David Paul Kuhn thinks the Senator has a major uphill battle in front of him.
At this point I’m inclined to agree, although I didn’t think so six months ago. I’m also not all that inclined to be upset about it, although I will almost certainly vote for the Senator.
{ 11 comments }
Everyone keeps forgetting that almost every second of media attention these past 3 months has been on Obama-Clinton. Most of it being favourable to Obama, even in the midst of all his disastrous affiliations at Trinity, and Michelle’s "doesn’t help my children" and hate for america.
McCain has been nothing in the news for that whole stretch basically and came out only back a projected 6 points (with 3 points of possible error). Now McCain has picked up 3 points and both him and Obama are a statistical tie. This, Obama’s refusal to debate, and Obama’s constant problems with personal affiliations, snobbish personality, narcissism, and his position on Israel (or anything foreign policy oriented for that matter) will be killing Obama.
Give it a month or two where both are having equal air time and then make a prediction of who’s going where.
I don’t think McCain is in dire straights at all. John is right, he’s had almost no press during the epic Democratic primary. He’s seen as a Republican outsider, and Obama’s plan to paint him otherwise is not working.
As the article points out, Americans have always been wary of far-left politicians, and Obama is certainly one of those (not to mention completely inexperienced). It will be up to McCain to show him as such.
John Dakota is absolutely correct on this one, Dean. Obama has been getting all the press, and McCain has been careful not to inject himself into the Clinton-Obama battle. Now that battle is done and we’re in the Obama-McCain fight. This just started a week ago, so give it time.
Now that doesn’t mean that McCain shouldn’t come out swinging. He needs to want the presidency more than Obama; he needs to be hungrier for it than Obama – and he must do everything and anything that it takes to win.
If he can’t do that he will lose.
Give it some time before you stick a fork in him and declare him "done".
McCain is gonna win. Obama is a showhorse, not a workhorse.
Bank on it.
HankB
W=I never understood the penchant for historical analyses of presidential elections. Look through a mutual fund prospectus sometime, and what’s plastered all over the performance chart? "past data do not necessarily reflect future trends". Thats doubly true for politics, because of their humanity (as opposed to markets, which are in the end purely deterministic creatures. Another reason I think the political futures markets are baloney).
There IS a great argument for why Obama whups McCain but good come November, but the historical analysis is not one of them. In fact its nonsensical.
My belief is that McCain will be a very hard opponent to beat – but he can be beat, and will be beat, if Obama brings the same game (and pregame prep) to the general that he did with Clinton in the primary: namely, know the rules, play the long game, don’t take the refs for granted, and keep the thick skin tightly wrapped on the high road. McCain is not a pushover, but he is definitely beatable.
The main reason that McCain will lose is because the left- which spans the far left to the center left and even some disaffected right of center types (google Andrew Bacevich, for example) – is hungry. Meanwhile, the coalition on the right that has ruled since Reagan is coming apart at its very tense and visible seams – the evangelists are peeling off towards a more anti-political stance, the fiscons are in quiet revolt, and the neocons are trying to swim upstream in the river of public opinion. The base isn’t happy (apart from the true believers online) and they certainly aren’t going to trust yet another so-called conservative who promises the moon – and especially not one who was practically Joe Lieberman pariah status only a year ago by the same Big Right Voices who suddenly got McCain religion when Obama showed his mettle. Gingrich himself says McCain can’t win on experience. What’s left? Painting Obama as the bogeyman, really – and that dog don’t hunt anymore.
There’s four and a half months to go. Practically anything can happen.Â
I suspect Hillary’s counting on it.
"This, Obama’s refusal to debate…"
Generally, the candidate more afraid of losing is the one begging for more debates: we see this dynamic nearly every single election. The reason is pretty simple. Debates these days are boring as hell, and we have far far too many of them. But what they do represent is a sort of high-stakes gamble: there’s always the chance that one or the other candidate will slip up somehow. If you’re behind in your internal polling and vote goals, then you really have little to lose by having lots of debates: there’s a chance the other guy might get some really negative media, and if you do, well, you weren’t the front-runner anyway.
But people who get too excited about the "he won’t debate more than 4 times! the scoundrel" stuff are generally people I’d put down as buying way too heavily into the annual campaign dramaqueening, and who need to step back a second and take a breath. Not everything is as actually big a deal as the DNC and RNC’s weekly emails to supporters make it out to be.
McCain certainly has not endeared himself to me with his current bizarre and ignorant complaints about a flood of “Habeas corpus” suits challenging diets and such (If he really doesn’t know what Habeas corpus is, he needs to learn). But he’s a solid candidate with a solid team of folks.
For all the seeming structural difficulties, I don’t think most of them pan out in the end. I expect it will be a close race.
The main reason that McCain will lose is because the left- which spans the far left to the center left and even some disaffected right of center types (google Andrew Bacevich, for example) – is hungry.
I would agree that there is a strong element of "Will to Power" from the Left. The Right seems more absorbed in silly issues of right and wrong. That’s no way to win.
dish you are snarking well, but its not right vs wrong, its about purity on the right.
Ahhh, you say ‘potato’…
…which is not to say that you’re not correct, you are.
There’s probably grounds for an interesting analysis of the failure modes (or evolution over time) of various schools of thought. I don’t think they’re uniform (which does not imply any value judgement on the differences).Â
I’ve long thought we should dispense entirely with debates, as they seem to serve no real purpose. There seems to be this sense that candidates are obligated to "debate" in a structured format but there is no such requirement. Seems to me they debate just fine with their campaign ads and policy statements and stump speeches.
And, it is quite true that the candidate who’s the most behind is usually the one crying for more debates. It’s a sign of strength, usually, for a politician to say no.
Some would argue that Ronald Reagan only won in 1980 because he basically goaded Jimmy Carter into a debate that the President could easily have refused. It was a razor-thin election, and Carter muffed at least one major answer, and Reagan came roaring into election day with a stunning victory when most observers thought he was unlikely to win. That’s not the only example, but it helps illustrate the phenomenon. Another is that President Nixon simply refused to debate his opponent at all in 1972, and won one of history’s greatest landslides. Make of such anecdotes what you will, my conclusion is that debates are and always have been of limited interest anyway. Most people know where the candidates stand on the major issues, and their basic personality and background, and vote primarily based on those anyway.
Comments on this entry are closed.