Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
McCain lost becuse the economy crashed. If anything Palin helped McCain. She brought in thosuands if not millions of votes from people that would have stayed home.
It certainly didn't help that he made a big deal about quitting the race until Congress decided on the bailouts, and then spent his time off supporting the bailouts and armtwisting people who opposed the bailouts.
Long-serving Senators like McCain are logical primary choices based on their records, experience and name recognition but sure losers in the general because they have long track records that make them vulnerable to attack. Their opponents glean their past for scandals and major screw-ups (Keating five, swift boats, being Al Gore, etc)
LOL at Al Gore. One of these days he'll get ManBearPig.
Again, not true. People had no problem with Palin. McCains numbers stayed ahead of Obama when he nominated Palin.
Obama was unable to jump ahead in the polss until the stock market crashed.
Stop rewriting history to what you wanted it to be.
rewriting history? How do you know why people did not vote for mccain in the Nov elections? If you look now you will see that Palin is a very polarizing person. I think many people shied away from Mccain because they were skeptical of Palin. If Mccain had a better VP then (the running mate) they could have stepped in during the stock market crash. Palin did stir a rise in McCain's popularity but it was short-lived. Once people realized that she lacked the political smarts to deal with major issues... And, yes, the stock market crash did hurt McCain.
We will never know how he would have done with a different VP running mate.
you do know that it was tina fey that made the "i can see russia from my backyard" comment dont you? as for the couric interview, and the gibson interview, both of those were chopped up to make palin look as bad as possible. a better interview was with bill oreilly who actually uses whole interviews, not chopped up ones in situations like this.
it was the republican party that supplied her campaign clothing, not her.
actually mccain said the economy was basically sound, which in fact was true, and still is, for now.
i agree with this comment. what mccain should have done is opposed the tarp legislation. had he done that i think the public would have gotten behind him. instead he looked like another george bush.
sounds like you have done your homework: certainly more than a few others on here.
rewriting history? How do you know why people did not vote for mccain in the Nov elections? If you look now you will see that Palin is a very polarizing person. I think many people shied away from Mccain because they were skeptical of Palin. If Mccain had a better VP then (the running mate) they could have stepped in during the stock market crash. Palin did stir a rise in McCain's popularity but it was short-lived. Once people realized that she lacked the political smarts to deal with major issues... And, yes, the stock market crash did hurt McCain.
We will never know how he would have done with a different VP running mate.
He wouldn't have done too much differently..We all know the VP choice can certainly help but rarely hurts a candidate...Well, not everyone knows this, but most, who follow politics are aware of it.
The Republicans (as many others) saw the economic problems coming. They did not want to hold the presidency during this time. It's much easier to sit aside and criticize everything Obama does. The Republicans don't have any solutions, but plenty of criticism. The Republicans knew that whoever would be president would have a tough time.
Thats it exactly and some fools are falling for it just like always.
Romney and Huckabee were just as bad. But their were plenty of better candidates like Fred Thompson and Tom Tancredo. Even Guiliani was at least honest about the fact that he was a liberal unlike McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.
I think the Repubs knew a Dem would be elected in 2008 and McCain was "sacrificed". Age may be a factor. McCain is too old to run in 2012 so another reason to run him in 2008, dunno. Romney will probably be their man in 2012 although I don't think he is the best choice.
Guiliani did a great with his actions on 9/11 but during the debates he proved he isn't very good at being proactive. Clueless about the causes and reasons behind 9/11.
Romney and Huckabee were just as bad. But their were plenty of better candidates like Fred Thompson and Tom Tancredo. Even Guiliani was at least honest about the fact that he was a liberal unlike McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.
three reasons (not in order)
1. he was more of a centrist than any of the others
2. they felt sorry for all of his previous primary losses.
3. they knew that the dems would win( anti bushism), so why run a real candidate
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
