McCain to win election

Benedict XVI

flogen wrote: »

That's an ignorant and downright incorrect suggestion.

Bill O'Reilly is an Irish-American and he's about as right-wing as you can get. Samantha Power is an Irish-American and she's a dedicated supporter of Obama (even though she had to quit the team).

That's just two names coming off the top of my head - why on earth do you think Irish-Americans in the media or in public life could not bring themselves to support republican or black candidates?

What makes you think Irish-Americans any more racist than "indigenous" Americans?

Niall O' Dowd moves in a completely different media circle that O' Reilly.

O' Reilly presents a TV show that is watched by millions in the US and all over the world, O' Dowd publishes a newspaper that is read primarily by Irish born people and is hardly read beyond NYC.

The people that are reading O' Dowd live in working class neighbourhoods that are predominantly Irish and go to bars and diners that non whites would never enter from one end of the year to another.

These people would never vote for a black man.

The Irish-Americans that share the neighbourhoods mentioned above would not even like to see blacks move into their street never mind have one in the white house.

I know this because I have lived and worked in these neighbourhood.

flogen

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Niall O' Dowd moves in a completely different media circle that O' Reilly.

O' Reilly presents a TV show that is watched by millions in the US and all over the world, O' Dowd publishes a newspaper that is read primarily by Irish born people and is hardly read beyond NYC.

The people that are reading O' Dowd live in working class neighbourhoods that are predominantly Irish and go to bars and diners that non whites would never enter from one end of the year to another.

These people would never vote for a black man.

The Irish-Americans that share the neighbourhoods mentioned above would not even like to see blacks move into their street never mind have one in the white house.

I know this because I have lived and worked in these neighbourhood.

I raised O'Reilly as a point about Irish-Americans and Republicans - O'Reilly is just as ignorant regarding race (see his comments on a visit to a restaurant in a predominantly black area).

Nonetheless, your pigeon-holing of Irish America is rediculous; I've no doubt that there are plenty of racist Irish Americans in the country but I don't think your experiences are in any way representative of the community as a whole, which isn't nearly as contained as it may have been 100 years ago.

Orbghost

Manic Moran wrote: »

Bush isn't running in this election, in case you hadn't noticed.

NTM

No, but if McCain gets in you might have a new face but it will be business as usual. What's needed is a major shift in direction, new ideas, vision, someone who is dynamic & has skill on the world stage. Of the three candidates, McCain strikes me with the least ability to change anything.

lostexpectation

flogen wrote: »

I raised O'Reilly as a point about Irish-Americans and Republicans - O'Reilly is just as ignorant regarding race (see his comments on a visit to a restaurant in a predominantly black area).

Nonetheless, your pigeon-holing of Irish America is rediculous; I've no doubt that there are plenty of racist Irish Americans in the country but I don't think your experiences are in any way representative of the community as a whole, which isn't nearly as contained as it may have been 100 years ago.

its quite clear that o'dowd and co think there a special kind of immigrant ,the white kind

bren50c

apoch632 wrote: »

On the 100 years point.

Doesnt America still have troops stationed in Germany and Korea.

Long stays after a war are not that unusual

Germany and Korea have been mentioned already. I was making the point in connection to Islamic extremism/terrorism. Its a different situation in the middle east. The americans dont have to contend with german/korean suicide bombers do they?

Overheal

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Wow, you really underestimate the intelligence of the US electorate.

What does Obama offer that will give him a landslide ?.

He keeps talking about change but at the end of the day I am not sure people in the US really want that much change, the country is far from being in the dumps.

Sure a certain percentage of republicans dislike McCain but that does not mean that they will go out and vote for a Democrat.

On the other hand, and I said this before, Obama attracts a lot of ‘support’ from young and first time voters, but he will have a lot of work to do to get these people off their ass on election day.

Oh and by the way, the rest of the world may support Obama, as you claim, but it’s not the rest of the world that is voting remember.

yea, tell that do a canadian dollar.

If it came down to hillary and McCain I would vote McCain but I value Obama's ideal of change in the administration. America needs another go-to guy. Bill did that for a lot of people and it worked. He was a great president for all of his shortcomings. When Americans feel the need to apologise for their elected official? Thats sad. If he can push the concept of having a president to rely on, than he will take the election. It wont be a landslide, but it will be his. I hope anyway.

Manic Moran

but I value Obama's ideal of change in the administration

So you don't really care what his policy and style is, as long as it's different from Bush's?

I'm not convinced that's a well-thought-out criterion, especially when everyone's going to have a different style from Bush.

NTM

Overheal

What is your well thought criterion, sir, for Senator McCain? Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but in a side by side comparison why do you think he makes a better choice than Senator Obama? You've said it yourself: the republicans hate the guy. Its pretty much the same why I'd give him my vote if it came down to him and hillary.

I'm curious to whether McCain's war history might actually hurt him. Yes it would make him a good Chief to have in a war, but the only war we're fighting is the one we've dug ourselves into. And he's effectively promised that we will not be leaving in the forseeable future. Obama wants to try and bring the troops home. Personally I'm sick of seeing my tax dollar fly down the hole, and hearing about our servicemen getting killed. I respect that we need to finish the pile of crap we started over there but we're running ourselves into the ground as we do.

DadaKopf

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?

The dems are going to select either a woman that seems to be universally hated, or a many with little experience and happens to be an African American

I think Obmaha’s downfall will be his lack of experience before his race.

When it comes down to it in Nov people will have a choice between McCain and one of the other two. Most people will put their faith is a war veteran who seems to straddle the middle ground of republicanism.

Also if I recall in 2004 Kerry was attracting a lot of support from your voters, who on the day never bothered to come out and vote, the same could very well happen to Obmaha

Yep. My prediction, too, except I think it'll be him versus Hillary (but I haven't read the papers in a while, so maybe that's changed). Anywho, it's it's a when, not an if, then there's stil a bif if: IF the US economy continues to take a nosedive and ordinary 'folks' really get the fear, the was in Iraq will become a sticking point no-one could forgive. It'd become all to obvious that the money being wasted on a war with no end could pay for social welfare for 50 years.

You've said it yourself: the republicans hate the guy. Its pretty much the same why I'd give him my vote if it came down to him and hillary.

You know the saying, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

What is your well thought criterion, sir, for Senator McCain? Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but in a side by side comparison why do you think he makes a better choice than Senator Obama?

I have a thing for Moderates, being one myself. Particularly maverick ones who are not afraid to defy the Party line to work with the opposition. McCain has been known to do this, which is precisely why he is not well received by the hard right (Gang of 14, anyone?). Obama is a Democratic Party Loyalist, with one of the higest rates of voting in lock-step with the Party wishes of any of the D senators. (97% if NBC is to believed). I do not want a Party Man, I want someone who can actually balance his opinions across both sides. Plus, since McCain has been at the business of government for 20+ years, I think he probably has a better footing in DC for getting things done. Add in his practical experience in the military, and I think overall you have a better package. McCain is also the only candidate to have a warship with his name.

This is before you get into individual policy differences between the two, of which I happen to agree with McCain far more often than with Obama.

NTM

DPineapple

Manic Moran wrote: »

McCain is also the only candidate to have a warship with his name.NTM

That is precisely the point. He is, at best, a hawk. I actually had the opportunity, when McCain ran in 2000, to meet the man and hear him speak at a rally in Philadelphia. To me, then an uneducated high-schooler, he was just what I was looking for: a moderate, congenial man, who would save us all from George W. I have since altered my opinion of his politics, however likeable the man himself might be. He seems to the unobservant and uninformed voter to be moderate, and he sounds so on nearly every news program he appears on. However, this is deceitful. If you look at his voting record in the Senate, when he even votes (tons of his votes are NV, especially on important matters), he votes conservatively. Examples: 1) he voted not to investigate fraudulent contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) voted for recent Congressional pay raises, 3) supported Clinton's disgusting Welfare Reform Act, which left millions of the working poor struggling for assistance.

I know numerous Democrats who are blinded by his affability and are planning to vote for him in the general election. He may well win, but I for one shall not lend my support: if the Socialist Worker's Party fronts a candidate, I'll vote for them. If not, some other third party. You see, the problem rests with something that my old politics professor was fond of saying: the Republicans and Democrats are each one side of the same coin. We will never have real change in the US, or around the world, until there is a political revolution.

gordon_gekko

DPineapple wrote: »

That is precisely the point. He is, at best, a hawk. I actually had the opportunity, when McCain ran in 2000, to meet the man and hear him speak at a rally in Philadelphia. To me, then an uneducated high-schooler, he was just what I was looking for: a moderate, congenial man, who would save us all from George W. I have since altered my opinion of his politics, however likeable the man himself might be. He seems to the unobservant and uninformed voter to be moderate, and he sounds so on nearly every news program he appears on. However, this is deceitful. If you look at his voting record in the Senate, when he even votes (tons of his votes are NV, especially on important matters), he votes conservatively. Examples: 1) he voted not to investigate fraudulent contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) voted for recent Congressional pay raises, 3) supported Clinton's disgusting Welfare Reform Act, which left millions of the working poor struggling for assistance.

I know numerous Democrats who are blinded by his affability and are planning to vote for him in the general election. He may well win, but I for one shall not lend my support: if the Socialist Worker's Party fronts a candidate, I'll vote for them. If not, some other third party. You see, the problem rests with something that my old politics professor was fond of saying: the Republicans and Democrats are each one side of the same coin. We will never have real change in the US, or around the world, until there is a political revolution.

just because most americans will be happy to see the back of bush does not mean most americans dont want someone like mc cain who is resonably hawkish
americans like all peoples of past empires are a hawkish people , most of them dont care if there hated around the world as long as there top dog
it was the american people who made the usa an imperial power and it would be foolish to expect a complete sea change over night
remember the war in iraq was hugely popular in the begining in the usa regardless of anti war protests , the only reason its unpopular now is because so many americans are coming home in body bags
americans genuinly believe there brand of bull**** that they are the safeguarders of the world and weaker nations
they talk about how they as a nation contribute more to overseas aid than any other nation , this is of course true but they also contribute more to keeping those poorer nations in poverty aswel
at the upcoming international agricultural trade deal , the american diplomats will be looking for a deal which protects american farmers , not provides 3rd world farmers with access to international markets with there cheaper produce

im going of on a tangent here so ill get back on point , i think mc cain is different enough from bush to get elected even he is a member of the same party
btw ,another important thing to remember is obama has won mostly in states where democrats cant win in the general election
while he won misisipi , georgia , the red neck states , he only had acception to the rule democratic black voters voting for him
the vast vast majority of states which obama has won in the primary , cannot be won by a democrat come november

Overheal

DPineapple wrote: »

You see, the problem rests with something that my old politics professor was fond of saying: the Republicans and Democrats are each one side of the same coin. We will never have real change in the US, or around the world, until there is a political revolution.

welcome to boards. what did you have in mind

DPineapple

gordon_gekko wrote: »

just because most americans will be happy to see the back of bush does not mean most americans dont want someone like mc cain who is resonably hawkish
americans like all peoples of past empires are a hawkish people , most of them dont care if there hated around the world as long as there top dog
it was the american people who made the usa an imperial power and it would be foolish to expect a complete sea change over night
remember the war in iraq was hugely popular in the begining in the usa regardless of anti war protests , the only reason its unpopular now is because so many americans are coming home in body bags
americans genuinly believe there brand of bull**** that they are the safeguarders of the world and weaker nations
they talk about how they as a nation contribute more to overseas aid than any other nation , this is of course true but they also contribute more to keeping those poorer nations in poverty aswel
at the upcoming international agricultural trade deal , the american diplomats will be looking for a deal which protects american farmers , not provides 3rd world farmers with access to international markets with there cheaper produce

im going of on a tangent here so ill get back on point , i think mc cain is different enough from bush to get elected even he is a member of the same party
btw ,another important thing to remember is obama has won mostly in states where democrats cant win in the general election
while he won misisipi , georgia , the red neck states , he only had acception to the rule democratic black voters voting for him
the vast vast majority of states which obama has won in the primary , cannot be won by a democrat come november

As for your first paragraph, well, it is trite at best. As for the second, I thought I made it pretty clear that McCain might well win. So why argue with a point I've already made? Thirdly, the word "acception" in this context would be "exception".

DPineapple

Overheal wrote: »

welcome to boards. what did you have in mind

Thanks for the welcome; as for my revolution, I was thinking along the lines of a working class rise-up.

,8,1

What working class? Like so many other Western nations, America's working class is shrinking. It does not exist to anywhere near the extent it did in decades past. As the manufacturing sector inevitably ships East, most people find their jobs in the service sectors - which have vastly different dynamics regarding pay and working conditions.

Besides that, people have seen what hardcore Socialism and Communism can do to a society and I don't think they want to go through that all over again. (Typically people who talk about a "people's revolution of the working class" are Communists.)

A more fundamental conflict in America is that of a national independence vs internationalism. As all candidates and parties are anti-nationalist and professed globalists, this is what a civilian Revolution should centre around.

DPineapple

,8,1 wrote: »

What working class? Like so many other Western nations, America's working class is shrinking. It does not exist to anywhere near the extent it did in decades past. As the manufacturing sector inevitably ships East, most people find their jobs in the service sectors - which have vastly different dynamics regarding pay and working conditions.

Besides that, people have seen what hardcore Socialism and Communism can do to a society and I don't think they want to go through that all over again. (Typically people who talk about a "people's revolution of the working class" are Communists.)

A more fundamental conflict in America is that of a national independence vs internationalism. As all candidates and parties are anti-nationalist and professed globalists, this is what a civilian Revolution should centre around.

What a ridiculously ignorant thing to say, "America's working class is shrinking". It simply demonstrates that you have no idea what it is like to live in poverty even while you are working. In 2004, the US measured poverty at 12.7%, and for a single person as earning $ 9,827 per year. I can tell you from experience that this amount of money is way way below what the threshold should be. From 2000 to 2004 (this is the latest research a cursory search found) the poverty rate has RISEN each year. How can you say it is shrinking? I made $13,000 last year and was forced to move home with my parents because I could not afford to live even with a roommate without public assistance. In fact, I was refused public assistance even with mounting medical debt and $2 in the bank - there are too many people worse off. I worked with many of these working class poor in several of my "service" jobs. The pay for my last job was $8.25, sometimes less, to start. That is a pittance, a joke. I've been to the working class neighborhoods, I've seen the huge growth in poverty especially since the George W. Bush years . . . to say that the working class is shrinking is frighteningly callous. A more accurate statement might be to say that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, the poor getting poorer and rich getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking.

StickyMcGinty

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?

nope, me too.

The Democrats are undoing themselves with the constant mud-slinging going on between Obama & Clinton.

berliner

snow scorpion wrote: »

The US is the most hated country on the planet because it is the most powerful country on the planet, not because of foreign policy and the economy.

As Dennis Miller says, "The United States is simultaneously the most loved, the most hated, the most feared and the most respected country on the face of the earth." It's the price you pay for being #1.

Why is the USA #1.I'm sick of american culture.It sucks because it's really....bla,bla everyone knowns america is on the wane.Obama proves that.Oh dear.

ghostdancer

not anything huge, but all signs point to the Dem contest being wrapped up in June. Harry Reid has now weighed in.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html

While Democrats across the country are anguished about the bitter fight for their presidential nomination, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't appear to be losing any sleep over it.

Asked about it last week, Reid said he remains convinced the nominee will be decided well before the August national convention. He wore a serene and mysterious smile.

But Reid isn't one for lengthy explanations. The conversation went like this:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

That's all the Nevada Democrat would say about it.
.........

and seeing as Pelosi has already weighed in and pretty much said that the supers should end it in favour of whoever has the most pledged delegates after the last contest (ie. almost certainly Obama), the only people really left are Dean, who pretty much despises Clinton and the DLC wing of the party, and Gore, who doesn't hold the Clintons in high regard either, by most accounts.

GuanYin

6 months is a long time in politics.

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?

Right now? Probably, yes, although it doesn't mean you're wrong..

The dems are going to select either a woman that seems to be universally hated, or a many with little experience and happens to be an African American

I think Obmaha’s downfall will be his lack of experience before his race.

McCain has seemed the one who is unsure and lacking in experience (even though he isn't).

When it comes down to it in Nov people will have a choice between McCain and one of the other two. Most people will put their faith is a war veteran who seems to straddle the middle ground of republicanism.

Had he not abandoned the middle ground, he might not be doing so badly in the polls.

As it stands, Obama seems to be covering more of the independents.

Also if I recall in 2004 Kerry was attracting a lot of support from your voters, who on the day never bothered to come out and vote, the same could very well happen to Obmaha

All indications suggest that McCain is so far behind that this won't be an issue.

Benedict XVI

Damn you 'GuanYin'

I was hoping the next post on this thread would be by me on Nov 5th with the simple line

'I told you so......'

(I still think he will win though)

horseflesh

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Damn you 'GuanYin'

I was hoping the next post on this thread would be by me on Nov 5th with the simple line

'I told you so......'

(I still think he will win though)

Il Papa, are you a betting man??

nhughes100

I think McCain would have won if he hadn't picked Palin as his vice pres. Surely there was someone who was a bit more versed in national politics who knew what to say and when to say it instead of fodder for Saturday night live.

I think it will be tighter then people think, I'm inclined to go along with the idea that the pollsters are being told what they want to hear. Personally I'd go for none of the above.

Interestingly I heard this morning on the radio that the real Sarah Palin is going to be on SNL this weekend, I wonder will the fake one be there too?

Benedict XVI

My original post asked ‘Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?’
Now the question is ‘Am I the only one who thinks McCain has a chance to win’

Here are the reasons I think we can still win, even though I am far less confident that I was 6 months ago.

1. Redistribution – A word that has come up a bit in the last few days. If you get American to believe that they will have to give up some of their hard earned cash to other who do not earn it then people are going to get scared and think again about voting for Obama
2. Sarah Palin – She has guaranteed the evangelical vote, and it is a constituency that will come out and vote in big numbers.
3. Over confidence on the Obama side – Young and black voters are expected to come out in numbers and vote for Obama, but young and black voters are not know for traditionally turning out in large numbers. If the media are proclaiming Obama the winner before the election is over (as they may well do) then the young and black voters will not bother, believing that it is already in the bag.
4. The Bradley effect – Some white voters may tell the pollsters that they will vote for Obama, but when they go into that booth they may select McCain.

All of the above may swing it on the day to McCain.

brianthebard

Benedict XVI wrote: »

My original post asked ‘Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?’
Now the question is ‘Am I the only one who thinks McCain has a chance to win’

Here are the reasons I think we can still win, even though I am far less confident that I was 6 months ago.

1. Redistribution – A word that has come up a bit in the last few days. If you get American to believe that they will have to give up some of their hard earned cash to other who do not earn it then people are going to get scared and think again about voting for Obama

More and more americans actually need some sort of support from their government. There are a few who will hear the word socialism and vote McCain, but most realise they need a change in system.

2. Sarah Palin – She has guaranteed the evangelical vote, and it is a constituency that will come out and vote in big numbers.

The evangelical vote was sown up from the start, who else would they vote for? This isn't going to impact the numbers very much if at all imo.

3. Over confidence on the Obama side – Young and black voters are expected to come out in numbers and vote for Obama, but young and black voters are not know for traditionally turning out in large numbers. If the media are proclaiming Obama the winner before the election is over (as they may well do) then the young and black voters will not bother, believing that it is already in the bag.

This line is brought out almost every election and I don't believe it to be particularly true, especially this election. I don't know many people who have the vote, but the one's I do are voting (and have voted) Obama because they are sick of Republican government, even though the two party system turns them off voting generally. Its gotten to a point where even the most disillusioned voters are being mobilised, if not for Obama, then against the Republican party.

4. The Bradley effect – Some white voters may tell the pollsters that they will vote for Obama, but when they go into that booth they may select McCain.

All of the above may swing it on the day to McCain.

You've said this one a good few times but I think anyone voting against Obama cause of race has been pretty forthright in that opinion already.

Benedict XVI

brianthebard wrote: »

More and more americans actually need some sort of support from their government. There are a few who will hear the word socialism and vote McCain, but most realise they need a change in system.

Most Americans are adverse to gov. handouts, and the hard working American middle class do not need a handout and will not be that willing to see their money go to other who they perseve are not willing to earn it.

The evangelical vote was sown up from the start, who else would they vote for? This isn't going to impact the numbers very much if at all imo.

Many on the Christian right were not willing to go out and vote for McCain, Palin has guaranteed that those people will now get out and vote

This line is brought out almost every election and I don't believe it to be particularly true, especially this election. I don't know many people who have the vote, but the one's I do are voting (and have voted) Obama because they are sick of Republican government, even though the two party system turns them off voting generally. Its gotten to a point where even the most disillusioned voters are being mobilised, if not for Obama, then against the Republican party.

Laziness on the part of young voters was one reason Kerry failed in 2004.

You've said this one a good few times but I think anyone voting against Obama cause of race has been pretty forthright in that opinion already.

possibly, but it still may have an effect.

Ponster

Benedict XVI wrote: »

My original post asked ‘Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?’
Now the question is ‘Am I the only one who thinks McCain has a chance to win’

Yes. McCain will be unlikely to get over 200 electoral votes let alone the 270 he needs to win. The math against an Obama win is just too strong.


> Laziness on the part of young voters was one reason Kerry failed in 2004.

3 states that have early-voting in place have already exceeded their 2004 totals voters. The other 8 are between 50% and 100% of their 2004 totals. Exit polls suggest that more than 75% of these people voted Obama.

brianthebard

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Most Americans are adverse to gov. handouts, and the hard working American middle class do not need a handout and will not be that willing to see their money go to other who they perseve are not willing to earn it.

And you can back this up with something right? Otherwise its an empty statement.
The people who's homes are being foreclosed don't need a handout? Srsly?

Many on the Christian right were not willing to go out and vote for McCain, Palin has guaranteed that those people will now get out and vote

Can you show what sort of bump she has given the campaign in numbers? Any increase she did give him has been factored in weeks ago, they aren't suddenly going to appear at the polls with no one noticing-evangelists are one of the key demographics that pollsters watch. If they haven't given him a lead now they aren't going to in the vote.

Laziness on the part of young voters was one reason Kerry failed in 2004.

Kerry got the highest turn out in the history of the US, beaten only by Bush in the same election (obviously). Bush won because of a very strong get out the vote campaign, not because the young were too lazy.

possibly, but it still may have an effect.

It would be great if you could show this to be true.

nytraveller

Benedict XVI wrote: »

4. The Bradley effect – Some white voters may tell the pollsters that they will vote for Obama, but when they go into that booth they may select McCain.

Have yet to hear people talk about the "Reverse Bradley effect"?? -

Some white voters may tell the pollsters that they will vote for McCain, but when they go into that booth they may select Obama.

I know some Republicans who are closet Obama fans.