Will there be some kind of a backlash against Barack Obama for his not picking Hillary Rodham Clinton for his ticket? “She won millions of votes. But isn’t on his ticket. Why?” an announcer says in the 30-second spot. The answer? “For speaking the truth.” The ad, which has not yet been released, then ticks off a litany of criticism Clinton used against Obama in the prolonged primary, according to a transcript sent to reporters. “You never hear the specifics,” Clinton says. “On the Rezko scandal,” the voice says. “We still don’t have a lot of answers about Senator Obama,” Clinton says in footage from the primaries. “Senator Obama’s campaign has become increasingly negative,” Clinton says in another scene. The announcer closes by saying “The truth hurt. And Obama didn’t like it.”
Rasmussen has some instant feedback on Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden. As their write-up notes, there appears to be a gender gap in the initial response to his selection. And it's the reverse gender gap than you'll usually see when a Democratic candidate makes news: men like the pick better than women.
What's interesting is that the gender gap is different between the several formulations of the question that Rasmussen employed. There is a big difference in the question of whether Biden was "the right pick" -- apparently seeming to indicate that, for many women, any pick other than Hillary was not going to be the right pick. But there isn't very much difference in favorability scores for Biden, nor upon the prospective impact upon one's vote. So the message that women seem to be sending is that: (1) yeah, we're kind of ticked; but, (2) it's nothing personal against Biden, and (3) we'll probably get over it.
The McCain campaign, however, isn't going to make it any easier on them, having announced a commercial, to debut at literally any moment now (it's 3 AM on the East Coast -- get it?), called "Passed Over":
This ought to be a lot of fun. And frankly, I have no idea what to expect. I could see the ad being very effective. But it also tosses a big softball to Hillary Clinton, who will speak to a national audience on Tuesday. The risk to the Republicans can be summarized in five words: "Shame on You, John McCain". A finger-wagging, how-dare-you moment by either of the Clintons at the convention -- but especially Hillary -- could be both effective and therapeutic, especially when coupled with a reminder that McCain voted against measures like SCHIP (and voted to impeach her husband).
*-*
By the way, this involves some voodoo math, but it appears to me that Barack Obama's overall advantage over John McCain in Rasmussen's one-day sample was 3 points. Rasmussen's numbers had been oscillating between a 1 and 2 point lead for Obama for several days now, so there may be a teensy-tiny bump here, but it's within the margin of error.
8.24.2008
Is There a Clinton Backlash? How About A Backlash Backlash?
@ 2:48 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
225 comments
This sets her up incredibly nicely for the convention. After the Times peice claiming she wasn't doing enough, she now has a national audience and, thanks to this ad, a chance to freely wallop John McCain. Nate any word on the size of the ad buy and whether they will run it during the convention?
http://giantsinyourewhitehouse.blogspot.com/
Clinton's speech should be interesting, I'm excited to see it. Hopefully she'll wholeheartedly endorse the ticket. If not, I foresee some major problems in the coming weeks for Obama-Biden.
So, does this mean John might pick a woman like Carly Fiorina? That would certainly throw a monkey wrench into things.
Here is that commercial "Passed Over":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NrQ36Djf2E
Clinton has an obligation to crush McCain now...
The ad has backfire written all over it. Republicans using a democrat's words to attack a democrat in order to tell democrats what to think? I think a lot of viewers who see it will be offended by the premise. Worse yet, Clinton herself will be speaking this week. Who are the PUMAs going to listen to, the McCain campaign, or Clinton herself?
Ok,I truly appreacite this site and the analyses provided, but the Clinton obsession that's been growing in the recent posts needs to stop. It's feeding a meme, giving breath to a narrative that doesn't amount to jack - and frankly if this continues and McCain continues to run with this as well because of posts like these then yes, there's goin to be a backlash against the backlash.
The vast majority of Americans are suffering from Clinton fatigue and will only look to Obama more as he presses an agenda of change and moving forward.
This Clinton obsession just has to stop. PUMA's, etc won't amount to jack blip influence on election day and everybody knows it. Christ.
I'm glad McCain ran that ad, and I'm glad that the Clintons have a prominent role at the convention. Because now we're going to find out what kind of Democrats they really are. Will they step up to the plate, or not?
I was mightily impressed by Hillary C.'s concession speech in June, but I haven't seen a hell of a lot of her since. I can understand that she might not be able to control some of the so-called PUMAs, but Paul Begala and Susan Estrich? That strains credulity for me.
You'd think that, if Hillary Clinton wanted to stifle those people, she'd have done so by now. As far as I'm concerned, the convention is her last chance, and her husband's last chance. She promised to "work my heart out" for Obama, and now the check has come due. Your party needs you, Bill 'n Hill. Time to stand up and be counted.
That ad serves up a hanging curveball, and it's up to Hillary to give it a big smack into the seats.
If I were the tit for tat sort, I'd use this excuse to make the same exact commercial in reference to Ron Paul?
Why? Because it would give me an excuse to include a portion of the Ron Paul commercial that compared to McCain to the South Carolina beauty pageant contestant.
The McCain campaign is rapidly descending into farce.
The level of "making shit up" in that ad is kind of rediculous. Obama didn't pick hillary because she said some mean things about him? Why not add that Obama sent her some dead flowers to let her know he was picking Biden? Oh and that he makes out with his gay-husband wright every night?
I agree with andrew, I am sure the majority of hesitating Clinton voters do not want to be told what to do by John McCain. The PUMA´s are hopeless cases anyway, or maybe even Republicans just playing a game. Clinton has to attack that ad herself, the advantage for Democrats is too great to not do it.
Btw, I only noticed during the Springfield speech that Biden was a single parent for a while... that plays well, especially with men.
First Biden's own words, now Clinton's?
Is McCain's the single most reactionary, "must-win-the-day" focused campaign in history? They have no plan, they just swing at everything.
The problem is, they swing badly, and end up flailing around like the Star Wars kid with his shower pole.
This has the potential to become a permanent shift. It's almost to the point similar in "The American President" where Michael Douglas destroys Richard Dreyfuss.
I can't understand how any Republican can feel comfortable with the past week.
Senator McCain supporter here agreeing that the ad is a dumb move. Classic overplaying of your hand.
There is a big difference in the question of whether Biden was "the right pick" -- apparently seeming to indicate that, for many women, any pick other than Hillary was not going to be the right pick.
Well, there can only be one "right pick" in any person's mind, right? So it indicates that many women thought that Hillary was "the right pick," but not necessarily that they didn't think Biden was a good pick.
I completely agree with what ainsley wrote: "... the Clinton obsession that's been growing in the recent posts needs to stop. It's feeding a meme, giving breath to a narrative that doesn't amount to jack ...".
Some older voters (some of which are female) legitimately had doubts about Obama because of his newness. Most of them should be reassured now by Biden. And those who are not, and are still thinking of electing a clueless man who is against everything Hillary stands for, are beyond hope anyway.
John McCain just screwed up. First, his ad is set up on the premise that a Clinton told the truth. Now I don't mean that as an attack on the Clintons, but when was the last time the Republicans took a Clinton at their word? I wonder how McCain's base feels about that? Secondly, an outright attack on what people think is a fault line in the Democratic party from a Republican only serves one purpose - to unify the Democratic party. I expect a hard and forceful push back against McCain and the GOP. Essentially in 18 hours John McCain has released two ads using Democrats as sympathetic figures. Is he still a Republican himself?
Also, on PUMA. Let's dispel everything about them and who they really represent right here, right now.
1) The whole PUMA movement oddly mirrors Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos push from the spring. It's doubtful this is a coincidence. PUMA is Operation Chaos + four months of rebranding.
2) Even if it is a coincidence, PUMA has made it clear that they don't give a damn what the Democrats say or even what Hillary Clinton says. Their interest in public messaging has been to advocate voting for John McCain and destroy the Democratic party. They are not Democrats.
3) If they were Democrats, and if they were truly loyal to Hillary they would listen to her. If they won't listen to her advice to come together, then least they would try to help pay off the debt of the person they are supposed to be championing. They say they number between 2-2.5 million. And yet, Hillary still has $13+ million in campaign debt. Couldn't they come up with, on average, $5-$7 each to help their "idol"? You would think so. But they haven't - because they aren't really Clinton supporters.
Don't believe their whining or listen to their noise. They are outsiders pretending to be something they are not.
It's pretty funny that McCain thinks he can influence what DEMOCRATS think!
Nice try McSenile, but that's not going to work!
McCain's "empty suit" attack ads at least had a point. They were supposed to shore up his base and they did.
Then he started running his "Original Maverick" ad. That was also good. It was a total tissue of lies, since he hasn't been a "Maverick" since 2003, but so what? Just like Goebbels, Republicans are masters of endlessly repeated lies.
That appeals to Independents.
I thought he'd continue along these lines right through November.
But, trying to use Hillary to attack Obama is pointless. The only people who will credit it are likely McCain supporters anyway. And for them Hillary is not the best messenger.
McCain's "McHillary" outreach makes little more sense that "Obamicans." There just aren't that many of either.
Does he think he's got some soft-core supporters among Independents this will reach?
Because Democrats aren't going to be impressed and it DOES give Hillary an even bigger platform at the convention.
You can't praise Hillary for "telling the truth" in one breath and then attack her as "just partisan" in the next when she praises Obama and attacks McCain at the convention.
I think Obama's attack ads have gotten to McCain and the recent "Houses scandal" has knocked him off-message.
The more this campaign gets nasty, the worse it's going to get for McTemper.
His campaign seems frustrated right now and lashing out in all directions instead of staying with what works.
latest WaPo poll shows 70% of Hillary voters backing O'Biden and 20% for McCain...overall poll shows Obama up 6%, which I am sure will be plastered all over the front page of the Drudge report...
McCain's ads have been solidly better than Obama's for months and he should have stuck with that strategy.
This Hillary based ad will backfire and I'm surprised the McCain campaign was dumb enough to run it. I thought they were cagier than that but apparently not.
Don't they know that Hillary is going to have an extremely prominent speech this week where she can crush them with this and come off as a Democratic Super Hero?
This is downright amateur from a campaign that had been really knocking things out of the park, ad-wise.
Sorry folks, but the McCain ad will resonate mightily with the Hillary holdouts, of whom I know several personaly.
What the posters on this blog don't seem to get is that these are not your basic everyday Hillary primary voters who got over it and are now planning to vote for Obama.
These are HOLDOUTS. Holdouts have always been a different breed - think of that Japanese soldier who was captured on Guam 35 years after the end of WWII, a war he was convinced was still very much in progress. And the Hillary holdouts are still dead set against rewarding Obama for having derailed their gal's bid.
There are some interesting numbers in that new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_082308.html
I think the statistic that Nate will use in his model is the net leaned vote of registered voters with Barr and Nader included:
Obama 47
McCain 40
The "undecided" group of this election supposedly included both evangelicals and Hillary liberals.
Obama sort of fell into a trap at Saddleback by trying to hard to get the evangelicals. He doesn't agree with them on anything and his hesitation in saying that directly might have turned off true independents.
McCain appears to be falling into the same trap.
Women for whom sexism is a big deal are going to vote for 100% prolife candidate that "jokes" about his wife performing in a topless beauty contest for drunk and rowdy bikers.
Yeah right!!
He is just asking for a smackdown.
McCain has a shot at Hillary voters, but this is just petty pandering. He needs to realize that the Hillary voters that might actually switch (white working class) are not all that loyal to Hillary. They just thought she addressed their concerns better than Obama did in the primaries. If McCain can address their concerns better in the general, he will win them.
If he honestly thinks their greatest concern is the personal feelings of Hillary Clinton, he is out of his mind.
For contrast, RCP will probably use the worst statistic for Obama, the net leaned vote of likely voters and excluding Barr and Nader:
Obama 49
McCain 45
"First, his ad is set up on the premise that a Clinton told the truth."
I think this is exactly right, and what's wrong with all of the ads that have Democrats praising McCain and raising doubts about Obama: It gives credence to their words, which is a huge problem when they now back Obama and say McCain equals Bush.
McCain is really done for. My guess is after the convention Obama will be up about 10 points and the gop convention is so close there won`t be enough time fot the bounce to dissipate.
No matter how many polls you look at McCain never gets over 45% so on election day he would have to get about 75% of the undecided, not likely.
There is way too much confidence on this board about McCain's lack of prospects. History is definitely on our opponent's side as it has been nearly 75 years since our party has won a Presidential contest without having at least one Southerner on the ticket. That and Biden's and Obama's "foot-in-mouth" disease and it will be far closer than anyone realizes.
I don't see Clinton putting a "smack-down" on McCain but being somewhat guarded in her praise of Obama on Tuesday night. Obama went out of his way to tick her off in the last 72 hours (she wasn't even vetted, the 3AM text message) so I wouldn't expect such a magnanimous gesture on her part two days from now. If Obama loses in 2008, she will surely win in 2012.
I can see late-breakers going to McCain for two reasons: age and Obama's resume. Since McCain is so old to begin with, he is only going to serve one term. Contrast that with Obama's extremely thin resume, some voters will elect to 'punt', led the old guy run it for four years and, after than time, pick either Obama and Clinton in 2012 when the former has gained some knowledge and the latter has gained some campaign experience.
John McCain is so reactionary he voted against funding early detection of breast cancer programs.
Any woman who would vote for him is casting a vote against themselves or their own daughter.
Tito is spot on. "PUMS's" are Reps trying to sabatoge.
@Joel -
I think this run up to the convention is being handled very well, and that McCain's response to the VP pick has been very poor, but there's no way that Obama goes up 10 points.
In the aftermath of the conventions, McCain will probably be down a few points. Then he'll start running negative ads and eroding Obama's lead in the run up to November.
Whether Obama wins or not depends primarily on his ability to successfully counter this proven negative ad based strategy.
The conventions are a time out that Obama needs to regroup and will give him a bump that he will need to hold on to and grow... But we can also write them off as simple "blips".
The is the story of the tortoise and the hare, writ large. For Obama to beat McCain's slow and steady negative ad based strategy, he'll need an endurance strategy of his own.
biden is a wanker.
McCain did not vote to impeach Clinton; he voted to CONVICT Clinton.
</constitutional pedant>
john,
I think McCain will lose, but excluding Barr and Nader probably gives the most accurate figures. Third party support is almost always overstated. There is some proportion of the population that knows so little about the election that they might answer Barr or Nader.
Polls in 2000 had Nader as high as 8%. Summer polls in 1992 had Perot leading Bush and Clinton. Barr's fundraising is just as lackluster as Badnarik's was, and paces way behind Harry Browne's (Browne raised a few million - Barr managed to fail to meet his 200,000 dollars in August goal just today).
Others have suggested some different, but stupid notions. First-off, somebody said this would backfire because McCain is using a Democrats words to say it in the ad.
Using primary attacks on a candidate is an old-time tradition, that works. Here is a Johnson ad attacking Goldwater with quotes from Rockefeller, Scranton and Romney:
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/election/index.php?nav_action=election&nav_subaction=overview&campaign_id=168
A criticism of somebody from a person you would expect to be supportive is always more effective. You know Linsey Graham is going to say Obama's energy plan sucks. But if say, Al Gore said that, well that would be effective.
Secondly, there is this notion that Hillary outreach is pointless. For one, you don't need to win over all of Clinton's supporters - in a close election just say, 500,000 of them will do. Moreover, Clinton consistently did well among moderate voters, and voters indicating experience was more important than change. Biden appeases the latter, but not the former.
Indeed a lot of people have blinders on with regard to how primaries can radicalize opinions. Just look at the kinds of anti-Clinton attacks made by Obama kool aid drinkers in Internet forums. These are people who, likely supported Bill 8 years before. Those kinds of blinders don't always turn off. Indeed, I've seen a lot of anti-Clinton bile continue to spew from Obama folks (similarly many Republicans suddenly like Clinton).
I think what I am mostly seeing here are folks expressing that they dislike the ads, not actual reasons as to why they are ineffective.
If Obama loses in 2008, she will surely win in 2012.
Many of Obama's supporters started off as AnybodyButClinton. In fact, while Obama was my first choice from the beginning, ABC was far-and-away number 2. The events of 2008 will only harden the convictions of ABC. If she plays the rest of 2008 as she has thus far--setting up her 2012 entitlement run--she will have very little chance in 2012.
john,
I think the notion that Clintonites will never vote for McCain because of his impeachment vote misses the diversity of the Clinton camp.
The following groups (which overlap) were predominantly for Clinton
1. People that just plain like Hillary
2. Experience voters
3. Women
4. Working class voters
5. Asians and hispanics
6. Old people
7. Moderates
The impeachment thing is likely to be important to group 1, but not any of the others. And indeed, group 1 may back McCain strategically out of bitterness and to set up for Clinton '12 (there aren't a lot of people in that camp though).
McCain's conservatism may turn off some of group 3 as well. However, the rest are up for grabs (group 5 has been pretty loyal to Obama though).
Anyhow, you are talking about 18 million people - McCain only needs 500,000 or so to win - can McCain convince 1/36 more Clinton voters to back him?
New Polls are out:
From MASON-DIXON:
WY: McCAIN 62, OBAMA 25
UT: McCAIN 62, OBAMA 23
NM: McCAIN 45, OBAMA 41 (strange, yes?)
NV: McCAIN 46, OBAMA 39
CO: OBAMA 46, McCAIN 43
AZ: McCAIN 47, OBAMA 41
From Quinnipiac,
CO: McCAIN 47, OBAMA 46
I don't see Clinton putting a "smack-down" on McCain but being somewhat guarded in her praise of Obama on Tuesday night. Obama went out of his way to tick her off in the last 72 hours (she wasn't even vetted, the 3AM text message) so I wouldn't expect such a magnanimous gesture on her part two days from now.
We'll find out soon enough, but I think you really overestimate the extent to which her personal feelings are calling the shots and really underestimate the extent to which she is committed to the Democratic cause.
I would be very surprised if she isn't very aggressive in both praising Obama and condemning McCain.
I also have something to say about the whole vetting issue.
According to sources, Clinton said she didn't want to be vetted unless they thought they were going to take her. This makes complete and total sense to me. Vetting is an enormous pain in the ass. Its expensive. Its time consuming.
Also, you're turning over all of your deepest secrets to a group of political consultants not associated with your campaign. Hillary probably thought that if she does run in 2012 or 2016, it wasn't worth giving blueprints as to how to beat her to politicos that might be working on another campaign.
I can understand why somebody like Bayh or Kaine would say "I'm not that well known, I'll take the risk". But seriously, you can understand why Hillary would say "You can vet me if you want me, but please don't do it unless you're serious about picking me". So they spared her the pretense.
The "wasn't even vetted" thing is the same as "wasn't picked".
I'm sure there are some hurt feelings because she probably would have liked the job but Hillary is a professional. It comes with the territory.
For you to imply that it will affect her speech or actions implies that you really don't respect her at all.
You think that a little bit of jealousy is more important to her than health care or appointing progressives to the supreme court???
You don't know Hillary Clinton!!
The real telling stat in the crosstabs is the "Age" issue. There is a real trap here for McCain.
44% Said they were uncomfortable with McCain's age.
Any missteps now that people are paying attention will be magnified and need to be pounced on by surrogates.
The visuals of the debates will only drive this home....
NJ_Moderate,
Perhaps you are confusing your feelings with those of the average American, most of whom AREN'T pissed at Obama. Suggesting that Clinton is going to be lukewarm in her endorsement on Tuesday is just silly. Many of her supporters might still be caught up in their emotional attachment to the idea of a Clinton presidency, but Hillary herself is a professional politician, and a damn good one at that. Pros at that level generally don't let their personal grudges get in the way of their careers, and Clinton's prospects for subsequent success in the party depend on how heartily she endorses Obama. (Plus, I think you assume way too little contact between Obama and Clinton -- it obviously wasn't news to her that Obama hadn't asked for documents to vet her, but it also isn't clear that she wanted the VP slot. She almost implied that she didn't in an interview the other day.)
Furthermore, there is little doubt that Clinton actually believes in most of her policy positions, which are nearly identical to Obama's and almost diametrically opposed to McCain's. Those who argue that she wants Obama to lose are in dreamland, I think. Part of her wishes that she could run in 2012, I'm sure, but having a president who actually supports the values you believe in is undoubtedly more important. She could emerge as a powerful force in the Senate, and when combined with a Democratic House and President, they could fundamentally change the direction that this country is going in. One has to be incredibly cynical to believe that Clinton simply doesn't care about that. No, Clinton's speech on Tuesday with be rousing, touching, and unifying. She is professional and she'll do what she has to do for herself, her party, and her country.
As for late breakers, I believe that you have fundamentally mis-read this election. It is most similar to 1980, when people didn't like the direction that the country was going in, but they weren't sure whether they were ready to trust this Reagan guy. Reagan's job was to reassure the country that he wasn't scary -- once he did that the race went from tied to a landslide win. There is all sorts of evidence pointing to the possibility of a similar scenario this year, but people on this site tend to get so wrapped up in the micro-level changes that they often forget about the fundamentals underlying the race.
I guess if you think that Obama and Biden are incompetent and will make repeated gaffes between now and November, which you seem to, then I can see how you expect late breakers to go with McCain. I don't see that happening, and it hasn't happened yet.
Here is the other reason she didn't want to be vetted - she didn't want Obama to know all the dirt on her.
Beth, I don't think it is a matter of jealousy. I think she honestly believes that Obama is not up to the task of being president (I am certain Bill does).
Here is what I would do, were I Hillary Clinton. I would write a speech that was tough on Obama's flip-flops, and a broadly progressive agenda. She needn't even mention Obama's flip-flops, she just needs to call for stuff like a tough line on FISA or fully universal healthcare. She can try to use her speech to influence the policy aspect of the convention.
This works to her advantage in a number of ways. First, she can essentially criticize Obama, without criticizing him. Second, she can try to force a more left-wing (and unelectable) platform on Obama in '08. It allows her to get some of the things she wants (like universal healthcare) done if Obama wins... and finally, it makes a case to progressives that they backed the wrong horse.
Nate's observation about the voodoo math he used to discern a 3 pt bump for Obama in the Friday night numbers is probably real. It is no doubt the advantage Obama got from the "how many houses flap". The question is how transitory that is. Conversely Gallup was stable over the period and Biden and the pick thing kinda stepped on the story. The left wing media is working overtime to keep it alive, so we will see if the out of touch, senile rich guy meme winds up taking hold. Jury still out.
I love this site b/c it always focuses us on the latest in polling. Here we have Nate’s analysis of the Rasmussen poll on the Biden pick. In Hollywood terms the opening day does not seem to me to be breaking blockbuster records. This ain’t no Gerry Ferraro, Kids!
Big surprise: men like Biden more than women, and Dems more than Repubs. His favorability numbers are ho-hum and the perception is that he is left of center.
The worst of it came here: “Among unaffiliated voters, 25% are more likely to vote for Obama while 33% had the opposite view.”
It seems the Biden choice, at least of this writing, laid an egg.
Now we move full bore into the convention and Biden will get lost in the shuffle.
First it of tape on Stephanapolus Show this morning:
Obama (introducing Biden): "The next President . . . of the United States . . . "
These are HOLDOUTS. Holdouts have always been a different breed - think of that Japanese soldier who was captured on Guam 35 years after the end of WWII, a war he was convinced was still very much in progress. And the Hillary holdouts are still dead set against rewarding Obama for having derailed their gal's bid.
Sadly, nobody believes you that is posting right now. But you are exactly right and this ad might just reach out to some of those "holdouts" before Hilldog speaks at the convention.
I wonder what independents will think of this, as i know some that were hoping for Clinton to seal their votes to Obama.
"Here is what I would do, were I Hillary Clinton. I would write a speech that was tough on Obama's flip-flops, and a broadly progressive agenda."
...which is why you aren't a national-level politician. That approach would be political suicide. You write some very smart posts, but in my opinion this was not one of them. It's one thing to believe that you would be a better president than your primary opponent, it's another one to attack him during a speech at the convention. It's not going to happen. If it did, Clinton's future in the Democratic party would be over. Clinton's comments have been unrelentingly pro-Obama this week. There is no evidence to suggest that this will change.
I think Nate is Wright: The Reps should hold the Hillary ad until after she speaks. It will be much more powerful after the demonstrations and after Mrs. Clinton speaks. it will look like she was forced by the Stalinists in the Party to toe the party line.
Nate -- quit BB -- and get into Politics. it's time to grow up, son!
LOL
Who are the PUMAs going to listen to, the McCain campaign, or Clinton herself?
Look what they've already been willing to ally themselves with?
It isn't even about Hillary Clinton anymore.
Many of Obama's supporters started off as AnybodyButClinton. In fact, while Obama was my first choice from the beginning, ABC was far-and-away number 2. The events of 2008 will only harden the convictions of ABC. If she plays the rest of 2008 as she has thus far--setting up her 2012 entitlement run--she will have very little chance in 2012.
She won't even get the nomination in 2012.
The left wing media is working overtime to keep it alive, so we will see if the out of touch, senile rich guy meme winds up taking hold. Jury still out.
Remember "I voted for it before I voted against it" or "I took the initiative in creating the internet"?
You heard those about 1/1000 of the time you are going to hear the house line.
It might not have had the staying power if the McCain camp hadn't already tried to paint Obama as an arugula eating elitist. But hey how many of the 10 houses are glass?
That line screwed McCain in many ways.
Seriously, I know some rich people. A lot of my friends have vacation houses. Some have more than one vacation house. Nobody I know has so many houses that they have lost track.
If McCain was trying to appear senile and elitist at the same time, he couldn't have picked a better way.
Adam in NY,
Those are some crazy polls from a pretty reliable pollster. The McCain leads are huge in WY and UT but probably believable -- they are irrelevant in any event. The two polls in CO make a lot of sense, since it seems that the race is either tied or a very tiny edge for Obama (down from a small edge a couple of months ago). If you average Obama +3 and McCain +1 you get what I expect the state is at, which is Obama +1.
The 4 point lead for McCain in NM is quite surprising. It is very much out of line with other polls in the state, which makes me wonder when it was conducted. Was it part of a shift towards McCain that we saw in the two weeks prior to last week?
The really bizarre results, though, are McCain with a 7 point lead in NV and only a 6 point lead in AZ. Neither result seems to back up what we have seen previously. Does anyone here really believe that McCain is doing better in NV, which almost everybody has listed as a toss-up, than his home state? I'm not going to completely dismiss these numbers, but they are very strange. Of course, since we are now in the middle of the VP picks and the conventions, I suspect that we had better get used to funky polling results. I expect subsequent polls (next two weeks) to be highly date-sensitive.
Putting these two ads together, it's going to be pretty interesting if McCain picks Romney, who made some pretty unflattering comments of McCain during the GOP primaries. Expect the Dems to boomerang this one right back in McCain's face if that's the route he goes with his pick.
Rasmussen: Obama 46% - McCain 43%
When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 48% and McCain 45%
Before, or after BIDEN?
I think that ad is effective. I'd love smack whoever that woman is with the iriitatingly condescending voice. And yes, it is down to Hillary telling her supporters to get a grip. Their constitutional right to privacy is at stake.
I reckon it would be a masterstroke for Obama to float Hillary as a possible Secretary of State. Personally, I'd like to see her get the job. It's far better than VP. She can also hook up with Bill at the U.N. and overseas.
All this obsession about the number of houses McCain owns and whether or not he remembers is an embarassingly trivial line of attack, IMO. Number one, Cindy McCain is the owner, since John has been prenupped out of her big bucks. The McCains don't personally live in and divide their time among all the houses. Some are owned by her business interests and some are occupied by other family members. People with that amount of money have complex holdings and it's not like they're managing it all themselves in Quicken or something. So it's no surprise that McCain wouldn't have the answer on the tip of his tongue. Grow up, fellow Democrats. Haven't you anything of substance to say against McCain or for yourselves?
*****A
Adam in NY said...
New Polls are out:
From MASON-DIXON:
WY: McCAIN 62, OBAMA 25
UT: McCAIN 62, OBAMA 23
NM: McCAIN 45, OBAMA 41 (strange, yes?)
NV: McCAIN 46, OBAMA 39
CO: OBAMA 46, McCAIN 43
AZ: McCAIN 47, OBAMA 41
From Quinnipiac,
CO: McCAIN 47, OBAMA 46
Thanks for this info. Yeah, NM is a little strange. At first I was disappointed to see NV giving McSame a 7 point lead. Then I see that McSame's home state of AZ gives him a SMALLER 6 point lead. Hey, I'll trade NV's 5 electoral votes for AZ's 10 EVs any day, but especially on election day!
I reckon it would be a masterstroke for Obama to float Hillary as a possible Secretary of State. Personally, I'd like to see her get the job. It's far better than VP. She can also hook up with Bill at the U.N. and overseas.
That could be a good idea. In the early years of this country, the SoS office was a stepping stone to the Presidency. If Biden has no higher ambitions, like Cheney, the SoS office mioght be desireable to her. Obama many be concerned about the Clinton circus of the 90s simply moving from the White House to the Staste Department.
I'm genuinely curious, how insane are the people from Wyoming and Utah?
Sure, it's deep red conservative state. But still, what are the people like? The only movie I remember which featured Wyoming was BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Go figure.
None of those MASON-DIXON polls make any sense, regardless of whether O or McCoot is in the lead.
All this obsession about the number of houses McCain owns and whether or not he remembers is an embarassingly trivial line of attack, IMO. Number one, Cindy McCain is the owner, since John has been prenupped out of her big bucks. The McCains don't personally live in and divide their time among all the houses. Some are owned by her business interests and some are occupied by other family members. People with that amount of money have complex holdings and it's not like they're managing it all themselves in Quicken or something. So it's no surprise that McCain wouldn't have the answer on the tip of his tongue. Grow up, fellow Democrats. Haven't you anything of substance to say against McCain or for yourselves?
*****A
By all means, encourage McCain to put out an ad clarifying the matter just the way you described. Be sure to use terms like "business interests" and "complex holdings"...the rank and file public will eat that up.
>> For contrast, RCP will probably use the worst statistic for Obama, the net leaned vote of likely voters and excluding Barr and Nader:
Obama 49
McCain 45
The LV numbers make the most sense. It's not a 6-point race. In a 6-point race, the state polls wouldn't show a tossup. That LV number on the ABC/WashPost Poll is reasonable. Obama is about 2-3 points ahead nationally when you look at all the polls. Obama right now is about where Geroge Bush was on Election Day in 2004. It's close - and small things will cause important shifts back and forth over the next couple of months.
Here's the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NrQ36Djf2E
So basically now McCain has to either pick Romney or come off as a total hypocrite?
Just to reiterate, it doesn't matter a bit how many houses McCain has (or thinks he has.)
The gaffe matters most because it destroys the major line of attack his campaign had planned to use aganst Obama and they are now reduced to full scramble-and-panic mode. That's why Dems need to keep hammering on it. When you opposition is on their heels... you press forward.
More bad news... I'd say Mccain has now officially lost his major defense.
OUCH!
Let me see if I have this straight: Yesterday, McCain attacks Obama by highlighting Biden's criticisms of Obama during the primaries. Today, McCain attacks Obama for lacking the courage to choose a running mate who has been critical of him in the past.
I shouldn't be surprised. We already knew consistency isn't McCain's strong suit.
Hey, at least the ad finally gives some national exposure to females in the scary announcer voice business.
McCain's Hillary ad was just to exploit divisions among Democrats. One of the joys that the McCain camp surely has in this election is that you hardly need to worry about consistency when you are running against Barack Obama.
Who are the PUMAs going to listen to, the McCain campaign, or Clinton herself?
You know what would make great television? Hillary Clinton marching off the podium, through the crowd, out into the street and right up nose to nose to Darragh Murphy, and telling her to knock that sh*t off.
Nancy Pelosi just said on Meet the Press that the catholic Church is not sure when life begins.
Hello, Mrs. Pelosi, the Church is clear: it begins ar conception!
She is a dolt, that woman!
Really an embarassment.
Sedi said -
"It is most similar to 1980, when people didn't like the direction that the country was going in, but they weren't sure whether they were ready to trust this Reagan
guy"
Sedi I would have to respecfully disagree. This is the king Kool-Aid statement by all Obama supporters. The differences between Reagan and Obama are huge. First, Reagan had been the gov of CA and a popular one at that. Reagan was a known entity on the Republican side; he had attempted to win the primary in 1976 and he had a hugely unified party behind him. Barack Obama has come out of left field and his name alone is a huge liability. Do not underestimate the liability of both his AA status and crazy name. You may not like this fact, but he represents a huge paradigm shift for your avg voter. Another issue is the fact that no incumbant is running this year. If this was Bush's third term effort then yes, 1980 could have more relevance. Despite Obama's efforts McCain is not Bush and the electorate knows it. It is clear to me that this is not 1980, and this race is going to be very close.
Toe fillstro:
The Houses thing does not take away the elitist/Obama is other arrow out of the Rep quiver. Wealth does not equal eltitism. Even not knowing how rich you are does not show it, it shows to a degree a lack of concern with the material.
Obama has been molded into a remote, eltisit who cannot talk to the people except when aided by a teleprompter and takes on the Black diction of the pulpit, dropping his "gs" and tryin' sound like one of YOU.
Very theatrical and it feeds ito the whole celebrity theme.
Slight uptick with leaners for Obama with Rasmussen. the beginning of the bounce. We'll know better how much Biden has helped by the polling that comes out on Tuesday.
Chuck Todd on Meet the Press: Obama needs Hillary Clintion to see him to her voters.
Then why did he pick Biden?
More proof that "houses" + Biden has knocked the Repubs totally off their game.
First, it's addled their message. Witness this new Hillary ad, which is going to backfire bigtime. Not smart, not smart. It's also totally screwed up their VP pick process. Behold what they're reduced to:
Panic everywhere.
The Middle Class [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Without much substance, David Axelrod was effective on ABC this morning talking about the middle class. Rich Lowry is right, if McCain doesn't start resonating there, he's going to have a very hard time winning. As lame as it is, if that kitchen-table joke Biden made yesterday is any indication, that's going to remain a theme, and people may eat it up.
A scary thought this Sunday morning: We're being distracted by Romney (who would be the choice if he wasn't the richest guy in the race many of his opponents — including McCain — had an inexplicable bitterness toward for being rich ... Romney is outside McCain's comfort zone), Pawlenty (who would be the choice if we knew he could hold his own against Biden; we don't), and Lieberman (who would be the case if McCain has an I-can-do-anything messiah complex we say Obama has). The real veep pick is Huckabee, who frequently sounds good and looks like a middle-class guy.
08/24 10:34 AM
Got that? Huckabee! I rest my case.
Terrible set of polls for Obama on the state level. Esp NV and CO. Imagine if NM was really in play.
CO is most interesting. All the Convention hoopla doesn't seem to be helping. And the water flap you all were exutling over seems not to have moved a thing.
Biden is a quintisential Easterner and Obama might as well be one as the product of the Daley-Chicago machine. The ticket has not helped itself with this choice out West.
That said, it probably could not have helped himself anyway unless he picked the Oaf from MT or the Judas from NM, but that would have created a whole other set of problems.
Sorry, Pete, it's all over between us.
I just found out you've not only been scattering your seed in Other Blogs... you're telling them the very same words you whisper in OUR ears!
You're like the guy who gives the very same Christmas gift to his wife and all three of his girlfriends.
It's tacky, Pete. Tacky!
Absolutely, Overrated. I knew Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama is no RR! Reagan was ready to lead on day one. Obama is ready to carry Joe Biden's bag!
Imagine if the ticket were flipped. How fresh and exciting to see a post-racial, intelligent African American being groomed for the Presidency by an elder statesman of his Party.
Obama could have been the bridge of a Biden administration to a whole new set of voters and in eight years could have built an incredible coalition.
Now the whole thing seems to be crumbling.
Obama is flaming out. He did not have the power to reach to the stars and has overshot his trajectory.
Obama's overshot trajectory. Come November 5 that will be the story of this election.
Please, Filistro! We never had anything going. I prefer my women to saheve their legs and under their arms! Just joking -- I bet you are a hot cougar! if not a fox!
As far as cross-posting, why should I confine my wisdom here? No reason not to spread the word in as many fora as I can.
It's called grassroots activism.
It ain't just for Democrats any more!
This election will come down too whether Obama can convince voters he's not an elitist, and he's looking out for them. Thus far he has failed miserably. The housing argument against McCain helps. Picking Joe Biden helps. Obama's policies help. But Barack Obama has to make that connection. Thus far he has not.
Obama talks about working class voters and their problems, but he doesn't talk too working class voters about their problems. All the high falooting language in the world about change won't matter a row of beans unless Obama can make that connection. I have not yet seen it.
Obama gets one more chance with the nation watching, at the convention, to talk about middle class and working class values. It's not enough to talk about your policies and why they are better than the other guy, you have to prove you understand their problems and know how to help. Obama talks about their pain, but seems incapable of feeling their pain. Sure he grew up at in a working class home, but he looks, sounds, and acts like an elitist. He will lose if this remains the case.
As far as cross-posting, why should I confine my wisdom here? No reason not to spread the word in as many fora as I can.
Spread the wealth! Increase the reach of ME!
Ah yes, the cry of tomcats everywhere.
(Hint: it only works if you're a POW :-)
RCP no includes the Zogby Interactive and Maxon Dixon polls.
It´s obvious, there´re ridiculous.
McCain was asked why he couldn't remember how many homes he owned and he answered "There was a time I never had a home." Come on. Even republicans have to admit the constant referring to his POW days is getting lame. Next he'll claim he flip flopped on so many issues because of his time in Vietnam.
RCP includes the Quinnipiac poll in Colorado but no the Maxon-Dixon poll.
filistro--your post on crossposting to Petekent---Priceless.
and thanks for posting the K-Lo musings. Anyone here think Huckabee has a chance?
Do you think that Zogby Interactive polls are credible?.
speaking fro myself Dario I don't think those are credible. They should be taken with a huge huge grain of salt since they are internet polls (as I understand)
Quinnipiac CO poll is interesting when you get into the sub questions and shows a patter. While the race appears close on the horserace, the internals suggest an advantage for McCain.
Check this out: “This latest survey might have more good news for McCain than might appear at first glance. Despite the closeness of the horse race numbers, he is viewed favorably 53 - 34 percent compared to Obama's 48 - 39 percent. "
There is latent support for McCain in Co and you see this in other states where McCain outperforms his horserace number and vaults over Obama in terms of favorability.
What does this tell us?
If you like him better why not tell the pollster you would vote for him?
If there are reservations what are they?
Unfortunately, Quin did not ask the leadership/commander in chief questions, instead concentrating on issues.
Obama does pretty good on energy (surprise?) and on handling a domestic crisis like Katrina (not so surprising, although McCain has used Katrina a lot to criticize Bush). He barely outpolls McCain on the economy -- within the margin of error -- and that is a surprise.
McCain's strengths are on terrorism and international crises and here his leads are huge.
It remains to be seen how rounding out the tickets and the reaction to the convention affects all this, but going into the weekend, you cannot deny that Obama enters this period weakened and on the decline.
"Obama gets one more chance with the nation watching, at the convention, to talk about middle class and working class values."
Actually, he gets four. The convention is the one that he will be best able to control, but the three debates will also allow him the opportunity to connect with working class voters. That said, I do expect him to try to do this at the convention.
To many McCainPoints(tm) spammers here.
I think Matt JH is the only pro-Obama poster here who is willing to see things in an honest fashion. So much so, I sometimes think he is a McCain favoring concern troll in disguise.
It took McCain 2 months to wipe out an Obama 5 point lead, and it will probably take Obama the rest of this election to undue the damage he's caused himself by being MIA through June, July and half August.
Obama is just starting to fight back but has seeded so much ground he has lost all momentum and has fallen behind. He has looked weak, his campaign has looked unorganized and incompetent at times. I would venture that if the election were held right now, McCain would win.
Lat: I used to think Huck should be the guy b/c he could bring the Evangelicals home and has such an excellent disarming manner and a way of cutting up his opponents with a smile that he would make the ideal hatchet man.
Now with the house thing threatening Romney as the top Veep pick, I think Huck's star is rising, but . . .
McCain did himself wonders with Evangelicals last Saturday at Saddleback and Obama did himself incalculable damage with that group with the "not my pay grade" comment.
Huck remains anathema to the fiscal conservatives and those folks are an important part of the base.
You all know me: I like Rob Portman!
To repeat myself (which you all know I love to do) . . . .
I continue to come back to Rob Portman, the telegenic family man from Cincinnati whose quiet authority and laser like intelligence will assure that he will hold his own in any conversation. His coming from Ohio will help and draw the contrast with Biden as the Eastern pick. His stones in the budget and trade and economic matters generally will stand him in good stead.
That Portman is a former official of the Bush Administration is his only problem. But I wonder how much this guilt by association goes. Portman survived his stint in Washington with his reputation enhanced. He is likely to get a media honeymoon. His personal likeability assures that. In truth the Republicans do not lack for attack dogs against Barack Obama. Besides he is better attacked abstractly through the media rather than directly, personally.
McCain has the chance to go for a game changer and a dark horse who the media will be forced to cover and discover, it should be good for substantial coverage right through and passed the convention.
McCain-Portman ’08!
I am pretty pumped up this morning and I am only on my second cup opf coffee.
I slept on the Biden pick last night and have concluded it sucked!
What do you all think?
LAT... I think you and I share similar views on many things :-)
Re: Huckabee... When you muse along with K-Lo for a moment on their actual VP choice, you see what an impossible dog's breakfast they are confronted with now that we've had both "houses" and Biden.
It's a measure of their disarray that they even contemplate running a Clinton ad against Obama. Oh, what folly.
More musings... Isn't it odd how campaigns work? When one side gains the upper hand, they look like conquering heroes. They bestraddle the globe; they can do no wrong. Then something comes out of nowhere and knocks them off their perch and they scrabble aorund, panicky and helpless. And it can reverse so dramatically in a matter of days... even hours.
That's why I love politics as a spectator sport but I could never get personally involved. I just don't have the nerves for it.
Pete Kent- I have concluded it doesn't suck!
pete thanks for your answer re Huckabee. I had forgotten that he is not liked by certain parts of the base--because of his economic plans and well he is also friendly (sort of) towards immigration. His Foreign Policy ideas I also remember being a little strange. But he is charming and has the human touch.
I saw in Politico that the Biden pick has put Pawlenty out of contention according to 'insiders' but I also see the RNC floating names like Colin Powell. Seems they want to make things mysterious.
"If Obama loses in 2008, she will surely win in 2012."
NO. If Obama loses, Warner will be the nomine in 2012.
Warner is a raising star and he will run in 2012 if Obama lose.
filistro--yes we do agree on many things.:-)
I was thinking too about what you wrote about.
For weeks now we have been hearing about the Rove magic touch via Schmit and how Obama is a loser (sorry MatthewJH I just never agree with your alarmist assessment of where the race is) but all of a sudden things get turned upside down. And we see the McCain team flailing in an awful way.
One thing to note--when Obama is said to be floundering by the pundits and the bloggers they are never (or very rarely) reactive. They have a game plan they stick to it and try to accommodate what is happening day to day to that plan. Some people do not like that they want the reaction now and do not see how things will play long term. So in crisis the McCain camp is totally reactive and it is plain to all that this is the case and I think it shows the kind of leader McCain is, while in a 'crisis' the Obama camp is measured and take the opportunity to pounce when there is an opening not just because they feel (or are called) to lash out. And this too reflects Obama's leadership. IMHO.
All this "Hillary is pissed" stuff is really juvenile.
Does NOBODY remember that Hillary and Obama had a secret meeting shortly after she conceded back in June? They made elaborate efforts to prevent the media from learning about it until afterwards, none of their staffs were present, just the two of them, and neither of them has ever said anything about what they discussed afterwards.
Obviously, Obama told Hillary back in June that she wasn't going to be the VP nominee. She's known for 3 months now, so this isn't exactly a surprise.
"Mrs. Feinstein had made the offer before and it was still good. And so a few hours later, at just about 9 p.m., Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama arrived for a face to face chat. No staff. No spouses. Just the two of them in Mrs. Feinstein’s living room."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
2008/06/06/the-obama-clinton-meeting/
At the same time her role in the campaign was rolled out.
That's why she wasn't vetted. Obama would probably have gone through the motions just to mollify her supporters, but 1) she didn't want the hassle, and 2) Bill refused point-blank to release financial records relating to his activities.
That alone would have sunk Hillary as VP if nothing else stood in the way. Nobody has any idea what embarrassing details about Bill would emerge if Hillary were VP. Not knowing could be fatal. So it was always impossible that Obama would pick Hillary.
But, Hillary, knowing this has "done everything the campaign has asked of me" in her own words.
Is she still resentful of losing? Of course. Is Bill full of bile? Of course. Will we see any of this at the convention? Of course not.
Bill has given 2 convention speeches since he left office in 2000 and 2004. Both times Republicans licked their hands in glee that Bill would inevitably try and overshadow the nominee. Both speeches were extremely well done.
This one will be too. Hillary will give full support to Obama for the best of all reasons: her future in the party depends on it.
If she is seen as lukewarm and Obama loses, 1/2 the party will blame her and there will be lasting bitterness similar to how Democrats today feel about Ralph Nader. Most Democrats today are still pissed at Nader for throwing the 2000 election to Bush.
No explanations or excuses from Nader have changed anything. Hillary isn't stupid enough to incur that fate.
She has every reason to go all out for Obama, and no reason but self-destructive personal pique not to.
Lat--
I think McCain will counterprogram Biden. He is getting play as an "attack dog", and while it a bit of a stretch to use the pejorative, he can give as well, if not better than he can get and if the Axelrod-Plouffe machine is not careful they will wind up mis-branding this fine elder statesman of the Democratic Party.
That said,
I think the Reps should pick up the mantle dropped by Obama and pick a Veep who is not a snarling junk yard dog. Obama has abandoned the notion of post-partisan politics and is going full bore running a populist campaign, focusing on “us” against “them”. No room for the “UNITED States of America” in that vision.
Pawlenty would play well as sand anti-attack dog, and even Romney would. Neither are nasty sounding guys. Huck as I said, slips you the shiv with a smile and a prayer, so McCain has options.
I like Portman b/c he is a dark horse and yet is highly qualified, he is young and he is from Ohio. The media would be forced to cover his nomination in detail to reveal who he is and that would suck coverage away from O'Biden, further benefiting McCain.
BTW: Next stop after the Conventions: A 911 Joint Appearance with both Candidates. Is it going to be Saddleback all over again? If Axelrod-Plouffe are so smart, how does Obama get roped into these things?
Overrated,
I don't drink Kool-aid, I prefer beer! As to your contention that the differences between Reagan and Obama are huge, I think that depends on how you define huge. Clearly, they are different candidates and the political scene has changed since 1980, but I think the similarities are stronger than the differences.
True, Reagan was better known, but Obama has had enough exposure that many people feel like they know him now, though many others clearly do not. That said, Obama is not an unknown. Many people saw his speech four years ago at the convention, and he has been a prominent (news-wise) senator from the outset.
Obama has another 2+ months to allow people to feel more comfortable with him and to speak to undecided voters. Many undecideds don't pay close attention to the campaign during the summer, so there is opportunity to convince them that he is a safe choice.
Furthermore, the Democratic advantages in party ID mean that a great many of the persuadables in this election are either Democrats or left-leaning independents. If Obama firms up his support among Democrats, the election is essentially over. The bar that Obama has to cross in most voters' minds is to show that he is acceptable and competent. That is a pretty low threshold. Reagan had to cross the "not scary conservative" bar, which was also pretty low, and he did it.
While I recognize that Obama's bi-racial status and his funny name don't help him among many voters, they are a positive for many others. This country is not as white as it was in 1980. Most of the fastest growing demographics are minority groups for whom Obama's bi-racial heritage is likely a plus. He's seen as black, but he hasn't campaigned in the way that most other black Democratic candidates have: he very consciously has never pandered to them. Demographic changes are not to be overlooked. I've witnessed this here in VA -- a decade ago a guy like Kaine wouldn't have had a chance.
The incumbency issue is fair enough -- McCain isn't Bush -- but several other factors are at play here. First, Bush's approval ratings are even lower than Carter's were. Carter had bad events (oil crisis, Iran hostages) happen to him that he had to respond to. Bush has created the biggest disaster of his presidency (Iraq) by his own choice. McCain, while not Bush, has been moving closer and closer to Bush on a variety of issues, and so his is becoming easier to peg as Bush III, if you will. Americans aren't just angry at Bush, they are angry at the GOP. Three safe GOP House seats have been lost in special elections. GOP party ID is down. Plus, the GOP itself isn't all that thrilled with McCain -- he's the lesser of two evils to many Republicans.
I agree that this race will likely be much closer than 1980, but that doesn't mean that it will be close. A 1-2 point gain for Obama nationwide could flip a whole bunch of states and easily give Obama well over 300 EVs. The country is still polarized, but the average citizen is pretty angry about the direction of the country during the past 8 years. McCain is going to have trouble getting out of the way of that anger.
A couple other factors make the race different than 1980, but which favor Obama. First, McCain just isn't a very strong candidate in practice. His biggest asset is his past (life story and reputation as a maverick) but he hasn't been good on the trail, has switched positions on a bunch of issues moving him AWAY from the center, and he has been very gaffe-prone. McCain hasn't been sharp, and will likely make more unforced errors. If one happens in the debate, it could doom him. Second, Obama's voter registration, while often remarked upon in passing, has been underappreciated. His efforts to register new voters and organize volunteers is unprecedented, at least in my lifetime. With a number of states being very close, this could very easily turn a narrow electoral win into a comfortable one.
Lat:
Help me to understand this: "And we see the McCain team flailing in an awful way."
Where's the flailing?
Also, you say the Obama campaign is not reactive, I say it is flat-footed and is getting criticized for it.
McCain has been leading the debate all summer. Don't believe me, ask Matt JH!
I have to believe that Clinton is going to drive home the McCain as Bush 3rd term message, essentially telling her supporters that the stakes are too high to let their bitterness over losing the primary change their vote.
There's just too much record of her attacking Obama for her to credibly argue he's the right guy. So I think she'll stay generic, prime the pump of anti-Republicanism, and let Obama sell himself to her constituency.
I've been musing all morning on this Hillary ad that Nate posted about, and what a monstrous tin ear it dispalys.
I've decided the problem with the McCain campaign is... it's all run by men. They need a few good female strategists (say, Peggy Noonan) at a higher decision-making level. Women instinctively unedrstand things that are msyteries to men. The operative one here is the concept of family.
You can get in a vicious fight within your own family, take sides, say terrible things to each other. But if an outsider tries to use the words of one family member over another to gain an advantage over the family as a whole... that's unifying, not divisive. Internecine squabbles are soon forgotten in the face of outside threats. People hug, make up and circle the wagons. (And those who don't... they were never committed to the family in the first place.)
This seems so simple and basic, it amazes me the McCain campaign doesn't get it. Yup, that's their problem... they need more women in that joint :-)
I think for now the Biden pick probably is a wash for Team O. He undercuts Obama's message of change - but Biden can attack.
The objective truth is that we don't know if Biden is a net plus or minus until after we know McCain's selection.
McCain will pick Romney for VP as he helps deliver Michigan, which will be the vital state where the election will be won/lost.
For those that think their relationship is not strong due to primary bickering, just look to Reagan/BUSH who did not get along during the primaries, but needed each other to win. McCain loved Reagan and often justifies his policies to those of Reagan. Same parallel here in choosing Romney.
Nate,
You sold your soul and are on the verge of being an official mouthpiece of the Rasmussen. All for a quasi mention on his site. He is usaing you like a rented mule.
I guess you never are going to post the July 2008 updated voter registration numbers. I know, it will prove your new found best friend as a fraud on his voter ID so you refuse. You are lame Nate..bought and sold by Rasmussen..sad to see you.
PeteKent:
I think Matt JH is the only pro-Obama poster here who is willing to see things in an honest fashion. So much so, I sometimes think he is a McCain favoring concern troll in disguise.
Perhaps that should tell you something about your definition of "honest."
This blog is dramatically improved by filistro's comments, which are both insightful and good natured. The family metaphor in the last comment is simply the most recent example. Thanks!
I'm sure the McCain camp would have run nearly the same ad if Hillary had been picked. Just replace
"Why isn't she the pick?"
with
"What does Hillary Clinton really think about Barack?"
Hillary's attacks on Barack were bridge burning exercises.
"I slept on the Biden pick last night and have concluded it sucked!
What do you all think?"
Pete Kent has decided that a decision made by Obama sucked??? My whole world-view is shaken to the core.
"Help me to understand this: 'And we see the McCain team flailing in an awful way.'
Where's the flailing?"
Their response to the houses ad (which basically consisted of them shouting "arugula Rezko POW!"), their response to the VP pick (putting out simultaneous ads condemning Obama for choosing a VP who disagrees with him and for NOT choosing a VP who disagrees with them)... It's surprising, since up to this week, the McCain camp was doing a much better job with message discipline than Obama was.
I am relieved it wasn't Clinton. Clinton would have unified the party. The GOP would have gotten word out about all her bad points - but it would have taken time to overcome Dem unity that would have occurred had Clinton been chosen.
Obama will get a few points of a bounce in the polls after the convention - but not much more. McCain has an opportunity to counter that as well.
I'm worried about Giuliani as keynote speaker. He was off his game today.
As an aside, on This Week roundtable they really need to get rid of Donna Brazile. She is too biased and too close to Obama. Mark Halperin tried to make the point that now that the Obama team is attacking McCain's character on the "HouseGate" issue - McCain can fire back and attack on Rezco, Ayers, Wright and that it will be bad for Obama. Brazile kept trying to cut him off. Quite frankly she doesn't come across as all that intelligent and doesn't seem to belong there with George, Cokie, George Will and Halperin. If they want to put a liberal Democrat operative on the show they would be better served to choose one that didn't just sound unable to be objective and just not that bright.
If John McBush thinks Hillary should have been asked to be the VP candidate then he should ask her instead and not Mittens.
PeteKent I refer you to filistro's post and well everything that has been going on since Thursday about flailing. The best part is that McCain is flailing just as people are beginning to pay attention. But since you see things that I don't see I don't know you will ever get it.
Filistro--excellent point. Then I started thinking about the women strategists and though I think Noonan would be great she has been sort of out and she has been very critical of Bus and Rove. That leaves us Matlin but she is Rovian all the way and just reading the blogs people like KLo or even worse Coulter make me think they would not get it.
Here from an Obama supporter is a
hunch that favors McCain. Hope the Obama supporters hear. It relates not to polls directly, but to smarts.
To answer you question about Biden, PeteKent. Yes, from the perspective of someone who wants the outcome that you do in November, the choice does suck. For those of us who would like to avoid another four years of disastrous policies...not so much.
You do realize George Will, Cokie Roberts and Halperin are all Republican operatives, or I guess you never read or watch the show much. Ofocurse there bias is fine. Talk abour Rezko, it's beat t pdeath, investigated to death by the Bush justice department and nothing on Obama. That appeals to you 28%er's who aren't going to vote for Obama anyway. Ayers aother non-story but go ahead b/c unlike a volunteer board McSame was caught red handed in Keating which cost tax payers 4 billion t oclean the mess up.
Sedi I second you on the smarts of filistro's posts.
And Cugel--thanks for posting the link to that NYT story about their meeting. Also does no one here remember the Vanity Fair story about Bill Clinton ans what he has been up to for 8 years? If people think they would have agreed to be vetted (and see the level of vetting they did which was portrayed in today's NYT as the most strict in any presidential campaign ever) then they really do not know what the Clintons are about (I don't mean this badly , it is about mantaining their image and their power within the party which is smart). Remember that Hillary said she would NOT release any records until she was elected. That would have been playing non stop now if she were the VP.
Sedi,
That's just not fair. Biden is liberal partisan. He's been that way for a while. He's probably a nice guy but he's not going to help Obama in red states. That was supposed to be his selling point, remember?
Biden is the same old same old Democrat politician that has been on the Sunday shows and the cable shows and associated for decades. He is not going to help Obama in Indiana or Virginia, or Colorado. People in those traditional states are going to think "We may not be sure about Obama but by God Joe Biden makes me want to get out and vote for him!"
It was a pick from weakness. Now the political winds might be such that Obama will win anyway and Biden certainly doesn't seem risky by any stretch. But he's not new and different.
To me, the Biden pick just shows that Obama is bending to the reality that this is another red/blue election. Now it's going to be a red/blue election that Obama could win - but I remember listening to all these Democrats months ago saying that Obama would make this NOT another red/blue election.
They were wrong.
Oops - People in those states are *NOT* going to think...
If it not obvious to everyone yet, I think it is fair to say that CO is ground zero in the 2008 race. This has been downplayed on this board, but McCain would be wise to further enhance his Western resume. This heavily favors Romney as VP. The South is in the bag for McCain and yes, that includes VA and FL. Obama is to receieve some credit for putting Denver at the center of the Dem convention. I would think it would help him somewhat. On the flip side, I bet it is a royal pain for those that live there. I was in Estes Park, CO in July and political ads were a flyin'...I would not want to be a TV viewer in CO come October.
Adam in NY,
The spin of you guys is hilarious. No matter whom Obama picked you people would spin it, so who the hell cares what you wishful thoughts that Biden doesn't help. If he didn't help then the RepubliCons wouldn't be spinning it so hard, they would let it speak for itself. RepubliCons know PA is gone, not that it was really more than a pipe dream. The same pipe dream that Romney helps in MI. Romney was never elected in MI, so people are going to vote b/c daddy was elected was in MI 30 years ago. Romney made his money putting americans out of work, that should fly well. Ofcourse since the economy isn't his strong suit McCain must pick him, spin that as not a pick of weakness.
OTF,
Don't be an asshole. I read plenty, thank you. Cokie Roberts, Mark Halperin and George Will aren't delegates for the Democrat National Convention.
And if you want worry about my reading ability then I'd turn it around and say that perhaps you ought to learn to do simple arithmetic. We "28 % er's" aren't the only ones not backing your boy. He hasn't gotten to 50 percent and he can't seem to pull away from McCain. Indeed if the election were today he might very well lose, given the polling in the swing states.
It's sort of laughable when you impune others' intelligence and then say things like "McSame".
And we'll soon find out if Middle America thinks Ayers is a "non story".
oh here we go via First Read--McCain will start playing the POW card HARD because they are panicked about the houses thing they will even according to this
"They will be prepared to show McCain's "home" in Hanoi by using images of his cell. They claim they have not overused the POW element and insist they have "underused it.".
Is this officially flailing or jumping the shark?
I don't think Romney will deliver MI. I do think that special circumstances with the Detroit mayor make MI more competitive than it ought to be this year.
Romney might be good for a point or two in the state. It shouldn't be that close anyway though, but it may well make a difference this year.
Wait a minute. Didn't Kerry play the "POW card" hard?
After all it was Kerry that was "reporting for duty".
And of course Kerry wasn't even a POW. It didn't stop him for trying to play that angle.
OTF -
I could not agree with Adam in NY more. By the way, what did you come with on your "Catholics in major decline" Google search? Give me a break.
Adam in NY -
VP picks are grossly overrated...but incremental benefit points to Romney big-time.
Jackson wrote:
It isn't even about Hillary Clinton anymore.
This is spot on.
HRC's campaign was subverted by the GOP from the early days, not only with Operation Chaos but by using the campaign as a testing ground for every Obama smear that we find today. And now we see the ultimate results. Hillary is and has always been nothing more to the GOP than a weapon to be wielded. She will continue to used in such a manner until she can find a way to make the GOP pay.
It's also a bit pathetic that McCain is still pushing the "Rezko scandal". It simply has no teeth, which has been proven over the course of several months. Certainly, some people will believe in the "scandal" if it's repeated enough, but those people would also believe that Obama sodomised a goat if it were repeated enough. Goat sodomy is more effective slander than "he got a good deal on a loan".
Likewise, Ayers is rather thin gruel. Obama worked at the same college as a former '60's radical who was never convicted of anything! Oh, my. How many people have worked at the same company as someone they disagreed with politically? Do college professors always agree on politics? But...but...he visited Ayers' house! Yes, that's a real game-changer, isn't it? How many people have visited the homes of someone whose politics they disagreed with? I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that a visit to Ayers' home means that Obama supports robbing armoured cars in the name of a "People's Revolution", but then I'm not part of the Republican base, either. There's also the matter of Republican affiliation with right-wing militias at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing (which apparently didn't "change everything").
The RCP electoral map now is Obama 273, McCain 265.
Colorado change to blue.
Little change.
AdaminN--do you know the difference between being a POW and a soldier? Kerry was never a POW. Besides the problem here is that McCain is such a bad candidate that instead of actually addressing any issues he just gets all huffy and says Not Fair don't call me out I am a POW.
When Kerry made being a soldier a key of his narrative but never used it as an excuse for being an ineffective candidate.
Adam in NY,
I guess that I look at the choice of Biden, and VP picks in general, from a different angle. Occasionally a VP candidate can help out a little in a state, but not often. Last night I saw Craig Crawford say that he just didn't see in what state Biden helped Obama, but then said that they rarely do! I think that looking at the pick on a state by state basis is missing the point. (And Obama certainly doesn't need help from Biden in red states -- he's not going to win UT no matter what.)
What Biden does is provide a bit of reassurance to voters -- particularly undecideds and those who don't closely follow politics -- who worry that Obama is just so new to the scene. These voters might think, "I like Obama, but what if he messes up?" Having Biden there can give such voters a little piece of mind: "Biden will be there consulting with Obama, and he'll help to make sure that nothing goes too far wrong." I know for certain that some people vote this way, because that is EXACTLY how my dad justified his vote for Bush in 2000. My impression is that lots of people did. Now, Obama is clearly not Bush circa 2000, as he comes across as much more intelligent and more knowledgeable.
I stand by what I said: if I wanted McCain to win, I wouldn't be happy with the Biden pick. He can help to reassure Democrats and independents and he doesn't turn off any large segment of voters, as Clinton would have done. I increasingly think that this was a brilliant pick -- the Obama campaign folks are clearly a lot smarter than me!
Todd,
Word is that Ayers played a big role in starting Obama's state senate campaign. It might or might not have a big impact on voters. But Obama knows Ayers better than he let on when he said "He's a guy in my neighborhood and a professor of English".
Ayers may have babysat the little baby Obamas. That will resonate if true.
>> Kerry was never a POW.
I know. I said that. Scroll up.
Those set of polls do not seem out of 'whack'. AZ would certainly be considered a likely battleground state if not for McCain. Even with McCain, he didn't overwhelmingly win the state in his last Senate race anyway.
Biden is the definition of a "status quo" selection and does undercut the change mantle somewhat. He will lock of PA with his Scranton roots and proximity to the Philly TV market but he will be at best a wash and worse a slight negative West of the Mississippi. I don't believe a 4 point McCain lead in NM but I could certainly see a 1-2 point lead in the state and a 2-3 point lead in NV.
Essentially, Obama is going to play for Ohio with the Biden pick (and Pelosi is doing her damnedest to make sure that Catholics vote Republican in the fall .. what a stone-cold moron).
Wow, LAT... that is indeed jumping the shark. The McCain campaign is in total meltdown.
This is what comes, IMO, of basing your entire campaign on the other guy's negatives instead of your own guy's positives. Risky business, that, because it takes the game too much out of your control.
Thanks to you and Sedi for your kind remarks re: my posts... but Mule Rider thinks I'm a wanker :-)
Sedi,
I'm not so sure I disagree with much of your last post. The only thing I would say is that a Biden pick is a tacit admission that Obama needs to play defense in the sense that he has to make sure Democrats are comfy enough with him. Obama supporters, or at least many of them on the internet, tried to sell Obama as an offensive pick that would be able to redraw the map. I don't see that.
I'll concede that Obama could have done much worse than Biden. But Hillary would have scared this Republican a lot more.
NJ Moderate -
Very true. AZ could have been a close race without McCain. And yes, Biden will help some in OH, but I think OH is not going for Obama as his demographics are poor for this state.
OTF was pwned by Adam in NY...
Polling starting to turn sour on McCain for now. I might not even turn on my computer until the 29th.
It makes me sad that there are Americans who would vote for someone with the politics of Obama.
This may sound "out of touch" by what is "pwn'ed"?
Adam i NY,
You 28% er's are really desperate. It's funny to watch you clinging your hopes onm Ayers, Rezko, etc...but it does prove what I've said all along you have nothing to campaign on. People have lived thru 8 years of Bush the Lesser and McCain wants to continue the same policies so it's clear why you don't want to campaign on that. It's a loser!
Adam--the point is that Kerry tried to inoculate hilself agaisnt seeming soft on defense by playing up his soldier past. My point still holds that this was not done as an excuse to bolster up everything else that went wrong in his campaign.
McCain on the other hand has just ONE answer for when things go wrong---I was a POW. There is honor in that and we all recognize it but it is also not a good answer for loving Abba music, not knowing the price of milk, now knowing how many houses you have. The issue is that the more they play this the less power it has as a bolster to his own character.
We know the media is relentless when they smell blood and see a line developing. The fact that McCain uses the POW line over and over (and not just his surrogates but himself in interviews) as an excuse is taking hold and the fact that republicans want to double down on it seems to me to point to either (1) they have nothing else and/or (2) are worried out of their minds about the houses thing.
In both cases it is called overplaying the most powerful narrative he has. Not smart.
Biden On The Attack Immediately! That didn't take long!
"In one breath, he called McCain "genuinely a friend of mine" over a 35-year period. In the next, the Democrat skewered his decades-old Republican colleague and linked McCain to the unpopular President Bush at every turn.
"The American dream under eight years of Bush and McCain, that American dream is slipping away," Biden said _ suggesting that McCain, too, served in the White House during that period and overlooking the times when the Arizona senator broke from his own party's standard-bearer."
adam--it means he 'owned' you. Because I too am out of touch I have no idea where that comes from ;-)
filistro--totally agree. and if they do run with an ad showing his prison cell in Vietnam, with a narrative that this is the reason he does not know how many houses he has or that we have to excuse him for it I think there will be a major consensus that they jumped the shark.
OTF,
I think you need a cold shower. If McCainiacs are desperate on Ayers, Rezco, etc. then what about you guys?
All the Obama people have been talking about are houses. That's all you've got?
What is Obama campaigning on? If he was smart he'd connect better on the economy. So far he hasn't In polling McCain is doing ridiculously well for a Republican on that score. Obama was behind the curve on energy. He was behind the curve on foreign policy and dealing with leaders of unfriendly nations. He had to backtrack on that. He missed the ball on Georgia. McCain was right on Russia and Putin and he was right on the surge.
There's been plenty going on lately. And you can ridicule McCain's campaign and his choices but facts are stubborn things. And McCain has caught up to the Messiah. Two months is a long time for things to change. But Democrats weren't expecting that. This is going to be a real fight.
The "Change" slogan isn't about changing how gov't works anymore. It's about change for the middle class now. Biden helps that message because he's seen as a middle class, working class hero.
To the extent that the Obama campaign can drive "Working for the middle class" home, will tell us whether or not Obama can win the election. This is the right line of attack, but we don't know if Obama can sell it.
NJ Moderate,
Look at the crosstabs or the lack thereof in the NV poll.
NV has 43%dem, 38rep, 19Ind they don't tell you what Voter iD they use but those are the numbers from July 2008 NV board of elections. Do the math based on the % each got from Dem, Rep, In....Btw, 24% of NV electorate is Hispanic and Obama is winning them by 40+ points and he down by 7..right?
NM poll..again a pollster that doesn't tell you what party ID they are using...why? But according to NM board of elections July 2008 Registration is 50%Dem, 33 Rep, 17Ind
Overrated,
I totally agree that VP picks are overrated (wait, are you saying that YOU are going to be McCain's veep?), though they are not irrelevant. It was helpful for Obama to get someone that appears to be a stable, steadying influence to reassure voters. It's important for McCain to get someone who could very credibly become president because of McCain's age.
Adam in NY,
If you want to call it defense, okay. Obama is a pragmatist at heart, and he's running to win. He has made a strong effort to reach out to disaffected Republicans, but has had a little trouble with a segment of the Democratic base. The numbers show that, and his campaign isn't idiotic enough to ignore them. Apparently he didn't feel like Clinton was an option (probably because of vetting Bill or Hillary's high negatives) so he went with the next best thing. I think I agree that Hillary would have been better in terms of getting elected, but I'm not certain. I know my mom would consider voting for Obama, but would never vote for him if Clinton was on the ticket. Clinton is polarizing. I think that Obama himself is re-drawing the map, and all he needed was someone to help people feel more comfortable with him.
Stutter,
Oh, please don't turn off your computer this week? Pretty please?
Filistro,
If Mule Rider thinks that you're a wanker, that puts you in pretty elite company. It means you've arrived. I can only dream of the day when Mule Rider will think that I'm a wanker.
Filistro thinks the McCain campaign is in meltdown mode. I could not think of a more comforting thought for nervous Dems that are on the edge of blowing the easiest election in modern history. Its like a warm glass of milk and a cookie before bed.
A good pick, but not a great pick. Biden was picked to be an attack dog. Nothing more to him than that. Failed twice in Presidential runs, once for cheating the second time because the Dem. Party knew him from the first time.
All in all, if they win it will be a clean and articulate White House.
As far as the Mason Dixon polls, they are a good state poller and it looks more and more that this election is going to go down to a few states. Colorado may be the Florida of this election, as will New Hampshire. If New Mexico has truly turned red then this election is over for Odumbo.
"All the Obama people have been talking about are houses. That's all you've got?"
Are you really this thick or are you simply trolling for McCain-points?
I'll simplify things so that even you might be able to understand:
1. McCain has been attacking Obama for months as an "elitist" who's "out of touch with the American people."
This attack was central to the Swift-boaters in 2004 and McCain was counting on it right throughout the election.
Obama = "elitist," McCain = "Man of the People." Got it so far?
2. McCain torpedoes his own attacks by admitting one week that he doesn't know how many cars he has and the next that he doesn't even know how many houses he has.
3. Obama jumps on this statement as fatally undermining McCain's "Obama = elitist" attacks.
Who's the real "elitist"? The guy who has 1 house or the guy who can't remember how many he has?
Who's out of touch? The guy who reflects American's economic anxiety or the guy who says the economy "is fundamentally sound?"
It goes to the very heart of the entire McCain message "I'm the regular guy and Obama's the outsider! and trashes it totally.
That's why it's devastating, that's why Obama jumped on it, that's why the media talked about it all week and that's why it's important.
From now to the election, every time McCain tries to paint Obama as an "elitist" or "out of touch" Obama can remind voters McCain is the guy who has so many houses he can't remember how many he has.
McCain just scored an "own goal" and it's usually fatal to kick the ball into your own net like that.
Try and stay awake in class next time!
John McCain was a POW and if you don't believe me, it will be mentioned over 1,000 times in St. Paul -- first week of September.
Picking Clinton would have more or less guaranteed Obama victory in November -- I haven't a clue why he shunned her the way he did. However, Biden will prove to be everything that John Edwards wasn't -- street fighter taking the fight to McCain, tough as nails debater, and tireless campaigner. We don't have to worry about pit-stops for $400 haircuts.
Take Pawlenty off the table -- Biden will chew him up and then feed him to the MSM as another Dan Quayle. Now Romney becomes the favorite -- and I'm certain the evangelicals will be thrilled with him and the fact that he was still pro-choice in 2005.
Of course on the housing issue. How many of you'll have a sugar daddy who will buy the lot next door, subdivide it and sell half of it to you, which increases the value of your already million dollar mansion by one million dollars
What is the Quid Pro Quo of this deal; the kindness of Rezko's heart; I think not, ODUMBO did something for him and this deal is not passing the smell test. Run this commercial 100 times and it resonates a lot more with undecided voters.
Adam in NY,
McCain is not campaigning for anything. He has nothing to offer except the continuation of Bush's failed policies. Thus, he doesn't say what he's for that's why the RepubliCons fascination with things beat to death and proven to be nothing there with Rezko, Ayers, Muslim, Messiah, etc...McCain is playing to fear. People know he's for nothing, so his strategy is be against someone else, but not really for me. He has changed to lockstep with Bush and the rightwing of the party. He is not going to win on continuation of the same failed policies.
Cugel,
You know the reason that Middle America hates Democrats is because too many of them sound just like you.
Now it's not a good thing for McCain to have been tripped up when asked about it but that the Democrats needed this to attempt to change the narrative after a month of freefall is quite telling. THAT was the point.
A "man of the people" doesn't consort with known, admitted, and unapologetic terrorists. A man of the people doesn't sit in the pew and listen to a hate-monger babble on about the evils of Whitey for twenty years. And a man of the people doesn't have the audacity to think that running around Chicago as a little mini Farrakhan and "community organizer" makes him qualified enough to be president. Especially in light of his opponent's history of service.
The Obama team better be careful here. Because soon enough this one little gaffe will get old. And I actually agree with Halperin. If Obama wants to character assassinate McCain over the number of houses his wife owns then the Republicans will have a treasure trove of available material. And it's all going to be fair game.
I have no doubt that you'll be wide awake when that happens. At night. Unable to sleep.
OTF,
Nice talking points. But you evaded the question. You still haven't told me what OBAMA is running on. You know, besides Hope And Change (TM).
Jack Black,
You might want to actually know something about the situation before you talk about it. You might want to google the Chicgao Tribune or Chicago Sun Times on the land deal so you have atleast one factual statement in your post. It's been investigates to death by Bush appointed DOJ, they went thu it multiple times andeven tried again in June and found nothing. You people are beating a dead horse and in your case you don't even know the basic facts.
BTW the Gallup Tracker for today has both candidates tied at 45.
There are a lot of reasonable Obama supporters and a good deal of Obama fanatics/idiots. Why does it seem that there are only McCain fanatics/idiots around?
Jack Black,
You forgot to mention that John McCain was a POW. This is the reason why he can't remember how many homes he and Cindy own. It also the reason why he confuses Sunni and Shia and also the reason he confused the 1967 Green Bay Packers OF Line with the Pittsburgh Steeler OF Line. Because John McCain was a POW, he is entitled to forget that Czechoslovakia is no longer a nation and the reason why he can claim to proudly vote with Bush 95% of the time while also trying to convince Independents that he was a staunch critic of the Bush administration.
I hate populists.
Adam wrote:
All the Obama people have been talking about are houses. That's all you've got?
No, actually.
Over a quarter million a year for butlers and maids - but Obama is "out of touch with family budgets".
How about the McCain's success being about everything being handed to them - either by marriage or inheritance? These aren't people who succeeded by hard work, ingenuity, risk-taking, or education. It's American royalty. Cindy hardly even shows up at work more than a few times a year, and John is a kept man. How does that resonate with people struggling to make a living?
The "celebrity" Obama looks like a pauper compared to the McCain's.
People just don't lie awake nights worrying about "socialism", somebody else's mortgage loan rate, or washed-up 1960's radicals' baby-sitting gigs. They lie awake nights worrying about how they are going to pay their own mortgage, pay for child care, fill their gas tank, and stave off bankruptcy on their credit card debt. The McCain's are as far from that world as someone who lives on another planet.
Republicans' utter inability to see the effectiveness of this meme, and their continual habit of reducing it down to "houses", is truly indicative of how out of touch the Party has become. It's not about hating people for being rich, it's about casting them as being unsympathetic to and completely ignorant of the challenges one faces.
Anyway - gotta go for now. Enjoy the battle, all.
As Cugel points out, there is simply no defense on the "houses" gaffe becasue it devastatingly combines "out of touch" and "befuddled." It's really quite awesome in a dreadful, train-wreck kind of way.
The defense they've settled on is apparently the POW line... but that is SO risky because it makes people wonder if... hey, that brutal experience maybe did burn out a few synapses?
I offer this creative gem free to the O'Biden campaign. No copyright will be enforced :-)
There was an old guy who lived in a bubble
Had so many houses, they caused him some trouble
Trying to count them his face got all red
So they gave him some warm milk and put him to bed.
Adam in NY,
It's a waste of time to tell you. I guess you never heard Obama's speech when he first announced 19 months ago or his speech yesterdat. You never visited his website that has way more detail than anything McCain has. 20 paged detailed health plans for examples, links to policy speeches and plans on every issue. The ignorance is willfull. Ofocurse, we know what McCain is for, the continuation of Bush policies but tries to hide it at ever opportunity b/c we have seen what that has led to overthe last 8 years. McCain don't be for me and Bush policies, just be against the other guy b/c I have nothing to offer.
Yes Adam, but McCain has never lead in the Gallup tracking.
Great, this site is morphing into the CNN aka Clinton News Network.
I'd go the complete opposite of the OP's analysis and state this is shoring up the demographic Obama was weak in, that being the white male demographic. Biden is a man's man. Down to earth guy they'd, I hate to say it, like to have a beer with.
Obama was ahead in the female demographic. He had a much larger gap to close with the white male electorate.
This pick had the intention his campaign wanted. And to top it off, not only does he make Obama more acceptable to white working class voters, he will also improve the female vote only slightly with his support and championing of Violence Against Womens Act.
>> It's not about hating people for being rich, it's about casting them as being unsympathetic to and completely ignorant of the challenges one faces.
Yes, rah rah! Well perhaps if Obama had even a passing interest in concerns of "regular Americans" he'd actually have an energy policy. That's the single most important thing to Joe Blow and his budget this year. Democrats like Obama are all about pie-in-the-sky alternative fuels that won't come on line for a decade or more, yet when someone has a plan to drill or to build nuclear power plants you hear nothing from the Blue team but crickets chirping. Democrats are quick to say that oil drilling won't reduce prices for years. Yet how long will it take for these alternative fuels to really become cost efficient and viable? Where is the Democrat concern about that? They're too stuck on dogma to even give it a thought. That's just sad.
You want to paint Republicans out of touch then explain away the fact that Republicans have come back into the game over the last couple months because it is the Democrats that are out of touch.
It works both ways.
"You still haven't told me what OBAMA is running on. You know, besides Hope And Change (TM)."
I think it's pretty clear:
1. Policies aimed to benefit the bulk of population not just the most affluent -- e.g. no Bush tax cuts, targeted middle-class tax cuts
2. Less belligerent (and quite frankly, stupid) foreign policy -- e.g. talk to other countries, fight smart when necessary
3. Focus on problems at home, not wars abroad -- e.g. infrastructure, access to college education
4. Change the culture of divisive politics -- e.g. treat political opponents as people who disagree with you, not villans to be defeated
5. Develop a long-term strategy for energy independence -- e.g. solar & wind, biofuels, large R&D allocations
6. Fair trade rather than "free trade" -- e.g. more aggressive negotiations over labor and environmental standards
7. Access to health care for all Americans
8. More fiscal responsibility in reducing the debt
This is certainly not an exhaustive list, but it's a start. And it's concrete and would make a huge difference in our country. Those who say that Obama hasn't shown the substance of change are either trying to belittle him or haven't been listening (or both).
I wouldn't put a huge amount of stock in the Mason-Dixon polls. All of them seem have been conducted between 8/13 and 8/15, about ten days ago. I don't know why they're only now releasing them, but as it stands they tell us little about how the race in those states stands right now.
Sedi,
What you say is obvious if you have been paying attention. The media has played into the narrative first started in the primaries by Clinton. When in fact Obama has had detailed plans long before McCain, that are spelled out for those willing to read on his website or those that listen.
Sedi,
Well we'll just agree to disagree. Obama wanted to raise the capital gains tax from 15 to 28 percent but then had to back off. That, economists agree, would have been really bad for the economy.
#2 sounds nice but it also strikes me as hollow. Perhaps if Georgia had been in NATO like McCain wanted then Georgia wouldn't have been attacked. Indeed the specter of American ICBM's would have kept Putin in check. He's like an incorrigible little teenager. He takes what he can as long as he knows he could get away with it.
#3 - Focus at home is great. He can start with an energy policy. Infrastructure, college tuition, all of that need attention. What Americans need most is lower fuel costs. That is what is going to help people living from paycheck to paycheck the most in the short term and that is what will help the economy get back on track/
#4 - That's a philosphical difference. An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant and not a regular POW. The Islamic extremists have no problem beheading. If we make Mahmoud parade around with panties on his head I have little sumpathy.
#5 - McCain has a better record on that. He is pushing for nuclear, clean coal, in addition to more drilling. Obama has been far too reticent about energy, and when he speaks he's not too coherent on a workable strategy.
#6 - McCain has spoken about unfair with China and that he would take steps to change that. Also Obama's NAFTA talk was just a bluff, as the Canadians tell it.
#7 - That's a winner actually for Democrats. I'm surprised Obama says so little about it.
#8 - McCain has been fighting for fiscal responsibility for years. What has Obama done on this front?
We could go back and forth over and over again.
Anyway this back and forth has been fun but I really gotta go for now.
Adam in NY,
Yes, do go enjoy real life for a while. I'm hoping to do it again sometime! Where does one get treated for 538.com addiction?
But, don't confuse disagreement with policies (which you outlined above) with the existence of clear policies (which I outlined above). I respect the fact that you and other conservatives won't agree with Obama (and me) on a whole bunch of issues, but you have to admit that he does, in fact, HAVE positions on these issues that go beyond just a generic call for change.
No offense, but there is no way on this planet that McCain is going to lose Latinos by 40%. If there was ever a champion for Latinos from the Republican party, McCain would be it. He almost threw away his candidacy last year pushing for CIR. At best, we can hope than Obama will win Latinos by 18-20% although it will probably be in the 15-18% range (better than Kerry not as good as Gore).
Obama is down to six Bush states that have even a remote chance to switch: CO, NM, NV, IA, OH, FL.
You may wonder why VA is off the list .. the fact is that Kerry 'overperformed' in the SE corner of the state and still lost by 7-8%. McCain's veteran status will pick up and extra 2-3% in this region and combined with Obama's weakness in the SW corner of the state, he is going to have to win counties like Fairfax by 20-25% (Kerry won this largest VA county by 8%). I can see how Obama will double his margin but McCain is no Bush so I think VA will settle in to a 3-4% McCain win much like PA will be for Obama. IA is probably the one sure bet to flip, but the Republicans got lucky in nominating McCain as he will blunt the SW reach to some extent.
Fortunately, there are only four blue states where McCain could potentially win: NH, MI, WI, MN.
The Mason-Dixon polls are a cause for concern as they generally are the most accurate polls for states WEST of the Mississippi but it is still early.
We're just one major snowstorm away out west to John McCain winning Colorado by 5 points.
We're just one major rainfall away from John McCain winning Virginia and Ohio by 5 points.
We're just one tropical storm from John McCain winning Florida by 6 points.
Obama is banking on huge turnouts from blacks and young voters. Well these folks will NOT be voting if the weather is not rather 'nice' outside..... Better pray for a clear day across the USA Obama!
Just to stress how damaging this has been for McCain, I'm willing to wager that every American who's paying attention... which includes all of you in here... every one of them in recent days has had at least a brief passing thought... I wonder if McCain COULD be slipping a bit mentally.
Every single one of them. Including you.
Be honest. Haven't you had that thought in recent days, even if you instantly dismissed it and would never admit to it?
You KNOW you have.
NJ Moderate,
IA and NM are definte flips. If you look at the demographic and voter iD changes from 2004 and 2008 CO and NV are very promising. That's why the Dems have been making the huge effort this year. I sent Nate the newest data as of July 2008 but he will not post it for some reason.
Dems are +17 Voter ID in NM, which pollsters are not reflecting.
NV has switched from Rep +1 in 2004 to Dems +5 in voter ID and the Hisplanics have risen from 15% to 24% of the electorate. Obama is winning them overwhelmingly.
CO Dems are still -4 in Voter ID but is an improvement from 2004. The number of independents is up which from 2004 which gives Dems a better chance.
You are very pessimstic on VA but I'm not. The polls have been the same for months at -1 to +2. VA is a ground gane state and Obama has the game. He has been campaigning in the rural areas with Warner, Webb, Kaine like he did the week before. He knows he has to minimmize the margins in the rural areas. The voter registration and ground game is the key.
The mason Dixon polls were done over a week ago, they are pretty useless at this point plus they only polled 400 likely voters way to small a sample size.
The New Mexico poll was an outlier, I think that is a pretty safe Obama state. Also all the toss up states are still that toss up. I keep saying ignore all polls until after the convenyions and at least one debate.
Filistro -
Love your hyperbole. Now its McCain is slipping mentally. This is a bit daft considering your VP selection had 2 brain anuerisms in 1988 and almost died. I think the age issue can be put to rest with the Biden selection.
All this obsession about the number of houses McCain owns and whether or not he remembers is an embarassingly trivial line of attack
The more I look around the Internet, the more I see vehement Republican criticism of Obama for going after Grandpa McBush's seven houses. Or is it 11 houses? This tells me the Republicans are scared of that one.
I notice that Biden referred to McCain's seven kitchen tables, in a conversation about late night worries discussed at the kitchen table after the kids have gone to bed.
Let's hope the Obama campaign grabs this like a pit bull and doesn't let it go until November. McCain gave our side a gift, and our side should exploit the living hell out of it.
The combination of an ad saying "Obama's pick said mean things about him in the primaries" and an ad saying "Obama didn't pick the person who came in second" is confusing.
Normally, the latter ad would imply a Romney pick, which is of course completely at odds with the first ad. Admittedly, it was more McCain saying mean things about Romney, but in fact that makes the choice look even worse: picking someone you supposedly don't respect makes a lot less sense then picking someone who supposedly doesn't respect you.
Unless, has been speculated here, the pick is Huckabee. He arguably came in second and he and McCain were remarkably respectful to each other in the debates. It would fit the combination of ads perfectly.
He nails down the theocons, which should defend VA, FL, and OH plus some more "Hail Mary" Obama states like IN, NC, or GA. Maybe some help boosting evangelical turnout in PA, MI, and IA as well, although I can't see it being much higher than 2004.
A Biden/Huckabee debate would also be one for the ages- Romney gets ruffled a little too easily.
Downsides are of course that the libertarians and Club for Growth people will go nuts. Not sure where else those types are located, but NH would be gone forever and maybe CO, NV, and MT as well. Huckabee also would not be the best choice to win moderates, of course, but I don't think Romney can help much there either.
Just my 2 cents on the subject.
OTF, not pessimistic on VA but realistic as I am a native Virginian. I agree that Obama's ground game can make up 2% but given the demographics of the state and McCain's military record (one of the reasons Kerry outperformed in the Danville, Norfolk, VA Beach area), I think the state will just be outside the reach of his ground game.
I don't look at voter ID too much in the Southern states. West Virginia is probably 20+ DEM ID and this state isn't even in the running this election. I think NM proximity to AZ may make it closer than you think (heck it was less than 1% in 2000 and 2004 anyway).
I think CO with a -4 voter ID is a better bet than NM with a +17 voter ID since Obama's message is a better fit in CO (with a lot of West Coast transplants) than it is in NM.
It is still to early to judge the SW states yet though. If McCain pulls Kay Bailey Hutchinson out of his ass, we are probably toast anyway (if he were lucid, it is an obvious pick).
Does anybody have the numbers on how much John and Cindy McCain will personally benefit from his proposed tax policies? I've seen a projection somewhere but can't find it now.
I believe Obama actually loses money personally as a result of Obama policy. (But so do the McCains :-)
Seems to me "tax cuts for John and Cindy" could be a fruitful line of attack in the wake of the "houses" gaffe.... and the "whiners" one, too, which has not been forgotten.
NJ Mod, I have a pronoun problem with you.
When you say "we" I never know who that might be.
Admittedly, it was more McCain saying mean things about Romney
Au contraire! Romney played a VERY dirty game against McCain. First he stirred up a bunch of wingnut Mormons (are there any other kind?) in Arizona to attack him from the right, then he planted anti-Mormon phone calls in Iowa and a couple other states and had the recipients -- who were his own campaign workers -- call the media and blame the calls on McCain.
Romney sets new ethical lows, even for the Republicans. Not that this would be an issue, but I think his Mormonism is going to be a very big issue for them. Huckleberry Hound has other problems, not the least of which being that he's about as "presidential" as Gomer Pyle.
there's an interesting article on biden in the ny times - "philosophy of diplomacy first, force last"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/politics/24policy.html?ref=politics
I'd generally known biden was pretty good, but hadn't known the specifics. he's going to be very very good - all for diplomacy, and has put his money where his mouth is, but pragmatic as well
Housing is all they got!
McCain is tied in the Gallup tracker at his highest point ever:45%. Not bad considering what has transpired of late.
State polls are bad for y'all.
Biden is a flash in the pan and the party remains divided.
Keep talking yourselves up -- it isn't working!
Only Matt JH can see the forrest for the trees.
McCain -Portman '08!
Adam wrote:
Ayers may have babysat the little baby Obamas. That will resonate if true.
Yes, of course. Why didn't the Obamas just have one of their servant staff do the baby-sitting? Oh...right.
What other conclusion can one draw except that Ayers indoctrinated Obama's children into wanting to carry out bungled armoured car robberies, presumably when they grow up.
Remember, Ayers' role in the Weathermen was so marginal that he could not even get convicted on his involvement by a jury. And, as terrorist bogeymen, the Weathermen have always been poor fare. Aside from the fact that hardly anyone under 50 knows what "Weathermen" means, these were essentially upper-class college kids playing revolutionary in the 1960's.
They broke Timothy Leary out of a minimum-security prison, which a troop of Cub Scouts could do.
Later, they tried their hand at armoured car robbery, which as everyone knows, is the surest way to bring down the State, and did rather poorly at it. They were all caught or turned themselves in, all of them have served their prison terms, and none of them are taking up arms against the American government. Try putting an elderly college professor on TV and painting him as some kind of threat. Try explaining to anyone under 50 why we should be afraid of a gang of has-been revolutionaries from days gone by. Try to convince anyone over 50 that the nation really wants to re-open the Vietnam controversy from the late 1960's and early 1970's. Knock yourself out explaining that a "Weatherman" is not the guy on TV who tells you if it will rain tomorrow or not.
That blank look you will get will not be the face of someone afraid that Obama has a collegial relationship with a former '60's radical who was never convicted of terrorism.
As usual, Republicans continue to believe that whatever works on their base will undoubtedly be effective on those outside their base.
PeteKent:
Perhaps why Hillary wasn't brought in was due to the primary; she provided plenty of ammo for the GOP to reuse, but also got caught up as she got more desperate and stuck to her guns well beyond any mathematical possibility to win enough delegates.
Picking Hillary would be like handing the GOP the keys to the Watergate (and Whitewatergate, hah hah!) with a wink and a teasing request they not do anything underhanded.
More directly, a jackpot. Imagine, running ads where you could use both the Democratic Nominee and VP tearing each other to shreds, asking if this was really how to unite the country.
And if you want elitist, HRC gives 13 million to her own campaign! She's out of touch with normal americans, and a loser who couldn't win!
See how easy it is? These problems have been around since that secret meeting between Obama and Hillary, and it's possible Obama got Hillary to agree to a potential spot on the cabinet, but not the VP position.
As for McCain... He needs to get the POW story out of the media for a while. If the POW defense comes up continuously, the media fatigue will be similar to that of Obama (which makes me wonder if the method of announcing Biden helped to renew interest/reduce fatigue).
And once the POW shield is up, then an attack line of "How does getting shot down and locked up and tortured prepare one for the presidency?"
In an era where PTSD is manifest in our Iraq-war veterans, questions about McCain's stability could be raised. Depending on how dirty the line is, it might not matter that McCain's been a senator and functional member of society; Suggesting that McCain will snap during a crisis... That would be a serious wound if it made its way into rumors.
filistro--ask and you shall receive.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/19/analyzing-the-candidates/
great table and analysis.
Yup! Middle America really "hates Democrats!" Adam in NY. That's exactly why there were 37% Democrats and 37% Republicans in 2004 and 40.1% Democrats and 31.6% Republicans now. Because "middle-America" hates Democrats so much.
But do continue with the McSame talking points:
"a man of the people doesn't have the audacity to think that running around Chicago as a little mini Farrakhan and "community organizer" makes him qualified enough to be president. Especially in light of his opponent's history of service."
Here! I'll help you out with better rhetoric: "How dare Obama run for President! Doesn't he know McCain was a POW? He should quit right now and bow down to what a wonderful WAR-HERO McCain was 35 years ago!"
McCain has moved up in the polls because he's made 3 months of relentless personal attacks on Obama. Why? Because Republicans love them and now 89% support McCain.
"If Obama wants to character assassinate McCain over the number of houses his wife owns then the Republicans will have a treasure trove of available material. And it's all going to be fair game."
This is one of the funnest things I've read on this site, and there have been some real laughers!
It's ok for McCain to attack Obama's patriotism and fitness for office for months, to ridicule him and suggest that this former Harvard Law Review Editor and Constitutional law professor is an "empty suit celebrity", but how dare Obama use McCain's own words against him!
Now every vile slander is "fair game!"
As if there was some slander the McCain camp wouldn't have used unless Obama "character assasinated" McCain.
I love how personal attacks are supposed to be something that Republicans use against Democrats and laugh while the Democrats sit there and take it. "Kerry's a flip-flopper! Ha! Ha!" They're not supposed to fight back! That's "character assassination."
But of course! I forgot it's supposed to be a one-way street.
Petekent:
McCain is tied in the Gallup tracker at his highest point ever:45%. Not bad considering what has transpired of late.
Not true. The Gallup figures were the same on August 15. So .... no change!
cugel at 1:58 thank you. I choose not to even dignify half of what was written today it was so preposterous but that answer just got to the bottom of it all.
well given that all we have heard since yesterday and this morning is how Obama is the meanest meanie and poor poor Hillary is the bestest ever who got Snubbed (Snubbed I tell you! Outrage!) I have no worries about Gallup. let's check back in on Wednesday morning ah?
Biden is no shrinking violet, and attacking him is not smart. If the GOP wants a spitting contest with Joe Biden, they're welcome to it. Biden is the anti-Obama. Obama is an inexperienced intellectual, up in the clouds, has trouble relating to the working class, and he doesn't like fighting. Biden is as American as it gets, from Scranton, Foreign Policy expert, Working class hero and speaks the language of the common man, very blunt and to the point.
Obama probably believes this is going to turn very nasty and he needs a wing man for the war thats coming. Biden is that guy, after Hillary of course who Obama should have picked but allowed his feelings to get in the way.
Obama is trying to pivot to a populist message and his ability to sell himself as one will probably determine the outcome of the election. Obama needs to morph into Hillary. Thats not going to be easy to do, but if he can sell it, he wins.
Post a Comment