I don’t understand McCain’s logic on why his campaign is full of negativity
Posted by silentarchimedes on October 16, 2008
In the third presidential debate yesterday, John McCain again used the same logic when asked why the American public has an overwhelming perception that his campaign is much more negative than Barack Obama’s. He once again responded that because Obama declined to accept his challenge to have ten or more town-hall meetings, he had to go negative. Had Obama accepted, the tone of his campaign would not be so negative. Huh? I don’t get the connection or the logic behind that. The only thing I can think of is that McCain is bitter and taking vengeance on Obama for not wanting town hall meetings. That just makes McCain look worse. Like a bitter old man who pouts when he can’t get his way. It’s like a child throwing a tamper tantrum because his friend won’t play with him. So instead he steals his friend’s lunch money, and starts badmouthing him to everyone else. What the… How old is this guy?
I don’t see the point of having so many debates anyways. The second debate was a complete repeat of the first one. Even though the second one was a pseudo-town hall debate, it’s not like McCain did any better. The third one was finally different only because McCain was desperate and had to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, which Obama gracefully dodged.
|QUICK TRIVIA QUESTION|
|ANSWER – Highlight with mouse
The United States presidential election of 1964 was one of the most lopsided presidential elections in the history of the United States. As of 2007, Johnson’s 22.6 percentage point-margin of victory in the popular vote is the fifth-largest such margin in Presidential election history (after the margins of the 1920, 1924, 1936, and 1972 elections). Johnson won 61.1% of the national popular vote, which remains the highest popular-vote percentage won by a U.S.presidential candidate since 1820.
|Nominee||Lyndon B. Johnson||Barry Goldwater|
|Running mate||Hubert Humphrey||William E. Miller|