McCain to win election

The Mad Hatter

Benedict XVI wrote: »

She has never been a senator, she is currently Governor of Alaska.

And she is not running for president either

Gosh, well as long as she won't have any real power that's ok.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's not *that* racist. Obama is pretty much an empty suit, who's main attraction is that he's not white. a 'transformational' figure, which is all well and good and will likely do wonders for americas image abroad (until he bombs some 3rd world ****e hole and everyone realises he's just another US president). The problem with Obama is that no one knows what he can do. He gives wonderful speeches, he has pretty good timing.. jumping into the presidential race that would suit his empty headed 'change' message best and if you['ve been watching Ellen, he's a fairly good dancer.

now this is all still better than george bush, but this man is not the messiah everyone seems to hope he will be. He's just a bog standard politician, who's slightly better at public speaking than the rest.
I'm torn between wanting mccain to win to see the heartbroken depression obama supporters in europe suffer through or wanting Obama to win for the exact same reason.

--edit

on the subject of bill ayres....or however you spell his name. wasn't america founded on the principle that the individual can challenge the goverment? Politically and militarily?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Jefferson. Seems to me that ayres was doing the american thing and fighting against a government he saw as corrupt, morally bankrupt and dangerous. Could do with more of that sort of thing all around the world. Just, not from god damn lefties.

nice1franko

The bookies have Obama at 1-10 and McCain just over 7-1... fair prices at this stage IMO.

Benedict XVI

Mordeth wrote: »

it's not *that* racist. Obama is pretty much an empty suit, who's main attraction is that he's not white. a 'transformational' figure, which is all well and good and will likely do wonders for americas image abroad (until he bombs some 3rd world ****e hole and everyone realises he's just another US president). The problem with Obama is that no one knows what he can do. He gives wonderful speeches, he has pretty good timing.. jumping into the presidential race that would suit his empty headed 'change' message best and if you['ve been watching Ellen, he's a fairly good dancer.

now this is all still better than george bush, but this man is not the messiah everyone seems to hope he will be. He's just a bog standard politician, who's slightly better at public speaking than the rest.
I'm torn between wanting mccain to win to see the heartbroken depression obama supporters in europe suffer through or wanting Obama to win for the exact same reason.

I agree 100%

oscarBravo

Mordeth wrote: »

it's not *that* racist. Obama is pretty much an empty suit, who's main attraction is that he's not white.

Rephrasing it doesn't make it any less racist.

a 'transformational' figure, which is all well and good and will likely do wonders for americas image abroad (until he bombs some 3rd world ****e hole and everyone realises he's just another US president). The problem with Obama is that no one knows what he can do. He gives wonderful speeches, he has pretty good timing.. jumping into the presidential race that would suit his empty headed 'change' message best and if you All of which is a fair enough criticism to level at any presidential candidate, but it would all be equally true of a charismatic, well-spoken, inspiring white candidate. Ergo, using it as a reason to claim that he's only the candidate because he's black is, at best, a fallacy.

now this is all still better than george bush, but this man is not the messiah everyone seems to hope he will be. He's just a bog standard politician, who's slightly better at public speaking than the rest.
I'm torn between wanting mccain to win to see the heartbroken depression obama supporters in europe suffer through or wanting Obama to win for the exact same reason.

See above.

Ludo

Mordeth wrote: »

The problem with Obama is that no one knows what he can do.

You see a problem, some more optimistic people see opportunity to do things differently and better.
It may well not work out, like the negative people (funnily enough all of them are McCain supporters) among us hope, but it is worth a try.
No one knows what McCain can do as president either really. Will President McCain be the pre-2007 John McCain (lets call him the good one who I would have voted for) or the post-2007 one (ultra negative and a panderer)? In fact no one can really tell what kind of a job someone will do as president until he is there doing it. It is a job unlike any other.

Mordeth wrote: »

I'm torn between wanting mccain to win to see the heartbroken depression obama supporters in europe suffer through or wanting Obama to win for the exact same reason.

Ah, my favourite kind of reason people have for wanting Obama to lose....to see the depression of his supporters :rolleyes:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you say supporters, I say fanatics. You wouldn't get this kind of uncritical fawning at a take that concert.

oscarbravo, well god damn I guess I just hates me them ****.

oscarBravo

Mordeth wrote: »

you say supporters, I say fanatics. You wouldn't get this kind of uncritical fawning at a take that concert.

You might see it at a Sarah Palin rally, though. I guess everyone has their uncritical devotees, but that doesn't mean that everyone who would prefer to see a particular candidate win is a fanatic.

oscarbravo, well god damn I guess I just hates me them ****.

Heaven forbid you'd actually discuss the issue seriously.

Ludo

Mordeth wrote: »

you say supporters, I say fanatics. You wouldn't get this kind of uncritical fawning at a take that concert.

No, actually you said supporters

But lets not waste time quibbling over terminology...you need the time to come up with a better reason for wanting McCain to win the presidency other than to piss off Obama "fanatics" (oh look...I did the McCain sarcastic air quotes). Shows a serious lack of maturity to be honest if this is the best you can come up with.

Nymph

I, for one, can put a lot more hope in a country who votes for obama than one which votes for McCain. I'll admit I don't know everything about either candiate, but I think America needs change and I think Obama can bring them closer to that. People create change, not a President - but it's a start.

MoominPapa

Even the White Supremacists are up for Obama (except the good ol' boys in the Klan)
esquire article

FatherTed

I dunno but I think the McCain/Palin "supporters" are more nuttier than the Obamanites:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189163&title=Obama-and-Palin-Rallies-of-Fear

cornbb

Mordeth wrote: »

Obama is pretty much an empty suit, who's main attraction is that he's not white... The problem with Obama is that no one knows what he can do.

But he's already done a lot. The fact that he has united such a broad cross-spectrum of americans is a huge achievement in itself. His slogan "Change" is precisely what he represents, as much as I hate acknowledging the reality of what is essentially a marketing cliché, but it is precisely the reason behind his success: America is voicing the fact that it is hugely pissed off with the direction the country has been going in.

As for what he will or won't actually do when he is president, you could make the same argument about McCain or anyone else. Election promises are election promises. His stated policies are fairly concrete though, and are certainly no worse than what McCain is offering. You are right, to an extent it will be "business as usual" just like any US president, but the world aint gonna change overnight. The rest of the world has already warmed to him hugely so he is already off to a flying start.

edit--

The problem with Obama is that no one knows what he can do.

And this attitude really grinds my gears. Every potential world leader is untested until they are in the job. This attitude, IMO, is the same reason that Fianna Fáil have been in power for far too long in this country - people hate them but they don't have the balls to give someone else a chance. The "devil you know is the better than the one you don't" attitude is a very bad one to have in politics, IMO.

Manic Moran

The fact that he has united such a broad cross-spectrum of americans is a huge achievement in itself.

Did he?

Or did the Republican party just manage to unite people against themselves? I don't realistically see Hillary or Richardson being much further behind Obama at this stage.

NTM

Mr.Micro

Its not that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread that makes him the favourite at the minute to win, or anything that he has really done. The reality is what the Republicians have done for the last 8 years, culminating in near financial disaster and huge job losses. As Clinton, I do believe said to Bush Sr, "its the economy stupid ", that's what matters to most people in the end. The Republicians have been living a lie for 8 years and its been exposed, like a massive con job. So voters want change and Obama happens to be in the right place at the right time.

As regard what one poster said that Obama is a man in an empty suit, perhaps thas what the US needs right now is calm and moderation, less of the gung ho.
Maybe Obama will be great and good or just good, either way he has to be better than the total disaster that is leaving office.

Denis Irwin

Arizona being called as a toss up state now according to Real Clear Politics. Now although McCain will more than likely win in his home state it's got to be of some embarrasment to him that he isn't (according to some of the polls at least ) winning his own home state by any sort of a commanding lead.

is_that_so

cornbb wrote: »

But he's already done a lot. The fact that he has united such a broad cross-spectrum of americans is a huge achievement in itself. His slogan "Change" is precisely what he represents, as much as I hate acknowledging the reality of what is essentially a marketing cliché, but it is precisely the reason behind his success: America is voicing the fact that it is hugely pissed off with the direction the country has been going in.

Slogans are cheap and easy and have thrown up varying degrees of lunacy and fanaticism. Not convinced by him and still waiting.

I am more put out by the X-Factor nonsense that has characterised this election and by the huge sums that have been allowed in all of the campaigns. If an election can be funded to such an enormous extent when does it cease to be an election and become something that can effectively be bought?

As for what he will or won't actually do when he is president, you could make the same argument about McCain or anyone else. Election promises are election promises. His stated policies are fairly concrete though, and are certainly no worse than what McCain is offering. You are right, to an extent it will be "business as usual" just like any US president, but the world aint gonna change overnight. The rest of the world has already warmed to him hugely so he is already off to a flying start.

edit--


And this attitude really grinds my gears. Every potential world leader is untested until they are in the job. This attitude, IMO, is the same reason that Fianna Fáil have been in power for far too long in this country - people hate them but they don't have the balls to give someone else a chance. The "devil you know is the better than the one you don't" attitude is a very bad one to have in politics, IMO.

No more than "this guy has to win because his opponent represents all that is bad" attitude. No-one actually knows whether either of them would be any good. The only thing that can be said with certainly is that they cannot be anywhere as bad as Bush.

Cadet?

is_that_so wrote: »

No more than "this guy has to win because his opponent represents all that is bad" attitude.

But isn't that what repesentative democracy is all about?

No one is ever going to agree with everything a candidate stands for- the point is to vote for the person who you think will do a better job. Therefore, in a two horse race, if someone votes one way because he prefers him/her over the other candidate-even if he doesn't necessarily like them- well then I think that's a perfectly valid reason.

Voting for someone because you want to piss off supporters of the other candidate is the worst thing anybody could do with their vote. So juvenile. I was talking to a US student over here who voted for McCain (this is what he says, so I have to take him at face value) to annoy his Irish Obamamaniac friends........How sad is that.

is_that_so

Cadet? wrote: »

But isn't that what representative democracy is all about?

No, it just becomes part of a very long list of negative campaign slogans. All it says is don't vote for the other guy. Much as it may rally the troops and shift a few wavering voters, that type of thing doesn't address why the person saying it is any better or should be trusted any more than their opponent.

Cadet? wrote: »

Voting for someone because you want to piss off supporters of the other candidate is the worst thing anybody could do with their vote. So juvenile. I was talking to a US student over here who voted for McCain (this is what he says, so I have to take him at face value) to annoy his Irish Obamamaniac friends........How sad is that.

Sad it may be but it's a reminder that an election is not a football match. It's also a reminder that there are people in the US and elsewhere who don't get or care for what Obama claims to represent.

Once it is over there'll be a lot of US citizens who didn't agree with nor vote for the winner whose needs must be included as well.

The Mad Hatter

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did he?

Or did the Republican party just manage to unite people against themselves? I don't realistically see Hillary or Richardson being much further behind Obama at this stage.

NTM

No? It's quite clear that he's mobilised an awful lot of people who ordinarily wouldn't be arsed. It's quite clear that McCain's selection of Palin and his generally floundering campaign haven't helped, but Obama's superior public speaking abilities and his ability to inspire have certainly boosted his support base.

is_that_so wrote: »

Slogans are cheap and easy and have thrown up varying degrees of lunacy and fanaticism. Not convinced by him and still waiting.

If this alone were the case, then why no equally cheap and easy slogans from the republican side? Plenty of lunacy and fanaticism to be witnessed there, though.

I am more put out by the X-Factor nonsense that has characterised this election and by the huge sums that have been allowed in all of the campaigns. If an election can be funded to such an enormous extent when does it cease to be an election and become something that can effectively be bought?

I am amused that it's by-and-large the Republicans who are moaning this election about overspending. The amount of money spent in every US presidential election is ludicrous - $600m in Today's terms was spent by Clinton in 1996; $650m by Jimmy Carter against Gerald Ford - but the money must be spent just to compete. (More info in this Irish Times article.) Obama simply found a better way of getting it. If the Republicans want to emulate it in the next election, and they will have to, then they may have to start actually listening to voters.

No more than "this guy has to win because his opponent represents all that is bad" attitude. No-one actually knows whether either of them would be any good. The only thing that can be said with certainly is that they cannot be anywhere as bad as Bush.

Obama, Biden and McCain certainly aren't, but what about Palin?

is_that_so

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

If this alone were the case, then why no equally cheap and easy slogans from the republican side? Plenty of lunacy and fanaticism to be witnessed there, though.

Hmm don't recall ascribing this to any particular side. It really doesn't matter where they come from. They invite oversimplified, irrational notions.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I am amused that it's by-and-large the Republicans who are moaning this election about overspending. The amount of money spent in every US presidential election is ludicrous - $600m in Today's terms was spent by Clinton in 1996; $650m by Jimmy Carter against Gerald Ford - but the money must be spent just to compete. (More info in this Irish Times article.) Obama simply found a better way of getting it. If the Republicans want to emulate it in the next election, and they will have to, then they may have to start actually listening to voters.

John McCain opted for public funding and invited Obama to do likewise. Despite initially agreeing to do so, he changed his mind and has yet to explain why. Let them all collect whatever they want how they want but restrict how much they can actually spend in an election. Otherwise it become the guy with the biggest wallet and that in my view is not good.

The Mad Hatter

is_that_so wrote: »

Hmm don't recall ascribing this to any particular side.

Apologies, I misunderstood.

is_that_so wrote: »

And you see nothing wrong with these obscene amounts of money? Let them all collect whatever they want how they want but restrict how much they can actually spend. Otherwise it become the guy with the biggest wallet and that in my view is not good.

I see a lot wrong with it, actually, but it does make me happy to see the democrats beating the republicans at their own game. I think your suggestion to restrict campaign spending is precisely right, and hopefully some clever politician will suggest it after this election.

I have a big problem with large political donations from private vested interests, and I think that Obama's model does a lot to counteract this.

Manic Moran

is_that_so wrote: »

Despite initially agreeing to do so, he changed his mind and has yet to explain why.

It's pretty obvious: The Bean-counters figured out that he'd get a lot more money from private donations than public funding.

Arguably McCain went the public funding route because he didn't think he'd get more money by going private, not out of any altruistic do-gooding.

NTM

Memnoch

John Mccain gets 24/7 free advertising and Obama bashing on Fox news anyway so he can make do with less.

How many other news channels do you know that will go around implying that OBama is a Marxist, muslim, terrorist sympathiser who eats baby brains?

Overheal

Yeah but its been proven time and again that negative attacks rarely work on the undecided/independent voter. All their doing with that charade is galvanising the religious base. But at the same time, its fracturing the republican party from the top down.

Denis Irwin

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah but its been proven time and again that negative attacks rarely work on the undecided/independent voter. All their doing with that charade is galvanising the religious base. But at the same time, its fracturing the republican party from the top down.

Indeed. If Obama wins on Tuesday then we could possibly see the Republican party decend into a 'Civil War' between the hirearchy(sp?) such as Gingrich, Ridge etc... and the Religious wing with the likes Palin and others for control of the party.

Overheal

It would be nice to see the party split in half to be honest. After Bush, it just doesnt seem to me that they are standing for what they started out to do, which was conservatism. Next thing you know we've got new surveillance initiatives left and right and we're blowing hundreds of billions into the middle east. Its not like they can still paint the Democrats as Big Spenders.

BlitzKrieg

*cough*

ShaneU

Thread fail.

marco_polo

Take that George Hook.

Looking forward to drivetime on Newstalk tommorrow.