This Election Is (Probably) Over

[Beet]

J, Obama is the one you supported in the primaries, no? Hillary was Mary Sixpack, or at least she showed that she could convincingly pull herself off as one. That was one of the reasons I supported her.

Now, since you are giving up on the election, I want my party back.

[Beet]

This race is far from over dude.  Obama's advantage in fundraising hasn't manifested itself yet since McCain is trying to spend every penny he has before his convention September 1st.  Obama's organizational advantage isn't apparent yet, but it is dozens and dozens of times more powerful than McCain's.

McCain could have a "senior moment" on the campaign trail or any dozens of things could happen to change McCain's image from being the "tough guy" by November.

You are inaccurately extrapolating one debate in August all the way to November yo.

I certainly WANT to be wrong.

But history does repeat itself.  John McCain is no George W. Bush.  If we ever should have won Presidential elections, it was against that mouth-breathing, Little Lord ****pants.  He was and is dumb as a box of hammers.

Personally, I feel we never had much of a chance against Bush in 2000. He started the campaign leading the polls in every single state except for Tennessee and Vermont. He had 20 to 30 point leads over Gore; granted, those narrowed, but never fully closed. The conservative grassroots was far more organized- one source claimed that the Christian Coalition made over 50 million calls. Nor was Gore himself particularly inspiring (in a visit to my alma matter that fall, 800 people showed up. Compare that to the 3,600 who showed up for Howard Dean in the fall of 2003) Except for a few days in the Washington Post ABC tracking poll in September and October, Bush led in every single poll leading up to the election. Voters had displaced their distaste of Clinton's personality onto Gore. The closeness of the 2000 election was a highly unexpected event; almost miraculous.

We never really had a chance in 2004 either. The President who stood atop the ruins of the World Trade Center in September 2001 with a bullhorn and then restored America's pride with two wars was not going to lose reelection. Period. We might have had a chance with Edwards, but he probably would have lost.

This is our chance. This is the first time we are on an even or better than even playing field since 1996.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You may be right about the political maneuvering/Ken Starr crap. I have to admit I hadn't thought too much about that.

[Beet]

Obama was walking on eggshells. He's got a core, it's just a conflicted one. I've got a conflicted core too - (1) I think Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, (2) I'm pro-choice. I would ask Jesus about this, but he does not seem to reply. I did however send an e-mail to Michael Gerson today asking in his opinion whether it was possible to be both Christian and pro-choice. I received a polite note in reply saying that while he did not have time to reply to each email (understandable) he tried to review them all. I do think that I have a core, though.

[Beet]

You know, if a candidate loses, the next day, people here will be arguing the guy who lost couldn't have won, for reasons XY and Z.  It's a natural instinct, and it's wrong.  At this current moment, either McCain or Obama could win.  John Kerry could've won in 2004, and the Democrats' recent spate of "Bush couldn't be beat in 2004" are a way of emotionally distancing themselves from the pain of having such an important race slip through their fingers.

With the possible exception of Bob Dole, every major party candidate in the last 20 years could have won, and so could have Perot if he had played his cards right.

You could be right about that.

[Beet]

You know, if a candidate loses, the next day, people here will be arguing the guy who lost couldn't have won, for reasons XY and Z.  It's a natural instinct, and it's wrong.  At this current moment, either McCain or Obama could win.  John Kerry could've won in 2004, and the Democrats' recent spate of "Bush couldn't be beat in 2004" are a way of emotionally distancing themselves from the pain of having such an important race slip through their fingers.

With the possible exception of Bob Dole, every major party candidate in the last 20 years could have won, and so could have Perot if he had played his cards right.

You could be right about that.

He is right -

Of course, if McCain wins, next year many, many people will be saying that there was no way that a near freshman African-American Senator named Barack Hussein Obama could have defeated a POW war hero and maverick Senator of 20 years and Mikado's sensible words won't mean a thing, unfortunately.

[Beet]

You know, if a candidate loses, the next day, people here will be arguing the guy who lost couldn't have won, for reasons XY and Z.  It's a natural instinct, and it's wrong.  At this current moment, either McCain or Obama could win.  John Kerry could've won in 2004, and the Democrats' recent spate of "Bush couldn't be beat in 2004" are a way of emotionally distancing themselves from the pain of having such an important race slip through their fingers.

With the possible exception of Bob Dole, every major party candidate in the last 20 years could have won, and so could have Perot if he had played his cards right.

You could be right about that.

He is right -

Of course, if McCain wins, next year many, many people will be saying that there was no way that a near freshman African-American Senator named Barack Hussein Obama could have defeated a POW war hero and maverick Senator of 20 years.

They will?  Considering the present environment?  Maybe.

Especially considering the present environment, dont'cha think?

[Beet]

You know, if a candidate loses, the next day, people here will be arguing the guy who lost couldn't have won, for reasons XY and Z.  It's a natural instinct, and it's wrong.  At this current moment, either McCain or Obama could win.  John Kerry could've won in 2004, and the Democrats' recent spate of "Bush couldn't be beat in 2004" are a way of emotionally distancing themselves from the pain of having such an important race slip through their fingers.

With the possible exception of Bob Dole, every major party candidate in the last 20 years could have won, and so could have Perot if he had played his cards right.

You could be right about that.

He is right -

Of course, if McCain wins, next year many, many people will be saying that there was no way that a near freshman African-American Senator named Barack Hussein Obama could have defeated a POW war hero and maverick Senator of 20 years.

They will?  Considering the present environment?  Maybe.

Especially considering the present environment, dont'cha think?

History is sometimes interesting that way - most people have the idea now that Bush 41 was simply a shoo-in because Reagan.  Rather, Dukakis should have had a slight edge generically.

So since Bush is unpopular McCain is Dukakis in this scenario? I wouldn't go so far as to say McCain has a slight edge generically, but he certainly does have a huge edge by conventional biographical/resume measurements, and with a McCain win people will understandably see this as decisive. O/c, that doesn't mean they would be right (look at Kerry).