Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[ISiddiqui]

Dems aren't going to exactly sit around either.

True, but what does that have to do with Republicans coming out to the polls? I doubt that even with the cult of personality around Obama, Republicans are going to decide not to come out simply because it isn't Hillary Clinton on the other side.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Dukakis comparison is silly... and so is "saving the Republican party" stuff. Once McCain starts pointing out Obama's positions (something he hasn't really gotten that much into), you'll see Republicans rallying. I mean Obama actually IS a progressive. He's not a triangulator. He's not trying to take the best of the left and best of the right. He can actually be called a far left politician. I don't think that the Republicans are just going to sit back and allow someone like that to be President without a fight.

Just because Obama is winning the Democratic primaries in the Red States doesn't necessarily mean he'll win them or make them competitive in the general election. In every red state there is a Democrat vote. No red state has gone 100% for the Republicans. Winning the Democratic vote tells you nothing by itself.

It is funny you mention Tennessee, btw... because Clinton won big there .

I'm not saying anything about Dukakis.

I'll say this, I know plenty of people that are conservatives that are not on board with McCain. Many feel that if we are going to get "Hillary-lite" in McCain, better to let the Democrats have the White House and clean the mess up in 2012 when we have a better candidate.

The problem is that the Republican base is not motivated. We've been screwed by the current generation of Republican leaders. Since Newt (say what you will about him), there has not been a great conservative leader.

My point about Obama is that he has seen some HUGE mobs greet him at rallies in the red states. Hillary hasn't pulled those numbers to see her speak. If Obama gets the nod, he'll get the blue states anyway. Those states are voting blue for Obama or for Hillary. Obama puts some red states into play.

Regarding Clinton, she won Tennessee big because the blacks down here consider Bill to be the first black president. They got out and voted in the primaries. In the general election, without another southerner on the ticket Hillary gets trounced. Bill was tolerable to a lot of people down here, Hillary is not. She won the primary, but she gets killed in a general election. However, Obama will still pull the black votes, and I know plenty of Republicans here that are buying his message. If Obama wins the nomination, I think Tennessee falls in the blue column.

The big thing you are missing is that McCain is not motivating the right. Without Hillary in the fight, they are going to stay home. You're not going to see a massive turnout like you did in 2004 where much of the vote was to keep Kerry out of office. Obama is not nearly as threatening to the right as Hillary. The fact that we don't know everything about Obama is working to his advantage right now and will continue to do so.

If the campaign comes down to issues, I'm still not sure if it changes much. You'll have the anti-war vote come out against McCain, and you'll have the lower taxes guys come out against Obama. But, I don't think that will change much, if anything, when the votes are tallied.

If Obama gets the nomination, he wins in a landslide not seen since Reagan v. Mondale.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

True, but what does that have to do with Republicans coming out to the polls? I doubt that even with the cult of personality around Obama, Republicans are going to decide not to come out simply because it isn't Hillary Clinton on the other side.

I don't think you fully understand the hatred that the right has for Hillary. It rivals the hate that the left has for Newt.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

True, but what does that have to do with Republicans coming out to the polls? I doubt that even with the cult of personality around Obama, Republicans are going to decide not to come out simply because it isn't Hillary Clinton on the other side.

As I'm sure I've mentioned before:

1) Right now, there are more self-identified D's than self-identified R's. Any R will have to pick up around 6 points to get back to level. If it's against Hillary, sure I'll buy that argument. Against Obama this is not going to happen.

2) Any candidate with an 'R' next to their name is going to have a difficult time winning anything. They have to run on Bush's record and their voting for it, as well as being part of the incumbent party while the economy is in the toilet.

3) If it's not obvious by now, the religious right and McCain don't get along. Mediocre candidates depress voter turnout.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If Obama gets the nomination, he wins in a landslide not seen since Reagan v. Mondale.

+1

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The big thing you are missing is that McCain is not motivating the right. Without Hillary in the fight, they are going to stay home. You're not going to see a massive turnout like you did in 2004 where much of the vote was to keep Kerry out of office. Obama is not nearly as threatening to the right as Hillary. The fact that we don't know everything about Obama is working to his advantage right now and will continue to do so.

Yes, of course that we don't know everything about Obama is working to his advantage! That's my point! McCain isn't going to let that continue. He can slam Obama for being too liberal without hurting himself (as Clinton would if she tried the same). As you stated, in 2004, the Republicans came out to get Kerry out. When Obama's positions become well known, I'm doubting that the Republicans will sit on their hands. They may not like McCain all that much, but they'll come out to vote AGAINST perhaps the most liberal candidate since George McGovern.

Clinton, btw, won in Tennessee because of white voters. The African American population isn't all that big in TN and isn't really that much of a turning point. I'm really not sure how Clinton would lose TN big in the general election, but Obama would win it, especially since Clinton trounced him in the primary there. It makes little sense.

If Obama gets the nomination, he wins in a landslide not seen since Reagan v. Mondale.

I think you'd dipped into the Kool-Aide too much. Obama ain't winning in a landslide. And definately not of Reagan/Mondale proportions.

McCain's head to head numbers with Obama show that.

Many feel that if we are going to get "Hillary-lite" in McCain, better to let the Democrats have the White House and clean the mess up in 2012 when we have a better candidate.

Not when McCain points out that the next President may be in the position to appoint 3 new justices to the Supreme Court (if not more). The one thing Conservatives can point to that was a huge success during the Bush Administration is Roberts & Alito.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I don't think you fully understand the hatred that the right has for Hillary. It rivals the hate that the left has for Newt.

Which is funny, because the hate for left has for Newt Gingrich seems incredibly subdued and lukewarm. Though maybe I don't see it that much because I don't mind Newt?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Obama puts some red states into play.

Which ones?

[bob]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

better to let the Democrats have the White House and clean the mess up in 2012 when we have a better candidate.

That's a risky move with several potential supreme court openings coming up.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bob

That's a risky move with several potential supreme court openings coming up.

Yep, exactly. The one thing the Religious Right is REALLY smart about is that if the politicians are just playing lip service, the one place where they can get real change is in the Supreme Court. Bush didn't do anything, really, about abortion through legislation, but he really helped them out greatly by appointing Roberts and Alito to the bench.

McCain has never, IIRC, been attacked for his stance on abortion. He really does have a conservative social outlook on things.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Which ones?

Well VA if you count that as a red state, TN, CO, ID, AR. NC, SC and GA if you want to be optimistic. Not sure if IN and IA are red states, but I don't see a reason Obama can't do well there.

And ISiddiqui, if you want to make a friendly margin of victory wager assuming Obama gets nominated I'm all ears.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

And ISiddiqui, if you want to make a friendly margin of victory wager assuming Obama gets nominated I'm all ears.

Reagan beat Mondale by 512 electoral votes. In 1988, Bush beat Dukakis by 315.

So what you are saying is that Obama will win by more than 315 Electoral votes. Is that the bet you want to make?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

McCain has never, IIRC, been attacked for his stance on abortion. He really does have a conservative social outlook on things.

McCain has an 80 rating from the American Conservative Union, a score comparable to those of numerous other Senate conservatives, including Sens. Charles Grassley, Lamar Alexander, Bob Bennett and former Sen. Rick Santorum. For comparison, Barbara Boxer has a 12, Clinton has a 12 and Obama has an 8. McCain also has a 4 percent lifetime rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League, voting pro-life 123 times out of 128.

Once the general campaign begins, this stuff will be brought up ad nauseum by the republicans.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Well VA if you count that as a red state, TN, CO, ID, AR. NC, SC and GA if you want to be optimistic. Not sure if IN and IA are red states, but I don't see a reason Obama can't do well there.

I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back on November 5. The Democratic nominee will not win any of those states, and the margin won't even be within 5 points except in Virginia, Colorado and Arkansas. In Idaho, McCain will carry the state by at least 25 points.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back on November 5. The Democratic nominee will not win any of those states, and the margin won't even be within 5 points except in Virginia, Colorado and Arkansas. In Idaho, McCain will carry the state by at least 25 points.

+1

Very much so.

From the beginning, Squiddy has downplayed the hatred for Hillary or the anti-Clinton sentiments because he supported her. It really does mean something.

It's amazing to read how those on both extremities think there will be a massive red/blue state shift. As it stands right now, no way. Kerry + 40,000 Ohio makes a lot of sense but I still predict that California will not be automatic.

[JPhillips]

A lot of conservatives don't think McCain would appoint the right kind of justice, less Scalia and more Souter. If you believe that what's it matter if McCain is appointing judges? At least with a Dem as president you can actively work against liberal nominees. How would a minority Republican Senate fight against nominees of a Republican president?

I read a fairly compelling argument recently on why conservatives should stay home in November. It was the first such column I'd read that wasn't just a slam of McCain. It boiled down to the argument that McCain losing will result in the shortest time until a real conservative can be president. If he wins he'll either be popular and win again in 2012 or be unpopular and lose to a Dem in 2012. If a Dem is in office they could again win in 2016 and if McCain wins two terms it's highly unlikely that one party would win five contests in a row. It may be 2020 before a real conservative can win the White House.

However, if a Dem wins this year and gets stuck with a bad economy, a polarizing Iraq withdrawal, and a minority as hostile as the 90's maybe a real conservative can win in 2012. I think that's a fairly good argument if your concerns are about a specific set of policies as opposed to a comprimised winner.

[Jas_lov]

Red state/Blue state talk is ridiculous. It'll come down to the same swing states it always does. Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, and others. Just because McCain wins the N.Y. Republican Primary doesn't mean he'll win there in November. Someone has to win the damn state for the Republicans. Obama or Clinton, it doesn't matter, they'll carry N.Y. easily.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back on November 5. The Democratic nominee will not win any of those states, and the margin won't even be within 5 points except in Virginia, Colorado and Arkansas. In Idaho, McCain will carry the state by at least 25 points.

In general I agree, with the caveat that I think CO could go to Obama. They have a strong Senate Candidate in an open seat and the state is adding more traditionally Dem voters. It may be another cycle before a Dem wins, but it wouldn't be a surprise this year.

edit: And a Dem Governor which means a built in infrastructure.

[Young Drachma]

If you can't win your own base, you can't win an election. The fact that he has to convince people to vote for him that ought to be automatic, is never a good sign for McCain.

Obama will get people who don't vote and who haven't factored in other elections engaged. There is no amount of smearing, lying and anything that's going to dissuade a 'movement'. For better or worse. Slander won't work either, so they're going to need a strategy fast to get to him and frankly, the only way it'll work is to go negative early and often.

But go too negative and people won't like it and the backlash will result in something crazy.

I do find it funny that some of the bloggers are trying to paint Obama as a lightweight like W. Obama isn't an intellectual lightweight and while he might bumble or stumble out of the gate, I can't see how anyone could possibly think those two have anything in common. Just given how unlikely it is for him to be in the situation he's in right now.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In general I agree, with the caveat that I think CO could go to Obama. They have a strong Senate Candidate in an open seat and the state is adding more traditionally Dem voters. It may be another cycle before a Dem wins, but it wouldn't be a surprise this year.

edit: And a Dem Governor which means a built in infrastructure.

Except for one things, Gov. Ritter is closer to McCain politically than to Obama. I would hope by now we have moved away from (R) or (D) next to their names.

[Warhammer]

Dark Cloud is probably closest in thought to me regarding Obama. Obama is a movement, and movements are not measured well by polls and pollsters.

[Buccaneer]

DC, you and others talk about the "base" as one entity. It is not. Just like with the Dems, there are multiple "bases" or segmentations. The Southern/Midwestern evangelical base is one thing but the evangelical base in the West is another thing (Huckabee barely registered here in the Evangelical Capital of the World). Then there's the fiscal/anti-tax base, the libertarian base (the Dems have one too but it's a different animal), the war on terror base, the pro-military base (which comes in play in CA, CO and VA), etc.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Obama will get people who don't vote and who haven't factored in other elections engaged.

I haven't heard him say it during this election cycle yet, but James Carville has a funny quote that I've heard several times before. "What do you call a candidate who is relying on first time voters?" "A loser."

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

There is no amount of smearing, lying and anything that's going to dissuade a 'movement'. For better or worse. Slander won't work either, so they're going to need a strategy fast to get to him and frankly, the only way it'll work is to go negative early and often.

The republicans won't have to resort to smear tactics. They'll heavily publicize his voting record, which as noted before, is to the left of Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton. That's going to be a very hard sell for Obama to the small percentage of voters who decide presidential elections, regardless of his wonderful and inspiring oratory skills.

[Warhammer]

McCain will have issues in the south. He isn't widely liked here. However, when given the choice between a westerner and a yankee, we go west...

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Reagan beat Mondale by 512 electoral votes. In 1988, Bush beat Dukakis by 315.

So what you are saying is that Obama will win by more than 315 Electoral votes. Is that the bet you want to make?

Winning by 315 might be a stretch, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. The R's were comprehensively beaten in the mid-terms, failing to pick up a single seat and haven't shown me any reason to think that trend won't continue this year. Today I would not make that bet but check back in September.

Thinking some more, whoever mentioned Idaho going R is almost certainly right, but the other four (VA, CO, TN and AR) will all end up D or very close to it.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The republicans won't have to resort to smear tactics. They'll heavily publicize his voting record, which as noted before, is to the left of Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton. That's going to be a very hard sell for Obama to the small percentage of voters who decide presidential elections, regardless of his wonderful and inspiring oratory skills.

And that's somehow a harder sell than McCain's voting record(equal to 31% approval rating Bush in every meaningful way)? That's ridiculous.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I haven't heard him say it during this election cycle yet, but James Carville has a funny quote that I've heard several times before. "What do you call a candidate who is relying on first time voters?" "A loser."



The republicans won't have to resort to smear tactics. They'll heavily publicize his voting record, which as noted before, is to the left of Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton. That's going to be a very hard sell for Obama to the small percentage of voters who decide presidential elections, regardless of his wonderful and inspiring oratory skills.

I think people are miscalculating the voter frustration. This election is going to be studied for a long time as evidence of people who missed the point and didn't see the trees in the wider forest, because they were too busy heading towards the valley outside of it.

As for the whole first-time voter thing, I said in the GOP thread that the major if is that he's staking his campaign on the 18-29 year olds. But they're not enough of the electorate to do anything other than tip the scales.

I think he's relying far more on his ability to capture independents, figuring that the base will come along with him in the end anyway. All of that math would point to a victory for him.

People are severely underestimating his ground game and how ridiculous it is that he's even in this situation. He's a first-term Senator from Illinois with all of these things that could be scrutinized and attacked. But it seems that because he's so likable, no one wants to say anything too swarmy about him and the obvious skeletons that anyone would want to dig up and throw out have been scoured for and the whispers haven't scared anyone off yet except people who weren't going to vote for him to begin with.

The bottom line is, if this guy gets into the general election..he's going to present the right with something they haven't seen before. He's not George McGovern. He's not JFK. But he's galvanized an entire generation and gets new converts every day who don't care that he's a modern liberal who doesn't tell you how he's going to pay for anything, that he's got too many ideas that relate to what government "ought to do for people" and all of that.

What they want, is a chance to believe again. And he's speaking to that. Warmongering, scaring people into believing he's a Muslim and even talking about race incessantly isn't going to be enough to beat him.

It's going to take... ::gasp:: innovation and creativity. Maybe even a little inspiration.

It's not rocket science, but maybe this is what the old guard needs to realize that the game isn't as monochromatic as it used to be.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

And that's somehow a harder sell than McCain's voting record(equal to 31% approval rating Bush in every meaningful way)? That's ridiculous.

Mix metaphors much? Might was well throw in Congress 24% rating and prevent anyone from there running.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Mix metaphors much? Might was well throw in Congress 24% rating and prevent anyone from there running.

Congress has a lower rating becuase D's hate Congress as much as R's and I's even though their party is in charge. I can dig up that polling data if you really care.

[Buccaneer]

DC, a "New Hope" is what they said in 1992, 1988, 1976 and 1972 as well.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Congress has a lower rating becuase D's hate Congress as much as R's and I's even though their party is in charge. I can dig up that polling data if you really care.

I know where that number comes from and that's my point. McCain will not run on Bush's record (he's a maverick, remember?), just as neither should run on being associated with this Congress, for whicever reasons.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He's not George McGovern. He's not JFK.

As an orator, the comparisons to JFK are appropriate, but that's where the comparisons end. Politically, Obama is much closer on the issues to George McGovern than he is to JFK. JKF was a proponent of tax cuts, individual responsibility and a strong national defense. McCain and JFK are closer on most of the issues than Obama and JFK.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

As an orator, the comparisons to JFK are appropriate, but that's where the comparisons end. Politically, Obama is much closer on the issues to George McGovern than he is to JFK. JKF was a proponent of tax cuts, individual responsibility and a strong national defense. McCain and JFK are closer on most of the issues than Obama and JFK.

That's not my point. But I'm just going to reserve judgment for a while. It's easier that way.

[Buccaneer]

DC, but Vegas Vic is right even if you were trying to bring up JFK for another reason.

[st.cronin]

McGovern strikes me as an almost perfect comp for Obama. But the differences between JFK and McGovern are almost all external - switch them in time, and McGovern is probably president, and JFK not.

[Jas_lov]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/V...4281404&page=1

As he weighs a possible endorsement in the Democratic race, former Sen. John Edwards is as split as the party he once hoped to lead — and is seriously considering supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite the sharp criticism he leveled at her on the campaign trail, according to former aides and advisers.

Several people close to the former North Carolina senator say he may ultimately stay neutral in the race, joining former Vice President Al Gore on the sidelines of the tightest Democratic race in decades.

Looks like Edwards will support Clinton or nobody.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I know where that number comes from and that's my point. McCain will not run on Bush's record (he's a maverick, remember?), just as neither should run on being associated with this Congress, for whicever reasons.

McCain can't get rid of the 'R' next to his name. And my point is Obama's going to bring it up early and often.

EDIT: Here's how McCain wins: http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...U1NDdlM2I1ZmM=

"For McCain to win in this current anti-incumbent, anti-Republican climate of war and economic uncertainty, everything will have to break right — the base will have to make a choice for the better, not the best, alternative and soon cool the rhetoric; the VP choice will have to be inspired; independents and moderates will have to be convinced that McCain’s unique life-story and national security fides trump all else; and he will have to wage an effective campaign, hope his opponents don’t, and trust that Iraq will continue to improve while the economy is stabilized."

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by her negative ad running in Wisconsin

Like why Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American

Why is this a selling point? Shouldn't it be a health care plan that covers those that are without coverage?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Except for one things, Gov. Ritter is closer to McCain politically than to Obama. I would hope by now we have moved away from (R) or (D) next to their names.

Come on Buc. You know that Ritter will work for Obama or Clinton come the fall. There's no way in hell he supports McCain regardless of stands on the issues. Ritter owes his job in large part to the support of the party(as does any Gov) and he'll repay that support in the general election unless he wants to be abandoned come time for federal appointments and/or his re-election campaign. That's the way party politics works.

edit: I should also add he'd love to have the recognition and potential authority of being the guy that turned CO blue.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

McCain can't get rid of the 'R' next to his name. And my point is Obama's going to bring it up early and often.

Well, they also can't get rid of the fact that McCain went against his own party and blasted the Bush administration on the handling of the Iraq war, and that he was largely responsible for Rumsfeld's ouster. They also can't get rid of the fact that McCain has publicly humiliated some of his "R" colleagues on the senate floor for pork added to spending bills.

That won't matter to some people, but to some it will be a sign of political courage.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Come on Buc. You know that Ritter will work for Obama or Clinton come the fall. There's no way in hell he supports McCain regardless of stands on the issues. Ritter owes his job in large part to the support of the party(as does any Gov) and he'll repay that support in the general election unless he wants to be abandoned come time for federal appointments and/or his re-election campaign. That's the way party politics works.

I'm not saying one way or the other, just sayin' that Ritter is a moderate Dem in a very politically independent state. Not every governor enthusiastically supported their party's nomination (depending where on the spectrum either falls). There is no Dem machine here in Colorado. Hickenlooper and Denver are moderates (it'll be 55/45 Dem), Boulder and Ft Collins are too small to counter the effect of the Colorado Springs, the Western Slope and the Plains.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Why is this a selling point? Shouldn't it be a health care plan that covers those that are without coverage?

A healthcare plan that covers everybody sounds like a socialist plan. A plan that just covers those without coverage sounds like the rich paying for the poor. While neither plan would be an easy sell, I think the socialist plan would be easier.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Winning by 315 might be a stretch, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. The R's were comprehensively beaten in the mid-terms, failing to pick up a single seat and haven't shown me any reason to think that trend won't continue this year. Today I would not make that bet but check back in September.

I will . By then, we'll basically know how close it'll be, I'm sure. I think Obama, if he wins the Dem nomination can get to a 150 EC votes above McCain, but not much more than that.

And DC, I think Obama fans are drastically overestimating the level of voter frustration. He does have a great ground game, but I think it'd be folly to underestimate the Republican machine. Hell, these people got Dubya re-elected. That's incredible.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And DC, I think Obama fans are drastically overestimating the level of voter frustration. He does have a great ground game, but I think it'd be folly to underestimate the Republican machine. Hell, these people got Dubya re-elected. That's incredible.

That might be, but McCain is no Dubya.

I don't think Obama fans are the ones who overestimate voter frustration. It's been a bully pulpit the Dems have beaten since they took back both houses of Congress, all the while with FOX and GOPers saying that things aren't as bad as people say they are.

I'm excited to find out who is right, mostly because I think it'll be a signal of where America is headed. Because the voter turnout and the results of this race will be a canary in the mine for what people are really thinking.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

EDIT: Here's how McCain wins: http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...U1NDdlM2I1ZmM=

"For McCain to win in this current anti-incumbent, anti-Republican climate of war and economic uncertainty, everything will have to break right — the base will have to make a choice for the better, not the best, alternative and soon cool the rhetoric; the VP choice will have to be inspired; independents and moderates will have to be convinced that McCain’s unique life-story and national security fides trump all else; and he will have to wage an effective campaign, hope his opponents don’t, and trust that Iraq will continue to improve while the economy is stabilized."

That's akin to being 8-8 and hoping your opponents lose so you can make the playoffs, hoping the teams ahead of you all lose their best starters and flop on the way to you making the Super Bowl.

I mean, just because you can win the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer doesn't mean you ought to do it if you can help it. But if you have to, you better make damn sure the other parts of your team are sound.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That might be, but McCain is no Dubya.

I don't think Obama fans are the ones who overestimate voter frustration. It's been a bully pulpit the Dems have beaten since they took back both houses of Congress, all the while with FOX and GOPers saying that things aren't as bad as people say they are.

I'm excited to find out who is right, mostly because I think it'll be a signal of where America is headed. Because the voter turnout and the results of this race will be a canary in the mine for what people are really thinking.

I know McCain isn't Dubya, he's a FAR, FAR more attractive candidate.

Ok, maybe it isn't just Obama fans, but I think the Dems who keep hammering voter frustration are being a bit silly. They said the same thing in 2004 about Kerry. Even though Kerry had a crap campaign and was a boring candidate they said that President Bush was so disliked and voters were so frustrated it wouldn't matter. Now, clearly, Obama and Clinton are FAR better candidates, but I don't think the voter frustration is going to play the role that those people think it will.

Especially when you have McCain, who, for better or worse, has been imprinted in the public's mind as a "maverick", something the media still harps on.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Well, they also can't get rid of the fact that McCain went against his own party and blasted the Bush administration on the handling of the Iraq war, and that he was largely responsible for Rumsfeld's ouster. They also can't get rid of the fact that McCain has publicly humiliated some of his "R" colleagues on the senate floor for pork added to spending bills.

That won't matter to some people, but to some it will be a sign of political courage.

Blasted Bush or not, just like Clinton he went with the war eventually.

[Buccaneer]

Imran, I agree with you (except we will not know that Obama/Clinton or even McCain will campaign well in general). I think, though not strongly, that if there's a backlash, it is against the neo-cons. That will work in McCain's (and Obama's) favor.

People (and the media) keeps harping on McCain not having his base. He already has his base, just not one fringe of it. The same could be said for Obama/Clinton. Watch what happens if Nader runs and you will see a fringe defect.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Blasted Bush or not, just like Clinton he went with the war eventually.

Just like in 2004, I don't think agreeing to go to war is the problem, it's what has happened after the Fall of Baghdad. When you have fucktards like Cheney, Rumsfeld and his cohorts miscalculating and misappropriating on nearly everything, it would prove to be right to blast such post-war planning.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Imran, I agree with you (except we will not know that Obama/Clinton or even McCain will campaign well in general). I think, though not strongly, that if there's a backlash, it is against the neo-cons. That will work in McCain's (and Obama's) favor.

I do think that many remember McCain standing up to Rumsfeld and hammering the President on how he's running the war. He's definately not a neo-conservative (his foriegn policy is more of a old conservative interests based FP).