Campaign 2008

[Jingus 0]

I'm curious if anyone can envision a scenario in which McCain could win a presidential election.

If Hillary wins the nomination he could have a shot. At this point, I think she'd get bitchslapped by a massive backlash from her own party members who want Obama in that spot.

 

Also, despite the hatred for the Bush administration, do remember that there are a lot of conservatives in this country who would rather vote for McCain rather than let any Democrat into office. In the past twenty years, all of the presidential elections have been pretty close affairs. The most one-sided victory in the last two decades, Clinton "squashing" Dole, was in fact won by a margin of a mere 8.5% of the popular vote. As was proved in 2000, don't ever count any possibility out.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Remember the Clinton campaign's accusations of "plagiarism" toward Obama?

 

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, politicians recycle talking points in their speeches. Who knew?

[Nightwing 0]

I'm curious if anyone can envision a scenario in which McCain could win a presidential election.

Consider that:

-he's quite old

-he can't publicly speak worth a crap

 

These are fairly minor issues. Issues... but they aren't going to decide an election.

 

-he's hated within his own party

 

I'm not sure I quite buy the "Obama Republican" yet, as it's going to become real clear during the general election where he stands on things. And this isn't even an argument with Hillary. Really, the Republicans who say they aren't going to vote for McCain are fooling themselves

 

-he whole-heartedly supports a war that's about as popular as a heart attack

 

It's become less and less of an issue with the surge "working" and things seemingly moving a little better. Being the architect and main supporter of the surge, he comes out better. Plus, he's actually getting (If I remember correctly) about a third of the Republicans who don't like the war right now. Adding in the "No Torture, Close Gitmo" stance, and he's stronger than he looks. Iraq isn't the juggernaut issue it once was, especially with the surge vindicating

 

-he belongs to the same party as the unpopular incumbent president

 

He's always been able to separate himself well enough from the Republican Party despite being a fairly conservative guy. Remember, he's not an actual part of this administration, and he's had enough disagreements with Bush and is reviled by party voices like Limbaugh and Coulter that he can avoid "the next Bush" stigma.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think you are seriously underestimating the candidate here. He does have some advantages, even on Obama, as he actually has the record of working across the aisle, and not just with Liebermens. He's a massive draw with Independents, and I'd argue that with his stance on immigration, he's probably going to do better in the Latino vote than Obama will, as he's seriously struggled with it.

 

With Hillary, I think he's a near-lock. This shouldn't even be a question, regardless of the situation with delegates right now; Hillary wins, the Republican base is will be more motivated than they've been since Reagan left, and McCain will beat her down with independent votes that she can't take and he can.

 

Obama is definitely the harder subject. He has charisma, momentum, and pull with independents. Even then, though, I think it's far from an open-shut election you seem to imply it is. He has the momentum, but at some point he's going to need to speak to what he's actually about: even snuffbox has noted that a lot of the new people are jumping on his bandwagon without even knowing what he stands for. His "Most Liberal Guy in Congress" record might work against him when he's facing a candidate who is considered by most to be a true moderate. He has the advantage, but I don't think it's a lock by a long shot. I'm not quite convinced this fantastic primary turnout is going to translate into an incredible election day turnout.

[NoCalMike 0]

It The War indeed turns out to be the biggest issue, McCain is not in favor of ending it anytime soon.

 

On the economy, his answer is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

 

Two unpopular decisions on probably the two biggest issues in the eyes of the voters.

[snuffbox 0]

http://www.star-telegram.com/667/story/486413.html

 

Not that anything would ever hapen in Dallas fucking Texas.

[Nightwing 0]

It The War indeed turns out to be the biggest issue, McCain is not in favor of ending it anytime soon.

 

That's true, but I don't think that's going to be the case. It's calming down, and if anything he'll take credit for that. Iraq won't be the big issue, and I think, of all the candidates on the Republican side, he probably looked the strongest. I mean, out of Republicans who didn't support the war, he took a third of the vote. This isn't the Achilles' Heel that it once was, and I don't think it will turn worse any time soon. This is going to be decided on the economy.

 

On the economy, his answer is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

 

That's a misnomer; it's not his only answer, and I don't think that's a truly unpopular issue (As we are getting another tax package from Congress again). Really, this is only an issue with people with people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place and nothing more. I think trade and where jobs are going is going to be a much, much more relevant issue than "tax cuts".

[NoCalMike 0]

It The War indeed turns out to be the biggest issue, McCain is not in favor of ending it anytime soon.

 

That's true, but I don't think that's going to be the case. It's calming down, and if anything he'll take credit for that. Iraq won't be the big issue, and I think, of all the candidates on the Republican side, he probably looked the strongest. I mean, out of Republicans who didn't support the war, he took a third of the vote. This isn't the Achilles' Heel that it once was, and I don't think it will turn worse any time soon. This is going to be decided on the economy.

 

On the economy, his answer is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

 

That's a misnomer; it's not his only answer, and I don't think that's a truly unpopular issue (As we are getting another tax package from Congress again). Really, this is only an issue with people with people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place and nothing more. I think trade and where jobs are going is going to be a much, much more relevant issue than "tax cuts".

 

On healthcare "free market solution" is his answer which means WHAT exactly? NAY

 

Privatizing Social Security? NAY

 

Just because he isn't Mitt Romney doesn't make him less wrong(well "wrong" meaning not on the side of the majority of the american public) on the bigger issues. Having a moderate view on immigration is going to hurt him just as much as it might help him. I am failing to see where John McCain 2008 is not conservative straight down the line on the more important issues and how in the least he looks like a figure that is going to unite rather then continue the big divide. Forget about what the guy might have said in 2000, the guy has changed his tune.

[Nightwing 0]

It The War indeed turns out to be the biggest issue, McCain is not in favor of ending it anytime soon.

 

That's true, but I don't think that's going to be the case. It's calming down, and if anything he'll take credit for that. Iraq won't be the big issue, and I think, of all the candidates on the Republican side, he probably looked the strongest. I mean, out of Republicans who didn't support the war, he took a third of the vote. This isn't the Achilles' Heel that it once was, and I don't think it will turn worse any time soon. This is going to be decided on the economy.

 

On the economy, his answer is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

 

That's a misnomer; it's not his only answer, and I don't think that's a truly unpopular issue (As we are getting another tax package from Congress again). Really, this is only an issue with people with people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place and nothing more. I think trade and where jobs are going is going to be a much, much more relevant issue than "tax cuts".

 

On healthcare "free market solution" is his answer which means WHAT exactly? NAY

 

Privatizing Social Security? NAY

 

Just because he isn't Mitt Romney doesn't make him less wrong(well "wrong" meaning not on the side of the majority of the american public) on the bigger issues. Having a moderate view on immigration is going to hurt him just as much as it might help him. I am failing to see where John McCain 2008 is not conservative straight down the line on the more important issues and how in the least he looks like a figure that is going to unite rather then continue the big divide. Forget about what the guy might have said in 2000, the guy has changed his tune.

 

I'm glad that you essentially backed off all your other points to simply talk about other things rather than answer me. But whatever.

 

On your other things: Yes, Republicans have always been weak on Healthcare when it comes to the public. But this is the economy, stupid. At least, that's how you just put it before. And how much has Social Security really come up this season? Not much. People are more concerned with having a job so they can make it to social security, first. If you want to talk about issues, fine, but let's face facts: Economy is number one. Healthcare is up there, but Social Security? Grasping at straws. I'd probably argue Immigration/Border Security is more important.

 

And McCain's immigration policy will easily gain him more votes, because the Republicans that are critical of him aren't the type to go over to Obama and it'll help him with the Latino votes that Obama has been having trouble securing. It's a moderate issue where he can actually win, and I'm not sure how you can try and paint it any other way.

 

I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about when it comes to "This isn't 2000", as he's not that much different from 2000. The only real change is his wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts, and that's really about it. And I'm not sure you're view is "the majority of Americans": I understand you believe that you think most of the public is on your side, but your analysis of "the public is more liberal, but Conservatives keep power with a few key issues" just doesn't ring true. I think you're missing the fact that maybe America is about an even split when it comes down to it.

[NoCalMike 0]

It The War indeed turns out to be the biggest issue, McCain is not in favor of ending it anytime soon.

 

That's true, but I don't think that's going to be the case. It's calming down, and if anything he'll take credit for that. Iraq won't be the big issue, and I think, of all the candidates on the Republican side, he probably looked the strongest. I mean, out of Republicans who didn't support the war, he took a third of the vote. This isn't the Achilles' Heel that it once was, and I don't think it will turn worse any time soon. This is going to be decided on the economy.

 

On the economy, his answer is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

 

That's a misnomer; it's not his only answer, and I don't think that's a truly unpopular issue (As we are getting another tax package from Congress again). Really, this is only an issue with people with people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place and nothing more. I think trade and where jobs are going is going to be a much, much more relevant issue than "tax cuts".

 

On healthcare "free market solution" is his answer which means WHAT exactly? NAY

 

Privatizing Social Security? NAY

 

Just because he isn't Mitt Romney doesn't make him less wrong(well "wrong" meaning not on the side of the majority of the american public) on the bigger issues. Having a moderate view on immigration is going to hurt him just as much as it might help him. I am failing to see where John McCain 2008 is not conservative straight down the line on the more important issues and how in the least he looks like a figure that is going to unite rather then continue the big divide. Forget about what the guy might have said in 2000, the guy has changed his tune.

 

I'm glad that you essentially backed off all your other points to simply talk about other things rather than answer me. But whatever.

 

On your other things: Yes, Republicans have always been weak on Healthcare when it comes to the public. But this is the economy, stupid. At least, that's how you just put it before. And how much has Social Security really come up this season? Not much. People are more concerned with having a job so they can make it to social security, first. If you want to talk about issues, fine, but let's face facts: Economy is number one. Healthcare is up there, but Social Security? Grasping at straws. I'd probably argue Immigration/Border Security is more important.

 

And McCain's immigration policy will easily gain him more votes, because the Republicans that are critical of him aren't the type to go over to Obama and it'll help him with the Latino votes that Obama has been having trouble securing. It's a moderate issue where he can actually win, and I'm not sure how you can try and paint it any other way.

 

I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about when it comes to "This isn't 2000", as he's not that much different from 2000. The only real change is his wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts, and that's really about it. And I'm not sure you're view is "the majority of Americans": I understand you believe that you think most of the public is on your side, but your analysis of "the public is more liberal, but Conservatives keep power with a few key issues" just doesn't ring true. I think you're missing the fact that maybe America is about an even split when it comes down to it.

 

I didn't back off all my other points. I was simply listing off more issues that I think will hurt McCain come election time, depending of course if he has or hasn't changed his mind on the issues AGAIN by then....

 

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.co...ives/14447.html

 

When he got to Congress, McCain was a rather conventional conservative Republican. After his role in the Keating Five scandal, McCain took on a reform-minded persona. By 1999, he was a self-described “maverick” and moderate, who would move the GOP to the center. By 2004, McCain was back to being a conservative again. By 2007, he had positioned himself as an establishment Republican, and when that didn’t work out, McCain decided he’d become some kind of hybrid of the various McCains of the recent past.

 

If I didn’t know better, I’d say McCain has very few core values, and is willing to shift with the wind to get ahead. It’s one of the reasons he’s flip-flopped all over the place throughout the campaign.

 

I have a very hard time understanding how it is this guy earned a reputation for “consistency.” The only thing consistent about McCain’s policy towards Iraq is that it changes every few months.

 

Of course, that fits into a pattern with the senator. Long-time readers know what this means: it’s time to update the list of John McCain Biggest Flip-Flops.

 

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

 

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

 

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he now opposes the measure.

 

* McCain has been both open and closed to a redeploy-to-perimeter strategy in Iraq.

 

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

 

* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

 

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

 

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

 

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

 

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

 

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

 

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

 

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

 

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

 

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

 

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

 

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

 

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

 

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

 

Now, it’s worth noting that there are worse qualities in a presidential candidate than changing one’s mind about a policy matter or two. McCain has been in Congress for decades; he’s bound to shift now and then on various controversies.

 

But therein lies the point — McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned practically every position he used to hold. The problem isn’t just the incessant flip-flops; it’s the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops.

 

It’s a shame what running for the Republican nomination will do to a guy, isn’t it?

[snuffbox 0]

There are several months left to the election. You can't just go by the conventional wisdom of the moment all the time. Seriously, Iraq wont matter?

 

Reading Nightwing is like watching Craig Crawford on MSNBC.

[Nightwing 0]

Oh Christ. I even guarded myself in thinking that Iraq wouldn't be the big issue. But fine, I concede in the face of overwhelming evidence, Mike. You got me, and I'll quiet down.

 

And I'm sorry, but you have no room to speak, snuff. How exactly does a shift from Ron Paul to Barack Obama reconcile with your beliefs?

[snuffbox 0]

What shift? I like Ron Paul, I agree with him on many things. But he clearly was not going to have a real chance in the election. I also agree with Obama on several issues, realize that his charisma and personality can be a great asset towards realizing some of his ideas, and knew he had the best chance of success (something I've been saying he had a serious chance at since 2004). I like and support both guys, but put my efforts and vote behind Obama.

 

Don't worry, Nightwing, I will make sure to repeat this as many times as needed for you.

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Oh Christ. I even guarded myself in thinking that Iraq wouldn't be the big issue. But fine, I concede in the face of overwhelming evidence, Mike. You got me, and I'll quiet down.

 

Nah, don't quiet down, this forum needs more diverse opinions. (Of course I am not sure if your quote above is sarcasm or not )

 

I don't really disagree that the economy is right up there, and might be the #1 issue right now, but I just feel there is a difference between primary election issues and general election issues, and if McCain starts up the "Democrats want to wave the white flag of defeat"-2004 style rhetoric, in the Presidential debates, then it is going to thrust the war back into the spotlight.

[Nightwing 0]

Oh Christ. I even guarded myself in thinking that Iraq wouldn't be the big issue. But fine, I concede in the face of overwhelming evidence, Mike. You got me, and I'll quiet down.

 

Nah, don't quiet down, this forum needs more diverse opinions. (Of course I am not sure if your quote above is sarcasm or not )

 

I don't really disagree that the economy is right up there, and might be the #1 issue right now, but I just feel there is a difference between primary election issues and general election issues, and if McCain starts up the "Democrats want to wave the white flag of defeat"-2004 style rhetoric, in the Presidential debates, then it is going to thrust the war back into the spotlight.

 

No, it's not sarcasm, it's just this forum is ridiculously frustrating to get any real discussion on. There are so few conservatives (Or at least, ones that are willing to put more of a debate into things), I feel like all I can do is keep playing devil's advocate. I'm not nearly as big a supporter of McCain as I probably come off (Mostly because I seriously disagree with his social agenda, especially on education), but when you essentially have a few guys talking about Ron Paul and an idiot who supports Romney, what's to do?

 

Going to your source's site, he's a bit... interesting. I might actually research a few of those claims, as I sort of explained a few of them (Mainly the Tax Cuts and Ethanol) to Marvin... but that'd probably take up more of my time than I care to do.

 

And snuffbox: Outside of the war, you have someone who is going for massive increases in public programs, including moving towards true Universal Healthcare. I'll admit that the Republicans this year aren't much better (Simply because supporting the war costs a shit-ton). I mean, I'd think you'd be more on the side of privatizing health care and social security rather than expanding it. You have something against McCain's black baby or something, or are you just really playing the odds after years of disappointment with the Libbies?

[snuffbox 0]

Just the black baby, pretty much. Inexcusable on McCain's part.

[Nightwing 0]

If only he had been for abortions, I suppose.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This NYT-McCain thing is interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all, I could give a shit less about whether or not he had an affair. He is an admitted adulterer (cheated on his first wife), but I don't really care that much about that, since McCain hasn't been one of those Moral Majority types (despite his recent embrace of Falwell prior to his death) for the most part. What is more interesting is the implication that Mr. Maverick may have done favors for lobbyists, something which he has vehemently denied. I want to read more about what his role was in the whole Keating Five scandal now.

 

To Jerk, I think the 2008 general election will be close regardless, but I think Obama will be much more competitive against McCain than Clinton. This is one of the main reasons that I joined the Cult of Obama.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I don't so much care if politicains have affairs but I care if I have to hear about it nonstop for months on end (Lewinsky). Which is partly why I didn't want Clinton: I don't need to spend another 4/8 years hearing about the state of her marriage.

 

Any thoughts on who Obama's running mate will be? (Let's assume he has the nomination in the bag)

[Guest Vitamin X]

I joined it for the ritualistic sacrifices and the bake sales.. oh god, the bake sales!

[2GOLD 0]

I joined it for the ritualistic sacrifices and the bake sales.. oh god, the bake sales!

 

What flavor kool-aid does he serve at the meetings? Cause if it's grape or tropical punch, I'm so in.

 

 

Guy has a couple of things I'm worried about but it does seem like he doesn't have a deep routed hatred for the Republican party. And I doubt they hate him too much since he's not been around long enough. There seems to be chances for the two sides to work together (I know, even I'm laughing at that) which is the only way the country can ever make progress. Need to find a President who sometimes admits his party doesn't have a fricking clue how to handle certain problems.

[snuffbox 0]

Russ Feingold says he voted for Obama last Tuesday. Yay!

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Any thoughts on who Obama's running mate will be? (Let's assume he has the nomination in the bag)

 

The only person who immediately comes to mind is John Edwards, but he has the losing stigma of the 2004 election on him. Evan Bayh's name has been mentioned before, but more in relation to Hillary Clinton than Obama.

 

Other than that, I'm not sure. Theoretically, you would want to balance out the ticket. I guess that would mean an older white guy with a lot of experience, maybe from the South or Northeast part of the country. Not sure who in the Democratic Party would quite fit that mold, though, aside from obvious non-starters like the two senators from Massachusetts.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Jim Webb's name gets thrown around a lot on the internets.

[snuffbox 0]

I think it could be Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson for Obama.

 

One thing to consider with this VP process - It might be best for either party to not have another Senator on the ticket. The balance of power their is fragile and neither party may want to trade two Senate seats for the Executive branch. If a Senator does get picked, s/he might have to come from a safe state.

 

If it's Hillary, though, I'm 90% confidant we'll get the return of Dan Quayle in the form of Evan Bayh.

[The Robfather 0]

Their innuendo merited page1, above the fold coverage, but The NYTimes buried McCAin's press conference on page20. Not a very fair way to follow up.

[NYU 0]

If Hillary wins in Texas and Ohio, and her and Obama are both pretty even coming down the stretch in terms of delegates.....wouldn't they basically have to come to an agreement that one will be President and one will be Vice President on the same ticket? There is no way the Democrats are going to let superdelegates decide this matter at the convention.

 

Compromises will need to be made -- and really, what other compromises could there be for this situation than a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket, with the second place candidate having a prime shot for the presidency in 2016.

[snuffbox 0]

Chuck Todd will be bald by November.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Hillary as VP wouldn't happen now. Her smear campaign has assured that. Plus, I think Obama might have a better chance with anyone who isn't Hillary. I can't imagine Barack likes the idea of Bill and Hillary telling him what to do for 4 year either.

 

Webb actually is a great choice, aside from the obvious problem of him being a serving senator: experienced, somewhat charismatic, decorated war veteran and, on account of his marriage, he might help Obama make some progress with the Asian electorate that have been frosty to him thus far.

 

Edwards is too tainted with failure now, I think. Although the inevitable Obama/Edwards hugfests would be quite funny.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

One thing to consider with this VP process - It might be best for either party to not have another Senator on the ticket. The balance of power their is fragile and neither party may want to trade two Senate seats for the Executive branch.

 

Mark Warner should be Obama's running mate. Lots of experience, would probably add a state for Obama, doesn't affect the balance of power in the senate, and gives himself something to do while he decides whether or not to run himself in 2012 or 2016.