Would Obama Destroy McCain?
It's Early.
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | polls — Comments (66) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So we have been treated of late to the usual chorus of claims that the GOP is doomed, doomed I tell you, at the polls if McCain faces Obama. Well, Rasmussen's daily tracker has McCain pulling ahead of Obama the past 4 days, and now up 47-43 in a national head-to-head matchup. The RCP multi-poll average still gives a 47-43 nod to Obama. (McCain's matchup with Hillary is more favorable). But if you looked at polls taken between January 28 and March 7 of 2004, you would see Kerry leading Bush in 15 polls, to 7 showing Bush ahead and 3 ties, and an unweighted average result of 47.48 for Kerry to 45.2 for Bush. Gerald Ford trailed by 33 points in August and lost by 2. (H/T) George HW Bush trailed by 17 in July and won by a healthy margin. Those are the most famous examples, but hardly the only ones.
But, you say, huge primary turnout for the Democrats presages a landslide? Maybe, but Democrats traditionally have much higher primary turnout than the GOP:
That's right: Democratic turnout in the primaries was 47% higher than GOP turnout in 1980, and 89% higher in 1988. Any Democrats looking to replay those races?
Folks, it's a long way to November. Yes, you can slice and dice the polls cited above to make the point that polling (1) has its flaws and (2) can be badly abused if you don't distinguish between good polls and bad. And that's even aside from the fact that these are national polls whereas the election is actually 50 statewide elections. But the point is, there is simply no evidence right now that Obama, whose real record is very unknown to the national electorate and who has never run a campaign against anything resembling a competent Republican opponent, has this race in the bag. He may justifiably be favored over McCain, if you had to put money on this race today. But he is not unbeatable, or if he is the evidence of that is as yet undetectable.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | It's just a Silly Hat Picture, Barry. — Comments (56) »
Would Obama Destroy McCain? 66 Comments (0 topical, 66 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The dates of polls are important, and so, given the major event that has occurred since the taking of most polls, I think the Rasmussen rolling average tracking poll is probably the best indicator of things, and it's showing that the Times isn't hurting McCain, who is still rising even after the piece.
New snapshot polls that come out in coming days should probably also show a McCain-Obama matchup tightening.
It all just goes to the point - Obama is not invincible and McCain is not doomed.
They had a great track record in 2004, which surprised me for various reasons. They have rested on those laurels since then. Their R primary polls were not very accurate. I've looked at internals and it seems their samples are more conservative and more Republican than other polls. The general head-to-head numbers seem to assume equal numbers of Rs and Ds which is very unlikely. That would explain the 5 point R advantage on Rasmussen compared to other polls.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
For what it's worth, Gallup poll out today shows McCain +1 in a head-to-head match with Obama. A good weekend for McCain--bad NYT story, I think.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Although it is early, that would still be good news.
That would be great news, but I can't find it on their site.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I figured everyone checked RCP as obsessively as me:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_electi...
Apparently up from -4 last week.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Look forward to seeing the internals.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Although it is early and only 1%, it still is good news.
I'm hoping that Democrats take a look at this and start to question Obama's electability. It's not that I want Hillary to be the nominee as much as I want a brokered, hostile Democratic convention that leaves a lot of Democrats angry, defeated and totally unwilling to support their eventual nominee, whomever that may be.
Thanks for encouraging data. The primary turnout has been phenomenal on the Democrat side, but your chart shows it was similarly so in 1988.
This year 2008 is shaping up to be a lot like 1976.
Obama is running a Jimmy Carter type campaign,
and McCain is a Ford-wing candidate.
The general point is that early polls mean little, campaigns mean a lot. Or we'd be looking right now at Hillary v Rudy.
So what campaign wins? 1988 may be the McCain template for the general election; he's a softer edge than his predecessor and is opponent is an out-of-touch liberal.
McCain will be tagged as the Bush-heir. Obama is already talking of Bush-McCain policies, as if McCain was the VP under W.
McCain will need to do two things to win:
1. Nail down the conservative base. he needs to move off the amnesty dime to do that. Support enforcement first.
2. Expose Obama as the left-liberal empty suit that he is.
I made a similar remark last week regarding February-March polling.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/a_texan/2008/feb/19/spooked_by_the_recent_...
For all elections since 1984 (maybe sooner), with the exception of 1996, the February-March polls overstated the eventual loser's position by roughly 11 points.
If that pattern holds, we'll see either an Obama blowout of 15 points or a comfortable McCain win by 5 points or more.
Given that Obama has received the BEST press coverage that he will receive during the campaign, let me say that I think the latter is more likely.
Alas, I also think it's more likely that, like in 1988, the defeat of the liberal Obama will not provide significant help to the Republicans down-ticket.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
1988 was a different era. The Democrats still had massive advantages mostly from incumbency but also from solid control of state governments with attendant gerrymandering abilities.
1988 saw Democrats go +1 in the Senate and only +2 in the House. The Senate results show that local issues were the key as 3 Republican seats were lost because we had to run against very popular incumbent or former governors (Robb in VA, Bryan in NV, and Bob Kerrey in NE). The fourth seat was Weicker vs. Lieberman - famous for Buckley and the conservatives endorsing Lieberman over Weicker. Meanwhile, Bush probably did help Conrad Burns beat an incumbent in MT and likely contributed to pickups in MS and FL as well as some close holds (notably WA and WY). Bush probably also swung some votes to losing Republicans where it just wasn't enough.
2008 is far different - there are a bunch of marginal House Democrats from 2006 who hold seats they shouldn't (OH-18, TX-22, FL-16, KS-2, PA-10) that would clearly be vulnerable to coattails (or a distinct lack of them). In addition, the Senate will be interesting - a 1988-like result would probably pick us up LA and SD and save CO, OR, MN, NM and ME. It would also be interesting to see how a solid McCain win effects NH and VA and even AR (if Huckabee would just go run for something he might actually win).
I think the margins this time are so much smaller then they were in 1988 that it won't take much movement in a number of these states to change results. Will it mean a majority - maybe not, but since so many seem to be thinking we're going for net losses again, even a break-even would be a "win."
I do think that the polls overstate Obama's real support. Because if history has shown us anything, any time a candidate gets a large amount of support from younger people, that support largely evaporates come election day, because those people don't, in fact, end up voting.
You want my prediction? It's all going to boil down to the GOTV effort, as both sides will be largely uhappy with their candidate. On the Dems side, if it's Clinton she will have used the superdelegates to steal the election, creating discontent. If it's Obama, when they start to realize how much of an empty suit he actually is there's likely going to be some buyer's remorse. And I don't need to tell you why people will be unhappy on the Republican side.
So I'd say right now for people who actually want McCain to win, barring a blowup on either side, nothing is really going to matter until right before the election, and the GOTV effort.
1. A stable, if not improving economy.
2. No bad news from Iraq.
3. Nothing that can be possibly construed as a racial gaffe
4. No getting sick or slowing down on the campaign trail
In other words, he's relying on Americans to seriously consider his message and look beyond the slanted reporting the media will surely give Obama for the next eight months. Not much he can do on any of these fronts, save maybe the third, but if he runs a perfect campaign and gets help from the economy and war, victory is a plausible scenario.
We can only hope Obama keeps letting his wife talk unscripted or Hillary wins in Texas/Ohio keep her in the race for another at least another month and a half.
“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley
I do think Obama is a more likely winner, but he is not insurmountable. Rs in general are behind right now and we are lucky to have the one candidate who is not seen as Just Another R this cycle.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Cold cash. Campaign cash, that is. Obama has tons, McCain has little. What effect will that have on GOTV efforts for the GOP? What are the implications of McCain actually being limited to spending 5 million dollars between now and September? Obama goes through 5 million/day.
What will be the role of conservative 527s this cycle? Will FreedomsWatch play a role?
(yes, I know this was a quasi-threadjack toward the end)
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Independents and the moderates are going to decide this race. McCain doesn't need to tie himself to a far right social conservative-he needs someoen who can take over and equals his national defense credentials. Anyone doubt that Rudy would hit the terrorists hjust as hard as Johnny Mac. Obama might get an endorsment from Al Qaeda if that was the ticket.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Well, actually, I do not doubt Rudy Guiliani would be "tough." I do, however, doubt his all-around foreign policy experience.
It is a moot point now but I have never really understood why so many people seemed to be so confident that Guiliani would be great on foreign policy. Not that I think Guiliani would have been bad but, being realistic, he gave no real proof that he would be great.
Guiliani said all the Right things (double entendre) but his experience was all "local" as in he never had to address foreign affairs directly. He was sort of like Mitt Romney.
Again, I am not saying that Guiliani would be bad. Indeed, all in all I think I would have liked his foreign policies. My argument is that so many of his supporters were absolutely confident that he would have been great; truth be known, he had no more foreign policy experience than someone like Mitt Romney (who, although I did not trust him, if he also lived up to his rhetoric would not have been bad on foreign policy either).
Rudy Guiliani understands the threat because he lived through it, and he got a city and a country through it. Because of this, Rudy is very clear on who the enemy is, and he wants to make them pay. I like that, and I like the fact that Rudy loves smacking around Democrats. You'll get no NewTone with Rudy, which is frankly everyones problem with McCain. Rudy's no RINO, and he likes being a Republican,a nd his main thing since 9/11 has been to make sure the people who hurt us never do it again.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
I see what you're saying, I even like what you're saying. My thing is, how would Rudy "make sure the people who hurt us never do it again"?
Again, I like Rudy but I do think many of his supporters oversold him here.
Anyway,
I think the answer is simple here-he's going to continue the Bush doctrine of pre-emption against our enemies. He's obviously a hawk, and not afraid to rattel the sabres when its time to get aggressive. I would say a tough foreign policy with a tough UN guy liek Bolton is what we would be getting with Rudy.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
I hear what you're saying and I even agree. But that still does not answer the question of how is Guiliani different from the other major Republican candidates?
Excepting Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, I honestly think they all could say and do the same. Indeed, even Mike Huckabee is now saying the right things.
Quite frankly, I think Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain are all as good on national security as Rudy Guiliani. My thing is, what made Guiliani supporters think he was the best on this issue?
Okay, he was mayor of New York during 9/11. That maybe good experience in rebuilding a city, even a nation, after an attack but it doesn't buy you any additional insight into responding militarily or otherwise or in preventing the attack in the first place.
Again, this is not a dig at Guiliani. I honestly do think he would be good here. My question is what makes you think he is so much better most other major Republicans and, more germaine to the original topic of this thread, what makes you think he would add substance or expertise to McCain as McCain's VP pick?
John McCain already as strong on security (what he may "lose" against Guiliani on waterboarding he more than makes up in dealing with foreign affairs), is about as equally appeaking to moderates and independents, and (surprisingly) is better on immigration (Guiliani tried to setup New York as a sanctuary city). Bottom line for me, although I personally like Guiliani I think he would be a terrible VP pick for McCain because he would scare far away more SoCons than he would bring in independents and moderates.
In an election that is going to be all about the moderate middle, because lets face it, this isn't a far right year, I think that bringing in two moderates would work well against a far far left liberal like Obama. It tempers the Republicans are crazy fundamentalist homophobes charge, and it beings in moderates exposing Obama as the rabid left winger he is. It doesn't help if we have a guy foaming at the mouth about God's constitutional standards when we're trying to show the other side as extremists. While Rudy might not have any necessarily experience that is different-his reaction on 9/11 shows that he is a proven strong leader. America likes a tough guy, and one thing Rudy is definitely is a tough guy. He's the bad cop to McCain's good cop, and I really think that two moderates mean we can play a little more offense with the map. The South ain't gonna turn blue, and I think deploying Rudy and McCain in the Northeast could put NY, NJ, and CT into play enough where Obama at the very very least has to spend some money defending it. It might put Oregon safely in our column, you know some of the moderate swing states I think will be competitive that aren't usually on the map.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
I don't think Guiliani brings any more moderates on the ticket than McCain does by himself. Likewise, I don't see New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut anymore in play with Guiliani on the ticket than if he is not.
And trust me, as someone who has a fair amount of business interests in New York, Guiliani is nowhere near as universally loved here as you may think. Yes, he is still the favorite Repubican but most of the general populace has lost that special feeling.
I spent a lot of time in NYC as well, and I got the feeling that a lot of New Yorkers think Rudy is a hero. I don't think he's universally loves, but it seemed to me that he would at least have helped McCain being competitive.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Too much baggage, and too liberal on social issues. The best VP for McCain would be a solid, all around conservative to placate the base. Preferable someone with a proven socially conservative record. Mark Sanford comes to mind first.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Rudy's not a co-pilot by nature, and part of what did him in as a candidate was that his and McCain's strengths overlapped too much. McCain needs someone who is more of a complement.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
These polls are encouraging, and I am starting to think that Obama won't do as well when he's facing someone with whom there are serious policy differences and no intraparty attack limitations. His ability to coast on great speeches and little substance may be coming to an end. So in November it will probably come down to the GOTV efforts, fundraising, and which candidate makes the fewest goofs.
I like Rudy. He was my first choice this time around, but given he didn't wind up as the nominee, he doesn't fit as a Veep. Rudy probably can't flip New York for McCain. Having him on the ticket with McCain would further enrage the social conservatives at a time we need them to get behind the nominee. McCain strikes me as sufficiently ruthless towards the Islamofascists that Rudy's marginal value on this issue wouldn't be needed. McCain also has enough appeal to Independents and moderate Democrats that adding Rudy wouldn't get him much more in comparison to the far right voters who would sit it out in anger.
McCain should consider a former/current governor of a purple state and/or someone with strong economic skills. It has to be someone who could take over fighting the war if anything happened to McCain, but right now McCain needs a ticket balancer.
1. Campaign staff. I'm not convinced that he has crack campaign strategists & managers like Bush had.
2. Grassroots support. I believe that the base will come around and vote for McCain. What I'm concerned about is whether they will devote their time, energy, and money to him the way they did to Bush. Bush won his two terms because he had an army of volunteers and activists that worked tirelessly to campaign and GOTV on election day. Will McCain have that? I guarantee you Obama will.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I don't know that the base was any more excited about Bush in 2000 than it will be about McCain in 2008. I remember there being quite a bit of concern that W would be like his Dad. He ran a pretty centrist campaign in the general as well, racking up some bad promises along the way (Medicare Part D, AWB).
McCain has the war this time around, which should be enough to keep a big chunk of the base motivated.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I would agree, that those two things could be weaknesses, and I would add one more, money. I don't know much about McCain's campaign staff but there is a lot to be said for having a Rove on you team.
As far as the money and the GOTV effort, these are the areas that have me worried. While I was excited about and contributed both time and money to Bush's 04 campaign, McCain just doesn't do it for me. I am resigned to the fact that I will vote for him in the general even though he was not my favorite candidate in the primaries, but other than that I don't feel motivated to contribute financially, or to volunteer.
I know it won't matter at all here in Texas, but I have a lot of friends (both liberals and moderates) who are VERY excited about Obama, and at the same time hardly any of my conservative friends are excited about McCain.
While this is only a personal antidote, if this same sentiment replicates itself on both sides of the isle elsewhere , McCain could be in trouble when it comes to matching Obama's fund-raising and GOTV efforts.
"Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain" - Winston Churchill
This is timely. I heard one commentator make the following points:
1. Primary turnout is generally indicative of enthusiasm for one particular candidate, not the party as a whole.
2. General turnout may be depressed for the Dems if their candidate isn't the one who gets the nomination.
3. Primary turnout is inflated while a close race is still in play, like it has been in theory for the Dems.
So I'm not worried about Dem turnout in the primary. I'm worried about Dem turnout in the general.
I voted early in the Florida primary. Find out who and why.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Not only is he not unbeatable, he's untested and completely unchallenged as of yet -- and even in that instance he's near parity with McCain. It'll be a slugfest, there's no doubt about that (at least among the cognoscenti here on line.)
The most important thing for John McCain's campaign going forward is that it has to execute flawlessly. That means they need money, but it also means they're going to need the kind of discipline that brought Romney from nowheresville to a serious candidate. My sincere hope is that the McCain campaign is making telephone calls to the Romney expats and asking for their help and their service -- I know I'm willing to help.
Above all else John McCain needs to stay above the fray, stay off the defensive, and bring Americans together with his message of Security First. He needs to make sure that he doesn't have any of those moments that the media can portray as "senior moments" because of sloppy execution by his campaign team. And he needs to prove to voters something more:
Barack is the candidate of false idolatry and starry-eyed silliness and irresponsibility. He's an empty suit with a messianic message but with zero credentials, just as though he actually crash landed his UFO in Hawaii.
On issues of substance I hope all the other previous canidates are lending their best minds to helping McCain win. I don't claim to be one of them, but I can give my money, and I hope everyone else will, too.
You're always so pessimistic, heh.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I hope he'll also be brash and bold. I want to see a John McCain who fundamentally disproves Camille Paglia in this instance: I want to see a zesty, sharp-minded guy who is more youthful than his years but with all of the experience those years entail. He's looked good recently and his response to the NYT was absolutely on target. He's going to need to keep that up.
In fact I'll be happy if by the time this is over the Obama team look like those guys. Truth to tell, it's not so difficult a task.
Support the Patriot Post | Defend Liberty - Join the NRA | Visit me at TMR
"He needs to make sure that he doesn't have any of those moments that the media can portray as "senior moments" because of sloppy execution by his campaign team."
So far McCain has just been a punching bag. Hopefully, he can find some message and go on the attack.
And, I'm sorry to say, I just don't see security being a big enough issue for us this year. The War on Terror seems to have been forgotten by many and unless something awful happens, I think the general public just wants to forget.
Was that the same UFO Dennis Kucinich apparently witnesses regularily?
"To believe in nothing is to believe in everything. To believe in everything is to believe in nothing"
Based on what I've been hearing from the media, the D's have vastly outnumbered R's in primary forever. Again, just goes to show you.
Erik
In 1996 there basically was no D primary and in 2000 the D primary ended a lot earlier than the R race.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I heard on the radio about a poll out by the Associated Press that shows Hillary up by 5 over McCain and Obama with a 10 pt lead.
I haven't seen a poll with Hillary ahead for weeks. A 10 point lead for Obama is out of proportion too. Neither of them fit with any poll I've seen.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
1,011 individuals, 755 Registered voters (no idea of likely voter percentage): 47% Democrat/leaning, 38% Republican/leaning, 5% Independent.
Not to be impolite, rainbowtrout, but this wasn't particularly hard to find.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The results are not surprising.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Big diff--registered voters (CBS, AP) v. Likely voters (Rasmussen, Gallup).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_electi...
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
http://www.dailyawesome.com/images/obama_vs_mccain.gif
State polling data projects Colorado, Nevada, Iowa falling to the ungodly commie/Al-Qaeda fan club Democratic^H^H party.
"The Daily Awesome: The premier self-appointed authority on liberalism, freethought, and awesomeness."
Come on. Try harder.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
...that if he had brought up the main website someone would have noticed this, as well. The repressed homophobia displayed by the author is particularly interesting.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
someone left the "do" off the front of his username, right ofus?
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
you have insufficient respect for authorities on awesomeness.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
At this point I find it hard to believe that either one is up by 10-12% over the other but two sets of polls have these figures.
AP-Ipsos has Obama at 51% and McCain at 41%. The polling dates are February 22-24.
CBS News/NY Times has Obama at 50% and McCain at 38%. The polling dates are February 20-24.
You can make of them what you will, especially the NY Times one, but I present them for your review.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_electi...
Yup, registered voters. :)
We've already played with the AP-Ipsos: the CBS/NYT poll is 1115 registered voters, with 32% GOP, 38% Democrat, 30% Independent.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
You'd think they go reverse and try lulling us into a false sense of security ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
They'd prefer our backs up, in fact: boosts circulation / hitcount / eyeballs / whatnot.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
After all thats the bulk of their audience.
Heck for these days, my news comes from the history channel.
Yes I am not only living in the past, I am looking to emigrate.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
They're weekend polls too.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
...is to depress the GOP base and attempt to demoralize conservatives and Republicans by printing story after story about how great the Democrat campaigns are going and about "grim" or "gloomy" the GOP prospects are.
Then they complement those stories by releasing general election polls of "registered voters" and that oversample Democrats.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
His problem is that there are more than a few of us who are barely grudgingly supporting him. Those of us who were avid supporters of real conservatives like Fred and Mitt in this race are tired of settling for some half-conservative like McCain.
The enemy of my enemy (the NY Times) is not my friend. That's not how it works.
I don't care if Obama would destroy McCain. Before that can even happen, McCain may just as well succeed in destroying the Republican party.
"real conservatives like Fred and Mitt"
Yeah, Mitt the "real conservative." Heh.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Just say you are!
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Only Rudy stood a chance at being more liberal than McCain. Sure, Mitt wasn't the most consistent conservative of them all (honestly, that honor might go to our beloved crackpot Ron Paul), but McCain diehards are in no position to talk.
Do you seriously believe that McCain is a true conservative? One worthy of our party - the party that he was about to leave not even 8 years ago?
I'm just saying - I'm tired of everyone suddenly acting like McCain is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Just because the NY Times attacked him doesn't make all of the issues that the majority of the folks on this site had with him just over a month ago just disappear.
Great post and chart. As people are convinced to step away from the ledge, we can focus on the task at hand. Expose Obama for his empty rhetoric, liberal policies and lack of qualification during war time. Or, if we are lucky, let Hillary talk for a few months and reap the benefits. :)
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
soli Deo gloria