Why John McCain could still beat Barack Obama in presidential race

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

This is what you want?

Gary, it's not just what I want but what Americans are ready to try after 8 years of a miserable failure in the White House. Again, whether all of the credit belongs to incumbent party or not, the consensus (nearly 80 percent) is this country is in the wrong direction.

[GaryC 7]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

This is what you want?

Gary, it's not just what I want but what Americans are ready to try after 8 years of a miserable failure in the White House. Again, whether all of the credit belongs to incumbent party or not, the consensus (nearly 80 percent) is this country is in the wrong direction.

Your ready for higher taxes, bigger government and more deficits than we have now? Just because you think the country in in the wrong direction what makes you think that this is the right direction? Thats called jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[Fandango 1,439]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

Instead of all that, how about just answering his questions?

[Fandango 1,439]

Yeah I don't agree with Steve on that - there is a lot of bad feeling from the last 8 years of GWB, but I don't think that will (of itself) torpedo McCain. Obama will have to come up with a coherent platform that moves beyond rhetoric for ill-defined "change" in order to beat him, though McCain will by the same token have to show that he's offering something a little different from what we've been doing.

We're in agreement

Yay! 50 more years of George Bush!

(or rather all the years he can get until the rest of the world gives up and nukes us - which we would deserve)

you really do want everyone on bicycles, don't you?

No.... I want everyone to stop being morons. Since that isn't likely, I'd settle for some form of mass extermination. Humans have become trite, inane, superficial, ponderously stupid, and illogical. Removing 99.7% of the population would help to rectify the problem. Survival of the Fittest has been removed from the equation, so something needs to bring the blanace back.

Did you get that from Mein Kampf?

No, I never was a fan of Hitler.

Besides....it's mainly "white people" who would be the targets of such a thing if it were to address the concerns I listed.

Sounds like you could be.....the target, whether they are Jews, Whites, Blacks, etc is irrelevant. Mass extermination for the betterment of society was Hitler's platform too.

[GaryC 7]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

Instead of all that, how about just answering his questions?

He can't. He would rather double talk. To answer the question would require him to admit that Obama and his failed policies would be just as bad as what we have now but in a different direction. It seems that all he cares about is that we fail in a different way.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

This is what you want?

Gary, it's not just what I want but what Americans are ready to try after 8 years of a miserable failure in the White House. Again, whether all of the credit belongs to incumbent party or not, the consensus (nearly 80 percent) is this country is in the wrong direction.

Your ready for higher taxes, bigger government and more deficits than we have now? Just because you think the country in in the wrong direction what makes you think that this is the right direction? Thats called jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

You keep framing it as me wanting it and then defining as something that is going to be bad for Americans. If Americans think it's going to be bad, they won't vote for it, but as I've try to get you to acknowledge before, American voters don't stick their nose up to legislation based on some ideological mindset. It's a simple as this (and the pendulum swings both ways), if one way of doing something isn't working, Americans are willing to try another way.

[Fandango 1,439]

Gary, I love that first pic in your siggy....

[GaryC 7]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

This is what you want?

Gary, it's not just what I want but what Americans are ready to try after 8 years of a miserable failure in the White House. Again, whether all of the credit belongs to incumbent party or not, the consensus (nearly 80 percent) is this country is in the wrong direction.

Your ready for higher taxes, bigger government and more deficits than we have now? Just because you think the country in in the wrong direction what makes you think that this is the right direction? Thats called jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

You keep framing it as me wanting it and then defining as something that is going to be bad for Americans. If Americans think it's going to be bad, they won't vote for it, but as I've try to get you to acknowledge before, American voters don't stick their nose up to legislation based on some ideological mindset. It's a simple as this (and the pendulum swings both ways), if one way of doing something isn't working, Americans are willing to try another way.

Obamas way is just another way to fail. He has managed to cover it with so much BS that they can't see it. It seems that you can't see it either. Just because it's different does not make it better.

Gary, I love that first pic in your siggy....

Kind of explains Obama and his supporters doesn't it?

[SMOKE 1,426]

Gary, I love that first pic in your siggy....

Kind of explains Obama and his supporters doesn't it?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

This is what you want?

Gary, it's not just what I want but what Americans are ready to try after 8 years of a miserable failure in the White House. Again, whether all of the credit belongs to incumbent party or not, the consensus (nearly 80 percent) is this country is in the wrong direction.

Your ready for higher taxes, bigger government and more deficits than we have now? Just because you think the country in in the wrong direction what makes you think that this is the right direction? Thats called jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

You keep framing it as me wanting it and then defining as something that is going to be bad for Americans. If Americans think it's going to be bad, they won't vote for it, but as I've try to get you to acknowledge before, American voters don't stick their nose up to legislation based on some ideological mindset. It's a simple as this (and the pendulum swings both ways), if one way of doing something isn't working, Americans are willing to try another way.

Obamas way is just another way to fail. He has managed to cover it with so much BS that they can't see it. It seems that you can't see it either. Just because it's different does not make it better.

Gary, I get that you don't agree with what you deem as liberal policies. What specifically don't agree with Obama and his policies that you agree with Hillary or Edwards if they were the nominee? Or Bobby Kennedy? The truth is, you'd be doing the same song and dance about any Democrat right now...which I find amusing. You've got no other argument other than you think any liberal policy is a bad policy.

[GaryC 7]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

This is what you want?

Gary, it's not just what I want but what Americans are ready to try after 8 years of a miserable failure in the White House. Again, whether all of the credit belongs to incumbent party or not, the consensus (nearly 80 percent) is this country is in the wrong direction.

Your ready for higher taxes, bigger government and more deficits than we have now? Just because you think the country in in the wrong direction what makes you think that this is the right direction? Thats called jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

You keep framing it as me wanting it and then defining as something that is going to be bad for Americans. If Americans think it's going to be bad, they won't vote for it, but as I've try to get you to acknowledge before, American voters don't stick their nose up to legislation based on some ideological mindset. It's a simple as this (and the pendulum swings both ways), if one way of doing something isn't working, Americans are willing to try another way.

Obamas way is just another way to fail. He has managed to cover it with so much BS that they can't see it. It seems that you can't see it either. Just because it's different does not make it better.

Gary, I get that you don't agree with what you deem as liberal policies. What specifically don't agree with Obama and his policies that you agree with Hillary or Edwards if they were the nominee? Or Bobby Kennedy? The truth is, you'd be doing the same song and dance about any Democrat right now...which I find amusing. You've got no other argument other than you think any liberal policy is a bad policy.

As long as the liberal way is to raise taxes and grow the government then I will think that is the wrong way. However, Obama is at the extreme of that scale and that makes him worse than the average liberal.

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

People want change just for change but I fear that we may just get want we are asking for. Everyone needs to look to the 70's and try to remember what the economy was like then and remember that the only democrate we have had as president since 1980 was Clinton and the economy was cruising from the changes Regan made. The problem with the US is that the world has changed alot with the US not having the influence economically that it had in the past. We are responsible for the emergence of the other countries because we shipped all our manufactuing out. We have allowed labor costs to go through the roof here and forced Americans to buy from China. The problem is that their is too much investment in China now and they are not going to allow tarriffs and taxes to increase the domestic costs. There are a thousand reasons why we are where we are today. Maybe Bush is on to something in trying to create a North American Alliance to strengthen our position in the world economy?

[GaryC 7]

People want change just for change but I fear that we may just get want we are asking for. Everyone needs to look to the 70's and try to remember what the economy was like then and remember that the only democrate we have had as president since 1980 was Clinton and the economy was cruising from the changes Regan made. The problem with the US is that the world has changed alot with the US not having the influence economically that it had in the past. We are responsible for the emergence of the other countries because we shipped all our manufactuing out. We have allowed labor costs to go through the roof here and forced Americans to buy from China. The problem is that their is too much investment in China now and they are not going to allow tarriffs and taxes to increase the domestic costs. There are a thousand reasons why we are where we are today. Maybe Bush is on to something in trying to create a North American Alliance to strengthen our position in the world economy?

The real problem is that the younger generation that supports Obama wasn't around in the 70's. So they don't know how really bad it was under Carter. When Obama proposes the very same "fixes" that Carter does they are not aware of what it will do.

[PlatyPius 5]

As long as the liberal way is to raise taxes and grow the government then I will think that is the wrong way. However, Obama is at the extreme of that scale and that makes him worse than the average liberal.

I assume you strongly dislike Bush then, since he "grew the government" and tossed aside Constitutional protections more than any other Pres in recent history.

[GaryC 7]

As long as the liberal way is to raise taxes and grow the government then I will think that is the wrong way. However, Obama is at the extreme of that scale and that makes him worse than the average liberal.

I assume you strongly dislike Bush then, since he "grew the government" and tossed aside Constitutional protections more than any other Pres in recent history.

Some things I didn't like about Bush. Growing the government was one of them. I don't see any of our protections that were tossed aside though. I see that as just fear mongering by the left. I see Obama as someone that will accelerate the growth of government a lot more than McCain will. Neither is good but Obama is worse.