# Bad News for John McCain



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

So let's see.. white males aren't voting for Obama, no blacks are voting for Clinton, blue-collar workers supposedly will not vote for Obama, while white-collar workers aren't voting for Clinton-and all this spells big trouble for whoever winds up getting the Democratic nomination, say the talking heads on the tube and various interweb blogs.

They continually blather about it all day on Political shows. They scream about it to anyone who will listen to them.

But have you heard about all the Republicans that aren't voting for John McCain?

Me neither-not until I read *Frank Rich's column in Sunday's New York Times.*



> When the Pennsylvania returns rained down Tuesday night, the narrative became clear fast. The Democrats' exit polls spelled disaster: Some 25 percent of the primary voters said they would defect to Mr. McCain or not vote at all if Barack Obama were the nominee. How could the party possibly survive this bitter, perhaps race-based civil war?
> But as the doomsday alarm grew shrill, few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn't just tell pollsters they would defect from their party's standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party's nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That's more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama&#8230;.
> 
> Given that the Democratic ticket beat Bush-Cheney in Pennsylvania by 205,000 votes in 2000 and 144,000 votes in 2004, these are 220,000 voters the G.O.P. can ill-afford to lose. Especially since there are now a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania.


Hmmmm maybe the Repugs better start thinking strategy themselves instead of laughing at the circus that has become the Democratic race?

:dead:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

:lol: see new post where Clinton is more electable than Osama, but i appreciate the dems giving up a beatable candidate!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> :lol: see new post where Clinton is more electable than Osama, but i appreciate the dems giving up a beatable candidate!


Not even worth replying... the R's better watch the game they are trying to play...

Come fall it will be a long 4 years...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

:lol:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_ ... 4ovRKs0NUE

new Obama strategy......... :roll:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ok H9494

You are starting those some posts that started the furor a bit ago...

Keep the thread on topic.

Do not simply post a URL.

Give us some opinion about the "why" you agree with a link.

It isnt hard.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

and when you can't debate the issue, you revert back to strong arm tactics Ryan......back off, there is nothing wrong with my comments or posted materials from news organizations, unless you are in favor of censorship, why do you continue to threaten those you disagree with??

the above post simply shows Obama has no response when he has no better idea how to handle a crisis......got it?? he is at a loss.....IMO........


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> and when you can't debate the issue, you revert back to strong arm tactics Ryan......back off, there is nothing wrong with my comments or posted materials from news organizations, unless you are in favor of censorship, why do you continue to threaten those you disagree with??
> 
> the above post simply shows Obama has no response when he has no better idea how to handle a crisis......got it?? he is at a loss.....IMO........


There were no strong arm tactics H9494. No I will not back off. The point is you didn't make a comment. You simply posted a URL. It disrupts the flow of threads. I won't argue about this further. I will simply remove the posts without explanation.

Other people here have no problem providing a supporting source for their information. That is the point. They make a written reply, and provide a link for background source of the facts they are providing. They do not let the story state their case. This is a forum to discuss topics by replying to each other.

Simple concept. Type up your thoughts in reply. Post a referential link if you must to provide proof of a political figures' words.

But stop simply replying with a URL.

Others here besides me have chided you for the same tactics. I'm not alone in my frustration that you aren't providing anything of substance to the politics forum. You have one mantra, you SPAM the boards with it, and you are getting worse.

It's getting old....

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> and when you can't debate the issue, you revert back to strong arm tactics Ryan


I missed this little ditty in your earlier reply H9494

I can debate any issue into the ground with you buddy. I just shake my head in disbelief and choose not to reply to some of the ridiculous BS posted here.

You'll notice I do reply to certain posts. When someone makes a valid point, I take time to reply. If however the ridiculous bar is reached I just move on.

Based on a review of your earlier posts, it isn't worth my time to go too deep. You'll miss the point.

Ryan


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

R y a n said:


> It's getting old....
> 
> Ryan


What's getting old is going to an outdoors website and having to wade through all this political B.S.

It's going to be a LONG summer of this crap!!!!

That's my opinion on the subject.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

drjongy said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > It's getting old....
> ...


 :lol:

This is the politics forum isn't it? That is why we dump it in here...

Ryan


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Yeah this is the politics forum. Better here than anywhere else...

But I think I speak for everyone else here when I say its no secret that Ryan and Hunter9494 dont like eachother. I wish the debate would quit turning personal.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Frank Rich would have been better off staying in the movie critic section of the New York times than trying to act like a real op-ed. At least he would hof had a few more readers to swallow his blubber. A life long far left wing liberal he is noted for putting out attacks such as this.



> George W. Bush is so desperate for allies that his hapless Asian tour took him to Ulan Bator, a first for an American president, so he could mingle with the yaks and give personal thanks for Mongolia's contribution of some 160 soldiers to "the coalition of the willing." Dick Cheney, whose honest-and-ethical poll number hit 29 percent in Newsweek's latest survey, is so radioactive that he vanished into his bunker for weeks at a time during the storms Katrina and Scootergate.
> 
> The whole world can see that both men are on the run. Just how much so became clear in the brace of nasty broadsides each delivered this month about Iraq. Neither man engaged the national debate ignited by John Murtha about how our troops might be best redeployed in a recalibrated battle against Islamic radicalism. Neither offered a plan for "victory." Instead, both impugned their critics' patriotism and retreated into the past to defend the origins of the war. In a seasonally appropriate impersonation of the misanthropic Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life," the vice president went so far as to label critics of the administration's prewar smoke screen both "dishonest and reprehensible" and "corrupt and shameless." He sounded but one epithet away from a defibrillator.


Crunch the numbers in the op's post and it is a push pull at worst and meaningless Frank Rich blabber at best. Anyone that seriously thinks Republicans would vote for Obama or Clinton is just whistling in the dark.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

R y a n said:


> There were no strong arm tactics H9494. No I will not back off. The point is you didn't make a comment. You simply posted a URL. It disrupts the flow of threads. I won't argue about this further. I will simply remove the posts without explanation.


3 posts on the same thread irrelevant to the topic admonishing someone who has not violated any forum rules. *You* need to ratchet up your maturity level and don't sweat the small stuff. Also there is an ignore icon, it works.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Obama may believe what he is saying but who knows what he is saying. He talks a lot about things that need to be changed but he has not given very little if anything about how to make that change. No substance!

Clinton, you just can't trust her!

McCain, does offer his ideas and how to make them work. Believable on most topics. All Republicans I know don't agree with 100% of his stance. All the Republicans that I know are voting for him, he is head and shoulders above either of the Democrat candidates "period".

Is this on topic?

Disclaimer,

My opinion only, if i offended anyone, have your lawyer call my lawyer, they probably need some work. Otherwise don't bother me, I know who I am voting for! I am not politically correct, what ever that means, I will say what I mean.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Hmmmm maybe the Repugs better start thinking strategy themselves instead of laughing at the circus that has become the Democratic race?


You got that right Ryan. I keep asking myself what the heck happened, and all I can come up with is:

The media has been trying to American values for a long time now. Unfortunately it is working. Both parties have responded to what they think can get elected. However, America is not as brain washed as they thought. 
In the beginning the media held up Obama as spotless and near Messiah. If you believed the media God had come for the second time and he was here to save us. Time was Obamas enemy, and it will take time for that "false hope" to turn into reality. Slowly the real man became apparent. Far left liberal, gun control. Nothing new, certainly not change from the Kennedy, Schumer liberal mold. 
The republicans have made the same mistake. The are in the process of nominating a linguine spine liberal republican. Politically correct to the point of having no values. Tolerant to the point of having no values. That's my problem with McCain he is an empty man, devoid of nerve, values, or both. 
The republicans have been chasing the democrats in a race to the left. The politicians perceive more freeloaders than workers in our society and they are rushing to please them. They have created class warfare for the purpose of political gain and now they rush to fulfill their promises to the "childlike take care of me momma" citizenry that they have spawned. 
The only thing that separates our current choices is their attitude on gun control. I try not to be a single issue voter, but only one issue keep separating our current choices. There may also be some difference in taxes and health care too, but until one of them will publicly display a plan we don't know. This election doesn't look like smoke and mirrors it looks like cloak and dagger. 
It's going to be tough to debate for a person when they are all so poor. I guess I find myself debating as a pessimist this year. Oh well, optimist build airplanes and pessimists built parachutes right. We need a parachute bad. One engine is out, the other is sputter, and I don't see a flat spot up ahead.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

I agree with 4Curl and Gun Owner. There is an obvious distain for each other. But Ryan, as a member post with your heart. But as a moderator rule with your head. I have read several of these "discussions" and have seen both points and issues. But you can't use you authority as a moderator to prove your point. This whole thread can be a tinder box. I like to read different opinions. I am more towards the conservative side but I will listen to everyone's point. But when I see this banter it really irks me. I really see nothing wrong with posting that URL. I've seen several people post a URL with not comment. I am sorry to post this but this has gone on way to long.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Plainsman, what you have said is pretty much on tract, but you would probable admit, given the choice you will most likely vote for McCain over the only other choice. To say 27% of the Republicans in Pennsylvania will defect to the Democrat candidate is simply wishful thinking. I don't believe that anymore than I think 25% of the Democrats will go over to the Republican side if their candidate is not chosen. If that scenario were to play out I believe it would be the opposite of what Rich is trying to make everyone believe. Some Democrats may find something in McCain that may cause them to vote Republican. But I don't believe any Republicans will finds anything in either Obama or Clinton to cause them to vote Democrat.

As I've stated before, the people that come out to vote in primaries are not necessarily the people that will vote in the general election. What ever the message was the Republican voters were trying to send in Pennsylvania, I don't believe it was a message of defection.

Bgunit68, I'm in total agreement. Well said.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I won't vote for McCain or at least I sure dont want to, I can't stand him, maybe if he gets a vice pres that I think has some potential.

Nor will I vote for either of the Dems.

I am very unhappy with McCain very very unhappy. I also have to say that Reagan sure got a lot of Dems to vote for him and I think that if Obama is the candidate that will certainly happen again. And if Obama has it stolen from him by the super delegates I bet alot of blacks will vote for McCain out of spite.

The whole darn situation is absolutely amazing how its worked out.

The mere sight of John McCain pi$$es me off  What really bugs me is if he wins I doubt he will pick conservative true constitutional judges. Hes worse than Bush the elder.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Unfortunately conservatives will not have a voice come November. At best McCain has small bits and pieces of conservatism here and there. His only salvation maybe defense.

I will not vote for the other 2 so probably plug the nose and vote for McCain our bane.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

> I will not vote for the other 2 so probably plug the nose and vote for McCain our bane.


I'm with you, I don't much like McCain. He is much better than the other choices though.

If you don't vote for McCain you will be voting for one of the others!


----------

