Has McCain actually already LOST?(Yes he has)

[Ender]

Not exactly relevant, but it doesn't deserve it's own thread. Betty White is still awesome

More on topic this week, these rallies are fucking nuts. I have to wonder how much of this is Palin and her backers pressing the campaign and how much of this is McCain doing anything to win. The extremely divisive hate mongering is definitely more Palin's style, but McCain has shown again and again that he will play prison rules to get power.

[RedImperator]

This race has been largely off the national radar for most of the year, but it should be getting a lot of attention really soon. Saxby Chambliss, the incumbent Republican Senator from Georgia, is seeing his poll numbers collapse. Chambliss started 20 points ahead in March and held a huge lead until early September; since then, he's shed ten points while his challenger has gained almost the same amount. Pollster.com now has that race tied.

Speaking personally, seeing a despicable asshole like Chambliss lose would be just about the most satisfying thing that could happen on November 4, after Obama himself winning. Chambliss going down would also almost certainly put the Democrats either at the 60 vote mark in the Senate, or close enough they would only need, say, Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe to support their cloture votes.

[Tribun]

As the day goes on, the RCP Average becomes wors for McCain. Now it is at 7.7, With the average poll stength of Obama at 49.9 to 42.2.

This looks like a really shitty day for Republicans.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Jesus.

"I'm told the Los Angeles Times mailroom opened a hand-scrawled letter today that read "death to Obama" and contained a white powder that triggered a call to the FBI and a city hazardous materials team."

"No one was injured and the powder proved to be harmless. My sources say the letter was addressed to staff writers Richard Serrano and Ralph Vartabedian and included a demand for a retraction to their story this week that detailed flying mishaps early in John McCain's Navy flying career. The nut mail was said to carry an upside-down stamp and language about saving babies in addition to the Barack Obama threat."

These people are fucking sick. It doesn't matter if McCain is even genuine in his gestures towards moderation; he's already unleashed something very unpleasant in the political bloodstream of the nation. This won't end well, I fear.

[SirNitram]

Well fucking duh. How many 'liberals' got white powder sent to them in the Terror Attack Everyone Forgot? I'm sorry, but the white powder letters involved quite a bit of this stuff, and now McCain revived the 'Traitor' and 'Supporting Terrorist' stuff. It's back. Because McCain is scum.

[CmdrWilkens]

Honestly going back to the question at the top of this thread the answer is YES. I will say it now sight unseen of the debate or the next three weeks but McCain has lost and the only question which remains to be seen is by how much. If he is the second coming in the next debate it might move the needle by 1 or 2 points (the histroic high is, I believe, 2.8 points) and at that point he losses by 4 nationally and losses at least VA, FL, IA, NM, and CO from the 2004 Bush map. The alternate scenario I see as likely is that the race stays steady, Obama also picks up two states between IN, OH and NC as well as MO and its a 6-7 point national win. The only other scenario that is even in the radars is if Obama clobbers Mccain in the debate, ramps things up to 11 and takes the campaign through a massive drive to help downballot Democrats. In that case we would be looking at a blowout election with Obama picking up NV, GA, one of the NE votes, MT, ND and maybe even WV. That would be a 402-136 electoral vote destruction of the Republicans (538 rates an Obama blowout of 375+ as being just more than a 1 in 3 chance).

I still look to the Presidential election as a means of gauginghow big the win will be but honestly at this point it becomes a matter of how many Senate and House seats the Democrats can pick up. Right now there are 11 Republican seats where the Democratic candidate is either polling ahead or within single digit striking distance. If the (D)s even capture 10 of those seats they would have 60 votes (counting Lieberman and Allen). If Jim Martin and Bruce Lunsford come through then we would be looking at a Lieberman proof 60 thoguh it will take a big leap of faith for me to believe in taking down both the most despicable Republican Senator ever (Chambliss' ads against Max Cleland were a study in vileness)and the leader of the inferiority (McConnell) I can think of few things that would make me happier...though at that point Lieberman would likely caucus with the (R)s to try and get the keen seat assignment that Reid will almost certainly deny him with that kind of firepower.

[Ender]

John Lewis calls McCain out on hatemongering

Civil rights icon and Georgia congressman John Lewis is accusing John McCain and Sarah Palin of stoking hate, likening the atmosphere at Republican campaign events to those featuring George Wallace, the segregationist former governor of Alabama and presidential candidate. McCain's campaign has responded with a statement in the candidate's name, urging Barack Obama to repudiate Lewis's comments.

"What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history," Lewis said in a statement issued today for Politico's Arena forum. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

Lewis didn't accuse McCain of imitating Wallace, but suggested there were similarities.

"George Wallace never threw a bomb," Lewis noted. "He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."

Lewis's sharp words may be dismissed as those of a partisan Democrat in a campaign season. But the former head of SNCC and hero of Selma is somebody who McCain has lavished praise upon over the years, including admiring him in a book on courage and bravery and repeatedly invoking Lewis's name in public appearances.

Appearing with Barack Obama at a forum at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in August, McCain included Lewis as one of "three wise men" he would consult as president.

"He can teach us all a lot about the meaning of courage and commitment to causes greater than our self-interest," McCain said of Lewis.

Now, Lewis is castigating McCain in the harshest of terms.

“As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all," Lewis said today. "They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.”

McCain responded with disappointment, but also a challenge to Obama.

"I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track," the GOP nominee said in a statement this afternoon.

He added: "I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America.”

Politico has asked Obama's campaign for a response.

Obama response

Obama spokesman Bill Burton gives little ground to McCain's outraged response at John Lewis's evoking George Wallace:

"Sen. Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies.

But John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for president of the United States ‘pals around with terrorists.’

As Barack Obama has said himself, the last thing we need from either party is the kind of angry, divisive rhetoric that tears us apart at a time of crisis when we desperately need to come together. That is the kind of campaign Sen. Obama will continue to run in the weeks ahead."
Burton also sent over several comments from Republicans (after the jump), including former top McCain aide John Weaver, expressing discomfort with McCain's and Palin's rhetoric.

Last time McCain voiced outrage at the suggestion, from Obama himself, that he would use race against the Democrat, Obama quickly backed down. But the terrain has changed, and it seems to be a fight Obama is now comfortable having, perhaps in the hopes of amplifying a backlash against McCain.

Recent Comments on McCain Campaign Rhetoric:

Former Top McCain Strategist John Weaver: “As A Party, We Should Not And Must Not Stand By As The Small Amount Of Haters In Our Society Question Whether He Is As American As The Rest Of Us.” “John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior…’We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold.’” [Politico.com, 10/10/08]



Former Republican Michigan Governor William Milliken Asked “Who Is John McCain?” And Said “He’s Not The McCain I Endorsed. … His Campaign Has Become Rather Disappointing To Me.” “But, now, who is John McCain? That's what William Milliken, former Republican governor of Michigan and a supporter of McCain in the party primaries this year, is asking about a candidate who, in Milliken's view, appears to have lost his way in this fight for the White House. ‘He is not the McCain I endorsed,’ Milliken, reached at his Traverse City home on Thursday, told the Grand Rapids Press for today's editions. ‘He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me.’ ‘I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues.’” [Chicago Tribune, 10/10/08]



Republican Rep. Ray LaHood Said Palin Should Cool Her Rhetoric Toward Obama. “Republican Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois said Friday that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin should cool her rhetoric directed at Barack Obama. ‘This doesn't befit the office that she's running for. And frankly, people don't like it,’ LaHood said during an interview on WBBM, a Chicago radio station. Palin has accused Obama of ‘palling around with terrorists’ and of putting ‘political ambitions in front of doing what's right for our troops.’” [Politico, 10/10/08]



WSJ -- “Some McCain Campaign Officials Are Becoming Concerned About The Hostility That Attacks Against Sen. Obama Are Whipping Up Among Republican Supporters.” “Top McCain campaign officials are grappling with how far to go with negative attacks on Sen. Barack Obama in the final weeks of what is turning into a come-from-behind effort. Sen. John McCain has allowed a series of increasingly harsh broadsides in new campaign ads and in speeches by his wife, Cindy, and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin. But the Arizona Republican has rejected pleas from some advisers to launch attacks focusing on Sen. Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Some McCain campaign officials are becoming concerned about the hostility that attacks against Sen. Obama are whipping up among Republican supporters. During an internal conference call Thursday, campaign officials discussed how the tenor of the crowds has turned on the media and on Sen. Obama.” [Wall Street Journal, 10/10/08]

[Patrick Degan]

It's way too late now for the Gimp to try to disown the hatemongers —he decided to embrace the Dark Side and now the hate he's unleashed is beyond his control. And he's nowhere near strong enough as a "leader" to even try to rein it in again. You can't count on a tool to do a man's job.

Fuck him. Any violence that ends up taking place against Obama supporters (or even against Obama himself) is on his head.

[Aratech]

Am I being unreasonable if I think this is going to get worse before it gets better?

[CmdrWilkens]

Am I being unreasonable if I think this is going to get worse before it gets better?

I don't think it can get much worse honestly. Lewis just invoked George "Integration over my dead body" Wallace and everybody basically said "yup, that's about right." When the right wing press doesn't immediately runn in guns blazing after this kind of a comment then you realize we've hit just about rock bottom for this campaign. By omission, rather than comission, the Republican surrogates are ceding that Mccain's campaign resembles the most blatantly racist campaign since Strom Thurmond.

Within that I think Obama's team played it just about right. They granted both that McCain hasn't personally made any of the acusations and that, as he did friday, he has started to try and calm the rhetoric. At the same time the Obama camp pointed out that mcCain's team (including Palin) have been letting this ride for quite some time. They also managed to get in enough lines about how Obama is running the last clean campaign which means if McCain hits back negative it hurts him even more.

[Slacker]

Probably not. The vibe I got watching those crowds on YouTube was positively ugly. When Obama wins, parts of Flyover Country might be an uncomfortable place to be for quite a while.

[ArcturusMengsk]

This won't end well.

Sen. John McCain vowed to "whip" Sen. Barack Obama's "you-know-what" when the two presidential candidates meet Wednesday in their final televised debate, according to the Associated Press.

Said McCain: "We're going to spend a lot of time and after I whip his you-know-what in this debate, we're going to be going out 24/7."

Let me get this straight: McCain is vowing to spew vitriol at Obama physically in the last debate? Isn't he aware what happened the last time a jowl-faced, sweaty old man got confrontational with a charismatic and handsome Presidential hopeful on television? And McCain is decades older than Nixon was...

[ArcturusMengsk]

Ruh-roh.

Senior members of the Republican party are in open mutiny against John McCain's presidential campaign, after a disastrous period which has seen Barack Obama solidify his lead in the opinion polls.

And as disputes raged within the McCain camp yesterday, Democrats took another symbolic step towards healing the party after their bitter primary battles, as Bill and Hillary Clinton made their first joint appearance in support of Mr Obama.

From inside and outside his inner circle, Mr McCain is being told to settle on a coherent economic message and to tone down attacks on his rival which have sometimes whipped up a mob-like atmosphere at Republican rallies.

Two former rivals for the party nomination, Mitt Romney and Tommy Thompson, went on the record over the weekend about the disarray in the Republican camp. And a string of other senior party figures said Mr McCain's erratic performance risks taking the party down to heavy losses not just in the presidential race but also in contests for Congressional seats. Mr Thompson, a former governor of the swing state of Wisconsin, said he thought Mr McCain, on his present trajectory, would lose the state, and he told a New York Times reporter he was not happy with the campaign. "I don't know who is," he added.

Some Republicans seeking election to Congress have begun distancing themselves from Mr McCain. In Nebraska, a Republican representative, Lee Terry, ran a newspaper ad featuring support from a woman who called herself an "Obama-Terry voter".

The McCain camp was reportedly considering launching a new set of economic policies last night, on top of the plan for government purchases of mortgages which he unveiled in a surprise move at last week's presidential debate. Possible options include temporary tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. Mr Romney said he should "stand above the tactical alternatives that are being considered and establish an economic vision that is able to convince the American people that he really knows how to strengthen the economy".

This is great news for us. We are beginning to see the Republican Party splinter apart as the Reaganite coalition that brought together disparate groups of economic libertarians, Christian theocrats, neo-conservative warhawks, paranoid Nixonian reactionaries and Southern racists drawn into the fold by desegregation fragment and drift apart. If this is indeed accurate, the Party will not be on the mend by Obama's midterms, either, and the tensions within the G.O.P. will likely only be exacerbated by the time the primaries roll around in four years.

In other words: suck it, Republicans, and have fun being where the Democrats were eight years ago.

[CmdrWilkens]

Oh they will be in far worse a position than the Democrats 8 years ago. Folks may not remember but from 2000-2002 the Democrats actually controleld the Senate and it was only 9/11 which kicked off the power hungry Bush administration. Prior to that the attempts to kick around crazy legislation or otherwise move an agenda were basically being stopped in their tracks by Daschal. Bush basically spent the first 9 months vacationing because all of his crazy ideas had no chance of moving and his moderate ideas were minimal at best. Moreover the (R)s weren't yet fully sold on Bush as an effective leader at that point especially as McCian and his backers were still smarting from the 2000 primary battle.

Contrast that with this coming january when the Democrats may well have a fillibuster proof majority, a 100 seat advantage in the House as well as the Presidency and a majority of the governor's mansions. There is a reason the Republicans are panicing and its beecause they realize that a purely progressive agenda is only a few months from kicking off.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Oh they will be in far worse a position than the Democrats 8 years ago. Folks may not remember but from 2000-2002 the Democrats actually controleld the Senate and it was only 9/11 which kicked off the power hungry Bush administration. Prior to that the attempts to kick around crazy legislation or otherwise move an agenda were basically being stopped in their tracks by Daschal. Bush basically spent the first 9 months vacationing because all of his crazy ideas had no chance of moving and his moderate ideas were minimal at best. Moreover the (R)s weren't yet fully sold on Bush as an effective leader at that point especially as McCian and his backers were still smarting from the 2000 primary battle.

Contrast that with this coming january when the Democrats may well have a fillibuster proof majority, a 100 seat advantage in the House as well as the Presidency and a majority of the governor's mansions. There is a reason the Republicans are panicing and its beecause they realize that a purely progressive agenda is only a few months from kicking off.

You seem to me more knowledgeable than I am about Republican inter-party politics, so I'll ask you this: which faction of the GOP - fiscal conservatives, libertarians, theocrats, neo-conservatibes - do you think will come out on top? Or might it actually be possible for moderate Rockefeller Republicans to retake their Party from the fringes?

[CmdrWilkens]

You seem to me more knowledgeable than I am about Republican inter-party politics, so I'll ask you this: which faction of the GOP - fiscal conservatives, libertarians, theocrats, neo-conservatibes - do you think will come out on top? Or might it actually be possible for moderate Rockefeller Republicans to retake their Party from the fringes?

Hoenstly I expect the theocrats will hold on to the party and actually try to take charge. If you hear about all their current freshman class its a bunch of hard core theocrat semi-neocons which differs from the pro-business class that is currently in the leadership. Bohner and McConnell may be despicable but they only play the religious base up for votes and aren't personally invested in that ideology. They care far more about increasing certain government powers in the national security apparatus (which plays to their perceived strength) while stripping it of domestic oversight (which favors the Democrats). However above all else they are in favor of classic Reganism tenants of supply side economics and market de-regulation to enrich business interests. Currently the true theocrats aren't in charge but they had been content as at least it LOOKED like Bush and Co were doing something. Now after 8 years of telling themselves (and listening to Fox News tell them) that they own the elections in '00 and '04 they want some results. These are folks who absolutely demand that we reverse Roe now, burn the gays at the stake, and kick all the dirty muslims out fo the country so we can pray the Lord's Prayer before school.

The problem is they are probably the largest segment of the Republican base and they are finally sick of letting the business wing, libertarians, moderates, and neo-cons have the party leadership. Huckabee was the first send up and the fact that he beat the pants off of Romney is probably proof enough that they have the strength. All the other segments of the party could be perfectly happy as Blue Dogs or as Libertarians so they don't have as much invested in staying in after the kind of massive defeat the party is headed for. A guy like McConnell could probably hep mediate and keep the party essentially where it is now and save the coalition for at least one mroe cycle but if he is ousted by Lunsford then expect the Republican Senatorial and Congressional delegations to start fracturing.

I don't know if the theocrats can hold the party for more than a cycle but I actually think it would be the healthiest thing for the country. If the party actually split because the theocrats drove the fiscal conservatives and libertarians to the libertarian party we may finally get a true 3 party system in this country.

[Guardsman Bass]

I doubt it would be stable, though. The need to win and actually get some of their ideas done would probably push them back together, or with elements of the Democratic Party. The Republicans have survived worse, after all; after 1936 they got knocked down to 16 Senate seats and 88 House seats, yet they managed to survive and come back.

[ArcturusMengsk]

The thing that worries me the most with your scenario, though, is that Huckabee is, or at least can put on a show of being, an economic populist; and while some of his more fanciful notions (like Fair Tax) would never be taken seriously, he'd have a good shot of combining social and economic populism, which might help to split off even more lower-class voters from the Democratic ticket.

If it's someone like Jindal, who's obviously in the back pocket of big business and handicapped amongst the Republican base by his race, then I could live with it. But the notion of a completely collectivist Republican Party frightens me to death, because it'd give a little more bite to their socially-oppressive bark, and would probably send the Democratic Party towards a more economically libertarian angle, which I - and many of its minority backers - staunchly oppose. We don't need the second coming of the Bourbon Democrats right now.

[Guardsman Bass]

If it's someone like Jindal, who's obviously in the back pocket of big business and handicapped amongst the Republican base by his race, then I could live with it. But the notion of a completely collectivist Republican Party frightens me to death, because it'd give a little more bite to their socially-oppressive bark, and would probably send the Democratic Party towards a more economically libertarian angle, which I - and many of its minority backers - staunchly oppose. We don't need the second coming of the Bourbon Democrats right now.

The "race" issue raises some interesting questions. I've heard that black voters actually tend to be socially conservative but economically liberal, and this Republican Party would presumably be some kind of conservative populism with strong tendencies to economic "liberalism". If they got over their issues with race, they could pull in a lot of black Democrats and perhaps many working-class Latinos.

[ArcturusMengsk]

If it's someone like Jindal, who's obviously in the back pocket of big business and handicapped amongst the Republican base by his race, then I could live with it. But the notion of a completely collectivist Republican Party frightens me to death, because it'd give a little more bite to their socially-oppressive bark, and would probably send the Democratic Party towards a more economically libertarian angle, which I - and many of its minority backers - staunchly oppose. We don't need the second coming of the Bourbon Democrats right now.

The "race" issue raises some interesting questions. I've heard that black voters actually tend to be socially conservative but economically liberal, and this Republican Party would presumably be some kind of conservative populism with strong tendencies to economic "liberalism". If they got over their issues with race, they could pull in a lot of black Democrats and perhaps many working-class Latinos.

They are indeed. One need look no further than Harold Ford to find an example of an African-American DLC drone who parrots socially unacceptable positions in an effort to be seen as acceptable by mainstream society while holding on to economic progressivism. I doubt the Democrats would need to worry about it much during an Obama Administration, but once it's over we'll need to find some way to keep the attention of historical Democratic groups like African-Americans, lest they splinter off into this hypothetically populist Republican Party.

[RedImperator]

The Rockefeller Republicans are virtually extinct. They've all retired, quit in disgust, or gotten run out of office. Bush finished them off: he's so catastrophically unpopular in their traditional power base, that people who voted Republican for years in places like New Hampshire, New York state, New Jersey, and the Philadelphia suburbs, are voting Democrat now. The ones that have hung on, like Arlen Specter, now face primary challenges every year from the likes of the Club for Growth, who apparently think a Democrat is better than a RINO.

Now, the others:

Libertarians: Libertarianism will always have its core of true believers, but any chance it had of becoming a mainstream political force got wiped out along with everyone's 401k's.

Neo-conservatives: Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Feith. Perle. Wolfowitz. And add to that litany of superstars one John Sidney McCain III, who, if nothing changes, will shortly go down to disastrous defeat, and Holy Joe Lieberman, who will very shortly be a Caucus of One once Reid has a big enough majority to kick him off of all his committees. The neocons are disgraced and on top of that, we're now too fucking broke to act on any of their policy ideas anyway, seeing as they all involve wars.

Fiscal conservatives: These people will be Democrats before they take over the Republican party.

That leaves the theocrats as the only power bloc that's actually going to emerge from this election cycle with its dignity intact. The question is, what kind? I think what you might see is a battle between the Mike Huckabee theocrats and the Sarah Palin theocrats. Both are populist social conservatives, but while Palin is a more traditional tax-cuts-for-the-rich/handouts-to-big-business conservative, Huckabee is an economic populist. If the Palin faction wins, the Republicans will be a minority party for a generation. If the Huckabee faction does, then they stand a reasonable chance at driving a wedge deep into the Democratic coalition.

[ArcturusMengsk]

I think what you might see is a battle between the Mike Huckabee theocrats and the Sarah Palin theocrats. Both are populist social conservatives, but while Palin is a more traditional tax-cuts-for-the-rich/handouts-to-big-business conservative, Huckabee is an economic populist. If the Palin faction wins, the Republicans will be a minority party for a generation. If the Huckabee faction does, then they stand a reasonable chance at driving a wedge deep into the Democratic coalition.

That's it: I'm voting for Palin in the 2012 Republican primaries (since it's as clear as day that she's using this election as a jump-off point for a future run at the top of the ticket). She's scary, but her incompetence and economic views will do her in. Huckabee is a clear and present danger and must be systematically undermined.

[Tribun]

This whole wavering of the tracking polls... Is that because of the deep red states getting even redder?

[ArcturusMengsk]

This whole wavering of the tracking polls... Is that because of the deep red states getting even redder?

No; it's because McCain is laying down the track for a 'comeback' from the "Straight-Talk Express". There have been no statistically significant fluctuations within the tracking polls this week, but you can bet your ass the media will talk perceived changes up.

[RedImperator]

This whole wavering of the tracking polls... Is that because of the deep red states getting even redder?

No; it's because McCain is laying down the track for a 'comeback' from the "Straight-Talk Express". There have been no statistically significant fluctuations within the tracking polls this week, but you can bet your ass the media will talk perceived changes up.

Assuming they buy it; McSame has burned an awful lot of bridges with the media, and it's not like the Obama spin machine is going to just lay down and take it. And it goes without saying that if McSame gets his ass kicked Wednesday night, any "comeback strategy" they had goes out the window.

And Tribun, how many times must you be told that a one-day flutter doesn't mean anything, and even if it did, there's no way to know that it does until you see it several days in a row?

EDIT: Take a look at the Zogby poll.

The "wavering" doesn't exist. Obama experienced a statistically insignificant uptick on the 11th which vanished on the 12th, bringing the poll back to exactly where it's been since last week.