And then there were two...

[Homyrrh]

Now that we're down to our two legitimate candidates, who takes the general election's popular vote in November? In a few good words, why? Keep it objective and logical.

Despite Barrack Obama's appeal with minority and younger voters, I think John McCain might just win it, primarily because of the very decisive lack of support Obama has from Heartland America; a lot of voters in my younger age group like Obama for reasons of appeal, but are almost entirely apathetic to voting.

McCain's apparently healthy enough to take four, if not eight, years on, and I think his greater experience may prove a selling point for any on-the-fence voters. Of course, no one wants another Bush, but I think most voters read the headlines and hear about how much McCain has tried to distinguish himself from the current president (doesn't mean they read the story:cool:).

Some more subjective, critical voters may debate challenging status quo and vote for another old white man, refuting the prospect of a young black president as much too drastic.

One refutation of my general theory is that, with the ugly rivalry between Barrack and Clinton recently, McCain has gotten enough press coverage for lesser-informed voters and consequently will possibly seem less familiar.

Some simple ideologies as these point toward another four red years, but we'll see.

[MadsenOMC]

I don't think McCain will win, and I don't think he can win unless something drastically alters the race (hurting Obama) between now and November. A lot can happen between now and November, of course.

McCain has a lot working against him. I don't think the "who has more experience" thing is a major factor in presidential elections. More does not mean better either.

The Republican party is extremely unpopular and disoriented right now. They recently lost an election in Mississippi, of all places, even though party leaders campaigned there and attack ads against the Democratic candidate tied him to Obama and tried using the "liberal" smear against him. It didn't work, even in the reddest of red states.

The president is extremely unpopular, as is the war. That will hurt McCain. He will be seen as being too similar to Bush, no matter what he claims, and really he is. Recent reports say he voted with Bush 95% of the time. He has been the most vocal and visible supporter of the war, outside of Bush and Cheney.

Money will be a factor. Obama will be able to raise tons of it, and today McCain's team said they are worried about Obama's ability to raise money.

Like I said, a lot can happen between now and November, but the presidency is Obama's to lose. I can't see him losing to McCain.

[MadsenOMC]

And please, no more maverick talk. McCain is not a maverick. As this article from a paper in his home state clearly explains, he is not even moderate, much less a liberal Republican. He is a conservative who has moved farther to the right while running for president.


In tight Senate votes, McCain not a maverick
When it matters the most, he seldom bucks his own party

Ronald J. Hansen
The Arizona Republic
May. 7, 2008 12:00 AM
Over the years, Sen. John McCain has publicly condemned Republican Party leaders and occasionally voted against the GOP on selected issues.

But an Arizona Republic analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party's objectives.

The presumptive Republican nominee arguably cast the decisive vote 14 times since 1999 to ensure Republicans got their way, and he had five other close cases where his vote may have made a difference, Senate records show. By comparison, McCain effectively handed Democrats a win on roll-call votes four times in the same period. On one of those occasions, Republicans could still have won if Vice President Dick Cheney had cast a tie-breaking vote.

The numbers are based on a review of Senate roll-call votes since 1999 that ended in a tie or were settled by one vote. The closest votes in that period included momentous, partisan-charged legislation, such as President Bush's tax cuts. More often, they were procedural votes on deal-breaking amendments to bills that would otherwise pass.

They partly reflect how rarely Senate votes come down to a single person, even though the chamber has been narrowly divided on party lines most of the past decade. But the votes also suggest that when McCain broke from Republicans, others often joined him, keeping the votes from being so close.

And his chronic absence in the Senate has seldom come in the most divided debates, the records show.

"Senator McCain puts the interests of Arizonans first and supports the principles of the Republican Party," said Crystal Benton, a spokeswoman for the campaign. "He also has the courage and the integrity to do what is right."

The voting pattern seems at odds with the popular narrative that McCain's maverick tendencies make him an unreliable conservative.

"He is a conservative who votes conservative on most issues," said Keith Poole, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego. "By no means is he a liberal or even a moderate."

Poole, who compiles a widely respected analysis of all Senate votes, ranks McCain as slightly less conservative than most Republicans throughout his career and near the far edge of the right while running for president.

During the 10 years The Republic examined, McCain crossed over to vote with Democrats 19 times in 82 close votes. He did so just once in the four years he was running for president: 1999, 2000, 2007 and 2008. All 12 of the close votes he missed happened in those years, too.

Even so, in 59 of the 82 close votes, Republicans got what they wanted regardless of McCain's position. In those 59 cases, McCain broke with his party 16 times.

John Fortier, a research fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said McCain has earned the maverick label often hung on him, but it is primarily built on issues that received considerable attention, like campaign-finance reform or immigration.

"On most issues, he is broadly conservative," Fortier said. "He has a real streak of voting independently and sometimes makes a really big deal of it."

Others take issue with McCain's image as conservative gadfly.

A Washington Post analysis notes McCain voted with the GOP this term 88.3 percent of the time, the same as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., whose conservative credentials are seldom questioned. McCain ranked ahead of 29 other Republicans, including Arizona's Jon Kyl, who holds the No. 2 spot in party leadership.

Congressional Quarterly gave McCain a 90 percent score for "party unity" voting last year and said he supported the president's position on legislation 95 percent of the time. During the Bush years, McCain's poorest totals from CQ were 67 percent party-unity voting in 2001 and 77 percent support for the Bush agenda in 2005.

Although McCain is largely in sync with the GOP, many conservatives cannot forget his defections on issues like the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts sought by Bush.

Complex partnership

In some ways, three votes in 2003 illustrate the complex relationship McCain has with his party and the limited effect his resistance has had.

During a six-week span in the spring, McCain repeatedly voted with Democrats seeking to limit Bush's budget and tax-cut package that year. Even so, Cheney ensured the GOP prevailed on 51-50 votes each time.

The overall tax-cut legislation that year passed by two votes and over McCain's resistance.

These days, McCain travels the campaign trail vowing to make permanent those same temporary Bush tax cuts.

In 10 other cases in which the vice president broke a tie, McCain voted with the GOP every time.

In all the close votes, McCain clearly helped Democrats on just four occasions over the past decade.

In May 2006, for example, McCain and 10 other Republicans voted to put off an amendment offered by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. Democrats managed to fend off the amendment, which would have barred those who originally entered the U.S. illegally from receiving Social Security benefits for the work they did before becoming legal workers.

The amendment failed by a 50-49 vote with McCain's help. But, in the end, neither party managed to achieve significant changes to the nation's immigration laws.

Sealing GOP wins

Over the past decade, McCain effectively sealed a Republican win on a variety of close votes 14 times.

In 1999, for example, McCain supported an amendment to a bill addressing crime by juveniles and gang members. The amendment, offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, toughened gun-crime penalties and provided for background checks at gun shows. Seven Republicans opposed the amendment and another skipped the vote, but McCain sided with 46 others in his party to pass it by a single vote.

On five issues, McCain ensured a tie, allowing Cheney to settle matters with his vote.

There were six times that McCain didn't vote that ended in a tie. But here, too, it seems that McCain's absence had little impact on Republicans.

Two of the votes, held 20 minutes apart on March 2, 2000, involved resolutions that called on the Senate to pass legislation to reduce gun violence in public schools. In each case, most Republicans voted against the resolutions, and the eventual ties meant the measures failed.

Yet that same day, Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly passed a school-safety measure that referenced the gun violence.

Those close votes happened as McCain campaigned in the days before the decisive March primaries that led him to suspend his 2000 presidential bid.

Last year while campaigning in Michigan, McCain missed a tie vote on an amendment that sought to reduce conflicts of interest in panels advising the Food and Drug Administration. Most Republicans opposed the amendment, and with a tie vote it failed.

There were five close votes that are harder to categorize but generally didn't hurt the Republican agenda.

Three of them ended in a tie after McCain voted with his party for the measures in question. Cheney didn't vote to break the ties, however, so the party lost but can't blame McCain.

On two occasions, McCain didn't vote, effectively allowing the Democratic position to prevail.

But usually, McCain's vote had seemingly little effect on the ultimate outcome.

He voted with Republicans to extend research-and-development tax credits and define an unborn child. He and the GOP voted against creating a special Medicare reserve fund and changing the National Security Council.

He crossed Republicans to support offsetting new spending with budget cuts and supported a $70 million communications upgrade for first-responders.

In each case, Republicans got their way in the end.

[jolanar]

Don't underestimate how many republicans are left in the country. I think it's anyones race right now. It will really just depend on what Vice Presidents are picked and the debates etc.

[MadsenOMC]

Don't underestimate how many republicans are left in the country.

Fewer and fewer.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

36% Democrat versus 27% Republican, a drop of 4% since 2004 for the latter group and their lowest tally in 16 years. Democrats also have a solid lead among independent voters.

[Homyrrh]

Don't underestimate how many republicans are left in the country. I think it's anyones race right now. It will really just depend on what Vice Presidents are picked and the debates etc.
That's my line of thought. When I was in high school watching the final 2004 results on the morning after before heading to school, I remember being totally shocked that somehow good ol' George Dubya pulled off a popular victory over John Kerry. I kept remembering how every public opinion and endorsement, Hollywood or politcal or otherwise seemed to go Kerry's way. Everyone around my way (it was NJ however, though this northern part is somehwat of a conservative bastion) was knockign the incumbent Bush and saying we should go with Kerry.

Who won? Bush did. Why? Heartland America. The rednecks, the blue-collars, the racists, the old whites on their porches, the gun-owners, the rich and those influenced by the rich...all are very present in our country and obviously not nearly as outspoken as your leftward Hollywood.

One of my first political lessons.

[jolanar]

Fewer and fewer.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

36% Democrat versus 27% Republican, a drop of 4% since 2004 for the latter group and their lowest tally in 16 years. Democrats also have a solid lead among independent voters.

A lot of Republicans who aren't die hard won't exactly admit they are one due to the Bush administration. Call it lack of faith in people, but I honestly see a lot of people saying they are going to vote for Obama then walk into the polls and vote McCain. As far as the independent voters go, McCain has a strong presence there as well albeit not as strong as Obama.

Obama may have a lead in the polls right now, but it's by no means a sure thing.

[MadsenOMC]

That's my line of thought. When I was in high school watching the final 2004 results on the morning after before heading to school, I remember being totally shocked that somehow good ol' George Dubya pulled off a popular victory over John Kerry. I kept remembering how every public opinion and endorsement, Hollywood or politcal or otherwise seemed to go Kerry's way. Everyone around my way (it was NJ however, though this northern part is somehwat of a conservative bastion) was knockign the incumbent Bush and saying we should go with Kerry.

Who won? Bush did. Why? Heartland America. The rednecks, the blue-collars, the racists, the old whites on their porches, the gun-owners, the rich and those influenced by the rich...all are very present in our country and obviously not nearly as outspoken as your leftward Hollywood.

One of my first political lessons.

A lot has changed since 2004.

[MadsenOMC]

A lot of Republicans who aren't die hard won't exactly admit they are one due to the Bush administration. Call it lack of faith in people, but I honestly see a lot of people saying they are going to vote for Obama then walk into the polls and vote McCain. As far as the independent voters go, McCain has a strong presence there as well albeit not as strong as Obama.

Obama may have a lead in the polls right now, but it's by no means a sure thing.

I don't think people are afraid to admit they're a Republican to a pollster.

[SpoonMan999]

I don't think people are afraid to admit they're a Republican to a pollster.

Actually, it's not that they're afraid it's that they arne't Republican. Most hardcore conservatives I know, and I know a lot, consider themselves Libertarians (sp?) because let's face it...Bush and McCain are not true conservatives, they're Republicans yes but neither is a true Conservative. Most hardcore Conservatives are disgusted with the state of the Republican party but will always choose a Republican over a Democrat.

[MadsenOMC]

Actually, it's not that they're afraid it's that they arne't Republican. Most hardcore conservatives I know, and I know a lot, consider themselves Libertarians (sp?) because let's face it...Bush and McCain are not true conservatives, they're Republicans yes but neither is a true Conservative. Most hardcore Conservatives are disgusted with the state of the Republican party but will always choose a Republican over a Democrat.

I too know many hardcore conservatives and I don't think they know what a Libertarian is.

[SpoonMan999]

Well, they may want to look into it. Just to be clear hardcore Republican and hardcore Conservative = two completely diferent things.

[Homyrrh]

I don't think people are afraid to admit they're a Republican to a pollster.
I wouldn't generalize about that; I think some constituents of any affiliation will openly wear their adherence on their arm and others will only silently vote that way.
Actually, it's not that they're afraid it's that they arne't Republican. Most hardcore conservatives I know, and I know a lot, consider themselves Libertarians (sp?) because let's face it...Bush and McCain are not true conservatives, they're Republicans yes but neither is a true Conservative. Most hardcore Conservatives are disgusted with the state of the Republican party but will always choose a Republican over a Democrat.
I too know many hardcore conservatives and I don't think they know what a Libertarian is.
Well, they may want to look into it. Just to be clear hardcore Republican and hardcore Conservative = two completely diferent things.
Anyone else been to the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)? Great site, with some really informative political stuff. I HIGHLY suggest reading through their stuff about the inherent discrepancies between conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, and authorianism.

A volume of books could be written about public ignorance to what exactly the relationship is between the four, but here are a few helpful tidbits (all from the PC).

Basic premise:

http://politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif

[QUENTIN]

Well, they may want to look into it. Just to be clear hardcore Republican and hardcore Conservative = two completely diferent things.

Very true. Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul are conservatives. George W. Bush is a "neo-conservative", which has little to do with conservatism and a lot to do with religious fundamentalism and militarism. John McCain is now pretending to be a religious fundamentalist and has always been big on militarism. Neither are very conservative or even traditional Republicans, but the Republican party started veering from conservatism in 1980 and has only continued to do so on its way to total authoritarianism and theocracy.

That said, I don't think there are many Republicans or conservatives left in the country compared to Democrats, liberals, and independents who oppose the modern Republican party. I think Obama has the presidency barring some huge scandal or perhaps terrorist attack. Actually, I think it won't even be close and will resemble the 1996 election. McCain will get the Evangelical Christian vote, the military vote, and that's about it. Obama has much broader support and the Republicans will continue to see a backlash against Bush, Iraq, and the economy.

That political compass thing gets posted every couple of years on here, many of the questions are poorly worded, but it is an interesting site.

[Elgyn]

One thing to consider is that come the election, I really think the economy will be a bigger issue than the "war on terror" or anything else. People are BROKE, folks. And people will remember that things were much better the last time we had a Democrat in office. McCain has (stupidly) admitted that he dooesn`t know much about the economy.

Then there`s the dabates. Obama is a great speaker. McCain........isn`t. When you have Obama standing next to McCain, there`s going to be one hell of a contrast. You`ll have someone young, attractive, and fresh standing next to someone who`s old, unattractive, and.....uh.....not so fresh.

The biggest obstacles Obama faces are people who simply won`t vote for a black man (which is sadly a bigger problem than you might think), and idiots who will vote Republican no matter what.

[SpoonMan999]

One thing to consider is that come the election, I really think the economy will be a bigger issue than the "war on terror" or anything else. People are BROKE, folks. And people will remember that things were much better the last time we had a Democrat in office. McCain has (stupidly) admitted that he dooesn`t know much about the economy.

Then there`s the dabates. Obama is a great speaker. McCain........isn`t. When you have Obama standing next to McCain, there`s going to be one hell of a contrast. You`ll have someone young, attractive, and fresh standing next to someone who`s old, unattractive, and.....uh.....not so fresh.

The biggest obstacles Obama faces are people who simply won`t vote for a black man (which is sadly a bigger problem than you might think), and idiots who will vote Republican no matter what.

So basically you're saying that because I prefer McCain to Obama, though I'd rather have neither, I'm just some idiot that votes Republican no matter what or I'm racist?

[Elgyn]

So basically you're saying that because I prefer McCain to Obama, though I'd rather have neither, I'm just some idiot that votes Republican no matter what or I'm racist?


No, that`s not what I`m saying.
I said the two biggest obstacles Obama faces [that would prevent him from being elected President] are racists and people who will only vote Republican.

I did *not* say that those two things are the ONLY reasons an individual wouldn`t vote for him.

Just out of curiousity, what do you think of the other two points I made (about the economy and the coming debates)?

[Homyrrh]

No, that`s not what I`m saying.
I said the two biggest obstacles Obama faces [that would prevent him from being elected President] are racists and people who will only vote Republican.

I did *not* say that those two things are the ONLY reasons an individual wouldn`t vote for him.

Just out of curiousity, what do you think of the other two points I made (about the economy and the coming debates)?
Debates will be a massacre :(

[Elgyn]

Debates will be a massacre :(

For who?

[jolanar]

Debates will be a massacre :(

I really don't think it will be as bad as you say.

When has McCain shown himself to be a poor public speaker?

[Moviefan1234]

When has McCain shown himself to be a poor public speaker?

Watch Obama give a speech and then watch McCain. The difference is like night and day.

[The Heart Collector]

So basically you're saying that because I prefer McCain to Obama, though I'd rather have neither, I'm just some idiot that votes Republican no matter what or I'm racist?

Considering how fucking awful McCain is as a candidate (maybe he'd be fine in another year, but certainly not in America 2008) and how competent Obama is, I'm gonna go with "republican no matter what".

[shoe1985]

Considering that the President is the face of this country and the leader, who would fit best in that role? Who would the international community rather deal with? We have one guy going off about war, and how we will have more, which we will but did he need to say it? We have another guy talking about change, and has a lot of things about it in his book, website, and many other places. We have one guy who votes the majority of the time for what Bush wants, the other chooses what he feels is best.

For me, it Obama. We need a strong leader right now. We are hated all across the world, mainly because of our "great" President. We need change, and I am not voting for someone who just wants to discuss war. I like Obama's idea, even if it isn't new, that we should talk to Iran in person first. Peace is what we all want, why not try to save lives, rather then have our troops die?

[MadsenOMC]

Just to be clear hardcore Republican and hardcore Conservative = two completely diferent things.

Yes of course I know this.

What's your case for McCain? I'd love to hear it. I have yet to actually hear a convincing one.

[Homyrrh]

I really don't think it will be as bad as you say.

When has McCain shown himself to be a poor public speaker?
Watch Obama give a speech and then watch McCain. The difference is like night and day.

I'm all for listening to grandpa tell war stories, but the people want to be captivated by a strapping young man, wowed by his charisma, moved by his message, of, um, well, whatever it is his message is...

Considering how fucking awful McCain is as a candidate (maybe he'd be fine in another year, but certainly not in America 2008) and how competent Obama is, I'm gonna go with "republican no matter what".
I think I understand that you're implying McCain is a "fucking awful candidate" because of the context of the 2008 election year, specifically regardign the dreadfully unpopular incumbent, the poor status of the GOP, the war, etc. (?) Otherwise, I think he's not any better/worse than Obama.

I think it should be pointed out the ignorance of this recurring notion that a party will vote only for that party. For one, it happens on both sides, doesn't it? More importantly, if someone has a basic ideological standpoint that supports abortion and unadulterated gay rights, why would he even considering voting Republican in the primary? I could never foresee any GOP candidate with these views, so it seems perfectly safe for this person to, if he/she votes, vote purely Democrat.

Granted, I hope we, as individuals, don't ever blindly walk into an election booth with a pen that has only red or only blue ink, but the very basis of a two-party state includes citizens who will regularly vote for the party that carries the same ideologies that they do.

Considering that the President is the face of this country and the leader, who would fit best in that role? Who would the international community rather deal with? We have one guy going off about war, and how we will have more, which we will but did he need to say it? We have another guy talking about change, and has a lot of things about it in his book, website, and many other places. We have one guy who votes the majority of the time for what Bush wants, the other chooses what he feels is best.

For me, it Obama. We need a strong leader right now. We are hated all across the world, mainly because of our "great" President. We need change, and I am not voting for someone who just wants to discuss war. I like Obama's idea, even if it isn't new, that we should talk to Iran in person first. Peace is what we all want, why not try to save lives, rather then have our troops die?

Since I can put Obama's head on McCain's body...

It is ludicrous and altogether ignorant to even suggest we "not talk about war" or "not have our troops die". IT is the most unfortunate thign that young men/women die in defense of this nation, but war is inevitable. Suggesting otherwise, that it is avoidable or unnecessary is inexcusable.

[MadsenOMC]

War can most definitely be unnecessary. Our current one is a war of choice, not necessity.

[Homyrrh]

In general.

[Moviefan1234]

I'm all for listening to grandpa tell war stories, but the people want to be captivated by a strapping young man, wowed by his charisma, moved by his message, of, um, well, whatever it is his message is...



The problem is that it isn't grandpa telling war stories, it's his backers and McCain to an extent using his military background, which was no doubt very respectable and honorable, as the backbone of his presidential campaign. Being a good soldier and being a good presidential are very different things. And there is very little in McCain that makes me believe he will be a good leader for this country. Also I can't see how his age isn't an issue for most people, the last thing we need is another president who gets very sick in office and has his cabinet making all the important decisions a la Reagan. Mr. Obama on the other hand brings a sense of change this country so desperately needs. The United States has been crippled by the agenda of the Bush administration which ruined the honor of one great military man in Colin Powell, and has made the people lose all confidence in the country as a whole. Obama brings a youthful attitude and some much needed idealism. It's time for change, and Obama will be a new age style president to bring our nation back to his feet.

[MadsenOMC]

Any vote is a gamble given the nature of most politicians. Right now I am far more inclined to gamble on a man like Obama than a man like McCain.

[Homyrrh]

Any vote is a gamble given the nature of most politicians. Right now I am far more inclined to gamble on a man like Obama than a man like McCain.
Yeah, everyone always gives the "pick your poison" line when asked who they're voting for.

[MadsenOMC]

Yeah, everyone always gives the "pick your poison" line when asked who they're voting for.

In previous elections, presidential and otherwise, I have felt something similar to "lesser of two evils" when voting. I do not feel that way this year, with this election. I believe there is a huge difference between Obama and McCain, and I will proudly vote for Obama in November. It's sill a gamble, but one I am very comfortable making at this point in time.

[Homyrrh]

In previous elections, presidential and otherwise, I have felt something similar to "lesser of two evils" when voting. I do not feel that way this year, with this election. I believe there is a huge difference between Obama and McCain, and I will proudly vote for Obama in November. It's sill a gamble, but one I am very comfortable making at this point in time.
I live in NJ. Our last gubernatorial race was a great example of typical Jersey politics, with Corzine beating his opponent out because he at least seemed slightly less corrupt. The mayor of our largest city double-deals real estate. Our governor had adulterous homsexual threesomes in office (shady because he lied about his orientation to get into office). All the local polys, especially in the cities, can be easily linekd to some very prevalent organized crime.

With that said, I almost think it's the other end of the spectrum in this election. McCain bleeds red, white and blue, was a POW, seemingly as honest as they get. Obama, while he has had some mildy controversial ties to some pretty sketchy radicals, is still a genuine idealist who seems only have the best inmind for the nation. It is a relief as a Jersey resident and American citizen to have a genuine race, and even more interesting when the discrepancy between the candidates goes infinitely beyond party lines---race, age, background, religion, etc.

This is my first election. I will continue to regularly and habitually read/watch the news, ask the more experienced and enlightened voters, and make sure I have a nonpartisan grasp of the issues. Ultimately, I foresee myself voting for John McCain for a few reasons, though I honestly have to say I feel much less satisfied than had this been McCain v. Clinton or Reagan v. Carter, etc.

On a similar note, when I was a tot, right around the time of the 2000 election (or possibly earlier), I remember reading about Barack Obama in some capsule stories in the local paper and telling myself, almost verbatim, "Forget Hillary Clinton in 2008, this Barack dude seems the real deal."

[MadsenOMC]

I live in NJ. Our last gubernatorial race was a great example of typical Jersey politics, with Corzine beating his opponent out because he at least seemed slightly less corrupt. The mayor of our largest city double-deals real estate. Our governor had adulterous homsexual threesomes in office (shady because he lied about his orientation to get into office). All the local polys, especially in the cities, can be easily linekd to some very prevalent organized crime.

With that said, I almost think it's the other end of the spectrum in this election. McCain bleeds red, white and blue, was a POW, seemingly as honest as they get. Obama, while he has had some mildy controversial ties to some pretty sketchy radicals, is still a genuine idealist who seems only have the best inmind for the nation. It is a relief as a Jersey resident and American citizen to have a genuine race, and even more interesting when the discrepancy between the candidates goes infinitely beyond party lines---race, age, background, religion, etc.


I live in Illinois. A previous governor (Republican) just went to jail. The current governor (Democrat) is linked to a new scandal on a regular basis. Believe me, I am all too familiar with shady politics and dirty politicians.

I don't think McCain is as honest as they get. I think the media (which loves him) has perpetuated that image of him, and McCain of course is all too eager to have them present that image of him, but I strongly do not believe that that is the reality. Also, McCain has more ties to sketchy individuals (witness all of the insiders who had to resign from his campaign for various reasons) than Obama does.

This is not a genuine race. I'm sorry to hear that you believe that.

[Homyrrh]

I live in Illinois. A previous governor (Republican) just went to jail. The current governor (Democrat) is linked to a new scandal on a regular basis. Believe me, I am all too familiar with shady politics and dirty politicians.

I don't think McCain is as honest as they get. I think the media (which loves him) has perpetuated that image of him, and McCain of course is all too eager to have them present that image of him, but I strongly do not believe that that is the reality. Also, McCain has more ties to sketchy individuals (witness all of the insiders who had to resign from his campaign for various reasons) than Obama does.

This is not a genuine race. I'm sorry to hear that you believe that.
What about Obama, who's been tied to people who, by definition, could be called terrorists?

I think McCain's generally a "good" guy. He was a Navy captain, then successfully for the Senate in 1980. He's military, so I think it's inevitable he know a few "shady characters".

[MadsenOMC]

What about Obama, who's been tied to people who, by definition, could be called terrorists?

I think McCain's generally a "good" guy. He was a Navy captain, then successfully for the Senate in 1980. He's military, so I think it's inevitable he know a few "shady characters".

I believe it's one person, not "people," and it's been way overblown.

How do you know he's generally a good guy? What does being a Navy captain have to do with it? The shady characters he knows has nothing to do with his military background. It has to do with surrounding himself with lobbyists even as he claims to not associate with lobbyists or cater to them.

[Scarfather]

This election is pretty much in the gutter already, but I have to pop in and point out: McCain is a terrible human being. Everything about him is rotten to the core and shame on all who vote for him.

But while we're doing the 'politicians suck where I live' dance: Katharine Harris lives in my hometown. Like, ten minutes away from my favorite movie theater.

I win!

[jolanar]

This election is pretty much in the gutter already, but I have to pop in and point out: McCain is a terrible human being. Everything about him is rotten to the core and shame on all who vote for him.


How do you figure he is a terrible human being?


And I've got you bastards beat on dirty local politicians, I'm from the district In Texas where Tom DeLay was voted into office.

[Criminal Rock]

I'm from Arizona...:(

[RicochetShaw]

This election is pretty much in the gutter already



How so? The "Whore of Babylon" is out, and it's pretty clear that that's what you wanted.

[Scarface98.9]

I think the closest comparison to a previous election as to how this will go is the JFK/Nixon race. The youthful upstart matched with the hardened commie hunter. I think Obama's been smart w/ his race against McCain, i.e. linking McCain to Bush as being Bush 2.0 and responding strongly to criticisms. I'm gonna be voting for Obama and I think he has a really good shot at winning

[MadsenOMC]

Right now, Obama and McCain are fairly close in the polls. RealClearPolitics, which averages all polls, has Obama at 47.1% and McCain at 44.1%. Obama has a better favorability rating but they split six key battleground states (Obama: Pennsylvania, Ohio, & Wisconsin and McCain: Florida, Virginia, and Michigan).

All of that would probably lead one to believe that it's going to be a close election. However, I do not think that is going to be the case. Now that it's just Obama and McCain, I believe you will start to see Obama pull away from McCain and develop a comfortable lead. A series of recent articles highlights just some of the problems facing McCain.

He's having a lot of trouble with religious conservatives:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/us/politics/09mccain.html?adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1213017281-lmfi2JbEJp0ivFZXTOdiVw
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801689.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ohio9-2008jun09,0,1838453.story

His campaign isn't running effectively at this point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/opinion/09kristol.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

They fear Obama's superior ability to fundraise:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/10868

The notion that he represents a third Bush term:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/08/graham-mccain-bush/

His ties to lobbyists despite claims:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002898_pf.html

[someguy]

The gallup poll for today has Obama at his highest lead over McCain yet (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107764/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Takes-Lead-Over-McCain-48-42.aspx) and I think that as time goes on the gap will be wider.

[mel1ssa]

but the presidency is Obama's to lose.

you mean, like the democratic nomination was hillary's to lose?

[MadsenOMC]

you mean, like the democratic nomination was hillary's to lose?

No, not like that at all actually. I, for one, never believed that. Please try again.

[MadsenOMC]

As I predicted, now that there are only two candidates, Obama's lead is growing over McCain.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107791/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Lead-Appears-Stabilize.aspx

[mel1ssa]

No, not like that at all actually. I, for one, never believed that. Please try again.

no real need, ty. while you may not have believed it, there were a significant number who did.

[Homyrrh]

TY?!?!?!?! WTF???!?!?!? That's....that's my name!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! (plus the -LER o nthe end...)

As for McCain, I rescind all previous decalartions...may as well pack his nursing home bags now :/

[MadsenOMC]

no real need, ty. while you may not have believed it, there were a significant number who did.

I realize that. I was not one of them.

[mel1ssa]

I realize that. I was not one of them.

this will be a very interesting fall. if nothing else, this winter/spring should have taught us that the race is unpredictable.

obama could easily wipe the floor with mccain (i honestly don't believe it would be hard for him, for instance, in debates - no contest). but...i'm not going to call this one.

i do think it will be an uphill battle for obama -- i don't care what any poll says. and he will do well if he does not show too much confidence that he's already won. he will do well if remains 'the underdog' in this fight.

looking forward to watching this one play out.

[MadsenOMC]

this will be a very interesting fall. if nothing else, this winter/spring should have taught us that the race is unpredictable.

obama could easily wipe the floor with mccain (i honestly don't believe it would be hard for him, for instance, in debates - no contest). but...i'm not going to call this one.

i do think it will be an uphill battle for obama -- i don't care what any poll says. and he will do well if he does not show too much confidence that he's already won. he will do well if remains 'the underdog' in this fight.

looking forward to watching this one play out.

It's not going to be close. Not unless Obama is hit by a catastrophic scandal that no one saw coming. The reason it has seemed like a close race is the drawn out battle between Obama and Clinton. However, Obama is already pulling away from McCain. In Wisconsin, a crucial swing state that has been closely contested in the last two elections, Obama now has a 13 point lead over McCain (50-37%). This is going to happen more and more. We're stuck in a hugely unpopular war with a hugely unpopular president who's part of a hugely unpopular political party. McCain is not a strong enough candidate to overcome all of that. He's part of the problem, and come November he doesn't have a prayer.

[MadsenOMC]

Other problems for McCain:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/new-gang-of-14-wont-back-mccain-2008-06-11.html

Not to mention Ron Paul and Bob Barr. Just ask Al Gore. Those guys don't need to take too many votes away from McCain to impact the election.

[mel1ssa]

McCain is not a strong enough candidate to overcome all of that.

absolutely.

if you think about it, on paper he's not such a weak candidate. take his background/bio and apply it to the right persona and more of the country would be behind him. but, his style is so weak. i understand your points about the war and bush, but IMO if mccain is defeated it will be because of what he lacks in leadership qualities - command skills, communicating a vision, motivating others, etc. people who hate bush may want obama's win to be because of mccain's politics or because bush has done such a poor job, but in the end it will be about who is more persuasive. mccain is not persuasive, dynamic, or influential.

[MadsenOMC]

if you think about it, on paper he's not such a weak candidate. take his background/bio and apply it to the right persona and more of the country would be behind him. but, his style is so weak. i understand your points about the war and bush, but IMO if mccain is defeated it will be because of what he lacks in leadership qualities - command skills, communicating a vision, motivating others, etc. people who hate bush may want obama's win to be because of mccain's politics or because bush has done such a poor job, but in the end it will be about who is more persuasive. mccain is not persuasive, dynamic, or influential.

You make some very good points. I agree with that assessment.