Skip to content

How McCain Will Win Big and Why Barack Has Lost Already

September 3, 2008

What a crazy week. Why not join in and make more outrageous claims myself? It’s a growth industry these days.

Two excellent posts today make the same claim: that John McCain will not only win, but win by a big margin. Gulp! I’m not quite so sure, but I can see it. I can also see Obama winning big and a close election either way. although the big win by McCain is definitely the long shot.

Over at Big LIzards, Dafyyd dares to hope for 2008 to be a transformative election for the Republicans. This will happen by John McCain acting more like Ronald Reagan- the real Reagan, not the misty eyed remembrance of his talk-show disciples. According to him, Reagan was a principled pragmatist focused on what can realistically be won. This appeals to me greatly. I can’t tell you if it’s a winner or not; please comment.

Taking the negative argument, Spengler at Asia Times posits about as contrarian a position as you can take: Obama’s convention speech was a dismal failure the results of which will be a total defeat.

Obama will spend the rest of his life wondering why he rejected the obvious road to victory, that is, choosing Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential nominee. However reluctantly, Clinton would have had to accept. McCain’s choice of vice presidential candidate made obvious after the fact what the party professionals felt in their fingertips at the stadium extravaganza yesterday: rejecting Clinton in favor of the colorless, unpopular, tangle-tongued Washington perennial Joe Biden was a statement of weakness. McCain’s selection was a statement of strength. America’s voters will forgive many things in a politician, including sexual misconduct, but they will not forgive weakness.

That is why McCain will win in November, and by a landslide, barring some unforeseen event.

I don’t want to put too much stock in it, but if anyone wants to bet, I say a round of Scotch at McCormick’s, loser pays.

The dour and mysterious Spengler (his pen name) spares no one in his stoic outlook:

The young Alaskan governor, to be sure, hasn’t any business running for vice president of the United States with her thin resume. McCain and his people know this perfectly well, and that is precisely why they put her on the ticket. If Palin is unqualified to be vice president, all the less so is Obama qualified to be president.

McCain has certified his authenticity for the voters. He’s now the outsider, the reformer, the maverick, the war hero running next to the Alaskan amazon with a union steelworker spouse. Obama, who styled himself an agent of change, took his image for granted, and attempted to ensure himself victory by doing the cautious thing. He is trapped in a losing position, and there is nothing he can do to get out of it.

Bleak yes- true? The pitiless crowbar of events will bludgeon one candidate from the stage in November. Maybe someone can get a round of drinks off of it.

Read the whole thing(s).

Giddiness to resume next post.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. September 16, 2008 4:56 am

    I just want this on the record in as many places as possible so that when all the self-proclaimed “intellectuals” out there ponder how in the world the Democrats lost to yet another round to the Aristocracy and corporate kickbacks I can say I told you so. Obama can’t win. Rednecks decide elections in America and they care little about foreign affairs or economics. They only know “God and Country”. Whatever that means. Usually a bona-fide redneck Neocon in a cowboy hat can’t even tell you in specific terms that are any more than idealistic rhetoric.

    The issues, the selection of running mates – all of that is irrelevant. In order to understand the dynamics of the American voter you’ve got to dumb it down a lot, not a little. Think church, then think of a poster child for wholesome family values (and do not try to define the values). It’s more like voting for Prom King and Queen, a popularity contest. That’s all the majority of Americans can absorb and a majority wins an election. Obama does not have the redneck vote. Clinton and Carter did. Initially the rednecks and Aristocracy were undecided about McCain because he might be a little left. They weren’t going to vote and Obama stood a chance. Then McCain selected a poster child for guns, church and the undefined “family values”. The cowboy hats cheered and McCain won. Sorry to spoil the ending.

  2. September 16, 2008 4:58 am

    “The issues, the selection of running mates – all of that is irrelevant.”

    In my previous post I should have said Obama’s selection of running mate was irrelevant. Obviously McCain’s was not.

  3. Mark Jones permalink
    October 21, 2008 6:27 pm

    Very interesting posts. Fresh, good points. I guess, some people may have doubts. I do. I was very eager for Obama to be elected, but still had reservations and they were never answered to my satisfaction. Maybe others do, too. Don’t you think that it is better to wait on Obama and elect him at a later date? He is young and has a whole career ahead of him. I just find that the questions of character and true, as opposed to mentioned agenda resonate with me. I have not heard one comment that can explain why someone would sit through twenty years of anti-white vitriol in a “church” or why he would think nothing of having an ongoing association with a terrorist. I would still like to hear any compelling explanation, not just –Aw, heck; that doesn’t matter.

    If I walked into a white church and heard the kind of anti-white hate diatribe and smear again a black person that we heard months ago in the clip of Wright’s church against Hilary Clinton, I would walk right out. (I am of white race.) I would be fearful of associating with anyone who routinely enjoys this sort of vitriol. Obama stayed with his church for twenty years. How do you explain that?

    I was told by a liberal acquaintance recently that being part of a terrorist organization in the U.S. during Ayers’ times was nothing worrisome or out of the ordinary, because of emotions about the Vietnam war. However, I find it extremely concerning. I can’t imagine that any person I would associate with would have deliberately tried to kill people and damage property, even in protest. So, again, I have reservations about Obama, since he had continued contact with Ayers.

    Agreeing to chat with Ahmadinejad –on a reduced scale, isn’t that a little like having a friendly chat with a man who openly tells you that he intends to masacre a family? Does it seem like a healthy impulse to have such a chat? Wouldn’t that person be open to criminal charges even for uttering such a threat? This sort of inexperienced approach could embroil the U.S. in very serious conflicts at a time of crisis, when there are no resources for such a thing.

    I believe that Obama is left-leaning, but only recently has he even mentioned his agenda of “spreading around the wealth.” How do we know whether he intends to pursue even more socialistic policies? Noone has tried to find out just how much he wishes to take our earnings and share them around.

    Only con men get irritated if you say that you need more time to have full confidence in them. Obama ridicules those who don’t know him well enough.

    If we have doubts, why not postpone sudden change –catastrophic “transformative” change?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: