Lets face it, the Conservatives are pissed because they see him as being week on imigration and stuff.

And the rest of us, well we just don't want another four years of the Republicans.

So what chance does this guy have?

Lets face it, the Conservatives are pissed because they see him as being week on imigration and stuff.

Mainly they see him as what he is, a Rockefeller Republican, and a shallow mean spirited Establishment twit. His support for abortion on demand and a lot of other votes did him in a long time ago; immigration is just one more reason among many that the Republican base doesn't like him. He's just another Vanity Candidate, anyway, like Romney and Hillary, and all the rest of them, for that matter.

And the rest of us, well we just don't want another four years of the Republicans.

So what chance does this guy have?

Probably 40-60, but then all the 'leaders' are Establishment toadies, so it's not like there is any real 'choice' out there; they will all do what they're told by their masters. 'Elections' are a farce; the 'people' have no real vote on anything important, except local referendums attached to ballots that don't interfere with business as usual, minor crap like 'Gay marriage', or repealing traffic laws against turning right on red ...

With his support of privatization of Social Security, permanent tax cuts and a war in Iraq of indefinite length, I think he's trying to sabotage his own chances. The campaign has already worn him out and he's decided he doesn't want the job after all. Getting the nomination is enough glory for him, so he'll continue to espouse unacceptable policies to assure a Dem win in November and get him off the hook. It's too late for him to drop out, now.

Lets face it, the Conservatives are pissed because they see him as being week on imigration and stuff.

And the rest of us, well we just don't want another four years of the Republicans.

So what chance does this guy have?

He still gets to keep his Senate job. It could be worse for the guy.

So what chance does this guy have?Honestly, I would not be at all surprised if he wins the presidency.

I would be shocked if we don't see Democratic gains in both the house and senate, but the presidency is still very much up in the air. A lot can happen between now and November, and McCain has proven himself as a pretty damn resilient (and lucky) man.

Honestly, I would not be at all surprised if he wins the presidency.

That would be precedent-setting. The incumbant's party has never retained the WH when the economy was in the toilet, and this time is one of the worst in modern history.

And look at how energized the Dems are compared to the GOP. One of the GOP caucus sites locally was in the embarrassing position of having to select 43 delegates for their county convention, and only 30 people total showed up to caucus. There's just no interest. Having to choose between McSame and sitting the election out, a lot of Republicans will decide they need to wash their hair or something else more important on election day.

I don't even think Bush III really wants the job anymore. He's satisfied he got the party's nomination this late in life. It's like a lifetime achievement award, because no Republican with a political future was reckless enough to run against the Democrats this year. They were happy he filled the slot. He's certainly expendable.

I'm standing by my "It wouldn't surprise me."

The first election cycle I was old enough to take interest in (but not vote) had a lot of similarities to '08 -- huge Democratic turnout, young people wanting "change," disinterested GOP, an outgoing Republican president who was tired and mired in controversy (Iran-Contra, etc.), a Republican candidate offering a watered down version of "the same" who wasn't exactly popular with the far right/religious nuts, etc...

It was supposed to be a "sure thing" -- and after going to a rally and hearing Rob Lowe and co. warm us up for the big Dukakis speech, I was convinced it was a sure thing... but then I woke up one morning and found out that my state was one of only 10 (+DC whooo!) that voted Democrat.

It happens.

They'll support whoever Fox tells them to support, and Fox is going to tell them to support McCain.

Thats pretty lame.

Fox, Hannity, Rush... Do you honestly believe what you spew?

We'll see. They'll say that McCain needs your support to save America from Hillobama, and you folks'll go for it. Same as with all they hysteria about Kerry because he shot a viet cong and threw ribbons and married a ketchup lady, or whatever.

They'll say that McCain needs your support to save America from HillobamaThey already have. When it became apparent that McCain was a legitimate threat to win the GOP nomination, Rush (and to a lesser extent Hannity and Ingraham) began fellating Romney on a daily basis, while calling McCain a filthy liberal.

Now that they have nobody else, the tune with Hannity is "I may not agree with him on every issue, but he's the only one protecting us from Hillary/Obama socialism!" (don't know what the other right-wing radio guys are saying)

They'll fall in line. Most everyone on the GOP side will find an excuse to rationalize full-on support of McCain by June.

He'll have a very good chance. Especially if he's running against Hillary.

McCain will lose a lot of votes simply because he can't inspire enough voter turnout to bother with the hassle of going down and getting in line to vote for him, while the Democratic base is fired up. This is what will decide the election. Bush would have lost the last time for the same reasons, except for all the 'gay marriage' referendums that dragged out a significant percentage to vote against that pointless crap. If no such garbage is on the state ballots this time around, you won't see any 'record voter turnouts' like the last one, not even for the bald-faced liars Hillary and Obama.

If Hillary steals the nomination, all that new DNC blood will pool at home, and the fringe Right will go ape-shit over a Hillary Clinton White House. McCain will win it easily. Then they'll stroke him out after about a year, and the lunatic Evangelical Senator they team him up with to get out the Xtian vote will be our new Theocratic king.

It's all right there in the Book Of Revelations. Right before the part where Israel blows up in sulpher and brimstone, and 1/3 of the people on the planet eat their kids.

If Hillary wins, McCain can talk about how the Democratic party ignored the will of the voters, and he can convince a lot of disenfranchised Obama supporters to join his cause, by appearing to be a centrist.

If Obama wins, McCain will have to convince the nation that the surge is working, that the violence in Iraq is dissipating, and that if we keep our troops there, there's a real hope that Iraq will one day be a prosperous first-world nation. McCain has always been the loudest proponent of the surge, and he can use that to contrast himself with Obama. It'll be an uphill battle, but not an unwinnable one.

I think Obama has a much better chance of beating McCain than Hillary. If Hillary wins the nomination, she can't use the same line that she's been using in the primary about having experience. She can't even claim to have legitimately won the Dem nomination.

If Hillary steals the nomination, all that new DNC blood will pool at home

Given that all the polling shows Democratic voters are quite happy with both choices, it isn't likely there will be any backlash against Hillary, whatever 'stealing' is supposed to mean; it would have very little effect on turnout. If she loses to McCain, which is unlikely, the loony Demo fringe will just blame Nader. LOL ...

Talk Radio has worn out all the Hillary bashing schtick; the result has been she is more popular than ever, so, they aren't the force they used to be, since they're boringly repetitious and preaching to the choir anyway. The only jerk worth listening to once in awhile is Michael Savage, and he's a comedy act.

She can't even claim to have legitimately won the Dem nomination.
If she wins, it will be by party rules. Already you're prepared to claim they aren't legitimate?

And I don't see any way an idealistic Obama supporter would ever vote for any Republican, let alone McSame. Politically wet behind the ears as many of them are, they've moved past the pouting stage.

If she wins, it will be by party rules. Already you're prepared to claim they aren't legitimate?

And I don't see any way an idealistic Obama supporter would ever vote for any Republican, let alone McSame. Politically wet behind the ears as many of them are, they've moved past the pouting stage.

"Idealistic Obama supporter", sure, but moderate democrats, not so much. McCain won't have any trouble peeling off moderates not ready to back an untried entity (Obama) or simply tired of the Clintons, because he's a liberal and thus has been the media's favorite Republican for decades. Given Hillary's very high disapproval ratings, he would have an easier time against her than against Obama. Now if he plays it right, he can beat Obama on experience. I know I would rather have a crusty old curmudgeon facing down Putin than Obama. For that matter, Hillary would be better off at the bargaining table than Obama would be, because she's cold and devious.

I'd feel a lot better about the Dems succeeding with a face-off between a savvy woman and Bush III than between an old, experienced white guy and a young, relatively unknown black guy in the general election. That's the type of choice way too many people in this country would make on factors other than merit.

For me it's too risky, and no doubt hasn't escaped the concern of the superdelegates.

I'm standing by my "It wouldn't surprise me."

The first election cycle I was old enough to take interest in (but not vote) had a lot of similarities to '08 -- huge Democratic turnout, young people wanting "change," disinterested GOP, an outgoing Republican president who was tired and mired in controversy (Iran-Contra, etc.), a Republican candidate offering a watered down version of "the same" who wasn't exactly popular with the far right/religious nuts, etc...

It was supposed to be a "sure thing" -- and after going to a rally and hearing Rob Lowe and co. warm us up for the big Dukakis speech, I was convinced it was a sure thing... but then I woke up one morning and found out that my state was one of only 10 (+DC whooo!) that voted Democrat.

It happens.


Yeah ,but Reagan had the cult of pesonality going for him,Mc Cain really doesn't have that.

I think Bush has made such a mess of things that the Republicans know they aren't going to win no mattter what they do and so they have put Mc Cain up as their sacrifical lamb.





If Hillary wins, McCain can talk about how the Democratic party ignored the will of the voters, and he can convince a lot of disenfranchised Obama supporters to join his cause, by appearing to be a centrist.


How can Mc Cain be a "centrist" when he says he doesn't care if we'll still be in Iraq 100 years from now?

Whenever Mc Cain claims to a a moderate,all the Dems will have to do is run a ad showing him singing "Bomb Iran".

Even Ann Coulter [whom I dispise] honestly admitted that Mc Cain won't get any more votes than Bob Dole did.


Given that all the polling shows Democratic voters are quite happy with both choices, it isn't likely there will be any backlash against Hillary,


Agreed.

I notice the people predicting a "bloodbath" are not actual Democrats.

As an actual Democrat I can tell you that we might fight a little amongst ourselfs,but when push comes to shove we'll stick together.

On the other hand,Mc Cain's support is a mile wide but less than a inch deep.


Talk Radio has worn out all the Hillary bashing schtick; the result has been she is more popular than ever, so, they aren't the force they used to be, since they're boringly repetitious and preaching to the choir anyway.


100% correct.


The only jerk worth listening to once in awhile is Michael Savage, and he's a comedy act.


That's the only reason I listen to him.

If she wins, it will be by party rules. Already you're prepared to claim they aren't legitimate?

And I don't see any way an idealistic Obama supporter would ever vote for any Republican, let alone McSame. Politically wet behind the ears as many of them are, they've moved past the pouting stage.

I'd feel a lot better about the Dems succeeding with a face-off between a savvy woman and Bush III than between an old, experienced white guy and a young, relatively unknown black guy in the general election. That's the type of choice way too many people in this country would make on factors other than merit.

For me it's too risky, and no doubt hasn't escaped the concern of the superdelegates.

100% correct.

Yeah ,but Reagan had the cult of pesonality going for him,Mc Cain really doesn't have that.True, but at the same time, Reagan's cult was in a decline by '88 and he was saddled with scandals that no amount of "I do not recall" could fully wipe away.

Plus, despite the Reagan legacy, you had a much weaker candidate (Bush I) running in '88...

I think Bush has made such a mess of things that the Republicans know they aren't going to win no mattter what they do and so they have put Mc Cain up as their sacrifical lamb.This kind of talk is what drives me crazy about the Democratic party.

Nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- has a better record of snatching political defeat from the jaws of victory than the Democrats.

Yes, Bush sucks. And yes, America is salivating for change. But never ever underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to lose a "sure thing."

Campaign hard and with confidence, but don't do a victory lap until there's an official victor.

This kind of talk is what drives me crazy about the Democratic party.

Nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- has a better record of snatching political defeat from the jaws of victory than the Democrats.

Yes, Bush sucks. And yes, America is salivating for change. But never ever underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to lose a "sure thing."

Campaign hard and with confidence, but don't do a victory lap until there's an official victor.That's what scares me about Obamamania. Focus on winning the election, not promoting any particular favorite candidate.

That's what scares me about Obamamania.Me too. Obama may be popular right now, but how about after the press turns on him and he's been chewed on by the GOP attack machine for a couple months?

As I see it, there are two certainties here: when you're dealing with a campaign based primarily on emotion and personality, a backlash is inevitable. And no matter how awesome you are, some of the shit thrown at you by the GOP smear-machine is going to stick. And of course it will stink.

NOTE REGARDING EMOTION/PERSONALITY: I don't think Obama's candidacy is without substance. When you actually read up on him, there's a lot to chew on... but due to his youthful appearance, skills as an orator, and Hillary Clinton planting the seeds of doubt, the perception that he is without substance is likely going to dog him throughout the campaign.

True, but at the same time, Reagan's cult was in a decline by '88 and he was saddled with scandals that no amount of "I do not recall" could fully wipe away.

Plus, despite the Reagan legacy, you had a much weaker candidate (Bush I) running in '88...


Yeah,but the Democrats had a weak canidate back then too.

That won't be the case this year no matter who gets the Democratic

nomination.




Nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- has a better record of snatching political defeat from the jaws of victory than the Democrats.

Yes, Bush sucks. And yes, America is salivating for change. But never ever underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to lose a "sure thing."


I'm not saying that Mc Cain isn't strong oppostiton .

But it is the Democrats race to lose.


Campaign hard and with confidence, but don't do a victory lap until there's an official victor.

Agreed.

That's what scares me about Obamamania. Focus on winning the election, not promoting any particular favorite candidate.

Agreed.

Again,Obamamania is style over substance.

I've yet to hear one Obamaiac give me a substantive reason for opposing Hillary if she gets the nomination,only petty prejudices.


Me too. Obama may be popular right now, but how about after the press turns on him and he's been chewed on by the GOP attack machine for a couple months?

As I see it, there are two certainties here: when you're dealing with a campaign based primarily on emotion and personality, a backlash is inevitable. And no matter how awesome you are, some of the shit thrown at you by the GOP smear-machine is going to stick. And of course it will stink.

NOTE REGARDING EMOTION/PERSONALITY: I don't think Obama's candidacy is without substance. When you actually read up on him, there's a lot to chew on... but due to his youthful appearance, skills as an orator, and Hillary Clinton planting the seeds of doubt, the [i]perception that he is without substance is likely going to dog him throughout the campaign.


I think Obama has a lot of substance,but anyone looking at this objectively has to say that Hillary has way more substance.

And the fact is she's a proven quanity,the right-wing smear machine can't bring anything up on her that they already haven't brought up [and that most voters have already rejected].

We don't know what possible scandal [real or imagined]the Republicans might bring up on Obama after he gets the nomination.

And the fact is she's a proven quanity,the right-wing smear machine can't bring anything up on her that they already haven't brought up [and that most voters have already rejected].

Is that why she is losing to Obama, the voters have rejected her and her slim machine.

We don't know what possible scandal [real or imagined]the Republicans might bring up on Obama after he gets the nomination.

Seems to me the democrats are as guilty of bringing up imagery scandals as the republicans do (and yes they did). But don't tell me the democats don't, like the McCain/Lobbist thing or the the thing about him being a POW or his US citizenship......:nonono:

Is that why she is losing to Obama, the voters have rejected her and her slim machine.


I don't call a virtual dead heat much of a loss.:shrug:

I do think she underestimated Obama and his abilty to organize caucus states,that does not make him a better canidate however.

I also think immature young people[many of whom I know from my job] prefer him for two reasons:They want to punish Hillary for her Iraq War vote and because Hillary reminds them of their mom and they don't want their mom in office.

But as Chachma said someone has got to be a mature adult and remind these immature young people of something: Right now we elect the president through the Electorial College and Obama has not won any of the Electorial College states the Democrats need to win in order to win the election.

Young people are idealistic and can't see the world beyond their idealism,adults are pragmatic and see the world for what it really is.

You might be out to make yourself feel good by supporting Obama,but I'm out to help win an election for the Democrats.

That is the way the real world works.




Seems to me the democrats are as guilty of bringing up imagery scandals as the republicans do (and yes they did). But don't tell me the democats don't, like the McCain/Lobbist thing or the the thing about him being a POW or his US citizenship......:nonono:


Nice dodge,but that dodge doesn't address my point which is that Hillary has been tried and tested against the Republican smear machine and Obama hasn't.

Nice dodge,but that dodge doesn't address my point which is that Hillary has been tried and tested against the Republican smear machine and Obama hasn't.

No one (intelligent) gives a shit. A good chunk of the country is ready to move past stupid, petty, hyper-partisan left/right-wing bullshit that consumes every ounce of energy in Washington and prevents anything important getting done. You might not be, but we are.

No one (intelligent) gives a shit. A good chunk of the country is ready to move past stupid, petty, hyper-partisan left/right-wing bullshit that consumes every ounce of energy in Washington and prevents anything important getting done. You might not be, but we are.

If your snotty childish bullshit is an example of 'moving past petty' anything, then clearly there is a long way to go before 'we' get there ...:rolleyes:

No one (intelligent) gives a shit.

Really? ... who told you this?

How can Mc Cain be a "centrist" when he says he doesn't care if we'll still be in Iraq 100 years from now?


Well, like I said, McCain will have to convince Americans that the surge is working. He's definitely more centrist on social issues than most Republicans.


Whenever Mc Cain claims to a a moderate,all the Dems will have to do is run a ad showing him singing "Bomb Iran".


Oh, you mean the same amendment that Hillary signed?


Even Ann Coulter [whom I dispise] honestly admitted that Mc Cain won't get any more votes than Bob Dole did.


Ann Coulter is a right-wing nut job. She has to turn left to see Rush Limbough. Nobody actually listens to her. The only reason she gets a voice at all is because she pisses people off, and it drives up ratings on political talk shows.

How can Mc Cain be a "centrist" when he says he doesn't care if we'll still be in Iraq 100 years from now?Iraq is but one issue among many. Add 'em all up, and McCain is far more centrist than today's average Republican. He'd be a lot more comfortable with the GOP of 1908 than 2008 (no, that's not a crack about his age).

No one (intelligent) gives a shit.


I'm not talking about intelligent people ,I'm talking about the mass public.


A good chunk of the country is ready to move past stupid, petty, hyper-partisan left/right-wing bullshit that consumes every ounce of energy in Washington and prevents anything important getting done.


That still constitutes a minoirty of the people who decide the Electorial College.




If your snotty childish bullshit is an example of 'moving past petty' anything, then clearly there is a long way to go before 'we' get there ...:rolleyes:


AMEN BROTHER.:nice:


Well, like I said, McCain will have to convince Americans that the surge is working.


And he can't,the only issue that can possibly be bigger than Iraq is the economy and he's vulnerable there too.



He's definitely more centrist on social issues than most Republicans.


Yeah,but he's anti-choice and he did buddy up with Jerry Falwell shortly before Falwell died.




Oh, you mean the same amendment that Hillary signed?


I don't recall Hillary ever singing "Bomb Iran" [or any other song]?:scratch:


Ann Coulter is a right-wing nut job.


Nothing is more useless than a broken clock,yet it's right twice a day.




Iraq is but one issue among many. Add 'em all up, and McCain is far more centrist than today's average Republican.



That's not saying much.

I don't recall Hillary ever singing "Bomb Iran" [or any other song]?:scratch:


Perhaps not, but she did vote in favor of the amendment that classified the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization, which gives Bush the authority to bomb them.


Nothing is more useless than a broken clock,yet it's right twice a day.


See, isn't debating more fun when we can find common ground? :)

It will be an astonishing moment if the US manages to elect a Republican this November. I for one wont be surprised but I will be very disappointed. A good friend of mine indicated that if the US elects McCain you should all be chemically neutered to ensure the stupid genes don't pollute the global gene pool.

Are the Blond Transorexic and the Cigar Chomping Oxycontinite still planning on voting for Hillary when he gets nominated ?

Here is a hilarious deconstruction of the McCain campain by Matt Taibbi ..

The Return of MacCainstein (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18721308/mccain_resurrected)

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/9/1/3/9/18689319-18689320-slarge.jpg

A good friend of mine indicated that if the US elects McCain you should all be chemically neutered to ensure the stupid genes don't pollute the global gene pool.

I agree with your friend that eugenics would indeed solve a lot of the world's problems.