This Election Is (Probably) Over

[JSojourner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama wants to kill little babies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lunar]

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.

[Sbane]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[Aizen]

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

[Sbane]

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.

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

[JSojourner]

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

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

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

I certainly WANT to be wrong.

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

[Lunar]

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.*

[Sbane]

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

[JSojourner]

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

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

LOL Beet!

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

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

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

[Lunar]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[The Mikado]

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

[Beet]

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

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

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

I certainly WANT to be wrong.

But history does repeat itself.  John McCain is no George W. Bush.  If we ever should have won Presidential elections, it was against that mouth-breathing, Little Lord ****pants.  He was and is dumb as a box of hammers.

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 must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[angus]

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.

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.

[MODU]

Overreacting, dude. 

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.

They know a McCain win is better for their stock portfolio than a vote for Obama might be. 

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.

[Torie]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[Sam Spade]

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.

[CultureKing]

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.

[Torie]

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.

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.

[Sam Spade]

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.

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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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

[JSojourner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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