Fast Forward
If all this talk of Texas and Ohio et al is leaving you a little unsatisfied now and you want to fast forward to the general election campaign seems to me to be straight from October 2008 and you can substitute Hillary if you want to for the other chap because she too will have to acknowledge that the US CANNOT allow Iraq to go entirely "to hell", to use Tim Russert's elegant phrase.
And I am happy to have found - not an everyday occurence - which lays out the simple fact that it is going to be close. I still believe - as I said before this process started - that McCain can win.
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Indeed John McCain can win, not least because he has a certain appeal to moderate Democrats. In an earlier post I had mentioned that he wasn't so far to the right as to alienate all voters of the opposing party. I remembered then, and repeat again, that at a previous Democratic Convention there was some suggestion bandied around in the press that he would make a fine vice-presidential candidate - one comment was that I should change my party affiliation. Had Mr Romney been in the same position today, the outcome could be very different regardless of who becomes the Democratic nominee. I like to think that Mrs Clinton would be the stronger of the two candidates since she is more measured in her approach to Iraq, but even that may make no difference. Of course, there is still a long time to go until November and if the past few weeks is anything to go by, we can expect the unexpected.
Justin, I have on several occasions on this blog given you credit for saying that McCain will win the general election in November. When all the other pundits were writing his campaign off, you suggested he would win and I (and many others) considered this such a ridiculous prediction, we thought you were being unduly bias toward him. As it turns out, he is doing very well and you have already turned out to be at least half right in your predicition.
Nevertheless, I think that Barack Obama has got the election bagged. His charisma, his rhetoric, his lack of wrinkles all point toward an Obama victory.
Obama's comments on Iraq during this last debate demonstrated he has given little thought to what would happen if he were to remove all troops from Iraq. His comment about doing better against McCain in a debate because he had opposed the war from the beginning was telling. He was talking about playing to his anti-war audience.
Being against the war is not the same as having a strategy for it. I thought we covered this ground already.
A failed Obama Presidency will teach America a lesson it won't soon forget. That lesson is that you vote for the one who will make the best President, not the one you like the most or who makes the best speeches. Obama is totally unqualified based on his inexperience and his far left leanings. If nominated he would be the worst candidate the Democrats would put up since George McGovern. Hillary Clinton is only marginally more qualified. McCain is the best of a sorry lot, the only hope for a strong steady hand on the tiller. Whoever wins, the US and the world are in for a rough ride, there are many very ominous dark clouds on the horizon and they are all headed straight this way. The winner will get all the blame.
By the way, have you noticed the NY Times' stubborn use of the term,
"Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign led"
It just can't seem to bring itself to use the more common name for this group, "Al Qaeda in Iraq".
How about we split it so Obama gets Head of State and McCain gets Head of Government?
RE: Iraq
You can win anything if you throw enough money and human resources to "win" an illegal immoral war against a sovereign nation. Not to mention the human loss on both sides add the resources which should have been spent for our infrastructure, health program, education, jb retraining, etc. What are the criteria for a so called "winning" such a tragic mess?
No, Republican machine. You will never convince me that the Iraq war could ever be any kind of victory. It was dishonorable, and will continue to be until we restore every innocent Iraqi citizen to their homes and apologize to Iraq and the international community for our war mongering including the illicit fortunes made by the industrial military complex.
I am not falling victim to the "Iraq whitewash" currently attempted by Bush and McCain and some of the ignorant journalists and pundits. It is impossible to erase the thousands killed and maimed because our President did not tell the truth and led this country into the largest debt in its history which completely destroys our security. . .
i think you are right, justin. although it seems during this round of candidate selection we're seeing huge numbers of americans enthused about the democratic candidates, and going for hope and change, i believe that in america as in all developed countries, old people outnumber the young, who tend to be more open to risk and new approaches. the realist part of me believes that americans by and large are still far too proud of their military superiority to even consider that anyone at all in the world might view their withdrawal from iraq as a 'defeat'. and so their pride in the end will likely manifest in the choice of mccain for president, even if it means their country sinks further into debt, and their standards of health, education and ability to get along with everyone else drops some more.
As for the USA Today piece - did you notice who wrote it?
It's Medeh, Medeh-vah-dah, whatever. Well, Medved, actually, but it's close.
As for McCain - yes, I'd imagine he has a very real chance indeed. If, that is, he doesn't derail himself. The much-maligned NYT article has a point: McCain's worst enemy is McCain. And the recent Cunningham incident (which probably lost McCain the conservative support the NYT had inadvertently provided) might just be a starter.
For those of us waxing their skis, there's plenty of reason to reflect on life's ironies.
It is my opion that McCain does not want to be president. He wants to be Commander in Chief. However the job of president should involve a lot more that just that function.I am sure that McCain can win a general election (If we assume no Texas upset from Gov. Huckabee (poll gap closing and much greater turnout at Huck's Texas rally's..??)) but to do so he will play to his strengths - war and the military. I'd expect a lot of scare-mongering from the Reps this time around esp as McCain is not a candiate that many will feel enthusiastic about. A focus on national security as the key part of the presidents job (a focus McCain will want, and will have, to make as it is his strongest card and his favourite)will be a further step in the increasing militarisation of the Presidency. The election should also be about the economy, healthcare, immigration, the environment and a hostof other domestic US issues. Although McCain may appear "liberal" on US domestic issues to the outside world his foreign policy will be an uninterrupted continuation of GWB's (with the sweetener of a few cuddly environmental promises that congress won't let him deliver on...).
'Can' win? He will win!
It seems Trevor Phillips agrees with you - he is uncertain that BO can beat HRC for the nomination - and if she wins, the USA will polarise.
Do you agree that BO's role model is Bill Clinton ?
McCain can win, but I think that the Presidential Campaign this year will be won by the candidate which manages to avoid the perception of using negative attacks on its rivals.
Both Clinton and Obama will be attacked viciously by the Republicans, but McCain will have to be careful that he is distanced from these attacks to an extent. If he falls into the trap of personally criticising his opponents too much, he'll alienate the independents/moderates which are his main hope for victory.
Just to say that from a UK point of view it is extremely helpful to get signposts to articles to read in the US media online as Justin did today - I thought the piece on deadlock in general elections over the last fifty years was a great backgrounder for any outside observor of US politics.
If McCain wins I will eat my hat.
Justin I'm not so sure it will be that close if Obama is ultimately the Democratic nominee. The worsening economy in part at least, a result of the Iraq war, the strain of troop deployment overseas and the need to see change from the Republican old guard will all play into Obama's hands essentially because he is the right man at the right time, who represents change in so many ways even though he is a right-wing democrat! I foresee him get between 55 -60% of the popular vote even with an independant running!
I think some good sense is to be found by reading the Texan and Ohio daily newspapers (a lengthy business) but interesting if you wish to know the feelings of the lesser-known towns in both states - of course from the media point of view! My present feeling, after ploughing through, is that Ohio remains the state which will lift up the Clinton campaign. Texas may yet surprise, and give my favoured candidate it's vote, if those Latinos don't insist that Hillary is their "big business"!
The times today had an interesting comment about the eleciton and it like yourself Justin seems to believe that it will be John McCain who will prevail however he will be seen to quote the article as, "the man who shot Bambi." As far as i can see Obama should have the nomination wrapped up before the Democratic Convention but i stil think it will be his election and i fancy him to push 55% of the popular vote. Remember Bob Doyle falling off the platform at an election rally in 96, anything similar could cost McCain the elction. There seems to be a recurring theme of nominees losing out not because of policies but of embarassing themselves, Bush snr and not realising barcodes were used in supermarkets and Carter and the rabbit,
McCain is now starting to dissect Obama's policies in a way that neither the media (with the honourable exception of Mr. Webb, perhaps, who has observed many times what an easy ride he is getting) nor, remarkably, Hillary Clinton have so far managed to do.
Obama is still protected by a certain aura, but once it is gone, I think he will be far more vulnerable than people think. People are being too quick to dismiss Clinton's chances as compared to Obama's.
It shouldn't come as a great surprise that USA Today sometimes publishes a "meaty" article - but not this one. Unless the meat in question is baloney. It should come as no surprise that a mouthy, right-wing talking head and strident Israel booster (want to join him on his special 8 day tour of Israel this July?) reinforces the same old Duopoly Party shibboleths , painting it as a race between Repub's and Dem's/liberals and conservatives and anything else as "third party ego trips". That's the preferred way to dismiss independent candidates that challenge the Duopoly Party status quo (or challenge the Israel lobby) as both Ralph Nader and Ron Paul do both, without ever having to seriously engage them on the issues. All the preoccupation with such a closely divided electorate in a "seesaw" battle to win with "around 50% of the popular vote of a durably divided electorate" omits the most important part of the discussion: that most eligible voters don't vote. No candidate has ever come close to a majority of eligible voters. Usually, the majority of eligible voters in fact, repudiate both Duopoly Party candidates. All candidates are elected with a small plurality of the eligible vote, often on the order of 20-25%. Medved is right about one thing though, JFK was a moderate conservative, as has been every Democratic nominee. Little wonder that Obama Copacabana should sometimes be compared to JFK since, once you get past the glitzy image, they both share the same ardent belief in IMF-style neo-liberal economic policies, corporate power and American hegemony around the globe (as does Medved for that matter). The ludicrous notion that Obama (or JFK) is somehow a "lefty" says more about the starboard tilt of the whole America political system than about the candidate. And that's the whole point, to make sure that's as far 'left' as it ever goes.
A failed Obama Presidency will teach America a lesson it won't soon forget. That lesson is that you vote for the one who will make the best President, not the one you like the most or who makes the best speeches. Obama is totally unqualified based on his inexperience and his far left leanings. If nominated he would be the worst candidate the Democrats would put up since George McGovern. Hillary Clinton is only marginally more qualified. McCain is the best of a sorry lot, the only hope for a strong steady hand on the tiller. Whoever wins, the US and the world are in for a rough ride, there are many very ominous dark clouds on the horizon and they are all headed straight this way. The winner will get all the blame.
well said, usa, china, russia own the planet always be scared when they elect the next puppet :)
bush for a 3rd term "just to think outside the box"
Why,oh why,do so many people believe experience is the vital element in this election. After two terms of Bush how can anyone seriously think it counts for anything. Is it the fear of change from the usual faces they know so well? Very sad that many people don't want to move on.
A new generation could well be the breath of fresh air the U.S. so badly needs.
The strangest thing I heard this week was that David Duke (KKK person) is endorsing Obama because he believes that McCain is worse.
Am I living in a cartoon??
Yes, McCain still has a good chance in the general election if Obama is his opponent, but he's going to face a lot of the problems Hillary Clinton is currently facing - including an impressive host of allies:
Yes, McCain has a strong chance of winning in November, but that's if he's not called to justify the economic costs of his national security judgements.
So the typically two to one turn (or better) out for Democrats in the primaries and caucuses probably means nothing?
That Clinton's latest fundraising figure is 3 times that of McCain's
(AND Obama's figure may be higher than Clinton's) is irrelevant?
That the Dems won the majoority of State governships in 2006 is of no interest?
That 70% or more people are aligned with Dem policy positions whilst the list of GOP priorities is diamreically opposite to the public consensus is of no regard?
The "independents" that have in the majority always voted Republican are surely NOT the crucial factor they once were.
There should be a record turnout in November and it favors the Dems at least two to one. I sincerely doubt any relevant number of Dems will vote out of spite if their favorite is not the nominee (I voted for Clinton but if Obama is the candidate--whis is a pretty strong possibility--he will get my vote.
I look forward to what you have to say after November.