USA Today take on Obama McCain matchup...

[John Gault]

Usa Today is hardly a conservative paper so I would say this is a fairly fair and accurate assessment of the race.


http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/06/mccain-obama-of.html

It is not all rosy for McCain but being against Obama (more so than I am for McCain) I did enjoy this part:

With both candidates, however, we have concerns. Obama's rhetoric is expansive and inspiring. But his positions as a U.S. senator are almost universally liberal. And he overpromises in the extreme. Among his offerings are universal health care; a Social Security fix; major investments in education, infrastructure and renewable fuels; and tax cuts for modest-income workers. He prioritizes little and offers no credible way of paying for these promises.

McCain, for his part, is doing his best to denounce his past efforts at pragmatism. He now says he would extend the Bush tax cuts that he once voted against and would add other tax cuts as well. He has abandoned his centrism on immigration while all but promising the GOP base that he would nominate only reflexively conservative judges and justices.

The time for pandering to the base has passed, as both McCain and Obama will soon realize. The sweet spot in this election appears to be the middle, where pragmatism is a virtue, ideological purity is a handicap and the attack machines are best left as rusting hulks in the political junkyard.

[Saguaro]

This is an opinion piece ,and as such ,will be moved to Shock Therapy

[Trueblue]

As opposed to McCain's promises of more wars and less jobs.

Obama is well able to meet in the middle on any of those issues listed the first post.

[John Gault]

This is an opinion piece ,and as such ,will be moved to Shock Therapy

This is a discussion of politics you ass, this belongs in this area. You just don't want it viewed by as many people and that is why you move this stuff.

What a fing loser you are.

[Trueblue]

http://forums.thepoliticalasylum.com/showthread.php?t=20249

Click on the link, John.

[John Gault]

As opposed to McCain's promises of more wars and less jobs.

Obama is well able to meet in the middle on any of those issues listed the first post.

Wow, where has McCain promised less jobs? He is a far left liberal, there is nothing in his record in either Il or DC that would show otherwise. However there is much in McCains record to show he does indeed work well and often with the other side. It is one of the things about him that pisses me off.

[Trueblue]

Wow, where has McCain promised less jobs? He is a far left liberal, there is nothing in his record in either Il or DC that would show otherwise. However there is much in McCains record to show he does indeed work well and often with the other side. It is one of the things about him that pisses me off.

Where? I believe it was in Michigan. Great place to promise less jobs. :lol

Obama's record on working with the other side is very strong. His health care plan is an example.

[Viki]

This is not my job - moderating here - but I have never understood moving political pieces - I really don't care where they land because that's not how I read this board - I hit new posts, not forums, but if I read by forums I would certainly want the political pieces all together - opinions, polls, the rest of it.

Just my .02...

[Saguaro]

We have been through this all before, but to refresh everyone's memory,Opinion pieces ( that includes editorials ) belong in Shiock Therapy

[John Gault]

http://forums.thepoliticalasylum.com/showthread.php?t=20249

Click on the link, John.

Your point is?

I always view new posts, not all do.

When I forst go to a new board I look at the area with the most posts and look there.

Moving an obvious political article is an attempt to have less view it.

As a matter of fact virtually all politics is opinion, that is a lame excuse.

[Saguaro]

Ever heard of news ?

[Trueblue]

Your point is?

I always view new posts, not all do.

When I forst go to a new board I look at the area with the most posts and look there.

Moving an obvious political article is an attempt to have less view it.

As a matter of fact virtually all politics is opinion, that is a lame excuse.

Oh, bullshit. Stop being so paranoid, nobody is trying to squelch your opinions.

[John Gault]

Where? I believe it was in Michigan. Great place to promise less jobs. :lol

Obama's record on working with the other side is very strong. His health care plan is an example.

So McCain being honest and telling them many of the jobs that have left are not coming back is a promise of less jobs, no that is spin.

No one on the other side wants universal healthcare.

There are many bills with McCains NAME on them along with a democrats name that attest to his bi-partisan way.

Obama is nothing but an old style leftist wrapped in new paper.

I want an example and link to Obama's bi-partisan healthcare plan, what whooy.

Tell me are you saying that the analysis given by USA Today is Biased?

Do you know where Obama has said how he will pay for all of this.

[Trueblue]

So McCain being honest and telling them many of the jobs that have left are not coming back is a promise of less jobs, no that is spin.

No one on the other side wants universal healthcare.

There are many bills with McCains NAME on them along with a democrats name that attest to his bi-partisan way.

Obama is nothing but an old style leftist wrapped in new paper.

I want an example and link to Obama's bi-partisan healthcare plan, what whooy.

Tell me are you saying that the analysis given by USA Today is Biased?

Do you know where Obama has said how he will pay for all of this.

So now you've stopped denying that McCain's platform is More Wars, Less Jobs. That's progress!

Here's the link to his health care plan.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

Hillary's plan was described by Joe Biden as a "non-starter" in the Senate.

Here is a link to McCain's plan:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is rather simplistic attempt at analysis. I like the following analysis in large part because I understand demographics and the type of trends discussed here. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccain_needs_vision_to_beat_hi.htmlDespite polls showing him doing surprisingly well against Obama, historical patterns show he’s in perilous territory.

Professor Alan Abramowitz of Emory University has developed an “electoral barometer” based on just three variables for predicting election outcomes, and it suggests that McCain is all but certainly set to lose this year.

In an article last week on University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball Web site, Abramowitz declared that “it appears very likely that the Republican party is dealing with the dreaded ‘triple whammy’ in 2008: an unpopular president, a weak economy and a second-term election.”

Abramowitz has tracked the effect of those variables on the last 15 presidential elections and found that they accurately predicted the popular vote outcome in 14 and came close in the 15th.

The formula adds the incumbent president’s net approval rating (approval minus disapproval), the second-quarter election-year GDP growth rate multiplied by five (emphasizing the importance of the economy) and then (factoring in time-for-a-change sentiment) subtracts 25 points if the in-party is finishing a second term.

Bush’s net approval now stands at minus 40. The first-quarter growth rate was 0.6 percent and Bush is finishing eight years, meaning that this year’s electoral barometer currently stands at minus 62.

If such a number holds, it “would predict a decisive defeat for the Republican presidential candidate,” Abramowitz wrote. “The only election since World War II with a score in this range was 1980,” when “Jimmy Carter suffered the worst defeat for an incumbent president since Herbert Hoover in 1932.”

The second worst occurred in 1952, when Democrat Adlai Stevenson tried to succeed Harry S. Truman with a minus 50 score and lost the popular vote by 11 points to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The Abramowitz barometer is a short-cut variation on American University professor Allan Lichtman’s famed “13 Keys to the Presidency,” which adds such factors as wars, candidate charisma, scandal and the incumbent party’s performance in off-year elections to the economy and incumbency.

When Lichtman published the latest edition of his book early this year, he flatly predicted that “the Democratic candidate will capture the White House in 2008 no matter the choice of a nominee.”

Democrats have advantages Lichtman couldn’t anticipate, such as a charismatic nominee, now giving them eight of the 13 “keys” — plenty enough to win.

Historical models are invented to be broken, of course. But they give an indication of the odds McCain has to overcome.These factors are not good ones for the GOP or mc :cane