One term for the 'ol fella ?

[Facetious]

One term only for McCain?


The speculation, idle or otherwise, that Republican John McCain would be a one-term president was fueled over the weekend by his campaign manager's rather coy response.

The theory goes that since McCain, if elected in November, would be, at 72, the oldest person ever sworn into a first term, it might reassure voters if he pledged to not seek re-election. Also, not seeking a second term could free McCain to make less partisan decisions -- to put "country first" as his campaign banner says. And McCain could then promote his running mate as his apprentice and heir apparent. But the problem is that such a promise would make McCain a lame duck the second he sat down at the desk in the Oval Office.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/one_term_only_f.html

Hilary supporters might opt to vote for the 'ol geriatric character . . :dunno: Think about that one !


Do you really think that this guy was the electorate's choice ? Just a year before the primary (IIRC) McCain was the reps last choice out of the bunch. In addition to being last choice, his campaign cup was dry !!!!

Are you f'en kidding me ? This is representative govt ? Yea, Bullshit !!

 

[Facetious]

So how 'bout it Hilary supporters ! Would you risk electing such an extreme far right wing nutter :1orglaugh as John Mc"Cane" for President in the hopes that Hilary might become the dems nominee in four years ?

:bigear: •bigear•ø Obama ø•bigear• :bigear:

 

[Friday on my mind]

^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't know about that,but I do find your analysis of who the pubs choose way off the mark.I think clearly McCain was the smartest choice they could have made given the field they had.Who would you have prefered and why wasn't that person the nominee?
And have you heard the Hillary supporters are now going to get what they have been asking for at the convention,which is her name as well being put up for nomination with Obama's.So I wouldn't count on disgruntled Hillary supporters to really be voting for McCain.No if he wins it will be the majority of people who call themselves independants that cause that.And clearly of all the possible pubs that ran for the nomination McCain has the best shot with such people.

 

[The Paulinator]

Are you f'en kidding me ? This is representative govt ? Yea, Bullshit !!

Both candidates are shit. Both parties represent nobody but increased revenue for themselves.

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. Roll on Machina Politico!

Hell yeah, I'm drunk.

 

[Jagger69]

Any Clinton supporter who, out of spite or just plain ol' sour grapes, would vote republican is not a democrat at all and would likely have voted republican anyway had Hillary not run. I don't see a big shift occurring. As for McCain, hardcore conservatives cannot get excited about him but I think a further-right nominee like Romney would have a very difficult time pulling disaffected democrats or independents over to the republican column. At least McCain has a track record as somewhat of a maverick so, in reality, he probably represents the best of a lot of bad choices given the current state of affairs. That said, unless Obama pulls some sort of a major fuck-up or, more likely, there is some sort of "October Surprise" that our friends in the Bush administration have in store for all of us, McCain is a serious longshot to win the White House so the entire question originally posed is probably moot.

 

[Ceska]

^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't know about that,but I do find your analysis of who the pubs choose way off the mark.I think clearly McCain was the smartest choice they could have made given the field they had.Who would you have prefered and why wasn't that person the nominee?
And have you heard the Hillary supporters are now going to get what they have been asking for at the convention,which is her name as well being put up for nomination with Obama's.So I wouldn't count on disgruntled Hillary supporters to really be voting for McCain.No if he wins it will be the majority of people who call themselves independants that cause that.And clearly of all the possible pubs that ran for the nomination McCain has the best shot with such people.

I think this is right.

McCain is a serious longshot to win the White House so the entire question originally posed is probably moot.

Those that put $$$ on it currently have it at about 2-1 odds in Obama's favor.
http://www.sportsbook.com/betting/2008+Presidential+Election-betting-odds-754.html
http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=20739353&ex=1&origin=MRL

According to CNET ... On election day, the "too close to call" 2004 Bush/Kerry election was given 2-1 in Bush's favor by Betfair. And while that 2-1 favoribility did translate into a win for Bush, it shows that 2-1 are by no means longshot odds.
http://news.cnet.com/Who-won-Online-bookies/2100-1028_3-5437706.html?hhTest=1


CNET claims that "bettors have strong incentives to collect all the information available to them to make accurate predictions" and "it's easy enough to offer predictions when being wrong means only potential embarrassment for a blogger or online pundit. But when there's a financial penalty to errors, results tend to line up far more closely with reality." Casinos don't like to lose money and frequently they don't.

IMHO ... While I think you are right Obama is favored to win, I think it is a little premature to say that McCain is a "serious longshot". As far as the casinos are concerned, right now he is about as likely to win as Kerry was on election day 2004.

 

[Jagger69]

IMHO ... While I think you are right Obama is favored to win, I think it is a little premature to say that McCain is a "serious longshot". As far as the casinos are concerned, right now he is about as likely to win as Kerry was on election day 2004.

The reason I say he is a serious longshot at this point is based on the fact that there is presently no compelling issue in his favor that would cause a significant swing in voter preference. Again, unless Obama pulls a major faux pas or there is another terror incident on US soil (God forbid) or international crisis (which, obviously, is possible), I don't see him having a chance. And, if he is as likely as Kerry to win, he won't.

I agree that things can certainly change but right now I think the election is Obama's to lose. And, quite honestly, aside from his staunch support of the Iraq war, I don't have that many issues with McCain (certainly not compared to more neocon types like Romney, etc). I just think, as evidently most Americans do, that the Bush administration has been an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions and that the country is definitely moving in the wrong direction and McCain is too closely associated with the present administration and its policies to distinguish himself as an agent of change.

 

[Ceska]

The reason I say he is a serious longshot at this point is based on the fact that there is presently no compelling issue in his favor that would cause a significant swing in voter preference. Again, unless Obama pulls a major faux pas or there is another terror incident on US soil (God forbid) or international crisis (which, obviously, is possible), I don't see him having a chance. And, if he is as likely as Kerry to win, he won't.

I agree that things can certainly change but right now I think the election is Obama's to lose. And, quite honestly, aside from his staunch support of the Iraq war, I don't have that many issues with McCain (certainly not compared to more neocon types like Romney, etc). I just think, as evidently most Americans do, that the Bush administration has been an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions and that the country is definitely moving in the wrong direction and McCain is too closely associated with the present administration and its policies to distinguish himself as an agent of change.

Yeah, I understand what you mean - it's close (like Kerry/Bush) but you feel that nothing is likely to change that much. That seems reasonable. Didn't want to disagree with your overall point..I just mean that if you really feel that it's a "serious longshot" then there is money waiting for you. If you're not sure, then I think you are sitting with the rest of us (casino and layman alike) in the "anything can still happen" camp.

Many people feel that since Obama is relatively unknown, what he does from this point forward will shape how people feel about him and as a result he will either stride forward or fall back (perhaps the 3% difference, perhaps not). While on the other hand they feel that people have pretty much made up their minds one way or the other regarding how they feel about McCain in large part because he's had more of a chance to become known. Some (CNN mostly) have called this a "Referendum on Obama." I think that characterization oversimplifies things a bit but there is a lot of truth in it. In any case, nearly everyone agrees with you that in the current political environment the election is ultimately Obama's to lose.

 

[D-rock]

Not even Hilary supporters are that dumb...oh wait, never mind. :1orglaugh