Posted on 11/01/2008 5:44:23 AM PDT by BlueYonder
My first vanity. It has to said.
When McCain cruises to an easy, early victory Tuesday night, the pundits will be in disarray. They will be left scratching their heads, saying that the reason McCain won is that all the undecideds at the last minute broke for him, preferring the old, known crotchety guy over the charismatic unknown.
It's all untrue but when did the truth ever deter the BSM (Biased Socialist Media) from telling you want it wants you to believe?
In order to win, Zero had to do better among Democrats than did John Kerry. He didn't. Here's why:
1. Zero never secured the Democrat base. His first decision was fatal to his candidacy - he chose a bumbling, mediocre Biden over party unity. Had he selected Hillary as his running mate, the ticket would have been a juggernaut. This fateful selection created the PUMA movement comprising - who knows? - thousands, millions of disaffected Hillary supporters. This is the greatest unreported political fallout in media history.
2. Zero was a weak, unknown candidate propped up by the compliant BSM. All the evidence you need is this: no bounce from his thirty-minute infomercial that was intended to "close the deal." Further, after spending more than $600 million dollars, he was still campaigning on the Monday before the election in Iowa, a neighbor to his home state of IL, which he should have won by 20 points. A strong Democrat candidate with a $600M warchest and this economy should win walking away. There'd be no chance for a McCain surge in the final days. Give me a break.
3. The reincarnation of the Reagan democrats. They left the Party when Jimmah Carter ran the second time and they left when Zero burst on the scene. Nevertheless, the BSM will spin these folks to have left for the all encompassing next reason:
4. Race. Some democrats will reject their guy based on his race, or at least the black half of it. Face it. It's a small percentage of the Democrat party but, in order to win, Zero had to hold onto every Dem voter and he failed to do so.
5. The BSM failed Zero. As they always do, they went into protect mode, trying valiantly - if not honestly - to shield their chosen one from harm. Had the media first done its job of vetting Zero and, had he survived the vetting in the primaries, he would have been tested by fire and ready to win. Instead, by treating him with kid gloves, the Republican opposition was free to explore Zero's past associations, his voting record, his years of drifting and lack of accomplishment; all raised doubts in the general election that should have been vetted long before it took place. Unknowns like Zero don't benefit by not being challenged.
6. Few people bought the outright lies Zero told about his being pro Second Amendment. Like so many other losing Democrat candidates, Zero had to run from his record but there was no place to hide.
7. Zero's opposition to Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection act. Couple that with Zero's statement to Rick Warren that determining when a baby is human is above his paygrade - well you've just created a tsunami of truth washing over your campaign.
We are witnessing the greatest collapse by a major party candidate in history. Now you know why it's happening.
I continue to read about mass defections of hillary supporters. I find that a bit more reassuring.
You forgot to factor in the power of prayer as well. ;-)
How about that
1) he was the most radical, global Marxist ever nominated by a major party,
2) he didn’t pick Hillary, and
3) the truth seeped out around the vile edges of the monolith mainstream media to reach enough voters?
Yes.
And for my next vanity, I will discuss what the Democrats will not learn from this defeat. 8-)
The selection was significant, but the PUMA movement predated the Biden selection; it pedated even before the Democratic convention, when the Hillary supporters realized 0bama was stealing the nomination.
Your name isn’t Hillbuzz is it? Are you pretending to be a Obama supporter? Are you trying to suppress the vote? Are you smoking weed?
Does the expression “Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched” ring any bells?
"Sirhan Sirhan, is that you? Come up here and take your place of honor."
Yes, but if Zero had selected Hillary, he would have let the air out of the PUMA balloon.
I know that one already! Not to overplay their hand. Whether they’re Dems in Congress or on the network news, they just can’t help themselves!
Yes, that’s why I agreed the selection was significant.
I think you’ve nailed it. We’ll know more Thursday next week (your Wednesday...)
And once we get the right outcome, I hope to see a fair few senior Democrats prosecuted for fraud: there should be several avenues whereby successful prosecutions could be pursued.
Roll on Wednesday! (Your Tuesday!) And wish us luck for our elections November 8! (Your November 7)...
*DieHard*
Baraq Hussein is a doubleplusunbad duckspeaker. Americans don’t like duckspeak.
> 2) he didn’t pick Hillary, and
>
> 3) the truth seeped out around the vile edges of the monolith mainstream media to reach enough voters?
Else I misread the article, I think BlueYonder nailed these two flat — maybe articulated differently, but these points were made (quite well, I thought).
I am saying that I've been hearing about lots of hillary voters that will be voting for McCain.
Do you have me confused with someone else?
Trying to suppress the vote? Not at all.
Smoking weed? Never!
A veteran and proud to have served this country.
Morning mate!
I agree, I just simplified with different rankings.
i picking.. I was listening to Rush and he was reading a blog about “coward/obama supporters” getting on different websites to suppress the votes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.