The people on the right, christian conservatives in particular, that are simply not going to vote.

or

The people in the middle that are registered Republican or are conservative Democrats but are going to vote for Obama.

Seems like he can't pander to both groups so when he shifts to one the other will turn on him.  Which will most likely turn on him.

My guess is that the conservatives are going to sink McCain.  Not by voting for Obama but by simply not voting.  They did the same thing to Bush1.

I also think this will be the last election that the hard right has any role in a presidential election.  The GOP are going to decide they have had their way with the hard right and now it's time to pander to other groups that can actually get the party power.

The GOP will do to the hard right what the Democrats have done to blacks for the past 30yrs.

No brainer.

mdainc wrote:My guess is that the conservatives are going to sink McCain.  Not by voting for Obama but by simply not voting.  They did the same thing to Bush1.

I also think this will be the last election that the hard right has any role in a presidential election.  The GOP are going to decide they have had their way with the hard right and now it's time to pander to other groups that can actually get the party power.

The GOP will do to the hard right what the Democrats have done to blacks for the past 30yrs.

No brainer.

So what do you think...we are just going to go away..fold up and disappear?  Don't count on it.

mdainc wrote:My guess is that the conservatives are going to sink McCain.  Not by voting for Obama but by simply not voting.  They did the same thing to Bush1.

I also think this will be the last election that the hard right has any role in a presidential election.  The GOP are going to decide they have had their way with the hard right and now it's time to pander to other groups that can actually get the party power.

The GOP will do to the hard right what the Democrats have done to blacks for the past 30yrs.

No brainer.

If 500,000 conservatives stay home or vote 3rd party then McCain is probably done for already.  

McCain is running a ver Bush 41-like campaign.  Not in style but in net substance.  

The GOP will continue to marginalize conservatives.  The GOP will drift to the left and become the "socialist-lite" party in America.  Eventually conservatives will gravitate to a new party and in 2 to 3 election cycles become a force in American politics.

Parties change.  People will remain liberal or conservative.  It is a matter of how quickly conservatives dump the GOP and form their own new conservative party.

Playing Devil’s advocate here.  So don’t anyone get their knickers all in a bunch.



If enough conservatives voted for McCain to get him elected, even though he is not a conservative and he managed to keep the government/country from going more left [sliding into socialism] than it already has by keeping taxes from being increased, nominates constitutional loving judges that make it to the bench and goes after waste and earmark spending, would then in the future election cycles more independent and regular American loving democrats be more inclined to feel comfortable with other candidates all across the board that are even more conservative.
Maybe if it could be shown that government does not have to get bigger to make things work. In fact government just got a little smaller and it is working out just fine that more people would actually help bring this country back from the death grip of the CDNC and the far left Save the Polar Bear- Kill the Humans and tax the rich until we make them poor nut types.
I’m talking about just a little more conservative. I think that everything is going to have to be done in degrees at this point. The CDNC got us to this point in degrees and I don’t think that getting back can happen in any other way. Keep our eye on the ball and keep moving closer to it.

We know that economic health is the key to improving every ones lives. Government getting the out of the way is what will make that happen. Good education, more jobs, less taxes and self-reliance is key to breaking the cycle of poverty. To accomplish this we first need to provide energy to make this country work. To get energy we need to use oil and nuclear while new stuff is figured out. Then corruption and fraud has to be dealt with and that is a tougher nut to crack. Greed is based in morality and morality is not something that can be governed very well from the capitol. [It does help if we had elected officials that would be good role models – what a concept] Good principals have to be taught but to do that good principal also has to be known.

Now you can get your knickers in a bunch if you want to.

I don’t see enough of a ground swell of conservatism happening in the next 8 years to be a force large enough to make a difference in an election. The CDNC has done a really good job at fooling so many people. The only way you will see a big swing back is something really super awful happens. Enough people will not notice a gradual awful. The CDNC has been actively thinning the conservative base for the last 20 years by being on the constant attack.  The GOP has not helped themselves by standing their ground and I think for the most part they have given up. Career Politicians instead of Life of Public Service is the real reason     

I am just afraid that the further we slid into socialism the harder it will be for us to even get back to the middle let alone anything close to resembling conservatism. The dynamics of this country are changing. The way so many people think. The anti-American crowd if not growing is becoming more vocal. I don’t have all of the numbers on how many are what. I just think that the more this country is broken down the more people will end up becoming dependent on government for more and more and on and on until there are just the few at the top controlling everything and everyone or there will have to be some type of forceful revolt and that just opens up a whole different can of worms that I really don’t want to even have to contemplate.

I guess it comes down to how many conservatives think they are in a position financially to take the chance on what Obama could do to the country in four years. I’m talking about the regular average Middle American conservatives. That they will be in good enough shape to wait it out and convince even more people that they don’t need the government in 2012. If it keeps going left then there will be even more people to convince in 2016. 2020 is not even predictable because 8 years of more left policies just leaves too many questions.  

Basically I see an Obama giving us a lot more bad and McCain giving us not as much bad and maybe in some ways a shot at a little better.

watcher wrote:Playing Devil’s advocate here.  So don’t anyone get their knickers all in a bunch.

If enough conservatives voted for McCain to get him elected, even though he is not a conservative and he managed to keep the government/country from going more left [sliding into socialism] than it already has by keeping taxes from being increased, nominates constitutional loving judges that make it to the bench and goes after waste and earmark spending, would then in the future election cycles more independent and regular American loving democrats be more inclined to feel comfortable with other candidates all across the board that are even more conservative.
Maybe if it could be shown that government does not have to get bigger to make things work. In fact government just got a little smaller and it is working out just fine that more people would actually help bring this country back from the death grip of the CDNC and the far left Save the Polar Bear- Kill the Humans and tax the rich until we make them poor nut types.

I’m talking about just a little more conservative. I think that everything is going to have to be done in degrees at this point.

Basically I see an Obama giving us a lot more bad and McCain giving us not as much bad and maybe in some ways a shot at a little better.

Well, in a nutshell, that is the "lesser of two evils" argument.  The only problem with that argument this time is that there is no reason to believe McCain will govern conservatively in any significant way.  McCain is to the left of Bush on many issues.  McCain is an advocate of "big government" just like George Bush.  He may be to the right of Obama in several issues but in domestic policies and economics, John McCain represents a significant slide to the left from either of Bushes!  

McCain has little understanding of the free market.  He has no understanding of economics in general which is why he throws around phrases like "unfettered capitalism" and wants to "rein in salaries for corporate presidents."  His actions in McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy demonstrates that he doesn't respect our freedoms or the will of the people.  

McCain might appoint more conservative judges but that is hardly guaranteed.  Look at some of the Reagan and Bush 41 appointments!  I think Reagan thougth he was putting conservatives on the court.  But, it didn't work out that way for Reagan and McCain is not assured of anything when it comes to the court.  

The one place I think we can be sure of is that McCain will wage the war in Iraq and Afghanistan effectively.  He is not inclined to cut and run.  This is hugely important.  This is the only area where "lesser of two evils" makes sense.  

The answer to your question boils down to this.  McCain will generally take the country further to the left on most issues.  He is an advocate of "big government" and simply does not have a consistent, conservative philosophy that would enable him to pull us even slightly back toward the center.  He is too inclined to "compromise" with the far left like Kennedy and Feingold and Clinton.  The question with McCain is not whether he will bring us back, even slightly, to the center, but how far to the left will he slide us?  I fear the leftward slide under McCain will be significant.

I agree with you, especially on the point that McCain has leaned left on a so many things. The big question is how left will he go.

In reality it is extremely difficult to look at voting records to make any clear distinctions about how someone actually feels about a particular issue. You have to rely on what they say. Obama has spent the majority of his career just voting present so there is very little record one way or the other. It ends up meaning the same thing. You don’t know what he will do in the future and you have to rely on what he says.

Part of the problem in my opinion is the way the bills are put together. When the bundle so many non connected stuff to one bill it really makes it difficult to tell whether they actually voted for something they disagreed with but to get something else passed they had to accept that also. A good example was the last bill for the Military. McCain voted no because of the clause of giving college benefits to military members after only 3 years of service.  He understands how that can be detrimental to our armed service. He saw that for what it was, a way to create weakness within the military.  He said no even though he is not against giving veterans better benefits.

Off shore drilling and a ban on handguns is another example of looking at someone’s voting record. What else was attached to the Bill? Then you also need the take into account what is behind the reason for voting yes or no for a bill. The price of crude in 2000 and its impact on the country was a lot different than the price of crude in 2008 and the impact on the country. Voting yes or no on a bill to ban handguns in 2000 and then changing your vote in 2008 is different to me. Both times there is no discernable difference in any impact to the country and the main issue each time was the issue of constitutional rights. Then you add another layer, the beliefs of the people who are the representative’s constituents and did they vote in accordance to that.

The campaign finance reform bill is a classic example of a bill that started out as a way to address ‘we the peoples’ complaints and ended up as a way to muddy the waters so ‘we the people’ couldn’t really point out exactly whom to complain about now. It had a lot of revisions to it. This bill first made an appearance in 1995 and in 1999 it looked like this. [As far as I can tell this is the overview of the 1999 version]
http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/legi ... ccain.html
Along the way more and more of the initial intents were removed and it ended up restricting free speech in ways that the original bill did not propose. Again instead of just working on a specific problem and coming up with a bill that dealt with it a whole bunch of stuff got added and changed and now we have this mess of a bill that ended up creating all of these 527’s that are huge problems. It is my understanding that one of the main goals was to eliminate the use of large corporate donations and Union money in campaigns. Two of the original ‘we the people’ complaints. Individual members could dictate to the union whether their money went to Democrats or Republican. That never even made it into the final bill. Large corporation donations are now are made with lots of smaller amounts that end up just as large except they are made through bundlers and we can’t even see who and how much.  What we ended up with as to what the intentions where in the beginning is almost laughable if it weren’t so sad
The bill as was enacted became a new legal loophole in itself.

So in many ways, because of the way things get done on the hill [SNAFU] the only thing we can vote on is who says what and do we believe them. Truthful Politician. Now that is an oxymoron. So if you vote on whom do you believe is telling the truth. Who then is more truthful McCain or Obama?

Does  the image of being truthful come into play and bring voters to pole despite the fact that they do not agree on the positions with the issues?

This question is:  Who is more likely to cost McCain the election?

The answer of course is:  McCain.

Well with the image of the candidates I would have to say it is the MSM that will loose the election for McCain. They have done everything possible to promote Obama. I think there may be a reason that goes beyond what everyone is saying about why the McCain campaign is not doing better and seems to be asleep at the wheel. McCain still does not really know who will be the DNC nominee.
If the polls show McCain is going to likely beat Obama before the convention the super-delegates could swing back to Hillary. This is the first time that this scenario has been in play in any election. She didn’t concede yet. She still has all of her electorates.
You can’t go full steam ahead when the finish line might be moved.
Now, after the convention, McCain still doesn’t ramp it up, then yes I agree, McCain loses it.

SoldiersMum wrote:This question is: Who is more likely to cost McCain the election?

The answer of course is: McCain.

Exactly. He is running a pathetic campaign. If McCain is elected it will be because BHO lost, not because McCain won.