Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-13-2017, 07:23 AM
 
Location: Kansas
25,962 posts, read 22,120,062 times
Reputation: 26697

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by westcoastforme View Post
No.

McCain gave up information that got soldiers killed. He got pardoned on treason.

He is a globalist RINO that loves illegals.

No. No. No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
And as we've seen now, he procured false, smear info on Trump, and gave it to US Intel.

McCain is a joke. Even worse than his Keating scandal, he's damaged his reputation now even more. Hopefully, he'll resign, or a better candidate will primary him. His expiration date has come and gone.
The two quoted above x 2!

We lived in AZ for 6 years at which time I looked in depth at McCain, and based on what I learned, I would not have voted for McCain. In truth, this Trump supporter says "I would have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008 over John McCain".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2017, 08:01 AM
 
3,106 posts, read 1,769,661 times
Reputation: 4558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dequindre View Post
Probably not if Obama was the candidate. McCain wasn't exactly magnetic in personality or compelling to either side of the aisle.
This. Obama was an eloquent public speaker and had great charisma, enough to have fooled people into thinking he would work for all of us. That he didn't is why many Obama voters went for Trump.

McCain on the other hand just didn't have that magic spark enabling him to connect to people. He came across as a tired old politician. Romney similarly did not have the kind of personality that connected with people. He was just too stiff and appeared to have no understanding or working people.

It is a wonder that the Democrats who could look back at two successive weak Republican candidates in 2008 and 2012 and put in their own even weaker candidate in 2016.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 08:23 AM
 
Location: My House
34,938 posts, read 36,258,444 times
Reputation: 26552
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
Let's say 2008 looked much like 2007 economically. Looming storm clouds but most people aren't feeling it yet. Does anybody think it's possible McCain could have come out on top in 2008? It's interesting to think about the fact that over the Summer of 2008, they were neck and neck in the polls. It was only after the September and October stock market crashes that Obama solidified his lead.
Palin tanked that election for him.

I knew SO many people who were Independents and moderate Democrats who were heavily considering him before he brought her onto his ticket.

Conservatives were already guaranteed to vote for him, for the most part.

I think that election was his to lose, really.

He's not viewed as highly conservative in his politics (because he's not) and that appealed to many middle of the road voters.

Palin offended most of them. She cost him the election. It's funny that Republicans still seem to like that idiot.

It's her fault that Obama won.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 08:26 AM
 
Location: My House
34,938 posts, read 36,258,444 times
Reputation: 26552
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveToRow View Post
Nobody was gonna beat zero in 2008. Too much white guilt out there.
You are wrong.

I rarely say that here on CD, but you are. I know so many white people AND black people... and people of other ethnic backgrounds, who were giving a very close look to McCain before he took on a twit like Palin and worried everyone that, with his advanced age, he might become ill and leave her with the nuke button.

That's reality. People all around me (I live in a swing state that went Obama in 2008) were all "I'm still weighing my options" until Palin showed up and all but my most conservative friends were like... "nah... I'm gonna go with Obama/Biden because... Palin."
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 08:50 AM
 
18,983 posts, read 9,073,833 times
Reputation: 14688
I think the McCain of 2000 might have had a shot. I would have considered voting for that man. But by 2008 he was a bitter and disillusioned shadow of the "maverick" he was just a decade earlier. And his choice of Palin showed just how far and how quickly he had devolved. Once he put that airhead on the ticket it was over for him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 09:08 AM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,954,468 times
Reputation: 7458
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
You are wrong.

I rarely say that here on CD, but you are. I know so many white people AND black people... and people of other ethnic backgrounds, who were giving a very close look to McCain before he took on a twit like Palin and worried everyone that, with his advanced age, he might become ill and leave her with the nuke button.

That's reality. People all around me (I live in a swing state that went Obama in 2008) were all "I'm still weighing my options" until Palin showed up and all but my most conservative friends were like... "nah... I'm gonna go with Obama/Biden because... Palin."
I don't find your anecdotal evidence to be very compelling. Anyone who would vote for the most liberal candidate of a major party in U.S. history wasn't going to vote for McCain no matter how much lip service they gave to the contrary.


Even WaPo agrees that Sarah Palin didn't cost McCain the election. According to one study, she cost him about 2.1M votes, which wouldn't have changed a thing since Obama won by 7M. The study also doesn't account for people like me, who voted for McCain mainly BECAUSE he picked an outsider to be his VP.


As much as I hate linking to fake news sites, here's the WaPo discussion of the study I'm referring to: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.eb4717d6be1b
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 09:17 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Gilead
12,716 posts, read 7,811,145 times
Reputation: 11338
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
Palin tanked that election for him.

I knew SO many people who were Independents and moderate Democrats who were heavily considering him before he brought her onto his ticket.

Conservatives were already guaranteed to vote for him, for the most part.

I think that election was his to lose, really.

He's not viewed as highly conservative in his politics (because he's not) and that appealed to many middle of the road voters.

Palin offended most of them. She cost him the election. It's funny that Republicans still seem to like that idiot.

It's her fault that Obama won.
You are right here that Palin really hurt McCain's chances. She was ultra-popular with the religious right (still is) but alienated the moderates and independents that McCain was stronger with than a typical GOP candidate usually would be. She also turned off reasonable Republicans. Not sure why McCain picked her as the religious right would have lined up behind him regardless.

If Trump's election has shown us anything, it's that the religious right will fall in line behind the Republican candidate no matter what and it doesn't matter if the candidate makes an effort to pander to them.

I do think that given the state of the economy around election day, Obama would have won regardless. However, had the economy remained strong another year it could have been a much closer, more interesting race.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 12:56 PM
 
7,687 posts, read 5,121,674 times
Reputation: 5482
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
I did not see any difference between Obama's stance on illegal immigration and McCain's. In Congress he might sit on the other side of the isle; but do we really see who he sleeps with? Anymore there are many cross-overs; Republicans that look like Democrats and Democrats that look like republicans - at least on issues like immigration.

I always feel, that if we cannot protect our borders and we cannot enforce our laws; that we have no Country.

I also don't understand why people are angry at the enforcers? Our legislators are the ones that made our laws - but they appear insulated from the anger and attacks. In the meantime our 'enforcers' catch all the heat!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 12:59 PM
 
7,447 posts, read 2,832,835 times
Reputation: 4922
Generally speaking, it swaps hands every 8 years like clockwork. There are some outliers, but it seems to take a very large amount of momentum to overcome this pattern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 02:30 PM
 
Location: My House
34,938 posts, read 36,258,444 times
Reputation: 26552
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveToRow View Post
I don't find your anecdotal evidence to be very compelling. Anyone who would vote for the most liberal candidate of a major party in U.S. history wasn't going to vote for McCain no matter how much lip service they gave to the contrary.


Even WaPo agrees that Sarah Palin didn't cost McCain the election. According to one study, she cost him about 2.1M votes, which wouldn't have changed a thing since Obama won by 7M. The study also doesn't account for people like me, who voted for McCain mainly BECAUSE he picked an outsider to be his VP.


As much as I hate linking to fake news sites, here's the WaPo discussion of the study I'm referring to: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.eb4717d6be1b
I might have voted for him. I voted for Obama. Twice.

I'm an Independent. There are way more of us than you think.

I don't really think that studies can be totally conclusive. People point to stuff like "well, the black vote" and I'm like... how many black people do you think are voting here in the US?

Come on.

Palin might've helped him pick up some quacks, but nobody with any sense actually wanted that nimrod in the office of VP any more than anyone REALLY wanted the Trump Train to roll into the White House.

There are a ton of Trump voters that just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary, but given another option, would easily have flipped and voted for a Democrat, even if the card in their pocket had an R on it.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:50 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top