McCain to win election

Benedict XVI

Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?

The dems are going to select either a woman that seems to be universally hated, or a many with little experience and happens to be an African American

I think Obmaha’s downfall will be his lack of experience before his race.

When it comes down to it in Nov people will have a choice between McCain and one of the other two. Most people will put their faith is a war veteran who seems to straddle the middle ground of republicanism.

Also if I recall in 2004 Kerry was attracting a lot of support from your voters, who on the day never bothered to come out and vote, the same could very well happen to Obmaha

bartholomewbinn

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?

The dems are going to select either a woman that seems to be universally hated, or a many with little experience and happens to be an African American

I think Obmaha’s downfall will be his lack of experience before his race.

When it comes down to it in Nov people will have a choice between McCain and one of the other two. Most people will put their faith is a war veteran who seems to straddle the middle ground of republicanism.

Also if I recall in 2004 Kerry was attracting a lot of support from your voters, who on the day never bothered to come out and vote, the same could very well happen to Obmaha

You’re probably right.

Ron DMC

Defos right. And hopefully so. The other two are useless.

flogen

Benedict XVI wrote: »

When it comes down to it in Nov people will have a choice between McCain and one of the other two. Most people will put their faith is a war veteran who seems to straddle the middle ground of republicanism.

Yeah, Americans always vote for the moderate war veteran - just look at what happened in 2004.

Oh wait...

berliner

Clinton will get the nomination and win the Presidency.Mccain is too old and he stands for nothing.Republicans are disillusioned after Bush.

Benedict XVI

flogen wrote: »

Yeah, Americans always vote for the moderate war veteran - just look at what happened in 2004.

Oh wait...

Difference is that Kerry was up against an incumbent. Without Bush in the race Kerry may well have done a lot better.

berliner wrote: »

Clinton will get the nomination and win the Presidency.Mccain is too old and he stands for nothing.Republicans are disillusioned after Bush.

I don’t agree.
Clinton is very decisive amongst all sections of American society.
With Clinton in the race Republicans (and Democrats) will come out to vote for the alternative (McCain) where otherwise they would not bother.

On another note McCain may gat a big share of the Irish American vote seeing as it is his and Kennedy’s bill that attempted to reform immigration.

Saying that I am not sure what percentage of the Irish American vote are interested in the immigration issue, multi generation Irish Americans may not be as interested in it as the Irish born people in America and seeing as only citizens can vote in US election that constituency may be quiet small

bren50c

Didnt McCain say that he would have troops in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. With the economic downturn and 'recession' fears over there I think his war stance will work against him.

"In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book."
[From cnn.com]

I think Obama could use McCain's alledged weakness in economics to his favour. I think Obama has a good chance and I'd like to see him win it. He has an understanding about the links between foreign military presence and terrorism too[I heard him say he didn't want to put US bases in Iraq], which McCain just doesn't get.

flogen

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Difference is that Kerry was up against an incumbent. Without Bush in the race Kerry may well have done a lot better.

Kerry lost because a) he was savaged by Rove and spent most of his time defending bullshít accusations, b) he was a plank and c) he spent too much time pandering to the hawks rather than sowing his own patch.

I think had he run for nomination again this year he'd have been slapped out of it early on and had he managed to gain nomination again he'd have been beaten again (because his trump card is his military service - something that should have worked against Bush but wouldn't work against McCain).

I don’t agree.
Clinton is very decisive amongst all sections of American society.
With Clinton in the race Republicans (and Democrats) will come out to vote for the alternative (McCain) where otherwise they would not bother.

McCain is almost as divisive in Republican circles as Clinton is - although her being the Dem. candidate could unite them under McCain due to a common enemy.

On another note McCain may gat a big share of the Irish American vote seeing as it is his and Kennedy’s bill that attempted to reform immigration.

Niall O'Dowd, the guy behind The Irish Voice newspaper in America, is backing Hillary and there's a perception (one that's now coming under scrutiny) that she did great things for Northern Ireland. I think she may have supported the McCain/Kennedy bill too.

But then again, O'Dowd suggested that white men couldn't vote for a black candidate and he was very wrong, so I'd question his judgement.

Saying that I am not sure what percentage of the Irish American vote are interested in the immigration issue, multi generation Irish Americans may not be as interested in it as the Irish born people in America and seeing as only citizens can vote in US election that constituency may be quiet small

The issue is declining, as is the importance of the Irish vote.

It's also worth pointing out that the people who support it the most are the people who can't vote.

That's not to say it's an insignificant issue but it's also a mixed-bag in terms of the pros/cons of having your name attached to a more relaxed immigration policy.

For example, there are many American citizens of Hispanic ethnicity that want to see the process relaxed but there are plenty of people, particularly in traditionally Republican areas like Texas that want to see it tightened up.

For both those reasons I don't see McCain making immigration a major campaign issue - although it might be wise for Obama/Clinton to play it up in the race to highlight divisions within the Republican party over it.

Benedict XVI

bren50c wrote: »

Didnt McCain say that he would have troops in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. With the economic downturn and 'recession' fears over there I think his war stance will work against him.

"In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book."
[From cnn.com]

I think Obama could use McCain's alledged weakness in economics to his favour. I think Obama has a good chance and I'd like to see him win it. He has an understanding about the links between foreign military presence and terrorism too[I heard him say he didn't want to put US bases in Iraq], which McCain just doesn't get.

I heard Marrian McKeown (I can't stand her) on the Last Word tonight saying that the real reason Samantha Power was sacked from the Obama team was beacuse she had said to the BBC that Obama's statmanets about being out of Irag in 18 months were not realistic and everone in the camp knew that and it was all for show.

When it comes down to it Obama will have to answer the tough questions and I don't think he is up for it, thus people will put their faith in McCain.

bren50c

I think that it definitely could take longer to get out but I think the difference between McCain and Obama is that Obama realises its the wrong strategy to stay there for as long as it takes, or 'for victory' i guess is how McCain would put it. Whether its 12 months, 18 or 20 months --- it sure is better than 100 years. It will send the message that America is not trying to conquer the Middle East.

For all those Americans thinking McCain would be better for their national security, I think they've got it wrong.
I'm sure as soon as McCain got sworn in he wouldn't be too long cooking up a plan to 'bomb bomb bomb iran'. And THEN everyone would be truly screwed...

If Obama set a target date for a withdrawl then the Iraqi government would hopefully push harder for political stability.

I do realise though that a lot of republicans think a strategy like McCains will make them safer, I hope for their sake they take a closer look at things ... I'd say his tactics would increase the threat of terrorism.

Rocker

bren50c wrote: »

I think that it definitely could take longer to get out but I think the difference between McCain and Obama is that Obama realises its the wrong strategy to stay there for as long as it takes, or 'for victory' i guess is how McCain would put it. Whether its 12 months, 18 or 20 months --- it sure is better than 100 years. It will send the message that America is not trying to conquer the Middle East.

For all those Americans thinking McCain would be better for their national security, I think they've got it wrong.
I'm sure as soon as McCain got sworn in he wouldn't be too long cooking up a plan to 'bomb bomb bomb iran'. And THEN everyone would be truly screwed...

If Obama set a target date for a withdrawl then the Iraqi government would hopefully push harder for political stability.

I do realise though that a lot of republicans think a strategy like McCains will make them safer, I hope for their sake they take a closer look at things ... I'd say his tactics would increase the threat of terrorism.

Currently the US have troops in South Korea and Germany with the support of the democratically elected government and have had troops in both countries for about sixty years, so the US having troops in a foreign state for a long period of time is not that big a deal and that's the sense that McCain meant it in.

A deadline for withdrawal would just tell the insurgency how long they have to wait till they win and would therefore massively boost their morale and no matter what state they were in, they would wait it out.

So far Obama has said that he would attack Pakistan, have open ended talks with Iran and Venezuela and also that he would re-invade Iraq if the Al-Qaeda were there after the US withdraws, which is simply madness because Al-Qaeda are there now. The guy doesn't have a clue about foreign policy and just takes populist positions. McCain on the other hand has a lot of experience and takes unpopular positions, which he believes are right. The surge and the moderate success that that has brought is a perfect example of that.

Rocker

bren50c wrote: »

Didnt McCain say that he would have troops in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. With the economic downturn and 'recession' fears over there I think his war stance will work against him.

"In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book."
[From cnn.com]

I think Obama could use McCain's alledged weakness in economics to his favour. I think Obama has a good chance and I'd like to see him win it. He has an understanding about the links between foreign military presence and terrorism too[I heard him say he didn't want to put US bases in Iraq], which McCain just doesn't get.

How is Obama strong in economics?

bren50c

Rocker wrote: »

How is Obama strong in economics?

One example I can think of is his plan to spend money domestically in America on Healthcare/ Education instead of pumping it into the war in Iraq.

Dont know much about economics myself, but looking at his website, he seems to have good ideas. Create jobs from moving to renewable energy, clamp down on shady mortagage companies

bren50c

Rocker wrote: »

Currently the US have troops in South Korea and Germany with the support of the democratically elected government and have had troops in both countries for about sixty years, so the US having troops in a foreign state for a long period of time is not that big a deal and that's the sense that McCain meant it in.

Its a big deal for Islamic countries, who think the US is muscling in on their territory and their culture/religion. And it gives extremists and excuse to declare war on the US. Osama bin laden grew up in Saudi Arabia, where theres a strong US miltary presence.

Rocker wrote: »

A deadline for withdrawal would just tell the insurgency how long they have to wait till they win and would therefore massively boost their morale and no matter what state they were in, they would wait it out.

- Just how can the US 'win' in this situation. There will always be willing suicide bombers being recruited or ferried in from neighbouring countries as long as troops are there.

The surge brought the violence down, but whats the long term solution?
troops there indefinetly, a constant target for attack. Iraq needs a political solution not just a miltary one.

Overheal

bren50c wrote: »

One example I can think of is his plan to spend money domestically in America on Healthcare/ Education instead of pumping it into the war in Iraq.

Dont know much about economics myself, but looking at his website, he seems to have good ideas. Create jobs from moving to renewable energy, clamp down on shady mortagage companies

Exactly what the country needs at the moment: huge economic investments that will pay off later over a longer term...

Two sides of the same coin really: one wants to invest at home this way; the other abroad. But I like Obama's better: whats to say better education doesnt unravel what we need to become independent of fossil fuel?

Manic Moran

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?

Wrapped up, I wouldn't say that. But it's a damning indictment of the Democratic Party that the issue is even open to question. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: They've been so busy patting themselves on the back and advertising "I'm not Bush", in the unwavering belief that it's their destiny to win that they've been fighting each other to get the prize, and not noticing the other guy showing up who's not Bush either, but actually has a plan and a focus.

NTM

snow scorpion

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?

The dems are going to select either a woman that seems to be universally hated, or a many with little experience and happens to be an African American

I think you have it exactly right. Between the Bush Derangement Syndrome that all Dems suffer from and their racist/sexist ways of looking at people, they are completely blind to the fact that they have two extremely weak candidates.

It will dawn on them eventually. But by then it will be too late for them to do anything about it.

I also agree that it will be President McCain.
I blame Obama for that.

At the end of the day,the bickering between Clinton and Obama is exposing stuff nicely for McCain-he doesnt even have to spend money on negative campaigning.Unity is always a very appealing thing to voters sublibinably.
McCain is likeable and is likely to sway a lot of undecided's his way with his "Geoerge Bush light" policies.
It will be like they are voting against Bush but for him at the same time.

is_that_so

I think McCain has the advantage. He's not Bush and in all honesty he seems like a decent type of chap to boot.

The Dems race on the other hand is turning into a real mess. As commented above they are trying to outdo each other in the populism stakes. McCain has not got caught up in the promise game. He sounds more statesmanlike than either at this moment. Not only this but as Clinton picks out more targets to hit Obama with, the easier it becomes for him.

Obama has become much more exposed to criticism in recent weeks, between the NAFTA gaffe, the 3 am call, Samantha Power and of course the potential damage of the Tony Rezko trial.

Then there is the nightmare scenario of Clinton winning the popular vote but Obama the delegates. Al Gore in 2000 all over again. There is little between them on in terms of votes at present. Obama's successes in caucuses has helped skew the delegate count. Even so Clinton needs to start winning states to have any genuine credibility and to close the gap.

Primaries by their nature will always have more people , due to the ease of getting very large numbers together at once. And then there is the question of Florida and Michigan. Certainly Clinton would have expected to do well in Florida.

I am sure the Dem elders assumed that the race would have all but played out by now and the punishing of both states would have made no difference.


Unless either of the Dems land a killer blow, which is looking far less likely or screw up very badly imo it is starting to look a lot more like a Republican president once again.

This BBC piece on how the Dem nomination could turn out, is interesting.

Orbghost

McCain is business as usual. He strikes me as the worst possible choice.
Every American I've met over the last few years has made a point of apologising for Bush. They bring it up, not me.

The majority of Americans who actually have a brain are not going to go for McCain. They know a major shift is long overdue and McCain will not deliver that.

What I've found most interesting is the support Obama has from the rest of the world. It's easy to see that Obama is the kind of guy you can negotiate with and the USA sure needs someone like that at the helm.

I predict that if the dems go for Obama it will be a land slide victory and he will be president.

I don't believe Hillary has as good a chance against McCain, it's going to come down to a Dems V Rep. Obama on the other hand is going to pick up a lot of republican support.

Benedict XVI

Orbghost wrote: »

McCain is business as usual. He strikes me as the worst possible choice.
Every American I've met over the last few years has made a point of apologising for Bush. They bring it up, not me.

The majority of Americans who actually have a brain are not going to go for McCain. They know a major shift is long overdue and McCain will not deliver that.

What I've found most interesting is the support Obama has from the rest of the world. It's easy to see that Obama is the kind of guy you can negotiate with and the USA sure needs someone like that at the helm.

I predict that if the dems go for Obama it will be a land slide victory and he will be president.

I don't believe Hillary has as good a chance against McCain, it's going to come down to a Dems V Rep. Obama on the other hand is going to pick up a lot of republican support.

Wow, you really underestimate the intelligence of the US electorate.

What does Obama offer that will give him a landslide ?.

He keeps talking about change but at the end of the day I am not sure people in the US really want that much change, the country is far from being in the dumps.

Sure a certain percentage of republicans dislike McCain but that does not mean that they will go out and vote for a Democrat.

On the other hand, and I said this before, Obama attracts a lot of ‘support’ from young and first time voters, but he will have a lot of work to do to get these people off their ass on election day.

Oh and by the way, the rest of the world may support Obama, as you claim, but it’s not the rest of the world that is voting remember.

Orbghost

Wow, you really underestimate the intelligence of the US electorate.

What does Obama offer that will give him a landslide ?.

Well, only my opinion but it seems to me that folks in the US are sick of Bush and want their country back.
Obama has a feeling of fresh air about him and it looks to me to be a very similar situation to when Blair won the UK 1997 election. At the time the Uk electorate was wanting major change and Blair took a lot of Tory support and I think you will find that if Obama is chosen.

He keeps talking about change but at the end of the day I am not sure people in the US really want that much change, the country is far from being in the dumps.

Come on, the US is the most hated country on the planet which is thanks to dumb foreign policy. Not to mention the economy. What's crazy is it doesn't need to be that way.

Sure a certain percentage of republicans dislike McCain but that does not mean that they will go out and vote for a Democrat.

The same was said in the UK 1997 election as I have already mentioned. Sure, a minority of idiots will always support their club whatever but most decent people will vote for the person that they believe will bring about change in their favour.

On the other hand, and I said this before, Obama attracts a lot of ‘support’ from young and first time voters, but he will have a lot of work to do to get these people off their ass on election day.

Well, he's achieving amazing results with those young supporters. I don't see why that won't continue. The point is, he has something that is reaching a lot of people who have otherwise given up with politics and that alone is a good thing.

Oh and by the way, the rest of the world may support Obama, as you claim, but it’s not the rest of the world that is voting remember.

That's true but the next president of the United States is going to effect all our lives, not just those in the US.

bonkey

Benedict XVI wrote: »

a woman that seems to be universally hated

Gosh. You have to wonder at the stupidity of all those people who are voting in the Democrat Primaries for someone they hate.

Benedict XVI

bonkey wrote: »

Gosh. You have to wonder at the stupidity of all those people who are voting in the Democrat Primaries for someone they hate.

Yes she is winning Primaries but if you take the electorate as a whole she is not that popular.

IMO people will make the effort to vote against her in Nov if she is in the race.

flogen wrote:

Niall O'Dowd, the guy behind The Irish Voice newspaper in America, is backing Hillary and there's a perception (one that's now coming under scrutiny) that she did great things for Northern Ireland. I think she may have supported the McCain/Kennedy bill too.

But then again, O'Dowd suggested that white men couldn't vote for a black candidate and he was very wrong, so I'd question his judgement.

I would not expect someone in the Irish American media to be seen backing a Republican or an African American, therfore I am not surprised at O'Dowd.

I would not expect many Irish Americans, both multi generation and recent naturalized immigrants to vote for Obama, the racism that exists toward blacks for the above would put most people to shame at home

Manic Moran

McCain is business as usual. He strikes me as the worst possible choice.

McCain and Bush are not often on the same side, at least when considering they're part of the same party, I'm not sure how you can make the 'business as usual' claim. Remember that a lot of Republican Bush supporters strongly dislike McCain, and will only vote for him because he's the least worst option in the General Election from their point of view.

NTM

snow scorpion

Come on, the US is the most hated country on the planet which is thanks to dumb foreign policy. Not to mention the economy. What's crazy is it doesn't need to be that way.

The US is the most hated country on the planet because it is the most powerful country on the planet, not because of foreign policy and the economy.

As Dennis Miller says, "The United States is simultaneously the most loved, the most hated, the most feared and the most respected country on the face of the earth." It's the price you pay for being #1.

bonkey

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Yes she is winning Primaries but

If she's winning primaries, she is not - as you originally claimed her to appear - universally hated.

There's no but, unless to say "but I didn't mean what I actually wrote, but rather something significantly different".

Benedict XVI

bonkey wrote: »

If she's winning primaries, she is not - as you originally claimed her to appear - universally hated.

There's no but, unless to say "but I didn't mean what I actually wrote, but rather something significantly different".

I’ll re-phrase it then.

‘Dislike of Mrs. Clinton transcends many strata of American society’

apoch632

On the 100 years point.

Doesnt America still have troops stationed in Germany and Korea.

Long stays after a war are not that unusual

Manic Moran

Well, only my opinion but it seems to me that folks in the US are sick of Bush and want their country back.

Bush isn't running in this election, in case you hadn't noticed.

NTM

flogen

Benedict XVI wrote: »

I would not expect someone in the Irish American media to be seen backing a Republican or an African American, therfore I am not surprised at O'Dowd.

I would not expect many Irish Americans, both multi generation and recent naturalized immigrants to vote for Obama, the racism that exists toward blacks for the above would put most people to shame at home

That's an ignorant and downright incorrect suggestion.

Bill O'Reilly is an Irish-American and he's about as right-wing as you can get. Samantha Power is an Irish-American and she's a dedicated supporter of Obama (even though she had to quit the team).

That's just two names coming off the top of my head - why on earth do you think Irish-Americans in the media or in public life could not bring themselves to support republican or black candidates?

What makes you think Irish-Americans any more racist than "indigenous" Americans?

Benedict XVI

flogen wrote: »

That's an ignorant and downright incorrect suggestion.

Bill O'Reilly is an Irish-American and he's about as right-wing as you can get. Samantha Power is an Irish-American and she's a dedicated supporter of Obama (even though she had to quit the team).

That's just two names coming off the top of my head - why on earth do you think Irish-Americans in the media or in public life could not bring themselves to support republican or black candidates?

What makes you think Irish-Americans any more racist than "indigenous" Americans?

Niall O' Dowd moves in a completely different media circle that O' Reilly.

O' Reilly presents a TV show that is watched by millions in the US and all over the world, O' Dowd publishes a newspaper that is read primarily by Irish born people and is hardly read beyond NYC.

The people that are reading O' Dowd live in working class neighbourhoods that are predominantly Irish and go to bars and diners that non whites would never enter from one end of the year to another.

These people would never vote for a black man.

The Irish-Americans that share the neighbourhoods mentioned above would not even like to see blacks move into their street never mind have one in the white house.

I know this because I have lived and worked in these neighbourhood.

flogen

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Niall O' Dowd moves in a completely different media circle that O' Reilly.

O' Reilly presents a TV show that is watched by millions in the US and all over the world, O' Dowd publishes a newspaper that is read primarily by Irish born people and is hardly read beyond NYC.

The people that are reading O' Dowd live in working class neighbourhoods that are predominantly Irish and go to bars and diners that non whites would never enter from one end of the year to another.

These people would never vote for a black man.

The Irish-Americans that share the neighbourhoods mentioned above would not even like to see blacks move into their street never mind have one in the white house.

I know this because I have lived and worked in these neighbourhood.

I raised O'Reilly as a point about Irish-Americans and Republicans - O'Reilly is just as ignorant regarding race (see his comments on a visit to a restaurant in a predominantly black area).

Nonetheless, your pigeon-holing of Irish America is rediculous; I've no doubt that there are plenty of racist Irish Americans in the country but I don't think your experiences are in any way representative of the community as a whole, which isn't nearly as contained as it may have been 100 years ago.

Orbghost

Manic Moran wrote: »

Bush isn't running in this election, in case you hadn't noticed.

NTM

No, but if McCain gets in you might have a new face but it will be business as usual. What's needed is a major shift in direction, new ideas, vision, someone who is dynamic & has skill on the world stage. Of the three candidates, McCain strikes me with the least ability to change anything.

lostexpectation

flogen wrote: »

I raised O'Reilly as a point about Irish-Americans and Republicans - O'Reilly is just as ignorant regarding race (see his comments on a visit to a restaurant in a predominantly black area).

Nonetheless, your pigeon-holing of Irish America is rediculous; I've no doubt that there are plenty of racist Irish Americans in the country but I don't think your experiences are in any way representative of the community as a whole, which isn't nearly as contained as it may have been 100 years ago.

its quite clear that o'dowd and co think there a special kind of immigrant ,the white kind

bren50c

apoch632 wrote: »

On the 100 years point.

Doesnt America still have troops stationed in Germany and Korea.

Long stays after a war are not that unusual

Germany and Korea have been mentioned already. I was making the point in connection to Islamic extremism/terrorism. Its a different situation in the middle east. The americans dont have to contend with german/korean suicide bombers do they?

Overheal

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Wow, you really underestimate the intelligence of the US electorate.

What does Obama offer that will give him a landslide ?.

He keeps talking about change but at the end of the day I am not sure people in the US really want that much change, the country is far from being in the dumps.

Sure a certain percentage of republicans dislike McCain but that does not mean that they will go out and vote for a Democrat.

On the other hand, and I said this before, Obama attracts a lot of ‘support’ from young and first time voters, but he will have a lot of work to do to get these people off their ass on election day.

Oh and by the way, the rest of the world may support Obama, as you claim, but it’s not the rest of the world that is voting remember.

yea, tell that do a canadian dollar.

If it came down to hillary and McCain I would vote McCain but I value Obama's ideal of change in the administration. America needs another go-to guy. Bill did that for a lot of people and it worked. He was a great president for all of his shortcomings. When Americans feel the need to apologise for their elected official? Thats sad. If he can push the concept of having a president to rely on, than he will take the election. It wont be a landslide, but it will be his. I hope anyway.

Manic Moran

but I value Obama's ideal of change in the administration

So you don't really care what his policy and style is, as long as it's different from Bush's?

I'm not convinced that's a well-thought-out criterion, especially when everyone's going to have a different style from Bush.

NTM

Overheal

What is your well thought criterion, sir, for Senator McCain? Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but in a side by side comparison why do you think he makes a better choice than Senator Obama? You've said it yourself: the republicans hate the guy. Its pretty much the same why I'd give him my vote if it came down to him and hillary.

I'm curious to whether McCain's war history might actually hurt him. Yes it would make him a good Chief to have in a war, but the only war we're fighting is the one we've dug ourselves into. And he's effectively promised that we will not be leaving in the forseeable future. Obama wants to try and bring the troops home. Personally I'm sick of seeing my tax dollar fly down the hole, and hearing about our servicemen getting killed. I respect that we need to finish the pile of crap we started over there but we're running ourselves into the ground as we do.

DadaKopf

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?

The dems are going to select either a woman that seems to be universally hated, or a many with little experience and happens to be an African American

I think Obmaha’s downfall will be his lack of experience before his race.

When it comes down to it in Nov people will have a choice between McCain and one of the other two. Most people will put their faith is a war veteran who seems to straddle the middle ground of republicanism.

Also if I recall in 2004 Kerry was attracting a lot of support from your voters, who on the day never bothered to come out and vote, the same could very well happen to Obmaha

Yep. My prediction, too, except I think it'll be him versus Hillary (but I haven't read the papers in a while, so maybe that's changed). Anywho, it's it's a when, not an if, then there's stil a bif if: IF the US economy continues to take a nosedive and ordinary 'folks' really get the fear, the was in Iraq will become a sticking point no-one could forgive. It'd become all to obvious that the money being wasted on a war with no end could pay for social welfare for 50 years.

You've said it yourself: the republicans hate the guy. Its pretty much the same why I'd give him my vote if it came down to him and hillary.

You know the saying, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

What is your well thought criterion, sir, for Senator McCain? Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but in a side by side comparison why do you think he makes a better choice than Senator Obama?

I have a thing for Moderates, being one myself. Particularly maverick ones who are not afraid to defy the Party line to work with the opposition. McCain has been known to do this, which is precisely why he is not well received by the hard right (Gang of 14, anyone?). Obama is a Democratic Party Loyalist, with one of the higest rates of voting in lock-step with the Party wishes of any of the D senators. (97% if NBC is to believed). I do not want a Party Man, I want someone who can actually balance his opinions across both sides. Plus, since McCain has been at the business of government for 20+ years, I think he probably has a better footing in DC for getting things done. Add in his practical experience in the military, and I think overall you have a better package. McCain is also the only candidate to have a warship with his name.

This is before you get into individual policy differences between the two, of which I happen to agree with McCain far more often than with Obama.

NTM

DPineapple

Manic Moran wrote: »

McCain is also the only candidate to have a warship with his name.NTM

That is precisely the point. He is, at best, a hawk. I actually had the opportunity, when McCain ran in 2000, to meet the man and hear him speak at a rally in Philadelphia. To me, then an uneducated high-schooler, he was just what I was looking for: a moderate, congenial man, who would save us all from George W. I have since altered my opinion of his politics, however likeable the man himself might be. He seems to the unobservant and uninformed voter to be moderate, and he sounds so on nearly every news program he appears on. However, this is deceitful. If you look at his voting record in the Senate, when he even votes (tons of his votes are NV, especially on important matters), he votes conservatively. Examples: 1) he voted not to investigate fraudulent contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) voted for recent Congressional pay raises, 3) supported Clinton's disgusting Welfare Reform Act, which left millions of the working poor struggling for assistance.

I know numerous Democrats who are blinded by his affability and are planning to vote for him in the general election. He may well win, but I for one shall not lend my support: if the Socialist Worker's Party fronts a candidate, I'll vote for them. If not, some other third party. You see, the problem rests with something that my old politics professor was fond of saying: the Republicans and Democrats are each one side of the same coin. We will never have real change in the US, or around the world, until there is a political revolution.

gordon_gekko

DPineapple wrote: »

That is precisely the point. He is, at best, a hawk. I actually had the opportunity, when McCain ran in 2000, to meet the man and hear him speak at a rally in Philadelphia. To me, then an uneducated high-schooler, he was just what I was looking for: a moderate, congenial man, who would save us all from George W. I have since altered my opinion of his politics, however likeable the man himself might be. He seems to the unobservant and uninformed voter to be moderate, and he sounds so on nearly every news program he appears on. However, this is deceitful. If you look at his voting record in the Senate, when he even votes (tons of his votes are NV, especially on important matters), he votes conservatively. Examples: 1) he voted not to investigate fraudulent contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) voted for recent Congressional pay raises, 3) supported Clinton's disgusting Welfare Reform Act, which left millions of the working poor struggling for assistance.

I know numerous Democrats who are blinded by his affability and are planning to vote for him in the general election. He may well win, but I for one shall not lend my support: if the Socialist Worker's Party fronts a candidate, I'll vote for them. If not, some other third party. You see, the problem rests with something that my old politics professor was fond of saying: the Republicans and Democrats are each one side of the same coin. We will never have real change in the US, or around the world, until there is a political revolution.

just because most americans will be happy to see the back of bush does not mean most americans dont want someone like mc cain who is resonably hawkish
americans like all peoples of past empires are a hawkish people , most of them dont care if there hated around the world as long as there top dog
it was the american people who made the usa an imperial power and it would be foolish to expect a complete sea change over night
remember the war in iraq was hugely popular in the begining in the usa regardless of anti war protests , the only reason its unpopular now is because so many americans are coming home in body bags
americans genuinly believe there brand of bull**** that they are the safeguarders of the world and weaker nations
they talk about how they as a nation contribute more to overseas aid than any other nation , this is of course true but they also contribute more to keeping those poorer nations in poverty aswel
at the upcoming international agricultural trade deal , the american diplomats will be looking for a deal which protects american farmers , not provides 3rd world farmers with access to international markets with there cheaper produce

im going of on a tangent here so ill get back on point , i think mc cain is different enough from bush to get elected even he is a member of the same party
btw ,another important thing to remember is obama has won mostly in states where democrats cant win in the general election
while he won misisipi , georgia , the red neck states , he only had acception to the rule democratic black voters voting for him
the vast vast majority of states which obama has won in the primary , cannot be won by a democrat come november

Overheal

DPineapple wrote: »

You see, the problem rests with something that my old politics professor was fond of saying: the Republicans and Democrats are each one side of the same coin. We will never have real change in the US, or around the world, until there is a political revolution.

welcome to boards. what did you have in mind

DPineapple

gordon_gekko wrote: »

just because most americans will be happy to see the back of bush does not mean most americans dont want someone like mc cain who is resonably hawkish
americans like all peoples of past empires are a hawkish people , most of them dont care if there hated around the world as long as there top dog
it was the american people who made the usa an imperial power and it would be foolish to expect a complete sea change over night
remember the war in iraq was hugely popular in the begining in the usa regardless of anti war protests , the only reason its unpopular now is because so many americans are coming home in body bags
americans genuinly believe there brand of bull**** that they are the safeguarders of the world and weaker nations
they talk about how they as a nation contribute more to overseas aid than any other nation , this is of course true but they also contribute more to keeping those poorer nations in poverty aswel
at the upcoming international agricultural trade deal , the american diplomats will be looking for a deal which protects american farmers , not provides 3rd world farmers with access to international markets with there cheaper produce

im going of on a tangent here so ill get back on point , i think mc cain is different enough from bush to get elected even he is a member of the same party
btw ,another important thing to remember is obama has won mostly in states where democrats cant win in the general election
while he won misisipi , georgia , the red neck states , he only had acception to the rule democratic black voters voting for him
the vast vast majority of states which obama has won in the primary , cannot be won by a democrat come november

As for your first paragraph, well, it is trite at best. As for the second, I thought I made it pretty clear that McCain might well win. So why argue with a point I've already made? Thirdly, the word "acception" in this context would be "exception".

DPineapple

Overheal wrote: »

welcome to boards. what did you have in mind

Thanks for the welcome; as for my revolution, I was thinking along the lines of a working class rise-up.

,8,1

What working class? Like so many other Western nations, America's working class is shrinking. It does not exist to anywhere near the extent it did in decades past. As the manufacturing sector inevitably ships East, most people find their jobs in the service sectors - which have vastly different dynamics regarding pay and working conditions.

Besides that, people have seen what hardcore Socialism and Communism can do to a society and I don't think they want to go through that all over again. (Typically people who talk about a "people's revolution of the working class" are Communists.)

A more fundamental conflict in America is that of a national independence vs internationalism. As all candidates and parties are anti-nationalist and professed globalists, this is what a civilian Revolution should centre around.

DPineapple

,8,1 wrote: »

What working class? Like so many other Western nations, America's working class is shrinking. It does not exist to anywhere near the extent it did in decades past. As the manufacturing sector inevitably ships East, most people find their jobs in the service sectors - which have vastly different dynamics regarding pay and working conditions.

Besides that, people have seen what hardcore Socialism and Communism can do to a society and I don't think they want to go through that all over again. (Typically people who talk about a "people's revolution of the working class" are Communists.)

A more fundamental conflict in America is that of a national independence vs internationalism. As all candidates and parties are anti-nationalist and professed globalists, this is what a civilian Revolution should centre around.

What a ridiculously ignorant thing to say, "America's working class is shrinking". It simply demonstrates that you have no idea what it is like to live in poverty even while you are working. In 2004, the US measured poverty at 12.7%, and for a single person as earning $ 9,827 per year. I can tell you from experience that this amount of money is way way below what the threshold should be. From 2000 to 2004 (this is the latest research a cursory search found) the poverty rate has RISEN each year. How can you say it is shrinking? I made $13,000 last year and was forced to move home with my parents because I could not afford to live even with a roommate without public assistance. In fact, I was refused public assistance even with mounting medical debt and $2 in the bank - there are too many people worse off. I worked with many of these working class poor in several of my "service" jobs. The pay for my last job was $8.25, sometimes less, to start. That is a pittance, a joke. I've been to the working class neighborhoods, I've seen the huge growth in poverty especially since the George W. Bush years . . . to say that the working class is shrinking is frighteningly callous. A more accurate statement might be to say that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, the poor getting poorer and rich getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking.

StickyMcGinty

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks McCain has the presidential election wrapped up?

nope, me too.

The Democrats are undoing themselves with the constant mud-slinging going on between Obama & Clinton.

berliner

snow scorpion wrote: »

The US is the most hated country on the planet because it is the most powerful country on the planet, not because of foreign policy and the economy.

As Dennis Miller says, "The United States is simultaneously the most loved, the most hated, the most feared and the most respected country on the face of the earth." It's the price you pay for being #1.

Why is the USA #1.I'm sick of american culture.It sucks because it's really....bla,bla everyone knowns america is on the wane.Obama proves that.Oh dear.

ghostdancer

not anything huge, but all signs point to the Dem contest being wrapped up in June. Harry Reid has now weighed in.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html

While Democrats across the country are anguished about the bitter fight for their presidential nomination, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't appear to be losing any sleep over it.

Asked about it last week, Reid said he remains convinced the nominee will be decided well before the August national convention. He wore a serene and mysterious smile.

But Reid isn't one for lengthy explanations. The conversation went like this:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

That's all the Nevada Democrat would say about it.
.........

and seeing as Pelosi has already weighed in and pretty much said that the supers should end it in favour of whoever has the most pledged delegates after the last contest (ie. almost certainly Obama), the only people really left are Dean, who pretty much despises Clinton and the DLC wing of the party, and Gore, who doesn't hold the Clintons in high regard either, by most accounts.