-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Romney opts out of Presidental Race
- Thread starter BourneID
- Start date
- Status
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
There is one big difference between McCain and Bush:
McCain didn't start a war in Iraq which both liberals and independents hate him for equally.
Bush's only hope for re-election was to get the far-right to come out and vote for him because those were the only people who thought that his idea to invade Iraq was the correct course of action. He had to get enough far-righters at the polls to counter-act those who voted for Kerry just because he wasn't Bush. The other thing that worked in Bush's favor is that he was able to paint Kerry as a "far-left" candidate, so independents were stuck between a rock and a hard place and just stayed home. In the 2000 election, Bush tried to play much more of a centrist candidate with his "compassionate conservatism" campaign.
McCain isn't hated by the independents for starting an unpopular war. His campaign was in shambles because he supported the "surge" in Iraq, which many people opposed. However, now that people see that it's working, they think that we can win again and McCain can take us there. That includes voters who, like myself, were against the war to begin with, but would rather have us see it through to victory instead of pull out the day that the new President takes office. Aside from that, McCain is viewed as a person who can reach across party lines to get things done. All this means that McCain certainly can do well by pulling the independent vote, and, quite frankly, there are many more "moderates" in the country than bible-thumping Evangelicals.
Both Hillary and Obama are far-left candidates (no matter how much Hillary tries to pretend not to be), so McCain should be fine against either of them.
McCain didn't start a war in Iraq which both liberals and independents hate him for equally.
Bush's only hope for re-election was to get the far-right to come out and vote for him because those were the only people who thought that his idea to invade Iraq was the correct course of action. He had to get enough far-righters at the polls to counter-act those who voted for Kerry just because he wasn't Bush. The other thing that worked in Bush's favor is that he was able to paint Kerry as a "far-left" candidate, so independents were stuck between a rock and a hard place and just stayed home. In the 2000 election, Bush tried to play much more of a centrist candidate with his "compassionate conservatism" campaign.
McCain isn't hated by the independents for starting an unpopular war. His campaign was in shambles because he supported the "surge" in Iraq, which many people opposed. However, now that people see that it's working, they think that we can win again and McCain can take us there. That includes voters who, like myself, were against the war to begin with, but would rather have us see it through to victory instead of pull out the day that the new President takes office. Aside from that, McCain is viewed as a person who can reach across party lines to get things done. All this means that McCain certainly can do well by pulling the independent vote, and, quite frankly, there are many more "moderates" in the country than bible-thumping Evangelicals.
Both Hillary and Obama are far-left candidates (no matter how much Hillary tries to pretend not to be), so McCain should be fine against either of them.
They already look like asshats everytime they do a new show.
Birdman
Registered User
This is where I think you're wrong. I'll grant that both are far left candidates(which the dems seem dumb enough to only give us that option every election. fvck, I would've voted for Bill Richardson) but, Obama is SEEN as a moderate for some reason or another, and "a new direction" for America. I think Obama is our biggest obstacle. Maybe morons will decide they can't vote for a black guy and tip the scales in our favor.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Senator Obama vs Sen McCain would be tight.
Senator Clinton vs Sen McCain I think would go to Sen. McCain, if only because she is so hated by the right.
Senator Clinton vs Sen McCain I think would go to Sen. McCain, if only because she is so hated by the right.
Couldn't agree more. Frankly, unless something big happens between now and November, I think McCain will lose to Obama, should he be the Dem nominee. If HRC is running, I think McCain can take it. That is why I can't understand why the Dems don't unite under Obama, but considering that this is the party that pinned their hopes on Kerry, I suppose I'm not too surprised. People (of both parties) refuse to look at their vote strategically.
QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
It is simple. One side perceives that Obama will do good for the working and lower-middle class and Black folk; and Clinton will do good for the "progressive" upper middle class, women, and Latinos. If Obama is nominated, he will be advocating for the needs of those on the bottom; if Clinton is nominated, she will be advocating for the needs of the comfortable or affluent. Two juxtaposing subgroups within the Democratic Party.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I really don't think that McCain will lose to Obama if McCain can shift the focus of the campaign to the war in Iraq and foreign policy. People aren't really thinking about it because it's going better (and thus getting less news coverage), but Obama's commander-in-chief credentials are as low as you can get in a candidate.
I also don't think it'd be difficult for Obama to be labeled as a typical "tax and spend" democrat, and people tend to favor the candidate who's not going to raise the amount of money that they owe Uncle Sam.
Obama's just a bit nebulous right now because he doesn't actually advocate anything strongly. I suppose that's good strategy for not getting pinned down for the general election, but he's going to have to explain his policies in detail a bit more to win the independent vote. That could end up going either way.
I can understand Republican's worries with McCain, but personally...if it's a choice between a guy who will force Christianity down my throat (Huckabee), a guy who has the aura of a child molester (Romney), or a guy who sometimes might not do what the party likes (McCain), I will take the latter everytime.
I'd have to disagree there. Both Obama and Clinton claim to stand for the middle-class and poor. Hillary is not for the upper-middle class, I mean she has claimed she will repeal the Bush tax cuts which start at salaries of $250,000/yr and up; $250,000/yr is upper-middle class.
Personally I think both are nuts, two socialists.
Romney I liked a lot, I know he was a flip-flopper, but as long as he flopped in the "right" direction
I was happy.Huckabee is too evangelical for me.
McCain is too leftist for me.
QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
I'd have to disagree there. Both Obama and Clinton claim to stand for the middle-class and poor. Hillary is not for the upper-middle class, I mean she has claimed she will repeal the Bush tax cuts which start at salaries of $250,000/yr and up; $250,000/yr is upper-middle class.
Personally I think both are nuts, two socialists.
Romney I liked a lot, I know he was a flip-flopper, but as long as he flopped in the "right" direction
Huckabee is too evangelical for me.
McCain is too leftist for me.
And I disagree with you!
There is a difference between claiming to represent and how people perceive you as their representator. Obama gives off the perception that he still can connect with the working class and poor; Clinton gives off the perception that she is the "progressive liberal" from a well to do background. The candidates will claim to fight for any and all people but the reality is that most people will side with the candidate they perceive to adequately represent their wants and needs.
Hillary, Obama, both seem the same to me. Both are for higher taxes, "re-distribution" of wealth, "free" healthcare, anti-2nd Amendment, bigger government, "helping" the poor (i.e. subsidizing them), etc...
communist is all you had to say
QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
I can imagine your perceptions of the candidates are based upon your political affiliation. Since I'm a "Democrat", I am speaking from the conversations that I've had with other Democrats and from my own personal observations on the two.
Just thought I would point out that everyone keeps saying "McCain will get the moderate Republican and independent vote" but he will also get a portion of the Democrat vote as well.
Just like moderate Democrats like Joseph Lieberman or Zell Miller would be able to draw a percentage of the Republican vote.
Just like moderate Democrats like Joseph Lieberman or Zell Miller would be able to draw a percentage of the Republican vote.
Raptor2216
Registered User
I have no political affiliation and even I would never in this lifetime want either democratic candidate running this country. Both will destroy the military and raise taxes beyond what I consider to be high. The only people who stand to benefit will be the "poor"(aka the unmotivated, generally speaking) and those who stand to lose the most will be the middle class. The only reasonable candidate is McCain and I like the fact that he is disliked by much of his own party because that just tells me he is much more likely to do the right thing.
- Status