This Election Is (Probably) Over

[JSojourner]

I watched the much-vaunted MSNBC "civil conversation" between Obama, McCain and the Reverend Rick Warren Saturday night.  At the end of the two hours, despite a number of questions and reservations about how on "the up and up" the whole thing was, one thing was clear to me.

This election, barring a major scandal, health scare or massive screw-up, is over.  John McCain will be our next President.  Of course, this really is nothing new coming from me. I have consistently predicted a narrow to modest McCain win, predicated on my belief that "the masses are asses".  In short, cowboy gunslingers who get off pithy one-liners are much more palatable to the electorate than thoughtful intellectuals who approach complex issues with a firm grasp of the facts and a proven ability to handle nuance, detail and sophistication.

In short, the guy Joe and Mary Sixpack would have a beer with wins.  The guy who talks and seems tough wins. 

The overwhelming consensus -- even among hackish liberal partisans like myself -- is that John McCain comes away from Saddleback a hands-down winner.  He said little of substance, but he was substantially visceral and emotive.  He said what most Americans think they want to hear.  Perhaps not about the right to choose.  But pretty much about everything else.

People are stupid.  No, I don't mean that stupid people vote for McCain and smart people vote for Obama.  Not at all.  Some highly intelligent people will vote for McCain because, simply put, there are some highly intelligent conservatives out there.  They know a McCain win is better for their stock portfolio than a vote for Obama might be.  It's hard to be critical of them on that basis. Lots of others -- some bright, some not -- will cast votes for Obama based on self-interest, too.

But one message was crystal clear after Saturday night: (and it was reinforced with great vigor Monday at the VFW Convention) --  liberals may be intelligent -- even brilliant -- but they are too weak, too soft and too prone to bleeding heart syndrome to lead America.  They are surrender monkeys, cowards and afflicted with analysis paralysis.

This is the heart of the Republican message.  It was in 2000.  It was in 2004.  And so it is today.  It worked twice.  It will work again.  People are basically dumb.  As Josef Goebbels said, "Repetition is the linchpin of propaganda".  Both sides will repeat their messages.  But only one message will resonate with the voters.

Barack Obama wants America's brave troops to come home losers.

Barack Obama wants to negotiate with and "get along" with evil.

Barack Obama wants to kill little babies.

Barack Obama opposes drilling because he wants America to fall to her enemies.

The reality of the situation won't matter.  The truth will not make any further inroads in 2008 than it did in 2004 or 2000.  And the Obama camp's talking points (some of which, no doubt, will be just as inaccurate or unfair) will fail to resonate. 

So I put the question to you:  Why do Republican talking points (accurate or otherwise) win the hearts and minds of the masses?  And why do Democratic talking points (accurate or otherwise) fall flat as a pancake?  I believe it's because Republican talking points make the average voter feel better.  Democratic talking points leave the average voter scratching his head. 

It's easier to understand "I will defeat evil wherever it is found" than to grasp the idea that evil must be defeated in multiple ways, using various tools and methods.  It's much simpler to say, "Kill them all and let God sort 'em out".  And it sounds a helluva lot tougher and stronger than asking questions about alliances, addressing the massive manpower shortage  "defeating evil" would entail and engaging the almost heretical and nearly verboten idea of diplomacy.  How quaint.  How "eighties".

America will have another four, possibly eight, years of a cowboy, gunslinger President.  I hold out hope he will be a better gunslinger than the current one.  The Commander Guy may be a gunslinger but he can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn.  I am pretty sure a President McCain would at least invade and occupy the right country.  Then again, he actually believed Iraq was a worthwhile and logical target.  He is a neocon, after all.  And they -- not the Democrats -- were the ones who most vigorously excoriated Ronald Reagan for engaging the Soviet Union in diplomacy. 

I'll still put out my sign, bumper sticker and wear my button.  For all the good it will do in Indiana.  As I said, barring a major scandal or health scare involving McCain, this election is over.  The Saddleback event proved once and for all that Democrats still haven't figured it out.  You can be as intellectual, substantive and thoughtful as you want.  Just don't let the masses see it.  They can't handle it.

I now turn my attention and efforts to electing a Congress that will hamper, harass and stymie President McCain when and where possible.  But then, given the spinelessness of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid, I'm not sure how much good the Congress will be able to do.

[JSojourner]

This race is far from over dude.  Obama's advantage in fundraising hasn't manifested itself yet since McCain is trying to spend every penny he has before his convention September 1st.  Obama's organizational advantage isn't apparent yet, but it is dozens and dozens of times more powerful than McCain's.

McCain could have a "senior moment" on the campaign trail or any dozens of things could happen to change McCain's image from being the "tough guy" by November.

You are inaccurately extrapolating one debate in August all the way to November yo.

I certainly WANT to be wrong.

But history does repeat itself.  John McCain is no George W. Bush.  If we ever should have won Presidential elections, it was against that mouth-breathing, Little Lord ****pants.  He was and is dumb as a box of hammers.  John McCain is not dumb.  And he has many of the same handlers as Bush -- who are, even liberals concede, brilliant strategists.  Let's not conflate morality and decency with being savvy.  The people guiding McCain's campaign may be slugs of Rovian/Atwateran proportions.  But they are also that smart.  What defeated McCain in the 2000 Primary, Gore in the 2000 general, Cleland in the 2002 Senate race and Kerry in the 2004 general is now at work against us.  We will not defeat it unless we play the same games.  And likely, Barack Obama will not do that.

[JSojourner]

J, Obama is the one you supported in the primaries, no? Hillary was Mary Sixpack, or at least she showed that she could convincingly pull herself off as one. That was one of the reasons I supported her.

Now, since you are giving up on the election, I want my party back.

LOL Beet!

You know, the main thing I liked about Hillary is that I knew she and Bill were the only ones who could match Rove and his hacks lie for lie, slur for slur and inuendo for inuendo.  I don't mean that to be a shot at the Clintons.  The fact is, they want to do good for America and they are willing to spill (political, not literal) blood to get that good done.  Gore was not willing.  Kerry was not willing.  Obama appears to be equally unwilling.

I supported Obama in the primary (for the record, it was Dodd first but yeah -- it came down to Barack and Hillary) because I believed -- if elected -- he would spend more time governing.  While Clinton would not be able to.  She would be too busy deflecting the resurrected Kenneth Starr.  I still think so.

But that said, I can tell you that -- more than a couple times since Saturday -- I have thought to myself, "Perhaps Beet and Mitty were right after all."  Not because Hillary would be the better President.  But because she may be the only pol capable of winning AND giving the neo/theotards the swift kick in the junk that they deserve.

[JSojourner]

You're overreacting. Saddleback, while not Bob Jones U., was a welcoming environment for a conservative and it was very easy for McCain to give those easy answers. And, maybe, it will bring some social conservatives in Indiana back into the fold, if they happened to be watching. Big whoop, that won't win him an election. Obama's got an equally strong effect, if not stronger, on many people who aren't in that demographic.

So much has yet to happen, including the VPs, the conventions, and the debates. I can't believe I'm even typing this, because these are the words you say when you're behind, and we're not. We're leading by a bit, and the playing field is totally in our favor.

A lot's going to happen. Just because you can see yourself personally sold on McCain--which is what it looks like has happened here--does not mean the rest of the country will agree. I had this experience, too. It was in 2004. It was after one of the debates, when I found to my surprise I genuinely liked and was impressed by John Kerry. Well, that wasn't enough to overcome all the forces pushing against him and in favor of Bush. John McCain turning in a competent performance at one obscure event does not negate everything else, least of all Obama.

Here's the thing, Britt...if this were one event, I would agree.  But has not been one event.  It was a live telecast on one network, rebroadcast on another.  I could be wrong, but I think MSNBC has re-aired it since as well.  Clips of the event are being played on both left wing and right wing talk radio.  Interestingly, lefties are all -- while not as dour as I am -- calling it a win of monumental proportions for McCain.

But even so -- I see what you are all saying.  The event -- in the grand scheme of things -- is not that big a deal.  And I agree.

But I don't think you're really hearing me.  I am not saying the event did Obama in.  I am saying the whole GOP operation (as exhibited at Saddleback, and later at the VFW), will do Obama in.  There is no defeating it, unless (and believe me -- I hope I am missing something) Obama figures something out.

He cannot play "above the fray statesman" like Kerry and Gore did. He has to attack and he has to have a 527 machine that will lie, obfuscate, smear and pillory McCain.  More, whoever runs that machine has to do so in as "dumbed down" a manner as possible.

You're a liberal, just like me.  And from Massachusetts no less.  So you know what I am talking about.  The GOP smear machine took a bonafide war hero with more guts than Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Rove combined...and successfully turned him into a rifle-dropping Frenchman who would sell out America the first chance he got.  They took a triple amputee in 2002 and turned him into a guy who wanted to collaborate with Osama bin Laden.

Now here's the thing:  can we do the same thing?  If we refused to do it to Bush, aside from some fairly flaccid and late attempts by Move On, what makes us think we'll do it to McCain.  (And McCain isn't the cowardly chickenhawk Bush is.  He's a true hero.) And if anything negative does gain a little traction, what happens?  The Republicans start talking about the supposedly liberal media.  And the media back down.

Are we going to play dirty?  Is someone going to ask questions about what McCain did and said and signed in Hanoi?  And even if someone did...won't liberals, like me, be among the first to defend him?  I heard someone on the radio this weekend saying McCain was unfit to be commander in chief because he signed a statement in Hanoi betraying his country and saying America was committing war crimes.  My response to that was, "Shut up you jerk!  He endured horrendous torture and held out longer than you or I ever could have."  Why was that my reaction?  Why would it be the reaction of most liberals?  Because we play fair.  And most of us will play this one fair.  Again.  Just like 04, 02 Georgia and 00.  And we'll lose.

Saddleback was just my personal epiphany on the matter. It sort of crystalized everything for me.

[JSojourner]

It certainly has not been a good month for Barack Obama, but let's put things into perspective: how many people actually watched the Saddleback event? 1 million, if that? The audience was miniscule. This was a warm-up event, so to speak.

Obama has a chance to prove himself to the masses in 3 live, nationally televised debates in front of 70+ million people. Those 3 debates will make or break his candidacy. America wants new leadership, but they are very hesitant about putting the keys to America in the hands of an unknown like Barack Obama. The 3 debates will be Obama's stage to show that he will be a leader that America can trust.

I think Gore and Bush and Kerry and Bush debated three times.  Even when the Democrats won decisively, their performances were called stiff, elitist, intellectual, analytical and so on.  While Bush was down-home, folksy, confident and assertive.  

The amazing thing to me is that we're not talking about Dukakis-Bush One.  Two really smart guys who know their stuff...only one of them manages to connect with Americans.

We're talking about two brilliant Democrats each going up against the dumbest man the GOP has to offer.  Slam dunk!  Yet what happened.

Enter John McCain who, I repeat, is hardly a dummy.  He's every bit as likeable and warm as Bush.  Plus, he's not numb from the neck up.  And while Obama is probably an intellectual match for Kerry or Gore, and while he is certainly a few rungs higher on the intelligence ladder than McCain, so what?  Being thoughtful and analytical LOSES elections.

I will say this though -- in writing about all this and exchanging pms with some of you since my op -- I am discovering one thing.  I am still mad as hell about Max Cleland and John Kerry.  I don't let go of naked injustice and character assassination easily.  And that could be what's driving a great deal of my serial pessimism.  But I sure wish someone could point me to a recent example of where statesmanship, intellect and substance overcame folksy charm, tough talk and "true grit".

[JSojourner]

Yes the masses are indeed asses.

Wow...the problem with America is that the sans-culotte are not intelligent enough to elect a classic leftist to the office of President.

...and there you have it.

We ain't smart.

Precisely.

[JSojourner]

See where knee-jerk pessimism gets you?

BRTD,

Yes, I see.  Pleasantly surprised.  That's not such a bad outcome, don't you think?

As opposed to being all optimistic and idealistic in 2000 and 2004...only to find myself curled up in a ball under my desk after the election.  (Not quite, but you get the idea...)

[JSojourner]

See where knee-jerk pessimism gets you?

BRTD,

Yes, I see.  Pleasantly surprised.  That's not such a bad outcome, don't you think?

As opposed to being all optimistic and idealistic in 2000 and 2004...only to find myself curled up in a ball under my desk after the election.  (Not quite, but you get the idea...)

Don't worry about it I live in Texas where we haven't elected a Democrat since Carter (who was a southerner anyways) and I feel the same way you do.  But I should let you know that even here in Texas where live die-hard Conservatives, people like Joe Fags running the airwaves, there are still people who support Obama. 

So I look to the north where people in New England and Chicagoland have balls to form a union, to stand up more often for equal rights, are more open-minded, and I feel better that the masses will elect the right person for the job.

I feel that we have finally gotten over the hump of Cowboy-shoot-from-the-hip policies of the past. So the product of our frustration is Barack Obama which is, America's desire for change.  Although America is ultimately a conservative nation, I do not ignore their progressive populist hunger, this is why I' am confident we will win in November.

I hope so.  Hell, I'd love to see us win Texas again some day.

But I am not sure the simple-minded cowboy thing is quite over yet.  Democrats must work effectively and feverishly to prevent folk from thinking a return to the bad old days is necessary.  If we win in November, this thing is ours.  And it's ours to screw up or improve. 

[JSojourner]

Something tells me JSojourner will never be a top political analyst. Not that he'd argue with this.

No argument here, BRTD.  I was convinced the McCain campaign would be able to pull of some of the same stunts that got John Kerry elected.  In some small self-defensive way, I note that I backed off my pessimism in the three weeks before election day.  But no question -- I was wrong.  McCain could not, or would not, do what I expected.  Which was...

One --  convince the voters of outright lies about Obama (as was done with Kerry) using a 527 ad blitz funded by mega-millionaires committed to the Democrats' defeat

Two --  Make an issue of something fundamentalist Christians and Evangelicals felt they could not ignore in several key states.  (Here, I failed to recognize the impressive trend among emerging churches and post-conservative evangelicals.  I thought it was too much to hope for...but evidently, balanced thinking is getting a fair hearing.  Either that or they just stayed home.)

Three --  Take advantage of race.  First, nothing makes me so happy as to say this did not occur.  People were not afraid of the black male, thank God.  But I also am so happy to report there seems to be no evidence that John McCain wanted to go there.  He does not have a racist bone in his body. Undoubtedly, being targeted by a racist smear generated by the Bush folks in 2000 was a factor in making such tactics distasteful.  The other factor being John McCains unswerving common decency.

So what a party I am having.  I was wrong. 

Now I am predicting more Senate gains for Democrats in 2010.  I need a healthy dose of Opebo to take me off my optimism!  :-)

[JSojourner]

This is what I, the more seasoned analysis saw wrong with those:

One --  convince the voters of outright lies about Obama (as was done with Kerry) using a 527 ad blitz funded by mega-millionaires committed to the Democrats' defeat

First, legally a candidate can't "use" 527s, period. And the main difference between Obama and Kerry was Obama had proven that he could respond to smears (as he did in the primary). Kerry didn't do as well. Obama is simply the better responder, something the Democrats improved greatly on in 2006 as well.

Two --  Make an issue of something fundamentalist Christians and Evangelicals felt they could not ignore in several key states.  (Here, I failed to recognize the impressive trend among emerging churches and post-conservative evangelicals.  I thought it was too much to hope for...but evidently, balanced thinking is getting a fair hearing.  Either that or they just stayed home.)

This was never going to happen, period. Fundie turnout maxed out with Bush in 2004. McCain could never top that, they'd never love him as much as Bush, especially with the environment so different. It'd be like a future white Democratic candidate trying to top Obama's black turnout. Not going to happen.

Three --  Take advantage of race.  First, nothing makes me so happy as to say this did not occur.  People were not afraid of the black male, thank God.  But I also am so happy to report there seems to be no evidence that John McCain wanted to go there.  He does not have a racist bone in his body. Undoubtedly, being targeted by a racist smear generated by the Bush folks in 2000 was a factor in making such tactics distasteful.  The other factor being John McCains unswerving common decency.

He didn't go there because it couldn't work. How can you run an "Obama is black" ad without backlash? The racists were going to vote McCain anyway. Luckily there just wasn't enough of them, and they were all rather concentrated.

Right on all three counts, BRTD.  I suspect my defeatism is somewhat stoked by living in Indiana, in what is arguably the most conservative and fundamentalist area of the state.  (not in a suburb though!) Even so, I have to admit -- on election day -- my polling station was packed like never before.  Maybe the silent majority isn't so silent anymore.  We can only hope.

[JSojourner]

JSojourner, you still owe us beers. I'm not letting you forget it buddy!

Whenever you guys are in Fort Wayne, the beers are on me.  Don't all come at once.  And no strip clubs....