Has McCain actually already LOST?(Yes he has)

[Stormbringer]

Given how prone republicans are to cheating, and how prone the democrats are to letting republican shit slide, don't accept that he's lost until it's all official.

I'm not going to call the election either.

But I will point out that Obama is a Chicago Democrat, not a feeble party hack that wound up the running by default. I doubt Obama is going to roll over if there are genuine dirty tricks played. It's neither is his nature nor that of the political system he's from. He's got a huge warchest and plenty of support, if it comes down to a fight he's in a good position to win. It won't be a pushover, of that I'm confident.

[Fire Fly]

Could someone explain this concept of the Chicago politician? I don't know the history to it and people seem to keep dropping that term. I take it to mean that is a pejorative?

[Stormbringer]

We're not even sure right now if Obama's numbers are a bounce or a surge. The Wall St. meltdown has spooked everyone, but if it slides out of the headlines, Obama's lead might decay, too.

The whole Bail Out and Meltdown are really just the tip of the iceberg. The average voter, and the lower-middle class, rural families that are GOP's base, are feeling a whole range of economic hardships. From a lack of jobs, to increased health care costs, to increased energy costs (and all that brings with it) are affecting them on a daily basis. It's relatively easy to get distracted by "moral" issues and other sideshows when times are good. But they're not and things like Michigan and Pennsylvania are a direct result of the GOP being held into the limelight.

[Dark Hellion]

Chicago is a very cut throat political climate. You also have to deal with the largest block of voting undead in the nation. It is a system that is vicious, corrupt, and because of that churns out mean politicians who won't lose to the first dirty trick.

Someone with better political knowledge can sum it up better, that is just my take from living in IL.

[Stormbringer]

Could someone explain this concept of the Chicago politician? I don't know the history to it and people seem to keep dropping that term. I take it to mean that is a pejorative?

Chicago has a lot history of vicious, dirty, and low-blow politics. Along with New York's political machine, it was one of the big movers and shakers of the smoky backroom era. While that's cleaned up some, the city (and Illinois in general) still has a justified reputation for having rowdy, bare-knuckled politics. It's pretty much the anti-thesis of the limp-wristed politics of the Democrats in since the GOP revolution. As a fun reminder, the old "the dead are voting... and Democratic" is from the 1960 election where election fraud supposedly helped Kennedy win. That sort of cage-match to the death politics of course came with a huge dose of corruption.

So all in all, it's not necessarily a pejorative but it's certainly a mixed connotation.

[Ender]

Could someone explain this concept of the Chicago politician? I don't know the history to it and people seem to keep dropping that term. I take it to mean that is a pejorative?

Are you familiar with what is known as "the Chicago way"? It's best known for the line Sean Connery says in The Untouchables, but it a pretty strong guiding philosophy for Chicago politics. Whatever anyone else does, you escalate it. Hit harder and faster until the other guy gives up. It was mobster philosophy that merged in with the way of doing politics during the heyday of the mob, and it continues strong today. Politics in Chicago are played hard, fast, and dirty. Comparing it to a cage match isn't half wrong. Vision, intelligence, and eloquence may get you attention here, but only a sharp eye and sharper elbows will get you the seat.

[ExarKun]

Never underestimate the stupidity of average people. I would not be surprised if Republicans won this. Not at all. These are the same voters who put Bush in the office in 2004.

[RedImperator]

Never underestimate the stupidity of average people. I would not be surprised if Republicans won this. Not at all. These are the same voters who put Bush in the office in 2004.

Do you have any data to back this up, or are you just repeating an SDN talking point everybody's heard before?

[Patrick Degan]

Never underestimate the stupidity of average people. I would not be surprised if Republicans won this. Not at all. These are the same voters who put Bush in the office in 2004.

I would point out to you that the margin of Bush's victory in 2004 was only 3% —and there is very good reason to suspect Diebold shennanigans at work in Ohio which may have turned that state and the entire election in his favour. In 2000, the inaugural parade nearly broke out in an angry riot along the way to the capitol, and in 2004, what few crowds were allowed along the motorcade route thanks to the lockdown of the city were still seething in anger at His Fraudulency.

[Ryan Thunder]

Never underestimate the stupidity of average people. I would not be surprised if Republicans won this. Not at all. These are the same voters who put Bush in the office in 2004.

I would point out to you that the margin of Bush's victory in 2004 was only 3% —and there is very good reason to suspect Diebold shennanigans at work in Ohio which may have turned that state and the entire election in his favour.

Has there ever actually been any evidence to suggest that
A) this did indeed happen
or
B) that the Democrats would simply let it slide if it did?

In 2000, the inaugural parade nearly broke out in an angry riot along the way to the capitol, and in 2004, what few crowds were allowed along the motorcade route thanks to the lockdown of the city were still seething in anger at His Fraudulency.

So, if this was after the election, why is it that nobody seems to have done anything about it? If there were legitimate case for accusing him of fraud, you can bet it would have been run through the courts like mad, and the press would have jumped on it like a shark on a bloody cow. Just imagine the hype they could spin out of something like that. It'd last them for months!

Not that I support the motherfucker. I just can't believe it would be feasible to cheat your way into such a job.

[Ryan Thunder]

Never underestimate the stupidity of average people. I would not be surprised if Republicans won this. Not at all. These are the same voters who put Bush in the office in 2004.

I would point out to you that the margin of Bush's victory in 2004 was only 3% —and there is very good reason to suspect Diebold shennanigans at work in Ohio which may have turned that state and the entire election in his favour.

Has there ever actually been any evidence to suggest that
A) this did indeed happen
or
B) that the Democrats would simply let it slide if it did?

Oh, fuck it. I should have said that I'm referring to election fraud, in case it isn't obvious from the context.

[General Zod]

I would point out to you that the margin of Bush's victory in 2004 was only 3% —and there is very good reason to suspect Diebold shennanigans at work in Ohio which may have turned that state and the entire election in his favour.

Has there ever actually been any evidence to suggest that
A) this did indeed happen
or
B) that the Democrats would simply let it slide if it did?

Oh, fuck it. I should have said that I'm referring to election fraud, in case it isn't obvious from the context.

Nothing concrete enough to prosecute, which is why they're only "suspected" of tampering.

[Cairber]

Today I actually had someone tell me that we have lost more lives to vaccines than the Iraq war. I pulled out the Lancet study, which concludes that there have been about 600,000 deaths from the war in Iraq. But she was stuck on this; she was convinced that Obama would mandate vaccines and that vaccines have probably killed more people than the war.


This is the kind of reason why I just keep going calling and doing face-to-face with people to try and shore up PA for Obama. It's one thing to say over and over that the American public can be a bit stupid about their vote, but it's quite different when it hits you in the face like that (at least for me it is). we can't be complacent; we need to keep getting out there and pounding the pavement.

[Patrick Degan]

So, if this was after the election, why is it that nobody seems to have done anything about it? If there were legitimate case for accusing him of fraud, you can bet it would have been run through the courts like mad, and the press would have jumped on it like a shark on a bloody cow. Just imagine the hype they could spin out of something like that. It'd last them for months!

Um, do you mean those same courts which helped Bush get into the White House in the first place? Do you mean that same press corps which played stenographer for the Bush White House while they were lying us into a wholly unjustified and unnecessary war?

Somehow, I see a flaw or two in your logic.

[ray245]

Just wondering, if McCain has an accident or a gun wound, will that help his elections?

I am thinking about what Happened during the Taiwan election, where Ma got shot a day before te polling date.

[ExarKun]

Never underestimate the stupidity of average people. I would not be surprised if Republicans won this. Not at all. These are the same voters who put Bush in the office in 2004.

Do you have any data to back this up, or are you just repeating an SDN talking point everybody's heard before?

What kind of "data" are you looking for? Do you honestly expect me to present you with a study of stupidity of average people from a renown research institute?

In any European country, Kerry would have won by a landslide. That thing in the white house would have never even came close to winning the election in 2004. And after Palin interviews and debate, the support for McCain would be in single digits.

I presented all the "data" I need in the quote you cited.

[Stormbringer]

What kind of "data" are you looking for? Do you honestly expect me to present you with a study of stupidity of average people from a renown research institute?

Yes, that would be darn good start. If you're going to accuse a majority of Americans of being so dumb as to miss reality, then you'd damn well better back it up. Simply referring to past election results with no deeper corrolation is not much of a substantial post. There's a lot more going on than "ha, Amerikkkans are stupid" in that election and the one previously. So how about addressing that instead of repeating that particular tired meme.

As a counter arguement to your post, I'd point out a pretty consistent lead for Obama in the polls. I don't exactly have the greatest faith in the American voter but you're suggesting they're pretty much innumerate, drooling retards. When Americans care about the issues, and this time they are as opposed to last time around, they tend to be at least some what shrewder.

In any European country, Kerry would have won by a landslide. That thing in the white house would have never even came close to winning the election in 2004. And after Palin interviews and debate, the support for McCain would be in single digits.

The Kerry loss, and to an extent Gore's defeat, were part of the same problem with the Democrats that they're only now rectifying with Obama's candidacy. Both Kerry and Gore took far too much for granted and ran shitty campaigns. They expected to be anointed President because they were "better" and didn't put much into the fight. Compare that with Barack Obama who has hammered the Republican mentality and John McCain relentlessly. He's making a good case for his own Presidency and actually showing some real, effective leadership. That's how it should be done and how you have to do it. That neither of the last two Democratic candidates had the wit or ability to actually get out front and lead is their problem.

As for Europe, and the rest of the world, not electing the feckless or corrupt that's just not true. Plenty of other nations have had governments at least as unpopular, ill-regarded, and considered at least as bad. The only reason yours tend not to last quite as long is the Parliamentary system which makes multi-party systems much more viable than the US model.

[RedImperator]

Never underestimate the stupidity of average people. I would not be surprised if Republicans won this. Not at all. These are the same voters who put Bush in the office in 2004.

Do you have any data to back this up, or are you just repeating an SDN talking point everybody's heard before?

What kind of "data" are you looking for? Do you honestly expect me to present you with a study of stupidity of average people from a renown research institute?

In any European country, Kerry would have won by a landslide. That thing in the white house would have never even came close to winning the election in 2004. And after Palin interviews and debate, the support for McCain would be in single digits.

I presented all the "data" I need in the quote you cited.

Stormbringer pretty much beat me to it. I'm tired of some people in this forum digging through four and five layers of data to present conclusions based on the best available evidence, and others mumbling "durr, 'Murricans r teh stoopidz" and thinking that counts as a substantive contribution to an N&P discussion. It would be like, in an OSF discussion about Star Trek versus nBSG, four or five people presented calculations and examples and screenshots, and then some boob waddles into the thread and goes, "Don't forget, Starfleet are morons! They'll lose somehow!". It contributes nothing; there's nobody laboring under the delusion that the American electorate, taken in aggregate, is properly educated, well informed, free of prejudice, and not prone to being panicked or stampeded by boogeymen. Everybody is already talking that into account, including, I'm sure, both campaigns. If you want to make the argument that it's going to impact the result in a way that's not already built in to the polling numbers, be my guess, but mindlessly repeating a tired meme is not what passes for an argument around here any more.

[Tribun]

Maybe this pic sums up the current state of the race for the White House:

[irishmick79]

At this point I am very confident that Obama will win. Yes, there are still scenarios for McCain to win, but I do believe that he just has too much ground to make up at this point. McCain is apparently feeling the pressure, and his campaign appears to be throwing a hail mary and directing the focus on Obama's character, as the washington post is pointing out. He absolutely has to change the subject from the economy, and according to his campaign character assaults appear to be their best bet.

The real question here is how badly did McCain's decision to suspend his campaign damage his campaign's credibility to press these kind of attacks. If the damage is severe enough, then there's a good chance that attacking Obama on character issues will backfire badly. It's a pretty big gamble for McCain, and I doubt he would be taking it if he didn't think that Obama has him on the ropes.


McCain Plans Fiercer Strategy Against Obama

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain's team has decided that its emphasis on the senator's biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan's campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Being so aggressive has risks for McCain if it angers swing voters, who often say they are looking for candidates who offer a positive message about what they will do. That could be especially true this year, when frustration with Washington politics is acute and a desire for specifics on how to fix the economy and fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is strong.

Robert Gibbs, a top Obama adviser, dismissed the new McCain strategy. "This isn't 1988," he said. "I don't think the country is going to be distracted by the trivial." He added that Obama will continue to focus on the economy, saying that Americans will remain concerned about the country's economic troubles even as the Wall Street crisis eases somewhat.

Moments after the House of Representatives approved a bailout package for Wall Street on Friday afternoon, the McCain campaign released a television ad that challenges Obama's honesty and asks, "Who is Barack Obama?" The ad alleges that "Senator Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes. Ninety-four times. He's not truthful on taxes." The charge that Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes has been called misleading by independent fact-checkers, who have noted that the majority of those votes were on nonbinding budget resolutions.

A senior campaign official called the ad "just the beginning" of commercials that will "strike the new tone" in the campaign's final days. The official said the "aggressive tone" will center on the question of "whether this guy is ready to be president."

McCain's only positive commercial, called "Original Mavericks," has largely been taken off the air, according to Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's performance at Thursday night's debate embodied the new approach, as she used every opportunity to question Obama's honesty and fitness to serve as president. At one point she said, "Barack Obama voted against funding troops [in Iraq] after promising that he would not do so."

Palin kept up the attack yesterday, saying in an interview on Fox News that Obama is "reckless" and that some of what he has said, "in my world, disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief."

McCain hinted Thursday that a change is imminent, perhaps as soon as next week's debate. Asked at a Colorado town hall, "When are you going to take the gloves off?" the candidate grinned and replied, "How about Tuesday night?"

Yesterday in Pueblo, Colo., McCain made clear that he intends to press Obama on a variety of familiar GOP themes during the debate, as he accused the Democrat once again of getting ready to raise taxes and increase government spending.

"I guarantee you, you're going to learn a lot about who's the liberal and who's the conservative and who wants to raise your taxes and who wants to lower them," McCain said.

A senior aide said the campaign will wait until after Tuesday's debate to decide how and when to release new commercials, adding that McCain and his surrogates will continue to cast Obama as a big spender, a high taxer and someone who talks about working across the aisle but doesn't deliver.

Two other top Republicans said the new ads are likely to hammer the senator from Illinois on his connections to convicted Chicago developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko and former radical William Ayres, whom the McCain campaign regularly calls a domestic terrorist because of his acts of violence against the U.S. government in the 1960s.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. appears to be off limits after McCain condemned the North Carolina Republican Party in April for an ad that linked Obama to his former pastor, saying, "Unfortunately, all I can do is, in as visible a way as possible, disassociate myself from that kind of campaigning."

McCain advisers said the new approach is in part a reaction to Obama, whose rhetoric on the stump and in commercials has also become far harsher and more aggressive.

They noted that Obama has run television commercials for months linking McCain to lobbyists and hinting at a lack of personal ethics -- an allegation that particularly rankles McCain, aides said.

Campaigning in Abington, Pa., yesterday, Obama continued to focus on the economy, even as he lashed out at McCain.

"He's now going around saying, 'I'm going to crack down on Wall Street' . . . but the truth is he's been saying 'I'm all for deregulation' for 26 years," Obama said. "He hasn't been getting tough on CEOs. He hasn't been getting tough on Wall Street. . . . Suddenly a crisis comes and the polls change, and suddenly he's out there talking like Jesse Jackson."

Obama highlighted a new report showing a reduction of more than 159,000 jobs last month, and he linked the bad economic news to McCain and Palin.

"Governor Palin said to Joe Biden that our plan to get our economy out of the ditch was somehow a job-killing plan; that's what she said," Obama told a crowd of thousands. "I wonder if she turned on the news this morning. . . . When Senator McCain and his running mate talk about job killing, that's something they know a thing or two about, because the policies they've supported and are supporting are killing jobs in America every single day."

McCain issued a statement yesterday saying the bailout bill "is not perfect, and it is an outrage that it's even necessary. But we must stop the damage to our economy done by corrupt and incompetent practices on Wall Street and in Washington."

Speaking in Pueblo just as the House was finishing deliberations on the package, McCain blamed fellow lawmakers for the failure to adequately regulate the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"It was the Democrats and some Republicans in the Congress who pushed back and did not allow those reforms to take place, and that's a major reason we are in the trouble we are in today," he said. "Those members of Congress ought to be held accountable on November 4th as well."

Before the bailout crisis, aides said, McCain was succeeding in focusing attention on Obama's record and character. Now, they say, he must return to those subjects.

"We are looking for a very aggressive last 30 days," said Greg Strimple, one of McCain's top advisers. "We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans."

Also, it's worth pointing out that several polls (according to www.fivethirtyeight.com and www.electoral-vote.com) have shown Obama taking a small lead in North Carolina. If McCain has to divert the resources he's pulled out of Michigan to defending states like NC, he's in a lot of trouble. It looks like NH is the only Kerry state that McCain is still actively competing for (and NH isn't looking good for him, either), and that means Obama is clearly on the offensive. McCain would have to win virtually all of the 2004 swing states that went for Bush for his electoral map to stay intact, and losing NC would be a potential death blow for McCain.

[Guardsman Bass]

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. appears to be off limits after McCain condemned the North Carolina Republican Party in April for an ad that linked Obama to his former pastor, saying, "Unfortunately, all I can do is, in as visible a way as possible, disassociate myself from that kind of campaigning."

Which probably means his campaign leadership is hoping that a conservative 527 will pick it up and run with it. Of course, that might be outweighed if this successfully makes it out of the Alaskan Supreme Court alive:

The Alaska Supreme Court has agreed to hear an emergency appeal from lawyers seeking to shut down the Legislature's Troopergate investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin.

The action comes the day after Anchorage Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski threw out their lawsuit attempting to halt the Legislature's investigation of what's known as Troopergate. The suit was filed on behalf of a group of Republican state legislators who oppose the investigation.

In a written order issued about 4:30 p.m. today, the Supreme Court said it would hear oral arguments on the appeal at 3 p.m. Wednesday, and agreed to rule by the end of the next Thursday.

The urgency on timing is because Steve Branchflower, the investigator hired by the Legislative Council, is set to release his report next Friday. Branchflower is looking into Palin's dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, and whether she improperly pressured him to fire a state trooper divorced from her sister.

I wonder, though - what if it does come out as scheduled, and does say that Palin acted improperly? Will it have a significant effect? I could see the Republicans rushing to dismiss it by describing it, as they already have, as a "partisan witch hunt" (the irony, of course, is palpable in that sentence), but how would it affect the general public's (declining) view of Sarah Palin?

[Tribun]

So McCain doesn't want to talk about the problems of the people and soley now uses character assassination? Resorting to this is a confession that he has failed with the topics.

Eh, if Obama completely ignores it and still concentrates on the economy, won't this tactic of negative ad lose one of its key components (meaning the opponent striking back)?

[Ace Pace]

So McCain doesn't want to talk about the problems of the people and soley now uses character assassination?

Yes

TPM finds Sen. John McCain's campaign "has now shifted virtually 100% of his national ad spending into negative ads" attacking Sen. Barack Obama.

Analysis shows that as of October 1, McCain's $1.3 million weekly is being broken down as follows:

Nearly half a million on "Dome," which attacks "Obama and his liberal allies" in Congress for favoring "massive government."
A little more than half a million on "Mum," which attacks "Obama and his liberal allies" as "mum on the market crisis."
Much of the remaining money on "Overseas," which says that "Barack Obama and his liberal allies are to blame" for jobs going overseas.
The small remainder is going to a positive spot, the "Original Mavericks" ad.
This is a dramatic shift from the period before he suspended his campaign when he spent approximately half his ad money on the positive "Original Mavericks" ad, and around half on the negative "Dome" spot.

Original source

[Lord of the Abyss]

Has there ever actually been any evidence to suggest that
A) this did indeed happen
or
B) that the Democrats would simply let it slide if it did?

How often have the Democrats shown any spine ? After 8 years of watching them let Bush get away with whatever he felt like, and them barely putting up a fight, yes, I think they'd let it slide.

[RedImperator]

The vote fraud accusations in Ohio have three key pieces of evidence:

1) Some high-profile glitches in Diebold voting machines which always managed to award votes to Republicans.
2) A promise by Diebold CEO and top Republican fundraiser Walden O'Dell to deliver Ohio for Bush.
3) The discrepancy between the exit polls and the final tally in Ohio.

The third one, in my mind, is by far the most damning. I don't know if there ever was a serious investigation; certainly there wasn't right after the election, when the Republican Party controlled the Ohio state government.

As for McCain going negative: he doesn't have much left. He can't argue foreign policy experience because 1) he picked Sarah Palin, and 2) Obama held his own at the debate. He can't argue executive experience because 1) Palin, despite doing better on Thursday, is still seen as an unqualified lightweight and 2) he doesn't have any, either. Obama crushed him on Iraq in the first debate. He mishandled the economic crisis from day one. His "suspend the campaign" gambit was a catastrophe; the whole thing got exposed as a sham by David Letterman, of all people, he went back on his promise to skip the debate, he took credit for the bailout's passage just before it failed, showed no leadership over the following three days, and claimed he would have vetoed it after he voted for it. McCain managed to do the impossible: he's tied to a bailout the voters hate even while he's criticized for showing no leadership in getting it passed and embarrassed by his own showboating. He has no credibility on the economy at all. In fact, his campaign has little credibility left, period: a summer's worth of ridiculous lies has caught up with them. He can't shake his connection to Bush. He's even used up most of his war hero cred by using it as a distraction every time he's backed into a corner. What's left besides smearing Obama?