Can McCain defeat Obama?

[Frodo]

Most definitely -once the media gets to work, much of that shine and glitter on Obama will wear off. 

[Lief 🗽]

The last time that an inspirational/charismatic speaker lost to a man of mediocre oratory was, as far as I can remember, 1908, when Taft beat Bryan. Maybe lightning will strike again one hundred years later for John.

[© tweed]

Most definitely -once the media gets to work, much of that shine and glitter on Obama will wear off. 

if the shine and glitter survived New Hampshire it can survive anything.

[J. J.]

Ya know, I gotta be honest. It's hard NOT to like Obama...as a person. I've been reading about him lately, and I do like the guy. I can definitely see him winning the GE. Here's my new map of Obama/? vs. McCain/?

Obama needs to pick a WASP as his VP...Ben Nelson (D-NE) comes to mind, as he could help win over moderate votes. Maybe Mike Easley (D-NC), maybe Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Battlegrounds: Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Florida.
NOTE: these 8 states will be the ones focused on the most by both parties during the last two weeks of the election.

Nevada - close in 2004, will be close in 2008. Trending Dem on the presidential level. If Obama wins the popular vote, he wins here - Democrat.

New Mexico - a true swing state. It will follow the direction the country is headed - Democrat.

Colorado - alot like Nevada, except it's slightly more Republican on the national level, although trending Dem on the state level. Colorado Dems don't seem as whacked out as the ones on the West Coast and northeast, while the Republicans here aren't as "whacked out" as the ones in the South. McCain is a perfect fit for these Republicans, even as they still hold party registration advantage. Colorado will be very tight though as Dems continue to strengthen here - Republican.

Iowa - also a true swing state. Obama did very well in the primary. Turnout in numbers for him was huge. Should be the same in November - Democrat.

Missouri - always a bellweather. It has voted for the winner in every presidential election in the 20th century except 1956. Also, Democrats don't win without it. In some elections, it leaned slightly right of the national average. In some, it leaned slightly left. People should look here as a microcosm for the nation as a whole. African-Americans will turn out in droves in Kansas City and St. Louis, and I expect Obama to flip a few counties - Boone, for one (U of M), and maybe some in the southeast and north central - enough to squeak by - Democrat.

Wisconsin - Republicans will fall short as always...the end - Democrat.

Ohio - Trending Dem at the presidential level from 2000 to 2004. They kicked out DeWine and elected a Dem governor by landslide proportions. However, polls show McCain doing pretty well here. However, since the Republicans don't win without this state, although they could lose the election and still win here, I'll go out on a limb and say Obama wins by less than 1% - Democrat.

Florida - the Republicans are doing quite well in the sunshine state. They won in 2000, had a larger than expected victory in 2004, they won the governor's mansion in 2006, and the governor endorsed McCain. Alot of older people live in south Florida and like McCain...he's one of them. The panhandle will be as Republican as usual, McCain might offest Obama in south Florida, especially Broward and Palm Beach, and maybe Dade counties. Florida is always fools gold for Dems just like Wisonsin and Pennsylvania are for Republicans. McCain by 2-3% - Republican.

Virginia - the NEW battleground. This state wasn't even on the radar screen for the Dems in 2004. But, In 2004, Fairfax county goes for Kerry (1964 was the last time the county went Dem); in 2005, VA elected a Dem governor; in 2006, Allen lost a safe seat to an unknown opponent; in 2007, VA Dems took the state House and Senate; in 2008, Mark Warner will lock up & take the open senate seat possibly by a 3-2 margin; Obama defeated hillary Clinton in what was supposed to be a safe state for her by an eye-popping 2-1 margin in the primaries; Obama also led in ever single demographic group; turnout was also MASSIVE in the beltway. Republicans here are conservative and may not turnout as much for McCain. All of these signs point to a Dem victory in the Commonwealth FL-2000 style. Expect a recount here - Democrat.

OBAMA/? wins 313-225

Other states that won't be in play come the last week of the election, but might be closer than people think: Tennessee, North Carolina, Minnesota (GOP convention?/Pawlenty VP?), Kansas (Obama's mother/governor's endorsement), Montana, Idaho, Indiana, Connecticut & New Jersey (moderate Republicans)


any constructive criticism of my analysis is welcome...

I think you make PA gray.

[Mr. Morden]

The last time that an inspirational/charismatic speaker lost to a man of mediocre oratory was, as far as I can remember, 1908, when Taft beat Bryan. Maybe lightning will strike again one hundred years later for John.

Wasn't your first post in this thread?:

Yes. Obama isn't a very strong candidate.

[opebo]

Most definitely -once the media gets to work, much of that shine and glitter on Obama will wear off. 

No.  He'll always be shiny compared to the crazed mummy McCain.  Its all relative.

[Gustaf]

The last time that an inspirational/charismatic speaker lost to a man of mediocre oratory was, as far as I can remember, 1908, when Taft beat Bryan. Maybe lightning will strike again one hundred years later for John.

Nixon almost beat Kennedy. Besides, most charismatic figures are knocked out in the primaries. The reality is that true demagogues very rarely win the presidency. Reagan and Kennedy are among the few examples. Usually some variety of establishement politicians wins out.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I see Obama winning:

316-222

[Lief 🗽]

The last time that an inspirational/charismatic speaker lost to a man of mediocre oratory was, as far as I can remember, 1908, when Taft beat Bryan. Maybe lightning will strike again one hundred years later for John.

Wasn't your first post in this thread?:

Yes. Obama isn't a very strong candidate.

To be fair, that was before he won Iowa by 8%, tied or beat Clinton in all the early primary states, raised $30 million dollars in one month, showed his ability to play in all 50 states, and bested the Clinton machine.

[Whacker77]

I think McCain can win, but it will be difficult for many reasons.  First, he must use this period of time to frame Obama as a liberal in the mold of McGovern.  His Senate voting record does put him to the left of Bernie Sanders after all.  Second, he must not be afraid to campaign negatively against Obama.  It will be tough though because, at least right now, the majority of the big media is for him.  It's an uphill battle for McCain, but there are eight months to go.

[Democratic Hawk]

The last time that an inspirational/charismatic speaker lost to a man of mediocre oratory was, as far as I can remember, 1908, when Taft beat Bryan. Maybe lightning will strike again one hundred years later for John.

Nixon almost beat Kennedy. Besides, most charismatic figures are knocked out in the primaries. The reality is that true demagogues very rarely win the presidency. Reagan and Kennedy are among the few examples. Usually some variety of establishement politicians wins out.

Is it fair to characterise Obama as a demagogue? He's a gifted orator, no doubt about it but a demagogue?

Obama is a very modest, very unassuming man. It's true that he's, politically, appealing to people's hopes and expectations for a better future, but not to their fears or prejudices; which is why I've come to see him in a highly positive, rather than negative, light

Dave

[RRB]

In the end, I doubt that much will matter because McCain has nothing to run on other than more of the same.  Obama is running on a campaign of hope.  How do you run against hope?  However, the right wing blogs and talk shows will be spreading plenty of talk about how he isn't patriotic and that he is too liberal (as if that's a bad thing) to make McCain very competitive.  However, I believe that it will be turnout that will end McCains bid once everything is over, and the more the right smears Obama the more votes he will get. 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

In the end, I doubt that much will matter because McCain has nothing to run on other than more of the same.  Obama is running on a campaign of hope.  How do you run against hope?  However, the right wing blogs and talk shows will be spreading plenty of talk about how he isn't patriotic and that he is too liberal (as if that's a bad thing) to make McCain very competitive.  However, I believe that it will be turnout that will end McCains bid once everything is over, and the more the right smears Obama the more votes he will get. 

.. with actual policies and solutions?

Obama's entire presidency is about hope because upon electing him, the American people are relying entirely on hope because we really don't know what we'll be getting.

[Michael Z]

In the end, I doubt that much will matter because McCain has nothing to run on other than more of the same.  Obama is running on a campaign of hope.  How do you run against hope?  However, the right wing blogs and talk shows will be spreading plenty of talk about how he isn't patriotic and that he is too liberal (as if that's a bad thing) to make McCain very competitive.  However, I believe that it will be turnout that will end McCains bid once everything is over, and the more the right smears Obama the more votes he will get. 

.. with actual policies and solutions?

Obama's entire presidency is about hope because upon electing him, the American people are relying entirely on hope because we really don't know what we'll be getting.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I'm so sick of this "Obama has no policies"-crap.

[The Hack Hater]

In the end, I doubt that much will matter because McCain has nothing to run on other than more of the same.  Obama is running on a campaign of hope.  How do you run against hope?  However, the right wing blogs and talk shows will be spreading plenty of talk about how he isn't patriotic and that he is too liberal (as if that's a bad thing) to make McCain very competitive.  However, I believe that it will be turnout that will end McCains bid once everything is over, and the more the right smears Obama the more votes he will get. 

.. with actual policies and solutions?

Obama's entire presidency is about hope because upon electing him, the American people are relying entirely on hope because we really don't know what we'll be getting.

On the other hand, McCain is much older than Obama, so the image of Obama as an "agent of hope" would loom ever more powerfully. That alone wouldn't make the difference, but when you have a candidate that's made clear his position on Iraq, it doesn't bode well for him.

[Gustaf]

The last time that an inspirational/charismatic speaker lost to a man of mediocre oratory was, as far as I can remember, 1908, when Taft beat Bryan. Maybe lightning will strike again one hundred years later for John.

Nixon almost beat Kennedy. Besides, most charismatic figures are knocked out in the primaries. The reality is that true demagogues very rarely win the presidency. Reagan and Kennedy are among the few examples. Usually some variety of establishement politicians wins out.

Is it fair to characterise Obama as a demagogue? He's a gifted orator, no doubt about it but a demagogue?

Obama is a very modest, very unassuming man. It's true that he's, politically, appealing to people's hopes and expectations for a better future, but not to their fears or prejudices; which is why I've come to see him in a highly positive, rather than negative, light

Dave

He fires up crowds with empty words, appealing to emotions instead of appealing to reason. And he does it to an extent that makes him a bit of a demagouge. He offers false hope in many areas and that is what strikes me as demagogic. He reminds me a lot of Bryan, though I'm certain that Bryan sincerely believed in what he said. I don't really think Obama does, deep down. 

[The Mikado]

The last time that an inspirational/charismatic speaker lost to a man of mediocre oratory was, as far as I can remember, 1908, when Taft beat Bryan. Maybe lightning will strike again one hundred years later for John.

Nixon almost beat Kennedy. Besides, most charismatic figures are knocked out in the primaries. The reality is that true demagogues very rarely win the presidency. Reagan and Kennedy are among the few examples. Usually some variety of establishement politicians wins out.

Is it fair to characterise Obama as a demagogue? He's a gifted orator, no doubt about it but a demagogue?

Obama is a very modest, very unassuming man. It's true that he's, politically, appealing to people's hopes and expectations for a better future, but not to their fears or prejudices; which is why I've come to see him in a highly positive, rather than negative, light

Dave

He fires up crowds with empty words, appealing to emotions instead of appealing to reason. And he does it to an extent that makes him a bit of a demagouge. He offers false hope in many areas and that is what strikes me as demagogic. He reminds me a lot of Bryan, though I'm certain that Bryan sincerely believed in what he said. I don't really think Obama does, deep down. 

I don't really disagree...I'd just like to say that the "false hope" I feel today due to Obama is a hell of a lot better than the "no hope" I've felt ever since 9/11/01, and more specifically, since March of 2003.

[RRB]

"It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"  or so said Lincoln.  Being vague on Obama's part may be genious.  As long as he rallys the voters and says very little, McCain will have little to use to go after him.  In other words, why give your opponent material to hold against you. 

As of right now, Obama is not giving anybody anything to sink their teeth into.  How do you attack someone who doesn't lay out any positions.  Genious, absolute genious.

It's hard to swiftboat a man who provides his opponent with no swiftboat.

[Person Man]

In the end, I doubt that much will matter because McCain has nothing to run on other than more of the same.  Obama is running on a campaign of hope.  How do you run against hope?  However, the right wing blogs and talk shows will be spreading plenty of talk about how he isn't patriotic and that he is too liberal (as if that's a bad thing) to make McCain very competitive.  However, I believe that it will be turnout that will end McCains bid once everything is over, and the more the right smears Obama the more votes he will get. 

.. with actual policies and solutions?

Obama's entire presidency is about hope because upon electing him, the American people are relying entirely on hope because we really don't know what we'll be getting.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I'm so sick of this "Obama has no policies"-crap.

[Reaganfan]

Time will tell if Obama can beat McCain. Right now, I think he loses. Too many people are out there who understand that while we talk about the economy and Iraq...one major thing looms. FOREIGN POLICY. Terror. The threat is real. Here we are 6 years after the crash of four airplanes and our nation still feels the impact. Never in the history of war did we elect a person with no experience. If we do...I hate to see the world in 2012.

[Democratic Hawk]

Time will tell if Obama can beat McCain. Right now, I think he loses. Too many people are out there who understand that while we talk about the economy and Iraq...one major thing looms. FOREIGN POLICY. Terror. The threat is real. Here we are 6 years after the crash of four airplanes and our nation still feels the impact. Never in the history of war did we elect a person with no experience. If we do...I hate to see the world in 2012.

And we all know what a complete utter FAILURE Bush has been on foreign policy. I'm not convinced McCain would mark enough of a clean break, a change of course, from His Ineptness, who has not only rallied enemies but antogonised allies

Coming up 7 years since 9/11 and Bin Laden, still at large, national security is something which should be working against Republicans now

It took a Democratic Congress to finally legislate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That tells me Democrats are every bit as serious about protecting America. That said, I don't approve of Democrats failing to extend the Protect America Act of 2007. In the security vs liberty debate, I'll always err on the side of security

The argument that Lieberman makes that in a time of war, McCain is the man to be president doesn't quite wash with me. Be that the case, what is to stop Republicans taking their sweet time in prosecuting wars and continuously using this as a reason to make the case for a Republican president in perpetuity [shudders]. That gives weight to Kennedy's argument that the Republicans concocted a war for political gain. The fact that I disagree with Kennedy on that is neither here nor there but as far as Republicans go, I'm increasingly cynical

Had Bush not been, frankly, so piss poor, I might have been more susceptible to McCain going through 2008 but sorry he has aided and abetted Bush's incompetence way more than either of the potential Democratic nominees. In fact, Republicans want to hang their heads in shame for not nominating McCain in 2000, perhaps then America, and the world, would have been in a better state than what it is today. Had McCain been approaching the end of his presidency, I dare say, all events being the same, Iraq would have turned out for the better sooner rather than later

Whether we are approaching, a new era working towards peace, prosperity along with not only effective, but enlightened, leadership I don't know but it is a very attractive prospect to a failing status quo

Obama talking to Iran, Cuba, wherever, would be pretty much in the tradition of Nixon talking with China and Reagan talking with the Soviets. And if I recall correctly, they were pretty successful when it come to foreign policy. As for conditions, they can be thrashed out there and then

If I thought Obama was lacking in policy detail and substance, he would not have secured my 'endorsement'. The argument that his words are but empty does not wash with the Hawk and, after a wasted eight years, the Democrats deserve their fair shot. Staid, old and tired McCain is, frankly, eight years too late

Experience and foreign policy credentials, relative to Obama, are, undoubtedly, McCain's strengths but when that experience and those credentials are pretty much tied to the notion that America is moving in the 'wrong direction' they out to count for little. In 2008, as in 1980, there is a strong case for 'change' when you consider the failed years which immediately preceded them. As if John McCain could possibly be an agent for 'change'. He's coming up 72, though he looks more 80, and has been on Capitol Hill since dinosaurs roamed the earth

What Obama is proposing goes way over and beyond change for its own sake. The change he espouses is something, I consider, to be sorely needed. And no my support for Obama is not born out of adulation. I've never been one to blow sunshine up politician's arses and I ain't starting now

In fact, I don't envy whoever will be the next president be it McCain, Obama or Clinton, not one iota, given the mess they are about to inherit; which is why this realist will be keeping his expectations low

Dave

[Gustaf]

Okay, Hawk, what are those changes Obama is proposing which goes "way over and beyond" change for its own sake? Because, amusingly enough, in your response claiming Obama has substance you didn't actually give any specifics.

[Democratic Hawk]

Okay, Hawk, what are those changes Obama is proposing which goes "way over and beyond" change for its own sake? Because, amusingly enough, in your response claiming Obama has substance you didn't actually give any specifics.

I've already discussed, at considerable length, why I'm supporting Senator Obama, why I've withdrawn my initial 'endorsement' of Senator Clinton and why I'm not supporting Senator McCain

Should I disagree with Sen. Obama over the course of this campaign, I'll be saying so. I won't be blowing sunshine up his arse. I'm sure there are many issues at which I'm at significant variance with the senator just as there will be issues on which I'm closer to Senators Clinton or McCain

You're backing your guy and I'm backing mine. And that's all I'm saying on the subject

Dave

[Whacker77]

I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind on Obama.  I won't vote for him, but he does provide substance on his website.  It's liberal substance, but it is substance none the less.  As of yet, he's not provided a lot of it on the campaign trail though.  Truthfully, he hasn't needed to do so.  The message of hope has been enough and why get mired in details if he doesn't need to do so.  Attachment to a candidate is more powerful than the details.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind on Obama.  I won't vote for him, but he does provide substance on his website.  It's liberal substance, but it is substance none the less.  As of yet, he's not provided a lot of it on the campaign trail though.  Truthfully, he hasn't needed to do so.  The message of hope has been enough and why get mired in details if he doesn't need to do so.  Attachment to a candidate is more powerful than the details.

Quite an accurate assessment, I'd say

Dave