The conventional wisdom over the past five years has generally concluded that Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, hurt Sen. John McCain’s chances to beat then-Sen. Barack Obama for the presidency with her outsized and controversial personality.
But now a comprehensive new study of the so-called “Palin Effect” finds that in the final analysis, the former Alaska governor helped McCain by attracting voters, even independents, to the ticket. What’s more, while she received wider press attention than most previous veep candidates, her actual impact for a No. 2 was about average.
“Palin had a positive effect on McCain,” according to the new analysis in the December issue of the authoritative Political Research Quarterly.
Digesting mountains of data, two political science professors from Bradley University in Peoria, Ill., showed that the conventional wisdom that independent voters ran from the McCain-Palin ticket was wrong. They found that independent voters had the same reaction to Palin as Republicans, who mostly liked her.
“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 study, provided to Washington Secrets, concluded.
Their analysis picked apart reports that Palin drove off voters and was uniquely divisive.
Instead, it found that Palin “did not have a unique or unprecedented influence on the race; at best, she had precisely the same small effect on vote choice in 2008 that we would expect of any running mate.”
BETTER TO BE CALLED CLINTON THAN OBAMA
Another day, another bad poll for President Obama.
After a week in which Obama’s disapproval rating hit a record high and adults graded him the biggest presidential failure in more than 100 years, Rasmussen Reports tells us that it’s bad for a politician to be compared to Obama. Just as bad, in fact, as being compared to former President George W. Bush.
The poll of 1,000 likely voters found that 47 percent of people “consider it a negative to describe a candidate as being like Barack Obama,” Rasmussen said. For Bush it’s 48 percent. Just 29 percent said it’s good for a political candidate to be compared to Obama.
Better to be compared to former President Bill Clinton, or, especially, former President Ronald Reagan. For most, Reagan is the best president of the last 30 years to compare a politician to, which probably explains why so many Republicans reference the Gipper in speeches and political ads.
NORQUIST: ERA OF 300-PAGE BILLS OVER
Lawmakers frustrated that Congress won’t consider comprehensive immigration or tax reform can blame Obamacare’s 906 pages.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and an immigration reform supporter, said that the lenghty Obamacare bill, filled with exemptions and gifts for political allies, killed the chances that any similarly lenghty bill on taxes or immigration will get a shot.
As a result, he said that there is a much better chance for the House GOP’s plan for smaller, separate legislation on issues, especially immigration.
“I think that Obamacare has made immigration reform comprehensive, meaning all in the same package, more difficult.” he told Secrets. “And Obamacare has made tax reform more difficult because people don’t trust bills that are 300 pages long.”
‘MORNING JOE’ VS. HILLARY CLINTON
Joe Scarborough, the former Florida congressman who hosts the popular MSNBC show “Morning Joe,” is already campaigning to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
“I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be elected for eight years, and for Democrats to control Supreme Court nominations for 16 years, the shape of the federal bureaucracy for 16 years,” the Republican told Secrets.
And he’s not just whining about it on his show. Scarborough has just penned a new book that essentially comes down to one theme: Pragmatic conservatives can get elected, but they have to do it with a smile on their face.
In “The Right Path,” he argues that the GOP has to pick candidates more like Ronald Reagan, who pushed a conservative agenda but wasn’t publicly ideological or angry.
“Time is wasting,” he warned. “Hillary Clinton’s supporters are already preparing for political battle. Next time we’d better be prepared to win. There is no substitute for victory, and I for one am damn tired of my party losing presidential elections.”
Paul Bedard, The Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at [email protected].
