Before the runoff election, there were several statements from bloggers indicating a victory by Saxby Chambliss would be a victory for Sarah Palin. Wrote John Hawkins of Right Wing News:
Tomorrow, Saxby Chambliss has his run-off election with Jim Martin and given that it’s a close race and holding on to his seat is incredibly important, he could have just about any Republican he wants on the campaign trail for him today. He could have John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Bush, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Mitch McConnell, you name it — out there campaigning for him in crunch time.
Yet, he’s spending the most important time of the campaign appearing as often as humanly possible with Sarah Palin. I guess he didn’t get the memo from all the Inside-the-Beltway super geniuses in D.C. who’ve said she’s political death, dragged down the McCain campaign, is a sure loser, etc., etc., etc.
Well, tomorrow night, if Chambliss comes out on top — and I think he has a good shot at it — there are going to be two big winners in this race: Saxby Chambliss and Sarah Palin.
Erick Erickson of Red State fame and an actual Georgian, writing in Human Events had this to say:
Palin, in fact, still draws rock star crowds of thousands of Republicans eager to hear the one candidate they’ve connected with this year. In Augusta, on a post-holiday Monday morning at 8:30 a.m., the crowd was several thousand people. She can energize and excite Republican voters in a way John McCain never could…
Barack Obama will not campaign for Jim Martin in person. He has targeted a few radio ads on urban and African-American radio stations. He has also done targeted automated phone calls to Democrat voters. But he will not show his face in Georgia for Martin. Palin, on the other hand, is criss-crossing the state raising money and turning out the vote for Saxby. She is, no doubt, mindful that the media will trumpet a Chambliss loss as another defeat for Palin. The headlines are predictable: “Palin Causes Chambliss to Lose Georgia”.
Of course, polling shows that will most likely not happen. The media will respond by ignoring the Palin factor. Republicans, however, should pay attention to it. For the entire month, the Chambliss campaign has gotten the same question: “Is Sarah Palin coming?” No one has cared about Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, or McCain. Palin is all anyone wanted.
On Monday she drew massive crowds for Saxby. Today, those excited masses are going to vote for Chambliss, largely because Sarah Palin asked them to.
My first reaction to this idea of Sarah Palin as the source of Chambliss’ victory was that I didn’t buy it. Polls showed Chambliss up by as much as 7 points. Though, some polls showed it as close as 4. Then came last night’s result, which with 97% reporting shows a 57.4% to 42.6% win, a 14.8% margin of victory, a virtual landslide for Saxby Chambliss.
I think at the end of the day that if Sarah Palin doesn’t show up in Georgia, Saxby Chambliss still wins. But by nearly 15 points? No way. Palin’s appearances galvanized the base of the party in a way that I don’t think anyone else’s appearance did. This isn’t to say Huckabee, Romney, McCain, or Giuliani were unhelpful or didn’t matter, or that calls from the RNC and HuckPAC into Georgia didn’t help. But the big difference between the final polls and the final results seems to indicate an “x” factor and I think that factor is Sarah Palin.
Palin holds a unique spot in the party as much as some folks want to deny it. People in Georgia are probably sicker of politics than anyone in the country. For most of us, November 5 marked a return to normal after a long campaign. For Georgians, Election 2008 was the campaign that wouldn’t die.
And yet, thousands showed up for Sarah Palin’s stops in Georgia on a Monday. Who else could draw a crowd of Thousands to come out to a political rally on a work day in December, in a state where folks have got to be thoroughly tired of politics? It’s a power of a leader that the party regulars love and believe in. Contrary to what some folks wish, she’s not going away. If Bob McConnell’s smart, expect to see here at least once if not more during next year’s Virginia’s gubenatorial race.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
What was the percentage of the electorate that was black on Nov. 4?
What was the percentage of the electorate that was black on Dec. 2?
That’s where the difference can be explained.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
You’re making big assumptions here too. Just because thousands showed up to see Palin doesn’t mean that she translated those crowds into votes. The people that showed up to see Palin were probably “likely voters” already. Thousands came out to see Palin in PA, but Obama still won that state by ten points.
The one actual difference between last night and last month is the black vote. Blacks came out in droves for Obama and sat home last night when his name wasn’t at the top of the ticket.
Anyone claiming that all of this was Palin’s doing is just seeing what he wants to see.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
#2:
I didn’t say all of this is Palin’s duty. I think Chambliss probably wins by 5 or 6 points without her. I think the size of the margin was Palin’s doing, and her appearance got people to vote (even those who couldn’t make it to a rally.) Chambliss brought her in to help get out the vote and it looks like it worked to me.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 am
It probably would have been closer to 8 or 9 points. AA turnout in the early voting was only around 23 percent – SIGNIFICANTLY lower than last month’s turnout.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
Palin draws crowds, and thats great, but who is she drawing, and is she really doing much to help the cause?
How many of the people who turned out to see Palin were already die hard Republicans who were going to turn out for Chambliss anyway? How many were just curiosity seekers looking for a show?
The only reason that the GA election (and many others) were as close as they were was because of AA turnout – which was significantly higher than almost anytime before, and probably the highest we will see it for a very long time. GA is one of the redest states in the country, and even with the huge liberal wave that turned out in 2008 because of Obama, Chambliss still pulled just short of 50% IN A THREE WAY RACE.
I don’t know. Maybe Palin does rally the base, and create a slight boost in turnout, but as 2008 has shown, she has little, if any, ability to attract new voters.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 am
Franken’s ahead, according to the MN Sec. of State:
http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Yes, clearly Chambliss got 10% from Palin’s visit!
Oh, the beauty of the unfalsifiable!
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
6 – Don’t worry about that; there’s a glitch.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
That’s reassuring.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 am
Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr endorsed Saxby Chambliss on Monday
That’s what the AJC reported late yesterday. He sent out an email blast to all Libertarian Party members in the State asking them to Vote for his old friend Saxby.
So, libertarian Republican Sarah Palin campaigns for Saxby on the final day. The 2008 Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr suprsingly backs him at the last minute. Earlier, two weeks ago, the Republican Liberty Caucus sent out a press release officially endorsing Saxby.
You could say it was the Libertarian Republicans who did it for Chambliss!
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 am
OR MAYBE GEORGIA REPUBLICANS WERE JUST MOTIVATED TO KEEP THE DEMOCRATS FROM HAVING A SIXTY-SEAT VETO-PROOF MAJORITY..?
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 am
Those “thousands in the crowd,” who went to see Sarah, most certainly went home after the event, called up their friends and family, and urged them to get out to vote for Saxby.
It’s not rocket science. People who attend political events are already going to vote for said candidate. It’s the people they influence, when they get back home from the event, that matter even more.
“Hey Marge, where were you this afternoon… I tried calling.”
“Well Jeannie, I was at the Sarah Palin event for Saxby Chambliss at the XXXX Arena downtown.”
“Oh really, I plum forgot… there’s a run-off election tomorrow isn’t there.”
“Yes Jeannie, and please make sure you get out to vote for Saxby.”
“Oh, I sure will. I haven’t always liked Saxby, don’t agree with him on everything, but I sure love that Sarah Palin… Isn’t she adorable?”
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 am
#11, voters are not that intelligent.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 am
Nooooo. It had to be the Palin/Pothead alliance
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Or, maybe Alex Knepper, Champion Sarah Palin basher, just has major egg on his face this morning, and is looking for any way to weasel out of his predicament?
Bwahhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaa!
Altogether now Sarah Palin Race42012 backers. Let’s have a big internet-wide Gloat at the expense of our friend Alex.
You lost Alex. We won, just as we had predicted. Now get on the Sarah Palin train for 2012, sit down and shut up.
If you redeem yourself in a few months, we may even give you a title, like official Sarah Palin for President water boy.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
It’s not rocket science. People who attend political events are already going to vote for said candidate. It’s the people they influence, when they get back home from the event, that matter even more.
Obviously, Palin helped. But you morons are trying to say that she got Chambliss 16% of the vote.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Where is the PROOF that this was due to Palin? The blacks didn’t show up last night. That alone accounts for a major chunk of the vote difference. It could have been Palin, or Huck, or Romney or the opposition to a 60-seat Dem majority or all of the above. You “betcha boosters” are really quick to claim victory with really really flimsy evidence.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 am
By the way, at least Dondero admits that he likes Palin for her looks.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:41 am
I like Palin for her looks too. She’s wicked hot. Especially when I put the TV on mute. But I don’t base my vote on legs.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:41 am
#12:
Bingo, that’s how it happens.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Where is the PROOF that this was due to Palin? The blacks didn’t show up last night. That alone accounts for a major chunk of the vote difference. It could have been Palin, or Huck, or Romney or the opposition to a 60-seat Dem majority or all of the above. You “betcha boosters” are really quick to claim victory with really really flimsy evidence.
There is no evidence whatsoever.
Occam’s Razor, here, folks: blacks didn’t show, Republicans were more motivated, and there was widespread opposition to the 60-seat majority.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
I like Palin for her looks too. She’s wicked hot. Especially when I put the TV on mute. But I don’t base my vote on legs.
Even I’ve got to admit that Sarah Palin’s pretty hot.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
#17 Adam, African American turnout was essentially the same last night as it was in the general, with the difference being early voting.
Less % of AA’s particpated in early voting, but even if the same numbers did vote early, Chambliss would still have won last night.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
Adam, I actually think it’s a combination of things, all libertarian:
Libertarian Republican Sarah Palin campaigns at 4 stops around the State for Saxby last day.
Republican Liberty Caucus, the GOP’s representative of the libertarian wing, issues a press release on Nov. 22, officially backing Saxby.
Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr sends out an email blast on the final day, urging all Libertarians around the State to get out and vote for his old friend Saxby.
I don’t give all the credit to the libertarian movement for Chambliss’s win, but a damn healthy portion of it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 am
I imagine that if Sarah Palin didn’t sway someone to vote for her when she was on the damn ticket, then she wasn’t the one persuading former Martin backers to go to Chambliss.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Show me WHERE. There were no exit polls conducted last night. All we have to go on was the early voting stats.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 am
Libertarian Republican Sarah Palin campaigns at 4 stops around the State for Saxby last day.
Sarah
Palin
is
not
a
libertarian.
Nor did the libertarian movement put Chambliss over the top. No one cares about the RLC. You have absolutely no insight into the average voter whatsoever. Get it through your big head that just because you helped found an organization doesn’t mean that everyone is paying attention to it. Correlation does not equal causation.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 am
Adam,
It seems both candidates are struggling to mobilize their base. African-American voters, who typically constitute about 25 percent of the total votes in Georgia elections, made up 23 percent of those who participated in the state’s three-day early-voting period this week, compared with nearly 35 percent of the early voting before the Nov. 4 ballot.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 am
#28 was supposed to be in blockquotes.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/12/02/georgia_senate_race_tests_obama/?page=2
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 am
I don’t think anyone disputes that Saxby was going to win anyway but some on here, like Adam G, are suggesting that Palin was responsible for a great deal of the increasy in Saxby’s support between last month’s election and the one last night. I’m just looking for the evidence to back up the claim.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:53 am
Everyone, calm down. Endorsements, no matter who they are from, will not swing 10% of the electorate. Did Gov Palin help? Yes, she likely helped raise money and energize some GOTV efforts. Ultimately, however, a large variety of factors are at play here. Stating any one person as the reason for the margin is like saying your pizza was better because it was baked at 325 instead of 350. It might have been a factor, but MANY other items went into the prep.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 am
#1)
To answer your questions; 4mil voters for the general and 2 mil yesterday. Several factors contributed to the 13pt shift, but most importantly was that ALOT of democrats stayed home yesterday. Obama won the 3 biggest democratic counties in Ga by nearly a 400K vote margin in Fulton,Dekalb, and Clayton counties during the general election. Yesterday, that was only 167K vote difference, with a 50% turnout compared to the general so one would expect that difference to be 32K more. I suspect this is reflected in other democratic areas in the state.
The other reason Chambliss one is that republican are truely scared do death of Obama.
Another reason, was that the RNC, RSNC, and 527s blasted the state during the Thankgiving weekend with a ton of ads. At least 5:1 over Martins ads.
Another reason was his endorsements. Not only Palin, but we had Huckabee, McCain, Guliani, Romney, and the FairTax people all campaigning for Chambliss. Republicans went all out to say the least to win. Huckabee was the first to come to the state for the FairTax Rally. I was amoung 4,000 excited supporters to hear from the FairTax people, Martin was invited but was a no show
, including Sen. Chambliss, but most came the hear Gov. Huckabee.
Another reason…… FairTax, FairTax, FairTax. Most may not know that Georgia has the largest support for the FairTax thanks to talk show host Neal Boortz. Sen. Chambliss the the main sponsor of S.1025, the FairTax legislation. Martin ran some ads that were blatant lies the the FairTax policy and I think that hurt him too.
And lastly…. my vote
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 am
DING DING DING! The blacks couldn’t wait to vote with Obama at the top of the ticket and enthusiasm waned immensely with him off of it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 am
There are about 50 reasons for why Saxby Chambliss won over Jim Martin that are better than “Sarah Palin was in Georgia for a day.”
African American’s didn’t have a reason to show up last night in the same numbers they did on election day. History shows that a vast majority of African Americans need a genuine reason to go the polls. They didn’t have it. Thus, Saxby Chambliss, who already garnered more support than Jim Martin with the high AA turnout, garnered an even larger majority without it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
From CQ politics:
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:56 am
From CNN:
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 am
It is funny how hard the anti-Palinites are pushing the idea that Mrs. Palin did not help Mr. Chambliss. It makes me wonder even more what the Anti-Palinites have to fear.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Adam,
I think Adam Graham’s point is this: pre-election polls showed Chambliss leading by 5 to 7 points. They included a marginal black vote reduction, because they were based on traditional likely voter models. But, on election day, blacks and white liberals were, suddenly, relative to polls, a much smaller proportion. This indicates that SOMETHING caused conservative-leaning voters to turn out in a way the polls can’t account for. Given that Palin’s visit was the only major event that took place after all the polls had been taken, it’s the most likely factor. I know you don’t like the lady, but it seems highly likely that Palin turned a 5-7 victory into a 14-15 point blowout.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
Matthew, you’ve got to be kidding!
OK, I’ll have a post on this by 1:00. This is all utterly preposterous.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
37 – Of course she helped him. But not as much as you people are saying.
This merits a front-page post from me because this is a bigger issue than Palin/Chambliss. It’s indicative of statistical illiteracy, economic stupidity, and a false sense of omniscience.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Matt,
I just don’t see how you can claim with any certainty that Palin boosted GOP turnout any more than you can claim that NoBama on the ballot kept the liberal vote at bay, thus increasing the conservative proportion of the vote by default.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 am
Alex,
If this is a result of a “widespread opposition to a 60 seat majority”, then why wasn’t the margin reflected in the polls? Voters suddenly woke up on election day and decided, en masse, that it was a pretty important factor, even though they’d seemingly ignored the wall-to-wall “will Democrats get 60 votes?” coverage over the previous weeks? If Republicans were extremely motivated pre-December 1st, why didn’t the polls reflect this? And don’t give me a silly “well, they obviously missed the excitement. If they’d looked at the early voting, they would have seen that Republicans were psyched”. That’s a mildly interesting explanation, if you don’t realize that the lopsided early voting margin was factored into the polls, and every indicator suggested that Democrats would make up a good deal of the margin, on the ground, on election day.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 am
Well said Matthew E. Miller, yes Mr. Chambliss would have won anyways, but it is most likely that Mrs. Palin helped a little bit.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 am
What does that have to do with this post?
The last day before the vote, Chambliss spent the entire day introducing her. Plus, Chambliss dominated the news cycle when she appeared with him. It was a huge media boost for Saxby.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 am
What does that have to do with this post?
You’ll see when I make the post.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 am
42 – I’m saying that the polls were almost certainly off in determining turnout.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 am
Adam,
I can’t claim anything with certainty. But, because I don’t hate Palin, and have no interest in denying her possible credit, and because I don’t think her ability to fire up the base necessarily correlates to electability, I don’t need to be absolutely certain. Likely is good enough for me. Chambliss led by modest margins in the polls prior to Palin’s visit. The polls this election season were extraordinarily accurate and, indeed, a 8 point disparity between the final RCP average and actual result, would make this one of the most inaccurately polled races in the cycle. Therefore, logic indicates that something happened that the polls couldn’t account for, likely because it happened after the polls were taken. Nothing, other then the Palin visit, and the attendant widespread coverage of the visit, happened between November 30th and December 2nd. Ergo, it’s reasonable to assume Palin contributed to the margin, in a positive way, to a not insignificant degree.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
I’ll tell you what ecomonic stupidity is: it is trying to tell the rest of us that Alaska’s booming economy is just a fluke and it has nothing to do with the great Capitalist policies of Mrs. Palin. Stupidity is for a Capitalist to trash Mrs. Palin. This is the shame of it!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Augusta Newspaper – Spirit:
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
I’ll tell you what ecomonic stupidity is: it is trying to tell the rest of us that Alaska’s booming economy is just a fluke and it has nothing to do with the great Capitalist policies of Mrs. Palin. Stupidity is for a Capitalist to trash Mrs. Palin. This is the shame of it!
Good grief. Now this is civic ignorance. Palin’s policies are good, but she’s not a queen.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
Alex, read this.
Newsmax/ Sen. Chambliss: ‘Folks Just Explode’ for Palin
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Chambliss_interview_palin/2008/12/03/157598.html
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Matt,
I think Palin helped a bit. Just like I think Romney and Huck and McCain helped a bit. And the fact that there is opposition to a supermajority. And ESPECIALLY the fact that Obama not being on the ballot kept many Democrats, who in the south happen to be black, home.
Here is the Public Policy Polling sampling of the vote:
If you are white, press one now. If you are
African-American, press two now. If other,
press 3.
White …………………………………………………….. 69%
African-American …………………………………….. 28%
Other……………………………………………………… 3%
PPP final poll showed Chambliss up 7. If you adjust the expected 28 percent turnout to something less, like the 23 percent from early voting the poll would have been darn close to the actual result. Perhaps the pollsters saw such increase in AA turnout in the general election and underestimated how many fewer of those folks would show up for the runoff.
I think Palin did help. I don’t think she was as instrumental in increasing Chambliss’ share of the vote as others want to suggest.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
49 – And somehow this brilliant, brilliant woman who fires up soooooooo many crowds, who is UNIVERSALLY ADORED, couldn’t even bring McCain closer than 7% to beating Obama!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 am
There’s no doubt that Palin has the ability to make red states redder.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 am
Are there any Exit Polls for this race?
It would be really interesting to hear the thoughts of voters after the two-year hysteria leading up to November 4th. That would require the media to do its job, I guess.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 am
Mrs. Palin may not be a Queen, but she certainly is not the buffoon or idiot that the trashers paint her out to be.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Alex,
Why? Blacks have always lagged in early voting. Conservatives are always over represented in early voting. No one seemed overly concerned that this would carry through to election day. Do you not recall all the breathless posts, by Kristofer and the like, that showed McCain tied in Nevada during early voting and ahead in Florida? That turned out well. You could argue that liberals simply didn’t show up on election day, but this is unconvincing given what we know about turnout. The better explanation is that conservatives, inexplicably, kept showing up. And that at least points in Palin’s general direction.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
So Senator Chambliss is backing up the points made by Memio and Adam.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Related link for #52
h++p://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Georgia_1201.pdf
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Sadly, no.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
51 – I’ll explain this to you slowly: anecdotes are no substitute for hard evidence. Palin excites lots of people, but…not enough to carry an election even when she’s on the ticket!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 am
Why? Blacks have always lagged in early voting. Conservatives are always over represented in early voting. No one seemed overly concerned that this would carry through to election day. Do you not recall all the breathless posts, by Kristofer and the like, that showed McCain tied in Nevada during early voting and ahead in Florida? That turned out well. You could argue that liberals simply didn’t show up on election day, but this is unconvincing given what we know about turnout. The better explanation is that conservatives, inexplicably, kept showing up. And that at least points in Palin’s general direction.
Of COURSE Palin helped. She did NOT add 10% to the vote total! There were more important factors, and you’re assuming a swarth of things that there’s NO evidence for.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 am
Adam,
But, that would be inconsistent with what we know about elections. Blacks are less likely to vote early. They just are. Historically, a higher percentage of the “day-of” vote is black. You’re probably right that the black vote ended up being no more then 23-24% of the electorate, but you’re almost certainly wrong about WHY this was the case. Black voters were likely a smaller percentage of the vote on election night, not because they stopped turning out (a historically dubious proposition), but because conservatives kept turning out.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Eric Dondero won this thread in #12. I’d also add that there’s a similar multiplier effect with Palin that is missing for the other ‘12 hopefuls — one that goes on in the media.
Fact is, as much as the MSM tried to carry water for Obama by dissing and deriding Palin in the general election, those same reporters were dispatched by their editors to the enthusiastic, mass rallies Palin generated. That was the story, and they had to cover it.
The same coverage occurred in Georgia this time, with even national media reporting on Palin’s rallies at the top of the news.
Certainly this enthusiasm may pass before 2012, but some of you guys are in denial about the positive impact of Palin’s appeal.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 am
All true. But in the early voting leading up to the general election, blacks were 35 percent. They certainly voted early in Georgia this year. Going from 35 in early voting to 23 isn’t nothing. Maybe enough of these folks figured they got out for Obama and that was good enough. I don’t know. But no one else does either.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
60
No Exit Polls??
Absolutely. F[rea]king. Ridiculous!
The Republicans at least should have done pre- or post- election polling to determine how to win by 14 points!
In other words, if Obama not being at the top of the ticket reduces turnout of young eggheads and African Americans, then we need to be loaded for bear for 2010 and maybe start thinking about how 2012 might be more like 1996 and we shouldn’t blow our load with Palin or Jindal who are just too young. Instead, get a very articulate 2012 ticket out there with some cobination of Romney/Huckabee or maybe Pawlenty and Giuliani in the mix who can re-teach conservatism without the 50 ton anchor in the shape of a W. hampering them.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Alex,
I’M assuming something there’s no evidence for? Let me explain this rather briefly. You’re explaining Chambliss’s margin, which diverged massively from the polls, on a desire among Republicans to avoid a 60-seat majority and, presumably, a lack of interest among blacks. These are, unfortunately, two factors that would have been constant in the days following the last public poll. There’s not even the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that “something” happened in the intervening three days that would have A.) Increased Republican anxiety about a 60 seat majority or B.) Caused more blacks to stay home. The Minnesota Senate election has been on the news heavily in the last week, and Franken’s plight has received more then cursory coverage. If anything, the public was LESS likely yesterday to believe that a 60 seat majority was a real threat.
This is simple logic. You’re attempting to attribute the discrepancy between the polls and the result, to factors that ought to have already to been “baked into the cake” so to speak. I’m attributing the discrepancy to a new event, that polls couldn’t have accounted for, because they were taken prior to the event. And my explanation has the additional handiness of actually dovetailing with known facts- i.e, that Palin is beloved of the base and to the extent that she’s had any positive impact in the past, it’s been through driving the base.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
So, if I am a regular voter sittin’ around in GA, and I hear that Palin came, suddenly I say to myself, “HOT DAMN, Palin was here I’m going to go vote for Chambliss!” ?
I mean come on.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
More evidence that Knepper is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUJ-usTuaJA&feature=related
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
Time to ‘fess up, Palinophobes:
You folks have been trying to crochet this yarn about how much Palin turns people out to vote against anything she’s for, especially during the general election.
I think it’s safe to anticipate the Palinophobes emitting gripes about dumb Georgian southern rednecks, ineducable trailer trash, inbred cracker ignoramuses, bucolic backwoodsers, etc….
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
#68, that is what Chambliss admitted. He would know best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSCoxEmf5_M&feature=related
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Kris, I know. I’m just not buying it.
Yes, Palin is a very popular figure right now – especially to old men. I just don’t believe she actually changed any votes yesterday. There were too many other factors.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
67
“There’s not even the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that “something” happened in the intervening three days that would have B.) Caused more blacks to stay home.”
Maybe they’re afraid of red-headed women in Georgia with guns… I know I am.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
MarkG – a lot of people didn’t vote for McCain because of Palin. No one really knows whether she was a net drag, a net positive, or neither. I’ve seen the evidence for both. Certainly, many people feared that she could become president if McCain took the dirt nap. That DID scare a lot of voters.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Mark G, I would appreciate if you would make your point with out insulting people in Georgia.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 am
BTW – if I had the opportunity to see Palin, I would definitely go.
During the campaign, I heard that Obama had been only a mile away from my house, and only 50 people showed up. I was so disappointed that I didn’t know about it ahead of time. I would have loved to see him in person just for the fun of it.
The point is that there are probably many people like me who would want to see her, but would never support her.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Martha M,
Ok, fair enough. But, that actually tends to suggest that Palin was MORE likely to help Chambliss. Some voters might have voted against McCain/Palin because they were afraid she would become President, but no voter would rationally vote against Chambliss because Palin happened to be campaigning for him. So ALL of Palin’s impact would have been positive. Republicans were revved up because of Palin, but no was motivated to turn out for Martin because of her.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
JP, I celebrate my Georgian compatriots for the sheer brilliance of what they have done. You don’t hear much better from cosmopolitan wags if you’re from rural West Virginia like me. So it was meant in a humble jocular spirit. Sorry if it missed the mark.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
Palin speaks, but her incoherency apparently isn’t getting any better.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/250
“If Sarah Palin is to again take America by storm, she really needs a better speech writer.
I say that because yesterday morning MSNBC aired her speech in support of Saxby Chambliss in his runoff race against Democratic challenger Jim Martin, and I’m sorry to report that I didn’t quite catch her drift, assuming she had one.
Now mind you, what Palin had to say was scripted, naturally, but her prepared text was more of an indecipherable ramble than anything approaching a tidy oration. Most speeches have a beginning, a middle, and an end, yet this one’s end was strikingly similar to its beginning, while the middle was indistinguishable from either, making the whole thing but an immense scoop of verbal mashed potatoes.
Chambliss, I gathered, is needed back in Washington to do something or other for the good people of Georgia. That much I got. Just what it was he is needed for, however, I never did quite figure out. There was something about government — yes, I definitely got the notion that the Republican senator from Georgia has something to do with government, as well as the unborn and, even more bizarrely (and suspiciously), Sarah Palin’s son in Iraq.
Oh, and she’s running for the White House.
Beyond that? I was stumped.
I mention all this because just as Palin was touring the Peach State, spreading bafflement on behalf of Chambliss, the Politico was reporting on her rather dubious future as a “GOP star.” And if she’s ever going to overcome the “dubious” part, she’s going to need a coherent stump speech.”
And this was from a Sarah supporter. You guys can love Sarah all day long, but in the end, she’s going to have to move from a celebrity to a statesman who can talk seriously on the issues, and who has a vision/goals/plan. I don’t see anything remotely close to that in Palin.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
Although I’m sure Palin’s presence was not the determining factor in the size of the Chambliss win, I kinda wish it was. If so many of her supporters are clustered in Georgia (only about 40% of the nation views her favorably), then we really don’t have to worry about her being a national presence any time in the future.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
#74 Martha,
Actually, if you have been to a Palin rally, you will see that mothers make up a large part of her live audience, not ‘old’ men.
#80, I cannot wait until 2012 to toss all of your crap back in your face, assuming you have the guts to show up on this site?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Martha, how dare you question the New Lightbringer(TM)?! With the power of a wink, she singlehandedly parted the Blue sea and allowed struggling Chambliss to cross to victory. Anyone who questions this is obviously nothing more than a Palin-hater!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
MarkG, well if I’m a redneck, I guess that make you a hillbilly. Just Kidding.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
#74
The evidence is really not that conflicting. She had a negative favorability rating in just about every poll and was being made fun of constantly on national television. She earned those things with her first few interviews and a wink during the debate. She was a drag on the Republican ticket.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
I’ll show up, if only to deliver yet another “I told you so”. You were the one promoting Palin as the savior of the Republican ticket this year, and she crashed and burned. Nothing has changed – in fact, she has continued to make a fool out of herself even after the election. She may win the Republican primaries in 2012 (although I doubt it), but she will not be President.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 am
I’m sure Palin helped, just like I’m sure Rudy, Mitt, Mike, and even Bob Barr helped. Palin probably brought out a bigger percentage than the others to vote because she’s very visible and popular right now, but I really doubt she was mostly responsible for Chambliss’ margin of victory.
Aside from an obvious drop in enthusiasm among AA voters with Obama not on the ballot, there’s the fact that Chambliss had a lot more advertising versus his opponent compared to McCain vs. Obama.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Big S – Exactly, but there are still plenty of people who swear they would not have voted for McCain without her on the ticket. The conventional wisdom is that she “energized the base”. (I’m the base but she scared the hell out of me.)
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Oh yeah – oil is down below $50 a barrel these days. At this rate, Palin should pay more attention to her 2010 reelection than her ongoing presidential campaign.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
#87, you are not the base, you are a moderate.
#85, no problem, you can continue to deny relaity, but even Chambliss admitted she had more of an impact that the others who visited, like Romney, McCain, Rudy or Huck.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 am
Krisofer, It may be true that her rallies are more men than women, but she has a huge gap between men and women. Didn’t McCain lose women compared to 2000 and 2004?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
#88, are you crazy? The Democrats will probably not even run against her. That is how popular she is.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Oops, I meant more women than men.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
#90, essentailly the GOP has been getting the same % of the female vote since the 1970’s. Nothing has changed (it does tend to swing 3-5% back and forth).
The GOP usually wins women who are married.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
Kristofer, Calling me a moderate, doesn’t make it so. I’m as conservative as any woman in America. Always have been.
Whatever gave you that idea? The fact that I don’t like Palin?
Ha.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
If people like her are not part of the base, the base is getting smaller and the contingent of “moderates” (who generally dislike Palin) is getting larger. That’s not going to help Palin’s prospects for 2012 (or even 2010).
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
Okay guys, let’s get real. Here are two facts:
Fact#1: Sarah Palin campaigned for Chambliss drawing big crowds.
Fact#2: Chambliss easily won his run-off.
Here are two more facts:
Fact#3: Sarah Palin campaigned for Vice President drawing big crowds.
Fact#4: The Republicans took a big hit. They lost the White House by large margins. They lost more seats in the House. They almost gave the Democrats a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate.
I’ll tell you what. If some of you insist upon directly tying the first two facts together, I’ll insist upon directly tying the second two facts together. Fair enough?
Let’s be honest here. Sarah Palin DID influence both fact#2 and fact#4. To what extent is debatable.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Wait, Kristofer, I thought I read that McCain lost women compared to Bush? And don’t polls show Palin is much stronger with men that women?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
#94, Palin has nothing to do with it, but I am not convinced you are a conservative.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 am
Kristofer, why not? Point to anything I’ve ever said that would lead you to believe otherwise.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
Kristofer,
Just curious here. What criteria are you using to gauge whether or not Martha is a moderate?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
#91
Palin has a 60% approval rating, but a lot of enemies and an oil-based economy to deal with. The pipeline is still in limbo, and she’s too busy campaigning to deal with the many problems facing Alaska right now. She’s in for a much closer call in 2010 than anyone expects, and may lose. Sorry to report the sad news, but she’s no longer the “most popular governor” in the country – far from it, in fact.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Is it because she supported Romney? In that case, is Limbaugh a moderate?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
This is what a lady said yesterday at one of the Chambliss rallies.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Kristofer,
You are being silly. Why isn’t my word good enough? I’m the Mormon, stay-at-home mom of 5. I’ve been ultra-conservative my whole life, always voted that way, and given money over the years to very conservative causes.
I mean, what else can I say?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Has Martha ever made an argument on behlaf of a conservative policy position?
Does martha ever come on this site and make a strong argument for balanced budgets, lower taxation rates for corporate America, increasing the defense budget, developing domestic energy, etc…?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
One more, for you Kristofer.
You also called me an evangelical bigot last week, with no proof. You also made some reference to calling me a B. Now this. What is your problem?
Oh yeah. I’m not entranced by Princess Sarah.
You can’t help your girl by trashing me.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
She certainly has been conservative on immigration.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
Martha,
Just because you are a Mormon, does not make you conservative.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
Does that make Wonder Woman On The Tundra a moderate?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 am
Oh brother.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 am
Thanks to Palin, Saxby is elected and Obama’s agenda is dead!!!!
http://www.gopcatholics.blogspot.com
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
#106, I posted evidence of you anger and disgust of evangelicals. Keep ignoring my evidence I post, when you question me.
http://api.ning.com/files/jf7qjg6giY00hJxd9QqdxrhnVevLZ87iScpxmj7Einr*InqwfOsTSjqvH6G3DMN7tv42Es5zpqqHpTIcVpaL4KCSiv65MlLx/PICT0008.JPG?width=737&height=552
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Kristofer,
I am who I am. If you knew me personally, you wouldn’t wonder. If my word isn’t good enough, too bad I guess. However, I take you, and everyone here at their word. Why would someone come here day after day as a faker?
Like I said, you can’t help Palin this way.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
#113,
A lot of people call themselves conservatives, but really are not. I suspect you are a Bushie.
I honestly do not remember any of your posts that were not about Palin, Romney or Huck?
We have no idea where you stand on any issue? Do you support CAFTA? How do you feel about term limites for Senators, etc???
Honestly, you have nothing to say about policy.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Adam, my “Oh brother” was for Kristofer. #105
Kristofer, please repost that link AND my response to you. You’ve got nothing.
You obviously think folks here are stupid.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Martha is a bit hard on Palin for my tastes (I think there may be better people to run for president, but I like Sarah.) but you didn’t say “I don’t know whether you are a conservative.” you called her a moderate.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Martha, you seem to have alot of hate in you, that doesn’t sound like a good Mormon.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
I think you are confusing frustration and annoyance with hate.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
And really, what does being a good Mormon or a flaming apostate have to do with the discusion of whether or not the Florida victory “PROVES” Palin power?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
I don’t think so.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
[...] and Matthew E. Miller in the thread to Adam Graham’s post asserting that there is “no denying” Palin [...]
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Or, what does being a “True blue, died-in-the-wool, through-and-through” conservative or being a flaming liberal have to do with whether or not the Florida victory “PROVES” Palin power?
It does allow Kristofer to send his opponent off into the weeds chasing a tangent. Nicely done, Kris, but a little transparent don’t you think?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
All Kristofer can do is point to crowds.
A fat lot of good that did us last month.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
By the way, my response article is up.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Kristofer, it may be true that I don’t post anything on policy. So what? You should be able to deduce from my comments that I am conservative, and you should give me the benefit of the doubt.
I voted for Bush, I love the guy. He’s been horrible on some things, and great on others. He blew it on fiscal matters, immigration, education and compassionate conservatism. But he did do everything he could after 9-11 to combat terror. He helped free 50 million people, and the WOT terror strategy was right, if not brilliant. (I know there is considerable debate about whether WOT policies are truly conservative.)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/wouldacouldashouldas_on_iraq.html
I admire him for his strength of character. He also gave us Alito and Roberts, after the Miers fiasco.
I’m strongly pro-life, against amnesty, for free trade, for freedom from gov regulation, for lower taxes, etc. LEt the government get the hell out of my way. Is that good enough for you?
Why don’t you just stop calling me a liar and believe me?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Oh my heck, JP.
WHAT HATE?
For pete’s sake.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Ok, fine Mark you are right. What Palin represents is a quest for more conservative agenda. I think we can all acknowledge that. That is why there was such a boost in energy in McCain’s campaign when her VP selection was announced. Republicans had a moderate for a thier nominee and Palin gave them some hope that things might be alittle different, but I think that is as far as she will go with her appeal. I think many could agree that Palin has many conservative ideals and policies but lacks presidential significance.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
#127,
Essentially correct. I like Palin. I see some really great potential there. I especially like her solid Conservative ideas. And the fact she took on the corrupt GOP machine in Alska and won makes her all the more attractive as a candidate. (And being physically attractive doesn’t hurt either.
)
However, I just don’t think she is up to Presidential material yet. Let her get some more seasoning, some more maturing. Then we will see.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
marK #122.
Okay, I offically feel stupid now.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Don’t let it bother you, Martha. Kris does enjoy his rhetorical tricks.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Anyone who thinks Martha is not a conservative has their head in the sand. She is one of the most conservative on the site. What a bunch of diddos!
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
IlliniDude,
No, I would not say that Kristofer has his head in the sand. He does know a few rhetorical tricks, however, and isn’t afraid of using them.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Despite my disagreements with Martha M, I certainly would not accuse her of being a non-Conservative. I just hope that people do not accuse Mrs. Palin of being a non-Conservative either.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Thanks everyone.
OHIO, well, she is pro-amnesty and for more government regulation of Wall Street. She likes to walk across the aisle, and she did impose the largest tax increase ever on oil companies to give Alaskans more welfare. Last year, or so, she said she liked Obama’s stimulus package. Remember when she said we need an exit strategy for Iraq and she wondered about blood for oil?
She’s not as conservative as people assume. But, I’ll grant that she is basically conservative.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
She was certainly a lot more conservative than McCain.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
being for or against amnesty does not make you conservative…….it is the approach the border security and immigration reform that determines if you are a conservative or not.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
With respect, I do not recall that Mrs. Palin was one of the ones calling for an exist strategy. The people of Alaska own their resources; I for one would not call that welfare. I agree with Kristofer’s comment on Amesty
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I would have to say this, as I understand it, the petroleum being pumped in Alaska is on State owned soil, therefore it is no different for Alaska to take a cut of it, as it is for private land owners to do so. The particular percentage was a negotiated percentage, and when agreed upon became contract law. Therefore, I don’t have a problem with what she did relative to the state receiving money from the oil companies. If it is different than what I describe, let me know, cause I don’t think its ever been made very clear by the media.
Btw, with respect, Kristofer, pro-amnesty is not a conservative position, not even close.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
#138, but in that interview with univision, they did not get in to details about her immigration position.
One question does not make a policy position.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Kristofer, her answer was pretty clear. Does one answer make a policy position? For any other candidate it does.
She is pro-amnesty. She didn’t say anything about attrition through enforcement.
Now, when she comes out against it, are you going to acknowledge her flip-flop?