By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - McCain will pull a Truman upset...

fkusumot on 26 October 2008
HappySqurriel said:

Realistically, this election will (probably) be so close because McCain chose Palin ...

John McCain has difficulty relating to average-ordinary working/middle-class Americans, fiscally conservative people, and socially conservative people; these are the voters that are most commonly considered the “Base” of the Republican party and without them it would be difficult to win an election.

There are no established conservative-republicans who could have attracted the attention and support from the Republican base like Sarah Palin has.

That is a pretty damning assessment of the state of the Republican party.

But realistically, John McCain is the nominee because there was no other candidate that was perceived as viable to the middle/Independents. In the last three weeks Poll after Poll show Independents moving away from McCain specifically because of the Palin pick.

  You can watch McCain defending Palin on YouTube. Here's some numbers that put it more succinctly:

Palin's negative rating "is the highest for a vice-presidential candidate as measured by The Times and CBS News" -- even worse than Dan Quayle's. - Source

I think the Palin pick is akin to the '72 pick of Eagleton. Nobody else wanted it. Oh a to be a fly on the inside of JSMIII's brain.



I Blame Wii Fit!

Around the Network
Aiemond on 26 October 2008
HappySqurriel said:
NJ5 said:
So behind all that optimism, do you think McCain is kicking himself for choosing Palin?

 

Realistically, this election will (probably) be so close because McCain chose Palin ...

John McCain has difficulty relating to average-ordinary working/middle-class Americans, fiscally conservative people, and socially conservative people; these are the voters that are most commonly considered the “Base” of the Republican party and without them it would be difficult to win an election.

There are no established conservative-republicans who could have attracted the attention and support from the Republican base like Sarah Palin has.

 

So close? How is it so close? Obama is killing in the polls, he already has large leads in all the states he needs to win the election + some. It is going to be a landslide.

Anyway, here is the deal. Palin electrified the base of the party. This means they will vote in a bigger proportion than they would have. But, this does not eliminate the margin that will be totally lost based on this pick. Who is lost?

1) Non-social conservatives. People think the socials are a big part of the Republicans, and they are, but they are not the only members. Fiscal conservatives, and "light" social conservatives (who put other issues above social ones) are jumping off this pick like rats off a sinking ship. Not only are they not voting for their party's ticket, they are voting for the opposite. So, 1 fiscal turning is worth 2 social conservatives that would have stayed home if not for palin. Remember, the party CANNOT win national elections without this constituancy.

2) Independents. Most of the time independents end up leaning republican. Well, not this time. Most independants are scared of her even being close to the offics, much less only a heartbeat away from a 72 year old man in the office. She has shown a lack of understanding of the issues in a time of crisis.

Now, we have these groups lost. So what does this leave?

1) Social cons. This group makes up maybe 30-35% of the total electorate. Can't win with these only.

2) Party loyalists/some independents: making up about 7%. Which puts McCain about where he is in the polls, 42ish %

 

If the party stays with Palin like nominees, it will be irrelevent. They must restore themselves and become a party that can appeal to a larger maount of people. We will see on the 4th just how much the last 8 years has killed that brand, and Palin continues the "just like us" tradition Bush started. And we know how much he is loved. Expect a Tsunami.



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

akuma587 on 26 October 2008

Even some of the party base, the "true" conservatives, not just your evangelicals, hate Palin though. Palin has not electrified all of the base, only some of the base.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 26 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Even some of the party base, the "true" conservatives, not just your evangelicals, hate Palin though. Palin has not electrified all of the base, only some of the base.

 

That's a bit confusing since Palin was the choice by those "true" conservatives.

Neocons wanted Romeny, McCain Liberman.

The regular cons.  Lead by Newt Gingrich were pushing Palin.



akuma587 on 26 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Even some of the party base, the "true" conservatives, not just your evangelicals, hate Palin though. Palin has not electrified all of the base, only some of the base.

That's a bit confusing since Palin was the choice by those "true" conservatives.

Neocons wanted Romeny, McCain Liberman.

The regular cons.  Lead by Newt Gingrich were pushing Palin.

Alright, well that makes my point even further.  You have your:

1. "True" (or smart) conservatives: those who are fiscally and socially conservative but are very conscious about a politician's qualifications (this is arguably the smallest group)

2. Evangelicals and other "Bible-thumpers": more concerned with social issues than economic issues (this is the only group that really wanted Palin)

3. Neocons: would have gone for someone more like Romney as you suggested

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
halogamer1989 on 26 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Even some of the party base, the "true" conservatives, not just your evangelicals, hate Palin though. Palin has not electrified all of the base, only some of the base.

That's a bit confusing since Palin was the choice by those "true" conservatives.

Neocons wanted Romeny, McCain Liberman.

The regular cons.  Lead by Newt Gingrich were pushing Palin.

Alright, well that makes my point even further.  You have your:

1. "True" (or smart) conservatives: those who are fiscally and socially conservative but are very conscious about a politician's qualifications (this is arguably the smallest group)

2. Evangelicals and other "Bible-thumpers": more concerned with social issues than economic issues (this is the only group that really wanted Palin)

3. Neocons: would have gone for someone more like Romney as you suggested

 

I wanted Romney but I suggested that McCain announce him as a possible Sec. of Treasury to earn some bonus points.  McCain didn't want to choose Romney b/c of his flip flops on issues in Mass. and his elite, "GOP is for rich whites only"-looking stature.  The GOP is not but it is all about appearance on a ticket.

 



Kasz216 on 26 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Even some of the party base, the "true" conservatives, not just your evangelicals, hate Palin though. Palin has not electrified all of the base, only some of the base.

That's a bit confusing since Palin was the choice by those "true" conservatives.

Neocons wanted Romeny, McCain Liberman.

The regular cons.  Lead by Newt Gingrich were pushing Palin.

Alright, well that makes my point even further.  You have your:

1. "True" (or smart) conservatives: those who are fiscally and socially conservative but are very conscious about a politician's qualifications (this is arguably the smallest group)

2. Evangelicals and other "Bible-thumpers": more concerned with social issues than economic issues (this is the only group that really wanted Palin)

3. Neocons: would have gone for someone more like Romney as you suggested

 

Newt Gingrich falls into that group.  That group wanted Palin.

The NeoCons wanted Romney.

The Bible Thumpers wanted that govoner from.... I want to say minesota... some mid west govoner.

 



halogamer1989 on 26 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Even some of the party base, the "true" conservatives, not just your evangelicals, hate Palin though. Palin has not electrified all of the base, only some of the base.

That's a bit confusing since Palin was the choice by those "true" conservatives.

Neocons wanted Romeny, McCain Liberman.

The regular cons.  Lead by Newt Gingrich were pushing Palin.

Alright, well that makes my point even further.  You have your:

1. "True" (or smart) conservatives: those who are fiscally and socially conservative but are very conscious about a politician's qualifications (this is arguably the smallest group)

2. Evangelicals and other "Bible-thumpers": more concerned with social issues than economic issues (this is the only group that really wanted Palin)

3. Neocons: would have gone for someone more like Romney as you suggested

 

Newt Gingrich falls into that group.  That group wanted Palin.

The NeoCons wanted Romney.

The Bible Thumpers wanted that govoner from.... I want to say minesota... some mid west govoner.

 

Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- he got a last minute call and was pulled away from a meeting but was decided against.

 



akuma587 on 26 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Even some of the party base, the "true" conservatives, not just your evangelicals, hate Palin though. Palin has not electrified all of the base, only some of the base.

That's a bit confusing since Palin was the choice by those "true" conservatives.

Neocons wanted Romeny, McCain Liberman.

The regular cons.  Lead by Newt Gingrich were pushing Palin.

Alright, well that makes my point even further.  You have your:

1. "True" (or smart) conservatives: those who are fiscally and socially conservative but are very conscious about a politician's qualifications (this is arguably the smallest group)

2. Evangelicals and other "Bible-thumpers": more concerned with social issues than economic issues (this is the only group that really wanted Palin)

3. Neocons: would have gone for someone more like Romney as you suggested

 

Newt Gingrich falls into that group.  That group wanted Palin.

The NeoCons wanted Romney.

The Bible Thumpers wanted that govoner from.... I want to say minesota... some mid west govoner.

 

But what about people like William H. Buckley Jr.?  They can't stand Palin.  I guess they are kind of in a fourth category, the "libertarian" Republicans. 

But even a lot of your "true" conservatives are unhappy with Palin.  I've heard a lot of disquietude from a lot of prominent Republicans, including those like Powell.  Although he is kind of a moderate Republican, so that may be a fifth category.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 26 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Even some of the party base, the "true" conservatives, not just your evangelicals, hate Palin though. Palin has not electrified all of the base, only some of the base.

That's a bit confusing since Palin was the choice by those "true" conservatives.

Neocons wanted Romeny, McCain Liberman.

The regular cons.  Lead by Newt Gingrich were pushing Palin.

Alright, well that makes my point even further.  You have your:

1. "True" (or smart) conservatives: those who are fiscally and socially conservative but are very conscious about a politician's qualifications (this is arguably the smallest group)

2. Evangelicals and other "Bible-thumpers": more concerned with social issues than economic issues (this is the only group that really wanted Palin)

3. Neocons: would have gone for someone more like Romney as you suggested

 

Newt Gingrich falls into that group.  That group wanted Palin.

The NeoCons wanted Romney.

The Bible Thumpers wanted that govoner from.... I want to say minesota... some mid west govoner.

 

But what about people like William H. Buckley Jr.?  They can't stand Palin.  I guess they are kind of in a fourth category, the "libertarian" Republicans. 

But even a lot of your "true" conservatives are unhappy with Palin.  I've heard a lot of disquietude from a lot of prominent Republicans, including those like Powell.  Although he is kind of a moderate Republican, so that may be a fifth category.

 

Only currently, after the giant swiftboatesque job that was done on her.  Before then she was fairly well liked.

Those conservatives agere with her policies... they just don't like her after all the negative attacks.