Damn Batman, have you forgotten the lessons of past elections in this country? People that hate McCain but will lose money if Obama is elected will pull swiftboat crap out of thin air and make it the front burner issue. They own the printing presses so they decide what the story is. And, the Democratic party is not known for it's political savy and cohesivness. Part of being the party of the big umbrella is that you can't get everyone to recite the same sound bite. Every party member will be angling to get his own agenda on the party platform. And, part of being the party of new ideas is that those ideas are harder to articulate; certainly harder than just saying let's go back to the good ol' days or let's cut taxes. For a lot of Americans, the *****ups they know are less scary than any new ideas, no matter their merits.
McCain's message sucks, that's why. 100 more years of Iraq? Check. Continue with the same economic policies? Check. In an election year that's all about change, how is McCain's message going to win? He can only win on fear mongering. People are seeing record gas prices, the largest budget deficit in US history, unemployment going through the roof and year 5 and counting of two wars that have no definable end game. Any candidate that says they will basically continue the policies that put that into place is doomed. Look, the Republicans are losing in places like Louisiana and Mississippi now. If you are a Republican you need to start thinking about what to do from here. Your brand sucks and people aren't buying it anymore. In the short term you throw as much crap as you can against the wall and see what sticks, but if you are seriously thinking that McCain's "plans" are going to win then you are being silly. McCain's "plans" aren't popular with Republicans.
Did you just admit you have no idea of Obama's work background? So all your criticism of his experience/background/skills is without merit given that you don't even know what it is you're criticizing?
No, I haven't. In fact, I'd venture a guess I remember them more clearly than most given my obsessive attention to politics in general and presidential politics in specific. Obama hasn't forgotten those lessons either; in fact, his entire approach is a response to them. Hillary lost in part because she was playing according to old rules. McCain is too. And neither of them has demonstrated an understanding of how to campaign in an internet/youtube age. Obama has. He has also demonstrated an understanding of quick response to Swift Boat tactics unseen from any Dem in the modern age. So true. But Obama's campaign is known for both of those things. Read the excellent Time article "How He Did It," published a couple days ago and posted here in a few different places for details. The basic bottom line is this: Beyond the natural advantage that Democrats enjoy this year (being on the popular side of, frankly, every single issue; running against a party that is bleeding support and a candidate with a 95% voting record in support of a president with a 25% approval rating); beyond Obama's natural gifts as a speaker, writer, thinker... He is running the first campaign of the new century while his opponents, in the primaries and general, are running the same campaigns they would have ten years ago. The rulebook is out the window. Obama and his team are writing a new one. They are doing so with total understanding of what went before. You hardly need to lecture me or them to pay heed of lessons of the past. This entire new paradigm is a reaction to those lessons specifically.
who decreed the election is only about "change?" have we voted on that yet? isn't that in fact what the election should be about, whether amorphous change will win, or concrete solutions?
Don't mistake my response here for the idea that I'm willing to talk with you, since I'm not, but I will answer this if only to say... What? On every single issue, Obama enjoys an advantage with the American people. McCain himself admitted he would have to change public opinion on Iraq in order to win (I'm pretty sure you're the only person in the world who might believe this to be possible) before flip flopping on that approximately three minutes later. As in my earlier post though, it's not just Iraq. It's jobs, the economy, the environment, transparency in government, abortion rights, health care, trade, energy and on and on. Even on gay rights, the GOP has nearly lost its advantage. I wouldn't say it's impossible for McCain to win, but if he does it won't be about "superior message." The American people hate his message; it's Bush's pretty much exactly. If he wins it will be because he scares the American people about Obama or because some unpredictable scandal breaks.
in case you don't understand how democracy works, the candidates don't decide what the election is about, nor does the media. the people do. yes, 't will be fun. and i doubt you'll be laughing in november.
Because Hillary is an incredibly talented politician (far more than McCain), she enjoyed every early advantage (a 2-1 advantage in polls throughout 2007, early advantage on party support including 100 more supers than him before first votes were cast, her top surrogate was a tremendously popular two-term president), and, most important of all by far, they agreed nearly 100% on every single issue. Hillary was a far tougher opponent than McCain is. You haven't even gotten to see Obama campaign yet on behalf of the issues he shares with the majority of the American people against a candidate that doesn't. Obama vs. Clinton was about who was more for universal health care, more for getting out of Iraq, more for protecting a woman's right to choose, more for protecting American jobs and a more meaningful turning of the page from the awful Bush years. Obama vs. McCain will be about one candidate being for those things and other being against them. And we all know where the American people stand. You couldn't make a more apples/oranges comparison than running against Clinton v. running against McCain.
It wasn't. He won it in mid-to-late February when he had his 11 state winning streak. Before Texas and Ohio, the math said it was impossible for him to lose - the only reason it was considered "close" is because people kept repeating Clinton talking points. Due to the proportional delegate allocation and the the fact that MI/FL were still a bit unresolved, it wasn't official until more recently, but he won it a long time ago, despite going up against a campaign with more name recognition and built-in connections (support from Governors and their political apparatus, etc) and infrastructure from the 1990's.
There hasn't been a new rule book since ancient Greece. Challengers give vague promises of a better life and point out the failed policies of the incumebents. Incumbents praise the stability of the status quo and question the uncertainties of change. Whoever convinces the majority of people that they offer the better future for the children wins. It's always fear vs. hope. In basketball, if you can tell me who will win the offensive rebounding stat and the shooting % stat, I'm pretty sure I can tell which team will win. Whose message will resonate more with the Walmart nation is a lot less clear. But in recent history, fear has been a stronger emotion than hope. And there are plenty of monied fear mongers out there ready to scare the crap out of Americans to prevent their loss of power. It's Hercules vs. The Hydra; and the outcome is in doubt.
Well of course I don't understand democracy, asso. I'm a pinko traitor, remember? You told me so yourself. In other news, I'm shaking. Your powers of prediction are legendary around these parts. I still remember how awesome it was when we found the WMD's, were greeted as liberators and Plamegate turned out to be an irrelevant kerfluffle.
While that's true, I don't think it's that applicable in the context of the general election. The Clinton-Obama race would have been much closer using the electoral system used in November, or honestly by any metric other than the proportional delegate allocation. With that said (and of course this isn't directed at Major), I completely agree with Batman -- the dynamics are completely different here. Clinton is a much better politician than McCain, and shares values with a majority of America, unlike McCain. In addition, Obama essentially beat Clinton with one hand tied behind his back. Clinton had a couple of missteps where she wasn't debated or called out because Obama knew that he'd soon have to make amends with her supporters. This time, that's not the case. McCain is a loose cannon while Obama is calm and composed, and any late year "surprises" are more likely to involve him, imo.
The Cat - I agree with all of that. It certainly would have been closer or potentially totally different with winner-take-all rules. To answer the original question - I'm mostly with Batman and the The Cat in terms of the general. The one exception is Iraq. A year ago, McCain staked his candidacy on the surge and Iraq. Even amongst Republicans, he was really the only candidate to jump on board aggressively early on. At that point, even when he was broke, I said that if things improved in Iraq, he'd win the GOP nomination. And, to be fair, things HAVE improved from a year ago. Whether it's temporary and only a result of tons of US forces (ie, no long-term progress) there or not is still unclear. However, if things improve markedly in Iraq over the next 5-6 months or there are other major successes in the WOT (say, capturing Osama), I think it will change the dynamics of the race. But I think you need a major in one of those two areas for McCain to be successful. Beyond that, he has too many things working against him.
That's correct, if proportional deledate allocation was used, Hillary would not have gotten eliminated so early. She would have been able to "take all" the delegates in the middle and back states to catch up. No way Clinton is a better politician than McCain. She is unlikeable, has high negatives and overall ran a pretty crappy campaign. I do agree with Batman and Major that she had everything going for her, and so Obama's win was impressive, but it also showed how ineffective she was. McCain on the other hand, was almost the presidential candidate in 2000, so he has quite a bit of experience. And I seriously doubt Obama "held back" much. If he did, it's because he is running on "change." By your logic, Clinton was fighting with one hand tied behind her back as well. And obviously, with her and her husband's stupid comments about race and assassinations, she wasn't holding back.
Well, the first priority is obviously to win the nomination. It's precisely because Obama had almost clinched that he had the added issue of Clinton backers to be concerned with. Clinton's campaign for the final three months was one of desperation. Different circumstances. Also, in the most recent polls, 39 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, while 37 percent have an unfavorable opinion of McCain. Effectively a wash. Likeability, of course, is a personal opinion unless you have evidence I haven't seen. (The only evidence I've seen is the favorable/unfavorable, in which they're essentially the same.) I also wouldn't agree that Clinton ran a poor campaign -- more a scenario of Obama running one that was that damn good.
That doesn't make any sense. You are suggesting he held back and essentially made the race a lot closer on purpose. That, in turn, allowed Hillary to unleash a host of bizzare attacks that did do damage, as evidenced by her mini-"comeback" at the end. The best thing for Obama would be to get the thing wrapped up quickly so he could start courting Hillary-ites, not to be nice and drag it out. Likeability/unlikeablity is different from favorable/unfavorable. It is well known that McCain is pretty popular with independents, and at the height of the "Straight Talk Express" was pretty popular with almost everyone. It's also true that Clinton is pretty hated by a substantial part of the country. Here is a good article on the Clinton campaign's failures. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4978839&page=1
What he said made total sense. Obama knew he had to make peace with Clinton later on. If he had unloaded on her late in the campaign, the hostility between them and their supporters would be much worse than it is now. Obviously he didn't hold back for the purpose on making the race close. Hillary had several weeks of free punches and she took advantage. Agree with you on likability. Hillary is in a class by herself when it comes to negatives. She is the most polarizing national figure in a long time.
