Skip to comments.Would Obama Destroy McCain?
Posted on 02/25/2008 4:28:29 PM PST by jdm
So we have been treated of late to the usual chorus of claims that the GOP is doomed, doomed I tell you, at the polls if McCain faces Obama. Well, Rasmussen's daily tracker has McCain pulling ahead of Obama the past 4 days, and now up 47-43 in a national head-to-head matchup. The RCP multi-poll average still gives a 47-43 nod to Obama. (McCain's matchup with Hillary is more favorable). But if you looked at polls taken between January 28 and March 7 of 2004, you would see Kerry leading Bush in 15 polls, to 7 showing Bush ahead and 3 ties, and an unweighted average result of 47.48 for Kerry to 45.2 for Bush. Gerald Ford trailed by 33 points in August and lost by 2. (H/T) George HW Bush trailed by 17 in July and won by a healthy margin. Those are the most famous examples, but hardly the only ones.
But, you say, huge primary turnout for the Democrats presages a landslide? Maybe, but Democrats traditionally have much higher primary turnout than the GOP:
That's right: Democratic turnout in the primaries was 47% higher than GOP turnout in 1980, and 89% higher in 1988. Any Democrats looking to replay those races?
Folks, it's a long way to November. Yes, you can slice and dice the polls cited above to make the point that polling (1) has its flaws and (2) can be badly abused if you don't distinguish between good polls and bad. And that's even aside from the fact that these are national polls whereas the election is actually 50 statewide elections. But the point is, there is simply no evidence right now that Obama, whose real record is very unknown to the national electorate and who has never run a campaign against anything resembling a competent Republican opponent, has this race in the bag. He may justifiably be favored over McCain, if you had to put money on this race today. But he is not unbeatable, or if he is the evidence of that is as yet undetectable.
I’m not a big fan of McCain’s-but if a bunch of little pukes in black pajamas couldn’t destroy him barack osama won’t.
thank you for the perspective of real numbers
Obama’s dirty laundry hasn’t been exposed yet nor has anyone dug into his background. IMO, there’s plenty to be exposed so the American public get a good idea what a Liberal traitor he is and just how dangerous he would be to our security, freedom, and our children and grandchildren’s futures. Buyer/voter beware!!!
I don’t think Obama will destroy McCain, at least I hope not.
I bet Hillary will pull out all the stops before/if she gives in.
There might not be much left of Obama come November.
...like a DRUM, baby! Like a drum.
I’m not convinced that a lot of Hillary’s voters will vote for Obama in the general election. I also think some of Obama’s support may evaporate in the general.
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washingtons Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2007
Washington, DC -Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washingtons Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians. The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 - and rightly so - for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillarys top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A Dishonorable Mention last year, Senator Obama moves onto the ten most wanted list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin Tony Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,0 00 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the companys shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.
If the MeCain camp studies up on history, they can get ahead of the curve.
47-43, and this is with wall to wall positive coverage for Che Obama, and Mad John with a fractured base?
That is not bad at all, and Hilde will go Scorched Earth before she ever just rolls over and plays dead, the Dhimmis are in for a bloody fight indeed.
McCain on the other hand, can now consolidate as much as possible his support, but BOTH Nominees will be infected with “Senatoritis” meaning no one can tell them anything.
I’d say the fact that Barry is riding as high as he is now in the polls on the Dem side, drawing huge crowds, and the subject of a fawning media, and still losing to McCain - , is a relatively positive sign right now. These head to head polls are fairly meaningless, but right now the GOP as a party is down, McCain has been wildly unpopular among the right, and Obama is trouncing the shrew. Despite all those factors, the fact that McCain is slightly ahead is very promising.
Though he should be helped by people's Obama-fanaticism waning--he can't be the apple of modern Americans' eyes indefinitely.
I’m not a McCain fan (obviously, if anyone’s been reading my posts), but he would likely beat Obama.
Let’s see where we are in October.
>>Obamas dirty laundry hasnt been exposed yet nor has anyone dug into his background.
This guy has a pretty good start:
I can't see rational people voting for Obama over McCain for POTUS especially when voting in secret.
google “odinga kenya sharia obama” the results will astound you.
It is good news today but subject to change from week to week.
Why are white men voting for Obama - he is an anti-white racists! White men are voting for him just because they don’t like Hillary - HE IS WORST THAN HILLARY! They really need to think about what he will do if he wins - white men will really get the shaft if he is elected.
Yup. I book-marked that one.
What troubles me most is not the appeal of one philosophy over another. McCain would win that hands down given Obama’s far-left liberalism, but voters tend to worship youth, especially those with charisma. Two of my daughters’ friends have chosen Obama over Hillary because they are concerned about a trend toward dynasties (Bush and Clinton). Despite this flawed logic, they are intelligent, well-educated young women.
I see the negatives going way up for both Obama and McCain all the way to November 4. The majority of voters will truly be going to the polls to vote “against” the other major Presidential candidate instead of going to the polls in order to vote in the majority “for” a major Presidential candidate.
I hope they use that photo in ads come election time!!!
* Obama vanquishes and embarasses Hillary, ending the Clinton reign of terror.
* Denver's Democrat convention makes 1968 convention look like a day at Disney.
* Obama begins to make mistakes, gets exposed, wears thin on voters during general campaign.
* Democrats begin to turn on Obama as weak candidate who can't win.
* McCain picks solid conservative as his VP candidate. McCain wins election.
* McCain decides not to run in 2012. We get a real conservative elected and win back Congress.
OK, I can dream, right? :-)
I just hope McCain “slips up” during the debate and calls him “Senator Osama”-ooops my bad
No and Hell no.
Dominic Lawson: Obama must beware of turning into a cult
His speeches are studded with religious rhetoric. A chapter in his book is entitled ‘Faith’
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
At this stage, it must be desperation rather than strategy: Hillary Clinton has unleashed the potentially deadly weapon of ridicule against Barack Obama. The almost hoarse Senator from New York told supporters in Rhode Island yesterday: “I could just stand up here and say [that] the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.”
Mrs Clinton did not mention her rival in this peroration but it was a very pertinent caricature of Mr Obama as the new Messiah. In fairness to Obama, the greatest claims for his near-divinity come not from his own lips but from his supporters. One of them is his own wife Michelle, who announced: “Our souls are broken in this nation. Barack Obama is the only person who understands that ... before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls.” Even such a political veteran as the eighth-term Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush says Obama’s political career has been “divinely ordered”. His language is moderate compared to that used by some of Obama’s youthful supporters, who talk openly of being members of “a cult” and of their rallies as being “religious experiences”.
More surprisingly, seen-it-all reporters seem to have undergone a similar epiphany. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews somewhat to the consternation of his co-hosts declared that Obama “comes along and he has the answers. This is the New Testament”. The experienced Washington correspondent for The Australian, Geoff Elliott, reported: “You know something special is going on. The atmosphere at his events is such that one wonders if Obama is about to walk out with a basket with some loaves and fishes to feed the thousands.”
Obama has a stock line which seems to play straight into the notion that he is an instrument of the divine. To a number of audiences, he has declared: “My job is be so persuasive that if there’s anybody left out there who is still not sure whether they will vote, or is still not clear who they will vote for, that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down on you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realise that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama.”
To be fair to Obama, this is said in a manner which just leaves open the idea that he is not being entirely serious. Yet I don’t believe that those applauding this riff see it as elevated irony and it is slightly creepy even as a joke. Perhaps it isn’t a joke at all, but completely sincere: Obama’s speeches are studded with religious rhetoric. For example, last October he told an audience of 4,000 that he hoped to be “an instrument of God” and that “I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth”.
This sort of rhetoric from an American politician is not a novelty. There has been a strong sense ever since Independence indeed it is at the heart of America’s own sense of uniqueness that this is a nation chosen by God, a sort of New Jerusalem. Barack Obama is certainly not the first campaigner for the presidency to use almost Biblical language to tell the American people that they and they alone can “save” the world from sin and wickedness.
Yet in recent decades the American Left has shunned such religiosity, regarding similar language used by the so-called “religious right” with extreme distaste. In such a strongly churchgoing country as the US, this was always going to limit the appeal of the Democrats. Anyone who has read Obama’s book The Audacity Of Hope will already have known that the junior Senator from Illinois had no intention of ignoring this constituency, were he ever to run for the presidency.
There is an entire chapter on this, entitled “Faith”. In it, Obama wrote: “The discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religiosity has often inhibited us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem is rhetorical: scrub language of all religious content and we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their own personal morality and social justice.”
He also wrote that for Democrats to shun religiosity is “bad politics” adding: “When we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts ... others will fill the vacuum.” Well, if there ever was such a vacuum, Barack Obama is filling it now. As he will certainly have anticipated, many erstwhile Republican voters are seduced by this form of rhetoric and have been indicating that they will vote for Obama. In fact, he has invented a word for these voters: he calls them “Obamicans”.
It is interesting that this seems to have been an unmitigated benefit. Not only has Obama successfully made an appeal to Republicans who viewed other Democrats as godless, but the Left has, by and large, ignored its scruples and refused to criticise its candidate’s studied use of specifically Christian language and imagery. As a result, Obama has got away with claims to metaphysical virtue which would have been denounced as medievally idiotic presumption, had they been uttered by a Republican candidate.
To Obama’s credit, he does not follow the religious Right in denouncing his opponents as wicked. The worst you can say is that this is implicit in his message, rather than explicit. Nevertheless, there is an underlying strain of intolerance in Obama’s message of unification. In his victory speech in Wisconsin last week, he made his usual attack on “special interests”. “We must put aside the divisions in Washington. We must work for a higher purpose” or perhaps that should be Higher Purpose. Yet to stigmatise “divisions in Washington” is just acceptable rhetoric for denouncing the workings of a complex pluralistic democracy. For “divisions” read “disagreement” or “opposition”. Obama, of course, is a democrat as well as a Democrat; but there is something in this form of rhetoric that has echoes of fascism, with its idea that the squabbling of mere politicians should be overthrown in favour of one man’s uniquely wise interpretation of the National Will. Phrases such as “everything must be changed” were also the stock-in-trade of fascist orators, raising hopes which ended in the most dreadful disillusionment and worse.
I think Barack Obama understands this risk. For all the fever of his rallies, his own oratorical style never descends into ranting, still less foam-flecked hysteria. Yet the frenzy he has engendered contains within it the seeds of bitter disappointment, or even tragedy. There is the question of his own physical safety. Less morbidly, what will be the reaction of his supporters if he should fail to be elected President? Perhaps most troubling of all, what will be their reaction if he is elected, but the celestial choirs fail to appear and the world refuses to be perfect?
Obama has been using his strong lead over Hillary to air his dirty laundry and innoculating himself by rebuking her for using dirty tactics.
Obama will probably be the president. Sheep will line up in droves to make history and vote for the first African-American President who also has the bemefit of being the Kennedy of the 21st century.
Hell, Rush is even afraid to go after him with any real venom. So far he has hidden behind his black call screener.
>> Why are white men voting for Obama - he is an anti-white racists!
Remember, these are white male DEMOCRATS.
Half are metrosexuals.
Half are union members; they do as the shop steward tells them.
And (as Yogi Berra might say) the other half are old hippies with drug-addled brains.
Too bad Americans don’t have the good sense to check him out for themselves. They would find plenty to make them run kicking and screaming away from him. I am not sure the media will EVER expose his past.
* Denver's Democrat convention makes 1968 convention look like a day at Disney. 20%
* Obama begins to make mistakes, gets exposed, wears thin on voters during general campaign. 70%
* Democrats begin to turn on Obama as weak candidate who can't win. 25%
* McCain picks solid conservative as his VP candidate. 50%
* McCain decides not to run in 2012. ???
He doens’t seen like an American to me. He’s not proud to be an American, refuses for stupid reasons not to wear the symbol of our nation- the flag, and won’t put his hand over his heart during the pledge. This is not an American that needs to ever come near the presidency. His wife is just as bad. They come from a church that spews black power and he’s endorsed by Farrakhan. Can you imagine a white candiate attending a church that preaches White power.
...only...Her Thighness will be the nominee...what ever it takes.
He's much older now, and even meaner and grumpier.
I believe that Obama would beat John McCain. It’s why I’ve been cautioning people for months now that it’s in our best interest to hope Hillary gets the nomination. I’ve been questioned on this by those who can’t see that Obama is worse and far more likely to win the general, those who just want the Clintons gone no matter what the cost, and those who secretly support Obama.
The bottom line is this - Rock, paper, scissors. McCain beats Clinton. Obama beats McCain. Clinton beats nobody. Obama will sweep into power with him Democratic legislators down the ticket as his cultists show up en masse to vote dem.
“Conservatives” have enjoyed their little love affair with Obama at Hillary’s expense. I suppose they should be congratulated - they may have helped cost us the general.
I’ve been extremely lukewarm on the Republican party lately, but an Obama candidacy forces my hand. I have to vote for McCain. I don’t appreciate being put in the lesser of two evils scenario again, but against the devestation Obama would bring into power with him I will gladly pull that lever for McCain. If Hillary were the democrat nominee or Giuliani the Republican nominee I would just stay home. But the Cult of Obama will require each of us to do our utmost to stop him.
I dislike McCain intensly but Obama can’t beat anybody except Hillary.
. . .
Certainly that is the best-case scenario.
Even if he picked a VP nominee who wouldn't run in '12.
I know some would think it futile to do, but were I McCain and thinking only about winning in '08, I might nominate Thomas Sowell - who's older than McCain, and really wouldn't be able to campaign much - for VP. That would get conservatives on board, and spike any talk that a vote for McCain is a racist vote against a black.
Wouldn't win much of the black vote, but it would make a lot of white people feel good about themselves for wanting to vote for him . . . which would IMHO make a critical difference in the campaign. I would expect that ticket to run very well. Sowell would campaign - very leisurely, in conservative territory. And just preach a patriotic gospel - and say why Obama is not a patriot.
A looooong way. I believe it is McCain's race to lose, regardless of the Democrat that wins the nomination. What is not obvious is that this love fest is just a parade with a beginning and an end. The real race is around the corner. Whether one likes McCain or not, he can take a punch.
So far, Obama has gotten a free ride, without much DEEP background vetting.
Some of this might really take the glow off of his halo.
FOR EXAMPLE: Barack's terrorist buddies.
None of this will matter. This will be an election decided by emotion, not thought. Look at the overwhelming black support for Marion Barry. It did not matter what he did. In fact, the worse, the better. All that matters is that Obama is black. This will draw even those blacks who never before bothered to the polls, plus a lot of guilty white votes and a lot of people who simply share his Marxist ideals. If by some miracle McCain wins, expect serious rioting.
Also, no one will dare dig up the dirt on him or ask him inconvenient questions because anyone who does will be shouted down as racist. Look, even Hillary is forced to hold her punches. Can you imagine a cartoon of Obama with monkey ears, like the ones they have been drawing on Bush? No way! He is untouchable.
The only place I differ slightly is regarding the internal battles ahead for the Dems...it could be more explosive than you think. We have race, gender, and Bubba...you can't make this stuff up! :)
In 52 seconds why Obama will not win a general election!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.