Please, all of you touting McCain as the next president:

[salin]

it seems that most of these threads, but not all, are from one candidate camp or the other (ala if MY choice isn't nominated, THEN = President McCain) - and that is BS. Then there are the McCain is going to win if either nominee gets wins. That is even bigger BS.

To you spewing these pro McCain threads:

1) Cite some hard evidence - more than a friend of family member said x or y. Some evidence like... voter turn out.

Oh, that's right, both parties have had open primaries (multiple candidates which always drive turnout high) and in state after state those turning out to vote in the dem primary/caucus FAR outnumber those turning out for the repub primary/caucus - often by 2:1 or greater.

Or how about evidence like fundraising... oh, that's right, the two democratic front runners continue to out raise individually more than the republicans were raising combined (or at least more than the top two or three repub candidates combined).

Or about how the policies of the republicans are so much more popular, and thus the typical republican talking points are going to drive voters out to the polls. Oh, that's right McCain's policies barely veer away from Bush's policies which rank less than a 30% approval among the public.

2) Come out with your agenda - be transparent about your point. If it is to bully folks to support your candidate just be out with it. If you are one saying McCain is inevitable - what IS your point except to attempt to suppress voter enthusiasm (and participation?) to that - this is an active dem-leaning board - its not going to work here - go to a political neutral cite and start doing the same, and perhaps you will suppress some Obama or Clinton leading voters with your irrational talk.

Seriously, there is no evidence that "McCain is inevitable". Indeed the only way it would appear to happen would be if the dems got to comfortable and complacent with the idea that it is inevitable that the next pres will be a dem, that the campaigns are atrocious. Not just weak - but stumbling/bumbling idiot bad.

And for those of you who agree that these threads are drivel - perhaps voting this one or one that says something similar up - and linking it as a response to the next rounds of "McCain is Inevitable" type threads, instead of engaging in conversations that keep that drivel running might help tamp down the number of threads that seem more appropriate on a board that supports McCain and his ilk.

Just my two cents - as I have tired of typing the same thing (per the evidence does not support such a claim) multiple times in just the last hour - and thought I would do it one more time as a thread rather than a simple response. Anyone agree with me?

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Strawman much? Link to one "pro-McCain thread" posted on DU.

:eyes:

[salin]

2. If it claims "McCain will win" and then goes gloom and doom

for dems - then I consider it pro McCain as that is the effect. Let me go get some links - I will edit this post to include them.

Here is one some thoughtful points but with the inevitable line of President McCain: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4569580&mesg_id=4569580
My very politically astute mother urged me not to write this article, deriding it as mere 'common wisdom' and perhaps beneath the high quality of punditry which I aspire to maintain. But I'm afraid the thought keeps nagging at me and I can't resist, even if I'm stating something which may seem a bit facile and even obvious to some.

The thought occurred to me looking at the results from Super Tuesday and has been reinforced in the week since then — and with the outcome of subsequent primaries. The dynamic of this primary election for the Democrats seems inexorable. It's like watching a trainwreck in slow motion, knowing that disaster is coming but also knowing that there's nothing which can be done to sway the juggernauts from their track towards destruction.
--snip--
Any way you look at it, the situation for the Democrats is much more precarious than you would expect, given the disunified and discredited state of the Republican Party. The irony of McCain's primary victory over all the objections of the far-right, is that he is the one candidate most capable of reaching across party lines and offering a welcoming hand to Democrats and independents who feel betrayed by the Democratic Party. Unless the Democrats come up with some sort of miracle they're heading towards a smash-up from which they may not be able to recover.

Can you say "President John McCain"? Get used to it.


This fits into there is no way the dem will win McCain is inevitable genre.

Here is another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4569670
really haven't been keeping up with the other side, but McCain seems to be more popular than even Reagan was. Is it because he wants more war? I really think it should be Rudy who is getting the GOP nomination. Not that I want to see Rudy as Pres., but he would be better than McCain by leaps and bounds.


Note the premise of the post is that a republican would win - and the claim of McCain being more popular than Reagan - again no evidence, per my earlier post.

On a slightly different note - here is a thread also reacting to the McCain will win/inevitable threads (ala someone also tired of the tactic)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4568973
If you repeatedly post that Obama is going to get creamed by McCain in the GE...
...and then don't pledge to do your very best to make sure that doesn't happen when BHO DOES win the nomination...

...aren't you setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy? And isn't that kinda hypocritical?



There was one I saw earlier - but can't find so I'll keep looking that was a candidate inevitable thread - I rolled my eyes and didn't pay close enough attention to read whether it was "if Hillary is elected say hello to President McCain" or "If Barrack is elected sa hello to President McCain"

In MY interpretation all of those threads touting the inevitability of a president McCain - work as a pro McCain thread - even if that is not the intent. To which I return to my original post - put up or shut up ala give the evidence of such inevitability OR just come clean with your agenda (often "SUPPORT MY CANDIDATE!")

[MethuenProgressive]

4. So "Obama will lose to McCain" is, in your mind, a "pro McCain" thread?

That's quite a spin, even for an Obama.

[salin]

8. Unless there is a lot of evidence to back up the claim

yes because that is how it functions.

IF evidence per voting trends, voter turnout, etc can be given then no I don't classify it that way.

Otherwise the assumptions are ridiculous and thus proMcCain - as they are not rooted in evidence which suggests the opposite.

[MethuenProgressive]

17. ...still waiting for the link.

To the StrawThreads.

[salin]

18. they are there... as I said - if "McCain is inevitable" claim is made, with NO evidence

which indicates NO inevitability - then I count it as proMcCain - not in tone - but in function.

[Windy]

3. McCain is only inevitable if the party thwarts the will of the people

If either Hillary or Obama have the lead in popular votes and elected delegates and in order to change the outcome, the sanctioned votes in MI and FL are seated to the benefit of a candidate without a new election including ALL potential voters (going into it stating that the election will count this time as opposed to before) and the superdelegates decide the race for the opposite candidate,then you will see a mass exodus from the democratic party. Not that people will vote for McCain, but they will sit home...

Then what happens? With low dem turnout, McCain wins.

(ps - I'm a MI voter!)

[DrDan]

5. well . . . I would find it hard to vote for a candidate who is

selected based on super-delegates and if the delegates from FL and MI are ignored.

I am a disenfranchised FL potential-voter.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Yes, both MI and FL should have a do-over, with all remaining

candidates on the ballot, and campaigning in those states.

Hell, ya'll could have weeks to prepare, and you'd still get to be heard before MY state has IT's primary.

[DrDan]

23. late primaries are a pain

that voice sure changes a lot from week-to-week.

Unfortunately, even though our votes do not count, they did have an impact on JE's campaign.

[salin]

10. that is a scenario - that I would agree with

per the depression of voter turnout would help McCain.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Don't confuse prediction with support.

I think it likely (far from certain, but morel likely than not) that McCain will beat either Democrat, by talking about terrorism, tax cuts, Christianity, and the dangers of abortion and gay marrige.

I would love to be proved wrong.

[salin]

12. here is my point - if no evidence is given... and the evidence that

currently exists suggests the actual opposite - then yes I read it that way. If instead some real evidence that we should attend to (to attempt to thwart by Nov), then it is a different game.

Frankly what worked in 2004 (the points you raise) won't now. Bush (who touts those things) has an approval rating in the toilet. The economy and how poorly it is serving most Americans is now the top issue - and tax cuts ala bush have done nothing to alleviate the problems in the economy - leaving taxcuts ONLY a favorable issue for the 30% who will always vote republican. Polls, for the first time, have rated dems higher for national security (as in which party do you trust more) than repubs. In this election those issues have become greatly neutered compared to 2004.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. I don't have the evidence, not being a polls-wonk, but we've seen

repeated postings of polls showing McCain beating Hillary in the GE, and Obama beating McCain in the GE.
That would be considered 'evidence' by people who believe in polls, but as polls are snapshots of the present, not predictors of the future, it is very shaky evidence. It only suggests trends.

[salin]

22. I would agree that would count as evidence

but would need to see a) the margin or error, and b) the poll done several times over time - mostly because these polls have been jumping around so much late (or so it seems following TPMs election central where they post the major polls. Not disputig the polls, just that this primary season has been so erratic/volatile that the numbers keep changing. That said, I would expect that the momentum of Obama would render a little more stability to the polls (either ahead - which I would expect, or if those who think closet racism will prevail - behind given the perceived reality of his candidacy (that is being the front runner and likely candidate) - but in either case slightly more stable.

[Deep13]

7. HC and O point to each other as unelectable.

The problem is they are both right. I think HC will manage the negatives better, but who knows if that is really true? As for evidence, all I can do is to wait and watch it happen.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Give me an example of either one saying the other is unelectable.

I'll be waiting.

[Deep13]

15. You didn't say the magic word.

:eyes:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Pweese.

Pwitty pweese.

:eyes:

[salin]

14. the whole electability equation has really shifted this year

it seems, and voter turnout in the primaries and caucuses - esp in open states - affirms, that a whole different formula is at play. See my previous post per how the key issue and turning out repub voters has shifted since 2004. This leaves the main avenue to be not policy negatives but outright smears. How those are handled will play into the voter turnout catagory - but with the primary/caucus turnout being something of 2:1 dems - even an erosion of some support due to dissillusionment due to smear - wouldn't be enough. Why? Because many independents have grown disgusted and impatient with the republicans, with their policies, and the empty rhetoric of the right - they have a greater suppression turnout as evidenced in the primary states.

I have never said or believed this in any other election year. I doubt it will be true in 2012. We are just in what I would call "a perfect storm" - one created by BushCheneyRove -but a perfect storm none the less.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. Please give me an example. Please.

[ginnyinWI]

9. The electorate is restive.

I think a cheese sandwich would win over McCain, the pro-war candidate. It is time for a change; we needn't stay in the mentality that somehow "they" will win again using their same old tired tricks. The 25 percenters will vote for the GOP nominee, and maybe a few more will be scared into it, but it won't be enough this time.

This is our time. Just look at the 2006 election. The Democrats are on the rise again (finally!)

[onehandle]

11. Hillary or Obama will kick his ass. nt

[IndieLeft]

20. I didn't know we were touting McCain as the next president.

[jerryster]

24. Randi Rhodes said she may vote for McCain...

because of the bullshit with the super delegates. She said the other day that if the party does not go with the candidate who has won the most delegates she will consider that a declaration that her vote did not count and she will vote for McCain.

Does this make McCain inevitable? No. Does she mean it? I think so. Will she use her radio show to pound on the Democratic Party if they do what she's afraid they might do? Count on it.

[salin]

25. that is different that the threads that have been going up

I understand her frustration - but I don't think that leads to a McCain presidency.