Anatomy of a defeat..

[The Other Side]

What was it that cost John McCain the victory??

This will be the question for months to come. At the end of the day, what will the republicans have to change in order to ever see the White House again or control of the house and senate?

John McCain in 2000 was a viable candidate. He was truly a maverick then. The republican machine quickly made mincemeat out of his campaign and he was out.

8 years later, McCain found himself at war with Obama and the RNC and its idealogies.

Was he a maverick or a sidekick? Dont know, it seemed to change from month to month, depending on who was advising him.

At first, he stepped aside from the RNC machine and was quickly left for dead on the side of the road.(so much for the maverick thing) Then, in desperation, he fires his campaign staff and hired GW Bushes people.

With Steve Schmidt at the helm, McCain had to do a switcheroo on positions and lose the whole "maverick" thingy, despite trying to claim he was still one.

Steve threw him a bone on some issues, and then came the selection of a running mate. This decision seemed to boost him at first, but today, looking at the polls for Sarah Palin, it appears she dragged him into a landslide.

Her selection was intended to shore up the "BASE" and it did, unfortunately, it alienated the moderates of the party and drove away the independents.

Seemingly unfair, this economy which had been sending signals since 2006 that tough times were coming, McCain was behind the 8 ball merely repeating the rhetoric of the Bush Administration "the fundamentals of the economy are strong".. and this was the straw that broke the camels back.

McCain could never define himself clearly, every month since MAY, he has changed his positions on everything and looked like he had no clue what he was going to be the next month.

At his rallies, he was drawing sparce crowds and his running mate was able to draw larger crowds which in hindsight, isnt a good idea if your trying to be president.

At any rate, the question should be asked:

What caused John McCain to lose the election?

1) no message that resonated with voters
2) his changing of positions over and over
3) the timing of a failing economy
4) an unpopular war(s)
5) slash and burn campaigning
6) his age
7) the selection of Sarah Palin
8) his tax policy mirroring GW BUSH's
9) the overall failure of GW Bush leadership
10) his percieved connections to GW BUSH

or

11) all of the above

While it may take some time for the republicans to re-define their party, it will be interesting to watch who gets the blame in the next few weeks.

On another note, it was fun to watch the FOX news panel look as if they needed to be on suicide watch when the states started to report, that was funny!! Brit Humes depression was well worth the viewing. His panel of experts tone became more somber as the night wore on..hilarious!

It is also interesting to note how INEFFECTUAL right wing talk radio was this time around. Looking at the states won and the overall imbalance of right wing radio talk shows in red states that went to OBAMA, it appears they lost their touch with listeners.

"Rush" is the BIGGEST loser of them all! All the slash and burn radio he has been promoting for the last 5 months was all in vain.

The joke is on him. Arnold Swarzenegger was right all along, "rush is irrevelant" in american politics.

It will be an interesting few weeks to say the least.

Congrats to Obama.

 

[tieguy]

Not much needs to be done. All we have to do is watch the democrats screw up the country even more then they did the last two years. One party accountability. No one to blame now but the democrats.

 

[stringerman85]

Not much needs to be done. All we have to do is watch the democrats screw up the country even more then they did the last two years. One party accountability. No one to blame now but the democrats.

That's the problem with republicans and Bush followers, Never ever can take any blame, not even once..same old same old......Well damn that means we can't blame Obama for anything because Bush wasn't accountable for anything, right?

 

[over9five]

Quote:
Originally Posted by over9five
How 'bout you, TOS? Tomorrow we'll have a new President-elect. Will you be moving on?

I already have. You dont see any new threads about the campaign from me or videos other than a thread for electoral predictions.



What happened??

 

[Babagounj]

At any rate, the question should be asked:

What caused John McCain to lose the election?

1) no message that resonated with voters
2) his changing of positions over and over
3) the timing of a failing economy
4) an unpopular war(s)
5) slash and burn campaigning
6) his age
7) the selection of Sarah Palin
8) his tax policy mirroring GW BUSH's
9) the overall failure of GW Bush leadership
10) his percieved connections to GW BUSH

or

11) all of the above

It is also interesting to note how INEFFECTUAL right wing talk radio was this time around. Looking at the states won and the overall imbalance of right wing radio talk shows in red states that went to OBAMA, it appears they lost their touch with listeners.

It will be an interesting few weeks to say the least.

Congrats to Obama.

Heard a devote liberal on a call in program what he said was inspiring ,he listens to the right wing stations because they are never boring unlike the liberal stations and that he is totally against the Fairness Doctrine.

The real reason ( and you did not list it, hummmm) is $$$$$$$$.
He who spends more gets more results.
Now this raises Q?'s just where did it ALL come from ??
Of course you believe it was nickles & dimes from the poor masses, but then that is what you have been told.
{by the way I really don't expect you to answer, why go against your nature now ? }

 

[wkmac]

What was it that cost John McCain the victory??

This will be the question for months to come. At the end of the day, what will the republicans have to change in order to ever see the White House again or control of the house and senate?

John McCain in 2000 was a viable candidate. He was truly a maverick then. The republican machine quickly made mincemeat out of his campaign and he was out.

8 years later, McCain found himself at war with Obama and the RNC and its idealogies.

Was he a maverick or a sidekick? Dont know, it seemed to change from month to month, depending on who was advising him.

At first, he stepped aside from the RNC machine and was quickly left for dead on the side of the road.(so much for the maverick thing) Then, in desperation, he fires his campaign staff and hired GW Bushes people.

With Steve Schmidt at the helm, McCain had to do a switcheroo on positions and lose the whole "maverick" thingy, despite trying to claim he was still one.

Steve threw him a bone on some issues, and then came the selection of a running mate. This decision seemed to boost him at first, but today, looking at the polls for Sarah Palin, it appears she dragged him into a landslide.

Her selection was intended to shore up the "BASE" and it did, unfortunately, it alienated the moderates of the party and drove away the independents.

Seemingly unfair, this economy which had been sending signals since 2006 that tough times were coming, McCain was behind the 8 ball merely repeating the rhetoric of the Bush Administration "the fundamentals of the economy are strong".. and this was the straw that broke the camels back.

McCain could never define himself clearly, every month since MAY, he has changed his positions on everything and looked like he had no clue what he was going to be the next month.

At his rallies, he was drawing sparce crowds and his running mate was able to draw larger crowds which in hindsight, isnt a good idea if your trying to be president.

At any rate, the question should be asked:

What caused John McCain to lose the election?

1) no message that resonated with voters
2) his changing of positions over and over
3) the timing of a failing economy
4) an unpopular war(s)
5) slash and burn campaigning
6) his age
7) the selection of Sarah Palin
8) his tax policy mirroring GW BUSH's
9) the overall failure of GW Bush leadership
10) his percieved connections to GW BUSH

or

11) all of the above

While it may take some time for the republicans to re-define their party, it will be interesting to watch who gets the blame in the next few weeks.

On another note, it was fun to watch the FOX news panel look as if they needed to be on suicide watch when the states started to report, that was funny!! Brit Humes depression was well worth the viewing. His panel of experts tone became more somber as the night wore on..hilarious!

It is also interesting to note how INEFFECTUAL right wing talk radio was this time around. Looking at the states won and the overall imbalance of right wing radio talk shows in red states that went to OBAMA, it appears they lost their touch with listeners.

"Rush" is the BIGGEST loser of them all! All the slash and burn radio he has been promoting for the last 5 months was all in vain.

The joke is on him. Arnold Swarzenegger was right all along, "rush is irrevelant" in american politics.

It will be an interesting few weeks to say the least.

Congrats to Obama.

TOS,

You made many good points but as I read them and thought about a single point of blame I could only come to one conclusion as tothe ultimate cause of this large of a loss and I include the loss of congress as well. The single point that IMO began it all was the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton. I agree that Bill violated the law and we can debate all that another time but I wantto focus on what I think was a major course change for the republican party during that time.

Up until that point, rightly or wrongly the republicans were focused on redirecting gov't via the Contract with America. Budgets were balanced, things were moving in a pretty good direction and gov't although not dramatic was actually shrinking. Even Clinton and Gore were talking of welfrare reforms and even talk of privatizing Social Security. Across the board the idea was growing that smaller gov't does work and was worth discussing but all of a sudden republicans got the idea that power overrides principles of limited gov't and fiscal responsibility. Sure they caught Bill with his pants down but that was the gift to exploit the President even further for the agenda of smaller gov't, which Bill would have given in gladly to save face in the eyes of the public.

However, republicans saw the moment to sieze power, especially in the 2000' elections and in that moment they dumped the Contract with America and limited/fiscal repsonsible gov't as cast off seeking that of which Lord Acton warned and that is "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!" The republican party proved Lord Acton so correct in his accessment just as the democrats in the congress did leading up to the 1994' mid term election when the Republicans were given the keys to the Kingdom.

McCain didn't loose this election, the republicans tilled the soil and planted the seeds back in the late 90's and last night the bitter fruit of that harvest came to the plate.

JMO.

As for your comments on right wing radio, I think that analyst is pretty good but it sure does seem to destroy the need for the fairness doctrine. I know there is much scare mongering going on with the Fariness Doctrine but many "liberal" radio folks oppose this as well because they would in turn be forced to air the otherside on every point. Imagine Amy Goodman having to give air time to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity on every Democracy Now broadcast? Besides I'd rather hear Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Bacevich alone with Amy or even Bill Moyers than to have to by law listen to Sean Hannity vectoring in with his shrill when it adds nothing to the discussion.

There is "left" opposition to this approach as well so if Schumer goes forward with this, the allies in the fight against is gonna suprise a lot of people. That might be a healthy thing!

 

[The Other Side]

Wk,

excellent take. One of your best posts to date.

thanks for the info!

 

[Catatonic]

1) He ran as a Republican.
2) Bush's decision to invade Iraq which tied his hands to corral the spend happy Republicans in Congress.
3) The economy stupid

PS - As an aside, try to state your position in 3 points or less. Otherwise, you're an unfocused McCainiac

 

[av8torntn]

1) Campaign finance system he helped create. Allowed Obama to vastly outspend him.

2) Let the ridiculous Obama claim that he would cut taxes for 95% of workers go unchallenged. Yes I know it was stupid but the voters bought it.

3) The Dims were better at the Rove strategy of targeted turnout. Since there was not near as large a turnout as many predicted it is funny that the dims used the strategy that they not long ago vilified.

 

[PAUPSER]

I think what sealed McCain’s fate was when Dick Cheney with a 18% percent approval rate said he was casting his vote for John McCain. If Bush and Cheney was any friends of McCain’s that would have said they voted for a Obama to help McCain out. LOL
While I did vote for Obama I can say that McCain did get a bad rap just because their was a lack of confidence in the republican party thanks to George Bush.

 

[av8torntn]

I think what sealed McCain’s fate was when Dick Cheney with a 18% percent approval rate said he was casting his vote for John McCain. If Bush and Cheney was any friends of McCain’s that would have said they voted for a Obama to help McCain out. quote]

I don't think they were ever fans of McCain.

 

[Channahon]

The race is done and over, after 2 years of campaigning. I don't have the time or energy to figure out where McCain went wrong in his campaign, nor do I care at this point. I voted for McCain-Palin, but it was not to be.

My congratulations to all of you that supported Obama, as you and the rest of country felt he is the right man for the job.

Now it's time to see how Obama will execute his campaign promises for the middle class. This next 4 years will be very interesting with the entire Democratic party running the country.

 

[moreluck]

Now what happens to all those gay marriages ?? Californians finally got their heads out of their and voted that marriage is between a man and a woman. Hooray !!!

 

[chev]

Now what happens to all those gay marriages ?? Californians finally got their heads out of their and voted that marriage is between a man and a woman. Hooray !!!

Hooray indeed. I have to say I am shocked since Cali tends to be so liberal. Good going Californians.

 

[diesel96]

1) He ran as a Republican.
2) Bush's decision to invade Iraq which tied his hands to corral the spend happy Republicans in Congress.
3) The economy stupid

PS - As an aside, try to state your position in 3 points or less. Otherwise, you're an unfocused McCainiac

1) Exposing the Con in Conservatism
2) Quenching the thirst of the Military Industrial Complex with Oil
3)Trickle down became a slow leak

.....
McCain didn't loose this election, the republicans tilled the soil and planted the seeds back in the late 90's and last night the bitter fruit of that harvest came to the plate.

Cause what you reep is what you sow.....(R.A.M)

Now what happens to all those gay marriages ?? Californians finally got their heads out of their and voted that marriage is between a man and a woman. Hooray !!!

Moreluck.....I thought you and Chev are advocates for less gov't. But as long as it's not hurting anybody, either you want "Gov't" out of your personal life (and bedroom) or you don't. It shouldn't be selective.This also effects straight people as well in Domestic partnerships. Is there not a libertarian bone in your body?

Not much needs to be done. All we have to do is watch the democrats screw up the country even more then they did the last two years. One party accountability. No one to blame now but the democrats.

Would you like some cheese with that whine

Obama 08'

 

[moreluck]

D....I don't care if same sex folks link up and get every perk that married people do......just don't call it marriage. Call if same sex fusion, call it co-mingling.......marriage is between a man & a woman period the end!

 

[Catatonic]

1) Exposing the Con in Conservatism

This brings to mind the old saying that you can see the character of a person in victory and in defeat.

Nuff said.

 

[diesel96]

Originally Posted by diesel96
1) Exposing the Con in Conservatism
This brings to mind the old saying that you can see the character of a person in victory and in defeat.

Nuff said.

The old character said "He would have victory if he lost wieght so he can see Da-feet.

PS - As an aside, try to state your position in 3 points or less. Otherwise, you're an unfocused McCainiac

Hoax-man, You ask us to participate in your lil' game of "state your position in 3 points or less". Now I'm trying to focus why you would take a jab at those who participated with your request, or was this another attempt of dry humor. Maybe solitaire suits you better. Nuff Said.

 

[tieguy]

That's the problem with republicans and Bush followers, Never ever can take any blame, not even once..same old same old......Well damn that means we can't blame Obama for anything because Bush wasn't accountable for anything, right?

Two years ago Bush had one of the strongest economies in history. The only that has changed in that time is the advent of todays most economically destructive congressional group. You figure it out.

 

[tieguy]

[/color]

Would you like some cheese with that whine

Obama 08'

I would indeed my friend. And some beer and some of those crunchy nibbles while I sit back and watch your side screw the pooch and look for someone else to blame.

How about that stock market today? Investors are so excited about the new regime they sold their stock in appreciation when markets often rebound on post election day.