Newsweek: Palin spree worse than thought, McCain in the dark about matters

I don't think Obama is "that good". This was a solid win but not a mandate or landslide by any means.

May be I am speaking from personal experience, but the Palin pick turned me off as a lifelong GOP. I am sure it turned down a lot of other GOP too.

She only needed to come out as somewhat lucid or competent. Even in this, she was not successful.

In an exit poll, 25 percent of GOP though Palin was not qualified. Of this 25 percent, a third voted for Obama. That would be around 3 percent of the total vote? That would be a direct 6 point swing. McCain lost by 4-5 ?

Don't know much about Kay Bailey Hutchison, but maybe they would have won with her.

 

Pass that bong this-a-way, lil' fella. If you don't think this was a landslide or a mandate, you are obviously stoned!

 

You're kidding, right? The voting turnout was the best in 100 years. It surpassed by 1% the 1960 election, when Jack Kennedy defeated Tricky Dick Nixon by a hair, which was the previous gold standard for a modern national election turnout. President-Elect Obama beat Senator John McCain by a margin of 6%, amazing in a country that has been polarized for so many years. He will end up with at least 364 electoral votes. By any standard, it was a devastating electoral defeat for the GOP and a massive win with the popular vote. Look, I realize you may be in a state of shock, so I'll cut you some slack. After you come out of it, you'll begin to see reality, I'm sure. Good luck with that.

I agree with you about Palin. She was a disaster.

 

Palin fired up the base. It was a reasonable tact. They were ahead for a brief time, than the financial crisis (which neither McCain nor Palin could be articulate about causes and solutions--kaboom to any chance they had). Had McCain known about that, sure probably Mitt Romney would have worked better, but almost surly not enough.

But any Republican had long odds this election. McCain was by far the best they could have gotten at the top.

By the way, capturing 53% and with a 7 point margin is a landslide, a "mandate". Going back to the 60s, the era of modern politics, only LBJ (64), Nixon (72) or Reagan (84) were bigger mandates. This equals GH Bush vs Dukakis as a mandate, and bigger than Bill Cs (never > 50 of the vote), GWB vs Kerry (3% margin), Kennedy, even Reagan vs Carter.

I do hope, and think, that Obama has more humility about it than GWB's "3% mandate" with "political capital he plans to spend" (nearly his own words). I despised the Bush's team tact to insult and ignore 40some % of Americans who voted for the other guy, I don't want to see Obama do that and nothing suggests he will.

 

In last night's Talking Points Memo (11/3) poor Bill O’Reilly is hurt that McCain and Sarah Palin won’t come on his show. He even went so far as too embarrassingly explain how he was about to meet them in Hershey, PA on very short notice, but because of a major monsoon that hit New York flights were canceled and it just couldn’t be done. He of course then said how much it would have helped them to come on the show because so many of McCain’s potential voters watch the show. He added that Sarah Palin was considering an interview and then the campaign killed it. Obviously the McCain campaign felt like an interview on the “Factor” would hurt them more than help them. Sorry O’Reilly.

It’s amazing that FOX proclaims themselves fair and balanced when hosts like O'Reilly blatantly point out that they have a right wing point of view and want to help further Republican agendas. In O’Reilly’s warped view of the media he actually feels that the right wing view is the “fair and balanced view” and liberals are the ones taking over the media and lending bias. At the end of these “talking points” he actually accuses Obama of having so much money that the media is in his pocket… Why?… because he happened to make history with millions of people sending in small donations to support the campaign? It’s not like Obama did anything dishonest; he just happened to come out on top because people finally felt like they could contribute to something in their own little way and make it matter.

O’Reilly revels in being a Republican icon on a news channel that prides itself on its well known motto of being a ‘balanced’ news organization. Unfortunately for him, he was rejected by the very people that he reveres.

 

for what it's worth the landslide was not because of obama. you and I both know that it was because of the economic implosion that happened. I think that may be what langal is speaking to.

 

i'm glad you agree that it was a landslide victory. however, it was barack obama's correct assessment, "the fundamentals of the economy aren't strong" that related to the common voter. the economy didn't elect barack obama. voters did.

i like how some people try to play off obama's victory as if it was handed to him. i mean obama had such a great advantage being a biracial black man, named BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, relatively new to the voting public, which usually tends to be an older generation.

 

It was McCain erratic behavior doing the whole crash that sealed his fate.



What will the republicans try to spin next?The fact that Regan wasn't that good of a president?

 

I dunno what you're looking at but I'm looking at the final popular vote tallies.

"Mandate" or "landslide" is Reagan-Mondale. 60-40.

52-48 != landslide. The South was still largely GOP. Maybe it was a mandate for New York, but New York isn't the whole country.

I guess that makes Prop 8 a "mandate". Do you think that too?

Hell every damn 4 years, the winner claim "mandate or the people". I don't care if its GOP or Dems. Same stuff every 4 years.

 

I DID NOT vote for McCain.

52-48 is NOT a landslide. I like it how some emo-people out there start attacking any opinion that is against theirs. Just cause I said it wasn't a blowout, that makes me a McCain supporter? Does that make me a racist too?

Was the passage of Prop 8 in California a "mandate". NO. The vote was close. If Obama was a mandate then so was Prop 8 I guess by your logic.

You do understand that someone can win every state by 1 vote and sweep the electoral college right?

Someone can lose the popular vote and WIN the electoral college (Bush).

 

I agree with you there. If the economy was purring along, the whole election changes.

I don't think this was some sort of mandate of the people to change American society. The Democrats did not get to the 60 number in the Senate. I think the House gains were modest. The government is still dominated by 2 parties. The GOP is still relevant.

While I think this election was a foregone conclusion by Halloween, I still don't think it was mission impossible for McCain. He actually led in the polls following the Palin pick. Heck - if Palin wasn't an idiot, that itself changes the election too. Of course, I have to question McCain's judgement for picking her at all...

 

delete

 

First - langal is wrong. It's 53-46 and it is indeed a mandate (in the highest turnout in a century) not just because of raw numbers, but because of where those numbers lie. Look at the map. The Republican party has now effectively become a regional party, representing the deep south, appalachia, some of the less populous (and shrinking) Great Plains regions, and certain sparsely populated areas of the mountain west. The Northeast is now more solidly blue than even the deepest red states. The upper midwest is now solid blue. Pacific is blue. The capital of the confederacy and NC are now blue. The mountain west is changing blue - the southwest, with its growing hispanic populace, is poised to become solidly blue for a long time (Nev, NM and eventally AZ). I mean UTAH is getting bluer. UTAH! Even in reliably red states, Democrats are challenging strongly.

Second - michecon I don't get your beef in this thread - "not journalism"? Dude, journalists make deals with sources and have had off-the-record convos since the beginning of time. Embargo'd stories are SOP, especially when it comes to sensitive issues (for example the NYT regularly holds back stories at the request of the government on national security grounds if they state that it could jeopardize an ongoing operation). Deals like this are how Bob Woodward and others write their books.

Third, most importantly, here's today's edition of the series, worth reading:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167582/page/1

 

the bluer the area, the larger shift toward democratic, and vice versa

this map is important because it shows that the only people who became -more- supportive of republicans this time around is the bible belt.

conclusion?

you cannot win an election by purely bringing out the evangelical vote

 

Look, I am not being emotional in the least. Nor do I care whether you voted for McCain, Obama, or Joe the Dog Catcher. And please, PLEASE show me where I said or implied that you were "racist." I simply disagree with your contention that the victory by President-Elect Obama (or the Democratic Party, for that matter) wasn't a landslide. I've been following presidential elections and politics since the 1960 election of Jack Kennedy. I've seen a heck of a lot of them. Was this a "blowout?" No. Was it a landslide? It sure as hell was, with all due respect. If I assumed you voted for McCain, I apologize for that. That, and nothing else.

 

I love reading stuff like this. I haven't even finished reading this installment, but I have to say it's fascinating.

 

Sam, Obama took every major city in Texas. Even Texas is turning blue. At least 3 Texas House seats were won by Democrats, the 3rd election in a row where they've made gains there, and one House race is still being decided. If the Democrat wins it (not impossible, from what I hear), that puts the Texas House in a 75-75 tie, which would be a big deal. As it is, Craddick's speakership looks very, very shaky. We also took a state senate seat, which will make it more difficult for Republicans to push through legislation without Democrats to do it.

To sum up the Texas Legislature after this election? Going into the next census, and redistricting (when it is meant to happen), there will not be a repeat of the absurdly gerrymandered districts DeLay/Perry/Craddick and minions pushed through outside of the normal cycle. I'm looking for some major payback there, still being ticked off that we lost several Blue Dog Democrats in our congressional delegation, who were well loved in those GOP dominated districts that were redrawn.

 

From the article (4th chapter)


Made me laugh, randomly, here at work. Luckily, no one was around.

5th will have the conventions, so I'm hoping it pops soon.

 

That's a great story!

 

Chapter 5 is like candy!

I won't spoil anymore of it. http://www.newsweek.com/id/167905/page/1