Does McCain already have the Election won?

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2008-09-12 07:05pm

RedImperator wrote:
Justforfun000 wrote:By the way RI, that's a GREAT site.

Now, McCain has made recent gains in swing states, too. Electoral-vote.com (the site I trust the most) shows McCain with exactly 270 EVs at the moment.
Glad you mentioned it. I've got it bookmarked now.
If you dig around, you can find the explanation of the algorithm he uses. It's a lot better than just watching the polls bounce around because it compensates for the statistical fluttering that's inevitable in polling. And I like his "barely Democrat/Republican" category better than Pollster.com's "toss-up" category.

Do either of you guys check out +www.fivethirtyeight.com as well? It's done by a guy who also cooked up some fairly decent predicative stats for baseball players. He recently moved into political numbers, and has so far been pretty solid.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-09-12 07:45pm

Darth Wong wrote:Obama needs to hammer McCain on the fact that rich banker fatcats get bailed out by the government when they screw up, while McCain, Palin, and their party all vehemently oppose any such kind of protection for ordinary citizens. Like it or not, politics is heavily influenced by "us vs them" thinking, and Obama needs to remind voters that regardless of who they might think McCain or Palin are, we know who they are for.

That, of course, is a reference to one of my favourite lines from one of my favourite movies (Gladiator), where Senator Gracchus says "I may not be a man of the people, but I do try to be a man for the people."

A good call. The current difficulty with Lehman on top of the FM2 issues (they'll never nationalise Fannie and Freddie, LOL) should make it crystal clear to people that socialism is more than alive in contemporary American when it comes to saving the posteriors of those who least need saving.

And nice line. But perhaps Obama should use "On my signal, unleash hell" too.

Eh, maybe not. Though crashing the RNC with a full on legion invasion would be pretty nice viewing.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-09-12 08:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:Obama needs to hammer McCain on the fact that rich banker fatcats get bailed out by the government when they screw up, while McCain, Palin, and their party all vehemently oppose any such kind of protection for ordinary citizens. Like it or not, politics is heavily influenced by "us vs them" thinking, and Obama needs to remind voters that regardless of who they might think McCain or Palin are, we know who they are for.

That, of course, is a reference to one of my favourite lines from one of my favourite movies (Gladiator), where Senator Gracchus says "I may not be a man of the people, but I do try to be a man for the people."

Yeah, all that bullshit in the forum last night from McCain of "government's limited role" and "government shouldn't interfere"; well the Republicans have long since breached that limit. The Democrats just want us to help out little guys if we're going to be helping out the big fatcats.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2008-09-13 12:15am

McCain winning would be disasterous for us, this election we stand a good chance of getting the 'just do whatever the fuck America tells us' party in, as in one with the same policies Australia had in 2003.

Save us some room on the boat to Iran guys, we'll probably be along this time around.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-09-13 12:48am

It might have the opposite effect here in Canada. A McCain win could increase Canadian fear of American conservative influence over Canadian politics, thus weakening Harper's conservative agenda politically.

Mind you, Harper is a smart and devious son of a bitch, but he also knows which way the wind is blowing, and if Canadians are wary of conservative policies, he will back off on those policies.

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2008-09-13 01:21am

Darth Wong wrote:It might have the opposite effect here in Canada. A McCain win could increase Canadian fear of American conservative influence over Canadian politics, thus weakening Harper's conservative agenda politically.

Mind you, Harper is a smart and devious son of a bitch, but he also knows which way the wind is blowing, and if Canadians are wary of conservative policies, he will back off on those policies.

A McCain government would only help a Conservative government, while a Democrat victory would help cut down his minority (definitely not enough to give the Liberals a majority, though, or even a minority - they've really fucked up with Stephane Dion as leader). Don't forget the influence of the western provinces. A lot of those red states lead straight up into the Prairies.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-09-13 01:22am

Phantasee wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It might have the opposite effect here in Canada. A McCain win could increase Canadian fear of American conservative influence over Canadian politics, thus weakening Harper's conservative agenda politically.

Mind you, Harper is a smart and devious son of a bitch, but he also knows which way the wind is blowing, and if Canadians are wary of conservative policies, he will back off on those policies.
A McCain government would only help a Conservative government, while a Democrat victory would help cut down his minority (definitely not enough to give the Liberals a majority, though, or even a minority - they've really fucked up with Stephane Dion as leader). Don't forget the influence of the western provinces. A lot of those red states lead straight up into the Prairies.

Not if the resulting McCain administration is a cluster-fuck, which it will probably be.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-09-13 01:39am

I can't fathom how McCain can really do anything right. Apart from Palin's attractiveness to the far-right Xtian Taliban card holders, what substance is there? Where's the beef? I don't see anything radically different to BAU under Bush and Cheney, yet they're trying to distance themselves from that party of clowns... yet still be the same old, good values driven GOP that people love so much?

It's not hard to do better than Bush, assuming you have a pulse (which, to be honest, is only very tenuous with McCain). I just don't see anything of real interest happening, other than the total destruction of the conservative base in the eyes of anyone who isn't already in La La Land and constitutes the, what, 20%?, who still think Dubya is doing a bang up job.

Now if Obama gets in, things can change, and for the better. McCain? All he's going to achieve is the quickest assassination by the most mundane method and inadvertently allow the female anti-Christ on the throne. But maybe that's the plan all along.

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2008-09-13 01:46am

Darth Wong wrote:
Phantasee wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It might have the opposite effect here in Canada. A McCain win could increase Canadian fear of American conservative influence over Canadian politics, thus weakening Harper's conservative agenda politically.

Mind you, Harper is a smart and devious son of a bitch, but he also knows which way the wind is blowing, and if Canadians are wary of conservative policies, he will back off on those policies.
A McCain government would only help a Conservative government, while a Democrat victory would help cut down his minority (definitely not enough to give the Liberals a majority, though, or even a minority - they've really fucked up with Stephane Dion as leader). Don't forget the influence of the western provinces. A lot of those red states lead straight up into the Prairies.
Not if the resulting McCain administration is a cluster-fuck, which it will probably be.

That's probably why Harper broke his own law* and went for an election before McCain potentially loses in November.

*I'm not 100% sure on this, but it seems he definitely stretched it at the least.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-09-13 03:49am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:McCain? All he's going to achieve is the quickest assassination by the most mundane method and inadvertently allow the female anti-Christ on the throne. But maybe that's the plan all along.

In America, the only politicians who get assassinated are invariably the liberal ones.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2008-09-13 06:32am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
It's not hard to do better than Bush

If McCain and Palin win the election, I'm pretty sure I'll end up missing Bush quite quickly

Post by **Edi** » 2008-09-13 07:24am

wautd wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
It's not hard to do better than Bush
If McCain and Palin win the election, I'm pretty sure I'll end up missing Bush quite quickly

That's probably because Cheney, while evil, is competent at some of the things he does.

Teebs · Post by **Teebs** » 2008-09-13 07:37am

Patrick Degan wrote:In America, the only politicians who get assassinated are invariably the liberal ones.

Didn't Reagan get shot by some nutter, he survived but it still counts I reckon.

Aratech · Post by **Aratech** » 2008-09-13 08:22am

Teebs wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:In America, the only politicians who get assassinated are invariably the liberal ones.
Didn't Reagan get shot by some nutter, he survived but it still counts I reckon.

Yep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDIVheB5kIM

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2008-09-13 11:19am

no at that point Reagan had gone from being the president of the SAG and anti-Mcarthy playboy to being a lobotomized badly made android.

Teebs · Post by **Teebs** » 2008-09-13 11:38am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:no at that point Reagan had gone from being the president of the SAG and anti-Mcarthy playboy to being a lobotomized badly made android.

What's the SAG and how does that refute the point that he had an assassination attempt but wasn't a liberal?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2008-09-13 11:45am

Screen Actors Guild. Prior to knocking up the under-aged daughter or a fundy minister. Ronald Reagan was a liberial. He stood up to McCarthy in the HUAC commission on trying to get rid of all of the lefties in Hollywood, he hung out with the Rat Pack, and advocated the "Playboy lifestyle". After Nancy well he was just braindead.

Also there were assassination attempts against Roosevelt (Teddy), Eisenhower, George Wallace and other conservatives. They just weren't sucessfull. Thus preserving the distinction that the only people who DO get killed are the liberals.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-09-13 01:00pm

Teebs wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:In America, the only politicians who get assassinated are invariably the liberal ones.
Didn't Reagan get shot by some nutter, he survived but it still counts I reckon.

An exception. The only other exception would be that of George Wallace being shot by Arthur Bremer (another lone nut) in 1972.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2008-09-13 01:06pm

I just read something interesting. Basically it boils down to that Palin is just a huge diversion to disact everyone from the real man behind her, McCain. She tries to stay vague and mysterious, so that all attention is pulled to her.

It's almost as if the Republitards present her as the main candidate but in case of win, the old man is the boss.

TC Pilot · Post by **TC Pilot** » 2008-09-13 01:07pm

President McKinley was a conversative, wasn't he?

Pelranius · Post by **Pelranius** » 2008-09-13 01:13pm

Teddy and Eisenhower would hardly qualify as conservatives in today's environment. Heck, even the Democrats would view them as being too left wing, to show you how the nation's going down the tubes.

[R_H] · Post by **[R_H]** » 2008-09-13 01:39pm

Pelranius wrote:Teddy and Eisenhower would hardly qualify as conservatives in today's environment. Heck, even the Democrats would view them as being too left wing, to show you how the nation's going down the tubes.

Really, how so?

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2008-09-13 02:14pm

[R_H] wrote:
Pelranius wrote:Teddy and Eisenhower would hardly qualify as conservatives in today's environment. Heck, even the Democrats would view them as being too left wing, to show you how the nation's going down the tubes.
Really, how so?

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ... Is there no other way the world may live?

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote:I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.
A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.

[R_H] · Post by **[R_H]** » 2008-09-13 02:18pm

Melchior wrote:
Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote:I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.
A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.

Which would put him in opposition of the Bush Doctrine and the neocons?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-09-13 02:33pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I can't fathom how McCain can really do anything right. Apart from Palin's attractiveness to the far-right Xtian Taliban card holders, what substance is there? Where's the beef? I don't see anything radically different to BAU under Bush and Cheney, yet they're trying to distance themselves from that party of clowns... yet still be the same old, good values driven GOP that people love so much?

It's not hard to do better than Bush, assuming you have a pulse (which, to be honest, is only very tenuous with McCain). I just don't see anything of real interest happening, other than the total destruction of the conservative base in the eyes of anyone who isn't already in La La Land and constitutes the, what, 20%?, who still think Dubya is doing a bang up job.

Now if Obama gets in, things can change, and for the better. McCain? All he's going to achieve is the quickest assassination by the most mundane method and inadvertently allow the female anti-Christ on the throne. But maybe that's the plan all along.

As Mike has pointed out before, ideologue conservatives are just like old communists. "It'll work in theory!" "They just didn't implement it correctly!" "We just have to go back to orthodoxy!" Its a self-referencing loop. They're just complete ideological drones.