Is McCain Electable?

I can’t watch the vid at work, but the answer is ‘No’. Conservatives will stay home and libs will vote for the more lib candidate, probably Barack.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I can’t watch the vid at work, but the answer is ‘No’. Conservatives will stay home and libs will vote for the more lib candidate, probably Barack.[/quote]

I disagree. Even if philosophical conservatives don’t agree with McCain, they will still vote for him rather than settle for huge government, gigantic interventionism and higher taxes. Just because conservatives aren’t in love with McCain, they’ll be damned-fucked if they are going to let Hillary or Osama just walk into the white house with out a fight.

For me the fact that McCain isn’t text book conservative doesn’t bother me. Conservatism is still to restrictive in my book. Not as restrictive as liberalism, but still to tight-assed and government mongering. I consider republicans to much like democrats for my taste. They have similar goals but different approaches. I have different goals all together.

But, McCain, stands for the one issue I vote on. So I’ll have to vote for him.

Yes, McCain is electable - that is one reason why so many conservatives and Republicans backed him: they would like a chance at winning in 2008.

Outside of talk radio, quite a few conservatives are beginning to coalesce around the McCain candidacy.

[quote]Jason32 wrote:

[/quote]

jason,

I can’t help but notice your hostility to all Republicans (ron paul does not count).

Therefore, I’d like to post this link about a recent discovery in Iraq.

Did you catch your Speaker of the House publicly declaring the surge a failure?

Both the release of this information and your Speaker’s latest surrender, happened on the same day.

Before you say, “That doesn’t have anything to do with McCain.”

Remember, McCain was a vocal proponent of the surge while your friends were (and still are) cowering, shivering, and falling all over each other to see who can wave the white flag the highest.

JeffR

Did McCain abandon the principles of the Republican Party in order to be more ‘electable’? If so then the Republican Party has morphed into something other than what attracted me to the Party in the first place.

I know I’m dooming my vote to irrelevency but I think I’ll vote Libertarian; that or for Hillary — if we have to have evil, I prefer it in pure form (my apologies to A. Lincoln).

I’m tired of all these ridiculous videos jason32.

Yes, he’s electable. The most electable Republican running in a tough year for Republicans. Much more electable than Ron Paul. The only Republican who polls nationally with Obama and Hillary.

Here’s an electoral college analysis:

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120268013352957191.html

[i]Getting to 270

Can John McCain win in November?
February 11, 2008

The conventional wisdom is that Republicans start at a serious disadvantage in trying to hold the White House. A still-unpopular war and a softening economy certainly represent challenges. So far, most of the enthusiasm in the primaries has been on the Democratic side, with some 13 million voters casting Democratic ballots and fewer than 9 million picking a GOP one.

But despite these obstacles, John McCain will now begin to assemble his fall election team with surprisingly good poll results. The average of all the recent national polls summarized by RealClearPolitics.com show the Arizona senator leading Hillary Clinton by 47% to 45% and trailing Barack Obama by only 44% to 47%. Both results are within the statistical margin of error for national polls, so it’s fair to say Mr. McCain starts out with an even chance of winning.

How could that be? The answer is that the same maverick streak and occasional departures from conservative orthodoxy that make conservatives queasy have the opposite effect on independents and even some Democrats. Mr. McCain’s favorable numbers with independents exceed those of Barack Obama, who has emphasized his desire to work across party lines.


All of this plays out in the Electoral College map that is the key to victory in November. One candidate or the other must win at least 270 electoral votes. The assumption has been that Democrats have an advantage because they can supposedly win every state John Kerry took in 2004 plus Ohio, which has fallen on hard economic times and seen its state Republican Party discredited. That would give the Democratic nominee at least 272 electoral votes.

But Mr. McCain’s rise to the GOP nomination throws that calculation out the window. He is the only potential GOP candidate who is clearly positioned to keep the basic red-blue template of how each state voted in 2004 intact and then be able to move into blue territory.

Let’s assume that Ohio goes to either Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton. It’s at least as likely that Mr. McCain could carry New Hampshire. The Granite State went only narrowly to Mr. Kerry, a senator from a neighboring state, and Mr. McCain has unique advantages there. New Hampshire elections are determined by how that state’s fiercely independent voters go, and Mr. McCain has won over many of them in both the 2000 and 2008 GOP primaries. He spent 47 days in New Hampshire before this year’s primary and is well-known in the state. If Mr. McCain lost Ohio but carried New Hampshire and all the other states Mr. Bush took in 2004, he would win, 270-268.

It’s true that Democrats will make a play for states other than Ohio that Mr. Bush won. Iowa is a perennially competitive state that could go either way this fall. Arkansas polls show that Hillary Clinton might well be able to carry the state where she served as First Lady for over a decade.

But Mr. McCain’s roots in the Rocky Mountain West complicate Democratic efforts to take states in that region. His fierce individualism and support for property rights play well in Nevada and Colorado, which were close in 2004. New Mexico, next door to Mr. McCain’s Arizona, gave Mr. Bush a very narrow 49.6% to 49% victory in 2004. But Mr. McCain’s nuanced position on immigration marks him as the GOP candidate who is most likely to hold the Hispanic voters who are the key to carrying New Mexico.

Mr. McCain also puts several Midwest battleground states in play. Should he pick Minnesota’s Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his vice presidential choice, he might have a leg up on carrying both Minnesota and Wisconsin, which went narrowly for Mr. Kerry in 2004.

“The media markets in western Wisconsin get Minneapolis television and are oriented to their news–Pawlenty would be a plus there,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican. “McCain’s independent stands would play well in that region–which is exactly where GOP presidential candidates have done poorly enough so that they lost statewide by 12,000 votes or so in both 2004 and 2000.”

Mr. McCain can be competitive in other blue states. Michigan went Democratic in 2004 by only 3.4% of the total vote, and Oregon by just over 4%. The latest Field Poll in California puts Mr. McCain and Hillary Clinton in a statistical tie. If Democrats have to spend valuable time and resources holding down California, it will make it more difficult for them to take states they lost in 2000 and 2004.

Mr. McCain could even make a foray into the Northeast, where his support from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential candidate, could put Connecticut in contention. Ditto New Jersey, which Mr. Bush lost by only 53% to 46% in 2004.

Then there is Pennsylvania, which John Kerry carried by only 2.5% points in 2004. Michael Smerconish, the most popular talk-show host in Philadelphia, believes Mr. McCain has a real chance to carry the state. While Mr. Smerconish is a conservative who didn’t support Mr. McCain, he thinks “the conservative blasting of McCain is good publicity around here.” His independence and maverick status are exactly the qualities that could help him carry the tightly contested Philadelphia suburbs that voted to re-elect GOP senator Arlen Specter, a moderate, in 2004 but rejected conservative Rick Santorum in 2006.


In some ways Mr. McCain resembles Nicolas Sarkozy, the French conservative who won last year’s presidential election even though the retiring president, Jacques Chirac, was unpopular and a member of his own party. “Like Sarko, who was of Chirac’s party but not of Chirac, America’s swing voters have intuited over the years that there is little love lost between McCain and George Bush,” says the blog Race42008.

Mr. Sarkozy was able to convince a majority of French voters that he represented real change that would improve conditions, while his socialist rival, Segolene Royal, represented risky change that could make matters worse. That is precisely the challenge Mr. McCain faces this year against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

When you hear that the demise of the Republicans is a foregone conclusion, remember that when the campaign is joined this fall and voters will have to make real choices about the direction of the country, the result is likely to be close. Recall that pundits were ready to crown Michael Dukakis the winner of the 1988 election after he opened up a 17-point edge over George H.W. Bush. In 2000, they declared the race over around Labor Day after Al Gore opened up a clear lead over George W. Bush.

Given that polls show Mr. McCain is currently in a dead heat against either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, it would be wise for the pundits to show a little humility this year. The Democratic strategists I talk to believe the race will be hard-fought and close, regardless of the direction the economy or the war in Iraq takes. [/i]

Now go away.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Given that polls show Mr. McCain is currently in a dead heat against either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, it would be wise for the pundits to show a little humility this year. The Democratic strategists I talk to believe the race will be hard-fought and close, regardless of the direction the economy or the war in Iraq takes.[/quote]

Dead heat? National polls?

The question was “electability”, wasn’t it?

Maybe the half-retarded Ron Paul idiots should be campaigning in Brazoria county in a race that Paul at least has a chance of winning.

If I had to spout things that were reprehensible to me in order to get elected, I wouldn’t do it. So, either McCain doesn’t mind spouting liberal garbage (which makes him two-faced) or he really believes some of the stuff he says (such as in McCain-Feingold or the Amnesty claptrap).

He is another stealth-lib like Bush. When he accepts the nomination, I hope some conventioneers chant: “Four more years! Four more years!”

Another pseudo-Republican…jeeeeezzzzzz…just what we fucking need.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Did McCain abandon the principles of the Republican Party in order to be more ‘electable’? If so then the Republican Party has morphed into something other than what attracted me to the Party in the first place.[/quote]

Which ones? Deregulation? Opposing pork? Talking about “rogue state rollback” in 2000?

If you want a candidate with a perfect score on your ideological scorecard, you’ll do nothing but enjoy political wilderness.

Unlike you and your obsessions, American don’t think in terms of politicians representing the unalloyed forces of Good and Evil - they recognize many points of difference in between and a level of good faith, even when they think each other wrong.

You don’t - but that is irrelevant.

More than your vote is slouching toward irrelevancy.

Have you ever squared your circle of being a “libertarian” that supports Ron Paul with your “US-is-world-police” idea, which are fundamentally opposed to one another?

You seem manic about politicians adhering to a pure ideological script - so, presumably, you should too?

So how exactly can you be such an enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter given your views on foreign policy?

If perfection in ideology is the test, you fail your own exam.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Did McCain abandon the principles of the Republican Party in order to be more ‘electable’? If so then the Republican Party has morphed into something other than what attracted me to the Party in the first place.

Which ones? Deregulation? Opposing pork? Talking about “rogue state rollback” in 2000?

If you want a candidate with a perfect score on your ideological scorecard, you’ll do nothing but enjoy political wilderness.

Unlike you and your obsessions, American don’t think in terms of politicians representing the unalloyed forces of Good and Evil - they recognize many points of difference in between and a level of good faith, even when they think each other wrong.

You don’t - but that is irrelevant.

I know I’m dooming my vote to irrelevency…

More than your vote is slouching toward irrelevancy.

…but I think I’ll vote Libertarian; that or for Hillary — if we have to have evil, I prefer it in pure form (my apologies to A. Lincoln).

Have you ever squared your circle of being a “libertarian” that supports Ron Paul with your “US-is-world-police” idea, which are fundamentally opposed to one another?

You seem manic about politicians adhering to a pure ideological script - so, presumably, you should too?

So how exactly can you be such an enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter given your views on foreign policy?

If perfection in ideology is the test, you fail your own exam.[/quote]

Don’t do that. His head will explode.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Did McCain abandon the principles of the Republican Party in order to be more ‘electable’? If so then the Republican Party has morphed into something other than what attracted me to the Party in the first place.

Which ones? Deregulation? Opposing pork? Talking about “rogue state rollback” in 2000?

If you want a candidate with a perfect score on your ideological scorecard, you’ll do nothing but enjoy political wilderness.

Unlike you and your obsessions, American don’t think in terms of politicians representing the unalloyed forces of Good and Evil - they recognize many points of difference in between and a level of good faith, even when they think each other wrong.

You don’t - but that is irrelevant.

I know I’m dooming my vote to irrelevency…

More than your vote is slouching toward irrelevancy.

…but I think I’ll vote Libertarian; that or for Hillary — if we have to have evil, I prefer it in pure form (my apologies to A. Lincoln).

Have you ever squared your circle of being a “libertarian” that supports Ron Paul with your “US-is-world-police” idea, which are fundamentally opposed to one another?

You seem manic about politicians adhering to a pure ideological script - so, presumably, you should too?

So how exactly can you be such an enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter given your views on foreign policy?

If perfection in ideology is the test, you fail your own exam.[/quote]

Who’s asking for perfection? How about someone who sticks to his principles?

Maybe as a member of the Keating 5 or in his ‘Gang of 14’, he became the Great Compromiser you gents seem to admire, ‘reaching across the aisle, don’t you see?’

Ron Paul has integrity. McCain does not, plain and simple. Sure, I disagree with the Libertarians and RP on some things — but I share their principles. McCain has no principles to agree or disagree on. Of course, that makes him electable, since we now elect someone not on principle but on electability (to the cattle).

When evil and good compromise, only the evil gains. What does good gain from evil? Yet you guys want a guy who’s a Great Compromiser…jeeeezzzzz…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Who’s asking for perfection? How about someone who sticks to his principles? [/quote]

Now you are just thrashing around in the deep end. McCain doesn’t have principles? None? Not one?

Keating Five? Dealt with - McCain was exonerated. Look it up, if you can bothered to look into history.

“Gang of Fourteen”? It put conservative judges on the bench. You can disagree with tactics - but there was nothing evil about working across the aisle to avoid the “nuclear option” - McCain didn’t do it to be “liberal”.

Here is your problem, HH - in the real world, you have to work with other people. Our republic is built on the idea - no one gets to rule by edict. You negotiate, you horse trade. Now, in your fantasy world, no need for any of that stuff - but the adults are talking about the real world, and politicians from the birth of the country have understood you must marry pragmatism with principles if anything is going to get done.

Businessmen understand this. Elected officials understand this. You don’t, apparently.

Hogwash - McCain was never my first choice, but I could rattle off the top of my head McCain’s basic platform of principles. So can most - whether they disagree with him or not - unless they are hiding behind the skirt of refusing to deal with the topic.

Oh, and “to the cattle”? Really? Be serious. I’m not sure if you stand at a position to declare others to be “cattle”.

More of your problem - you can’t get out of your narrow head that everything boils down to a existential battle between Good and Evil in politics.

Your “Good and Evil” approach is the same template of rank radical Leftism - where they stand at the gates of Armaegeddon, where anyone they disagree with isn’t just wrong, they are evil. That has been the classic conservative complaint about the stupidity of radical Leftism - and now, though your ideas are different, your playbook is the same. Damning.

It doesn’t. Never has. Too much compromise can be a bad thing - but that isn’t what you are arguing. Like other Paulnuts, you have drifted into the deep waters if bizarro paranoia and hyperbole - and it is disappointing to witness.

Just what the party needed. Another Bush Republican.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Who’s asking for perfection? How about someone who sticks to his principles?

Maybe as a member of the Keating 5 or in his ‘Gang of 14’, he became the Great Compromiser you gents seem to admire, ‘reaching across the aisle, don’t you see?’

Ron Paul has integrity. McCain does not, plain and simple. Sure, I disagree with the Libertarians and RP on some things — but I share their principles. McCain has no principles to agree or disagree on. Of course, that makes him electable, since we now elect someone not on principle but on electability (to the cattle).

When evil and good compromise, only the evil gains. What does good gain from evil? Yet you guys want a guy who’s a Great Compromiser…jeeeezzzzz…

[/quote]

Regarding McCain and personal integrity, I posted this Reason profile from back in January 1999 on another thread, but here’s the link again. McCain hasn’t changed a bit - which says something in and of itself - I suggest you read it:

And yes, I agree with a major point raised raised in this video, McCain will have us involved in yet another war. Maybe even two.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Who’s asking for perfection? How about someone who sticks to his principles?

Now you are just thrashing around in the deep end. McCain doesn’t have principles? None? Not one?

Maybe as a member of the Keating 5 or in his ‘Gang of 14’, he became the Great Compromiser you gents seem to admire, ‘reaching across the aisle, don’t you see?’

Keating Five? Dealt with - McCain was exonerated. Look it up, if you can bothered to look into history.

“Gang of Fourteen”? It put conservative judges on the bench. You can disagree with tactics - but there was nothing evil about working across the aisle to avoid the “nuclear option” - McCain didn’t do it to be “liberal”.

Here is your problem, HH - in the real world, you have to work with other people. Our republic is built on the idea - no one gets to rule by edict. You negotiate, you horse trade. Now, in your fantasy world, no need for any of that stuff - but the adults are talking about the real world, and politicians from the birth of the country have understood you must marry pragmatism with principles if anything is going to get done.

Businessmen understand this. Elected officials understand this. You don’t, apparently.

Ron Paul has integrity. McCain does not, plain and simple. Sure, I disagree with the Libertarians and RP on some things — but I share their principles. McCain has no principles to agree or disagree on. Of course, that makes him electable, since we now elect someone not on principle but on electability (to the cattle).

Hogwash - McCain was never my first choice, but I could rattle off the top of my head McCain’s basic platform of principles. So can most - whether they disagree with him or not - unless they are hiding behind the skirt of refusing to deal with the topic.

Oh, and “to the cattle”? Really? Be serious. I’m not sure if you stand at a position to declare others to be “cattle”.

When evil and good compromise, only the evil gains. What does good gain from evil? Yet you guys want a guy who’s a Great Compromiser…jeeeezzzzz…

More of your problem - you can’t get out of your narrow head that everything boils down to a existential battle between Good and Evil in politics.

Your “Good and Evil” approach is the same template of rank radical Leftism - where they stand at the gates of Armaegeddon, where anyone they disagree with isn’t just wrong, they are evil. That has been the classic conservative complaint about the stupidity of radical Leftism - and now, though your ideas are different, your playbook is the same. Damning.

It doesn’t. Never has. Too much compromise can be a bad thing - but that isn’t what you are arguing. Like other Paulnuts, you have drifted into the deep waters if bizarro paranoia and hyperbole - and it is disappointing to witness.[/quote]

It was just this sort of amoral approach that has gotten us into the hole we are in. By compromising, by reading the Constitution to fit the circumstances, we now have a bloated bureaucracy and humongous debt — all in the spirit of compromise. We have ‘compromised’ ourselves into a pit.

Your right on one thing — I do see things in terms of black and white (no racial intent there). There is right and there is wrong, despite your wish that there not be. To break the immigration laws is wrong. To cabal and thwart the Senate is wrong. To give in on principles to ‘make a deal’ is wrong. To stand up for what is moral is right. To NOT cut deals when you KNOW you are correct is right.

Sorry Thunder, morality is more important than compromise. I hope you discover that a moral existence is much better than a half-assed ‘compromised’ one.

McCain is definitely electable. Elections often go, rightly or wrongly, to the most “likeable” candidate, regardless of his policies or stance on issues. McCain is definitely a charismatic fellow. He’s like your loveable grandpa. He’s probably the Republican’s best bet if Obama - by some huge failure of the Clinton’s machiavelic machinations - gets the Democratic nomination.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Who’s asking for perfection? How about someone who sticks to his principles?

Maybe as a member of the Keating 5 or in his ‘Gang of 14’, he became the Great Compromiser you gents seem to admire, ‘reaching across the aisle, don’t you see?’

Ron Paul has integrity. McCain does not, plain and simple. Sure, I disagree with the Libertarians and RP on some things — but I share their principles. McCain has no principles to agree or disagree on. Of course, that makes him electable, since we now elect someone not on principle but on electability (to the cattle).

When evil and good compromise, only the evil gains. What does good gain from evil? Yet you guys want a guy who’s a Great Compromiser…jeeeezzzzz…

Regarding McCain and personal integrity, I posted this Reason profile from back in January 1999 on another thread, but here’s the link again. McCain hasn’t changed a bit - which says something in and of itself - I suggest you read it:

[/quote]

Very good. He would get my vote…in 2000.

Hasn’t changes a bit? If so, then why are the ratings from so long ago? What are they today?

Something about many people at CPAC sitting with crossed arms while he spoke, and refusing to applaud, tells us something.

Here’s his CPAC speech:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/john_mccains_cpac_speech.html

Here’s Stanley Kurtz’s review of the speech, which he saw in person:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQ1NjYzMDE0ZTk0MmI4ZjZmYmE2NWFiOGE5ZDEyZDA=

EXCERPT:

In any case, I thought McCain did an excellent job, and notwithstanding what seemed like a faction of pre-planned booers at the start, he won over most of the crowd. Will all this be enough to unite the party? It’s too early to say. But everyone seemed to agree that McCain�??s speech today was the right way to start.