Can McCain defeat Obama?

[Lief 🗽]

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."

[True Democrat]

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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes - especially if the Dems. continue this infighting.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[Gustaf]

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 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.

[RRB]

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. 

[Democratic Hawk]

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 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.

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

[Whacker77]

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.

[agcatter]

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.

[RRB]

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. 

[Storebought]

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.

[RRB]

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.

[nqwertywuied]

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

[Democratic Hawk]

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

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

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

[Gustaf]

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

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

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.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

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

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

[Gustaf]

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?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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!

[Monty]

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.

[Gustaf]

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

[Frodo]

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.   

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. 

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes

[Nym90]

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

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.

[The Hack Hater]

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.   

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.