Why I think McCain will lose

hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
edited November 2008 in A Moving Train
I think McCain is going to lose because he doesn't have "what it takes" to win the election. Define that how you will (cheating, the willingness to play really, really dirty, grass roots ground campaign, was out spent, etc...) However you define "what it takes", I don't think McCain ever had it.

Personally, I believe McCain wasn't willing to play as dirty as he should have. He needed a Karl Rove. I think McCain's life experiences as a POW...and the fact that Bush beat him up bad for the Republican nomination...had A LOT to do with the way McCain wanted to run this campaign. I think all of that made him take the "nice" route early on...and that cost him. Quite frankly, he needed to steal it, and I don't think he had it in him. Did Bush steal it??? I don't know...but I think Bush was willing to do what it took to get the nod.

McCain is nothing more than the Republican version of John Kerry. No one is interested in him, he's boring, terrible campaign.

Anything could happen, but I don't think it will. Sorry John, you were my lesser of two evils this time. It didn't work for Kerry, it won't work for you. Best wishes, it just wasn't meant to be.
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    hailhailkc wrote:
    I think McCain is going to lose because he doesn't have "what it takes" to win the election. Define that how you will (cheating, the willingness to play really, really dirty, grass roots ground campaign, was out spent, etc...) However you define "what it takes", I don't think McCain ever had it.

    Personally, I believe McCain wasn't willing to play as dirty as he should have. He needed a Karl Rove. I think McCain's life experiences as a POW...and the fact that Bush beat him up bad for the Republican nomination...had A LOT to do with the way McCain wanted to run this campaign. I think all of that made him take the "nice" route early on...and that cost him. Quite frankly, he needed to steal it, and I don't think he had it in him. Did Bush steal it??? I don't know...but I think Bush was willing to do what it took to get the nod.

    McCain is nothing more than the Republican version of John Kerry. No one is interested in him, he's boring, terrible campaign.

    Anything could happen, but I don't think it will. Sorry John, you were my lesser of two evils this time. It didn't work for Kerry, it won't work for you. Best wishes, it just wasn't meant to be.

    I totally agree. They should've showed Bush dissing him to differentiate himself from Bush.

    I don't know.... guy's a good guy, and I think he's the better of the two for the executive position, but he's not a great politician.
  • hailhailkc wrote:
    I think McCain is going to lose because he doesn't have "what it takes" to win the election. Define that how you will (cheating, the willingness to play really, really dirty, grass roots ground campaign, was out spent, etc...) However you define "what it takes", I don't think McCain ever had it.

    Personally, I believe McCain wasn't willing to play as dirty as he should have. He needed a Karl Rove. I think McCain's life experiences as a POW...and the fact that Bush beat him up bad for the Republican nomination...had A LOT to do with the way McCain wanted to run this campaign. I think all of that made him take the "nice" route early on...and that cost him. Quite frankly, he needed to steal it, and I don't think he had it in him. Did Bush steal it??? I don't know...but I think Bush was willing to do what it took to get the nod.

    McCain is nothing more than the Republican version of John Kerry. No one is interested in him, he's boring, terrible campaign.

    Anything could happen, but I don't think it will. Sorry John, you were my lesser of two evils this time. It didn't work for Kerry, it won't work for you. Best wishes, it just wasn't meant to be.

    To his credit, I don't think that he was willing to go dirty. I disagree with the comparison to Kerry, even as a democrat I think McCain would make a better president then Kerry.

    I just think that to win, McCain had to basically sell his soul to the republican base, go far right, and go the Rove/negative route. But he seems like too decent to do that, and his ideology/record isn't right to run that way. Him and his campaign seemed almost like tug of war the whole time.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    I think, should McCain lose, the big mistake he made was letting his 'maverick' image become tarnished; i.e. saddling up to closely to the Republican party in an attempt to win the nomination. I know you usually have to do that to win the nomination, but McCain did it whole-heartedly, and he underestimated both the difficulty of gaining that independent image back, and how much being connected to Bush and the Republicans would hurt him in this general election.

    That, Obama's skills as a candidate and the efficiency of his campaign and the economy were his four hurdles, the latter three being for the most part out of his control. I will say that he also could have handled the economic crisis far better than he did. Obama simply seemed presidential when he handled it; McCain did not.
  • meisteredermeistereder Posts: 1,577
    To his credit, I don't think that he was willing to go dirty. I disagree with the comparison to Kerry, even as a democrat I think McCain would make a better president then Kerry.

    I just think that to win, McCain had to basically sell his soul to the republican base, go far right, and go the Rove/negative route. But he seems like too decent to do that, and his ideology/record isn't right to run that way. Him and his campaign seemed almost like tug of war the whole time.


    I tend to disagree. I think he was in a bind from the get-go, but his only way to win would have been to stay true to himself. He was all over the board. He bowed to the right with Palin, and it screwed him because (i) she is ridiculous and once people figured that out, her popularity plummeted, and (ii) it's not him. He had to win over the independents, and all of the right wing wackos kept pulling him back to where he wasn't able to or didn't want to go because he didn't agree with them (including Palin).
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    hailhailkc wrote:
    I think McCain is going to lose because he doesn't have "what it takes" to win the election. Define that how you will (cheating, the willingness to play really, really dirty, grass roots ground campaign, was out spent, etc...) However you define "what it takes", I don't think McCain ever had it.

    Personally, I believe McCain wasn't willing to play as dirty as he should have. He needed a Karl Rove. I think McCain's life experiences as a POW...and the fact that Bush beat him up bad for the Republican nomination...had A LOT to do with the way McCain wanted to run this campaign. I think all of that made him take the "nice" route early on...and that cost him. Quite frankly, he needed to steal it, and I don't think he had it in him. Did Bush steal it??? I don't know...but I think Bush was willing to do what it took to get the nod.

    McCain is nothing more than the Republican version of John Kerry. No one is interested in him, he's boring, terrible campaign.

    Anything could happen, but I don't think it will. Sorry John, you were my lesser of two evils this time. It didn't work for Kerry, it won't work for you. Best wishes, it just wasn't meant to be.

    I disagree with you. I think that McCain ran a pretty dirty campaign, not he himself but definitely Palin and other operatives. I believe that had the same John McCain who campaigned in 2000 campaign this year and if he had selected a more moderate running mate he would have had this election in the bag. Obama wouldn't even stand a chance of beating him, but McCain tried to run a Bush style campaign but didn't invest in it whole heartedly because that's not what John McCain is about. So his campaign message come across as half hearted and people picked up on that. Also, i don't care what conservatives say about Palin, she is down right horrible. McCain sacrificed the moderate and more independent voters simply to cater to the far right and it is going to hurt him in the end. McCain could have won this thing by a landslide, just look how close he is today even with all the mistakes.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • meisteredermeistereder Posts: 1,577
    mammasan wrote:
    I disagree with you. I think that McCain ran a pretty dirty campaign, not he himself but definitely Palin and other operatives. I believe that had the same John McCain who campaigned in 2000 campaign this year and if he had selected a more moderate running mate he would have had this election in the bag. Obama wouldn't even stand a chance of beating him, but McCain tried to run a Bush style campaign but didn't invest in it whole heartedly because that's not what John McCain is about. So his campaign message come across as half hearted and people picked up on that. Also, i don't care what conservatives say about Palin, she is down right horrible. McCain sacrificed the moderate and more independent voters simply to cater to the far right and it is going to hurt him in the end. McCain could have won this thing by a landslide, just look how close he is today even with all the mistakes.


    Bingo.

    McCain's biggest mistake was half-assedly going on the right wing attack while still trying to send a message that he is better than that. You can't go both ways. People saw right through his mixed messages. Every single time he had a decision to make, his instincts took him astray. Palin. The bailout thing where he wanted to suspend the campaign. Even when his campaign worker made up that story about being attacked by a black man. He kept going on impulses, and chose wrong over and over.
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
  • Gonzo1977Gonzo1977 Posts: 1,696
    McCain didn't exactly run a very clean campaign. Obama didn't either...but to say McCain didn't mix it up is just false. Look at all the William Ayers, and Rev. Wright "Pals Around With Terrorists" talk.

    McCain hired the same guys who smeared him in 2000 to do the same to Obama; they were all Karl Rove disciples who certainly wern't above getting down and dirty.

    I think ultimately this was just a matter of McCain not getting his message across. September and October just killed him. He seemed unsteady and shakey during a very crucial time. Palin did not help matters with her interviews and blunders from the stump.

    The McCain Campaign was wounded early and just couldn't get back on track.

    But hey...

    It's not over yet.

    As much as I hope we have a decisive winner tonight, I can't help but fear for the worst and that the integrity of the vote counts may still get tampered with like in 2000, and 2004.

    I hope no matter who wins tonight, that this will not be the case.

    Later
  • ThecureThecure Posts: 814
    mammasan wrote:
    I disagree with you. I think that McCain ran a pretty dirty campaign, not he himself but definitely Palin and other operatives. I believe that had the same John McCain who campaigned in 2000 campaign this year and if he had selected a more moderate running mate he would have had this election in the bag. Obama wouldn't even stand a chance of beating him, but McCain tried to run a Bush style campaign but didn't invest in it whole heartedly because that's not what John McCain is about. So his campaign message come across as half hearted and people picked up on that. Also, i don't care what conservatives say about Palin, she is down right horrible. McCain sacrificed the moderate and more independent voters simply to cater to the far right and it is going to hurt him in the end. McCain could have won this thing by a landslide, just look how close he is today even with all the mistakes.

    the major problem with McCain was that he did realize that if he wanted to be the rep. nom. he had to change from 2000 (where if you remember he lost) McCain had to go negative becuase lets be realistic he was not going to win on the issues (not that i really liek Obama solution to that much) all this people on CNN all rave abotu Obama campaign but in reality if he didn't win it would be a disgrace. considering how close the race is i don't see how people can say that Obama ran a great presidential campaign. i thought his campaign to be the nom. was better.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Thecure wrote:
    the major problem with McCain was that he did realize that if he wanted to be the rep. nom. he had to change from 2000 (where if you remember he lost) McCain had to go negative becuase lets be realistic he was not going to win on the issues (not that i really liek Obama solution to that much) all this people on CNN all rave abotu Obama campaign but in reality if he didn't win it would be a disgrace. considering how close the race is i don't see how people can say that Obama ran a great presidential campaign. i thought his campaign to be the nom. was better.

    I understand McCain having to go a bit negative during the primaries, and even leaning more to the right to secure the nomination, but he didn't have to even lean further right for the general election. McCain tried to play to both crowds, the far right Christian conservatives and the moderate Republicans and independents. He simply couldn't pull it off. He should have stuck with what he knows best and whop he is and he would have won the election.

    I agree that Obama's campaign has been OK, not great. If it was a great campaign he would be killing McCain right now and he's not.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    if mccain loses - it will only be because of one thing: THE LAST 8 YEARS

    assuming there was no bush/cheney history and that mccain gets to choose his own VP running mate - he would hands down beat obama easily ... but he's been handicapped from the get go which has created this seemingly landslide shift ...
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    I think McCain will lose, not because he was "too nice", McCain will lose because he did play dirty, but he offered nothing in return. He didn't have any original ideas, in fact McCain unintentionally served to reinforce Obama's plans because every time McCain mocked Obama's plans, McCain never offered any substantive counter plan. He simply push Palin and Joe the Plumber. McCain had every opportunity to seize upon Bush's excursions into Pakistan and Syria to give the campaign a two issue focus, economy and foreign policy, but he didn't. Instead, he increasing took on a crazed looking demeanor when giving speeches and saying Obama's not ready YET, that was an endorsement for Obama, simply because no one is truly ever completely ready for that Office. The other factor is that Palin became a novelty act in less than two weeks after the convention because it was clear that prior to her getting picked as VP, she didn't care or even recognize that the rest of the U.S. existed. Palin didn't even possess general knowledge of the so called "lower 48 States. Even worse was the fact that she sold out a fellow republican to climb the political ladder and her State's senior Senator was facing federal criminal charges. This is was not VP material nor was it Party material. Adding Joe the Plumber to the campaign trail, what a slap in the face to have Joe the Plumber talking about Israel, when McCain wasn't permitted to pick Joe the jew as his running mate. That was the final deathnail of his maverick persona. Joe the Plumber turned McCain and Palin along with the Republican party machine into a "three ring circus" of clowns all doing different tricks to get people's attention.

    The Republican Party needs a break to regroup because right now there is absolutely no candidate in the mix that can rally the Party. You can take the moose off the tundra but you can't take away the smell, so no Palin is not the answer for the future of the Republican Party in 2012. Also, the Republican Party now knows that yes, they need their religious based, but the religious base no longer solely dictates the out come. The progressive Republicans have grown and are willing to cross the line to the other side unless they are recognized. There has to be some give and take or the Republican party will be on the side lines for 8 years.

    hi hail, its been awhile.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • ThecureThecure Posts: 814
    mammasan wrote:
    I understand McCain having to go a bit negative during the primaries, and even leaning more to the right to secure the nomination, but he didn't have to even lean further right for the general election. McCain tried to play to both crowds, the far right Christian conservatives and the moderate Republicans and independents. He simply couldn't pull it off. He should have stuck with what he knows best and whop he is and he would have won the election.

    I agree that Obama's campaign has been OK, not great. If it was a great campaign he would be killing McCain right now and he's not.

    i don't know you could be right but i don't think he could have won without teh right voting for him. there was not enough independents to win.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Thecure wrote:
    i don't know you could be right but i don't think he could have won without teh right voting for him. there was not enough independents to win.

    The right would have voted for him because they sure as hell didn't want to take the chance of an Obama presidency.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • ThecureThecure Posts: 814
    mammasan wrote:
    The right would have voted for him because they sure as hell didn't want to take the chance of an Obama presidency.

    yet agian, i don't know but i don't think Mccain could have won if he didn't cater to teh right.

    all i have to say is that Rove cost McCain another election.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • SpeakersSpeakers Posts: 252
    puremagic wrote:
    I think McCain will lose, not because he was "too nice", McCain will lose because he did play dirty, but he offered nothing in return. He didn't have any original ideas, in fact McCain unintentionally served to reinforce Obama's plans because every time McCain mocked Obama's plans, McCain never offered any substantive counter plan. He simply push Palin and Joe the Plumber. McCain had every opportunity to seize upon Bush's excursions into Pakistan and Syria to give the campaign a two issue focus, economy and foreign policy, but he didn't. Instead, he increasing took on a crazed looking demeanor when giving speeches and saying Obama's not ready YET, that was an endorsement for Obama, simply because no one is truly ever completely ready for that Office. The other factor is that Palin became a novelty act in less than two weeks after the convention because it was clear that prior to her getting picked as VP, she didn't care or even recognize that the rest of the U.S. existed. Palin didn't even possess general knowledge of the so called "lower 48 States. Even worse was the fact that she sold out a fellow republican to climb the political ladder and her State's senior Senator was facing federal criminal charges. This is was not VP material nor was it Party material. Adding Joe the Plumber to the campaign trail, what a slap in the face to have Joe the Plumber talking about Israel, when McCain wasn't permitted to pick Joe the jew as his running mate. That was the final deathnail of his maverick persona. Joe the Plumber turned McCain and Palin along with the Republican party machine into a "three ring circus" of clowns all doing different tricks to get people's attention.

    The Republican Party needs a break to regroup because right now there is absolutely no candidate in the mix that can rally the Party. You can take the moose off the tundra but you can't take away the smell, so no Palin is not the answer for the future of the Republican Party in 2012. Also, the Republican Party now knows that yes, they need their religious based, but the religious base no longer solely dictates the out come. The progressive Republicans have grown and are willing to cross the line to the other side unless they are recognized. There has to be some give and take or the Republican party will be on the side lines for 8 years.

    hi hail, its been awhile.

    I agree with most of what you had to say, but I think that if McCain moved to the center right after the convention, picked a moderate VP and used the "obama isn't ready yet" argument, he would have won.

    The conservative base still would have voted for him because they couldn't stand the idea of the alternative. But he would have been able to get the support of the middle too. Obama is difficult to attack because he comes off as such a likable guy. So if he convinced the people that Obama is a good guy and will be good in the future but we need to give him more time, that would have gathered a lot of centrist support.

    I think his attacks turned a lot of people off, they did seem erratic, and desparate. But if he would have stayed calm, I think that is what people wanted to see. Just my opinion. It makes me sad, but I do think McCain could have easily won this election had he not come off as a crazy old man.
  • chipboychipboy Posts: 137
    McCain could have won if he voted against the bailout. It was extremely unpopular and it would have given him a differentiating key issue. He could have started saying Obama and Bush voted together on the bailout 100% of the time and stolen Obama's thunder. Plus it would have fit perfectly with his theme of vetoing ear marks and stopping wasteful government spending. It would have galvanized the right and won him independents in droves. I have no idea why he voted for it.
  • SpeakersSpeakers Posts: 252
    chipboy wrote:
    McCain could have won if he voted against the bailout. It was extremely unpopular and it would have given him a differentiating key issue. He could have started saying Obama and Bush voted together on the bailout 100% of the time and stolen Obama's thunder. Plus it would have fit perfectly with his theme of vetoing ear marks and stopping wasteful government spending. It would have galvanized the right and won him independents in droves. I have no idea why he voted for it.

    I think you are right here too.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    chipboy wrote:
    McCain could have won if he voted against the bailout. It was extremely unpopular and it would have given him a differentiating key issue. He could have started saying Obama and Bush voted together on the bailout 100% of the time and stolen Obama's thunder. Plus it would have fit perfectly with his theme of vetoing ear marks and stopping wasteful government spending. It would have galvanized the right and won him independents in droves. I have no idea why he voted for it.

    I completely agree with you.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • chipboy wrote:
    McCain could have won if he voted against the bailout. It was extremely unpopular and it would have given him a differentiating key issue. He could have started saying Obama and Bush voted together on the bailout 100% of the time and stolen Obama's thunder. Plus it would have fit perfectly with his theme of vetoing ear marks and stopping wasteful government spending. It would have galvanized the right and won him independents in droves. I have no idea why he voted for it.


    I agree too, that was his last major chance to distance himself from Obama.

    However, he definitely painted himself into a corner with the "suspending the campaign" and then coming to the debate shenanigans. If he came to the debate because a deal was pretty much reached, then voted against the bill, he would have been in political trouble.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • DixieNDixieN Posts: 351
    My feeling is that McCain probably won't win not because he wasn't willing to play dirty, but because he compromised himself and did something he said he wouldn't--play dirty. People are sick of 8 years of lies and dirt--they were looking for something else. If McCain had run as he did the last time--a man of honor and dignity--this would be a much closer election than it appears to be at this time.

    Another factor in McCain not winning--should he not--will be the single most important choice he's made to demonstrate his judgment...Palin. That was a lousy choice that polarized people. All it did was make the bored base buzzed, but it scared off the independents and the women he'd hoped to add to his coffers. Bad, bad, bad choice.
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    chipboy wrote:
    McCain could have won if he voted against the bailout. It was extremely unpopular and it would have given him a differentiating key issue. He could have started saying Obama and Bush voted together on the bailout 100% of the time and stolen Obama's thunder. Plus it would have fit perfectly with his theme of vetoing ear marks and stopping wasteful government spending. It would have galvanized the right and won him independents in droves. I have no idea why he voted for it.

    Voting against the Bailout would have been a big score, but he didn't. The fact that he grandstand and then backed off took away all his creditability as he tried to bash Obama. Even Republicans took shots at McCain's failed tactics, which was easy because it appeared that is McCain fell back into Bush's fold. Obama won on the Bailout because yes, he voted for it, but he immediately came out with a plan addressing the middle class and taxpayers as a whole. He came out and said yes, I'm going to tax the wealthy but I'm going to stabilize the middle class. McCain was silent, he had nothing to show the American public except the fact that he voted for the Bailout that Bush wanted. McCain forgot that the American people also expected something from this Bailout and neither Bush nor McCain offered them anything. Obama took the lead and address their concerns.

    McCain was prepared to run his campaign as seeking to become commander-in-chief, when the country needed a President and McCain had nothing to offer them. Just like Bush, McCain treated these like they are two separate jobs, when in fact, they are the job of one person. The American public needed to see a leader, presidential material and McCain and his campaign failed that test time after time. All people saw was a disorganized campaign that left the America public questioning the erratic behavior of McCain and the possibility of a Palin presidency.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • stickfig13stickfig13 Posts: 1,532
    Nothing kills a campaign more than a Sarah Palin
    Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    hailhailkc wrote:
    I think McCain is going to lose because he doesn't have "what it takes" to win the election. Define that how you will (cheating, the willingness to play really, really dirty, grass roots ground campaign, was out spent, etc...) However you define "what it takes", I don't think McCain ever had it.

    Personally, I believe McCain wasn't willing to play as dirty as he should have. He needed a Karl Rove. I think McCain's life experiences as a POW...and the fact that Bush beat him up bad for the Republican nomination...had A LOT to do with the way McCain wanted to run this campaign. I think all of that made him take the "nice" route early on...and that cost him. Quite frankly, he needed to steal it, and I don't think he had it in him. Did Bush steal it??? I don't know...but I think Bush was willing to do what it took to get the nod.

    McCain is nothing more than the Republican version of John Kerry. No one is interested in him, he's boring, terrible campaign.

    Anything could happen, but I don't think it will. Sorry John, you were my lesser of two evils this time. It didn't work for Kerry, it won't work for you. Best wishes, it just wasn't meant to be.
    ...
    Nope.
    McCain will lose because he had abandoned that 'Maverick' label a long time ago... when he checked his character (and his political balls) at the doorstep and pandered to the Religious Right in order to fit in and play the game. You can no longer call yourself an 'outsider' or 'Maverick' if you assimilate to the conventional thinking and forfeit your character in order to get votes.
    The Palin selection was exactly the political pandering that made him more of an status quo Republican in the neo-conservative model... than, someone carrying a message of change.
    That was McCain's mistake.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.