>Yeah, I know I'm going out on a limb but I have been saying, quite ardently (lol), that this was going to happen, haven't I? I'm using the same reasoning I used for Howard Dean in 2004. I knew he'd never be the nominee for the same reason - he was *too* much of a change.
>
>On a related note, I overheard a disturbing conversation in the checkout line at the grocery store today. Some guy saw a magazine cover with Palin on it and started telling his wife that he had heard that she wasn't even the mother of the youngest baby, that her 17 year old daughter was. The way these people talked and the observation that the man's wife didn't even know who Palin was led me to believe that they weren't exactly politically astute but, I suppose, the evil and erroneous rumors propagated by leftists last week may have gained some traction. That could counter the other trend if common.

That is reality at its most real. Many people remember only the most startling things they read or hear. It's like the papers printing some horrible story about someone on page 1 and then printing the retraction later in a small box at the bottom of page 18.

>
>>>As I (ahem) predicted, the less politically active and more moderate Americans are being drawn into the fray and they almost always gravitate towards the least radical candidate.
>>>
>>>http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx
>>>
>>>Of course, it's early yet.
>>
>>
>>Hard to tell. There is a typical increase in the polls after the convention for each party...