OT: Has McCain Thrown in the Towel?

[RossValoryRocks]

The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.

McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.

McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.

The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.

Good luck, guys.

There are a lot of rah-rah posters here who will accept ANYTHING their party throws their way, but they are in a minority.

I'm not guaranteeing Obama will win, but polls and evidence strongly suggests McCain is a huge underdog.

WOW now you are plagerizing shit. Here let me help you...Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris wrote what you have in bolds...you must give credit for your sources or it is plagerism.

McCain isn't the underdog you HOPE he is: Palin just locked in the conservative base...and more than a few "Reagan" Democrats, plus many of the women who feel it is time to elect a woman to high office and were voting only for Hillary just for that reason (A surprisingly LARGE number of them).

Right now the race is too close to call (as it usually is this time of the election cycle). The real numbers will become evident around the 1st week of October.

[Rick]

The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.

McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.

McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.

The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.

Good luck, guys.

There are a lot of rah-rah posters here who will accept ANYTHING their party throws their way, but they are in a minority.

I'm not guaranteeing Obama will win, but polls and evidence strongly suggests McCain is a huge underdog.

WOW now you are plagerizing shit. Here let me help you...Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris wrote what you have in bolds...you must give credit for your sources or it is plagerism.

McCain isn't the underdog you HOPE he is: Palin just locked in the conservative base...and more than a few "Reagan" Democrats, plus many of the women who feel it is time to elect a woman to high office and were voting only for Hillary just for that reason (A surprisingly LARGE number of them).

Right now the race is too close to call (as it usually is this time of the election cycle). The real numbers will become evident around the 1st week of October.

Stu, it's (Plagiarism - Plagiarize - Plagiarist - Plagiarism). Tard.

[donnaplease]

WOW now you are plagerizing shit. Here let me help you...Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris wrote what you have in bolds...you must give credit for your sources or it is plagerism.

McCain isn't the underdog you HOPE he is: Palin just locked in the conservative base...and more than a few "Reagan" Democrats, plus many of the women who feel it is time to elect a woman to high office and were voting only for Hillary just for that reason (A surprisingly LARGE number of them).

Right now the race is too close to call (as it usually is this time of the election cycle). The real numbers will become evident around the 1st week of October.

Stu, it's (Plagiarism - Plagiarize - Plagiarist - Plagiarism). Tard.

Uh oh.

[RossValoryRocks]

The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.

McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.

McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.

The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.

Good luck, guys.

There are a lot of rah-rah posters here who will accept ANYTHING their party throws their way, but they are in a minority.

I'm not guaranteeing Obama will win, but polls and evidence strongly suggests McCain is a huge underdog.

WOW now you are plagerizing shit. Here let me help you...Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris wrote what you have in bolds...you must give credit for your sources or it is plagerism.

McCain isn't the underdog you HOPE he is: Palin just locked in the conservative base...and more than a few "Reagan" Democrats, plus many of the women who feel it is time to elect a woman to high office and were voting only for Hillary just for that reason (A surprisingly LARGE number of them).

Right now the race is too close to call (as it usually is this time of the election cycle). The real numbers will become evident around the 1st week of October.

Stu, it's (Plagiarism - Plagiarize - Plagiarist - Plagiarism). Tard.

Sorry spell checker broke! LOL and I am too tired today to go to dictionary.com. LOL

[7 Wishes]

WOW now you are plagerizing shit.

Stuart, Stuart, Stuart. I never claimed authorship of the boldfaced statements. Man, you are an asshole sometimes.

Anyway, keep smokin' the good stuff, Cheech.

You see, your tirade would have only been relevant had I either claimed authorship OR attempted to glean some sort of income from it.

[RedWingFan]

The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.

McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.

Complete B.S. The media and the democrat party KNOW that Obama needs a double digit lead come voting day to have a chance at winning. They know a large percentage who are guilt tripped into voting for the first black president will change their mind in the booth.

[7 Wishes]

"Guilt tripped". That's what I'm talking about.

[RossValoryRocks]

WOW now you are plagerizing shit.

Man, you are an asshole sometimes.

All the time to liberal hacks like you. I have tried to be civil, I tried to reach out to you and find common ground. Hell the plagiarism thing was tongue-in-cheek, then you had to come and get nasty. So fuck you.

You are and ignoramous through and though. I am done being nice to you.

I will happily admit that President Bush has had many many failings and fell far short of the things I had hoped when I cast my votes for him. You and TNC and other can't see past the end of Obama's dick to see that he is going to fuck up our country far worse than President Bush ever could, especially with a Democrat controlled Congress.

You can't seem to separate Bush from the people on here who are conservative and so you spew hate. You are the most hateful bastard I have ever seen on here, next to TNC of course, he takes the cake.

So be prepared I am going to fuck you up (intellectually of course).

[csiako]

I'm not guaranteeing Obama will win, but polls and evidence strongly suggests McCain is a huge underdog.

McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html

i dont think McCain is a huge underdog

[7 Wishes]

So be prepared I am going to fuck you up (intellectually of course).

You are about as capable of doing that to ANYONE as Roger Whittaker is of handling Queensryche's catalog.

[RossValoryRocks]

So be prepared I am going to fuck you up (intellectually of course).

You are about as capable of doing that to ANYONE as Roger Whittaker is of handling Queensryche's catalog.

Now that is funny.

[7 Wishes]

Saturday, August 30
Race Poll Results Spread
National Gallup Tracking Obama 49, McCain 41 Obama +8
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4

[csiako]

Saturday, August 30
Race Poll Results Spread
National Gallup Tracking Obama 49, McCain 41 Obama +8
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4

the gallup poll is based on Aug. 27-29 survey, during the democratic convention. give it a couple of days

[The_Noble_Cause]

Palin just locked in the conservative base...and more than a few "Reagan" Democrats...

A home schooling mom who wants creationism taught in school might galvanize a few disenchanted disciples of Falwell and Robertson, but that’s it.
Seizing advantage of a revived populist spirit, combined with the fact that the GOP is now presided by a man who can’t recall how many houses he owns, Reagan Democrats are returning home.

It's the Obama supporting Republicans you need to look out for.

[classicstyxfan]

If Obama is only up by 4-8 points in polls taken right after the convention, then he may very well be in serious trouble. Past conventions have provided a double digit bounce for the Democratic candidate....unless I missed polls showing Obama 5 percent behind before the convention, he didn't get near the bump he was hoping for.

Looks like the republicans have a chance for a significant bump of their own by turning their convention into a national telethon for the Red Cross to help the ( potential ) victims of Gustav....that is a great PR move, and would show real compassion and class.

[Monker]

I will happily admit that President Bush has had many many failings and fell far short of the things I had hoped when I cast my votes for him. You and TNC and other can't see past the end of Obama's dick to see that he is going to fuck up our country far worse than President Bush ever could, especially with a Democrat controlled Congress.

Funny, that is exactly the type of stuff people were saying when Clinton first ran...and it only became 'fucked up' again when a Bush was put back in charge.

[Monker]

I'm not guaranteeing Obama will win, but polls and evidence strongly suggests McCain is a huge underdog.

McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html

i dont think McCain is a huge underdog

He is running with the same arguments that Hillary did: He's not experienced. *I* am the change canidate. *I* am the historic canidate.

Right now, I see no reason why McCain would not end up with the same result as Hi9llary did.

He is running against Obama's strengths - which is pretty damn stupid.

[Enigma869]

You and TNC and other can't see past the end of Obama's dick to see that he is going to fuck up our country far worse than President Bush ever could

I'm not a fan of Obama, at all, and won't vote for him. That said, to suggest that ANYONE could possibly fuck things up more than Bush has is just plain foolish! It's not possible to fuck things up any more than he has! Whichever guy gets elected will improve things, by default! It's called addition by subtraction!


John from Boston

[RossValoryRocks]

I will happily admit that President Bush has had many many failings and fell far short of the things I had hoped when I cast my votes for him. You and TNC and other can't see past the end of Obama's dick to see that he is going to fuck up our country far worse than President Bush ever could, especially with a Democrat controlled Congress.

Funny, that is exactly the type of stuff people were saying when Clinton first ran...and it only became 'fucked up' again when a Bush was put back in charge.

Yeah...and the first 2 years of the Clinton presidency were fucked up...he raised taxes hand in hand with the Democrat controlled congress and the economy gound to a halt. Then the republicans came in after the '94 elections and cut taxes and the economy went nuts.

But this time it won't be like that.

There won't be saving the economy from the likes of Pelosi and Reid.

[S2M]

Time to ditch the two-party system....by nature it pits people against each other. And that is a shame. And I'm talking about politics, and people HERE.

We are to 'celebrate' a group we all enjoy listening to(well except 1998-2007)...but in any case...does it really matter what party a person has allegiance to?

I'd vote for anyone if they had the best interests of the people of this country in mind....hell, I'd even vote for Don Dokken....

[RossValoryRocks]

You and TNC and other can't see past the end of Obama's dick to see that he is going to fuck up our country far worse than President Bush ever could

I'm not a fan of Obama, at all, and won't vote for him. That said, to suggest that ANYONE could possibly fuck things up more than Bush has is just plain foolish! It's not possible to fuck things up any more than he has! Whichever guy gets elected will improve things, by default! It's called addition by subtraction!


John from Boston

You know if you were any more and idiot you wouldn't be able to type you'd need medication and a helmet. Many of the things you blame on the President are not his fault, some things are sure, but the most stupid comment you have made is that our country is messed up. Our country is in fine shape. No one here knows what trouble is, including me, but I have talked with my grandparents and my father all of who lived through the depression and WWII. You want "messed up" that period of time was.

Fact: More people OWN homes now than at any other time in history. You would have everyone believe that everyone lost their homes because of the subprime crisis (Which Bush had nothing to do with BTW)

Fact: The nation unemployment average is lower than the average of the last 40 years. You people talk like their are huge long unemployment lines.

Fact: The economy grew at 3.3% last quarter. So the economy isn't in the tank even if the liberals would have you believe so.

Fact: We have won the war in Iraq. Actually this is in despite of Bush, so you may have a point.

Fact: The liberals all blame President Bush for the "Wrong war at the wrong time" and yet when it was politically expedient many prominent Democrats jumped up and said things like this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[separate_wayz]

The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.

McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.

McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.

The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.

Good luck, guys.

There are a lot of rah-rah posters here who will accept ANYTHING their party throws their way, but they are in a minority.

I'm not guaranteeing Obama will win, but polls and evidence strongly suggests McCain is a huge underdog.

The fact is that Barack Obama's campaign is underperforming. This is the not-so-private view expressed by those in the know.

Here's today's electoral map, as posted by realclearpolitics.com ..... by electoral votes based on current state-by-state polling, it's Obama 273 ..... McCain 265.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... in/?map=10

Of the ten toss-up states listed, Bush won 7 in 2004. McCain is leading in 4 of those, and tied in 1. Obama is leading in 2 toss-up states that Bush won in 2004: Colorado and New Mexico.

Bottom line: in 46 states + the District of Columbia, Obama is winning the states that Kerry won in 2004, and McCain is winning the states that Bush won. Obama is leading in Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa (a "leaner", not a "toss-up" state); these are states that Bush won in 2004. Obama and McCain are tied in one state (Virginia) that Bush-'04 won. After all the millions of dollars spent and months of campaigning, the electoral map in 2008 so far doesn't look much different than it did in 2004. Only three states are in different columns.

[The_Noble_Cause]

...believe that everyone lost their homes because of the subprime crisis (Which Bush had nothing to do with BTW)

No, but McCain's senior economic advisor, Phil Graham, had plenty to do with it.
And the continual chipping away at New Deal banking safeguards, such as the Glass-Steagal act, which allowed it to happen, can hardly be described as anything less than a Republican Party calling card.

Fact: We have won the war in Iraq. Actually this is in despite of Bush, so you may have a point.

As yet another barnburner of an expose rolls off the printing press, chronicling how there were no WMDs, and that the Bush White House requested forged intel from the CIA.
Whatever happens, Iraq is a zero sum game.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html

Fact: The liberals all blame President Bush for the "Wrong war at the wrong time" and yet when it was politically expedient many prominent Democrats jumped up and said things like this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

And if they didn't, Rove would've slimed them the same way he did triple amputee veteran Max Clealand when he voted against one version of homeland security in favor of another.
The Iraq National Intelligence Estimate wasn't produced until specially requested by Congress and even then it wasn't published until late in run-up to war.
Worse yet, the Congressional NIE on Iraq did not contain the caveats, qualifiers and dissenting opinions by intelligence analysts contained in the White House version

[Enigma869]

You know if you were any more and idiot you wouldn't be able to type you'd need medication and a helmet. Many of the things you blame on the President are not his fault, some things are sure, but the most stupid comment you have made is that our country is messed up. Our country is in fine shape. No one here knows what trouble is, including me, but I have talked with my grandparents and my father all of who lived through the depression and WWII. You want "messed up" that period of time was.

Fact: More people OWN homes now than at any other time in history. You would have everyone believe that everyone lost their homes because of the subprime crisis (Which Bush had nothing to do with BTW)

Fact: The nation unemployment average is lower than the average of the last 40 years. You people talk like their are huge long unemployment lines.

Fact: The economy grew at 3.3% last quarter. So the economy isn't in the tank even if the liberals would have you believe so.

Fact: We have won the war in Iraq. Actually this is in despite of Bush, so you may have a point.

Fact: The liberals all blame President Bush for the "Wrong war at the wrong time" and yet when it was politically expedient many prominent Democrats jumped up and said things like this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Go fuck yourself and lick Valory's nuts!


John from Boston

[7 Wishes]

Yeah...and the first 2 years of the Clinton presidency were fucked up...he raised taxes hand in hand with the Democrat controlled congress and the economy gound to a halt. Then the republicans came in after the '94 elections and cut taxes and the economy went nuts.

You are the most full of shit person I have ever known, EVER!

Cut-and-paste jobs from the American Spectator and the Rhinoceros Times are hardly impartial and are also factually inaccurate.

Clinton cut spending in all the right places, increased taxes on the highest income earners, and put more money in the pockets of the middle and lower class. The conservatives fought him every step of the way - attempting to insist upon the proven failures of Reaganomics and the trickle-down approach.

During the eight years of the Clinton Administration, about 23 million jobs were created, which comes out to about 240,000 jobs per month. By comparison, only a net of 5.6 million jobs have been created during the Bush years, which comes out to about 71,000 per month. Even taking away the job losses caused by a recession and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush years come up short: In the 47 consecutive months of job growth since the fall of 2003, the per-month average has been about 177,000 jobs.

Any questions about Clinton's brilliant economic plan that the Republicans fought (stupidly) tooth-and-nail? Just ask Alan Greenspan - himself a libertarian Republican. Paraphrasing his recent book:

The first, and less surprising, blow came in his criticism of the Bush-era spending excesses. Many conservative Republicans have long offered that critique. It helps that the former Fed chairman--who has come to represent the gold standard in sound economic judgment--validates the Democratic critique of Republican rule as fiscally irresponsible. But it isn't a major new departure.

More telling was Greenspan's praise of Bill Clinton's economic record. In the polarized politics we've become accustomed to, the most powerful praise is that which comes from the other side of the political fence. You can already hear the 30-second campaign commercials that begin, "As Alan Greenspan said..."

[7 Wishes]

Stu, why is it you and the other Republicans on this board keep insisting upon the Democrats' initial support of the invasion of Iraq? IT WAS PREDICATED UPON LIE AFTER LIE, at the very least, and a massive conspiracy at worse. It is perfectly legitimate for a politician who voted one way - only to later discover the reasons they voted in support of a measure were all falsehoods - to change his or her mind upon learning that.

[S2M]

Stu, why is it you and the other Republicans on this board keep insisting upon the Democrats' initial support of the invasion of Iraq? IT WAS PREDICATED UPON LIE AFTER LIE, at the very least, and a massive conspiracy at worse. It is perfectly legitimate for a politician who voted one way - only to later discover the reasons they voted in support of a measure were all falsehoods - to change his or her mind upon learning that.

A steadfast republican....look no further. Not a criticism, just a fact. In these sort of debates, participants run to their favorite blogs, quotes, and fishwrap.....pulling, culling every bit of stats, quotes, soundbite to prove his/her point.....what it all boils down to is what party you have allegiance to....backing your 'guy', and proving some sort of empty point you can barely remember having a care about in the first place....bah, who needs it.

[styxman]

Just out of interest, if Obama is assassinated prior to the elected date in November does his running mate automatically become the presidential candidate and is his running mate likely to choose Clinton as No2 if such a situation arose?

[S2M]

Just out of interest, if Obama is assassinated prior to the elected date in November does his running mate automatically become the presidential candidate and is his running mate likely to choose Clinton as No2 if such a situation arose?

I'd look that up, but I don't wish to be 'flagged' by big brother.....

[styxman]

Just out of interest, if Obama is assassinated prior to the elected date in November does his running mate automatically become the presidential candidate and is his running mate likely to choose Clinton as No2 if such a situation arose?

I'd look that up, but I don't wish to be 'flagged' by big brother.....

Has this senario ever happened in an American Presedential race before? - including the untimely death of a candidate by natural causes