Did McCain deliberately throw the election to let Obama win?

Given that a thread with this thesis (the "suckered" one) is on the front page, and has 62 recs, it seems that this is now a common position on DU. I would like to know how popular it is.

but don't think that others necessarily will.

There are at least 60 DUers who apparently believe this is the case.

less of an endorsement of the ridiculous premise of McCain throwing the election to Obama on purpose than a general howl of rage at the fact that President Obama won the primaries/GE/both.

You can tune in to the Lynn Samuels show on Sirius "Left" radio every morning to hear what that howl sounds like!

:evilgrin:

(joke)

... but if McCain had truly WANTED to lose, he actually could have done worse.

For example, he could have called New York "Hymie Town."

Or instead of saying "That one" he could have said... well, you KNOW what he could have said.

I don't think McCain wanted to lose.

I just think he didn't care if he won.

That's why he chose Sarah Palin.

He just wanted to pal around with someone he could boink.

I think he chose Palin because he knew he couldn't beat Obama. He probably knew that the only chance he had was to take a huge risk, go all in, and hope like hell that they could turn 50% +1 against Obama by pointing out anything and everything that made Obama look like a terrorist-sympathizing, anti-christian, socialist scary guy who would destroy this country from the top down.
Looks to me like he bet on the wrong hand. It looks like the voters weren't impressed by his recklessness; and now after the fact, it looks like he knows that he poked the wrong pit bull. If he had acted a bit more presidential in picking a running mate that would have filled his various deficiencies (like the economy) instead of trying to get people to vote with their penises, the election would have been closer.

just my 2 cents

did something very different - and that is why he chose Palin.

And he almost made a dent - except for the fact that Palin was a bad candidate.

I remember a conservative acquaintance said that McCain had no chance, and Obama was going to win in a landslide - until he heard Palin speak at the RNC convention. He said maybe McCain would win after Palin's speech - but that was before the Couric interview.

that he was from another century -- I think the 13th or so, to be generous -- and that his campaign staff could have been outwitted by the average 6th grader.

The Palin pick didn't inspire a whole lot of confidence either.

But the GOP was the victim of its own infighting with almost twice the number of primary candidates as we had, plus over some greater long period, Republicans hopped into the sack with the fundie nutbags and woke up losing their majorities in Congress and their national base supporters as well.

They didn't know how to do battle against someone like Barack Obama, and it showed, and he whupped 'em good.

I posted during the primaries that History is very much interested in Barack Obama. We watched a landmark election in many ways. Now I want to see a realignment of the political map to favor the blue team.

If the red team has to fall apart for that to happen, I'm for it.

THAT BAD.
Same with Palin.

people saying at the time "Is he throwing the election deliberately to get back at Republicans for 2000"? Just because he was screwing up so expertly! But really of course, he was an extra bad candidate. I hate how the media has accepted him as the "fun guy" on the late night talk show circuit and forget what an epic douche he proved himself to be during the campaign.

or at least post stupid threads here.
I've seen many too, but the one you link is right up there.

You say that as if there is a difference between McCain and the Republican Party.

You suggested the repubs "threw" the 08 election. But your logic in defending that statement suggests you think the Democrats threw 00 and 04.

They generated no intensity at all. In '00 R's were motivated by Clinton hatred and they sold Gore as Clinton3, and it worked.

Democrats just didn't have fight in them for Gore and Kerry. Eight years of GWB changed that. Katrina changed that.

The war wasn't enough. Katrina was a tipping point.

Eight million to 12 million more voters don't show up at the polls simply because there is an election. Also, the increases in young voters was not typical. Kerry didn't set a the Democratic record at the time for fundraising in a month because no one was excited. Hillary, with all the supposed excitement, fell $10 million short of that record, Obama exceeded it by an equivalent amount. He didn't set the fundraising record at the time for a 24-hour period because no one was excited.

Also, getting 49% of the popular vote, only .3% lower than Clinton's 1996 win (6% more than his 1992 win) proves this is just bunk. The 2004 election was one of the closest ever.

This is one of those nonsensical talking points that keeps being repeated.

Hatred for GWB and excitement about Obama created a perfect storm of intensity that increased turnout.

Turnout was up, those are votes. Percentage of the popular vote was high, that represents votes.

Still, people typically don't donate to a candidate if they aren't excited by them or willing to donate to guarantee that the candidate would win. This is also the problem with the lesser of two evils crap. How on earth did Kerry break records when people are trying to convince others that he was not liked? Who were all those people at the rallies that attracted record participants? You claim people stayed home in greater numbers, even though turnout was up. Those people surely weren't donating. That's completely incongruous.





edited typos.

Or Hillary. What did Gore to do to Obama for all this outrage? :shrug:

If not, how does that help your argument? You are right that 08 wasn't the repubs year and they knew it. That's not a reason for them to throw the election. Its the reason they lost.

Which, of course,explains why they lost, not that they threw an election they could've otherwise won.

fucked up the last 8 years and no amount of the corporatemediawhoredom could save their collective loserass.

It was the Perfect Storm for Obama to win and we all worked our butts off to see that happen.

the damage of the Bush/Cheney years.

So in that respect we had the advantage going in to the arena, plus our original 8 were prepared and impressive while their entire lot was a pack of thieves and idiots or a combination of the two.

Sam Brownback almost beat Huckabee in Iowa. Huck beat him by only a thin margin. From the very beginning, they pretty much had nothin'.

Romney was all ga-ga and go-go but first Iowa sunk out of sight, then New Hampshire... his wins were slapdash and sporadic after that and he never mounted much of an effective campaign in Florida. McCain won Florida on the notion that he was still technically alive. Giuliani was destroyed there, and Romney came in limping.

Obama's team was very sure-footed. They made some terrific calls. They put up a (literally) hopeful message. They won states the Pukes thought were theirs forever -- Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado, etc.

Seriously. Twisted freeper speak.

Where is the McCain-threw-it crowd? Why are none defending their position in this thread?

rec'ing a thread based on the feel-good notion that they are promoting free speech.

"Obama," "suckered," and maybe "bailout," and think, "Aha! This must be dissent! I like dissent. I will rec this and thus further the cause of dissent."

after studiously reading all the links within the links within the links?

Look most people here on every side of every debate engage in that kind of behaviour. It is just absurd to think all the morons are on one side but not the other.

Most of these longass posts here rack up recs in a matter of minutes. Both sides blindly recommend any thread once they decide which team is batting.

You're embarrassing yourself- and the thread's already been locked.

containing massive whining to repopulate my ignore list, quite handy actually.

McCain was attempting to appeal to a different set of voters than the average DU poster.

Hence, the appearance among DU'ers that he was trying to "repel" voters is a natural consequence of his attempt to appeal to a different set of voters.

McCain could/would only have thrown the election if he knew he couldn't win. So it's pretty much moot as he couldn't win anyway.

sorry I'm cranky today, just finished taxes

believe that.

over elections that are manipulated by some mysterious force. It was a defeatist premise that pretty much said we might as well give up.

It's really that simple.

;)

He thinks he's Mr. Wonderful. God's gift to the world.

I'm sure he was pressured by the Republican Party leaders to have Sarah Palin as his VP, and he thinks she's the one who tanked his candidacy. You can be certain he isn't taking any credit for losing, and I'll bet the conversations he has one on one with trusted friends would be quite revealing!

People in his own state didn't like him.

I think McCain himself wanted to win but I suspected from when he got the nomination that the GOP intended for him to fail. I think they knew that the next Presidential term was going to be almost guaranteed as a "no win" period of American history. It will be very hard for any President to come out of it as a real success, though I believe President Obama has a good chance.

But to the GOP it probably looked like a total clusterfuck - they trashed the US reputation overseas, got us involved in two wars that will be next to impossible to extract our soldiers from with a good result, trashed the economy, got their own party in an untenable position involving the Constitution and individual rights, and generally fucked the country over royally. They KNEW that none of their own could pull the country out of this mess so they expected that no Democratic candidate could, either. Throwing the aged John McCain the bone of the nomination may have also brought some of the moderate, "maverick" Republicans back into the party but they blew that by giving him Palin as his VP candidate.

So they set up John McCain to be their man in front, intending for him to lose, letting the Democratic candidate win - expecting it to be Hillary Clinton - and then to blame all the ills they fostered on her as they came to a head - just like they did with Jimmy Carter. If it had been Hillary, they could have ramped up their mantra that the bad stuff could be attributed to her husband's time in office - a bonus for them. But the GOP did not count on Barack Obama with his intellect and his experience with Chicago politics.

So I think we are not where the GOP intended us to be and that gives me hope, even now, even though Obama has disappointed me with some of his actions I still think he is our best chance to bring our country back to what it should be, or at least get it on the right path.

name the ticket that would've won for the repubs...

"Tarnish" any of their future prospects with a 2008 loss. That is why I believe they gave it to McCain. Think about it - there was no real reason for Romney or Huckabee to pull out and some of the other candidates just seemed to run half-hearted campaigns.

About the time the PUMA crowd got really rolling was when I think the GOP decided to throw the race, and I am sure that McCain never got THAT memo. I think the GOP started planning for the 2010 and 2012 races at that time.

Disclaimer - I am not all that knowledgeable about politics and this is my personal theory pulled completely out of my hat.

They didn't intend to lose. They had no choice. They couldn't win. They would've if they could've.

And there was plenty of reason for Romney and Huckabee to pull out. THey were both essentially regional candidates when it came to the national election. Romney dropped out after Super Tuesday when he barely topped 50 percent in his own "home" state of Massachusetts (and after drawing less than 40 percent in his other "home" state of Michigan a few weeks earlier). He had spent a shitload of money -- much of it his own -- and had little to show for it. Huckabee stayed in until just before the Texas primary -- the primary that cinched the nomination for McCain -- and dropped out only after it was clear that he would not do well enough in Texas to prevent that from happening.

Thompson clearly ran a bad campaign. But not on purpose -- its who he is. Giuliani was the surprise -- I doubt he tried to throw the campaign -- he just overestimated his appeal outside NY and, in particular, with the fundie base of the repub party.

...but then again, sore losers often struggle with rational thought.

Tea-baggers?

to make it seem that way!



:rofl:

and chose to incite hatred instead of trying to win people over.

As soon as they cut Palin loose to do her hate-rally tour, they knew it was over. And their loser strategy of anger and disruption continues today.

I haven't agreed with everything that Obama has done since taking office, but compared to McCain, Obama was definitely the better candidate.

Most people were able to see that and voted accordingly.

one..as it seems stupid wants to take over.

Poor things are drowning in their own bullshit.

The wingnuts are using this explanation as an excuse for why McSame lost. I think again that some of it is racial in nature, not be able to admit that Obama is smart. Not admitting that he won on his OWN accord, not because of Hillary's ineptness, Bush's abysmal record, the economy, Iraq, or McSame/Failin's poorly run campaign. Yes, all these factors helped Obama, but it was his skill as a politician and the near-perfect campaign that he, Ploffe and Axelrod ran--not to mention all the support from those of us at the grassroots--that put him over the top.

I cannot stand how people are explaining away his victory. It was long and hard-fought. To diminish his skill and intellect, to me, is downright racist! The man can't win on his own accord without the assistance of white people and some luck??!?!??! :puke::puke:

95% :woohoo:

It didn't help that the GOP seemed to have nominated the candidate that was "next in line" (ie the loser/runner-up in the 2000 GOP primary), and McCain's "hail Mary" choice of Palin in an effort to suck the wind out of Barack's acceptance speech and put wind in his sails, was a complete failure once the public got a glimpse into her lack of credentials to be VP. FAIL!

To even suggest that a McCain/Palin administration would be a good thing for this country is laughable. That administration would feel feeding people is an earmark. Any party that feels government is the problem has no business being in that government. They create their own self fulfilling prophesy--as we have witnessed over the past eight disastrous years.

Staged from start to finish. :tinfoilhat:

Obama was by far the better candidate and campaigner.

and he lost.

It's pretty much that simple. He's a phoney and it was exposed when he overreached with Palin and then with his lame pronouncements on the economy.

The GOP didn't even really like him; he was just all they had.

how stupid can we get...??? DAMN!! Some days I just can't believe DU...The election was NOT his to lose....HE WAS NEVER GOING TO WIN, because HIS OWN PARTY DIDN'T WANT HIM...THEY SET HIM UP TO FAIL, DELIBERATELY...."They" wanted the Democrats to own the wars and economy that * was responsible for...wb

Although McCain's ineptitude and incredibly poor choices make this question worth thinking about, the simple fact is the Republican brand had been so damaged by Chimp and company that anyone they would have run had practically no chance of winning.

It's obvious that McCain would not choose Palin (Gidget on Meth) if he could do it all over again.

First of all, it's a crazy question. The Repukes would NEVER intentionally lose an election if they could help it. To them, being without political/governmental power is almost like a fish being without water. Also, don't forget that the Palin gambit, launched IMMEDIATLY after the DNC, initially SEEMED like it might work- that was until McCain pretended to try to be a hero about the economic meltdown and then epic failed at that- making Obama/Biden look like the smarter and steadier choice. Then Palin revealed her idiocy and/or ignorance-once again making Obama/Biden look like the smarter and steadier choice. Once Obama captured the lead he retained it through the remainder of the campaign but it's not like McCain/Palin didn't try their darndest to smear him in whatever way they could-Ayers, Acorn, Rezko, Wright anybody? They blew it plain and simple and Obama ran a magnificent campaign and was clearly the right/best person running at the right time and it all just worked out.

But Americans aren't going for it any more.

The election was lost, even before the conventions, and John knew it.

So, what to do?

Well, Given his deep abiding love for the NeoCons and for the Conservative Christians (especially in light of how well they treated him during the 2000 election), plus his own deep, abiding, faith in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, he chose to honor them all in the best way he possibly could.

Remember, he has military training. Think of the fundamental axiom of Divide and Conquer.

In my little fantasy world here, Sarah Palin was no accident. She was his way of making sure that every one was crystal clear on where the Republican party was headed. She was John's way of rubbing the NeoCons' collective noses in it.

Tell me, Would our mild mannered, even tempered, quick-to-let-it-go, deep friend of George Bush, Senator from Arizona and Presidential Candidate ever do anything spiteful to discredit the right wing of the Republican Party? Would Our John ever do anything like that?

Nahhhhhhhhh.

Was Dubya trying to throw the election to Gore in the final 48 hours when he said social security was not a government program (which actually hurt Bush far more than people realize, because he had opened up a decent lead late and then it came crashing down to the point where Gore pounced, getting back into it)? Hell, the same question could've been asked four years later with Bush's embarrassingly bad performance in the first debate. That allowed Kerry to make it a game, though Bush eventually 'won' both elections.

McCain ran a poor campaign, but it wasn't on purpose. The Palin pick was probably his best chance at a game changer and it might have worked had she not turned out to be a total whack job. And when I say work, I mean maybe it would've made the election a bit more closer and interesting than it turned out to be.

I might take some flack for this one but here goes:

I think Obama was the better candidate and would have won anyway BUT McCain also made little real effort to keep himself in the game. The calamitous campaign; the increasingly weird remarks; the cluelessness on, well, everything and most of all, his selection of a running mate who he didn't even like, let alone agree with. All of that suggests a man who was either losing his mind (literally) or had no real desire to win the election. There could be a lot of reasons for that but one of them might have been that he got advice from people who saw this economic shitstorm coming (and there were plenty of them) and decided that he'd rather let Obama carry the can for it.

Yes, I know Obama had nothing to do with the economy tanking but the right-wing are master historical revisionists and the public are, for the most part, ignorant and forgetful. If the economy is blamed on Obama loudly enough and for long enough, they'll believe it.

So, there's my opinion: That Obama would have won anyway but McCain also made no real effort to stop him.

He actually thought he was a real CANDIDATE,
and he had no clue as to why his PARTY wasn't lifting a finger
to help him.

How fucking SAD is that?

... especially at that age, and with the kind of money McCain already has, simply to give up. Say what you want about McCain, but what he put himself through to campaign for the presidency, especially in the face of the odds he had given the mood of the country and the state of the economy, is something that very few people can understand or appreciate.