|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 18, 2020, 08:39:27 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  Who is reponsible for McCain's imminent election loss ?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Who is reponsible for McCain's imminent election loss ?
#1
McCain himself - with his angry and arrogant approach towards Obama
 
#2
Saint Sarah Palin - Who legally abuses her power and can't name a magazine/journal in interviews
 
#3
McCain campaign - Who drove off majority of undecided voters with uber negative campaigns
 
#4
George Bush - Representing 90 % of John McCain and his failed policies
 
#5
The failing economy
 
#6
A combination of one or more factors from above (please specify)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 99

Author Topic: Who is reponsible for McCain's imminent election loss ?  (Read 19710 times)
Mr.Jones
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 269
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 25, 2008, 09:56:09 pm »

Why do you think McCain camp is looking towards a big election washing come November the 4th ?

IMHO Option 6, a combination of failing economy + Bushi + Saint Sarah.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2008, 10:05:31 pm »

A whole bunch of bankers and people getting loans.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,911


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2008, 10:07:05 pm »

McCain himself, ultimately.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,541


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2008, 10:45:21 pm »

The voters, ultimately.

Certainly McCain ran a messy campaign that hurt him badly, Palin was probably a push (fired up the hardcore base, but turned off the moderates), and his positioning in the primaries associating himself with Bush didn't help much either.

But ultimately, it is the choice of the people - it always has been.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2008, 12:06:58 am »

Sarah Palin has amounted to a net negative for the McCain camp.  She solidified the base but her real purpose was to bring in the PUMAS and instead she sent them running to Obama.

The McCain campaign has been a mess from the start.  Although McCain's primary comeback was nothing short of astounding it was perhaps an indication that the campaign was poorly organized.  Looking back, I'm beginning to think that McCain's won only because the Bush voters from 2000 were so split up amongst the other candidates.  The race really should have been Romney vs. Huckabee but with candidates like Guiliani and Thompson siphoning away their core supporters McCain was left with the plurality of the remaining votes.  I'll give their campaign credit for winning New Hampshire but certainly not Florida or South Carolina which are really the two states that gave him the momentum he needed to win Super Tuesday.

George Bush, um enough said.

The failing economy, this has basically been McCain's "October surprise."  Up until the financial collapse it was looking like McCain still had a decent shot, but since then his numbers have tanked in several key states that he absolutely needed to win.  Florida, North Carolina, and Missouri were suddenly back on the table and Colorado and Virginia moved dramatically towards Obama.
Logged
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the crushing of the Trump
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 90,862
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2008, 12:08:23 am »

Sarah Palin has amounted to a net negative for the McCain camp.  She solidified the base but her real purpose was to bring in the PUMAS and instead she sent them running to Obama.

No, wrong. Not unless the McCain campaign is even dumber than I think (and considering my opinion of them...)
Logged
Ronnie
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,982
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2008, 12:08:50 am »

The economy
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,990


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2008, 12:24:54 am »

Bush had a lot to do with it. I doubt Obama would break 60% with under 30s if Bush hadn't f'ed up the country these last 8 years. Oh and saint sarah didn't help much either.
Logged
cannonia
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 960
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.42, S: -1.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2008, 02:57:10 am »

The race really should have been Romney vs. Huckabee

Gag me with a spoon!

But yeah, the voters (general and primary) will be responsible for his loss.  McCain himself is a weak campaigner, so it's kind of amusing that he won the primaries based on "electability".
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,909


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2008, 03:02:31 am »
« Edited: October 26, 2008, 03:04:14 am by phknrocket1k »

Bush's approval rating.

If Bush's approval rating is 50% or better, Obama or any Democrat for that matter would be having a harder time.

Than again if Bush's rating was 50% or better we wouldn't be seeing McCain vs. Obama.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,232
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2008, 05:02:17 am »

Options 3 to 5, though mostly 4. Options 1 and 2 don't help either, but they're not at fault.
Logged
Iosif
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,609


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2008, 10:10:42 am »
« Edited: October 26, 2008, 10:17:14 am by Iosif »

I think blaming it entirely on the economy is dishonest, as Obama led throughout the summer and McCain only had a small, low single digit lead for two weeks directly after his convention. The polls did turn after the crash but there's nothing to suggest that McCain's lead would've remained otherwise.

The real answer is the Republican failure of the past 8 years. Pretty much any competent democrat would've beaten McCain.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,051


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2008, 11:29:37 am »

Loss?  Wishful thinking there old man.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2008, 03:57:34 pm »

McCain - but not for the reasons the originator of this thread suggested.

First, remember that American Presidential elections have largely been decided on three issue groups: (1) the economy, (2) social issues (1968 - present), and (3) foreign policy/national defense.

McCain has really ticked off economic conservatives with his support for bailout mania (he even goes beyond Obama with this nonsense).  Although he now claims he favors tax cuts, his record is one of supporting higher taxes, so you can believe what he says now, or what he has done for years in Congress.  His attacks earlier this year on pharmaceutical companies as (in his words) "the enemy," just underscores his economic illiteracy.

With respect to social issues, McCain has been largely silent.  While Obama supports infanticide (he has yet to repudiate this), McCain has been silent.  While Obama has a long record of attacking the right to keep and bear arms (and self-defense), McCain has been largely silent.  Although several states (including the largest, California) are voting on bans on gay marriage, McCain has been largely silent.  McCain has on two or three occasions this year contradicted himself on his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (sometimes he's for it, sometimes, er, maybe, er).

While McCain briefly stung Obama when the Russians invaded Georgia (Obama advocated a "nuanced" approach of appeasement), he dropped this area.  There has been no mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative by McCain (Obama opposes defending the United States from attack with the or any other program other than surrender).  There has been no mention of the need to continue intelligence operations against the Islamic extremists (Obama largely opposes this).



Logged
Virginia Yellow Dog
Frodo
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,920
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2008, 04:04:08 pm »
« Edited: October 26, 2008, 04:08:28 pm by Frodo »

A combination of all the above doomed McCain before he even started campaigning. 

No Republican, not even McCain, could have won this election given the conditions listed above.  The best they could have hoped for was to make this election closer than it otherwise would have been, and McCain -until he picked Sarah Palin- was certainly on his way to fulfilling those hopes on preventing a humiliating Obama landslide, if not an Obama victory.   
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,501
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2008, 08:45:07 am »

Different people at different times.

Bush - naturally ANY Republican would have had a hard time this year having to follow on from the president. McCain still has done better than probably any of the possible contenders, including Romney. But the Bush legacy is pretty much a poison challice, which set everything off in a bad direction.

Palin - McCain has often said that he takes gambles. Sarah Palin was a MASSIVE gamble... or if you like, calculated risk. At the outset she energised the base, and was a curiosity, the sheer surprise of the pick, and the fact that it was a woman - boosted general support. However, as people realised who she was, what she stood for - independent and moderates fled, the base was energised...but at what cost. Another folksy intellectually incurious.... well basically Bush in pumps...

McCain - the fundamental issue was the campaign had no narrative, no overiding theme. There was no discipline, the campaign was constantly wrong-footed and by going so overwhelmingly negative, created such a contrasting image with the Obama campaign that it became mired in the mud of its own creation.
Logged
stry_cat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 367


Political Matrix
E: 6.25, S: -1.38

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2008, 02:16:11 pm »

McCain - but not for the reasons the originator of this thread suggested.

First, remember that American Presidential elections have largely been decided on three issue groups: (1) the economy, (2) social issues (1968 - present), and (3) foreign policy/national defense.

McCain has really ticked off economic conservatives with his support for bailout mania (he even goes beyond Obama with this nonsense).  Although he now claims he favors tax cuts, his record is one of supporting higher taxes, so you can believe what he says now, or what he has done for years in Congress.  His attacks earlier this year on pharmaceutical companies as (in his words) "the enemy," just underscores his economic illiteracy.

With respect to social issues, McCain has been largely silent.  While Obama supports infanticide (he has yet to repudiate this), McCain has been silent.  While Obama has a long record of attacking the right to keep and bear arms (and self-defense), McCain has been largely silent.  Although several states (including the largest, California) are voting on bans on gay marriage, McCain has been largely silent.  McCain has on two or three occasions this year contradicted himself on his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (sometimes he's for it, sometimes, er, maybe, er).

While McCain briefly stung Obama when the Russians invaded Georgia (Obama advocated a "nuanced" approach of appeasement), he dropped this area.  There has been no mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative by McCain (Obama opposes defending the United States from attack with the or any other program other than surrender).  There has been no mention of the need to continue intelligence operations against the Islamic extremists (Obama largely opposes this).

Can't argue with that. 

I'd just add that in McInsane's bailout mania he showed that he couldn't multitask and had to suspend his campaign.  If he couldn't handle that he certainly can't handle being President. 

Also McInsane must believe that by picking someone like Palin, he'll energize his base.  Buzz sorry wrong.  We saw it when Dole picked Jack Kemp.  There's a brief surge of energy then the base realizes the top of the ticket is what really matters and support dries up.

All of this added to what is likely to be heavy turnout for the Dems and it is game over for the Republicans this year.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2008, 06:21:41 pm »

McCain - but not for the reasons the originator of this thread suggested.

First, remember that American Presidential elections have largely been decided on three issue groups: (1) the economy, (2) social issues (1968 - present), and (3) foreign policy/national defense.

McCain has really ticked off economic conservatives with his support for bailout mania (he even goes beyond Obama with this nonsense).  Although he now claims he favors tax cuts, his record is one of supporting higher taxes, so you can believe what he says now, or what he has done for years in Congress.  His attacks earlier this year on pharmaceutical companies as (in his words) "the enemy," just underscores his economic illiteracy.

With respect to social issues, McCain has been largely silent.  While Obama supports infanticide (he has yet to repudiate this), McCain has been silent.  While Obama has a long record of attacking the right to keep and bear arms (and self-defense), McCain has been largely silent.  Although several states (including the largest, California) are voting on bans on gay marriage, McCain has been largely silent.  McCain has on two or three occasions this year contradicted himself on his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (sometimes he's for it, sometimes, er, maybe, er).

While McCain briefly stung Obama when the Russians invaded Georgia (Obama advocated a "nuanced" approach of appeasement), he dropped this area.  There has been no mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative by McCain (Obama opposes defending the United States from attack with the or any other program other than surrender).  There has been no mention of the need to continue intelligence operations against the Islamic extremists (Obama largely opposes this).

Can't argue with that. 

I'd just add that in McInsane's bailout mania he showed that he couldn't multitask and had to suspend his campaign.  If he couldn't handle that he certainly can't handle being President. 

Also McInsane must believe that by picking someone like Palin, he'll energize his base.  Buzz sorry wrong.  We saw it when Dole picked Jack Kemp.  There's a brief surge of energy then the base realizes the top of the ticket is what really matters and support dries up.

All of this added to what is likely to be heavy turnout for the Dems and it is game over for the Republicans this year.

Still hoping enough people will get to the polling booth, take a look at the ballot, and vote for Barr as a vote for freedom, and deny the "winning" candidate a majority.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,104
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2008, 07:11:55 pm »

McCain - but not for the reasons the originator of this thread suggested.

First, remember that American Presidential elections have largely been decided on three issue groups: (1) the economy, (2) social issues (1968 - present), and (3) foreign policy/national defense.

McCain has really ticked off economic conservatives with his support for bailout mania (he even goes beyond Obama with this nonsense).  Although he now claims he favors tax cuts, his record is one of supporting higher taxes, so you can believe what he says now, or what he has done for years in Congress.  His attacks earlier this year on pharmaceutical companies as (in his words) "the enemy," just underscores his economic illiteracy.

With respect to social issues, McCain has been largely silent.  While Obama supports infanticide (he has yet to repudiate this), McCain has been silent.  While Obama has a long record of attacking the right to keep and bear arms (and self-defense), McCain has been largely silent.  Although several states (including the largest, California) are voting on bans on gay marriage, McCain has been largely silent.  McCain has on two or three occasions this year contradicted himself on his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (sometimes he's for it, sometimes, er, maybe, er).

While McCain briefly stung Obama when the Russians invaded Georgia (Obama advocated a "nuanced" approach of appeasement), he dropped this area.  There has been no mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative by McCain (Obama opposes defending the United States from attack with the or any other program other than surrender).  There has been no mention of the need to continue intelligence operations against the Islamic extremists (Obama largely opposes this).

It is sure a testament to McCain's weaknesses that America is about to elect a man who supports infanticide and surrender and appeasement to the Russians and the terrorists. Do you think a stalwart opponent of amnesty for illegals, such as Mitt Romney or Fred Dalton Thompson, could have defeated Obama or at least come closer than McCain will?
Logged
Workers' Friend
Bob Dole
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,294
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: 9.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2008, 07:13:10 pm »

Bush and the economy,  If Bush didn't screw it up, we wouldn't have the risk of a really liberal President.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2008, 07:13:19 pm »

McCain - but not for the reasons the originator of this thread suggested.

First, remember that American Presidential elections have largely been decided on three issue groups: (1) the economy, (2) social issues (1968 - present), and (3) foreign policy/national defense.

McCain has really ticked off economic conservatives with his support for bailout mania (he even goes beyond Obama with this nonsense).  Although he now claims he favors tax cuts, his record is one of supporting higher taxes, so you can believe what he says now, or what he has done for years in Congress.  His attacks earlier this year on pharmaceutical companies as (in his words) "the enemy," just underscores his economic illiteracy.

With respect to social issues, McCain has been largely silent.  While Obama supports infanticide (he has yet to repudiate this), McCain has been silent.  While Obama has a long record of attacking the right to keep and bear arms (and self-defense), McCain has been largely silent.  Although several states (including the largest, California) are voting on bans on gay marriage, McCain has been largely silent.  McCain has on two or three occasions this year contradicted himself on his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (sometimes he's for it, sometimes, er, maybe, er).

While McCain briefly stung Obama when the Russians invaded Georgia (Obama advocated a "nuanced" approach of appeasement), he dropped this area.  There has been no mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative by McCain (Obama opposes defending the United States from attack with the or any other program other than surrender).  There has been no mention of the need to continue intelligence operations against the Islamic extremists (Obama largely opposes this).

It is sure a testament to McCain's weaknesses that America is about to elect a man who supports infanticide and surrender and appeasement to the Russians and the terrorists. Do you think a stalwart opponent of amnesty for illegals, such as Mitt Romney or Fred Dalton Thompson, could have defeated Obama or at least come closer than McCain will?

Romney no, but thompson, yes.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2008, 07:38:45 pm »


I hope you're not meaning that Romney would have less of a chance against Obama than Thompson.  That's just ridiculous.  Or perhaps you're asserting Romney does not oppose amnesty?

Sorry to dash your hopes, but that is exactly what I meant.  And, no, it is not ridiculous!

The reason being that fundies, for some reason which escapes me, have taken a strong dislike to Mormons.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2008, 08:32:07 pm »

Well Fuzzy, let me elaborate.

First, it is true that Thompson ran a terrible campaign this year (and in 2007) because he really didn't want the job (didn't have the proverbial "fire in the belly").

Second, the electorate is divided into three categories: (1) those who will vote for the Democrat party nominee, (2) those who will vote for the Republican nominee, and (3) those who decide elections.

McCain went out of his way to antagonize many in the third group (which Thompson didn't).

Romney was a good candidate who suffered from a very unfair attack on his religion by the fundies (who by themselves do NOT have the power to either select the Republican nominee ir the victor in the general election), but without whose support it is almost impossible for the Republican nominee to win election.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,257
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2008, 12:35:31 pm »

Bush hasn't made it easier, but to quote Carville "It's the economy, stupid!"

People vote with their wallets in general- compare the current status of Labour in the UK, the SPD in 2005 and the US in 1992.

It's rare for it to go for another reasons. This is not UK 1997.
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2008, 04:17:06 pm »

he's really not been a good candidate.  He comes off poorly.  He picked Sarah Palin, which was a major faux pas, not due to the abuse of power, but due to the lack of vetting of her abilities and knowledge, frankly.  I'm fairly sure people were looking for someone other than Obama and McCain's resume and his reputation were actually quite good as a candidate to follow Bush.  He just totally failed in every respect to justify the opinion that the media had of him.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.203 seconds with 17 queries.