# McCain's Failure



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

"The question for Republicans was never whether or not they are going to get smeared as racists. The question was always whether they were going to wind up a smeared winner—or a smeared loser. 

McCain chose the latter."

Sad day


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

Couldn't agree more, the campaign was a disaster and missed opportunity after opportunity to address legitimate issues because of fears of being branded a racist. The Obama campaign positioned itself well.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I can see America from my house.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> I can see America from my house.


As can I.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

if mccain thought going nuclear on wright would win him the election, there is no way he would have refused. would there be people who claim bringing up wright was racist? of course. but the real reason he didnt was that he would have been seen as even more out of touch. imagine the reaction to a wright ad coming up right after a 700 point drop in the dow jones, or another jobs report showing increasing unemployment.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

It is nice, though, that he can now retire.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> I can see America from my house.


This all reminds me of David Byrne's _True Stories_ but things have come a long way as in that movie he said he could (only) see Ft. Worth while sitting under a 100-gallon 10-gallon hat in a Chrysler K-Car convertible parked in the decaying lot of a defunct shopping mall. Progress!


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*I blame one man, and it isn't McCain*

If McCain loses today, I blame one man, George W. Bush. I believe Bush is actually a Democrat who was sent to infiltrate and destroy the Republican Party. I thought maybe it was just me, until I heard the man behind me in line explaining to his daughter that some of our recent presidents have been Democrats and others were Republicans. The little girl asked her father what party our current president belongs to, and he answered that he wasn't sure. He said Bush claimed to be a Republican, but the father was pretty sure Bush isn't, but couldn't decide where else he might belong.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Kav said:


> I can see America from my house.


I live in Hawaii, I can't.

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Imagine if the GOP rallied behind Romney, back when Hillary supposedly had the nomination wrapped up. There is no doubt McCain was the better candidate against Clinton. I think Romney would have torn Obama apart, especially on the economy. If you want to point to where the GOP went wrong, it was settling on a nominee too early and getting a different opponent then they wanted.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> Imagine if the GOP rallied behind Romney, back when Hillary supposedly had the nomination wrapped up. There is no doubt McCain was the better candidate against Clinton. I think Romney would have torn Obama apart, especially on the economy. If you want to point to where the GOP went wrong, it was settling on a nominee too early and getting a different opponent then they wanted.


Exactly, see my comment on the "Second Chance" thread.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Quay said:


> This all reminds me of David Byrne's _True Stories_ but things have come a long way as in that movie he said he could (only) see Ft. Worth while sitting under a 100-gallon 10-gallon hat in a Chrysler K-Car convertible parked in the decaying lot of a defunct shopping mall. Progress!


"By the way, this car isn't rented. It's privately owned."

McCain sure didn't connect with me, and his choice of running mate proved how far adrift his campaign is. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama...don't trust him, think he's unqualified and stands too much for change for change's sake. So I voted my conscience...Bob Barr. The Libertarians stand for a lot more of what I believe in than either mainstream party these days.


----------



## the law (Sep 16, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> "By the way, this car isn't rented. It's privately owned."
> 
> McCain sure didn't connect with me, and his choice of running mate proved how far adrift his campaign is. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama...don't trust him, think he's unqualified and stands too much for change for change's sake. So I voted my conscience...Bob Barr. The Libertarians stand for a lot more of what I believe in than either mainstream party these days.


+1! Another Barr supporter (although I would rather have voted for Ron Paul). The two major parties just do not represent my values.


----------



## omanae (Aug 19, 2008)

It's true that Palin is going to cost McCain a lot of votes, it cost him mine. Imagine if something does happen to McCain (he is 72 and the republicans are not loved) and Sarah Palin was the new President? that's rather terrifying


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

omanae said:


> It's true that Palin is going to cost McCain a lot of votes, it cost him mine. Imagine if something does happen to McCain (he is 72 and the republicans are not loved) and Sarah Palin was the new President? that's rather terrifying


Yet Obama's lack of experience doesn't trouble you...


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

the law said:


> +1! Another Barr supporter (although I would rather have voted for Ron Paul). The two major parties just do not represent my values.


LOL...Barr equals Obama for electoral purposes


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

JRR said:


> Yet Obama's lack of experience doesn't trouble you...


Say what you want about Obama, but he shows an intellectual command for international and domestic issues. You may not agree with his proposed policies to handle those issues, but he clearly understands them. The same can not be said about Ms. Palin. That is the difference between Obama and Palin.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> Imagine if the GOP rallied behind Romney, back when Hillary supposedly had the nomination wrapped up. There is no doubt McCain was the better candidate against Clinton. I think Romney would have torn Obama apart, especially on the economy. If you want to point to where the GOP went wrong, it was settling on a nominee too early and getting a different opponent then they wanted.


that is an arguable point. the only problem is that a not insignificant number of evangelical voters think romney belongs to a cult. if mccain ends up winning georgia and north carolina by say less than 5-7 points, it's not inconceivable to imagine that obama would have won those states against romney. also, just because romney has superior experience in that area, i dont know that he would have been able to convince the american people that his economic philosophy is any different than bush's. he would still be trying to argue for extending the bush tax cuts, less regulation and lowering of corporate rates, etc etc. i think the story at the end of the day is that bush and rove dug the GOP into a hole that no one candidate would have been able to climb out of.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> Say what you want about Obama, but he shows an intellectual command for international and domestic issues. You may not agree with his proposed policies to handle those issues, but he clearly understands them. The same can not be said about Ms. Palin. That is the difference between Obama and Palin.


Actually in that respect, the difference between Obama and Palin is 18 - 24 months of preparation relative to 3+ months of crash course.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> that is an arguable point. the only problem is that a not insignificant number of evangelical voters think romney belongs to a cult. if mccain ends up winning georgia and north carolina by say less than 5-7 points, it's not inconceivable to imagine that obama would have won those states against romney. also, just because romney has superior experience in that area, i dont know that he would have been able to convince the american people that his economic philosophy is any different than bush's. he would still be trying to argue for extending the bush tax cuts, less regulation and lowering of corporate rates, etc etc. *i think the story at the end of the day is that bush and rove dug the GOP into a hole that no one candidate would have been able to climb out of.*


That sums it all up.


----------



## the law (Sep 16, 2008)

JRR said:


> LOL...Barr equals Obama for electoral purposes


Ask me if I care.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

omanae said:


> It's true that Palin is going to cost McCain a lot of votes, it cost him mine. Imagine if something does happen to McCain (he is 72 and the republicans are not loved) and Sarah Palin was the new President? that's rather terrifying


Reminds me of a time when ski instructing the company hired a young lady who could ski about as good as the third lesson out of eight. Long before she needed to be able to ski as good as four and beyond, much more teach, plenty of ski instructors, who were young men, taught her the rest. By the time McCain drops dead Palin would be fine and probably be better than McCain.

Your belief that Obama is anymore ready than Palin, Oh, by the way I have some hot property forsale that is worth a billion that somebody offered me yesterday, but I'll sale it to you for $49,000 if you mail the money to this address 983 Dingulberry St. zip 78534.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

WA said:


> Reminds me of a time when ski instructing the company hired a young lady who could ski about as good as the third lesson out of eight. Long before she needed to be able to ski as good as four and beyond, much more teach, plenty of ski instructors, who were young men, taught her the rest. By the time McCain drops dead Palin would be fine and probably be better than McCain.
> 
> Your belief that Obama is anymore ready than Palin, Oh, by the way I have some hot property forsale that is worth a billion that somebody offered me yesterday, but I'll sale it to you for $49,000 if you mail the money to this address 983 Dingulberry St. zip 78534.


What kind of idiot buys a house on Dingulberry Street?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> Say what you want about Obama, but he shows an intellectual command for international and domestic issues. You may not agree with his proposed policies to handle those issues, but he clearly understands them. The same can not be said about Ms. Palin. That is the difference between Obama and Palin.


If Obama understood them then why is he on the wrong side?

What Palin has done for Alaska is much good for Alaskans. What did she know before she started? Probably not much, but she made many right choices, whereas, Obama is still nothing and when he leaves he will still be nothing, and our country will be in a bigger mess. What has Obama done? Skip many votes. Palin has done Alaska good. Who is more qualified? The one that has done good. The not to vote for is the one that has done nothing. Obama has skipped many votes, which is doing nothing, and that is what I call unqualified.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> What kind of idiot buys a house on Dingulberry Street?


Did I misspell the name?

It's real name is dingedbat Rd.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

WA said:


> Did I misspell the name?
> 
> It's real name is dingedbat Rd.


What kid of idiot buys a house on dingedbat road?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> Say what you want about Obama, but he shows an intellectual command for international and domestic issues. You may not agree with his proposed policies to handle those issues, but he clearly understands them. The same can not be said about Ms. Palin. That is the difference between Obama and Palin.


If you believe that, you are a sucker for sophistry.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> What kid of idiot buys a house on dingedbat road?


Halloween is the night for that.

You will have to wait nearly another whole year.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Asterix said:


> Actually in that respect, the difference between Obama and Palin is 18 - 24 months of preparation relative to 3+ months of crash course.


No, the difference is between being the President of the Harvard Law Review and a complete intellectual lightweight. I'm just sayin'.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

topbroker said:


> No, the difference is between being the President of the Harvard Law Review and a complete intellectual lightweight. I'm just sayin'.


He was invited on. Didn't grade on or write on.

Palin is dumb, but Obama is no genius. AA all the way.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

JRR said:


> He was invited on. Didn't grade on or write on.
> 
> Palin is dumb, but Obama is no genius. AA all the way.


The greatly esteemed Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School says that Obama is unquestionably the most brilliant of the 7,000+ students he has taught in his career -- and he was saying that well *before* the Presidential run.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

JRR said:


> AA all the way.


No mere affirmative action admit is graduated from Harvard Law School _magna cum laude_ (let allow being elected to that Law Review presidency). If *your *pedigree is as good as that, I'm impressed by your attainments (if not by your political comments).


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

topbroker said:


> No mere affirmative action admit is graduated from Harvard Law School *magna cum laude* (let allow being elected to that Law Review presidency). If *your *pedigree is as good as that, I'm impressed by your attainments (if not by your political comments).


try not to confuse jrr, he probably thinks you just made an indecent sexual comment


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

JohnRov said:


> Couldn't agree more, the campaign was a disaster and missed opportunity after opportunity to address legitimate issues because of fears of being branded a racist. The Obama campaign positioned itself well.


I agree with everything here except the fear of rascism. In this Democrat leaning year, McCain needed to run a disciplined almost perfect campaign. That did not happen.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

topbroker said:


> The greatly esteemed Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School says that Obama is unquestionably the most brilliant of the 7,000+ students he has taught in his career -- and he was saying that well *before* the Presidential run.


LMAO....Tribe, unbiased for sure...


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

topbroker said:


> No mere affirmative action admit is graduated from Harvard Law School _magna cum laude_ (let allow being elected to that Law Review presidency). If *your *pedigree is as good as that, I'm impressed by your attainments (if not by your political comments).


Have you taken a law school exam? There is alot of wiggle room for special students.

All Obama has to do to prove his "brilliance" is release his undergrad and law school GPAs, and his LSAT. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

a4audi08 said:


> try not to confuse jrr, he probably thinks you just made an indecent sexual comment


Wow, you're an idiot. You really don't know me.

Read your own thread.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=68557


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

JRR said:


> Have you taken a law school exam? There is alot of wiggle room for special students.
> 
> All Obama has to do to prove his "brilliance" is release his undergrad and law school GPAs, and his LSAT. Don't hold your breath.


"Special students" -- oh my. The_ magna cum laude_ designation is based on grades at most institutions, although I haven't specifically researched Harvard Law. So I feel confident that Obama's grades at Harvard were excellent, and that his grades at Columbia were also quite good to get him into Harvard Law, whether there were racial considerations in the admissions mix or not. No one gets through Harvard Law on charm.

By the way, I hold a master of arts in teaching and have studied affirmative action policies at the graduate school level. You seem to have some unwarranted fantasies about the effects and execution of such policies in a law school setting. If you want to talk about the special treatment that, say, undergraduate "big sport" athletes get at some institutions (quite regardless of their race), or that legacies get at some others, that is a different story.

My complete pedigree: Bachelor of Arts _magna cum laude_, American Studies, 3.65 GPA, Yale University; Master of Arts in Teaching, 3.91 GPA, Boston University, elected to Phi Delta Kappa (education equivalent of Phi Beta Kappa). I never earned less than a B at Yale, or less than an A- at BU. Care to duke it out on credentials?

If you are worried about being "smeared" as a racist, you really ought to be careful about making statements that would easily be attributable to one.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

the law said:


> Ask me if I care.


Maybe you will like the policies of a Democratic Congress combined with Obama better than what might happen if the Democrats were forced to deal with a Republican President.

The Democrats will do a lot more damage to those cherished Libertarian Ideals with Obama than they could with McCain.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ "Egads! A Yale man!" -- Harvard man Thurston Howell III, on Gilligan's Island, when confronted by a savage from the jungle. :icon_smile_wink:

PS
Topbroker, I think you'll just confuse things here with well-founded facts from someone who knows how to vet facts from fictions.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

topbroker said:


> "Special students" -- oh my. The_ magna cum laude_ designation is based on grades at most institutions, although I haven't specifically researched Harvard Law. So I feel confident that Obama's grades at Harvard were excellent, and that his grades at Columbia were also quite good to get him into Harvard Law, whether there were racial considerations in the admissions mix or not. No one gets through Harvard Law on charm.
> 
> By the way, I hold a master of arts in teaching and have studied affirmative action policies at the graduate school level. You seem to have some unwarranted fantasies about the effects and execution of such policies in a law school setting. If you want to talk about the special treatment that, say, undergraduate "big sport" athletes get at some institutions (quite regardless of their race), or that legacies get at some others, that is a different story.
> 
> ...


And the big dick award today goes to Top Broker. Guess your credential whoring proves your point about Obama.

Don't have an IVY undergrad, but did do well enough to get into a Top 50 law school. Pretty much a wash for your **** education degree. Sure that helps sell real estate.

And thanks for calling me a racist. Makes my day.

Why do you care so much about defending Obama supposed brilliance?


----------



## the law (Sep 16, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Maybe you will like the policies of a Democratic Congress combined with Obama better than what might happen if the Democrats were forced to deal with a Republican President.
> 
> The Democrats will do a lot more damage to those cherished Libertarian Ideals with Obama than they could with McCain.


That's open for debate.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

JRR said:


> And the big dick award today goes to Top Broker. Guess your credential whoring proves your point about Obama.
> 
> Don't have an IVY undergrad, but did do well enough to get into a Top 50 law school. Pretty much a wash for your **** education degree. Sure that helps sell real estate.
> 
> ...


If we are going to have a dispute about whether or not Obama truly earned his credentials, and you are accusing him of not putting his full hand on the table, then the least you and I can do to meet *your* standard is to show our own hands. I merely did so. You did not. ("Top 50" -- I'm blown away. If *you* couldn't have made it through Harvard Law -- as seems unlikely, it is after all *hard* -- where do you get off insulting Obama as "AA all the way" for in fact doing so?)

You would be surprised what an education degree helps you with. I find use for it in every setting. 

Note that I was careful *not* to call you a racist; I merely suggested you were making the distinction difficult not to confer.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

this article seems appropriate to this discussion.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

His team was too timid going after Obama as a radical. He pretty much took Bill Ayers and J. Wright off the table early on. He wanted to run a clean campaign and be above the fray. It cost him.


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

I think people are still voting.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

topbroker said:


> No, the difference is between being the President of the Harvard Law Review and a complete intellectual lightweight. I'm just sayin'.


If you've spent any of the last eight years saying that a Harvard MBA with a better undergraduate GPA than his opponent is an idiot, you've really got no room to talk.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Miket61 said:


> If you've spent any of the last eight years saying that a Harvard MBA with a better undergraduate GPA than his opponent is an idiot, you've really got no room to talk.


Way up the ladder of inference there, my man.  I don't like Bush much on other grounds, but compared to Sarah Palin, he is James Madison. I have often said that he is* not* stupid in the way that people claim.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> His team was too timid going after Obama as a radical. He pretty much took Bill Ayers and J. Wright off the table early on. He wanted to run a clean campaign and be above the fray. It cost him.


This will not go down as one of the more inspired analyses of Election 2008. But not to worry, you're not on CNN, and we here at AAAC will keep it quiet. (Clean campaign? Really?)

Man, this is a good night.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

JRR said:


> If you believe that, you are a sucker for sophistry.


So *no *argument is better than an argument which you disagree with, and thus deem fallacious?

Have you actually seen the lady in action? The trainwreck of an interview with Couric. The VP debate - sidestepping questions posed to her _all _the way, while doing her wink-wink act.


JRR said:


> And the big dick award today goes to Top Broker. Guess your credential whoring proves your point about Obama.
> 
> Don't have an IVY undergrad, but did do well enough to get into a Top 50 law school. Pretty much a wash for your **** education degree. Sure that helps sell real estate.
> 
> ...


_As an objective observer, someone who is new to this forum, and from across the pond..._

You put the AA claim on the table, and then when challenged with facts, sidestepped and resorted to insults. For a lawyer, you're not arguing your case very well.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WA said:


> If Obama understood them then why is he on the wrong side?
> 
> What Palin has done for Alaska is much good for Alaskans. What did she know before she started? Probably not much, but she made many right choices, whereas, Obama is still nothing and when he leaves he will still be nothing, and our country will be in a bigger mess. What has Obama done? Skip many votes. Palin has done Alaska good. Who is more qualified? The one that has done good. The not to vote for is the one that has done nothing. Obama has skipped many votes, which is doing nothing, and that is what I call unqualified.


Agreed. Obama's knee jerk moral equivalency of Russia's invasion of GA is not indicative of a man with a keen understanding of foreign policy, let alone a moral compass.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

JRR said:


> And the big dick award today goes to Top Broker. Guess your credential whoring proves your point about Obama.
> 
> Don't have an IVY undergrad, but did do well enough to get into a Top 50 law school. Pretty much a wash for your **** education degree. Sure that helps sell real estate.
> 
> ...


He's trying to setup his excuses when Obama fails and makes everyone appreciate the halcyon days of W. You see, Obama is so brilliant it'll have to be everyone else's fault when the country tanks and there's yet another attack on US soil.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Nicesuit said:


> He's trying to setup his excuses when Obama fails and makes everyone appreciate the halcyon days of W. You see, Obama is so brilliant it'll have to be everyone else's fault when the country tanks and there's yet another attack on US soil.


Fiddlesticks.  I've got to say, some of you angry conservative white guys are such *poor losers*. Frankly, your offended sense of entitlement is showing. The world is moving on, white guys (I'm white myself) are America's minority of the future (ask any demographer), angry conservative white guys are even more endangered, and you seemingly just can't stand it. Move on -- the rest of us are!

Enjoy the next four years (or more). I would feel guilty about rubbing it in, except that I doubt very much that you guys cared how I felt from 2001 to 2006 (when the tide started to turn). So the heck with empathy!


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

topbroker said:


> Fiddlesticks.  I've got to say, some of you angry conservative white guys are such *poor losers*. Frankly, your offended sense of entitlement is showing. The world is moving on, white guys (I'm white myself) are America's minority of the future (ask any demographer), angry conservative white guys are even more endangered, and you seemingly just can't stand it. Move on -- the rest of us are!
> 
> Enjoy the next four years (or more). I would feel guilty about rubbing it in, except that I doubt very much that you guys cared how I felt from 2001 to 2006 (when the tide started to turn). So the heck with empathy!


Poor losers. Some are. You comments refering to "white guys" reflects who is in "poor taste".


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Topbroker, Please sit down. You are going to hear from a liberal white guy.
I'm tired of being dissed( is that the correct MTV slang?) for being a tired old white guy. I'm not some unknowing idiot on a teevee commercial or sitcom, greedhead WAMU banker with a pocket square being ridiculed by Obama's doppleganger.
I've never read THE TURNER DIARIES or contemplated moving to Idaho and swapping Brooks Bros for BDU.

I clapped when Morgan Freeman humbled Denzel Washington In GLORY for dissing the white soldiers.
I saluted as a little boy meeting our nieghbor, a vet of the 442 combat brigade in Italy.
I thought the american officers reply to the german in The Lost Battalion summed a lot up.
My friends, my 'fellow americans' aren't all 'white.' And guess what? When we are together niether AM I. We are americans, and If we argue over lunch being southern BBQ or thai or even AFGHAN in the Pot Pourri of people and cuisine in L.A. thats a real cry me a rainbow bit of injustice.
ANYONE who thinks the future is some 'People of colour' 1066 Norman invasion culture shift in this country is in for a big shock, and failure.The failure all racist policies have ultimately proved out. 
Hell, My highschool endless summer tan of 1970 made me darker than Obama.
You may wnt to read your european history again, when people of one ethnicity were treated far worse than the later colonial period.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> Poor losers. Some are. You comments refering to "white guys" reflects who is in "poor taste".


"White males," then, if you prefer the more formal designation. The point is still the same: for a number of reasons, the future does not belong to white men (myself included). That is OK by me; we have had the upper hand for a good long time. The issues relate to both the "white" and the "male" sides of the equation: we are double-whammied.

We will soon be a minority within America, as the make-up of the American population continues to change drastically.

Already men are falling behind educationally; girls of all races are whipping the pants off boys at all levels. Women outnumber men at four-year colleges by about 60%-40%, and at some institutions the numbers are more pronounced than that. Women also equal or outnumber men at graduate and professional schools except for business schools (where they will catch up shortly).

Boys are dropping out, not just from school but from any pretense of civilized behavior; male "popular culture" is a scandal. Of course we at this forum do our best to combat these trends, but not to much general effect.

So the era of white male dominance is coming to an end, as all eras do. And so is the era when the Republican Party could dominate by appealing to whites. It was widely noted in the press that the 2008 Republican Convention was, based on the numbers of floor delegates, the whitest political convention in 40 years. This was deliberate, and *it is a disastrous and untenable strategy for the GOP moving forward*. (Note that the Hispanic vote, which up till now had been the only minority vote truly in play between the parties, tilted heavily toward Obama; and that Obama whomped McCain by *seven million votes *in the nation-wide popular vote.)

Sarah Palin's undoubted but marginal appeal is to a steadily shrinking demographic, of disaffected and largely rural white voters. (Obama snapped up the suburbs and exurbs, another major accomplishment for him.) There are not enough of those voters to really make a difference.

If you analyze the county-by-county red/blue breakdowns for each state, you quickly realize that it is by and large the depopulated rural counties that voted for McCain. Who cares? It is not a winning strategy for Republicans to address angry white voters in Home Depot parking lots, as McCain and Palin found themselves doing.

Look at Texas, as an example. Solidly red state, right? Catch this: Obama carried not just Austin (predictably), but also Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso -- as well as many counties in the southern, more Hispanic part of Texas. All the other counties with 6,000 white residents -- McCain carried those. He can have them.

For all these reasons, white males who feel burned by the results of this election need to adjust themselves to the new American landscape, as well as perhaps ask themselves what is really eating them about a black man being elected to the Presidency. If it is just ideology, well, OK, but that's not what I'm picking up.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Your gloating is no different from the disgusting gloating that accompanied Bush's victories.

So much for any pretense about any attempt to unite.

You do have a nice haircut and dress nicely.

This comes from a confirmed loser who only voted for the Presidential Victor when he voted for Bill Clinton twice. (Seriously, candidates should probably pay me to dislike them.) 

I loathe Bush and never ever even considered voting for him. That's who this post is coming from.

Society is changing, but I doubt that any apocalypse is coming soon.

You are not picking up the ideology because white racism is a liberal tenet and you will not attempt to examine evidence that counters your ideology.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Your gloating is no different from the disgusting gloating that accompanied Bush's victories.
> 
> So much for any pretense about any attempt to unite.
> 
> ...


There is some gloating, no doubt about it; after eight miserable years, I'm not going to deny myself that momentary pleasure. But there is analysis, too (see my long post above).

It's Obama who need to be the uniter, not little ol' me. But I assure you that I will be try to be kinder to conservatives during this term than they ever have been to my ilk when they had the advantage. (I'm actually kind of conservative myself. I always describe myself as a "moderate Republican" -- which these days, of course, means a Democrat.)

I said not a word about "apocalypse." I think the coming demographic changes are good, as well as inevitable.

I am picking up ideological objections to Obama, of course. But I'm also picking up something else, in this thread and elsewhere, something that treads dangerously close to racism. When JRR says that Obama was "AA all the way" at Harvard Law -- pardon my recoil, but that is far more noxious than any arguments I make to counter it.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

McCain failed because he made a serious of bad choices and appeared to be out of touch. Appearing out of touch only confirmed the fear of certain voters about his ability to fulfill the duties of the office. The other major mistake that he made was going negative against Obama. In fact, he should have gone negative against George W. Bush (which he started to do at the end - too late). The effect of going negative on Obama reinforced the opinion that McCain lacked the temperament to be President. Essentially, this was one of the worst run and worst executed political campaigns for President that I've ever seen.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

hurling frootmig said:


> McCain failed because he made a serious of bad choices and appeared to be out of touch. Appearing out of touch only confirmed the fear of certain voters about his ability to fulfill the duties of the office. The other major mistake that he made was going negative against Obama. In fact, he should have gone negative against George W. Bush (which he started to do at the end - too late). The effect of going negative on Obama reinforced the opinion that McCain lacked the temperament to be President. Essentially, this was one of the worst run and worst executed political campaigns for President that I've ever seen.


It did just bite, didn't it? Whereas Obama's campaign was, by common consensus among journalists, political scientists, and even McCain's own Steve Schmidt, one of the most disciplined and effective campaigns anyone has ever seen -- it raised the bar, and that has nothing to do with ideology. Both Obama's and McCain's campaigns will be studied in textbooks of the future, but for very different reasons.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Your gloating is no different from the disgusting gloating that accompanied Bush's victories.
> 
> So much for any pretense about any attempt to unite.


By the way, I am flattered that you would hold Democrats to a higher standard of polite behavior than Republicans, and in general, I think we can live up to that. But within 24 hours of a victory like the one we witnessed, a thorough trouncing of most of the worst Republican smugpusses -- hey, we'd be less than human if we didn't smirk back a bit.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

*That's entertainment!*

If the current job ever goes south you can surely get a job as a comedian. That's some funny sh*!, Democrats politeness and all that. Good stuff


----------

