Obama Versus McCain: Who Would Win?

[Siam Sam]

The chances of Obama receiving the Democratic nomination look better and better with each passing primary. For sure it will be McCain on the Republican side. Which one would win the Big Contest in November, and why?

[ArizonaTeach]

Originally Posted by Siam Sam

The chances of Obama receiving the Democratic nomination look better and better with each passing primary. For sure it will be McCain on the Republican side. Which one would win the Big Contest in November, and why?

I'd be pretty surprised if McCain won, even though I'll be voting for him. I'm not in the least convinced that Obama is the better candidate, but I just think a huge amount of people are far more interested in change than anything else. I don't know exactly what they think is gonna change, but I think they perceive that Obama is the candidate to make it happen.

[Whiteknight]

Originally Posted by Siam Sam

The chances of Obama receiving the Democratic nomination look better and better with each passing primary. For sure it will be McCain on the Republican side. Which one would win the Big Contest in November, and why?

It's a long road until November, but at least right now, survey says...

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by ArizonaTeach

I'd be pretty surprised if McCain won, even though I'll be voting for him. I'm not in the least convinced that Obama is the better candidate, but I just think a huge amount of people are far more interested in change than anything else. I don't know exactly what they think is gonna change, but I think they perceive that Obama is the candidate to make it happen.

McCain is a pretty big change, too, if we're comparing him to George W. I think people are voting for Obama because he inspires them, not because of what you're implying - that they're just a bunch of sheep buying into a campaign slogan.

To the OP, I think people are underestimating the Republicans' ability to influence public opinion. They're way, way better at it historically than Democrats are. Opinion polls can be in the gutter for a Republican candidate, election day comes, that candidate wins, and the next day everyone wonders just what they were thinking as the approval ratings tank again. It's like hypnotism.

I would certainly not be surprised if McCain beat Obama. Opinion polls mean nothing against Republicans.

[BrainGlutton]

I expect Obama to win, but the Democrats have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

A lot might depend on whom Obama and McCain tap for running mates.

I really don't expect the "Obama is a Muslim" canards to have any traction with swing voters.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I expect Obama to win, but the Democrats have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Maybe that's what I'm seeing. Maybe it's not Republican devious plotting that I'm seeing on election day, but rather mostly Democrat incompetence.

Never attribute to malice what could be explained by brain damage and all that.

[Martin Hyde]

@Mosier, the impression I've gotten is that the GOP traditionally has had a better ground game, at least the last few elections. In blow-outs like Clinton v. Dole it wasn't a big factor but in close races like the last two Presidential elections I was enough to swing the vote against the Dems.

I just remember going into election week both in 2000 and 2004 many polls were giving the Democratic candidate the lead. Does anyone remember that electoral-vote prediction website? It was giving Kerry a clear lead in the EC right at election day.

Is it possible that perhaps Democratic voters are more likely to be involved in the "random sample" of people who get polled? I don't know (I kind of doubt it--although I do know opinion polling has to factor in that some people who vote don't have telephones.)

Personally, with the Dems looking very popular now (look at election 2006) this is an election that most people are going to be calling for the Democrats from day one. While I always maintain the line that "it's impossible to predict a Presidential election this far out" I do feel Obama versus McCain, right now, would be an Obama victory.

[Siam Sam]

Originally Posted by Mosier

To the OP, I think people are underestimating the Republicans' ability to influence public opinion. They're way, way better at it historically than Democrats are. Opinion polls can be in the gutter for a Republican candidate, election day comes, that candidate wins, and the next day everyone wonders just what they were thinking as the approval ratings tank again. It's like hypnotism.

I would certainly not be surprised if McCain beat Obama. Opinion polls mean nothing against Republicans.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Full disclosure: I'm an Obama man and have always voted Democratic despite never joining the party. BUT ... I have nothing against Republicans. In fact, some of the finest people I've known have been Republicans. I'm definitely not a Republican basher. I just like the Democrats' policies better in general.

But that's neither here nor there. I'm interested in who people think would win between the two and why.

[dalej42]

Here is the map of the 2004 election. Obama's got to flip enough Red states to win.

Here is 2006. Ohio was very blue in 2006. If Obama can hold all the Kerry states and flip Ohio, Obama wins.

Realistically, there are only a few states in play. Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

With the economy and the Iraq failures continuing, I see Ohio leaning blue. Very hard for McCain to make that up in other places.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by dalej42

Here is the map of the 2004 election. Obama's got to flip enough Red states to win.

Here is 2006. Ohio was very blue in 2006. If Obama can hold all the Kerry states and flip Ohio, Obama wins.

Realistically, there are only a few states in play. Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

With the economy and the Iraq failures continuing, I see Ohio leaning blue. Very hard for McCain to make that up in other places.

Iraq failures continuing? That's not a very reality-based view of what's actually happening in Iraq.

[Martin Hyde]

Also, I think more states are going to be in play than you think.

Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Wisconsin, and Minnesota

Add Virginia and Michigan to that. Virginia is becoming more of a battleground state every year, it isn't a guaranteed GOP state anymore (it's always been a state where the Dems frequently win state-level elections, but it has usually gone the way of the GOP in Presidential elections.)

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Iraq failures continuing? That's not a very reality-based view of what's actually happening in Iraq.

Yes it is, so long as you don't re-define success to mean "only slightly less horrific death than last quarter".

[Quartz]

Obama by a blow-out.

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Also, I think more states are going to be in play than you think.



Add Virginia and Michigan to that. Virginia is becoming more of a battleground state every year, it isn't a guaranteed GOP state anymore (it's always been a state where the Dems frequently win state-level elections, but it has usually gone the way of the GOP in Presidential elections.)

And Colorado. Colorado is all but a guaranteed flip if Obama wins the nomination.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Yes it is, so long as you don't re-define success to mean "only slightly less horrific death than last quarter".

This is the fundamental problem with how liberals look at the war. The success of a war has virtually nothing to do with the "amount of horrific death." Death is one of the defining characteristics of warfare, without it, war isn't war. One of the primary things that soldiers do during war is die. Typically a lot of civilians die, too.

No, you have to look at the strategic big picture to fully appreciate how a war is going. More American soldiers died in 1944 than they did in 1942, but 1944 was by far a better year, strategically, than 1942 was.

In Iraq, most of the groups which have been fighting against stability are far weaker now than they used to be. AQ in Iraq is far weaker than it used to be. Iraq has even started to hit important political benchmarks, one of the key necessities for long-term stability in Iraq.

I know Democrats want Iraq to fail, to be quite honest, considering their rhetoric over the past five years, they need it to fail. But even the media, which has long been definitively against the war, have stopped talking about it precisely because it has been going so well ever since the surge.

[Spoke]

I believe the huge black turnout (and the huge youth turnout) Obama generates could potentially put some Southern states in play. I'm thinking particularly of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. It may sound crazy, but maybe even Mississippi, given the size of the black population there (37%), and the fact that McCain doesn't exactly light fires under Southern conservatives.

Part of me hopes the primary campaign between Hillary and Obama continues to be fought through the Mississippi primary, since that would encourage a lot of voter registration there.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

This is the fundamental problem with how liberals look at the war. The success of a war has virtually nothing to do with the "amount of horrific death." Death is one of the defining characteristics of warfare, without it, war isn't war. One of the primary things that soldiers do during war is die. Typically a lot of civilians die, too.

Irony in the extreme, Martin. It is Bush who has re-defined the war to be measured in American casualties, not the Democrats. We're the ones arguing all along that success should be measured in factors like political reconciliation. If you believe that too, then you're on the wrong side man.

[Santo Rugger]

Originally Posted by Whiteknight

It's a long road until November, but at least right now, survey says...

Why is her party still letting her run?

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Irony in the extreme, Martin. It is Bush who has re-defined the war to be measured in American casualties, not the Democrats. We're the ones arguing all along that success should be measured in factors like political reconciliation. If you believe that too, then you're on the wrong side man.

That's never been the case. I'm sorry, but this is still great debates. Show me where Bush has said "we are going to define success and failure in Iraq based on our casualty figures." Just because he may mention that they have improved in X period doesn't mean he is "redefining" the success metrics for the war.

Primarily, when Democrats rail against the war the first thing they mention is how many of "our boys" (who they don't care about anymore than Bush does) are dying and then secondly they talk about the political instability. Don't pretend the Dems haven't been waving the body-bag count for five years now.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by spoke-

I believe the huge black turnout (and the huge youth turnout) Obama generates could potentially put some Southern states in play. I'm thinking particularly of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. It may sound crazy, but maybe even Mississippi, given the size of the black population there (37%), and the fact that McCain doesn't exactly light fires under Southern conservatives.

Part of me hopes the primary campaign between Hillary and Obama continues to be fought through the Mississippi primary, since that would encourage a lot of voter registration there.

It's long been my understanding that the key to winning Louisiana is being pro-life, at least that's how it has been explained to me by people who are from there.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

That's never been the case. I'm sorry, but this is still great debates. Show me where Bush has said "we are going to define success and failure in Iraq based on our casualty figures." Just because he may mention that they have improved in X period doesn't mean he is "redefining" the success metrics for the war.

Primarily, when Democrats rail against the war the first thing they mention is how many of "our boys" (who they don't care about anymore than Bush does) are dying and then secondly they talk about the political instability. Don't pretend the Dems haven't been waving the body-bag count for five years now.

You're going to implore me for quotations when you follow-up with saying the Democrats don't care about soldiers dying? No thanks. It's a hi-jack anyway. But the surge's success absolutely was measured by the reduction in violence, not by political reconciliation. If you don't know that, I don't think any amount of quoting will make that sink in.

[Martin Hyde]

My final prediction this thread, if nothing changes between now and November and Obama is the nominee:

Obama: 276
McCain: 261

Popular vote I think Obama will probably win by about the same margin Bush beat Kerry, if not more (remember Bush beat Kerry by around 2m in popular vote.) I think Obama will have some major blow-outs in states like Illinois, even more so than typically happens in strongly Democrat states. But ultimately I think the political battlefields are still too static for Obama to capture any states which aren't traditional battleground states. I expect McCain to win:

All of the states Bush won in 2004 except Ohio and New Mexico. McCain isn't going to use the protectionist rhetoric Obama has, so he's going to lose Ohio. And McCain's stance on immigration will probably lose him New Mexico. I think it's possible Colorado could go Obama too but I have my doubts.

So obviously I'm expecting Obama to win all of the states that Kerry did and also pick up Ohio and New Mexico. I think there's a chance Obama wins Colorado and even Virginia, but I'm not prepared to predict that right now.

It's also possible that Obama loses New Hampshire, McCain is really popular in that state for some reason, and it's the only New England state that is regularly even in play between Dems and Republicans. But I don't see the winner of New Hampshire's overall election fate improving either way. The election will primarily be decided in Ohio.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

You're going to implore me for quotations when you follow-up with saying the Democrats don't care about soldiers dying? No thanks. It's a hi-jack anyway. But the surge's success absolutely was measured by the reduction in violence, not by political reconciliation. If you don't know that, I don't think any amount of quoting will make that sink in.

So you don't want to provide a cite? Thanks, I'll just disregard your argument. Aside from refreshing your memory as to what the surge's purpose actually was. The surge's entire purpose was to reduce violence. And what comes after that? Well, if you had been paying attention you'd notice everyone from Bush to Petraeus have said the surge's purpose was to reduce violence so that political reconciliation would be possible. Once it was obvious the surge was succeeding in its first goal Democrats did start to point that no political reconciliation was forthcoming. Now that that has happened, Dems have basically stopped talking entirely (although they'll still mention all those dead soldiers they care so much about periodically.)

The surge was not just seeking to reduce violence for the sake of reducing violence. FTR I think it's an entirely rational viewpoint to have been opposed to the original invasion of Iraq. I think it's even entirely rational to say, "Bush messed this occupation up for four straight years." But it's not rational to try and ascribe motivations that just aren't there. Bush has never said the only metric for success is the number of American deaths per month, if you can show me him saying that even once, I'll mail you or PayPal you some money--but I know for a fact he never has.

Also note that when I said the Democrats didn't care about the soldiers, I said the GOP doesn't either. By and large politicians don't care about soldiers. I think the only exceptions are the very small number of politicians that have had to actually fight in a war, guys like John Kerry, Bob Kerry, John McCain et cetera. People like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, are so separated from anything relative to warfare they only view "the American soldier" in a very theoretical sense. They view them as political pawns to be used one way or another and nothing else.

[DigitalC]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

This is the fundamental problem with how liberals look at the war. The success of a war has virtually nothing to do with the "amount of horrific death." Death is one of the defining characteristics of warfare, without it, war isn't war. One of the primary things that soldiers do during war is die. Typically a lot of civilians die, too.

No, you have to look at the strategic big picture to fully appreciate how a war is going. More American soldiers died in 1944 than they did in 1942, but 1944 was by far a better year, strategically, than 1942 was.

In Iraq, most of the groups which have been fighting against stability are far weaker now than they used to be. AQ in Iraq is far weaker than it used to be. Iraq has even started to hit important political benchmarks, one of the key necessities for long-term stability in Iraq.

I know Democrats want Iraq to fail, to be quite honest, considering their rhetoric over the past five years, they need it to fail. But even the media, which has long been definitively against the war, have stopped talking about it precisely because it has been going so well ever since the surge.

The war in Iraq is still failing because americans are still dying and they are not coming home yet, sadly thats the only thing people care about. Its not about how its going for the Iraquis but how its affecting the people here at home that affects votes. I wish it were different but i believe the war will continue to be a huge negative no matter how good things are as long as americans are still dying and the troops are not coming home.

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

It's long been my understanding that the key to winning Louisiana is being pro-life, at least that's how it has been explained to me by people who are from there.

Bill Clinton won Louisiana in '92 and again in '96.

[Knorf]

Obama will beat McCain, is my guess, and I don't think it will be very close. It'd be similar to Clinton over Bush I in 1992.

This assumes nothing fundamental changes in terms of what is presently known as fact between now and then.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

My final prediction this thread, if nothing changes between now and November and Obama is the nominee:

Obama: 276
McCain: 261

Popular vote I think Obama will probably win by about the same margin Bush beat Kerry, if not more (remember Bush beat Kerry by around 2m in popular vote.)

3M.

I think Obama beats McCain, too, but I think the current polls overestimate that win by quite a bit. Obama is the golden boy right now, and is basking in the sunlight. Some of that is bound to dim during the general election.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

So you don't want to provide a cite? Thanks, I'll just disregard your argument.

Great, I'll just apply the same standard to you and we're set!

[Liberal]

Obama wins, and it's a landslide.

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think Obama beats McCain, too, but I think the current polls overestimate that win by quite a bit.

I agree. It will be a close-run thing. And I don't think the map will necessarily resemble the last two.

[XT]

Obama wins for sure. Why? Because he will have (for the first time I can remember) the entire Democrat party behind him. He will pull in most if not all of the left wingers and he will pull in at least half of the center/independents (he will probably split the center with McCain).

On the other side of the house McCain will NOT pull in all of the right wing. I expect a lot of them to be unenthusiastic about voting in this election cycle so there will be no grass roots get out and vote initiatives from that faction. With McCain splitting the center with Obama that means McCain loses because it will be the base that makes the difference.

My prediction is that Obama wins at least as big as Clinton did in his second term...at least. Could be even bigger but don't want to get TO hyped up.

-XT

[Siam Sam]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Obama wins, and it's a landslide.

That would be nice.

BTW: I have to say that the fact that Obama's parent's met as students at the University of Hawaii helps capture our sentimental side, because we met as students at the U of Hawaii. Yes, I know that's no reason to choose a president, but it sort of ties him in with our personal history. (There are plenty of reasons to like Obama, not just that his parents attended UH. )

[TWDuke]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

in close races like the last two Presidential elections I was enough to swing the vote against the Dems

Please don't do it again.

McCain and Obama both appeal to the mushy middle. They'd also automatically get the votes of the members of their respective parties who would vote for Beelzebub if it meant keeping the other party out of the White House.

Obama also appeals to those who believe in the ideals of the party but who are not content to simply vote against the opposition, and those who don't give a turd about political parties. These two factions will make all the difference in November.

As for the famed right-wing smear machine, Obama's relative youth and lack of experience work to his advantage here. There's simply not as much material to work with as in the last two elections, and not nearly as much pre-existing animosity and mistrust to build upon.

[Wee Bairn]

Wasn't it all the talk a year or two ago that the Dems could run Forest Gump and would be guaranteed a landslide victory because of how pissed the entire country was at the Republicans, and now there is a big debate who'll win, and McCain may have even been favored over HRC- what the hell happened since to make the polling so close?

[DoctorJ]

To the OP, I think people are underestimating the Republicans' ability to influence public opinion. They're way, way better at it historically than Democrats are.

One of the reasons why I like Obama is that I don't think he'll let the GOP get the upper hand in this regard. Ever since his opponents (Dem and Rep alike) started to turn up the volume on the attacks, he has been ready to fight back, fast and hard. When the first suggestions that he had attended a "madrassa" as a child popped up, it was a matter of hours before his campaign was out there knocking it down and calling out the people who were spreading it.

All indications show that he has learned from Kerry's 2004 disaster. He seems willing to show up to the gunfight with a gun.

Obama also has a motivated ground staff like the Dems haven't seen in a while. Kerry and 2000-era Gore just didn't get anyone that excited. People liked them well enough, and they were certainly motivated against W, but that's not the same. I just don't see McCain inspiring the same kind of dedication, especially since he isn't all that popular among the evangelicals and other hard-right groups that generally provide a lot of the ground game manpower.

I also think McCain is going to fall to a bit of the Giuliani Effect--the more he campaigns and people get to know him, the less they like him. He didn't really become the nominee by winning much of anybody over; he was just the least unappealing option they had. A lot of people still see him as a "maverick", but that isn't likely to hold up under the scrutiny of the general election.

So yeah, Obama by a lot.

[Liberal]

It's the economy that's going to kill McCain. His two chief economic advisors, Kemp and Peterson, despise each other. They're both disgruntled Keynesians, but deformed in opposite ways. He's already confused about the issues, but being pushed and pulled by those two, he's going to let out some mighty big gaffes and be extremely easy to confuse when questions are thrown at him. Obama, on the other hand, has some of the best economic advisors in the nation, including a Chicago School sympathizer at the top. McCain is going to lose his temper, because he doesn't like looking stupid, but stupid is exactly how he's going to look. And when he blows a gasket, it will all be over.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Obama wins, and it's a landslide.

I'm with him. First of all, Obama is going to look even younger and fresher up against the oldest man ever to run for president. Second, and most important, McCain has a big problem. If he moves right to appeal to the conservatives who now hate him, he's going to lose the independent vote. If he moves left, to appeal to them, the conservatives sit on their hands and stay away from the polls. Obama doesn't have that problem.

While Democrats have been incompetent, they certainly weren't in 2006. Obama is going to be a lot harder to swift boat also. First, he is very likable (unlike Hillary) and second, someone trying it might easily run into the race card. Look what happened to Allen. I'd also hope that McCain would put an end to any such thing, but I've pretty much lost faith in him after he kissed Shrub's ass in 2004.

[Siam Sam]

Originally Posted by DoctorJ

I also think McCain is going to fall to a bit of the Giuliani Effect--the more he campaigns and people get to know him, the less they like him. He didn't really become the nominee by winning much of anybody over; he was just the least unappealing option they had. A lot of people still see him as a "maverick", but that isn't likely to hold up under the scrutiny of the general election.

I would also think that some people -- such as myself, but others, too- -- will think that McCain is just too old.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

I just remember going into election week both in 2000 and 2004 many polls were giving the Democratic candidate the lead. Does anyone remember that electoral-vote prediction website? It was giving Kerry a clear lead in the EC right at election day.

Electoral-Vote.com showed a virtual tie before election day with a large number of "barely blue/red" states.

That's not to say polling works or doesn't but you're making an unfair attack on the website itself.

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Voyager

. If he moves left, to appeal to them, the conservatives sit on their hands and stay away from the polls.

No matter how bad they may not like McCain I can't see them doing this and allowing Obama an easy victory- if nothing else they'll be hoping McCain dies from old age in office and his VP takes over.

[dalej42]

Originally Posted by DoctorJ

I just don't see McCain inspiring the same kind of dedication, especially since he isn't all that popular among the evangelicals and other hard-right groups that generally provide a lot of the ground game manpower.

This is another excellent point. You're not going to get the same type of frenzy this year. Same sex marriage has not just been legalized in Massachussetts. Janet Jackson's breast wasn't shown during the Super Bowl. You're not going to get the "Vote for McCain, vote for God." type dedication as the evangelicals had in 2004. Too many Republican sex scandals and the Schiavo debacle have taken the winds out of their sails.

[Spoke]

One thing that concerns me is this core of elderly white voters who keep voting for Hillary. It happened again in Wisconsin. Makes me wonder if there might be some generational racism at work. If so, would those voters go with Obama in the general election, or would they slide over to McCain?

[gonzomax]

Whether blue staters will pull the lever for a black remains to be seen. I fear bigotry is more pronounced than most people apparently do. I am still a skeptic.
I have no trouble voting for him. I expect to. McCain is a war monger and I have seen enough. He has to explain 100 years of war.
I hope Obama wins but I am unsure.

[XT]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Whether blue staters will pull the lever for a black remains to be seen. I fear bigotry is more pronounced than most people apparently do. I am still a skeptic.

Have you been keeping up with current events?? When is this supposed American bigotry supposed to kick in exactly? AFTER Obama gets the nomination? Look at the numbers of people voting for the man (not the percentages the actual numbers) and compare and contrast that with the numbers of voters voting for McCain. Good grief man...look at the friggin numbers! One would think that in actuality American's are prejudiced against old white guys...

-XT

[Duckster]

There is considerable time to arm-twist, threaten, plead, buy, promise, etc., between the last Democratic primary in early June and the Democratic convention in late August. It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and Hillary will do whatever her ego takes to ensure she sings her aria acceptance speech at the convention.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by xtisme

On the other side of the house McCain will NOT pull in all of the right wing. I expect a lot of them to be unenthusiastic about voting in this election cycle so there will be no grass roots get out and vote initiatives from that faction. With McCain splitting the center with Obama that means McCain loses because it will be the base that makes the difference.

Take a look at the results in Washington for the Republicans, with 57% of the precincts reporting:

McCain: 49%
Huckabee: 22%
Romney: 20%
Paul: 7%

Romney isn't even a candidate any more, yet he took nearly half as many votes as McCain. Between them, the two candidates positioned as social conservatives got nearly as many votes as McCain.

Now, maybe Washington is an outlier; certainly it wasn't nearly so close in Michigan; but results like that suggest McCain has some real problems holding onto his base. Without the long-loathed Hillary to galvanize them, he can't count on a massive turnout from that segment of the party.

[XT]

Exactly. Thanks for the cite btw.

-XT

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Mosier

McCain is a pretty big change, too, if we're comparing him to George W.

I'm honestly interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. In 2000, it was true; today, it's completely false. McCain has recanted nearly every position he said he held, and realigned himself in Bush's image. He's now pandering to the religious right that he once eschewed, he's recanted on his own immigration reform proposal, he's recanted his criticism of the war; I can't honestly think of any issues he hasn't reversed himself on.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

I'm honestly interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. In 2000, it was true; today, it's completely false. McCain has recanted nearly every position he said he held, and realigned himself in Bush's image. He's now pandering to the religious right that he once eschewed, he's recanted on his own immigration reform proposal, he's recanted his criticism of the war; I can't honestly think of any issues he hasn't reversed himself on.

And since Bush backed a reasonable immigration reform plan, McCain is more far right than Bush. I suspect his praise of Bush is going to come back and haunt him.

[Onomatopoeia]

My take is Obama will wipe the floor with McCain...and just barely eke out a win.

Face it, Obama is not a great debater. However, a wall could out-debate McCain, so Obama wins there.

Obama will continue exhibiting his formidable oratory prowess to great effect, and get even more Republicans to switch over to him. However, if there's one thing the republican party and their surrogates know how to do is fight and fight dirty. I predict much digging into Obama's personal life to dig up skeletons, and manufacturing a few if none are found. After all, it doesn't have to be true to be believed, especially by folks who may be predisposed to believing anything that confirms a negative stereotype, and especially about a Black man.

...speaking of Black men, Obama is one. There are many people, even democrats, who will not vote for a Black man no matter what. I know. I work with quite a few. As an aside, to many where I work, that Obama has gotten as far as he has is not only unbelievable, but fear evoking. And I'm not talking about folks from Appalachia here. Most of my coworkers and business associates have advanced degrees and are respected in my industry, not that educated people can't be racist, but a higher number than I would consider average find the continuing and seemingly increasing Obama phenomena disturbingly inexplicable.

Bottom line is I believe Obama will probably be the next POTUS, which is more than I believed a short six months ago, and which I expressed then on this very board, but I don't believe it'll be anything like a landslide.