PDA

View Full Version : Do Dueling Dems Give McCain an Advantage?



Laisrean
April 2nd, 2008, 07:14 AM
Link (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4560479&page=1)


While Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., deflected attacks about his minister's controversial comments, and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., backpedaled on the details of a 1996 trip to Bosnia, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has, in recent weeks, stayed above the fray — keeping his hands clean of mud while his rivals bloody each other.

As the Democrats continue their campaign of attrition with no immediate end in sight, McCain takes his time. That time, strategists told ABC NEWS.com, is to his advantage, allowing him to rest, raise money, shuffle his campaign staff and develop a broad strategy for the national election.

Like it or not, there will almost certainly be a McCain victory this November.

pawnman
April 4th, 2008, 08:16 AM
Good. I'd hate to see Hillary-care part deux or Obama "I sure hope things go right".

Thunder
April 4th, 2008, 08:50 AM
Link (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4560479&page=1)



Like it or not, there will almost certainly be a McCain victory this November.Wishfull thinking? The polls do not back up your claim. McCain would not be merely more of the same, he would be Even More of the same. Dear God, the last thing this country needs is to stay the course with an even heavier foot.
I would sooner go the next four years with no president at all than put another republican in the oval office.

banondraig
April 4th, 2008, 09:36 AM
Wishfull thinking? The polls do not back up your claim. McCain would not be merely more of the same, he would be Even More of the same. Dear God, the last thing this country needs is to stay the course with an even heavier foot.
I would sooner go the next four years with no president at all than put another republican in the oval office.

Agreed. About the only thing about McCain I like is his stance on torture. Just about every other idea of his, especially staying in Iraq for 100 years, is unacceptable. I also don't entirely trust him as a person. He doesn't seem to have the level of emotional control I would like to see in the leader of my country.

Laisrean
April 4th, 2008, 10:22 AM
I like Thunder's idea of having no president. This election's field of contenders range from disappointing to downright frightening. A sensible alternative may be to just call off the election and go without a president until the next election in 2012.

banondraig
April 4th, 2008, 10:27 AM
I like Thunder's idea of having no president. This election's field of contenders range from disappointing to downright frightening. A sensible alternative may be to just call off the election and go without a president until the next election in 2012.

What do you propose to have instead of a president?

Laisrean
April 4th, 2008, 11:08 AM
What do you propose to have instead of a president?

A plant? *shrug*

David19
April 4th, 2008, 01:01 PM
A plant? *shrug*

Well, it wouldn't be too different to what you have now, you already have a Bush in the White House, on second thoughts, another plant may be more intelligent!.

Renny
April 4th, 2008, 01:27 PM
Hillary needs to just go away. All she does is talk trash. Obama aint perfect either, but I'd rather see him in office than Hillary or Mccain

While those two are fighting, Mccain is touring the country and making no news at all. Whatever dirty secrets he's hiding arent surfacing (lets face it, all politicians have dirty secrets) so now more people will vote for him. The 2 democrats are supposed to be on the same side, did they forget that or do they really just wanna win that bad?

They need to stop fighting soon, cause I really dont wanna see mccain as president

LostSheep
April 4th, 2008, 01:32 PM
Can i just say that the title of this thread gave me hopes that sadly weren't realised, of Hillary and Obama meeting at dawn one day, pistols drawn, taking ten paces, turn and fire ... or, perhaps, a fight to the death with sabres or cutlasses. Perhaps this is an idea that could be extended to the political process as a whole. It would, I feel, save a lot of everybody's time, and the same results would probably be achieved in the end.

LostSheep
April 4th, 2008, 01:33 PM
A plant? *shrug*

I'd suggest a small rock.

Thunder
April 4th, 2008, 02:08 PM
or a rest.

WokeUpDead
April 5th, 2008, 05:02 PM
Probably not. I haven't heard anything about McCain in months and if nobody's talking about him that's not much of a winning strategery.

aranarose
April 5th, 2008, 05:24 PM
People tend to vote for the name they remember the most. McCain's sitting back is a good thing now, he's staying out of the mudslinging, but he needs to get his name out there before the election, and he needs to seriously distance himself from Bushy-boy and friends.

Laisrean
April 6th, 2008, 12:50 AM
Probably not. I haven't heard anything about McCain in months and if nobody's talking about him that's not much of a winning strategery.

He's raising money and quietly building up his campaign's resources for the big push.

Laisrean
April 6th, 2008, 01:06 AM
People tend to vote for the name they remember the most. McCain's sitting back is a good thing now, he's staying out of the mudslinging, but he needs to get his name out there before the election, and he needs to seriously distance himself from Bushy-boy and friends.

The last month of an election matters the most, because voters are generally flip-flopping morons and will vote for the candidate who manages to get the final TV ad out.

WokeUpDead
April 6th, 2008, 01:37 AM
He's raising money and quietly building up his campaign's resources for the big push.What he'll likely raise between now and the convention is what Obama or Clinton can get in a good month.

pawnman
April 6th, 2008, 10:33 AM
What he'll likely raise between now and the convention is what Obama or Clinton can get in a good month.

But they're also spending it every month. Sooner or later, those resources will run out of money.

WokeUpDead
April 6th, 2008, 06:52 PM
But they're also spending it every month. Sooner or later, those resources will run out of money.Is there any reason to think they won't raise as much or more once they have their candidate set?

pawnman
April 6th, 2008, 07:27 PM
Is there any reason to think they won't raise as much or more once they have their candidate set?

There's a limit on how much people can contribute...or at least, there's supposed to be.

Then again, Hillary's managed to convince plenty of minimum wage folks in Chinatowns across the nation to donate thousands of dollars.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 6th, 2008, 07:42 PM
I dislike all of them, they're all guilty of limiting civil liberties in some way or another. But Id probably put them at McCain>Clinton>Obama.

WokeUpDead
April 6th, 2008, 11:19 PM
There's a limit on how much people can contribute...or at least, there's supposed to be.

Then again, Hillary's managed to convince plenty of minimum wage folks in Chinatowns across the nation to donate thousands of dollars.But there's also the donors that were giving to the opposition before and won't be once it's down to one.

Laisrean
April 7th, 2008, 02:46 AM
But there's also the donors that were giving to the opposition before and won't be once it's down to one.

Those donors may just as easily go for McCain (or no one at all) than to the winning Democrat.

WokeUpDead
April 8th, 2008, 12:07 AM
Some will be bitter about their choice losing but I doubt many will switch sides but they won't necessarily all donate to the democrat but a decent number should.

Laisrean
April 8th, 2008, 02:01 AM
Some will be bitter about their choice losing but I doubt many will switch sides but they won't necessarily all donate to the democrat but a decent number should.

Let's keep in mind that the G.O.P. is supposed to be the party of the rich people and the corporations. I'm sure they aren't going to be hurting for donations this election.