What's a good candidate? The most obvious answer is someone who garners the most votes. But that doesn't take into account the other candidate or the situation. Mondale got creamed but then almost anyone would've gotten creamed against Reagan in 1984. It was hard to run as a Republican in 1976 and as a Democrat in 1968.

If the best candidate is someone that successfully communicates his message to the most people, then McCain hasn't done that so far. If he's the guy who appeals to the broadest group of voters, then McCain was the best candidate. This year any Republican would need to appeal to independents and moderates to have half a shot. McCain is very well known, has a ton of experience, and a record on every issue. That could make a good candidate.

Of the Republican candidates I think McCain had the best shot to win this year. Huckabee and Romney weren't going to have broad enough appeal. Maybe Guiliani could have but he ran such a bad campaign I doubt it.

OBAMA

drsmooth wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Or, the obvious in your face reason:

McCain just isn't that good a candidate and too few people are interested in seeing him become president.

Don't blink, you might miss the patently obvious.

McCain "isn't that good a candidate" in absolute terms, or in comparison to alternatives?

It's kind of hard to understand what that assertion even means, let alone adjudge it to be "patently obvious".

Step back a moment and look at the larger picture here. I'm convinced you agree with what I mean despite the way I said it.

McCain is a dud. Not enough people are or will be interested in seeing him become president. At best he's Bob Dole at worst he's Gerald Ford. His candidacy landed with a thud, his winning of the nomination landed with a wet splat. That he won sufficient delegates to win the nomination seems meaningless compared to his competition and the lack of interest in McCain as a candidate from his own side, never mind the necessicary outsiders required to win a general election. If it weren't for the 24 hour newscycle and people who's jobs it is to talk about presidential politics (and folks like dear LAExile who have been pining for a McCain presidency since 2000), I'm convinced he'd be even less of a topic of discussion.

Spending time attempting to analyze which portion of W's winning base McCain doesn't have is less than academic - no one smaller group is going to be responsible for his coming loss - the common sense interpretation is that no one seems interested in him, right left center social economic whatever. Reading what you guys have to say I think the left is more interested in McCain than the right. It's clear the right is more interested in Obama, everyone is more interested in Obama.

Yeah, anything can happen, and Obama does have enough bad associations and unfortunate turns of the phrase to get him sufficiently in trouble by November, but it doesn't seem likely.

My pithy presentation aside, I have trouble believing you disagree with my assessment.

VoxOrion wrote:Spending time attempting to analyze which portion of W's winning base McCain doesn't have is less than academic - no one smaller group is going to be responsible for his coming loss - the common sense interpretation is that no one seems interested in him, right left center social economic whatever. Reading what you guys have to say I think the left is more interested in McCain than the right. It's clear the right is more interested in Obama, everyone is more interested in Obama.

Yeah, anything can happen, and Obama does have enough bad associations and unfortunate turns of the phrase to get him sufficiently in trouble by November, but it doesn't seem likely.

My pithy presentation aside, I have trouble believing you disagree with my assessment.

I think this is almost certainly right. Start with the assumption that the 2004 election was a jump ball that Bush pulled down (or whatever other close sports metaphor floats one's boat--an extra-inning one-run game, a replay call on fourth and goal, etc). Then posit the following:

1) McCain for whatever reason doesn't fire up "the base" the way Bush did. (To me, this is a feature, not a bug... but I'm a pretty far reach for McCain anyway.)

2) Obama's a better candidate than Kerry. (This one seems absolutely inarguable, if only because he didn't hire Terminal Schmuck/Professional Loser Bob Shrum.)

3) Bush's comprehensive failures (or, if you prefer, the widespread perception of same by the Libburl Media) have poisoned the electorate against the Republican brand. (Again, pretty much inarguable.)

Obama can lose the election, but McCain can't really do anything proactive to win it.

Now, if you hold this to be true, then the interesting question--at least to weirdos like me and, I'm guessing, maybe Paul--is how McCain responds. With it mattering little what he does anyway, does he choose to go down with colors pinned to the mast, breaking Republican orthodoxy with gleeful abandon? Or does he try to walk the Stations of the Bush, genuflecting to Dobson, Norquist, and whoever else is responsible for the big changes of the last eight years?

Alas, the flip-flop list pretty clearly indicates which way he's gone. Breaking with Bush/Roveism, he could have truly followed in Goldwater's footsteps and become a prophet of future Republican victories. Instead, he's more likely to go down as the guy who took one for the team.

VoxOrion wrote:Step back a moment and look at the larger picture here. I'm convinced you agree with what I mean despite the way I said it.

McCain is a dud. Not enough people are or will be interested in seeing him become president. At best he's Bob Dole at worst he's Gerald Ford. His candidacy landed with a thud, his winning of the nomination landed with a wet splat. That he won sufficient delegates to win the nomination seems meaningless compared to his competition and the lack of interest in McCain as a candidate from his own side, never mind the necessicary outsiders required to win a general election.....

Spending time attempting to analyze which portion of W's winning base McCain doesn't have is less than academic - no one smaller group is going to be responsible for his coming loss - the common sense interpretation is that no one seems interested in him, right left center social economic whatever. Reading what you guys have to say I think the left is more interested in McCain than the right.....

My pithy presentation aside, I have trouble believing you disagree with my assessment.

I'm afraid I do disagree with your assessment, if for no other reason than it suggests there was real interest - as opposed to something wholly manufactured - in 8 seconds, let alone 8 years, of the current officeholder's candidacy.

there have been few less authentic presidents in American history. Certainly none who served 2 terms.

More obvious to me than any disinterest in candidate McCain is an insurmountable antipathy for another 4 years of leadership by anyone associated with the republican party.

It's not principally McCain that's hurting McCain's chances.

dajafi wrote:Breaking with Bush/Roveism, he could have truly followed in Goldwater's footsteps and become a prophet of future Republican victories. Instead, he's more likely to go down as the guy who took one for the team.

McCain couldn't hold a candle to Goldwater even if he were the maverick he thinks he his (and yet he'll do better in the general election). There's no big picture to him, no ideology, no cohesive philosophy, no 'elevator pitch'. His campaign is like his politics since 2000: a bunch of ideas (some good, some bad) that don't really merge into a good single picture of what McCain stands for.

So, dajafi sides with "at best he's Dole"?

drsmooth wrote:I'm afraid I do disagree with your assessment, if for no other reason than it suggests there was real interest - as opposed to something wholly manufactured - in 8 seconds, let alone 8 years, of the current officeholder's candidacy.

there have been few less authentic presidents in American history. Certainly none who served 2 terms.

More obvious to me than any disinterest in candidate McCain is an insurmountable antipathy for another 4 years of leadership by anyone associated with the republican party.

It's not principally McCain that's hurting McCain's chances.

I don't see how we do disagree - aside from your loaded first sentence you are describing "at worst he's Gerald Ford" to a T.

The first sentence, I believe, is verifiably false. His base and support in 2000 and 2004 was far from apathetic. In 2000 it was all but activist, in my experience (in a blue state surrounded by blue states).

I'm a conservative and an optimist.

Still, I'm having a hard time seeing how McCain can win, given that he shares a party with Dub.

I do have a little, albeit perverse, audacious hope.

Race is the wild card in this election. Sometimes, there is a powerful effect of people telling pollsters one thing and voting another way.

Living in the librul east, posting on the librul chat boards, we really have no measure of how strongly the blue-collar Dems in the heartland (which begins 10 miles west of CBP) cling to god, guns, and racism.

It's real, but I have no idea of how pervasive. My MIL, in Colorado, has never voted for a Democrat in her life. But I bet she'd vote for John Edwards over JC Watts.

It's the wild card, it may only be enough to close Obama's victory margin from 15 points to 5.

I don't have all the details of the horrible crime in Vermont, where (it seems) an uncle molested and killed a 12 year old girl in part of a child sex operation he was running.

This will, once again, bring out the chorus for Megan's Law.

Megan's Law, well-intentioned, is nonetheless stupid.

If a child molestor is such a dangerous predator that you'd insist on warning all the neighbors, why is he even out of prison?

When I am Czar of America, child molestors will get 20 years mandatory sentences. After that time, they will have the option of castration or continued incarceration.

TomatoPie wrote:I don't have all the details of the horrible crime in Vermont, where (it seems) an uncle molested and killed a 12 year old girl in part of a child sex operation he was running.

This will, once again, bring out the chorus for Megan's Law.

Megan's Law, well-intentioned, is nonetheless stupid.

If a child molestor is such a dangerous predator that you'd insist on warning all the neighbors, why is he even out of prison?

When I am Czar of America, child molestors will get 20 years mandatory sentences. After that time, they will have the option of castration or continued incarceration.

Too political - moving to the politics thread.

Iraq -- a war of choice?

An insider says no.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1215044 ... mmentaries

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Laexile wrote:This may be the single biggest reason Obama will win the elections.

The Republican Party consists mostly of fiscal, foreign policy, and social conservatives. McCain appeals strongly to the first two groups, but is unpopular with the third. They don't see him as a real conservative. It doesn't help that despite all of McCain's "flip-flops" he hasn't flip-flopped on the issues that are important to them.

This to me is most curious. I can think of several explanations.

1. Social conservative leadership (Dobson et al) don't really care about issue, they care about their own power, and McCain's ascension is a sign that their power is rather limited.

2. Social conservatives are dumb, believing that saying you have faith, talking the talk, is more important than walking the walk.

3. The idea that social conservatives have problems with McCain is a fiction. After all, he did win the Republican nomination, and while it might make sense that some evangelicals were more comfortable with Huckabee, that doesn't mean they aren't going to vote for McCain.

4. (This is similar to #2) Social conservatives are sheep, doing whatever their leaders tell them.

5. They hate Mexicans even more than they hate abortion.

Or, the obvious in your face reason:

McCain just isn't that good a candidate and too few people are interested in seeing him become president.

Don't blink, you might miss the patently obvious.

Well, yes and no. Why is there less enthusiasm among social conservatives than other elements in the Republican coalition? Why was there more enthusiasm among social conservatives for Mitt Romney, an even worse candidate?

TenuredVulture wrote:
Well, yes and no. Why is there less enthusiasm among social conservatives than other elements in the Republican coalition? Why was there more enthusiasm among social conservatives for Mitt Romney, an even worse candidate?

The first premise I disagree with is that there even is a Republican coalition in 2008. You can't even point to Huckabee, the supposedly social conservative of the bunch, for consensus - the "social conservatives" didn't like him either.

There are too many terms going back and forth here that lack sufficient definition to make an analysis - with that said an "obvious" conclusion comes to mind: McCain is just a dud.

The entire GOP nomination process was about who people thought could beat Obama or Hillary - none of the candidates excited enough people to even have a solid plurality. The GOP banked on Hillary being the candidate, and if that had happened McCain's chances of winning would have increased substantially. Against Obama, none of them really had a chance - Romney probably would have been the best bet to lose this election without too much embarassment in hindsight (because at least he's not a Bush associate - despite the fact that he would be transformed into one had he won the nomination).

TomatoPie wrote:I'm a conservative and an optimist.

Still, I'm having a hard time seeing how McCain can win, given that he shares a party with Dub.

I do have a little, albeit perverse, audacious hope.

Race is the wild card in this election. Sometimes, there is a powerful effect of people telling pollsters one thing and voting another way.

Living in the librul east, posting on the librul chat boards, we really have no measure of how strongly the blue-collar Dems in the heartland (which begins 10 miles west of CBP) cling to god, guns, and racism.

It's real, but I have no idea of how pervasive. My MIL, in Colorado, has never voted for a Democrat in her life. But I bet she'd vote for John Edwards over JC Watts.

It's the wild card, it may only be enough to close Obama's victory margin from 15 points to 5.

I don't know if you can single out specific regions of the country as being more likely to be affected by race. It's not like Hillary (or anyone else the Dems would have nominated) is going to have a shot in Mississippi. It's not like Hillary wouldn't have won PA pretty easily against McCain, while Obama will have to campaign hard.

It's not like the fact that McCain is from the SW makes Colorado and New Mexico and Nevada more competitive than they otherwise would have been with say a Huckabee on the Republican side.

I agree that Obama will have a problem with white voters everywhere over say 50. Maybe 40. But I don't think that phenomena is restricted to the heartland. I don't think Obama is going to get many votes in Ocean County, NJ.

VoxOrion wrote:The first sentence, I believe, is verifiably false. His base and support in 2000 and 2004 was far from apathetic. In 2000 it was all but activist, in my experience (in a blue state surrounded by blue states).

I must admit I fail to understand, and have for the better part of a decade, how any sentient creature yearns for the current officeholder to lead the broom closet, much less the entire US of A.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
Well, yes and no. Why is there less enthusiasm among social conservatives than other elements in the Republican coalition? Why was there more enthusiasm among social conservatives for Mitt Romney, an even worse candidate?

The first premise I disagree with is that there even is a Republican coalition in 2008. You can't even point to Huckabee, the supposedly social conservative of the bunch, for consensus - the "social conservatives" didn't like him either.

There are too many terms going back and forth here that lack sufficient definition to make an analysis - with that said an "obvious" conclusion comes to mind: McCain is just a dud.

The entire GOP nomination process was about who people thought could beat Obama or Hillary - none of the candidates excited enough people to even have a solid plurality. The GOP banked on Hillary being the candidate, and if that had happened McCain's chances of winning would have increased substantially. Against Obama, none of them really had a chance - Romney probably would have been the best bet to lose this election without too much embarassment in hindsight (because at least he's not a Bush associate - despite the fact that he would be transformed into one had he won the nomination).

I agree the Republican coalition is in some trouble these days, and I think it's basically gone, never to return. But I don't lay that at the feet of McCain's quality as a candidate. Is he Reagan? Of course not. However, in my opinion, he's a better candidate than Dole, maybe even better than Bush II. This is all subjective, and impossible to prove one way or the other.

Let's set aside the McCain criticism. He has run a less than inspirational campaign. He's running following a very unpopular President in his own party. He hasn't been heard from in three months, while Obama has been constantly in the news. He's being outspent not just by Obama, but he also has Moveon.org and other Democratic groups at him. The media and blogosphere haven't been kind with all their flip-flop rhetoric. Obama hasn't really withstood anything in the month since Clinton dropped out.

Rasmussen's poll today has Obama 49 McCain 44. Gallup yesterday had Obama 46 McCain 44. CNN had Obama 50 McCain 45. Time has 47-43. Rasmussen's survey had him with a 55/43 favorable/unfavorable poll. Obama's is 56/42. The margin of error on polls is usually 3%. Even if the social conservatives don't like him it seems that a lot of Americans do.

Despite all the factors working against him the American public still likes John McCain. You guys may argue that the needle will go heavier in Obama's favor. It may. But Obama has run a very successful campaign so far, while McCain has not. The law of averages says that'll even out.

Obama's great strength is his oratory skills. He said he'd do town halls with McCain, a format McCain excels. McCain does well when Democrats ask him slanted questions. I can't recall Obama taking any questions from Republicans. As good as Obama is in speeches he's not nearly as good in debates, where he can't pontificate as much.

Can you dismiss that most of the polls still have the election within five points?

This is hilarious

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002

VoxOrion wrote:McCain couldn't hold a candle to Goldwater even if he were the maverick he thinks he his (and yet he'll do better in the general election). There's no big picture to him, no ideology, no cohesive philosophy, no 'elevator pitch'. His campaign is like his politics since 2000: a bunch of ideas (some good, some bad) that don't really merge into a good single picture of what McCain stands for.

So, dajafi sides with "at best he's Dole"?

I think he's a substantially better candidate than Dole (though I also suspect we have different concepts of what Dole means; to me, Dole was the Republican John Kerry, though with a much better sense of humor).

I give McCain credit for having a semi-coherent philosophy: "national greatness conservatism." It was a lot more coherent in 2000, before Bush/Rove did their toxic thing, but the outlines are still there and on my more optimistic days, I believe that McCain would come back to it if he wins. (Of course, I don't think he's going to win, so to me this is academic.)

You'd likely counter that it's a better slogan than a philosophy, which might be true... but I see it as aggressive to an almost manic extent abroad and, by Republican standards, rather statist at home--reformist and process-oriented, conservationist (remember that McCain's true historic man-crush is TR), and moralistic, though more in the public than private sense. (A guy of McCain's life experience just can't get very fired up about persecuting The Gays... and unlike Bush, who also--to his credit--wasn't truly homophobic, he can't convincingly fake it.)

I like Bob Dole a lot. If he had run as the real Bob Dole, the Senator who was as responsible as anyone else for landmark civil rights legislation passing the Senate, the man who had dedicated his entire adult life to public service in one form or another, rather than as some unconvincing stiff right winger, I very well could have voted for him over the fat triangulating pervert.