Can McCain win over conservatives?

[cannon_fodder]

I didn't know McCain owned a beer distribution franchise from 1958 to 1981.  Damn, and I already voted.

Great site, tons of info.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Conan71



Here's Hillary's handicap in the general if she gets nominated:

Approx half or more of the Democrat party has not been voting for her to this point and your poll results even bear that out.  Let's say another 25% of Democrats from Obama and Edwards wind up voting for her.  I'm willing to bet less than 15% of registered centrist or slightly liberal Republicans would vote for her.  Worst thing which could happen to McCain is if the ultra-right GOP's stay home in protest.  That is the only scenario I can see which would whisk Hillary into the White House.

A general election with Hillary vs. anybody will depend heavily on independents, who this cycle are breaking for Democrats in huge numbers.  The question, as it always is, will be: should we jettison the party in power or not?  In spite of all the talk about dynasties and grasping personalities and "Hillary-care" and Bill, etc etc, the electorate still wants the Republicans out of power in a big way, and Hillary, while perhaps distasteful to some, is a hell of a lot better than what we got that last seven years.  

quote:I'm banking on Edwards throwing his support behind Obama to get a shot at VP and Richardson being Hillary's choice for VP if she gets the nod at the convention.  I think Edwards has held back his support because he wants to be a viable running mate to either at this point.  Not well noted in the media is Richardson hasn't endorsed anyone either.

Those are good points, and I think you're right.  They're both angling for power spots.  They'll both wait till after Super Tuesday at the least to offer support, and probably later if it's as close as polls say it is.  

quote:McCain has a liberal enough voting record, and there are enough Democrats who simply distrust the Clintons who would be willing to vote for McCain.  He's proven he's Republican in name only.  McCain has the potential to gain a more clear-cut victory in Ohio and Florida against Hillary- two lynch-pins of the last two general elections.

More than anything, I think there's a growing ground-swell of sentiment of: "Anyone other than a Clinton or Bush for the next four years".

I think you're right . . . . slightly.  Yes, there's a minor push against dynasties right now, and it's showing up in Obama's numbers, which are getting better day by day. But it won't translate much into the general.  I still think it's not just Bush that needs repudiation, but the entire Republican power base (yah, I know that's strong, but it's true), and Dems and the independents are gonna do that this year.  The quote I've heard (from Republican pollsters no less) is that we're undergoing a "paradigm shift" away from conservative politics and towards the left, and woe be to anyone who stands in the way . . . . or denies it's happening.

I've been complaining for a long time there's too much of an incestuous relationship between the religious right and the GOP for too long.  Ronald Reagan owed his presidency in part to Reverand Falwell's "Moral Majority".  It's been tradition since.  

There's been a sharp and acrimonious divide in this country brewing since the early 1990's.  Some will trace roots earlier, I'm using the 1994 mid-term election and the White Water investigation as the true baseline on the sharper rhetoric and less respect for members on the other side of the aisle.  

That probably all had it's genesis somewhere in Watergate and the Iran-Contra investigations.  And perhaps blind desparation by the GOP to have control of both houses and to regain the presidency.

There's got to be a better middle ground than we've experienced over the last 14 years or so.  More consideration and respect for other's ideas, more willingness for compromise.  Less pork to pay off other legislators.  Fewer investigations out of spite.

I don't see where a true liberal can be elected and I don't see where a true conservative can be elected.  I'll agree the Independents are going to be a factor.

Fully expect whomever the GOP candidate is to shine the light on the relative inactivity of the Democrat-controlled house and Senate.  I can't think of anything substantive nor historic they have accomplished.  They punted on immigration.  They've capitulated on the war they made the promise they would have ended by now.  In short, I think both houses with few exeptional Republicans and Democrats suck.  I'm also incredibly disappointed that Bush spends money like a drunken liberal.  $3 trillion budget my donkey.  

People in Washington have lost sensitivity to what a million dollars means, and are growing less sensitive to what a billion means.

The GOP candidate sure as heck isn't going to point to George Bush as being the roadblock on compromise.

I personally think there is more and more of the "broken government" sentiment coming along, and a general distrust for the veteran lawmakers.

The deciding factor in the general election will come down to trust and or prejudice.  We can count on a certain number of party-line voters.  There are members of both parties and independents who are going to be searching for someone they trust to lead the country.  

Hillary does not have a trust-worthy image in the minds of many voters.  There's not enough residual charm from Bill to get her in.  Obama is the Democrat's best bet to win the WH.  He's new enough in Washington that it would be easier to trust him as an agent of change.

[FOTD]

Nice! Looks real good for Obama!

"In your hands lies the future of your world and the fulfillment of the best qualities of your own spirit." –RFK

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Fun fact: John McCain IS conservative.  Question: Just how big of a caveman club do you have to swing these days to qualify as "conservative?"

One problem with the campaign is that everyone has an opinion or an "image" of someone, without any actual knowledge or information.  TV ads, Fox News commentaries, and op-eds only confuse matters more.

I'm a big fan of Project Vote Smart, where you can see actual voting records (with summaries that describe what the votes mean in plain English).  They also tell you how often a candidate voted in line with the platforms of various special interest groups. ("Interest Group Ratings")

Check it out: Project Vote Smart
and their summary info on McCain

He'd have to have a bigger club than Conan The Barbarian.

That's an interesting site to be sure.  I'm not sure I gleaned enough information one way or the other about McCain to say he's a conservative, maybe I'm reading in the wrong areas.  I couldn't find anything which hinted at what the vote was supposed to mean.  I know there are some better web sites with liberal or conservative acid tests.

McCain has been consistent on partial birth abortion, but the guy has seven kids, what else could one expect? []  Conservative there.  

His immigration votes and some of his votes on big business have been less than the accepted "conservative" stances.

One thing which does stick out like a sore thumb though is all the "NV" (did not vote) listed next to senator's names during the campaigns.  I'm a big fan of forcing legislators to give up their job to run for higher office.  These candidates still enjoy the perks and pay of their elected position while not performing any of the duties expected.  That leaves states under-represented when it's a Congressman, and really the whole nation under-served when it is a Senator.

Obama looks like he's been playing hookie from the Senate since late June or early July.  One NV after another.  I also notice though that he did miss voting on key wedge issues, yet voted on other issues the same day or within a day or so of an NV.  To me, seems he's purposely avoided some votes which would be controversial.

Is that really just that the citizens of the United States have paid McCain, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, and others each somewhere around $100K in salary just in the last 8 months while they have traipsed around the country trying to realize their political ambitions?

I took note that none of the major candidates of either party filled out the political courage test, they were in good company, Democrat contender Emperor Caesar did not either.  However, Republican candidate Vermin Love Supreme did.

They also neglected to show Edwards or Giuliani as candidates.  Keep in mind this site is supposed to show actual and rumored candidates for the '08 season.

[we vs us]

quote:
Hillary does not have a trust-worthy image in the minds of many voters.  There's not enough residual charm from Bill to get her in.  Obama is the Democrat's best bet to win the WH.  He's new enough in Washington that it would be easier to trust him as an agent of change.

A blog I read today (can't remember where) summed it up this way:  Hillary is campaigning to change the party in power.  Obama is campaigning to change the system.  This is why in my opinion Obama will win.  Combine your "broken government" (which I agree with) and his "change the system" meme, and you've got a compelling candidate for members of both parties.

Not nearly enough has been made of Obama's crossover appeal so far, but I expect that to change.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:
Hillary does not have a trust-worthy image in the minds of many voters.  There's not enough residual charm from Bill to get her in.  Obama is the Democrat's best bet to win the WH.  He's new enough in Washington that it would be easier to trust him as an agent of change.

A blog I read today (can't remember where) summed it up this way:  Hillary is campaigning to change the party in power.  Obama is campaigning to change the system.  This is why in my opinion Obama will win.  Combine your "broken government" (which I agree with) and his "change the system" meme, and you've got a compelling candidate for members of both parties.

Not nearly enough has been made of Obama's crossover appeal so far, but I expect that to change.

Lemme put it this way, if Obama is facing McCain.  Teh JSMIII staff is going to have to order lots of TUMS.

There again, Mccain can rest on 26 years of service in Washington, served his country prior to that and he's an experienced negotiator.  He's showed bi-partisan efforts.

Obama will be an easy target though when people start looking much closer and find he's only voted on about 60% of the issues because he's been on a rockstar tour to become president.  He really is inexperienced.  However, that might not be such a bad thing so long as he lines a cabinet with both experienced beltway hawks and some fresh faces.

[PonderInc]

Well, nobody seemed to care about experience when they elected Dubya.  You gotta wonder about a guy who never bothered to travel outside the country...despite the fact that his dad was the President, and Air Force One was available.  

"You owned a baseball team and went drinking in Cancun?  Sure that's experience!  Let's make you the leader of the free world!"

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Well, nobody seemed to care about experience when they elected Dubya.  You gotta wonder about a guy who never bothered to travel outside the country...despite the fact that his dad was the President, and Air Force One was available.  

"You owned a baseball team and went drinking in Cancun?  Sure that's experience!  Let's make you the leader of the free world!"

Oh come on P.I.  Bush had experience.  He denied a bunch of death row pardons when he was Gov. in Texas.  He's spent a bunch of other's money on personal follies and foibles.  Notice how we never heard about contraband Cuban cigars will Clinton was Presidient?  We don't seem to hear much about contraband Colombian coke anymore either.

He was perfectly qualified.  

/sarc