It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


McCain guarantees victory

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by nihilus

If I had to guess, its probably also done to demoralize the Democrats. Read these posts. How many of the Obama supporters are saying that McCain must be hatching some evil plot to steal the election?

All of them.

It plays on the Dems' fears and plants a seed of doubt in their minds. In their way of thinking, its 'here we go again.' And maybe the McCain camp is betting that if they keep repeating this guarantee and keep sowing those seeds of doubt, perhaps a small, but statistically significant percentage of Dems may not bother showing up next Tuesday.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by vor78]

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 09:47 PM

Some bozo at Yahoo titles the article in a manner that does not match McCain's quote and many of you jump over that conspiracy cliff like a greyhound chasing a rabbit.

What McCain 'guarantees' is a close election-- one he 'believes' he will win.

That's a far cry from "McCain guarantees victory."



I'll be glad when this election is over.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by David9176

I honestly think the woman has good intentions.

It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I look at her record and the statements she makes and I can only shake by head in disbelief. I cannot believe anyone can consider her as a candidate. I feel this reflects very poorly of McCain's or some committee's judgment.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:00 PM

Originally posted by roadgravel

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he can “guarantee” a win on Nov. 4 in a squeaker victory that won’t be clear until late that night.

McCain spoke amid signs of a tightening race, and reports of renewed determination among his staff, which is badly outgunned in both money and manpower.

“I guarantee you that two weeks from now, you will see this has been a very close race, and I believe that I'm going to win it,” McCain told interim "Meet" moderator Tom Brokaw. “We're going to do well in this campaign, my friend. We're going to win it, and it's going to be tight, and we're going to be up late.”

Yahoo Article

I can appreciate his positive stance but it makes me wonder. Hopefully he believes in himself and campaign..

But that place in the back of mind wonders...

Has he been told the rigging is in place and he will get the victory.

Your thread title is wrong. He is guaranteeing a close election.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:14 PM
hehe... fan the fire..

A Kerry Landslide Why the next election won't be close.

Landslide Kerry?
Here's an odd phenomenon of this election year: Democrats, who've been losing political ground for nearly four decades and who haven't had a good election without Bill Clinton since 1986, seem overconfident. The May issue of The Washington Monthly featured an article by Chuck Todd, editor of the Hotline, predicting not only that John Kerry will win the election but that it will be a landslide.

So to sum up clearly, Bush’s numbers are down not because of this scandal or that insurgent bombing but because President Bush’s horrible policies are playing out as expected and John Kerry is stealth-charming the nation into a frenzy that will win him the election by a landslide not seen since the Reagan days.


It's not over till it's over.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:18 PM

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by David9176

I honestly think the woman has good intentions.

It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I look at her record and the statements she makes and I can only shake by head in disbelief. I cannot believe anyone can consider her as a candidate. I feel this reflects very poorly of McCain's or some committee's judgment.

Well, i respect your opinion. But i could also make the same assumption for Obama. I don't see how anyone could support him either. People criticize McCain's voting record alongside Bush's....but Obama doesn't have a great voting record either. His views on gun control and how it affects the second amendment is of great importance to me and should be to others.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:27 PM
I never knew polls were a guarantee somebody would win an election.

Weren't the New England Patriots and fans celebrating and planning a party before the Giants ended their dreams of an undefeated season?

People still got to vote, the votes have to be tally before we know who will beat who and by how much.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:36 PM
Perhaps you should all "log off" and get girlfriends.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by jam321

Lets not forget about the supposed inevitability of President Hillary Clinton in late December of last year, either. The primaries were just supposed to be a formality. So was the general election, for that matter.

Given how bizarre this entire election cycle has been, and that the odds-on favorite is also a very polarizing figure, I think there's plenty of reason to be wary of the polls.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:54 PM
here is another reason due to lawsuits in federal court after the last two elections the military vote has a far greater chance of being counted..

The state board of elections in over 13 states had such archaic and conflicting rules. that in the last two elections over 1/3 of the absentee ballets of troops overseas were not counted for things like no postmark.
Many remote units in the field do not have the machines to due postmarks.
Plus mail from troops in combat zones is free and does not need a stamp or postmark by US postal rules.

(we used to send mail written on c-rat boxes in the field in Vietnam no stamp and no postage.)

This time the federal courts have ruled that this was unlawful.

And this is what the military vote looks like.

With all the troops deployed and over 60% for Mccain.

The media never polled the troops big mistake.
they goes Obama 9%

also many of the media polls are taken in urban areas.
and much of the Mccain support is in rural areas in states like nevada texas, etc etc

[edit on 26-10-2008 by ANNED]

[edit on 26-10-2008 by ANNED]

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:00 PM
reply to post by ANNED

Excellent post. I had never thought about the military vote. I was just talking to a friend today who had served in Iraq...he was telling me it almost overwhelming support for McCain, at least for the people he associates and works with.

It's wild to think that with Obama's willingness to leave Iraq doesn't have an effect on the vote. It shows that maybe they feel we are there for the right reasons and want to make sure the job gets done.

Very interesting stuff...thanks for posting that.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by ANNED

Are there any numbers on exactly how many voters that would be? I'm not sure as too how many are actually serving around the could be huge numbers..

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:10 PM
With the military they see first hand why we needed to be there (except for a very small 1% of antiwar troops)
Plus the history of how the democrats treated the troop in Vietnam and after.

This is the first election that the democrats claim that they support the troops and the military and the troops don't believe them.

Clinton, Gore and Kerry did nothing but increase the hatred of the democrats by the military.

This is the number one reason that i do not fear the democrat using the military to disarm the American people.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by ANNED]

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:16 PM
As i look at the numbers...i also wonder what else it could mean. What type of person joins the military? I figure that anyone in the military would tend to vote for a president with military experience. But what if there is something else to it?

This is an assumption on my part....

Do Republicans or Conservatives have a larger tendency to join the military than a Democrat/Liberal? I've never thought about it before...i just thought i'd raise the question as one could look at these numbers and make that link if they wanted too.

It's amazing how different the numbers are from poll numbers of non military people.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I remember the night they called Florida for Al Gore and went to Bush at his ranch or whatever to get his reaction and he smiled smugly and said, with pure knowing confidence, that he wasn't worried, he KNEW he was going to win Florida...

And, by hook or by CROOK, he pulled it out.

I say McCain is working under the same assumption.

Or else he's just being as positive as he can be, under the circumstances. I mean, what's he supposed to say? "I think we're gonna lose"?

First off, I remember JUST AS CLEARLY that AL Gore thought he would win "smugly" early in the day without seeing results yet.. what did HE know?

See.. this is what gets me.
He's probably got it all rigged, but in case he doesn't he's just being positive??

How can you hold two minds of thought on this?
Are we (and by "we", I mean the "if we don't win they cheated" crowd) so jaded that every single positive word a republican says is regarded as some secret proof they are trying to steal something?

I swear I am coming back full force on ATS in November when the Dems sweep everything and make you all reconsider some of your stances. (yea.. I know, fruitless quest as you'll all believe whatever you want regardless of truth)

This is ridiculous.. they are cheaters until they don't cheat?

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:38 AM

Originally posted by David9176
It's amazing how different the numbers are from poll numbers of non military people.

Just a quick note on this.. liberals tend to believe there is no boogey man (or the boogey man is us) and conservatives tend to believe the opposite.. When joining the military they teach you to defend the country and put a gun in your hand.. which (if there is no propeganda involved) would still make someone believe there are real enemies.

Liberals tend to believe all enemies are "perceived".
Conservatives believe they are tangible.. thus I think it is obvious why they usually vote republican. It follows the rhetoric of each party.

Conservatives.. let's fight
Liberals.. lets talk.

I know this isn't very PC of me.. but I don't personally know any liberals who could ever earn the right to say "Semper Fi" with any authority.(temperment wise)

In fact almost every liberal leaning person I know is adverse to any type of violence of any sort. Not exactly military material.
(no offense intended by that, I am not military material either..)

By the same token I would imagine the Peace Corps would decidedly lean Democrat.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:00 AM
The only way that he could guarantee anything is if he knows something we do not, or if he knows that voter suppression is scrubbing thousands of votes, and they are tallying up suppressed votes, I read an article that in some states if your name and how you registered do not completely match say for instance your middle name on the id that you use even if abbreviated on one and spelled out on the other, you will either be purged or you cannot vote.

Now these are perfectly good ways to get rid of legitimate voters, what has been happening is the deadline to register may be 30 days prior to election day, well large numbers of voters that are legitimate and in many cases have been getting notices in states like Georgia that they are either not citizens or being purged because of information mismatches and challenged.

Even if they can prove they are eligible, they cannot reregister because the deadline has passed, now this is completely ridiculous, on a technicality you can be denied the right to vote, also if you do not have a drivers license in some states this right can be denied which we know certain people and income groups or even urban dwellers do not have a drivers license.

These sorts of tactics could leave hundreds of thousands of potential voters unable to voice their opinions and that combined with undecided swing could possibly impact the outcome, especially in a close battleground state.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:26 AM
"Guarantee?! "That old man is out of his mind!

...Although in retrospect, that probably means he's more likely to win.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:28 AM
I would very much rather jug it out another 4 years then become a slave to the 'Obamanation'.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by roadgravel

A guarantee huh? So where do I apply to get my money back if he's wrong?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in