Has McCain actually already LOST?(Yes he has)

[Count Chocula]

Late to the thread, but Arcturus, that online poll has slant and loaded questions all over it. Every question seems designed to hit emotional triggers at the most base level.

As far as election results, IMO the best outcome would be for a McCain presidency (stay with me here) and a Demo controlled Congress. That would be in the best tradition of typical American inclinations for "balance" in Washington, with neither ideology having full control of the central government. The more they battle each other, the less they can do to introduce disruptive and costly (and quite possibly not fully-thought-out) changes. For the majority of activities the central gov engages in, the status quo is a good thing.

Ideally, a Repub presidency and Demo Congress would pitch a battle royale over ideas in the following years, with ideas that have merit actually being accepted by Americans and enacted into beneficial legislation. Total dominance by one party would tend to produce extreme results, whether Democrat or Republican.

[Mr Bean]

Lets be clear on poor Joe, he's did not do tax fraud, he just did not pay his taxes.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Late to the thread, but Arcturus, that online poll has slant and loaded questions all over it. Every question seems designed to hit emotional triggers at the most base level.

As far as election results, IMO the best outcome would be for a McCain presidency (stay with me here) and a Demo controlled Congress. That would be in the best tradition of typical American inclinations for "balance" in Washington, with neither ideology having full control of the central government. The more they battle each other, the less they can do to introduce disruptive and costly (and quite possibly not fully-thought-out) changes. For the majority of activities the central gov engages in, the status quo is a good thing.

Ideally, a Repub presidency and Demo Congress would pitch a battle royale over ideas in the following years, with ideas that have merit actually being accepted by Americans and enacted into beneficial legislation. Total dominance by one party would tend to produce extreme results, whether Democrat or Republican.

Somehow I doubt you were hoping for such a moderate outcome in 2000 and 2004.

[Count Chocula]

I couldn't bring myself to vote for President in 2000 and 2004 - I stuck to local and state votes. The last time I voted for a Bush I said "never again."

[Illuminatus Primus]

Late to the thread, but Arcturus, that online poll has slant and loaded questions all over it. Every question seems designed to hit emotional triggers at the most base level.

As far as election results, IMO the best outcome would be for a McCain presidency (stay with me here) and a Demo controlled Congress. That would be in the best tradition of typical American inclinations for "balance" in Washington, with neither ideology having full control of the central government. The more they battle each other, the less they can do to introduce disruptive and costly (and quite possibly not fully-thought-out) changes. For the majority of activities the central gov engages in, the status quo is a good thing.

Ideally, a Repub presidency and Demo Congress would pitch a battle royale over ideas in the following years, with ideas that have merit actually being accepted by Americans and enacted into beneficial legislation. Total dominance by one party would tend to produce extreme results, whether Democrat or Republican.

Furthermore, this is completely wrong. There are a panoply of extremely important issues which require immediate and strong and dramatic reform legislation and executive management in order to prevent from developing into severe ailments which threaten America's standing as the sole superpower, or even possibly remaining one of the coming Great Powers or a first-world nation. The American social system is critically damaged by decades of Reaganomics and ideologue legislation and culture. The American worker saw their wages adjusted for inflation stagnate between the mid-1970s and 2000, with many costs associated with success and quality of life dramatically increasing. Health care and pension security is much more threadbare for the working and lower middle and middle classes today than in the 1970s. Both parents work, their children are even more dependent on public education and recreational/extracurricular support, which has been starved at the roots and mismanaged. More and more jobs are fleeing abroad, while reliance on a bloated collegiate education system with exploding costs and an inability to better manage and direct students into quality careers and self-reliance has increased dramatically. We are producing legions of business and communications majors who are motivated by nothing but class consciousness and insecurity and with no clear job skills or prospects. Health care in the United States is among the worst coverage and quality of outcome of any industrialized nation. National single-payer health care or a well-managed hybrid system with guaranteed lower costs, better outcomes, and universal availability is required immediately. Education must be dramatically and radically reformed. In order to sustain these reforms, and dramatic reform of our electoral process (specifically regarding gerrymandering, campaign finance, and corruption) must be undertaken simultaneously with dramatic fiscal and monetary reform to return America from a severe debtor nation publicly and privately to a creditor in the medium-term, while reducing current account deficits as soon as possible.

Global warming is a real, scientifically verifiable, and accelerating process. Dramatic action must be taken on four fronts: dramatically lowering carbon output, adaption to the changing climate, research and deployment of mitigating geoengineering efforts (like carbon capture and sequestration, among others), and providing strong leadership to coerce and encourage dramatic move in all previous three directions by other industrialized and industrializing nations. Concurrently with this effort, massive transitionary reforms must be undertaken in how we supply the energy to our modern society. Nuclear power must be pursued with all due haste in the immediate, for it is a proven technology that can yield results in the short-to-medium term to fill the gap caused by lagging research and development and economy of alternative options such as wave, tide, wind, solar (both thermal and photovoltaic), and possibly (if rigorously proven and economically/environmentally worthwhile) zero-carbon-emission fossil fuel technologies. In the long term, development of reliable long-term fission and alternative infrastructure must be secured, and fusion power should be a much higher priority for international cooperation and development. Our transportation infrastructure must be replaced and reformed with a dramatic increase of reliance on heavy rail freight and an expansion of light rail for personal transportation. Reintroduction of trollies powered by electricity and draconian penalties (high parking fares, high tolls, gas taxes, registration and sales taxes) on personal vehicle use should be employed in high-density population centers. Much higher and stronger targets for fuel economy must be set. A much stronger emphasis on electric vehicle research and production must be undertaken. Development needs to be reconcentrated along New Urbanist and New Pedestrianist lines where possible in lieu of the exurban/extended suburban commuter-in-personal-vehicle model.

Strong reform is required in the military sphere. Currently America is still using the Vietnam cludge to squish ants throughout the world. The U.S. needs to reemphasize soft power of the diplomatic, economic, financial, scientific, and cultural kind while deemphasizing the hard power of military intervention. The cost of the Armed Forces must be reduced, and the cost of military R&D and acquisition must be brought under control. The U.S. probably should undertake a more isolationist posture emphasizing strategic defense in lieu of conventional and occupation interventionism.

Lastly, we need to produce a global space colonization effort with real goals centered around worthwhile permanent industry and development in space. We cannot live in the cradle forever.

[FireNexus]

*snip*

Your ideas intrigue me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

In all seriousness, though, I would love to see that as a speech from a presidential candidate or a president.

[Knife]

Late to the thread, but Arcturus, that online poll has slant and loaded questions all over it. Every question seems designed to hit emotional triggers at the most base level.

As far as election results, IMO the best outcome would be for a McCain presidency (stay with me here) and a Demo controlled Congress. That would be in the best tradition of typical American inclinations for "balance" in Washington, with neither ideology having full control of the central government. The more they battle each other, the less they can do to introduce disruptive and costly (and quite possibly not fully-thought-out) changes. For the majority of activities the central gov engages in, the status quo is a good thing.

Ideally, a Repub presidency and Demo Congress would pitch a battle royale over ideas in the following years, with ideas that have merit actually being accepted by Americans and enacted into beneficial legislation. Total dominance by one party would tend to produce extreme results, whether Democrat or Republican.

I sympathize with your position and still find it wrong. There is too much to fix to let it go to middle ground at the moment. Perhaps Obama will cock shit up, but I rest assured that it will be in a totally different direction that he fucks shit up instead of the road we're headed down; and that alone is enough for me to disagree with you on this issue. Perhaps after four years of Obama I'll be ready for a one party Executive and opposite party Congress. Just not now.

[General Zod]

The sweet, sweet smell of naked desperation.

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain stepped up his rhetoric against his Democratic rival on taxes in his weekly radio address Saturday, comparing his plan to "socialist" programs.

The remarks were part of a theme McCain has used since the final presidential debate, but his most recent comments were the first time he used the word to describe Sen. Barack Obama.

In the radio address, McCain didn't directly call Obama a socialist, but he let the now-famous Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher nearly do it for him.

"You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism," McCain said Saturday. Video Watch McCain blast Obama »

In an interview with ABC last week, Wurzelbacher said Obama's proposal to raise taxes by 3 percent on those making $250,000 and over is a "very socialist view."

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has used the word in speeches the past two days as well. Video Watch more on the state of the presidential race »

McCain also said in his radio address, "At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are up front about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway."

On the campaign trail Saturday in Concord, North Carolina, he added that Americans have seen sharing the wealth in other countries before. But he quoted Obama as saying he wants to "spread the wealth around." Fact Check: Did Obama say he would "spread the wealth around"?

"Spread the wealth around. We have seen that movie before in other countries and attempts by the liberal left before," McCain said.

In his speech, McCain also said, "This explains some big problems with my opponent's claim that he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You might ask, how do you cut income taxes for 90 percent of Americans when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now?

"How do you reduce the number zero? That's the key to Barack Obama's whole plan: Since you can't reduce taxes on those who pay zero, the government will write them all checks called a tax credit. And the Treasury will have to cover those checks by taxing other people. ... The Obama tax increase would come at the worst possible time for America."

Asked why McCain used the word "socialist" in the radio remarks, a spokesman said, "That's what it is. 'Spreading the wealth' around is socialism."

In a July interview with the Kansas City Star, McCain said Obama had the "most extreme" record in the Senate. He said in a comment he has since repeated on the trail, "his voting record ... is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

Pressed on whether he considered Obama a socialist, McCain shrugged and said, "I don't know."

Obama hit back against the McCain campaign's accusations Saturday in Missouri and said the Republican nominee was ignoring the needs of America's middle class.

"John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people 'welfare,' " Obama told a massive crowd under the famous St. Louis arch. "The only 'welfare' in this campaign is John McCain's plan to give another $200 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations in America." Video Watch large crowds rally for Obama »

"George Bush and John McCain are out of ideas, they are out of touch, and if you stand with me, in 17 days they'll be out of time," Obama added to wild applause.

The Obama campaign said police in St. Louis estimated the crowd size at 100,000 people. Video Watch large crowds rally for Obama »

In remarks this week, Palin referred to Obama's encounter with "Joe the Plumber" in Ohio on Sunday.

At a rally Friday in West Chester, Ohio, where one banner in the crowd read, "Obama is a Socialist/Marxist," Palin said, "Joe suggested that that sounded a little bit like socialism. Whatever you call it, I call it bad medicine for an ailing economy, and it's what Barack Obama will do to those who want to create jobs, and we're willing to call Barack Obama on it."

Palin invoked Wurzelbacher again Saturday, needling Obama for having a "staged photo-op" interrupted by a voter asking him a question about taxes.

"So when he left Joe's neighborhood in Toledo, our opponent didn't look real happy," Palin, speaking in Pennsylvania, said of Obama. "Seems that the staged photo-op there got ruined by a real person's question."

"So here's a guy working -- standing there in his neighborhood when a candidate for president shows up, and he wanted more than just a handshake and a campaign button. He wanted some answers."

A similar thing happened to Palin on September 27 in Philadelphia at one of her own photo-ops. Temple graduate student Michael Rovito approached the governor at a cheesesteak shop to ask her opinions on cross-border raids into Pakistan to hunt terrorists.

Palin told Rovito that the United States should "absolutely" attack within Pakistan to stop terrorists, a position at odds with McCain's.
advertisement

The remark was picked up by a network camera crew and caused a headache for the GOP ticket. Staffers were forced to explain the two candidates' apparently conflicting views on national television days later.

Palin arrived in New York on Saturday afternoon and headed to NBC headquarters at Rockefeller Center for rehearsals before making her much-anticipated debut on "Saturday Night Live."

First Obama's a Muslim, then he's secretly Gay, then he's a terrorist, and now he's a Communist. Is there anything left that hasn't been played by now as far as completely retarded attacks?

[SirNitram]

I love, absolutely love, McCain's 'If they don't pay income tax, they pay NO TAX!' canard. Funny, I've made alot less than enough to get income tax, yet every paycheck, there was my payroll tax.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well he hasn't been accused of being a Marvel Universe Mutant.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

I want to preface this statement that I am very much aware that there are a ton of "Listen to this argument this Republican and I got into" threads in the history of this board, but I felt I had to share this for the sheer number of arguments, factual errors(some of them stunning whoppers) and logical fallacies contained herein. That and I'm feeling a little down about the fact that the Republican I heard all of this from was my brother. But all the same, I think this might top all other stories. Just in case, because of all the Republican argument stories I've read in this forum, I have relegated this to a thread detailing the opinions of a McCain voter, rather than its own thread.

I was talking to my brother today, who I am sure doesn't make more than $50,000 a year. It all started innocently enough that I decided to read to him how much he would save on taxes next year depending on who won, from an article in this past Sunday's Parade section of the newspaper. BTW- according to the article, based on what I guess his income to be, he would save $1118 with Obama as opposed to 325 with McCain. So he we ave 14 arguments and statements he made with various tangets also included.

-Cutting taxes for the rich and not the poor is more beneficial for the country, because if you tax the rich who run businesses, they will run up all of their prices to make up for it. When I said Clinton did the same thing, and asked him if prices went up in the 90s (which, funnily enough, he spent a large part of working for our dad) when he did that(and challenging him to prove things were harder for him then), as I was a teenager and not living on my own and unable to determine this from memory (if anyone has a comprehensive report somewhere about this, I'd appreciate getting my hands on it, just to satisfy my curiosity). He also just randomly brought up Ted Kennedy putting his money into trust. I pressed it repeatedly, and he said over and over again rich people getting these tax cuts is better for the country.

-There is 800 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, and that we don't really have a way of determining how much there is until we start to drill and excavate.

-We can get oil from shale right now in a cost-effective way(I doubt he cares if it's clean)

-Obama is anti-nuclear, despite me giving him reports months ago detailing what Obama and McCain have said about nuclear in an attempt to say "Look at the bright side, hatever side wins, we're getting nukes no matter what."

-I said eight more years of these economic policies can't be good for this country; I pointed out that both Reagan and Bush's plans ran up huge debts, did not help and resulted in stock market troubles near the end of their second terms, with a full-blown crash at the end of Reagan's, he said "There wasn't a crash, there was a crash in 29 when Biden says FDR is president," trying to avert the discussion to a Biden gaffe. I pressed him, insisting that along with all else there is to prove this, I remember seeing news footage about the crash in 87 when I was a kid, but he insisted no such thing ever happened and no debts were incurred by Reagan. I almost pointed out that a Robin Hood movie was being made that was just up his alley- one that portrays the Sheriff of Nottingham in a sympathetic light. I resisted this.

-I tried to point out that it takes a lot of balls for a two-time Bush voter to criticize Biden for his gaffes, and trying to point out McCain's (such as his saying he would kick Russia out of G8, depsite that requiring a unanimous vote and therefore Russia would have to vote itself out). He wouldn't hear a word of it.

-"But I was wondering how you felt about McCain losing his higher ground over Obama by picking someone who has only been a governor for 22 months as his VP," We hadn't spoken of Palin since she was picked (I think you can guess from reading the above why I avoided the subject, but my curiosity finally got the better of me). Didn't catch the first part of what he said, but it ended with "Senator for 22 months," I asked if he meant "governor," and he said no. I pointed out I was talking about Palin, he said he was talking about Obama. I insisted Obama has been a Senator since 94 with the exception of one term, I was pretty sure, but he said he's only been Senator since 06, along with Hillary. I pointed out that he spoke at the 04 Democratic convention and was reported as "Senator Obama," but he just got angrier.

-Pointing out that we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11 and that Clinton's inaction aided the terrorists. I didn't feel like pointing out that both of the attacks at the WTC happened within the first year of their respective president's inauguration, so if you're not going to hold Bush at all responsible for 9/11, than you can't hold Clinton responsible for the 93 bombing.

-Ignored the fact that when he argued a media bias that you hear some shit about McCain in lesser known sources that the mainstream media wouldn't report, such as the fact that while they were all over the jeremiah Wright story but never talked about McCain's connection to John Hagee until McCain severed ties with him.

-"What do Obama and Bin Laden have in common? Both have pals who blew up the World Trade Center."

-"Obama started his career in a terrorist's living room." I ignored both of these statements, because I had no idea what the fuck he was talking about. He might have been talking about Ayers, but I haven't read too much about that story, because I never really thought there was that much credence to it.

-Despite his insistence that liberal celebrities don't know anything because of their lack of education, he listens to Hannity and Limbaugh, both of whom dropped out of college after their first years, and openly acknowledges he takes after our parents politically, neither of whom went to college and only one of whom went to high school. I think the fact I don't is related to the fact that my mom was an alcoholic by the time I came around and my dad let my stepmom abuse me, but I digress on that. I find it funny that all of my siblings say that I am by far the most intelligent of the four of us but don't take my political opinions seriously.

-Tried to connect Obama somehow to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and saying McCain tried to tighten lending practices for 5-6 years before all of this happened.

-Ended the conversation with words that echoed a 9/11 Truther I saw on Penn and Teller's Bullshit!(a group we both despise)"You can't change my mind, and I can't change yours," and ignored it when I said I am perfectly willing to change my mind based on any new information I receive.

I'm really depressed, as the biggest Republitard story I've ever heard is about my brother; he has openly expressed admiration about my knowledge of astronomy, but will argue with me about it when he argues the sun is causing Global Warming and I point out every other body in the solar system would be getting warmer if that were the case and only meekly shuts up when I describe the cooling of various other bodies in the solar system and explain Malinkovich(sp?) cycles without actually conceding my point. It has strengthened my resolve even more to vote for Obama, as we MUST take the power out of these people's hands ASAP.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

Ghetto Edit: I just got a call from my mom; she asked me what I said earlier today because my 43 year old brother called her after we talked because he was so pissed off. She told me I should never talk politics and religion if I know someone disagrees with me, but then she went on and on about OBama's experience, and that the "Two year's experience" my brother repeatedly cited him as having was the two years he had been in the spotlight, and that was what counted. Then she explained trickle down economics to me and why it worked, and how Democrats are for the government and Republicans are for the people. So she heeded her own advice.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Did you tell her to follow her own advice?

[bobalot]

Only been in the spotlight for 2 years? If that disqualifies someone from running (I'm assuming this is what they meant, otherwise there would be no point bringing it up) why the fuck is Palin running?

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

Only been in the spotlight for 2 years? If that disqualifies someone from running (I'm assuming this is what they meant, otherwise there would be no point bringing it up) why the fuck is Palin running?

You read all that and think rational thinking runs in the family? God forbid I'd have pointed out Bush was only elected to his first political position in 1994 before running for president six years later.

When my mom started telling me her perception of the bailout, she began "When bill Clinton was elected president in 1980-"

ME: "You mean 1992?"

MOM:(snippy) Oh, whatever. Then she went on to talk about how Bill Clinton wanted to make it possible for everyone to own a home, and how Bush went against Republican thinking by passing legislation that would give loans to a lot of people, which contributed to our problems today. Then she said that the Democrats, who were in power, helped it happen. I asked her to claryfiy this, as Democrats did not officially take power until two years ago. I knew she was dead wrong about who held the House and Senate at the time she was talking about, but I was being diplomatic about it, and she got annoyed again at merely my pointing out that Republicans have held the power until only Jan of 2007.

BTW- both my mom and my brother have repeatedly said that Obama won the nomination because he was black.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well today we had a group of hippies steal 30 gallons of fryer oil to run their diesel engine off of it.

[Guardsman Bass]

Strong reform is required in the military sphere. Currently America is still using the Vietnam cludge to squish ants throughout the world. The U.S. needs to reemphasize soft power of the diplomatic, economic, financial, scientific, and cultural kind while deemphasizing the hard power of military intervention. The cost of the Armed Forces must be reduced, and the cost of military R&D and acquisition must be brought under control. The U.S. probably should undertake a more isolationist posture emphasizing strategic defense in lieu of conventional and occupation interventionism.

Are you talking about a TBO-like defensive posture, with us sitting behind a strong nuclear deterrent and stronger ABM and anti-air defenses while minimizing worldwide troop deployment? That would probably save on costs (in the long term; in the short term you'd have to pay for the R & D of the next generation of nuclear weapons plus the next generation of ABM defenses), although it would still be wise to keep a strong navy, airforce, and marine corps (unless you want to see Japan and China get into an arms race).

I suppose one of the positive aspects of this is that we could maybe re-take the "good guy" image we had in much fo the Middle East just after World War II. Over time, that is.

[Drooling Iguana]

Well he hasn't been accused of being a Marvel Universe Mutant.

Of course not. Everyone knows that Obama's a DC.

[Fire Fly]

Well, I called it.

Having raised over $150 million+ you can almost buy your way to the presidency.

[Tribun]

Some comments I've read throw around the theory that the taped comment of Obama saying "spread around the wealth" has hurt him, because the GOP now cries "socialist" (of course this is absurd).

Any idea if there is anything on this?

Btw., I stopped trusting the RCP Average. I got the impression that they do everything to make Obama look weak (the whole farce with "calculating" the Gallup LV differences is one of these things). Also the wave of new voter registration (which appears not to scale in the polls) makes this more a guessing game.

[D.Turtle]

McCain has pretty much lost all credibility with everyone not an extreme right Republican, so any attacks he is trying won't really work. Especially as the Media is also sick of him.

And yes, everyone is guessing at turnout, which means there is a larger margin of error in all polls than what they say. If Obama's ground game is successful at turning out all those new voters they registered and more effective in GOTV efforts, then there is an even bigger "padding" in all the polls for Obama.

At the moment, McCain would probably need to get a 2-4 point lead over Obama in national polls in order to get close to a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency.

[Big Phil]

Hey Tribun, CNN is reporting the gap between Obama and McCain is closing; is it time to panic yet?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/cnn.poll/


I'm really curious to see what effect Powell's endorsement of Obama has on the polls and, ultimately, the election.

[Haruko]

You guys called it:

McCain camp 'rethinking' Wright issue

(CNN) — John McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis suggested in an interview that the campaign may be "rethinking" its decision not to use Barack Obama’s relationship with his former pastor Jeremiah Wright in the campaign.

McCain himself has not responded to questions about why he might be reluctant to cite Wright. During the primary season, Hillary Clinton had predicted that Republicans would use the controversial minister to attack Obama, if he were to become the Democratic nominee.

Now – in a new interview being circulated by the McCain camp – Davis is pointing to recent comments by Obama supporter John Lewis as a reason some in the campaign are weighing a shift in that policy.

Lewis had compared the atmosphere at some McCain-Palin rallies to coded racial appeals by late segregationist George Wallace during his own presidential run.

“Look, John McCain has told us a long time ago before this campaign ever got started, back in May, I think, that from his perspective, he was not going to have his campaign actively involved in using Jeremiah Wright as a wedge in this campaign,” Davis told conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt.

“Now since then, I must say, when Congressman Lewis calls John McCain and Sarah Palin and his entire group of supporters, fifty million people strong around this country, that we’re all racists and we should be compared to George Wallace and the kind of horrible segregation and evil and horrible politics that was played at that time, you know, that you’ve got to rethink all these things,” he added. “And so I think we’re in the process of looking at how we’re going to close this campaign. We’ve got 19 days, and we’re taking serious all these issues.

Prominent conservatives – including McCain’s own running mate Sarah Palin – had questioned his decision not to raise the Wright issue in the campaign’s waning days.”

Well, then, hurry it up McCain, you've only got two weeks left. And plenty of people are early voting now, including me (I just got my early voting form today and will turn it in tomorrow).

[Haruko]

Not to suggest they haven't resurrected it through supporters and Sarah Palin, but to be more direct about it, seems like they're thinking about doing so.

[Durandal]

Well, it didn't work for Hillary. So it's bound to work for McCain, right?

Jesus, his campaign stinks of desperation.