Can McCain defeat Obama?

[Gustaf]

I agree with Lewis.

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

[Gustaf]

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

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

[Gustaf]

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

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

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

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

Dave

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

[Gustaf]

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

[Gustaf]

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

Quite an accurate assessment, I'd say

Dave

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

[Gustaf]

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

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

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

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

Dave

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

[Gustaf]

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

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

[Gustaf]

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

[Gustaf]

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

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

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

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

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