Talk Elections

Why do you think McCain camp is looking towards a big election washing come November the 4th ?

IMHO Option 6, a combination of failing economy + Bushi + Saint Sarah.

A whole bunch of bankers and people getting loans.

McCain himself, ultimately.

The voters, ultimately.

Certainly McCain ran a messy campaign that hurt him badly, Palin was probably a push (fired up the hardcore base, but turned off the moderates), and his positioning in the primaries associating himself with Bush didn't help much either.

But ultimately, it is the choice of the people - it always has been.

Sarah Palin has amounted to a net negative for the McCain camp.  She solidified the base but her real purpose was to bring in the PUMAS and instead she sent them running to Obama.

The McCain campaign has been a mess from the start.  Although McCain's primary comeback was nothing short of astounding it was perhaps an indication that the campaign was poorly organized.  Looking back, I'm beginning to think that McCain's won only because the Bush voters from 2000 were so split up amongst the other candidates.  The race really should have been Romney vs. Huckabee but with candidates like Guiliani and Thompson siphoning away their core supporters McCain was left with the plurality of the remaining votes.  I'll give their campaign credit for winning New Hampshire but certainly not Florida or South Carolina which are really the two states that gave him the momentum he needed to win Super Tuesday.

George Bush, um enough said.

The failing economy, this has basically been McCain's "October surprise."  Up until the financial collapse it was looking like McCain still had a decent shot, but since then his numbers have tanked in several key states that he absolutely needed to win.  Florida, North Carolina, and Missouri were suddenly back on the table and Colorado and Virginia moved dramatically towards Obama.

No, wrong. Not unless the McCain campaign is even dumber than I think (and considering my opinion of them...)

The economy

Bush had a lot to do with it. I doubt Obama would break 60% with under 30s if Bush hadn't f'ed up the country these last 8 years. Oh and saint sarah didn't help much either.

Gag me with a spoon!

But yeah, the voters (general and primary) will be responsible for his loss.  McCain himself is a weak campaigner, so it's kind of amusing that he won the primaries based on "electability".

Bush's approval rating.

If Bush's approval rating is 50% or better, Obama or any Democrat for that matter would be having a harder time.

Than again if Bush's rating was 50% or better we wouldn't be seeing McCain vs. Obama.

Options 3 to 5, though mostly 4. Options 1 and 2 don't help either, but they're not at fault.

I think blaming it entirely on the economy is dishonest, as Obama led throughout the summer and McCain only had a small, low single digit lead for two weeks directly after his convention. The polls did turn after the crash but there's nothing to suggest that McCain's lead would've remained otherwise.

The real answer is the Republican failure of the past 8 years. Pretty much any competent democrat would've beaten McCain.

Loss?  Wishful thinking there old man.

McCain - but not for the reasons the originator of this thread suggested.

First, remember that American Presidential elections have largely been decided on three issue groups: (1) the economy, (2) social issues (1968 - present), and (3) foreign policy/national defense.

McCain has really ticked off economic conservatives with his support for bailout mania (he even goes beyond Obama with this nonsense).  Although he now claims he favors tax cuts, his record is one of supporting higher taxes, so you can believe what he says now, or what he has done for years in Congress.  His attacks earlier this year on pharmaceutical companies as (in his words) "the enemy," just underscores his economic illiteracy.

With respect to social issues, McCain has been largely silent.  While Obama supports infanticide (he has yet to repudiate this), McCain has been silent.  While Obama has a long record of attacking the right to keep and bear arms (and self-defense), McCain has been largely silent.  Although several states (including the largest, California) are voting on bans on gay marriage, McCain has been largely silent.  McCain has on two or three occasions this year contradicted himself on his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (sometimes he's for it, sometimes, er, maybe, er).

While McCain briefly stung Obama when the Russians invaded Georgia (Obama advocated a "nuanced" approach of appeasement), he dropped this area.  There has been no mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative by McCain (Obama opposes defending the United States from attack with the or any other program other than surrender).  There has been no mention of the need to continue intelligence operations against the Islamic extremists (Obama largely opposes this).

A combination of all the above doomed McCain before he even started campaigning. 

No Republican, not even McCain, could have won this election given the conditions listed above.  The best they could have hoped for was to make this election closer than it otherwise would have been, and McCain -until he picked Sarah Palin- was certainly on his way to fulfilling those hopes on preventing a humiliating Obama landslide, if not an Obama victory.   

Different people at different times.

Bush - naturally ANY Republican would have had a hard time this year having to follow on from the president. McCain still has done better than probably any of the possible contenders, including Romney. But the Bush legacy is pretty much a poison challice, which set everything off in a bad direction.

Palin - McCain has often said that he takes gambles. Sarah Palin was a MASSIVE gamble... or if you like, calculated risk. At the outset she energised the base, and was a curiosity, the sheer surprise of the pick, and the fact that it was a woman - boosted general support. However, as people realised who she was, what she stood for - independent and moderates fled, the base was energised...but at what cost. Another folksy intellectually incurious.... well basically Bush in pumps...

McCain - the fundamental issue was the campaign had no narrative, no overiding theme. There was no discipline, the campaign was constantly wrong-footed and by going so overwhelmingly negative, created such a contrasting image with the Obama campaign that it became mired in the mud of its own creation.

Can't argue with that. 

I'd just add that in McInsane's bailout mania he showed that he couldn't multitask and had to suspend his campaign.  If he couldn't handle that he certainly can't handle being President. 

Also McInsane must believe that by picking someone like Palin, he'll energize his base.  Buzz sorry wrong.  We saw it when Dole picked Jack Kemp.  There's a brief surge of energy then the base realizes the top of the ticket is what really matters and support dries up.

All of this added to what is likely to be heavy turnout for the Dems and it is game over for the Republicans this year.

Still hoping enough people will get to the polling booth, take a look at the ballot, and vote for Barr as a vote for freedom, and deny the "winning" candidate a majority.

It is sure a testament to McCain's weaknesses that America is about to elect a man who supports infanticide and surrender and appeasement to the Russians and the terrorists. Do you think a stalwart opponent of amnesty for illegals, such as Mitt Romney or Fred Dalton Thompson, could have defeated Obama or at least come closer than McCain will?

Bush and the economy,  If Bush didn't screw it up, we wouldn't have the risk of a really liberal President.

Romney no, but thompson, yes.

Sorry to dash your hopes, but that is exactly what I meant.  And, no, it is not ridiculous!

The reason being that fundies, for some reason which escapes me, have taken a strong dislike to Mormons.

Well Fuzzy, let me elaborate.

First, it is true that Thompson ran a terrible campaign this year (and in 2007) because he really didn't want the job (didn't have the proverbial "fire in the belly").

Second, the electorate is divided into three categories: (1) those who will vote for the Democrat party nominee, (2) those who will vote for the Republican nominee, and (3) those who decide elections.

McCain went out of his way to antagonize many in the third group (which Thompson didn't).

Romney was a good candidate who suffered from a very unfair attack on his religion by the fundies (who by themselves do NOT have the power to either select the Republican nominee ir the victor in the general election), but without whose support it is almost impossible for the Republican nominee to win election.

Bush hasn't made it easier, but to quote Carville "It's the economy, stupid!"

People vote with their wallets in general- compare the current status of Labour in the UK, the SPD in 2005 and the US in 1992.

It's rare for it to go for another reasons. This is not UK 1997.

he's really not been a good candidate.  He comes off poorly.  He picked Sarah Palin, which was a major faux pas, not due to the abuse of power, but due to the lack of vetting of her abilities and knowledge, frankly.  I'm fairly sure people were looking for someone other than Obama and McCain's resume and his reputation were actually quite good as a candidate to follow Bush.  He just totally failed in every respect to justify the opinion that the media had of him.

Agreed.  Sure, the economy blew up, his campaign staff  is inept at best, and criminally negligent at worst, and his running mate is one of the worst in history... but McCain could have taken a different turn at every single cross roads, and didn't.

All of the above, plus the voters, for nominating McCain.

Why bother voting if this election is already decided? I'm sure President Dewey would have agreed with me on this one.


::) Please.

This one is funny regardless of your political position:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xnk9aqih8o&feature=channel

there's a long, long list of reasons why Fundamentalist Protestants don't like Mormons, but the main reasons are:

-Mormons elevate the Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price above the Christian Bible
-The most significant disagreement is on the issue of Biblical inerrancy: most Fundamentalist Protestants and Evangelicals believe that he Bible is the literal word of God, and is therefore incapable of error; Mormons believe that the Bible is an imperfect text.
-The Mormons teach that God was once a man
-The The LDS Church used to allow polygamy, and some sects still do
-The LDS Church teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are separate entities, while Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Churches all teach that they are different aspects of the same God.

McCain is ultimately responsible. It's his campaign - he decides who is on the campaign team and surely made a lot of calls on key strategy. He also made the pick of Palin. I kind of feel bad for her because she does seem like a nice person with a good family, but she really never should have been put in this situation in the first place. When it comes to his record, it was his decision to vote with Bush and fellow hardliner Republicans 92% of the time.

McCain lost this election by himself.  He was a weak campaigner, showed poor judgment and lack of character and failed to successfully articulate his policy vision.   

Yes, but the problem for McCain is that, if Bush were reasonably popular, it's unlikely that McCain ever could have won the GOP nomination.  They would have nominated a more conventional Republican.  McCain could only win the nomination with support from the sizable minority in the party who are disillusioned with Bush.  If that group didn't exist, he wouldn't have gotten this far.

With Bush's 28% approval rating it's a miracle McCain got even 47% of the vote. But in the end McCain could've actually won the election if it wasn't for the economy.

Think about this: before the economic crisis McCain was up by 3% in the rasmussen polls. After, he was down by 7%. Wow that's a 10% difference. Look at all the states that ended up being close (Florida, Missouri, NC, Virginia, Oho, etc.), they definitely would've went to McCain in the end.

I disagree.  McCain was temporarily up because of 'post convention bounce' but once the American public started really focusing on the difference between the two candidates  -- remember that the debates started around that  time -- and once the scrutiny of Palin started in earnest, the polls swung against him.   What the economic crisis did was cause him to react in order to get media attention but his reaction was so pathetic that it backfired. 

McCain only has himself to blame with his erratic behavior the entire election season.

McCain actually did a good job concerning the mess which he was in-

53-45-2 could have been 58-40-2 if W was allowed to run again.

McCain allowed fools to run his campaign.
Palin was a drag on the ticket because if the MSM is talking( as in bad press) about your VP pick 24hrs before the election then its not a good sign.
 He showed weakness during a time of cirsis.

Not really, he was pretty much doomed from September 15th onward.

According to McCain the economy was strong, until the Dow Jones hit -800 2 hrs later and wallstreet proceded to meltdown.

But the #1 rule in picking a VP is DO NO HARM!!

Agreed. McCain seemed (dare I use a talking point phrase?) erratic in the face of a crisis, and kept switching positions on a dime. Do any of us still know a coherent position on the economy other than "CUT TAXES CUT TAXES CUT TAXES!"? One moment we're in crisis mode, the next the fundamentals are strong, the next a bailout is a bad idea, then it's a good idea, then he says on morning joe it's a tragedy but he'll vote for it anyway. He attacks millions of dollars for bear DNA studying on a debate then it turns out he voted for that too. The list can go on and on. McCain himself was the biggest reason he lost, but it wasn't the only one.

McCain was also an arrogant ass to Obama in two of the debates and seemed sarcastic and grumpy on the trail.

Palin was a disaster. In her own right and for McCain. She was a showhorse who knew next to nothing about even basic things, and it undercut McCain's own message of 'experience.' It also hurt his position among women ironically because it was clear she was picked solely based on her gender and her batsh**t beliefs.

Bush, of course, was also a big part of it, because it destroyed any and all Republican credibility. After 8 years of complete disaster McCain comes along sharing 8/10 positions with Bush himself. It was pretty clear that most voters were going to the booths and remembering the face of Bush.

But ultimately, it was McCain himself and McCain's campaign, who couldn't stay on message for more than five seconds, stoked up racism and religious intolerance, inspired hatred and fear over Obama in the hearts and minds of millions, and had to constantly stop and correct itself. The Republican party is becoming a regional party and that's incredibly dangerous, and that campaign seemed incapable of playing to anyone beyond Joe & Mary Jesus-lover from Texas.

The fundamentals of the economy were and are still very strong.

Your the only republican who still makes that point.

Iam sure McCain feels the same way you do.

Not only was McCain's campaign poorly run, but it suffered from the economic crash, an already anti-GOP enviroment, a perfectly run campaign by his opponent, and hurricane Palin, who in the end hurt Obama more than she helped.

First off, I'm not a Republican and secondly, when you see massive inflation, bread lines, thousands upon thousands of homeless and a greater then 15% unemployment rate, then you can claim that the fundamentals of the economy are NOT strong. We're doing tons better then a lot of other countries would do faced with this situation.


The polls have proven that Palin didn't really hurt McCain, she actually helped him gain a few points.

McCain and his campaign responded terribly to the financial crisis, completely undercutting the argument that McCain was ready to lead and Obama wasn't. He focused resources in states like IA and PA which weren't going to go for him, while continuing to ignore turnout operations and valuable voter-contacts in states that actually ended up being close.

He could've won this election, he just handled it all wrong.

1.Failure to rally conservative base by not bringing up Wright

2.Inconsistent message, one week's it's Ayers, next week it's Joe the Plumber

3.Rather than Bush's 2004 'We're patriots and they're traitors!' theme, McCain's campaign came off as lame and gimmicky.

4.Palin was denied access to the media. We have no idea exactly how dumb she is, and if she really isn't that stupid she should have been made available.

1. GEORGE W. BUSH.

Any Republican candidate had to distance himself as much as possible -- and John McCain seemed most likely to do so. He was no wing-nut right-winger. He promised to be bi-partisan and recognized that the Democrats would probably hold majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Throughout the summer, McCain was doing better than the GOP as a whole. Then things fell apart.

2. BAD CAMPAIGN STRATEGY.

Granted, things wouldn't have been easy for any Republican because of the Blue Firewall (that probably became more solid because of Dubya's practices, but that's under the first category anyway) of states that looked as if they would vote for any Democrat because they hadn't voted for a Republican nominee since at least 1988. McCain had to win practically everything else to win. He should have run a truly national campaign to cut into Obama support nationwide.

Around September 1, such states as Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia were all split roughly 50-50.  Any one of them would have won the campaign for Obama, and as events showed, 7 of the 8 went for Obama. To cut into the chance of winning all of them McCain would have needed to cut into Obama support nationwide. It's not as if those states formed a political monolith.

Take out two of those states (Indiana because Obama wasn't going to win it without winning Ohio, and North Carolina because Obama wasn't going to win it without winning Virginia as well), and the chance of a McCain victory was about one in 64.

3. THE SHRINKING CONSERVATIVE "BASE"

Demographics indicated clearly that the Religious Right was getting older and smaller. Add to that the number of people who trust Corporate America to serve people other than executives and tycoons... and the GOP loses perhaps 4% of the vote that it got in 2004 with respect to the nation as a whole.

The youngest voters were fleeing the Right. No candidate can win by neglecting the "moderate" vote. 

4. THE GOP NATIONAL CONVENTION

Whatever image one might have had of McCain as a moderate leading a political party that could follow him evaporated. The Hard Right still controlled the GOP and so showed through its hammering on the old right-wing anti-labor, anti-environment, pro-war, religious fundamentalist agenda. If one voted for McCain one wouldn't know what one got. Sure, there was a bump in support of the GOP... only to vanish almost overnight.

5. SARAH PALIN

I don't know how McCain picked her -- or whether she was his first choice. She left no question that she lacked the judgment appropriate for a President in the event of the not-so-unthinkable. She mangled logic as if she were squeezing a flimsy object.  She became a gaffe machine. She made claims to expertise that utterly imploded.  She had to be put on a short leash... and she typically ended up in the role of a warm-up comedian for the big act.  Unlike Obama and Biden, who could be in two places at once, McCain and Palin couldn't. That made campaigning less efficient and effective in itself. Add to that -- her family wasn't particularly wholesome.

Think about it: who was the last successful Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate to have a daughter with a child out of wedlock?  No Third-Party types, please. If she couldn't keep her daughter from getting knocked up while unmarried, then what does that say about her ability to lead?

6. THE HISPANIC VOTE

The Republicans had been making considerable progress in winning Hispanic votes to their side... and the right-wing nativists got their say in the GOP.  That effectively threw away thirty years of electoral progress among a fast-growing minority down the drain.

Note also that Mexican-American voters tend to be young and tend to buy houses at lower incomes than do members of other groups. Upside-down mortgages hit Mexican-Americans  hard... which is an economic effect, to be sure to be discussed below -- but that caused Nevada to blow up in the faces of the GOP.   


7. THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN

McCain tried to make efforts to swing such states as New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire... but such efforts failed.  Most of the swing states were really close... until the financial system imploded. Nevada and Colorado blew up for the Republicans as the real estate meltdown left many young homeowners with upside-down mortgages. Florida, with its elderly population, seemed likely to be a McCain win -- until stock values plummeted and retirement income got shaky and elderly voters started swinging toward Obama. Ohio and Indiana got hit hard by the deterioration of heavy industry.

That was the sockdolager -- the difference between a close loss and a not-so-close loss.
 

Bush, Greenspan, the financial crisis, Sarah Palin, John McCain himself, and Barack Obama.