The principal rationale for selecting Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate is that she would have united Democrats behind their nominee at a time when they have a substantial advantage in party identification. John Kerry received 89 percent of the Democratic vote in 2004; if Barack Obama can get within a couple of points of that, even to 86 or 87 percent, he will be very difficult to defeat.
However, Joe Biden might do nearly as good a job as Clinton of uniting the party, while perhaps paying less of a price among independents.
Rasmussen has fresh approval numbers out for Biden, as well as several other Democratic short-listers. Here, borrowed from Rasmussen's invaluable subscriber service, are their approval scores by party:DemocratsClinton has the highest favorables and highest net score among Democrats; Biden has the fewest unfavorables. Generally speaking, Clinton and Biden blow the other three candidates out of the water.
Candidate Fav-Unfav
Clinton 77-22 (+55)
Biden 65-17 (+48)
Bayh 45-25 (+20)
Sebelius 35-19 (+16)
Kaine 35-29 (+6)RepublicansAmongst Republicans, the ratings are very nearly the reverse. Joe Biden will not have a terrific amount of crossover appeal. On the contrary, though the animus might not be as personal as in the case of Senator Clinton, Biden will be seen by many GOPers as a partisan blowhard. One can argue, however, about whether this really matters. The notion that Obama was going to win over some large number of "Obamacans" had not realistically been in play for a couple of months now, as the GOP base has begun to rally behind John McCain.
Candidate Fav-Unfav
Kaine 29-30 (-1)
Bayh 23-43 (-20)
Sebelius 14-45 (-31)
Biden 22-63 (-39)
Clinton 21-75 (-54)IndepedentsWhere Biden might do some good is among independents, among whom he has the highest favorables and highest net rating, although a couple other candidates had lower unfavorables. But Biden certainly performs better amongst this critical group than Hillary Clinton. One can argue that Biden is very well positioned within the Democratic party, probably just slightly to the right of the average Democratic senator. Liberal Democrats certainly won't be pleased with his votes on the AUMF or the bankruptcy bill, but they still essentially trust him, which they wouldn't necessarily with a more identifiably centrist choice like Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine. But on the other hand, Biden cannot so easily be characterized as a liberal to turn off independent voters; in fact, independents and moderates like him pretty well.
Candidate Fav-Unfav
Biden 42-29 (+13)
Bayh 31-21 (+10)
Kaine 24-23 (+1)
Sebelius 18-21 (-3)
Clinton 39-57 (-18)
Let's take one more, slightly different take on this. This time, we'll look at impressions of the candidates based not on party ID, but rather, based on who the voters had intended to vote for in November. Let's make the following assumptions:
- For each McCain voter that has a very favorable view of Biden, one-quarter of them will switch their vote to Obama.
- For each McCain voter that has a somewhat favorable view of Biden, one-eighth of them will switch their vote to Obama.
- For each Obama voter that has a somewhat unfavorable view of Biden, one-eighth of them will switch their vote to McCain.
- For each Obama voter that has a very unfavorable view of Biden, one-quarter of them will switch their vote to McCain.
Does that sound reasonable? It sounds reasonable to me, though I really have no idea. But let's run the numbers and see what we get:What's noteworthy is not so much that Biden will turn a lot of McCain voters on -- Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton would have done a better job of that -- but that he'll turn very few Obama voters off. As a result, this method projects a net swing of 2 points toward Obama, which is better than he'd do with any of the other candidates. Biden also performed quite well in these ratings among undecided (43-22 favorable) and third-party (45-36 favorable) voters, though the sample sizes are probably too small to be worth worrying about.
VF = Very Favorable
SF = Somewhat Favorable
VU = Very Unfavorable
SU = Somewhat Unfavorable
... McCain Voters Obama Voters
Candidate VF SF VU SU Net Margin
Biden 4 20 5 10 +2.00
Bayh 4 19 4 16 +0.75
Kaine 8 21 8 20 +0.25
Clinton 11 14 13 14 -0.50
Sebelius 3 13 5 13 -0.50
8.23.2008
Can Biden Out-Hillary Hillary?
by Nate Silver @ 1:45 PM...see also biden, vice president
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

242 comments
Rasmussen is featuring McCain's newest attack ad featuring Joe Biden.
He is taking his partisanship to a new level.
Hi Nate... Mule told me to tell you you're a wanker.
Great stuff, Nate. It shows how truly strategic the pick was. I'm sure Team Obama considered all these things.
Since undecided voters seem to be disproportionally independent, I think Biden's favorable rating (or lack of Clinton's unfavorable rating) among independents becomes doubly important. Is there any way to run these figures against party ID among undecided voters to get an idea of what the net effect might be?
Excellent link on Kos to Biden's early support and sponsorship of the Violence Against Women Act, nearly twenty years ago.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/23/7556/28748/44/551188
John,
Your observation about Rasmussen is suggestive of why the GOPers were more concerned about Biden than most other likely VP team members.
Biden was probably the second best pick from a very thin bench (Nunn would have been the best if he wanted foreign policy expertise with crossover appeal) after Warner/Gore/Clinton were not in the running. The only issue is the Very Unfavorables vs. the Very Favorables as in the absence of a visceral dislike/like, the VP will not swing any votes. Where Biden can hurt is that he is tied to MBNA as hard as Haliburton is to Cheney so the states that are suffering from the 2005 bankruptcy bill (Rust Belt & Upper Midwest) may take a jaundiced eye to this ticket.
It is clear that VA is not in play for us, since Kaine would have swung the state by 1-2% points. Given the recent polls, the non-selection of Kaine and the pulling of advertising, this state is out of play.
Summary: a C+ pick - won't help or hurt much. Obama will have to win it on his own similar to W having to 'win' it on his own in 2000.
you're making the same mistake as pollsters, Nathan. Turnout, my dear, turnout. Will be depressed. Be depressed. Comprends?
I am so biased it is hard for me to tell...but I hope it is true.
Intersting analysis, but it doesn't mean anything. Biden is a net zero impact pick. Yeah, he's a competent warm body in case something happens. People don't vote for VP. Love how the media is drooling over him..MSNBC.."he's been in the senate for 35 years, but he's not really of Washington"..."he'll help in PA" He lived there 55 years ago.
But is this weighted by the relative proportion of Republican, Democratic, and Independant voters?
If not, this analysis is incomplete.
Numerically, it does make sense though it still doesn't make Biden particularly interesting.
Live renats-
Turnout will be depressed in which among which groups?
Pagop-
Thanks for that insightful analysis - I live in DE (just moved there) and the whole state is essentailly a suburb or beach getaway for all the folks in Philadelphia. In case you don't know Philly is in PA, you brainiac.
Those who want change, brad.
Fun analysis, but I think you're way overestimating the switches based on VP.
I'd say 1/8 of very favorable or very unfavorable will switch because of VP, and none of the "somewhats."
Now if you rerun the numbers you see it makes no difference with those who have decided...Clinton switches a few in each direction; no one else switches almost anybody. That matches intuition as well.
But the key is undecideds. The same data set shows this for undecideds (first number is very favorable, second is very unfavorable):
Biden 8/3
Kaine 0/3
Bayh 0/3
Sebelius 3/3
Clinton 38/22
Suppose 1/4 of undecideds who are strongly favorable or unfavorable decide on that basis. (Much easier to imagine than a switcher). Suddenly Biden is worth a point and Clinton is worth an eye-popping 4 points.
Interesting.
DarienCrow,
[LOL] Thanks for getting that in there. I'm a little late for the party.
Now, turning to VP politics. I'm mixed in my feelings about how important the VP selection really is, but I do think it has some measurable bearing on how people perceive the Presidential candidate. That said, here's all you need to know about Obama's pick of Biden for VP. He's:
1) NOT female
2) NOT moderate
3) NOT from a red/swing state
4) NOT going to help
Brad, he's from Scanton..not Philly, that's what they were talking about. Congrats on knowing where you live. Probably took you a while to figure it out.
I realize that my last post is somewhat misleading. That's a 4 point pop with Clinton among the undecideds. So perhaps a 1 point pop altogether. Not such a big deal.
One thing I noticed is that Biden has the best Democratic minus Republican margin of the five listed. Clinton is +1, Kaine is +5, Bayh is +0, Sebelius is -15, but Biden is +9. Coupled with the best rating among independents, he just might have been the best bet. But I wish others were covered here, like Richardson.
I don't think "those who want change" are going to abandon Obama in any significant number just over the VP pick. If Hillary were to somehow usurp Obama's nomination on Wednesday, that's another matter entirely.
As for Biden, once people get to know him, they'll realize what a decent pick he is. He's probably about as strong a candidate as you can get on women's issues and still have manparts.
@live renats - Really? How does Obama for President not reek of change?
@NJ Mod - On the MBNA thing, how does this help the elephants? Biden may have supported it, but so did McCain and the entire Republican party.
@Sarah - If Clinton's #s among independents are 39 favorable and 57 unfavorable, I don't see how you count this as Clinton being a plus 4. Sorry.
Biden is a hands down darling of a small but growing contituency with a lot of clout: The chattering class of pundits.
They love him and will always give him the benefit of the doubt.
I was born and raised in Delaware and I can tell you that Biden had tenure in the senate. In the '80's and 90's when he actually thought he had a chance at becoming president, he really fell out of favor with political junkies in the state. He was a pandering hack. He was never in risk of losing his senate seat because the low info voters just viewed him as a piece of the Delaware political furniture and voted for him as such.
After his near death experience he completely changed. He began to really speak the truth and have a I don't care what people think, I'm going to say and do what I think is best for the country attitude.
His safe seat and lack of presidential ambitions allowed him to do this and made him a favorite of the punditrocracy and garnered him a ton of respect from fellow congressmen on both sides of the aisle.
In this campaign he was really running for VP. I am sure he knew he was longshot for Prez. Again he let it all hang out and in the end won the prize.
He is a relentless attack dog and has those blue collar bona fides along with ample experience to be a real asset to Obama.
I predicted Biden back in June as the best, safe pick. So it is somewhat anti-climactic for me. However, the media is eating this up and given the huge respect everyone has for him, it will be tough for the McCain camp to dent his image without a self inflicted wound from Biden himself (likely, I know).
Anyway, way to go Senator Joe! Make the first state proud.
I think its time to concede the Pennsylvania is out of play now.
live renats: could you be a little more specific about turnout and where you think it will be depressed? e.g., enough in Central OH or in Missouri to hurt McCain?
Clark Miller: Not independents, undecideds. Many of the undecideds are Hillary Democrats.
Nate didn't give those numbers, but I went and checked them, since I'm also a Rasmussen subscriber.
--Scott
I am talking generally across the United States.
@PAGOP
He's a Scranton Native and he's lived and represented Wilmington (and the rest of Delaware) for over 30 years. That gives him the entire Philly Metro (most of Delaware, all of Southeast PA and South of Princeton in Jersey) and then upstate PA, which might more naturally go to McCain. PA is no longer a swing state.
Let's be clear: Obama has gone for taking a greater share of the existing electoral pie, instead of increasing the size of the pie.
NJ_Wingnut said...
"However, the VP rollout was another gaffe on Obama's part as the fact that it was leaked early...
I am wondering why everyone is doubting Romney in a debate. He is a very polished debater and is not prone to the mind-scratching gaffes that Biden tends to make over the years."
The hell you say. What Multiple-Choice Mitt clips have you been watching this election season? His entire campaign was a huge gaffe, only outdone by the worst presidntial bid in US History, courtesy of Rudy 9iu1ian1.
As for the roll-out, I'll admit it did harsh the buzz that was circulating on the internets. But to be honest, the cat was already out the bag. Kaine and Bayh were confirmed as being out of the running, and Biden was the talk of the networks. The Huffington Post even had Biden as the headline all day Friday. The Obama camp got their data.
Who leaked it anyway? It certainly wasn't anyone in the Obama camp. Was it John King, Jake Tapper? Again, this was dirty tricks to give the Republicans time to release an attack ad, I'll bet.
Biden was my Top 5, so I'n happy. But of course, according to you, Hillary was the genius pick, right?
Biden will hurt BO in the west. Should lock CO, NV, MO for McCain and may bring NM and OR in to the red. Biden could hurt BO in OH, IN and IA also. He will help BO in the NE where he was ok on his own.
NJ Moderate,
How is VA not in play? The polls are the same as they have been for months -1 to +2. There is a huge ground game going on which is not reflected in polls by voter registration and they have been campaiging in the rural parts to minimize the Repub margins. He has Kaine, Warner, and Webb to campaign for him and with him as they did this week.
"Given the recent polls, the non-selection of Kaine and the pulling of advertising, this state is out of play."
VA is out of play because the two most recent polls show McCain up by 1 and .5 points?? Oh my god, the Democrats REALLY need attack dogs.
NJ 100% Wingnut:
You're getting your talking points mixed up, which is easy to understand since you're playing a part, and you're not very skilled at it.
Biden's advocacy for credit card companies (duh; it's a home-state industry) doesn't hurt him anywhere in an election held against Rethuglicans, every single one of whom, everywhere, supported BACPA 2005 and has also accepted money from the credit industry. Try again, sparky! LOL.
NJ Moderate wrote:
Biden was probably the second best pick...MBNA...as Haliburton...VA is not in play for us, since Kaine would have swung the state by 1-2% points...Summary: a C+ pick...Obama will have to win it on his own.
I generally agree with your overall assessment, tho I'd probably give it a blended grade of B; A- for Biden himself (I disagree that MBNA can be lifted to Halliburton's demonization status and I think he'll do a good job if he sticks to the script) and C- for the whole long, drawn out process, which has left me uninterested in watching the 3PM EDT show in Springfield.
Finally glad to see someone talking sense about states like VA. I actually think that we'll lose it by three to five, if it breaks the way it historically does in the closing weeks of the campaing. Kaine would have had to deliver three points to put it in play, but I think it would have been worth the gamble.
bjb1968,
Biden hurts in the west how? Besides RepubliCon wishful thinking.
thanks, realistxxx - I've always liked biden but hadn't heard about his behavior after nearly dying. It fits and makes me even more confident that he will be an asset in every way.
What'll ya bet they had to whack him over the head for a couple days with the Rasmussen report before he finally acceeded to Biden rather than one of the ones he really wanted.
live renats wrote: Let's be clear: Obama has gone for taking a greater share of the existing electoral pie, instead of increasing the size of the pie.
I see it more as holding vs. losing existing share. Veeps seldom add votes other than in their home states (but even that's dubious, see Edwards and Bentsen). Biden shores up a perceived weakness (FP) in Obama's resume. No more, no less. He might score some good points in the debates, but even Sen. Bentsen's "you're no Jack Kennedy" couldn't save a lost cause.
Reenforces that Obama now will win or lose this on his own.
Rudoid,
I really, really doubt that the Obama/Biden campaign pays any attention to Scotty Raspberry's preposterous "polling," unless they add four points or so in Obama's favor to every result, or use the "data" to mop up accidental coffee spills, etc.
Nate,
Run the numbers for favorables/unfavorables again, but this time include Brian Schweitzer. You'll notice that he's ahead of anyone from the candidates you listed.
Established NE politician removes the rebel change agent strat from BO. The change game played well for BO in the west. Also the west in general has a strong dislike for snooty "yankees" because they look down their noses at people from the west. BO would have done much better to pick someone from the South or West. I am very happy he took Biden.
Established NE politician removes the rebel change agent strat from BO. The change game played well for BO in the west. Also the west in general has a strong dislike for snooty "yankees" because they look down their noses at people from the west. BO would have done much better to pick someone from the South or West. I am very happy he took Biden.
NJ_Wingnut,
I'm glad you're not in the least bit genuine. Ugn, Sam Nunn?!?!?
The Only Unified Party…
Hi Nate,
No one seems to replied to your 1/4, 1/8, 1/8, and 1/4 commment, so I'll take a stab.
I agree with your first two. It seems like the last two don't take into account how much Obama voters like Obama. It could strong support of Obama. I'd change the last two to 1/16 and 1/8. Not mathematical at all. But it's something.
bjb1968,
As expected a wishful thinking statement that Biden hurts in the west. Try again.
Well I'm glad the Republican regulars here can pretend they're happy with Biden and wanted him all along. No doubt it would have been said about any Dem VP pick (10 fold more about HRC). Good for them though-- they'll need things to keep their self esteem up when the oxygen is sucked out of the room this next week.
I'm happy enough with the pick. Looks smart on paper, looks good on TV, and we'll see how well it works in the future.
I was just a little disappointed that it wasn't some ridiculous surprise, and that the media's suppositions for this past week paid off. I thought their stalking the houses of Biden/Bayh/Kaine was so ridiculous they should have had to be completely embarressed.
Pagop-
Being from Scranton does help you in Philly. Also, Wilmington is the same media market as Philly. Your analysis and misunderstanding of why this will further help in PA (and MD) shows a real lack of insight. Congrats.
Live Renats-
It may supress slightly among that group, but that group head is so far into the clouds that it was already suppressed by FISA. The Dems need to forget the far left completely and be realistic. The far left is so out of touch with middle America as to be a waste of time (you can't please them and stay within the average American's reality).
I hate guns, and think the 2nd Amendment does not give anyone outside the military the right to carry them - but if I run for offies I am all for guns - guns, guns, guns.
Biden net among Republicans is -41, not -39.
If there is a God, McCain will pick Mittens as his vice presidential candidate. How much fun would a Biden-Mittens debate be?
JohnNYC,
You make a serious mistake if you think that VA will act the way that always has acted. The state is changing rapidly and is becoming much, much more competitive. It is no accident that Democrats have won a series of state-wide elections in recent years. Northern VA is growing at a rapid pace and voters there either lean left or are moderates. Most are educated. I live in one of the most conservative parts of the state and yet there is nevertheless considerable support for Obama.
Obama might lose VA, but I highly doubt that he'll lose it by 5 and I don't think it will be by as much as 3. And I'd say the odds of him winning it are almost 50-50. History is sometimes a good guide, and sometimes it isn't. This isn't the VA of a decade ago.
You clearly believe that the electoral map is much tougher for Obama than I do. If you care to read it, I responded to one of you comments on the previous thread suggesting as much, along with a detailed explanation.
Now the spotlight is on McCain for his VP selection. What does it do to the race if he picks someone young and charismatic yet very unconventional? Also, whare is the perception about McCain going forward? In other words, what about 2012? Is he planning on going one (term) and done if he's elected this year and cede control to his VP or the next Republican up-and-comer or is he planning on doing it all again at the ripe old age of 76?
Let's see, let's see, let's see... I guess I could say something negative, which would be in the best traditions of us right wing posters, but I guess I'll just say it was a pretty good pick. If they win, IT SHOULD BE A VERY CLEAN AND ARTICULATE WHITE HOUSE. ( Couldn't stop myself) And Biden thinks John McCain is more qualified than Odumbo for the job of President of the United States, and thinks Odumbo is unqualified. So, I think it is a good pick.
Nate,
I read your piece. I don't understand it, but I read it. Shouldn't you have just said that ODUMBO is sitting on his lead and looks like he is going to play defense all the way to November 4.
Biden seems fine at first glance. He is only running for VP. I personally recognize Wilmington Delaware (credit card companies) more than him. His gun control position might cause problems. Obama should be clear about guns here and support the Supreme Court decision. On the other hand McCain wants to take water from Colorado.
If you think Scranton voters are the same as Philly voters, you are out of touch with reality. Obama already has Philly locked up..duh. PA is already leaning Obama..if they are worried about losing there, they must be terrified. In Western PA, hardly any Obama signs or bumper stickers..much less than for Kerry in '04. McCain has a shot here..looking for some help from Rendell to turn this state red so Hillary can run in '12. I give MCain a 40% chance of taking PA.
Obama is going to carry MD now...thanks for the heads up. Biden is going to help everywhere...wonder why he had no support in '88 or this year.
Obama just introduced Biden as the next president of the United States..is that a "gaffe"? Poor guy doesn't even know what offices they are running for.
"Now the spotlight is on McCain for his VP selection. What does it do to the race if he picks someone young and charismatic yet very unconventional?"
That's a good question, Mule Rider. I'm not sure who you have in mind here, and it would probably depend on the person. It would largely undermine his best attack against Obama, however, which is inexperience. (I think it's a stupid criticism, but most people don't). If he or she was really charismatic, though, it could be a real benefit among independents and the less politically active.
McCain absolutely can't say that he isn't seeking a second term, though. He's already on record as saying he wouldn't make such a pledge. He can decide not to seek a second term, but my instinct says that he shouldn't announce that decision publicly.
Now the spotlight is on McCain for his VP selection. What does it do to the race if he picks someone young and charismatic yet very unconventional?
So, not a Republican, then? ;-)
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Brad wrote:
It may supress slightly among that group, but that group head is so far into the clouds that it was already suppressed by FISA. The Dems need to forget the far left completely and be realistic.
I agree, though I take issue with the term "far left". That's a term Republicans use to characterise anyone to the left of Cheney.
The left of the Party has no choice, as always. If they sit this out, they risk another Bush term. If it weren't for Barr, the right of the GOP would be in the same position. The candidates of both parties always begin at the respective wings in the primaries and move to the centre in the GE. The mistake the Republicans made was in believing that Obama would continue to dwell in the outskirts of the Party. That's why they continue to believe in the "Obama as Huey Newton" myth, even though the majority of the country isn't old enough to remember the days when that name meant anything, and the rest simply don't want to re-live those times again.
One would have to be over 50 for the term "Weatherman" to connote anything more than the local TV meteorologist, but yet they seem to want to run with that. And that play could very well turn out energising the putative "far left" in a way that Obama never could.
Dunnohowmanystates, was there some timely info other than the Rasmussen data Nate shared with us that would also have pointed to Biden? Certainly not on the dailykos interactive poll; don't think that bunch of future Canadian citizens was in his camp.
Pagop said:
"If you think Scranton voters are the same as Philly voters, you are out of touch with reality."
I said:
Umm, please dont act like McCain and misquote. I said Scranton helps in Philly, and Philly does help in Scranton. Your lack of knowledge is astonding.
Biden gets it, Obama gets it less than I thought he did, which means he nees Biden.
Obama sucked on stage today. Axelrod needs to work with him, he seems unsure, he acts unsure.
"That's why they continue to believe in the "Obama as Huey Newton" myth, even though the majority of the country isn't old enough to remember the days when that name meant anything"
To demonstrate your point, Todd, I had to look up Huey Newton to get the reference. I'm 35.
Sedi,
Agreed. And it does depend on the person. Some people have thrown out the name Bobby Jindal. I think that is a little too unconventional. He may be young and charismatic but his time on the big stage is ahead of him, not this year. Romney is none of the above (i.e. young or charismatic) and he's too conventional. And there are a ton of other negatives.
Palin - no. Giuliani - no. Pawlenty - maybe. But the one name out there I think has been flying under the radar although he did make plenty of noise during the primaries is Huckabee. He's intriguing for the following...
A) He's not exactly "young" but he's "younger" for a politician - i.e. early 50's - thus, not too much older than Obama and certainly younger than Romney and a couple of other possibilities.
B) An amicable relationship with McCain unlike Romney who had some snippy back-and-forths
C) He's definitely got the likeability/charm thing down, even if he comes across as hokie and ignorant (a few gaffes) on occasion.
D) He shores up the conservative, church-going base and doesn't buck McCain's new hardened pro-life stance like a Tom Ridge pick would.
E) He has executive experience, even if it is just from the state of Arkansas - but last I checked, the previous Arkansas governor who became President was a favorable cat.
F) A track record of working with a predominantly Democratic state legislature in AR (even if they are the Southern, moderate kind), but it should provide the image he can work across the aisle (which will be needed when the Dems have overwhelming control of Congress).
G) He's not a Washington "insider."
You're right..Philly is a lot like Scranton, both culturally and demographically. Biden plays well in both.
Todd Dugdale -- yeah, "far left" is just one of those markers that labels the writer as a conservative, and probably a talk radio listener. Anyone who uses it to describe any significant portion of the Democratic Party or even the netroots doesn't actually know what "left wing" actually means, and is just using it as yet another pejorative to mean "disagrees with movement conservatives."
And H) He's made comments trying to distance his ideals from those of the current admiinistration saying they needed to rethink the "bunker mentality" - although it may be hard to reconcile to McCain's approach which has bordered on hyper-aggressive at times.
Redshift,
That was a good one. Funny. Seriously, though, if he were to find the most socially conservative Democrat from a swing state and one that would be, and here's the most important kicker, willing to actually run with him on a ticket because they knew it would mean complete ostracization and excommunication from the Democratic party, then I think it'd make a bigger splash than people realize. But just like Obama wasn't going to go with Hagel or someone of that mold, I don't think McCain will go with Lieberman or someone else across the aisle.
Mule -- Huckabee was last seen preparing for his new Fox show and saying he was going to make some real money and wasn't interested in "barely surviving" on a government salary. I suppose anything's possible, but he does seem to have "moved on" more than a lot of potential picks.
I don't know what effect he'd have as VP, but in all honesty, Huckabee was the one who worried me more than anyone else in the GOP primary field. He's definitely the most personable of all the candidates on either side.
One plus -- a Biden/Huckabee VP race would probably be the funniest in decades...
Mule Rider,
Hmmm, I wouldn't have pegged you as a Huckabee supporter. But I agree that he could be extremely effective among certain groups. He comes across as very real and is an extremely likable guy. He's charming, for sure, and he has a populist streak that is appealing in hard economic times. Personally, I like Huckabee, though his religious conservative beliefs terrify me.
The negatives are:
1. He is gaffe prone (like Biden) and probably has a few outrageous quotes in his past that could be dug up (see: Wright, Jeremiah -- also note that Huckabee defended Wright).
2. Economic and national security conservatives aren't too keen on him, right?
3. It's not clear that he would help in the West or the Rust belt, where most of the most competitive states seem to be.
Huckabee would be an interesting choice and he definitely has potential. I don't think McCain will choose him, but he could do worse. What would a Biden-Huckabee debate look like? It would certainly be colorful...there would be a lot of personality on the stage.
BIDEN F#@KING ROCKS!!!!!
"John McCain would first have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables he'll use."
That's how you rally a crowd. I bet all those supporters thought Joe was some old geezer who'd deliver a sleep-inducing speech. Damn kids!
Nate, enough with Hillary. She would have been a divisive candidate. I admire Hillary, but she is totally wrong for the job. I am thinking that you are so young you weren't really engaged in politics in 1992. She, for whatever reason, has been a very divisive figure for at least 16 years. She will be involved some in the campaign and will likely help raise a lot more money for Obama. But she would have been about the worst pick possible for veep. Except for the repubs. They would have loved it.
Biden is an outstanding pick for veep. I want Hillary in the Senate but I am very thankful she is not on the ticket. I hope we have a great woman president in 2016.
Well, if McCain thought Russia's invasion of Georgia would be a boon for him, Obama just took the wind out of his sails. Biden is the #1 Senate expert on Russia and its former republics.
Did a book search for Biden and came up with this:
Putin Administration's Policies toward Non-Russian Regions of the Russian Federation: Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Diane Publishing, September 2003) ISBN 0-7567-2624-7
Redshift and Sedi,
Agreed that a Biden-Huckabee debate would be great. And the best thing is, I don't see either one of them delivering low partisan blows towards one another. I could see tough talk but that's about it.
It does appear Huckabee is poised to move on from the political spectrum, so good for him for not wallowing in it if it's evident it's passing him by...
Anyway, I also agree on Huckabee's cons. But I think the "terrifying religous conservative beliefs" is a bit misleading. Yes, he's devout in his faith. But he doesn't strike me as the kind to legislate that on anyone, or at least he seems like he'd be much more reserved about bringing his faith into the political arena.
Anyway, I like him as a conservative myself...and it probably helps I'm a native of Arkansas. So I give the hometown boys a bit of a discount...yes, that even includes modest support of good ole Slick Willy himself.
Many of the undecideds are Hillary Democrats.
I wish we had more demographics on the great unwashed masses of undecideds. Some categories are decidedly more likely to go one way that the other:
STRONG EDGE TO OBAMA:
-Hillary Dems
STRONG EDGE TO MCCAIN:
-"Social Consevatives" displeased with McCain
-closet racists
THE KEY DEMOGRAPHIC: "Low Info" voters. People who don't read blogs or listen to talk radio, haven't heard Obama speak in depth, haven't heard McCain speak in depth recently. There might be a scary amount of such people.
To illustrate the importance of this, take me for example - I have never seen "American Idol". I know lots of people of all types who are addicted to it and I see it referenced constantly, but I've never watched it. However, if I ever watched the damned thing, I'd probably fall out of the undecided category and quickly become very opinionated on the subject.
There are many aspects of the Obama-McCain show (The Odd Couple?) that could knock people way off the fence when they finally start watching and I'm pretty sure that the percentage who have not been really paying attention to it is statistically very significant.
Good luck to you guys controlling Biden's big mouth. The first gaffe should come within the week.
bjb1968 said...
Biden will hurt BO in the west. Should lock CO, NV, MO for McCain and may bring NM and OR in to the red. Biden could hurt BO in OH, IN and IA also. He will help BO in the NE where he was ok on his own.
________________
I want some of what you're smoking. Bring Oregon to the red? In what universe? I can't speak to any other states, but Biden is well known and liked in Iowa. True, he only got a few delegates in the caucuses, but his level of support was obscured by the 15% threshold for getting delegates.
He could have gotten 14% in a lot of places without picking up any delegates. (Maybe not that high, but you see my point.)
The fact that neither candidate can get past 48% (and often not even 45%) in the national and at least 10 swing state polls has consistently alarmed me.
Well a thorough review of the talking heads on Fox, CNN and MSNBC pretty much confirms my point above.
Even on Fox, there is genuine good feeling for Biden. He has really taken on the pre-2000 McCain persona. The press is his base.
The campaigns can try to originate and shape the narrative, but it is the press that controls it. Biden's gonna get favorable treatment going forward.
This puts some pressure on McCain to pick wisely.
However, all of the back and forth here today about states put in play or out of reach is silly. We all admit that VP's do very little in terms of actual votes, so I fail to see why there is so much debate about this.
VP selections and their performance during the campaign work much more on a general and subconscious level. In this respect Biden fits the bill for Obama... steady hand, lots of experience, good attack dog, loved by the press, viewed favorably by old school dems, contrasting style etc.
Mule -- I agree it would make a big splash, but I think McCain would suffer a much bigger backlash from his own base for a cross-party pick than Obama would have.
Witness the howling about the Lieberman/Ridge trial balloon earlier this week -- it just occurred to me to formulate it this way, but I think, at least at present, Democrats looking at cross-party picks are initially more focused on areas of agreement, and Republicans are more focused on areas of disagreement. Thus the reaction to Hagel started with the fact that he was a war critic, and activists were pulling their hair out trying to get across that he agrees with most Democrats about almost nothing else. The reaction to the Lieberman trial balloon started with the fact that he's (nominally) pro-choice, and a chorus quickly went up that McCain would be utterly destroying the conservative movement if he picked him.
I'm sure my view of this is somewhat biased from being an active Democrat (and I'd be interested in a perspective from the other side), but it certainly seems to me that, for all the noise that issues like FISA generate, on the level of how it affects actual enthusiasm and support, Republicans at present are much more concerned with "purity" than Democrats.
It appears the way this whole thing was handled has outraged Hillary supporters.
Nate, Did you find a way to factor this poll (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/498085.html) into the SUPERTRACKER?
It showed McCain up by 16 in the old Confederacy as of Aug. 9.
Biden & McCain are both highly gaffe-prone and the corporate media seems to give them both a certain leeway.
Is the consensus here that McCain gets more leeway that Biden gets, or will get?
Also note that there are two types of gaffes:
1) stupid stuff (can't remember how many houses, thinks Czechoslovakia is a country, callPutin president of Germany, various lapses of memory and losses of train of thought)
2) alert, intentional comments that are taken in an unexpected and undesired way (calling Obama cleancut and articulate being taken as racist, etc.)
Biden is as safe as anyone from Gaffe Type #1. Both are quite capable of Gaffe Type #2. McCain seldom opens his mouth without some sort of #1 coming out.
I see a lot of GOP posters (PAGOP the most) saying that Biden doesn't help in Pennsylvania, that he might actually hurt. I figure this is just reactionary spin but I'll pose an honest question here and hopefully get a straight response. If this is how you actually feel, then would you want the McCain camp spending the resources there that it will take to flip the state (it'll take a lot just based of population) or would you rather have those resources spent in other, closer battlegrounds such as OH, VA, or FL?
Biggest problem I see is that Obama looked East. I think this makes it likelier that McCain will pick Romney, and if that happens I think it could be formidable because it'll offset to some degree the backward-looking nature of McCain.
Romney would mean a pickup in NV for sure. He'd be a liability among the evangelicals, but I'm not sure they'd warm up to Biden, a Catholic, in response. I suspect Team McCain is looking carefully at the impact of Romney in MI, OH, VA, NH, IN, NC, and FL.
If not Romney, then Gov. Palin of AK might be a Republican pick. Sticking a woman on the ticket would be a bold move, and would attract a meaningful percentage of Hillary's backers. The downside would be that she's a lightweight by comparison to Biden, but I'm not sure voters would care.
In isolation from the impact on McCain's choice, I think Biden is a net plus. Democrats like him, and to judge by McCain's immediate resort to a crass attack, the Republicans must be a little worried by the "gravitas" plus Biden's abilities when it comes to vice-presidential knife fighting.
All in all, it's better than it could have been, but there are some risks. We can breathe a sigh of relief that he didn't pick Bayh or Sibelius.
p.s.: I hope they don't drop the attacks on Seven Houses McBush. The sooner Obama wakes up and realizes he'd not running for the Student Council, the better.
They're spinning. Putting Biden on the ticket puts PA *just* out of reach for McCain. He should pull his ads and stop traveling there.
obsessed,
I think Biden will get more leeway from the pundits for two reasons.
1) I think Biden is now more like the McCain the press originally fell in love with.
2) McCain is at the top of the ticket and therefore will get more scrutiny and be looked more critically.
Romney clearly is a necessary choice now.
Even on Fox, there is genuine good feeling for Biden. He has really taken on the pre-2000 McCain persona. The press is his base.
Very good point. This nomination is an attack on a McCain strength, and that hasn't been getting much play. It's been clear for a week that the press really wanted Biden to get the nod, since a lot of their "analysis" of how he was a stronger candidate than the alternatives really boiled down to "we've known him for years and we barely know these other guys."
Biden has the McCain advantage that the press doesnt' really want to believe anything bad about him, because they're familiar with him and know that's not "really" him. I predict any gaffes will get reported as entertaining rather than revealing, and contrary to much of the conventional wisdom, a gaffe really only gets traction if your opponent or the press can seize on it as evidence of who the candidate "really" is. Without that, misspeaking or making a dumb mistake is only good for a quick laugh.
Romney clearly is a necessary choice now.
Romney is a gaffer of a different color - he's not senile, and not prone to controversial statements, but he nevertheless managed to make a fool of himself on a regular basis ("who let the dogs out", shooting rodents, etc.)
Virginia Conservative said...
Romney clearly is a necessary choice now.
-----------
As a Dem, I sure hope so. I can see the argument for Romney, but he is not authentic. The problem for McCain is that the list he has to choose from is thin and full of problems.
Romney would be a ballsy pick as opposed to I-let-my-bridge-collapse Pawlenty, but he brings all kinds of unknown risks that appear on the surface to be strengths.
His best choice, Ridge, gets killed on the abortion front.
I'm pretty sure it will be Romney with an outside chance for Pawlenty.
Or Palin. She would foil Biden's attack dog role because he would look mean if he tried to go for the jugular in the debate. Remember Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton?
Obsessed: I've got some of the recent crosstabs from Rasmussen (last week's cumulative tracking poll). I'm going to take the "without leaners" result and add together "Not sure" and "Some other candidate." Previous elections have shown that people sometimes choose a third-party option as a "holding pattern" in early polling and then shift to one of the two major parties.
So:
All voters: 14%
Republicans: 8%
Democrats: 12%
Other: 24%
First observation...most undecideds are independents, not Democrats.
Those who think national security is the most important issue (23% of voters): 7% undecided + other
economics (40% of voters): 14%
domestic (13% of voters): 16%
cultual (7% of voters): 15%
fiscal (9% of voters): 21%
not sure (7% of voters): 23%
Those "not sure" which is the most important issue are probably your low information voters. It is more interesting that those who vote primarily on fiscal issues are not sure who to pick here. These may be people who are most interested in taxes, but McCain has not closed the deal with them, taking only 56%.
All age groups and both genders are roughly the same.
Conservatives: 11%
Moderates: 20%
Liberals: 10%
Not sure of their ideology: 26%
People who aren't sure of their ideology? They don't know what candidate to vote for either. Go figure. Moderates are also more unsure.
Gallup tracking confirms these broad trends: the groups with noticeably more undecideds are independents (what they call "pure independents" have a whopping 42% undecided).
It's funny that the Hillary-holdouts don't really show up in these tracking polls (maybe a few percent). The big group out there is moderate independents, and I bet a lot of those are low-information types. But I am inclined by these people interested in the fiscal issues.
Best guess is that Saddleback was the last attempt we'll see (the financing Rubicon is already crossed) to run a non-traditional campaign. Since then it's been traditional every step of the way. They're going to work on securing the base (Biden helps) and on going after the lowest-hanging fruit that'll get them to 270 (Biden probably doesn't hurt.) GOTV planning will continue as planned so that, should things break their way late, they'll be ready to take full advantage.
I'm going to admit Biden will be strong on the stump, and this is the way the Obama campaign can get aggressive and angry without Obama coming off as the angry black guy, because Biden will play that role.
Good cop/bad cop kind of thing.
I never said Biden would hurt in PA. I just think the media is way overplaying the PA angle..typical media..once one talking head says it, they all repeat it. That is not a partisan comment, it is that way on both sides. PA does have a chance to go red, but if McCain wins there, it's very likely that he wouldn't have needed it anyway.
Redshift,
Biased or not, you pretty much nailed it. It took Democrats a while, seeing as how the tide was turning in 1996, but they finally realized they have to be more malleable and flexible to win. The 40 or so years between the 1950's and 1990's are rife with examples where the Democrats championed causes and special interest groups, some good and some bad. Anyway, slowly over time, they became a party of many fragmented pieces but it appeared they were alienating many mainstream elements of society. That's when Republicans jumped in and "took over" with their conservative movement. However, that has backfired now as too many elements within the Republican party have become too inflexible for their own good and are too concerned with "purity" as you suggest. This is where Democrats have capitalized. They realize that they can't be stubborn any longer either and have to appeal (or at least sound like they are) to more mainstream elements.
I still believe this country is very moderate, likely leaning center-right more than anything. But a political party that is inflexible and too concerned with purity will lose in the long run to other parties more capable of reaching those forgotten segments of society.
Anyway, that inflexibility by most of the Republicans in power is why I can't call myself a member of the modern day version of the party. I may be (mostly) conservative but I can't align myself with the party such as it is. I certainly have vast disagreements with many issues championed by Democrats, so I don't anticipate supporting them anytime soon, but I just can't affiliate myself with a party that's been as stubborn as the current version of Republicans. Until they become more flexible, they will kneel to the Democrats for some time on the national stage.
I said "But I am inclined by these people"...should have been "I am intrigued by these people"
Count that as gaffe type 1 for me.
It appears the way this whole thing was handled has outraged Hillary supporters.
Real Hillary supporters, or the ones who've made a career out of being outraged on TV?
Romney's out with the way they are attacking Biden's old comments about Obama. That would look so hypocritical. They are going to find a consistent McCain supporter.
Virginia Conservative said...
Or Palin. She would foil Biden's attack dog role because he would look mean if he tried to go for the jugular in the debate. Remember Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton?
-----------
Palin would scare me a bit, I admit. However, she has been a governor of a small state for less than 2 years and has that little trooper-gate issue still hanging around. Biden's role won't be to attack Palin per se (not much to attack except the experience meme). His role will be link Bush and McCain and serve as a megaphone for the Obama message.
The message is taking shape:
John Sydney McCain:
Out of touch at home and reckless abroad.
Gentlemen . . . please. PA is out of reach for the Goopers, as is Michigan. McCain had better train his energies on OH, VA, FL, NV, and CO.
The McCain "hitback" ad is hilarious. Is there a Rethuglican anywhere - - with a pulse - - who hasn't criticized McHouses? LOL.
Romney is a tool. Why is it that when I see him I think "Republican Version of John Kerry"?
Realistxxx-
But in the debate, Biden would be disarmed if he had to face a women. He doesn't want to look like a mean sexist and turn women off (Hillary supporters).
Biden isn't going to be like John Edwards or Joe Lieberman were and bend over for the Republican VP in the debate.
Michigan is still clearly within reach.
Pluckon,
So you're saying Hillary supporters are so dumb that they would vote for a woman(Palin) even though the woman is against all their policies. So they are so stupid that any women gets their vote.
It is more interesting that those who vote primarily on fiscal issues are not sure who to pick here. These may be people who are most interested in taxes, but McCain has not closed the deal with them, taking only 56%.
Sarah - great analysis. I think Obama's biggest problem is as follows:
1) Anyone who makes less than about 75 grand a year (or much more if they have lots of dependents or debts) is getting economically screwed by Republican governance.
2) Many of them don't realize it and Democrats, including Obama, are nowhere near getting them to do so.
Why is Rasmussen providing a link to McCain's new Biden commercial right on the front of his page? I know he's a republican, but it seems like he's really trying to rally the conservatives lately, RCP is doing the same.
No, VirCon, Michigan really isn't. You see, there are plenty of people there who lost their jobs, who see manufacturing being shipped overseas, who see Goopers cutting trade deals left and right that are throwing them out of work . . . it's a rather blue-collar environment. Mittens adds nothing there, despite the claims, although I really, really, really hope that he's the pick. He probably will be, but I need to see that particular VP debate.
McCain's Biden add is priceless. They need to air it every spot they can buy for the next 6 days
If McCain picks Romney it is over for him. It will be 2 guys worth over 100 millin dollars vs a couple of the least wealthy senators
In fact between the two of them they have 11 houses.Who do you think the average Joe will relate to. I think McCain may go for Ridge or Lieberman, he probably figures the pro life people have no where to go and then the GOP turnout will be depressed.
I think Obama is at his lowest now and will get back over 300 electoral votes by november.
Dunno-
The Democrat brand in Michigan isn't exactly golden right now. Theres an unpopular Democrat Governor (Granholm) and the Mayor of its biggest city is in the news for being a corrupt Democrat hack. Theres a very good chance they blame Granholm et. al for the state they are in.
Plus theres the loony Democrat energy plans which will destroy the automobile industry.
But in the debate, Biden would be disarmed if he had to face a women.
Very true - but the low infos don't pay much attention to VP debates. More likely that they catch a Biden barb directed at McCain - such as his epic takedown of Rudy G.
McCain has always needed to pick someone the press believes can be a competent President on Jan 20 because of his age and medical history. Who is the Republican version of Biden?
Pro-life and national security experience...those are the necessary attributes. So why is Romney over 50 on Intrade??
Virginia Conservative,
Some of the supposed outraged Hillary supporters are loons. They have to smacked over the head to get the fact she was never in contention. Obama made that clear by hiring Solis-Doyle as the VP chief of staff in June. Doyle was the person Clinton berated and blamed for her failures in the early campaign. There were other obvouls hints, nebr asking for release of the Bill Clintons dealngs. Everybody knows there is something in there or Hillary would have not made the statement she would not release them till after Novemebr, if she was the nominee in the primary. These fringe Clinton supporters are unnrealistic people that onlt would be happy if she was the VP, which everybody in their right mind knew wasn't going to happen. Obama made nice statements that she would be on anybody's shortlist, notice he didn't necessarily said his.
Pluckon is on to something with the East/West thing. I will be surprised if it is not Romney. He brings strength in the West and helps a little with Michigan. IMO, Obama's victory map has to involve a combination of western states and CO will be key. The Romney evangelical flap is silly. Obama's abortion issues alone will drive them to the polls. If Dems try to pit McCain and Romney disagreements, it will be more around the claim that McCain is not conservative enough. Not sure if Dems want to go there. Biden does not add any key states on the electoral map but he does help with the base. Once again, the Dems will regret not breaking up the South. Sedi...I hate to say it but moving a VA Red +8 for Bush to an Obama Blue ain't going to happen. Warner might have done it, but not Biden. CO is going to be huge folks. It may hold the key to this election. All this silly talk about flipping NC, FL, or IN is Dem fantasy. The battle is out West.
Virginia Conservative said...
Plus theres the loony Democrat energy plans which will destroy WHAT'S LEFT OF the automobile industry.
------------
Fixed that for ya.
Absolutely, Biden is the type of voter that Obama had trouble with in the rust belt, Catholic senior white voters. Hillary was just a close acceptable alternative at the time.
VirCon - - Granholm isn't really as unpopular as you think she is. The mayor of Detroit doesn't move the needle of a single Michican voter as to who they prefer as president of the U.S. And even assuming arguendo that the Democratic "brand" is sullied in Michigan, the Republican brand is absolutely toxic.
"Loony Democrat energy plans" - - ROTFL. Even the auto industry understands that it needs to move in a different direction. You should have quit with one post.
Plus there's the loony Democrat energy plans which will destroy the automobile industry.
Can the American automobile industry be saved? Instead of bailing out a dying, mismanaged industry with more corporate welfare, what's so loony about creating millions of new tax-paying, middle class workers with jobs building and maintaining a massive infrastructure of wind and solar power production?
Musicman,
Rasmussen and RCP are partisan RepubliCons. Rasmussen has being playing with his party ID to create the McCain narrative so he just took the next step. RCP has 5 Obama hack articles for every 1 critical of campaign.
I'm pretty sure it will be Romney with an outside chance for Pawlenty.
Pawlenty would be essentially a Quayle, and that was before Biden became Obama's pick. By the end of that debate, there'd be nothing left of Pawlenty but a pile of picked-clean bones.
No possible McCain VP pick can be looking forward to debating Biden.
As a Dem leaning Indy, I'm hoping for Romney. He puts Mochigan at some risk, but probably at the expense of several other states like Missouri, Indiana, and both Virginias.
Virginia Conservative,
Yes those looney plans of hybrids, electric cars, and better fuel efficiency. Yes, all the stuff they just relaized that will save them and are implenting on their own now. They are converting SUV plants to smaller car plants in some cases. They are getting killed b/c of the cost of gas and the plunge of the sales of the 12mpg SUV market. There are countries where US cars will not be able to bes old in 2012 b/c they don't meet their standards. The auto industry is just waking up to the fact that the boom of the SUV is over and like ususal they are behind other countries and relaizing it as they were more dependent on it than others.
PAGOP said...
Romney's out with the way they are attacking Biden's old comments about Obama. That would look so hypocritical. They are going to find a consistent McCain supporter.
Aaaand hypocrisy has stopped the GOP when exactly?
Sorry, you just left that one hanging out there and I couldn't resist.
This pick should make Clinton happy. Biden is a good choice and he won't run, I am assuming, in eight years at 73. Clinton would be the front runner then.
Nate, I have a question. Regarding the recent poll that had Hillary supporters roughly split between supporting Obama and not supporting Obama (this second group made up of people who are either supporting McCain or undecided,) do you know whether the poll surveyed all Hillary supporters regardless of party affiliation? After all, we had several open primaries where Republicans were free to vote for Hillary. My point is that if a proportion of the Hillary supporters who are not currently supporting Obama are in fact Republican, the stats are not necessarily as worrying for Obama as one may first think.
KQuark said...
"Absolutely, Biden is the type of voter that Obama had trouble with in the rust belt, Catholic senior white voters. Hillary was just a close acceptable alternative at the time."
Catholic voters are not going to come flowing big time toward the Obama/Biden ticket. Obama is on the left side of mainstream on the abortion issue and it will cause him problems with this group. Catholics tend to be sympathetic to social justice issues like poverty which favors the Dems but abortion is a critical issue for them. Obama has not done himself any favors on the abortion issue.
"Can the American automobile industry be saved? Instead of bailing out a dying, mismanaged industry with more corporate welfare"
How ironic. That's exactly how I feel about the Democrat's plan to "save" Social Security by raising taxes unnecessarily on people making more than $250,000
OK,
but everyone note that this weekend before the DEM convention starts Nate's projections have Obama back on top in all 3 of the categories at the top left [EV, WP & PV].
McCain's BIG MO already peaked & appears to be fading fast. The air is coming out of his...whoopee cushion already.
can we now all agree that McCain is toast ! [lol]
GO GET 'EM JOE !!!
Not unpopular!?
She has approval ratings around 20%!
She makes Dick Cheney look loved.
Overrated,
Catholics are not Evangelicals. Evangelicals abortion is the top issue. catholics it's not that important. The US Catholic church gives really a rats behind about what the Vatican or the establishment says. The Evangelicals on the other hand are lead by the nose by the Warren, Falwell, Robertson types.. You are comparing apples and oranges on how important aboertion is to catholics. Btw, attendance at Cathoilc churches is at historical lows while the religious right are building 30K people mega(cult ) churches.
Oh, heres a Biden favorite:
"“Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, I believe that. Look, let me tell you, Tim, there is no possibility—no possibility—of a central government governing Iraq in any near term…”
Well, Joey Hairplugs, theres a central government now.
"For each McCain voter that has a very favorable view of Biden, one-quarter of them will switch their vote to Obama."
I don't know. I'm a McCain voter. I really like Biden. I don't agree with him on domestic policy or judicial nominations much, but I think he's a great guy, sharp on foreign policy, much more so than McCain, and that under Obama, he'd essentially function as a second Secretary of State and have a very positive influence on Obama's international moves. So I suppose that if foreign policy were my #1 issue, this might lead me to vote for Obama. But it isn't, and I don't think it's the top issue of many voters. I just can't see really liking a guy's vice presidential nominee being enough reason to make up your mind, especially if you're already planning on voting for the other candidate. I think Biden will be the deciding factor for very few voters - primarily those who'd (a) like to vote for Obama but think he's just too green, and (b) really like Biden and think to themselves, "well, now at least he's got an experienced foreign policy hand around who isn't Zbigniew Brzezinski."
OTF said -
"The US Catholic church gives really a rats behind about what the Vatican or the establishment says"
Amazing statement that is.
McCain should pick Clinton as his VP.
That would shake up the race a bit.
The Romney evangelical flap is silly. Obama's abortion issues alone will drive them to the polls. If Dems try to pit McCain and Romney disagreements, it will be more around the claim that McCain is not conservative enough. Not sure if Dems want to go there.
I don't agree with this. You seem to forget how McCain got the nomination. Romney was in the lead, with McCain having been left for dead and Guiliani having self-destructed.
It was the evanglicals that turned the tide, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with them liking McCain. They despised the idea of a Mormon, and I dare say they still do. I'm no fan of the evangelicals, to put it quite mildly, but they loathe the Mormoms even more than I do and on that score, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
I've been critical of Obama's appearance with "pastor" Rick Warren, the lying shyster Republican Christian who sandbagged him with the "cone of silence" and then lied about it, but if McCain picks Romney I think that TV appearance might wind up being a pivotal factor in favor of Obama.
He certainly didn't win anything close to a majority in that appearance, but I think he made himself minimally tolerable to some percentage of the "Christians." Faced with a choice between Obama and the Mormon, I think you'll see a meaningful percentage go for Obama.
After all, one look at McCain and you know he's not going to live out his term, so voters are going to be giving a very close look to his veep. McCain himself admitted as much back in June. So, the evangelicals will be looking at Romney (or any other veep) as a likely president, as will the rest of the voters.
So, I think Romney will hurt among the evangelicals. The question is "How much?" Polling I saw a few months ago indicated that Romney is a significant drag on McCain. I haven't seen any updates, and I'll be curious because I'm sure there'll be lots of polling now.
To me, picking Biden puts McCain in a tight spot. Romney is well known and as much as it pains me to say so, he has a positive public image. People go in for that Osmond robot look. I don't, but lots of others do. The business experience is a mixed bag because of his wealth, but on balance it helps.
The issue is what are McCain's alternatives? If he picks Huckleberry Hound, he signs his death warrant. There goes OH, CO, VA, NH, MT, the Dakotas, NV and even AK. Pawlenty? Hell, he won't even bring in MN.
Palin from AK intrigues me. It'd be a bold choice. Yeah, she's get slaughtered in a debate against Biden, and she'd fail the presidential test with flying colors. But the "Christians" will go nuts for her, and the media will fall for the novelty in a major way. Just wait until they come out with the human interest stories about the baby with Down's Syndrome.
This ought to be interesting.
How ironic. That's exactly how I feel about the Democrats' plan to "save" Social Security by raising taxes unnecessarily on people making more than $250,000
Obama's challenge is to move this type of debate from the comments section of fivethirtyeight.com to the water coolers and street corners of CO, VA, OH et al.
$250,000/year = 1 vote
$50,000/year = 1 vote
It's class warfare - pure and simple - and the Republicans have been winning with a very tiny army and whole hell of a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Tito--you beat me to the punch on that regarding the hypocrisy and the new Biden ad some here are calling 'priceless'. There is just one little problem--that was a totally reactive thing to do, not thinking ahead. If it is Romney they just opened the door to many many ads that will have much more withering things than those comments by Biden (a especially good one by Romney saying that as a voter he might even vote for Obama if it was against McCain because he has no vision). Also with Pawlenty--who just two weeks ago put his foot in his mouth by saying very nice warm things about Obama and his solutions. Palin has not been tested as a surrogate so it won't be her. Just say Alaska Republican and you get images of the Stevens trial happening in the fall. So I don't see that happening.
The only guy that would scare me is Huckabee but I also don't see that happening.
Aside from the concern post about losing the West with Biden is there any data to support this?
On the new McCain ad featuring Biden.
Geez, thanks GOPers for helping to publicize JOE BIDEN as the DEM VP !
Appreciate the FREE national roll-out assistance.
Do they not realize that this will only encourage low-info's to pay attention to what otherwise would be a none event in their universe ?
Seriously, those video 'quotes' are too lame for words. They should have used the creepy voiced announcer to 'read' Biden's words with his own sinister creepy inflections rather than play the video.
I mean, Biden's words are lukewarm & unclear at bes0 + appear to be edited out of context. Even a low-info voter would wonder about the manner in which they are presented.
A bad ad & counter-productive IMO.
Especially the clip where Biden says he would run with or AGAINST McCain - how exactly is that a ringing endorsement of a fellow senator ??? not hardly, especially with kind quotes out today for Biden from all sorts of GOPers including DOLE for crissakes, and Hagel & Specter. Why even Bush sent his regards [ugh[ - can he decline compliemts ?
Anyway, a senator saying something good [or bad] about another senator is worth a bucket of cold spit. All the GOPers said nice things about Kennedy when he went to the hospital - you gonna hold that against them ? think not, and even low-info voters know that & do not believe such lame ads.
BUT thanks for the 'concern' troll ad McCain. Guess he needs to blow through that primary wad on something, but this ad smells desperate & actually helps Obama IMO.
GO GET 'EM JOE O'BIDEN !!!
Catholics are not Evangelicals. Evangelicals abortion is the top issue. catholics it's not that important. The US Catholic church gives really a rats behind about what the Vatican or the establishment says.
As a Catholic myself, I can confidently say that Catholics the world over have a centuries-old tradition of politely ignoring the crazy shit that comes out of the dude in Rome. He gives great ceremony, but that's about as far as it goes.
OTF said -
"Evangelicals abortion is the top issue. catholics it's not that important."
Opps, this perhaps tops it.
This depends on which Catholic Church you're talking about.
The mainline Catholic Church? They won't vote on abortion.
The opus dei/Mel Gibson types? You bet your ass they will.
Its divided about 50/50, thats why Catholics are such a swing constituency.
Pluckon said -
"As a Catholic myself, I can confidently say that Catholics the world over have a centuries-old tradition of politely ignoring the crazy shit that comes out of the dude in Rome. He gives great ceremony, but that's about as far as it goes."
As a Catholic myself, I am amazed at this commentary.
obsessed,
Well I'm 1 vote very close to that low end $50,000/year, and my 1 vote does not support something that will increase taxes on those people with 1 vote who make $250,000/year that will be extremely wasteful and not put us on a track of being less dependent on entitlement programs.
That's exactly how I feel about the Democrats' plan to "save" Social Security by raising taxes unnecessarily on people making more than $250,000
I think Obama is making a mistake on that one. Not in policy terms, but in talking about it. All he has to do is say that Social Security benefits will be cut over his dead body, and that he'll convene another bipartisan commission to address financing, just like Reagan did in 1983.
If the Republicans want to make Social Security an issue, well, this Democrat says, "Thank you, Jesus!" That will let Obama remind everybody that McCain wants to privatize it, which means end the program. That frying sound in the background? That's the Republican party hitting the backyard bug killer.
Please, Republicans, make my day.
Overrated,
I guess you don't realize the Vatican views are in many issues are ignored by a majority of US Cathoilcs. Catholics attendance and primary schools are closing b/c Cathoilcs aren't going. Catholic primary schools are being overwhelemd by non-catholics. The Catholic church in the US has been in free fall for 20 years. Attendance at primary schools, which bring up the next generation of Catholics is fallen drastically. Even as the number of churches ius decreasing the number of priests is decreasing faster as men aren't going into the priesthood. The long held principle of celebacy and not being able to marry has been flaoted many times to correct the problem. People are Catholic in name only showing up only at Christmas, Easter, etc.. Evangelicals which you wish to compare them are hard core and growing in numbers are influenced by the Warren, Fallwell, Robertson, etc..of the world. Catholics don't have any equivalents that influence their political views.
Hmm, convincing numbers, indeed. We should have similar numbers for the republicans and play campaign strategists ;-).
Is there an opening for McCain to chose a woman now? If McCain wasn´t so conservative himself, I would say yes, but I think that it´s not possible for him to engage himself for womens´ rights enough to make a female VP credible. I would also say that Sarah Palin would be too much of a contrast, and she is stuck in Alaska troubles too much. I would prefer (from a strategist´s point of view) Kai Bailey Hutchison now.
But anyway...a male VP is more likely. If McCain chose Romney his latest attacks would smell like hypocrisy. And pro-choice candidates are unlikely, too, now. So, Pawlenty after all? Who else is left...ah, Huckabee. But it would enslave the Republican party to the evangelicals (but maybe that´s already the case now).
Uh, otf, the Catholic Church is growing a hell of a lot because of hispanic immigration.
As a Catholic myself, I am amazed at this commentary.
How can you be "amazed?" Every survey of Catholics shows that most Catholics are "cafeteria Catholics." Wake up and smell the incense, for God's sake.
VA CON,
your take on Catholics & abortion is accurate IMO. Unless hard-core, abortion is not #1 - war is higher as is poverty & education.
My mom is an elderly everyday catholic church-goer but she will not vote for McCain because of his position on war & Social Security.
She doesn't love Obama & he is 'half black' as she says, but she chose to watch catholic Biden speak today & his life story sealed the deal. She had no idea of who he was before, but she kept saying what a goodlooking catholic man with a pretty wife & great family life story, yada yada. Not a single negative thing except she didn't like the crowd today booing McCain when Biden spoke - she found that confusing to her as to who they were booing FWIW...
I would prefer (from a strategist´s point of view) Kai Bailey Hutchison now.
Not that the news media would ever report it, because they're a Republican asset, but just between you, me, and the fencepost, Kay Bailey Hutchinson is just as crazy as McCain. I knew one of her senior staffers, and he told me she was complete loony tunes. Not only that, but I think she's almost as old as he is.
Sedi:
Thanks for the response. I'll look for your earlier message in another thread.
Re VA: five might be high, but I think it will be at least three. I've looked at the state for years in Generals and it breaks at least five points the wrong way by early October. Anyway, one of us will be right and the other will be wrong.
As for the overall electoral math, I'll check for your other message, but I guess we all see today through the glasses we wear. I've been disappointed too many times since my first vote for George McG in 1972 when I was idealistic enough to think he might beat Nixon. When I first met McGovern at a convention years later, I told him that he was the first person I ever voted for for President. His response: "I'm sorry for you."
Anyway I hope you're right, but I think that Obama will do well to hold the Kerry states and pick up CO, IA and NM and get to 273.
I too wrote a detailed analysis in another thread, this one about why I didn't think he would carry OH (county by county) and no one stepped up to refute it, other than to say they disagreed with me.
Michigan is just too close at this stage of the game for me to be comfortable there. Ditto for NH. I think he'll win both, but will have to have a very good ground game to assure it.
I agree with those who say that PA should be safe.
IMO, as I said above, he'd have to be doing a lot better today in VA to have a realistic chance and I think the preponderance of the polling bears that out. FL is just not going to happen and current polling bears that out. People who think that GA and NC are realistically in play are just kidding themselves. The polling in MT is sparse at this point and the Standard Error in the small sample sizes is high, but I hope he doesn't invest too much time or money there.
Anyway, nothing would make me happier than to have to eat crow on all of that at about 2AM EST on November 5th! I'm still calling an Obama win, but by the skin of our collective teeth.
Good chatting with you again. Let's keep the discussion, and Hope, alive. :)
Also, Hutchinson has virtually nothing by way of accomplishments. She is not known for doing anything in the Senate. If McCain's going after the chick vote, he's got to find one younger, smarter, and more accomplished than Kay. And more mentally stable.
Pluckon-
Thats hilarious coming from an Obama supporter. Obama doesn't exactly have a long record of accomplishment in the Senate! Hes been running for President the whole time!
DCM in Florida -
Yes, poverty and war are also big issues and can trump the abortion issue.
Pluckon - the Catholic Church is alive and well in NA and yes, immigration is playing a big role. If you are referring to some dioceses in large cities like Boston, then yes. But down South and out West it is doing just fine.
Virginia Conservative,
Just do a quick google church of decline of the uS catholic church. I know from personal experience but just d oa quick search to satisfy yourself.
pluckon,
Agreed. Social Security can become a loser topic for both candidates and they'd better be careful how it is approached. Obama playing the "class warfare" angle and talking of raising payroll taxes on higher incomes might win some populist support but overall is a net loser to most people who yearn for a less bloated government.
And blanket talk by McCain about privatization is a loser if he fails to convey it in such a way that many people aren't convinced he's not going to "take their entire retirement away" and leave them with nothing to fend for themselves.
Any discussion about change to the system needs to be clear that people will NOT be left without, not matter what their economic status.
Personally, I'd like to see a move to some sort of quasi-privatization and away from the current pyramid scheme that the government meddles with and mismanages. There's always talk about repubilcans preying on low-info voters...well, Democrats did the same thing in denouncing the privatization plan pushed by Bush in 2005 by scaring people into thinking they weren't going to have anything for retirement.
Anyone who wants Kay Bailey doesn't know enough about her. I bet the republicans wouldn't even consider vetting her.
@ pluckon:
Yes, I would never ever vote for her ;-). But if you (if you were McCain) wanted to go fishing for female voters who really, really want a woman to be on the ticket, and you had to pay attention to your base, Hutchison is the one that fits the bill and has a national standing. I think she is 65/66, but she is said to be retiring after her current senate term (Chet Edwards´ chance?).
Otf, I just can't believe its declining when we're having a massive influx of people from Latin America!
I'm no fan of the evangelicals, to put it quite mildly, but they loathe the Mormons even more than I do
When I was a kid, I perceived devout Christians as having higher moral standards than others - more selfless, better followers of the golden rule, less likely to lie and cheat. The current crop seems to bear more in common with the Christians of the Spanish Inquisition that with the decent, caring, moral role models I remember. Today, I perceive Christians as being generally more violent, closed-minded, bigoted, barbaric, sexually depraved and repressed, and selfish than non-Christians.
IRONICALLY, based on my personal experiences with an admittedly small sample, the Mormons are the only Christian sect which has come anywhere near to living up to my original idea of what Christians are.
I would never practice Mormonism, and I disagree with almost every aspect of it, but if I were drowning, the real Mormons I've known would be the first to dive in and pull me out.
On the other hand, Mitt Romney doesn't seem remotely like a real Mormon to me.
Mormons are very, very nice people and 100% straight arrows. Sometimes to a degree thats borderline creepy.
OTF said -
"The Catholic church in the US has been in free fall for 20 years."
According to 2008 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey on religion in the U.S. the Catholic share of the U.S. adult population has held fairly steady in recent decades.
VCon I can answer that since that is my field of research. Many--many!--latinos convert to evangelicals both here and in Latin America. Brazil and Guatemala are the fastest growing communities (other Central American countries like El Salvador and Mexico too have fast growing communities). Though the Catholic Church is more important historically they are not making aggressive reach out to the parishioners like the evangelicals have in the last 25 years.
lat-
Maybe this explains Huckabee's relative friendliness towards immigrants he expressed during the GOP debates. I thought it was odd, but now because of what you said about Hispanics becoming evangelicals it makes sense.
Pluckon - the Catholic Church is alive and well in NA and yes, immigration is playing a big role. If you are referring to some dioceses in large cities like Boston, then yes. But down South and out West it is doing just fine.
When did I ever say the Catholic Church wasn't "doing well?" I'm saying that, whatever the rules might be, Catholics don't follow the Pope when it comes to sexual issues. The minute the popes started denouncing birth control, it was all over for the Catholic Church's authority on sexual morality.
I'd like to see a move to some sort of quasi-privatization and away from the current pyramid scheme that the government meddles with and mismanages. There's always talk about repubilcans preying on low-info voters...well, Democrats did the same thing in denouncing the privatization plan pushed by Bush in 2005 by scaring people into thinking they weren't going to have anything for retirement.
The Republican "reform" plan was nothing more and nothing less than a scheme to give one-third of the Social Security Trust Fund to the banks, which would have amounted to a yearly slush fund of at least $40 billion by the middle of the next decade.
With a third of benefits at risk, and plundered by bank "management fees," the rest of the system would have collapsed. Fortunately, the Democratic Party saw that one for what it was and blocked it.
I dearly hope that the Republicans will be dumb enough to raise that ghost again. That would make McCain's forgetting of how many houses his wife owns look like nothing by comparison. Talk about a "Make My Day" moment! Alas, I can only dream.
The same Pew study says evangelicals make up approx 26% of the US population and Catholics 24%
Democrats did the same thing in denouncing the privatization plan pushed by Bush in 2005 by scaring people into thinking they weren't going to have anything for retirement.
Mule - everything that's been privatized and deregulated since Reagan came in has been an absolute disaster for the majority of Americans, whether they realize it or not. Throughout human history, it's been shown that people will screw each other as much as they can. Giving global corporations control over Social Security is the stupidest idea imaginable and even the LowInFaux figured that out in a big way when Bush tried to sneak it past them.
Yes VCon. I think it is two things for Huckabee:
1) that is is a Christian value to help those in need. So to not help immigrants or treat them as pariahs is un-Christian.
2) That the fastest growing evangelical communities in cities tend to be latinos. I see this in my work all the time. All those workers in meat plants etc? Many convert to evangelism and become part of the community that way. There is a great documentary called 'Balseros' about Cuban immigrants (which is not the kind most people talk about when we talk about the immigration issue but that is not here or there) which gives a really fine textured portrayal of how this happens. I recommend it for anyone interested in the topic.
I'd like to see a move to some sort of quasi-privatization and away from the current pyramid scheme that the government meddles with and mismanages.
By the way, the Social Security program is, by and large, quite well managed. The disability program definitely has its problems, but when it comes to the core Old Age & Survivors benefits, the administration is cheap, reliable, and efficient.
It's one part of the government that the Republicans have not (yet) managed to sabotage. They've made some inroads into Medicare with the disaster known as Part D, but hopefully the Democrats will be able to straighten it out when they get back in.
obsessed,
Then I'm assuming you're brimming with examples of where that's been the case, because I'd love for you to share one or two. All of the "disasters" I've been aware of were not privatization at all - just an inclination to privatize something that was actually rife with government intervention and bureaucracy.
I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you, but the free market wins over government controls and mandates every day of the week. That's in every economics textbook, and I'm not going to get started on it.
I didn't propose SS should be turned over to "global corporations." See that shows closedmindedness because that was your fist assumption with my suggestion. I said quasi-privatization. The government can (and should) still mandate a portion of people's check being diverted into whatever this "program" is...the main difference is that it doesn't go into the general "pool" of donors where they can mismanage it. It's your own personal account that accrues over time and can be followed as it is invested in very sound securities that have slow, steady growth over time.
No problems over survivors benefits and all of the other bureacratic bullshit that comes with SS, as it's YOUR money that YOU do with as you please (albeit with a few restrictions).
I'd recommend everyone look at what Chile did with its retirement pensions. They privatized it and its worked great, even leftists there admit now it was a great idea.
Never mind. I'm terminating my end of the SS debate because I can tell I'm matched against low-info posters, both in terms of general economics and entitlement programs, so I'll stop now before this becomes a shouting match.
The degree to which Cuban and Mexican immigrants differ cannot be overstated. San Francisco gays and West Virginian coal miners have much more in common.
Giving the latest proof that McCain's campaign is being run by Fox News watching, Rush Limbaugh listening idiots, McCain is now trying to play up Obama's "above my paygrade" comment.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/mccains_august_23_weekly_radio.html
McCain apparently thinks admitting that you're not the absolute moral authority proves that you're "not ready to lead."
Obsessed thats absolutely right. Looking at "Latinos" as a homogeneous group can often be very misleading, like the term "whites" that encompasses WASPs, rednecked Scots Irish, and blue collar ethnics.
VCon thank you for saying that--latinos are very very different from each other and the regional differences are not just cultural but also political and historical.
As for Chile--The person who put forward the plan for privatization is Pinera (this was done under the Pinochet regime in the early 80s). You are right that it functioned fairly well but there is a lot of excellent recent data from economists (Edwards and others) about how big the problems are with the system and there is widespread consensus that the system now has to be changed. I am happy to pass a list of references on all of that. Also for those that do not know, it was Pinera himself who came here to the US and put forward what is basically the Bush program for privatization.
Then I'm assuming you're brimming with examples of where that's been the case
-energy (Enron and California was the tip of the iceberg; oil speculation; etc.)
-Blackwater, Halliburton, KBH and other war-profiteers
-selling off toll roads and other infrastructure
-cable and telephone services
-Fannie Mae, etc.
Listen, Mule - whether single-payer health insurance, or a trillion dollar government-subsidized alternative energy program, would work is at this point a theoretical, academic argument that can't currently be proven or disproven, but that's not the case with your pet ideas. You've had your chance to test, in the real world, for 8 years, (in many cases, more like 28 years) your two most cherished ideological experiments:
1) deregulate, privatize, and let the free market take care of everything
2) create shining beacons of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq
The festering contents of your petri dish are on display for the world to see.
I missed that other post by obsessed which was I assume pointed at mine--I gave the example of the movie Balseros so anyone here interested in the issue could see a great exaple of this in cubans arriving here between 1995-1998 were acclimated into religious communities and related to evangelical vs catholic establishments.
It is obvious that every group is a different demographic but the larger point about how latinos are moving from catholicism to evangelism stands despite the differences. The fact that Brazilians and the Mexicans of the southern part of chiapas are heavily evangelical has to do with the position of the church in latin america and aggressive courting by missionaries. My point was not to make a flattening comparasion.
I have seen lots of comments about the west that puzzle me.
the first of which is the comment that Romney Guarantees Nevada. I understand being a Mormon helps, hell even our democrats are Mormons (Reid). But, the Mormons tend to vote every single election and vote Republican; it seems misleading to think Romney will effect turn-out or the direction Mormons vote. It is also true that the RNC is threatening not to seat the Nevada Delegation because of serious problems with the selection process and state convention. I am not sure which way Nevada will vote, but I am sure that it is going to be very close. McCain supports Yucca Mtn. and has tried to get involved in banning betting on College Sports.
The rest of the in play Western States seem fairly similar in the sense that they don't have a real rosy picture of McCain and his attempts to screw them to help Arizona over the years.
I don't think New Mexico will vote McCain, but Nevada and Colorado are still in play and that probably isn't going to change. The West doesn't change much because of Biden and won't with the announcement of McCain's VP.
Being against SS privatization on the Chilean model because it was instituted by a dictator is like being against Interstate Highways because Nazi Germany invented Autobahns.
Mike Huckabee does not believe in evolution.
That disqualifies him from being a High School teacher, let alone VP.
OTF, you may be nominally Catholic, but I don't think very many practicing Catholics think abortion's OK, certainly to the Obama standard.
Birth control, and to a lesser degree, abortion were certainly factors in the decline of the Catholic church, but disillusionment with the tacit enabling of the gay priest structure leading to child abuse was far more danmaging, especially in recent years. Even so, Catholicism is growing.
Plus, you want to bunch non-Catholic Christians in to the smallish evangelical pocket, if Falwell (deceased), Warren, and Robertson are your standard-bearers. If you mean Baptists, say Baptists. Those guys are all Baptist.
Baptists constitute less than 10% of protestants and are about the fourth or fifith largest denomination.
Most Christians, whether they are moderately accepting of certain abotions or not, are conservative in nature and will prodominantly support Republicans.
It's the non-Christian vote where Dems have the hammerlock, including all of the religious bigots, some of which poke their noses in here from time to time.
Tell me, stevie, when does ones opinion on evolution ever matter in a job outside of a bio-related field? You're getting dangerously close to violating the "Religious test" there, bub.
VCon I did not say anyone in Chile is against privatization because it came from Pinochet. If that were the case they would have to undo the whole govt since they are living under his constitution. If you read my post you will see that the criticism is based on data from economists about how those under that system are faring today. As I said if you want the data I am happy to pass it on.
Lat it wasn't addressed to you, it was more of a pre-empt because leftists always bring that up and I knew at least one on this thread would.
If there are problems with that system, we have the benefit of being able to learn from them and fixing those issues before instituting it.
But whatever anyone says, the current SS system here just isn't holding up.
No, anyone who does not believe in a proven scientific theory shows he has a mind incapable of rational thought, unable to make logical deductions or follow a statement of proof.
THAT is a test anyone entrusted with this nation's economy, security or technological assets needs to pass.
Ah Alex S.: You took the words out of my mouth-- Hutchinson is so much better the VP candidate than Palin. Someone like Hutchinson or Colin Powell would really scare me as a VP addition (from a pro Democratic stance). Most of the other mainstream choices (how un-PC is it that I call all white men mainstream choices? hahah) I feel like would barely flicker the polls.
To go further, does someone's "opinion" on whether the Earth is round or flat, or whether 2+2=4 or whther the Earth revolves around the Sun matter for public office.
Uh, yes.
Stevie, just admit its more your cultural prejudice rather than the effect it would have on the man's job.
Fair enough VCon. The one problem that Pinera (the creator of the system) has is that he is identified as one of Pinochet's boys and anything he touches has a bit of a tinge of that. At least to us latin americans. But a discussion of how the Pinochet regime is assessed by others in Chile or regionally is very much off topic.
I don't share your position on social security but work on research with many who do so I think that if this is something you really like as a model that you look at how it is performing because there are a lot of very interesting proposals down south about how to fix Pinera's idea and it would be a pity to follow his model blindly.
obsessed,
I don't any of the bad things that have happened, none of which are representative of "my" ideological experiments. I've spoken out enough about Republicanism and many of the failed plans by having its "insiders" in power, but don't confuse twisted (and supposedly) conservative policies with an honest free market system. There's just no comparison. Even the examples you provided prove my point. None of which are the free market at work. None. I repeat, NONE. All have some form of twisted, bureaucratic quasi-government interference that have bungled them, not the basic idea of laissez-faire capitalism guiding the way.
Give me a break. Enron isn't even in the discussion, as it's totally separate. That's an issue of corruption, not capitalism vs. regulation.
California? You'll have to do waaaaay better than that. Read up on what actually happened. Yeah, they said they had "de-regulated" it, but all that was really done was an informal fragmentation of the utilities involved - at the end of the day, there was more government interference and more bureaucracy. Take the blinders off.
Speculation? Nope. Wrong again. A well-capitalized, risk-taking investment force is needed for markets to operate efficiently. Higher prices because of speculative greed, you say? No. You're just getting a hard lesson in econ 101 about supply/demand. Instead of using speculators as a scapegoat, figure out what's really driving the market.
Blackwater, Hallibruton, et al? Once again, you've switched topics away from capitalsim vs. government control. Those are issues of corruption, not the free market failing.
Selling of infrastructure? There have been mixed results. In some cases, privatization has made the situation much much better. I'm assuming in cases that hasn't happened was because the government kept their smelly hands entangled in whatever it was.
Cable/telephone? Uh, I'm not sure where there's a "failing" by capitalism here. We have great services relatively cheap with increased competition. What more do you want? You must have thrown that one in there thinking I wouldn't read for content, but you are mistaken.
Fannie Mae? The government has its hands all in Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac), and THAT's why they have failed miserably. You just proved my point by listing them.
You'll have to do better.
Oh VA Con, why not admit your party put up the worst President since Jimmy Carter? If some of Stevie's comments were heeded, the GOP would never have been so dense as to support George W. Bush. There are effective, intelligent, good Republicans. Bush is not one of them.
I'm afraid I am prejudiced towards having intelligent people in office. Luckily I think that neither McCain or Obama is what you'd call "dumb".
Bush/Cheney (and before 2006, DeLay) have been a huge dissapointment to me. Not because they're Republicans, but because they aren't conservative and Republican *enough*. Medicare Part D and NCLB could have been put forward by liberal Democrats.
Being Hillary is a myth.
Biden as hatchet man will play poorly.
he neutralizes Obam's best line: John McCain has been in DC for 25 yrs and nothing has gotten better.
McCain should pick portman and let him distiguish himself as a thoughful man who is above attack poilitics and really show up the obama team.
Post a Comment