Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
It sounds crazy at first. Amid dire reports about the toxic political environment for Republican candidates and the challenges facing John McCain, many top GOP strategists believe he can defeat Barack Obama — and by a margin exceeding President Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004.
At first blush, McCain’s recent rough patch and the considerable financial disadvantage confronting him make such predictions seem absurd. Indeed, as Republicans experience their worst days since Watergate, those same GOP strategists are reticent to publicly tout the prospect of a sizable McCain victory for fear of looking foolish.
But the contours of the electoral map, combined with McCain’s unique strengths and the nature of Obama’s possible vulnerabilities, have led to a cautious and muted optimism that McCain could actually surpass Bush’s 35-electoral-vote victory in 2004. Though they expect he would finish far closer to Obama in the popular vote, the thinking is that he could win by as many 50 electoral votes.
By post-war election standards, that margin is unusually small. Yet it’s considerably larger than either Bush’s 2004 victory or his five-electoral-vote win in 2000.
“A win by 40 or 50 electoral votes would be an astonishing upset, just a watershed event with all the issues that were stacked against him from the very beginning,” said David Woodard, a Republican pollster and Clemson University political science professor. “But it could happen. I know this seems like wishful thinking by Republicans. I’m thinking that Republicans could win by 40 electoral votes. But I dare not say it,” he added. “Certainly what is possible could come to pass.”
A top strategist with the Republican National Committee, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, explained that by his own examination, “we’re actually sitting pretty well in most states.”
“There are a lot of scenarios that look good for McCain, and I almost would go so far to say that there are a lot more scenarios [than for Obama],” the strategist added. “I don’t think anybody over here wants to let themselves get too excited about it. It is an eternity between now and November. But McCain looks a lot stronger than our prospects as a party.”
It is virtually impossible to find an established GOP strategist who believes McCain will win in a landslide. But in light of the circumstances, more than a few Republicans are pleasantly surprised to find that McCain is at all situated to defeat Obama.
“The broader environment clearly favors the Democrat,” said Whit Ayers, another veteran GOP pollster. But Ayers argued that “a state-by-state analysis actually makes McCain a narrow favorite to win the Electoral College majority.”
“That would certainly run against the grain of history, if he pulled that off,” Ayers added. “But it’s also clearly plausible and a manageable outcome partly because of John McCain’s strength among independents and partly because of Obama’s weakness in culture, ideology and association.”
Some Republican strategists can envision a scenario in which Obama wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College — he might galvanize Southern black turnout, for example, but still fail to switch a state in the region.
Among the 10 strategists interviewed by Politico for this story, there was near-uniform belief that had any other Republican been nominated, the party’s prospects in November would be nil.
“No disrespect to the other candidates,” said GOP pollster Glen Bolger, “but if anyone else had been nominated we’d be toast.”
The case they make for a comfortable McCain win is not beyond reason. Begin with the 2004 electoral map. Add Iowa and Colorado to Obama’s side, since both are considered states Obama could pick off. Then count McCain victories in New Hampshire and Michigan, two states where McCain is competitive. In this scenario, McCain wins the Electoral College 291-246, a larger margin than Bush four years ago.
If Obama managed only to win Iowa from Republicans and McCain managed only to win Pennsylvania, McCain would still win by a much greater margin than Bush — 300-237.
“McCain is in a remarkably strong position for how poor the political environment is right now,” said Brian Nienaber, a GOP pollster. “McCain could win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado and Nevada with a high Hispanic population. It really does scramble the map of where Obama does find those electoral votes.”
Naturally, Democrats do not concede the point. But conversations with several Democratic strategists reveal that many acknowledge that the Republican scenarios are at least reasonable, though they say less likely to occur because Obama has the potential to dramatically alter the map, putting some nontraditional states in play at the same time. The bottom line, though, is that McCain’s ability to compete in some big industrial states offers a ray of hope in an otherwise dismal election cycle.
“We have to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania. McCain wins one of those states, we are in trouble. They have to hold Florida and Ohio or they are trouble,” Democratic pollster Paul Maslin said. “The truth about this race [is], this is the year that we shouldn’t lose, and we could lose.”
The GOP scenarios do not rely on some game-changing event but rather the possibility of Obama failing to overcome his own and his party’s weaknesses. Obama has long been thought by analysts to have a higher electoral vote ceiling as well as a lower floor than Hillary Clinton.
It is that potential Obama floor that increasingly occupies the minds of Republicans studying the map. Even the potentially dramatic rise in turnout of African-Americans may only gain Obama 1 percentage point in many swing states, according to Maslin. Yet Obama’s weaknesses may end up neutralizing some of those relatively modest gains.
Since 1968, Democrats have had a deficit with whites, particularly men. Some Republicans believe that Obama may exacerbate those Democratic challenges, especially in key rural regions like Appalachia, struggle to win back Hispanics or some women, and dash Democratic prospects during their most favorable landscape in at least three decades.
“There is a one in four shot that McCain can win an electoral majority in excess of 50 electoral votes, which by most recent standards would be a blowout,” Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio said. “Considering where the Republican brand is right now, that’s pretty phenomenal.”
...my worst fear and one of my reasons as to why I switched candidates.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
...my worst fear and one of my reasons as to why I switched candidates.
Never happen. The Republicans are acting like the Clintons and grasping at any straw that blows by. The Iraq war has eliminated any chance the Republicans had of staying in the White House.
Have you not noticed the huge increase in voter turnout and involvement among the Dems? They are galvanized and organized and will destroy Goldwater, oops sorry, McCain, in November.
__________________
5-11 with 'em. 5-11 without 'em.
Never happen. The Republicans are acting like the Clintons and grasping at any straw that blows by. The Iraq war has eliminated any chance the Republicans had of staying in the White House.
Have you not noticed the huge increase in voter turnout and involvement among the Dems? They are galvanized and organized and will destroy Goldwater, oops sorry, McCain, in November.
This is only the second highest increase in Democratic primary voter turn out. The greatest? 1972, George McGovern, and a landslide defeat. So high primary turnout hardly leads to November success.
This is why you vote with your heart, instead of your fears. Your heart points you to the candidate closest to your ideals, while your fears are what's used by the media and the campaigns' PR firms to manipulate you.
Does this thread make you realize why our country's in such a hole now? Mainly it's because of voters like Joe. Either he's really an Obama supporter that's been manipulated by fear, or he's truly a Clinton supporter, trying to manipulate other's fears for his candidate, by evoking the fear. One's pathetic, the other's despicable.
This is why you vote with your heart, instead of your fears. Your heart points you to the candidate closest to your ideals, while your fears are what's used by the media and the campaigns' PR firms to manipulate you.
Does this thread make you realize why our country's in such a hole now? Mainly it's because of voters like Joe. Either he's really an Obama supporter that's been manipulated by fear, or he's truly a Clinton supporter, trying to manipulate other's fears for his candidate, by evoking the fear. One's pathetic, the other's despicable.
And they say us Ron Paul supporters are crazy...
If you don't know who Joe supports after all this team, you are not paying attention. And isn't it amazing that anybody who thinks differently than you is either a manipulator or being manipulated. Talk about a conspiracy theorist.
Last edited by Jughead; May 25th, 2008 at 06:03 PM.
Reason: language
If you don't know who Joe supports after all this team, you are not paying attention. And isn't it amazing that anybody who thinks differently than you is either a manipulator or being manipulated. Talk about a conspiracy theorist.
LMFAO
YOU need to pay attention, cuddles:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LacardJoe67
...my worst fear and one of my reasons as to why I switched candidates.
In reference to what the article he copied and pasted is attempting to insinuate.
In reference to what the article he copied and pasted is attempting to insinuate.
It's obvious you terminology of fear and Joe's is completely different. I know what he means, but then again, I'm not an elitist who thinks he knows everything.
It's obvious you terminology of fear and Joe's is completely different. I know what he means, but then again, I'm not an elitist who thinks he knows everything.
Haha. Self-righteous pricks like you amuse me. I especially love how you obviously carried the animosity from another thread to this one. Notice how I decided to ignore you in that one after you made that immature comment about my IQ level?
That's ok. Like I said in there, and I'm telling you in here now, your opinion of me doesn't matter one iota in the grander scheme of things. I just struggle to understand if you're really this obtuse in real life, or if it's a pose so you can keep your ego boosted as you keep patting your back when you think you just made a "smart" retort.
So. Tell me, smart guy. Please clear up this "elitist's" obvious [to you only] beffudlement, and explain to me what version of "fear" Joe was attempting to convey. Hell, I didn't even know there are different versions.
*cue Jeopardy theme*
EDIT: I also love how you're using another cheap ploy, and an attack on my ego to attempt to derail the discussion at hand. Any thoughts on "voting with your heart, instead of your fears," or is that too civil a discussion for you?
__________________
Last edited by carrrnuttt; May 25th, 2008 at 06:35 PM.
Haha. Self-righteous pricks like you amuse me. I especially love how you obviously carried the animosity from another thread to this one. Notice how I decided to ignore you in that one after you made that immature comment about my IQ level?
That's ok. Like I said in there, and I'm telling in here now, your opinion of me doesn't matter one iota in the grander scheme of things. I just struggle to understand if you're really this obtuse in real life, or if it's a pose so you can keep your ego boosted as you keep patting your back when you think you just made a "smart" retort.
So. Tell me, smart guy. Please clear up this "elitist's" obvious [to you only] beffudlement, and explain to me what version of "fear" Joe was attempting to convey. Hell, I didn't even know there are different versions.
*cue Jeopardy theme*
EDIT: I also love how you're using another cheap ploy, and an attack on my ego to attempt to derail the discussion at hand. Any thoughts on "votingwith your heart, instead of your fears," or is that too civil a discussion for you?
You just proved my point. If it doesn't fit into your small view of life, it doesn't exist. Arrogant, beligerent and loud. So typical.
If you want a civil discussion, try keeping a civil tongue in your head. I don't waste my time trying to discuss anything with someone with a bad attitude.
You just proved my point. If it doesn't fit into your small view of life, it doesn't exist. Arrogant, beligerent and loud. So typical.
If you want a civil discussion, try keeping a civil tongue in your head. I don't waste my time trying to discuss anything with someone with a bad attitude.
Awesome.
Since you're done with your self-righteous rant [or so you say], let us get back to the topic at hand:
Quote:
Originally Posted by carrrnuttt
This is why you vote with your heart, instead of your fears. Your heart points you to the candidate closest to your ideals, while your fears are what's used by the media and the campaigns' PR firms to manipulate you.
Does this thread make you realize why our country's in such a hole now? Mainly it's because of voters like Joe. Either he's really an Obama supporter that's been manipulated by fear, or he's truly a Clinton supporter, trying to manipulate other's fears for his candidate, by evoking the fear. One's pathetic, the other's despicable.
I keep hearing how fearful the American voting public are and wonder why that is. The problem with a word like fear is that there are so many varying degrees of it. To me, fear means that you believe you will die because of an action you have no control over. That is real, true fear. Fearing that a presidential candidate won't do what you want him to do isn't really fear. It's more like anxiety.
When people say "I'm scared to death---", it isn't fear. It's just their way of saying that they don't have a good feeling about the outcome of whatever it is they are talking about. Just like Joe saying "My greatest fear--" isn't really fear in the sense you are talking about, but his way of saying he doesn't like what he thinks the outcome will be.
Believe me, the American public doesn't work off of fear. Look at what happened after 9/11. For a short space of time, this country came together and spent little time going after the culprit. And it was unanimous. The American public doesn't work off of fear. They may worry about things, but when the chips are down, they react and react strongly.
Sorry if this seems disjointed. I'm trying to type and watch the NASA channel at the same time. They just put up the pictures of Mars from the Phoenix.
Linear Mode
