Since Barack Obama's VP selection could be announced at literally any moment now, let's make one last run through the current prices on Intrade, and I'll give my instincts on where I think this thing stands.
Biden -- 28.0%
Now considered the favorite by both the press and the punters, which seems about right. The campaign is playing into his strengths at the right time, with its aggressive/attacking turn and the increased amount of attention paid to foreign policy as a result of the South Ossetia conflict. With that said, I think the optics/aesthetics of this pick are a little bit of an odd fit. The only recent ticket with a similar age gap between the VP choice and the Presidential nominee was Dukakis-Bentsen, and that looked a little better on paper than it played out in practice. Hold.
Bayh -- 25.0%
To the extent that the Obama campaign was sending up a trial balloon about him, it has gone over rather badly, with many on the left making Bayh an example/scapegoat for exactly what they don't want to see from Obama's VP pick. I think he's been singled out unfairly and that people need to do a better job of grading on a curve when it comes to evaluating legislators from Red States. Still, that doesn't mean the Obama campaign isn't listening, and something about the timing of a Bayh announcement would seem anticlimactic. I would neither buy nor sell at this price. Hold.
Kaine -- 15.0%
He's come full circle, becoming something of a hot pick again after once being left for dead. But his public vetting did not go much better than Bayh's, and neither, apparently, did he perform all that well in focus groups. And whereas the Bayh rumors seemed to have been pushed by the Obama folks, it was Kaine's people who seemed to be babbling to the press about Timmy K., in a way that was inconsistent with Obama's tightly-run press shop. Hold.
Clark -- 15.0%
Way overbought. I don't necessarily buy that he's been disinvited from the convention, but there are enough other tea leaves that he isn't likely to be the pick. A massive head-fake is always possible, and in recent interviews, Clark certainly hasn't ruled out interest in the position. But whether the interest is mutual is an open question. Sell.
Kerry -- 9.5%
God, how gullible are people? Sell.
Gephardt -- 8.9%
I'm not a big Dick Gephardt guy -- he seems to combine the worst characteristics of Biden (being an old-school Washington insider) and Bayh (being bland). Nor has he been the subject of very much speculation from the cognizenti. I'm not sure why he's trading at this price. Sell.
Clinton -- 8.0%
Boy, would this be dramatic. And perhaps exceptionally smart. I think Obama might get an immediate 10-15 point bounce if he named her. But I don't know how well she'd hold up after coming under attack in September and October -- remember, she hasn't really been the subject of a negative campaign since late February, when the Obama folks decided they had the nomination locked up and started to play it safe. It's a crazy scenario, but the whole Obama veepstakes has been crazy enough that I wouldn't rule it out. Hold.
Daschle -- 6.5%
I have friends who are convinced this would be a great pick, but I really worry about the brand of someone who couldn't hold their own Senate seat. He also issued a quasi Sherman Statement in June. Sell.
Sebelius -- 5.2%
Her stock has been beaten up recently for reasons that don't seem to have much basis in the news. Yes, she's been given a speaking slot at the convention, but so have folks like Bayh and Biden. And the fact that she was named a co-chairwoman of the Democratic Convention put her name out there for media consumption. This is a good buy opportunity.
Hagel -- 5.1%
It's such a high-risk move to cross parties at a time when the Democratic brand is strong, and the Obama campaign is pretty risk-averse. Nor has Hagel officially endorsed Obama. I think he's an attractive name to throw out there to the press corps, but I'd be very surprised if he were the pick. Sell.
Gore -- 4.9%
Schweitzer -- 4.5%
Richardson -- 4.5%
Now we get into the wishful thinking department. But Schweitzer -- whom we've heard that Obama met with in July -- and Richardson make enough sense on paper that it's probably reasonable to hold their stock at this price. The worry with Schweitzer is that his name ID would be exceptionally low for a late roll-out. Still, hold those two, and sell Gore.
C. Kennedy -- 4.0%
God, how gullible are people? Sell.
Rendell -- 3.6%
Enough stature that he could be rolled out without having had his name floated in advance. But his name really hasn't been floated at all. In the abstract, I'm not sure why you consider Biden but not Rendell, who would seem to appeal to similar constituencies and who also have somewhat similar faults. Hold.
Nunn -- 3.3%
Reed -- 3.0%
These are astonishingly low prices for people that have been on campaign-approved short lists for weeks. Buy both, especially Reed.
Napolitano -- 3.0%
I don't know how to put this without seeming horribly politically incorrect, but I don't know how she'd play on a national stage. Sell.
Warner -- 3.0%
The fact that he didn't want to go through the vetting process intrinsic to a Presidential run and then also withdrew his name from VP consideration makes me think that any kind of an end-around is unlikely. Sell.
McCaskill -- 2.5%
She'd make Obama look experienced by comparison. Additionally, in every category except the swinginess of her home state, picking Kathleen Sebelius would be a dominant strategy. Sell.
Dodd -- 2.5%
Chris Dodd's presidential bid was a complete flop -- far more so than Biden's -- and he's got scandal issues and absolutely zero electoral math working for him. He also performed badly in the debates. I think this name is being circulated as a favor and nothing more. Sell.
J. Edwards -- 2.2%
Proof that betting markets are dumb. Sell.
Graham -- 2.0%
Worth a gamble. Buy.
Zinni -- 2.0%
Bloomberg -- 1.5%
Brown -- 1.5%
Webb -- 1.0%
Strickland -- 1.0%
Kerrey -- 1.0%
C. Edwards -- 0.9%
At this point, we're getting obscure enough that it's hard to issue a recommendation. I would probably buy Chet Edwards, though.
8.17.2008
Democratic VP Buyer's Guide
by Nate Silver @ 5:21 PM...see also vice president
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

160 comments
I think Bayh is probably Obama's best pick. The Russian conflict highlights the need for seriousness on foreign policy. McCain has been slowly gaining on Obama - and has almost tied the race up. Bayh would give Team O the national defense cred that he is currently lacking.
Biden would be good in that regard too, but if I were a Democrat I'd be worried about a Biden VP pick simply because the man just talks too much and loves hearing himself talk too much ("Clean and articulate"??).
I suspect Obama wants to pick Kaine because Obama really wants VA - but Kaine isn't as popular as Warner and he's just as green as Obama. That seems foolish to me, especially given the fact that geopolitical problems could arise at any moment and there is such a stark contrast in familarity with such matters between the Republican and Democrat candidates.
I think you are very right about Clinton. I think the pundits are going on no information, and I've never been convinced that Clinton was ruled out.
I think as it tightens before the convention in the next couple of days, the temptation to pick her will grow.
Nate-
Colin Powell?
Wow, spooky. I was just looking at these numbers on intrade. Then, I hop over here, and...
I'm buying Clinton.
Chances are it is Biden, a good solid choice. But I still prefer Bayh, and Powell is the genius choice.
It's going to be Mark Warner. A deal was reached months ago.
Powell would be a grat choice for Barry. But he has to make sure he's, you know, willing to Democrat first.
I think the election comes down to the Kerry states. For this reason I think Obama chooses Biden to force McCain's hand.
Oh, and I agree with you on these 2 especially:
Kerry - my first instinct when I saw his picture up on Drudge was to go over to intrade and sell him short, but he never really got that high in price.
Jack Reed - I noticed his bid/ask spread was pretty small. He seems like a safe bet, and probably who I have my money on right now.
I also feel Biden right now but I am convinced Sebelius is MUCH MUCH MUCH higher on the short list people assume.
I am not saying he will pick her but I am pretty sure it will come down to her and an experience VP.
Its got to be Biden or Bayh. Obama is getting creamed on the inexperience issue. He is the most inexperienced candidate in modern election history. Remember the grief Bush Sr got when selecting Dan Quayle? Remember all the "one heartbeat away" criticism from the Dems on the Bush VP pick. Well, the Dems one-upped the GOP by putting Obama up as the Pres selection. What a joke. Can anybody tell me what this guy has done while in office? Obama needs gravitas ASAP with an experienced pick or he is toast in Nov.
Other thoughts
Choosing an experienced VP would only serve to underscore his weakness there.
Richardson is a sell for the same personal reasons Napolitano is a sell (almost the same LOL).
Colin Powell ? Yeah, two black men on the ticket. That is gonna go over well in mid-America.
Hillary's negatives would cost Obama greatly in every one of the bright red states. Her positives would only help him in places like - hmm let's see now - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada. You know, trivial states like that.
Hillary's negatives would cost Obama greatly in every one of the bright red states. Her positives would only help him in places like - hmm let's see now - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada. You know, trivial states like that.
Clinton would definiely help, but then the press narrative would be he needed help and Obama has never lacked confidence in himself. Worse yet, the whole 'change' narrative would be under criticism. I thought the reason BO won the primary was because enough voters wanted a change of guard. BO primary victory seemed to be a move by the liberal side of the party to put a stake through the heart of the "New Democrat" represented by the Clinton's in the 90's.
how the hell is Hillary going to help Obama in Colorado? She's despised in Colorado. She lost the caucus big and she was trailing McCain by double digits in GE polls there.
Colorado, along with Iowa, Oregon, Washington and maybe even Hawaii are states where Clinton will badly hurt Obama.
If Obama has failed to unite the democratic party by this point it's got to be Clinton. Colorado is moving out of play, it's time to get serious about FL, MI and OH.
To be honest, I don't think Hillary wants it. I think she would much rather see Barry fail and then emerge as the "I told you so" candidate once McCain squeaks by with 1-2% wins in CO, OH and VA.
Of course she can't say this or even imply it, but deep down she doesn't believe Obama even deserves the nomination and doesn't believe he's qualified.
Better for the Clintons to watch Obama crash and burn this year than to be shut out until 2016 if Obama wins.
1.0% Webb
Wow, that's quite a fall from prominence, even for someone who removed themselves from contention.
Adam in NY you are correct my friend.
Clinton will be like a phoenix from the ashes if Obama goes down in flames. Her support will be very powerful in 2012. She has to see this on the horizon. Yet, if McCain gets in he will have the benefit of incumbentcy and will probably be somewhat popular in checking what is sure to be a Dem House and Senate. Remember how Bill Clinton's numbers soared when he became the "moderate" checking the "radical right" of Gingrich in 1994. His numbers in 94 were terrible, but his numbers in 96 looked alot better.
Hillary's negatives would cost Obama greatly in every one of the bright red states.
She even puts some Kerry states at risk, though not quite as much as if she were the nominee herself (which is still a distinct possibility). Suddenly Iowa, Oregon, Wisconsin, and even Minnesota become riskier.
And forget about Virginia. You might get West Virginia instead, but trading 13 EVs for 5 isn't a wise strategy.
Well this Republicans always believed that Clinton would have been the more formidable opponent. Why? One word.
Ohio.
Bill Clinton is very popular in the Buckeye state and Hillary proved her worth during the primary where she connected with blue collar voters. The Clintons would take Ohio. Bill Clinton would be campaigning there right now if Hillary was the nominee. And it would work because the Clintons are stronger on economic matters. Neither Barry nor McCain are naturally suited to talk about this, but McCain has the edge on cultural issues and gas prices against Obama. McCain would be in deep trouble in Ohio against the Clintons.
Democrats' problem is that they got cocky and figured they could take a big risk with a very leftwing candidate and now they are really beginning to sweat because they have a real and growing possibility of losing.
It didn't need to be this way.
i agree with sedi. i think it is going to be hillary.
i am guessing bill will introduce the vp on wednesday. also, not making her the keynote speaker on tuesday makes a lot more sense if she is the vp (and i do think they will just cancel her tusday slot once she is announced as the pick).
If Obama loses, I will never vote for a Clinton again - even the child. PUMA I will be.
Thus, choosing Clinton becomes the safe choice, the choice that brings the party together for the short and long term. She becomes the safe choice.
I still pick Powell though...
You're not even going to mention Brian Schweitzer? I like him the most out of all of these. I just think the gop would have a field day with his spending years in saudi arabia to teach them how to farm, in spite of bush's holding hands with saudi princes and so forth. there's always their double standard.
Adam in NY - right again on OH.
Might I add that she would be polling very well in South Florida as well with all the yankee snow-birds. Clinton would be killing McCain on the economy because everyone remembers the "golden 90's" during Bill's era. I frankly think Presidents have very little impact on economic cycles, but most people tend to blame or praise a Pres based on how the economy is doing. The Clinton's strength in OH and FL would destroy the electoral map for the GOP, but not this year. FL and OH will go Red. I'm pretty sure of it. Its the West that offers the highest hopes for BO.
What about Biden and this little tea-leaf?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/17/biden-to-georgia-at-saaks_n_119402.html
He will be out the country at the week before the convention, so no nice press pictures of the ticket at next weekend, if it IS the ticket. On paper, Obama/Biden looks really good though, he is liked a lot by the leftist crowd (just like Webb and Clark was/is, they like the military/blue collar guys). And he IS experienced and articulate (and clean).
Bayh & Kaine are the media picks, possibly because they have an easy story to sell (Indiana & Virginia), but that would somewhat contradict the campaign strategy (broad playing field, nuanced arguments). If I take my personal opinion out of it, they could be effective picks, but Bayh would also have to fight against the red-ness of his home state and his DLC past, whereas Kaine might impress pro-life voters, just as he might scare pro-choice voters, two difficult people.
Clinton has risen in my book, simply because of the reason that there MUST be a woman in one of the top cabinet slots. It´s mandatory and a necessity of political correctness to have a woman either as Secretary of State/Defense VP or Attorney General. And if it ain´t Sebelius it´s gonna be Clinton, at least in some top position.
Kerry/Gephard/Daschle....lol...sorry. They play the role of blue-chips in there, blue-chip stocks with a slight touch of yesterday, the motorola next to a nokia; the yahoo next to a google.
Sebelius and Schweitzer should be higher. We regard them as top picks on this site. But on these lists they are outsiders now, and it seems Obama would achieve a real "WOW"-effect by choosing them, strange how you can feel so scientific, yet so marginalized...
NATE:
If you still have a copy of it, can you put up a link to the last page you had with both Obama and Clinton vs. McCain on a state-by-state basis.
I'm starting to think that after these latest set of polls (PPP OH today), Hillary might actually be Obama's best choice after all( can't believe I'm saying that).
I just want to see how much adding Hillary might hurt Obama's other non-OH,FL paths to victory (VA, CO, etc).
Sam Nunn is easily the most undervalued candidate on that list for these reasons:
1) He's the only old-timer who underscores Obama's own foreign policy experience. Obama has worked heavily on Nunn-Lugar and anti-proliferation, which is an issue that may get huge if Russia stays in the headlines.
2) Unlike Bayh and other supposed 'foreign policy' picks, he had the good sense to oppose the Iraq War from the start and was never pulled in by neoconservatism. This would also reinforce Obama's claims to foreign policy judgments.
3) Last night at the faith forum, Obama was asked to name the wiset people he knew. The first three that he named: his wife, his grandmother, and Sam Nunn.
Despite the bluster from lefty bloggers, Nunn's liabilities are minor. He has already shifted on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and contrary to popular belief, he has a strong record on reproductive rights and the environment.
Why the hell is Sebelius so low on InTrade?
I'm not sure Obama would risk Bayh. It's not like the guy is totally disconnected from reality; the Democratic blogosphere hates him for a zillion reasons, plus Bayh's election would mean the Democrats lose a Senate seat - and aren't they trying to get to 60 this year?
Biden just flew to Georgia. I don't know when he's going to be back, but Obama's rumored to announce his pick in the next couple days, and I don't think he's going to do it by videoconference.
For whatever reason, I get the vibe that the Democratic establishment has been trying to get some distance from Clark. As Nate said, could be a head-fake, but at this point I'd think about shorting him.
Kerry, Daschle, or Gephardt would be suicide picks. Can't believe they're floating above Sebelius on the market.
Clinton would be the biggest game-changer. But if Obama picks her, I'd say it's an indication that he's worried about his chances of winning. The Clintons would certainly cramp Obama's management style once he's in the Oval Office (and probably on the campaign trail as well), and I get the sense there's a bit of bad blood between Barack and Bill. (What can you expect?)
Chuck Hagel is easily my favorite sitting U.S. senator, but for Obama to pick him would be almost as stupid as McCain picking Lieberman. The base would go apeshit, and not in a good way.
Al Gore would be a huge surprise. He'd almost certainly guarantee victory for Obama. But I don't think he wants the spot.
I thought Richardson was a lock back when I saw him endorse Obama in Portland during the primaries, but he's really fallen way off the radar since then, and Obama seems to have New Mexico pretty well sewn up without him on the ticket.
Still hoping for the surprise Schweitzer pick. I think that could play really well, because I don't think Schweitzer would be hard to introduce: he's casual, seems like a pretty normal guy, looks likable and friendly.
Sorry to post off-topic, but a new poll from Ohio (PPP) shows a tie, and as a result RealClearPolitics is handing Ohio to McCain, giving Obama 275 EVs to McCain's 263 EVs. That includes Indiana (11 ) for Obama.
And I agree that Sam Nunn is way too low on that list. I don't like Nunn at all, but I think he's definitely in the running - Gore, Kerry, Gephardt, and Daschle are not.
And I would short Kaine from here to kingdom come.
WOW!!! GREAT NEWS ON THAT OHIO POLL.
It's starting to slip away, Obama fans. That's an 8-point swing since their last poll...
I disagree that Clinton will be in a good position to take the nomination if Obama loses. First of all, she has alienated crucial parts of the party, particularly the African-American community (and the entire state of Iowa). Second, the taboo of crossing the Clintons has already been broached and now there's a massive political machine opposite her own. Third, she will be partially blamed for Obama's loss, given the long and divisive primary. Fourth, she will have to contend with an Obama-backed white governor, like Mark Warner, who would have more appeal than herself in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Fifth, if the Democrats are burned on one nontraditional candidate, it's unlikely that they'll nominate another.
I am afraid that Biden would not make a good impression abroad. He knows much less than he thinks he does. To foreigners, his ignorance is jarring if not insulting.
I don't see how Obama wins Indiana, but not Ohio. Maybe that is just me...
thatmarvelous,
Blacks would vote for Clinton anyway. That's the biggest problem with black voters. They don't make either party work for their vote. Republicans write them off and Democrats take them for granted. If blacks want to bloc vote (90 percent +) for Democrats in every election that's their prerogative, but it would serve them well to make the Dems actually earn that support.
hell, it is all over the map. Clinton is a good buy at 8%, for sure. Obama's small fall in the polls seems quite correspondent to his vacation, so we should see what happens on his return.
I like Clark as a pick, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that he finished himself by stating the obvious - getting shot down does not make one qualified to be president. I would hold rather than sell him, though.
Clinton on the ticket would suck whatever oxygen was left in the room for Grampa, but many have already pointed out the perils of it...
Adam,
Your bizarre comment seems to miss my point. Yes, "blacks" would vote for Clinton in the general election, but that is not the case for the primary. And yes, resentment towards the Clintons runs deep, and they would easily swing for someone like Mark Warner, particularly if Obama endorsed him.
My own personal tea-leaf reading: Richardson was still sporting his beard on TV today, so I doubt he's planning on campaigning any time soon.
It's stupid to sell anyone whose odds are already priced as being very low by the market - you set yourself up for an infinitesimal gain at the risk of a huge loss.
The best way to make money on these markets is to buy pretty much all of them, and sell the big, obvious errors - Clark and Kerry.
Let's see...how to put this subtlely...If Obama nominates a fatuous, self-centered, plaintiff-lawyer-fattened DC machine hack like Biden, he's lost my vote, and anyone else's whom I can persuade.
THE MCCAIN/WARREN CON
CNN just released the fact that John McCain wasn't even in the California church of Rick Warren the first half hour the Barack Obama was on stage.
Warren claims he asked McCain if he had heard any of the questions and McCain said No.
What a con job. Rick Warren said at the beginning of the debate that McCain was back stage and could not hear the questions. McCain knew the majority of the questions before hand and should get hammered in the media for this. Rick Warren owes an apology as well to the listeners who were lied too, by a pastor no less.
If I was Obama right now, with PPP declaring Ohio even and three days tied in GALLUP, I would conclude:
However much we may think McCain is a jerk, he is no more vulnerable than Clinton was when her campaign picked up steam after all her dirty politics.
So I need to choose between how I began and how I might be if I make a choice that will resonate with how I began.
I still believe Schweitzer fills the bill and has the added merit of being able to attack effectively. It would also make Barack an UNDERDOG for a while.
A chance to remind people that McCain is more frightening than Bush, a scourge to women and a protector of the rich and powerful.
---"If Obama has failed to unite the democratic party by this point it's got to be Clinton."
Funny statement. Obama is dealing with fringle loonies. They Clintonistas don't realize it but they are playing to every sexist stereotype of women and why sexist don't want them to be president. They are acting like a bunch of irrational, hyper emotional women run by PMS moodswings. I have heard this from women who supported Clinton and find their behavior dmaging to all women seekng positions of power. They have willingly played into every sexist stereotype and are damaging the future run of any women.
If the PPP poll has it tied, it is clear that McCain is winning OH and may be winning it by 2-3%. He made a smart decision in creating the "Maverick" commercial because it flat out has Clinton mocking Obama so the benefit of having Clinton as VP will be positive, no doubt, but not as positive as if he had done in June 4th.
As for Clinton, she will be a mortal lock to win in 2012 if Obama loses (and it is getting dangerously close to if and when). McCain will either be too senile at 76 or dead so she will still have an easier road than if Obama won.
He has to make the offer of VP at a minimum in order to put the onus on her to refuse it.
MATT -
that is not surprising to hear at all. I assumed that McCain had am earpiece & was being fed the Q's & A's when I saw the reruns late last night.
McCain definitely knew many of the questions in advance [he let the Supreme Court Q out of the bag], especially when he started to answer questions like his 3 heroes & EVIL even be Rick finished the question ! It was blatant - as bad as John's teleprompter flubs...
[On Jeopardy the contestants are coached to pause & pretend to deeply consider answers that KenJen et al are fed in advance for ratings.]
so where was McCain if not in the 'cone of silence' ? I hope that Pastor Rick was duped & not a stooge... Obama certainly got played though he did OK anyway & appeared more authentic.
At the very least, the vacation poll tightening should encourage Obama to get more aggressive before the convention. Traditionally, the ill-advised passivity and complacency follows the convention bounce.
PPP OH 45% each
so what does that result tell us ?
Olympics are on TV, Obama on vacation, mid-August doldrums, and every recent poll has indicated things were close in OH.
Even Nate has had it @ 50 % each =/- for weeks now in OH.
Only Rasmussen with that 10% McCain lead [3 weeks ago] has reported anything other than close in OH - a RED must-win state that is always close ! Now if PPP had it McCain by 10% & he was polling well over 50% well then you could have yourself a party.
This result just further reinforces the regression to the mean in OH as everywhere for mid-August.
Obama does not require OH to win - remember it is McCain who probably cannot win w/o all his RED states.
So more noise, just like the daily trackers. But if I was McCain I would be shouting out loud like this trying to convince people he had the BIG MO... when actually at best he is back where he was at the beginning of summer - still that is an uptick on paper for his campaign although he seems to have a 45% ceiling, no ?
NJModerate,
McCain's "Original Maverick" ad is a completely positive spot.
The ad you're referring to was a YouTube video that McCain's campaign posted. I doubt many Ohio voters actually saw it.
Also, if McCain can only approach a tie while Obama is on vacation, I fail to see how Obama is close to certain defeat. Perhaps you should heed your own warnings that the overly enthusiastic Democrats here not count their chickens before they're hatched...
following intrade over the last month it just seems to be a reflection of the latest 24-hour inanity cycle. Anyone who appears on tv with Oby auto. shoots up 10-15 points. Only for them to climb right back down again when the candidate's lameness sinks in over the next week. The only thing we can predict with certainty is that when Oby chooses someone that person will go up to 95% -and that will not be a good buy time. I would advise all good mofos to buy some Sebelius or anyone else equivalently being shunned by the MSM. Go on - make some money off the back of my majorly friendly advice!!
Anecdotal but on topic. I worked one of my neighborhoods yesterday, as I walked down the street all the kids were dancing and chanting Obama as they followed me. I know every vote on those streets, so does the campaign. I signed 3 new registrations and one change from a bush repug to an Obama dem. McKane has a Pa problem.
Adam in NY,
The Clintons are and have always been world class scumbags. They are ruled by drama and scandal. Follow them throughout their careers. Their lack of morals and scandalous behavior have followed them from Ark to the White House to NY. It is in their public and private business dealings. Lying is like breathing to them and they live off drama the entire time blaming rightwing conspiracy or left wing conspiracy or sexism. Anything to blame anyone but themsleves and their inherent lack of morals and propensity for scandal.
Reality check. The Dem party tolerated Bill b/c they had to. He was not beloved in 1992 when he first ran and without Perot he doesn't win. He then sold them out in 1994 and the party leadership never forgot it. The triangulation of Clintons is hated by true Dems. They had a clear opportunity to get rid of them which helped Obama. The people sick of covering for the Clitons scandals made a choice not to do it anymore. Lets remember that the time Bill was not a good time for DEms. They had less Senators, Congressmen, state legislatures and governorships from the beginning to the end of his 8 years. The Republicans realized they couldn't beat him but run campaigns against Dems by them having to defend their scandals and immorality. The slogan of 2000 Bush was "bringing honor and dignity back to the white house." That's a direct reference to the Clinton scandals while in office. The Repub gained or increased majorities in the Congress running a pseudo campaign against the lack of ethics of the Clintons and the Dems continually having to defend them.
moondancer,
good for you. I respect people who get active on the ground for any party or cause.
the last time I went caucusing & door-to-door was for McGovern in MN back in the day even though it was obviously a losing cause.
but it was the right thing to do then & now to try to end these stupid wars & clean up after a shameful POTUS.
This two opponents stuff is killing Obama. Every time Clinton gets press, Obama loses a couple of points in Ohio and similar areas.
I have a feeling the Clinton News Network is just going to make this worse and worse.
Obama's two great hopes for the convention is that either the Clintons try to stab him in the back (which will turn off a lot of Clinton supporters) or they wholeheartedly support him and turn the Clinton supporters for Obama. More likely, we're going to get a an "honorable man" speech.
Clinton had better forget 2012. If Obama loses, we know who the Obama supporters will blame, and Clinton won't have a chance (it'll be Mark Warner or a new dark horse). On the other hand, if Obama wins with Clinton's help, most Obama supporters will agree with the tacit agreement that Clinton gets the nod in 2016. This is especially true if somebody Clinton's age (like Sebelius) gets the nod.
If I were Clinton, I'd nix Bayh as the Veep candidate because he's too young- he'd run for President in 2016 for sure if Obama won. If Biden (74 in 2016) Sebelius (68 in 2016, but looks older) or Clark (72 in 2016) were the Veep, it might be reasonable for these people to step aside and allow Hillary to go for the nomination.
P.S. Why Gephart? Because Axelrod, Plouffe, etc. originally ran Gephart's campagin. Can't think of any other reason.
He has to make the offer of VP at a minimum in order to put the onus on her to refuse it.
The only problem with that is that she may accept. I wouldn't be surprised though if they at least make the suggestion that Obama offered it to her and she refused in order to satisfy Hillary's supporters.
Gephardt is a household name in MO. In combination with McCaskill, he would put MO in play.
OTF,
All of that is probably true. In fact I never liked the Clintons until this year - and only then it was because I felt that Hillary *finally* got to see what it was like for Republicans to have the media turn on them for "new and different and fresh". I actually felt bad for her and respected the fact that she went out there in the less fashionable parts of the country and related to the every day man on the street.
As for Democrats losing in congress I'm not sure that it's fair to blame Bill Clinton. Whenever a president comes to power and does well there is always a loyal opposition. And the opposition intensifies once they lose control over a period of time. The Dems were bound to lose. They controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Look what happened to Bush - same thing. When one party gets total control it only lasts for so long until the opponents can check their power.
If Obama wins this year then Republicans will do much better in 2010 and 2012. That's just the nature of the beast.
Second day of the convention, Tuesday, is August 26th. That's "Women's Equality Day" and the anniversay of the 19th Amendment. Good day to announce Hillary for VP.
The turn around in the PPP Poll in Ohio is amazing. Obama was ahead by 8 or 9 last month, and now a tie.
But it doesn't matter, this election is over.
It was above my pay grade before it was below my pay grade!
---"Blacks would vote for Clinton anyway. That's the biggest problem with black voters. They don't make either party work for their vote. Republicans write them off and Democrats take them for granted. If blacks want to bloc vote (90 percent +) for Democrats in every election that's their prerogative, but it would serve them well to make the Dems actually earn that support."
Yes, they should run out and vote for the RepubliCons who have utilized the southern strategy for the last 40 years. A party that national commitee ran despicable ads against Harold Ford that worked by appealing to racial bigots. A party that is running similiar strategy this year playing not only on racism b/c if your not white your not a true American and on blatant religious bigotry against Muslims. Yes they should run out and vote for a party that has no problems running on bigotry towin office but somehow if they voted for them they would somehow be excluded form the overt bigotry. Brilliance son...absolutelty brilliant!
It's pretty clear now that despite Democrat spin, Obama is in some trouble. If the election were today, he'd probably lose given the trends in VA, CO, MO, NV, OH and FL.
This isn't where Democrats told us they'd be months ago. All of the talk of Obama vastly outspending McCain and putting all these red states into play is just a pipe dream. Unless Obama can give people a REAL reason to vote for him (What is his big issue that he has claimed ownership of? What specific reason do people have to go with New, Different and Untested?) he will lose. He hasn't made the sale. He needs to do it soon.
You people are ridiculous. The guy hasn't even been nominated yet. You'd have to be a moron to say this race is over before it's even started.
OTF,
That's just ridiculous. Obama was ahead until he played the race card on someone he had no business playing it. It utterly failed. The public is making their verdict known with the recent polling.
It doesn't behoove Obama supporters to suggest that he is losing because of race. When your guy is from a group making up only 11 percent of the electorate it just mathematically absurd to impune the motives of a group comprising 77 percent of the electorate without good reason. Obama didn't have any good reason for playing the race card and all evidence shows that it is failing miserably.
NJ_Moderate,
Lets put his simple. There is no way in hell Clinton is VP. She knows it and hence all the stink by her and Bill this last week. I'm sure she has been informed she is not it, which is something in reality was sealed the day Solis Doyle was hired.
I still want Inoye on the ticket but would settle for for Biden.
Put Clinton on the ticket and I'll be voting Cynthia McKinney in November.
more on that new PPP OH poll @ 45% each;
on the right, Nate's OH polls go back to mid-may only & he has had it pretty stable at 50% prediction for awhile now so it is a true toss-up as expected.
-----------------------------------
but do the historical research, and all McCain & Obama have done is managed to regress both of their polling #'s back to their mean for approximately the past 6 months.
below are a few more spring poll results in OH, inc. PPP in March [they did not poll it in April or May apparently]:
----------------------------------
Quinnipiac 04/23 - 04/29 1127 RV 43 42 McCain +1
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 527 RV 47 45 McCain +2
Rasmussen 04/08 - 04/08 500 LV 47 40 McCain +7
Quinnipiac 03/24 - 03/31 1238 RV 42 43 Obama +1
PPP (D) 03/15 - 03/17 629 LV 49 41 McCain +8
----------------------------------
PPP had McCain polling @ 49% against Obama in RED OH in the spring. That means that McCain is still 4% below his high water mark - not promising at all IMO.
All this data tells us to expect a close race/toss-up just like in RED CO - but it is all noise right now [except for the internals].
I remain convinced that Clinton is Obama's best choice. Any possible loss of "new politics" street cred Obama had has essentially already happened. With Obama you have a candidate whose base remains committed despite betrayals on just about every single issue. Despite the Clinton scandals she consistently ran ahead of McCain towards the end of the Dem race.
Clinton is electoral map efficient, with strong support from the working class and Hispanics. She puts Arkansas in play. Clinton also helps address Obama's biggest communication weakness - that he tends to speak in vague generalities.
What about Bill Clinton? First-off running with Hillary gives Bill an incentive to actually do things. Secondly, the Clinton campaign found the best way to use Bill - send him to small towns that never get presidential candidates visiting (and that don't have national media outlets) and let him have at it.
Bayh is also a decent choice - though not because of his "strength on national security issues". Bayh has done essentially nothing as a senator. Bayh is probably the only candidate being floated around that could make a difference in any state. Bayh is a household name in Indiana, where he was governor, and consistently gets re-elected with 60% or so of the vote.
Yes Bayh is bland. This is not terrible - he may lose the VP debate, but I think you primarily want somebody that can communicate in a way Obama can't. Obama is bad on policy specifics (and being good on policy specifics surrenders his rhetorical abilities). Let Bayh be the wonk.
Of course, I am not the one Obama has been waiting for when it comes to VP advice. He will probably make an extremely safe an inoffensive choice, in a reflection of how he has run his campaign, and conducted himself in public life. I'd figure Bayh as the safest choice.
OTF,
Funny statement. You do realize that everything you said reflects the exact caricature one might draw of a woman-hating Obama support (I'm sorry if you got dumped).
Oh and Clinton supporters are hardly fringe loonies.
I see the poll has brought the trolls out from under their bridge for their ridiculous bluster.
Yes, McCain now has a 50/50 shot in each of his must-win states while his opponent has been on vacation. The election is clearly over. Great thinking.
putting all these red states into play is just a pipe dream.
On the basis of what? Ties in Colorado and Virginia? Leads in New Mexico and Iowa? Looks like the red states are in play to me.
It doesn't behoove Obama supporters to suggest that he is losing because of race.
Huh? No one has made this claim. For one, Obama isn't losing.
---"The turn around in the PPP Poll in Ohio is amazing. Obama was ahead by 8 or 9 last month, and now a tie.
But it doesn't matter, this election is over."
This is once again hilarious. You do realize that Obama doesn't have and never had the fialed OH or Fla bust startegy of Gore and Kerry.
OH and Fla are icecream on the cake. They are not necessary to win.
IA and NM are defiinte flips from 2004.
NV is very likely as the demographics of NV have totally changed since 2004. Dems have gone from behind to +5 party ID and 24% hispanics in NV that Obama is ahead in by 40 points.
Guys, the election isn't for 14 weeks. Thats an eternity. Ohio is even but we already knew that through nates numbers. Virginia and colorado are tossups as well. The McCain camp has systematically outclassed the Obama campaign at every turn since June.
Obama seems to have his entire campaign based on GOTV. McCains commercials are better, his attacks are better (Obama doesn't attack) , and his narrative is better (Obama has no narrative). This is an election between a campaign with a GOTV operation unlike any we have ever seen, but it can't be measured or promoted. Against an experienced attacking campaign who's expertise is waging media war and bringing down the opponent. Thats what we're seeing. McCain's not going up much, but Obama is coming down.
Theres no sense getting into doomsday scenarios, we haven't picked VP's yet for gods sake, and we're 2 months until the election. 2 months ago, Obama had barley secured the nomination. The bad news for obama is his campaign seems unaware that presidential politics are waged in the "Free" media using the 24 hour news outlets to get out your message.
Obama was carpet bombing Hillary on television during the last half of the primaries while Hillary had a coordinated "FREE" media spin machine that pushes coverage and narratives 24h/day, 7 days a week. No ad campaign can cope with that.
Now Obama goes ad for ad in battleground states, but has not yet coordinated a media message, and daily talking points for free media on the news networks. McCain has skillfully pushed the narrative and right now Obama has lost all momentum, and McCain has it. It appears Obama is unwilling to really hit McCain, while McCain does not mind at all. Its the usual democrats wanting to play "Fair".
Obama needs to forget the new politics crap. (I never bought it anyway) When Hillary went negative she started winning, and since Steve Schmidt took over McCain's and implemented the Rove play book, McCain is now winning. It's really that simple. If and when Obama realized this purer than thou nonsense is getting his ass kicked, he'll recover. If he realizes.
With Obama you have a candidate whose base remains committed despite betrayals on just about every single issue.
If you're going to write long comments, it's probably a good idea not to discredit yourself early. Obama reversed himself on his promise to filibuster the FISA bill, but that's hardly "just about every single issue."
it just mathematically absurd to impune the motives of a group comprising 77 percent of the electorate without good reason.
And even worse, Adam, is when Obama supporters begin making comments such as "anyone who doesn't support Obama is a racist" which is something I hear many Obama supporters say quite frequently. Say that to someone who is on the fence and I tend to believe their reaction will not favor Obama.
Adam in NY said...
"It's pretty clear now that despite Democrat spin, Obama is in some trouble. If the election were today, he'd probably lose given the trends in VA, CO, MO, NV, OH and FL."
well at least you said 'probably' but that is just silly talk. You list 6 RED states that McCain must win or else Obama wins for sure.
even without those 6 states, IF Obama holds the BLUE states + NM + IA he only needs a handful of EVs to win out of those 6 & AK, MT, ND, SD, NC, IN, and others.
who has the better probability of prevailing at this time ? I will assist you, it still starts with an 'O'...
get back to us on this in mid-September when the polls start to really matter.
Nice try though, but a bogus assertion. [IMO]
That marvelous,
>>On the basis of what? Ties in Colorado and Virginia? Leads in New Mexico and Iowa? Looks like the red states are in play to me.
That's disingenuous. CO, NM and IA are not the red states Obama was talking about. Those are barely red - better described as swing states in every election. Obama supporters told us he'd be competitive in GA, NC, IN. That was supposed to be his strength - he'd get states Clinton couldn't. Well that clearly isn't happening. VA is close because liberals are moving into NoVA rapidly. That has nothing to do with Obama or any inherent strength he brings to the table.
>> Huh? No one has made this claim. For one, Obama isn't losing.
Certainly some liberal pundits have. And if Obama isn't losing, he certainly isn't winning.
Adam in NY,
I know your a RepubliCon so ignorance is bliss for you. Obama called the RepubliCons on their strategy and guess what they prove it everyday. McCain brought in the Rove ptroteges for the smear campaign. McCain can;t win on the issues.
Btw, I gues you are ignorant to the fact that the RNC hired a research firm to determine how you can how much you can attack a black or women candidate before it is viewed as sexist or racist. They didn;t research policy attacks but personal attacks. They honed determined their strategy in March, if it's a Hillary attack her gender and if it's Obama attack his race. The RepubliCon party is pure scum and they appeal to the lowest common denominator sexist, racist, and religious bigots.
I don't know why you guys are dancing around the obvious? It's gonna be John Kerry, he's the one choice that makes the most sense.
Kerry was not a strong choice in '04 as president but he's an excellent choice in '08 as VP. If you stop and think about it for just a minute, you'd see he ought to be trading at the top way above Biden.
Biden is a lousy choice. He's a gaffe machine, can't be trusted to stay on message or say what should be said half the time. He does nothing for Obama save fill a generic slot for 'old white guy with military background/expertise'. If you're gonna do that why not just go to the source? John Kerry is a vet and has already been vetted in 04.
We know he has no skeletons in his closet and he's no gaffe machine like biden. Kerry is intelligent and responsible. Progressives should be happy as he's 110% on board with the progressive agenda. Kerry has learned how to fight back against the republican smear machine. He has massive name recognition and will carry votes, way more than Biden or nearly any other choice. He won't try to usurp, manipulate or backstab Obama like Clinton would. It also allows for Obama to shape a comeback kid narrative that the press will eat up. This is how Obama wins in a landslide against an anemic McCain.
In 2004 Obama stumped for Kerry and now in 2008 Kerry can stump for Obama. There's a strong, full circle narrative here that the DNC can make use of.
>>even without those 6 states, IF Obama holds the BLUE states + NM + IA he only needs a handful of EVs to win out of those 6 & AK, MT, ND, SD, NC, IN, and others.
The major flaw in your logic is that if Obama is tied in OH and CO he's not going win any of AK, MT, SC, NC or IN.
I could do the same thing. McCain doesn't need OH, he could win PA, MI, MN or WI. But just because I say that doesn't mean it's likely to happen.
See what I mean?
I have no idea who the veep pick will be but I wouldn't pick Hillary if it were my choice. The repubs would make the race all about Bill and Hillary. They were almost completely silent about them during the primary. I think it was in hopes that Hillary would win because they have been working on their anti-Hillary strategy for at least the last couple of years. Plus Obama would risk losing the support of many independents who do not like the Clintons.
Obama does not need Hillary to unite the Democratic party. That is TV pundit crap. The party is united. Obama has the votes of Democrats. Look at the polls of Democratic voters, the money he is raising, and the numbers of people who are donating to him. Democrats are very happy with Obama.
thatmarvelousape @ 6:30 PM,
nice post. [IMO]
thatmarvelousape,
Obama has, within a very short period of time reversed his position on a partial birth abortion ban, the death penalty, whether he would receive public financing, offshore drilling, the DC gun ban, the embargo on Cuba, marijuana decliminalization, renegotiating NAFTA, Clinton's welfare reform, and has equivocated his Iraq position considerably (by changing the amount of "residual forces" he would leave behind, and admitting through surrogates that his timeline wouldn't work).
I would consider that "about every issue".
OTF,
It certainly sounds like you are whining to me. Obama was never going to win on race anyway. He shouldn't have brought it up. He was his own worst enemy. If he kept his nose clean then he wouldn't have gotten slammed and he wouldn't have had to run off with his tail between his legs after he got caught.
Scott919 said
And even worse, Adam, is when Obama supporters begin making comments such as "anyone who doesn't support Obama is a racist" which is something I hear many Obama supporters say quite frequently.
Sure there a some Obama supporters who say stupid shit. Rush Limbaugh says stupid shit every day and he's on radio, get over yourself. We judge people by what they say, not comparing 1 obama supporter to other obama supporters. Its like saying, the Klu Klux Klan vote conservative and are racist bigots, and thus so are all conservatives?
Thats a stupid statement, akin to your statement.
And what is this "debate the issues" nonsense?
Obama wants to debate the issues less than McCain. He doesn't say anything other than he presents "hope and change". If Obama wanted to debate the issues then why wouldn't he agree to debate McCain. Again. More whining. That just says you're starting to see things slip away for your guy.
Adam,
NC is as close for Obama as Iowa is for McCain. It certainly is in play, and several nonpartisan analysts currently consider it a toss-up.
The last two Indiana polls have had Obama up by 1, so I'm not sure where you're getting the basis to claim that it "clearly isn't happening."
Colorado most certainly is a red state. In an April Rasmussen poll, when Obama was up by 4 against McCain, Clinton was down by 16. That state is competitive for Obama in a way it would not be for other Democrats. This dynamic was also the case in Iowa.
Furthermore, Obama is clearly competitive in Montana and North Dakota, and he appears to be gaining Alaska. Them's red states, my friend.
I understand that you're happy about pulling into a tie in the PPP poll. McCain is currently doing a very good job, and unlike some Democrats here, I have never denied that he has a viable shot at winning. However, you are letting your enthusiasm run away with you, and you are making extravagant claims that are simply not reflected in the data we have before us.
Adam in NY,
your logic is flawed.
first, on these posts the regulars refer to RED for shorthand as states the GOP carried in 2000 & 2004. BLUE are the GORE & BUSH states.
yes, some are really close states which Nate calls Purple, but then the math gets more complex to type out in scenarios.
BUT the purple states are RED in the main. Those BLUE states you just listed are not [yet] listed as swing or purple by Nate or others [except the trolls].
Snapshot right now is Obama holds all BLUE + NM[red] + IA[red] + ___[red] = 270 EV to win [fill in the blank with almost any purple state or combo of small EV states.
It is still looking like Obama has a 60/40 chance to be prevail no matter how you want to try to counter-spin it even with this week's less than stellar results.
re:
"The worry with Schweitzer is that his name ID would be exceptionally low"
Schweitzer doesn't need to be recognized by everyone. He is regionally known, in the mountain west. Beyond Montana, he would be very useful on the ticket in Nevada, Colorado and even Alaska.
And he didn't vote for the war ( Bayh, Biden, Clinton ), and isn't a dinosaur ( Nunn ). He hasn't publicly declined the position ( Webb, Reed, Warner ), and doesn't cost a Senate seat.
BTW, Lincoln didn't have tremendous experience either. By the obsession on foreign policy from media "pundits", he would be unqualified.
Here's my shortlist...
Joe Biden - He was my first choice before Obama announced his candidacy. He was never likely to win the nomination with Clinton and Edwards in the race, but he was always an obvious VP pick. Biden also won the most debates the MSM disingenuously awarded to Hillary. His takedown of Rudy Giuliani was proceless and arguably the single greatest moment of the primary debates.
If Biden was from a swing state he'd be my first choice for VP. He's pretty much the toughest senator in either party, with a sharp wit and gift of the gab. Biden would no doubt be Obama's attack dog.
Brian Schweitzer - There's not much else to say that hasn't already. He'd be the most audacious pick.
Wesley Clark and Jim Webb - Both fit the theme of Wednesday's Securing America's Future Night and would bring exellence to the ticket. Either one of them makes McCain looks like a pussy in comparison. He'd also have to salute both of them.
Basically, I don't have clue who Obama will pick. I just hope it isn't a Republican, any of the old Democratic leadership, former presidential nominess, and especially Tim Kaine, Sam Nunn, Jack Reed, Tom Daschle or Bob Graham.
Btw, I've got a sneaky suspicion McCain wil pick Giuliani.
thatmarvelous,
Obama, aside from one poll out of the last twenty, has never been above mid 40's in NC. It's not a tossup. It's not MS or AL - but it's not a tossup. In 2004, Bush was only polling mid-single-digits ahead of Kerry.
That IN poll history. Like, ancient history. Think what you will about MT, ND and AK, but at the end of the day, if McCain and Obama are teetering on the brink in CO and OH, not too many serious people, Democrats or not, are going to feel to comfortable hanging their hats on those states to hope for a miracle.
Maybe Barry can win those states - he is doing better there than Kerry did - but realistically in order for him to win in those states McCain is going to have to tank in CO, OH and VA first.
MATT,
looks like you are feeding a troll there [scott].
I have been trying to give [Adam in NY] the benefit of the doubt but it is looking like he may be also...
Hoser to Hoosier,
Your claims are a series of misunderstandings, exaggerations, and in the case of Iraq, outright lies. I will give you public financing as well, but I would suggest you stop getting your secondhand McCain spin from TalkLeft and actually do some research on the issues as well as the definition of the term 'reversal.'
Adam, you continue to fall back from your original statements, so I will take that as a concession that you recognize you were getting a little bombastic. That's okay, it happens to the best of us.
well said, APE.
partisanship is fine but these dittohead posts with misleading 'facts' and outrageous lies is something else entirely...
DNFTT
Also, that's still not "about every issue."
More like spin and some marginal shifts on the details of a few peripheral issues.
Sure there a some Obama supporters who say stupid shit. Rush Limbaugh says stupid shit every day and he's on radio, get over yourself. We judge people by what they say, not comparing 1 obama supporter to other obama supporters. Its like saying, the Klu Klux Klan vote conservative and are racist bigots, and thus so are all conservatives?
Wow you guys are defensive. Yes Rush says stupid shit too, but the topic of conversation was regarding race and the point I was trying to make is that from my experience Obama supporters have a tendency to play the race card and my observation has been that whenever they do it they are met with a hearty "fuck you".
The point was made that Obama played the card and lost and I simply followed by saying SOME (not ALL) of his supporters do as well and that's makes it worse.
Adam in NY,
I love the ignorance you display. Go try to find info on McCain issues. Good luck.
Obama has every issue laid out on his website, a link to policy speech on the issue, and a deatailed plan. The lie of lack of plan by Obama is false.
McCain's plan is Bush plan since he changed to appease the base. He doesn't wnat to talk about that so he wants to make the campiagn about anything but issues. Just go to McCain site and you will see the proof. Oh wait, you think belligerent sound bite answers that McCain provides himself on are policy.
Iggy,
John Kerry would make a TERRIBLE choice as Obama's running mate.
First-off while picking a "strong on national security" running-mate might lower Obama's negatives there, it also increases the salience of the issue. So Obama could do WORSE by picking a running mate that is strong on national security. Moreover, Kerry is a poor choice to talk about other things - the wealthy husband of a Ketchup empress is probably not the sort of person you want talking about how he "feels your pain" (newsflash # 2: everything I just said about Kerry applies to McCain - talk about domestic issues!).
Secondly, John Kerry also has a poor favourability rating. In 2007 22% had a favourable view of Kerry, while 48% had a not favourable view (CBS news poll, from pollingreport.com).
Thirdly, Kerry swings no states at all, since he is a senator from a solid Dem state, where he is not especially popular (52% approve, 44% disapprove, with a negative net approval among independents). (from SurveyUSA's last poll)
Fourthly, Kerry is perceived by conservatives as "the most liberal senator", while the base hasn't entirely forgiven him for voting for the war in Iraq.
Finally, as per my earlier post about Obama, Kerry creates a good opening for a flip-flopper attack on Obama.
All this for what? Kerry is a conceivable president with a lot of experience, who is a good communicator in a way that Obama is not (though a bad communicator in a way that Obama is good). ie. Obama is sort of a right-brained communicator, while Kerry is a good left-brained communicator (and McCain is neither).
SCOTT919,
that is just plain old trolling so please knock it off. "do not be an asshole" as Nate requested of all posters.
this is not a site for race relations or slanderous accusations without facts.
those may be your opinions, but keep your prejudices to yourself.
this site is about electoral predictions & statistical analysis based on actual facts.
got anything factual & relevant with real bearing on 538 probabilities or the Veep as this thread started ?
BEHAVE or BE GONE...
Obama has every issue laid out on his website, a link to policy speech on the issue, and a deatailed plan.
Interestingly he doesn't have a link to his voting record which runs contrary to his rhetoric at an alarming rate.
We're hearing the same baseless arguments we hear every year from republicans. The democrats are favored on policy virtually every year, but voters don't vote on policy. Just like the Mccain camp isn't beating Obama with policy they're doing it with character assassination's and the like.
You see, republicans realized a long time ago that Americans are a fearful people. Uneducated people, the people who decide our elections base decisions out of fear. Like they were afraid John Kerry was not going to protect us,fear. Al Gore was too liberal, fear. Barack Obama is a celebrity, he's vacuous with no idea what he's doing, his energy plan is inflating your tires, he's going to raise your taxes until you have no money left and the economy is in shambles, FEAR.
When people make decisions out of fear, they make bad ones. Just like electing Bush the second time, I forgive the first time. Any psychologist will tell you humans make bad decisions when fear is the motivator, and the republicans are excellent at it. Democrats never use fear, they think its low ball. If Americans decided to vote for the best candidate absent from fear, like most countries, the democrats would win in a landslide. Thats why Obama was risky. Its much easier to make people afraid of a black guy from Kenya that they don't know, compared to Hillary Clinton, who they hate, but don't fear.
To this point Obama has done a terrible job refuting this fear or creating fear of what McCain would do. Unfortunately, us democrats both liberal and moderate, are going to have to wait for the millennial's to grow up a bit so the country can grow out of this. Theres a reason the young people like the democrats, because they make decisions based on reason, and in self interest, not out of fear.
this is not a site for race relations or slanderous accusations without facts.
Oh I see...I notice you are not hammering OTF for stating that McCain can't win on the issues. Why are you crying for him to back that statement up with facts? You appear to be quite selective as to what you accept and don't.
Theres a reason the young people like the democrats, because they make decisions based on reason, and in self interest, not out of fear.
Let me quote DCM here...."this is not a site for race relations or slanderous accusations without facts."
Please provide the data to back up your allegation.
Scott919.
By your response you obviously know the facts.
Btw, lets see McCain:
I'm for free alternative energy and efficiency. Funny he voted against fuel effciincy srtandards and alternative energy over 15 times just since 2000.
These tax cuts are "immoral and irrepsonsible at a time of war...they give so muchh to so few"
Oh wait now he supports them.
McCain abandoned his own immigration bill to appease those as yourself. He wouldn;t even vote for his won bill.
The US should not torture. Ofcourse that changed too when the base didn't like it. He vote against a bill that would require the use of the army field manual which specifically outlaws torture.
Should I keep going on the change from McCain to McBush.
Obama never played the race card. Because a campaign says something does not make it so. Obama said what everyone knows is true, they are going to try and make people afraid of him, which for a fearful american people is much easier to do to an unknown black guy from Hawaii and Indonesia named Barack Obama. Obama's mistake was he allowed the republicans to say Obama was charging the McCain camp with this, which he was not.
I watched those statements numerous times the day Obama made them. I watched, millions of voters watched, hundreds of reporters were at the event, the McCain camp say the remarks, and nobody saw any race card. The following day, obviously after a meeting, the Mccain camp mdecided to accuse Obama of using the race card and the media loving a good racial war (Great for ratings) covered it for a week non stop. It was the McCain camp who used the race card.
Not a single word of this comment can be argued with. It is not opinion, it is fact. get your facts straight.
OTF,
I would much rather hear Obama actually talk about how gas prices can be reduced, and how he intends to punish Russia for the Soviet-style invasion. I want to hear specifics *from Obama*. I don't want to read something written from some group of underlings that was copy/pasted onto a website. This is especially so, given the fact that when caught off-guard Obama seems woefully unprepared, like when he tried to do some sort of moral equivalence between Russia and Georgia and then had to shift to the McCain position - or when he made fun of McCain's idea for drilling and then had to shift at least to a degree toward McCain.
I don't think that if George Bush were running for the first time this year you'd be satisfied with "go to his website". You probably don't think Bush is too smart, right? But he, or anyone else, could no doubt get someone on his campaign to spruce up a website. As an attractive singer might say, "That don't impress me much".
Obama has the gift of delivering a good speech. Let's hear his ideas. His specific ideas. Because Hope And Change (TM) don't seem to be getting the job done for him.
Should I keep going on the change from McCain to McBush.
I never said anything about McCain nor did I say he doesn't do the exact same thing as Obama does. But if you wish to play that game, then fine.
Obama has constantly argued he is a champion for the struggling middle class and will work toward their interests. His website states “Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors” , “Obama will allow the federal government to negotiate for lower drug prices for the Medicare program”, and “Obama will work to give seniors choices about their care, consistent with their needs, and not biased towards institutional care.”
However....
He voted twice against repealing taxes on Social Security benefits. (vote #0074, 2005 vote #0028, 2007)
He voted against tax deductions for college tuition, student loan interest, out of pocket classroom expenses for teachers, and protecting senior citizens from higher taxes on their retirement income, (vote #0083, 2007)
He voted against legislation that prohibits income tax increases on middle-income families, and college students. (vote #0084, 2007)
He voted to reduce tax deductions on home loan interest. (vote #0035, 2005).
He voted against legislation that would provide funding and an extension of Medicare enrollment. (vote #0048, 2006)
He voted against protecting coverage choices, additional benefits, and lower co-pays for Medicare beneficiaries. (vote #00103, 2007)
He voted against increasing funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (vote #00271, 2005)
He voted against legislation increasing the rebate for Medicaid recipients for generic drugs. (vote #00299, 2005)
Shall I continue?
Another reason I'd personally buy Sebelius, and hard:
Intrade currently gives Sarah Palin about a 12% chance of becoming McCain's nominee. Since McCain picks second, Obama's people are surely considering the ramifications if McCain picks a female running mate and Obama chooses a man.
None of which is to say that Obama will pick a woman as VP, only that I suspect the campaign has done its research, and depending on the results of that research, Sebelius may be the most logical choice.
FWIW, I think Bayh's the most likely -- there's the risk of a backlash among leftist blacks because of Biden's "clean" comments last year, and one thing Obama does NOT want is the Republicans working hand-in-hand with ex-Black Panther types.
The RCP electoral map isn´t goog.
It gives Indiana to Obama and Colorado to McCain when Obama is leaning CO and McCaiin is leaning IN.
OH is OK, now for McCain.
Adam in NY,
Ignorance is bliss for you. How many Obama speeches have you viewed on youtube? The lazy people who don't seek to educate themsleves as yourself depend on the soundbite of the 6pm news to educate you on issues. You would rather the news media give you the 5 second sounbite which they can frmae any way they want towards their bias or what makes a salacious story than actaully sudy and understand a candidates positions. That is thinking that is easy fodder for the bellicose and belligerent crap of McCain against Russia. Funny how when asked how he would do something McCain has no logical answer. By your own statement in the previous post that plays to you. Just like spending a trillion dollars on a war against a country that never attacked us, Iraq. Ofcourse they kind of looked like the people that did so that's okay in the Neocon world. They have some oil we want to get a hold of as a bonus.
harrison: rethuglions, pumas and panthers would be tough for the lynx-eyed one to overcome!
oh, and kudos for bigging up the Sebster.
Man I keep checking my email hoping to get that tell, this will totally control the news cycle once it is rolled out this week. THE ANTICIPATION IS HUGE.
Colin Powell is eight months younger than McMajorShit. So his age wouldn't be a significant deal. It would far and away be the most venturesome and ballsy VP pick in American history. But they would have to go nuclear on McCain and the entire Repug outfit. Powell would need to renounce his party and jump to the Dems.
Otherwise, this whole Dem veep thing comes off as a grand charade to me. Rather than Powell, an equally big surprise would be if Obama were to walk out with Bill Clinton to announce his choice. If Hillary is as interested in domestic issues as is said, perhaps she'd get the first opening on the SCOTUS. But if it's otherwise, would he ask her to be in charge of State? Would he also announce his prospective cabinet along with his veep choice?
OTF,
Why is it that you liberals are always the first to resort to ad hominem attacks. Actually I much prefer McCain's positions. McCain, not Obama, was right on the surge. Obama was wrong he thought that it would cause an escalation of violence. McCain, for years talked about how much of a threat Putin was and summarized quite well what he thought of his intentions. This all took place while Obama was a low-level community organizer that didn't even bother to vote other than "present" while he was in the Illinois state senate.
And I wouldn't be too quick to point out Obama's position on Iraq as some sort of strength. It's not the net plus that lazy Democrats have depended upon to win in recent years. Plus Obama said on his website that you are so eager to tout as late as 2004 that his position was not all that different from George Bush's.
What liberals like you are too stupid to realize is that if you weren't so condescending maybe you wouldn't lose election after election of a miniscule number of votes because a public that might be inclined to agree with you on certain things decides to, you know, hate your guts for watching your candidate and some of his supporters act like an army of arrogant pricks.
Just some food for thought.
All this talk about the PPP poll in Ohio and Obama losing ground in states is nonsense. These polls are insignificant, as the NY Times' Frank Rich (I think the best OpEd writer in the country) points out in his column today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Rob S said...
"I don't see how Obama wins Indiana, but not Ohio. Maybe that is just me..."
It's true the RCP is giving Indiana to Obama but Ohio to McCain at the moment, but there hasn't been a poll in Indiana since 6/23 and before that since 4/30.
hosertohoosier,
I couldn't disagree more. Here are all the reasons why Kerry will be the VP pick:
Name recognition, name recognition, name recognition! Biden, Bayh, etc, etc are meaningless to voters. They carry no weight and no value. Only Clinton has such name recognition, and she's poisonous to the party. Who ever saw such neocon tactics coming from a democrat before? Her negatives are enormous.
Kerry has been vetted, thoroughly. We know he can debate well and we know he can speak well, and he has no skeletons in the closet. No surprises. He is a known, progressive commodity.
Kerry is a vietnam veteran, taking the wind right out of McCain's sails.
Kerry won almost 49% of the vote in 2004 against an incumbant, wartime president. More votes have been cast for him than any democrat in presidential history. Thats huge. There's a huge well of "we want a do-over" that can be tapped into.
There is no VP choice that swings any state realistically, so that criteria should be eliminated anyway. Kerry swings voters nationally for all the reasons listed above, which is better and more important anyway.
Kerry is a progressive that faithfully carries on an Obama presidency into 2016/2020. Conservatives not liking him is meaningless, since they're a dwindling number with a deteriorating power base. Voters want a progressive agenda.
Kerry is completely equipped this time to deal with the partisan attack lines of 04. Flip flopper, etc, will gain no traction this time because Obama and Kerry have learned to fight back. Kerry is not the same person he was in 04, like Gore he has learned from his mistakes. I think this is a fight Kerry is eager to have anyway, and it's one he would win.
Adam in NY,
Thanks proving my point. The belligerent thinking of McCain appeals to you. Attack anyone that sort of looks like the people that were involved in 9/11. Hey they are only Muslims. What the hell if I don't know that there are Sunni and Shiite Muslims. You are the epitomy of the soundbite ignorance that by your own statements your readily admit appeal to you. You admitted you want soundbite packaged message. This explains why you are a two time Nush voter, a RepubliCon and a McCain supporter. You experienced 8 years of turning surplus in to deficits, trtashing the economy, and a war fpr profit and you support the guy who has changed his positions to coincide wit hthe same failed policies. The true sign of utter stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
You people take pride in being ignorant! Double down on the failed Bush admin with the transformation to McBush.
OTF,
Well I guess you set me straight. Maybe now if you work on another 100 million people your guy can actually win all 57 states. Hell maybe he can appeal to everyone everywhere by switching positions on capital gains taxes (clearly Obama is an economic know-it-all on that one), offshore drilling, meeting without preconditions with rogue leaders and on and on.
I'll make a deal with you. You're not convincing me and I'm not convincing you. Let's stick to the numbers. This isn't at all productive.
Scott,
Context-free laundry lists of votes that you deem anti-middle class may pass for substance at Yahoo Questions, but that tactic is considered a little lame here.
--------------------------------
Adam,
Obama was a community organizer from 85 to 89', back when the Soviet Union was still intact.
Putin was elected president of Russia in 2000.
Also, the 'present' charge has been so thoroughly debunked, it really doesn't help your case to bring it up. It's a strategy commonly used by both sides in the Illinois senate to prevent bills from being passed. Often, given the rules of the Illinois legislature, a 'present' is a more effective act of opposition than a straight 'nay.'
Finally, everyone has recognized that Putin presents a problem for the West. In case you don't recall, people on both sides ridiculed Bush when he claimed to see into Putin's soul. However, McCain is hardly coming from an indisputable position of strength on Russia. In fact, just today, Dick Lugar was criticizing his proposals as extreme and counterproductive.
You are really becoming incoherent.
Adam,
You really shouldn't bring up offshore drilling. While Obama has said he would not vote against a comprehensive energy bill if it included offshore drilling, McCain went from actually opposing it to actively advocating it.
Ultimately, this flip-flopper crap is just tiresome. All politicians modify and adjust their platforms. This is because they're just trying to achieve consensus as representatives of competing interests, policy doesn't flow out of their ass as revealed truth.
The capital gains tax claim is also a lie, and your claim about 'preconditions' is based on the fallacy of equivocation.
Scott919,
If you want to pretend to be citing votes with numbers give the real vote SR# etc..
I'm not going to waste time searching fror them based on your arbitrary numbers but I know some of the bills and they include RepubliCon trying to stuff tax cuts and other goodies to their base into bills that had nothing to do with it.
Dear ape,
First-off I resent the implication of some that I am a troll going off on a tangent (ape started this conversation based on a small part of a post I made).
Secondly, I don't even know what talk-left is, but I would be happy to provide sources for my claims.
1. Obama has been inconsistent on Iraq (unless specified otherwise, I got this information from ontheissues.org).
First he broadly supported reconstruction, and giving some time to build a democracy. With the primaries approaching he adopted an immediate withdrawal stance (which he had voted against as a senator). Then, further into his presidential campaign he suggested the need for some residual troops. Finally, with the primary over and nobody listening in July, he completed the "refinement" of his withdrawal plan with something like 50,000 residual troops. This was not a reaction to changing conditions either, as it is clear from the Samantha Power interview that this reversal had been planned for a long time.
From the 2004 Senate Race debate
"With respect to Iraq, it's going to be a tougher play. I don't think any of us should be rooting for failure in Iraq at this point. This is no longer Bush's war, this is our war, and we all have a stake in it."
Voted no on Bill S2766 (2006)
"Vote to adopt an amendment that requires the President to withdraw troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007 and states that some forces shall remain in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and protect U.S. personnel and facilities."
2007 AP report on Speech in Iowa
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.
Source:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Sep/12/br/br6275409318.html
Democratic debate (Nevada)
"I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009."
2007 debate at Dartmouth College:
"Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?
A: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out. "
Beginning of residual force discussion (July 8th)
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/08/obama-aide-signals-shift-on-iraq-troop-withdrawal/
Obama's residual forces (July 21)
Estimate of 50,000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001668_pf.html
Samantha Power interview I referred to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/08/hardtalk/pow...
And then there was Obama's decision to "refine" his plan on Iraq:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.html
2. NAFTA
"Clinton and Obama vow to reopen NAFTA"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080227.wprimarydebate27/BNStory/usElection2008/home
And the reversal:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061815
3. The DC gun ban
Obama endorsed an Illinois handgun ban:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_Dems_Philly_Gun_Control.htm
Obama says he supports the gun ban. (Feb 18).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE
Obama endorses the supreme court decision on the DC handgun ban.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-guns-obama-mccainjun27,0,5693711.story
4. The Death Penalty
In 1996 signed a questionnaire indicating he opposed capital punishment:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/10/INU0UTBQK.DTL&type=politics
2006 (From the Audacity of Hope p. 58)
"I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."
(Note that he says rape and murder as a singular act, not separately)
Then the supreme court rules that the death penalty is not permissible for punishing child rape (sans murder). Obama condemns that decision:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/25/obama-condemns-supreme-court-decision-in-child-rape-case/
5. Abortion
In 1997 Obama voted against SB 230 (a bill banning partial birth abortion).
In the 2007 South Carolina debates Obama's answer to a question about partial-birth abortion indicates a pro-choice position:
"Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?
A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances."
And then comes the pander (scroll down for A. his suggestion that he supports a ban, with health exceptions that are extremely rigorous)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/07/obama-revisits.html
6. Offshore drilling
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama
7. The Decriminalization of Marijuana
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/31/obama-flip-flops-on-pot/
8. The Cuba embargo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html
Thirdly, are these major issues?
Well lets see... Iraq obviously is. Offshore drilling has revitalized McCain's campaign. Abortion is always a big issue (and inconsistencies on that issue are especially telling because abortion is fundamentally an issue of what it means to be human - a question Obama has dodged).
So at the end of the day I think it is fair to say that yes, the Democrat dailykos base is NOT getting the president they imagined they were getting in the primaries, and that ultimately THEY DON'T CARE.
(Yes McCain flip-flopped too - this isn't intended as a partisan attack on Obama, this is part of a separate argument that the Democratic base will take its lumps from their candidate, and like it too).
Even I have come around to thinking Hillary might be the politically-savvy choice.
And I basically agree with the analysis that she - while not herself actually racist - allowed/used racial discrimination to advance her candidacy against Obama in a way that permanently damaged Obama's election chances.
Sad, but true.
Adam in NY,
You buy every right wing talking point. I bet you ahve Faux News on 24/7
Offshore drilling:
Obama will except limited drilling if it is necessary to get the votes to pass a comprehensive energy plan. Obama wnats to promote efficiency and high speed rail, public transport, etc like Europe has done for 20 years.
McCain is drill now and the alternative stuff is background for posturing. Conservation is funny to him. Ofcourse he had to back track for instance on the tire pressure thing when the evidence of a simple correct tire pressure saves more than all his desire to drill per /day. We have tried McCain way of ignoring alternatives and all about oil before. The oil companies get 18 billion in subsidies and the alternative energy iniatives are sparcely funded. Ofcourse the alternative energy people don't have a powerful lobby like oil. Since McCain campign is all lobbyist he knows the power of that group.
OTF,
Obama wan't even considering off-shore drilling until the political winds shifted or until he couldn't handle the pressure. And again, just as every other time, when the going got tough Obama decided to change his tune. He even mocked McCain for suggesting that drilling was at all useful.
Obama has no energy plan. The "inflate your tires" thing was just bizarre and stupid. Nothing in the short term from Obama will make gas prices go down. Conservation is not an energy plan.
And you're wrong about McCain and the "alternative stuff". He's been pushing nuclear power for a while. Where is Obama on that? If Obama wants to claim that oil is not worth seeking because it would take too long to be made available or to lower prices than what the hell is he doing touting solar or wind or biofuels only? We need to do it all. That's what McCain has been saying.
And if you knew anything at all about "right wing talking points" you'd know that Limbaugh et (who I happen to disagree with) don't want to anything except drill.
If you think I buy the so-called "Faux News line" then you're sipping the "Barry-flavored kool-aid".
And what´s McCain´s plan?.
Though no one would question Biden's ability to step into the Presidency in a situation that would very likely be a national crisis, he would be horrible on the campaign trail. The man can't keep his mouth shut. He says stupid things (i.e., "You can't go into a 7-11 without hearing an Indian accent!", "Barack Obama is smart, clean, articulate, and black!")
Sebelius is still a serious option. I agree with Harrison above. If Obama picks a boring white guy, McCain is very likely to roll the dice on Palin/Whitman/Fiorina (or Snowe... Hutchinson... plenty of female options out there). Meanwhile, if Obama goes first with Sebelius, McCain is either playing catchup, or looks more "male pale and stale" than ever.
I'm not sure that I'd worry about the PUMAs, either. At least anecdotally, my mother was a moderate Clinton supporter. She was mortified by the antics (Harriet Christian, Larry Sinclair, et al) at the Rules and Bylaws Committee. That day cemented her to supporting Obama. Hillary herself has no control over them. Let 'em run wild... they only serve to embarrass themselves.
Jack Reed (who would pay 32-1) and Hillary (who would pay 11-1) are the best bets on Intrade in terms of risk/reward ratio.
Sebelius would sink Obama by turning off both misogynists and Hillary supporters mad at the notion that women are fungible.
Bayh or Biden or Reed are probably the most sensible picks for Barack. I'd go with Bayh or Reed.
Hillary would create an instant bounce but would provide a second huge target for GOP 527s in addition to Barack himself. Also, Michelle hates her and Bill and believes Hillary would likely have her hubby killed in the White House according to David Gergen on CNN.
Saddleback has given McCain room to now pick Romney and go for the jugular -- without Michigan, Barack cannot win as a practical matter. Romney also helps in NV and NH.
Huckabee supporters will just have to shut up; I mean are they going to vote for a pro-abortion, anti-gun son of a Muslim goatherd for President rather than a Mormon VP?
If you want to pretend to be citing votes with numbers give the real vote SR# etc..
Those ARE the SR numbers. I figured a flaming genius like yourself may have been able to figure that out without me having to actually pur SR in front of each one.
I think he's been singled out unfairly and that people need to do a better job of grading on a curve when it comes to evaluating legislators from Red States.
But most of Obama's supporters don't want to "grade on a curve". If they did, they'd have voted for Hillary Clinton. They want a progressive ticket, they want to stop pandering to conservative voters who ultimately are going to vote for McCain anyway.
Why would they want Obama to pick someone from a Red State?
Just to say once again--PLEASE OH PLEAAAAAAAAAASE pick Hillary, Obama!
I'd LOVE to see the tension resulting from that ticket. It'd be like re-living the days of March and April from the best Democrat Primary EVER all over again.
It is an astonishing indictment of our nation's policy elites that cheerleaders for the Iraq War like Bayh and Powell can be seen as "helpful" or even "serious" on issues of foreign policy.
In a rational world, nobody would ever again take seriously anything either of them said about foreign affairs, let alone suggest that they would be brilliant VP choices for a presidential candidate who would never have even received his party's nomination had he not opposed the war from the start.
Context-free laundry lists of votes that you deem anti-middle class may pass for substance at Yahoo Questions, but that tactic is considered a little lame here.
LMAO. I love how when OTF blathers on about his grand conspiracy theories or an Obama supporter offers an opinion with nothing to support it, the liberals say nothing, but when a McCain supporter does the same he/she is attacked for not providing facts...then when they provide facts they are disregarded out of hand.
I guess a "fact" at this site is anything that supports Obama, and anything else is a baseless opinion.
Adam in NY,
McCain shifted on drilling to appease the base. Kind of like his flip on taxes, immigration, torture, and that the religious right aren't agents of intolerance.
Obama had an energy plan in print when McCain was still coming up with his just released in June. All that planning by McCain came up with Bush part III, drill more and alternative energy postering, despite the fact his record is completely opposed to it. He has voted consistently against alternative energy and efficiency standards. Check the record it's blatant, but now he has flipped to support it.
Btw, McCain says that drilling will bring down prices now. Obama says it won't and doesn't offer lies to the public that it will effect prices immediately. The differnce is clear between repu and Dems. Rep want to only decrease dependence on foreign oil, DEms want to decrease dependence on oil period. Being dependent on oil is fine for Rep as long as it's domestic.
McCain thinks that the oil market will go downn b/c he says they will get oil in 7-10 years. This came right out of his campaign claiming that oil went down starting from the $147 high based on statements by Bush symbolically opening offshore drilling bans. This is fact that McCain quoted this as a cause and effect. The truth is oil went down based on decreased demand and continues to go down weekly based on decreased demand. Please look at the national inventory numbers and the articles in WSJ and the drop in prices for oil the same day. Demand is down for the last 8 months straight, but has propped up by speculation. Just see the deregualtion of energy and energy commodities passed by the Bush admin. that has increased speculators in the market. Decreasing demand by conseravation and effciency is a dirty word to your type, despite the fact that it works. It's alot easier to drive a gas guzzler and just invade Iraq to get oil. Yes, the goal of the Iraq war was accomplished June 2008 wehn Us oil companies got bidding rights to oil fields in Iraq after being kicked out for 25 years by Sadam.
One other *major* reason to Sell on Hillary is fundraising.
If Obama had stuck to public financing, it wouldn't be a big deal. But, he continues to need donors to the end.
Hillary's individual (non-lobbyist, non PAC) donor support proved to be pathetic. If he maintained his strict "no lobbyist and no PAC money" stance, he'd even have to return a great deal of Hillary's general cash, leaving her (i.e., them) further in the hole. There are few untapped Clinton donors left and she's still in deep debt. Obama's anti-war grassroots dollars would dry up FAST.
Adam,
Completely agree that the Dems need to be less condescending.
It's a bit of a dilemma though, as to how to do it. Take Kerry for example. What was he supposed to say to win on the issues?
"Don't vote for Bush, he killed thousands of Americans and more than a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians in a war, for absolutely no good reason whatsoever"?
"Don't vote for Bush, he lowers taxes for people much wealthier than you, while running up a ridiculous deficit"?
"Don't vote for Bush, he tortures innocent people in a completely and categorically disproven belief that torture is an effective method of interrogation"?
"Don't vote for Bush, he authorized illegal spying in direct violation of the 4th amendment"?
etc.
The problem with all of this is it implicitly ALSO says the following:
"You guys are fucking idiots for voting for this guy in the first place"
And that, as you pointed out, doesn't sit well with voters, no matter how good the logic is.
Obama is going through an even worse problem: McCain is not Bush (though he supports many of the same policies, such as the aforementioned tax cuts), so he'll have to wait for the body count to rise in (what I expect to be) the McCain administration to say "hey! I told you so!" which will once again sound condescending, and the whole thing starts all over again.
Oh, and by the way, let me be a condescending liberal here for a moment: off-shore drilling will, optimistically, lower gas prices by a nickel in four years. Obama fell into the liberal trap of going with the facts instead of what people believe, but politicians can't afford to do that.
Clark is being too heavily discounted. With the Russian bear on the rise and Iranian provocation and Israeli response bubbling the pot, he alone among the choices would fit the bill.
Biden is an unpredictable show horse.
Bayh is boring and dull. Perhaps the best thing you can say about him is that he won't upstage Obama and brings the real chance of turning a red state blue.
Given the intrade odd, I'd buy Bayh and Clinton. Bayh is the safe bet and I'd pick up Clinton for her low odds but long legs. She alone can help Obama shake up a race that has been in the doldrums. Help him penetrate the voting blocks that continue to resist him. The unknown is that she may repel as many as she attracts.
$2 E box: Bayh, Clark and Clinton. It's worth a bet.
On a casual read-through of this thread, it looks to me like every single one of our reliable conservative voices has expressed opposition to Hillary as VP pick.
Now, why is that?
Hmmmm.....
Fillistro--
Please don't let it be Hillary. We really don't want that. It would make Obama win in a landslide! Please don't!
Also, please don't throw me into the bramble bush.
All this democrat navel gazing: What are they saying about McCain's pick? I am hoping he picks the youthful former Congressman from Cincinnati, Rob Portman. Portman is a former US Trade rep and Director of the OMB. While associated with the Bush admin he is widely popular and respected for his command of economic facts and geo-global realities. I think he would add gravitas on important non-foreign policy issues while burnishing the ticket’s appeal to values based voters. Did I mention he is from Ohio? The SE corner where all those Appalachians live.
Screw Rob Portman, pick Eric Cantor.
Just putting in another good word for my Congressman and Virginia's favorite son VP pick for the GOP.
I am about to redo my map by a hair and most likely will give NV to McC if I see one more poll in his corner.
I think the western boomlet for Obama has faded and the reliably Repub states will revert to form, MT for instance.
Right now I give CO and NM to BO. I have him winning WI, MN and IA, along with NH. McCain win VA, FL and OH. McCain would need both NV and NH to win or just MI. CO plus NV would do it too. Drilling/fear of high home heating prices could tip MN plus WI, but then you have the makings of a landslide.
My current map gives BO 278 EVs, but sees him wobbling in a few key states.
I am about to redo my map by a hair and most likely will give NV to McC if I see one more poll in his corner.
I think the western boomlet for Obama has faded and the reliably Repub states will revert to form, MT for instance.
Right now I give CO and NM to BO. I have him winning WI, MN and IA, along with NH. McCain win VA, FL and OH. McCain would need both NV and NH to win or just MI. CO plus NV would do it too. Drilling/fear of high home heating prices could tip MN plus WI, but then you have the makings of a landslide.
My current map gives BO 278 EVs, but sees him wobbling in a few key states.
VC: Cantor would wear out his welcome too soon. He sounds like a whiny southern nerd.
On Biden - it may seem trivial, but his 1988 plagiarism flap would be an unwelcome reminder of Obama's own Deval Patrick plagiarism flap in February which fell off the radar pretty quickly. Plus past accusations of resume-padding and personal vanity could play into McCain's characterization of Obama as overly self-interested. Biden's foot-in-mouth disease, rivalled only by Rendell, could give Obama the kind of well-intended distractions Bill Clinton did to Hillary.
PeteKent - I'd wait for another poll out of Nevada. Obama has been hammering McCain on Yucca Mountain, in the Nevada press, pretty hard this week. While it's something I disagree with Obama on as policy, it's politically a very strong pander.
This, of course, gives us Kerry states + Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada. That is 269-269.
Far from unlikely.
We'll see if there's any extra convention bounce, one way or the other, in Colorada.
I disagree entirely with Nate's assessment of Gephardt. With the exception of his current employment (admittedly a pretty big issue on team Obama), he makes more sense than any other prospective choice.
He's not only been vetted, like Biden he's been vetted twice. He passes the "could be President" test with flying colors, being well known to the general public. He has a demonstrated ability to connect with and attract support from white, blue-collar voters, making him particularly valuable in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. He could potentially put Missouri in play. And, he understands protocol and will not outshine the nominee.
All that being said, if I were in the betting markets I'd be buying Kaine - lots and lots of Kaine.
I don't see a lot of appeal in Biden - he's all Washington, and his two campaigns have been pretty sad. Bayh ? How can you have a VP who voted for the war? Seems to undercut everything Obama's been saying about his great judgment. Kaine - Good guy, but he'd pretty much have to guarantee swinging VA for this to be worthwhile. I don't know if he would be able to do that.
How about Tim Wirth - present him as an energy policy guru and a native of the heartland. UN will drive the right wing nuts, but who cares about them?
I still think Mike Bloomberg would be a great great pick, if he was into it. Maybe I'm crazy though. Yeah, I could be crazy.
Forgot to mention that Biden voted for the war as well. Reed did not; Graham did not, among those names being tossed about. Obama's strongest selling point, his distinguishing characteristic, was that he opposed the war from the outset. He has shown the foreign policy 'heft' of the past seven years to be folly. The heavy-hitters have managed to get everything wrong. Even the sainted Colin Powell led us astray. Why choose a VP who contradicts that point?
Clinton is not going to "unite the party." The women who would vote for Obama only if he picks Clinton belongs to an extremely small minority. The reason Obama isn't getting a lot of votes from a lot of Democrats is pure and simple. It's been a difficult conclusion, but it's a fact. Racism. End of story.
What? Nothing about Ann Veneman's chances?
Now I'll be serious. I don't think Hillary will be on the ticker for one simple reason: even a junior Senator has more clout than a Vice President. A VP's powers are, effectively, to chair the Senate & act as the President's surrogate when asked. And whatever duties the President will give to the VP; the situation Cheney & Al Gore found themselves in are unusual. (In past administrations, the VP was effectively treated like the crazy aunt locked in the attic.)
Hillary knows this from experience. She also knows that unless she were to subordinate herself to Obama's own plans, she'd find herself so far out of the loop she'd be asking Bill for the latest news. (Do you think she wants to consider *that* possibility?)
Her best shot would be a cabinet position. And if she's smart, that is what she is angling for.
Geoff
Obama: No Need For Foreign Policy Help From V.P.
"I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html
Obviously, everyone thinks Obama needs a veep with foreign policy gravitas except Obama.
Sell the $#!7 out of Biden, Nunn, Clark, etc. etc.
Buy as much Sebelius, Kaine and Rendell as you can get your hands on.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment