Bush (43):
Wall Street Journal editorial board, 7/2/08.
L. Whitey Johnson, 7/10/08.
Kerry:
Steve Schmidt, 6/20/08.
Grover Norquist, 6/26/08.
Frank Newport, 5/7/08.
Hillary Clinton, 4/14/08.
Gore:
Hillary Clinton, 4/14/08.
Hugh Hewitt, 3/30/08.
(Bill) Clinton:
Paul Krugman, 6/30/08.
Abe Greenwald, 1/15/08.
Ron Fournier, 12/18/07.
Dole:
Mark Halperin, 2/28/08.
George H. W. Bush:
David Brooks, 5/19/08.
New York Sun editorial board, 4/18/08
YouTube, 4/6/08:
Dukakis:
Susan Estrich, 5/12/08.
Nate Silver, 7/10/08.
Mondale:
Ronald Kessler, 2/27/08.
Dan McLaughlin, 5/30/07.
Reagan:
Andrew Sullivan, 7/24/07.
Darrell M. West, 7/8/08.
Diane Winston, 6/27/08.
David Paul Kuhn, 7/24/07.
E.J. Dionne, 2/29/08
George F. Will, 5/8/08.
Barack Obama, 1/16/08.
Carter:
John McCain, 6/21/08.
Dinesh D'Souza, 6/18/08.
Matthew Continetti, 5/5/08.
Kurt Anderson, 6/16/08.
Ford:
Dennis Byrne, 1/4/07.
Nixon:
Karl Rove, 7/10/08.
James Kirchick, 7/2/07.
John Pitney, 3/4/08.
McGovern:
John Judis, 4/23/08.
Jeralyn, 2/16/08.
New York Sun editorial board, 5/9/08.
Humphrey:
Dr. Violet Socks, 6/5/08.
Johnson:
Rush Limbaugh, 6/10/08.
Jeffrey Lord, 6/10/08.
Michael Crowley, 6/5/08:
Goldwater:
Alfred Regnery, 2/25/08.
Kennedy:
Caroline Kennedy, 1/27/08.
Ted Sorensen, 7/23/07.
William Rees-Mogg, 2/18/08.
Justin Raimondo, 8/3/07.
E.J. Dionne, 4/22/08.
Eisenhower:
Susan Eisenhower, 2/2/08.
Alan W. Dowd, 6/3/08.
Stevenson:
George F. Will, 4/15/08.
Steve Clemons, 11/4/07.
David Greenberg, 11/16/07.
E.J. Dionne, 4/22/08.
Truman:
New York Sun editorial board, 7/2/08.
Chicago Sun-Times, 5/13/07.
Dewey:
East Hartford Gazette, 6/25/08
Voters of New Hampshire, 1/8/08.
7.11.2008
Obama is the New...
@ 8:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
105 comments
lol.
But actually the Dole article didn´t say he was the new Dole. It just said that Dole closed every speech with "I ask for your vote" and that OBama did not yet really ask for the votes of Clinton voters.
Whitey??? Johnson -- is this race baiting?
The link is to column by LARRY C. JOHNSON -- isn't it?
Barack Obama + John McCain = Bob Dole.
Kansas roots + Old Age/War Hero
All in all, a sad commentary on the state of our political punditry.
Ha. This goes from a serious of intended individual burns to revealing very positive fact about Obama; he is so middle of the road in America that he has been compared to all of our previous Presidents and Presidential nominees of the last thirty-plus years.
Good list, although you forgot McCain comparing him to William Jennings Bryan.
Add in Lincoln and FDR.
@ shadow -
If that were true, someone would have remembered to compare him to Gore or Perot, who both being relatively recent candidates, ought to have leaped to people's minds when looking for comparisons.
In fact, however, most of the comparisons to candidates from long ago are made to highlight particular aspects of Obama's strategy or appeal, rather than anything to do with his policies. For example, the comparisons to Dewey (Republican candidate in 1944 and 1948) were drawn to imply that the current invincibility around Obama won't hold up on election day (the old "Dewey Defeats Truman" joke) and at least one of the comparisons to Nixon was made solely to discuss the two men's disgusting attempts to win votes in the South (Nixon by stoking white fear of blacks, and Obama allegedly by stoking Southern fear of homosexuals).
Sadly, I can't access the article about Goldwater, but I'm sure that comparison was an attempt to say that Obama will burn out completely on election day and in the electoral college, rather than to say that Obama and Goldwater's politics are remotely comparable. Goldwater was perhaps the most extreme major-party candidate politically (in terms of how far from the mainstream he was)* that this country has ever nominated. Goldwater was so conservative** that if his politics could be reasonably compared to Obama's, McCain would win this election in a walk because all the liberals and die-hard Democrats would have to vote for him.
Point being, Obama is absolutely not "so middle of the road in America that he has been compared to all of our previous Presidents and Presidential nominees of the last thirty-plus years." What he might be is so shrewd that he's learned something from all of them and so dangerous as a candidate (I mean in the sense of having immense power to either radically transform American politics with a decisive win or to radically disappoint and lose in a blow-out) that his strengths, flaws, and weaknesses incorporate aspects of all of those candidates.
Obama is not mainstream by a long-shot, and don't fool yourself into thinking that the real moderates and independents in this country think so. They may end up voting for him, but if they do, they will have swallowed the fact that he's a liberal.
*Actually, come to think of it, some conservatives would make this comparison: that Obama is so far from the mainstream, he can only be compared to Goldwater (although the easier comparison here is to McGovern).
**When conservatives get tired of hearing that every up-and-coming Republican star is the new Reagan, they like to point out that the real gold standard was always Goldwater, and "Oh, Barry, why did you leave us?"
Brilliant post.
To be fair, George Will also wrote a column in the past 6 to 8 weeks saying Obama might be the Democrats' Reagan.
And in the last week or so, McCain has been calling Obama the most protectionist politician since Herbert Hoover. So there's one more for the list.
Two more JFKs to the list
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,564706,00.html
http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/uswahl/us-politiker_aid_264120.html
eric- you can say that someone is the most x since y. It doesn't make them 'the new y'.
Ironically, it's the fact that he's different that's generating all the comparisons. I don't mean that with the "different kind of politics" connotation; I mean his background, strengths, weaknesses, strategy--pundits are struggling to find the appropriate box to put him in, or in the cases of opponents, trying to put him in an unfavorable box before he "defines" himself.
It hasn't worked, and it's too late. No one's going to think of Obama as the new anyone; like him or hate him, he's going to be one of the ones that the next person is compared to...
You list EJ Dionne as making the JFK comparison, but I found his Reagan comparison more persuasive: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803316.html
light - You are living in 1980. Two thirds of Americans agree with Obama on Iraq, the economy, and health care in every single issue poll; self-identified progressives now outnumber moderates, who in turn outnumber conservatives (all according to Republican pollster Rasmussen - look it up). Most importantly though, progressives and moderates poll IDENTICALLY now on most major issues, and Obama agrees with them on those issues, so he is within the mainstream.
HOW did this happen, you ask? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Bush/McCain neoconservative school of thought that invests the military in foreign nation building, grows government to its biggest in history, and our debt to its biggest in history has NOTHING to do with Barry Goldwater or real conservatism. Neoconservativism is even MORE toxic a concept to progressives/moderates than a Goldwater conservative, because instead of having an individual freedom mentality and tight pocketbook, neocons are authoritarians who bankrupt us with corrupt government contracts, earmarks, and waste while calling anyone who wants to spend a dime on the sick or the poor fiscally irresponsible.
Dude! You've got to warn me before linking me to DeadendQuarter. I clicked that link, and almost had an aneurysm.
And while many of the comparisons were silly or tongue in cheek, I'll just be happy to call Obama The New President.
Midget zombie+Bob Dole+Weekend at Bernies corpse-teh funny= McCain
It's definitely Reagan. Not policy-wise, but because he has made such a connection with the American people that, just as with the Gipper, so much criticism rolls off him like water off a teflon (tm) duck's back.
Yeah, we know about the Swift Boating, but that's a small coterie of haters, bigots, and disinformers.
I think Ronald Reagan himself would see his own reflection in Barack's communication style.
I wish my photoshopping skills were a bit better. I can easily see changing that Johnson / Green photo set to a Obama / McCain pairing. The height difference, body type, and postures are very similar between Johnson and Obama as well as Green and McCain. It would just be a matter of finding heads/faces with the right lighting and angle.
This is fantastic. I love the implications.
I think a main takeaway is it's hard to pigeonhole Obama, for good or for bad. And if I were a John McCain adviser I'd really try to do some research and choose one of my solid messages that I think can stick. Just like he can't be painted as Reagan, Clinton, Carter, and Bush (unless in some cosmic way he transcends all of them)-- he can't be a radical liberal who flipflops on issues just to please the middle like a typical politician who's at the same time way too new and scary. If they don't focus the comparisons none of them will stick.
You forgot Jeremiah Wright compared him to Jesus Christ, or are we sticking only to presidential comparisons.
That is hilarious, thanks!
What's truly hilarious about these comparisons is that a large majority of Americans have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA who Truman was and couldn't tell you ONE THING about Lyndon Johnson, not even that he was President!
They hardly remember anything about Reagan, even those old enough to have lived through his Presidency, and they've never even HEARD of "Adlai Stevenson."
George Will for example takes for granted that his audience knows who Adlai Stevenson was and that he ran as a Democrat against Eisenhower back in the 50's. Probably less than 5% of the population or less could pass that test. Will was writing exclusively for other "Villagers."
Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465077714/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20
"The most comprehensive surveys, the National Election Studies (NES), were carried out by the University of Michigan beginning in the late 1940s. What these studies showed was that Americans fall into three categories with regard to their political knowledge. A tiny percentage know a lot about politics, up to 50%-60% know enough to answer very simple questions, and the rest know next to nothing.
Contrary to expectations, by many measures the surveys showed the level of ignorance remaining constant over time. In the 1990s, political scientists Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter concluded that there was statistically little difference between the knowledge of the parents of the Silent Generation of the 1950s, the parents of the Baby Boomers of the 1960s, and American parents today. (By some measures, Americans are dumber today than their parents of a generation ago.)"
http://tomdispatch.com/post/174951/rick_shenkman_american_stupidity
On the other hand at least 20% of the population can correctly name all the Simpsons characters, although only 40% can name the three branches of government!
That's really McCain's greatest hope and the answer to the question: "Why is this election remotely close, when McCain is clearly running for Bush's third term and Bush's approval rating is around 25%, the lowest in recorded history?"
When McCain echos the insane media chatter that "the surge is working" most people have no idea that it isn't. They paid no attention when Bush announced the surge and said that the purpose was to give "a breathing space" so that the Iraqi factions could come together. Since the media have collectively stopped virtually all reporting about Iraq, people think the fighting has somehow stopped or that something has been achieved. The benchmarks that Bush announced have been conveniently forgotten and discarded one by one as the Iraqi government failed utterly to meet them. Thus, by the measure Bush announced when he announced the surge in the first place, it's been an utter dismal failure. But few people know it or could intelligently discuss why.
In this environment, a general feeling of deep malaise covers the country, but most people don't have a clue what's going on, so they can't diagnose the problem, let alone have an idea about how to make things better. In that environment, McCain can claim to be the "change" candidate almost as easily as Obama and nobody contradicts him or laughs in his face.
This basic ignorance will keep the race close right through November.
By some measures, Americans are dumber today than their parents of a generation ago.
*Sigh*.
I wish that were a suprise.
.
this is one of my favorite posts :)
45 - 49 Obama with Rasmussen. Seem's to be getting tighter every day.
That should be 45-47, even worse!
One more for this excellent list. Historian/Clinton buddy Sean Wilentz compares Obama to Stevenson on November 16 of last year. It's in Newsweek's Stumper blog.
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/11/16/making-the-case-for-hillary-clinton-by-sean-wilentz.aspx
Hey Cugel -- Now who's spinning!
On what basis can you claim the surge is not working?
Vilolence IS down dramatically. The factions have been pacified. Al-Qaeda has been routed. And last I read 13 of 18 benchmarks or so had been satisfied or significant progress had been made.
And where did you come up with this gem: "In this environment, a general feeling of deep malaise covers the country, but most people don't have a clue what's going on, so they can't diagnose the problem, let alone have an idea about how to make things better." Phil Gramm???
Now, get off my lawn!
Whether Obama is flip flopping or not, he's losing a little ground because of it. He probably knew the FISA vote and campaign financing deal would hurt him a little. Rassmussen now by 2, the smallest since early June.
The Obama family is the new Huxtable family.
The Obama family is the new Huxtable family.
The Obama family is the new Huxtable family.
Everyones glad the surge worked, save our troops lives and Iraqi lives. Now its time to do what both the American people and the Iraqi people want and bring the troops home. Your party are the only people on the planet who want to prolong this war.
Its not that 66% of Americans don't want to win, its that they don't see the benefit of staying in relation to the costs. And its not surrender. There's hardly any AQI left. Why won't the republicans realize the war was a blunder, its cost us dearly, and it's gotta end
If that were true, someone would have remembered to compare him to Gore or Perot, who both being relatively recent candidates, ought to have leaped to people's minds when looking for comparisons.
Look again.
You fogot "Bond Villian" as McCain is frequently comparing Obama to Dr. No.
Awesome post. Obama is definitely a mold-breaker. He's so multi-dimensional that it is impossible to view him from only one angle. These pundits all remind me of the folk tale of the blind men describing the elephant. They're all partly right, and they're all completely wrong. But in the ensemble of their descriptions you can sense an immense reality none of them can grasp. This election could bring on a paradigm shift in American history.
Nate, you forgot a massive one: Victor Davis Hanson has been calling Obama "McGovern" since February.
Your party are the only people on the planet who want to prolong this war.
Don't forget Al Qaeda. Or are you considering them a branch of the Republican Party?
I'm not American. Can someone explain why this race is so close. Its not Obama because Hillary wasn't doing much better either. If 80% of the American people are unhappy with the direction of the country, the only alternative is to try the other party. Thats what democracy is for. You vote in the other party, force the incumbent party to get back on track until the new party gets full of itself and the same thing happens again. If you don't get rid of the incumbents, things can't get better. The democrats might not be ant better but they can't be any worse.
From what I understand your further in debt, in 2 wars, on the verge of a third, your economy isn't doing very well, and you re-elect the same party? And its not like theres something wrong with the democrats, last time a democrat was in office you weren't in any wars and the economy was pretty good, balanced budget.
What gives. The last time the incumbent party was as unpopular in my country as Bush is in your country, the incumbent party lost in a historic landslide. The worst ever. Even if the democrats don't do much better you will force the republican party to shape up, change some policies and do better. It's a win win. Can someone please explain what's going on?
Well, let me be the first to say that Obama is clearly the new Wendell Willkie
Anon a foreigner asks: Why is the race so close? Because even with all of the dissatisfaction about policies, most voters will vote in accordance with their parties -- their "party identification." More than 80% of those who have a party preference will vote with their party's candidate, even if they don't like him very much.
Also, although this party identification gives an advantage now to the Democrats, it is not a large advantage; there are also some voters who are "in the middle" or are independent of party, but many of those people also have a preference for one of the two major parties.
The most recent and most ridiculous: apparently Obama is the new William Jennings Bryan of 1896!
Gordon, 7/11/08, Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564769240040939.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
... the new Lincoln.
What's the tally on that? Because I've seen it around.
The Johnson/Green pic made me think of Obama/Lieberman.
Peter Kent
OK pacified, working government, they want us out now, so what are we doing there? Hmm?
Maybe because the 13 of 18 is a myth cranked out by the Vulcan elves of bushco, and that lower level of violence is at the whim of forces that we don't control. If you don't believe me on the last one ask the field commanders.
That picture makes LBJ look badass until you realize that he was physically intimidating a 90-year-old man...
Yo Peter Kent said... "Its not that 66% of Americans don't want to win, its that they don't see the benefit of staying in relation to the costs"
You are looking at a snapshot in time. The Iranian threat along with the need to preserve access to Iraqi and Gulf oil are the reasons to stay. The pacifists have had their say, now let the realists speak. They speak with more clarity and their voices will undermine Obama's candidacy.
If you wonder why Obama has fallen in the polls this week, look no further than what has gone on in Iran. Jesse J and Phil Gramm were gifts to him, but so far they have not helped. Gramm may still have legs . . . story developing.
"The factions have been pacified."
Never in all my days have I seen such an exercise in gross oversimplification and self delusion. The factions have stopped killing each other as much as they were, but there's nothing to you can build a sustainable government upon.
As regards Obama, I think of him as Bill Clinton 2.0. That will probably make a lot of Obama supporters grind their teeth, but Obama has always been just a different kind of moderate Democrat, deeply influenced by the Clinton administration but not blind to its failings.
Although I haven't seen any articles explicitly comparing Obama to FDR, I suspect there will be some -- with the economy going where it is, every so often one hears about this being "the next Great Depression". (Does that mean Bush is the new Hoover?)
Maybe we need similarity scores for presidents now.
Awesome post. A few entries from the fringe:
America
FDR
(Hillary) Clinton
Comeback kid
Teflon kid
Messiah
Dalai Lama
Nike
De La Soul
Tom Hagen
Chuck Norris
Black (and here, and here.)
Red
Bicycle
Nate, I'm eagerly awaiting a PECOTA-style similarity score between Obama and Chuck Norris.
On a more serious note, it seems like a lot of the analogies to other political figures come from political opponents. I wonder if they're trying to simplify matters for their audience or assuage their own fears of the unknown by slapping a familiar label on an unfamiliar phenomenon.
Likewise, I think some of the more positive comparisons are from people trying to make Obama more familiar, and thus less scary, to voters. At the same time, they risk oversimplifying him and distorting his real message.
Give me a break, the polls are tightening becasue ODUMBO has flipped flopped on so many issues. The people in the middle of the road, the ones not paying attention to this campaign, and the ones who are a little scared of ODUMBO'S run for POTUS, are now looking at him as just another stupid politician who will say anything or do anything to get elected.
This will begin to manifest itself later in the campaign and become very glaring during the debates when th emoderators ask him about his famous flips and flops.
As far as the Gramm gaffe, big deal, it's the weekend stupid and it will go away. I think I will cling to my bible and guns this weekend and not worry about the election at all.
Give me a break, the polls are tightening becasue ODUMBO has flipped flopped on so many issues. The people in the middle of the road, the ones not paying attention to this campaign, and the ones who are a little scared of ODUMBO'S run for POTUS, are now looking at him as just another stupid politician who will say anything or do anything to get elected.
This will begin to manifest itself later in the campaign and become very glaring during the debates when th emoderators ask him about his famous flips and flops.
As far as the Gramm gaffe, big deal, it's the weekend stupid and it will go away. I think I will cling to my bible and guns this weekend and not worry about the election at all.
No new poll from SurveyUsa since independence day.
They sleep?
Anon @9:41:
Aside from party loyalty, there's also the opposite. A lot of Republicans feel badly betrayed by the current Administration, for a variety of reasons. One is that Bush has vastly increased the scope of the Federal government, and that's not generally considered a core Republican value!
So although it's not generally verbalized, there is some feeling out there that the Republicans need someone who can save their party.
McCain doesn't really fit that bill, though. He has a reputation of standing up to Bush early in his administration, although even then I was much more impressed by Senators Lugar, Hagel, Snowe, Collins, Specter, etc.. He also doesn't seem to be much interested in a new vision for the Republican party...he's just trying to sell a more competent version of Bush.
But you asked why the election is close. Part of it is that McCain can attract people who liked the Republican party and dislike the current administration. Well, he can sort of attract them. Witness the "enthusiasm gap," where Obama supporters tend to be much more excited about their candidate than McCain supporters.
Hey James King!
What makes you so smart?
You said: "Never in all my days have I seen such an exercise in gross oversimplification and self delusion. The factions have stopped killing each other as much as they were, but there's nothing to you can build a sustainable government upon."
How do you know the foundation for that stable government has not already been laid?
Are you hoping?
Are you a loyal American, James?
Or does Obama winning trump love of country for you?
Hey SarahLawrenceScott!
What the heck do you know about how Republicans think?
I smell a load of wishful thinking by a worried Democrat.
Please stop the spin and stick to the facts. This is a blog for people who care about polls and the trends they reflect. Save your punditry for when you are cheering on Keith Olbermann!
Obama has lost a couple points because of the flip flops. The question is were the flip flops worth it long term. If he only loses 2-3 points because of the flip flops, I'm sure Obama would accept that any day.
None of these polls matter. The race doesn't start until after the conventions. This is just all media hype.
This election will be close, the D's will probably win by 2-4 points. If it breaks open, it will be in Obama's direction the final week. McCain's best chance is too try to win ugly and in a squeaker. Very little room for error for him. I really like the guy,its too bad this is the year he was nominated. I really like Obama too.
I feel sorry for McCain too, Anonymous - he should have tried harder to win in 2000 -could have spared your nation some harm. Obama is the New Old.
Are you a loyal American, James?
Apparently Pete Kent is the new Joe McCarthy...
and anon @ 10:57 is the new Jon Stewart!
Why Lincoln?
Who Knows What Presidents Will Do?
I love this blog. I just wonder how close the statistical analysis will get to the actual outcome of the election. I tend to want to see things more blue than they are, and I think that a lot of things could pitfall both candidates right now.
Having said that, there have been 2Democratic presidents in the last 32 years. So, with the mark at 70%liklihood of Obama winning, I have to wonder how accurate that is...
Sorry here is the correct url for my piece on what presidents will do and why Obama and Lincoln have some similarities beyond their Illinois legislative experience.
Why Lincoln?
Perhaps it is better to say that a democrat has been president for 12 of the last 32 years...
We should reform the political system in this country. It's not working. We have major problems that need to be solved and all I hear is flag pins, the country are whiners, God Damn America and sniper fire.
There hasn't been a debate about the wars. Its just the Dems want to surrender and the Rep's are war mongers. Name calling. Then the media sits down every night and judges which name caller won the name calling contest. On MSNBC the Dems win every night. On Fox the republicans win every night. On CNN they don't pick sides they just analyze the names that were called.
I haven't heard real solutions to any problems. McCain wants to cut taxes. Big surprise. Obama wants to raise taxes. No surprise there. Fixing the economy need to encompass more than taxes. Energy policy needs to be more than "drill, drill, drill" or "Solar and Wind." Our political system has failed. The president has a 30% approval rating and congresses is like 10%. It appears the American people agree. But what are we going to do about it.
Anonymous @ 11:19
By all means, you're more than welcome to run for President yourself.
Do you think this stuff is easy?
We could take an american from every state, put them all in a room for a week with experts and people to argue for each side and those 50 people would have a pragmatic solution in that week to any problem. The country is not broken. The system is broken. The politicians aren't getting anything done. What they are dooing isn't working and in many cases is doing more harm.
What happened to the comments on this blog. The comments used to be smart and concentrated on the issues related to polling and statistics; now I'm seeing the kind of crap I see on Kos or Mydd. It's too bad really, I enjoyed reading the comments.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108772/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Holds-6Point-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx
And on the same day as the Rasmussen tracker being the tightest it's ever been. Go figure. Now if we could just get some new state polls from SUSA or someone...
A perspective from the British Isles - Obama is the new Tony Blair. A member of a former left-wing party who will drag the entire political spectrum into the centre.
That Gallup and Ras should go up and down is all good and proper. Since all of this going up and down is mostly random noise there is no reason at all why the movements should be correlated.
what is interesting - spooky - is how stable Ras was for so long. But then again, randomness should occasionally give rise to stability.
Umm...before people get too bent out of shape at the content of the comments, please note the thread that they are a reply to.
I have a nitty-gritty polling question that I would like to ask, but I'll wait for the daily update to ask it.
It seems to that in practice, people do not make the jump directly from a judgment about Bush to a judgment about the Republican party.
To many Republicans, switching from Bush to McCain does represent a significant change. I don't think we should be so fast to link person with party when it comes to approval ratings.
What a relief coming from Gallup, who have had it somewhat tighter than Rasmussen.
However, if I remember anything from my statistics 101 class is that statistics can be weird!
Regression to the mean for the win.
Does anyone know if Gallup uses party identification in their polls like Rasmussen does?
I believe Nate once blogged that party identification would yield more consistent results but less accurate results over multiple polls. Am I correct?
Hey Pete Kent
Read the latest Government Accountability Office report on Iraq and "progress". It's not all cherries and ice cream...
Here's a summary -
The New Way Forward responded to failures in prior strategies that prematurely transferred security responsibilities to Iraqi forces or belatedly responded to growing sectarian violence. Overall violence, as measured by enemy-initiated attacks, fell about 70 percent in Iraq, from about 180 attacks per day in June 2007 to about 50 attacks per day in February 2008. Security gains have largely resulted from (1) the increase in U.S. combat forces, (2) the creation of nongovernmental security forces such as Sons of Iraq, and (3) the Mahdi Army’s declaration of a cease fire. Average daily attacks were at higher levels in March and April before declining in May 2008. The security environment remains volatile and dangerous. The number of trained Iraqi forces has increased from 323,000 in January 2007 to 478,000 in May 2008; many units are leading counterinsurgency operations. However, the Department of Defense reported in March 2008 that the number of Iraqi units capable of performing operations without U.S. assistance has remained at about 10 percent. Several factors have complicated the development of capable security forces, including the lack of a single unified force, sectarian and militia influences, and continued dependence on U.S. and coalition forces.
The Iraqi government has enacted key legislation to return some Ba’athists to government, give amnesty to detained Iraqis, and define provincial powers. However, it has not yet enacted other important legislation for sharing oil resources or holding provincial elections. Efforts to complete the constitutional review have also stalled. A goal of The New Way Forward was to facilitate the Iraqis’ efforts to enact all key legislation by the end of 2007.
Between 2005 and 2007, Iraq spent only 24 percent of the $27 billion it budgeted for its own reconstruction efforts. More specifically, Iraq’s central ministries, responsible for security and essential services, spent only 11 percent of their capital investment budgets in 2007—down from similarly low rates of 14 and 13 percent in the 2 prior years. Violence and sectarian strife, shortage of skilled labor, and weak procurement and budgeting systems have hampered Iraq’s efforts to spend its capital budgets.
Although oil production has improved for short periods, the May 2008 production level of about 2.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) was below the U.S. goal of 3 mbpd. The daily supply of electricity met only about half of demand in early May 2008. Conversely, State reports that U.S. goals for Iraq’s water sector are close to being reached. The unstable security environment, corruption, and lack of technical capacity have contributed to the shortfalls.
The Departments disagreed with our recommendation, stating that The New Way Forward strategy remains valid but the strategy shall be reviewed and refined as necessary. We reaffirm the need for an updated strategy given the important changes that have occurred in Iraq since January 2007. An updated strategy should build on recent gains, address unmet goals and objectives and articulate the U.S. strategy beyond July 2008.
I noticed during the primary election that the Gallup and Rasmussen Poll often polled the opposite of each other. The closer Gallup the farther away Rasmussen and vice versa. It is now beginning to go back to that daily occurrence.
Also, observing OBAMA rise during the weekend and come down on weekday. More DEM's at home on weekend.
State Polls would be helpful. I've said this before, if MCCAIN is within 1 or 2 points in any state right before the election he will win that state.
OBAMA seems to be struggling attracting the voters. All things being considered, he should be up by 10 points. He never made it and I don't know why, other than people get bad vibes from the dude.
I'm not sure Nate is capturing this in his numbers, I don't think bad vibes can be captured quanatatively. There are a lot of undecided voters and swing voters and I am afraid when they go into the booth on November 4, they are going to vote for the tried and true, not the inexperienced and untested.
The RAsmussen Tracking Poll has consistently given Obama a 4 to 5 point lead for almost a month. This is the first time it has appraoched 2 points. I have a bad feeling that MCCAIN might actually have that built in extra 3-4 points that is not now showing up in polls. This is my gut feeling of course.
I look back at the 2000 election and Bush was ahead by 2 or 3 on election day, but Gore actually ended up with the winning margain. I can only assume they populace went with the tried and true, not the unknown.
We should stay tuned in this election because I am afraid it will get even tighter as the election gets closer.
Everyone has an opinion and none of them are worth discussing. We should avoid opinion. Let the Pundits in the MSM have their say. They have to sell advertising. We don't. Stick to facts, we'll be better off.
Surely, Karl Marx needs to be listed.
Great concept.
Anonymous @ 12:55 said "I have a bad feeling that MCCAIN might actually have that built in extra 3-4 points that is not now showing up in polls."
Give McCain an extra 3.5 points on top of every projection that Nate has currently, and the EVs split 284-264 Obama. But I think that's pessimistic from Obama's point of view. I also think the "hidden" McCain support tends much more to be in redder states, which helps him not at all with the EC.
You have a lot of opinions, to what do you owe this opinion? Why will McCain win a state if Obama is up by 1-2 points. Why do people not like Obama, his favorability poll numbers consistently come in better than McCain. Why should Obama be ahead by 10? Says who? The MSM?
I'm not saying your opinions are wrong. You may very well be right. But you have to show some evidence to support your conclusions, otherwise its just a feeling, and that aint worth much.
Obama is the next Vaclav Havel.
I think Peter Kent is funny. The republicans are saying "Were winning the War, were winning the war" and the general public has tuned out. You lie to people about something for long enough, they stop listening even if you start telling the truth. Kind of ironic.
Well, that got everybody going! Yes, it was my opinion. First let me say, that if MCCAIN'S numbers increase inthe red states, I believe he will win the election. Right now MCCAIN and OBAMA are tied in Virginia and Indiana. OBAMA may be up in Ohio and Colorado. If MCCAIN wins all four states he wins POTUS. I think with 274 EV.
Again, this is my interpretation of what is going on. The election is still early, the DEms are energized and organized, and in almost every poll commands a double digit party affiliation.
Yet, MCCAIN is only 2 points behind OBAMA in the latest Rasmussen Poll. I have no facts, and not everything can be backed up by numbers. This is an election, and people vote with their feelings not with numbers.
Many people will go into the voting booth in November and vote for Obama because they are true blue democrats, and others will go into the booths true blue democrats and vote for MCCAIN because when it is all said and done they do not know who OBAMA is and what he stands for.
Remember, in 2000 Gore was the sitting Vice-President and at the end, the undecides swung toward the known.
In 1980, it went the other way, but Reagan was the two-term Governor of the largest State in America and had run for President before, taking the sitting President of the US to the very end. He was known and the country was in terrible shape, much worse than it is today!!!
Again, don't get angry when I post this, I am a true Democrat,but I have doubts now about what is going on in his campaign.
First, I can't beleive he changed his mind on public financing and FISA. Not to mention his horrific explanation about Gun Control. Although the MSM as somebody stated in their response states he is only going toward the center, I think peole are beginning to question what he really believes and begin to have doubts about his run for POTUS.
Furthermore, after all of the hoopla about the statement made by Phil Gramm, OBAMA has still shifted position on almost every issue he was for during the primary season, little more that three months ago and now is slowly shifting positions on Iraq.
This is what the people in the center will remember. The people who demand gun rights will not beleive him anyway and probably will work harder to defeat him because they really don't trust him now. The people who voted for OBAMA because they wanted out of Iraq are probably furious and may stay home. Ditto for FISA and Public Financing.
Too much of OBAMA'S support comes from the very young. Ask yourself this, How many ex-President's depended onthe 18-25 age group to become President?
The answer:
The easiest one not listed is Eugene McCarthy. For instance, http://gitell.wordpress.com/category/eugene-mccarthy/ but also many others.
Why stop there? Besides FDR and Lincoln (as said above), he's also been compared to Wendell Wilkie.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/
conservatives_missing_the_mark.html
So that takes us back all the way to the election of 1940, with Obama being compared to every major presidential candidate in the last 70 years. Unfortunately, I can't find any reference to Obama being the next "Alf Landon", so the game ends there.
That's a relief anyways, considering Landon only received 8 electoral votes.
Good post, Nate.
Anon @ 11:17.
Not to quibble but isn't it 40 years? Since Nixon there has only been Clinton and Carter, and Nixon was elected in 1968.
32 years ago Carter was elected, but there was 8 years of Republicans before then.
How about Andrew Jackson?
http://iiipublishing.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-and-andrew-jackson.html
How about Andrew Jackson?
http://iiipublishing.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-and-andrew-jackson.html
Don't forget William Jennings Bryan.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/mccain_compares_obama_to_willi.php
You forgot William Jennings Bryan.
Clearly Obama is the OLD Mitt Romney (served 2012-2020). Why do you all have such an anti-future president bias?
ZOMG you forgot the doomed Catholic candidate from 1928, AL SMITH
Though actually, every other article about Obama hosted on RealClearPolitics seems to mention Al Smith.
This is From: Cafe, Cafe, Election Central
The Problem with Obama
By Kane - July 11, 2008, 5:38PM
And the perfect compliment to Nate's list:
Obama is too black
Obama is too white
Obama's lack of Washington experience problem
Obama's Hispanic problem
Obama's Asian problem
Obama's Jewish problem
Obama's Catholic problem
Obama's Muslim problem
Obama's Black voter problem
Obama's White voter problem
Obama's reliance on young people problem
Obama's elderly problem
Obama's women problem
Obama's White elderly women voter problem
Obama's white collar voter problem
Obama's blue collar voter problem
Obama's Reverend Wright problem
Obama's problem with not being vetted
Obama's Muslim perception problem
Obama's elitist perception problem
Obama's Big State problem
Obama's problem with the Right
Obama's problem with the Left
Obama's Hillary Clinton problem
Obama's Bill Clinton problem
Obama's Ronald Reagan problem
Obama's Jesse Jackson problem
Obama's Michelle Obama problem
Obama's bowling problem
Obama's lapel pin problem
Obama's problem with Hillary voters
Obama's Pledge of Allegiance problem
Obama's NAFTA problem
Obama's FISA problem
Obama's public financing problem
Obama's Populist message problem
Obama's moving to the center problem
Obama's problem with speaking against Iraq invasion Obama's problem with the paranormal
Obama's 50 State problem
Obama's gun problem
Obama's abortion problem
Obama's Social Security problem
Obama's Foreign policy problem
Obama's Healthcare problem
Obama's flip-flop problem
Obama's surrogate problem
Obama's Appalachian problem
Obama's Isreal problem
Obama's Pakistan problem
Obama's Iran problem
Obama's Cuba problem
Obama's Florida problem
Obama's popularity problem
Obama's problem with living abroad
Obama's problem with not traveling abroad
Obama's aloofness problem
Obama's patriotism problem
Obama's endorsement problem
Obama's Union problem
Obama's Business problem
Obama's working class problem
Obama's problem with FOX News
Obama's problem with Rush Limbaugh
Obama's Internet whisper problem
Obama's small donor problem
Obama's big donor problem
Obama's Liberal voting record problem
Obama's stadium convention problem
Obama's problem with leading McCain in the polls
Obama's Bubba Gap problem
Obama's arugula problem
Obama's orange juice problem
Obama's fundraising problem
Obama's problem with problems
I've been following elections for a long time, and never have I seen a candidate saddled with so many perceived problems. While every candidate is sure to run into their share of problems during a long campaign, much of these so called problems have to do with the 24hour news culture, where they have raised every issue as a potential problem for Obama. At some point one must ask the question of why? I appologize for the long list, but we all know that it's only a partial list."
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mohandas Gandhi
Then the electorate thinks you are a problem and they vote against you.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment