McCain to drop out?
 

My home page had this article on it:

When the Republicans choose their candidate on September 4th, there is a very real chance that they could throw the election into an unexpected chaos as they pull a genuine September Surprise.

I think there is every reason to believe John McCain won't be the nominee. Ok, let me say that again. McCain will not be the Republican candidate in November.Here's how it could happen:

At some point in mid August, John McCain will announce that he has decided that he can not accept his party's nomination for president. The reason will be health-related, and that may turn out to be the truth. Anyone who's seen him on stage these days knows he looks like he's about to keel over. And anyone who's been on a presidential campaign knows the physical demands are grueling and can be a challenge for a young man.

But excuses or facts hardly matters. He won't be accepting his party's nomination.

The reasons are simple. He can't win. Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee -- the polls all show that McCain's pro-war stance and Bush endorsement make him a lost cause in November. That combined with soft stand on litmus test conservative issues make him an unpopular candidate among the base. I know some Democrats that think the Republicans are planning to let McCain lose and 'sit this one out' so that they can hang the democrats with a bad economy and a war that is a morass. But that just isn't how they play. They play to win every hand -- think about 2000 with a popular Democratic president and good economy and a solid VP running for president. Why did they put up Bush? And why did they fight so hard? Because, you don't ever throw a game. And they're not going to throw this one.

McCain won't be the nominee.

By August, they'll have done something to try and pick away at Obama's popularity. They'll emphasis race, or whatever they can to get him to appear less than perfect. Then, they'll bring out of the woodwork a surprise candidate who can shift the story fast. With just two months before the election -- the new candidate will have little time to be 'vetted' but will be shiny and new, and will get a lot of media attention as Obama's newness will have become -- by then -- tarnished or at least no longer the surprise that it has been as he unseated Hillary.

So, who will be the Republican candidate that faces Obama in the fall?

I've spoken to a number of friends who -- when presented with this set of facts respond: "but they don't have anybody else." That's simply not the case.

Joe Trippi, campaign consultant and most notably Howard Dean's campaign manager, said of McCain dropping out: "While crazy, this may be the best shot they have."

There are a whole list of Republicans who in many ways are more likely to energize the Republican base. One thing is certain -- there are candidates that will play to the core issues in ways that McCain simply can't.

Here's a list of names. Some you know, some you don't. But each of them knows their name is in play. Among them --

Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State)
Colin Powell (fmr Sec. of State)
Marilyn Musgrave (Colorado Congresswoman)
Mitt Romney (fmr Massachusetts Governor)
Mike Huckabee (fmr Governor of Arkansas)
Charlie Crist (Florida Governor)
Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota Governor)
Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Governor)
Mark Sanford: (Governor of South Carolina)
John Thune (Senator from South Dakota)
Dick Lugar (Senator from Indiana)
Chuck Hagel (Senator from Nebraska)
MIchael Bloomberg (NYC Mayor)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/200...uffpost/107236

My first thought was his guys nuts. McCains been in the hunt for the oval office for a long time why would he concede now? Second- I don't see it as that one sided. If anything I think Obama may have a larger hill to climb. Obama may have some hype now but that will fade (likely) and even with that hype his lead is within the margin of error. By the time the 527's get done with him and his wife 25% of the country, or more, will believe they're a terrorist sleeper cell.

I read the piece a couple times. I don't see it. The only part that makes sense to me is if he does indeed have some health issue.

Anyone else have thoughts?

Person has wild ideas and conspiracy theories on internet. Whoddathunkit?

Seriously though, McCain really does look like he's withering away under the pressure, but are there any credible republicans at the moment?

To the idea that the republicans/right never throw a game I have one name for you.

Bob Dole.

Interesting. Given what I know about McCain's medical history - including the years of torture by the North Vietnamese - I have to give this a little more credence than I usually do to screwball internet "insiders". That said, the proof's in the pudding and until the convention, this is only an interesting intellectual exercise.

If it's health issue then I could see it. I still don't see how he's "lost cause." He's currently in a dead heat with Obama.

Some of the names on the list strike me odd as well. Some I don't even know who they are. Maybe I'm simply ill informed. But if they are as unknown to others as they are to me fail to see how someone with zip name recognition is going to sloop in and take the country by storm after the convention.

Fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:

at the moment, i think most polling is meaningless--i don't see any coherent need (beyond the demands of the 24/7 cable blah blah blah system) or way to project from mid june past august. so i don't think there is a "race" yet--this is a little hiatus.

i also find the article interesting, vaguely. but it'd be mostly a piece of theater, the change, the only possible function of which would be an Attention-Shift, moving the Giant Eye of television from one corridor to another. and as anyone could, you could see this as an act of desperation.

maybe late august would be a good time to check back in.

"-- the polls all show that McCain's pro-war stance and Bush endorsement make him a lost cause in November."

Actually, no they don't. The latest Gallup Poll shows Obama and McCain in a statistical tie. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107854/Ga...rtual-Tie.aspx

Anyway, as roachboy said, the polls matter not at this point in the game.

Also, I haven't been paying much attention, but I haven't noticed McCain looking worn out. Does he really? More than usual?

As far as I'm concerned, he could drop out of the race. Big Whup. Almost anyone mentioned in the article would be a better president.

Oh and, uh, in my view, this whole idea is nonsense. He ain't gonna drop out.

Romney and Huckabee got their asses kicked, so they're out. Powell said absolutely not to the presidency, so he's out. Rice, to be frank, is absolutely atrocious to look at and she wouldn't want someone digging into her past the way people have been looking into McCain's.

Marilyn Musgrave is interesting. She might be able to get some attention, but I'm not sure she has the chops to go toe to toe with Captain "change".

Charlie Crist is very centrist for a conservative candidate. He might not be Neo-Con enough. Still, I'd be happy if he ran as opposed to McCain. Pro-emission controls, pro-higher education, very open minded on race relations compared to other conservatives and pro-adoption (aka a GOOD pro-lifer).

I don't know jack about Musgrave, but I'm reading up now.

I think if Rice ran she knows there'd be endless clips of her answering questions such as "what was the title of the August 6th PDB?" "I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

It would get ugly if she ran and she and the GOP know it.

Seems *very* unlikely to me.

First, the most eggregious right-wing policies of Bush that McCain is subscribing to are *exactly* what the neocon powers that be in the republican party want. Only they want more of them. Bush was literally too liberal for these people. So if they get to pick someone else, they will want someone to the Right of McCain. As far as I can tell, one of the few reasons that McCain is polling so high is that he's billed as a 'Maverick'. He isn't really (at least not 2008 McCain); his policies and rhetoric lately have all been very standard neocon stuff. But perception matters.

He could still bow out for health reasons, but I suspect it would be actual legitimate reasons, not some vast right-wing conspiracy.

honestly, anyone the repubs introduce now will be too little, too late.

That's just silly.

I'm somehow attracted to her.

Naw, I just don't see McCain doing that.

There's more of a chance that he'll take Lieberman as VP or maybe even Clinton...

He partners with Lieberman, Obama will not stand a chance.

Hardcore neocons will vote for him anyway because of their fear of Obama.... the disenfranchised Dems will switch over.... and the Moderates in both parties will vote McCain.

That is a more believable scenario than his dropping out.

McCain/Clinton 08: All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!

you know, pan, i don't think you're right. i think you underestimate significantly the level of alienation from the bush administration and the extent to which the republicans are going to take the hit for that in november. i doubt very seriously that moderates are going to vote for someone who promises to carry on the vast majority of the anything-but-moderate policies of the bush administration. i think the alienated clinton supporters who may vote mccain are a myth as well, for the most part. i'm sure there are 2 or 3 out there.

what i do see in your prognosis is the assumption that obama will be understood as some kind of leftist. i find that characterization to be surreal, but hey folk can be persuaded of anything if you repeat it long enough i guess and the right has shown that it has the wherewithal to repeat lots of surreal stuff ad infinitum if need be. but i don't see it as having much traction--i think your trajectory is particular, something that you are moving through that represents yourself.

but all the above is based on my sense of things, which is to some extent a function of the contexts i've been moving through--bigger cities for a long time, now a very old-school democrat eastern massachusetts town.

so what i don't know is the extent to which your trajectory is similar to that of folk around you in ohio.
do you find that it is more typical there?
if it is, how would you talk about that, say, sociologically? like amongst which groups you have contact with do you see this kind of movement?
and if you could step outside your own preferences (and not if you can't) why do you think it's happening---this is different from asking you for your own reasons for your own shifts in position, so try (if you can--it's not obvious how to do this in some cases) to be more a reporter than a source, please.

i'm just curious.

I would volunteer for Obama and be active in his campaign if McCain picks Lieberman for VP. I think McCain has a pretty good shot if he doesn't go too far right and doesn't make many mistakes.

If some health issue does come up, McCain would pick a VP and that person would take over (after the convention). Before the convention, Huckabee & Paul are still in it, they haven't taken their names off the ballots like the other ones, so who knows how the convention would go down.

Thanks for that picture Will, my dreams shall be plagued with Rat People. Faaaantastic.

As to the OP, I agree that the only real possibility of McCain not being nominated is in the case of his health going (somehow) downhill. I can't imagine the Liberals and Conservatives being much more split down the middle than they are with him and Obama. I'm sure this is the time for someone to note some past election to spite me, but hey, iz all gud.

I did say this:

It was my response to the OP. I just believe if either scenario was to be played out McCain/Lieberman or Clinton is far more likely to happen than his dropping out.

It's like saying will Oprah drop 500 lbs or will Tom Cruise have an audience with the pope?

Do you think McCain will allow this button (for sale at the recent Texas Republican Convention) to be sold at the Republican National Convention:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...ama-button.JPG

Any Republican associated with this ignorant attempt at humorous race bating should be ashamed.

What? That's not even clever. I loves me a good racist joke, but... boooo.

What does this have to do with the OP?

pan....if Tully wants it removed, he can request the mods to do so...I have no objection.

Hey its not like its the first threadjack to ever occur in TFP.

But since its still here, and as a McCain supporter, would you want to be associated with it? Do you think its good for the McCain campaign to allow it to be sold at Republican state conventions?

Is the McCain campaign selling them? Or are you just trying to make it fit the thread?

A private company sold then in a booth at the recent Texas Republican convention. I assume the Republican party has guidelines for what can be sold in booths inside the convention halls.

I was simply asking the rhetorical question if McCain would allow it to be sold at his formal nomination at the Republican National Convention in August. Yes, I assume he will be nominated and not drop out.

What does this have to do with the OP????????

If you would like to start a thread about this I would be more than happy to talk about it.

But it does not belong here.

ok...I will respond to your post.

The scenario of a McCain/Clinton ticket is far far far less plausible than the possibility of McCain dropping out. It is about as far out there as you can get....completely irrational, IMO.

While the scenario of McCain/Lieberman is possible, though unlikely, disenfranchised Democrats (whatever than means since I am not aware of any Democrats being disenfranchised in the primary process) and moderate independents, particularly women, are not likely to vote for McCain because of his VP choice.

Unless they dislike Obama, based on an emotional racial distrust, more than they are concerned about protecting women's rights, the unending occupation of Iraq, and the pocketbook issue of an economic/tax policy that supports the wealthiest taxpayers and corporations more than middle class families. And most polls suggest that is not the case.

But there are always a small number of voters who act on emotion over reason....this year, I would attribute it, in part, to "baracknophobia"

Baracknophobia

Fear of an African-American President.

The irrational fear of hope; the irrational fear that behind the mild-mannered facade, Barack Obama is intent on enslaving the white race.

The fear by unreasoning Americans that Barack Obama, a black man, will become their next president and bring something good back to the country.

Urban Dictionary

McCain isn't dropping out.
Hillary isn't going to be McCain's running mate.
That button is a disgrace.
People need to chill.

:rolleyes: Love it.... the only reason people will not vote for Obama is because they are racist....... wow. AND YOU JUST SAID IT.

No...thats not what I wrote.

I said there will be some who wont vote for Obama based solely on race...and I stick to that.

There is nothing to indicate that large numbers of disenfranchised Democrats (whatever than means since I am not aware of any Democrats being disenfranchised in the primary process) and moderate independents are turning away from Obama (as you suggest) for any reason.

And I think many of that small number of those "disenfranchised" Democrats who do turn away from Obama will do so based on emotion rather than reason. You only need to listen to some of the Dem voters in the primaries in WV, OH and PA for example...the issue was race, pure and simple.

So if I vote for Obama I'm not racist, but if I vote against Obama because I am more in fear of who he is, how he just popped in to the arena and the people he associates with..... among other reasons... that is unacceptable..... You can't accept that as a reason not to vote for him. I must suffer from
Wow. I love the way you are trying to scare people and try to convince them that if they just do not like Obama and what he has to offer as being racists.

Because for you, there is no reason based on the issues to vote for McCain.

But you cannot truly give those who aren't racist and dislike and distrust Obama, reason to vote for him other than "you're racist".

Who's playing the race card?

/threadjack... let's take this elswhere

LOL.....take it where ever you want, but again you misrepresented (intentionally?) what I wrote.

One last thought...

what confounds me most is trying to reconcile a comment of yours in another thread....

"I seriously doubt and hope to God Roe v Wade is never overturned".

...with your willingness to vote for a guy who wants to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe...and is likely to have one or two appointments to the Court.

The same applies to your positions on the Iraq occupation, protection of individual rights, women's rights, the economy..as much (or as little as) I understand them.

I think most Hillary supporters and other democrats will not make that same choice and the polls indicate that....and some who do will do it based solely on race. I am not trying to scare people, I am just stating a fact.

Follow-Up to Button Gate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/...exas_gop_obama

Seeing as how dc_dux's posts are public, anyone reading along can see that he didn't say this in either of his posts on the topic. What's the point of pretending he did?

This doesn't say "if you don't like his VIEWS on the issues" it says if THEY are more concerned about racial distrust.....

I may like some of his ideas, but I DO NOT like his past associations, I do not like him for numerous reasons.... none of them having to do with his being black.


Do I like McCain, not really but to me he is the better choice in a mediocre field.

So why did DC not INCLUDE that as a reason for people not voting for Obama?

He includes how some people will do it because of race..... but NOWHERE does he the above.

To me that says, "If you don't like Obama, it must be because you are racist."

I think there is going to be a lot of surprised pissed off people come November when the Democrats pick up a few seats in the House and Senate but lose the White House. Obama scares a lot of people because he's only been in the Senate for a what 2 years? with hardly a voting record to see what the man really stands for. Once again the Democratic party has disappointed many people by nominating someone almost impossible to vote for on the issues. Oh well maybe next election.

Then again I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

scout...do you think Obama's four years in the US Senate (he was elected in 2004) and eight years in the Illinois State Senate make him less experienced than Bush's six years as governor of Texas (and a failed oilman and mediocre baseball team owner).

Obama may "scare a lot of people" (your words) because of lack of experience and /or his character or past associations (pan's reasons) or other reasons that may or may not be based on emotion rather than policy positions, but it is reasonable to question if those same standards are applied to white candidates or if there is an underlying "hidden" motive.

Racism exists in American...to deny it is to deny reality. And to believe it stops at the voting booth is also naive, IMO.

Here's another scenario, called the "Bradley effect" in which voters say publicly that they will vote for a black candidate, but act differently in the privacy of the voting booth

The name Bradley effect is derived from a 1982 campaign involving Tom Bradley, the long-time mayor of Los Angeles, California. Bradley, who was black, ran as the Democratic party's candidate for Governor of California against Republican candidate George Deukmejian, who was white. The polls on the final days before the election consistently showed Bradley with a lead. In fact, based on exit polls on election day, a number of media outlets projected a Bradley win that night; early editions of the next day's San Francisco Chronicle featured a headline proclaiming "BRADLEY WIN PROJECTED". However, Bradley narrowly lost the race. Post-election research indicated that a smaller percentage of white voters actually voted for Bradley than polls had predicted.

Similar voter behavior was noted in the 1989 race for Governor of Virginia between black Democratic candidate L. Douglas Wilder and white Republican candidate Marshall Coleman. In that race, Wilder prevailed, but by less than half of one percent, despite pre-election poll numbers that showed an average lead for him of nearly nine percent. Again, the discrepancy was widely attributed to white voters who had told pollsters that they backed Wilder, but who did not actually vote for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Will it be a factor in this election? Based on Obama's showing in the primaries in many "white" states, perhaps not...but those were primaries, with only the democratic base voting. There is no way of knowing it if will hold in the general election.

Obama may lose and it may be because of policy, experience, character or any combination of factors that may also include race.

For the record, I am not attributing any motives to any voters here in TFP, but rather projecting the possibility to the broader electorate.

That's a good comparison.... at least people knew Bush was a dumb fuck from day 1 because they knew a little bit of his past, with Obama NOTHING....except he associated with a very racist pastor, who he threw under the bus. We know his grandmother "was a typical white person who was racist" so he threw her under the us. We know Rezko, who was hrown under the bus.

Plus, I thought Bush was never elected but placed in office in 2000 by the Supreme Court and in '04 the voting machines were rigged..... so he never truly won did he?

But it's easier to downplay this voting reasoning and talk down to the people who have it than to argue reasonably about it.

Well, you have HIS pastor of 20 years saying, "God Damn America" "The government made AIDS to kill black people" and so on. But he never heard those things.... Rev. Wright is misguided........ that's not the Rev. Wright I know.

But to talk about this is racist, to make a judgment of character on this is racist.......

If you had McCain's preacher sitting there saying the reverse, everyone would talk about it.

True, but I would say that won't truly affect the election. On the other hand, the black community coming out stronger and voting for Obama simply because he is black will.

All his tells me is that if he loses you have an excuse. It wasn't the issues r his character that could possibly have lost the election.

But in the projecting you refuse to answer questions, you refuse to talk to the other with any type of understanding for their concerns. You make excuses, innuendos, accusations, and so on. But and this is a big but, you again refuse to address the issues with any sense of true understanding. You do not help win voters that way, you push hem farther away and you may even send supporters the other way.

This is a bit of a superficial perception of what happened. My own grandmother was very racist when her generation was in charge of things, as I understand many people were (she still makes off color comments now and again, which we simply dismiss as leftover animosity from decades ago). Were you alive during the 60s to watch the civil rights movement hit stride? I wasn't, but from what I've had explained to me it seems as if most of white America was at least a bit racist. Which would make a racist attitude... typical. So I hardly think that recounting history is throwing his grandmother under the bus, in fact he has spoken highly of her parenting him. He also said "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't."

I'm not discussing Rev. Wright anymore. That horse has been dead and pulverized for quite some time.

As for Rezko, this is the whole story. It's boring and quite frankly implicates Obama in absolutely nothing at all.

pan doesn't like Obama and will latch onto anything negative about him that he can, Will, no matter how discredited it is or how "over it" everyone else is. That's the bottom line here. There's nothing happening in this conversation other than that. And if you disagree with him about it too loudly, suddenly you've called him racist and you're a horrible person.

From Bush's six years as an elected official, for instance, we knew he was a dumbfuck. But from Obama's twelve years as an elected official, evidently, we know "NOTHING". Couldn't be that we're not interested in knowing anything, that it furthers our agenda to operate from ignorance, no no, the man's a cypher! Complete mystery! How could anyone in good conscience vote for such a candidate??? It's ANOTHER mystery! He must be a master hypnotist to have convinced so many poor gullibles to idolize him like that! Did he ever go to hypnotism school? WE DON'T KNOW!!!

pan, you read like Fox News these days. Just so you know. And I'm still not clear what axe you're grinding against Obama. I know it's not race--god help us all, I'm clear you're no racist--but for the life of me I don't know what it is, aside from plain old "don't like 'im". The "past association" stuff is there with any candidate, including McCain. In fact, we can find you MUCH worse, if you'd care to look. host has posted lots of examples. I can't at all imagine you preferring McCain on policy, given he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and keep us in Iraq for 100 years.

self-edited....its not worth providing further opportunities for mischaracterizing what I post.

Here is another perspective on Obama.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/215hpooz.asp

Now before you attack the source, just read the article. I was skeptical at first but I think it makes some good points (part of being open minded).

Enjoy.

Obama is not left wing. That's goofy. Left of the author, certainly, but that means little. What exactly is left-wing about Obama?

This Noemie person should have been in Illinois when Obama got elected senator. It was surprising how many hairy & manly lawns sported Obama signs. I'm talking about Downstate, too, not just Chicago. They could have gone for the guy who was mean to his wife or the genuine right-wing kook. But no, they went for the Academician. How was that possible?

Anyway, it would seem that these are not the best days for the manly party. Manly men like George Bush & Dick Cheney lied so they could have a bit of Jacksonian fun in Iraq. Oops. Their little joyride has turned into the mother of all fuck-ups. Way to go, Jacksonians! People who helped spread the lies, fine folk like Judy Miller and her incompetent editor at the NYT, have been discredited. Wolfowitz is hounded by scandal. Someone named Scooter took the fall. Bush is trying to pre-pardon himself and his crew. No, now is not a happy time for Jacksonians.

To make matters worse, the economy looks really bad. The dollar is crumbling thanks in part to Jacksonian blunders. What difference does it make if your team can depose a Real Bad Guy in Grenada or some other superpower when you don't have a job or can't afford what you want or need? The last time an unnecessary and over-hyped war coincided with a great depression, isolationism did quite well

I just don't see how dick waving is going to be the big seller it once was.

He ran against Alan Keyes.

I probably would vote for Hillary Clinton if she ran against Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes, Holy fucking Jesus Christ on a hot dog bun! I'd fucking seriously consider GWB again over that walking POS.