If it weren't for the economic meltdown, this race would be too close to call. That circumstance may be the biggest stroke of luck in presidential election history.
Nah. For many of us, its mainly about voting against Republicans. Right now, the national GOP is bankrupt, needs to be nuked and rebuilt. It isn't so much about Bush anymore.
I'm not sure about that - Obama was already moving up before that as the Palin bounce was wearing out, and he would have won the debates regardless. I also think the polls are underrepresenting Obama's margins. I suspect the ground game turnout operation and enthusiasm gaps are going to make Obama do notably better than the polls indicate - I'd guess by a couple of percentage points.
Not only that, but any votes Obama gets go to his national total and the more votes he has, the more of a mandate he can claim and the easier it will be for him to govern in the first 100 days. And even beyond that, if more Dems show up than expected, you make the case that more money and effort should be spent in Texas and that means more competitive races and less freedom for Texas wingers to govern exclusively to their base.
I usually remember to put in a qualifier like "Republican leadership" or "people running the Republican party" to differentiate between the scumbags and the rank and file. Given that, I don't think my original statement needs fixing... many people are not exclusively upset with Bush but are angry with Republicans (leadership) in general. [edit: I see A_3PO already said pretty much the same thing.]
Realistically, if McCain doesn't take away one of the states that's already pretty blue (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan) then he has to sweep all of Florida, N. Carolina, Virginia, W. Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Nevada. If he loses any of those states and can't turn a currently blue polling state red, there's no chance. Actually if he wins all of those except for Nevada or W. Virginia, it could be a tie. Virginia and Ohio are the first indicators. Part of Florida is in the Central time zone and thus, Virginia and Ohio will close their polls first. W. Virginia and N. Carolina are on EST but either will go to McCain or be very close. So that's why the focus is more on Virginia where Obama has roughly a 4 point lead. If McCain loses either Virginia or Ohio then he's pretty much done barring a miracle and him turning a current blue state red.
Again, I think there's a distinction... but I won't argue that Bush is convenient shorthand and rightly so... it is his administration and he is the President. And like it or not, Bush will be on the ballot for several presidential cycles and every Dem nominee will try to tie every Repub nominee to Bush in ways large and small. He's the Republicans' Jimmy Carter, only much much worse and probably longer lasting.
Just because Obama plays the Bush card every chance he gets doesn't mean a large chunk of voters aren't more anti-Republican than anything else (this election). In fact, I think Obama's people are using the term "Bush" as a code word for Republican. It's very convenient because he can do this without sounding like a nasty partisan. rimrocker, you are dead on about Bush being the GOP version of Jimmy Carter. Without Jimmy Carter's failures, Reagan wouldn't have been elected. If Bush wasn't such a total catastrophic disaster of a failure, Obama wouldn't have been the Dem nominee. Bush crashing the country into a wall paved the way for a non-traditional candidate like Obama. Think about it. Oh the irony.
I think it will tighten over the next week as people take a fifth or sixth look at McCain. By Nov. 4, I think Obama will be back on the rise.
It will absolutely tighten, that's for sure. As back and forth as it has been, there's no way it doesn't get tighter.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E_pN2IPAw6E&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E_pN2IPAw6E&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> I don't know how any American looking for change after the last 8 years could watch that and be complacent. These people are nuts and should never be allowed near power in this country ever again.
^^^^^^^ Michelle Bachman is the one who blamed the housing crisis on blacks and other minorities trying to enter the middle class through home ownership. She also got pwned by James Carville on Larry King Live during the RNC when she was trying to defend the pick of Sarah Palin as VP. She is probably the nuttiest conservative in congress.
I certainly agree with the Jimmy Carter comparison, but I just cannot see where you can say that Bush is much worse. We don't have hostages in Iran who will not be released until the new President takes over. While gas prices are high, I haven't had to wait in any lines hoping to get gas lately. We are not in the grips of hard stagflation. I think that due to the passage of time, we forget how miserably bad Carter was as a President. I think that Bush and Carter are fairly on par with one another as to the awfulness of their Presidency.
In the electoral sense of comparing 2008 with 1980, yes. The Republican demagoguery and fearmongering against Obama reminds me of how the Dems tried to scare the country against Reagan. When a party is empty, out of ideas and bankrupt, fear against the other party's candidate is the only card they have left to play. It is putrid and disturbing. I likely won't be voting Republican for quite some time.
I'm sure E! channel will be on the air after the election to show the Obama and his celebrity friends at their celebration after-parties.
