J. McCain lost mainly because ...

[crazyhorse1]

It isn't consistent to be against bullying regulations that keep honest people out of elections and then defend Obama for his sleazy State Senate tactics. You don't have to abandon your support for the guy or even necessarily admit that he was wrong to do so (seems clear to me, though). . .but defending his tactics as legitimate seems over the top and condoning to the way things are.

Well, I haven't had a chance to review your link about those "bullying tactics" yet; the proxy server at work won't allow me to open the page. But I will check it out from my home computer when I get a chance. I can logically see, though, how playing inside the rules can be deemed unfair, because the rules themselves are unfair (Jim Crow laws come to mind), so I'm not ruling it out off-hand. BTW, contrary to popular belief, I'm not a huge Obama supporter; there's still plenty about him that scares the hell out of me. I prefer to be cautiously optimistic, though.

Obama scares you? McCain bangs war drums about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia; wants to continue the same billion dollar giveaways that got the country in trouble; proves himself erratic, a liar, and unstable; and looks near death, which would have put Palin in charge-- and you're scared of Obama?

Bush didn't scare you-- but Obama scares you.

Good Lord! I feel such relief i get up early in the morning in my beach cottage and stroll on down to the local nudist colony to play with the monkeys.

[Deadskins]

It isn't consistent to be against bullying regulations that keep honest people out of elections and then defend Obama for his sleazy State Senate tactics. You don't have to abandon your support for the guy or even necessarily admit that he was wrong to do so (seems clear to me, though). . .but defending his tactics as legitimate seems over the top and condoning to the way things are.

Well, I haven't had a chance to review your link about those "bullying tactics" yet; the proxy server at work won't allow me to open the page. But I will check it out from my home computer when I get a chance. I can logically see, though, how playing inside the rules can be deemed unfair, because the rules themselves are unfair (Jim Crow laws come to mind), so I'm not ruling it out off-hand. BTW, contrary to popular belief, I'm not a huge Obama supporter; there's still plenty about him that scares the hell out of me. I prefer to be cautiously optimistic, though.

Obama scares you? McCain bangs war drums about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia; wants to continue the same billion dollar giveaways that got the country in trouble; proves himself erratic, a liar, and unstable; and looks near death, which would have put Palin in charge-- and you're scared of Obama?

Bush didn't scare you-- but Obama scares you.

Good Lord! I feel such relief i get up early in the morning in my beach cottage and stroll on down to the local nudist colony to play with the monkeys.

Where did I say Bush and McCain don't scare me? Bush and McCain scare me worse, but Obama still scares me. Eight years ago, no one had ever heard of Obama, and now he's going to be President. And Biden is going to be VP! You should have a little more fear, yourself.

Be careful those monkeys don't steal your banana and nuts.

[Irn-Bru]

Obama scares you? McCain bangs war drums about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia;

What's the difference between McCain and Obama here? Except maybe replace the word "Iran" with "Africa", and de-emphasize Iraq and emphasize Afghanistan.

wants to continue the same billion dollar giveaways that got the country in trouble

Uh. . . . .

Good Lord! I feel such relief i get up early in the morning in my beach cottage and stroll on down to the local nudist colony to play with the monkeys.

I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the retirement. Getting good writing done?

[crazyhorse1]

Obama scares you? McCain bangs war drums about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia;

What's the difference between McCain and Obama here? Except maybe replace the word "Iran" with "Africa", and de-emphasize Iraq and emphasize Afghanistan.

wants to continue the same billion dollar giveaways that got the country in trouble

Uh. . . . .

Good Lord! I feel such relief i get up early in the morning in my beach cottage and stroll on down to the local nudist colony to play with the monkeys.

I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the retirement. Getting good writing done?

Thanks for asking about the writing. I'm writing a children's book (for the first time) and am really enjoying the unicorns and fairies. All's right with the world except the butterfingers of someone we know.

Let me know when you give something a try. I have resources that may be of help.

[welch]

All the reasons, except money, but a few others not mentioned:

- Obama voters were happy with their choice. I don;t know whether voting for Obama made people happy, or happy people voted for Obama, but I found that consistently...especially when I volunteered in Virgina. Yes, it's home -- 1635 on my Tidewater mother's side, and a bit before 1800 on my Valley dad's side.

- McCain voters all seemed angry about something, vengeful, mean, grumpy, and often deluded. They told me -- snarled -- that they wouldn't vote for Obama because, no kidding, "he intends to change the National Anthem", "he's an Arab", "he's a Muslim", "he takes orders from Bill Ayers", "he refuses to salute the flag", "he refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin", and he supports the graduated income tax. No McCain supporter had anything positive to say about McCain.

- the only thoughtful McCain voters seemed to be the pro-life voters. Also one anti-gun-control voter who originally thought that Obama would ban all guns. We agreed that I had no wish to restrict hunters, and that he had no interest in hunting with an M-16, nor did he want to endanger me by making it easier for drug gangs to get semi-automatic pistols. I don't know how the laws should be written or enforced, but we agreed on the principles.

- it wasn't money as much as the volunteers working for Obama. Lots of them, all sorts, every day from about 10am to 10pm in the Bridgewater and Culpeper offices. People who brought in food, other people who stubbornly came to the office for their fourth or fifth yard sign. By contrast, the only McCain activity I ever noticed would have been the low-level vandalism of stealing signs. Not impressive, and definitely not persuasive.

- incidentally, I only got two out-right racists in many calls to Virginia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Florida. That's just my experience, but I don;t think many McCain voters were influenced by Obama's skin-color. Crackpot rumors? Yes. Race? Not much.

That's what I saw in Virginia and New York.

[PulpExposure]

Also one anti-gun-control voter who originally thought that Obama would ban all guns. We agreed that I had no wish to restrict hunters, and that he had no interest in hunting with an M-16, nor did he want to endanger me by making it easier for drug gangs to get semi-automatic pistols. I don't know how the laws should be written or enforced, but we agreed on the principles.

After the recent Supreme Court decision that owning firearms (within a reasonable limit) is part of the 2nd amendment, an outright ban on firearms will not happen.

Democrats seem to have given up on this in the past 5 years or so as a lost cause anyways.

[Deadskins]

Also one anti-gun-control voter who originally thought that Obama would ban all guns. We agreed that I had no wish to restrict hunters, and that he had no interest in hunting with an M-16, nor did he want to endanger me by making it easier for drug gangs to get semi-automatic pistols. I don't know how the laws should be written or enforced, but we agreed on the principles.

After the recent Supreme Court decision that owning firearms (within a reasonable limit) is part of the 2nd amendment, an outright ban on firearms will not happen.

Democrats seem to have given up on this in the past 5 years or so as a lost cause anyways.

I never heard anyone ever advocate for banning all guns. But, yes, the Ds have definitely stopped talking about pretty much all gun control measures (handguns and assault rifles).

[skinsfan#33]

- incidentally, I only got two out-right racists in many calls to Virginia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Florida. That's just my experience, but I don;t think many McCain voters were influenced by Obama's skin-color. Crackpot rumors? Yes. Race? Not much.

That's what I saw in Virginia and New York.

I have seen few polls that checked to if white people were letting race play a factor on their voting and even some of the people that said race did play a roll, they still voted for Obama.

I haven't seen any polls that reported on how race impacted African American voters. I would bet that Obama got WAY more the 54% of their votes. I would bet it was up around 90%, if not more.

So did race impact the election?

My beef with Obama had to do with his very limited experience level, some of his foreighn policies, his history of voting on as few bills as possible (take a stand man!), and his health care plan really scares me.

Now I had plenty of issues with McCain too. But I guess I felt more comfortable with the "Devil I knew, than the Devil I didn't".

As an American it repolses me that Obama has some sort of problem with showing respect to the US flag, but as an American that is his right!

[skinsfan#33]

Also one anti-gun-control voter who originally thought that Obama would ban all guns. We agreed that I had no wish to restrict hunters, and that he had no interest in hunting with an M-16, nor did he want to endanger me by making it easier for drug gangs to get semi-automatic pistols. I don't know how the laws should be written or enforced, but we agreed on the principles.

After the recent Supreme Court decision that owning firearms (within a reasonable limit) is part of the 2nd amendment, an outright ban on firearms will not happen.

Democrats seem to have given up on this in the past 5 years or so as a lost cause anyways.

I never heard anyone ever advocate for banning all guns. But, yes, the Ds have definitely stopped talking about pretty much all gun control measures (handguns and assault rifles).

Most people misunderstand the reason the founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in place. It was for people to be able to hunt or repel burglars. It was so that citizens could to form a militia and protect themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic . Like many other checks and balances they put in this is so that people can protect themselves if the government can't or protect themselves from the government should it ever become corrupt and needed to be replaced.

We as Americans can't lose sight of the fact that the 2nd amendment is effectively already dead. If you form a militia, the next thing you know you’re on CNN with ATF surrounding your house. People don't want people having military grade weapons even though that was the point of the second amendment.

Mind you, I don’t own a gun, don’t plan on buying one, and I’m not going join some not job militant group (unless you count the US Navy, as a nut job militant group). But the 2nd amendment was put in place protect US citizen’s rights to form a militia and protect themselves.

[Deadskins]

Also one anti-gun-control voter who originally thought that Obama would ban all guns. We agreed that I had no wish to restrict hunters, and that he had no interest in hunting with an M-16, nor did he want to endanger me by making it easier for drug gangs to get semi-automatic pistols. I don't know how the laws should be written or enforced, but we agreed on the principles.

After the recent Supreme Court decision that owning firearms (within a reasonable limit) is part of the 2nd amendment, an outright ban on firearms will not happen.

Democrats seem to have given up on this in the past 5 years or so as a lost cause anyways.

I never heard anyone ever advocate for banning all guns. But, yes, the Ds have definitely stopped talking about pretty much all gun control measures (handguns and assault rifles).

Most people misunderstand the reason the founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in place. It was for people to be able to hunt or repel burglars. It was so that citizens could to form a militia and protect themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic . Like many other checks and balances they put in this is so that people can protect themselves if the government can't or protect themselves from the government should it ever become corrupt and needed to be replaced.

We as Americans can't lose sight of the fact that the 2nd amendment is effectively already dead. If you form a militia, the next thing you know you’re on CNN with ATF surrounding your house. People don't want people having military grade weapons even though that was the point of the second amendment.

Mind you, I don’t own a gun, don’t plan on buying one, and I’m not going join some not job militant group (unless you count the US Navy, as a nut job militant group). But the 2nd amendment was put in place protect US citizen’s rights to form a militia and protect themselves.

You are exactly right, which is why I oppose gun control measures, especially assault rifle bans. The 2nd amendment is there as a citizen's last line of defense against oppressive government.

[Deadskins]

My beef with Obama had to do with his very limited experience level, some of his foreighn policies, his history of voting on as few bills as possible (take a stand man!), and his health care plan really scares me.

Now I had plenty of issues with McCain too. But I guess I felt more comfortable with the "Devil I knew, than the Devil I didn't".

Palin's addition to the ticket must have really scared the hell out of you then. Not being able to name a country in North America, a newspaper she has ever read, a single supreme court decision, or what the Bush doctrine is, and her ignorance that Africa is a continent and not a country, made her woefully inadequate as a choice for VP.

[JansenFan]

My beef with Obama had to do with his very limited experience level, some of his foreighn policies, his history of voting on as few bills as possible (take a stand man!), and his health care plan really scares me.

Now I had plenty of issues with McCain too. But I guess I felt more comfortable with the "Devil I knew, than the Devil I didn't".

Palin's addition to the ticket must have really scared the hell out of you then. Not being able to name a country in North America, a newspaper she has ever read, a single supreme court decision, or what the Bush doctrine is, and her ignorance that Africa is a continent and not a country, made her woefully inadequate as a choice for VP.

While I actually liked the choice initially, I think the choice of Palin was wrong for a couple of reasons. Number 1, while her selection energized the base Republican voters, it really did nothing to entice the independents and democrats that did not support Obama in the beginning to vote GOP. Number 2, even though I think its bunk 9more on that in a second), it took away the ability of John McCain to go after Obama's lack of credentials.

Now, why I think that -- and your comparison JSPB -- is bunk, is because qualified or not, the vice president doesn't really do much unless the president is out of commission. The qualifications and credentials of the president is WAY more germane to the election. The only real purpose of the vice president is to get votes in areas that the presidential candidate is lacking.

Should have gone with your gut and picked Lieberman, Maverick. The base may not have liked it, but they weren't going to vote for Obama just because you picked Lieberman, but you may have gotten some votes from people that did vote for Obama.

[Deadskins]

Given McCain's age, and the stress of the job, there is a high probability (look at the actuarial tables), that he would not have survived his first term, meaning that she would have been President. I'm sorry, but that argument is simply not bunk. I agree that Lieberman would have been the much smarter choice.

[JansenFan]

Given McCain's age, and the stress of the job, there is a high probability (look at the actuarial tables), that he would not have survived his first term, meaning that she would have been President. I'm sorry, but that argument is simply not bunk. I agree that Lieberman would have been the much smarter choice.

Perhaps bunk was too strong a term, but I think that the qualifications of the VP is much less important than the Presidential candidates, regardless of McCain's age. On the other hand, the only real thing the president does is make decisions based on the input of his cabinet, so sound judgment and the ability to get good people that can cover issues from all angles is really the only true qualification necessary.

These days, even judgment seems to be optional.

[PulpExposure]

Given McCain's age, and the stress of the job, there is a high probability (look at the actuarial tables), that he would not have survived his first term, meaning that she would have been President. I'm sorry, but that argument is simply not bunk. I agree that Lieberman would have been the much smarter choice.

Yeah, agreed. The actuarial tables put it at 1/4 a person of McCain's age and medical history would pass away during the next 4 years. And that doesn't take into account the insane stress of the job. I mean hell, just look at how Clinton and George W Bush looked when they came into office (both younger guys, who worked out regularly), and see what they looked like 4 years later. It's like they aged 20 years in that time.

The qualifications of his VP candidate absolutely became an issue...simply because he WAS at a high risk of passing away during his term.

Oh and even more damning, she didn't even really know the role of a Vice President.. Psst, Sarah, yes technically the VP is the President of the Senate, but the VP has NO voting ability otherwise than voting in case of a tie. That's not being in charge of the Senate or having any other role in making legislation (Dick Cheney's laughable argument aside, VP is part of the Exec Branch...). I mean, a month before she didn't know what a VP does...if you're up for a job, do some damn due diligence and at least research your job duties.

Agreed, as well. I would have voted McCain/Lieberman, and I'm sure many others would have as well.

[skinsfan#33]

My beef with Obama had to do with his very limited experience level, some of his foreighn policies, his history of voting on as few bills as possible (take a stand man!), and his health care plan really scares me.

Now I had plenty of issues with McCain too. But I guess I felt more comfortable with the "Devil I knew, than the Devil I didn't".

Palin's addition to the ticket must have really scared the hell out of you then. Not being able to name a country in North America, a newspaper she has ever read, a single supreme court decision, or what the Bush doctrine is, and her ignorance that Africa is a continent and not a country, made her woefully inadequate as a choice for VP.

It would have if she had baan running fro President.

Look I really didn't want to vote for either of the two running for president. But it came down to the guy I thought was better preparred to be president, not which VP was better prepared, because there was no competition there.

By the way Palin has actually had a job where she was incharge of something and had some leadership responsibilities, the same can't be said for Obama.

[Redskin in Canada]

Considering this VERY HEAVY piece of luggage:

Bush leaving office more unpopular than Nixon

WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- On the day that President-elect Barack Obama is visiting the White House, a new national poll suggests that the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the most unpopular president since approval ratings were first sought more than six decades ago.

McCain did very well.

McCain could not reconcile the following contradiction

1) Re-assure the far-right in the Republican Party to get the nomination of his Party;

and, at the same time,

2) Select a moderate Vice-President in order to appeal to non-Republicans in the Federal Election.

Just sayin'

[Redskin in Canada]

Even Sarah Palin agrees with my assessment above and the result of this "very scientific" THN Poll:

Palin says Bush record led to GOP loss

(CNN) – Sarah Palin told local reporters in Alaska that unhappiness with the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy and spending record were responsible for the GOP ticket’s defeat this year.

“I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration?” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News and Alaska’s KTUU Channel 2.

“How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing. So people desiring change I think went as far from the administration that is presently seated as they could. It's amazing that we did as well as we did.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... d-to-loss/

[KazooSkinsFan]

Given McCain's age, and the stress of the job, there is a high probability (look at the actuarial tables), that he would not have survived his first term, meaning that she would have been President. I'm sorry, but that argument is simply not bunk. I agree that Lieberman would have been the much smarter choice.

Perhaps bunk was too strong a term, but I think that the qualifications of the VP is much less important than the Presidential candidates, regardless of McCain's age. On the other hand, the only real thing the president does is make decisions based on the input of his cabinet, so sound judgment and the ability to get good people that can cover issues from all angles is really the only true qualification necessary.

These days, even judgment seems to be optional.

The argument that a candidate like Palin without any credible experience for the job being a heart beat from the Presidency is too scary, so we need to elect a guy without any credible experience for the job WITH the heartbeat of the Presidency always tore me up.

In the end, if you look at how close McCain came while he experienced every possible thing that could possibly go wrong against a candidate, it's hard to argue empirically she hurt him. With the war, the economy, his failure to motivate the base of his own party and his being saddled with a hugely unpopular president in his party and to only lose by a few percent? With the nightmare scenario of any political candidate, he should have lost by at least 15%. Something was helping him besides Obama being a horrible candidate. It's sure hard to argue Palin hurt him.

[PulpExposure]

In the end, if you look at how close McCain came while he experienced every possible thing that could possibly go wrong against a candidate, it's hard to argue empirically she hurt him. With the war, the economy, his failure to motivate the base of his own party and his being saddled with a hugely unpopular president in his party and to only lose by a few percent? With the nightmare scenario of any political candidate, he should have lost by at least 15%. Something was helping him besides Obama being a horrible candidate. It's sure hard to argue Palin hurt him.

Last time I looked, he got smoked in the election, it wasn't losing "by a few percent." He lost by 7% of the popular vote (Obama had 8 million more votes)...but much more importantly, McCain got killed where it counts, in the Electoral College (364-163), losing such Republican stalwart states as Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina.

As a comparison, in 2004, Bush beat the weakest presidential candidate in years (John Kerry) by 2.4% of the popular vote, and 31 electoral votes. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote by .5% and won the electoral vote with 5 more votes.

Obama's victory was the biggest margin since Clinton over Dole in 1996 (another uninspiring candidate for presidency)...but even in that case, Clinton had an advantage as he was working on his second term as president, and Perot pulled 8% of votes (mostly from Dole).

2008 wasn't a close election. 2004 was a close election.

[KazooSkinsFan]

In the end, if you look at how close McCain came while he experienced every possible thing that could possibly go wrong against a candidate, it's hard to argue empirically she hurt him. With the war, the economy, his failure to motivate the base of his own party and his being saddled with a hugely unpopular president in his party and to only lose by a few percent? With the nightmare scenario of any political candidate, he should have lost by at least 15%. Something was helping him besides Obama being a horrible candidate. It's sure hard to argue Palin hurt him.

Last time I looked, he got smoked in the election, it wasn't losing "by a few percent." He lost by 7% of the popular vote (Obama had 8 million more votes)...but much more importantly, McCain got killed where it counts, in the Electoral College (364-163), losing such Republican stalwart states as Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina.

As a comparison, in 2004, Bush beat the weakest presidential candidate in years (John Kerry) by 2.4% of the popular vote, and 31 electoral votes. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote by .5% and won the electoral vote with 5 more votes.

Obama's victory was the biggest margin since Clinton over Dole in 1996 (another uninspiring candidate for presidency)...but even in that case, Clinton had an advantage as he was working on his second term as president, and Perot pulled 8% of votes (mostly from Dole).

2008 wasn't a close election. 2004 was a close election.

The margin was 6.5%, bigger then I realized. But still, Bush has a popularity of 30% and the 30% were not big on McCain and dealing with the war and the market swoons going INTO the election and you consider that being "smoked" in that nightmare scenario? 6.5 percent means that Dude, get real. 6.5% means the difference was 1 out of 16 voters. Not only is the economy bad but it tanked going INTO the election and McCain lost by 1 out of 16 voters.

[PulpExposure]

In the end, if you look at how close McCain came while he experienced every possible thing that could possibly go wrong against a candidate, it's hard to argue empirically she hurt him. With the war, the economy, his failure to motivate the base of his own party and his being saddled with a hugely unpopular president in his party and to only lose by a few percent? With the nightmare scenario of any political candidate, he should have lost by at least 15%. Something was helping him besides Obama being a horrible candidate. It's sure hard to argue Palin hurt him.

Last time I looked, he got smoked in the election, it wasn't losing "by a few percent." He lost by 7% of the popular vote (Obama had 8 million more votes)...but much more importantly, McCain got killed where it counts, in the Electoral College (364-163), losing such Republican stalwart states as Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina.

As a comparison, in 2004, Bush beat the weakest presidential candidate in years (John Kerry) by 2.4% of the popular vote, and 31 electoral votes. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote by .5% and won the electoral vote with 5 more votes.

Obama's victory was the biggest margin since Clinton over Dole in 1996 (another uninspiring candidate for presidency)...but even in that case, Clinton had an advantage as he was working on his second term as president, and Perot pulled 8% of votes (mostly from Dole).

2008 wasn't a close election. 2004 was a close election.

The margin was 6.5%, bigger then I realized. But still, Bush has a popularity of 30% and the 30% were not big on McCain and dealing with the war and the market swoons going INTO the election and you consider that being "smoked" in that nightmare scenario? 6.5 percent means that Dude, get real. 6.5% means the difference was 1 out of 16 voters. Not only is the economy bad but it tanked going INTO the election and McCain lost by 1 out of 16 voters.

Smoked is in the electoral college, the real election (you can lose the popular vote and still become president...2000, after all). This election was a landslide; it wasn't close at all.

[Redskin in Canada]

Smoked is in the electoral college, the real election (you can lose the popular vote and still become president...2000, after all). This election was a landslide; it wasn't close at all.

Agreed. Any election victory with over 300 or 320 electoral college votes is a landslide according to Rollins. Obama got 349 State electoral votes.

The fact that it was not a BIGGER landslide is a credit to McCain though.

[Fios]

McCain got his butt handed to him

[KazooSkinsFan]

Smoked is in the electoral college, the real election (you can lose the popular vote and still become president...2000, after all). This election was a landslide; it wasn't close at all.

Yes, congratulations. The rise of the lawyers is at hand. Personal responsibility is rapidly headed from on life support to being eliminated and lawyers will get rich in the process. And don't worry, NO ONE is questioning the socialist messiah's victory.

But the point was on Palin. That McCain lost by 1 in 16 people makes it impossible to believe she "hurt" him. He should have lost by a lot more then that and he didn't.