McCain's Weird Campaign

When was the last time a presidential candidate ran to the center during the primaries, then chased the base in the general election?

Comments

[Elemenope]

When was the last time a presidential candidate ran to the center during the primaries, then chased the base in the general election?

Andrew Jackson.

[mitch]

Is this because McCain won the nomination because of Democrats voting in the GOP primaries?

[Bob Barr]

Ah, fuck.

[SOFL Hockey Fan]

"Base.....how low can you go?"

[Cab]

Don't know. Hillary would have had to.

[Elemenope]

Is this because McCain won the nomination because of Democrats voting in the GOP primaries?

Pretty much every democrat I know voted in the *Democratic* primary. Something that had to do with it being a tight race, IIRC.

[shecky]

Is this because McCain won the nomination because of Democrats voting in the GOP primaries?

Anti war independents and assorted folks infatuated with the maverick image. Too much of a maverick for the base, though. Thus the shift.

[Mo]

Is this because McCain won the nomination because of Democrats voting in the GOP primaries?

Weren't the Dems too busy voting in their own, far closer and more interesting, primary? I thought the Reps had their vaunted 'Operation Chaos' going on to throw a wrench in their election. Kinda takes the bite off the, "Stupid mean Dems gave us McCain," argument.

Well played El Rushbo, well played. {slow clap}

[Steven W.]

Prior to the selection of Sarah Palin, McCain considered the liberal media elites his base. That was an even more persistent and dubious pattern on McCain's part and giant perpetual UGGH factor for the true conservative base.

[Legate Damar]

At the risk of legitimizing this post, I'll answer:

The rules of the game matter. All of the interior western states and many of the southern states were proportional primaries. California and most of the northeast were winner-take-all or -most. Thus, because McCain won big in New England on Super Tuesday he got the nod without much support from the base. Yes, I understand that he won SC, but he also benefitted greatly there from Thompson and Hucklebee stealing votes from each other. Had there been a single, stronger socon, McCain would not have won SC. And then the list of states he won before Romney left the race would read like a who's who of states the GOP can't win.

Had the GOP used the same system that the Dems used, Romney would have not only stayed around after Super Tuesday, he would have been leading.

The need for McCain to shore up support among the base stems from the fact that they really didn't support him during the primaries.

[AnthonyD.]

When was the last time a political party was so feckless and incoherent in its message?

[Jesse Walker]

At the risk of legitimizing this post, I'll answer

All of this is true, but none of it is an answer.

[MrDan242]

Early on the Dem's didn't know they had a tight race and hopped over to vote for McCain. Later on the Republican ticket was virtually locked and the Dem's voted in what was a much tighter race than anyone expected.(upon which the Republicans hopped over to keep Hillary in it against Barack)

[joe]

Early on the Dem's didn't know they had a tight race and hopped over to vote for McCain.

When was this? When Iowa had record turnout for the Democrats, which swamped Republican turnout? When the same thing happened in New Hampshire? South Carolina? Nevada?

[Matt Welch]

It depends on the meaning of the word "Sarah Palin." We have collectively forgotten it now, but Palin *wasn't* necessarily picked to rile up the grassroots; she was seen as an independent-bent maverick willing to take on corrupt Republicans and eager to go after all those wound-licking Hillary Clinton voters. Recall that at the time of her selection, something like 20-25% of Clinton supporters were saying they wouldn't vote for Barack. A similar calculation was why McCain wasted so much time in Pennsylvania.

But since the McCain campaign didn't vet her at all, and didn't really know how people would respond, they were, I think, unprepared for just how much of a grassroots rock star she would be. Once she nailed it at the convention, what was he going to do, reel her back in? Finally, the base loved the McCain ticket!

Unfortunately, you needed more than the base, and McCain is unconvincing at best running a "real America" campaign. So there was open schizophrenia on the ticket, with Palin handling the red-meat stuff & the whispering, and McCain lurching from staying classy to saying "I don't really care about Bill Ayres, but...." That's how you end up with such bizarre artifacts as Michael Goldfarb refusing to say the name "Jeremiah Wright" on TV, even though the campaign was on the verge of running a bunch of Jeremiah Wright commercials.

[Gilbert Martin]

"When was the last time a presidential candidate ran to the center during the primaries, then chased the base in the general election?"

Does proposing the federal government buy home mortgages count as "chasing the base"?

[Trotter]

Simply put, this was an election featuring the worst-run campaign against the most unqualified candidate in the history of modern US elections. In the end, the "Republican" lost because he ran away from Conservative principles and values. In other words, McCain learned NOTHING from the 2006 election.

[Hogan]

the campaign was on the verge of running a bunch of Jeremiah Wright commercials.

could be wrong, but wasn't this only done with 527s? Was there an actual Wright commercial from the McCain campaign?

[Elemenope]

Does proposing the federal government buy home mortgages count as "chasing the base"?

Wow, it really sucks for me to have to be the one who breaks this to you.

You are not the base.

SoCos (esp. the Christianists) generally skew poor, don't give a shit about economics (It's a Jew Science!!) and would be utterly delighted to get help on their mortgages.

[Legate Damar]

All of this is true, but none of it is an answer.

Point well taken Mr. Walker.

The best answer I can provide is "not during my lifetime." Anything before that is based on conjecture and the memories of old people.

[Lamar]

"In the end, the "Republican" lost because he ran away from Conservative principles and values."

He lost because the term "conservative principles" no longer means small government, personal responsibility and liberty. Conservative principles are now about god, war (fear), abortions, fags, lapel pins, no last names that sound foreign, and grumpy old men who hate people with last names that sound foreign. The point is that "conservative values" need to be defined. Did the GOP lose because it ditched its libertarian wing? Or did it lose because it needed to praise Jesus more?

[Gilbert Martin]

"Wow, it really sucks for me to have to be the one who breaks this to you.

You are not the base."

You're no authority on who the base is.

[Anon]

Jesse,

While your general description of McCain's motion seems correct, I think you overstate its extent. McCain didn't move much towards the center, nor did he move much towards the base Palin just made it seem so, and I agree with Matt that that took the campaign by surprise. Let's not forget that McCain really wanted Lieberman for his VP.

McCain spent most his time twirling, twirling, twirling (towards freedom?). That's not such anomalous behavior.

Anon

[joe]

Every Republican loses for the same reason: because he's NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE. We find out he's NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE only when it becomes clear that he's going to lose.

It isn't possible to be too conservative. It isn't possible that the public could be rejecting conservatism defined broadly.

All that changes is the definition of REAL CONSERVATIVE.

Looks like there's going to be a nice little fight over that now. Getcha popcorn.

[Jesse Walker]

Let's not forget that McCain really wanted Lieberman for his VP.

I haven't. Indeed, I've been thinking a lot about how McCain would have fared if he had followed his heart and picked Lieberman. I'm pretty sure he would have done much worse.

On top of all the other problems any Republican was going to face this year, McCain was caught between two difficult facts: The Republican base doesn't like him, and the independents who traditionally like him like Obama more.

[James Ard]

I wonder if McCain regrets all of that press dicksucking he's done over the years. I doubt a real conservative had much of a chance this year either. On a different note, why am I not surprised Obama selected Clinton sycophant Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff?

[mark]

What if McCain had stood up for his previous stances, going around the country talking about his commitment to giving immigrants a path to citizenship, about how we need to roll back the Bush tax cuts, and so on. What if he picked Joe Leiberman, and ran on a national security platform?

Then he would have been some kind of real maverick instead of the counterfeit maverick he became. Independents would flock to him and the base would still turn out because 1) they're on the list and 2) scary black man!

Economic issues are a tough one. He could have opposed the bailout, or had enough foresight to see this coming and talk about the Fed, FNM, et al, for the whole spring/summer as Hill and Barack duked it out.

And even then it would have been a squeaker. It's probably better that he lost big, it gives Obama a mandate, which I think is sorely needed. Though I hate the word; anyone have a better word for "mandate"?

[The Wine Commonsewer]

I knew McCain was toast when I heard him say:

I promise I won't let you down.

[alan]

Gilbert Martin | November 5, 2008, 11:03am | #
"Wow, it really sucks for me to have to be the one who breaks this to you.

You are not the base."

You're no authority on who the base is.

Don't know which one of you is correct, but their is a simple, empirical way to test this, eliminate the mortgage deduction and see how the base responds.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Every Republican loses for the same reason: because he's NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE"

No this particular one lost because he had the bad luck of having the apex of the financial crisis and the stock market crash hit right before the election.

Even with McCain's bungling campaign strategy, I think he still would have been able to beat Obama absent that backdrop.

[Mo]

joe,
It's like Marxists talking about communism. Real Communism? never failed because Cuba, USSR and China never had Real Communism?. Same goes with Real Conservatives?. Real Conservatives? never lose elections because the guys that lose are never Real Conservatives?. It's a tautology Real Conservatives? aren't losers because losers aren't Real Conservatives?.

McCain-Lieberman would have turned this election into a Reagan v. Mondale ass kicking instead of the more mild Bush v. Dukakis. If McCain had actually done as he said during the primaries and gotten a guy to shore up his street cred on economic issues with a guy that the base liked (Romney or Gramm*), McCain could have made it a real race.

* Despite nation of whiners comment, he's less gaffetastic than Biden.

[Elemenope]

You're no authority on who the base is.

Unless you are, I see no grounds to back down from my assertion that economic conservative asshats like yourself are far less significant to the base than SoCo populists.

And just to be clear, I don't think that 'economic conservative' and 'asshat' are mutually dependent qualities. They just find a peculiar amalgam in you.

[Marcvs]

joe, find me one person that considered McCain a conservative, ever.

[Elemenope]

Don't know which one of you is correct, but there is a simple, empirical way to test this: eliminate the mortgage deduction and see how the base responds.

I'm all about empirical testing.

"Stand back! I'm gonna try science!"

[clueless]

I felt like the McCain campaign rickrolled me, twice.

[Mo]

What if he picked Joe Leiberman, and ran on a national security platform?

Ass whupping. 60% of voters had the economy as their number 1 issue. 10% had Iraq. What the fuck is the point of doubling down on something you're strong at? The key is to balance your ticket with your running mate. You either shore up a geographic or talent weakness. Obama did the classic Reagan/George W/Kennedy move of shoring shored up his experience weakness with an old Washington hand (George HW/Cheney/LBJ). McCain should have gone geography (Pawlenty or Ridge) or economics.

[Dondero letter to libertarians]

by Eric Dondero
I have been a lifetime Libertarian Party activist, for over 25 years. I've served in numerous capacities, including on the Libertarian National Committee, as a Libertarian State Rep. candidate, and as Ron Paul's Personal Travel Aide in his 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign. I've also served as Ron Paul's Congressional Campaign Coordinator and as his Senior Congressional Aide for 7 years, 1997-2004.
This election year, I've been supporting Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr. As a matter of fact, I'm the very guy who recruited his running mate Wayne Root into the race. Since the Spring, I've been the Party's lead petitioner around the Nation. I've collected tens of thousands of signatures to get Barr/Root on the ballot in Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine and Rhode Island.
However, I was greatly encouraged by McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for his VP. Palin has a solid libertarian background. In 2005/06 she was the guest speaker at two Libertarian Party meetings in Anchorage. She has been called a "libertarian" by many in Alaska politics and in the Anchorage media. She even received the last minute backing of the Libertarian Party leadership in the State for her successful gubernatorial race, and today, she is the most popular governor in America.
Up until now, I've encouraged my fellow Libertarians to follow their conscience and vote for either McCain/Palin or for Barr/Root, if it suits them better.
I now believe, two days before Election Day, that this campaign is just too critical to risk on such a strategy, and if Libertarians won't put the liberty of our country ahead of our party ambitions, who else in this country will?
Obama is fundamentally opposed to virtually all libertarian stances on all issues. From taxes, to freedom of speech, to protecting property rights, to putting a halt to the ever-encroaching Nanny-state, and 4 years of an Obama Presidency will have disastrous results for liberty, and supporters of the limited government view.
As evidence of this, Obama has taken to lodge a full frontal assault on the libertarian movement within the last couple days. In two separate speeches Obama accused McCain/Palin of supporting tax cuts because they believed in the "Virtue of Selfishness." ABC News confirmed that the phrase was most likely a direct hit at libertarian icon Philosopher Ayn Rand.
By attacking Rand, and her Individualist philosophy, in essence, Obama has declared war on libertarians and the libertarian movement in these closing days of Election '08.
How should libertarians respond?
It is now my strong feeling that libertarians nationwide, and most assuredly my fellow Libertarian Party members, should strongly consider casting their votes for Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin. The libertarian movement would be best served with an Obama defeat.
Bob Barr has been polling around 1 to 1.5% in recent polls. A Research 2000/Daily Kos poll released just Friday, had Barr at a full 2%. That is more than enough to cause McCain/Palin to go down to defeat. As we all know, a good 90% of Libertarian votes come directly out of the GOP column.
For example, it is widely believed that in 2006, incumbent Republican Senator Conrad Burns almost certainly went down to defeat due to the 4% vote of Libertarian Stan Jones, which turned out to be a wider total than Burns's loss.
I urge my Libertarian friends, especially those in "swing states" to shift these final days to McCain/Palin. Those States that are especially critical include: New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.
McCain/Palin lead Obama/Biden in the latest poll out of Wyoming with 68% to 32%. A Libertarian vote cast for Barr/Root in Wyoming, or even Utah, Idaho, Alabama, Kansas, and my native Texas, would not cause any harm. But Libertarians in the critical swing states must now weigh their vote very seriously and with great caution.
Do we want a guarantee of tax increases for virtually all taxpayers, more federalization of education, more pork barrel spending, and continuation of affirmative action quotas, a return of the so-called Fairness Doctrine intended to silence the voice of libertarians and conservatives across the nation? Or, do we want a friendly ear in a confirmed Libertarian Party friend and ally in the office of the Vice-Presidency of the United States.
For these reasons, I am voting for McCain/Palin on Tuesday and I urge all of my Libertarian friends to do the same.
Our party has made great gains and that is important. Nobody in the libertarian movement has worked harder than I have to assure those gains.
But at this moment in history, we must stand with our conservative friends, against a massive affront upon liberty and freedom itself. I call upon all freedom loving libertarians to consider this situation carefully and stand with me!

Libertarian Republicans

Fiscally Conservative, Socially Tolerant & Pro-Defense!

For the latest libertarian political news
http://www.libertarianrepu blican.blogspot. com

Eric Dondero is a US Navy Veteran and graduate of FSU. He is a former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and fmr. Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul R-TX. He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Unless you are, I see no grounds to back down from my assertion that economic conservative asshats like yourself are far less significant to the base than SoCo populists."

And I see no reason to consider that a limp-wristed, pantywaist, wimpy punk liberal like yourself knows what he's talking about on any subject whatsoever.

[PM770]

The huge Wall Street drops and all the rhetoric about "if we don't pass this bailout package, the financial markets will collapse...ahhhhh!!!!" are what doomed McCain in this election more than anything else. Not to say that McCain would have won otherwise, but that effectively ended his chances.

Historically presidental elections go to the other party when there is a poor ecomony and supposedly needing to give $700B in taxpayer money to avoid finanical market ruin fits that category.

Looking at the average daily tracking polls interactive feature at the Real Clear Politics site, thats when the Obama numbers take a real significant jump. Thats when this election essentially went from "Leans Obama" to "Safe Obama".

[economist]

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[joe]

And I see no reason to consider that a limp-wristed, pantywaist, wimpy punk liberal like yourself knows what he's talking about on any subject whatsoever.

Writes Gil, who spent months assuring us that Americans would never vote for Obama.

[Elemenope]

And I see no reason to consider that a...

limp-wristed...nope
pantywaist...I'm actually kinda girthy
wimpy...nope
punk...this I've been called before
liberal...you fail it

But seriously, Gil, what do you think would happen if the government started paying off conservative people's mortgages? You really think they'd say "fuck you, government"? Or would they say "thank you". Or even more likely "the LORD provides!"

Besides, if economic conservatives were so very crucial to the conservative base...how come McCain was the GOP candidate? Huh?

[joe]

Looking at the average daily tracking polls interactive feature at the Real Clear Politics site, thats when the Obama numbers take a real significant jump.

That's not true. Obama began to track upward, and McCain downward, a week before that - which also happened to be the end of McCain's convention bump. The trendline after the big financial crisis hit is a continuation of the existing trend.

I'm not saying that it didn't hurt McCain, but more in the sense of making a relatively close race into a substantial victory, as opposed to deciding the race.

[Elemenope]

Jeez. LoneWacko may not swing with the spacebar, but Dondero really needs to rediscover the wonders of the the PARAGRAPH.

[Mo]

Gilbert,

According to CNN'sexit polls, McCain got 55% of the Weekly and more than weekly church attendance. 66% of the Protestant weekly and 50% of the Catholic weekly. He got 54% of Protestant less than weekly and 73% of born-agains. So I would put Church attendance as a key to the Rep base. He lost stock holders by a 50-48 margin. He won married men and women w/o kids with 54 and 53 respectively. He dominated on gun owners with 62% and won 54% of veterans. He also only won rural voters (with 53%). He only got 50% of the people strongly opposed to the bailout. And he dominated on security voters.

Based on this the biggest factors in McCain's favor (or the issues driving his base) are primarily cultural issues: Guns, military, religion (esp. Protestants) and rural. He lose shareholders, lost with people concerned about the economy, especially those concerned that the economy would effect them personally. It looks like culture drove the Republican vote far, far more than economics.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Writes Gil, who spent months assuring us that Americans would never vote for Obama."

Got any proof of that, Joe?

[Elemenope]

Oh snap. Mo just brought a gun to a knife fight.

[Gabe]

4 NH house seats are held by free state project folks now. This is an improvement from 1. This is some pretty good progress. Although I was initially sekptical of the FSP, I now think it is one of the best things going for people who wish to see true liberty some day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrBo92YBT4c

[bendover]

"On top of all the other problems any Republican was going to face this year, McCain was caught between two difficult facts: The Republican base doesn't like him, and the independents who traditionally like him like Obama more." Jesse Walker @ 11:09am

So Jesse, what you're saying is that it made sense, from purely a politcal viewpoint, to "chased the base in the general election"

Interesting.

[alan]

The huge Wall Street drops and all the rhetoric about "if we don't pass this bailout package, the financial markets will collapse...ahhhhh!!!!" are what doomed McCain in this election more than anything else. Not to say that McCain would have won otherwise, but that effectively ended his chances.

I'm not surprised that Obama won in these circumstance, but the mystery here is why the public wasn't so demoralized when both major party candidates were revealed to be corporatist hacks that they still voted in record numbers. I guess the facts of the matter are less important than the sentiments that are stirred by the circumstances.

The media did an outstanding job of fear mongering in those two weeks when Paulson's proposal came up. Always equating an up tick in the Dow to some promise of government action, and always equating down ticks with intransigence on the bailout. Though I recall Charlie Gibson after repeating thus line of rhetoric for a few weeks, and asking economics correspondent Betsy Stark a skeptical question with an underlying tone, 'so Betsy, what kind of shit are you going to shovel down my throat tonight?

At the very least, Obama should be thinking Paulson, MSM, and most especialy George W for his victory. I don't know if there is much that McCain could have done to avoid a defeat in these circumstances. Even leading an anti-bailout crusade probably would not have been enough. Dole lost big time despite voting against it (though her Godless ad was stupid and clumsy beyond belief. Typical GOP overkill), and third party voting did not see much an upswing this year.

[Geotpf]

Mo | November 5, 2008, 11:23am | #

joe,
It's like Marxists talking about communism. Real Communism? never failed because Cuba, USSR and China never had Real Communism?. Same goes with Real Conservatives?. Real Conservatives? never lose elections because the guys that lose are never Real Conservatives?. It's a tautology Real Conservatives? aren't losers because losers aren't Real Conservatives?.

People keep using this argument, and it never fucking works! In fact, the same argument is being used by libertarians right now-the breakdown in the credit markets and the stock market crash weren't due to unregulated Free Markets?, because the current system isn't really a system of Free Markets?!

Find a new argument, folks. Even if this is accurate, it convinces nobody.

[FrBunny]

Wow, it really sucks for me to have to be the one who breaks this to you.

You are not the base.

As a lifelong R, I was also one of the last to realize this. And as much as it pains me, I am coming to wonder if joe and Mo may be right about my beloved philosophy.

Thank FSM for scotch.

[Why Certainly]

Even if McCain would have used a coherent strategy, I still think he would've lost, and I think it's inefficient to analyze how McCain lost the election. Anyone's time would be better served looking at how Obama won it.

[mitch]

Early on the Dem's didn't know they had a tight race and hopped over to vote for McCain. Later on the Republican ticket was virtually locked and the Dem's voted in what was a much tighter race than anyone expected.(upon which the Republicans hopped over to keep Hillary in it against Barack)

MrDan242,

I'm glad I'm not the only person who recalls this; maybe there are just two of us, though.

[FrBunny]

Re: The failure of RealConservativism

joe and Mo:

What about the difference between a well-constructed philosophy and a winning philosophy? Would either of you suggest that a candidate failing necessarily means his philosophy is poorly-constructed? Couldn't the perfect philosophy also be a non-winning philosophy?

Throw me a bone here. I've got a lot of bumper stickers I'd rather not peel off.

[Mo]

As a lifelong R, I was also one of the last to realize this. And as much as it pains me, I am coming to wonder if joe and Mo may be right about my beloved philosophy.

Unlike joe, I have no problem with your philosophy (heck, Romney was my second choice after Paul). The problem is, it's not a driver for the Republican party anymore, religion, military and culture are the drivers. So it will take either some time in the wilderness and a thorough ass-whupping of a purely culture conservative (like a Palin or a Huckabee) in a presidential election for appreciation of the economics dudes to return. That's one reason why I hope Obama doesn't thoroughly fuck up in 4 years because a big loss by him to the cultural candidate to emerge will be seen as a validation of the culture-cons.

[joe]

Not "remember," "imagine." That didn't happen.

Iowa: first contest in the country, record turnout in the Democratic contest, lousy turnout in the Republican contest. I guess those Democrats voted for McCain before Iowa?

[Gilbert Martin]

"According to CNN'sexit polls, McCain got 55% of the Weekly and more than weekly church attendance. 66% of the Protestant weekly and 50% of the Catholic weekly. He got 54% of Protestant less than weekly and 73% of born-agains."

First off, CNN is the Communist News Network - it isn't even physically possible for them to be a legitimate authority on anything.

Second, even if those statistics were somewhere close to an accurate representation, church attendance doesn't prove that those people don't also have economic conservative views along with socially conservative views.

The two categories are not mutually exclusive.

[Yerbaff]

Jeez. LoneWacko may not swing with the spacebar, but Dondero really needs to rediscover the wonders of the the PARAGRAPH.

To be fair, Donderoooooo created separate paragraphs--he just failed to put the extra CRLF in there. It's the larger-scale version of LoneWacko's not-enough-spaces between words. [Insert smiley]

[Elemenope]

First off, CNN is the Communist News Network - it isn't even physically possible for them to be a legitimate authority on anything.

It's purely magical how you undercut your own credibility even before you get to your actual argument.

Second, even if those statistics were somewhere close to an accurate representation, church attendance doesn't prove that those people don't also have economic conservative views along with socially conservative views.

The two categories are not mutually exclusive.

True, they are not *necessarily* mutually exclusive. But they tend to statistically be so. But since all statistics come from communists, I suppose it will be difficult to demonstrate this to you.

[ScottsReason]

You never want to go to the center in the Primaries, only in the General Election...McCain ran his campaign in the center and/or the results were influenced by the Dems voting for McCain in the Primaries. Two Part System is ludicrous we need Instant Runoff Voting. huge government is just a really bad idea

[Franklin \"Vader\" Harris]

Now Dondero's failure is complete.

As a matter of fact, I'm the very guy who recruited his running mate Wayne Root into the race.

The LP should probably keep this in mind when Root comes knocking again in four years.

[Art-P.O.G.]

First off, CNN is the Communist News Network - it isn't even physically possible for them to be a legitimate authority on anything.

Um. Note to self: ignore Gilbert Martin from now on.

[Jesse Walker]

This just in: McCain won!

[libertarian democrat]

First off, CNN is the Communist News Network - it isn't even physically possible for them to be a legitimate authority on anything.

It's purely magical how you undercut your own credibility even before you get to your actual argument.

Amazing.

[BDB]

Can all the Republicans just admit now, that the election is over, that Palin was a horrible VP choice? You can be honest now, really. There's no one left to convince.

[PM770]

joe @ 11:43

I see what you are saying about the McCain convention bump and maybe Obama was consistently higher once that bump falls off the poll. But it seems to go from that close 3-5 margin range to the 7-9 margin range. With the two events so close together, maybe I'm overestimating the impact of that two-week "financial doom" stretch.

I agree that McCain probably wasn't going win even without that, but with it he had absolutley no chance.

And Palin's impact on the race was insignificant compared the Wall Street/bailout events.

[jtuf]

The Big Tent Republican coalition of the 1980's unified under Reagan. Then they unified under Newt. They still don't have a unified base. Huckabee went after the values voter base, Rudy went after the national security voter base, and Romney went after the business bass. McCain won the primaries by going after moderate Republicans rather than a split base.

[MAX HATS]

Nonsense. The only reason Obama won was media bias and reverse racism. The republican party is fine, and conservative ideas remain close to the American soul. Palin 2012!

[PM770]

When you consider that the Senate is now 55-60 Ds and in the House the Ds added to an already sizable margin, is it fair to think that McCain actually overperformed in this Dem tidal wave by only losing by 5 points?

[AnthonyD.]

You know, I was all demoralized about Barr's disappointing vote total considering the promise that the R3VOLution held, now that I see Dondero's letter to Libertarians suggesting a vote for McCain because of Palin, I could not be happier about my vote for Barr.

[Mo]

Second, even if those statistics were somewhere close to an accurate representation, church attendance doesn't prove that those people don't also have economic conservative views along with socially conservative views.

The two categories are not mutually exclusive.

You're right. That's why I included statistics on stock owners and people that opposed the bailout. Those two groups are pretty economically conservative. McCain lost both 50-48 and only won those "strongly opposed" 50-46. To me this indicates that economic issues were far less important than cultural issues to McCain voters.

It's hard to tell re: taxes because the people that though Obama would raise taxes on them, but not McCain voted for McCain and vice versa. Those that thought both or neither would raise taxes on them voted for Obama.

[Gilbert Martin]

"It's purely magical how you undercut your own credibility even before you get to your actual argument."

You don't actually think I care what your opinion of my credibilty is, do you?

[Art-P.O.G.]

You don't actually think I care what your opinion of my credibilty is, do you?

Then why'd you write back, sir?

[Elemenope]

You don't actually think I care what your opinion of my credibility is, do you?

Why do you think that that comment was for *your* benefit?

[Elemenope]

In retrospect, Art-P.O.G. had the better response.

[Art-P.O.G.]

In retrospect, Art-P.O.G. had the better response.

I just knew I had to get my "shot" off quick, 'cause that one was too easy.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Then why'd you write back, sir?"

Because he likes to bait me with insults and I like to return the favor.

It's all stricly entertainment - which is the only real purpose of this blog to begin with.

After all, there is absolutely nothing that any poster here has ever done or will do in his or her entire life that will ever have any effect whatsoever on who is elected to any national office or what government policy is going to be in any way.

[Barack Obama]

I disagree.

[alan]

People keep using this argument, and it never fucking works! In fact, the same argument is being used by libertarians right now-the breakdown in the credit markets and the stock market crash weren't due to unregulated Free Markets?, because the current system isn't really a system of Free Markets?!

Find a new argument, folks. Even if this is accurate, it convinces nobody.

Geotpf,

When the people start to get hungry, they will be back.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Because he likes to bait me with insults and I like to return the favor.

Yeah, OK. I occasionally learn something or get inspired on this blog, but for the suggestion of how much a statement is worth on the internet, see upthread where I profess to start ignoring you and then continue to fail to.

[Chris]

Every Republican loses for the same reason: because he's NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE. We find out he's NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE only when it becomes clear that he's going to lose.

This is the most idiotic comment on this thread! McCain got his "maverick" reputation YEARS AGO, precisely *because* he was never a real conservative!

[withheld... THIS time]

...there is absolutely nothing that any poster here has ever done or will do in his or her entire life that will ever have any effect whatsoever on ... what government policy is going to be in any way.

Actually I was on the ballot in my state. I tried and failed this time, but I influenced the debate. Just because you are all talk, keep your wide brush off me. I walked.

[James Ard]

BDB, I'm still waiting to read a post claiming ACORN stole the election. Of course no stealing was necessary after the government, with msm help, precipitated a financial disaster a month before an election.

[BDB]

JA--

It wasn't close enough for them to claim that.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Actually I was on the ballot in my state. I tried and failed this time, but I influenced the debate. Just because you are all talk, keep your wide brush off me. I walked."

LOL

No, you just IMAGINED that you "influenced the debate".

[Elemenope]

BDB, I'm still waiting to read a post claiming ACORN stole the election.

TallDave gotcha covered on another thread today. He bookended it with "millions of dollars in illegal fundraising" and something else apparently forgettable.

[BDB]

Ah yes, Tall "Ashely Todd" Dave. But he does have a six figure income and corvette, Elemenope!

[Slugger]

Crazy idea:

Bush did such a fine job that any Republican candidate would have lost. McCain ran toward the base because they were the only people willing to listen to him. Giving speeches to empty auditoriums can't be much fun no matter how righteous you are.

[withheld... THIS time]

Sorry, Gilbert, I forgot how diligently you covered my campaign and its affect on a race you didn't even know about.

You're like a cartoon.

[withheld... THIS time]

It's one thing to rant about things you probably know nothing about. But do you realize how silly you sound ranting about things you couldn't possibly know anything about?

[Gilbert Martin]

I know that some clown posting here under the handle of "witheld" couldn't possibly have any impact on anything on the planet.

[Head]

withheld,

put up or shut up.

[Gabe]

Although I'd like to continue to blame Dondero for not spacing the paragraphs. I must admit it was my fault...I saw the letter and sloppily posted it here. I am glad that people enjoyed his ridiculousness.