John McCain Thinks Sarah Palin Can Beat Obama

Well, I guess you have to give John McCain some credit for loyalty, if not common sense:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has said he thinks Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in next year’s presidential election, but he’s far from certain that she will actually jump into the race.

The GOP’s standard-bearer in 2008 also shrugged off his former running mate’s poor standing in many polls, saying she would have the opportunity to turn that around if she did make a bid for the White House.

“That’s what campaigns are all about,” McCain said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“I’ve never seen anyone as mercilessly and relentlessly attacked as I have seen Sarah Palin in the last couple of years,” the Arizona senator added. “But she also inspires great passion, particularly among the Republican faithful.”

Mercilessy attacked, of course, by being asked such tough questions as what do you read?

One wonders if McCain has looked at the polls lately

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Politicians, Quick Takes, Sarah Palin, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Tano says:

    Loyalty, or perhaps simply a strong disinclination to question his own judgement in choosing her.

  2. anjin-san says:

    Of course McCain thought he could beat Obama too…

  3. DC Loser says:

    This is news? He’s being the loyal party member and abiding by the 11th Commandment. I would be shocked if he came out and told the truth.

  4. BTW, that “Country First” campaign slogan always made my skin crawl.

  5. Smooth Jazz says:

    First, polls in early 2011 means squat insofar as Nov 2012, no matter how many times you mutter it to yourself. If she decides to run, her performance on the stump, in debates, et al will be the ultimate barometer as the numbers will eventually follow. If she does well, her support will increase accordingly.

    Second, you are the epitome of the inside the beltway/NY echo chamber that hates Palin, so you represent a VERY tiny micocosm of voters she would need to ultimately impress. Morever, like the rest of the Wash DC/NY ecosystem, you’re an Obama loving sychophant, so your opinion is biased and hardly means much.

  6. Tano says:

    First, polls in early 2011 means squat insofar as Nov 2012,

    Almost squat – but largely because the election will be a referendum on the incumbent (as all reelections are), and the polls in 2012, as well as the electoral results will be reflective of the realities in the country in 2012 and the extent the people credit or blame the incumbent. That we cannot tell from here.

    There is another large factor at play though – the fact that Palin is very much a known commodity in American politics, and a very significant majority of Americans do not consider her minimally qualified for president and would never vote for her. It is really hard to overcome first impressions and her standing is based on far more than just first impressions, but rather almost three years worth of impressions. IT would be extremely hard for her to climb out of that hole…

  7. jukeboxgrad says:

    a very significant majority of Americans do not consider her minimally qualified for president and would never vote for her

    I find it quite remarkable that she hasn’t even been able to convince a majority of Republicans that she’s qualified to be president. In a poll done in October 2010, 46% of Rs said Palin is not qualified to be president. 47% said she is. 7% said “not sure.”

  8. Tano says:

    you represent a VERY tiny micocosm of voters she would need to ultimately impress.

    Sorry Smoothie, but the evidence seems clear – its you who are massively in denial, and/or out of touch with what the large majorities of Americans feel on this matter.

  9. Smooth Jazz says:

    Based on what?? Rigged polls commisioned by the Obama loving media and echo chamber. Give me a break: “Polls” today reflect largely the caricature that has been presented to the public, mostly dispassionate at this point, by most of the networks and major newspapers, etc – which by and large are Obami sychophants. I am convinced that if she performs well on the stump and under a microscope, with the full brunt of the Obami loving media coming after her, then she MAY get a second look from voters.

    Let’s see what the movie says about her record. A documentary based on her record which provides substance – and not edited and control by Obama’s butt kissers in the media – is the sort of thing that can make a difference little by little. I’ll repeat what I said earlier: Polls this far out mean very little, notwithstanding the depth and breath of the NY/DC cabal arrayed against her.

    I dont know what your problem is: Since you an Obama sychophant, you should welcome her in the race since it is a “foregone conclusion” that she will lose in your mind.

  10. Mike Farrell says:

    This is the fourth anti-Palin screed by Mataconis in ten days-one of the worst cases of PDS in the blogosphere,as obsessed as Sullivan but without the uterus diving. The men in the white coats are not too far behind.

    Really,if Palin is so hopeless, has no chance of winning, if it is, as he says “silly” to even think about her then why does he continually churn out these rants?

  11. Smooth Jazz says:

    “This is the fourth anti-Palin screed by Mataconis in ten days-one of the worst cases of PDS in the blogosphere,as obsessed as Sullivan but without the uterus diving. The men in the white coats are not too far behind. Really,if Palin is so hopeless, has no chance of winning, if it is, as he says “silly” to even think about her then why does he continually churn out these rants?”

    I’ve been away from this forum for a couple of months, but judging from your post, it appears Doug M’s case of Palin Derangement Syndrome is as acute as ever. Nothing can help the guy I’m afraid. He probably foams at the mouth every time she is in the news and takes it upon himself to post about her. Keep in mind he is a far left Liberal masquerading as some kind of moderate. You can tell from all his far left (and I mean DailyKOS kids far left) commenters as well as the fact that almost all his posts attack Repubs.

    It appears his problem is Repub women in general: He’s savaged Sharon Angle, Christine ODonnell, Michelle Bachman and most especially former Gov Palin. Notice he never has anything disparaging to say about wacko Dem women, and there are a few of them I assure you. Only Rep women gets him foaming at the mouth. He’s also an Obama loving sychophant, so that has something to do with his bias and Palin Hating obsession as well.

  12. john personna says:

    It’s jut a low opinion of the American voter.

  13. Tano says:

    Based on what?? Rigged polls

    I’m going wih the “and” rather than the “or” in my original formulation. Out of touch AND in denial. Throw in some delusion.

    Seriously bud, you show yourself to be totally impervious to evidence. Data either supports your conclusion, or its part of some grand corrupt conspiracy. You sound like a caricature of a loony fanatic.

    Nothing can help the guy I’m afraid

    I imagine that nothing can help you. Your characterizations of Doug and this site are beyond absurd. I comment here constantly in response to posts of his that I feel are outrageously unfair to Obama and the Dems.

    Seriously bud, you just beclown yourself when you post this nonsense. Maybe you could find some Palin-adoring site where you can find some fellow whackjobs who would be interested in giving you support and encouragement. We just laugh at you here…

  14. Tsar Nicholas II says:

    Postulate for a moment how different the political landscape would be had McCain in 2008 not pulled a Crazy Ivan and simply named any one of over a dozen viable Veep selections who were available at that time. Granted, the ultimate outcome in ’08 would have been the same, but the ensuing perpetual circus could have been avoided. Sigh.

  15. Scott O. says:

    So, Doug M is a far left Liberal and an Obama loving sycophant. I bet he’s got a commie flag tacked up in his garage too.

  16. anjin-san says:

    Kenny is right. Doug is a damned anti palanite. And an anti dentite as well.

  17. I’m more just generally anti-idiocy

  18. Southern Hoosier says:

    Don’t worry Comrade O’Bama has a almost a billion dollars to buy the next election with and he’ll need every dollar to do so.

  19. An Interested Party says:

    Since you an Obama sychophant, you should welcome her in the race since it is a “foregone conclusion” that she will lose in your mind.

    I would guess that most of the president’s supporters would indeed welcome her with open arms into the race…hell, maybe some of them would even send her campaign some money…nothing like doing everything you can to help ensure your candidate’s reelection…

    He’s savaged Sharon Angle, Christine ODonnell, Michelle Bachman and most especially former Gov Palin.

    Umm, here’s a little clue…all these women strongly have something in common, and it has nothing to do with their gender nor their political party…

    Don’t worry Comrade O’Bama has a almost a billion dollars to buy the next election with and he’ll need every dollar to do so.

    There you go again, Grand Dragon Southern Hoosier…

  20. jukeboxgrad says:

    Don’t worry Comrade O’Bama has a almost a billion dollars to buy the next election

    The Palinists have already prepared the excuses they’ll be using after she gets crushed by Obama. Here’s the other big one: the GOP elite and the lamestream media ganged up on her. Poor baby! Now she’ll have to go sulk in her 7900-square foot home in Scottsdale, Arizona.

  21. Southern Hoosier says:

    jukeboxgrad says: unday, May 29, 2011 at 21:40

    Poor baby! Now she’ll have to go sulk in her 7900-square foot home in Scottsdale, Arizona.

    And where will Comrade O’Bama go and sulk when he looses/?

  22. jukeboxgrad says:
  23. An Interested Party says:

    And where will Comrade O’Bama go and sulk when he looses/?

    Tsk , tsk, Grand Dragon Southern Hoosier…a better question is what new inane prattling will you have to share when he wins…

  24. Pug says:

    Too bad for Rolling Thunder. Sarah Palin hijacked their annual event this year with a publicity stunt.

    That’s a shame.

  25. jwest says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how people who claim to be rational insist that Obama has a chance of reelection.

    There are those who cite polls, but only the isolated numbers that would support their desperate wishes while ignoring the vast field of historical evidence that points unquestionably to a massive democrat defeat. Between Doug, Kos and Think Progress, a contingent of sycophants choose to believe that, despite all evidence, the electorate in 2012 will ignore high unemployment, falling home prices, record high gas prices, stagnant hiring, Medicare going broke, increased foreign entanglements, ongoing wars, and most importantly – a country that overwhelmingly believes the nation is on the wrong track.

    For some reason, the liberal mind cannot grasp the connection that when a populous gets it in their heads that things are going bad, they make a change, regardless of their personal likes or dislikes. Obama is barely over 50% approval in highly questionable polls that over sample democrats. His strong approval rate is 10% underwater compared to strong disapproval. This is before any campaign against him.

    I suggest that before Doug and his merry band of unicorn riders embarrass themselves further they step back, take a deep breath and take a hard, open minded look at the numbers. Doug might also want to look into why 5 (so far) democrat senators are choosing to retire. They see the handwriting on the wall and don’t want to be part of the ’12 bloodbath.

    Wake up. Grow a little intellectual honesty.

  26. Joe R. says:

    I’m more just generally anti-idiocy

    I think Palin is an idiot as well. But what’s the worst that could happen if she’s elected? Persistent 9% unemployment? Tripling the deficit? Undeclared wars? A tanking dollar? Skyrocketing commodities prices? Another Patriot Act renewal?

    Seriously–what will be worse under Palin? 10% unemployment? A 4th war?

  27. jukeboxgrad says:

    jwest:

    the vast field of historical evidence that points unquestionably to a massive democrat defeat

    It’s true that for all sorts of reasons Obama is beatable. There are certain Rs who have a shot at beating Obama. Trouble is, most of those Rs aren’t running, and none of them are going to be nominated. Instead, the GOP is going to nominate someone who hasn’t even been able to convince most Rs that she’s qualified to be president.

    And they’re going to do that because of people like you. So all I really have to say is this: thank you.

    Grow a little intellectual honesty.

    That’s funny, since you’re proving you have none. Roughly 26 hours ago you said this:

    If I fail to comment at times, it’s because I have an actual life and I’m off doing something else.

    You were trying to explain why you typically disappear right after your claims are shown to be false. And that’s what I did last night (link); I demonstrated the foolishness of some of your recent claims. So of course this is what you did this morning: you slithered away from that thread, and slithered onto this thread, where you posted a 250-word comment.

    So we know exactly what you mean by “I’m off doing something else:” you’re posting in another thread. Why? Because you’re too much of a coward to deal with the arguments that have been addressed to you, so you cut and run. So we know why you “fail to comment at times:” because you “fail to” have enough “intellectual honesty” to deal with inconvenient facts.

  28. jukeboxgrad says:

    Joe:

    what will be worse under Palin?

    If you think that things right now are as bad as they could possibly get and couldn’t get any worse, then you’re as much of an idiot as Palin is.

    Here’s one simple example. The Dow dropped 22% during Bush’s term (after more than tripling during Clinton’s). Since Obama took over, it’s up 50%.

    And you should probably bring your question to George Will, who just asked this question: “Should we give this person nuclear weapons?”

  29. jwest says:

    Jukeboxgrad,

    I think you’re overestimating how many people actually read what you put in your overly-minutia packed screeds. You link and quote obscure people that apparently you believe speak for the majority of conservatives while ignoring simple, relevant facts that are actually on point.

    Learn to focus.

  30. @jwest:

    What Jukeboxgrad tries to do in his posts is provide evidence for his positions. You might want to give it a try.

  31. Southern Hoosier says:

    Pug says: Monday, May 30, 2011 at 07:56

    Too bad for Rolling Thunder. Sarah Palin hijacked their annual event this year with a publicity stunt.

    That’s a shame.

    Rolling Thunder National President Gary Scheffmeyer says his organization isn’t endorsing or supporting Palin, but he was glad she was here because it showed she supported veterans, prisoners of war and those missing in action.

    “We’re happy to have her — and it brings a good deal of attention to what we stand for,” he said.

    http://goo.gl/tzrlM

    I guess Pug knows more about Rolling Thunder than their National President does.

  32. jukeboxgrad says:

    jwest:

    You link and quote obscure people that apparently you believe speak for the majority of conservatives while ignoring simple, relevant facts that are actually on point.

    Let’s review, since as usual you’re making things up. In the other thread, I cited four major conservative legal scholars (Jim Lindgren, Orin Kerr, Bradford Berenson, and Michael McConnell) who praised Obama’s academic performance in strong terms. So what did you do? You ran away.

    First of all, they are “obscure” only to you, because you’re ignorant.

    Secondly, I did not claim they “speak for the majority of conservatives.” The issue is not whether “the majority of conservatives” believes Obama did well as HLS. The issue is whether Obama actually did well at HLS. According to Lindgren, Kerr, Berenson and McConnell, he did. And they are not expressing unsupported opinions. Their statements are supported by facts and reasoning.

    If you’re in a position to explain how you’re smarter than they are, and know more about HLS than they do, then you should go ahead and provide that explanation. Show us the “simple, relevant facts” which prove that jwest is right and Lindgren, Kerr, Berenson and McConnell are all wrong. What are you waiting for? There’s no time like the present.

    And you should do so in the other thread, where this topic was being discussed. But of course you haven’t done that, and you’re not going to do that, because you’re totally devoid of intellectual honesty.

    That’s why you slithered away from that thread and slithered onto this thread.

  33. jukeboxgrad says:

    SH:

    We’re happy to have her

    Scheffmeyer feels that way, but there are others there who don’t. Ted Shpak is their “national legislative director” and a Vietnam vet. He said she would be “a big distraction” (link). And then he said “I’m very not appreciative of the way she came in here” (link).

  34. jwest says:

    Jukeboxgrad,

    I’m certain you can link to four Nobel Peace Prize winners who believe Obama deserved his.

    There is no evidence you, Stephen or anyone else has produced to back up the premise that Obama possesses anything above average intelligence. You can’t show how he got into Occidental, you certainly can’t begin to explain how he was able to transfer into Columbia without the needed core credits and no one has tried to explain how Obama (who no one ever remembers having attended any classes) graduated without honors (sub-cum laude – in the bottom 35% of his class) and still obtained a slot at Harvard.

    Yes, he did win a student popularity contest for the editorship of Law Review in his first year, but Harvard had years before eliminated the academic requirement for the job. But still, you point to this as some form of accomplishment based on merit. Why?

    If you, Stephen, James, Doug and the balance of the liberals want to make the argument that Obama was and is qualified for presidency, you’re going to need some answers.

  35. @jwest:

    Nice evidence free comment.

  36. jukeboxgrad says:

    jwest:

    I’m certain you can link to four Nobel Peace Prize winners who believe Obama deserved his.

    As usual, you have trouble thinking clearly. In particular, you have chronic difficulty understanding the difference between a fact and an opinion. Someone who says that “Obama deserved his” Nobel Peace Prize is expressing an opinion. On the other hand, someone who says that Obama earned high grades at HLS is expressing a fact. To understand that this is a fact, all you need to do is pay attention to the statements made by Lindgren, Kerr, Berenson and McConnell, which can be found via the links I posted in the other thread. They do a nice job of explaining how it that we know that Obama earned high grades, and the meaning and importance of those grades.

    But you are determined to pay no attention at all to those statements by Lindgren, Kerr, Berenson and McConnell, or to address them in any remotely substantive way. Why? Because you are an ignorant hack, and when any inconvenient facts come near you, you slither away as fast as you can.

    There is no evidence you, Stephen or anyone else has produced to back up the premise that Obama possesses anything above average intelligence.

    It’s a joke for you to claim that evidence hasn’t been produced, because in the other thread you proved that you hadn’t even looked at the evidence that I cited.

    But still, you point to this as some form of accomplishment based on merit. Why?

    Bradford Berenson answered this question. You’re just confirming what is already obvious: you haven’t even bothered looking at the statements I cited. That’s because you lack the courage to address those statements in anything remotely resembling an honest manner.

  37. jwest says:

    Steven, Jukeboxgrad,

    Let’s start with the WSJ. Using your standards, it was published on the internet, so it has to be true.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108881386721289.html

    Still, you provide no evidence or even a plausible explanation of how Obama could possibly gained admittance to Harvard by way of merit. Stephen has gone so far as to plead for people to ignore everything in Obama’s life prior to his editorship of Law Review and simply accept that credential, based on the votes fellow students trying desperately to be viewed as non-racists, as proof positive of superior intelligence.

    If you’re going to continue claiming Obama is qualified, present some evidence.

  38. Stephen has gone so far as to plead for people to ignore everything in Obama’s life prior to his editorship of Law Review and simply accept that credential, based on the votes fellow students trying desperately to be viewed as non-racists, as proof positive of superior intelligence.

    Citation please.

    And btw, it is Steven with a “v”.

  39. Joe R. says:

    Here’s one simple example. The Dow dropped 22% during Bush’s term (after more than tripling during Clinton’s). Since Obama took over, it’s up 50%.

    I know, but it’s tied to what I said about commodity prices and the tanking dollar. Graph the price of any five commodities against the Dow since January 2009. Any five. Oil, gold, copper, soybeans, I don’t care. Your portfolio is worth more, but the dollars in it are worth less. Your example is only simple if you are.

    And you should probably bring your question to George Will, who just asked this question: “Should we give this person nuclear weapons?”

    They told me that about Reagan, too.

  40. Joe R. says:

    1 year cotton up 145%. 1 year tin up 73%. These are random choices. I’m not cherry picking. I’d put in more, but I’d probably get spam filtered.

    Everyone knows about oil, and most know about gold, but everything else is up too. Oh, I’m sure there’s something that isn’t, but they’re few and far between.

  41. jwest says:

    Steven,

    Sorry for the misspelling of the name, perhaps your writings invoke a more French persona.

    My reference to your suggestion that everyone simply accept Obama’s brilliance based on his Harvard record (what little there is of it) in lieu of any proof or even a plausible explanation of how he got into the school was based on a comment you made in one of the hundreds of threads that appeared here.

    You may want to ask Jukeboxgrad, who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time cataloging comments to look it up.

  42. jukeboxgrad says:

    jwest:

    Using your standards, it was published on the internet, so it has to be true.

    You have no reason to claim that those are my “standards,” so this is yet another example of you making things up.

    Let’s start with the WSJ.

    Yes, let’s. The article you are citing says this:

    he later graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, so he knows how to get good grades

    Are you going to claim that his HLS magna is not proof of “good grades,” even though you are citing an article which accepts that it is? Or are you going to claim that “good grades” at HLS is not proof of “above average intelligence?” Even though HLS uses blind grading? Which is it?

    you provide no evidence or even a plausible explanation of how Obama could possibly gained admittance to Harvard by way of merit.

    I haven’t made any claims about how Obama “gained admittance to Harvard.” What I have done is show proof that he did extremely well at Harvard. And what you have done is go to great lengths to run away from that proof.

    If you’re going to continue claiming Obama is qualified, present some evidence.

    After you demonstrate that you’ve looked at the evidence that’s already been presented, then your request for evidence might look like something other than a joke.

    your suggestion that everyone simply accept Obama’s brilliance based on his Harvard record (what little there is of it)

    You need to explain to Lindgren, Kerr, Berenson and McConnell that magna cum laude and other elements of Obama’s Harvard record mean “little.” Because they have explained why you’re wrong about that. And you still haven’t bothered telling us what you know that they don’t. And you should start by reading their statements, but from what you said on the other thread, we know that you haven’t even bothered to do that.

    You may want to ask Jukeboxgrad

    Claiming that it should be up to me to substantiate a claim made by you shows that you have an excellent sense of humor. Too bad it’s inadvertent.

    who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time cataloging comments

    I spend zero time “cataloging comments.” I just know how to use google.

  43. jukeboxgrad says:

    Joe:

    Graph the price of any five commodities against the Dow since January 2009.

    I can’t find the part of your comment where you explain your idiotic claim that things couldn’t possibly get any worse.

    They told me that about Reagan, too.

    A major conservative columnist said that Reagan couldn’t be trusted with nuclear weapons? Really? I don’t remember. Please remind me.

  44. Southern Hoosier says:

    jukeboxgrad says:
    Monday, May 30, 2011 at 10:00

    Scheffmeyer feels that way, but there are others there who don’t. Ted Shpak is their “national legislative director” and a Vietnam vet. He said she would be “a big distraction” (link). And then he said “I’m very not appreciative of the way she came in here” (link).

    My fault there were probably over several 100 thousand people there, and I didn’t bother to ask each and everyone how they felt about Palin being there.

  45. Joe R. says:

    I can’t find the part of your comment where you explain your idiotic claim that things couldn’t possibly get any worse.

    I didn’t say they couldn’t possibly get worse. I asked what would get worse. You kinda, sorta, implied that the Dow could go down, since it was down during Bush. I pointed out that the increase in the Dow has been blunted by (and has likely come because of) the devaluation of the dollar. Indeed, I said that the dollar had been devalued before you even posted your comment).

    You came out of the gate with name-calling, and zero substance. I am not the idiot here. Your best argument is that Palin would start a nuclear war because George Will said so, rather than start a conventional (and undeclared) one like Obama has. I remain unconvinced. Your Dow argument is a non-starter for reasons you apparently can’t comprehend.

    I do agree with you that Palin would be a terrible president. What you do not seem to realize is that Obama is also a really terrible one. Who is worse? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t take a bet at anything worse than 51/49. But Obama is Team Blue, and Palin is Team Red, so Palin is worse in your book. Enjoy your cheerleading, Barbie.

  46. jukeboxgrad says:

    Southern:

    My fault there were probably over several 100 thousand people there, and I didn’t bother to ask each and everyone how they felt about Palin being there.

    If I wanted to cite an attendee criticizing Palin, I could have, because those quotes are available. But I didn’t cite a random attendee. I cited someone with an important role in the organization. Nice job pretending otherwise.

  47. jukeboxgrad says:

    Joe:

    I didn’t say they couldn’t possibly get worse. I asked what would get worse.

    You said this:

    I think Palin is an idiot as well. But what’s the worst that could happen if she’s elected? Persistent 9% unemployment? Tripling the deficit? Undeclared wars? A tanking dollar? Skyrocketing commodities prices? Another Patriot Act renewal? Seriously–what will be worse under Palin?

    The implication of what you said is that there’s no reason to think that those things, or anything else, could or would get worse.

    And you’ll have to find someone with a crystal ball if you want a definitive answer to your question (“what would get worse”), but it’s a good bet that having an idiot in the White House will make lots of things worse.

    And I can’t find the part of your comment where you substantiate the claim you made about Reagan.

  48. Southern Hoosier says:

    I cited someone with an important role in the organization.

    And so did I

  49. jukeboxgrad says:

    And so did I

    I know you did, and I never claimed otherwise. You, on the other hand, did imply that the person I cited was just some random attendee, even though that’s not the case.

    The problem is that you said this: “I guess Pug knows more about Rolling Thunder than their National President does.” Which implies that the leadership of the organization has a uniform view on this, and that the statement you cited reflects that view. Trouble is, that’s not the case.

  50. David says:

    If Palin is a sure winner it means that it was McCain who brought down the McCain/Palin ticket three years ago. It’s quite paradoxical that he now supports Palin and actually admits his failures.

  51. jukeboxgrad says:

    David, a subtle and excellent point.

    On the other hand, McCain might be thinking that Palin’s stature is greater now, because of what she’s done in the meantime (had her own reality show?), whereas Obama’s stature is lesser now, because of what he’s done in the meantime (be POTUS? catch OBL?).

    Anyway, I’m sure there are people who think that Palin/McCain would have been a much better ticket than McCain/Palin. There are probably people who think that Palin/McCain would have beat Obama.