Why John McCain could still beat Barack Obama in presidential race

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

PH, this is how American politics go. One Party is in charge for awhile until Americans grow tired of what they have or haven't done and vote the other Party in. There are certain general criteria on what Americans look at and with this election and these candidates, McCain is the underdog. I'm not just saying that ....most of the Republican pundits know that. It comes down to status quo vs. change and sometimes status quo sits well with Americans, but not at this moment in history. There's just no getting around that reality of this election season.

You should give the American voters more credit than that.

They are not going to blindly vote for change for the sake of change - the "change"

needs to be defined.

Voters are leery of change. They are used to the status quo no matter how good

or bad that might be.

Give them credit? Why did GW Bush win in 2000 (Beyond any voting controversies)? What was his message that resounded so well with the American voters?

[mawilson 2,133]

That depends on your personal situation. If you are doing well right now, change is not very attractive option. But if that is not your situation, change, even without details is sometimes better than the status quo.

Who's not doing well?

Those who are 50 years and older, uneducated voters - not exactly Obama's support base.

Edited June 9, 2008 by mawilson

[mawilson 2,133]

Give them credit? Why did GW Bush win in 2000 (Beyond any voting controversies)? What was his message that resounded so well with the American voters?

"Whoever pays taxes gets a tax break"

"Compassionate Conservatism"

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

Give them credit? Why did GW Bush win in 2000 (Beyond any voting controversies)? What was his message that resounded so well with the American voters?

"Whoever pays taxes gets a tax break"

"Compassionate Conservatism"

LOL...ah, see ...the rhetoric continues...just a different messenger and you just proved my point - the American voters responded....now they want something different.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

Voters are leery of change. They are used to the status quo no matter how good

or bad that might be.

here's the change....

irs refund, before dems in charge

irs refund, after dems in charge.

[mawilson 2,133]

Give them credit? Why did GW Bush win in 2000 (Beyond any voting controversies)? What was his message that resounded so well with the American voters?

"Whoever pays taxes gets a tax break"

"Compassionate Conservatism"

LOL...ah, see ...the rhetoric continues...just a different messenger and you just proved my point - the American voters responded....now they want something different.

They responded alright, but there was no landslide victory for GWB, if you remember.

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

Give them credit? Why did GW Bush win in 2000 (Beyond any voting controversies)? What was his message that resounded so well with the American voters?

"Whoever pays taxes gets a tax break"

"Compassionate Conservatism"

LOL...ah, see ...the rhetoric continues...just a different messenger and you just proved my point - the American voters responded....now they want something different.

They responded alright, but there was no landslide victory for GWB, if you remember.

Right...and that's where the other factors come into play - the economy, the war in Iraq.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Give them credit? Why did GW Bush win in 2000 (Beyond any voting controversies)? What was his message that resounded so well with the American voters?

"Whoever pays taxes gets a tax break"

"Compassionate Conservatism"

LOL...ah, see ...the rhetoric continues...just a different messenger and you just proved my point - the American voters responded....now they want something different.

Even if they want something different - they may not like what they get. Tony Blair's New Labour blew away the Tories who had been in power for nearly 20 years precisely because they'd had enough. Trouble was when it came to it Blair didn't really offer anything new - and a lasting disillusionment has set in, in which the two opposition parties have singularly failed to put up anyone halfway charismatic that someone would actually want to vote for. Hence I suspect Gordon Brown will be in office for a long time.

My feeling is that John Major would have made a better PM than Blair - if he hadn't had to deal with his party disintegrating around him.

I'm all for some new direction in politics, but its got to be more than novelty value. Clearly you believe in Obama - but I certainly don't think he should win by default without some sort of proper scrutiny (and by scrutiny - I don't mean this Reverend Wright B/S).

Edited June 9, 2008 by Number 6

[tsunamihart 0]

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.

As opposed to giving us all a tax "cut" while Bushwacked and his oil speculators with their capped wells are licking their swarthy chops(F*&**CS) and laughing about giving back us peons chits to pay for $5 a gallon gas....get real, you can't see the forest for the trees....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He is pursuing more of the same in regards to healthcare and overall fiscal policy - the campaign rhetoric aside. McCain has voted with his Republican fellows 90% of the time and supported Bush by an even higher margin (remember when the Republicans broke ranks with W on immigration, McCain was sure to stand with him). However much he'd like to portray himself that way, McSame ain't no Maverick. The few issues he stood his ground on for decades and had disagreed with Bush and the majority of the Republicans on (Roe vs. Wade, Taxes, to name a couple prominent issues), he fell into lockstep as he started his bid for the Presidency 2008. He is Bush's Poodle. Woof.

To be fair, McCain sponsored the immigration reform bill (with, of all people, Ted Kennedy), and even Bush's position is at odds with most Republicans. Immigration reform is something McCain has supported since before Bush became president.

To be fair, McSame has since apparently abandoned that stance. Another one of his flip flops.

Q: Your 2006 immigration proposal was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were already here. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

A: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. So to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that proposal. We will secure the borders first when I am president. I know how to d that. I come from a border state, where we know about building walls, and vehicle barriers, and sensors, and all of the things necessary. I will have the border state governors certify the borders are secured. Then we will move onto the other aspects of this issue, as importantly as tamper-proof biometric documents, which then, unless an employer hires someone with those documents, that employer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That will cause a lot of people to leave voluntarily.

In other words, he was for the immigration reform bill he sponsored before he was against it.

All Hail the Double Talk Express!

He is saying is that he would not support amendements (such as a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants) from the original proposal, which was heavily criticized from the right and the left. I'm not sure it's a flip-flop unless politicians should never learn from the mistakes of flawed legislation and listen to voters.

You agree there should not be a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, correct?

Look, I am just doing a service to the GOP by evaluating their candidate based on the measure they have developed back in 2004 as to what constitutes a flip flop. McCain has flip flopped on this and many other issues while claiming to be the steadfast, principled politician that doesn't bend and pander. The reality just doesn't support that claim of his. Nor does the reality support the claim that he's a "change" from the Bush administration. He isn't. At least not in any meaningful way.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not a fair comparison, but Obama has the feel of a Tony Blair to me. Not that everthing he did was wrong though and I am not quite sure how you think Johm Major would have been better number 6 (not for this thread though) but there is a parallel with the disintigration of the opposition.

Americans should demand more more from politics than what they currently get fed via the media currently. All this divisiveness isn't actually indicative of day to day politics in Washington. I am sure everyone doesn't play 'nicey nicey' but I can't really imagine Representatives having the kinds of discussions that go on on VJ day in and day out. Still, I could be wrong.

[Dan J 277]

It's not a fair comparison, but Obama has the feel of a Tony Blair to me. Not that everthing he did was wrong though and I am not quite sure how you think Johm Major would have been better number 6 (not for this thread though) but there is a parallel with the disintigration of the opposition.

Americans should demand more more from politics than what they currently get fed via the media currently. All this divisiveness isn't actually indicative of day to day politics in Washington. I am sure everyone doesn't play 'nicey nicey' but I can't really imagine Representatives having the kinds of discussions that go on on VJ day in and day out. Still, I could be wrong.

We will get on that after we are done watching American Idol

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

McCain is a liberal republican and that is why he lost the last time he ran for president. If people think the next president regardless if it is Obama or McCain are going to turn things around and make the country grow at the rate it did in the last 20+ years they are crazy. The best thing we can hope for is someone who won't make things worse and that will keep us on a path of economic growth.

I think the best we can hope for is someone who can possibly mend the shredded relations we have with all other countries on the planet. That's a no-brainer...only Obama has that potential. Plus, with his excellent oratory skills, I'm sure he can tell Mexico and Canada to stick NAFTA up their arses in such a way that they think it's a good idea. I suppose he should tell the Auto Union (UAW) to go screw itself as well. Wait....it already HAS screwed itself. There's a reason GM, Ford, and Chrysler built factories in Mexico and Canada.....no unions. Ergo, no idiot making $37.00/hour to install ashtrays in GM trucks. It's a basic assembly line....no one should be making over $20.00/hour. The people who build HP computers make $6.50/hour.....which is more difficult?

So, I think Obama is our best bet. He's the polar opposite of "W" when it comes to public speaking. Wouldn't it be nice to not look like idiots to the rest of the planet for a change?

McCain would only make our strained international relations even worse.

Oh, and let's actually get serious about alternative fuels, rather than just some feel good ####### to appease the populace while raking in the oil dollars. No reliance on foreign oil = a more prosperous America. Again, only a Democrat is going to lead the country that direction. Obama is a bike rider AND a Democrat, so maybe we'll see a funding package for the construction of bike "highways" for easier commuting.

Hey, a guy can dream, eh?

These are good things Obama brings to the table but can he do it without taxing us more? Bottom line is we don't need more taxes and unfortunately Dems are infamous for taxing us. I doubt very much Obama is a better negotiator for foreign affairs, unless you have to negotiate with you won't get results. Money and/or power is what makes other countries listen. We no longer have the same influence because other countries are buying as much products as we do.

We are not going to get the money needed to get alternative fuel vehicles really going unless oil money is used (I am not going to fund it with tax dollars). Only 25% of oil is used for cars. We have to change our power plants which again needs to be funded privately and not by tax dollars. Let's see who can convince private industry to build new power plants. I would love to see big oil be the ones funding all this but if we tax them to get the money they will just raise the prices.

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

These are good things Obama brings to the table but can he do it without taxing us more? Bottom line is we don't need more taxes and unfortunately Dems are infamous for taxing us. I doubt very much Obama is a better negotiator for foreign affairs, unless you have to negotiate with you won't get results. Money and/or power is what makes other countries listen. We no longer have the same influence because other countries are buying as much products as we do.

We are not going to get the money needed to get alternative fuel vehicles really going unless oil money is used (I am not going to fund it with tax dollars). Only 25% of oil is used for cars. We have to change our power plants which again needs to be funded privately and not by tax dollars. Let's see who can convince private industry to build new power plants. I would love to see big oil be the ones funding all this but if we tax them to get the money they will just raise the prices.

Obama will select competent people to cabinet positions - I wouldn't put it past him that he would consider choosing Joe Biden or Bill Clinton as his Secretary of State. Two very capable and highly qualified people to handle our foreign affairs. Even McCain has admitted that he's not very knowledgeable when it comes to economics and certainly, for anyone to suggest that Dubbya was an expert at anything in the Oval Office besides taking frequent vacations, is laughable.

It will be our Democratic Congress that will make the broad sweeping changes needed with the support and direction of Democratic President.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Personally I think the election will hinge largely on the economy (of course), more specifically that noone wants to be taxed more when gas prices are through the roof - something which is affecting everyone's cost and quality of living.

IMO the high rhetoric sounds better when people aren't over a barrel financially.