McCain Can, And Will, Still Be Defeated

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 17:34


With his victory in Florida tonight, it is very, very hard to see a way that McCain does not win the Republican nomination for President now. I had been cheering for Romney, largely because McCain is tied with Clinton and Obama, while right now Romney loses to Obama by 17.0% , and Clinton by 12.4%. Basically, Romney was generic Republican against Clinton and Obama (generic Republican stands virtually no chance against any Democrat right now), while McCain is a known for his "maverick" and "anti-Bush" stances. However, there are many reasons to believe that while Romney would have been an easier Republican opponent, the difference between him and McCain was nowhere near the 12-17% mark in current polls. In truth, the difference between McCain and Romnry is more like 5-7%, at best, and here is why:
Chris Bowers :: McCain Can, And Will, Still Be Defeated
  • Romney is still a relative unknown:  While John McCain's name ID is 100%, Mitt Romney's is much lower. Between 4-10% of Romney polling deficit on McCain is derived entirely from being lesser known. In and of itself, this makes the actual gap between Romney and McCain only 8-13%.

  • Conservative media elites will thrash McCain. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk with thrash McCain for months on end, encouraging conservatives to either sit at home or support a third-party. This should be worth at least a 3% Nader gross effect, and certainly a 1% Nader net effect. By contrast, conservative media would have produced the opposite impact for Romney. With conservative media not only denying McCain the same buzz, but actually creating counter anti-McCain buzz, chalk up at least another 1-2% in favor of Romney. At least. We might even be able to close the triangle against McCain on multiple occasions, destroying his cred nationwide.

  • Money. McCain will simply be unable to raise as much money as Romney could raise, mainly owing to their differences in personal fortune. This will, once again, account for at least a 1-2% difference at the polls, simply because either Clinton or Obama will be able to vastly outspend McCain from February though August. In truth, the difference will probably be larger, 2-3% or more.

  • McCain only has Iraq. McCain simply cannot engage in a substantive debate on anything except Iraq. While a right-wing foreign policy might help someone in a Republican primary, the truth is that Democrats still win this discussion, hands down, with the public at large. Democrats still have a significant advantage on Iraq, the country's desire for withdrawal has not waned one iota, and people just don't know how right-wing McCain is on Iraq (source for the first two).  When people get a whiff of McCain's hawk stances on Iraq, they will crumble. When they realize he can't debate things like the mortgage crisis (which, btw, Clinton is actually very, very good on, both in terms of policy and rhetoric), they will crumble further. A Republican running on foreign policy right now is a doomed campaign.

  • McCain is soft. McCain's upward "surge" in favorables is only two months old, and largely a result of him emerging as the hero, Republican frontrunner. First, rises like this always fade. Second, a drop of only ten points in McCain's favorables--which is absolutely doable for all of the reasons already listed--would put him at a huge deficit compared to either Obama or Clinton.  Third, his numbers have dropped and risen thirty points in either direction in just one year. That means the public has an extremely soft and vague view of McCain, something that will disappear during a general election. Under closer scrutiny, the best McCain could hope for is his current situation: a tie with Clinton an Obama. If his current bubble collapses, then he falls way behind either.

  • Beating McCain is better than beating Romney: If McCain becomes the nominee, it is only because Republicans think he can win, not because they actually like him. As such, as long as we can pull it off, defeating McCain is actually preferable to defeating Romney. If we beat McCain, then not only did we beat Republicans, but we beat Republicans who sold out in order to try and beat us. Crushing a patsy placeholder like Romney is one thing, but crushing Republicans and conservatives who hated their nominee, but chose him because they thought he could win, is way, way, better. If we beat McCain, then Arnold is the only national Republican moderate left, and he can never run for President. In other words, beat McCain, and we not only beat Republicans, but we beat their entire bench.

Now, with all of this said, I still think that Romney would have been 5-7% easier to defeat. Further, with Romney we had a much better chance of a blowout election that could result in a generational mandate that would realign American politics. However, I just want to make it clear that McCain is still a highly vulnerable target, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination (Clinton and Obama perform roughly equal against him). Better yet, defeating McCain by 5% or more would send the Republican Party reeling for a long, long time to come. Even better than that, a narrow victory over McCain, coupled with progressive primary challenger success and big wins in the Senate, would still produce the most progressive government in D.C. in forty-five years, and possibly ever. Beating McCain crushes Republicans and conservatives over the long-term, whereas beating Romney would only be a temporary victory.

So bring on McCain. While I would have preferred Romney, there are still many benefits to McCain as the Republican nominee.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Different electorate (4.00 / 3)
  The polls pitting McCain against Clinton or Obama probably are unable to factor in the different voter turnouts generated by the first female or black major party nominee. We wont know who the likely voters are until next Fall. If Dems are more energized this year, as the primaries show, then Obama or Clinton could easily win. I also have the feeling that McCain will commit a major gaff in the general election. Just a hunch.

Better Yet (0.00 / 0)
Imagine the two of them together versus the most likely McCain/Huckabee ticket... It will be a blood bath... the two could conceivably raise a $100-150 million for the General... Scary numbers.

[ Parent ]
Mccain's weakness (4.00 / 2)
Also, one of Mccain's major weaknesses is that he can be tied to Bush on things like Iraq, where he is to the right of Bush, and his insistene on making the tax cuts permenant.

And of course...Mccain's ignorance on the economy. That's going to crush him in the general especially versus the Clinton gold brand on the economy, disagree with it if you will but thats the perception.

In order to compensate for his lack of economic credentials Mccain will probably pick a conservative economic whiz...which translate into stuffy republican who spews out the same failed conservative economic philosophies.

ironically enough, Romney would probably help Mccain the most on the economy but that's unlikely to happen.


[ Parent ]
McCain is not only weak on the economy (4.00 / 2)
but he was one of the Keating five.  He does not mix with banks and mortgages. 

[ Parent ]
I like it (4.00 / 1)
This is a very logically cohesive and internally coherent analysis. I will hold on to it. I have a number of politically disengaged, intelligent but low-information friends who I fear would be tempted by McCain; I feel sometimes (irrationally) that if I can win them over, the Democratic nominee can win the nation over.

"And life is grand And I will say this at the risk of falling from favor With those of you Who have appointed yourselves To expect us To say something darker." -- Camper Van Beethoven

One word: Iraq (0.00 / 0)
Anyone who currently claims to be against the war yet who votes for McCain is a hypocrite by definition. Of course, I don't suggest that you call anyone that even if it fits the bill. But whatever residual "fondness" that low-information Dems have for St. John needs to be countered with an explanation of how deeply he supports the war.

I've had dealings with people who care about politics yet who get their news from CNN and glancing at the headlines, who simply do not know this sort of stuff even though it's so obvious. When I've tried to fill them in on some of the details, they often change their minds. I get that "Oh, I didn't know that--thanks!".

Of course, I often find them to have "relapsed" to their previous positions after some time as passed, as if we'd never had that conversation. I think that many if not most people decide whom to vote for based on party allegience and "gut feeling", i.e. the person that they "like" and most identify with, as opposed to on their real stances on the issues. This is how Bush came so close to beating Gore in '00--"But he seems like such a regular guy compared to Gore, who's so stiff and full of himself!".

Good luck. We should all pitch in to inform low-info voters about what the candidates are really like, even if many people will be oblivious.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
One word: Iraq (0.00 / 0)
Anyone who currently claims to be against the war yet who votes for McCain is a hypocrite by definition. Of course, I don't suggest that you call anyone that even if it fits the bill. But whatever residual "fondness" that low-information Dems have for St. John needs to be countered with an explanation of how deeply he supports the war.

I've had dealings with people who care about politics yet who get their news from CNN and glancing at the headlines, who simply do not know this sort of stuff even though it's so obvious. When I've tried to fill them in on some of the details, they often change their minds. I get that "Oh, I didn't know that--thanks!".

Of course, I often find them to have "relapsed" to their previous positions after some time as passed, as if we'd never had that conversation. I think that many if not most people decide whom to vote for based on party allegience and "gut feeling", i.e. the person that they "like" and most identify with, as opposed to on their real stances on the issues. This is how Bush came so close to beating Gore in '00--"But he seems like such a regular guy compared to Gore, who's so stiff and full of himself!".

Good luck. We should all pitch in to inform low-info voters about what the candidates are really like, even if many people will be oblivious.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Well, I guess that was two words (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, I must have hit post twice.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Shorter: (4.00 / 1)
McCain = Bob Dole.

Not really convinced (4.00 / 3)
"Conservative media elites will thrash McCain."

Not a chance. As soon as it's obvious he's the leader, Limbaugh and the others will turn on a dime and pretend they never said anything. They've done it before.

"Money."

This is the Republican Party! Huge donors with HUGE sums will come out of the woodwork to defeat the Dems, even for McCain.

"McCain only has Iraq"

Polls showed that most people favored Kerry's and the Dem's policies, but elected Bush anyway. At the Presidential level, it's about personality more than policy. I'm worried about Clinton's high negatives.


depends (0.00 / 0)
If its Billary them yes... not so much if it Obama.

[ Parent ]
I think you are naive (4.00 / 2)
Believe me, the hate machine and the national media will turn on Obama in support of their number one darling, McCain. He will also have Lieberman reinforcing his message of bipartisanship.

So now we'll have two candidates claiming to be reasonable moderates, only McCain is much more experienced than Obama.

You think Republicans and independents will flock to Obama in that scenario?

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
Sam L (0.00 / 0)
Independents agree with the Democrats on a wide range of issues, most notably the war in Iraq.  If Obama can bring himself to mention that once a week, he can win over the independents against Mccain.  Especially because Mccain (probably?) won't play the immigrant card like Romney would have.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
The Hate machine will certainly turn up more for the (0.00 / 0)
Clinton(s)...  plus you have the Democrats in the mildly blue states that are now stating they are Independent and may flock to McCain with a Hillary matchup...

Obama is less of a lightening rod -- backed with the youth vote this gives him voter credibility and the true carrier of change -- with experience behind his back, and a quick mind and 'fresh' ideas -- he is the better choice...

A Clinton win in FL was a given, however....

"...The key was that McCain nearly doubled Romney among the 39% of Republicans who called themselvs moderates or liberals..."
http://talkingpoints...

That's not good for Hillary...


[ Parent ]
agreed (0.00 / 0)
Greenwald posted basically the same analysis a few weeks ago, and I was convinced.  Think of the two-minute hate from 1984, then think of the total buy-in to "John Kerry faked his medals" and then you realize the arbitrariness of the right-wing hate machine.

Well, I don't know if I agree that independents will "flock" to McCain.  That remains to be seen.  But I agree on the first point.


[ Parent ]
I agree with you on this (4.00 / 1)
the right-wing hate machine will go quiet on McCain once he is the nominee.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
they've already been doing it (4.00 / 1)
Just wait until a progressive 527 starts running ads with Rush Limbaugh saying "McCain will tear the republican party apart!" in the general.

The right wing noise machine has already said some things about McCain that will haunt them.  I know they can pivot seamlessly from feigned hatred to feigned love, and their audience will largely follow, but still, that we can hammer McCain with quotes from Tom Delay or Rush will be pretty funny stuff.


[ Parent ]
This post depresses me (4.00 / 3)
I really enjoy your analysis and am confident that you've made the strongest case possible... and it still seems pretty thin to me, especially in the context of a Clinton nomination. Addressing your bullet points one by one:

1.

Yes, McCain has 100% name recognition, which means that his favorables will be that much more difficult to attack.

2.

I think you overestimate the intellectual integrity of both McCain and the Repub base. If and when McCain wins the nomination, he will lock down the base with cynical speed. Take a look at RedState; they are already beginning the process of getting in line, and McCain isn't in full pander mode yet. I'm sure they are already writing his CPAC speech. 

Note that this process is a LOT easier for McCain/base if Clinton is nominated.

3.

This is a great point (money) and makes me feel happy.

4.

Dems have almost always had the advantage on economic issues. W couldn't do long division in the 2000 and 2004 debates; not enough people cared, mostly (in my opinion) because he was more likable than his opponents.

If Clinton is nominated, McCain will be the more likable candidate. The more likable candidate has won every prez election from 1976 onward. This is the biggest problem with the Dole-McCain comparisons. Dole and Hillary Clinton are substantially less likable than McCain and Bill Clinton.

Also, if Iraq is a/the main issue, it will be hard for Clinton to convince folks that she is really a withdrawal candidate.

5.

I agree that McCain's favorables are soft, but that's pretty strong spin you've got there. I find it difficult to get excited about running against an opponent with +20 or even +30 favorables and 100% name recognition, no matter how soft.

6.

Yes, beating McCain would be more impressive and more devastating than beating Romney, but isn't simply winning a whole lot more important than that?

Anyways, as always I enjoyed your post, but I can't say it makes me any more optimistic about a McCain-Clinton matchup.


Realignment, Anyway (4.00 / 1)
Further, with Romney we had a much better chance of a blowout election that could result in a generational mandate that would realign American politics.

I've been saying since for more than a year now--and hinting for about two--that 2008 is a realigning election, and it won't take a presidential blowout to do it, though of course that would be nice.  What matters most is that we get real control of Congress back--and then there's a real possibility of doing even better in 2012.

Don't forget, FDR lost 6 states in 1932, but only 2 in 1936, when the GOP thought they had a real shot at beating him.  There is nothing like 4 years of effective government after a total disaster to lock people in for a good long time.

Oh, and, please don't forget "Bomb-bomb-bomb! Bomb-bomb-Iran!" I don't expect the Democratic Party to use it.  I just expect everyone else to.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Who is goint to supply that needed... (4.00 / 1)
...four years of effective government?

Obama and the Children's Crusade? Trust me CA is gonna surprise you about the vaunted Obama 'organization'....

The HIll, she'll be so busy repaying favors that she'll never get around to asking Conyers WTF! about Impeachment.

The danger is that O or C get elected and.....

Absolutely nothing changes. Nothing gets fixed. Nothing is stopped.

That's where I am. Cynical, some might call it so...that is until they watch the Conyers YouTube a couple of times.

Then I look like an optimist. The Demoratic Leadership is rotten to the core...and their cowards to boot.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Thanks, that was really helpful and insightful (4.00 / 1)
So I guess there's nothing to do but to just collectively shoot ourselves, since there's obviously no hope whatsoever. Never was. Never will be. All past progress is strictly an illusion. Or something has happened in the past few years to make future progress impossible. Why didn't I realize till now?!?

Keep up the great work!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Bomb Iran non-issue (0.00 / 0)
You and I may consider the "Bomb Iran" thing to be absolutely insane, but I've seen zero evidence that Republican or Independent voters care about this, or that this issue gets more Dems out to the polls. The press is going to portray McCain as a great guy, so the average voter is not going to  feel nervous about him.

The only people who realize the bomb Iran thing is crazy were already not going to vote for him.


[ Parent ]
It's Not The ISSUE, It's The IMAGE (4.00 / 1)
It shows so many negatives all at once, and totally blows apart his sensible elder stateman image.

Just the fact that it's a 40 plus-year old piece of pop fluff serves to date him as an off-kilter old coot.

We already know what the press is going to do.  They're going to do what they've always done.  But "Bomb Iran" is just so jarringly discordant with that--that's what gives it potential legs.  And you can then load it up with lots of other discordant things.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I doubt that this particular incident has been polled (0.00 / 0)
so there's probably no data one way or the other on it specifically. But the larger point is that the man is a lot nuttier and more immature, unstable and irresponsible--and, I'd argue, also dumber--than his media image currently makes him out to be, and that such incidents, combined with many, many others, can be used effectively to make this apparent to low-information swing voters who might otherwise be inclined to vote for him in the general.

It's not accidental that Rudy's endorsing him now, since they have similar kinds of supporters--i.e. indies who like their "straight-talking", "maverick", "tough guy" images--until they're made aware of the reality behind the curtain (or mask). And just as Rudy's support caved as it became clear just how creepy and nutty and unstable he was, I imagine that a similar peeling away of McCain's non-core supporters can be accomplished by showing people what the man is really all about. I don't expect this to be as easy or successful as it was with Rudy, since McCain does have somewhat more substance. But I think that enough supporters can be peeled away to make it very, very hard for him to win.

And the beauty of that, as Chris has pointed out, is that, as opposed to beating Romney, beating McCain would be like beating the entire Reagan conservative GOP of the past 30 years, whereas Romney represented more of the Bloomberg corporatist wing of the party, less ideological than about power and money. McCain does in many ways represent that ideological wing that goes back to Goldwater, and beating him would be like taking us back to 1964, and destroying the presidential chances of their most visible conservative. Plus, the intraparty fighting that a McCain nomination would cause on the right would be worth their weight in gold. Theocons vs. neocons vs. paleocons vs. corporatists. WOW!

And then there's the prospect of an independant Ron Paul run to bring the Perot element into the race, further dividing the right from its libertarian wing!

It will be like our '68 and their '64 rolled into one.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Why on earth (0.00 / 0)
wouldn't the Democrats use "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"?  It's devastating to war-weary voters, including an awful lot of Republicans.  They'd be nuts not to use it.  And who's the "everyone else" who would? You mean 527s and the like?

Seems to me McCain has amassed a huge backlog of flip-flops and contradictions that would make a really big dent in his "straight talker" image in television commercials.  He is appealing on a personal level (from the distance of the television viewer, at least), but his "straight talk" image is so completely puncturable (if that's a word).

I still think (as an Edwards voter, mind) that despite HRC's negatives, she could absolutely hold her own and better with McCain in debates, especially on the increasingly important domestic/economic issues, and I'm not at all convinced that Obama's floating above the fray approach is all that compelling to the non-Democratic portion of the electorate.

But the intensely pleasurable imagine of the Mittster trying to cope with either HRC or Obama is a hard one to give up.

My NY/NJ sister some years ago, on catching a glimpse of Mitt on TV at our mother's home in the Boston suburbs, idly remarked, not knowing who he was, "Now, there's a face that cries out for pie."  Heheheheh.


[ Parent ]
The Dems Wouldn't Use It BECAUSE It Would Be So Effective (0.00 / 0)
But 527s might.  I'd look for it to go viral on the net first, tho.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
McCain Nomination (0.00 / 0)
If it becomes clear that McCain is the nominee in February and the Democratic nomination fight is a protracted one, McCain has the added benefit of time to rebuild his bridges, attack Democrats and prepare his campaaign

McCain is absolutely beatable (0.00 / 0)
Lot's of reasons, but I think that it'll ultimately come down to Iraq. Even though he's gone off the ranch on torture and Gitmo (superficially at least) and disagreed with some of the ways in which this war has been waged, he's been a steadfast (i.e. delusional) and enthusiastic (i.e. warmonger) supporter of the war since day one. The non-wingnut public might like him because of his "maverick" image, Vietnam record, and willingness to work with the other side (to what effect being a whole other issue), but when it's made fully aware of just how intensely he's championed the war, I just don't see how he gets enough swing voters to win it. Add to that all the wingnuts who'd sooner vote for Gus Hall than McCain and who will probably vote for Ron Paul or some other third party nut, and I just don't see him winning more than a handful of states, that are relatively important but not enough to win the presidency, e.g. AZ, UT, NV, NH, FL, TX. Maybe I'm underestimating his appeal, but man, Iraq, it'll really hurt him. Plus his age, temperment, past (and current) scandals, etc.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

All the time you spend here and you still don't get it... (0.00 / 0)
.......'conservatives' and evangelicals don't think like this. They are perfectly willing to swallow more Kool-Aid.

'Sides didn't you watch the SOTU? I did and guess what?

The war/occupation of Iraq is over, we won and the troops are coming home.

Just like that. McCAin can now say and the media will verify that the Republicans have the war in hand and to change horses in midstream....yadda......yadda....yadda and many will eat that shit up.

Once McCain is chosen, and I believe he will be, all dissent will disappear. Enough swing voters will chose him because he represents 'victory' and he takes every state in the South on racism and cultural values.

No woman or black is gonna carry the South. All the 'counting chickens' about how many ReThugs showed up in the primary as opposed to Dems is meaningless blather.

Dead people will be voting against Obama or HIllary throughout the South. People from overseas will be voting against them. People who never voted before will be voting against them. People ten years old will be voting against them.

Neither can carry that block against any ReThug much less 'Straight Talk' McCain fresh from his proven prediction of 'Victory'.

Until we get Democrats who relish a fight, a fight for the principles which set this nation apart, we are going to lose to the slick talking liars of ReThugLand and their corporate enablers in the press.

The Hill and Senator 'Historyless' don't want to fight. They want to be acclaimed.

Simple as that really.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Time to back your assertions up with data (4.00 / 1)
Otherwise, you are just spouting off.

#1 in list of wrong spouting - you need the NUMBERS for a good fight. 

Edwards doesn't have the numbers.  Bottom line. 

Hil is the establishment candidate. Had all the advantages going in.

But Obama, in a year, has built up an outstanding organization, with millions of foot soldiers ready to stand up for him, the personal charm to turn many of his fellow Senators and others in his direction, and the ability to inspire whole hosts of people to get involved in the fight, in a way that no other candidate has.

That he is where he is now, is already a major accomplishment.  I hope that will continue, and the jumpstart he has given to his campaign, his slow and steady swell of support, first an annoyance to Hilary, then a shocking win in IA, then the loss in NH, then the tie in NV, then the huge win in SC -

He's already come from behind, to this point.

You want the people for a "fight", guess what?  You need the most troops.  Obama has the most real people contributing real dollars to his campaign, without the $2k big spenders.

"Fighting", is not simply an attitude, an inner gut thing.  It requires the ability to gather an army, and Obama has proven to do this the best of all three candidates, creating it to rival Hillary's significant initial advantages, all within a year.


[ Parent ]
You're delusional (0.00 / 0)
That's the only conclusion that I can come to after reading this. Either that or, as I wrote elsewhere, you're attepting satire and doing an amazingly bad job of it.

There is absolutely no reason to support this nutty assertion that within the next 6 or so months McCain will declare the war won and call for the troops to come home. It's just come crazy CT that you made up because it's easier than actually coming up with something that makes sense. The base is committed to staying in Iraq for years if not decades, and if McCain try to pull a 180--after saying that we could be there for 100 years--he will be crucified.

You don't get it, and probably won't until the evidence becomes too obvious even for you to ignore. The conservative era is OVER. Today's GOP is in taters. Its various wings are fighting it out for dominace and it'll be years before the dust settles and the new GOP emerges. McCain is the last the breed that began with Goldwater. What began in Arizona will end there. How fitting. He might actually win, but I doubt it. And even if he does, it'll be the right's last hurrah and a disasterous one term presidency with strong Dem majorities in congress that will tie his hands.

And the south doesn't matter to Dems anymore. Hasn't for decades. I wouldn't count out VA, AK, FL or even TN, but either Dem can win without it. We're obviously going to carry CA, NY, MA, PA, IL and OH, and a number of other important mid-sized states. How does McCain beat that? Do the math. The numbers do not favor him.

But never mind, this is a waste of time since you're clearly not interesting in actually analyzing the situation, but pontificating like some rabid late night sports talk show fan boy who needs to get out more, and anyone who disagrees with you is tagged a fool because they JUST DON'T GET IT. Yeah. Like we didn't get the '06 election. Or Bush and the GOP's drop in the polls. Whatever. Keep playing fantasy league prognosticator. The rest of us will continue to assess the actual facts and employ some logic in our thinking.

Btw, I don't believe that you're a Democrat. I think that you're a concern troll just trying to stir up trouble here. That's been obvious for quite some time. Whether you do this for kicks or for some other purpose, I don't know or care. But you're not here for the right reasons, given how virtually all your comments are attempts to bash this or that person or position.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
I Just Do Not See (0.00 / 0)
how the author of the enabling legislation for America's biggest foreign policy disaster, one of its biggest, unapologetic boosters, gets the nomination or the Presidency. 
Only a sick politics would allow that.

... (0.00 / 0)
Always a mistake to rely on the health of American politics.

And I believe that the last time a politician who was unapologetic booster for America's biggest foreign policy disaster was...
three years ago.

That said, I think our chances are just fine.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Immigration is key (0.00 / 0)
McCain is less likely to mobilize Latinos for the Democrats and may be the GOP's best hope to keep them as a swing group in the future.

McCain is also old (4.00 / 1)
Even better, he looks old. Better still, he acts old. This isn't Morning In America.  A few weeks ago he gave the wrong answer when asked if he would serve two terms.  He'll eventually have to give the right answer--which is yes--but no one will believe it.  It's an issue the media will chew on for months.

McCaine will easily beat Hillary - (0.00 / 0)
You are just whistling past the graveyard.

My full post is here:
http://nobhillobserv...

McCain will beat Hillary easily - your post is simply delusional.


Likewise. (4.00 / 2)
We already know how to beat McCain, after all George Bush showed us how in 2000.  Make everyone realize he is an angry war-monger.  And he is.  We don't need black babies to trash this guy, just get him mad and he'll say all manner of stupid things.

Quit being so defeatist.  It doesn't make you wiser than us "naive" optimists who think a sane and actually pretty moderate person like Hillary clinton could beat a deluded war-monger like McCain.


[ Parent ]
McCain's Strong Suit (0.00 / 0)
is said to be foreign policy.  But since when does mindless, un-nuanced belligerence constitute any sort of foreign policy expertise?  He is a dangerous war-monger, and must be vulnerable here.

He Got Captured In Vietnam (0.00 / 0)
What more do you want?

The entire GOP lineup is either didn't serve, took part in a disaster, or both.

GOP "experience" is getting mad, and getting so mad that you think you're getting even, when you're only digging yourself deeper in the hole.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
He is very beatable (0.00 / 0)
Especially on the economy and I wouldn't be surprised to now see a major anti-immigrant independent run.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox