7.29.2008

Tom and Huckabee

With the Tim Kaine buzz having reached a fever pitch today, it might be worth sharing a couple of additional thoughts on the Virgina Governor. Chris Cillizza's arguments for and against Kaine are a must-read, and lay out most of the checkmark arguments on his candidacy. Works well with Obama? Check. Speaks fluent Spanish? Check. But inexperienced on the national stage? Also a check. Not a particularly distinguished track record as governor? Check.

I think, however, that both Kaine's greatest asset and his greatest liability may have been missed. The liability, as I have argued before, is that he may not be of much help to Obama in Virginia. After Virginia's General Assembly session ended badly earlier this summer, Kaine's favorability numbers took a hit, and are now no better than 50:50. Alternatively, one can read the comments from some of the Virginians in our earlier thread, most of whom are quite skeptical of Kaine. Kaine does not have any one signature, standout accomplishment as governor, and the standoff in the General Assembly cost him a lot of credibility. The home state VP bounce is small enough to begin with that for a candidate who has trouble hitting 50 percent favorability in his home state, it may be non-existent. And in terms of wooing McCain voters over to the Democratic side, he may be particularly unhelpful, as just 23 percent of McCain voters in Rasmussen's July survey had a favorable opinion of him.

On the other hand, the Obama campaign is smart enough to know that a VP's ability to carry his home state is a relatively minor factor in the grand scheme of things. The more important question is what sort of brand space he would come to occupy once introduced to the nation at large (to whom Kaine is a literal unknown). On that front, the news is a little better for Kaine and Obama.

I spent about 20 minutes watching different videos of Tim Kaine and here was the impression I was left with: Kaine comes across as very warm. Empathetic. Normal guy. Not polician-y. Can be fiery at times, and sometimes a little flatter, but neither a technocrat nor a screaming populist.

He's not a rock star. He's an average-looking guy, which is to say, for a politician, he has below-average looks. An Obama-Kaine ticket would NOT be this:



Instead, it would be more like this:



That's Huckabee -- not Huck Finn. Kaine does not have Huckabee's corny sense of humor, but he does have much of his sense of humility. He will eventually poll well with older voters, and probably with women.

The trade-off is that Kaine, especially when coupled with his relatively undistinguished record in public office, will not come across as especially presidential. Voters looking for an experienced hand to guide Barack Obama will not really be getting it.

But, I would argue, the experience issue is not really one of the greater threats to Barack Obama at the moment -- in fact, the McCain campaign has completely deemphasized it. A greater problem is that Obama can come across as aloof and arrogant -- or messianic, in the right's favorite phrasing. As Jay Cost ably argues, this has the potential to detract significantly from Obama's core narrative. Kaine would bring humility and good humor to the ticket, and would go some way toward hedging that risk. He would not be a VP designed to win over converts, so much as to shore up some of Obama's weak and wavering support.

204 comments

Mark said...

Hmm...definitely an interesting breakdown. I'm not sure that Obama is completely out of the woods yet on the "inexperienced" argument. If his VP pick can somehow provide that guiding hand of experience and yet come across as benevolently populist and down-to-Earth, that'd be ideal for him. And I don't much care for Evan Bayh's politics at all, but he does seem to fit the bill there (though if he gets elected, the Dems will lose a Senate seat, which is a major case against him right there). I'm hoping it's either Kaine or Sebelius, or even Richardson. (Although my impossible wish is that Hagel is VP.)

Dvd Avins said...

Yes, warm is what Obama needs in a VP candidate. That's why the Bill Bradley rumors that pop up occasionally seem so wrong to me, despite Bradley being otherwise a very good choice.

sugerfunk said...

I agree on the "warm" assessment, which is one of the reasons why I've been pushing Sebellius for ages. She has that empathetic yet practical streak that Nate has been talking about. I just don't see the fallout amongst Hillary Clinton supporters -- after all, she will help put more dents in that infamous glass ceiling if the ticket is elected, and very few Hillary supporters expect to see Clinton on the ticket at this point.

Kathleen Sebellius is qualified and her outside-of-Washington record is consistent with his change message. Plus she has executive experience in a red state, and I think she has a Midwestern sensibility that will appeal to pragmatic voters in Ohio and Michigan, even though her home state of Kansas will not be in play. She may even help in the Dakotas or Montana.

And she is a solid progressive, which will help shore up some of the disaffected left-wing who are frustrated with Obama's slight movement towards the center. But even as such, she is very hard to paint as an ultra-liberal because of the sensible nature she espouses, and this innoculates her from Republican attacks to a certain extent.

TJB said...

This decision will be the first major decision that the voting public will have witnessed Democrat nominee Barrack Obama make.

If he chooses a relatively unknown candidate such as Governor Kaine of Virginia, he will be asking the American people to put their trust into two candidates, Obama and Kaine, that they, the American people have had very little time to observe.

I believe the choice will be Biden of Delaware. He may not excite the base as much, but the voting public knows who he is.

Brian Dell said...

I don't see why anyone should much care if Obama comes across as arrogant. People want competence. Bush is the epitome of folksy back-slapping and people of had enough of it. They want some gravity and that means the VP should be someone with a resume, a resume thicker than Obama's if at all possible. Wes Clark would win votes and would be a bold pick.

C.S.Strowbridge said...

"I don't see why anyone should much care if Obama comes across as arrogant."

The Democrats need to find someone who can make the argument that calling Obama arrogant or elitist is the same as calling him uppity.

That would kill that line of attack, and fast.

obsessed said...

How would you rate Schweitzer on the warm and fuzzy scale?

Lupercal said...

sugerfunk said:"Kathleen Sebellius is qualified and her outside-of-Washington record is consistent with his change message. Plus she has executive experience in a red state, and I think she has a Midwestern sensibility that will appeal to pragmatic voters in Ohio and Michigan, even though her home state of Kansas will not be in play. She may even help in the Dakotas or Montana."

thank you. i've grown a little frustrated that no one was mentioning her. I mean, with tim kaine, it's just because he endorsed obama early and whole-heartedly, and because virginia would be in play. speaks spanish, and can at times be quite fiery, like the speech he gave endorsing obama, in spanish.

but there's something about kathleen that says COMPETENCE. you know, she is the most compatible with obama, she's extremely photogenic (their personal chemistry even surpasses that of those at the Unity event obama had with clinton in new hampshire.), and she's learned how govern with obama's philosophy. I mean, i'm really hyped up about her, and i think that if she were his vice president, i'd always go to bed with a clear sense of confidence that things would get fixed. bipartisanship without ceding your values. (evan bayh kinda comes across as a bit phony. sorry if i offend anyone. so, if he's picked, that'll be great, but i won't be as sure about obama winning. i mean, remember why the charges about edwards and the 400 bucks haircut stuck.) so, even if we're the last ones mentioning her, i just wanted to thank you for making my day. it'll be much more easier to go through.

ultimately, i think that kaine did himself no good by letting his staff, or "friends" leak out these rumors. it makes geeks and journos really happy, but i'm sure somewhere someone's scratching their heads at the obama headquarters wondering what happened, whether if he were to be chosen this would ever happen again and whether "friends" would sabotage their messages, whether "some" folks are too ambitious, and all sorts of questions. that sobers me up a bit. i mean, i'm a real fan of the man, but i'm just really disappointed that by having obama indicate he wants someone with integrity, whom he's compatible with, and who's got an area of expertise, who's gonna roll up their sleeves and get to work, and with barack's monumental confidence on foreign policy (which means he's a bit worried a biden, quite attractive, would try to superimpose his own vision on foreign policy), im surprised that somehow we arrived at kaine. he's no economic expert. sebelius is. bayh is. they've got the record. and he's really into sebelius. if done right, he can make sure that sebelius doesn't antagonize hillary supporters. anyhow, way too long. but i had a lot on my stomach.

Lupercal said...

brian shweitzer is quite warm and fuzzy. and he's definitely neutralize the energy issue, as he's a whiz on the subject (check out his interview with charlie rose on youtube.)

but i've cooled down a bit since i learned that he's said that he was considering voting for romney. that either indicates someone who's too obsessed with proving their independence from democrats, and as such, if romney was chosen, how would he attack if he's such an admirer. and that tells me that maybe he's not too concerned with building up the party, if in a PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY, you leave all the exciting figures in your own party (and there were no lameducks as with the repubs, except gravel and kucinich), to support the phony flipflopper that you have never known, have no personal relationship with, and also, im concerned that maybe he doesn't have the right diplomatic skills, and might provoke some gaffes. but he's highly fluent in energy issues, and extremely persuasive on the subject (i'd dare anyone to watch him discuss the issue for 20 minutes and not be sold out), but i'm definitely resolute about not allowing another joe lieberman, or another john edwards more worried about keeping their names intact, and heaping praise on the opposition because they potentially might wanna run in the future.

obsessed said...

errrrrr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqz9unCxJgM

Kaine is sorting writing the spanish phrases in his head and reading them - it's basically correct but he's far from fluent. If you had someone who could speak smooth mexican-dialect spanish, that might have a very weighty effect on the turnout in NM, TX, CO, NV. (Forget about Florida - that's a whole mess of different spanish and politics!!)

I'm torn - you guys have gotten me very curious about both Sebelius and Schweitzer, and the idea of a spanish-speaking veep is a sudden revelation. Of course, it would also rile up the anti-immigrant vote. But in ANY case, I don't think Kaine is fluent enough to really connect with southwestern hispanics on a gut level.

Can Richardson speak fluent spanish? What happened to him anyway? No one even mentions him. Did he get Spitzered or something?

He's starting to look a lot better if we don't care about dynamism:

-foreign policy
-governor
-important swing state influence (assuming he carries weight in CO)
-spanish?

I never found him dynamic but I'm starting to be convinced that this is necessary. Of course he's not all that fuzzy either.

Jeffrey said...

I've been waiting for a post that talks about the Republicans "messiah" attack. I find it to be a very interesting attack. For one thing, the word itself strikes me as blasphemous. Even if you think that Obama is arrogant, he has never compared himself to god. I'm not a particularly religious person, but if I was, I would be offended.

The other strange thing about it is that all politicians are arrogant. McCain doesn't come across as a particularly humble person.

Perhaps this will work. Its yet one more tact in the Republicans attempt to paint him as anything negative. Personally, I think the "inexperienced" attack was a better one and has significantly less chance of backfiring on them, but that is just me.

On Kaine:

I don't see anything he has that Bayh doesn't have more of. I guess Kaine would be OK. Bayh appears to me to be both a safer pick and a pick with a greater upside. Bayh has repeatedly won the same working class white voters that vote Republican in Indiana presidential elections. Whatever it is about him they like, I think similar voters in OH, PA and MI will see it as well. Kaine doesn't help anywhere other than VA and apparently doesn't help that much there.

One last thing...

Obama has been very strict about no leaks on the VP thing. I suspect these rumors on coming from the Kaine camp, not the Obama camp. Same with the Kaine video. I don't think Obama likes the public campaigning for VP.

obsessed said...

He was gonna vote for Romney??

Okay, I'm starting to like Sebelius now. (By the way, obsessed is just my screen name - my real name is Caroline Kennedy).

stevie314159 said...

I still like Joe Biden (so does my wife--she thinks he's VERY handsome).

Regular guy, strong on foreign policy, known tragedy in his life.

And if you say he doesn't represent change--he's a politician who says what he feels, no BS, that's a change.

Oh, and he'd be a Vice President who believes in the rule of law--now, THAT would really be a change.

counsellorben said...

lupercal said "brian shweitzer is quite warm and fuzzy. and he's definitely neutralize the energy issue, as he's a whiz on the subject (check out his interview with charlie rose on youtube.)

but i've cooled down a bit since i learned that he's said that he was considering voting for romney."

lupercal,

Schweitzer said that he might support Romney in 2006, back when Romney was Mitt "former MA governor with moderate positions on issues" Romney, as opposed to the 2008 Mitt "I'm a hard core conservative, I really am" Romney.

Given what I perceive as Schweitzer's authenticity, I can see Schweitzer saying he was mistaken, because he expected Romney to remain true to his values, as Schweitzer has.  Real people can admit to their past mistakes, and in today's climate, admitting to past mistakes can be a positive.

obsessed said...

I like Biden a lot. The only negatives I can think of are that I like him a lot and that he's from too blue Delaware.

How do we think Biden would play in CO, VA, NM, MT, NV, OH, IN, MO ...?

obsessed said...

How about Rachel Maddow for VP?

John said...

Two unknowns for President? Say what?

John said...

Which is to say, the only thing McCain has going for him is being in the public eye for ages.

I think *two* people on the ticket that the public does not know is just too much.

If Hillary could be counted on to keep to her role, she would be by far the best.

John said...

This is a test

Keith said...

Two points:

1. You say that a VP pick is unlikely to bring along their home state. And yet earlier you strongly implied that Romney would help McCain in Michigan. Romney hasn't lived in Michigan for decades and his father is unknown to most Michigan voters. If Romney's tenuous Michigan ties merit mention I'm not sure why Kaine's influence in VA is so easily dismissed.

2. Among Kaine's assets, you don't single out his fluency in spanish. To what extent is that important? Could Kaine help Obama exceed 70% of the Hispanic vote? Could he make a difference in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, etc...?

anon said...

Nate,
Thanks for adding registration. The threads were out of hand.

I think Obama will end up with someone warm but with DC experience. Richardson may work fine though there are whispers about his inappropriate "flirting". I think Kaine's profile is being raised but he'll do little to convince Independents concerned with the marketplace or International diplomacy.
I'm not so sold on Biden but can see the rationale. General Clark seems to look better and better.
No matter who it is I think it will be someone with DC experience,not just state experience.

Sean said...

I've always liked biden because of the way he speaks his mind, he would be an effective attacker if he could be made to say on message. Lots of 'wow, he did not just say that!' moments will make the news cycle.

As for Sebelius and Kaine, I just watched the youtube videos of their endorsements. Both are pretty effective in getting the message across.

I'm picturing a debate between either of them and (for example) Romney, who would frequently interrupt and talk over his opponents, as they all tried yell out the most GOP buzz words during the republican primaries.

Kaine seems to be the kind of person who would be able to convincingly yell over Romney when Romney interrupts him during the debate.

Sebelius seems as though she would patiently wait for Romney to finish speaking, and then shred his argument with a nice anecdote.

He will appeal more to men who think yelling and not listening is appropriate in political debate and she more to women who listen to what people actually say.

Caleb said...

Kaine wouldn't be a disaster, but I'm still holding out hope that he's just a head fake and Schweitzer will prevail in the end. Schweitzer's a better speaker than Kaine, he's got a couple more years experience, he's more popular as a governor, he has private sector experience, speaks fluent Arabic, etc. Unless there's some skeleton in his closest, he would seem like an obvious choice.

anon said...

Obama can go bland on his choice without hurting him but McCain has to pick someone voters can see as becoming president. That said, Obama still needs to combat the newness charge and picking someone with no national level experience seems the wrong move.

PeteKent said...

I had no idea Kaine was not so well liked in VA. The MSN has been trumpeting him as a popular governor for weeks/months.

What I did hear the other day was that he was Catholic (a plus, presumably in the demographic war) and "moderately" Pro-Life.

I am not sure what it means to be "moderately" Pro-Life (Obama was so pro-abortion that he voted against providing medical care to babies born alive from botched abortions -- THAT seems extreme), but whatever it is, it is not likely to please the PUMAs out there.

I must disagree also with Nate: you don't balance someone's presumptive arrogance by selecting a running mate with humility. All it will do is show the contrast with Obama own ego and place him in a poor light.

Kaine is a safe choice and will support Obama's anti-Washington messaging in a way that Bayh would not. McCaskill clearly could not be chosen (nor any other woman) without further offending the disaffected Hillaryites out there. Kaine is bland and will not compete for the limelight with Obama who has a very large ego, if you have not noticed.

That he might bring VA (less so than Warner, apparently) is a plus.

Expect the announcement soon. Obama will want to relegate him to old news status quickly so that the spotlight can return to him.

Perhaps he will pull an A-Rod and do it during the Olympics, but somehow I think he has other plans for that week. The under/over on this one is August 5th.

Judge C. Crater said...

So if regard in your home State is critical, Bayh has this all sewed up? He fits the "bland yet accomplished" criterion and brings (possibly) an annoying (in the midst of a largely blue Midwest) reddish state into the fold.

Plus, he's non-threateningly white and NOT Catholic. Such a deal!

MrInsight22 said...

Actually Nate, an average-looking guy is good-looking by political standards. As they say, politics is Hollywood for ugly people (e.g., Henry Waxman and Dick Cheney).

MrInsight22 said...

For the poster that claims Obama does not have a messiah complex, Obama said that if he's elected the Earth will begin to heal and the rising oceans will recede.

Spike Lee said that time will henceforth be measured as "Before Obama" and "After Obama."

I expect Obama to call his cabinet members "disciples."

Evan Bayh and Jack Reed are Obama's best VP options. Sebelius would cost him the election and Biden is a loose cannon with a snarky expression and personality that kept him from getting anywhere in presidential politics.

babagaia said...

Pete Kent:
thanks for regurgitating some beautiful myths. I won't even bother debunking them they're so hackneyed.

More positively, good to see some fellow Sebelius-touters here. I think she would bring out the best in Obama during the campaign and onwards - and Obama is Obama's number one asset- he's the guy who will carry states (whether its North Virgilina or Montigan or Ohida) not the VP nominee- whomsoever that may be.

Brad said...

Kaine is a mistake, he reinforces Obama's inexperience. Bayh is SO MUCH BETTER! Clinton is better even that that...

Guy said...

Obama has to make a play for the white working class vote, and in particular the male white working class vote. He will lose to McCain in this demographics, but this is exactly why that's where he can make the biggest gains.

Kaine may not be a bad choice in this regard. Kathleen Sebelius is a no no. Asking white working class men to vote for an African American and a woman is not really realistic.

Higglytown said...

Lo que tienen que atender de Kaine es que el habla el espanol pero no es fluente, y tambien, los hispanos, cubanos, y puertoriquenos les molesta cuando un gringo americano es obvio en tratar de hablar y hacer cosas hispanos, pero sin entender la cultura. Me dicen que otro gringo que quiere ser amigo, per no nos entienda, no nos va a ayudar.

Higglytown said...

Translation, what you need to know about Kaine is that he does speak spanish but not fluently, and also, the hispanics, cubans and puertorican are bothered by another "gringo" (white upperclass) American obviously trying to speak and do the hispanic thing, but not understanding at all the culture. They tell me another "gringo" wanting to be our friend, without trying to understand us, is not going to help.

ephus said...

Of all the non-Clinton choices, Bayh makes the most sense. He is likely to have some impact in Indiana, which is a surprising battleground state. He re-inforces Obama's message. His famous name is likely to resonate (softly) with older voters who have been slow to warm to Obama.

Higglytown said...

You must remember George Bush spoke spanish on the campaign trail, and had several talking heads that were actually fluent, (Alberto Gonzales anyone), and yet hispanics still felt he was an elitist. Pandering to hispanics by choosing a Spanish speaker can backfire.

Jay said...

I think this is a total head fake by the Obama campaign and that the actual choice is going to be someone obvious (i.e. Richardson).

PeteKent said...

How can Obama pick any woman other than Hillary without enraging a sizeable number of the 9 million or so women who voted for her and who will feel so obviously jilted?

These PUMAs have claws.

More than that Obama wants this election to be about him. One historic first at a time, guys.

Only boring white men need apply.

I totally agree about Biden. He is an unpredictable show horse who Obama knows he cannot control.

Edwards is of course damaged gooda after the Beverly Hilton escapdes of the other day.

Bayh or Kaine take your pick.

I think Obama is running Kaine's name up first to see if any one salutes.

buckets said...

It seems to me picking a VP to 'humanize' Obama is the wrong strategy. You can do that more effectively with an ad-campaign and well-planned events: pictures of Obama doing human things, self-deprecation in interviews, etc.

It seems to me that the VP should be someone who makes the ticket more presidential, something Biden, Clinton, Richardson could do.

tesaar said...

Oh yes the women will be enraged because how dare he pick a woman! Do you realize how sexist that attitude is? It´s like saying no other woman is qualified for presidency before Hillary has her chance.

Black Political Analysis said...

The selection of Kaine would bring regional balance: Midwest + South. It would show that Obama (and Howard Dean for that matter) are serious about courting certain Southern states, Virginia and North Carolina, especially, but also Tennessee and Florida. While Kaine might not help all that much in Virginia, he would play well throughout the region.

sdf said...

The idea that Obama has some kind of "messiah" complex is a Rove-esque narrative, which is to say that it is part of the Republican standard operating procedure to make the Democratic nominee seem arrogant, elitist, out of touch, etc.

There's no question that Obama has to fight off all such swift boating, but is it really smart to make a VP choice that is dictated in large part by a pernicious narrative that the other side has been spreading? Does that not in a sense validate this narrative?

Pander said...

Am I the only one who gives better than average chances to Wes Clark?

He'd represent an olive branch to the whole "OMG GOTTA SHOW SUPPORT TO HILLARY" meme.

He can really sucker-punch McCain's only strategy of late, using troops for political purposes. Nobody is more qualified (or more willing, apparently) to nail John on his flimsy military credentials, or point out that POW experience does not directly translate to executive experience.

Furthermore, he's a good speaker, charming, intelligent, and the kind of VP capable of heavy lifting, as Obama asks for.

michael_b_ellis said...

What better way to vet a VP candidate than to have an anonymous press leak. I can't think of a more effective way to gauge voter reaction without actually announcing them as V.P.

MATT J. H. said...

He should pick Hillary if for nothing else she can put some balls on the ticket. I cannot believe the way Obama is letting McCain attack him relentlessly without responding. This is exactly how Kerry and Gore lost, trying to stay above the frey while getting shredded. Didn't we want a candidate who would actually fight? theres no fight. Obama's national lead is dwindling to nothing and he's staying above the frey?

McCain has called him a traitor, blamed him for the price of gas, and now accuses him of not going to see the troops because the press couldn't go. All commercials ran every day in front of the impressionable faces of uneducated swing voters who care not if the ads are true or not. Haven't we been here before?

This past month Obama has not issued a single attack or criticism at McCain. His polling numbers have dropped consistently save last weeks trip. The media needs to cover something every day, and if Obama is not making news then McCain will and the media cover McCains attacks on Obama., which is what is happening.

If Obama does not start getting involved in this campaign, he will lose. The same way Gore and Kerry, and all the other democrats did. Aren't you democrats sick of watching our candidate act like pussies. I'm sick of it. If Obama is not going to fight for this thing then step down and let Hillary have a shot, at least she won't let the Republicans rip her every day without responding.

I know you guys are all Obama lovers, but come on, this is getting pathetic. How much does Baracks pole numbers have to drop before he wakes up.

D said...

My thought is that the fact that this recent heavy talk regarding Kaine has clearly been generated by his staff and those that are close to him, this probably doesn't bode well for his VP chances. Kaine was an early heavy favorite of mine, but now I'm not sure how much he can bring to the table. I'm not sure Obama can afford to have a VP pick that can be characterized as a pure personality pick, although to some extent, they all will. I can be happy with Kaine if it comes down to him.

Lupercal said...

look i dont know this petekent, but we learned the other day that karl rove is an "occasional reader" of 538.com. make your own conclusions. i mean, whatever he's doing here, he's no democrat, or independent offering a truly genuine argument. the only part that's constant in all the message that he's spreading is that obama is arrogant. and guess whom started this meme? karl rove. i don't do conspiracy theory, but i think all of us should be careful.

Lupercal said...

tx to the guy/girl who corrected my premature conclusion about schweitzer. And as for getting shredded by mccain, i actually do agree. and at a point i was in favor of demoting robert gibbs. i mean, the only reason why having a nice, forthright spokesperson is because you hope that the media will develop a relationship with him. i mean folks like mccauliffe did themselves or the clintons no favor. but i find gibbs' responses at times a bit too academic. why aren't they answering? i mean, it might be true that mccain has a small buy for the ad, but he's still running it and i guess since it's so small, why not respond? it won't cost much, expect for the production. but then the ad might serve to define mccain. i usually don't second guess the obama folks, but i don't feel very at ease with their communications team.

MATT J. H. said...

Theres only one VP that brings anything to the ticket and unfortunately Obama hates her. Theres probably 5 points worth of support out there waiting to see him pick Hillary. I hate the bitch too but Obama has to put his high minded self aside for a sec and win the election first.

Reagan picked Bush, and Kennedy picked Johnson. They hated each other. He may not like it, she interferes with his brand, She'll be a pain while governing, Bill will be wandering the halls up to no good, but she brings the win.

I cannot bear another 4 years or Republican rule.

Peter said...

Hahaha, great comparisons. Apparently, Kaine is in "serious talks" with the Obama campaign. Heard it on Morning Joe (MSNBC).

hermeneutics said...

Just checking to see if my OpenID works

Rob said...

Well that bounce lasted long, Obama now only +1 with Rasmussen. :(

VermontDem said...

matt j.h.- I'd refrain from using that language about Clinton - it's a little inappropriate
I too am an Obama supporter who was very frustrated with Clinton during the primaries- but every time Obama supporters talk like that about Clinton it feeds the Clinton supporters who are in the "PUMA" camp
Also- you suggested that Obama dislikes Hillary as well. While of course this may be true- I'm not sure why everyone seems so positive he hates her. It seems quite clear that he was very frustrated and that they are not friends- but I'm not buying that he hates her.

VermontDem said...

New PPP poll in NC
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_729.pdf
Obama 44%, McCain 47%, Barr 3%, adn Undecided 6%.
This is still close.
And Dole 49%, Hagan 40% for NC Senate spot- that's about where it has been at for a while

QueenTiye said...

Biden and Clark remain my faves. Clark vs Romney is a bit scary - because I think Romney will eat Clark for lunch in a debate. Biden vs Romney - no contest. Biden's the heavyweight champ. Sibelius just fails to impress. She was awful in the state of the union address - I wanted to pay attention but just couldn't. Even so, that's a tough address to give - I'd love to see her in some other venue.

MATT J. H. said...

I apologize if my remarks were out of line, i was only making a point. Lets all be honest, the PUMA crowd are Hillary supporters who are pissed she didn't win. Maybe they have a right to be, there was a ton of sexism in the media.

That being said, Obama did not get involved in this, he did not use tactics like this even though the Hillary camp was using every disgraceful tactic in the book. They are whining about losing and unfortunately they are feeding the very stereotype they condemn. They have no reason to be so anti Obama. They are angry at everyone and Obama is taking the hit. They have no rational reason not to support Obama. His and Hillary's policies are identical. How many times have i heard they will not vote for Obama unless Hillary is on the ticket. So it's not that theres anything wrong with Obama, its that Hillary didn't win.

Hillary did not lose because of sexism. She lost because she ignored small caucus states that her campaign deemed unnecessary. It was incompetence. Without question she is a stronger general election candidate than Obama. But she lost. For the sake of the party and the country Obama has to pick her to ensure a win. It's not what he wants but its time to play grown up and win the election.

Fabian said...

I looked at the cross tabs from the North Carolina poll. They look reasonable. The only thing I find odd is that the poll only includes 20% African Americans while exit polls from MSNBC(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297180/) showed 26% African Americans in 2004. Maybe MSNBC's exit polls were off. Does anybody have data to support or repute my argument that more AAs should be included?

counsellorben said...

fabian said "I looked at the cross tabs from the North Carolina poll. They look reasonable. The only thing I find odd is that the poll only includes 20% African Americans while exit polls from MSNBC(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297180/) showed 26% African Americans in 2004. Maybe MSNBC's exit polls were off. Does anybody have data to support or repute my argument that more AAs should be included?"

fabian,

It appears that the MSNBC exit poll is off.  The Census Bureau North Carolina QuickFacts page, found here, has NC's 2006 African American population at 21.7%, near enough to the PPP sample.

Matthew H said...

Sebelius looks like somebody's grandma, which has to be a big plus. She's exactly the kind of person who could lecture McCain and get away with it. She may be the same age as Clinton, but she doesn't try to hide her age.

She has the same history in Ohio (dad was Governor, raised there) that Romney has in Michigan.

Richardson spent most of his childhood (until he was 13) in Mexico City. 3 of his 4 grandparents were born in Mexico, as was his dad. You don't get better Hispanic bona fides than Richardson.

Benjamin said...

Theres only one VP that brings anything to the ticket and unfortunately Obama hates her. Theres probably 5 points worth of support out there waiting to see him pick Hillary. I hate the bitch too but Obama has to put his high minded self aside for a sec and win the election first.

I've not seen a single poll that shows Obama gaining anything by picking Hillary. IMO, for every PUMA she would bring into the fold, she loses at least one independent voter who is sick of her.

I live in Virginia but I think Brian Schweitzer brings a lot to the ticket that Kaine may not. Obama needs an energy expert on his team, but not someone who comes across as too "greenie weenie". Liquid coal and even clean coal may be the answers to McCain's twin calls for more drilling and nuclear plants.

The United States has more coal reserves than any country on Earth. If we develop these clean technologies, we could be in the position of Saudi Arabia 10 years from now. Say hello to becoming a massive energy exporter that everyone needs rather than massive energy importer that no one wants!

Brian Schweitzer is the choice based on framing the campaign. He'd also make 3 electoral votes that are currently McCain +2 become Obama +8 because he is much more popular in his small state than Kaine is in his large one.

D said...

Matt j.h. I disagree for a number of reasons. First, there's little evidence that Obama isn't in the process of uniting the party as is. He's already gotten the support of a good many of the demographics that Clinton beat him out in, and we can expect that trend to continue right on through the convention. And second, and most important in my eyes, when Obama governs, he needs to govern with his own voice intact, if you know what I mean. Clinton has enough support both within the party structure and in the electorate at large to cause a potential schism within an Obama administration even if she doesn't intend to. There's no room for confusion about who's calling the shots in a Presidential administration. Clinton will be ok and even vital in the Senate, and Obama will be fine on his own.

ajbeecroft said...

Political Wire is posting two new Strategic Vision polls, to be published tomorrow.
PA
Obama 49
McCain 40

WA
Obama 48
McCain 37

Both pretty good results; the PA poll is a 17-point swing from their last (McCain+8) poll in April; I don't see a previous Strategic Vision poll from WA.

Tarik said...

I believe Obama is confident enough in reaching victory by sticking to his message and principles that he will not pick a purely strategic VP like Bayh, Kaine, or Clinton.

Therefore it comes down to four names whose presence in his administration would actually be beneficial. They split obviously into two pairs:

FOREIGN POLICY CREDENTIALS
1. Bill Richardson
2. Wesley Clark

RED STATE GOVERNORS
1. Brian Schweitzer
2. Kathleen Sebelius

There are good arguments for all of these, but Schweitzer will only get the nod if Obama is being strategically conservative (palatable white man).

Fabian said...

Counsellorben,
thanks for the link. Considering that data and the fact that AA turnout is usually lower than average (where is a good source for this?) the numbers seem extremely reasonable. One oddity about the poll however is that Obama leads in the 45 to 65 age group but trails in the 30 to 45. That is usually exactly opposite so it shouldn't influence the overall number by too much.

Benjamin said...

There are good arguments for all of these, but Schweitzer will only get the nod if Obama is being strategically conservative (palatable white man).

I don't think Schweitzer is the "strategically conservative" pick at all. I think Schweitzer is the choice to effectively frame the energy issue within the Democratic Party, rather than only respond to McCain's calls for more drilling with "no".

Schweitzer would be a bold and innovative pick IMO, not a conservative one.

PeteKent said...

I have to agree with Matt JH. McCain threw some real roundhouse punches at Obama while he was away and I was convinced that Obama was holding his fire so that he could return from the trip and chastise McCain "more in sorrow than in anger" averring that his being on foreign soil prevented him criticizing his fellow contestant.

But Obama has lost that opportunity and McCain has dominated the narrative about whether Obama's war policy has been dictated by national interest or rank political calculation.

Obama may be breathing in too much of his own hype, as witness his widely reported statement after a fundraiser the other night suggesting that his chances for victory looked very good.

McCain is increasingly being tagged with the Bob Dole brush and Obama may think that ignoring him is the best way to ride to the nomination.

I think that may be a fundamental miscalculation on his part -- unless T Boone Pickens suddenly morphs into Ross Perot. Remember: Bill Clinton never attracted anything close to a majority of the vote (like Obama in all the polling) and Perot essentially soaked up moderate to mod conservative support away from the Repubs. That dynamic, Bob Barr notwithstanding, is not present in this race.

Latest Ras tracker shows Obama declining again in the polls. It seems he needs massive amounts of publicity to sustain his candidacy.

As far as the VP pick goes, if Obama becomes desperate to win, he will pick Hillary. Only her presence on the ticket can unify the party completely. But that would be a bargain made with the devil and Obama knows it. The truth is he believes - - as he should – that he can win without her. And he will not wait long enough for his poll numbers to drop further before making his choice. As I indicated earlier, he will pick the VP on or around August 5. Not enough time for he and his staff to grow overly concerned about his declining standing.

It is interesting that there seem to be no former HRC supporters posting here. Talk about an enthusiasm gap! Do not think that she is content to accept her loss. I heard Lanny Davis on Fox’s AM show talking very warmly about McCain and his support for the surge. While, he ultimately named Obama as having the better end game in Iraq, the damage was done.

Mrs. Clinton is counting on Obama limping into Denver underperforming his brand and she will make one last play for the nomination. The question is not if, but how overt her maneuvering will be.

Still developing . . . .

John said...

Are you saying Obama is an Uncle Tom?

..Just kidding. Bad pun on the title.

jsh1120 said...

I'm not convinced Kaine has a lot to offer, but I'm also not convinced that his 50% (or so) approval ratings as governor should be taken too seriously. Governors tend to take a lot of hits when state and local governments have problems and relatively few governors have approval ratings much above 50%. When he/she is a lame duck (as all VA governors are), the opportunity to counter the negatives is even less available.

If Kaine is chosen, I assume it will be the result of his proven appeal in Southwest Virginia. The state is so close that even a 1% advantage might be enough to tip it into the Obama column. And if Kaine's appeal can be transported to North Carolina and rural PA and Ohio, it will be a very early night in November.

Dvd Avins said...

Obama is not arrogant as politicians go, but he is ambitious, both personally and for the world. He's too ambitious to hate Hillary this long after thaqt campaign's been done.

That said, there are no 5% waiting for to support the ticket if she's on it. Hillary has always carried more negatives than positives among independent voters. There are real positives and negatives to picker her, assuming she'd take the job, but I'm pretty sure the negatives outweigh the positives in electability.

To a lesser degree, the same goes goes for any woman. Having a woman on the ticket will increase the intensity of some voters--on both sides. And those voters could then be more effective in convincing their acquaintances and they might give more money. But the only significantly large group who might change their mind directly because there's a woman on the ticket are Republican men who are so fed up with Bush that they're leaning to Obama. Sibelius or any other woman on the ticket will push some of them back to McCain.

Maybe the increase in intensity makes that a cost worth paying. Certainly, reacting to an exaggerated sense of the electorate's prejudice only reinforces that prejudice. And having a woman as VP would be good for the future perception of women in many fields, not just politics. If Obama can make the boldness of choosing Sibelius or another woman work for him, I hope he does it. But the direct, demographic effects are negative.

I love Richardson's resume. But he has proven throughly unsuited to a national, TV-based campaign.

A pro-life man is about the only thing that will swing opinion among Democratic activists to the opinion that the very few but very vocal women who are presenting themselves as PUMAs have a point. I didn't know Kaine was pro-choice. If so, he'd need huge positives that I don't see to make up for it.

Oh, and Nunn is just way too conservative for the national Democratic Party. The outright reactionaries in the South aren't Democrats any more. But the remaining White southerners have a fairly wide spectrum. Nunn is a lot more like Hollings and Bentsen than he is like Carter, Gore, Clinton, and Bumpers. Despite his line against Quayle, Bentsen was a mistake for Dukakis and Nunn would be a mistake for Obama. A mistake I'd be very surprised to find he was actually even considering.

MATT J. H. said...

Sorry Mr. Pete Kent, you may agree with my sentiment, but I disagree with yours. Obama's media coverage has been 3/4 negative, as proven in the latest study. He may get most if the coverage but is not positive save last week. Obama rises in the polls when this negative attack stops like last week when he was abroad and the McCain camp could not get the media to cover what they wanted covered. Frankly, I find it amazing Obama is still leading with the media beating he is taking.

The McCain campaign is driving the news coverage because they are on the offensive. Barack is playing defense. If Barack can get back to offense, his poll numbers will rise to a comfortable margin. If he stays on defence, it will be close through November.

ajbeecroft said...

Well, Pete, one swallow does not make a summer (which would be a good motto for a statistician, I think).

We'll see what the Gallup Tracking says today, along with the continuing run of state polls. Those Strategic Vision polls I quoted above look pretty positive, too.

I think, in terms of Obama's strategy, that he's doing what he did against Clinton, which is to fight with the minimum of negativity he figures he needs. When Clinton's attacks on him started to stick, he hit back, usually with pretty effective cool dismissal and mockery rather than with direct attacks of his own. I'm sure he'll fight back against McCain more vigorously when he thinks it's necessary.

I think Obama got what he wanted out of the trip abroad; given that a lot of the criticism afterward has amounted to saying he looked too presidential, I'd say he's right.

ajbeecroft said...

FWIW, the pollster.com national tracker is now fully updated, including today's Rasmussen, and shows one of its biggest leads yet for Obama:
Obama 47
McCain 41.9

That's counting the infamous LV number from USA Today/Gallup yesterday, but also, of course, the Research 2000 poll as well!

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

That one USA Today poll drove a lot of people's thinking in the last 24 hours or so, but it's pretty atypical of current polling.

Benjamin said...

Kaine is bland and will not compete for the limelight with Obama who has a very large ego, if you have not noticed.

Pete, it sounds like you listen to Rush Limbaugh quite a bit. I'm sorry that anyone exists who is still stupid enough to listen to that crap.

I for one would like a President with enough ego (read: confidence in himself) to do the job we elect him to do. If you have not noticed, Bush is a meek and "humble servant" whose lack of confidence in his own decision-making left Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield in charge of the country. Even though those two clowns never won a national election on their own merits.

It will be nice to have an intelligent and competent President again instead of a folksy redneck whose brain was completely waterlogged for 8 years. But intelligence and self-confidence is "elitist" and "egotistical" to the less intelligent, am I right Pete?

ajbeecroft said...

Oh, and did you guys notice? Marc Penn didn't like the name "Pottery Barn Women." Their official name is "Active Grannies." The article's title goes as far as to say they are the "new soccer moms."
Apparently, the big story of the Democratic primaries was the surge in voting by older voters. Who knew?

ajbeecroft said...

Link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12117.html

PeteKent said...

Not to get too off point here, but MattJH what color is the sky in your world?

The notion that the media is completely in the tank for Obama is such common knowledge that they are doing parodies about it, suggesting he be called “O-Boner” (Jon Stewart) and even reporting (falsely, last night on CNN) about the end of the affair. Don't talk to me about studies: You can get them to say anything -- even that McCain is leading Obama by four percentage points!

Jack Black said...

On this day in history, July 29, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led PResident George Bush 51% to 47%.

For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration January 2005.

PS:

Nate,

I see you are now censoring your site. Remember,Freedom is best served in an open and free flowing discussion.

ajbeecroft said...

Ah, Pete. You can get studies to say anything, but if Jon Stewart makes a joke about it, it must be true.

More seriously, it does seem to me that Obama is getting much more coverage than McCain, which isn't always a good thing for him. I think McCain was actually pretty lucky the media ignored last week as he moved from Fudge Haus to dairy case and pretty much reinvented his Iraq policy in the process. His attempts at counter-programming against Obama's trip weren't very well planned or executed, and he's probably lucky nobody was watching.

My sense is also that McCain is rarely called on gaffes like the Iraq-Afghani border. This may be a partisan opinion, but I think if Obama had made that mistake, questions would have been asked about whether or not he was ready to govern.

Balancing all that is the fact that at least some of the media have a crush on Obama and find his candidacy exciting and inspiring, hence the O-boner side of things.

I'm not sure, when you add it all up, that media bias will make a big difference in this election

jsh1120 said...

ajbeecroft said...
"Political Wire is posting two new Strategic Vision polls, to be published tomorrow.
PA
Obama 49
McCain 40

WA
Obama 48
McCain 37

Both pretty good results; the PA poll is a 17-point swing from their last (McCain+8) poll in April; I don't see a previous Strategic Vision poll from WA."

I'm inclined to think the WA results short Obama a few points based on my observations here. That wouldn't be too surprising considering the source. I'll be surprised if Obama doesn't carry the state by double digits and Gregoire, the incumbent governor, can use any Obama coattails he can provide.

vtslayer said...

I am so glad to see that the discussion on this site has already turned around. This is refreshing.

Personally, I'm doubtful about Kaine. He just doesn't seem to complement Obama's strengths or compensate in any way for his weaknesses. I think if Obama wants an attack dog he will choose Biden. If he wants a safe choice who brings executive experience, he will choose Bayh. Richardson has an outside shot at it.

counsellorben said...

Jack Black said "On this day in history, July 29, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led PResident George Bush 51% to 47%."

Jack, If you want to lie about figures (at a site dedicated to mathematics and statistics), you should at least make sure the correct figures are not available.  The week-by-week numbers for Rasmussen's 2004 Daily Tracking Poll are available here.

The July 29, 2004 result was Kerry +2, half what you reported.  Neither Bush nor Kerry ever had over 50% in the Rasmussen 2004 Daily Tracking Poll.  You are correct about the final result, but so what?

MATT J. H. said...

Listen up Pete kent, I watch the cable news every day, I'm addicted to the damn thing. I am as qualified as anyone in the country to speak on the nonsense that it entails. Obama does indeed get all the coverage. All the good and all the bad.

The study released yesterday by "The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University" a bi-partisan firm, states that Obama gets about twice the coverage as McCain, and 72% of that coverage in negative. In fact McCain's coverage is more positive than Obama's.

The right only complained last week when they knew Obama would get lots of positive press. And last week it was. But the prior 6 before that it was very negative, didn't hear all the calls of the left wing media then did you?

Last night, it was all about Obama, and it was all negative. On Hardball, Hannity & Colmes(Of course) Cambell Brown and Anderson Cooper. Even Verdict with Dan Abrahams was all about whats wrong with Obama, the German troops Obama didn't visit, and the bad poll numbers. Just because Obama gets all the press, doesen't mean its good press.

I watch cable news religiously every day and night, as I've stated in earlier threads, its not healthy. The entire media narrative is being pushed by the McCain campaign. Yesterday it was "Why isn't Obama further ahead" whats wrong with him, and "Obama didn't visit the Troops in Germany."

The cable news outlets need excitement and conflict to keep eyeballs watching what they claim is election coverage. McCain is attacking Obama relentlessly and the media is more than obliged to cover this. What else would they cover, real news?
Obama isn't attacking at all. So the media covers the attack and does a 20 min segment on that attack and thus the segment although about Obama is entirely negative. If you make no news, the media will find something to put in its place. If Obama would go on the attack, he would make a big deal over McCain's gaffs or the mental recession stuff or fake outrage over McCains calling him a traitor it would get lots of coverage. But Obama is content to not make any news and thus McCain is winning the battle.

Why do you think he's losing his lead?

Matthew said...

Put me down for Bayh. As far as surrogates I've seen on TV recently go (Biden, Reed, and Bayh). Bayh looked much better he sure put Liberman in his place on Fox News Sunday.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3675546014486661390&q=bayh+lieberman&ei=1D6PSI2QAoeIrgLm3sVq&hl=en

Pros -
Has national security AND economic credentials.

Governor ie executive argument.

Proven red state appeal. Centrist, helps with independents.

Could help swing Indiana.

Olive branch to Hillary supporters.

Semi-well known (more than Kaine or Sebelious)

On message, won't make a mistake.

Cookie cutter image.

Fulfills rule #1 - does no harm.

Cons -
Not the best on attack (Biden would be better here).

Boring? This might actually be a benefit. Hard to paint Bayh as flashy or presumptuous as is being attempted with Obama.

Too safe and not enough change? Again if this is bad or not might depend on who you ask. Could contradict Obama's message though.

Hillary supporter in primary. Didn't say anything THAT bad.

No military service. Didn't help Kerry though.

I think he's the best pick overall, Biden would work too (if he could stay on message). I like Sebelious but that may be too much change. Kaine is too inexperienced and not really that popular in Virginia, he's no Mark Warner. Clinton has too much baggage. Reed has a nice resume but I was not at all impressed with Reed when he made the rounds on TV. I like Schweitzer too but seriously the guy has some kind of coal fetish.

cothromach said...

RE: Schweitzer


I think Schweitzer's support of 2006-Mitt, and 2000-McCain, would actually be a benefit to Obama; particularly so if Mitt is the VP nominee for McCain. I can't think of a better way to make the case against McCain/Romney ticket than to have a former supporter outline where and how each lost his support. And I think Schweitzer is the kind of politician who wouldn't have trouble speaking his mind and saying these things, even in a VP debate with Mitt on stage.

Additionally, something some of you need to take into account is that the Media's narrative is always going to default to "Obama the 'inexperienced'" against "McCain the Maverick". We've all seen how the Media is just waiting for Obama to make one small mistake and then pounce on it and never stop; and meanwhile, McCain has a gaffe nearly everyday, and most go unreported (i've yet to see anyone on TV mention that he hasn't shown up to work/the Senate since April). If this status quo stays in tact, and we have a close Election, this Media narrative could be enough to swing the Election to McCain. This is why Obama needs a guy like Schweitzer who can turn the narrative on its head, and, make the narrative about how McCain (and Mitt if hes VP) own more "flip-flops" than John Kerry could ever dream of, and how unqualified the "new McCain" is.

It really all comes down to campaign style and philosophy. If the campaign wants to win by playing offense, they'll go with someone like Schweitzer whose rural nature and positions on Guns and Coal can draw away weary Republicans. If the campaign want to try and win by playing prevent-zone defense, they'll go with someone like Bayh or Kaine who won't shake things up.

ajbeecroft said...

Matt,
One place where I'd disagree with you is that I don't think Obama is losing his lead.
Pollster.com shows his lead at pretty much a record high; RCP doesn't, but only because they've decided to ignore polls they don't like.

Redshift said...

ajbeecroft - Ah, Politico publishing Mark Penn; who could have predicted that?

I'm not surprised that he's still flogging his "microtrends" idea, even if he couldn't manage to win a primary with it. But he might be more convincing if he wasn't trying to prove the idea "the most important demographic group in the election is the one that's most favorable to Hillary."

He was wrong about pretty much everything, but we'll have to see if he manages to become the new Bob Shrum -- a "Democratic strategist" who keeps losing, but is still the go-to guy for what the Dems should *really* be doing.

Benjamin said...

On this day in history, July 29, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led PResident George Bush 51% to 47%.

For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration January 2005.


JackBlack, but not really. Bush had the lead as much as Kerry in April, May, June, and July. Same thing between Bush and Gore. Bush Sr. also had the lead as much as Dukakis in April, May, June, July. Same thing between Bush Sr., Perot, and Clinton. All those races had a Republican who took the lead very often in the polls, they were always back and forth with the Democrat over a period of a few months.

Not the case today. McCain only leads in 1 out of every 50 or so polls that come out this year. Thus, McCain's performance in 2008 is more like Dole's performance in 1996 (almost never in the lead) than the Bushes in 1988, 1992, 2000, or 2004... although Obama has yet to open up as big a lead as Clinton did in '96. What you have is a relatively small but consistent lead for one candidate (Obama) that the other (McCain) seems unable to catch up to for any meaningful period.

humanist said...

The new Rasmussen tracking numbers are a good example of the effect of smoothing devices.

It seems clear from what Rasumssen said yesterday together with their result published today that while the Friday Rasmussen average was O+6, the nightly results for all nights since - Saturday, Sunday, Monday - were all at about O+1, i.e. the July average for Rasmussen. From Rasmussen numbers alone you would have to believe that the Berlin bounce was indeed a very transient reaction to media coverage. (Of course, we should not rely on Rasmussen numbers alone, though they are, I think the best single indicator).

The interesting point is how sensitive the percecption of the race is to the statistical devices chosen: a day-by-day, no smoothing, would result in the very sharp, quick drop mentioned above; the 3-day smoothing results in a more nuanced picture of gradual rise to Friday and gradual deflation since; an even smoother mechanism, say week-long averages, would end up with the Berlin bounce as no more than a minor wavelet perturbing the Rasmussen curve.

PS are people happy with us going tengentially to discuss polling results, or should we stick more to Nate's topics?

ajbeecroft said...

Redshift,
Politico may still go to Penn; I don't see Obama doing so any time soon! Or any Democratic politician whose surname isn't "Clinton."

AnotherMike said...

Why does Richardson not get any more attention? The only negatives I've ever heard from him are (1) boring and (2) skelatons in the closet regarding womanizing.

Boring seems almost like a positive. With Obama, there's no need for a rock star VP. As tot he skelatons, I've never seen anything other than internet rumor. If it were so bad, why has it never come out before in any of his political campaigns?

On the positive side, he would lock down NM and help in CO. He would also be the older, experienced statesman choice.

Jack-be-nimble said...

It's over. The American people don't want a president who is cocky, overconfident and egocentric. These are the traits of GBW in 2006. In any case, Obama will now seen by most as profoundly unlikable.

Once Nate updates you should be seeing Ohio & Virginia in Pink, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire & Nevada in White. Next week, they will all be some tome of red.

Redshift said...

As a Virginian, I like Kaine pretty well. I don't put too much stock in the most recent polling numbers compared to his historical levels, because we're coming off of a stalemate special session of the legislature that made no one look good (but that I think will produce better results for the Democrats in the long run.) He's not unpopular, and I think he could provide a nudge based on familiarity and local pride if VA ends up staying a tossup.

Kaine is quite successful as a campaigner for other candidates, however, which is an important VP qualification. The big downside, however, is that we'd get a Republican governor.

I am also rather amused at how the "experience" argument revolves. When we're talking about senators, a lack of executive experience is seen as a significant flaw. But when we talk about a governor, suddenly it's a lack of "experience on the national stage" that's the problem.

Lupercal said...

i suggest that we ignore petekent. every post that he logs start out with one simple premise: that Obama is arrogant, egocentric, and attention-craven. you have to go far to fetch such an opinion. foxnews, rush limbaugh, and more importantly, karl rove, who introduced the concept. and the way it's nicely woven and presented as statistical analysis makes me very suspicious of the source. I mean, to cite a recent example, when he talked to david cameron about the importance of not micromanaging, because "there are folks who know ten times more" about the subjects that they do, and about the importance of not being a dilletante who won't seek out diverse opinions in order to make an effective decision, that's not the impression i got. when he brought in 3 REPUBLICANS yesterday as his chief economic advisers along with others, like warren buffet and such, i didn't get the impression that he was arrogant, and attention-craven.

apparently, he should have just botched his foreign trip make countless mistakes, and completely surrender to sarkozy in order to assuage these folks. but then i'd hear a whole different tune from them. you can't strike him for doing what he does in a professional way. that's not arrogance. It's competence. i read an article on dailykos yesterday that tried to superimpose all of the gaffes mccain made for obama, and it was eye-opening how much of a pass mccain is getting on these things and how utterly clueless he is on foreign policy and economic policy. i'll post if i can find it.

Jack Black said...

Counsellorben@11:30AM,

The site you led me to was for the weekly average in October 2004!

Unfortuanately, but apparently, you cannot read!!!!! So, I will put it down again-On July 29, 2004, John Kerry led President George Bush in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll 51% to 47%.

Three Day Presidential Tracking Data

Rasmussen Reports Home

Daily Snapshot

State Polling Summary

Electoral College

Most Recent Releases

Scott's Page

Daily Updates

States

Florida

Michigan

North Carolina

Ohio

Pennsylvania

7-Day Rolling Averages

Presidential Ballot

Bush Job Approval

Congressional Ballot

3-Day Rolling Averages

Presidential Ballot

Bush Job Approval

Congressional Ballot

Economic

Rasmussen Index Summary

Ratings--U.S. Economy

Ratings--Personal Finance

Economy--Better/Worse

Personal--Better/Worse

U.S. in Recession?

Weekly Updates

Bush Ratings--Economy

Bush Ratings--Iraq

Bush-Kerry Preference-Economy

Bush-Kerry Preference-War

Is U.S. Winning War on Terror?

Who is Better Leader?

Welcome


At Rasmussen Reports we interview 1,000 Likely Voters every single night. Data on this page reflects a three-day rolling average sample of 3,000 Likely Voters spread equally over the preceding three nights. Our surveys were of 500 Likely Voters each night prior to September 1, 2004.

The three-day rolling average is useful in spotting possible trends and measuring immediate reaction to events in the news. However, sometimes it is difficult to determine whether movement is really a trend or mere statistical noise. The best approach is to use the information on this page in conjunction with the seven-day rolling average data provided separately.

For data from April 16 to June 30, click here. Current data, click here

Data prior to April 16 is also available.

Survey of 1,500 Likely Voters over preceding 3 nights. This table updated daily

RR
Presidential Tracking

(no leaners)
Presidential Tracking

(with leaners)
Core Support

("Certain" Voters)

Bush Kerry Spread Bush Kerry Spread Bush Kerry
Aug 31 47 46 B + 1 49 48 B + 1 42 40
Aug 30 47 46 B + 1 48 48 Tie 42 38
Aug 29 48 45 B + 3 49 47 B + 2 41 37
Aug 28 47 46 B + 1 48 47 B + 1 40 38
Aug 27 46 46 Tie 47 48 K + 1 40 40
Aug 26 47 46 B + 1 49 48 B + 1 41 41
Aug 25 47 47 Tie 48 49 K + 1 40 40
Aug 24 47 47 Tie 49 49 Tie 41 39
Aug 23 46 47 K + 1 48 49 K + 1 40 40
Aug 22 47 47 Tie 49 49 Tie 41 39
Aug 21 47 47 Tie 49 49 Tie 41 39
Aug 20 47 48 K + 1 49 49 Tie 41 40
Aug 19 46 48 K + 2 47 49 K + 2 40 40
Aug 18 46 48 K + 2 47 50 K + 3 40 40
Aug 17 46 49 K + 3 46 50 K + 4 40 40
Aug 16 47 48 K + 1 48 49 K + 1 41 39
Aug 15 46 48 K + 2 47 49 K + 2 40 39
Aug 14 46 47 K + 1 48 49 K + 1 40 39
Aug 13 46 48 K + 2 47 50 K + 3 39 40
Aug 12 45 48 K + 3 47 50 K + 3 39 41
Aug 11 46 49 K + 3 47 50 K + 3 40 40
Aug 10 46 49 K + 3 47 50 K + 3 40 40
Aug 9 48 47 B + 1 49 48 B + 1 41 39
Aug 8 48 47 B + 1 49 48 B + 1 42 39
Aug 7 47 47 Tie 48 49 K + 1 42 40
Aug 6 46 48 K + 2 47 50 K + 3 40 41
Aug 5 45 48 K + 3 46 50 K + 4 40 40
Aug 4 46 46 Tie 48 48 Tie 41 39
Aug 3 45 48 K + 3 46 50 K + 4 40 40
Aug 2 46 47 K + 1 47 49 K + 2 40 41
Aug 1 45 49 K + 4 46 51 K + 5 39 41
July 31 46 47 K + 1 48 50 K + 2 40 40
July 30 45 48 K + 3 47 51 K + 4 39 39
July 29 45 48 K + 3 47 51 K + 4 39 39
July 28 45 48 K + 3 47 50 K + 3 39 38
July 27 46 47 K + 1 47 49 K + 2 39 37
July 26 46 46 Tie 48 48

Lupercal said...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/28/15229/1412/45/558306

MATT J. H. said...

Watch the media beast go to work. You wouldn't know but Tim Kaine just found the cure for cancer. Every web site, tv station and news paper are going to work on Mr. Kaine. If this is just a campaign induced curve ball for the media, its brilliant.

Personally, my first impression is that he looks like the every man, will probably go over well in the rust belt and help with those Working class whites. He's no radical left winger. He's from Virginia which is certainly a plus however I'm doubtful V.P's matter as much as the press says they do.

He lacks experience though, I don't know how good he is at campaigning, so it would probably be a safe, don't rock the boat pick.

Although i have been touting the necessity of Hillary Clinton to be on the ticket, my favorite is Joe Biden. He may talk a lot but he tells it like it is and he would eat McCain or Romney for lunch.

I can imagine a VP debate with cooperate raider Mit Romney and Mr. middle America, don't take shit from no-one Joe Biden. The first time Romney spews how the Democrats want to surrender to terrorists in Iraq, Biden will so thoroughly demasculate him that Romney will be licking his wounds for weeks. Obama is about as charismatic as they come but he doesn't portray the toughness I'd like to see. Biden will bring that, and back Obama up on his foreign policy and not allow Obama to be portrayed as naive.

Choose Biden Barack, if you can't take Hillary, he's the next best thing.

Redshift said...

FWIW, though he might help a little in VA, I don't see Kaine as a "strategic" choice. The few times Obama has spoken about choosing a VP, he's said that he's not choosing based on geography or balancing his policy strengths, but someone who shares his vision of the country and its direction, and who he can work with. I'm inclined to take him at his word, which is why I'm thinking of Kaine and Sebelius (though Schweitzer might also fit the bill.)

(Mark Warner would have been awesome as VP; too bad we really need him to take that Senate seat.)

ajbeecroft said...

Jack, Jack, Jack,
First of all, thanks for that lovely long post that takes up so much space.

Secondly, July 29, 2004 also happens to have been the final day of the Democratic National Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Democratic_National_Convention

ajbeecroft said...

PS the bounce continues
Gallup Tracking
Obama 47
McCain 41

Higglytown said...

I have my answer from the last thread at least for today. THe Gallup Tracker posted at 1pm exactly. It also went down by 2 points, which was about my prediction. My supposition was that on these trackers that take three days to correct one day of outlying numbers, it would take through Wednesday to officially correct the peak over the weekend if it were just a bad day of polling. We see it went down 1 yesterday, and then 2 today, with one day left. Should end up at Obama +3-4 where it was before that spike.

Virginia Conservative said...

I can't believe the Democrats would be stupid enough not only to tap such a mediocre candidate, but also hand us the keys to the Governor's mansion if Obama wins. That means an incumbent running for re-election in '09 making it difficult for the Democrats to come back, and Republican controlled re-districting after that.

This has to be a diversion.

ajbeecroft said...

Higgly,
Depending, of course, on what the results are from tonight's polling.
And +3/+4 looks to be a little higher than the typical range of the Gallup tracker in July which has often been in the 0-+2 range as well.

humanist said...

Gallup's July average was roughly +3.

My impression is that Gallup peaked at about 50-40 and that the results since the immediate Berlin peak were all at about 45-41. I guess that's the number we'll see tomorrow.

It may be however that among other things the RV/LV gap widens.

stayathomedad said...

I dunno. Obama-Kaine sounds like something I rub on my butt after bicycling all day.

Rob said...

ajbeecroft - The bounce continuing implies that the lead is increasing or remaining constant, it is doing neither of these things at the moment!

Virginia Conservative said...

He didn't get a bounce. The race is tied up, even though you guys should be far far ahead. Kinda pathetic.

McCain can pull this off, and it shouldn't even be close. Despite his horrible campaign, despite the media fawning over Obama, hes STILL tied.

McFloat said...

Virginia Conservative, you seem a little worked up over this. Maybe a deep breath or two will do you well.

counsellorben said...

Jack Black said "The site you led me to was for the weekly average in October 2004!

Unfortuanately [sic], but apparently, you cannot read!!!!!"

Jack,

Not only can I read, I can spell.

If you had reviewed the entire page for this page, again, you would have seen a "Week Ending" table on the right hand side of the page, showing numbers for each week from January 29 through October 21.

I don't know where you got the numbers you posted, but they do not agree with the numbers that are posted on Rasmussen's site.

Matt said...

Stevens expected to be indicated on criminal charges. There goes that Alaska Senate seat.

That Marvelous Ape said...

Rasmussen published VP favorables. The well known candidates offer some interesting insights:

Huckabee +8
Romney -6

Biden +1
Clinton +5
Edwards +21

I think Huckabee's numbers could be deceiving though. There are plenty of people who 'like' Mike, but I'm not sure all of them want in the White House.

Matt said...

Sorry, indicted.

humanist said...

How did everyone come to believe that we "should be far far ahead"?

This is a common misperception not only among Republicans who take solace in the one race in which McCain is ahead (against his expectations), but also among Democrats who get excessively worried by Obama's small advantage.

We tend to forget that through the last few years and even a few months ago it was taken for granted that McCain would have an excellent chance against any Democratic candidate; which is why the Republicans chose him in the first place. The only rational reason to think otherwise now is the recent downwards economic trend - but McCain does not have the usual disadvantages of an incumbent (which is once again why he was considered to be so strong).

Most important, there is no historical reason whatsoever to expect the outcome of this elections to be a landslide. It is nearly certain to be a single digit margin and it is very likely to be a relatively small single digit margin.

All in all, given what we know of the candidates and of historical performance, we should expect a narrow-to-not-quite-landslide Obama victory, which is what the polls keep telling us for several months already.

Virginia Conservative said...

I came to believe that because that is what I've been hearing Democrat blogs prattle on for months about. The great re-aliagnment, a landslide, winning in Virginia and Montana, etc.

Doesn't seem to be happening. I guess the goal posts are being moved. Why? Because America is--and will remain--fundamentally a center right country. The only time Democrats will get in power is when Republicans fail to be center-right or become corrupted. Even then, it will be a short interim.

Republicans, in the long term, will continue to dominate at the national level if they govern as conservatives because America is a conservative nation.

alvarndc said...

There really is only one answer -- Al Gore.

I think Obama should TELL Gore that it is his OBLIGATION and DUTY to serve.

thatmarvelousape said...

In January, when Obama was losing to McCain, he held 20 points advantages over Romney and Huckabee.

Obama outperforms generic Democrat when he's put up against generic Republican.

McCain has his own brand, and that will keep him afloat.

thatmarvelousape said...

Virginia Conservative,

The last time I checked, we're competing in Virginia and Montana, and we're doing pretty well there.

Also, the race is not 'tied up.' Obama holds a small lead.

babagaia said...

Didn't read all the post Nate or I would have wisecracked on how arrogant all these Messiahs like Obama are. And aloof.

Virginia conserv: you are aware that the election hasn't actually happened yet? You talk like MccAin has already won Virginia! And by definition the political centre of a country cannot be 'centre-right'. Whatever the centre is is called the centre. I give you credit for spelling everything in your post correctly but the sense was kind of lacking. Everywhere.

Higglytown said...

Yeah, I would expect Obama to be up some since mid-July, he has had a lot of good press. +3-4 is my guess right now. I note RCP has him down to like +2.5 with the USA/Gallup -4 one in there.

Virginia Conservative said...

You've seriously never heard the term "center right"? You're joking right?

I don't get where you think McCain is a great candidate. I'll be the first to say hes awful. Hes the Bob Dole of 2008, stumbling around the cheese isle of a grocery store unable to answer simple questions.

Obama, even though hes arrogant and inexperienced, is a very good politician. He has done mostly everything right and has the media on his side. He does a great job of a liberal posing as a harmless centrist.

But he can't open up a big lead, despite that. There is something stopping swing voters from moving towards him. That is a big problem for your side.

thatmarvelousape said...

Yes Virginia Conservative, it's called the time of year.

McCain is consistently behind Obama, and swing voters aren't moving towards him either.

That's a big problem!

Republicans have a big problem named 'Obama.'

Democrats have a big problem named 'McCain.'

Gosh golly, we're all in trouble!

tesaar said...

Higgly: RCP for some reason doesn´t include Research 2000 poll that was Obama+12.

James said...

Al Gore is a hypocritic has-been. According to Rasmussen, Americans put lowering gas prices before conservation by large margins. Americans don't want someone telling them to put on a sweater. That's why Jimmy Carter lost in 1980. Al Gore for VP is suicidal

joel said...

Americans are idiots. Big oil has tons of leases they are making no effort to get oil from.
This drilling nonsense may be a short term boost for the republicans. Obama needs to get out there and explain why drilling isn`t the answer. As soon as oil drops another 50 cents the suv will make a comeback.
The average american is not to bright and spoiled.

Virginia Conservative said...

And once again, because their candidate can't win, the liberals start whining about how "stupid" Americans are.

Yeah, that will be a winner in Ohio and Pennsylvania for sure!

thatmarvelousape said...

Actually, Obama should support off-shore drilling... in places where they already have leases.

Debating about Alaska and the Gulf is just a distraction.

humanist said...

Virginia Conservative, I basically agree with you. I just don't think it's surprising that Obama is only moderately ahead.

Part of this may be - it would be good if Nate studied this - that past polling was more volatile for technical polling reasons; and that the practice of averaging and thus smoothing polling is more recent. Historically, leaders have appeared to lead by much more than they do more recently.

At any rate, a fairly narrow Obama victory is consistent with winning in Virginia, and a modestly big Obama victory is consistent with winning in Montana. A +10 Obama win - by whose absence you pretend to be surprise - would be consistent with winning in TEXAS.

Virginia Conservative said...

Humanist, given the sorry sate of my party he should be tied in Texas and +10 in Virginia. I'm downright elated that the race is as close as it is.

Maybe current polling is more accurate than past polling. We will see. Still, I don't think there has been any ideological shift in the political thinking of the average American voter. Most people in this country are still conservative or moderate, a very small percentage call themselves liberal.

tomthress said...

"I don't get where you think McCain is a great candidate. I'll be the first to say hes awful. Hes the Bob Dole of 2008, stumbling around the cheese isle of a grocery store unable to answer simple questions."

It's hard to say which is more true (both are to some extent), but I think that it's more the case that McCain is outperforming the Republican brand than that Obama is underperforming the Dem brand.

According to Rasmussen from a couple of weeks ago, McCain's outpolling Bush by something like 15-20 points and his lead over Romney and Huckabee was also double digits.

I think the meme that McCain is a terrible campaigner is based too much on dissecting the minutiae of campaigning in a way that isn't always reflective of how people ultimately vote. Given the Dem/Rep split and conditions in this country (i.e., economy), McCain's only real chance in this election is to cast doubt on Obama's ability.

So far, I think he's done a good job of getting Obama tarred with the appropriate mud - inexperienced, unpatriotic - without having that mud dirty him (McCain) in the process. He's also done well to find the one sub-issue of the economy that polls better for Republicans - high gas prices / drilling for oil.

Ultimately, I don't think it'll work, but not because John McCain is a poor campaigner, but simply because the numbers are stacked too strongly against him. But right now, I would say that McCain has done well to keep the race as close as he has moreso than that Obama has done a poor job of sealing the deal.

thatmarvelousape said...

Virginia Conservative,

Again, it is important to note that Obama held 20 point leads over Romney and Huckabee back in January when he was still behind McCain. If you put Obama against 'generic Republican,' I think you'd see a similar lead.

Certainly, Republicans should be very happy that they chose a candidate with an established brand somewhat independent of the GOP. The question, I think, is whether McCain can maintain that image. If he can convince voters that he offers something truly distinct from the last eight years, he has a shot. If not, he will not get out of the low 40's.

ajpuckett said...

As a Virginian, here are my thoughts on Kaine. I don't think he will be able to deliver Virginia based on his popularity here. He has a mediocre record as gov.

However, I think he has the ability to deliver VA based on his organizing/campaigning/fundraising ability. I did a little bit of volunteer work for his campaign when he ran for gov a few years back, and I remember it being a very well-run and sophisticated campaign, which had an extensive voter database, and knew exactly which neighborhoods and voters to target with phone banks, canvassing and lit drops.

With his intimate knowledge of the political terrain of VA, I think Kaine could help Obama win it. On the other hand, he can provide that help with or without being chosen as VP.

Virginia Conservative said...

All McCain has to do is firstly make this election a referendum on Obama. I think hes done that quite well so far, and it will likely be just that in the end.

Secondly, tar him as a liberal. Very few Americans identify themselves as liberal. He hasn't quite done this yet, but is starting to. This is why his small lead has been held down.

Yeah, Romney and Huckabee were behind Obama. But guess what? Hillary Clinton would be measuring the drapes for the Lincoln bedroom right now, so it cuts both ways.

Alex S. said...

I also want to emphasize (once more) my preference for Kathleen Sebelius. I have also been intrigued by this or that VP-favorite-of-the-week, be it Richardson, Webb, Biden, Nunn, Bayh or Kaine. They all have their advantages and disadvantages, but again and again Sebelius looks like the best choice in my eyes.
So now it is Kaine breaking through. Well, I believe he has been riding on the Democratic wave in Virginia which has also carried Warner and Webb into their offices. And at the moment he is just managing to do that. The 50-50 favorability is pretty much the generic "state of the state". Maybe people make a mistake to assume that a VP from a certain state will be able to attract votes from the other political camp, but in fact, they attract votes from the undecideds who might vote for that VP simply because they know him.
To make it short, 50% favorability is not enough. It´s probably the base that Obama will eventually get anyway, plus a few people who would not vote for a black man.
Then you also have to take the difference on abortion into account. One of the (in my opinion) biggest arguments for voting for Obama is the likelihood of liberal Supreme Court Justices that will uphold Roe vs Wade. I am convined that an Obama-VP must be safely in the pro-choice camp and Kaine has been too ambiguous.

There is another argument of loyalty - since Kaine has endorsed Obama very early it should give him some advantages. Well, Sebelius did that, too - and Bayh has been called an olive branch to the Hillary camp, so there isn´t a general recognition of the necessity to reward loyalty.

PeteKent said...

Ajbeecroft and MattJH--
I think media bias will turn out to be one of those wedge issues in the election. you may recall in 2004 how Dan Rather and others rushed to judgment over 43's military service and then were found o have relied on forged documents and to have abandoned journalistic principles in order to "get him". I think that was one of the turning points in the election for the common man.

This year it may be much the same. The public is only now beginning to understand what a great success the Surge was. It was a story ignored by the media until only the past few weeks. I think they will awake from their slumber and look for someone to blame for deceiving them. Just as they may do when they realized that the news media (together with the entire Democratic Party establishment) has been way over-emphasizing the extent of the economic downturn. I believe the economy is going to begin to pick up steam in a few months time. This week GDP will be reported and it will not show that economy is in recession or threatening to be in one. Growth may be slower than we like, but it will be positive. I could go on . . .

Poll after poll shows that the people believe that Obama is receiving way more favorable press coverage than McCain. The study you site no doubt looks at the coverage very broadly, but recall the old adage: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear, does it make a noise?

Last night on AC 360 all they could talk about was McCain’s health and the melanoma risk, asserting it had become the media story of the day. Well sure, they made it so! I listened to my local 11 PM news and they had much more balanced coverage of the day, including the skin cancer story, but not leading with it and not sensationalizing it.

If Obama had a bad day in the media yesterday, well tant pis pour lui as they say in France! The man may have feet of clay instead of wings of gold. That you noticed it all is b/c those outlets that you refer to – especially MSNBC are so biased for Obama that any departure is a shock. Don’t tell me Dan Abrams actually thought yesterday was a winning day for McCain? That must have been a first. Surely Keith Olbermann was able to provide you with your daily thrill!

To the poster boosting Gore: he would be the ideal choice. No one greener than he. Don’t you read the polls? Black Gold is the new Green this year!

And to Bababooey: of course the country can be center right: it’s a median concept. There are more right wingers than libs and that skews the median to center right. People have been saying it for years!

Now get the hell off my lawn, you kids!

thatmarvelousape said...

Personally, I think Kaine seems like a terrible choice, and I hope all this fuss is just a distraction to reward Kaine for his early support with free publicity.

I think Obama should just pick the best person for the job. Biden and Nunn strike me as the most capable, not because they 'fill a hole,' but because a majority of people know that they know what the hell they're talking about.

ajpuckett said...

My personal preference is for Wes Clark to be the VP choice.

MATT J. H. said...

Theres a reason Republicans win presidential elections and Democrats don't. Democrats assume voters vote on issues. A lot of them don't. Many US voters don't know anything about what goes on outside their borders. Hell a lot of them couldn't spot Canada on a map. And Iraq, forget it. They're not stupid, its just not important to them.

The republicans are masters at convincing these people that the democrats don't share thier values. They are elitist, out of toutch. Republicans don't attack issues they attack character and personnel traits. Like Obama is a traitor. Educated people see this for the crap it is, but uneducated people buy it, and it wins elections.

This year may be different because voters realize things are too bad to buy that bullshit any more. You can see the struggle in middle America:

"That Obama guy doesen't understand me, he doesen't share my values. But can I afford to vote for Republicans again?"

McCain has decided to break out the old play book and its starting to have an effect. Obama is so unknown and different that he has weakness in this area. In the latest NBC poll 60% of voters believed Obama was in the mainstream of America while McCain was 45%.

This election is very similar to 1980. Reagan was considered the risky candidate that year and he could only muster a 3 point lead throughout the general election and he was running against the incumbent hated president, Jimmy Carter. 3 point lead , Hmmm, sounds familiar. Obama is managing to stay up by 3 and he's not running against the incumbent. He's facing a war hero.

If Obama seals the deal in the debates, he will win by a comfortable margin, 4-5 points. Which is a landslide in todays split political environment.

MATT J. H. said...

With respect to the new discourse on this site that I commend,

Peter Kent you are an ASS.

thatmarvelousape said...

VirginiaDem,

A 'referendum on Obama' sounds an awful lot like the Kerry strategy in 2004. As it stands, Americans vastly prefer Obama to Bush. If McCain can't provide a positive alternative, I just don't see how he gets out of his current rut.

As for Hillary Clinton, it appears that her numbers against McCain were very similar to Obama's, and when polled as Obama's VP, she hurts him significantly among independents.

Virginia Conservative said...

Hillary would have had one big advantage--her husband was already President. Clinton wasn't a great President, but he wasn't Jimmy Carter either. Rightly or wrongly, the country associates them with the 1990s boom which was a good time for the country.

I think "1990s restoration" would have been a more powerful message than "ChangeHopeChage". She could have done really well in West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee--places where Obama doesn't stand a chance.

Virginia Conservative said...

Bush was President in 2004. They knew what a Bush Presidency was like, that is why the Kerry strategy failed.

They don't know what an Obama Presidency would be like, hes a total unknown. That is the difference. Think of the Bush Sr. strategy against Dukakis in 1988 instead.

MATT J. H. said...

Bill Clinton wasn't a good president?

By what standard are you measuring, the unparalleled economic growth or the peace?

Give Americans a choice, Bush or Clinton, who do you think they would vote for?

Virginia Conservative said...

Matt-

Clinton was extraordinarily lucky to be President from 1993-2001. Very lucky. One would have to be a total ditz to screw up as President during that period.

Still with all the advantages he had, he wasted a lot of opportunities. Hes a 1990s Eisenhower, with sex scandals.

tesaar said...

Thruth is US economy almost always grows faster under democrat presidents. IIRC since WW2 the only republican to beat any democrat by this standard is Nixon who barely beats Carter.

John said...

McCain's dishonorable smears are working for now.

Hopefully Americans will see them for what they are before it's too late.

Alex S. said...

Something else seen through my Sebelius-lense: I wonder if the Ann Veneman VP-suggestion was a test to see the remaining strength of the No-woman-but-Hillary people.

MATT J. H. said...

Yup Bush was just unlucky. Thats it. Who knew invading a country with 2 distinct Muslim cultures that have been at war for 5000 years would be a bad idea. What bad luck.

Deregulating the mortgage industry and having large cooperations sell loans to people who couldn't afford them. Boy, who'd a thunk multinationals would be more interested in prophet than the greater good. Boy, that was bad luck when that blew up.

Who could have predicted that letting the poor black people of new Orleans fend for themselves for 4-5 days after a historic hurricane wouldn't go over so well with the American people. Seeing the dead bodies flow down the street on CNN, and the starved souls on roof tops as their entire lives were washed away. Yup, never could of predicted that reaction. That was bad luck.

Yup, Bush was awfully unlucky.

Virginia Conservative said...

The Katrina debacle was the fault of the rotten Democrat machine in NO and LA in general.

Do you see anybody rioting, screaming for FEMA to come save them, or shooting at helicopters in North Carolina or Florida when they have Hurricanes? No? Why do you think that is?

When we had Isabell here in 2002 we didn't have riots and looting in the streets of Norfolk and Virginia Beach.

Virginia Conservative said...

The Democrat Mayor had fleets of school buses he could have used to evacuate people. Instead of doing that, he just sat there and complained.

PeteKent said...

What's bugging you, MattJH? You seem very childish and young.

If things are so bad in Middle America, please show me the statistics that back it up. We have endured far, far worse in our economy; look back to the mild recession of 2001 for example.

And let me tell you something else: BO is no RR! People had an irrational fear of Reagan's conservatism, but with Obama, you don't know what you are getting.

Policy wise he showed poor strategic and tactical judgment on the war. Case in point the Surge. This will continue to hurt him. As far as his opposition to the war goes, Bill Clinton had it right; the whole thing IS a fairy tale!

You forget how he said after the invasion appeared to have been such a compelling success and Saddam was defeated in what, a week, Obama declared that there "was not much difference" between him and Bush on the war. Barack O'Bush!

Obama is also wrong about energy. The people want more oil. Period. The markets are getting that. Oil is moving below $120/BB and where I live gas is $3.62 down from $4.20!

This election is not just about Obama convincing people he is not "risky". It is about issues and he is losing his edge on those, if he has not lost it already.

BTW when was the last time Obama made a major statement about universal healthcare? Do we need a new countdown clock? The silence is deafening.

He is a fake. A phony and a fraud.

That is why he is going to lose.

Do not sully the name of Ronald Reagan, the man who brought you your freedom and paved the way for the American Century (and the debatable sucksess of the Clinton era), by comparing him to Barack Obama.

I might have to go all Lloyd Bentsen on you!

PS: I Kaine would be a terrible choice for Obama. he will not get it. Relax. The trial balloon has alreay burst.

MATT J. H. said...

When you are the commander and chief, and an entire city gets destroyed. You get off your perch in the Oval office and use the total resources of the US government to help the people of that city immediately. You don't wait 5 days to get help to those people.

You are the commander in Chief. You are responsible for the country whether you like it or not. FEMA is a federal organization and Bush put a consecrative cronie in charge who had no clue what he was doing and they gutted the funding for FEMA. A president should get off his ass and take air force 1 to that city the next day. The buck stops with the president. It was and is to this day a national disgrace.

Virginia Conservative said...

Matt-

Answer the question. Why did New Orleans become a basket case after a hurricane, while Miami, Tampa, the Outer Banks, Charleston, and Virginia Beach seem to do just fine when they have hurricanes?

Why do you suppose that is?

BTW, hes the Commander-in-Chief of the military, not "the United States". I hope you realize the difference.

Virginia Conservative said...

Also, where was the looting and rioting and complaining in Iowa when they had those terrible floods just this year?

PeteKent said...

Nice to see some balance for a change among the posters here. Now if only we could get a person who supported HRC in the primaries we might be able to hear from all sides!

MATT J. H. said...

Things are bad in middle America Peter Kent. The average wages of middle income Americans has gone down the last 8 years. Thats the first time in history. HISTORY.

While multinationals get fat off their plants in China the middle class is being destroyed. When a presidents economic policies are tilted totally to the rich, with not a single tax cut for the middle class, while gas prices go from $20 - $150. Our Health care system can not be afforded by 15% of the population and our public schools are the worst of any industrialized nation. I'd say things are pretty bad for the average person economically.

But America knew what it was asking for when it elected Bush. It knows what its getting if it elects McCain. Rich will do very well and the rest can fend for themselves. After all its only a mental recession.

Steven said...

The Obama folk should still consider Wesley Clarke. He is articulate, a fine strategic thinker, both in military and political matters, and a senior,
southern gentleman. He has handled himself well in the press since
his controversial McCain comments.
He could help Obama remain competitve in states like Virginia, the Carolinas, Arkansas, Florida and Missouri, places the GOP are loath to spend money in. And perhaps the national dialogue will refocas on our true national security concerns.

MATT J. H. said...

Virginia conservative, all those hurricanes you mention were insignifigant compared to new Orleans. Thats why its referred to as the worst natural disaster in the countries history. Not to mention it happened to a very poor city. With a minority population very vulnerable.

You compare the floods in Iowa? They were bad floods but not even close to the same level as Katrina.

Why do you guys defend Bush. he's got the worst approval ratings ever. EVER. To support someone just because he's from your party regardless of the level of incompetence betrays an ideology not consistent with American beliefs.

PeteKent said...

MattJH.

Go get a job and then we'll tak you sound like you are still in college (high school?).

You are not living in the real world.

This statistic on wages has been bandied about for sometime now. I am not sure what it all emans.

I do know this (from today's WSJ): "[S]ince Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border."

Not a bad run. Fully one in five US jobs are dependent on exports and that sector is thriving. We are not lossing jobs to China we are gaining them!

Your facts are wrong with regard to taxes. Bush cut taxes very substantially for the poor and middle class. Go look up what income you have to earn in a family of four before you a dime in federal income taxes. Please don't spew your bushwa at me, son.

And if the schools are so bad, why dont you just graduate already and get a job like I said!!!

And, yes, Virginia, thus far the recession is only in your head!

Virginia Conservative said...

More victimization. Norfolk is black, Miami is Latino. They've weathered bad Hurricanes.

Florida had more than any other state by far one season, and their response (led by Jeb Bush) was excellent.

Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the Union, but their Katrina response was excellent (Thanks to Haley Barbour). Leagues ahead of Louisiana's response. Thank God Louisiana got Gov. Jindal in there.

The Iowa floods are at least as bad as Katrina. Entire towns are under water. But I don't see anyone shooting at helicopters or whining on TV for the federal government to come do everything for them.

Kate said...

Alex S. and all the others who have discussed the possiblity of Sebelius as VP, I'm with you. I think she would be an excellent choice, and I sincerely hope she gets the nod. Even if her State of the Union respose was a little dry, she has admitted it, and she has given several other dynamic speeches. But not in the same way that Obama gives dynamic speeches. She seems as though she would balance him out nicely, while still striving for the same goals. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/14/obama_finds_kindred_soul_at_helm_in_kansas/

The poster above who pointed out the blatant sexist nature of the "No woman other than Hillary" rhetoric is absolutely correct. Why should it matter that he picked another woman other than HRC if she is equally (if not more) capable?

Also, side note: thanks, Nate, for the comment registration!

Virginia Conservative said...

One more thing--I find it hilarious that you complain about how the federal government responds to Katina, and then at the same time demand the federal government be put in charge of your health. Cognitive dissonance, much?

PeteKent said...

"No woman other than hillary" may be sexist, but its real. Don't dismiss vtoing behaviors simply b/c they do not conform to societal norms. You do predictive sites like this a disservice.

Kaine or Bayh. That's it.

Not Wes Clark. Obama now believes that he has all the foreign policy credentials that he needs.

This whole VEEP thing is a terrible distraction for him. I am certain he wants to get it past him quickly, so he can return to being "THE ONE"!

Robby said...

To whoever made the "Perot helped Clinton win" comment upthread, do a damn google search; Perot took from both candidates, and if he hadn't been in the race, Clinton would still have won (albeit with a smaller EV margin).

As for Iowa and Louisiana, I've been to Des Moines, and I've been to New Orleans. Those cities are by no means comparable in size, and to suggest that their reaction to a natural disaster would be comparable is laughable.

Plus, Des Moines wasn't even hit by the flood, if I recall; it was towns much smaller, with less population density and therefore less propensity for looting and rioting.

Virginia Conservative said...

I guess Miami and Tampa are just little hamlets, too.

PeteKent said...

Hey, Robby. it was me about Perot.

Do your own damned Google search. You can find out a lot of crap with it, like junk about Chicago pols messing around in limos with strange men . . . but I digress.

The conventional wisdom is that Perot helped the Democrats much more than he hurt them. By a lot. I am sure i heard that on POTUS the other day, so it must be true!

Robby said...

I was living in Miami when Katrina hit, working on my Master's degree. I was still there when Rita and Wilma hit later that season.

Miami did not experience a catastrophic (yet foreseeable) levie failure, resulting in massive flooding. Hell, my house didn't even get ANY flood damage.

It's an apples-to-orange comparison.

But no, that's fine; go ahead and assume that Katrina was bad because of all of those uppity bla...I mean, urban people. That's not racist at all.

tesaar said...

I guess you think Miami and Tampa have levees and significant areas below sealevel..... Seriously you guys could continue this somewhere else as it´s not relevant here.
And PeteKent those who´ll cry foul if any other woman is selected are not going to vote for Obama if he picks anyone but Hillary. There ain´t many.

Virginia Conservative said...

Go ahead and play the race card. I'm talking about the city and state leadership in New Orleans and Louisiana respectively.

I lived in Norfolk when Isabell hit. We took a pretty bad beating, there were big floods and plenty of wind damage, power outages, etc. No riots. And I will actually give credit to the Democrat Governor at the time, Mark Warner.

Virginia Conservative said...

Oh yeah, and since we're sticking to personal experience I was also in Richmond (a city with a huge entertainment/residential district below sea level, and around 70% black) when we had massive flooding from a tropical storm. Half the city was literally under water. Nothing like basket case New Orleans.

Robby said...

@ Pete Kent

"In the nationwide popular vote, Clinton's margin over Bush would have been about the same without Perot in the contest. In the actual vote, Clinton won 43.7 million popular votes to 38.2 million for Bush and 19.2 million for Perot.

According to the VRS estimate, without Perot in the race, Clinton would have won 51.4 million to 45.6 million for Bush."

"Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates."

"Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

I'm unable to find the study that showed pretty plainly how the election would've turned out with Perot (still a Clinton win, but some of the "blowout" states would have been closer, and only a small handful of low EV states would haev flipped), but an intelligent guy like yourself could probably find that without too much difficulty. I believe in you.

@ Virginia Conservative

Isabel sounds like Wilma when I was in Miami. Again, being above sea level and not having a catastrophic levee failure makes floods a whole lot easier to manage, don't it?

And of course it's a race thing; why else do conservative pundits always talk about Katrina whenever they analyze the Iowa floods? LA and IA are relatively small red states along the Mississippi River; what else could they be contrasting?

Unless they're properly contrasting the difference between a densely populated urban area's ability to respond to natural disaster and the ability of a sparsely populated rural area where the overwhelming majority of residents have access to an automobile, in which case...why are we blaming the Katrina victims for that again?

Virginia Conservative said...

Robby, alright. Compare Louisiana's response to Mississippi's response. Barbour did a bang up job, the Democrat leadership in Louisiana failed.

Mississippi is one of the "blackest" states in the union, btw.

Robby said...

@ VCon

Richmond's below sea level? Wikipedia has it at elevation +166 ft, whereas New Orleans is at -6 to -20 ft (my former stomping grounds in Miami clock in at +6 ft, for comparison).

In case you want to poo poo to reliability of Wikipedia (and that's certainly reasonable), the City of Richmond website says that "[t]he elevation above mean tide ranges from 9 feet along the James River to 312 feet in the western part of the metropolitan area."

So, if you've got sources saying that Richmond is below sea level, I'd love to see it.

Virginia Conservative said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Robby said...

Compare population density in coastal Mississippi to New freakin' Orleans; that alone explains the difference in efficacy of governmental response.

Virginia Conservative said...

They built flood walls in the Bottom for a reason. Theres even a club called the "Flood Zone". The Bottom is below sea level.

Virginia Conservative said...

So what about the population density? If its the fault of the EVIL EVIL RACIST BUSH and his minions, shouldn't have been terrible everywhere if FEMA is as awful as you claim?

Robby said...

If you're saying ONE SPECIFIC PART of Richmond is below sea level, well, I'll believe you, since you claim to be from there. But ALL of New Orleans is at least two meters below sea level; people's homes, not just a swanky club. So, again, comparing Richmond's tropical storm response to New Orlean's once-in-a-lifetime hurricane response is not apt.

thisniss said...

Saw on another Kaine thread what seems an inconsequential point, but does have at least a bit of merit:

"Obama-Kaine" Say it to yourself. Say it again. "ObamaKaine" Again. "Oba MaKaine" hmmmm. Oba McCain? While it's certainly not the criterion for eliminating a VP candidate, it is a bit funny to think about reinforcing your opponent's "brand" with your own campaign pairing.

Then again, I've been firmly in the Sebelius camp forever (with Schweitzer a close second) - so maybe I'm just looking for excuses. :-)

moondancer said...

Just a note about the emerging importance of the Veep. Gore carried a fair amount of water for Clinton. his re-vamping of the Federal code was a big job.
Cheney while an insult to democracy made Bushs' occupation of the WH. The manchild would probably been forced out of office were it not for the mastery of DC dick had. While his work product is a nightmare to libertarians, left or right, his experience and manipulation of "people" cannot be minimized.
A long-winded argument for looking for a benign master of the "beast" for the second slot.
As for McCain, A gerontologist would be a wise choice.

Virginia Conservative said...

You guys really, honestly think it was all the Evil Bush's fault and the city/state level response was just peaches and cream? Are you going to tell me the NO City government pre-Katrina was a bastion of efficiency and accountability?

If you really think that I've got a bridge to sell you.

Robby said...

Strawman argument: I'm NOT saying that the Katrina disaster was 100% the fault of "evil, evil Bush;" I'm saying it was an awful situation, made worst by incompetence at the federal (and, to be fair, state and local) level.

I mean, there's video footage of President Bush being told, while Katrina was still in the Gulf, that the levees were going to break; did he make any substantive plans to evacuate those people once he learned that? No.

Add to that the fact that he nominated a man whose biggest resume line was "professional horse judge" to the head of FEMA, and, yeah, I think Bush has some culpability.

But no, some of it was the cataclysmic nature of the Katrina disaster. President Bush's incompetence just made it a little (or a lot) worse.

And, by the way, Brownie was loooong gone before the floods in Iowa, so that's another point of comparison between those two disasters.

Virginia Conservative said...

Maybe Bush thought Naigin could actually have the brains to use city buses to evacuate his citizens.

The Democrat governor didn't call him for federal help until it was too late, BTW. The Feds can't send in the military by law, until the Governor requests it.

Virginia Conservative said...

BTW, I guess seeing how incompetent the government was during Katrina would make you pause before putting the feds in charge of your health care. But I guess not. I guess you want political hacks like Brown telling your doctor what to do.

Robby said...

No, that's why I vote Democratic; so that talentless douchebags like Brownie WON'T get named to important governmental posts.

And, geez, would you take apart your argument for a second? YOUR party is full of corrupt party hacks, ergo MY party's belief in the ability of government to work for the common good is fundamentally flawed? C'mon now.

(Side note: it's not actually MY party, but thanks to the nonstop douchebaggery of the modern GOP, as a devout liberal I have no one else to vote for.)

Shawn said...

The stories about shooting at helicopters, rape, and murder during Katrina were false. The reason Iowa fared much better was the FEMA response was largely adequate, probably because it was no longer headed by a horse lawyer and Bush pioneer.

I love how conservatives screw up government just to turn around to say, "See, government doesn't work." Brilliant.

Virginia Conservative said...

Saying "if only we elect the right people, big government will work!" reminds me of Marxists who say "The Soviet Union wasn't TRUE Communism!"

You're telling me that once we put the government in charge of health care, that only virtuous, competent, and intelligent officials will be elected and direct it? Yeah, right.

Big Government doesn't work, period. You know who first got bottled water to New Orleans after the disaster? Wal-Mart, the Evil Evil Corporation. They would have gotten it there sooner but the government actually turned away the Wal-Mart trucks at first.

Virginia Conservative said...

We've had a federal department of education since the 70s. Has education gotten better, or worse? Don't all talk at once.

Robby said...

Here's the nice thing about elected officials: they're ELECTED. If the people who "run" health care (and no, it will not be that simplistic) turn out to be corrupt or incompetent or just plain wrongheaded, I can...elect someone else, or (more likely) elect someone who will replace that official.

What happens if I don't like what my insurance company is doing? My options are...go to another insurance company, or suck it up. I can't vote out a CEO, so if all the insurance companies have the same awful policies (and, guess what, they do!), I have no recourse whatsoever.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Here's the nice thing about elected officials: they're ELECTED."

Congressmen have something like a 95% incumbency rate.

Even ignoring that, the hordes of bureaucrats they appoint (often for lifetime terms) aren't elected. Nor, unlike in the private sector, are the ever held accountable by anyone. They always ask for more money. More, more more. Whens the last time the head of a government department said "Hey guys! We need less money this year!" See the problem?

Robby said...

Private education has always been available as an alternative, and considering those options are almost always cost-prohibitive (why, hello there, widening income gap!) and/or lacking in educational standards ("Evolution is JUST a theory!!!" "Um, so's gravity, dumbass."), it appears to me that federalized education is the lesser of two evils.

And once we get rid of NCLB, it will be a whole lot better.

Robby said...

The solution: transparency in government, and civic education. Yeah, those are long term solutions, and it might be a generation before we see the fruits of it, but it's better than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Virginia Conservative said...

Drop out rates, school violence, teen pregnancy--all were a hell of a lot lower before big government got involved in education.

Test scores were a hell of a lot higher.

I'm not saying that was the cause necessarily, but it sure hasn't helped things while costing us way too much money.

I don't know why you're down on NCLB. Its the kind of federalized, big government interference in local affairs you liberals should be in love with.

The Department of Energy was created in the late 70s. Hows thirty years of federal, big government energy policy worked out?

Virginia Conservative said...

If you want transparency in government, bring it closer to the people. I.e., localize it in the cities and states where officials are closer to the people and more accountable instead of cloistered in a distant national capital.

pakaal said...

Sebelius, Kaine, Clinton, Gore(!)....

And who exactly was it on Senator Obama's world tour? Why, none other than Senator Richard Lugar, hmm. An Obama / Lugar ticket would put a huge dent in McCain's alleged "center/moderate Republican" draw, that's for sure.

And it fits Senator Obama's "let's stop the across-the-aisle bickering approach" to boot.

cothromach said...

Virginia Conservate, with respect, you're missing the most critical element in developing a young person's education: an active adult in their life (at what rate have divorces, and single-parent households increased over the last 40 years? I bet it's a pretty high one).

It does not matter which school the kid goes to, without a responsible adult in a kids life to teach them proper study habits, respect for elders and others, and to take personal responsibility, the kid is doomed 99.99999999999% of the time. Without the three things I listed, the kid is going to fail in school and in life because they're not going to feel accountable to anybody (not the Teacher, not their Boss, not the Cops, etc). The kids in private school clearly have an involved adult in their life because it takes one to get the kid from public school and into private school.

As to solving the Public system, as I said, without an involved adult, the kid is doomed. So the best practical (we aren't China) solution would probably be to throw a boat-load of money into building up programs like Big Brothers/Big Sisters That way, we can reach these kids and stop the problem from perpetuating itself when these kids go on to have children (which, unfortunately, is at an ever-decreasing age).

Virginia Conservative said...

cothromach-

You make an excellent point. It all starts with a loving two parent married household. Get those things in order, and a kid turns out fine most of the time. Volunteer work is important, too, though I don't think it needs cash from the federal government.

Dr. Killjoy said...

Virginia Conservative:

"If you want transparency in government, bring it closer to the people. I.e., localize it in the cities and states where officials are closer to the people and more accountable instead of cloistered in a distant national capital."

So, after spending several posts denouncing the inaction and incompetence of state and local government in the response to New Orleans, your solution is to... give them more power?

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

npb7768 said...

Just go with Bayh... he has all the right attributes.

情趣用品 said...

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,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX

情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網


情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片

av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟

情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室

情趣用品 said...

愛情公寓,情色,舊情人,情色貼圖,情色文學,情色交友,色情聊天室,色情小說,一葉情貼圖片區,情色小說,色情,色情遊戲,情色視訊,情色電影,aio交友愛情館,色情a片,一夜情,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊,視訊美女,美女視訊,視訊交友,視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,情人視訊網,影音視訊聊天室,視訊交友90739,成人影片,成人交友,美女交友,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人貼圖,成人電影,A片,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,UT聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,男同志聊天室,UT男同志聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,6K聊天室,女同志聊天室,小高聊天室,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,同志聊天室,聊天室交友,中部人聊天室,成人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,情色聊天室,寄情築園小遊戲,AV女優,A片下載,免費A片,日本A片,麗的色遊戲,色色網,情色論壇,嘟嘟情人色網,色情網站,成人網站,成人論壇,成人小說,微風成人區,色美媚部落格,正妹牆,正妹百人斬,aio,伊莉,伊莉討論區,成人文章,成人圖片區,免費成人影片,成人遊戲,成人影城,本土自拍,自拍,癡漢俱樂部,AV,做愛,做愛影片,av片,a漫,av dvd,線上a片,日本美女寫真集

信次 said...

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,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,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,

平平 said...

^^ 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,