Rachel Maddow: "McCain will win."

"McCain is going to win. ... Unless something really drastic happens on the Democratic side, I think McCain sails to a big 51% win."

Rachel Maddow (KPTK m-f, 3-5p ) is not optimistic about Democrats in November. She spoke with BlatherWatch Tuesday.

She says it's a matter of Democrats' "campaign malpractice."
                     
"[McCain) will enthusiastically embrace not only Bush -- but Cheney, and run as a bellicose, warmongering adult. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will have firmly established themselves in the mind of the electorate as squabbling kids who don't deserve the office."

The Air America Talk host and MSNBC analyst admits being a cynic about elections; and November's a long way off, but, she says, "John McCain has had a long career being tongue-kissed by the press, and there's no signs of that abating. The stuff he's getting a free ride on are unconscionable.  [The Democrats] are letting John McCain win -- it's campaign malpractice."  

We talked to Maddow directly after Obama's big  defensive speech on race.

Did the speech help him? It was too early to know when we spoke, but Maddow says, "It aimed high, that's great." Despite it was a difficult topic that makes people uncomfortable, he resisted, she says, "making a Mitt Romney lowest common denominator pablum speech."

He said America is still segregated in a number of ways, says Maddow. "White people and black people say things in their own communities they don't say to each other. And there's a whole lot of anger on both sides and the anger is understandable. That's got us into this rut -- this racially divided rut we can't get out of if we keep talking about it in the same old way."

It was ambitious, she says. But by presenting a nuanced view of race, and not pandering, or patronizing, he asked a lot of the American people.

We wondered if the speech effective with average voters? Maddow asks, "Are we really as capable of absorbing the nuance, complexity and difficult truths as this speech implies Obama thinks we are?"

Obama's negatives were over 50% for the first time in the polls after his pastor problems emerged. Maddow: "If he's able to tamp that down, or bring his positives back up again to counteract those negatives I guess we'll see it."

But, she says, this train wreck could have been avoided. "This is worth talking about as a political blunder. Just in terms of the Obama campaign not having adequately inoculated against this controversy... because they knew it was coming."

It's amazing to me that this got out though Bryan Ross on ABC News. We know how he got this stuff: the sermons were for sale! If you're running for president, and you know your pastor is controversial, and his sermons are for sale, you better be the one who buys them, not ABC."

While the kiddies are squalling, making new messes and providing fresh footage for Republican attack ads, McCain has "... lobbyists running his campaign; was one of the Keating 5; he's incoherent on everything from the economy to the war, which is his signature issue," says Maddow. "His best friend is Joe Lieberman!"

Although Obama has shown his electability by how well as he's done in the primaries, she says Barack has never demonstrated an ability to survive a contest with a Republican "and all the slime and lies" that go with one.

"Hillary's actively presaging some of that -- she's gone after him in a very Republican way. But he's not doing great at defending himself."

They'll continue as they have now for more than a month more, she says. "John McCain is being romanced by the press and can get away with anything. They won't have an appetite for hitting him that's any stronger than their appetite for hitting each other."

Maddow says there are a million reasons McCain should be beatable, but he now has the power of the Republican electoral machine behind him.

"The Democrats apparently don't have one of those machines, so even if he were Alfred E . Neuman, he wins."   

(photo left: President Neuman)

Comments

[DD]

I HEARD LOTS OF PEOPLE SAY THAT CHRIST MATHEWS IS IN LOVE WITH SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON, AND I THINK IT IS TRUE, BECAUSE HE TALKS ABOUT HER ALL THE TIME, AND BECAUSE HE CAN NOT HAVE HER, HE STARTED TO TALKING VERY BAD ABOUT HER,PUTTING HER DOWN, HE IS THE ONE TO BLAME, FOR HER TO LOSE THE NOMINATION. LOTS OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT.

[Alice Sovereign]

Rachel Maddow is certainly one of the most intelligent and reasonable media commentators currently on the air. Interesting interview with her: http://campusprogress.org/5mw/3015/five-minutes-with-rachel-maddow

[Alice Sovereign]

Rachel Maddow is certainly one of the most intelligent and reasonable media commentators currently on the air. Interesting interview with her: http://campusprogress.org/5mw/3015/five-minutes-with-rachel-maddow

[Shellie]

McCain will win. Fear not my fellow logical Republicans.

[Tony]

Want to know how McCain will give tax breaks to the rich, please read this....

After reading a few remarks, I was amazed in how some bloggers poorly supported their opinions with any facts. Furthermore, some bloggers simply did not make any sense, let alone spell correctly. And I hope that this is not interpreted as being condescending. Anyhow, for those who believe that McCain will help middle class Americans, well here is something you might want to consider. First, how much income did you make in 2007? Well, you might think that every taxpayer pays his/her fair share on taxes. Or you might think that the rich “folks” get away with out paying taxes. That is far from the truth. The IRS has this rule called the AMT tax. This tax ensures that taxpayers (Usually high income earners) who take a large number of tax deductions pay a minimum amount of tax. Sound fair, right? For you see, if it wasn’t for this AMT rule, the lucky, elite, “high-rollers”, and let’s throw in McCain too, would get away from not paying their fair share of tax. If you take some time and look at McCain’s plan. He wants to phase out the AMT. Which will ultimately alleviate the high income earners, and that goes for corporations too, from paying their fair share of taxes. Well, now you know. Here is a link to further help you understand this “Krazy” rule.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=150703,00.html

-Tony/Accountant

[Duffman]

I would be interested in PugetSound's response to this, as I believe he too is a CPA?

[KS]

Maddow may be somewhat clairvoyant - still 56 tough days left, but for the time being her prediction is looking good/ in spite of her allegiance to "The One".

I also think Tony is onto something - another reason to elect McCain/Palin. (I'm not a CPA, but do my share of bean counting)

[joanie]

You might want to reread what Tony said, KS. Or else tell me, please, what it is he's on to that's going to help you and me?

Are you in the top one percent or a corporation?

[Tony]

Want to know how McCain will give tax breaks to the rich, please read this.... PART II -Explanation

I dont know how any reader could have misunderstood my blog. I was certain that my head line was straight forward.

In any case,I will explain again using an example to the reader a reason NOT to elect McCain/Palin.

Let’s assume this year you earned $50,000. You incurred no medical expenses; you have no property, and contributed $1,000 to the McCain/Palin campaign. Next year when you file your tax return, you are allowed to deduct you itemized deductions (described above) or take a higher free-be. Since you only contributed $1,000 you decide to take the free-be since it’s usually higher. However, it was not enough to cover you income and (unwillingly of course) owe your fair share of tax.

Now let’s say an immigrant entrepreneur with full knowledge of NAFTA, started a business importing household goods, and managed to earn income of $175,000. Nice, right? Since he is not covered by any employer insurance program he incurs self-employed medical insurance. He also incurs all the other (too many to mention) expenses that you didn’t. The entrepreneur decides to pass on the free-be and decides to add up all his expenses to determine an amount to deduct against his income. Then he too pays his fair share of tax.

You might be thinking, how is this possible? How do I rest at night knowing that someone that earns more money pay their fair share of tax? Well, yes. Thanks to the AMT, taxpayers like the entrepreneur, or highly paid CEO’s pay their fair share of taxes. I don’t know why anybody will appose let alone want to get rid of “McCain” the AMT. In fact the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) was enacted to catch high–income earners who paid little if any tax.

Now you know.

-Tony/Accountant

[chucks]

Tony
Why do you bring up the campaign contribution as if it has anything to do with taxes? Not a deductable sum.
Is the hard working entepreneurs income net or gross?
Are they single or married?
Do they have milk sucker dependants? Did the entepreneurs business make that money? Did he pay himself a salery and re-invest in his business?
That is a pretty simple minded example you threw out there. The AMT was created when $175000.00 was rich. Now $175000.00 is squat.

[Tony]

Chuck,

I see your point. The example I threw out there was simple, however I intended it to be that way. Also, let's rephrase the contribution to a charity organization, say WWF. By the way, I attached an IRS link explaining the AMT rule in my first blog, in case any reader wanted to know the details.

Chuck, my argument here is that with out the AMT, high paid individuals (the immigrant entrepreneur was a distracter) along with corporations would not pay their fair share of taxes. Therefore, eliminating the AMT would only help the top tier taxpayers and corporations. As for the $175,000 in income, I agree, I sure can use more money! However, did you take the median household income into consideration? In case you didn't know, its $48,201 (2006).