Ha funny how this can happen in an economy that's tanking, for a person that's supposed to be "going after the rich, to redistribute wealth", I guess middle and lower class people just really wanted Obama in office. lol

 

Because I know if I was an rich person, or big company, and believe what he was saying to be true, I'd be counting my dollars, not throwing them away. Then again I'm selfish and unpatriotic, especially when I factor in my employees into my decision if I'm in that position....

The way that it happened had little to do with the economy. When one is willing to accept illegal contribution and to reject public financing (after signing an agreement to accept it) with its spending restrictions, then it becomes easy to understand why Obama raised more money than McCain. Obama spent more money on this campaign than Bush and Kerry combined spent in 2004.

As dangerous and unqualified as I believe Obama to be, I truly hope that he serves his full four-year term because Joe Biden is nothing but a very experienced goofball. Very few Republicans decided to vote for an extremely inexperienced and extremely liberal presidential candidate because they were troubled by the inexperience of McCain's running mate. That logic makes no sense.

 

I think it was clear to some that she was picked to win the election and not to improve the country.

I think it was clear to some that she was picked to win the election and not to improve the country.

I think that it was pretty clear to anybody who paid attention to Joe Biden's pitiful performance on the campaign trail that he was picked to win the election because of his paper credentials and not his knowledge or judgment. Let me be the first to predict that Slow Joe will not be on the ticket in 2012.

I think that it was pretty clear to anybody who paid attention to Joe Biden's pitiful performance on the campaign trail that he was picked to win the election because of his paper credentials and not his knowledge or judgment. Let me be the first to predict that Slow Joe will not be on the ticket in 2012.

 

I will agree that Joe was not the best choice for the Dem ticket. :thumb:

I disagree. Someone more to the right would have followed the Bush plan of focusing on abortion and guns. Single issue votes were ignored by McCain, and from there it was over before it started...

 

exactly

I think that McCain was their best choice to offer. They needed the votes of independents and moderates in order to win. Anyone more "right" wouldn't have gotten the job done, either, losing more states.

 

You're right. McCain was the only chance for Republicans. The deck was stacked against them but if it could have been won, McCain was the one to do it. He just took some bad advice and ran a terrible campaign, epitomized by Sarah Palin, and it cost him what would have been a narrow victory. This much is indisputable as far as I am concerned.

You're right. McCain was the only chance for Republicans. The deck was stacked against them but if it could have been won, McCain was the one to do it. He just took some bad advice and ran a terrible campaign, epitomized by Sarah Palin, and it cost him what would have been a narrow victory. This much is indisputable as far as I am concerned.

The bail out plan cost McCain any chance of winning. He and Palin were leading in the polls up until that time. Up to that point, McCain was running a very strong campaign, IMO, including his selection of Palin. I am sure that you disagree but McCain's only chance to win was to make the majority of Americans to fear Obama because of his left wing ideology and inexperience and he was unwilling to personally attack Obama in a way to instill that fear. It was not a job that surrogates could do alone.

If anything, the economy being thrust onto center stage furthered the futility of the personal attack route.

If anything, the economy being thrust onto center stage furthered the futility of the personal attack route.

What you call the "personal attack route" I would describe as defining your opponent by exposing his record. However, I agree that by the time that the bail out deal was done it was too late for McCain to successfully define Obama as a risky choice. As it turned out, McCain would have placed himself in a much stronger position on the economy if he had opposed the bail out plan without working too hard to defeat it, but I am sure that McCain just did what he believed to be right.

What you call the "personal attack route" I would describe as defining your opponent by exposing his record. However, I agree that by the time that the bail out deal was done it was too late for McCain to successfully define Obama as a risky choice. As it turned out, McCain would have placed himself in a much stronger position on the economy if he had opposed the bail out plan without working too hard to defeat it, but I am sure that McCain just did what he believed to be right.

 

All McCain had to do, starting in the early summer, was define Obama as a traditional politician rather than an "agent of change" along this definitional template: Obama as a liberal partisan (contrasting with McCain's record of bipartisanship), Obama as inexperienced (contrasting with McCain's experience and record), and Obama as an executive extension of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's Congress. It's clear that Americans were skeptical of Obama for those reasons, giving McCain a foothold he failed to utilize, and it's also clear Obama planned on running a traditional campaign from the start, where if McCain ran an unorthodox campaign (calling for ten town hall style debates with Obama, for example) it would have served to doubly reinforce Obama as a traditional politician and forced him to play defense. When the economy is in dire straits and we have troops deployed overseas in unpopular, unending conflicts, voters simply are not receptive to the Ayers/Wright/unAmerican style of attack. In fact, it hurt McCain's favorability ratings more than Obama's. That's because people were looking for substance and solutions; making those attacks highlights the lack of substance and solutions. It may have worked in an election year like 2000, but not this one, clearly. If McCain ran his campaign according to the previous, he would have had a strong chance of winning (at least I thought he would win in April). As it stands, he spun his wheels with poorly devised character attacks and his selection of Sarah Palin and, well, he was ruined in both the electoral college and the popular vote.

All McCain had to do, starting in the early summer, was define Obama as a traditional politician rather than an "agent of change" along this definitional template: Obama as a liberal partisan (contrasting with McCain's record of bipartisanship), Obama as inexperienced (contrasting with McCain's experience and record), and Obama as an executive extension of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's Congress. It's clear that Americans were skeptical of Obama for those reasons, giving McCain a foothold he failed to utilize, and it's also clear Obama planned on running a traditional campaign from the start, where if McCain ran an unorthodox campaign (calling for ten town hall style debates with Obama, for example) it would have served to doubly reinforce Obama as a traditional politician and forced him to play defense. When the economy is in dire straits and we have troops deployed overseas in unpopular, unending conflicts, voters simply are not receptive to the Ayers/Wright/unAmerican style of attack. In fact, it hurt McCain's favorability ratings more than Obama's. That's because people were looking for substance and solutions; making those attacks highlights the lack of substance and solutions. It may have worked in an election year like 2000, but not this one, clearly. If McCain ran his campaign according to the previous, he would have had a strong chance of winning (at least I thought he would win in April). As it stands, he spun his wheels with poorly devised character attacks and his selection of Sarah Palin and, well, he was ruined in both the electoral college and the popular vote.

I disagree with nearly every point. McCain really did not make many personal attacks on Obama compared to most campaigns and neither did Palin. McCain was a weak candidate because he was far to the left of most of the members of his own party. He agreed with Obama on too many issues with which most Republicans disagreed. His stances on illegal immigration, global warming, drilling in ANWR, and campaign finance reform all ran contrary to the position of most Republicans. Illegal immigration and Obama's extreme global warming mitigation plans should have been major issues in this campaign and they could have easily been weaved into economic issues.

 

I know that there is a small vocal minority of Republicans that want to use Sarah Palin as a scapegoat but McCain was his own worst enemy and the GOP got what it deserved for offering a RINO as its candidate. A good man to be sure, but a RINO nonetheless.

The way that it happened had little to do with the economy. When one is willing to accept illegal contribution and to reject public financing (after signing an agreement to accept it) with its spending restrictions, then it becomes easy to understand why Obama raised more money than McCain. Obama spent more money on this campaign than Bush and Kerry combined spent in 2004.

 

And I recognize what you've said just think it's funny that apparently only the generous rich people support Obama. I mean come on now, Obama voters I guess thought there were that many "nice" rich people out there. Sure there are plenty of comfortable ones, but c'mon people.

 

BTW, Guru or someone need to come up with a new smilie, specifically for the P&R forum, it should be a blind folded smilie, or better yet, especially after this last election, a smilie with a camera leading a goup of blind folded people.

I think it was clear to some that she was picked to win the election and not to improve the country.

 

Agreed

 

I think that it was pretty clear to anybody who paid attention to Joe Biden's pitiful performance on the campaign trail that he was picked to win the election because of his paper credentials and not his knowledge or judgment. Let me be the first to predict that Slow Joe will not be on the ticket in 2012.

 

And Agreed.

 

Palin was picked to swing the momentum and it worked temporarily, perhaps McCain should've held out longer, and debriefed Palin later, at the same time, with all the scandal that's been in DC, she does have a record of cleaning that up.

 

As for Biden, he was damage controll, a name that wouldn't "stir things up too much" so to speak. At the same time I almost see Biden as being Obama's Cheney.....

Anyone know anything about Paul Ryan, congressman from Wis? Saw an interview with him earlier on Fox News. He hit the nail on the head about the direction the Rep party needs to take.

Agreed. He did sound good.

Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee will rally the religious right if Obama implements a massive social liberal agenda. If abortion laws are loosened and state gay marriage amendments are declared unconstitutional the religious right will come back in force like they did in 2000 and 2004 and the Democrats will be left to scratch their heads again.

Huckabee will not gain the support of most American conservatives. Palin has potential.

You're right. McCain was the only chance for Republicans. The deck was stacked against them but if it could have been won, McCain was the one to do it. He just took some bad advice and ran a terrible campaign, epitomized by Sarah Palin, and it cost him what would have been a narrow victory. This much is indisputable as far as I am concerned.

 

All McCain had to do, starting in the early summer, was define Obama as a traditional politician rather than an "agent of change" along this definitional template: Obama as a liberal partisan (contrasting with McCain's record of bipartisanship), Obama as inexperienced (contrasting with McCain's experience and record), and Obama as an executive extension of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's Congress. It's clear that Americans were skeptical of Obama for those reasons, giving McCain a foothold he failed to utilize, and it's also clear Obama planned on running a traditional campaign from the start, where if McCain ran an unorthodox campaign (calling for ten town hall style debates with Obama, for example) it would have served to doubly reinforce Obama as a traditional politician and forced him to play defense. When the economy is in dire straits and we have troops deployed overseas in unpopular, unending conflicts, voters simply are not receptive to the Ayers/Wright/unAmerican style of attack. In fact, it hurt McCain's favorability ratings more than Obama's. That's because people were looking for substance and solutions; making those attacks highlights the lack of substance and solutions. It may have worked in an election year like 2000, but not this one, clearly. If McCain ran his campaign according to the previous, he would have had a strong chance of winning (at least I thought he would win in April). As it stands, he spun his wheels with poorly devised character attacks and his selection of Sarah Palin and, well, he was ruined in both the electoral college and the popular vote.

I guess I agree with the idea that McCain was the GOP's best shot, but mainly because there is no one else ready (as Hoot said earlier). Palin is a potential party leader, same with Jindal but they are a few years away.

 

Hopefully the GOP gets a wake up call.

I think that McCain was their best choice to offer. They needed the votes of independents and moderates in order to win. Anyone more "right" wouldn't have gotten the job done, either, losing more states.

 

I realy do not believe the moderates came to him. You get people to come over to your way of thinking, not just pandering to them as McCain did. He is a good man, maybe he should have been a Democrat. He may have been elected 20 years ago.