Article: Why John McCain Will (Likely) Be President

[Gregory Pratt]

I mentioned that the far right is unlikely to work for McCain. Here's an editorial (by Brent Bozell, liberal media grumble grumble) in yesterday's WaPost that explicitly threatens that:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8030702845.html

His list of demands is, predictably, extreme and silly.

 

They made the same complaints about Bush Sr. Ultimately, the majority will work for him and typical Republicans will vote for him. "We will bolt," a few might threaten lately, but I imagine (with an old political cartoon from the Truman age in mind) a Republican Elephant asking, "Where to, Brother?"

[jackie hayes]

They made the same complaints about Bush Sr. Ultimately, the majority will work for him and typical Republicans will vote for him. "We will bolt," a few might threaten lately, but I imagine (with an old political cartoon from the Truman age in mind) a Republican Elephant asking, "Where to, Brother?"

Wait, I wasn't saying they will "bolt". They don't need to, they just need to be apathetic. Bush Sr is a very good comparison, especially his loss to Clinton. The attitude towards him after he broke his no-new-taxes pledge was as close to seditious as you can get while still technically being supportive.

 

That said, I think McCain is doing a good enough job of pandering that he likely will avoid that problem.

[BearSox]

I dislike all 3 candidates (especially Obama), but better McCain then the other two.

[Gregory Pratt]

Wait, I wasn't saying they will "bolt". They don't need to, they just need to be apathetic. Bush Sr is a very good comparison, especially his loss to Clinton. The attitude towards him after he broke his no-new-taxes pledge was as close to seditious as you can get while still technically being supportive.

 

That said, I think McCain is doing a good enough job of pandering that he likely will avoid that problem.

 

Bush Sr. is a better comparison in 88, I think, than 92, but I see what you mean. And I know you didn't mean "bolt" but what I mean is that in all practical effects apathy or being mild about him won't truly manifest itself, IMO. We'll see.

[bmags]

permanent majority.

[Nokona]

lol

[BigSqwert]

permanent majority.

 

[lostfan]

I just read this thread yesterday cuz I had skipped over it back then, good lord, it was way off.

[Gene Honda Civic]

still needs more poetry

[Princess Dye]

Wow, the blogger has all these posts leading up to the election

 

Then about mid October he completely shuts down and stops posting, admitting that Obama will likely win.

 

I mean, cmon, you typed all that to get there......... at the very least type something. Dont go underground completely!

Edited December 17, 2008 by Princess Dye

[bmags]

Just the premise that the electoral map is set, and the only way to flip a state is to have candidates from that state on the ticket is just so silly and completely ignorant of demographic changes that were influential in places like Virginia.

[Soxbadger]

(Im not Pratt so this post is just about my posts in this thread)

 

I dont think that was the premise at all. It was merely stating that in March of 2008 there was very little evidence for why a Democrat would successfully flip a state.

 

At that point there was no Palin, there was no Wall Street meltdown, etc etc.

 

And its funny but I basically predicted the election based on one state:

 

I could have also said that whatever way Ohio goes the election will go as Ohio has only gone for the wrong candidate once (Nixon over Kennedy).

 

Ohio voted Obama, Obama won.

 

Now if you look at my posts from March to November I think youll notice that as the political landscape changed I started to theorize that it was becoming impossible for the Republicans to win. But in March there was nothing to suggest that a fundamental political shift was occuring:

 

I stand by what I said, most states historically vote the same way over blocks of time. That does not mean that when fundamental shifts occur in political philosophy that the state will blindly follow a party, but it does say when all things are considered and when looking at a span of 20 years (end of Reagan till now) not many states have significantly changed. Iowa has gone Republican once in that time period, and Im sure i could find a few other examples of states changing, but for the most part they remain constant.

 

What that says is unless Hillary or Obama can flip a state that has gone Republican over the last 20 years, the chances of them winning are not very good. The electoral votes per state has not drastically changed and if anything I believe that the red states gain more electoral votes each time at the expense of the blue states due to population increases.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Soxbadger

[lostfan]

In March if I had to guess what I'd been saying, it would be that it's March, and makes no sense to try and predict way into November because a lot of things could happen.

[Soxbadger]

Whats the point of having a message board if your not going to theorize on the future.

 

Should every post in Soxtalk be:

 

"Its only December why should we be thinking about April"

 

"Its only December why should we be thinking about October"

 

The reason we post is because we have theories about what the future will bring, some times we are right, some times we are wrong.

[lostfan]

No, no, that's not what I meant. Of course that was pretty much what the whole topic of discussion was about. I'm talking about how people try to pass off opinion as fact, as if what they say is an absolute certainty, which happens all the time and is pretty common in political discussions.

 

example: "Barack Obama is just way too liberal for America, they're not going to be able to stomach him." There's about 3 or 4 things wrong with that statement right off the bat but I heard it quite often, and the people who said it seemed to really believe it and not just be speculating.

Edited December 17, 2008 by lostfan

[Soxbadger]

Yeah I dont like talking in absolutes.

 

I just hypothesize.

[bmags]

but of course at the time it was put out by I think Balta that polling places found democrats had the possibility of flipping CO, NV, NC and VA, that was back in March. At no point did John McCain seem like this invincible candidate that could not be tied to the president with 26% approvals. McCain only had a lead in his convention bounce. So the assertion in this article that a McCain win was likely, is more laughable here now that Obama won in a landslide, but also was highly questionable back then. the democrats were polling better with virtually every demo. than in 04.