Seriously, how is McCain still in this race?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Unspeaked, Sep 25, 2008.

  1. Unspeaked macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #1
    I know this has been touched on in several threads dealing with the election, but I want to just come out distill this into what is perhaps the most perplexing question of the campaign: how is John McCain still only points behind in the latest polls?

    Whether you support him or not, it's no secret that on paper, things haven't been going his way. He's linked to the current administration to some extent (even if he tries to distance himself), the economy is in shambles and theoretically he's one of the "fat cat Republicans" with several homes and automobiles, his running mate has been extremely controversial, he's the oldest candidate in history... even this latest thing with putting the campaign/debates on hold doesn't seem to have penetrated his political suit of armor!

    Is it just that we're in a society where any race will be a 50/50 split, down to the wire and ending in recounts and arguments? Were the past two elections not really about the candidates but simply people voting along party lines?

    I simply cannot see how the gap between these two isn't wider...
     
  2. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Because a lot of people are voting against Obama rather than for McCain?
     
  4. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4
    Sadly, I think you're right.
     
  5. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #5
    See the thread "Why Obama can't close the deal" for some commentary. Honestly though, I think its as simple as the fact that Republicans vote on "character" and generally stick with their party. Democrats are MUCH more critical, and have a tendency to tear down their candidate for any perceived problems or sleights. Republicans "hold their nose and touch their toes" and Democrats (and independents for that matter) tend to want things more perfect. Then there are the people that are disenchanted with both candidates, who believe on principle, that they'll never "hold their nose", even if they think McCain is worse than Obama. They'd rather McCain have a better shot at winning than to vote for someone they don't really believe in. It's certainly how the Democrats have lost the last two races.

    Hopefully Virginia goes ahead and turns blue soon. Then we can all go home.
    Take a tip from Obama and find another way to say that that doesn't end-up calling people racists simply because they have problems with a candidate who happens to be black. It'll be more accurate, and it won't feed into the irriatating vicious circle of indignation. I'd try maybe, "Simply put. Identity politics and fear-mongering." I'd say that would be a much more spot on answer.

    ~ CB
     
  6. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #6
    Yep, nobody could possibly agree with John McCain. It's just that half the country is racist. :rolleyes:

    What would have been the excuses for close polls when Kerry and Gore ran?
     
  7. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #7
    Republicans are sheep.
    Im not buying that race is the issue.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Let's hope it's only half.
     
  9. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #9
    I just don't buy this - even if there were closeted bigots who plan on voting against him come election day, it wouldn't reflect in the polls.

    Maybe I'm just giving Americans too much credit.

    Or the Democratic party, which I would have assumed had the foresight to nominate someone electable in their primaries, since this year's race should have probably just been handed to them. If race is really the issue, how has he come so far already?

    And as I mentioned in the original post, what happened with Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000?

    I'm honestly starting to think we could have a monkey and one of the Pussycat Dolls running against one another in the general election and the winner will come down to last minute voting machine glitches in Florida...
     
  10. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #10

    Kerry's problem was that he was French, and if I remember correctly, Gore did win the 2000 election.
     
  11. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #11
    Excellent point.
     
  12. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #12
    This article has been linked by me and others before.

    http://mediamatters.org/columns/200809160015

    ..


    The campaign press has become a joke, and McCain and Palin are laughing at it.

    McCain spokesman Brian Rogers could not have been clearer speaking to Politico: "We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."

    How did we enter this new media era in which general-election candidates McCain and Palin have made it quite clear they don't even care (at least not yet) if the press calls them liars, which used to be the ultimate scarlet letter for any candidate?

    It's not only because the press corps no longer enjoys enough respect and credibility -- enough authority -- to pull the righteous indignation drill effectively. It's also because the press hasn't extracted a price from McCain or Palin for broadcasting lies.

    ...

    Fallows actually soft-peddled the press' take on the Bosnia story. Because rather than simply "relentlessly" announcing the story was not true, lots of press players used the tall tale to emphasize that Clinton was craaaaazy. Hysterical. Irrational. Unhinged.

    Perhaps that was the media's right. (Candidates roll out whoppers at their own peril.) But if the press thought Clinton's fabrication was telling about her character, why don't journalists make the same assumption about Palin, who keeps repeating her fabricated tale?

    And good God, imagine if Al Gore had ever uncorked a whopper like that while campaigning in 2000. As The Daily Howler wrote, "If Gore had ever told stories like these, he would have been hung from the nearest tree."

    Either that, or Matthews' head would have exploded. Because let's not forget that during the 2000 presidential campaign, the press couldn't stop writing, investigating, and carrying on about Al Gore's alleged exaggerations regarding old movies, canoe trips, and classroom seating inside a Sarasota school.

    Pundits argued that Gore's embellishments all but disqualified him from serving as president.
    Hooked on the story, reporters s pent an extraordinary amount of time checking in with experts -- psychoanalysts, academics, political scientists -- trying desperately to figure out what all the exaggerations meant.

    The Washington Post, one month before the 2000 election, ran a Page One piece exploring Gore's exaggerations -- "casual lying" the newspaper called it -- in which two reporters combed through decades of public statements. I've searched the Washington Post archives and cannot find a single reference to Sarah Palin's "casual lying."

    Instead, the press coverage suggests that McCain and Palin's lying simply represents a tactic -- a campaign maneuver -- and that the fabrications reveal nothing of their character.

    No wonder they're laughing at the press.
     
  13. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #13
    I didn't question that. I'm asking why one would think that racism is a valid excuse when similar numbers were seen when previous people ran for the same office where racism wouldn't have been a valid argument in this case. And I'm having trouble believing that Kerry lost for being French... It's not like he ran for office in the UK.
     
  14. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Not to answer on somebody elses behalf, but you have to factor in the Bradley Effect.


    It was Rove and co. at their (worst) best.
     
  15. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #15
    I thought he was mostly arabic, and that his black race was only a small makeup of his heritage. Or, are you saying it's all appearances?
     
  16. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #16
    You remember incorrectly. Gore received more votes, but that's not how one wins an election.
     
  17. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #17
    McCain's still in this race because

    • Republican presidential candidates have way fewer scruples about lying than Democratic ones do;
    • too many of the MSM cover those lies as if they were facts or valid opinions; and
    • enough Republican and independent voters base their decisions on internal beliefs instead of external realities, and these people are of sufficient quantity to keep Republican candidates in the running.
     
  18. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #18
    Its a state by state election.
     
  19. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #19

    I thought that had Gore won Florida, before a group of lawyers decided that he hadn't? But that's by-the-bye.
     
  20. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #20
    Well Obama by a lot of people is view as just an empty suit. I share that opinion. I think is just an empty suite full of false promises. To me Obama just says a lot of nothing.

    McCain is just well crap.

    As of right now I am not going to vote for either one and will vote 3rd party.
     
  21. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #21
    The uncertainty of Obama is better than the certainty of McCain, at least for me.
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    This is what I dont understand. How can you possibly say they are empty promises if hes never given the chance to act on them?

    Mccain on the other hand I wouldnt let act on his promises, because they are constantly changing to what he thinks people will like to hear better. Empty promises, thats Mccain.
     
  23. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #23
    He says it by saying it. People get pissed off about all sorts of stuff that doesn't make sense. Sometimes you just know something in the GUT. You know... like Bush.

    ~ CB
     
  24. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #24
    Pretty much.

    It doesn't give me much hope at all.
    Ahem

    And remember, those are Democrats. :(
    No one is making excuses, we're looking for explanations and reasons.
    You're more optimistic than me.
     
  25. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #25
    The reason it is so close is that probably about 90% of the people in this country don't care who the candidate is and just vote based on party, and they are split fairly evenly.
     

Share This Page