I agree. Whether or not she’d be a good VP, the pick did what it was supposed to do. Maybe the Palinthusiasm only postponed an inevitable slide in the polls, but my argument last month was that she was actually less of a risk than picking a safe choice because the other VP options were very weak.
New post to respond to what the OP was really saying: :smack:
The subprime fiasco had been going on for a long time before the primaries got started, but neither party realized how important the economy was going to be in this election. I thought the conventional wisdom was that people vote Democrat when they’re concerned about the economy, and if so, that would have favored them anyway.
Would Romney have been able to combat that? He had a strong resume for it, but my response would be “Romney should’ve run a better campaign,” and then they might’ve nominated him! GOP voters didn’t trust him because he differed from them on social issues (at least, his record said he did) and because he ran for president as a totally different person from his previous campaigns. Every other candidate nailed him as a flip-flopper and he didn’t show much in the way of personality or an ability to connect. The Mormon thing didn’t help at all, either.