Skip to comments.
A Shift in Political Landscape Seems To Favor McCain in '08
The New York Sun ^
| 11/28/05
Posted on 11/28/2005 10:15:28 AM PST by areafiftyone
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161-164 next last
To: madconservative
McCain may be the media darling but he is also the American poll darling. He wins hands down WITH Giuliani as the front runner. Things may change by 2007 but right now this is the way it stands.
61
posted on
11/28/2005 10:41:35 AM PST
by
areafiftyone
(Politicians Are Like Diapers, Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason!)
To: sheana
If McCain is the GOP nominee, the NRA should field its own third party candidate.
To: saveliberty
all I can do is pray that he gets beat really bad after NH (all over again).I'll be right there with you.
63
posted on
11/28/2005 10:42:06 AM PST
by
Bahbah
(Free Scooter; Tony Schaffer for the US Senate)
To: areafiftyone
At least McCain refused to join the 79 senators who voted to have the WH provide status reports on the war. I am an Allen supporter, but I was deeply disappointed that he joined the majority rather the courageous minority.
64
posted on
11/28/2005 10:43:43 AM PST
by
kabar
To: rhombus
Perot is not the reason why Bubba was elected. It was "read my lying lips" and his SCOTUS picks that cost him the election.
The Republicans took their conservative base for granted and it cost them dearly. If they have not learned from history, they will repeat this mistake and bring about similar results and there will be another Clinton being sworn in.
65
posted on
11/28/2005 10:43:46 AM PST
by
j_k_l
To: j_k_l
Perot is not the reason why Bubba was elected. It was "read my lying lips" and his SCOTUS picks that cost him the election. The Republicans took their conservative base for granted and it cost them dearly. If they have not learned from history, they will repeat this mistake and bring about similar results and there will be another Clinton being sworn in.Uh huh, sure.
66
posted on
11/28/2005 10:45:41 AM PST
by
rhombus
To: rhombus
McCain won the NH primary in 2000 with the votes of non-Republicans who were allowed to vote in the Republican primary. If Bill Bradley had been a more plausible alternative to Gore, they might have voted in the Democrat primary instead and then Bush would have won the Republican primary.
I don't think McCain won any states in 2000 where the primary was restricted to the actual members of the party in question. He would have the same problem in 2008, only more so--he might win some primaries with the help of Democrats and Independents, but would have no chance in the closed-primary states.
To: Verginius Rufus
McCain won the NH primary in 2000 with the votes of non-Republicans who were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.Agreed. When will the party end this "open primary" nonsense?
68
posted on
11/28/2005 10:48:33 AM PST
by
rhombus
To: DM1
Well if it is McCain vs most Dems I have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for McCain - Period. Absolutely. At all costs the current variant of the Democratic Party cannot be allowed to dismantle the effort to destroy or at lease fatally damage the Islamofacist threat. McCain is vastly more able and willing to pursue the fight than ANYONE in the Democratic Party. Some people seem to be willing to have Hillary in office just to prove an ideological point. Does anyone really trust Hillary to do the 'right' thing if it becomes inconvenient ? Concentrate folks. The Republicans MUST win in 2008. It is important that the defeatist isolationists in the Democratic Party be kept in the wilderness. If McCain can do that and some unknown 'favorite' can't, then McCain it must be. Period.
69
posted on
11/28/2005 10:49:34 AM PST
by
blutto
To: babygene
70
posted on
11/28/2005 10:55:03 AM PST
by
beanball
To: rhombus
"Uh huh, sure."
If the Repubs run a liberal, those red states will become blue and the beer is on you.
71
posted on
11/28/2005 10:55:22 AM PST
by
j_k_l
To: areafiftyone
-"My sense is there's a significant amount of momentum shifting to Mc-Cain within the Republican Party over the past few months," said Mr. Wittmann, who served as the senator's communications director for two years before quitting last year to join the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.-
No bias there!
To: Dan from Michigan; wyattearp
Thank you both. I appreciate 'short, sweet and to the point.' Dan, I am not sure about the Ultimate Fighting issue, but all of the rest would seem to be career killers for anyone looking for conservative support.
73
posted on
11/28/2005 10:58:52 AM PST
by
RebelBanker
(If you can't do something smart, do something right.)
To: blutto
"Some people seem to be willing to have Hillary in office just to prove an ideological point. "
and that my friend is quite scary
I agree with your assesment completely
74
posted on
11/28/2005 11:03:39 AM PST
by
DM1
To: areafiftyone
Change in landscape favoring McCain!--as in the dark side of the moon? a deep crater on mars? Laughable promotion of the MSM darling is all this is.
75
posted on
11/28/2005 11:05:29 AM PST
by
rod1
To: lOKKI
He ain't going to get my vote in the primary.
But then again, NC is so far down the primary list that it doesn't matter much.
76
posted on
11/28/2005 11:05:36 AM PST
by
PeteB570
(Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
To: j_k_l
In 1992, Bubba received 43%, Bush 37.5%, and Perot 19%. Clinton won decisively in the electoral vote, 370-178. Bush had a poorly managed campaign (Mary Maitlan) and failed to refute Clinton's dire portrayal of the economy. In fact, we had emerged from the recession.
Perot had a major impact on the election, including setting the agenda and making Bush the odd man out in the debates. Both Clinton and Perot were running against Bush, Bush lost states like Montana, Nevada, Maine, and NH by less than 10,000 votes and Perot took over 20% in all these states.
Bush lost narrowly in some larger states, e.g., Georgia (13,000 votes with Perot winning over 300,000 votes), Pennsylvania ( 48,000 votes with Perot winning over 900,000 votes), and Ohio (90,000 votes with Perot winning over 1,000,000 votes.) If Perot had not run, Clinton would probably have lost. Although Perot many have attracted many new voters, one could make a reasonable case that more Perot voters were Reps than Dems.
77
posted on
11/28/2005 11:06:37 AM PST
by
kabar
Comment #78 Removed by Moderator
To: areafiftyone
I think I'd vote for just about anyone other than the "Whore of Babylon". '08 sure is gonna suck...
To: areafiftyone; AuH2ORepublican; JohnnyZ; Clintonfatigued; Dan from Michigan
If I want to vote for someone who helps Democrats, I vote 'Rat. Either we nominate a Republican, or millions of Conservatives will look elsewhere for a candidate (or none at all).
80
posted on
11/28/2005 11:09:38 AM PST
by
fieldmarshaldj
(Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161-164 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson