History suggests McCain is too far behind.?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WallaceJones
  • Start date Start date
W

WallaceJones

Guest
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/history-suggests-mccain-faces-an-uphill-battle/

No one, including Mr. Obama’s advisers, says such a turnaround in Mr. McCain’s favor is impossible. But the magnitude of Mr. McCain’s task may leave him depending on a misstep by Mr. Obama or a national security crisis rather than on what he can achieve through speeches, advertising or a winning performance in the final debate on Wednesday.
Actually Clinton won because the econmy was slipping in Novemeber. Sounds familiar.
 
Reagan was down by more against Carter in 1980 at the same time in the election season...

sorry, 3 weeks and Obama 2 or 3 points outside the margin of error does not make him a 'lock'.
 
I hope so...we don't need Mr. Mayor and Sarah Bellum running this country for four years and destroying it even more than the current republican administration has.
 
All the Dems that were ahead in past elections ended up losing. That should tell you something. People are LIEING to pollsters for fear of retaliation by Obama and his cronies. The Polls mean zero - nothing - zilch. Wait and see.
 
Sorry, Clinton didn't won because of the economy. We were well into a recovery from the recession by the time of the election.

At about 3 PM on the Friday before the election, Democrats in the office of Special Counsel Lawrence Walsh announced the indictment of Casper Weinberger, who had been part of the Reagan/Bush Administration.
It completely took over the weekend news cycle - the Friday night network news, all the Sunday talk shows - the weekend before the election. Remember there was no cable back then.
At that point, the trend lines for Bush were going up and he would almost certainly have won the election. Clinton had flat-lined. Perot didn't factor in, other than having pulled just enough from Bush to give Clinton a shot at it.
Clinton only got 42% of the vote. All he needed.
The Weinberger indictment stopped the Bush surge almost dead in its tracks and he couldn't recover.

Republicans were really pissed because the indictment had been floating around for some time.
It could have been announced a month earlier or a month later.
The Democrats chose to announce it then, knowing that it could affect the election.
It did.
Bush lost.
He pardoned Weinberger before he left office.
 
I agree with you all the way. The scary part is the Republican Party STOLED the election from Gore in 2000, and WAS allowed by the American people.
I live in Florida and have seen the same crap in State elections-Republicans stealing election, and once again it is allowed.
I fear this is also going to happen to the Obama/Biden ticket.
 
I don't believe so. Gore had something like a 7 point pol advantage going into the election. You can't even trust exit pols on election day. It ain't over till it's over.
 
Of the four candidates on the top of the ticket, rank them in order of frequency of screw-ups.
In any realistic sorting, Obama is the least likely to produce a game-changing mistake.
 
Obama would have reason to suggest that McCain can't climb back up... there is this little thing called "the inevitability factor" where the person on top pretends that they are soooo far ahead that their competition might as well stay home on election day.

That being said, McCain is not the best candidate and History also suggests that a Democrat was bound to win this one anyway...
 
Obama would have reason to suggest that McCain can't climb back up... there is this little thing called "the inevitability factor" where the person on top pretends that they are soooo far ahead that their competition might as well stay home on election day.

That being said, McCain is not the best candidate and History also suggests that a Democrat was bound to win this one anyway...
 
Back
Top