Does anyone think McCain has a chance?

From my experience here, most people on this board are more Libertarian and/or more to the left than say, the general population.

So, from just looking at this board, one would assume Obama.

However, I just don't see it happening without a joint Obama/Clinton ticket.
The Dems screwed themselves again (by dividing their camp also), as there is simply no way that the breadbasket parts of this country are going to elect him (and it isn't due to race...)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking forward to either a McCain or Obama presidency....but I actually think McCain has this one locked. It'll appear close, but in the end, the Bible-thumpers will be pouring out to the polls, and with a little help from the Diebold folks, we'll see a McCain victory...

Obama's name (especially his middle name), questionable muslim background/affiliation, and his general wishy-washy voting record are enough for many not to vote for him. Should name or religion be an issue? No, but it's a simple reality for many voters, and a factor that cannot be ignored or dismissed, even if we want to.

McCain has got this...Republicans, rejoice in screwing us for at least another 4 more years....

Originally posted by Gazrok
From my experience here, most people on this board are more Libertarian and/or more to the left than say, the general population.

Really.... it has always seemed to me that most of ATSNN's members were more right of center and us lefties were the minority.

Of course the right wing thrives on its self made image as the underdog... even when they hold all the cards.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by grover]

I meant ATS members in general...as leaning towards the left.

Let's be clear on a few things. This race comes down to voter prefernce AND political strategy.

McCain has three strikes against him. a) The very unpopular Iraq war. b) The failing economy, and c) a very tarnished GOP "brand."

Obama has three strikes aginst him. a) Race prejudice. b) A short resume, and c) the growing perception that he's a lot smug.

Obama has more strikes:

d) his name is one letter off the most wanted terrorist. (important? no, will it factor though? yes)
e) his middle name is the same name as a dictator we just executed. (same as above, it will still be a factor)
f) he has a questionable muslim upbringing, in a time when many voters equate muslim with terrorist (whether wrongly or not, perception is what matters)
g) his voting record is one of flip-flopping and indecisiveness, which supposedly is what undid Kerry

Likewise, you have to add this for McCain:

d) age and possible health issues.
e) doesn't identify with the younger generation of voters.

Well, we have many months to see, but I'm going to predict a McCain victory (with current info). As we all know though, one simple "Hee-ya!" moment can undo a campaign....so we'll have to wait and see.

reply to post by Gazrok


That is what I meant I see most ATSNN members as tilting to the right.

McCain has a chance... a punchers chance...


But this Obama election to win....


Or as someone else put it earlier... Its Obamas to lose....



Mabye Obama will channel his Islamic/Muslem heritage, and "Snatch defeat, from the jaws of victory".... as world history will repeadly show...

In order for Mccain do win..he will have to do good in the west.That his key role esp Wyoming,Colorado and New Mexico.

McCain has a definite shot at winning and the more that Obama and Co. talk the better his chances become.

I can't remember when a candidate had to say so little to enhance his image.

McCain is one of those guys whom the more things people say bad about him, the more foolish they look.

My advice to the Obama camp is to stop with the ad hominem attacks and stick to the issues.

There's one advantage to McCain's age. He's lived long enough to have a history that is indelible, so building a straw man against him to attack is nearly futile.

McCain has a record and smearing that record is just not going to work.

He's a guy who's never run with the pack. He got allies on both sides of the aisle and a record of building bridges.

Those who call him McSame really are hurting their cause, because anyone who has been politically aware over the last decade and a half knows just how different McCain is from Bush. They may agree broadly on some issues, but they are adamantly opposed in very many more, especially when it comes to method.

I've never been a big McCain supporter, but now that we are down to only two choices, McCain looks more and more like the man of the century.

[edit on 2008/6/30 by GradyPhilpott]

the proof is in the pudding...

www.nydailynews.com...

Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.

Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.

"Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in spending. It wants someone who focuses on the domestic economy," said Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."

Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s, when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in history.

"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama."

That's why there won't be a McCain Presidency.

In another tempest in a teapot storm retired General Wesley Clarke has said:

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war," Clark told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer.

"He hasn't held executive responsibility," he said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded -- that wasn't a wartime squadron."

adding: but that his service is not something that, in itself, means he should be president."

And what is being forgotten in all of the hullaboo is that he is right.

McCain's service was honorable and he suffered but that really isn't any qualification to be president.

It looks good on the resume though.


[edit on 1-7-2008 by grover]

You were listening to what, the MSM and they predict McCain doesn't have a chance? Is that really surprising, considering the MSM is by and large liberal to the very core?

Follow the Galup daily tracking and you see that it's up and down. Sometimes Obama is ahead, sometimes McCain, sometimes it's a tie. As of today it's McCain 42%, Obama 47%. A couple of days ago they were tied at 44%.

Source: www.gallup.com...

Again, I think it's going to be nitpicking on both sides until election day. If the "whitey" tape exists and is brought to public in September or October then McCain will be the sure winner.

reply to post by grover


Grover, I must have missed something. Who made the statement that McCain's military service was the single, sole qualifier for him to be commander in chief?

I ask this because it seems like some of the liberals are the ones who attacked McCain's military record in the first place and other liberals don't agree with attacking his record but do go so far as to make this statement.

If all you follow are the liberal statements it leads to conclude somewhere along the way that someone in McCain's campaign has made the statement that McCain's military service by itself qualifies his as commander in chief - when in fact no one actually said it. It would lead one to believe that the GOP is really that naive.

McCain has one chance to win, and only one.

If a tape, around Oct, surfaces of Michelle Obama saying "whitey". Thats it.

If it doesnt happen, obama will win

call it 'racism' if you want, if that makes you feel better

call it cheating
call it white guilt
call it elitism

call it whatever you wisht o make it easier to sleep at night, fine by me.

Barack Obama will win because america needs a different type of leader. America needs fresh thinking and to get away from war mongering.

John McCain cannot provide fresh thinking. There's nothing fresh up the rectum of George W. Bush, and since thats where mccains head firmly rests, we can only assume we'll be putting up with the same flatulence for the next 4 years if mccain *does* get elected.

Obama for POTUS
because any other choice just repeats the last 8 years.

Wesley Clark didn't just say that McCain's service was not a qualification for the presidency, with which with I agree, Clark ridiculed and denigrated McCain's sacrifice.

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.

news.yahoo.com...

I cannot think of a more insulting or more callous statement to say to a veteran and Clark knows that.

That is like me saying that Clark is unqualified for national service because he brown-nosed and blew his way up the chain-of-command. It negates the work and dedication it took to rise to his level of command.

McCain's service is what it is. His time in captivity exemplifies a philosophy of determination and commitment to his nation and his fellow prisoners. It is just a small, but very significant, portion of the totality of his national service.

It is the totality of McCain's service to his nation that makes him qualified to be president.

The real reason to vote against McCain is that you don't like his policies or his voting record, not that his war service was less spectacular than Wesley Clark's ego maniacal view of his own war service.

Very many Americans know this because they themselves have served and the vast majority of American veterans know that what Clark said about McCain along with his tone are unacceptable.

Clark can talk out of both sides of his mouth and fool most Americans, but to those who have served, ridiculing another vet's honorable service, regardless of how humble is the lowest of the low.

Clark wounded the Obama campaign, though perhaps not yet mortally.

Even Bob Beckel told Clark to shut up.

www.usnews.com...

Now, for those who are going to start screaming about John Kerry, remember this.

Kerry grandstanded his way through Vietnam and abused the system by accumulating Purple Hearts for wounds that that would not have yielded a Purple Heart for any other service member serving at the time Kerry was serving.

Kerry and I served contemporaneously and by the time we arrived in-country the criteria for the medal had been made more stringent, because previously the medal had been awarded for wounds that did not require treatment by a medical officer.

Kerry also came home from the war and smeared every veteran who had served in Vietnam by gathering up a bunch of lying wannabes to tell fairy tales to Congress.

Vietnam vets were not likely to let that slide, no matter how many years had passed.

Originally posted by Gazrok


Obama's name (especially his middle name), questionable muslim background/affiliation, and his general wishy-washy voting record are enough for many not to vote for him. Should name or religion be an issue? No, but it's a simple reality for many voters, and a factor that cannot be ignored or dismissed, even if we want to.

1.) If his middle name deters voters, then i think we have a much greater problem of stupidity and bigotry in this country than ever before.

2.) wishy-washy voting record? I guess i need to know your definition of wishy-washy. He has a stronger voting record than McCain. McCains "views" have changed more than anyone i've ever heard of, not to mention his 61% absence on the voting floor of the senate.

If he's not there for 61% of the votes, how does that make him better qualified on voting histories?

61 % mccain
43 % obama

I think the difference is quite clear

Barack Obama: almost 20% better than the oposotion (Obama should coin that for his new slogan)

Didn't McCain or one of his affiliates buy a majority in Diebold, the one with the voting machines? If yes, he wil have chance enough to win i'd say.

edit: found this one thepanelist.com...

Not totally the same luckily so who knows .

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Harman]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


I am not bashing the troops, and i think this guy should have better thought out his approach

but i beg you this question:

How does being shot down QUALIFY you for POTUS?

So - you can have the most... "unsure of" stance of anything, that anyone has ever heard of

but because you were shot down

you'd make a great president?

Well, if thats the case, then i'd rather cast my vote for a FDNY firefighter who survived 9/11.

I find that much more heroic than being shot down.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
John McCain cannot provide fresh thinking. There's nothing fresh up the rectum of George W. Bush, and since thats where mccains head firmly rests, we can only assume we'll be putting up with the same flatulence for the next 4 years if mccain *does* get elected.

You really haven't been paying attention to politics over the last two decades, have you.

The truth is that McCain ran a very acerbic campaign against Bush and doesn't even like to share the stage with him, so besides being extraordinarily profane, your statement does not reflect reality.

Voters over the age of forty will know that your statement is untrue, even if they prefer to vote for Obama.

[edit on 2008/7/1 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Oh?

yes, back then, he was against Bush

Now that he's running for office, his head is firmly wedged up there.

where have YOU been lately?
Have you not seen the numerous 'flips' in McCain'ology that have taken place since 2007?

He's for it
he's against it
all in the same paragraph

if bush says something is good
he's for it

i could set here and type out a list of reasons that i am right but instead, ill Link you this and let you read it for yourself.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
How does being shot down QUALIFY you for POTUS?

Now, I know what your problem is. You don't pay attention to anything going on around you. You just pick up a few buzz words and profanities and make that a political position. There can be no political analysis without scrutiny and objectivity.

You didn't even read my post, did you?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Wesley Clark didn't just say that McCain's service was not a qualification for the presidency, with which with I agree, Clark ridiculed and denigrated McCain's sacrifice.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Getting shot down doesn't qualify anyone to be president. Just ask Ross Perot.

However, I don't think you're capable of understanding the meaning of military service and what honorable service and selfless sacrifice says about a man.

Don't feel bad, though. Apparently, Wesley Clark doesn't understand that, either.

In fact, Wesley Clark and John Kerry are both perfect examples of the fact that combat duty doesn't qualify a person for the presidency.

But, I'll lay it out for you as succinctly as possible, even though I already explained this before.

McCain's naval service and his captivity are testaments to his depth of character. His qualifications for the presidency are to be found in the totality of his lifetime of national service.

Even though I have disagreed with McCain over very many things over the years, there is no doubt in my mind that he has the strength of character, the intellectual flexibility, and the experience to lead our nation in these most difficult times.

If you disagree with that, fine, but spare us the profane distortions of McCain, his policies and his character.

I'm going to tell you right now. No one with an ounce of sense is going to buy that drivel regardless of whom they decide to vote and the more McCain is senselessly attacked, the stronger his campaign will be.

That's just a word to the wise.



[edit on 2008/7/1 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


honorable sacrified?

anyone can be captured in the line of duty. What you DO when being captured is what tests your character.

he coughed up military secrets in exchange for medical care. He has an entire group of vietnam veterans who said mccain was not tortured to give up his secrets. He's selfish.

How is that honorable?

Why do you think so many other vietnam veterans can't stand the guy?

So you are saying that ALL THOSE OTHER VETERANS are wrong, and McCain is right?

Please.

It takes a lot for one soldier to turn on another, and in the events that it does happen, you REALLY have to be suspicious of the guy in question.

McCain is a bluff. Through and through.

And i do analyze things politcally. Dont get so offended simply because im calling McCain for what he is: A phoney who hides behind a dignified and respectable Military simply because he was in service.


Charles Whitman was a marine. Marines are part of the military. Does being a marine make Charles whitman a patriotic american?

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]