Given historical precedent, how likely is McCain's victory?
- Thread starter Saab1911
- Start date
- Status
LightningJoe
New member
I think racist is a word used by people who want to advertize their own righteousness. The funny thing is, it often doesn't actually apply to the situation, they just like using the word so much, they shoehorn it in whenever they can.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I have already seen that pic. That pic was supposedly taken the week of her giving birth. Once the decision had already been made to raise the child as her own. Not hard to fake a picture with a pregnancy pad. The reason that pic does not make sense is in a pic taken one month sooner she is not showing at all. So either she grew a fetus at record speeds or something is up.
And like I have said before, I do not even care if she took her daughters child to raise as her own. I actually think that is kind of noble. Especially knowing it could hurt her career if it got out. If it is true I think she should admit it. Just say "I did it for the sake of my child and my grandchild despite the risks it posed to my career." Then I would see her in a very positive light. If it is not true she should do something to dispel the rumors.
But this is off-topic for this thread. If you want to continue it contact me via PM.
And like I have said before, I do not even care if she took her daughters child to raise as her own. I actually think that is kind of noble. Especially knowing it could hurt her career if it got out. If it is true I think she should admit it. Just say "I did it for the sake of my child and my grandchild despite the risks it posed to my career." Then I would see her in a very positive light. If it is not true she should do something to dispel the rumors.
But this is off-topic for this thread. If you want to continue it contact me via PM.
JuanCarlos
New member
Hmmm....
In the negative column, you've got the fact that (regardless of your personal opinion) public opinion of the nation as a whole is that things aren't going so hot. That hurts the party of the sitting president. Then you've got the huge gains in Congress last midterm...probably not a good sign. Yeah, yeah, you've got horrible approval ratings from Congress, but then they've still got a Republican president and no filibuster-proof majority, let alone a veto-proof one. And the fact that Democrats in Congress are pulling better numbers than Republicans (though both are low).
You've also got, at the moment, close polling in some states the Republicans have been counting on. States like CO, VA, NV, MT, ND, and SD. No, I don't think all of these will go Democratic, but this does mean that they'll have to work for them...which means campaign money that could have gone elsewhere, and probably some campaign visits that could have gone elsewhere.
Also, you've got Barr. After having Paul shake things up in the beginning, you've not got what may be a larger base for Barr than might have otherwise existed. Plus, the libertarian vote might be just enough to turn a few of the above-mentioned states blue...we're talking margins of a percent or two, and the lessons of 2000 are a bit fresher than the lessons of 1992 (in that I don't think Nader will "cancel him out" entirely).
In the positive column, you've got somebody with a lot more experience on the top of the ticket. You've also got both Ohio and Florida leaning Republican, and my money is on both of them falling that way when it's all said and done. You've got Palin helping to unite the conservative base, and all the random BS flying around her now will likely have died down and been forgotten by election day.
Plus you've got the built-in numerical advantage, in the Republicans tend to win more states (including rural ones) resulting in a slight edge in the Electoral College. That "extra" two votes per state adds up, and in a close contest it's basically the margin of victory.
And you've got the fact that they're both Senators, which would otherwise be a liability for McCain...and he's got a lot more years in.
Of course, neither of these lists is necessarily comprehensive.
If I were giving odds, I'd call it 5:4 in favor of Obama. And that's just because Democrats seem a bit more energetic at the moment. And of course a lot of this can (and will) change in the next couple months, including once the debates get started. I'd say if you have a preference between the two, it's absolutely critical that you show up, and make sure anybody who supports your candidate shows up.
Basically, while I agree with the OP that this is largely the Democrats' election to lose, I also have full faith in the ability of the Democrats to do exactly that.
In the negative column, you've got the fact that (regardless of your personal opinion) public opinion of the nation as a whole is that things aren't going so hot. That hurts the party of the sitting president. Then you've got the huge gains in Congress last midterm...probably not a good sign. Yeah, yeah, you've got horrible approval ratings from Congress, but then they've still got a Republican president and no filibuster-proof majority, let alone a veto-proof one. And the fact that Democrats in Congress are pulling better numbers than Republicans (though both are low).
You've also got, at the moment, close polling in some states the Republicans have been counting on. States like CO, VA, NV, MT, ND, and SD. No, I don't think all of these will go Democratic, but this does mean that they'll have to work for them...which means campaign money that could have gone elsewhere, and probably some campaign visits that could have gone elsewhere.
Also, you've got Barr. After having Paul shake things up in the beginning, you've not got what may be a larger base for Barr than might have otherwise existed. Plus, the libertarian vote might be just enough to turn a few of the above-mentioned states blue...we're talking margins of a percent or two, and the lessons of 2000 are a bit fresher than the lessons of 1992 (in that I don't think Nader will "cancel him out" entirely).
In the positive column, you've got somebody with a lot more experience on the top of the ticket. You've also got both Ohio and Florida leaning Republican, and my money is on both of them falling that way when it's all said and done. You've got Palin helping to unite the conservative base, and all the random BS flying around her now will likely have died down and been forgotten by election day.
Plus you've got the built-in numerical advantage, in the Republicans tend to win more states (including rural ones) resulting in a slight edge in the Electoral College. That "extra" two votes per state adds up, and in a close contest it's basically the margin of victory.
And you've got the fact that they're both Senators, which would otherwise be a liability for McCain...and he's got a lot more years in.
Of course, neither of these lists is necessarily comprehensive.
If I were giving odds, I'd call it 5:4 in favor of Obama. And that's just because Democrats seem a bit more energetic at the moment. And of course a lot of this can (and will) change in the next couple months, including once the debates get started. I'd say if you have a preference between the two, it's absolutely critical that you show up, and make sure anybody who supports your candidate shows up.
Basically, while I agree with the OP that this is largely the Democrats' election to lose, I also have full faith in the ability of the Democrats to do exactly that.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Democrats will eventually lose steam and start to pull in different directions. They can never unify for very long. That is the problem with a liberal party. They have too wide ranging a base of ideals and opinions for anyone to agree on anything for long.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
A common problem when there are no absolutes. Right for you but wrong for me.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
It is not that. That would be easier to understand. The problem is they all agree on the destination but not on the course. They have a set ideal of right and wrong but they completely disagree on how to achieve their goals. You have the wackos that think the way to cause change is to torch private property or throw bricks at police and you have those that want to work inside the system through court cases and constitutional challenges. You also have people at every point in-between.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Why do you think that creates more trouble for the Dems than for the Republicans? I see the same things on the conservative side.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
You don't see it nearly as much on the right. Right wingers tend to be followers who believe in an almost military like chain of command. They want to hear certain things and as long as they hear them they are happy. That is why Rush and others do so well. They are goal oriented. They tend to be more about the destination and do not care how they get there. That makes them better at getting things done.
The left is an army full of generals who want to micromanage every step of any procedure. They do not like to be told anything. That is why left wing radio does not does as well. They are less concerned about the destination and more concerned with the journey and making sure everyone is comfortable on the way and no one's toes get run over in the process. That makes even a short trip a very long process. It makes them great social workers but questionable social leaders.
Granted these are generalizations and you get crossover in every group.
What is unprecedented is that this time around, those wackos, along with "Black Liberation Theology" racists, are to be found everywhere in the history of one of the nominees of a major party. I'm talking about Bill Ayers, Percy Sutton, Khalid Al Mansour, Bernardine Dhorn, and others.
Real communist terrorists, and they're Obama's buddies. Got him into politics, promoted his career along the way. He thinks they are "mainstream" even though America pretty soundly rejected Rev Wright, and just two years ago his buddy Ayers said he would like to debate Sean Hannity on the virtues of communism vs the vices of capitalism. That may be mainstream in the most extreme left wing circles in Chicago, but not out in the rest of the country.
For the first time in my life, I'm voting against a candidate. I'm tolerant of Democrats running Swedish-style socialists, and have never seen fit to vote against one. I have no tolerance for communist terrorists, but Obama seems to have plenty. He's unacceptable.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
That is a well thought out post. I'm not so sure I generally agree about right wingers being followers instead of leaders but I get your point. I would say that we are more content to HAVE a leader instead of all clamoring to BE the leader. My proof of concept would be the continuing opposition among the right to McCain. We are logical enough to know he's the only chance we have at this time but rebellious enough to make it known that he is not our ideal choice. Both are strong and useful qualities.
This appears to be something about which you obviously know nothing about. You of all people should know that things do not always appear to be as some would portray them.
I believe that baby was born to Sarah Palin...the chances of a forty four year old woman conceiving a baby with Down Syndrome is more than seven times as likely than to a woman half that age.
Look it up.
To suggest that the photograph is faked is amazingly ignorant.
Forwardassist
New member
Well it is Obama's race to lose. I am not saying Obama is going to win, but if you look at some of these facts it's hard to get excited for the chance of a McCain win. For instance Obama is actually ahead in the polls in a few Red states that went for Bush by a wide margin and tied with McCain in others. If he can run competitive in several red states, that is not a good sign for McCain's chances this fall. On top of that you have Obama recent gain in the polls after the Palin announcement. Which I believe is a direct effect of disfranchised Hillary supporters and other independent women being turned off by Palin's extreme conservatism. Either way the out come will not be decided right away, so it is going to be a long election night. Then again the old saying goes, "never underestimate the Democrats ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."
Who is the economy bad for??
People who have no skills and screwed around most of their lives?
People who fell into this mortgage crap?
People who live over their heads and are in huge credit card debt??
Not trying to be smart at all, but some Americans are doing fine--and I'm not just talking about the bad old rich ones.
It's a FREE market and the people that have the most control over it are the ones in the mirror---yep, them people.
Don't purchase something, and it WILL go down in price.
Inflation comes and goes---when everybody is throwing money around, companies raise their prices to make the most profit, when the price gets to high, they can either lower their prices or go out of business.
Not entirely true.
Our current President has to deal with a Democratic Congress that has a single digit approval rating.
Why do they have such a low rating?
Because they do not want to do ANYTHING that will make Bush and the republicans look good.
They will not cooperate with Republicans ---they are waiting for a Dem ( BO) to get in before they do any work.
Could backfire--maybe not.
The Republicans should be pounding on this---NO President is a King or dictator ( not yet) he has to deal with other people---So, what if BO gets in and people put a Republican Congress in because they remember the poor performance of the Dems?
We'll be in the same place. Like I said, this could really backfire on the Dems, they may not get their President.
I picked McCain 8 months ago--most people I know picked Edwards
BO or Romney.
I give McCain a better than even chance right now.
Barrack SHOULD be way ahead---considering everything.
I don't think McCain winning would be an upset although I can see how many would.
People just have to remember that the economy is NOT the Presidents job.
The Dems would like it to be, more votes more control--but the economy is not what our government is suppose to control.
I think we only need to look at Russia, Korea, Mexico etc, etc, and ask citizens of these countries " how did that work out for you"??
Dipper
Playboypenguin
Moderator
The word would be "skeptical" and not "ignorant." You are misusing the word.
It does not take a genius to realize if something does not add up (as the pics do not) you do not just take someone's word for it. That would be ignorant.
Or the word of her doctor or her husband or her family. At what statements count does a genius begin to realize that something DOES add up. How long does an ignorant person ignore it unless they have an agenda?
Prove to us that you didn't FAKE a pregnancy and we'll vote for you? Disingenuous, duplicitous fabricators. :barf:
Prove to us that you didn't FAKE a pregnancy and we'll vote for you? Disingenuous, duplicitous fabricators. :barf:
Playboypenguin
Moderator
You can't prove a negative. You can however go a long ways towards proving you did carry a child full term. Birth certificates, medical records, photographs, etc. I have yet to see anything like that and I know what a seven months pregnant woman looks like and the woman in those pics is not one. People sure were screaming for a birth certificate from Obama.
- Status