A Shift in Political Landscape Seems To Favor McCain in '08

The New York Sun ^ | 11/28/05

[vrwinger]

If Perot was not in the race were would those conservative votes have gone? Perot got nearly 19% of the of the vote in 1992... The Donks cry that Nader cost them the 2000 election and he got only 3% of the vote...

[mwl1]

I agree. I don't like McCain, and I don't think he'll get the Republican nomination, but if he is the only means to stop a Hillary presidency, I'll support him.

This nation is too important to give PIAPS the levers of the executive branch, God help us.

[Robert A Cook PE]

McCain will be pushed by the national media UNTIL Hillary is nominated.

THEN he will be dropped like the overblown hot-tempered, irresponsible fireball of air that he actually is.

[alarm rider]

"A Shift in Political Landscape Seems To Favor McCain in '08"

Let me be as clear about this as possible.

It would require a shift in the universe to get me to vote for Loose Cannon McCain. If the he is the Republican Party nominee, I will stay home, I just could not bring myself to vote for him for anything, ever.

[rhombus]

Sorry I didn't mean to be curt with you and I regretted it after pressing the Post button. I was saddened when Clinton was elected and I'll be sad if it all happens again. The reality is that in 2008, like 1992, either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected - no matter who else runs. Now if one is angry that the Republican isn't conservative enough, it seems silly to toss a vote toward someone that will guarantee that an even BIGGER liberal is elected. The only excuse for this that I can understand is being naive enough to actually think that this is the year a 3rd party will break through and win. Believe me, 2008 will not be that year. So for all those folks who voted for Perot "to send a message", ask yourself if 8 years of Clinton damage to the country was worth that message. And don't try and tell me that Newt and the Contract with America was the Republicans getting that message. That year was more "buyer's remorse" after people got a closer look at the Clintons with their gays in the military and socialized medicine issues. After 8 years of Clinton and the failed candidacy of Dole, the Republicans were forced to run as compassionate conservatives in order to convince soccer moms that we weren't the pure evil bedroom snoopers the Democrats and the MSM make us out to be. So I just can't see any logic protesting a LITTLE LIBERAL by making sure a BIG LIBERAL wins. Besides, who would Ossama vote for? You bet he'd vote for the BIG LIBERAL.

[Little Ray]

Should read "A shift in the political landscape favors Hillary!" 'cause a lot conservatives are not going to vote for McInsane.

[Little Ray]

Democrat or no, I'd vote for Zell; I think he'd be an improvement over Pres. Bush.

[mwl1]

It will be very hard to hold the White House in 2008 in any circumstance, because of the desire of the American people for a "change," fueled of course by the MSM Democratic handmaidens.

McCain may be the only GOP candidate with the national presence and name recognition who can defeat Hillary, depending upon the state of the economy, Iraq, and other considerations.

And the MSM pressure on women -- regardless of their ideology -- to support the first female candidate for President will be immense and unrelenting.

[rhombus]

Democrat or no, I'd vote for Zell;

So would I but Zell stands about as much chance as McCain does in winning his party's nomination.

[areafiftyone]

In 2008 the Republicans will be split at this rate.

[Little Ray]

Zell ain't gonna run. He's tired and wants to spend his retirement writing and spoiling his grandchildren - and he really means it - he could be Senator again, next election.
That's one of the things that makes me like him.

[mwl1]

The inside betting is on George Allen, who has support across all factions of the party. Other than McCain, Allen is deemed the only credible challenger with the gravitas and national experience to win the nomination and possibly the general election.

Whether Allen can defeat PIAPS is unknown. Allen hurt his own presidential candidacy by the defeat of Jerry Kilgore in VA. Kilgore was an Allen protoge.

I'd rather have Allen as president than McCan any day of the week, but the risk of a Hillary presidency is very real. McCain may be the only alternative to keeping her out of the White House.

[Polyxene]

"I would never vote for McCain under ANY circumstance."

Neither would I, Dan. The man is mentally unstable, and I sure don't want him making decisions for our country.

[PRND21]

I would never vote for McCain under ANY circumstance. That includes Hillary.

Agreed. Thankfully, it won't happen.

[OrangeBlossomSpecial]

I agree whole heartedly. One must always vote for the lesser of two evils if his ideal conservative choice is not on the ballot. McCain is not conservative, never will be, but he would fight Islamic Jihadists and it's better than another Clinton. It is wonderful to "prove a point" but independent thinkers should enjoy their moment of triumph in the poll booth because not voting for either candidate (D or R), writing someone in, or voting a third party candidate are votes for the candidate you MOST strongly oppose. Reality: There is no Election Utopia except for when you are running and voting for yourself.

[madconservative]

I wouldn't deny that, but how would those polls look if you filtered out the people who can't or won't vote in the primaries?