So what happened to McCain?

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:54 pm

All the pundits point to the economy. It's the same thing that brought Clinton into office.

It was the deal breaker for the Republicans. Just look at ALL races this term. Stuff happened, and a Republican was captain at the time.

You are right, cxt, that Obama had a great organization. But the Republicans will learn from Barack's $700 million effort. As they say, money is the mother's milk of politics. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Forget "I won't take from special interests." This has changed the political process for a long time to come.

- Bill

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:32 am

Yup. I don't think you'll see a Republican taking public money for a really, really long time. Obviously it doesn't help you to win when the other side doesn't restrict itself.

Principles? Don't need 'em.

Just promise hope.

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:45 am

Yeah, if you don't take public money, of COURSE you're automatically principled. There was never a swift boat cabal, a Willie Horton race bait, the nonsense about Obama wanting detailed sex ed for kindergartners, the endless negative ads in lieu of anything solid from the republicans, the exploitation of 9/11, the vague comments about Obama, the tie-in with his middle name and vague suggestions we don't know who he is and how he's dangerous. It's just been a pure shining example of kind, honest, and gentle politics from Karl Rove and the rest of the RNC slam machine, and reversing his position and deciding to run on donations makes Obama the antichrist. So sayeth the electoral college... or is that not how the cookie crumbled?

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:03 am

Your favorite candidate lose, Ian?

tigereye · Post by **tigereye** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:24 pm

It was a long contest and as any contest this can have only one winner. Obama has the lucky star!
With his winning he has already done more for America's reputation around the world than anybody else in the last century.
Expectations are high towards him and towards his administration.I hope clear minded individuals will understand
he is not a God,neither a magician.
I congratulate them to have the courage to go the distance,to have the courage to face the challenges and be successful in their effort!!!

As a Martial Artist we learn to respect the one who failed.
Mr.McCain probably did not always choose the best strategy but he kept fighting till the end...
He deserves our respect too.

I strongly believe something great happened there which will influence the whole world.
Congratulation to all Americans! God Bless You!

cxt · Post by **cxt** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:56 pm

IJ

You do realize that list can easily be applied to Obama and his supporters....right?

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:21 pm

tigereye wrote: It was a long contest

Tony Blair was on either The Daily Show or The Colbert Report about two months ago and was asked his thoughts on the elections, he commented that in Britain elections last about 4 weeks while in the U.S. they last 4 years. I can't comment on British elections, but I think him correct on U.S. elections. The 2012 race has already started.

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:57 pm

No Bill, he won, by an electoral landslide and a modest popular vote (my preferred tally).

CXT: I don't have a precise count, but I think it's fair to say that RNC ads are more often negative and fear based than DNC ads. Obviously politicians are politicians, but this season, we were scaring people about comprehensive sex ed in kindergarten, impugning the character and readiness of Obama, instilling vague fears with his middle name and negative rallies. Did you see the Newsweek article about the spike in violent threats against Obama that freaked out Michelle and correlated with those rallies? Was there a booing, fear based rally against McCain?

Previously we had Bush Co slamming Kerry (who was shot at, an actual veteran) and his service record while he used his political influence to ride out the war defending the USA from our Carribean foes (he was in Georgia I think) and working on political campaigns while he was supposed to be service. Did the Dems jump on that with any comparable intensity? We see that elsewhere too--here, Bilbray sent me literally dozens of negative ads, and I got none from Leibham. I'm not kneejerk Dem, either; I supported republican Jan Goldsmith for city attorney because outgoing Aguirre is nuts and oppositional. And of course the Yes on 8 ads emphasized the gay threat to children and the destruction of the family; No on 8 ads emphasized fairness and equality.

This was a year in which Karl Rove said McCain may have gone too far... I don't think I imagined this one.

TSDguy · Post by **TSDguy** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:03 pm

CXT: I don't have a precise count, but I think it's fair to say that RNC ads are more often negative and fear based than DNC ads.

According to NBC, McCain ran 10% more attack ads, but his ads were views as "unfairly aggressive" by I think 60% of those polled. This was from memory from TV news the other day, so don't quote me on the second %.

In News related to Glenn's theory, Fox has been Palin-bashing the holy hell out of her lately. I just read O'Reilly revealed she didn't know Africa was a continent.

mhosea · Post by **mhosea** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:55 pm

IJ wrote: CXT: I don't have a precise count, but I think it's fair to say that RNC ads are more often negative and fear based than DNC ads.

Not to interpose my own comments in a conversation between IJ and CXT, as this is usually a mistake, but I think this is an accurate snapshot. However, I can remember being thoroughly disgusted with the low-brow, fear-mongering tactics of Democrats in the past. I don't think this is really an intrinsic property of either party, more like a simple question of who has (or doesn't have, rather) the charismatic candidate and/or inspiring message (I think this message is always "change", BTW).

tigereye · Post by **tigereye** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:24 pm

Glenn wrote: Tony Blair was on either The Daily Show or The Colbert Report about two months ago and was asked his thoughts on the elections, he commented that in Britain elections last about 4 weeks while in the U.S. they last 4 years. I can't comment on British elections, but I think him correct on U.S. elections. The 2012 race has already started.

Political campaigns are relatively short, lasting maybe two month in most European countries.
Voting is compulsory in my country (but not in all Europian countries).We have a multi-party system.
For all of their activities, campaigns included, each political parties get government subsidies.
But there are restrictions for the spending.
Actually no single party holds an absolute majority,so after the election usually the strongest party
create a coalition with other parties to form the government. This may explain why we don't have
such a long campaign and perhaps because not many people likes politics that much.

IJ · Post by IJ » Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:10 am

Mike, puhlease do intersperse words of wisdom in our battles! By all means!

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:05 pm

tigereye wrote: This may explain why we don't have
such a long campaign and perhaps because not many people likes politics that much.

Not many here like what passes for politics either, but that certainly doesn't shorten the campaigns.

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:25 am

We have long political campaigns because the political season is long, either accidentally or on purpose. We can't bitch when the first primary is in late January and the last one is in June, with the convention in late August and the election in November. We get precisely what we designed to do.

Unless, of course, you prefer the smoke-filled rooms of old...

Gene

cxt · Post by **cxt** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:04 pm

IJ

I disagree---the DNC ads were just as biased, innaccurate and misleading as the RNC.

"was their a booing, fear based rally against McCain"

Yes, nearly every rally for Obama featured booing for McCain.

As far a Kerry goes....IMO he got what he deserved....he is a opportunistic poltical huckster that hoisted on his own petard----he used his oppostion to various military actions and the military in general to launch his political career and it effectively tainted him for life.......which if not perhaps "fair" should have been both expected and understandable.

I also wouldn't crow to much about his military career either....its the "devils in the details" about his record that got him pasted.

And while were are on said topic.......did you perchance see any of the attacks on McCains service that were making the rounds??????

Can't really bemoan the trashing of one military guy while excuseing attacks on the other.
And playing "tit for tat" on the issue might make one feel better but its hardly an ethicial stance.

The media essentially abandoning its role and pushing "their" canadate probably played a huge role as well.

Also pretty sure that "Karl Rove" didn't have much to do with McCain's run...if he had...things would have been a lot closer.