Talk Elections

If McCain pulls off an upset and wins the Republican nomination, and if Obama pulls off an upset and wins the Democratic nomination, can McCain defeat Obama?

Please discuss.

Yes. Obama isn't a very strong candidate.

No, unless Iraq is somehow neutralized as an issue.

Absolutely.  McCain sweeps the south and if you'vr followed the polls, Obama has not been as strong as Hillary in Ohio.  I don't know if it is the black thing or what it is.  With Ohio and Florida, Republicans hit the magic 270 just like 2000 and 2004.

From the front page of the Columbus Dispatch:

War in Iraq no longer the primary concern (http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/12/21/NH21.ART_ART_12-21-07_A1_DH8RE90.html?adsec=politics&sid=101)

And i agree that Obama is a weak candidate especially against McCain who is probably the strongest Republican.

McCain can beat any of the Dem candidates

I'm tempted to agree.  A lot depends on how successful McCain is at distancing himself from the Bush Administration.  If he can craft a "I support the war in Iraq, but unlike Bush, I will get it right" message -- then he's in.  (Barring a major scandal or stumble.)

Yes he can and probably will. The map might look something like this:

()

McCain takes PA a la Florida 2000 (margin of victory that is), minus the fiasco. For his own sake, Obama would be wise to wait until 2012, so that he doesn't become a defeated candidate.

People like McCain because he was hurt or something in Vietnam. He's older and wiser, too. I think McCain might win but it would be close because Obama is new.

Back when McCain was the frontrunner, he didn't poll so hot in the GE. That's because he was getting bashed nonstop over Iraq. Now he does better since he isn't getting thrashed.

Nominate him, and he'll get thrashed again, and his numbers will sink like a stone. I remember when Democrats here considered him less of a threat than Romney or Thompson. That's amusing in retrospect (Thompson being a stronger candidate than McCain is the type of thing that makes you want to burst out laughing now), but still shows more evidence toward the above theory.

Feed the troll, folks!  Then complain about it.  Then feed it some more.

McCain WAS hurt in Vietnam and people like that he served. What do trolls have to do with that?

Unlike yours, who blew his chance in 2004 as a presidential candidate and then again as a vice presidential candidate.  That was quite a performance.

Listen to HardR folks, he's actually got a point for once.

Yes: McCain is by far the strongest candidate: the only question is whether or not the Republicans will have enough sense to nominate him.

A McCain-Obama race is the one that makes me the most queasy.

I just have this vision of Reagan/Mondale all over again.

I don't think it's going to be that bad.

The independents would have a hard time deciding, but if McCain can make an issue out of Obama's youth and inexperience, then it may be a comfortable win for him.

Huh? When did Obama become a boring old Minnesotan with a penchant for telling the truth about fiscal realties? I also don't remember McCain defeating a Democratic President in a landslide...

Very unlikely, but it could happen if Obama were to fall victim to some scandal or other skeleton from his background, or makes some major gaffes.

My prediction map would have all of the Kerry states going to Obama plus Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Missouri.

Yes definitely.

Hold all Bush states barring Iowa.

People seem to want to get away from the Bush era, and he's even Bushier than Bush, but many Republicans seem to like McCain.  I have a hard time understanding why anyone except the hard-core foreign policy neoconservatives like him, but many centrists seem to like him as well.  And if things go well in Iraq, it will vindicate what may eventually become known as the McCain Doctrine.  Also, if McCain's age is fair game, then so is Obama's.  There's a big difference between them, and some will see McCain's age as much more appropriate for a US President's.  McCain also can claim bragging rights to much legislation.  I don't agree with lots of it, but some folks will.  So, yeah, I think he can defeat Obama.

I'll admit that if it comes down to McCain versus Obama, I'll probably vote for Obama. 

Obama, right now, will look too left wing and too inexperienced against McCain.  Think 1988.

Obama would likely beat McCain, but McCain will probably beat Clinton.  The charisma gap would be in McCain's favor with Clinton.  

Probably a 60/40 chance of defeating Obama.  50/50 of defeating Hillary.  If age and health becomes a big factor he'd have a little less than 50/50 chance of defeating both.

I think you've gotten it right.

So, this would basically be 2000 redux.

But, With Florida replaced by Nevada and Colorado

and New Hampshire being replaced with Wisconsin

and with Arkansas being dem.

This is what I can see-

()

This time, it could go brokered if Mac takes CO and HllDawg takes NV. 

McCain against Obama will produce the same disastrous results for the democrats. as Bush vs Dukakis in '88. Obama should've waited four more years. It should look something like this.

()

For a guy with seven posts, you show a great deal of wisdom.  :)

Since when does making posts here make you wiser?  :P  In my experience it makes you either dumber or more cynical (or both).

This has nothing to do with wisdom. You can just see the similarities to 1988. There's this liberal from a Democratic state against an older moderate Republican.

For the Republican Party to nominate a moderate, rather than a conservative, as its presidential nominee, smacks of insincerity. Most Republicans, after all, are not moderates

Dave

Though HW was moderate enough to appoint a SCOTUS where Roe would be upheld, even when he had the chance to obliterate it.

It's not insincerity to nominate a moderate - it is just a further hurdle for McCain to be nominated. It's not the party trying to con the public - McCain is his own person and would make his own decisions irrespective of the ideological position of the majority of party members. If more conservative members of the Republican Party thought they could exert influence over an elected moderate Republican President, then "Shares Our Values" wouldn't be as important a factor in vote casting in the primaries as electability would be.

Most people who vote for either party are moderates.  The debate is framed by the extremists.

Quite so... I've heard it said that you need to be an extremist to win the Primary, a moderate to win the General.

You need to be in the extreme wing of your respective party to draw out the party base in order to win the nomination, which results in the least-electible candidate winning each party's primary vote. It takes a moderate to draw out independents and swinging voters to vote during the general election - precisely the person who typically doesn't win the primary... the irony of it all...

Ya know, I gotta be honest. It's hard NOT to like Obama...as a person. I've been reading about him lately, and I do like the guy. I can definitely see him winning the GE. Here's my new map of Obama/? vs. McCain/?

()

Obama needs to pick a WASP as his VP...Ben Nelson (D-NE) comes to mind, as he could help win over moderate votes. Maybe Mike Easley (D-NC), maybe Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Battlegrounds: Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Florida.
NOTE: these 8 states will be the ones focused on the most by both parties during the last two weeks of the election.

Nevada - close in 2004, will be close in 2008. Trending Dem on the presidential level. If Obama wins the popular vote, he wins here - Democrat.

New Mexico - a true swing state. It will follow the direction the country is headed - Democrat.

Colorado - alot like Nevada, except it's slightly more Republican on the national level, although trending Dem on the state level. Colorado Dems don't seem as whacked out as the ones on the West Coast and northeast, while the Republicans here aren't as "whacked out" as the ones in the South. McCain is a perfect fit for these Republicans, even as they still hold party registration advantage. Colorado will be very tight though as Dems continue to strengthen here - Republican.

Iowa - also a true swing state. Obama did very well in the primary. Turnout in numbers for him was huge. Should be the same in November - Democrat.

Missouri - always a bellweather. It has voted for the winner in every presidential election in the 20th century except 1956. Also, Democrats don't win without it. In some elections, it leaned slightly right of the national average. In some, it leaned slightly left. People should look here as a microcosm for the nation as a whole. African-Americans will turn out in droves in Kansas City and St. Louis, and I expect Obama to flip a few counties - Boone, for one (U of M), and maybe some in the southeast and north central - enough to squeak by - Democrat.

Wisconsin - Republicans will fall short as always...the end - Democrat.

Ohio - Trending Dem at the presidential level from 2000 to 2004. They kicked out DeWine and elected a Dem governor by landslide proportions. However, polls show McCain doing pretty well here. However, since the Republicans don't win without this state, although they could lose the election and still win here, I'll go out on a limb and say Obama wins by less than 1% - Democrat.

Florida - the Republicans are doing quite well in the sunshine state. They won in 2000, had a larger than expected victory in 2004, they won the governor's mansion in 2006, and the governor endorsed McCain. Alot of older people live in south Florida and like McCain...he's one of them. The panhandle will be as Republican as usual, McCain might offest Obama in south Florida, especially Broward and Palm Beach, and maybe Dade counties. Florida is always fools gold for Dems just like Wisonsin and Pennsylvania are for Republicans. McCain by 2-3% - Republican.

Virginia - the NEW battleground. This state wasn't even on the radar screen for the Dems in 2004. But, In 2004, Fairfax county goes for Kerry (1964 was the last time the county went Dem); in 2005, VA elected a Dem governor; in 2006, Allen lost a safe seat to an unknown opponent; in 2007, VA Dems took the state House and Senate; in 2008, Mark Warner will lock up & take the open senate seat possibly by a 3-2 margin; Obama defeated hillary Clinton in what was supposed to be a safe state for her by an eye-popping 2-1 margin in the primaries; Obama also led in ever single demographic group; turnout was also MASSIVE in the beltway. Republicans here are conservative and may not turnout as much for McCain. All of these signs point to a Dem victory in the Commonwealth FL-2000 style. Expect a recount here - Democrat.

OBAMA/? wins 313-225

Other states that won't be in play come the last week of the election, but might be closer than people think: Tennessee, North Carolina, Minnesota (GOP convention?/Pawlenty VP?), Kansas (Obama's mother/governor's endorsement), Montana, Idaho, Indiana, Connecticut & New Jersey (moderate Republicans)


any constructive criticism of my analysis is welcome...

Of course.

Can Obama defeat McCain?

Of course.

If Colorado liked Mccain so much why did he get trounced by Romney? The moderates you are talking about live in the Denver suburbs and they turned out to vote for Obama, just look at the difference in votes between democrats and republicans there. The main republican base in Colorado is now colorado springs and eastern colorado, very conservative parts of the nation, and not favorable to Mccain. Thus in an Obama vs Mccain matchup, Obama wins. Clinton vs Mccain though will lead to those moderates in the suburbs voting for Mccain and thus a republican victory.

this is true. I didn't even think about that. However, Romney has endorsed McCain, and Colorado's delegates will go to him, not that that matters or anything. McCain has some regional appeal too being from neighboring Arizona. That's one of the reasons why I projected him the winner there. You may very well be correct on Colorado. However, I thought my toughest race to call was virginia. Maybe I should switch the two

I agree with Lewis. :P

But it's hard to tell how things will play out this far out. It seems though, judging from the polls we've seen, that the election will be decided more by Obama than by McCain if you know what I mean.

You are right that VA is tough to call and I would add MO to that list. They seem like states divided demographically. Both of those states have areas that are very southern and unfavorable for Obama. Yet they both have sprawling urban areas which like Obama so I expect results very similar to the 2006 races in those states. I will give the edge to Obama but it wont surprise me if Mccain wins. Obama is strong in the west because of independents and that is why Mccain may not win in NV or CO.

I'm not so sure about that as I once might have been. His fawning all over conservatives at CPAC was enough to make me wanna puke - and some of them still didn't buy it!

If McCain wins, he might not even dare be his own man and if he does then I just don't see him getting an easy ride, despite the show of unity, from more putridy ideological congressional Republicans. It will be payback for all those times he's rubbed their faces in it to carry favor with the liberal media

I, of course, have endorsed the much more humble Sen. Barack Obama. Unlike Senator Clinton, he doesn't think he's entitled to the Democratic Party's presidential nomination

But as far as McCain goes, well, it's eight years too late. Bush has run American prestige into the ground and I'll never forgive him for it

Can McCain defeat Obama? Of course, but as someone who desires closure on Bush (and McCain can't guarantee that), I hope not

Dave

there are also alot of independents in Arizona too, although it's obvious that state won't be up for grabs. Let's not forget that McCain is also strong among independents and the West is his home turf. If it were any other candidate but McCain, I would probably concede Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and MAYBE even Arizona.

The west will be the most interesting region for me if it comes down to Mccain and Obama. Like you pointed out they have similar strengths among independents and the west is home territory for Mac. But I feel the reason Mccain is doing so well in the polls is because many people see him as the anti-bush and this goes back to 2000. Thus it will be up to the democrats to show the country how pro-iraq Mccain really is and I also feel Mccain will have to flip-flop on some issues to appease his base, and will further weaken him in the GE.

"More of the same", and "4 more years of Bush"  will be the theme this year.  McCain has no chance of winning against Obama.  Clinton maybe, but not Obama.

Most people don't understand politics to any great depth, but they do know that Obama is a breath of fresh air.

Reagan won by talking about a "new morning in America".  Obama is generating a feeling in people that they can once again be proud of America.  Something that has slipped away under republican/Bush rule.  John McCain will be paired with Bush until we will think that he IS Bush.   He won't lose in a landslide, but he will be a victim of a craving for change - simple as that.

Come on now... Obama is not a lock to win against McCain. Let's not get deluded here. McCain is going to be tough to beat no matter how you slice it.

No way. The majority of Americans, besides being tired of the war in Iraq, want a candidate that they see as a breath of fresh air. As long as Obama is able to defend himself well against the vicious attacks the Republicans will unleash on him(especially if they're stupid enough to put race-baiting in their ads) the election is his.

Most definitely -once the media gets to work, much of that shine and glitter on Obama will wear off. 

The last time that an inspirational/charismatic speaker lost to a man of mediocre oratory was, as far as I can remember, 1908, when Taft beat Bryan. Maybe lightning will strike again one hundred years later for John.

if the shine and glitter survived New Hampshire it can survive anything.

I think you make PA gray.

Wasn't your first post in this thread?:

No.  He'll always be shiny compared to the crazed mummy McCain.  Its all relative.

Nixon almost beat Kennedy. Besides, most charismatic figures are knocked out in the primaries. The reality is that true demagogues very rarely win the presidency. Reagan and Kennedy are among the few examples. Usually some variety of establishement politicians wins out.

()

I see Obama winning:
()
316-222

To be fair, that was before he won Iowa by 8%, tied or beat Clinton in all the early primary states, raised $30 million dollars in one month, showed his ability to play in all 50 states, and bested the Clinton machine.

I think McCain can win, but it will be difficult for many reasons.  First, he must use this period of time to frame Obama as a liberal in the mold of McGovern.  His Senate voting record does put him to the left of Bernie Sanders after all.  Second, he must not be afraid to campaign negatively against Obama.  It will be tough though because, at least right now, the majority of the big media is for him.  It's an uphill battle for McCain, but there are eight months to go.

Is it fair to characterise Obama as a demagogue? He's a gifted orator, no doubt about it but a demagogue?

Obama is a very modest, very unassuming man. It's true that he's, politically, appealing to people's hopes and expectations for a better future, but not to their fears or prejudices; which is why I've come to see him in a highly positive, rather than negative, light

Dave

In the end, I doubt that much will matter because McCain has nothing to run on other than more of the same.  Obama is running on a campaign of hope.  How do you run against hope?  However, the right wing blogs and talk shows will be spreading plenty of talk about how he isn't patriotic and that he is too liberal (as if that's a bad thing) to make McCain very competitive.  However, I believe that it will be turnout that will end McCains bid once everything is over, and the more the right smears Obama the more votes he will get. 

.. with actual policies and solutions?

Obama's entire presidency is about hope because upon electing him, the American people are relying entirely on hope because we really don't know what we'll be getting.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I'm so sick of this "Obama has no policies"-crap.

On the other hand, McCain is much older than Obama, so the image of Obama as an "agent of hope" would loom ever more powerfully. That alone wouldn't make the difference, but when you have a candidate that's made clear his position on Iraq, it doesn't bode well for him.

He fires up crowds with empty words, appealing to emotions instead of appealing to reason. And he does it to an extent that makes him a bit of a demagouge. He offers false hope in many areas and that is what strikes me as demagogic. He reminds me a lot of Bryan, though I'm certain that Bryan sincerely believed in what he said. I don't really think Obama does, deep down. 

I don't really disagree...I'd just like to say that the "false hope" I feel today due to Obama is a hell of a lot better than the "no hope" I've felt ever since 9/11/01, and more specifically, since March of 2003.

"It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"  or so said Lincoln.  Being vague on Obama's part may be genious.  As long as he rallys the voters and says very little, McCain will have little to use to go after him.  In other words, why give your opponent material to hold against you. 

As of right now, Obama is not giving anybody anything to sink their teeth into.  How do you attack someone who doesn't lay out any positions.  Genious, absolute genious.

It's hard to swiftboat a man who provides his opponent with no swiftboat.

Time will tell if Obama can beat McCain. Right now, I think he loses. Too many people are out there who understand that while we talk about the economy and Iraq...one major thing looms. FOREIGN POLICY. Terror. The threat is real. Here we are 6 years after the crash of four airplanes and our nation still feels the impact. Never in the history of war did we elect a person with no experience. If we do...I hate to see the world in 2012.

And we all know what a complete utter FAILURE Bush has been on foreign policy. I'm not convinced McCain would mark enough of a clean break, a change of course, from His Ineptness, who has not only rallied enemies but antogonised allies

Coming up 7 years since 9/11 and Bin Laden, still at large, national security is something which should be working against Republicans now

It took a Democratic Congress to finally legislate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That tells me Democrats are every bit as serious about protecting America. That said, I don't approve of Democrats failing to extend the Protect America Act of 2007. In the security vs liberty debate, I'll always err on the side of security

The argument that Lieberman makes that in a time of war, McCain is the man to be president doesn't quite wash with me. Be that the case, what is to stop Republicans taking their sweet time in prosecuting wars and continuously using this as a reason to make the case for a Republican president in perpetuity [shudders]. That gives weight to Kennedy's argument that the Republicans concocted a war for political gain. The fact that I disagree with Kennedy on that is neither here nor there but as far as Republicans go, I'm increasingly cynical

Had Bush not been, frankly, so piss poor, I might have been more susceptible to McCain going through 2008 but sorry he has aided and abetted Bush's incompetence way more than either of the potential Democratic nominees. In fact, Republicans want to hang their heads in shame for not nominating McCain in 2000, perhaps then America, and the world, would have been in a better state than what it is today. Had McCain been approaching the end of his presidency, I dare say, all events being the same, Iraq would have turned out for the better sooner rather than later

Whether we are approaching, a new era working towards peace, prosperity along with not only effective, but enlightened, leadership I don't know but it is a very attractive prospect to a failing status quo

Obama talking to Iran, Cuba, wherever, would be pretty much in the tradition of Nixon talking with China and Reagan talking with the Soviets. And if I recall correctly, they were pretty successful when it come to foreign policy. As for conditions, they can be thrashed out there and then

If I thought Obama was lacking in policy detail and substance, he would not have secured my 'endorsement'. The argument that his words are but empty does not wash with the Hawk and, after a wasted eight years, the Democrats deserve their fair shot. Staid, old and tired McCain is, frankly, eight years too late

Experience and foreign policy credentials, relative to Obama, are, undoubtedly, McCain's strengths but when that experience and those credentials are pretty much tied to the notion that America is moving in the 'wrong direction' they out to count for little. In 2008, as in 1980, there is a strong case for 'change' when you consider the failed years which immediately preceded them. As if John McCain could possibly be an agent for 'change'. He's coming up 72, though he looks more 80, and has been on Capitol Hill since dinosaurs roamed the earth

What Obama is proposing goes way over and beyond change for its own sake. The change he espouses is something, I consider, to be sorely needed. And no my support for Obama is not born out of adulation. I've never been one to blow sunshine up politician's arses and I ain't starting now

In fact, I don't envy whoever will be the next president be it McCain, Obama or Clinton, not one iota, given the mess they are about to inherit; which is why this realist will be keeping his expectations low

Dave

Okay, Hawk, what are those changes Obama is proposing which goes "way over and beyond" change for its own sake? Because, amusingly enough, in your response claiming Obama has substance you didn't actually give any specifics.

I've already discussed, at considerable length, why I'm supporting Senator Obama, why I've withdrawn my initial 'endorsement' of Senator Clinton and why I'm not supporting Senator McCain

Should I disagree with Sen. Obama over the course of this campaign, I'll be saying so. I won't be blowing sunshine up his arse. I'm sure there are many issues at which I'm at significant variance with the senator just as there will be issues on which I'm closer to Senators Clinton or McCain

You're backing your guy and I'm backing mine. And that's all I'm saying on the subject :)

Dave

I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind on Obama.  I won't vote for him, but he does provide substance on his website.  It's liberal substance, but it is substance none the less.  As of yet, he's not provided a lot of it on the campaign trail though.  Truthfully, he hasn't needed to do so.  The message of hope has been enough and why get mired in details if he doesn't need to do so.  Attachment to a candidate is more powerful than the details.

Quite an accurate assessment, I'd say :)

Dave

I do find it ironic that the Republicans have been running essentially since Reagan on vague platitudes, while the Democrats have been the party of policy, and now, when a Democrat wises up and starts appealing to people's hearts rather than their just their heads, Republicans are in uproar over his "lack of substance."

I would have to disagree to an extent.  Since the Republicans were in the dark from FDR - Reagan, there were really the party of ideas.  Goldwater may have had some insane policies, but at least he stood for some real ideas.  Even during Reagan and through the Clinton years to an extent, the conservative movement backed up its policies with real ideas and legitimate think tanks (I'm getting a lot of this from Right Nation).

However, I would say since the impeachment proceedings, the Republicans (except on foreign policy) have favored vague platitudes instead of substance.

Yes - especially if the Dems. continue this infighting.

The Democratic Party 'establishment', despite being heavily tied to the Clinton's, will throw themselves behind Obama should he have the most pledged delegates and when it becomes clear Clinton can't catch him. It's Obama who is, primarily, energising all this primary enthusiam and, thus, making the difference, which is why I feel he is best positioned to motivate Democrats going forward

It won't be like 1972, when the Demoratic Party establishment as well as much of its blue collar and southern base, shunned McGovern. Besides the 'McGovernite' coalition, now, is a much greater part of the electorate than it was in 1972 and as we know Obama is reaching well into and beyond that. Why? Because Obama, arguably, has run the best campaign of any potential candidate from either party this season and it's his message that is resonating

But if I was to say that I was confident that the Democratic nominee would retain 90% + of their rival's primary support, I'd be lying. Although most Democrats are likely to be happy with either as their standard-bearer, it's difficult to see there being no animosity whatsoever and that could be a drag moving forward

Dave

I never said he had no substance. But same-old liberal policies is not change. But if you don't want to give even a single example of the sweeping changes Obama will effect, I guess that's your choice.

Actually, lets face it, McCain could win.  Why?  Because the righties are good at campaigning on simple issues.  It won't be long before dumb white guys across America will be sitting around in circles in resturants talking about how they won't vote for Obama because he won't wear his flag lapel pin.  There will also be minimum wage workers who will be afraid that the Democrats will raise their taxes even though they make too little money to pay any taxes.  They will also be convinced by November that if we pull out of Iraq that their civil war will follow us back home and pick up steam somewhere in say, Kentucky?? Face it, the electorate is fickle, and the righties know how to play it. 

Given the abysmal failure of Bush's policies (and I don't see McCain being such a deviation from those, except, most notably, on the environment, as well as he being more fiscally responsible than Bush; which wouldn't be that difficult), liberal policies will be change. American prestige has, undoubtedly, tanked. That dreaded word 'stagflation' seems to be rearing its head again. There you have two parallels with 1980

And that was the time when a certain Republican was accused of running on nowt but words and hopes and was, of course, too conservative to win. He, of course, went on to win ... and win again

I'm not saying Obama will or won't win, I'm not confident at all (I wish I was), especially when the inevitable distortions, lies and smears get into full swing

If I said, that I had no reservations as to the 'experience' question, I'd be lying; indeed, that goes some way to explaining why I, initially, endorsed Sen. Clinton but things were said that forced me to withdraw that endorsement but three days before the South Carolina Democratic primary

Since then, however, Obama's message has struck a pretty powerful chord with me and I've came to see him as the one candidate, this cycle who, I feel, is best positioned to make a difference :), change the tone and bring the curtains down on the last eight years

I'm sorry but the appalling presidency of George W Bush, alone, is reason enough not to even remotely consider having another 1972 moment. There is a strong possibility I might have endorsed McCain had he challenged Bush for the GOP nomination in 2004. Not that he would have won but a valiant :) effort to stop the rot wouldn't have gone a miss

I'd have endorsed Gore in 2000, but I was never that struck on Kerry; indeed, my endorsement of Kerry, in 2004, was more anti-His Ineptness

Dave

Like I said, I'm not trying to change people's minds on Obama.  "Change" is just a catch phrase, but it has caught fire because a majority of the people are desirous for a direction different from the current one.  That is change, but it remains to be seen if "change" for the sake of change wins out.

For liberals and some Democrats, "change" definitely is the liberalism of Obama.  For Republicans who want "change", I doubt many of them define it the way Obama does.  It remains to be seen how effective the notion of "change" is once the electorate compares to the two choices, McCain and Obama.  There were many issues that favored Democrats generically in 2004, but Bush was favored in a simple choice between Kerry and him.

I suspect the idea of "change" will remain an issue in the fall, but it will lose importance as the race becomes a choice.

Change is indeed in the eye of the beholder.  To liberal Democrats it means a larger role of govt, greater redistribution of wealth, and a greatly expanded entitlement program.  That 'change" is hot in the Democratic Primary.  I doubt it plays with the general electorate.  Obama will try to use his likability and vagueness on his above leftist agenda to try and slide by the voters.  If his mask comes off and his agenda exposed, messiah or no messiah, he loses.

Hmmmmmmm, our phones are tappped, you are told you you can't end your life when you want, you can't deal with a pregnancy without guidlines, you get your every crack searched at the airport, cameras probably coming soon to your local restroom, your're going to Hell if you are not a Christian, you need to pray in school, you can't get so much as partnership benefits if you are gay, the government uses your tax dollars to pay private companies to fight wars, and to pay massive profts to drug companies who wrote Medicare D to their benefit.

Those crazy liberals and their big government ideals.  Oh, wait a minute, everything I just mentioned is the backbone of today's republican party and conservative activist judgements. 

All of which, as Soulty pointed out, is one gigantic strawman, since McCain spoke against all of those things. Stop trying to pretend that that is his platform and try to come up with a real opposition.

Actually, you are right, and I like that aspect of McCain.  The problem is that he caves in to the far fight (to get votes of course).  What I fear is not McCain, but the odd characters he will put in his administration.

Johnny kept him waiting but the happy couple were soon united. It seems a good match as their political views are very compatible.

He's looking old McCain, I'll say that much


Yep. McCain has aided and abetted His Ineptness these past 8 years far more than any Democratic presidential nominee

Only those happy with a faltering economy can surely support the Republican nominee this fall. Had the economy mattered more to voters in 2004, Bush would have been out

Dave

Protectionism and an even larger deficit will sure help the economy. ::)

That's not the point. Besides, it's about time the middle class and working families had a president who stood up for them. I seem to recall an economy doing pretty well under the last Democratic president. Not to mention a balanced budget and record surplus. Didn't take Bush long to run up a record deficit, did it?

And on the issue of taxes, the so-called 'Straight Talk Express' couldn't lie straight in bed

The bottom line is when the Republicans screw up, they should take the consequences

Dave

The point of the Democrats being good for the economy is not whether their actual policies will help the economy? I would say that the performance of a former president who's wife your not supporting for the nomination and who's economic policies are the exact opposite of those the Democrats are now running on as well as the performance of a Republican president who's not running and who pursued policies exactly contrary to those of the GOP nominee are, well, I was going to say beside the point but come to think of it they are, admittedly fairly weak, arguments for the contrarian position.

But I guess those pesky facts will be overcome by CHANGE? :P

VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!  VAGUE NON-SPECIFIC CHANGE!

McCain could win, but he won't.

The primary turnout shows that Democrats are way more excited about this election than Republicans.

A clear majority of voters are against the Iraq War. 

Unlike 2004, where Kerry had to battle upstream, Obama has the wind at his back and McCain doesn't.   

Yes, with one hand tied behind his back.

Given how he would landslide if the electino was today, he obviously "could" win.

Paradoxically enough, that would be precisely the environment that would best serve McCain (at least, according to him) -he thrives as the underdog.  And he tends to stumble when everything is lined up perfectly for him. 

Yes

The Realclear politics averages have him up about 1 percent on both Obama and Clinton. You must be assuming Obama to be the nominee and also to have a healthy dose of Bradley effect thrown in as well (on top of the fact that the Bradley effect is probably already showing up in polls given the recent Wright flap has been so prominent in the news).

I think it's pretty unreasonable to say that the election would be anything other than close if held today; at the very least such as statement requires explanation as to why current polling is too favorable to Democrats.

However, if the race goes down to the superdelegates, there could be low turnout on the losing side(Hillary or Obama) and that could throw the election.  That doesn't Republican turnout won't be lower too this time around, since they don't have a huge reason to be excited. But this is an election where hastily calling a winner too early would be foolish.

Yes. Obama can beat McCain as well. Sady I cant say that though cause then automatically im a sinful racist Obama supporter...so yes...McCain canwillobviously beat Obama in the fall. :)

Just like I'm a racist for not supporting the black guy.  LOL

Of the polls I've seen, for the General Election, I trust Rasmussen more than SUSA and the rest I don't particularly buy at all. And, besides, most of the non-Rasmussen polls are now older. On the national level, Gallup, which didn't do that well last time, has McCain up 2, Pew, which is a bit of a joke and, IIRC, definitely Democrat biased, has Obama up and Rasmussen has McCain up by a lot.

Please note that I'm not saying McCain will win in a landslide in November or even that he would have if the current situation had been produced by an actual GE campaign, as opposed to a Democratic primary battle. And of course the Wright thing is weighing down Obama right now. Ok, landslide may have been pushing it a little. I do believe that at his recent high-point McCain would have won in an election that would not have looked particularly close. If you look at the poll map here right now McCain is ahead by 58 EVs and that is without Nebraska, North Dakota and South Carolina which are all being displayed as tossups. Granted, Obama has a couple of states to throw in too, but the fact of the matter is that McCain is clearly ahead right now. And if a candidate is ahead I think it's pretty clear that they could win. I never said Obama couldn't win, but the thread question is what it is. :P

Just too early to see any real trends.

Yes, McCain can defeat Obama, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he will win.  In fact, I am predicting (and have, for some time now) that he won't.

If Obama wins the general election this November, combined with increased Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, along with further gains at the state level, he as well as his party can thank the GOP for unwitting enabling their victory which could, in all likelihood, be the Democratic equivalent of 1980.  The six years of (nearly) unbroken Republican rule from 2001 to 2007 can be seen as a necessary step to help Democrats in the process of reinventing themselves as a party with a coherent vision and a grassroots coalition to bring that vision about, as opposed to merely a laundry list of disjointed DC-centered interest groups comprising its membership. 

Conservative excesses on all fronts, whether it be in the invasion and botched reconstruction of Iraq, the perceived failure of conservative economics (and this recession will further reinforce that), and the preference for national mandates by the Religious Right (e.g. the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and extraordinary congressional Republican action to prevent Terry Schiavo from being euthanized) will be seen as the catalyst for what is likely to be a realigning election. 

Of course, if the Dems are in office in ~September 2014 when, if history is any guide, the economy will have its next cyclic downswing, they will almost certainly loose both houses in the November midterms.

Hello this is Mark B Graham and i am also running for President in 2008 .I fill either one have help the nation that is why I am running .
I have a new Petition  so everybody can sign to get my name on the ballots of all 50 states.Here is the link  at
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Catbalu1/petition.html
 Or go to www.markbgraham2008.com
dont you think it is time for a third choice

Oh yeah?  Can you beat Obama?

I think that the odds are against McCain at this point.  We are in an economic downturn, an unpopular war, and have an unpopular president from the Republican Party.

However, Obama is a very weak candidate, and is pretty unpopular with the working class.  There are going to be light blue states in play when the election season comes, and many Hillary supporters are not going to vote for him no matter what.  It's going to be a VERY close election no matter how you put it.

Nearly 6 months later. Hmmmm