They’ll “come back” to McCain? They were there before, massively popular figure that he was? Then why, pray, did his campaign effectively die of monetary anemia before he was reborn as the “Hey! He’ll do!” candidate. Before someone can “come back”, they have to have been there in the first place. They weren’t.
[QUOTE=francois60]
McCain is in the same position that he was in the Republican field. Voters are currently examining the latest big thing and when they realize there’s nothing there they’ll come back to McCain.
[/QUOTE]
As **Elucidator **says, “Back?”
McCain lost the nomination back in 2000 to… George W. Bush. The takeaway message from this is that Shrub was a better Presidential candidate than McCain, and we can see how well THAT worked out.
You guys had the chance to elect a good President, and you blew it- twice. Why should we think you guys can do better *this *time?
Okay then, who does the OP think the GOP could have nominated that would have a better chance of winning? Romney? Giuliani? Huckabee? It isn’t the candidate; they did the best they could, even without the it’s-his-turn mentality that got Dole and Bush 1 nominated. The problem is that the facts themselves have an anti-Republican bias.
Historically, a two-term administration has almost automatically led to its VP getting the nomination. Not only was it inconceivable for that to happen this time; no one with too-close an association with Bush would even have been plausible.
[QUOTE=francois60]
Obama has already inspired everyone. The only question is how many people between now and November will learn that there’s nothing else to him but the ability to give a good speech.
[/QUOTE]
There are some things. For one, he’s a constitutional lawyer. That will be a refreshing change after eight years of a POTUS who regards the Constitution as “just a piece of paper.”
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
You know, the Republicans in Congress like to portray themselves as far right, but they aren’t. They’re just fat, piggish politicians like the rest of them. When the occasional one with principles comes out and says something bad about earmarking or transparency, the good ole’ boys haul him out to the woodshed.
It’s the same in the Democratic party. For every Obama you’ve got three old warhorses, who send pork home to their districts to have buildings named after them and to pave the way for their glorious return upon retirement. They’ll stomp and spit at Democrats and give angry speeches, but they just go back to their offices after and resume cutting deals and taking car of business as usual.
[/quote]
I hate to tell you (and McCain) but only a small percentage of government spending is pork and earmarks. The real action is elsewhere. For instance, the Democrats have some things they actually want to accomplish, if they can get enough new Senators so that the GOP can’t block cloture on everything. SCHIP expansion, for instance, is only pork if you define pork as “Federal spending we don’t like” in which case the Iraq war is pork.
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
Wombat - was that a woosh?
[/QUOTE]
No, it wasn’t. I was responding directly to the question in the thread title and the explanation of it in the OP.
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
Some of the other R candidates were not just younger chronologically then McCain, they were more youthful and vibrant in how they came across.
[/QUOTE]
If you’re going to look for deeper meaning, then here’s some now. Obama’s age will be playing against him with conservative voters. McCain’s age, while it certainly won’t help with the younger voters, will actually play in the party’s favor with a lot of people who equate age with experience (and at least subliminally with wisdom).
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
Republicans as in, fellow Republican politicians. McCain is not well liked within his own party amongst his peers. Obviously he’s liked well enough by the Republican general population at least compared to who was running against him. But his reputation is not so great at homebase.
[/QUOTE]
You and I read that differently. I thought “hated by his own party” meant “hated by Republicans,” a category which includes everyone who votes Republican. I didn’t interpret “hated by his own party” to mean “not well liked by certain senior Republican Party insiders.”
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
He was clearly talking about perception. McCain has a well documented history of hotheadedness and occasionally bizarre or vindictive behavior. The OP wasn’t saying anything about his actual medical diagnosis.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I was responding directly to the OP’s words, which were: “Seems mentally unstable.” I know a lot of hotheaded people and wouldn’t call any of them mentally unstable (that would be a serious accusation indeed). The words “mentally unstable” indicate someone who’s unfit to even be dealing with the general public, much less serving in the United States Senate.
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
Thanks Dr. Obvious. But “getting votes” is not an action, it’s an effect. It’s ignoring the point of the OP which is, why did McCain get the nomination in spite of serious electability issues, and did internal party dealings have any effect on that, or was it purely a matter of the amount of public support he got, or some other factor?
[/QUOTE]
Again, I’m responding to what Scrambledeggs actually wrote, which has none of the subtle content you seem to be reading into it. He asked, “Umm so how did McCain win the nomination?” I answered.
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
I think you are confusing what he was actually asking (why is there a weak R candidate this year) with his proposed answer (some kind of party tactic). The question is serious and meaningful, while the proposed answer was not meant to be taken literally.
[/QUOTE]
His question isn’t “why is there a weak candidate?” His question is (and I quote) “Are Republicans deliberately throwing the Presidential election?”
Scrambledeggs clearly doesn’t like McCain, and he’s trying to rile some people up by implying that McCain isn’t a serious candidate. It’s a “hit and run” OP (notice he hasn’t come back?) just like most of his other OP, not a serious question that he wants an answer to.
The idea of a major political party putting hundreds of millions of dollars into “throwing” a Presidential election is ludicrous,. Of course Republicans think they can win with McCain. Granted, it’s a lot more difficult for McCain to beat Obama than it would have been to beat Clinton, but it’s by no means a throwaway. Personally, I think Obama will probably win, but it won’t be a landslide, and McCain will give him a solid run for his money.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
McCain lost the nomination back in 2000 to… George W. Bush. The takeaway message from this is that Shrub was a better Presidential candidate than McCain, and we can see how well THAT worked out.
[/QUOTE]
Bush actually *was *a better candidate. That has close to jack-all to do with being a President, though - too few of us look that far.
Bush ran in 2000 as a “compassionate conservative” who had the ability to work with both parties to get things done for the common people, but would manage the budget responsibly, use the surplus to cut taxes to keep the expansion going, and surround himself with experienced staff to help him through whatever he was ignorant of, all while maintaining a righteous family life. That sounded great at the time, didn’t it?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Bush actually *was *a better candidate. That has close to jack-all to do with being a President, though - too few of us look that far.
Bush ran in 2000 as a “compassionate conservative” who had the ability to work with both parties to get things done for the common people, but would manage the budget responsibly, use the surplus to cut taxes to keep the expansion going, and surround himself with experienced staff to help him through whatever he was ignorant of, all while maintaining a righteous family life. That sounded great at the time, didn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
My Google fu is weak. What was the opinion of Bush’s job, if everyone was asked to evaluate him on 9/10/01?
The only things I can remember from that year was the Gary Condit “scandle”, a Navy P-3 Orion recon plane having to make an emergency landing in Hainan, China (after a mid-air collision with a Chinese fighter, and Bush working to get the aircrew back), and rolling blackout’s in California.
In other words, if 9/11 hadn’t happened, and awoken the Uber-Patriot in Bush, would he have been a merely adequate President?
Around 50% approval. Below Clinton’s 60’s, but not bad, just “Meh”.
On the what-if question, I suspect he’d have stayed around there, be generally assessed as amiable but disengaged while his staffers fought endless turf wars but did little damage. ISTM 9/11 did set Cheney loose.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Around 50% approval. Below Clinton’s 60’s, but not bad, just “Meh”.
On the what-if question, I suspect he’d have stayed around there, be generally assessed as amiable but disengaged while his staffers fought endless turf wars but did little damage. ISTM 9/11 did set Cheney loose.
[/QUOTE]
Cool. Thanks for the link, sir. (or ma’am…)
[QUOTE=mlees]
My Google fu is weak. What was the opinion of Bush’s job, if everyone was asked to evaluate him on 9/10/01?
The only things I can remember from that year was the Gary Condit “scandle”, a Navy P-3 Orion recon plane having to make an emergency landing in Hainan, China (after a mid-air collision with a Chinese fighter, and Bush working to get the aircrew back), and rolling blackout’s in California.
In other words, if 9/11 hadn’t happened, and awoken the Uber-Patriot in Bush, would he have been a merely adequate President?
[/QUOTE]
And shark attacks. Don’t forget the endless coverage of shark attacks.
I was pretty well convinced that Bush was a one-termer for most of 2001.
I think voter turnout will be a major factor in this election. My take is that Obama inspires a lot of voters who are normally less likely to vote (i.e. minorities, young adults, people on the margins, etc.) while McCain doesn’t strongly energize the evangelical base.
[QUOTE=asterion]
And shark attacks. Don’t forget the endless coverage of shark attacks.
[/QUOTE]
Hehe
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Mind you, I’m still leaning towards Obama. But let’s get real - this will be a close race and lots of things can happen between now and November that could make McCain look more appealing.
[/QUOTE]
Such as Jesse Jackson cutting off his nuts.
Jesse cutting off McCain’s shriveled raisins? Pay-per-view?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Jesse cutting off McCain’s shriveled raisins? Pay-per-view?
[/QUOTE]
Only if the network pays the viewer.
**There are some things. For one, he’s a constitutional lawyer. That will be a refreshing change after eight years of a POTUS who regards the Constitution as “just a piece of paper.”
**
Yes, his background is similar to many federal judges. McCain’s is similar to many former Presidents.
[QUOTE=francois60]
Yes, his background is similar to many federal judges. McCain’s is similar to many former Presidents.
[/QUOTE]
Eh? Relatively few former presidents have been U.S. senators, and those present a mixed picture. Some presidents have been former soldiers, and those present a generally dismal picture. I mean, Grant?! Eisenhower?! Jackson?! The only admirable U.S. presidents with a significant military background were Washington and Kennedy, and Kennedy’s record is actually rather iffy.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Only if the network pays the viewer.
[/QUOTE]
Wait a minute…do you mean that if it was on pay per view you WOULDN’T watch that? :dubious: Even if it was JJ cutting off his own, I’d bet you’d watch it.
**Eh? Relatively few former presidents have been U.S. senators, and those present a mixed picture. Some presidents have been former soldiers, and those present a generally dismal picture. I mean, Grant?! Eisenhower?! Jackson?! The only admirable U.S. presidents with a significant military background were Washington and Kennedy, and Kennedy’s record is actually rather iffy.
**
The last admirable President with a background comparable to Obama’s is Lincoln. That’s an impressive example(although the people at the time didn’t think so), but it’s reaching pretty far back.
McCain on the other hand, has a background similar to Bush 41, Kennedy, and Eisenhower. You can also throw in losing, but respected candidates, like Bob Dole and John Kerry.
Obama’s training makes him well qualified to be a judge. As President of the Harvard Law Review, he came from an organization that produced a lot of SCOTUS justices. But can you think of any SCOTUS justices you’d like to see be President?
I mean, navy guy vs. lawyer? Longtime Senator with major legislative accomplishments vs. rookie Senator with none? A guy who bucked his own party time and again vs. a guy who always votes straight party line? A guy who is running one of the most open and transparent campaigns in history, who wants as many debates as possible vs. a guy running the most scripted, nontransparent campaigns since the last Bush campaign?
I figure McCain has four more months to wait for voters to stop staring at the shiny new penny and realize that it’s still just a penny. An objective comparison of the two candidates’ records makes the choice clear. The only objective way to justify a vote for Obama is because you want a Democratic President and you don’t particularly care who it is.