[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
Bill Clinton won Louisiana in '92 and again in '96.
[QUOTE=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.)
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
So you don’t want to provide a cite? Thanks, I’ll just disregard your argument.
[/quote]
Great, I’ll just apply the same standard to you and we’re set!
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.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Obama wins, and it’s a landslide.
[/QUOTE]
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. :rolleyes: )
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
in close races like the last two Presidential elections I was enough to swing the vote against the Dems
[/QUOTE]
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.
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?
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Obama wins, and it’s a landslide.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
I would also think that some people – such as myself, but others, too- – will think that McCain is just too old.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE] 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.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
. If he moves left, to appeal to them, the conservatives sit on their hands and stay away from the polls.
[/QUOTE]
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.
