Well, now, this is a really stupid question, isn't it? “... perception is reality, and the perception — the retroactive perception — is that Palin was a net negative”

...................................................................................................................................................................
Iowa View: Is Sarah Palin really a political asset?
By Steffen Schmidt, April 28, 2014

I am trying to figure out if Sarah Palin will be a plus or a really bad minus for Republican U.S. Senate contender Joni Ernst. The other Republican candidates for the GOP nomination to take on Bruce Braley want to know that, too.

They are all fishing for endorsements, but it’s always a risk because you really don’t know going forward who will help and who will hurt. For example, the post-mortem suggests that Sen. John McCain might have done better if he had picked a less divisive and explosive running mate than Palin in 2008.

Although McCain initially got a boost from the visibility and excitement generated by his selection of the Alaska governor, in the end, Palin seems to have scared off independent voters and moderate Republicans who, while in a minority, must turn out to vote if Republicans are to win elections.

Even former Vice President Dick Cheney recently called McCain’s choice of Palin a “mistake.”

A study by my colleagues Roy Elis, D. Sunshine Hillygus and Norman Nie, writing in the journal Electoral Studies, concluded, “We estimate the ‘Palin effect,’ based on individual-level changes in favorability towards the vice-presidential nominee, and conclude that her campaign performance cost McCain just under 2 percent of the final vote share.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait cites three studies that show Palin was a net negative for McCain in the end, even though the Arizona senator would have lost the election even without Palin on the ticket. But, he says that studies of Palin as a vice presidential candidate suggest that, “Palin is probably the most politically damaging vice-presidential nominee in American history.”

Others disagree. Matthew Continetti, writing in the Washington Post, says Palin was not the reason McCain lost. “But Palin’s conservative record in Alaska and anti-abortion advocacy changed the Republican mood. With her by his side, McCain’s fundraising and support from conservatives improved.”

More to the point for current assessments of Palin as a political factor, others point out that her implosion happened after the election.

Matt Lewis argues in the Daily Caller that Palin was a positive for the McCain campaign, but he also notes, “I generally agree with their [analysts] conclusion regarding how Palin’s selection might impact the 2012 race.” Because of the backlash against Palin, Mitt Romney — someone not known for taking risks – was much more likely to make a safe pick. He also writes that “... perception is reality, and the perception — the retroactive perception — is that Palin was a net negative.”

For Joni Ernst, bringing Palin to Iowa adds to the visibility brought by Ernst’s “pig castration” ad that went viral. Palin is already a visibility-building and attention-getting move, with the media flocking to see and hear the former Alaska governor. It will no doubt help boost Ernst to the GOP nomination.

But in November, Palin and castrated hogs are probably not the answers to economic and global problems for which voters are looking for answers from their new senator. So Ernst will need to fill in the details of how she will “cut” big government and where those cuts will be made.
...................................................................................................................................................................