<p>Gordon Smith, a Republican Senator from Oregon is running an advertisement tying himself to Barack Obama. </p>
<p>Keep in mind Oregon is even a traditional swing state where Bush netted 47.19 percent of the vote in the 2004 election and 49.8 percent in 2000. If Bush got 49.8 percent in 2000, why wouldn’t Smith be tying himself to McCain. Surely McCain the “maverick” can do better than Bush in Oregon and possibly win. Or as most people already know, McCain is toast…</p>
<p>Keep dreaming. BO has had a free pass from the press. That will end as the Republicans turn up the heat.</p>
<p>Oh, when in doubt, always blame the media. It’s not like cable news is dominated by Fox in viewership or that talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts. If the liberal media was so powerful and wanted to elect a Democrat, why would they choose McCain as the Republican nominee since he was more electable than Hickabee and Brooks Brother Mitt. And then there was those 2000 and 2004 elections…</p>
<p>I guess you are referring to the 2000 and 2004 elections that the democrats lost? I’ve never seen a group of people so unwilling to admit they lost. It’s like a bunch of whiney cry babies. 2004 was the biggest show of incompetence I’ve ever seen by a political party. The fact that you couldn’t beat Bush was amazing. Most republicans I know were dying to vote for someone else but the dems had to run out Kerry. No self-respecting republican could vote for him. You need to look at your party for those losses, nowhere else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And then you woke up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for tearing something out of context. I was talking about it in the context of if the media is so powerful, how come they weren’t able to defeat Bush in 2000 or 2004.</p>
<p>Sorry, didn’t see that connection on the post. I thought the media did all they could in those two elections to help out Gore and Kerry. Then again the media loves anything that boosts ratings.</p>
<p>There is an important push going on to make McCain more accessible to people:</p>
<p>I don’t see how the outcome of this election can be so unclear. Obviously, Obama is going to have to fight for every vote, but the majority of those votes are his to lose. The way I see it, Obama has one thing going against him. He is black. McCain has several weaknesses. </p>
<p>1) He has chosen to allign himself with Bush. If Bush had a 40%+ approval rating, that would be good. But Bush’s approval rating is lower than any other president in recent history. </p>
<p>2) He will be 72 years old on election day. That won’t sit well with most voters I know. </p>
<p>3) He lacks charisma and composure. </p>
<p>4) Women, minorities and the young will vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers. </p>
<p>Bottom line, I think it will be close, but in the end, I think Obama will win.</p>
<p>“He has chosen to allign himself with Bush.”</p>
<p>Not true. On Iraq, it is Bush that has alligned himself with McCain. Recall that in 2004 McCain was calling for more troops and calling Rumsfeld the worst SecDef ever. (Also recall that in 2004, Obama said that “he was not too far from Bush” on the war.) Obviously in this timeframe Bush and Obama were wrong and McCain right. Then, in 2007 Bush changed to McCain’s position (and Obama went in the other direction.) Now, with the success of the surge in drastically reducing violence and setting the scene for the improved political scene in Iraq, McCain and Bush have been proven correct and Obama, once again is wrong. That’s 2 for McCain, 1 for Bush and zero for Obama.</p>
<p>I think M has a good chance with older women (over 40), Hispanics, and conservatives. Tha’ts about 51%. Now he has to improve in some areas, but Obama lost most of the last 15 primaries.</p>
<p>Right, it is all over. So stay home and don’t bother to actually vote.</p>
<p>How many elections were “over” in September and October… only to have the actual outcome turn out the opposite in November? </p>
<p>After nearly 100% free media coverage for the last several months, you’d think Obama would be polling 80% or so. </p>
<p>“Race is only thing going against him”: Bogus. We’re supposed to agree with that. Actually, being black might be a plus. The real weakness (not mentioned) is an almost complete lack of experience and governmental accomplishment.</p>
<p>You know the race is over when one candidate proposes massive tax and spending increases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When retired generals were calling for Rumsfield’s firing., McCain was asked if he agrees. He said NO. The most important decision when it came to the war was about whether or not go into it to begin with, so update that tally to Obama 10000, McCain 0. McCain agrees with Bush on everything from tax cuts, military expansionism, Social Security, let’s not even go there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you talking about Bush II, he was the biggest spender, it took us 200 years to get to the first trillion dollar budget, Junior was able to reach the 2 and 3 trillion dollar budget on his own in 8 years.</p>
<p>"The most important decision when it came to the war was about whether or not go into it to begin with, so update that tally to Obama 10000, "</p>
<p>Following the Obama strategy, the world that we would currently be in would be one with Saddam in power, with no sanctions and with a fully reconstituted WMD program - including either having or being well on his way in a race with Iran to have nuclear bombs. Is that a better world? I’m not so sure. Even the Iraqis who have taken the brunt of all of the bad stuff with this war would not agree with you on that.</p>
<p>However, if McCain had been in charge since 2003, the world would be without Saddam and with a war that was quickly resolved without sectarian violence because he would have had enough troops there to quell the uprising in its infancy. Would that be a better world - almost certainly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the Congressional approval rating is even worse! And since the Democrats “change the world” Congress has thrown Barack Obama out there then McCain stands a good chance. I know you will claim that “overall Congress is bad, but most people are happy with their representative.” Well, that’s crap in this case. Most people in Illinois can’t stand Obama because he’s done NOTHING for the STATE as a US Senator.</p>
<p>Obama was not there for the vote on Iraq and not privy to all the discussions at the time. It was easy to oppose the war as an outsider with no responsibility.</p>
<p>barrons, you are assuming that 100% of women over 40, Hispanics and conservatives will vote for McCain. First of all, it’s more like women over the age of 60, not 40. Most 40-55 year old women are a result of the 60s and 70s revolution. They will not vote fo McCain, who believes in unequal pay for equal work based on gender and who is opposed to the woman’s right to chose (aka, pro-life). I would say roughly 60% of women aged 40-55 will end up voting for Obama…if not more. As a Catholic, I find it sad, but I am neutral enough to see the facts for what they are. Women will not vote for McCain when the chips are down.</p>
<p>Secondly, many Hispanics and Conservatives are sick of the current Administration and as well all know, McCain is part of the current administration.</p>
<p>I’ll know when the election is over…when all the votes are counted. Hopefully there will be enough of you out there saying that Obama is a shoe-in and it won’t be close. That may cause a large number of Obama supporters the their vote isn’t needed. If that happens it would, again, show the ineptitude of the democratic party.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with the last sentence. My wife is a typical Democrat over 50 and under 60. She likes McCain over Obama. He does not need 100%. 60% will do. The right to choose issue is not on anyone’s priority list outside a few hardcore fems. Women over 40 aren’t much worried about that. Besides many woman oppose abortion too. Most of the anti-abortion leaders are women. JM has a good shot with many Hispanics.</p>
<p>
You can never underestimate the ineptitude of the democratic party. Which is why it’s ludicrous to declare this race over in June.</p>