Was Palin a Good Gamble?

The other day, we outlined four theories of why John McCain has been sliding in recent days. Of the three theories that I found plausible, Sarah Palin’s declining popularity was right near the top of the list. Palin was always seen as a high risk-high reward pick. At first, it looked crazy, then it looked ingenious, and now it looks like a good gamble that probably won’t pay off. I still believe that if McCain thought he was bound to lose the election without Palin, it was choice he had to make. What is the difference between losing by 1 or 2 and losing by 6 or 7 anyway? A loss is still a loss, and politics, my friends, is not horseshoes.

Research 2000 has done a good job of tracking the favorability of both tickets in their daily tracking poll. Let’s take a look:

What’s most interesting here, I think, is that not only has Palin’s exposure brought her numbers down, but McCain’s numbers have crashed at the same time. Granted, this is partially the result of the other two effects outlined previously. However, it’s hard to dispute that the exposure of Palin as a corrupt extremist didn’t exactly help the perception of McCain’s decision-making abilities. Some of McCain’s biggest arguments against Obama have been somewhat neutralized by picking someone with less experience than Obama.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and the trends of this week could easily reverse themselves. However, if I were McCain, would I still have picked Palin knowing what I know now? I’d probably have to say yes, because I believe that he would have lost anyway without her. It was a gamble he had to make.