Why do you think McCain lost?

[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"

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Why yes, several years....how about as far back as the Clinton administration. 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:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Don't argue with me

Get with the program, Warhawk. :rotfl:


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.

[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!

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]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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. 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 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?
• 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. (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 -- 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]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

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)

[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!

[donut]

Skybird speech:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...47&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.