Why do you think McCain lost?

[MothBalls]

Here's my $0.02

In the early days of the campaign when there was still multiple candidates, I was for McCain. As time went on and I paid closer attention to the candidates as the field narrowed down.

But then....

During the debates his focus was more on attacking Obama than answering the questions. Talking about the past, focused on the negative, that isn't something this country needs right now. We need to be looking at the future and solutions to the challenges we face, not mudslinging. I don't think he ever had a straight answer to any issue of importance.

His choice for VP. That decision was for one reason only, to get votes. I was sadly disappointed in his choice and his reason for choosing her. It was done out of desperation and not a decision of what would be best for the country.

After watching the debates, after seeing the negative campaign ads (the final turning point for me) I started to see things I didn't like. McCain wasn't being himself. You could see he was uncomfortable. He lacked confidence. He tried to act presidential, and he's not a good actor. He should have just been himself. It looked like we were in for more politics as usual.

<armchair quarterback>
I think he beat himself. If he would have never ran one negative ad, made an intelligent choice for VP, and spoke clearly about what he was going to do and how he was going to do it, he could have won.
</armchair quarterback>

Bottom line is Obama won. He's now my president and I will support him. He has my support, for now, but he has to earn my respect and trust.

[castorp345]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

(and the economy)

[donut]

:roll:

[SteamWake]

Ill be pre-emptive here...

I think the RNC's choice of Sarah Palin was one of the smarter things they did.

Not only did she appeal to the conservative base but it threw the DNC for a loop. They were totally un-prepaired for her.

McCain lost due to a few factors beyound his control...

The media wanted the first black president in office if for no other reason than 'history making'.

Obama had considerably more funds to work with and 'out avertised' his opponent.

The claim of "4 more years of the same" rang true to the anti Bush Crowd, true or not.

Obama had a large voting block locked up, he dident even have to campaign a single day to win that block.

Many brain dead liberals felt that Obama was going to "put gas in their tank and pay their mortagages" never mind the fact it is patently false.

Obama was able to blatently lie on the campaign trail again and again and no one called him on it.

The fact that Obama is a flaming liberal with Marxist intents was not driven home, not even mentioned till it was too late.

I can think of more by my blood pressure is already too high.

[Skybird]

Ban biased media!

Ban biased forum posts!

On your blood pressure I can recommend a mixture of Bisoprolol, Lercanidipinhydrochloride and Enalaprilmaleat. It works wonders. ;)

[MothBalls]

On your blood pressure I can recommend a mixture of Bisoprolol, Lercanidipinhydrochloride and Enalaprilmaleat. It works wonders. ;)

In the US we just use Jack Daniels, it's easier to pronounce and probably just as effective.

[Biggles]

Not only did she appeal to the conservative base but it threw the DNC for a loop. They were totally un-prepaired for her.


I often got the impression that she was totally un-prepared to give satisfying answers to the questions asked to her.

[SteamWake]

On your blood pressure I can recommend a mixture of Bisoprolol, Lercanidipinhydrochloride and Enalaprilmaleat. It works wonders. ;)

In the US we just use Jack Daniels, it's easier to pronounce and probably just as effective.

Ill drink to that :up:

I dont think my post was particurally 'biased' just a few observations.

[SteamWake]

Not only did she appeal to the conservative base but it threw the DNC for a loop. They were totally un-prepaired for her.


I often got the impression that she was totally un-prepared to give satisfying answers to the questions asked to her.

I got the impression that she was hamstrung by the RNC as to what she could and could not say causing at best hesitation.

[AVGWarhawk]

I blame it all on Subman1 and his anti-Obama posts followed up by Skybirds retorts and showing Subman1 the shortcomings of his ideas and opinions. I rest my case :rotfl:

[Ishmael]

My take on why McCain lost were seven words:

The fundamentals of the economy are strong.

As to why I voted for Obama, one of the reasons was this game. As I played SH4 and listened to FDR's fireside chats in the depths of 1942, I was struck by the similarities between his speeches and Barack's. I could find no such comparisons with Mccain's speeches. In every speech and every debate I watched, Obama made one word stand out in my mind:

Statesman

He won because he acted like a statesman. His choices of advisors have also shown the care and thought he has put into this race. McCain was unfocused and all over the map. For me, the final straw was suspending his campaign to go sit like a bump on a log during the big meeting with Bush,Paulson et all. While Barack offered ideas and strategies, McCain said nothing.

[Sea Demon]

As to why I voted for Obama, one of the reasons was this game. As I played SH4 and listened to FDR's fireside chats in the depths of 1942, I was struck by the similarities between his speeches and Barack's. I could find no such comparisons with Mccain's speeches. In every speech and every debate I watched, Obama made one word stand out in my mind:

Statesman

He won because he acted like a statesman. His choices of advisors have also shown the care and thought he has put into this race. McCain was unfocused and all over the map. For me, the final straw was suspending his campaign to go sit like a bump on a log during the big meeting with Bush,Paulson et all. While Barack offered ideas and strategies, McCain said nothing.
Exactly. Most of you people became star-struck by an image. It's not what he actually stands for, nor what he actually promotes. His questionable connections are meaningless, his pastor's anti-American vitriol doesn't register. Heck, the guy never actually defined one initiative he would put forth in any kind of detail. He still can't explain how he's going to provide "tax-cuts" to 95% of the American public. He is the most ambiguous candidate that I've ever seen in Presidential politics. All you guys heard were buzzwords like "change" and "hope" and stuff like that. And you people went into a trance over it. Obama to date has offered no true ideas. And even today he seems to be back-peddling from the over-reaching standard you guys have set for him in your apparent euphoric state. Seriously, I don't know if this country is going to survive you baby boom liberal Democrats.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Whenever he wanted to take a break from the campaign to deal with the financial crisis. Well intended or not, people in his position don't take breaks.

This plus the Bush Baggage.


RDP

[PeriscopeDepth]

Why he lost? It probably has something to do with the past eight years and both Bush and McCain having an "R" by their name. McCain's campaign did not exactly help him either.

PD

[ReallyDedPoet]

Also he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, one wonders how different things would have been if he would have won the
nomination back in 2000 instead of Bush.


RDP

[GlobalExplorer]

Defintely because of Bush. McCain should have been president at 9/11, he would have been a very good president then. I feel sorry for him.

[GlobalExplorer]

And, before I forget, 2nd reason: because of Obama.

[Biggles]

And, before I forget, 2nd reason: because of Obama.

And the 3rd reason would be that the american people voted for Obama;)

[August]

Why he lost? It probably has something to do with the past eight years and both Bush and McCain having an "R" by their name. McCain's campaign did not exactly help him either.

PD

Hammer > nail = direct hit.

[Skybird]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years, played into Obama'S hand. without that timing, the race would have been much closer. Data shows that the deciding issues was not Iraq or anything, but economy. MacCain also lost due to his age - he was not able to motivate the many young and first-time voters, in this group, Obama swept the floor with McCain.

They had a biography of Obama on TV right now. Much I did not know. I'm impressed by the thoroughness and rocksolid prepartion and planning that he has shown from his first day on in the democratic party. This is very different to the past 8 years, and this sense of thoroughness will do America very, very good service, since so much mess was created by the lack of it.

But the negative heritage he takes over from Bush is monumental. But he seem to be fully aware of it, having no illusions about it. That is good.

[cj95]

And, before I forget, 2nd reason: because of Obama.

And the 3rd reason would be that the american people voted for Obama;)


Dont lump me into that.

There was a difference of about 7 million in a country of over 300 million.

And the reason that McCain lost was that even his own base could stand him....he was too liberal leaning himself definately the wrong man to pick.

If we had a Romney in there it would have been different.

Im kinda glad my part y lost...hopefully they will get the message to stop trying to ignore their roots.....They keep trying to appease the left and they will lose all of us supporters on the right.

Somebody onthe news said it best...teh Democrat voters were excited to vote. The Republican voters held their noses and were forced to vote. Most didnt even bother.

Oh well...welkome to Amerika Comrade. :shifty:

[Thomen]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years,

Correction: Caused in large parts by the Democratic Congress, especially people like Barney Frank, who was lying his butt off when it came to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.

[AVGWarhawk]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years,
Correction: Caused in large parts by the Democratic Congress, especially people like Barney Frank, who was lying his butt off when it came to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.
Good old Barney, two months prior to the collapse he stated the Feddie Mac and Fanny Mae were in good shape. Dump you money in. What a piece of work he is. :down:

I love selective amnesia!

[SteamWake]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years,

Correction: Caused in large parts by the Democratic Congress, especially people like Barney Frank, who was lying his butt off when it came to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.

Starting with the Carter administration, furthered by the Clinton administration, and carried on by the Bush(s) administration.

[Sea Demon]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years,
Correction: Caused in large parts by the Democratic Congress, especially people like Barney Frank, who was lying his butt off when it came to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.
Starting with the Carter administration, furthered by the Clinton administration, and carried on by the Bush(s) administration.
Yep. Carter and Clinton through Community Reinvestmant. In regards to Bush it was a classic example of a Republican trying to outdo the Democrats by acting like a Democrat. "Compassionate" conservatism is moderately applied Democrat Party politics. And a complete failure when applied.

[AVGWarhawk]

McCain lost because Bush sent him off with no engine, keys or wheels on his car as he headed off to the races.

[Skybird]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years,

Correction: Caused in large parts by the Democratic Congress, especially people like Barney Frank, who was lying his butt off when it came to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.
Sorry, but I think it took a b it longer time to create that critical mass that finally exploded. the roots go back several years, it were Republicans in the main who used this time to push for even more disregulation, the crisis is a result of the design of the system, since it allows and encourages that kind of behavior that led to it's collapse. So please, no socialistic consipration theories here.

[SteamWake]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years,

Correction: Caused in large parts by the Democratic Congress, especially people like Barney Frank, who was lying his butt off when it came to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.
Sorry, but I think it took a b it longer time to create that critical mass that finally exploded. the roots go back several years, it were Republicans in the main who used this time to push for even more disregulation, the crisis is a result of the design of the system, since it allows and encourages that kind of behavior that led to it's collapse. So please, no socialistic consipration theories here.

I guess you totally missed the 3 previous posts. ;)

[Thomen]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years,
Correction: Caused in large parts by the Democratic Congress, especially people like Barney Frank, who was lying his butt off when it came to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. Sorry, but I think it took a b it longer time to create that critical mass that finally exploded. the roots go back several years, it were Republicans in the main who used this time to push for even more disregulation, the crisis is a result of the design of the system, since it allows and encourages that kind of behavior that led to it's collapse. So please, no socialistic consipration theories here.

The roots? I admit to that. Yea.. but the Congress had the chance, knowledge and the means to prevent or at least warn about it. Franks willingly lied when he reported that the institutions in question are just doing fine. Not a socialist conspiracy theory. Cold hard fact.



Socialist conspiracy theories.. my a$$..

[AVGWarhawk]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years,
Correction: Caused in large parts by the Democratic Congress, especially people like Barney Frank, who was lying his butt off when it came to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. Sorry, but I think it took a b it longer time to create that critical mass that finally exploded. the roots go back several years, it were Republicans in the main who used this time to push for even more disregulation, the crisis is a result of the design of the system, since it allows and encourages that kind of behavior that led to it's collapse. So please, no socialistic consipration theories here.

Why yes, several years....how about as far back as the Clinton administration. :shifty: Yes, they pushed for deregulation but not two years ago McCain said that these two lenders needed to be regulated. Barney Frank stood in the way and said all is well with these lenders. Sorry Sky, it was poor management at all levels on both sides. Not to mention Barney was having an affair with a man on the board of Fanny Mae. So, was there some collusion? I betting yes.

[Blacklight]

I often got the impression that she was totally un-prepared to give satisfying answers to the questions asked to her.

I will agree with that. Palin rarely EVER actually ANSWERED a question given to her.
I'll also say that McCain ran a VERY VERY VERY negative campaign and didn't really focus on issues. His platform was pretty much "I'm a war hero" and "Obama is an irresponsible idiot who hangs out with terrorists and is going to blow up buildings if elected" :nope:

On the other side, Obama's campaign had hardly any mudslinging. He actually answered questions and actually told us his plans for what he wanted to do unlike McCain who was VERY vague about his plans.

I also think that George Bush screwed the campaign for the Republicans as well. I think everyone was REALLY tired of 8 years of Bush.

[Onkel Neal]

The financial-economic brreakdown, caused by the economics of the bush years,
Correction: Caused in large parts by the Democratic Congress, especially people like Barney Frank, who was lying his butt off when it came to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. Sorry, but I think it took a b it longer time to create that critical mass that finally exploded. the roots go back several years, it were Republicans in the main who used this time to push for even more disregulation, the crisis is a result of the design of the system, since it allows and encourages that kind of behavior that led to it's collapse. So please, no socialistic consipration theories here.

Why yes, several years....how about as far back as the Clinton administration. :shifty: Yes, they pushed for deregulation but not two years ago McCain said that these two lenders needed to be regulated. Barney Frank stood in the way and said all is well with these lenders. Sorry Sky, it was poor management at all levels on both sides. Not to mention Barney was having an affair with a man on the board of Fanny Mae. So, was there some collusion? I betting yes.


Warhawk:
Don't argue with me

Get with the program, Warhawk. :rotfl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo)

Don't blame Bush and deregulation on this, no conservative feels banks should disregard age-old banking standards such as vetting mortgage applicants and not loaning to high risk applicants. Democrats wanted everyone to get a loan and buy a house. Bad idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

[baggygreen]

Obama won the campaign the same way Krudd won it down here last year.

Promising change, telling people what they wanted to hear. Not once did they stop to explain how they'd achieve these lofty (and sometimes illogical) goals, nor did the media hold them to account. I'd love to see a return to real reporting, not reporting aimed at selling themselves..

Basically, they appealed to the lowest common denominator and played on what people wanted to hear. In Obama's case, people heard "tax cut to 95%" and stopped listening. how does this work, is he to give tax cuts to people who arent even taxed? A simple question, a glaringly obvious one, but one nobody seemed to pay attention to - after all, he said tax cut!:cool:

Then of course, both candidates played on the idea of 'change'. In australia we've found out that change for the sake of change is not a good thing. Hopefully OBH leads you guys down a better path

[mrbeast]

Why did McCain lose? My thoughts:

1. Poor campaign. Often lacking focus and negative in nature, relying on gimmicks: Joe the Plumber, Palin (see 3) and scare tactics; persisting in pushing a message that was clearly not reaching its target.
2. Literally poor campaign, Obama was backed by a huge war chest which McCain could not match.
3. Poor choice of VP candidate; Palin may have put McCain ahead for a while, bouyed the core conservative vote and threw the Obama campaign, but the lead could not be sustained and Palin turned out to have little experience of national politics at this level, but more importantly she lacked the capability as a politician. Also she singularly failed to attract any of the female Clinton vote to any meaningful extent.
4. McCain was too old. Now age in itself would not be an issue, but theres old and then theres 'old'. McCain did not look well and appeared to be ailing at some points. Clearly the campiagn was taking its toll and in its closing stages McCain occasionally looked confused and exhausted.
5. The economy
6. The economy
7. The economy
8. Seriously the economy, McCain looked totally out of depth when he stated that the US economy was essentially sound. Economics was never McCain's strong point and it showed. Also he seemed to offer no viable solutions or plan to rectify the economic situation simply more of the same.
9. Bush. McCain, rightly or wrongly, was percieved as some sort of successor to Bush, Iraq etc etc His credentials as a maveric seemed to have been lost.
10. The internet. Obama's campaign was its master and used it to great effect in countering negative attacks, nullifying 'swift boat' tactics.
11. Zeitgeist. As an outsider looking in, it seemed clear to me that Obama seemed to capture the moment. Possibly the US and maybe even the world is at a moment of change that Obama appears to represent. Obama had the winds of history swelling his sails; a black man running for president in a nation which not so long ago could count on living memory of slavery; a great achievment by any standards. McCain appeared to represent the past Obama the future.

I respect McCain; quite like him even; hes given more than most to his country and at the right time I think he would have made a good president. If he had won the nomination in 2000 I think history might have been very different.

[Monica Lewinsky]

Obama had considerably more funds to work with and 'out avertised' his opponent.


No, no, and no again to all your points, BUT, this one.

When you have an open faucet of money pouring in by millions [from people that are fed up of business as usual] and no shut off valve to stop the flow of money, you can buy anything you want, if you are at the receiving end.

[mookiemookie]

Yep. Carter and Clinton through Community Reinvestmant.
Respectfully speaking, blaming the CRA for the current crisis is bullsh*t:

• Did the 1977 legislation, or any other legislation since, require banks to not verify income or payment history of mortgage applicants?
• 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations (http://blogs.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html). How was this caused by either CRA or GSEs ?
• What about "No Money Down" Mortgages (0% down payments) ? Were they required by the CRA? Fannie? Freddie?
• Explain the shift in Loan to value from 80% to 120%: What was it in the Act that changed this traditional lending requirement?
• Did any Federal legislation require real estate agents and mortgage writers to use the same corrupt appraisers (http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/real_estate/financing/appraisalfraud/index.htm) again and again? How did they manage to always come in at exactly the purchase price, no matter what?
• Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting (AU) systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?
• How exactly did legislation force Moody's, S&Ps and Fitch to rate junk paper as Triple AAA (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2007/08/13/Moody-Ratings-Fiasco)?
• What about piggy back loans? Were banks required by Congress to lend the first mortgage and do a HELOC for the down payment -- at the same time?
• Internal bank memos showed employees how to cheat the system to get poor mortgages prospects approved that shouldn't have been: Titled How to Get an "Iffy" loan approved at JPM Chase (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/03/chase_mortgage_memo_pushes_che.html). (Was circulating that memo also a FNM/FRE/CRA requirement?)
• The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvesment Act ?
• Did the GSEs require banks to not check credit scores? Assets? Income?
• What was it about the CRA or GSEs that mandated fund managers load up on an investment product that was hard to value, thinly traded, and poorly understood
• What was it in the Act that forced banks to make "interest only" loans? Were "Neg Am loans" also part of the legislative requirements also?
• Consider this February 2003 speech by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozlilo at the American Bankers National Real Estate Conference. He advocated zero down payment mortgages (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/how-washington.html) -- was that a CRA requirement too, or just a grab for more market share, and bad banking?


http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html

[Zachstar]

Two Major reasons.

#1 He decided to listen to the far right of the GOP. The McCain we have watched is NOT the Senate McCain.

#2 Sarah. If you need me to explain this. Then you are doomed to fail in 2012.

[MothBalls]

I respect McCain; quite like him even; hes given more than most to his country and at the right time I think he would have made a good president. If he had won the nomination in 2000 I think history might have been very different.

My thoughts as well.

It's a shame really. If he would have taken the high road, made a better decision for VP, it would have been much closer. More important, if his campaign speeches and performance at the debates were anywhere near as powerful and sincere as his concession speech, that would have put him over the top.

(For those who missed his concession speech) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC4QymvkXvE

[jpm1]

i think the story of the guy she could have dismissed made both her and Mc Cain lot of damage . i also think but that involves myself only that the americans were fed up of Bush and its politics and Mc Cain saying that he isn't for the abortion seing Sarah Pallin shooting with a rifle that maybe reminded too much the non progressive image often conveyed by George Bush when he often talked about the religion when a politic should by definition refrain . as the election's over i would have voted Obama myself if i could do so

[DeepIron]

1. Sarah Palin: An embarrassment to say the least, dangerously uninformed and too "aggressive" to know when to shut the hell up. Every time I read news stories about her, all I could do is shake my head in disbelief.

2. Sarah Palin as President. McCain checks out and the "Barracuda" steps up? No way... at least not this election.

3. McCain had what I thought was a decent campaign that turned too negative and had no relevance to what I wanted to really know... Turning Palin loose as the bulldog on Obama was a stupid strategy IMO.

4. I got tired of Republican "rule"...

[kiwi_2005]

McKain lost cause he dont play WoW like Obama does! :smug:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/Kiwi_Frank/hehe.jpg

[donut]

Skybird speech:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=983147&postcount=7

[jpm1]

Mc Cain made a nice after campaign speech

[Schöneboom]

McCain lost because he was the wrong candidate. IMO, Ron Paul was the only real conservative who tried to raise the level of debate beyond inane talking-points, on the issues that really matter. He would have steamrollered Obama or any other Democrat in the debates, had he not been deliberately marginalized by the GOP & the media.

Of course, our system isn't about "change" at all -- America just got sold the illusion of change. Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss!

[CaptainHaplo]

McCain lost for a lot of reasons.

First he won in the primary - which should have never happened. Second - he never got firm messages to consistently deliver. Third, his big business economic plan - did not resonate with the normal voter.

In this case - it really was a situation of "Its the economy, stupid."
The "downtrodden" like the idea of wealth redistribution - it sounds good to them to say why doesnt someone making $250k have to pay more than me. What they dont realize is that person provides jobs - and the taxes may just have taken a worker's raise away, or made the business owner no expand and hire a new person, etc. It truly is trickle down economics. McCain did make some stupid statements, and the fact he isnt a true conservative means alot of us didnt trust him either.

He failed to really expose Obama - he wanted to "play nice" and that right there told me he was a danger - you can't play nice - this is the future of the country.

His pick of Palin was the smartest thing he did the whole campaign. Look at every poll, the average said people liked her more than disliked her. Because she was REAL. Yes - it was a pick to satisfy the base, because she is a hell of a lot more conservative than he was. This is why the "old guard" in the GOP are trying to destroy her now - because she represents a danger of returning to the old ways - the stuff that elected Reagan, took Congress in 94, etc. If the "party" does that - then there is no place for faux conservatives that play the washington games and then talk a good speech back home.

Fact is - look to 2010 to decide the real fate of this country. If the people see and reject the socialist agenda that will be put out there - then the midterm elections will be substantial gains for the republicans - IF they wake up and clean house now. If they don't make gains, its a sign Obama may get 4 more years - and there is no question the end of our republic, with its personal freedom - is nigh if that happens.

The key is the "republican" party needs to get rid of the fake conservatives - start standing up for what the foundation is - and then EDUCATE the people over the next 2 years.

[Skybird]

The key is the "republican" party needs to get rid of the fake conservatives - start standing up for what the foundation is -
People voted for Obama because the Republicans were not conservative enough. Logical. :88)

If people would not vote for Obama, the Republicans then would become more conservative all by themselves. True! :up:

and then EDUCATE the people over the next 2 years.

Education camps for all! Mandatory Republican confession hours twice a week in schools! and in the next step: a Republican breeding program, to genetically design the Republican prototype! Gatacca Republica! Marching in step towards the future, the fighting conservatism in our rucksacks, camping at the gates of our enemies!

We reproduce for the Republican progress! :lol:

[Frame57]

IMO I thought McCain ran a lousy camapign. The Obama camp successfully compared JM with GW. You heard this over and over as though it were a mantra. JM did nothing to respond to this. That coupled with the insult to injury with the economy, JM was doomed

[DeepIron]

If one looks at the "whole picture" this election, one finds that the Democrats won races in quite a few states over their Republican rivals. And I've read where the Obama campaign was "energizing" for the Democrats overall. So it was more than just an Obama vs McCain thing. Folks appear to want to give the Dems a shot...

The Republicans just "couldn't get it up" this year... :o

[PeriscopeDepth]

The Republicans just "couldn't get it up" this year... :o
Yup, the number of Republicans that went out to vote this election dropped (by about 5% IIRC?). The number of Dems that voted skyrocketed. The Dems didn't make that much of an advance with Independents (about 2%, again IIRC). They smashed the GOP turnout-wise.

PD

[JHuschke]

Obama is a good speaker..he spent more time talking about the subject than McCain did "attacking" him by saying what Obama will and wont do about it.

[Jimbuna]

So who won http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1817/thinkbigsw1yo4.gif

[NealT]

The facts are pure and simple. The reasons clear and concise.

McCain lost because more people voted for Obama than him.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

The facts are pure and simple. The reasons clear and concise.

McCain lost because more people voted for Obama than him.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Oh!...Okay :doh:

[Skybird]

On a side-note, I read that Palin has received order by her party to give back all those ridiculously expensive dresses of hers, you know, the 150,000 dollar-story.

Hehe - worst case scenario for a vain beauty queen. Just giving back a collection of shoes is said to be more cruel for some women. :cool:

[Thomen]

On a side-note, I read that Palin has received order by her party to give back all those ridiculously expensive dresses of hers, you know, the 150,000 dollar-story.

Hehe - worst case scenario for a vain beauty queen. Just giving back a collection of shoes is said to be more cruel for some women. :cool:

Where did you read that? Couldn't find anything about that particular topic...

[Jimbuna]

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6565/mccains20jokehw4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[subchaser12]

He lost because he was a republican. Simple as that. Jesus Christ himself could not have won on the republican ticket after what Bush and Company has been doing to the country for the past 8 years.