The Case Against John McCain

I accept your views as stated. I could argue with your list of the key factors, the values attached to each, and some other factors I would add to my version of such a list, but accept it as yours, and don't see any point in the exercise. Stated another way you see about 2.3 to 1 odds of an Obama win.

Another dimension to the forecast is the uncertainty one might attach to it (or stated conversely, the confidence you have in it). I'm not trying to get into and numerical estimate of that statistic, but do believe it (uncertainty) is - for all of us - somewhat higher this year than in the last several elections. That reflects the long time remaining as well as other factors involving the candidates and the respective parties.

My estimate is about 60% - 40%. The differences in the influence factors I would include involve chiefly (1)potential negatives about Obama in quarters that don't support him (enthusiastic voters have the same voting power as moderately convinced ones.) that may emerge (and not simply racism, though that is how they will likely be labelled) , and (2) negative reaction to the tax increases the Democrats are fairly unanimously proposing.

Tax cuts are an issue which have gone down in the public consciousness in importance with every passing year, for one simple reason: half of the population pays essentially no taxes, and you aren't going to cut their taxes any farther....

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tax cuts are an issue which have gone down in the public consciousness in importance with every passing year, for one simple reason: half of the population pays essentially no taxes, and you aren't going to cut their taxes any farther....

Cycloptichorn

Well the other half is certainly aware of their effects, and the question might come down to the relative proportion that votes.

BTW my estimate is 60%-40% for Obama so we aren't nearly as far apart as the rhetoric here might suggest. There may be a lesson for us
in that.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tax cuts are an issue which have gone down in the public consciousness in importance with every passing year, for one simple reason: half of the population pays essentially no taxes, and you aren't going to cut their taxes any farther....

Cycloptichorn

Well the other half is certainly aware of their effects, and the question might come down to the relative proportion that votes.

BTW my estimate is 60%-40% for Obama so we aren't nearly as far apart as the rhetoric here might suggest. There may be a lesson for us
in that.

Correcting for oversimplification, he's not conservative enough for you? Might be a sign that both parties have outgrown their vision that the candidate does well to be just conservative/liberal enough. I don't see McCain as exploiting it, he hasn't the subtlety/dearth of character to posture himself that much, I think he's just the right guy at the right time to benefit from the dynamic. Still the way both parties are relativistic-ing the issues makes my skin crawl, defeats the purpose entirely - it ends up being high-inertia mob-rule filtered through the biggest, most dominant ass-hole. No room for three parties as such, too many people not at least thinking they's getting what they want - the conclusion I keep reaching is to carve the constitution in stone once and for all and return power to the states (hehe, let 'em in the UN individually, that'll learn Europe!)...

hanno wrote:

Correcting for oversimplification, he's not conservative enough for you? Might be a sign that both parties have outgrown their vision that the candidate does well to be just conservative/liberal enough. I don't see McCain as exploiting it, he hasn't the subtlety/dearth of character to posture himself that much, I think he's just the right guy at the right time to benefit from the dynamic. Still the way both parties are relativistic-ing the issues makes my skin crawl, defeats the purpose entirely - it ends up being high-inertia mob-rule filtered through the biggest, most dominant ass-hole. No room for three parties as such, too many people not at least thinking they's getting what they want - the conclusion I keep reaching is to carve the constitution in stone once and for all and return power to the states (hehe, let 'em in the UN individually, that'll learn Europe!)...

McCain is not intelligent enough for me. His political positions don't match up with mine either, but that's of secondary importance.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

hanno wrote:

Correcting for oversimplification, he's not conservative enough for you? Might be a sign that both parties have outgrown their vision that the candidate does well to be just conservative/liberal enough. I don't see McCain as exploiting it, he hasn't the subtlety/dearth of character to posture himself that much, I think he's just the right guy at the right time to benefit from the dynamic. Still the way both parties are relativistic-ing the issues makes my skin crawl, defeats the purpose entirely - it ends up being high-inertia mob-rule filtered through the biggest, most dominant ass-hole. No room for three parties as such, too many people not at least thinking they's getting what they want - the conclusion I keep reaching is to carve the constitution in stone once and for all and return power to the states (hehe, let 'em in the UN individually, that'll learn Europe!)...

McCain is not intelligent enough for me. His political positions don't match up with mine either, but that's of secondary importance.

Cycloptichorn

What if he rode a bike?

Believe what you like and continue the deceptive propaganda as long as you choose and believe it still benefits your cause.

Senator McCain set out his definition of victory in Iraq, including control of the country by the Maliki government, the Iraqi military taking over responsibility and U.S. troops out of harms way and reducing U.S. troop presence, but he stressed that this does not mean we leave Iraq, or that there is not still "sporadic fighting." He again analogized a long-term presence in Iraq to those in Kuwait and Korea.

From a report on a conference call betwxit McCain and Conservative bloggers.

Quote:

Senator McCain set out his definition of victory in Iraq, including control of the country by the Maliki government, the Iraqi military taking over responsibility and U.S. troops out of harms way and reducing U.S. troop presence, but he stressed that this does not mean we leave Iraq, or that there is not still "sporadic fighting." He again analogized a long-term presence in Iraq to those in Kuwait and Korea.

He's STILL doing this, George and others who claimed that he has not been doing this. Iraq is NOTHING like Kuwait and Korea. He fundamentally misunderstands the situation.

Cycloptichorn

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain secured millions in federal funds for a land acquisition program that provided a windfall for an Arizona developer whose executives were major campaign donors, according to a USA Today report.

McCain, an Arizona senator, inserted $14.3 million in a 2003 defense bill to buy land around Luke Air Force Base in Glendale, Arizona, in a provision sought by SunCor Development, the largest of 50 landowners near the base, the newspaper reported on its Web site Thursday, citing public records.

Upset with a state law that restricted development around the base, SunCor representatives met with McCain's staff to lobby for funding, USA Today reported, citing the company's president at the time, John Ogden.

The Air Force later paid SunCor $3 million for 122 acres near the base -- three times its assessed value and twice the military's estimated value, the newspaper said.

Yes, but you don't see Obama making comments like this -

Quote:

Clearly a lie.

You also ought to be able to show what Obama did for these donors, if you are looking to make an equivalence out of it.

Cycloptichorn

Still, puts a cold shower to my secret fantasy of the return of the sodium-reactor and starving the third world with ethanol...