>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.
>

Uh, I think WE'VE been saying.... One thing to note is the tightening of the polls. The undecideds are getting smaller.

A friend told me she was in line at the grocery and saw the enquirera article and put her hand on the magazine. The woman behind her, who didn't even know her, said, "if you buy that, I'll hit you!" hahaha. She told her she was preaching to the choir, so she didn't have to worry.

This race is over, and the presidency may have already been staked for the next 12 years. Personally, I think we've just found Ronald Reagan's long lost daughter!<vbg>



>>>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...