Talk Elections

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.

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.

Yes the masses are indeed asses. I would not be surprised if Obama lost either because too many people thought he was muslim. And people were wondering why I was so "panicky" on that other bullsh**t thread about Obama's Indonesian past.

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. ;)

I'm not going to read that but I've been feeling a bit pessimistic too lately. Still, it's not over.

So the democrats have to pretend to be stupid?? Ok.....

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.

I mean, all Obama has to do to win is basically convince voters that he is electable (will gradually increase) and that McCain does not present a substantively different plan that President Bush.  I mean, McCain has some tools in his arsenal to deflect this, but Obama hasn't even launched his principle attacks yet!  Notice that no ad as attacked McCain for his quote saying he doesn't understand economics, no ad has attacked McCain for his declaration that he's proud to have helped elect Bush, and no ad has shown that image of McCain bearhugging Bush.

This is waaay too frickin' early, son.  Obama's campaign was competent enough to defeat an inevitable candidate and extremely hard odds, I think they are at least capable of beating McCain when they are *favored.*

I hope you are right man. This muslim thing is really concerning me right now. People are truly dumb and Obama just doesn't talk the talk.

Overreacting, dude.  Hold off on the defeatist talk until October; besides, things look good for Obama.  He's competing against McCain in more Bush states than vice versa, and that fundraising lead will show up evetnually.  Be patient.

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.

I mean, Obama's organization is top notch.  If you look at it, they will have tens of thousands more volunteers across swing states.  Check out the fivethirtyeight.com post a couple days ago if you want to see in what areas organization can manifest themselves.

And is it really that impossible for Obama to achieve this?
()

Because he wins if he can do that.

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.

You're overreacting, though there's no doubt that August has been a good month for McCain.

Personally, I feel we never had much of a chance against Bush in 2000. He started the campaign leading the polls in every single state except for Tennessee and Vermont. He had 20 to 30 point leads over Gore; granted, those narrowed, but never fully closed. The conservative grassroots was far more organized- one source claimed that the Christian Coalition made over 50 million calls. Nor was Gore himself particularly inspiring (in a visit to my alma matter that fall, 800 people showed up. Compare that to the 3,600 who showed up for Howard Dean in the fall of 2003) Except for a few days in the Washington Post ABC tracking poll in September and October, Bush led in every single poll leading up to the election. Voters had displaced their distaste of Clinton's personality onto Gore. The closeness of the 2000 election was a highly unexpected event; almost miraculous.

We never really had a chance in 2004 either. The President who stood atop the ruins of the World Trade Center in September 2001 with a bullhorn and then restored America's pride with two wars was not going to lose reelection. Period. We might have had a chance with Edwards, but he probably would have lost.

This is our chance. This is the first time we are on an even or better than even playing field since 1996.


You may be right about the political maneuvering/Ken Starr crap. I have to admit I hadn't thought too much about that.

I saw that too.  Last night.  At first, I was all like, "who the  is Rick Warren?  I mean, this guy can snag an audience with both of them?  Just by snapping?" 

Then I happened to glance over at the cocktail table at the big TIME magazine spread about him in the latest (August 18) issue.  Actually he's the coverboy.  Van Dyke beard.  Carl Maulden nose.  Bette Davis eyes.  I've never heard of this guy?!  So I read about "the purpose-driven pastor," aka "America's most power religious leader."  He's a madman.  Global ambition.  The article starts off:  "Apparently Rick Warren has Rick Warren syndrome.  That's not a joke."  And that's not a joke.  He has some brain disorder, like ADD, but he puts it to good use.  He makes, like, a bazillion dollars a year.  And people like him.  And I can see why. 

Sorry, I know the thread wasn't supposed to be about Rick Warren, but I must say that I was impressed.  Yeah, McCain came off much better.  If I hadn't read the TIME article I might not think it'd matter, but apparently this guy Warren has a cock the size of a nuclear warhead.  And he likes to swing it around.  Yet he's sensitive.  And chicks dig him.  So many will watch the interview.  I get the impression that his followers would watch him interview an amoeba if they knew it was Rick Warren doing the interview.

The whole baby-killing thing was killer.  I was a little surprised at Obama's drilling answers, though.  I'd thought was changing his tune a little more decisively.  Ah, who knows?  But yeah, McCain did come off a little more forcefully. 

I do quibble with your dismissal of cowboys, in general, though.  I've never met one, but I do know that when I was about four years old my mama bought me a little red hat and a little broomstick-handle horsie and a little toy plastic silver gun.  And I thought cowboys were cool.  And even though I'd never dream of purchasing my own son a gun toy of any sort (I don't even let him take home the water-pistol freebies from local fairs), I still think cowboys are cool, independent, and very sexy.  They're romantic.  They deliver food to people, and they do it without complaint and without much pay.  They're the antithesis of our consumerist, flaccid, obese, oversexed, technology-dependent society, and nothing they do contributes to global warming or obesity or the Supersizing of the World.  Cowboys don't shop at Big Box retailers and don't support sweatshop labor in the developing world.  They certainly don't want the government taking their pitiful wages and pouring them into maintaining world hegemony.  What's your problem with cowboys?  My guess is that you are ignorant about what a cowboy is.  I may be as well, never having met one, but I've read about them.  Avidly.  Both fiction and non-fiction.  National Geographic, for example, did a wonderful article about the American Cowboy just last month.  And what makes you think that asshole McCain is one?  He's definitely not a cowboy.  And neither, for that matter, is our current president.  Check again, hoss.  He's an oilman.  A connecticut yankee in a cowboy hat.  But he is definitely not a cowboy.  There's a world of difference.

There are a bunch of people doing that on here today for some reason ... on both sides.  I think the forum is in major need of some Valium.


That might account for 1 or 2% of the voters out there.  Believe it or not, there are people who just disagree with the liberalization of society.  For as many reasons as liberals say conservative views are bad for society, conservatives say liberal views are bad for society.  I personally detest many of the liberalized aspects of our society, just as I'm sure you have some deep resentment for some of the conservative aspects.  However, as wonderful our country is, we detest some of the converse views which our ideological leaners support.

Wow, what an essay, JS. Kudos. I have a simpler explanation, rather than that  the masses are Manichean,  with which I in general don't agree. Voters are smarter than the cognescenti might want to admit.  Obama seems evasive, like he is walking on eggshells. In fact Obama WAS evasive on some matters, but that is beside the point, and just my opinion. I am not sure Obama has a core, and therefore one knows not what he would do under stress. I think that is his major weakness.

By the way, I don't really agree with the stock portfolio thing either. I have more than enough money, for example, to carry me until the supernova. (I sometimes bitch a bit around here about Obama wanting my bank accounts, but it's all jive really. ) The issue is what will facilitate economic growth over the long term, indeed after I have assumed room temperature.

Obama was walking on eggshells. He's got a core, it's just a conflicted one. I've got a conflicted core too - (1) I think Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, (2) I'm pro-choice. I would ask Jesus about this, but he does not seem to reply. I did however send an e-mail to Michael Gerson today asking in his opinion whether it was possible to be both Christian and pro-choice. I received a polite note in reply saying that while he did not have time to reply to each email (understandable) he tried to review them all. I do think that I have a core, though.

The election is far from over.  Obama certainly has time to figure it out.

However, just as a general observation, Torie's gut sense seems right to me as to what the "voters" think.

I think one of the reasons that Bush/McCain have done better than many would think is simply because Americans have a very short timeline in their mind. As a nation we don't look back at 8 years of the Bush presidency, instead we think of the last six months or maybe the last year and how that has been. And when it comes to the future the main thing Americans are thinking about is themselves in tough economic times and usually that means they want to do everything possible to relieve pressures on their wallets including taxes. We have always been a country that wants more for less (more services for less money) and while that doesn't actually work in the real world many would like to look beyond that point. So basically McCain represents not a large step from what we currently have while Obama has been a bit more practical in realizing that to fix our current problems sacrifices are going to have to be made. While I still think Obama has a better chance of winning than McCain it certainly is closer than it should be.

Indeed, it is far from over, and Obama still has the edge. The issue is whether he can effect a mid course correction. Does he have it within him?  Does he have the ability to seem less uptight, and natural?  Does he have the ability to seem more authentic?  Obama has been suffering an erosion with the young in part because of this.

Yep.  As far as I can see, Obama's chance of winning has fallen from about 2-1 or 60-40 to about 60-40 or 55-45.  And yes, it is a matter of whether Obama can make the adjustment.

Anyone who ever thought that by the time the election rolls around so much crap wouldn't be thrown on this fool and the idea that he isn't ready to lead wouldn't be so ingrained in minds that he would be able to win is absurd.  I'd say the chances of Obama winning now are 50/50, but by the time the election rolls around it will be about 20%.

BTW, I think JSo is trying to use reverse psycology :P

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.

JS please don't overeact. Our prospects our high this election and I bet by convention we will have a good solid lead of 5-8 points again. Patterns throughout this country's history have proven that McCain winning would be an anomaly and I trust that psycologically is would be very hard for McCain to turn the tables on Obama and label him as an incumbent for the Democrats lead in Congress. The McCain campaign's only shot is to bomb the hell out of Obama on energy(not totally successfull really, Obama has a good shot of firing back), Experience and the Surge. Even then it would be a very marginal victory.
All that Obama has to do is use what Reagan used against Jimmy Carter. The secret nuclear bomb that always seems to work in the end. Are you better off now than you were eight years ago? Now of course in all honesty the majority of America is but psycologically we are not and I think Obama's strategy of tying McCain to Bush has been fairly successful and most of the supporters of McCain are just voting for him out of "fear"

Now of course this is just an overall strategy idea and if you want to go into individual states think of how hard it would be for McCain to win Michigan with all of the economic troubles there and his statements. If it ever gets really close(not likely), all that Obama would have to do is drop a neg bomb on the state using his comments that the jobs weren't coming back. This is one of McCain's only chances to win the election really without sewing up the Southwest which would also be a big challenge because of Obama's relative overperformance of Kerry here. I think that he will almost for sure win New Mexico albeit by a fairly small margin. Nevada will be very close with a very slight lean towards McCain and Colorado will more likely have a slight lean towards Obama but is more of a tossup. This is also one of McCain's only chances of holding off and it would be a struggle. I also doubt he can hold Ohio if Obama starts going negative on the economy, it is already close but with a very slight lean for Obama and I think he will get the edge here although small.

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 doubt it. The debates are still up ahead, Obama is still leading, and virtually every indicator is pointing Democratic. In all honesty I generally get the impression that most of the country views McCain as sort of boring, bewildered old man. Even my dad finds McCain to be underwhelming and is considering voting Democratic.. for the first time since 1984.

And this will be a good way to tick off people even more if liberals begin saying Obama lost because people think he's a Muslim or he's black. Perhaps he loses because Americans feel he is too inexperienced, or they don't want taxes going up on capital gains, income, social security, etc..

At the end of the day, the US is still a center-right country, and far leftists like Obama have a hard time winning.

Yes, Obama might lose some votes because he's black or because he's perceived as a Muslim, but that is a small, small minority.

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".

You know, if a candidate loses, the next day, people here will be arguing the guy who lost couldn't have won, for reasons XY and Z.  It's a natural instinct, and it's wrong.  At this current moment, either McCain or Obama could win.  John Kerry could've won in 2004, and the Democrats' recent spate of "Bush couldn't be beat in 2004" are a way of emotionally distancing themselves from the pain of having such an important race slip through their fingers.

With the possible exception of Bob Dole, every major party candidate in the last 20 years could have won, and so could have Perot if he had played his cards right.

You could be right about that.

I think Dole could've won in '96, too.

()
Is that map so hard to see?

America is a center-right country at this point, but that can change soon. Just 30 years ago, America was a center-left country and had been so for around 40 years.

Things change.

He is right - though there's no way Dukakis could have won after the second debate in 1988 or Bush 41 after the last debate in 1992. 

Perot ended his chances with his first dropping out - which I think came somewhere around the "alien" remark.  I don't know whether he could have won - long-term - who knows.

True, but it's not shifting this election - that's for sure.

Yes. Dole won Colorado and there's no way he would've won Arkansas or West Virginia at the time.

()

But I doubt he ever had a chance at winning.

That was your first problem.  The "Saddleback Civil Forum" wasn't on MSNBC.  That was Michael Phelps you saw in the Speedo Saturday night, not John McCain.

Duke, my map was for '08; this is how Dole wins in '96:
()
And that is, of course, a stretch.

JSojourner, I disagree, but I will say this.

1.  Those people who expected Obama to vastly outperform McCain in debates are likely to be disappointed.

2.  The "rock star" packaging of Obama is a big mistake and it's been a mistake that he has made.  He needed to connect with the average voter, and, for the most part, he hasn't.

3.  Those Obama supporters who expected Obama to win because he is articulate and intelligent, should wake up and smell the coffee at this report.  Obama is not a "poor child made good."  Him mother had a Ph D, his stepfather an oil company executive, and his grandmother was vice president of a bank.  He was raised upper middle class.  No matter how you look at it, his pre-Senate accomplishments were not atypical of someone from that background and McCain's personal story is more compelling.

The second one is opinion, the third is partially true but voters really don't care.

Good point, graduated bottom 1% of his class, lost 5 planes, cheated on his wife, was involved in the Keating 5 scandal. And was an absolute nobody with a father and grandfather as the first 4 star son-father pair. That is quite compelling.

Bottom 1%? Really? What a dummy.

Unless the year is 2006!

Of course, if McCain wins, next year many, many people will be saying that there was no way that a near freshman African-American Senator named Barack Hussein Obama could have defeated a POW war hero and maverick Senator of 20 years and Mikado's sensible words won't mean a thing, unfortunately.

They will?  Considering the present environment?  Maybe.

Especially considering the present environment, dont'cha think?

History is sometimes interesting that way - most people have the idea now that Bush 41 was simply a shoo-in because Reagan.  Rather, Dukakis should have had a slight edge generically.

Well McCain did manage to graduate in a school where many wash out, and he admits he as a goof off back then, and did not have focus, or as he puts it, a cause larger than himself. McCain does not hide the flaws in his resume.

So since Bush is unpopular McCain is Dukakis in this scenario? I wouldn't go so far as to say McCain has a slight edge generically, but he certainly does have a huge edge by conventional biographical/resume measurements, and with a McCain win people will understandably see this as decisive. O/c, that doesn't mean they would be right (look at Kerry).

Maybe Obama and the Democtrats can get Dan Rather to do well, you know, dare I say it, oh, I shouldn't, but, well, a made up story about McCain, you know, well, ah, um, like he did with, well, oh, er, President Bush in 2004.

Perhaps the Democrats could hire Rather to be Chief of the Obama Truth Squad.  There's a man who doesn't hesitate to fight dirty, which is what some in this thread indicate Obama and the Democrats are going to have to do.  

Sounds like a good idea.

How about Bill O'reilly to head the McCain Truth Squad?

McCain is Dukakis in this scenario?  I don't think so.  That was just an example to show how opinions of elections change over time.

I heard from friends who watched it that Obama did extremely well.

Oh jeez. This is just a little silly.

Try the Silver Star, Legion of Merit with cluster, Distinguished Air Medal, Bronze Star with three cluster, for 5 1/2 years as a POW, plus his prior combat service.  Add to that an impressive legislative record.

Obama, community organizer, taught at a law school, but not full time.  Two terms in the State Senate.  And how much of Obama's academic rise was due to affirmative action?  And how good was he as an academic?  In twelve years, he never published anything.  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1217423182-NgLKdjCP%20fBiCrDDFVAqNw
That is unusual, and telling.

()

Obama has 264 EVs and only needs one >6 EV tossup state, and the election is over?

But it might make a difference in a close election. I agree with you that issues will ultimately decide this election but Obama will lose a few points because of the bradley/islamophobia affect. Of course considering the current political climate Obama should be up by more than a few points. We cannot discount Mccain either, he is probably the best candidate for this year.

I was really thinking of 2004. We could have stopped the Iraq war then but nope the gays were comin!!!!!!

Maybe you were missed my point. The American electorate is full of asses...until...uh...the Dems win.

LOL!

No, they are still asses. What irks me is how they fall for things like this muslim thing, or how Mccain lost big in SC because of the black baby thing.

Are you seriously saying McCain is a shoo-in? Because that's what disagreeing with the above post is saying.

I'm not seriously saying he's a shoo-in. I never said he was. Disagreeing with the above post is disagreeing with your assinine belief that Indiana is a toss up and North Dakota is only slightly leaning to McCain.

And, for whatever reason, Delaware isn't strongly Democratic. I guess that's you being "fair."

You know where the map comes from, right?

I disagree with Indiana too, but put it as strong McCain and the map isn't much better than him.

A complete toolbox?

::)

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/index.php

And all evidence points to that North Dakota will closer than 2000/04. Do I think Obama will win it? No. But expecting a McCain blowout comparable to Bush's is just as naive.

Oh wow! The state poll averages for three months before an election sure does shut me up! I'm sure the map will look just like that a few days before November 4th!

OK, now do honestly believe McCain will win ND by as big as Bush did?

Who cares? McCain might only win by twelve to fourteen points instead of twenty-something! The horror!

I'm just going to throw my $.02 in here. Regardless of what happens on 11.4.08, what are we going to do about it? Probably nothing, but we'll see.

Not this **** again.  Cleland lost because he didn't take Chambliss seriously until the home stretch.  He won with 49% the first time assumed the seat was his for life.  Not too smart.

No, he'll lose far more votes due to being black than to any other reason.

Ok.


I do think this is a problem, and it is one reason I didn't support Obama in the primaries. I didn't think he had the experience to do this. I also agree with you, it is important.

That said, I do not live in fear this year of what the Republicans might say or do as I should have in 2000 and did in 2004. Yes, they can attack. Yes, they own the low ground in appealing to people's baser instincts on certain issues. I am not as concerned for a few reasons. One of them is that John McCain is not the best leader for this machine. He's not a good attack dog; he's only proven himself good at letting surrogates attack, which isn't a bad skill, but it isn't everything. More importantly, unlike George W. Bush, he doesn't inspire many people. I hear you saying that he has found the ability to do so--perhaps I'm misreading or simply insisting on saying what I want to think you said--but I don't think he will ever be loved or cheered like Bush. He can enjoy some grudging respect, and that has value. It doesn't fill stadiums in West Chester, Ohio or The Villages in Florida with five-digit crowds, and it doesn't get volunteers dragging their friends to the polls.

Similarly, Obama can fight both offense and defense in the battle for votes. I don't mean offense in the way you might, in the sense of attacking McCain. He inspires voters and gets them excited. Gore and Kerry, bless their hearts, never did that. They were always on the defensive. At best, they gave Democrats reasons to support them, but they never seduced voters or inspired crowds. I wouldn't write that off. It helped Bush win in 2004.

Finally, I think we are seeing Obama take the gloves off. He is responding right away to attacks, which is something Kerry and Gore never did. I hear you saying that he may not do it in the right voice. I think we're going to have to see what he does at the convention, how he can take it to McCain and attack him. I think it is crucial he define McCain negatively there. He's going to have to do it in his own voice, though, to be convincing. He's going to do it more in sadness than in anger, which always worked for Bush.


I think you're right on this, but...


...not here. :) For the simple reason that it's not 00, 02, or 04. People talk about the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party for the Dems and the Republicans. We went through a period of time when we wanted leadership that kicked ass and took names, and didn't get all gay with facts and logic and that crap. I feel that America is sick of it. Yes, we want a strong leader, one who pushes back against attacks and is confident in himself. I don't think that people are voting for the bigger bully any more. I also think that focusing on tactics can obscure how much the fundamentals supported the Republicans in those races. Cleland was running as a Democrat in Georgia in 2002, against Bush's coattails, in a state that was trending hard right for a long time. We were wiped out up and down the ticket in that state. The Cleland=bin Laden comparison was shameful, but the fact of the ad, or its outcome, did not determine the election. Voters just weren't buying what Cleland was selling.

This year, they absolutely are. Obama just has to close the sale. The Republicans have limited ability to stop him, just as the Democrats had limited ability to stop people from lovin' W in 2004 for keeping us safe and kicking butt for America.

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.

No, more that the masses are too swayed by very small things to look at the big picture.

In other words, we ain't smart enough to see the big picture.

I got it.

We ain't smart like the liberals.

No, lots of McCain voters get swayed by stupid things like gay marriage, abortion and Obama not having a flag lapel. You have to be ing kidding me if those are legitimate reasons to not support Obama.

Why exactly is abortion a "stupid" issue? Why is it that people are not supposed to care about this issue? One's position on this issue isn't a legitimate reason to support or oppose that person?

::)

Apparently you haven't much a clue about American history. Some of our best leaders/generals were the "bottom" of their respective classes.

Well, I'd argue that no matter who gets elected, the odds of anything actually changing on the issue legally are rather small. So the number of people who vote on this issue alone while barely considering any others seems out of proportion in that regard.

Otherwise it's definitely not a stupid issue (though the amount of actual disagreement between the parties is far smaller than everyone, including the parties themselves, would have you believe), just not one that actually gets much attention from politicians when it's not election season.

So...if it ain't important to a liberal, it's a stupid issue to everyone else.

We ain't smart...like the liberals.

Yet, they can't figure out how to win elections.

Go figure.

JSojourner---

I too share some of your fears, but if your theory was correct and people always preferred black and white thinking to nuance, Republicans would win every single time, which obviously doesn't hapen.

I do agree that Obama needs to be a bit more forceful in his attacks on McCain. He is starting to fall into the "nice guy" trap of trying to be "above" that kind of crap, which of course never works for Democrats. I say starting because there is still plenty of time for him to reverse course; hopefully he has someone in his inner circle smart enough to point this out to him.

The convention will be his big chance to show voters he's strong enough and capable enough for the job. We'll see how he does. It's definitely not over for either side at least until after the debates, though the first polls post GOP convention will be highly instructive; history suggests whoever is ahead after the second convention always wins, and I think that'll be especially likely if Obama is still in the lead (by however narrow a margin).

I don't think that is what he is saying. He is just saying that too many people get swayed by things like Obama being a possible muslim or Mccain possibly having a black baby. Most conservatives vote how they do not because they are dumb, but because of their ideology. But there are dummies on both sides of the aisle and they form a larger proportion of the population than I am comfortable with. More education is needed as always.

This thread has sure come a long way.

uh-oh.  I see another Torie recruit.

Maybe it is time to toss over the side the notion that one side or the other has a greater incidence of nuance cells in their brain. Just a thought.

He ran against hardball politics (although he played it himself, pretty good).

It was also suggested, in the first post, that Hillary Clinton was a safer bet because she made that "have a drink with'em" criteria. However, Hillary, too, had the policywonk reputation, so I don't buy that argument.

The only way the democrats lose this election is because the public doesn't know Obama well enough and McCain's history as a soldier and maverick.

Let's begin with the obvious...or maybe not so obvious to some.

I am a pretty intelligent fellow...you don't know me, but I like to think that I am anyway.

I am intelligent enough to actually read this essay, and understand what the author is saying, without need for interpretation, but thanks anyway.

This essay, to me (and I am no right wing Conservative by any measure) is a clear insight into what is basically wrong with the liberal mentality.

This essay sets forth the idea that people are not sufficiently intelligent to pick their own government.

This...from the perspective of member of a Party that supposedly stands FOR the very same people that it now claims are not intelligent enough to elect their own President.

There is a level of smugness that permeates liberal philosophy in general, and THAT is what the people of America reject. 

This essay...a fear that McCain will win, drives the author to the conclusion that the  "masses are indeed asses" wouldn't have been written if the author didn't think that McCain being elected can only be attributed to the American people being too stupid to elect the more intelligent liberal candidate.

I can read what it said.

Democrats, the Party of the "real people" -- The DNC is featuring a selected few of what they describe as being "real people" in the Convention; a truck driver, a Mom, etc if I recall correctly, which makes me wonder whether the Democratic Party doesn't see multi-millionaire Ivy League attorneys as being "real people", and what an incredibly poor self-image that would expose to the world -- or at least the DNC's liberal wing, see themselves as better than the rest of us, and as such, more capable of making decisions for the masses, more capable of spending our money wisely, more efficient at even raising our kids.

And those are the common traits of both the liberal wing of the DNC, and the conservative wing of the GOP.

The Hell with flag pin lapels, abortion, and gay marriage...it's the wings of BOTH parties that  that give those issues undue emphasis; it's the majority of the American people who reject BOTH sides telling us that THEIR way is the only right way.

It's the majority of those of us who think that they are both insane who are rejecting them.

Your attitude isn't good for America. You antagonize people who are trying to be alturistic. As a result of people feeling resentful of making their lives easier and people who feel responsible for helping people feel that they will be resented for doing it. This is why America is weakening. Loyalty and talking about American exceptionalism has replaced Responsibility and acting in accordance to American exceptionalism.

Thanks for helping cement my point into place.

I couldn't have posted a better example to illustrate my post if I had made it up out of whole cloth.

Dude you have some self-respect issues or something? Nobody has called you dumb and my response was to your response to Xahar, not the first post. I don't think anybody here is saying that Americans are too dumb to look at the issues and make a decision. The problem is that too many people do not look at the real issues and decide to vote for someone out of dumb reasons. People who would otherwise vote democrat, but are voting for Mccain because they feel Obama is a muslim is dumb. Just like people who are voting against Mccain just because he is old or doesnt' use the internet. These are not issues and nobody should make their decision to vote based on this BS. 2004 was a pretty clear cut case of that. Here we had Iraq going to hell and all people could care about was gays marrying and who they wanted to have a beer with. IMO that is pretty fu**ing dumb. Recently this has hurt democrats more, thus the bitchin by their side, but that is not to say at some point in the future it might not hurt the GOP.

"The masses are asses" -JS

And the best part? This sbane guy and I were just arguing about whether the masses are asses just the other day!

I nominate this for quote of the week!

No one is saying that Americans are too dumb to make a decision on the issues, what we are saying is that they are dumb enough to make dumb decisions based on dumb reasons.

Did I get it?

I finally read the original post, and there is nothing in it that could not be debunked by 2006.

People who base their vote on things like Obama being a possible muslim or Mccain being old are dumb. That is all I wanted to say. You were pretending as if we were calling all Mccain voters dumb, which is absolutely not the case.

I thought the initial thrust of JS's post was Manicheanism versus shades of gray. And doesn't what is dumb to subscribe to, depend on the merits of the issue, or one's subjective views on the issue?  In any event, the issue also becomes whether assuming shades of gray is a genuine point of view, or a politically protective Camelion act, of one  worried about survival, and just trying to blend in.

Well, THAT was obviously wrong.

Glad to see another Florida freedom fighter on board. Welcome!

THAT was absolutely right. Just because the surge saved us from embarrassment does not mean it was ever the right decision to go in and in 2004 the situation wasn't even as bad. We could have very possibly ended the war within 2 years if we wanted.

Americans are smart, but sometimes vote for dumb reasons because they fail to vote on the "real issues."  I think that was sbane's point maybe, which of course does not anneal it from further parries and  thrusts. :P

That was exactly my point. Feel free to parrie and thrust further. :P

Are you in charge of the dumbometer this week?

Can't you see that this idea that people who make decisions based on things that you (or liberals...or both and the same) don't consider to be important is "dumb" could be anything other than superior, arrogant, and elitist?

Americans are smart, but not smart enough to identify (and vote based on) the "real issues" as defined of course by liberals.

I got it!

We ain't smart....like liberals.

I am just calling it what it is. I am not advocating that people should be forced to vote on any certain issue. I just think that voting a certain way for these reasons is dumb and that is just my opinion, since I seem to have misplaced the dumbometer. I mean what do you think of these people who might otherwise have voted for Mccain but will vote for Obama because Mccain is old or not in touch with popular culture/internet. You must have an opinion of these people at least.

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Dude I am pretty sure we can come to an agreement on what the "real issues" are. I think both of us know that Obama is not a muslim for example. Its not as if I am defining what issue everyone should vote on. Everyone has their own but some are dumb, and I have only been using two examples mostly. I think we can at least agree on those two?( Obama muslim smear and the MCcain  is old issue)

My opinion is that it is their vote, to be cast as they see fit, and based on whatever reason they use to arrive at that decision.

Yup keep saying that as long as it benefits your side. One day it won't. I wonder what you will say then.

That is why politicians spend so much time hectoring voters about what they claim are  the "real issues"; e.g, is the real issue, radical islamofacism, or health care for all no matter what it costs, or what? And on and on it goes. Defining what are the "real issues" becomes the bulk of the ball game. If you are weak on an issue politically, just try to make it "unreal."

Sbane, I don't think many voters will be voting on the basis that Obama is a "Muslim."  A few more may be voting on the old thing, but still not that many. We may be beating to death a straw man.

JS - When I read the thread title, I thought you were going to say the opposite - that the election is pretty much over and that Obama will win.

I was reading on another website about a week-and-a-half ago (and while a week is a long time in politics and I haven't seen or read much in the past week), the article was saying (I think it was on www.electoral-vote.com, but I can't remember for certain) that people had virtually decided on Obama and were now looking for reasons to not vote for him (ie they will vote for him unless they see a reason not to - and this is why a negative campaign is more likely to work).

Anyway, my concern is more that people will end up voting for Obama by default.

The problem is that this muslim smear affects Obama among people who would otherwise vote for him in southeast OH or western PA. In a close race something like that could make a difference. The old thing doesn't affect Mccain much because that kind of attitude is probably exhibited by a young'un and we all know who they are voting for anyways.

The same thing I'm saying now.

This is long from over...just saying.

He may have been at one time (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13056.htm), and if he was, and he's lying about it, that would bother me.

Don't politicians who lie about things like that bother you?

Or is a politician lying another of those "dumb" reasons NOT to vote for them?

I'm not sure, but I have a questionable opinion of Internet posters who do not resource the substance/source of their links.

Yeah we all decided it was BS yesterday.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=81002.0

The substance is in the eyes of the beholder I guess, the information comes from an Associated Press article, and the Associated Press has confirmed that the picture is authentic.

Having said that, and putting aside the "religion Islam" part of the news, the name on the school registry is Barry Soetoro, an Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian citizen born in Hawaii, who studied the Qu'ran, not The Bible, while studying in Indonesia.

The evidence is mounting up, and Obama will have to explain some things to those "dumb" masses who are feeling less than confident about the man who would be President.

Obama is losing support he once had, and he's doing nothing to correct that.

So, you all decide not only what constitutes a "real issue", but what falls under the definition of BS too?

This is one powerful group of people in this forum.

I hope I can keep up with you all!

Precisely.

How is it that people like this Luis guy always seem to say the EXACT same things verbatim when trying to attack the other side?

Is there a book out there that I'm missing?

There is way too much room and intelligence on this forum to constantly try to mimic Rush Limbaugh.

You're right, liberals are elitists who have no respect for anyone, which is why we always lose elections. Munch munch, mmm, arugula. Can we move on to talking about interesting stuff, now?

I'm not sure why you came in here with guns a-blazing, really. This isn't the McLaughlin group, by and large.

Yeah, he should roll over and play dead here in the echo chamber.

Exactly. Kneel before ZOD!

The event was broadcast on MSNBC (along with CNN and Fox). Swimming was on NBC, not MSNBC.

See where knee-jerk pessimism gets you? ;)

The only words I have for McCain is this, War Monger!  McCain wants to reinstate the Draft, he has stated this, Palin supports it.

Do we really want our kids being FORCED to fight in a war noone wanted in the first place? no!

Do we want the rich to get richer while we, the middle class are being force to pay higher taxes? NO  McCain is planning on taxing us, while letting the High classes not be taxed more, while Obama is planning on lowering our taxes and raising taxes on the upper classes.

Obama has set it up so insurance will be available for the middle class, McCain is CUTTING insurance for middle class, forcing US the middle class to pay more for insurance, the money will be sent directly to the insurance companies, it's stated in his plan on his page, go read the fine print there.

You want more?  go read the bills passed and many written by Obama to help the middle class, the veterans, help gun control, nuclear arms, etc on the Senate bill page, over 800 of them in the time Obama has been in office. You will see proof, it's all there.  Then compare it with the little McCain has done for the middle class. He has done virtually NOTHING for US the middle class and ALL for the high class, the RICH.

And Palin is following in his tracks, the only reason he chose Palin was to play the "woman" card, because Obama didn't choose Hillary, and the reason Obama didn't, and this was said on the View by Bill Clinton, and I believe it is the reason, was Bill said Hillary didn't want the job.  Rent The View for that day or go to the site and you can see it for yourself.

And because Obama didn't choose a woman, McCain did just to get the "woman" vote and get men who want to see a "pretty woman" to follow him, like the pied piper, in my opinion.

So there you have it, that's why McCain keeps mentioning his days in war camp, his time serving in the war, and why Palin keeps bringing up her son going to war, so they can prepare US for the draft being set up when and IF they ever get into office.  So if you elect them, be ready for the draft, because they are going to shove it through.

Obama has PLENTY of experience, definitely more then Palin, and if anything happened to McCain while in office, the US would be up the creek without a paddle, because Palin in no way would be able to lead us, we'd be overtaken in a second by another country with her in charge.

Obama won't let anything happen to us, and neither would Biden if anything happened, they are BOTH EXPERIENCED. 

GO OBAMA/BIDEN, SAVE US FROM THIS CURSE!! GOD BLESS YOU BOTH!!

Go away, seagull.

Silly rabbit.

This seems like an appropriate circumstance to repost this (the thread linked to in my sig):

Sorry morden, unless something absolutely wonderful happens McCain is toast. I'm coming to grips with that awful truth. And sorry for the soon caps :


MCCAIN, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU TOTALLY IGNORING US HERE IN FLORIDA? WHY ? WHY ? WHY AREN'T YOU RUNNING ANY NUMBER OF ADS? WHY ARE YOU ALLOWING OBAMA TO RUN ADS 3:1 AGAINST YOURS? WHY ARE YOU RUNNING TOTAL CRAP ADS AND LETTING OBAMA RUN FULL MINUTE ADS ON ALMOST EVERY COMMERCIAL, EVEN AT 3AM??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

QUIT ROLLING OVER LIKE A DEAD DOG MCCAIN AND DO SOMETHING.

Sorry, I'm just getting more pissed by the day.

I think the above post is pretty reasonable.

I don't really understand it all, but it seems that McCain is being stretched.  I think the RNC has given up on him to some degree and focused on long-term rebuilding efforts in the House and Senate.

LOL. Sorry just angry. All that money I've given (even if it's little) and we can't get but 1 or 2 ads run in an hour compared to Obamas 5 or 6? WTF? Who is making the ads, where are they? blah blah blah blah.......damnit.

Well, to play the devil's advocate, it helps to remember that Obama has spent more in Florida than any other state.  McCain's own highest-price state is Pennsylvania.

In these offensive states, you expect the challenger to spend significantly more than the defender.  It also depends on what TV shows you're watching and who both sides are targeting in terms of demographics.

I'm calling this election for Obama unless a significant event happens though.

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...)

John McCain's fault for being arrogant enough to think Florida was safe GOP.

(An assumption I would have agreed with him on, but when you're running a presidential campaign, you can't make those sorts of assumptions.)

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. 

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

Election after election, Democrats are usually more pessimistic about their chances than the actual outcome. Election after election, Republicans are more bullish about their chances than the actual outcome.

This thread definitely proves that. Poor JSojourner thought Obama was going to lose because of some trivial Rick Warren forum aimed at conservative evangelicals? Pretty ridiculous when  you take a step back.

Hey, remember some of the stuff Democrats were saying about Bob Casey in the first half of 2006?

No, but I remember Phil saying that Santorum was going to win in the week or two before the election. Also remember Mitty saying the same thing.

I don't know...I was a member here in 2004 and I recall a lot of Democrats here predicting Kerry winning. I think it's a combination of Democrats getting used to losing for a while and Republicans having a really bad streak lately.

A reasonable prediction. He didn't lose by much and the election was a tossup up until the end.

~90% of Republicans thought Bush would win and Kerry supporters were probably somewhere around 50-50.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=11962.0

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!  :-)

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


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.


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.


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.

When you consider how close 2004 was and how worse things are since then, it was inevitable Obama was going to flip a state or two.

The wingnut fundies stayed home. Especially in Ohio.

LOL YA HE IS 2 STOOPID!

Iam getting the feeling that America made the wrong choice for president.

Good that you're able to make that decision before the 44th president has even taken office....

Iam not the only one who feels that way about President -elect Barack OClintion.

Even better, he made the decision before Obama even named his cabinet and he's already calling him Barack OClinton lol

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, 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....

Sounds good. I'll be sure to let you know if I'm ever in town. :)

You're no fun!

This Luis fellow is a moron. Dips*ts who vote based on "elitism" are, in fact, populist tools, possessed of the singular urge to center themselves at the swirling vortex of all things when they are cursed either through their genetic deficiencies or intellectual failings to never attain it. It's not really a surprise that it's the usual offenders - Southerners, the poor, the 'unfortunate' - who fall prey to such an inferior mode of thought.

And why? Because they are, in fact, inferior; it is in their makeup to remain inferior; they define the outer boundaries of possible 'equality'. They are scum and ought to be annihilated, but barring this, they must be routed time and again in the quest for political power.

Yup, in 2000 and in 2004. 

They made the right choice in 2000, but the people's choice doesn't always win the election. :)

Ah, I remember that dumbass now. I wouldn't be surprised if he left because I kept hassling him because of that mind-numbingly moronic comment he made about Obama and West Virginia.