Did the McCain team lose the election?

[samspade]

To hear the whining from the McCain team that Palin was nothing but trouble and did not know basic things makes me wonder if they had let her do her own thing that the results would have been better.

Face it the whining from the McCain people shows that they did not have a clue in putting their candidates out front and they should have pursued and used everything that they coud against Obama.

Now we know that McCain would not do certain stuff but then again why didn't his campaign still do more?

It is obvious that the campaign staff just as McCain are a large part of why McCain lost.

Face it, why would any select a candidate with limited experience and radical ways over someone who had served for many years.

Obama is busy selecting the same old boys club to help him that the left complained about with the Republicans.

[HebrewHammer]

McCain lost because he was just the same. He was not exicting to people, and a vice president can only do so much. If Palin had been announced later on, I could see him doing well. But the spark she created could not save him from his own monotony.

[warpig]

Looks like the whole Rep. organization dosne't really know what they are doing. they seem weak going into the 2006 elections and even weaker now.
Palin was good energy, and she looked like she could push back.

One writer summed it up saying:

The first thing that needs to be said is this: John McCain is really a Reagan Democrat. He joined the Republican Party in Arizona years ago because people like him (patriotic, military background, self-consciously anti-Communist) had no future in the Democratic Party, and he remained a Republican since then, but anyone who watches his demeanor and speeches cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a man much more comfortable with traditional lunch-bucket arguments and policies than the generally more abstract, data-based analyses favored by Republicans.

But McCain the Reagan Democrat zoned out and failed a critical test a few weeks later. What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy "fundamentally strong"? What was he thinking when he announced on September 24 he was suspending his campaign, including the upcoming September 26 debate appearance, after the financial crisis broke? Did he think the majority democrats would cave in and make him a conquering hero? Did he think it was a one-day crisis that would blow over, and make him look as if he had worked some magic on it? Indeed, as the Obama ads relentlessly drilled, he appeared confused, erratic, and out of touch -- his big moment of crisis in the middle of the campaign, and he blew it. He choked. And everyone forgot about Obama's horrendous response to Russia's Georgia invasion just a month earlier.

[rightsidedgal]

Well I'm not sure placing blame is what we should be doing. That's more of a liberal tactic, isn't it? I think we should realize we were not in the running since this whole election process started. We didn't have a candidate.

We can't go blaming one of the few that stepped up to the plate. He is a war hero after all. He did step up....

We should evaluate the weapon we chose to fight with....and then ask ourselves why we didn't have better weapons.

We better start looking now.....

[warpig]

We should never be afraid to look at the whole organization, I not pointing fingers as much as trying to look at everything to find what's wrong. and you have to start at the top, who's in charge, who's making the decisions, who's guiding things.

We are not getting the results we need, we need to make changes, let's look at everything.

Good to see you again.

[rightsidedgal]

Originally Posted by warpig

We should never be afraid to look at the whole organization, I not pointing fingers as much as trying to look at everything to find what's wrong. and you have to start at the top, who's in charge, who's making the decisions, who's guiding things.

We are not getting the results we need, we need to make changes, let's look at everything.

Good to see you again.

[Algol]

I agree that one mistake in the McCain campaign was not putting Sarah Palin out enough. After all, she destroyed Biden like there was no tomorrow. If that wasn't proof she was a real attack dog, what is?

But I go back to further than the 2008's primaries in the Republican party. It was just a disaster the whole way through, and only a few times did McCain really shine against the opposition. Actually, if Bush AND the Republican-owned Congress were more conservative on the budget things would've been for the better for the party as a whole, more importantly the nation. :\

[A.W.]

It is my belief , in hindsight, that Mccain threw the election either as a plan or as a dupe.( I believe it was with his full knowledge and cooperation.)

The pick of Sarah Palin was to insure his defeat, the left didnt support Hillary and a conservative republican pro-life mother of 5 - well no way would the US get behind that as a vice president ( this was their thinking in my opinion)

The powers that be , however , were shocked to realize that she has political traction.
She resonates with the people and energizes the base.

Well now , they couldn't have that , so they are about trying to destroy her before she comes to her full political power.

This is one reason why they are STILL after her even though the election is lost to her , they want to nip her in the bud , to stop her because they know she is a danger to their agenda.

[Susanna]

I disagree with the picking of Palin to insure his defeat. If she had been turned loose, he might actually have won; he went up in the polls after he picked her. If he wanted to assure his defeat, he could have have picked one of any number of RINOs. I think, if anything, if his intent really was to throw the election, the pick of Palin was to throw the base off the scent.

[jonathan1984]

I'll go cite Clark's Law. "Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

I don't think McCain "threw" the election, but the campaign he ran was so bad we can't tell the difference.

[Susanna]

Originally Posted by jonathan1984

I'll go cite Clark's Law. "Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

I don't think McCain "threw" the election, but the campaign he ran was so bad we can't tell the difference.

That's a distinct possibility. But if he'd turned Palin loose, he might have won.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

I think McCain had no chance. Obama "ran" against Bush, and McCain tried to stop him and convince us that he's not "Bush." Except Obama didn't run against Bush.

Obama (and the left in general) ran against eight years of big-government Republicans and blamed their problems on small-government conservatives. Couple that with opposition to the war, and you have the recipe 2008 election. The Republicans needed a much more charismatic and believable candidate than McCain, and even then it would've been touch and go.

[Zeus]

I think we are witnessing the equivalent of Corporate espionage. So Far the Stories supposedly from the McCain camp complaining about losing & blaming Palin & everyone else in the rep party have been proven false and/or fabricated by others.

[jonathan1984]

Originally Posted by Susanna

That's a distinct possibility. But if he'd turned Palin loose, he might have won.

More proof on how poorly the campaign was run. Palin could have been a powerful asset, but as it was, she was poorly utilized.

[Trance]

I think McCain may have sabotaged his own campain on purpose, to ensure an Obama victory.

[Algol]

Originally Posted by Zeus

I think we are witnessing the equivalent of Corporate espionage. So Far the Stories supposedly from the McCain camp complaining about losing & blaming Palin & everyone else in the rep party have been proven false and/or fabricated by others.

Yeah, we definitely need to note that the "source" was a fabricated lie. Still, apples never fall far from the tree.

Like someone did note, Obama did (successfully) run against big-government Republican policies. McCain had a big chance at turning that around when the $700 billion bailout occurred. McCain could've told the bailout supporters and Wallstreet to either solve their own problem or go to hell. Instead, he further proved to be more like Bush.

[Conservative Libertarian]

Originally Posted by Rightwing Nutjob

I think McCain had no chance. Obama "ran" against Bush, and McCain tried to stop him and convince us that he's not "Bush." Except Obama didn't run against Bush.

Obama (and the left in general) ran against eight years of big-government Republicans and blamed their problems on small-government conservatives. Couple that with opposition to the war, and you have the recipe 2008 election. The Republicans needed a much more charismatic and believable candidate than McCain, and even then it would've been touch and go.

I agree except you forgot to add one very important element, the complicit and Liberal MSM.

[Conservative Libertarian]

Originally Posted by Trance

I think McCain may have sabotaged his own campain on purpose, to ensure an Obama victory.

I doubt that but, I assume that his motivation would have been to give the Dems all of the rope that they need to hang themselves for the next elections in 2010 and 2012. If the Democraps make things worse, which I'm confident that they will, they get to take the blame and get their clocks cleaned. The broken promise factor will be too high even for the MSM to cover it up.

[Zeus]

Originally Posted by Algol

Yeah, we definitely need to note that the "source" was a fabricated lie. Still, apples never fall far from the tree.

Like someone did note, Obama did (successfully) run against big-government Republican policies. McCain had a big chance at turning that around when the $700 billion bailout occurred. McCain could've told the bailout supporters and Wallstreet to either solve their own problem or go to hell. Instead, he further proved to be more like Bush.

There is a big problem with the "Swim or drown" attitude toward the current financial crisis. the crisis isn't one of failure brought on by a flawed and/or uncompetitive business model only affectting and/iof an individual business enity. This crisis was/is in the Financial Mkts, the fuel for the entirety of our economy. Although the govt has their nose in the products & services economy it is way more involved in thre financial mkts.