SDS Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 McCain erred in changing his style of openness. The Straight Talk Express shut down, and reporters' access was almost completely cut off starting just shortly after he got the nomination. He stopped explaining issues in much more than simple declarative sentences b/c that's what you have to do to attract that 25% base that puts you over the top. They don't want straight talk, they don't want explanations and if you appear too smart they won't vote for you. The fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants Palin choice went after exactly that crowd, and women, and it backfired. I still think that if JM had selected almost any other VP on the slate, it at least doesn't go this badly for him --- Ridge, Romney, Pawlenty, Rudy, Jindal, or hell, even someone like Chris Shays. McCain pandered, stepped away from what got him that far, and he lost. The data doesn't show any of this to be true. The exit polls show Palin was a net plus. What she lost by not bringing in women, she gained by energizing the base and pulling in donations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The data doesn't show any of this to be true. The exit polls show Palin was a net plus. What she lost by not bringing in women, she gained by energizing the base and pulling in donations. Show me the data please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Show me the data please. It was reported last night - look for it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 It was reported last night - look for it yourself. That data supports nothing. It is a flawed question, a terrible methodology and horrible analysis of the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 If you are in support of a group of Americans treating another group of Americans with rancor and hatred, then you sir are anti-American. McCain and Obama both said it tonight. We are not Democrats and we are not Republicans. We are Americans, and nothing can be accomplished without working together. The "We" in Obama's "Yes We Can" does not refer to the Democrat Party. It refers to all the citizens of our nation, and it seems like you are not on board with that. I gained a TON of respect for McCain in his address, and if you are opposed to a speech where a man concedes defeat with honor and humility while expressing desire to join hands with all Americans for the betterment of our nation, then yes, you are Unamerican. I've always had a lot of respect for McCain and was disappointed he changed from the 2000 John McCain. The 2000 John McCain and a like thinking running mate may have gotten my vote. i think he redeemed himself. A class act. I don't think he had much to redeem himself for. Worked for the Democrats over the last 8 years, did it not? The Dems could have started impeachment proceedings based on his warrantless wire taps but they didn't. That is a much worse offense than getting a BJ from an intern. If you think the Dems were worse in the last eight years than the Pubs were during Clinton you're brain is locked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 It was reported last night - look for it yourself. The only exit poll I saw had 60% of voters saying that Palin was unqualified to be President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The only exit poll I saw had 60% of voters saying that Palin was unqualified to be President. She wasn't running for president in case you hadn't noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The data doesn't show any of this to be true. The exit polls show Palin was a net plus. What she lost by not bringing in women, she gained by energizing the base and pulling in donations. I would argue that Palin was a net plus for the other side. As much as she may have energized the base (and I agree she did), she turned off independents and energized those Dems who 'could have lived with' McCain but were scared off by the Palin they saw in interviews who couldn't speak English and demonstrated that she knew nothing about where she stood on issues, and relied on shout-outs, winks, and you-betchas to fill the dead air. Again, she embodied the Party of Stupid. She didn't pull in nearly what Romney, with his connections, could have. McCain wouldn't've needed to take public funds. A Romney who, at the convention, gave a very good speech that was just to the right of Ronald Reagan. JM said the thing he liked least about campaigning was asking for money (commendable) and his weakest issue was the economy (to wit, I think this was the stupidest sentence he could have uttered and this admission really cost him). He didn't shore those weaknesses up. What could JM have done with a 30-min., major-network ad-buy? Those aren't the only things that cost him, for sure, but they were two of the biggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 She wasn't running for president in case you hadn't noticed. Palin may have energized blue collar conservatives, but the data shows that she killed McCain with the soccer Moms in suburbia, which is why he lost PA and OH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 She wasn't running for president in case you hadn't noticed. And what is the role of the Vice President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I hope Obama offers a position in Cabinet to McCain. yeah, I was thinking about this as well. I heard a couple pundits say Obama's cabinet would be based heavily on bipartisanship and no old guard (members of former administrations), so that would be a great example by offering JMC a position. Homeland Security would definitely work. and I thought it was a great speech also, the best I've ever heard him give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 yeah, I was thinking about this as well. I heard a couple pundits say Obama's cabinet would be based heavily on bipartisanship and no old guard (members of former administrations), so that would be a great example by offering JMC a position. Homeland Security would definitely work. and I thought it was a great speech also, the best I've ever heard him give. The you will be disappointed in his Chief of Staff, a former member of Clinton's staff. On the night after the Clinton election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."[1] His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo".[8] Appointing a hard-line disciplinarian such as him for that particular position doesn't quite fit what people think Obama was going to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The you will be disappointed in his Chief of Staff, a former member of Clinton's staff. I didn't offer an opinion, I said pundits were saying that there weren't going to be any retreads. My choice of words 'members of former administrations" probably wasn't very good. I think the inference was former cabinet members or high level administrators, but I really don't know what to expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 And what is the role of the Vice President? I suspect where Plugs Biden is concerned, the role will be "Sit in your room, shut your mouth, and eat your peas." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I didn't offer an opinion, I said pundits were saying that there weren't going to be any retreads. My choice of words 'members of former administrations" probably wasn't very good. I think the inference was former cabinet members or high level administrators, but I really don't know what to expect. Robert Gates will be his Sec of Defense as he is now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The you will be disappointed in his Chief of Staff, a former member of Clinton's staff. Appointing a hard-line disciplinarian such as him for that particular position doesn't quite fit what people think Obama was going to do. Emanuel is very smart and very tough, and has been very (I think overly) partisan in his latest position. IMO, people are going to be very surprised by how he acts and what he says in this new position. Politics on a national level often makes you do things because of the pressures you are under, positions you hold, and the general climate of Washington at the time. Like if you're majority leader you end up having to be overly partisan. That's just the way it works. Emanuel will not be nearly as outwardly partisan with Obama as his boss. He grew up in the Clinton Presidency and gained a lot of power in the party because of his political savvy and smarts. He's a lot like Obama, which is probably why he picked him. Think of how Stephanopolis changed dramatically once he was put in a different job. (Most people know this but for those who don't, Ari Gold, the agent on Entourage is based on the real Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel, who is Rahm's brother. Probably not a good thing to say when I just said Rahm Emanuel was not going to be a back-stabbing lying bastard, but what the heck. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I really like the speech too! John! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 She wasn't running for president in case you hadn't noticed. SDS.....she is only one step away though? And frankly THAT is what scared me. As a veteran McCain was still a consideration even though I liked Obama better because I share that comadre with him...... But Palin should never be the leader of this country....never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 That data supports nothing. It is a flawed question, a terrible methodology and horrible analysis of the data. Exactly... I think it is a suburban "hockey thing." I have no data to support that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 SDS.....she is only one step away though? And frankly THAT is what scared me. As a veteran McCain was still a consideration even though I liked Obama better because I share that comadre with him...... But Palin should never be the leader of this country....never Kay Bailey Hutchison, IMO, would have been a slam dunk for the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts