Four months out: How do you think the US election will go?

[Vympel]

Obama will win at this point even if he ate a live baby on TV - even Keith Olbermann was making excuses for his disgraceful conduct in endorsing his retroactive legality for Bush's domestic spying program ("he's got a secret plan to make it all better but he doesn't want to look weak on terrorism"). Just disgusting.

[LMSx]

I feel confident calling an Obama victory. If Obama cannot win after 8 years of Bush (now rocking a mid-20s approval rating), an endless war in Iraq, 6 years of Republican rule crushing every myth they've built, and with a huge cash advantage over a creaky Republican candidate opposing him, the Democrats cannot win. At all. Anything. Ever. What more could a Democrat want? It's Obama's race to lose.

That said, you will rarely lose underestimating the American people.

[weemadando]

McCain. Because America has fucked it up twice before and I hope to hell that I'm wrong this time.

[Lord Pounder]

Looking at it from the outside I have a intangible feeling of dread. In the Clinton played hard and dirty, which I feel undermined a lot of support Obama might have had from the undetermined voters. As posters above me said it's quite possible the Republicans are sitting on a massive bombshell that can do even more damage.

Looking at it Obama should walk it after Republican incompetence etc, but didn't we all think the same 4 years ago about Kerry?

[Adrian Laguna]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I have absolutely zero faith in the American voting populace. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some kind of carefully timed baseless swift-boat smear totally destroys Obama's campaign, by attacking him on some ridiculous triviality which happens to push the right emotional buttons.

The thing is, the swift-boat campaign would likely have had little effect on Kerry if he hadn't adopted a strategy of "If we ignore it'll go away", thereby inadvertently giving credibility to the swift-boaters. Furthermore, I'm not entirely convinced that he could have won even without that smear campaign. Likely most people who bought it were voting for Bush as it was.

Anyway, Obama knows how to fight, he was able to weather everything Hillary threw at him, he will weather whatever McCain can come-up with. People forget that the man is a product of the Illinois Democratic Political Machine, that makes him a tough bastard almost by definition. It would also make him a corrupt asshole almost by definition, I'm surprised the only dirt they've been able to find on him that's even vaguely tangible is the connection to Rezco, everything else so far is smoke and mirrors. Perhaps he is the exception to the rule in that regard.

Looking at it Obama should walk it after Republican incompetence etc, but didn't we all think the same 4 years ago about Kerry?

No, not really. I was expecting a really close race. And if I had read this before the election, I would have been convinced of a Kerry loss, because it was painfully obvious he was playing it by the book.

[Guardsman Bass]

It would also make him a corrupt asshole almost by definition, I'm surprised the only dirt they've been able to find on him that's even vaguely tangible is the connection to Rezco, everything else so far is smoke and mirrors. Perhaps he is the exception to the rule in that regard.

There is the support from Exelon, but it doesn't really fall into "corrupt", I think. Maybe it has to do with the fact that he wasn't in the State Senate for that long.

even Keith Olbermann was making excuses for his disgraceful conduct in endorsing his retroactive legality for Bush's domestic spying program ("he's got a secret plan to make it all better but he doesn't want to look weak on terrorism").

Seriously? I thought that type of stuff was a big issue for Olbermann - he's done at least one Special Comment on it.

[Cairber]

Olbermann says there is a loophole in the law that allows for criminal prosecution but not civil. Thus, he think Obama will utilize that once president, and right now Obama is not speaking about this because he is reaping the benefits of "not looking weak on terror" or whatever voting 'yes' to this bill does for him.

[Vympel]

Olbermann says there is a loophole in the law that allows for criminal prosecution but not civil. Thus, he think Obama will utilize that once president

Bush will pardon everyone involved before he leaves office - never mind there's no evidence that Obama will do that.

and right now Obama is not speaking about this because he is reaping the benefits of "not looking weak on terror" or whatever voting 'yes' to this bill does for him.

Which is a ridiculous benefit. It buys directly into the craven Democrat syndrome of "if we surrender to every Republican talking point, we won't look weak!"

[Darth Wong]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I have absolutely zero faith in the American voting populace. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some kind of carefully timed baseless swift-boat smear totally destroys Obama's campaign, by attacking him on some ridiculous triviality which happens to push the right emotional buttons.

The thing is, the swift-boat campaign would likely have had little effect on Kerry if he hadn't adopted a strategy of "If we ignore it'll go away", thereby inadvertently giving credibility to the swift-boaters. Furthermore, I'm not entirely convinced that he could have won even without that smear campaign. Likely most people who bought it were voting for Bush as it was.

Anyway, Obama knows how to fight, he was able to weather everything Hillary threw at him, he will weather whatever McCain can come-up with. People forget that the man is a product of the Illinois Democratic Political Machine, that makes him a tough bastard almost by definition. It would also make him a corrupt asshole almost by definition, I'm surprised the only dirt they've been able to find on him that's even vaguely tangible is the connection to Rezco, everything else so far is smoke and mirrors. Perhaps he is the exception to the rule in that regard.

You're missing the point. The weakness in the last election was not Kerry. It was the American people themselves. They are what I have no confidence in.

[Adrian Laguna]

You're missing the point. The weakness in the last election was not Kerry. It was the American people themselves. They are what I have no confidence in.

I see what you mean. However, you need not build your expectations of what a group of people would do on whether you have confidence in their ability to act intelligently. An examination of how Bush was perceived by the general populace in 2004 would make it evident that people were not going to vote for someone else unless given a reason they found compelling. No such reason was given, so since the general perception was that everything was going just fine, they voted for status quo. Four years later, the general perception is the every opposite, everything is not fine and the voters want a compelling reason to not vote against status quo, which McCain, who is about as dull as Kerry, is failing to offer.

[von Neufeld]

No, not really. I was expecting a really close race. And if I had read this before the election, I would have been convinced of a Kerry loss, because it was painfully obvious he was playing it by the book.

Let's see what those keys says of this election for McCain:

• Party mandate key - 2006 was a loss for GOP - fails
• incumbent party contest key - GOP primary - fails
• incumbent president key - fails
• third-party key - no serious contenders - success
• short-term economy key - fail
• social unrest key - success
• foreign/military success key - too early to tell
• scandal key - fail
• challenger charisma key - fail
• long-term economy key - fail
• policy-change key - fail
• foreign/military failure key - fail
• incumbent charisma key - fail?

Doesn't look good for McCain at all, only two out of eight needed.

[Adrian Laguna]

Actually, there has been no scandal that has harmed the Bush Presidency. There should have been, but there hasn't. So that's a success. The foreign/military success key is probably a fail. While Bush has had at least one success (North Korea), the public doesn't seem to care. There needs to be no question mark for incumbent charisma, McCain is competing with Kerry for the "Dullest Presidential Candidate in Living Memory" award.

[Darth Wong]

It still amazes me that in Canada, the Liberal government was brought down by a scandal involving roughly $100 million diverted toward corrupt contractors friendly to the party. Then I compare this to the litany of things that have come out about the Bush Administration and realize that most Americans don't consider it scandalous, and I have to wonder just how low your fucking standards are. What does it take?

[General Zod]

It still amazes me that in Canada, the Liberal government was brought down by a scandal involving roughly $100 million diverted toward corrupt contractors friendly to the party. Then I compare this to the litany of things that have come out about the Bush Administration and realize that most Americans don't consider it scandalous, and I have to wonder just how low your fucking standards are. What does it take?

Getting a blowjob in the Oval Office apparently.

[Adrian Laguna]

What does it take?

I think by now, it needs to involve sex or the desecration of a sacred cow. I seriously get the feeling that if either party pulled a re-run of Nixon's Watergate shenanigans, it wouldn't be a scandal this time around.