Do You think Obama would have won if...

[Sir_Galahad]

No sour grapes. It is what it is. Time to move on. However,

do you think Obama would still have won had

a) he held to his original statement to not accept public funding (would things have changed had he only had $84 million in his war chest and not $600 million)

b) the media did the same for / to him as they did for McCain / Palin (no comment needed here).

[Jeemie]

No sour grapes. It is what it is. Time to move on. However,

do you think Obama would still have won had

a) he held to his original statement to not accept public funding (would things have changed had he only had $84 million in his war chest and not $600 million)

b) the media did the same for / to him as they did for McCain / Palin (no comment needed here).

Yes- he would have won.

The bad economy meant that McCain would have had to do something extraordinary to unseat him.

It was all about the economy.

Gotta get off the "media conspiracy" angle, Galahad, and realize that this election unfolded as any election under these circumstances would have.

I wish we would do SOMETHING about the money, though.

[peacock2121]

yes

[a1mamacat]

Yes

[Appa23]

My thought is that Obama still wins w/o all of the money, b/c of the economy, but he might not have won some of the close states, as he would not have had "money to burn" on offices, ads, and people.

However, we will never know, so it makes no difference.

Now that public funding and campaign finance reform is essentially dead, 2012 is looking like a candidate better be ready to raise close to a billion dollars, from whatever sources, in order to make a serious run at the White House.

I am not touching the media coverage with a ten-foot pole. It is what it is.

[silverscreenselect]

No sour grapes. It is what it is. Time to move on. However,

do you think Obama would still have won had

a) he held to his original statement to not accept public funding (would things have changed had he only had $84 million in his war chest and not $600 million)

What Republicans should be thankful for is that Obama was what he has always been, concerned first, last and foremost with Obama. If he had directed some of that money towards Oregon and Minnesota with some timely appearances with Al Franken and Merkley(?), the Democrats could easily be two seats closer to 60. Bill Clinton showed up to campaign for Franken. And it wouldn't have taken many appearance with Jim Martin here in Georgia to have made a difference.

But he didn't.

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

Obama would have had to fuck up a lot in this last week for McCain to have a chance. The only thing that McCain could have done, in my opinion, to be more competitive, would be to pick a more centrist running mate.

Yesterday Jeff was watching CBS shows (TPIR, etc) while I was working in the other room. I heard several McCain ads. In my opinion, it was stupid of him to buy ads in California, where he had no chance of winning. He should have saved his money for Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania.

People are ready for a change. The economy sucks and people are feeling insecure. By voting they are taking a proactive step towards changing their situation. Am I 100% sure that I voted for the best person, no? But I have hope that what I did will result in positive change.

[silverscreenselect]

Obama would have had to fuck up a lot in this last week for McCain to have a chance. The only thing that McCain could have done, in my opinion, to be more competitive, would be to pick a more centrist running mate.

Palin energized the Republican base, accounting to some extent for the closeness of the race. For about three weeks after her pick, the Republicans had the lead in the polls, and then came the economic meltdown.

The one thing McCain could have done differently in my view was his attempt to get involved in the bailout negotiations (the suspension of the campaign). McCain shot from the hip as he's always done and set himself up to get cut to bits by the Democrats and the media, while Obama sat back and did nothing and benefitted. In a better political climate, what he did would have been hailed for what it was, an attempt at bipartisanship. The Democrats and the media had a field day bashing him over it.

Frankly, with a Romeny or a Pawlenty on the ticket, it's not nearly as close as it was.

[Bob Juch]

Obama would have had to fuck up a lot in this last week for McCain to have a chance. The only thing that McCain could have done, in my opinion, to be more competitive, would be to pick a more centrist running mate.

Yesterday Jeff was watching CBS shows (TPIR, etc) while I was working in the other room. I heard several McCain ads. In my opinion, it was stupid of him to buy ads in California, where he had no chance of winning. He should have saved his money for Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania.

People are ready for a change. The economy sucks and people are feeling insecure. By voting they are taking a proactive step towards changing their situation. Am I 100% sure that I voted for the best person, no? But I have hope that what I did will result in positive change.

The dumbest ad I ran into was from the RNC at 10:55 PM EST last night on CNN.

[silvercamaro]

The dumbest ad I ran into was from the RNC at 10:55 PM EST last night on CNN.

Why have you not considered the possibility that it was a screw-up (if not a screw job) by CNN?

[earendel]

No sour grapes. It is what it is. Time to move on. However,

do you think Obama would still have won had

a) he held to his original statement to not accept public funding (would things have changed had he only had $84 million in his war chest and not $600 million)

What Republicans should be thankful for is that Obama was what he has always been, concerned first, last and foremost with Obama. If he had directed some of that money towards Oregon and Minnesota with some timely appearances with Al Franken and Merkley(?), the Democrats could easily be two seats closer to 60. Bill Clinton showed up to campaign for Franken. And it wouldn't have taken many appearance with Jim Martin here in Georgia to have made a difference.

But he didn't.

Was he asked? Perhaps the reason he didn't go was because the candidate didn't want him to come. The race between Mitch McConnell and Bruce Lunsford might have gone the other way if Obama had come (even though he had no chance of winning the state) but rumors are that Lunsford didn't want him. FWIW Hillary DID come and campaign for Lunsford, which may have helped the final margin be as close as it was.

[Sir_Galahad]

Frankly, with a Romeny or a Pawlenty on the ticket, it's not nearly as close as it was.

This poses an interesting scenario. If Romney were on the ticket I don't think he would have energized the base
the way Palin did at the Convention. On the other side of the coin, however, I do think he would have been a
boon to McCain when the economy tanked. Would it have propelled him to the lead then, who knows? But it is
interesting to think about it.

Gotta get off the "media conspiracy" angle, Galahad, and realize that this election unfolded as any election under these circumstances would have.

The one thing I will grant is that Obama's story is quite compelling and worth covering strictly based on his heritage.
And any politician is bound to have some skeletons in the closet. But, you cannot possibly deny the fact the media was completely one-sided in its coverage for Obama. From commentators getting tingles up their legs to newspapers running
front page "news" slamming Palin's wardrobe there was simply no equality. Yes, it is what it is. It's just too bad that both candidates do not receive the same coverage, good or bad and that the media has all but lost its objectivity.

[silverscreenselect]

The main issue in this election was the economy. Republicans have absolutely zero ceredibility on the economy.

Every single election, the Republicans claime they will cut taxes and give us marvelous prosperity all the while calling whatever Democratic candidate they are running against the reincarnation of Karl Marx, a wild eyed liberal/socialist/Marxist who is out to tax them into bankruptcy.

The only Democratic president most people remember fairly well is Clinton who raised taxes responsibly, held spending in, balanced the budget and as a result, the 90s were pretty good economic times for most people. Bush came in and spent eight years trying to "fix" the economy. He got the tax cuts he wanted. He got virtually everything he wanted from a policy standpoint and the result is the mess we're in right now.

So now, when the Republicans claim that Obama is a socialist who will destroy the economy, the voters completely tune them out. Most voters don't know the intricacies about how and whether tax cuts or tax increases help or hurt the economy. They only know what that what the Republicans have dished out for eight years isn't working and they are willing to try something else. They are so willing to do so that they overlook massive flaws of character, association, and experience that Obama has.

The ironic thing is that Obama is no Marxist and he is probably willing to just go along with whatever Congress decides to do. Pelosi, Frank and company are considerably more liberal, but their ability to run Congress sucessfully is about on a par with the management and coaching staff of the Detroit Lions to run a football team.

[vettech]

Obama would have had to fuck up a lot in this last week for McCain to have a chance. The only thing that McCain could have done, in my opinion, to be more competitive, would be to pick a more centrist running mate.

I told someone this morning that the only way Obama could've lost was to have video come out this week of him molesting children while eating puppies (or molesting puppies while eating children, whatever).

Seriously, though, I agree 100% with your second statement. Palin was just too polarizing. McCain pandered to the wrong crowd. He needed to target moderates. No way in hell would the radical right vote for Obama, so he already had them in the bag.

[Sir_Galahad]

So now, when the Republicans claim that Obama is a socialist who will destroy the economy, the voters completely tune them out. Most voters don't know the intricacies about how and whether tax cuts or tax increases help or hurt the economy. They only know what that what the Republicans have dished out for eight years isn't working and they are willing to try something else.

But Congress has been Democratic the last two years. Why completely put the blame on the Republicans? Because Bush is
atop the totem pole?

Also, if anyone wants to read as to why tax cuts benefit the economy, here is a good read.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/EM801.cfm

[TheCalvinator24]

Frankly, with a Romeny or a Pawlenty on the ticket, it's not nearly as close as it was.

This poses an interesting scenario. If Romney were on the ticket I don't think he would have energized the base
the way Palin did at the Convention. On the other side of the coin, however, I do think he would have been a
boon to McCain when the economy tanked. Would it have propelled him to the lead then, who knows? But it is
interesting to think about it.

I want to put that fiction to rest, and soon. If Governor Romney had been the Veep nominee, the Dems would have been able to say that electing him would be tantamount to electing one of the very people who created the financial problems. It might not have been completely correct, but the connection to hedge funds and credit products would have made it an easy claim to make stick.

IMO, Romney drags the ticket down even further because as soon as he is touted as a Financial genius, Senator Obama fires back that his genius was in reaping the rewards of the system that was created by the economic policies McCain had been promoting for the past 2 decades.

[TheCalvinator24]

No way in hell would the radical right vote for Obama, so he already had them in the bag.

No, he didn't.

I think the Palin effect was a wash.

Without her, McCain loses the adamant support of the right and probably a large portion of their votes (either to third-party candidates or to just staying home).

With her, if she hadn't been mis-handled by the campaign, and if she had come across better in the Couric interview, she would have been able to maintain a much greater percentage of her initial support after she was announced.

[mellytu74]

Well, if he had picked Tom Ridge, McCain might not have lost Erie (PA) County by 20 points.

[Jeemie]

Frankly, with a Romeny or a Pawlenty on the ticket, it's not nearly as close as it was.

Neither Romney nor Pawlenty (well, from what little I gather) are what I would call "centrist"- Barry Goldwater would recognize them as conservative, I think.

However, since the religious nuts got in there and changed the definition of what a conservative was, they're considered "centrists" (well, Romney is probably anathema because he's- GASP- a cultist Mormon!)

The conservative movement never suffered more than when it brought the religious right into its fold, IMHO.

[TheCalvinator24]

Frankly, with a Romeny or a Pawlenty on the ticket, it's not nearly as close as it was.

Neither Romney nor Pawlenty (well, from what little I gather) are what I would call "centrist"- Barry Goldwater would recognize them as conservative, I think.

However, since the religious nuts got in there and changed the definition of what a conservative was, they're considered "centrists" (well, Romney is probably anathema because he's- GASP- a cultist Mormon!)

The conservative movement never suffered more than when it brought the religious right into its fold, IMHO.

Without the "religious nuts" Ronald Reagan would be nothing more than a former Governor of California, and the Reagan Revolution would never have happened, and the "True Conservatives" would have spent the past 32 years on the outside looking in.

[Jeemie]

Frankly, with a Romeny or a Pawlenty on the ticket, it's not nearly as close as it was.

Neither Romney nor Pawlenty (well, from what little I gather) are what I would call "centrist"- Barry Goldwater would recognize them as conservative, I think.

However, since the religious nuts got in there and changed the definition of what a conservative was, they're considered "centrists" (well, Romney is probably anathema because he's- GASP- a cultist Mormon!)

The conservative movement never suffered more than when it brought the religious right into its fold, IMHO.

Without the "religious nuts" Ronald Reagan would be nothing more than a former Governor of California, and the Reagan Revolution would never have happened, and the "True Conservatives" would have spent the past 32 years on the outside looking in.

I should have said I understood that...unfortunately it was a double-edged sword.

And I do not consider everyone who is religious a religious nut.

Much of the religious right's leaders ARE religious nuts, however.

[Rexer25]

This thread is making me wonder...

how do conservatives define conservative?

In other words, what is the most important part of the conservative philosophy?
Social (abortion, gay rights, civil rights)
Financial (taxes, Govt. spending)
National Security (Defense, Law & Order)

Is it a combination, or something I've left out?

I just have a hunch that there will be as many definitions as people who call themselves conservative.

[Jeemie]

This thread is making me wonder...

how do conservatives define conservative?

In other words, what is the most important part of the conservative philosophy?
Social (abortion, gay rights, civil rights)
Financial (taxes, Govt. spending)
National Security (Defense, Law & Order)

Is it a combination, or something I've left out?

I just have a hunch that there will be as many definitions as people who call themselves conservative.

For people like Goldwater and Reagan (early on), and for me, the latter two are probably the most important parts.

Unfortunately, big-government liberalism has infected the latter two in the current "conservative" movement.

[TheCalvinator24]

This thread is making me wonder...

how do conservatives define conservative?

In other words, what is the most important part of the conservative philosophy?
Social (abortion, gay rights, civil rights)
Financial (taxes, Govt. spending)
National Security (Defense, Law & Order)

Is it a combination, or something I've left out?

I just have a hunch that there will be as many definitions as people who call themselves conservative.

I would say that a conservative cares about all three, but necessarily always equally. (I'm also enough of a libertarian that the "Law & Order" aspect is often too prevalent.

And self-identified conservatives in Washington have, for the most part, been horrible on Spending.

[silverscreenselect]

Seriously, though, I agree 100% with your second statement. Palin was just too polarizing. McCain pandered to the wrong crowd. He needed to target moderates. No way in hell would the radical right vote for Obama, so he already had them in the bag.

McCain didn't have them in the bag. If they voted, they wouldn't have voted for Obama, but they could well have decided to sit the election out or vote for Alan Keyes or write in Ronald Reagan or leave the top of the ticket blank (and some people did these anyway; more of them would especially if McCain had picked a Tom Ridge.

McCain could have picked someone neutral like Pawlenty and gone from being five points down when the meltdown hit to being fifteen points down, or he could have picked a Tom Ridge and watched the base completely fritter away and lose by twenty points.

Could McCain or Obama have anticipated in late August that the market was going to tank as spectacularly as it did? Of course not. This may well have been the single most momentuous event to have occurred in our history that close to a presidential election.

If the market doesn't collapse as it did, then the election is neck and neck, and considering he only lost by three points, he could easily have won it. Palin gave him his only chance to win.