Protests at GOP Convention  |   Home  |   No Bonuses for Goldman Sachs Executives

Five Myths

The Washington Post debunks five myths of the 2008 presidential election.  They are:

1. The Republican Party suffered a death blow.
2. A wave of black voters and young people was the key to Obama’s victory.
3. Now that they control the White House and Congress, Democrats will usher in a new progressive era.
4. A Republican candidate could have won the presidency this year.
5. McCain made a huge mistake in picking Sarah Palin.

Go check out the article to see why all of these myths are… well… myths.

Posted by Owen at 2116 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. This was an accurate and insightful article. It is refresing to see someone from the post besides Krauthammer use some independent thinking in their analysis. Thanks for sharing.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2008 at 2224 hrs
   
   
   

2. This is not “The Washington Post,” but Chris Cillizza who is a columnist and this make that an opinion piece, and definitely an opinion piece because he says:

   The exception (to the party in power loosing seats in Congress)? George W. Bush in 2002, when Republicans picked up six House seats and two Senate seats—a historic anomaly widely credited to the world-changing events of Sept. 11, 2001.

   No, it was not world changing events. The GOP thanks to the Enron scandals and a weak economy so the Bush administration created the build-up to the Iraq invasion as a diversion.

   Was the op-ed provocative? Yes.

   Was it accurate? Hardly.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2008 at 2250 hrs
   
   
   

3. So, Enron waited until Bush got elected to begin their dirty work? Then we invaded Iraq for a diversion?

   Keith, I think what is left of your brain is heading out toward Jones Island. You really need to be careful what you flush.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2008 at 2306 hrs
   
   
   

4. Now John - go easy on Keith, the tinfoil has obviously slipped off his head and Dick Cheney is reading his mind again.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 0056 hrs
   
   
   

5. Here is some interesting reading:

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 0640 hrs
   
   
   

6. Wow - did Keith just say that 9/11 wasn’t a “World Changing Event”?  I mean, nobody remembers that day at all right?  It certainly didn’t play any part in the weak economy going into 2002 right? 

   Geez - what color is the sky in your world anyway….

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 1215 hrs
   
   
   

7. Again Owen uses the liberal media when it suits his agenda.

   I have a difficult time believing that it was the Palin choice, and not the economy, that ruined McCain’s chances. I love Cilizza, but I know anecdotally of many, many, many people like me who were leaning McCain until he made that pick.

   I think McCain had a strong case to make on experience, and also on the idea of Democrats controlling everything. Had he chosen a Lieberman, or even Pawlenty, he can make the argument when the shit hit the fan that experience matters in times like this.

   Instead of choosing the experienced centrist, who would have won over voters here the middle where I reside who decide elections, he chose to pander to the redneck base. For every partisan hack who loved Palin, he lost 1.5 independents, in my not so humble estimation.

   McCain could have won, I think, with a nonpartisan, experienced ticket at a time like this. Instead he chose a hack attack dog who did little but increase the dopamine secretions in fellow hacks’ brains.

   Can’t prove it, but still believe it. So I guess my theory is like God.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 1256 hrs
   
   
   

8. ATV -

   I think that is why it was a myth that McCain could have ever won in this political and economic crisis.  While it may be true that if he had picked a Lieberman or Ridge, he may have picked up a few “leaners”, he would have completely lost the base.  The loss would have been worse.  Even with Palin exciting and solidifying the base, there was a good chunk that stayed home this go-round because they just didn’t like McCain and how he continuously sells-out conservatism.  Conservatives really don’t like his stance on campaign finance (that one really bit him in the hiney) and amnesty for starters.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 1319 hrs
   
   
   

9. JJ,

   I appreciate the argument. I’m just not sure the base would have sat at home, because it’s largely unexplored just how big an issue complete control by the Democrats would have been had all the oxygen not been sucked up by the joke that was Palin/Ayers/socialist/terrorist/etc.

   I may very well be wrong, and can easily see how I am. I just think there is a chance, hypothetically, that had McCain lived up to his brand name he’d have gotten a lot of those swing votes in NC, VA, OH, IN, NV and the like that swung the election.

   Did you think the Palin choice was a good one?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 1333 hrs
   
   
   

10. I live in NC now and did some volunteering this year at the local office.  Since all of this is completely hypothetical anyway, what I can tell you is that Sarah Palin did more to bring out the excitement in the conservatives/base than Romney, Lieberman, Ridge could have dreamed of doing.  Not sure about Pawlenty, as he was almost as big of an unknown as Palin.  Lieberman especially would have had them staying home in droves.  There were people coming in to volunteer and get yard signs and bumper stickers that flat out admitted to not even wanting to vote until Palin was on the ticket.  I don’t think that picking up some of the middle would have overcome that.

    A side issue you bring up is of the complete control of the White House, House and Senate that the Dems have and how if that was discussed more, maybe that would have persuaded the base to come out.  That also came out quite a bit in conversation.  People not only understood it, but in some cases hoped it would happen.  Contrary to popular belief, conservatives are NOT in love with George W Bush.  He and the rest of the GOP leadership in Congress so damaged themselves with conservatives over the past 8 years, there were many that wanted all of them to lose so that they could “clean house” so to speak. 

    Personally, I like Sarah Palin, but I knew a bit about her before because I work in the Energy industry.  She is nowhere near the “dolt” that the bumbling McCain campaign allowed her to be defined as.  I also don’t subscribe to the meme that you need to be a Harvard Law grad to have the correct bona fides to hold the VP spot.  Palin had far more experience than John Edwards did four years ago.  But - it is what it is.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 1359 hrs
    
    
    

11. If the McCain of 2000 was this years candidate (instead of the 2008 version of McCain that pandered to the talk radio listening conservative base of the GOP), he ran a campaign as effective as the Obama campaign and had picked Romney as his running mate there is a good chance he could have won. 

    He did none of those things and rendered himself unelectable by selecting a vp candidate that everyone except the die hard base viewed as utterly unacceptable.  It was the worst presidential campaign we will probably ever witness.

    IMHO

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 1749 hrs
    
    
    

12. 3rd Way

    And if a frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his as a-hoppin’

    McCain barely had a chance with the baggage of public funding and GWB, Palin gave him a brief boost, and then the economy crashed.  The election was lost then and everybody knew it.  The only chance he had would have been to stand up against the bailout, but he didn’t have the cajones.  THAT would have won him the election. 

    What you are missing is that he wasn’t pandering to talk radio.  He wasn’t even listening.  John McCain is a fine man, an honorable man who gave much to this country.  John McCain is NOT a conservative, not even close.  There were too many years and a voting record that proved that.  Romney was a little too squishy on some stuff too.  That is why Palin gave him the boost - most of the conservatives that voted actually voted either for Palin or against Obama.  It wasn’t for McCain.  The only shock of this election (and I voted for the ticket) was that he didn’t lose by more. 

    But seriously - since you are a liberal - if all of the scenarios you presented above would have played out to your (McCain 2000 opinion), would YOU have voted for McCain instead of Obama?  I’m really not thinking so….

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 1804 hrs
    
    
    

13. Sarah Palin got more votes in Alaska for Gov. than Joe Biden got in the entire US for presidential nominee. That being said, I don’t think either one moved a lot of voters one way or another.

    I do think it charged McCains base and the ratings that the convention and VP debate should offer evidence of her popularity.

    Obama ran a superior campaign, had superior funding, and the electorate was in the mood for change. He won fair and square. Palin had nothing to do with it.

    I was a supporter of Romney but right now I think there is far more bigotry toward Mormans than there is for blacks in the US. Therefore, I don’t think he would have tipped the scales. Besides, who looks and acts more like a “corporate insider” than Romney?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 1811 hrs
    
    
    

14. I am not really a liberal.  I am definitely to what is defined as the left side of center in this country, but I don’t see how that makes me a quote unquote “liberal”.  I have been in political discussions with true blue liberals that think I am a right wing free market extremist. 

    As someone that leans left I probably wouldn’t have voted for McCain when my other option is a pragmatic left of center guy like Obama.  But if McCain had run like he ran in 2000 and stuck with a sane tax policy where as he said “cutting taxes for the wealthy in light of record deficits is unresponsible” (I am paraphrasing) and played up the notion of making our tax system as efficient as possible with Ireland’s tax system as our model (as he mentioned in the debate) there is an outside chance that I could have voted for him.  Even if he had the perfect tax and economic policies to satisfy me (I am not particularly in love with either party’s, but I like the Democrats much more)  I couldn’t have voted for him after picking Palin.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2008 at 1842 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.