039.”
Your NY Times graphic showed the status well before all votes were tallied. Vote counting for both sides went on for a couple months after the election. The official and final result can be seen here:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2008&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0
70 Million vs. 60 Million is almost exactly accurate. Although I agree with you that 10 Million difference out of 130 Million still means that a ton of people punched the GOP ticket.
I disagree with counterpunch that the fact that 10 Million less people voted for the combination of McCain and Palin proves that Palin has no chance. People were excited about Obama and came out for “change.” Things indeed change, and for the incumbent not always for the better. The economy will be laid at Obama’s feet by 2011 at the latest. With the logic applied by counterpunch no politician who ever lost as part of a ticket should come back to try again 2 or 4 or 6 years later, with circumstances perhaps more favorable.
Yes, you made your point and I conceded it. It was a small side issue but you nailed that point down.
I’m not saying no one who lost on a ticket should ever come back, necessarily.
They should just no be so foolish as to challenge the very person they lost against again.
Dewey, Stevenson, and Mondale all learned why the hard way.
All of them challenged a president who was elected on the ticket that had defeated them 4 years earlier, and all of them lost by an even larger margin the second time around.
When FDR and Nixon ran for president after losing on a presidential ticket before, both had waited at least 8 years, and for a totally different set of challengers to run against.
Sarah running in 2012 would be the same as Mondale running against Reagan 4 years after losing to him. The only difference is Mondale actually had a record of winning a national election before.