McCain Says He Could Lose Over War Issue

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD8V1I6PO0

Even he admits it.

[Keystone Phil]

Who isn't admitting he could lose? Of course he can. The fanatics who think their candidate is guaranteed a win are on the other side.

[Alcon]

Refreshing to see a candidate who doesn't BS over whether he could lose/win.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

Of course he could lose over the war issue. It's just those loons on the left who think its inevitable that CHANGE and HOPE will walk into the White House.

[exopolitician]

Of course he could lose over the war issue. It's just those loons on the left who think its inevitable that CHANGE and HOPE will walk into the White House.

You do know Change is a central theme in McCain's campaign too right?

[bullmoose88]

Refreshing to see a candidate who doesn't BS over whether he culd lose/win.

Indeed...my feeling is the war is becoming less and less of an issue right now...while the economy has gained prominence (may not be the best thing for McCain either, but better than a bad war situation)

[Sam Spade]

Refreshing to see a candidate who doesn't BS over whether he culd lose/win.

Indeed...my feeling is the war is becoming less and less of an issue right now...while the economy has gained prominence (may not be the best thing for McCain either, but better than a bad war situation)

Exactly right...  Interestingly, I suspect that if the war had not died off as an issue, Hillary Clinton would be the presumptive Dem nominee right now.  You can only start falling for platitudes if the concreteness of the situation at hand is not readily apparent.

Of course, if the surge hadn't succeeded, McCain would be nowhere near the nomination. 

This, of course, is the reason why politics is an unpredictable beast.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

Of course he could lose over the war issue. It's just those loons on the left who think its inevitable that CHANGE and HOPE will walk into the White House.

You do know Change is a central theme in McCain's campaign too right?

You know that I mean ...

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is how Obama should run his campaign:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's it.

[Sam Spade]

This is how Obama should run his campaign:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's it.

What does he want to be?  Another Thomas Dewey?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is how Obama should run his campaign:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's it.

What does he want to be?  Another Thomas Dewey?

No, but he needs to hammer McCain on those issues, over and over again.

[Sam Spade]

This is how Obama should run his campaign:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's it.

What does he want to be?  Another Thomas Dewey?

No, but he needs to hammer McCain on those issues, over and over again.

Specifics?

[Lief 🗽]

Exactly right...  Interestingly, I suspect that if the war had not died off as an issue, Hillary Clinton would be the presumptive Dem nominee right now.  You can only start falling for platitudes if the concreteness of the situation at hand is not readily apparent.

There's no way Clinton wins the Democratic primary if the war is still a big issue.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is how Obama should run his campaign:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's it.

What does he want to be?  Another Thomas Dewey?

No, but he needs to hammer McCain on those issues, over and over again.

Specifics?

On the war, he needs to point out that McCain has supported Bush on the war from the beginning, and that a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of Bush's policy on Iraq.  In regards to the recession, those comments by McCain about not knowing much about the economy need to be used.  Finally, Obama just needs to talk about how McCain has supported Bush for 8 years, and is basically 4 more years of George W. Bush.

[Sam Spade]

Exactly right...  Interestingly, I suspect that if the war had not died off as an issue, Hillary Clinton would be the presumptive Dem nominee right now.  You can only start falling for platitudes if the concreteness of the situation at hand is not readily apparent.

There's no way Clinton wins the Democratic primary if the war is still a big issue.

You're highly underestimating the factor of experience in that type of scenario.  Also, in that scenario, "hope" and "change" remain buzzwords, not statements of belief or something.

Obama got no traction at all (beyond his initial push) in the polls until the war started to steeply decline in importance as an issue.  I suspect there's an interesting little correlation there, since hindsight is 20/20.

[perdedor]

If McCain wants to make this campaign about Iraq and terrorism, like Bush before him...then I will guarantee that he'll lose. People aren't going to buy fear mongering, fascist like crap this time around. However, if he runs on a balance of issues and remains sane (the latter a huge if), he'll be a formidable opponent.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Exactly right...  Interestingly, I suspect that if the war had not died off as an issue, Hillary Clinton would be the presumptive Dem nominee right now.  You can only start falling for platitudes if the concreteness of the situation at hand is not readily apparent.

There's no way Clinton wins the Democratic primary if the war is still a big issue.

You're highly underestimating the factor of experience in that type of scenario.  Also, in that scenario, "hope" and "change" remain buzzwords, not statements of belief or something.

Obama got no traction at all (beyond his initial push) in the polls until the war started to steeply decline in importance as an issue.  I suspect there's an interesting little correlation there, since hindsight is 20/20.

The hardline anti-war movement has always favored Obama (or Edwards). But never Hillary.

[Sam Spade]

This is how Obama should run his campaign:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's it.

What does he want to be?  Another Thomas Dewey?

No, but he needs to hammer McCain on those issues, over and over again.

Specifics?

On the war, he needs to point out that McCain has supported Bush on the war from the beginning, and that a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of Bush's policy on Iraq.  In regards to the recession, those comments by McCain about not knowing much about the economy need to be used.  Finally, Obama just needs to talk about how McCain has supported Bush for 8 years, and is basically 4 more years of George W. Bush.

The economy comments were tried by Romney and didn't work.  Oddly enough, those whose economic position was worse supported McCain much more strongly than those who didn't.  Maybe it'll work better in the general, who knows...

Other than that, you have one suggestion - tie him to Bush.  You're going to have to be more creative than that.

[Sam Spade]

Exactly right...  Interestingly, I suspect that if the war had not died off as an issue, Hillary Clinton would be the presumptive Dem nominee right now.  You can only start falling for platitudes if the concreteness of the situation at hand is not readily apparent.

There's no way Clinton wins the Democratic primary if the war is still a big issue.

You're highly underestimating the factor of experience in that type of scenario.  Also, in that scenario, "hope" and "change" remain buzzwords, not statements of belief or something.

Obama got no traction at all (beyond his initial push) in the polls until the war started to steeply decline in importance as an issue.  I suspect there's an interesting little correlation there, since hindsight is 20/20.

The hardline anti-war movement has always favored Obama (or Edwards). But never Hillary.

That has nothing to do with my point.  Besides, the "hardline anti-war movement" types are not a majority within the Democratic party, and are certainly not enough to win a primary. (much less a state, I suspect).

[exopolitician]

Apparently McCain has "retracted" this statement....whoopsies