This Election Is (Probably) Over

[War on Want]

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.

[ChrisFromNJ]

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.

[NDN]

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

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.

[JSojourner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Mikado]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

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

Is that map so hard to see?

[ChrisFromNJ]

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

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.

[Sam Spade]

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.

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.

[Sam Spade]

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

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.

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

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

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

Is that map so hard to see?

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.

[Firefly]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Duke, my map was for '08; this is how Dole wins in '96:

And that is, of course, a stretch.

[J. J.]

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.

[War on Want]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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.

[Aizen]

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.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes the masses are indeed asses.

Unless the year is 2006!

[Beet]

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.

He is right -

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.

[Sam Spade]

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.

He is right -

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.

They will?  Considering the present environment?  Maybe.

[Beet]

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.

He is right -

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.

They will?  Considering the present environment?  Maybe.

Especially considering the present environment, dont'cha think?

[Sam Spade]

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.

He is right -

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.

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.

[Torie]

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.

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.

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.

[Beet]

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.

He is right -

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.

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.

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).