Why McCain is Losing the Battleground States

My view in a nutshell: Gov. Sarah Palin is the reason John McCain is behind in the polls in the battleground states. Yes, the issue on people's minds is the economy. Who would take a chance on having her in charge of economic policy if something happened to McCain?

There's not enough difference between McCain and Obama on the bailout bill. It's Palin that is killing him, particularly, I think, in Florida. No one except evangelicals want an evangelical with extremist views in the White House.

Even if Palin doesn't stumble tomorrow night, the debate won't help McCain .

Unless there's a huge terror or national security threat, areas in which McCain still outpolls Obama, he's history. And Palin sank him. [More...]

There's another reason McCain/Palin will lose, absent a huge terror or national security threat, and it's not the economy either. Obama's new voter registration drive has swung into high gear in the battleground states. Even Michelle was in Colorado today. Hollywood stars are flooding the college campuses this weekend.

Also consider that some polls, especially those that work off of voter registration lists, are less likely to reach newly registered voters. Other polls that work off of phone numbers miss those only with cell phones -- mainly the young.

I think Obama's lead is even greater than the poll numbers show.

But there are five weeks left to the election. McCain only has one hope left -- to make people afraid of Barack Obama. If he goes the personal attack route, things could change. Given early voting, even that might not be enough.

If we start seeing personal attack ads in the battleground states, it's a sign McCain knows it's just about over for him.

This race is now Obama's to lose and it's not because of the economy but because McCain has such terrible judgment. It's because people cannot understand the only two explanations that make sense: By putting such an unprepared and unqualified candidate like Sarah Palin on the ticket, either he sold out the country for his own ambition or has an enormous deficit in judgment when it comes to matters of importance.

People want change but they also want competence and confidence in their leaders. McCain/Palin fails miserably on both counts.

< More State Polls Point To Significant Obama Lead | CBS Poll: Economy Pushes Obama To 9 Point Lead >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why are you so resistant to the idea... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:44:02 PM EST
    ...that American voters may have fallen out of love with "rampant capitalism" and are looking for the "soft capitalism" that Obama is offering them? (or at least appears to be offering them...subject to parsing and obfuscation).

    I don't thinkk we'll ever know the (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:45:50 PM EST
    answer to your question.

    I agree with Jeralyn to the extent McCain's choosing Palin as his running mate should have removed any doubt he is pro-life and antithetical to liberal values.  


    I don't think McCain or most any (none / 0) (#18)
    by Blowback on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:06:57 PM EST
    of those repubs give a rat's ass about abortion, other than it's ability to get them votes.

    George Herbert Walker (love that pretentious name) Bush was know as "rubbers" in govt before he was "against" abortion, a position he "chose" to get on Reagan's ticket in 1980.

    Palin is just a pure fanatic, hell, she said if her daughter was raped then she must have the produce. That's what the evans are looking for, the ability to be crazy in public.

    Hey, as a life long Dem, I actually worked for the RNC as a fundraiser in Washington, DC in 1998 when I needed a job real bad. It paid me well. Every day I felt lke I was in enemy territory, which I was. Jim Nicholson, RNC Chair at the time, was sort of my friend, both from Colorado. I eventually got fired from the RNC after a few incidents. They said anyone who raises $100,000 would get a $1,000 bonus for that! I got canned when I reached $97,500!  I also bad mouthed some of Jim's college friends on the phone when I called them up for $. I was subversive there. I did my best to PO many donors. I also saw the rise of W when I worked there.  Amazing stories to tell. Donna Br. was my friend at the time also.


    And I don't (none / 0) (#64)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:54:23 PM EST
    think the general public cares one way or another about sarah Palin.

    They are frightened about the economy and that's what's driving this election.


    I really hate the term "judgement"... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:47:05 PM EST
    ...that word was thrown around a great deal by pundits in 2000 in praise of Bush. I'd imagine the press will start saying in 2010, how sharp Bush really was---thus paving the way for JEB in 2012 or 2016.

    I really dislike that British spelling (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:40:45 PM EST
    and prefer the American spelling: judgment. :-)

    because voters don't know what (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:47:19 PM EST
    that means. Even I have no idea what you are talking about. They know both Obama and McCain want the bailout bill passed.

    Two things have catapulted Obama (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Prana on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:04:31 PM EST
    and not one of them is Palin.

    #1 is Serendipity - The financial crisis has been Obama's biggest boost. A boost that not only did he not create, but a boost where he really doesn't even have the answers or solutions. His On The Fence Go With the flow cautious ways have paid dividends for him on this issue. That and McCain has totally blown it on this issue. Who would have thought that buying in to the Bush/Paulson Plan which the Republicans are against would be a boost for Obama? It's kind of funny that his sustained lead is by riding Bush's coattails.

    #2 is the fact that McCain is just a bad bad candidate. He had been running a few points behind the entire way without campaigning. And when he did start campaigning other that a short lived Convention bounce he has sunk like a man with lead boots.

    Obama is not ahead because of his greatness. He is ahead because he isn't running against anyone and the scared to death public buys into his blank slate and manner instead of McCain's message which is delivered in fits and starts. The debate also helped Obama but so far it is mainly Serendipity and McCain himself that has Obama in the lead.

    If McCain could hit him hard in the next two debates maybe he would get back in the game but I wouldn't bet on it.


    Campaigns are about winning. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Realleft on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:20:52 PM EST
    If it's more likely that you'll win by not saying what you think, then that's what you do if you want to win.  

    Obama loses more than he gains by talking about liberal causes at this point.  We might like liberal causes, but decades of being branded "tax and spend" makes it not a good banner to wave around in a general election during a tanking economy if you want to win those swing states.  People expect government to favor the rich getting further ahead. It might piss them off, but they expect it.  People don't accept government that might make the poor pull even. That's even more threatening, because then you have to face that you're right down there with the poor.


    The American people (none / 0) (#68)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:59:25 PM EST
    have rightly pinned our economic problems on the Republicans.

    The economy has deteriorated to the state that now most people are truly frightened and that's what's driving this election.


    Who'd've thunk (none / 0) (#74)
    by Realleft on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    that R's could be saddled with economic blame.  Am I awake or am I dreaming?

    I'm not thrilled with the Dem capitulation but I'm hoping that things look really different in January.

    Meanwhile, it's been ten weeks since I put up an Obama sign, 9 weeks and 6 days since my neighbor stopped talking to me.


    True they have (none / 0) (#77)
    by Prana on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:24:56 PM EST
    pinned it on Republicans. Problem is that Democrats are just as much to blame.

    Two cases in point. On is we have lead the Senate and House for almost two years now and not once have we tried to fix the current problem we face today.

    Secondly if you look at who Wall Street has given a pile of money to it is those Democrats who are trying to push this horrific giveaway - Dodd and Franks included. And the leading money receiver is none other than Obama who has banked 27.9 Million dollars in his short political career.

    So if you wonder why he is so gung-ho about passing this legislation just remember that 700 Billion gets Obama more millions in his wallet. Money does influence and we are being sold down the river.


    so the democratic congress (none / 0) (#79)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:52:57 AM EST
    was in charge of changing the interest rate?

    I tend to think we are seeing the end of... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:50:44 PM EST
    ...30 years of predatory deregulation ushered in by Reagan, and killed off by Bush II. It'll Replaced by, either a softer version of capitalism or various forms of socialism or fascism. For Fascists see the election results in Austria--for socialism see Evo Morales.

    And many voters seem to be aware of it happening.


    Do you think the bulk of Americans even (none / 0) (#13)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:56:05 PM EST
    think in those terms?  "Rampant capitalism" vs. "soft capitalism?"  I do not.  I do think it is Palin that has lost the race for McCain.  She solidified the base that eventually would have voted for McCain anyway, IMHO.  She scared away many who were on the fence.  When I see the parodies of her and then her actual videoclips, I CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE ANYMORE.  That is funny but it is scary!!    

    I'm making a broader... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:59:26 PM EST
    ...categorical statement. I do think crowds of people think in such terms. Thus we get politcal party groups based around rather crude expressed ideas about free enterprise/government intervetion, wall street/main street or collective effort/individual responsibility,  or what have you.

    The raw and the cooked.  Basic anthro/social theory.


    Americans do like socialism (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:41:40 PM EST
    as long as it's not called that, yes.

    And at a certain point ... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM EST
    they won't care what it's called if it means a job with reasonable pay.

    How does socialism provide that? (none / 0) (#61)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    More government jobs?  

    Sarah Pallin (none / 0) (#70)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:09:11 PM EST
    has simply become an amusing sideshow. Her presence on the GOP ticket makes little difference.

    The economy is deciding this election as it does so many elections.

    The admission by the administration that there is an economic crisis cinched the deal. It confirmed both fears and experience.  There is little more frightening than the possibility of losing your livelihood.


    This certainly will not help (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by indiependy on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:46:52 PM EST
    Matt Damon's really bad Disney movie "The Hockey Mom" hits the screen again...

    Palin on Supreme Court decisions.

    You have to see Palen and Biden side by side (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:08:20 PM EST
    the way they have it on the CBS site.  How can anyone defend her as anything but an know nothing buffoon. (That being said I think I agree with BTD that the economy is far more important to Obama's rise.)

    Well, my mother and brother, who swore (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:51:56 PM EST
    they wouldn't vote for Obama, changed their minds before Palin entered the picture. The economy was already going in the tank, gas prices were going up and McCain kept putting his foot in his mouth.

    There's just no way that an anti-Palin vote is helping Obama more than the economy and the Bush record. That's my opinion, of course, but no one I know in real life changed their mind over Palin.

    She's just symptomatic of the rot... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:54:20 PM EST
    ...in the GOP electoral fortunes. Not the rot itself.

    it's not so much changing their mind (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:54:37 PM EST
    as it is the undecided now deciding who to vote for and even more importantly, deciding this is not an election they can afford to sit out.

    Right. Because they don't want McCain. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:58:06 PM EST
    Palin is just icing on the cake, not the cake.

    With Obama and McCain both supporting (none / 0) (#76)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:19:38 PM EST
    the bailout, I think many people will sit this one out since they will now view McCain and Obama as both the McSame twins.  Not a dime's worth of difference between them.  

    Hard to tell (none / 0) (#16)
    by indiependy on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:01:01 PM EST
    While it's nearly impossible to pinpoint the exact issue or to what level different issues are causing Obama's numbers to rise, there's really no denying that Palin's numbers have plummeted. Especially in one key category:

    "On Sept. 8th, Palin had a 47 percent favorable rating among women and a 19 percent unfavorable; now her favorable rating among the group is down to 30 percent, while her unfavorable has risen to 34 percent." - CBS poll conducted September 27-30


    That's bad news for the McCain team. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:04:09 PM EST

    McCain's erratic behavior (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Coral on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:09:42 PM EST
    during the bail-out crisis, plus his odd demeanor -- not even looking at Obama during the debate also is hurting him.

    Palin alone cannot drag him down. Although, the two Tina Fey SNL skits have made her a joke to a growing number of people who don't follow politics as closely as we lefty blog addicts do.

    Letterman's railing for most of his show after being stood up last week also hurt.

    Someone once said that you can tell how a politician is doing by watching the late-night comics. Once they become a standing joke in the opening monologue, they are toast.

    I hope nothing happens in the next few weeks to change this dynamic, because I am beginning to fear a McCain-Palin presidency much more than I did before I had a chance to see McCain in action, and Palin unable to name a newspaper or magazine that she regularly reads.

    Agree. McCain's erratic, pathetic performance (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by byteb on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:31:18 PM EST
    during this economic meltdown did the trick.  From his infamous 'the fundamentals of the economy are strong' to his 'suspension' of his campaign and even the debate to solve the problem only to changing his mind and debating like a surly teenager, then claiming his leadership rallied the troops to supporting the bill when hours later the bill was defeated...I mean, a scriptwriter couldn't divine such a twisted farfetched storyline.
    Palin's ignorance during her interviews was the icing on the cake.

    not to worry here's digby (none / 0) (#21)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM EST

    I tend to hope that elections are not decided by our court jesters and Vandebilt Manners Police.  If so it means we are doomed poliocy wise because all the power is abdicated to comedians and pundits.  I like to hope it's a bit more serious how we pick em and pack em off.


    Is John Sidney McCain III... (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:16:20 PM EST
    ...in denial?  Via AP, a story about his meeting with the Editorial Board of the Des Moines Register yesterday...

    '...When it was suggested that Palin's lack of experience worried voters, McCain turned sarcastic.

    "Really? I haven't detected that in the polls, I haven't detected that among the base," he said. "If there's a Georgetown cocktail party person who, quote, calls himself a conservative who doesn't like her, good luck. I don't dismiss him. I think the American people have overwhelmingly shown their approval."...'

    ...that means you George Will... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:21:14 PM EST
    ...my friend, you bow tie wearing F***!

    I'm rather worried about the voting lists (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by wasabi on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:22:16 PM EST
    A lot of purging has happened recently.  Millions of voters have supposedly been taken off the voting lists.  I worked 18 hour days for a voter outreach program affiliated with Kerry for several weeks in Florida just prior to the 2004 election and I could not believe the crap that the GOP got away with down there.  You all have no idea.

    It's the economy and ... (4.66 / 3) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:30:55 PM EST
    the Dem brand that explains Obama's rise.  Period.

    Not dumb things McCain did.  Not Palin.  Not even Obama.

    It's all about the economic meltdown and the Dem brand.  Nothing else.

    60% brand... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:34:44 PM EST
    ...20% Obama's gnomish silence, and about 20% McCain's tin ear.

    Nope ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:36:31 PM EST

    gnomish silence? What do you mean? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Finis Terrae on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    He doesn't really say anything concrete. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:41:48 PM EST
    And that's when he does talk. Just like his book he leaves all the loose ideological ends dangling...you could get the best analytical positivists to comb over his policy stuff and they'd all have very different opinions about what he's promising and to whom he's talking.

    Also, he always gives himself and rhetorcial escape hatch.


    And that tall ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:43:34 PM EST
    red hat he wears.



    smiling (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Finis Terrae on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:46:53 PM EST
    it's rooted in the greek word... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:48:02 PM EST
    ...for intelligence. And the liitle silent fellow hides treasure too.

    It was just a little joke ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:49:27 PM EST
    don't give me an etymology lecture.

    a seven-ten word lecture? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:57:28 PM EST
    with a salo typo. lol.   That's quite good.  I wasn't contradicting you. He reminds be of a leprechaun or a gnome. But strangely that is a possible root of the word.

    Sorry ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:15:08 PM EST
    just running out of patience for this sort of Internet response.  Not yours in particular.

    Rather than responding in a snippy manner, I should have just turned off the computer for a bit.


    thanks. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Finis Terrae on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:46:17 PM EST
    I'm of the opinion (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    that absent Palin he'd be even further behind than he is now.

    But, hey, who really cares anyway, BO's a shoe-in at this point, right? Isn't that all that really matters?

    not quite (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:48:17 PM EST
    see my caveats.

    Agreed, re: caveats. (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:53:38 PM EST
    I think it's Bush and the Economy (none / 0) (#20)
    by SomewhatChunky on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:12:43 PM EST
    If McCain could win after 8 years of Bush and the current economy, the Democrats should just toss in the towel and disband the party.

    McCain's not Bush and I think the attempts to paint him that way are misleading.  But he is a Republican.

    The economy is not only bad and getting worse, the "bailout" is focusing people's attention on the economy at the worst possible time if you're McCain.  McCain had his bounce, but the Sept/Oct timeframe starts to cause the majority of voters to focus on what they want.  Before the conventions it's just us political junkies.

    The bad news is that the economy is getting worse and the Fed Govt has taken on some huge new obligations.  Tax revenues will be way down.  That will stymie Obama out of the gate.  He'll not be able to do much of what he has said he wants to do.

    If McCain had picked someone competent (Romney?)  he still be behind.  But Palin is not the plus I once thought....

    Key comment (none / 0) (#27)
    by indiependy on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    I think "Palin is not the plus I once thought" sums up what we're seeing here. Lots of people thought she was a game-changer for McCain. But the reality of her is clearly not living up to the hype.

    Things can still change quickly... (none / 0) (#36)
    by SomewhatChunky on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    Far  more people will see her in the debate on Thursday than saw her in any of her interviews.

    She could still hit it out of the park and crush Biden.  Americans like to make up their own minds and if she does so her critics will be completely discredited.

    Having said that I've noticed in life that people who never hit home runs.....  .......never hit home runs.  We'll see.


    I will repeat what I said in the previous thread. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Finis Terrae on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:29:43 PM EST
    I wouldn't dismiss Palin so easily.

    Without her, McCain would be doing far worse than he is among his base.

    And don't forget that some "D" women identify strongly with her.

    I for one, am going to wait and see.

    Which D women (none / 0) (#38)
    by liberalone on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:40:59 PM EST
    I think the Democratic women who identify with Palin at this point are in states that are safely Republican, where Obama doesn't stand a chance of winning.

    if you say so. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Finis Terrae on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:50:28 PM EST
    I wouldn't be so sure. I believe that they are all over and that Obama would be doing better were it not for them.

    D women (none / 0) (#50)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:04:40 PM EST
    At this point, Obama gets as much of the Dem vote as you can reasonably expect, and is way ahead with women.

    Also, a recent poll showed that Palin had some initial effect, but now (white) women have abandoned her.

    In other words, I don't think she's helping with Dem women at this point.


    Perhaps, TRFrank. Perhaps not (none / 0) (#53)
    by Finis Terrae on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:29:14 PM EST
    it depends on how you define "reasonably". I believe he could be doing much better among self identified D women than he is. However, as you mention, recent trends seem to be in his favour so this too could change.

    We'll have to wait and see.


    Finnis Terrae (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:39:55 PM EST
    You are way over limit for a new commenter. Please return another day.

    You are right, sorry. Will do. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Finis Terrae on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:07:25 PM EST
    McCain is Losing because of McCain (none / 0) (#48)
    by stevea66 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:01:51 PM EST
    Face it.  He was suffering before Palin, and is suffering now because of Palin, but he has had his hand in it the whole way.

    He's losing because his decision-making skills are not even on the chart and he's a liar.  He has been absolutely all over the place and the people now know it.  Add to that the fact that Palin could be one step away from having the nuclear codes and it's pretty much all over.

    Palin stumbling (none / 0) (#51)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:05:54 PM EST
    I definitely think that if Palin doesn't stumble, it'll help McCain. Although at this point, I am not sure how much.

    Stumble? (none / 0) (#52)
    by stevea66 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:13:10 PM EST
    Oh, she'll stumble.  BUT...if she doesn't stumble too badly, they could come out of this without losing too much ground.

    I'm just not so sure they can recover from these interviews she has done, the gaff on Pakistan, and all the other issues from 'the bridge' to 'troopergate.'  If she manages to pull off an upset tomorrow, most of us will assume it was because she managed to memorize a number of speeches on certain issues and got a bit lucky.

    I'm very interested in watching her to see how good the script is.  As an acting teacher, I find this debate to be the most fascinating time in the election.

    She'd have to be Lucille Ball, Laurel & Hardy (none / 0) (#59)
    by Realleft on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:11:16 PM EST
    and the Three Stooges combined to fall below the expectations for her tmw night.  It will be hard for her not to come out looking better than her caricature at this point.

    That said, if you're watching her tomorrow and thinking of Tina Fey, that's a real bad sign for her.

    I just hope Joe Biden is feeling no pressure at all.  He just needs to show up, be nice and be confident that Barack Obama will be a much better president than John McCain would be.  Keep it short. Keep it sweet.  Don't try to prove how much you know, please.


    McCain wore out the maverick schtick and (none / 0) (#55)
    by thereyougo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:00:15 PM EST
    Sarah P. helped him, so since he's now old in so many ways, we gotta vote for the other guy.

    Honestly, McCain hurt himself so bad in so many ways, even his military POW status won't save him, he's that out of it.

    He's so hard on the eyes too.

    He went for the big boost, (none / 0) (#60)
    by Realleft on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    instead of playing it straight and sober, making a responsible experienced VP pick, and looking to gain a 1/2 point per week until the election.

    hard on the eyes (none / 0) (#84)
    by desertdude on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:59:03 AM EST
    Forunately, if past presidents are used a guide, that's not a requirement.

    Why the frequent hatin' on Palin? (none / 0) (#56)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:04:49 PM EST
    Because of your support for Hillary?  Or some other reason?  I mean, I loved Hillary too, but I don't hate Palin because our team screwed up and didn't put Hillary on our ticket.

    Palin isn't McCain's problem.  The VP is never the problem.  

    With credit to Corporal Queball, "It's the economy, stupid".  

    I'm not voting for McCain, but I don't hate Palin (none / 0) (#66)
    by stefystef on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:57:21 PM EST
    She's a republican, not the antiChrist (despite the attitude of some of the people on this blog).

    Right now, because of the economy and the media having a new female to bash on (since Hillary is out of the race and on the Obama bandwagon for appearances' sake), Palin is the new punch line.  The Obama-favored MSM has spent alot of time over-reporting Palin's gaffes while ignoring Biden's and Obama's gaffes.

    But in the end, I think those numbers will change back to Palin.  I believe the religious right is being under counted again and the rural vote will be pivotal.  Older voters will be coming out in droves.

    It is the economy, for sure.  But if the Republicans can put this mess in the laps of the Democrats, it may work for McCain in the end.


    Oh, I smell a repeat of 2004 (none / 0) (#63)
    by stefystef on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:48:02 PM EST
    I remember all the celebs coming out to endorse Kerry, the Rock the Vote and Vote or Die campaigns.  

    In that year, the youth vote wasn't has high as expected and the evangelical vote put Bush over the top.

    Well, you just mentioning the "star" power behind Obama makes many people run for the hills.  Most folks are actually turned OFF by such endorsements and it has been proven to not make much difference.  Just more air time for a bunch of airheads.

    Run for the Hills! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:03:00 PM EST
    It appears Wright was cribbing from the Maiden.

    White man came across the sea
    He brought us pain and misery
    He killed our tribes, he killed our creed
    He took our game for his own need

    We fought him hard we fought him well
    Out on the plains we gave him hell
    But many came too much for cree
    Oh will we ever be set free?

    Riding through dustclouds and barren wastes
    Galloping hard on the plains
    Chasing the redskins back to their holes
    Fighting them at their own game
    Murder for freedom a stab in the back
    Women and children and cowards attack

    Run to the hills run for your lives
    Run to the hills run for your lives

    Soldier blue on the barren wastes
    Hunting and killing their game
    Raping the women and wasting the men
    The only good indians are tame
    Selling them whisky and taking their gold
    Enslaving the young and destroying the old

    Run to the hills run for your lives



    This is from Rev Wright??? (none / 0) (#72)
    by stefystef on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:17:57 PM EST
    Are you sure?
    Can't be... Obama has kept him at bay for months.

    Iron Maiden (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:29:12 PM EST
    I bolded the White Mans greed part.

    A five for the gratuitous Iron Maiden reference (none / 0) (#78)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:46:27 PM EST
    Liberty University, Falwell's place, (none / 0) (#75)
    by Realleft on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:52:03 PM EST
    is hoping to put McCain over the top in Virginia.  Re-registering all of their out of state students to Virginia, about 4000 so far.  Cancelled classes for election day, extra credit for voting, buses running from dorms and apartments to the polling site.  Resident advisors going room to room.  They think if they can keep Virginia red they can carry more weight in a McCain-Palin administration than they were able to in Bush II.

    This isn't 2004 (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM EST
    For a lot of reasons.  Starting with the fact that in 2004 people still supported the Iraq war, the economy was pretty good, and Kerry was as charismatic as a brick wall.  Which may not matter for the blue dogs, but it certainly didn't help him with the vaunted "youth vote".  I was in Pittsburgh recently, as I lived there in 2004.  Most of my peers didn't vote in 2004 because "it doesn't matter anyway", "Kerry is the same as Bush", etc..., etc...  I didn't hear that once this time.  Also, frankly, there are a lot more young voters this time.  It is a baby boom and they are turning 18 in droves.

    Finally, Bush was winning for most of the election.  Kerry only kept it close at the end.  The evangelical vote is not as in love with McCain as they were with Bush.

    I agree that rock the vote is rediculous and probably loses democrats votes in the long run.  But it happens every 4 years anyway...


    BrassTacks (none / 0) (#65)
    by stevea66 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:56:05 PM EST
    Have you been watching the news lately?  Palin becomes more and more unpopular the more we get to know about her and the more she's forced to answer simple questions that any VP candidate should be able to answer.  It has nothing to do with Hillary or anything other than the fact that she simply shouldn't be on the ticket.

    It seems (none / 0) (#80)
    by illissius on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:15:28 AM EST
    Obama was always perfectly set up for victory.

    If he picks Hillary, he wins.

    If he doesn't pick Hillary, then John McCain picks Sarah Palin, and McCain loses.

    Unintentional and ironic, but true.

    If Palin's decline in the polls... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Caro on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:47:38 AM EST
    ... is also the reason for Obama's rise, then the leftie blogosphere can give itself a great round of applause for destroying the reputation of ANOTHER woman who dared to run for national office.

    Lies, innuendo, hatemongering...  I do believe you're all quite proud of your achievement.

    Carolyn Kay