Just thinking out loud here...
View Larger Map
You could very easily do a bus tour that departs from Springfield, winds up in Denver, and does some very good bio-building for Kathleen Sebelius in between.
Start out in Springfield, and proceed to Sebelius' childhood home in Cincinnati by route of Indianapolis and Dayton. Big media appearances on Sunday AM in Cinncinati, and proceed to St. Louis by that evening, with a quick stop in Evansville or Bloomington, Indiana in between. Travel to Kansas City overnight, begin your Monday with an AM event there, and then cross the state line into Kansas and proceed to the state capital in Topeka. At that point, after one more presser, Sebelius leaves the trail, Obama takes a quick detour to his mother's home in El Dorado, and then proceeds on to Denver.
8.20.2008
Obama-SebeliBus?
@ 5:14 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
192 comments
What is that?
Are these all confirmed Obama campaign stops? Or are some of them e.g. the ones in Kansas just possible stops that fit into the route?
If those are confirmed stops, then it's an interesting proposition. Otherwise, this isn't based on much other than the fact that Kansas is between Illinois and Denver.
She´s a honest women but i don´t think she helps him very much.
Like I said a month ago, Sebelius will be the choice. It's about the geography, folks. Nate is a great teacher.
Aren't there just as many stops in Indiana as there are in Kansas?
To be honest, I keep looking around for more speculation to see if there are any angles I haven't taken yet on the problem, and every new article I read leaves really only one impression on me:
Can we just get this damn thing over with?
Oh, and two in Ohio, too for what it's worth. Does that mean anything?
Fuck this, my head is so fried.
I DO remember her dynamic SOTU rebuttal!
Not. Tell me, what has she done again? A female Tim Kaine.
He needs to pick Bayh if he doesn't want his numbers to sink further.
I'll see Sebelious tomorrow (Thursday) at a lunch time town hall meeting for the Obama campaign here in Des Moines, IA. Maybe she'll tell us in the crowd some good news? If chosen, she could easily be in Springfield, IL to catch a Saturday noon-time gig and catchc the Obama tour bus to Denver via Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri and Kansas!
I don't understand what the map is about. Nate, how about doing the long division for us?
VCon getting nervous?
I do not see her helping Obama, but...
well that is not route 66 but I do like the IDEA of an intense roadtrip.
Still, the trip should be to cross all of OH & IN then roll into IL.
THEN get an electric or LP bus and barnstorm FL for a week after the convention.
Then do it again in CO & NV & MT & both Dakotas. also VA & NC & GA.
then fly into AK for a full day on the ground.
quit the flying coast to coast with short stop-overs. they do not seem to really work except for fund-raising events.
many folks get upset if the candidate does a fly-over & claims to be 'concerned'...
show it on the ground...
and in hard-hitting ads
a new Obama harder ad just went on here on a few minutes ago on the all-news local channel framing McCain's negatives.
everyone in FL is on the news because of the storm
Obama should have stayed in FL today & used it to advantage by showing his concern - Crist sure is trying to play it for all it is worth ! Obama & McCain both flew in & out of central FL in the last few days - they came across as hypocrites both...
That route means nothing vp-wise. Stopping by Indiana and Ohio makes sense, regardless of VP. Instead of back tracking, the best way west from their is Missouri, another swing state. After that, Colorado, with Kansas in the middle. You HAVE to stop at Kansas while passing through it, or it'll look bad. So this is not evidence one way or the other.
- She helps with the women vote.
- She reinforces the change mem.
- She's from Kansas (red state) where Obama has roots
- Father is fromer Gov of Ohio
- KS touches both MO and CO which means McCain is back to playing some defense.
No evidence what-so-ever. There is one stop in Kansas that does not have any top-of-mind signifigance to the Obama narritave, i.e. Topeka. None of the Ohio, Missouri, or Indiana stops have any strict Obama narritave significance. If we discount Ohio as a true battle ground, shouldn't this argue more for Obama-Bayh or Obama-McClaskill/Gephard? No, you start at home, hit a major battleground, and drive to the convention, stopping at a family-site. It just so happens I-70 is pretty handy for making that trip.
Editor-
Nervous about what? McCain is gaining and 3/4 of Obama's VP picks are either mediocre nobodies (Sebelius, Kaine) or a plagarist Washington blowhard (Biden).
Editor--
What has she DONE as Governor? Name two accomplishments. Two.
I like Sebelius and I like Biden. I don't dislike Kaine or Bayh.
I gave up on McCain long ago, and I like Obama a lot -- so you know what? He can pick any of those four and it will be fine by me. I won't pretend that it is going to affect my decision making. I'm not undecided.
I'd love to see this, though I noticed that Sebelius has a scheduled appearence Saturday night in Denver with the Stonewall Democrats. Still not impossible I suppose.
VCon-
Why are you so worried about her? Or are you worried about any and all of the potential VPs?
And they announce immediately that they have agreed on some other members of the team (e.g., SecState, SecDef, UN Ambassador) and that those people will be announced as they join the trip at stops along the way to Denver. What a build-up to the convention. And Gore can say on Thursday night that he's only sorry he missed the bus!
I'm just trying to honestly figure out what qualifies her to be able to step into the Presidency should (God forbid) the President dies, in what would likely be a national crisis.
At least Biden can do that much, as much of a bigmouth blowhard he is.
Bayh can do that, without being an ass.
Kaine? Sebelius? They'd crap their pants when they were told the President died.
Nate,
I would quit worrying about who ODumbo's Vice-President will be and figure out how to stop his crashing in the last few poll.
Surprised I didn't do this before but scribbling on a piece of paper yesterday, I know my preferred VP:
SCHWEITZER (by far the ballsiest pick)
WARNER (only because he guarantees Virginia)
CLARK
WEBB
BIDEN
BAYH
POWELL
CLINTON
RENDELL
SEBELIUS
HAGEL
RICHARDSON
Any one of the top 5 would do.
I love the Obama-SebeliBus. :D
But judging by the pronoun slip the other night and Sebelius's own schedule, I don't think it's likely. I still have a sneaking suspicion that Obama might pull a surprise out of the hat, but that might be wishful thinking as I'm not enthusiastic about any of the other "frontrunners" at this point. Biden's baggage worries me, Bayh was a warhawk until just last year, Kaine has even less experience than Obama, and Clinton is a Clinton.
While I'm still hoping for Schweitzer (obviously) right now I'm keeping my eye on Jack Reed as the potential dark-horse pick.
Hell i like em all except bayh. This VP stuff is getting a little silly. Pundits upon pundits speculating every minute of every day trying to read into every morsel of information they can get their hands on. In the end the VP doesn't mean much.
Nate, It seems the electoral college has tilted in McCain's favor, when will this be reflected in the numbers?
Oh Jack Reed. Another New England liberal who thinks he can run on the fact he was in Vietnam. Who does THAT remind you of?
I'll give you a hint.
J___ K____
Obama up 4 in New Hampshire, big gain for McCain, as he was down 11 the month before.
NH still looks like a tough state for McCain to pick up, but Hillary was down 10 the week before the Dem primary in this state and she won.
The nice thing about Sebelius, despite her inexperience on the national stage, is that she seems like a very cool and collected person who wouldn't lose her head in a crisis.
The downside is that she's utterly boring and would have to coast on the aura of hype and intellectualism that would surround the Obama/Sebelius ticket through the campaign season. She would debate effectively, I think, but I don't think she would generate a whole lot of electricity or excitement while doing so.
Virginia Conservative: The following is straight from Wikipedia: In November 2005, Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education — all without raising taxes, although she proposed raising sales, property, and income taxes[14]. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the Legislature.
I'm no expert. This took me less than 25 seconds to type in "Sebelius" in Google, click on the Wikipedia link, and scan for a paragraph talking about at least 2 accomplishments. What is the aversion conservatives have to facts? I just don't get it.
I've got a prediction.
Whatever decision Obama makes will be ridiculed by Mule Rider.
And then he'll call Nate a wanker.
The longer we have to wait for the announcement, the more likely is Nate's theory that the leaking of Kaine, Bayh, and Biden is a head-fake.
While Sebelius is a "bold" choice I think that what Obama needs most right now on the ticket is a fighter. That's why the conventional wisdom has settled on Biden. Sebelius strikes me as just the wrong chemistry given that the story right now is that Obama is on the ropes. And people are right that the PUMAs just won't be placated by "just any woman."
So as days go by a "surprise" choice becomes more likely. While Clinton is a fighter, it can't be Clinton because she and Bill have refused to be vetted, and Bill seems to be actively campaigning for McCain.
Sebelius would be a fine candidate but she really doesn't help much electorially (there's little chance she would tip Kansas or Missouri) and she doesn't add the gravitas and fight factor you get from a Biden. So if she was in contention, why not include her name in the Monday leaks? There's no point saving up for a big surprise and having that surprise be,..not Clinton but...some other woman that we've been speculating about all along.
In fact, I can't think of any other "surprise" that would have a bombshell effect AND help get Obama off the ropes and unite the party at the same time, except for one person: Al Gore.
Gore has vehemently denied that he would accept VP...but if Obama had managed to convince him, then all the head-fakes and the delayed announcement would make sense. And the announcement would truly be a genius masterstroke.
Actually Jack he's only up one point with and without leaners. I wouldn't give up on NH yet. It has a maverick streak that seems fond of McCain
I wouldn't be thrilled about Reed either. But I think he's got a better chance of being picked than the pundits are figuring.
As I said, I'm not really enthused about any of the likelier VP candidates.
Stick to stats, Nate. It's a lot more informative than this hyperbolic nonsense.
Virginia Conservative said...
Oh Jack Reed. Another New England liberal who thinks he can run on the fact he was in Vietnam. Who does THAT remind you of?
I'll give you a hint.
J___ K____
Thats funny because McCain's entire campaign is the POW routine. If he wasn't a POW he wouldn't be a Senator, or running for President. If your going to make that comment, at least throw in the Republicans in the same boat.
Mark at 4:41
The pronoun "slip" in Raleigh was another elaborate head fake by the O-team. These guys aren't stupid. It didn't mean anything. In fact, it was really a 'tell' that they're leaning toward a woman.
I've been a liberal my entire life. Obama is my hero. He is so handsome. I cry every time he speaks from a teleprompter. I really think he could lead us to a new utopia.
His plan to give health care coverage to everyone and nobody has to pay is spon on. I didn't understand the part about have a chip under our skin for the 666 united health plan though.
Now that the polls are going the other way, I am really scared.
I really feel bad for his brother living in a hut in Africa. Maybe Obama can bring him to America to help him. That would be the compassionate thing to do.
Audient,
Why are u attacking Mule Rider. He is contributing to this discussion and u show up and attack like a rabid kitty kat. Just like a TYPICAL LEFT WING NUT.
Now, get off the computer before your mommy comes into the room and spanks u for being an asshole!
I still wouldn't feel very good if God forbid there was a major terrorist attack and the sitting President got killed.
With Bayh I would feel re-assured that at least we have someone in there who knows his way around Washington, who won't need on the job training. Same with Biden.
Kaine? Sebelius? I'd be very afraid.
"The more I think about it, the more I think Rendell might be his best choice. "
Too bad theres a YouTube clip of him heaping praise on Louis Farakahn. Why Obama didn't release this to hurt Clinton in PA, I'll never understand.
Oh Jack Reed. Another New England liberal who thinks he can run on the fact he was in Vietnam. Who does THAT remind you of?
I'll give you a hint.
J___ K____
-VACon
I'll admit, I misread it and thought of WW2 instead of Vietnam, and answered "John Kennedy".
Heh.
I like my answer more.
Personally, and I've argued this a lot lately, both VP picks are traps for the candidates. Neither Obama nor McCain has any pure-positive picks. It's very much a least-evil pick for each, and they have to pick what storylines to nurture and sacrifice.
Pick a VP for Obama, any VP, and there will be about an equal number of positives and negatives, just in a different vein. In this, I'd argue that Schweitzer and Sebellius are the 'do no harmiest' candidates, given how Schweitzer's largest knocks are remote state and unknownedness, and Sebellius has the "OMG PUMAS!" meme working against her, which I consider BS. Biden, Clark, Clinton, Bayh, Kaine, they all have obvious and much-documented goods and bads.
Same goes for McCain. He's almost written into the Pawlenty corner out of sheer fear of making some group worse than mopey about his pick. Pawlenty is about as exciting as polenta, but Mitt, Ridge, and Lieberman seem to bring out the worst fears in the hearts of the hardest-core of Republicans.
So each candidate will select a VP, and endure the obvious MSM stories, the obvious blogspittle, the obvious introspection that "omg pumas hate this pick and it will cost Obama the election" (regardless of who is picked, including Hillary herself "who should have instead been on the top of the ticket"), and the obvious resulting change in the campaign process: Nothing.
Nothing will change with the VP pick. This has been and will be about the top.
This is a good post to read while I'm wasting my time waiting for my phone to buzz. Perhaps we should each develop our own outlandish suggestion to back up our own favorite.
You have to give Obama credit for keeping this air tight and allowing the buzz to build.
I just hope he's got a selection that will be as exciting as the buildup.
SEBELIUS should wait, pull a WARNER, and run for the Senate. She may be popular in Kansas but she's not VP material.
The numbers have definitely trended closer in swing states over the past few weeks, probably thanks to Obama being pushed off the news by Russia/Georgia, the Olympics, and his Hawaiian vacation. McCain seems to benefit from Obama not being primped and preened and strutted about on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and the rest of the MSM gang.
Obama needs to regain control of the narrative and put himself back in headlines. The VP pick, the end of the Olympics, and the Democratic National Convention will all probably go a long ways toward doing that.
I think the fact that Bush and Cheney are going to be giving primetime addresses at the Republican National Convention (why would they do that?) will do a good job of stunting McCain's bump, just as McCain's VP announcement and the closeness of the two conventions' dates will crimp Obama's post-convention bump. But I'm sure both of them will be back on the news with all that's going on in the world of politics, and that counts for a lot.
Ok, I'll go with my totally outlandish suggestion for Obama.
General Petraeus. Yeah, the rumor is hes actually a moderate to conservative Democrat. I would just hang it up and not bother to vote if that happened, it would totally take the air out of the Republicans campaign.
Per Hannity Radio:
A third national poll will have McCain leading come 6:30pm this evening. It is expected to be the NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll that will be released on Hardball with Chris Matthews.
Zogby has McCain up 5.
GWU Battleground has McCain up 1.
Other polls of note that are devastating to Obama:
McCain up 5 in Ohio. [still an outlier liberals??]
McCain up 10 in Missouri.
Obama up 1 in New Hampshire, down from 11 in June.
RCP has McCain winning and other sites now have it a dead heat.
Very interesting.
If Barack is the real deal - he will make a good choice - the right choice for his campaign and his administration.
He is hitting back and being a bit more aggressive than he was campaigning against fellow D's.
His new ad running in GA is very compelling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXj4mEwM6PQ
I have to assume I'm not the only one who saw this:
http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=1747
McCain will pick Pawlenty, no doubt.
Virginia Conservative said...
"The more I think about it, the more I think Rendell might be his best choice.
Too bad theres a YouTube clip of him heaping praise on Louis Farakahn. Why Obama didn't release this to hurt Clinton in PA, I'll never understand.
I know conservatives turn elections into the lowest common denominator. They lie, and smear and get into gutter politics, and yes it works. Obama doesn't seem to want to go there, and as much as I think he may lose the election because of it, its a stand on principle. A rare thing in Washington these days.
James you are quite right about NH. I went to Rasm. Web site, but it turns out I was looking at a 7/24 article. Just got the straight scoop at Pollster.com.
It is actually better news than I thought. Really looking forward to seeing numbers from Michigan.
All the states are beginning to turn McCain's way, except the deepest blue. With Poll numbers like this he will need to have a spectacular pick as Vice-President. I say it will be John "LURCH" Kerry.
Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri and Kansas
For what its worth, if you take a look at a paper,
"Still Unmelted after all these Years", which you can find here:
http://kromkowski.blogspot.com/
See page 3.
Using a Nearest Neighbor method similar to Nate's State Similarity, You'll see that these states, along with MI and PA form a unique minimum tree spanning network, "Middle America" along complex ancestry dimensions.
From a more practical/strategic point. Maybe O ought to let the Convention decide from his three or four vetted choices. Sebelius, Bayh, Kaine, Dodd, Biden, Jerry Brown (ok that's my choice), etc.
We're Democrats after all, the President need not pick a VP like dictators pick their successors, by decree. There a kind of controlled raucousness about it.
That would certainly take the spot light off the Clintons' speeches.
editor,
You may be right, but there's no way of knowing.
pander,
Pawlenty left the Roman Catholic Church to become a nondenominational evangelical. Obama's VP pick is probably going to be Catholic (Biden is, Sebelius is, Kaine is, Clark is, Bayh isn't) and I think Pawlenty will almost certainly be portrayed as "disrespecting" the Catholic Church or something. McCain could potentially lose Ohio, maybe even Indiana, over something like that.
RCP has McCain winning and other sites now have it a dead heat.
As usual, a Republican lied. Imagine that! The facts are these: RCP offers five different measures of the race. Four of them say Obama is ahead, and one of them says McCain is ahead.
A question for "continue to spread the word!!!" -- Which freeway church do you attend, and how often do you attend their classes on how to tell political lies for Jesus H. Christ, Republican (TM)?
In other news, latest polls show that this might actually be a really close race. Shocking!!! Imagine that? We have a totally polarized electorate. No one could've predicted such a thing if they've been living in the USA the past 16 years. SO a few polls show McCain actually ahead (by ONE POINT or whatever). What does it mean? I guess it means McCain is going to be next president, or maybe it means he still probably won't be. Smart Money remains on Obama.
Hey Nate,
Unrelated, but can you tear the new Zogby poll (with McCain up 5) apart? It seems fishy, especially considering it's Zogby.
No offense intended, but this site was better when it focused almost entirely on statistical analysis. as punditry goes, we already have plenty of baseless speculation out there.
Pluckon,
The measure that RCP has McCain winning by happens to be the Electoral College, the only one that matters.
For the first time, I have to admit I'm beginning to wonder whether Obama can pull this one out.
We'll have a better idea of where things stand in a few weeks.
Mule rider, we cannot judge integrity from policies. And voters don't vote on policy for the presidency. Eben this year when voters admit Obama has far better policies McCain is in a dead heat.
Obama's not wanting to go nuclear is principle, he would rather lose the election than compromise his principles. I think thats stupid. But it is integrity. I'd take winning over integrity right now.
ZOGBY?!?!? LMAO!!!
Sure thing, kid.
I've give the McCoot campaign credit, they've managed to drag Obama down. People were saying that weeks ago. But unfortunately, it's coinciding with the VP announcement and convention.
I said last week, the presidential campaign starts for REAL in the upcoming days. Obama's been on extended vacation for the past 2 months. It's time to pull his finger out and focus on hammering McCoot. Start firing up the base!
I know conservatives turn elections into the lowest common denominator. They lie, and smear and get into gutter politics, and yes it works. Obama doesn't seem to want to go there, and as much as I think he may lose the election because of it, its a stand on principle. A rare thing in Washington these days.
He'd better wake up and remember that he is running for president, not sainthood. If he doesn't want to be president, he should step aside and give the nomination to someone who really, really wants the job.
She's a woman even women can dislike.
All you can eat at 12.5-to-1 at Matchbook.
man, I think the Obama team has it down to a few finalists but hasn't made the decision yet. Otherwise I figured they would have announced today or yesterday to get maximum weekday coverage leading up to the convention. Tomorrow really is the drop dead date to announce and I think they're still are torn between Biden , Kaine, and Clinton.
If Obama thinks the campaign is too "negative" he can drop out. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Mike @ 5:02 PM said...
"No offense intended, but this site was better when it focused almost entirely on statistical analysis. as punditry goes, we already have plenty of baseless speculation out there."
Too true. Viral replication is in full force on this sire. Too bad.
Pluckon, The measure that RCP has McCain winning by happens to be the Electoral College, the only one that matters.
Yet another Republican lie. (Which freeway church do YOU attend?) In fact, RCP offers two different views of the Electoral College. Obama leads in one view, and McCain leads in the other. I know that facts disturb Republicans!
http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=1747
Hey Mule,
Can you e-mail me when you get the chance? 538dotcom at gmail dot com. Thanks.
Obama remains very confident even though it appears his 2 month vacation has hurt him in the polls. This election really hasn't started yet so polls don't matter much. I'd venture this will be really close to the final days, and come down to turnout on the final day.
For our conservative commenters -- based on your declarations of all the VP hopefuls who are completely unqualified to be commander-in-chief, you must have all voted against George W. Bush in 2000, right?
Tomorrow really is the drop dead date to announce and I think they're still are torn between Biden , Kaine, and Clinton.
I think that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You can't know. I can say this much, though: The Obama people are managing to create suspense and discussion. I'll give 'em that much credit.
I'm amused by all the folks who keep saying Nate should just stick to stats and numbers and not put political or specualtive stuff up here.
Guys... it's all about feeding the beast, which is US. Every time Nate or Sean puts up a post, it fills up with 200 comments in no time.
There simply aren't enough stat-related topics right now to feed our ravenous need for self-expression. I'm surprised the guys don't just give up and start tossing out open threads (though God knows what might happen on those threads.)
VCon, you didn't get a chance to answer my question down in the deadthread... you're not impressed by Sibelius, you think Bayh's a bore, you've actively begged for Clinton, Kaine or Biden... so are there any Dem VP possibles that you find a bit scary?
InsiderAdvantage
8/19/08; 614 LV, 4%
Mode: IVR
North Carolina
McCain 45, Obama 43, Barr 5, Nader 1
Sen: Dole (R-i) 40, Hagan (D) 40
looks bad for Sen. Dole, eh ? and McCain cannot close the deal in yet another red state...
or maybe just noise & noise.
spin it how ever you want, but more evidence of a close race.
GO BARR !
" For our conservative commenters -- based on your declarations of all the VP hopefuls who are completely unqualified to be commander-in-chief, you must have all voted against George W. Bush in 2000, right?"
Dick Cheney was a former Defense Secretary and White House Chief of Staff, in addition to serving in Congress. I think thats pretty damn well qualified.
Also, its important for the VP to be MORE qualified than the guy at the top of the ticket if possible because of the horrible circumstances upon which they would ascend to the Presidency.
Tye Obama staff has stated he has made up his mind. They are waiting on roll out. geez.
Again, Bayh scares me the most out of the contenders currently mentioned.
If he wants to pick somebody who could actually "lead" behind him, or be ready to lead instead of him, he should go with Clark, Biden, or Rendell. I'm not so sure Bayh would even be the right dude to step in and be President if duty called.
Since when has that been a factor? Since Nixon picked Agnew or Bush's father picked Quayle? Frankly, I think the v-p thing is overrated to begin with. In Obama's case, I think he'd do best by picking the nastiest attack dog possible, and we all know who that is.
ad for Hardball is on MSNBC & Chris M is teasing us with the WSJ/NBC poll #'s - especially the alleged impact of Hillary on the Obama #'s
more proof that these polls are all about feeding the beast & marketing.
stay tooned...
Obama better just stop thinking he even has a prayer of turning a red state blue. Forgrt about Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, or even Ohio.
New Hampshire is turning on you now. I thought the bleeding would stop at Ohio... but we have blue states turning red now.
Thanks, VC.
This just in... Wolf Blitzer just asked Nancy Pelosi if she's worried by the current polls. She said not at all, and actually went on to explain the fallacy in the LV screens that she feels are skewing teh results. She thinks Obama will have a "huge mandate."
Darien,
Obama better keep thinking that way, because he can't win with just the Kerry states or the Gore states. Don't be a dumbass. And New Hampshire's not red yet...hold your horses.
Redshift,
Don't be silly. Our conservative commentators were still in diapers in 2000.
"I'm just trying to honestly figure out what qualifies her to be able to step into the Presidency should (God forbid) the President dies, in what would likely be a national crisis."
I don't know anything about Kathleen Sebelius except that my father likes her and predicted she'd be Obama's running mate several months ago.
But her resume is pretty much the textbook resume for a Presidential candidate: popular and reasonably successful two-term governor. That's essentially the same resume as George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Spiro Agnew. Some of those guys obviously sucked in the Pres/VP role (Agnew, Bush, Carter - the ABC of lousy Pres/VPs), but she's got basically the same qualifications as 4 of our last 5 Presidents had when they took the Oath of Office.
Before all the Repub trolls get worked up on the polls here look at the internals and the "base" each side has. McCain is way ahead and that is the reason these polls have tightened. After Denver and the Dems get their act together there is a 5%+ base bounce that will stick and build.
See my post as well:
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/jnail/blog/&blogId=3176
You guys who are complaining because the site includes non-stats posts are aware that you're not required to read them all, right?
I suppose it's a milestone of sorts -- all blogs that become popular seem to go through a phase where they attract commenters who complain that the hosts are writing about or not writing about their preferred topic (always because "the site would be better," of course, not because "what I want is more important than what you want to write about.")
You could do this:
H - Omaha
I - Lincoln
J - North Platte
That would look even smoother and indicate a suprise pick like Chuck Hagel.
REDSHIFT,
actually most of the complaints are about certain posters who lack common civility... Partisan ? fine with rational boundaries, please.
but it is best to try to stay on point, whether about stats & analysis with FACTS
or when Nate & Sean steer it toward related electoral topics of interest & impact on the campaigns
wow- it quit raining here in central FL for a minute !
they got over 20" already today just down the road in Melbourne.
so I am gonna get outta here before I need an airboat & go get dinner.
ciao 4 now
have fun when the WSJ/NBC polling finally gets released....
remember, it is noise in August
I have always thought the allowing Hillary to place her name in nomination was a part of the possibility of Sebelius as the VP. It would be a bigtime womens love fest at the convention. Hillary and her forces would have their catharsis and Obama gets to choose the female running mate he always wanted. Women decide these elections.
I remember many years ago I worked on the original Law & Order. The cast was all male and the network told Dick Wolf he needed some women characters or else the show was cancelled. He recast 2 male characters with women and the show never looked back. Ratings went up immediately the next season. Still on the air. Think of Sebelius in that vein and it looks like a pretty savvy pick. Yeah, I know politics isn't TV, but, in a way it is.
I find it hilarious that people actually think Kathleen Sebelius would flip Kansas blue or even put Kansas in PLAY. Seriously? Are people that delusional? That's like McCain picking Mitt Romney for the hope that he flips Massachusetts red or make the state competitive.
Also, people on this blog(liberals) still can't see the difference between Zogby and Zogby Interactive. I doubt any news media outlet like Reuters would associate themselves with Zogby Interactive. But Zogby isn't bad because its not internet based.
August is the month when liberals start to fall. August is the month
Dukakis, Kerry, and now Obama.
I posted this elsewhere this morning suggesting that Sebelius would get the nod. My conspiracy theory, as you will note, is that it will be engineered by the Clintons who now reading the polls and the tea leaves see affilaition with the Obama campaign as political death.
Here goes . . . .
I have never seen such amusing fodder as the analysis of who Obama is going to pick.
I must say it has me totally bamboozled.
Yesterday’s short list had Biden, Bayh and Kaine on it and I would have made that the order of finish. I cannot imagine Obama being so crass as to hold out an icon’s name like Biden’s only to reject him. Curiously, Biden seemed to take himself out of the running yesterday only to backtrack a bit.
I think Biden has decided he does not want it. Mrs. Obama is said to be opposed to him and as the new Marie Antoinette of Democrat politics, I think she gets what she wants. But Biden is not basing his reluctance on the demurrer of Mrs. Obama; rather I think he has made the calculation that his political fortunes would not be served as Obama’s number 2. Mostly because I think he fears, as the polls seem to be showing, that Obama may very well lose. The Democrat Party, unlike the Republicans, does not cotton to losers in future races. They tend to get pensioned off somewhere.
One would think with all of Obama’s present polling trouble ( the State polls and Zogby and the other new polls showing the race virtually even – this after weeks of solid leads for him in the spot polls as opposed to the trackers), Obama would make the smart calculation and turn to Mrs. Clinton. This is what I said late yesterday.
I think the call was made and she also demurred. Not interested, thank you very much Barack! Why? I think Mrs. Clinton, like Biden, suspects this may be a losing effort and even if the ticket wins, why spend four to eight years in exile as VEEP to a Prez who does not like you very much.
The Clintons are nothing if not clever. Bill and Hill have no doubt offered their sage counsel to Obama. He needs to do something dramatic. He needs to shore up base support among her disaffected voters.
Who then have they recommended?
Why none other than Governor Sibelius. Only a woman at number two can assuage the ill-feelings of the sulking Hillary supporters. Pick her, they urge and you will have chosen someone you like, we like and our 18 million voters like.
This is of course tailor made to create dissension in the party. Many of HRC’s most ardent supporters will not get what Obama has done in passing over their gal.
Hillary will be gracious, but a touch wounded in the aftermath, slipping Obama the shiv and making sure he goes down to a bitter defeat.
Four years is hardly a lifetime in politics. Plenty of time for Mrs. Clinton to come back. Right after the election, the media (along with many of the trolls here) will all say I told you so and coronate her on the spot.
WSJ Poll:
Obama 45
McCain 42
August is the month....
He still hasn't closed the deal with Clinton voters, either.
Also I don't think the GOP has anything to be worried about in North Carolina. Until a poll actually shows Obama with a lead in North Carolina, McCain is fine. It's kind of like Michigan - McCain has yet to poll ahead of Obama there, even though its close. I also don't think Barr will get 5% of the vote in North Carolina, it will peak at 2-3%.
Nate,
I wish you would get to the daily polls before 10 or 11 tonight. That's getting into my beauty sleep.
Besides it looks like it will be a big post for you with all the State and National Polls that came out today.
Mule Rider said...
MATT J H,
Yeah, a lot of confusing stuff about the electorate when you consider how they vote based on their confluence of ideals about the policies presented, the integrity of the candidates, and the overall perception of who makes a better leader.
There appears to be a lot of cognitive dissionance in how people vote. Using an argumentum ad populum looking at people's views on policies and integrity, it looks like Obama should have at least 60% of the vote. But there's something out there that throws it all out of whack - somewhere in that "generic" best leader perception - that presents results not in line with everything else.
Obama stood on the sidelines and let himself get smeared for 2 entire months. I was the first on this site to point out what a terrible strategy it was to sit back and let McCain smear him to death.
I've often stated Obama should let Hillary run if he doesn't want to fight for it. He's probably going to lose because of his unwillingness to attack and get nasty. He has no coordinated media strategy, and he has no coordinated attack message against McCain.
McCains camp was totally ineffective until Schmidt the Rove disciple took over McCain's campaign and the smearing began. You can look at the super tracker and see the polls move the week Schmidt took over. It had nothing to do with policy.
Kerry never lost because of any policy. Republicans attack the person, not the policies, and it works. Democrats are afraid to attack personally because apparently its gutter politics, which it is. But again it works very well. Obama has sat on the sidelines since June and let McCain tear him down so of course Obama has lost support. But theres 12 weeks left and thats an eternity. This thing hasn't really gotten started. Theres lots of time for Obama to regain footing but he has been MIA for a long time.
Even his latest round of attack ads are uncoordinated, no central theme, no consistency. I'm a big Obama supporter, but all I hear from his campaign is this mythical ground game that will win him the election. and maybe it will, but in the mean time his campaign has been terrible, and Obama has looked weak. Obviously he has a moral problem with going really negative. I can understand that, but he's probably going to lose because of it.
We live in a backward, uneducated country where the people who decide elections are called low information voters. Meaning they don't care enough to learn about the candidates or their positions. So they are left voting on personal traits. If McCain is smearing Obama for months and Obama doesn't defend, or attack back, these voters will slowly shift towards McCain which is what has happened. I have no idea whats going to happen in the future. Anything could happen, but its probabley going to be close on election day, and the republicans will probabley win if Obama doesn't stand up for himself, or if this ground game isn't the be all and end all.
"WSJ Poll:
Obama 45
McCain 42
August is the month....
He still hasn't closed the deal with Clinton voters, either."
I'm not saying that's a good result, but did you notice that Obama's actually still leading in that poll? Maybe you should wait until he's actually, y'know, losing? (Come on, I'm guessing that'll actually happen on this site tonight)
Mule, "backlash" in your dreams.
Granted, many middle-aged and older women supported Hillary. And most of them have already shifted their support to Obama.
Your proposition is that women who support feminism, fought for equality and choice and supported a female candidate... will turn against Obama if he selects a female running mate... because she isn't the "right" woman? Is that just like some huge number of male voters will refuse to support him if he chooses a male running mate who is not-Biden?
You realize that the proposition is incredibly insulting to women? It proposes that there's only ONE female candidate who is worthy of consideration for the VP slot... rather than that women who are in high office (a long list follows--start on the West coast and go east, listing governors and senators...). THAT's nonsensical. Ask Hillary if she's the only woman in the country worthy of being considered capable of being president or vice president, and she'll laugh. Does she want to be the president? Yes. But that's different.
Further, you're suggesting that these fervently pro-women women, who are overwhelmingly pro-choice, are going to turn on their heels and support... life-from-the-moment-of-thinking-about-sex McCain (U-turn on the bus there...) and his VP, who we've already seen can't be pro-choice at all or the pro-birthers will throw a tantrum and refuse to support John.
Silly media meme, silly of you to even grant it consideration save as spin, spin, spin.
Don't count your chickens.
This election is far from over.
Ogre-
Thats bull. the WSJ/NBC poll says Obama has ONLY 1 out of every 2 voters that voted for Hillary in the Primary.
Thats only half.
Clearly, hes got problems in Hillaryland.
Matt JH is in full "concern troll" mode: "I've often stated Obama should let Hillary run if he doesn't want to fight for it. He's probably going to lose because of his unwillingness to attack and get nasty. He has no coordinated media strategy, and he has no coordinated attack message against McCain."
As noted elsewhere:
Obama began declining in the polls around the 4th of July b/c the flip flopper meme took hold. It was on 7/3 that he held his famous dueling press conferences on Iraq and then the feeding frenzy began.
He arrested it briefly with his Rainbow Tour of Europe and the Mid-East and then the celebrity meme began to take root.
Now we have McCain coming home to Evangelicals while running Olympic ads warning about the Obama tax hikes. Georgia too has played a role in this.
Obama spiked for a time last week on coverage of McCain having gone negative, but then folks got used to the show and settled in to watch the horror movie unfold.
Now Obama is out on the stump whining about the McCain attacks, drawing attention to charges that he, Obama, is unpatriotic, and just digging himself deeper into a grave.
All he's got is the McBush/McSame crap which is so last month!
Y'all think that Obama and Plouffe and Axelrod are so brilliant and cannot make a misstep, but they have and they continue to do so.
First you have this silly notion of a map changing election and a 50-state race. Add to that all those field offices he has opened up (expect to start hearing how many of them are being closed or run by skeleton staffs – e.g. in Indiana unless Bayh is the pick). Finally, you have an Obama campaign without a message (hope and change?) and worse an inability to take control of the narrative of who the candidate is away from the McCain camp.
It is only getting worse, folks. The Ayers thing is starting to blow up with the University of Chicago reported to be stonewalling about releasing information they have concerning the relationship between the former Weather Underground Bomber and Obama.
Does anyone really think that we can elect a president of the US who counts among his friends and supporters and babysitters of his children an unrepentant terrorist?
And notice I have not even had to mention Rev. Wright.
"Hillary will be gracious, but a touch wounded in the aftermath, slipping Obama the shiv and making sure he goes down to a bitter defeat."
People who like to talk about Hillary wanting McCain to win so she can get the nomination or arguing that Clinton would be crushing McCain right now seem to forget that Obama ALSO got 18 million votes in the primary season. If Hillary Clinton costs Barack Obama the Presidency, do you really think that there's the slightest chance in the world that those people would actually be willing to vote for her in 2012? If Hillary had won a close primary battle with Obama, wouldn't we be in the exact same situation, only with Obama's supporters hesitant to support Hillary instead of vice-versa?
MATT JH, you nailed it. I couldn't agree more. petekent, go back to freeperland. On the way there, stop at the First Freeway Church of Jesus H. Christ the Republican Nutcase Torturer. Your pastor Rick has left an envelope with your name on it.
I like Hillary, but I have to disagree with the later part of your analysis. A primary loss, in this example, could be seen as a team progressing from 4 - 12 to 8-8. You suspect that the team will continue to improve, but theres one problem. There are so many elements/variables to football including 33% dynamic roster change, injuries, the draft, etc., that alter the game each and every year. This is something I would expect to happen to Hillary or to anyone who fell short of their winning their parties nomination. She looks like the favorite now, but in 6 months I'd be suprised to see her on top still (assuming Barack Obama loses). I would think that Mark Warner's speech would propel him to the top. In 1 year, I would expect to see Warner, Sibelius, McCaskill and Chet Edwards as front runners with Hillary in the second tier. In 4 years I think she is an afterthought for the Democratic Nomination.
Tom,
The Clintons are very, very skilled at manipulating people.
THE NBC NEWS/WSJ POLL HAS HILLARY CLINTON LEADING MCCAIN BY 6.
IT'S NOT TOO LATE, WE CAN RIGHT THIS WRONG. CALL/WRITE/EMAIL SUPERDELEGATES AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT HILLARY AT THE COVENTION.
SHE'S OUR ONLY HOPE AT GETTING A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
That comment was in response to PeteKent's post
DCM in FL:
actually most of the complaints are about certain posters who lack common civility... Partisan ? fine with rational boundaries, please.
Yeah, but I wasn't talking about those; all complaints are not the same -- those ones are based on the actual comment policies.
We seemed to have an unusual number of "don't do these posts" comments in this thread. It remains to be seen whether it's a trend.
Pluckon,
Stop with the freeway church nonsense. You've mentioned it in like your last 3 posts. It's an insult to Christians everywhere.
tomthress:
My take on this election from January was that the race bw Clinton and Obama was bound to cleave the party in two along racial/gender lines. I think we have seen it to be true. This is the product of the identity politics that the Dems always play, appealing to interest groups and ignoring the citizenry in general.
As Rev Wright said, your chickens are coming home to roost.
Do not underestimate the Clintons either; they will not make it obvious their desire to see Obama lose. If they act a touch detached, well given the way Bill especially was savaged (I mean, America's "first Black president" called "a racist"!), few would fault them.
Actually, I think it's an insult to a particularly mindless sort of Christian, i.e. the type that takes what is said at the pulpit blindly without opening the book, reading themselves, and questioning the text.
"Pick up and read!" -- St. Augustine
"Tom,
The Clintons are very, very skilled at manipulating people."
Not Obama voters. Look, the only way John McCain wins this election is if he gets a lot higher % of Repubs than Obama gets of Dems. And the only way that happens is if Clinton supporters don't come home to Obama. That's very possible, don't get me wrong. But if it happens, Obama supporters are going to blame Obama's loss on Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. She'd be starting out in 2012 with half of all Democrats against her which means, at best, she'd win a long drawn-out fracturous primary battle. At which point she'd be in the same position that Obama's in now - needing to get the votes of her primary opponent(s) to have a chance to win. It won't happen.
She burned her bridge by dragging this thing on this year and especially with her "hardworking white people" comment. Hillary Clinton's only chance at the Presidency is to become Obama's VP.
Andrew,
There is merit in what you say. HRC is already a loser by Dem stds having failed to best Obama. She may indeed be 2nd tier next time around.
Her only hope is that the ursula's of the world will keep alive the "if only myth".
Note that Republicans seem more embracing of their losers. Nixon, Reagan as examples. Try, try again.
It almost doesn't matter now. Obama is in full scale meltdown now and he shows no inclination on how to stop the slide. Actually, he has been in full scale meltdown ever since Hillary aired the 3AM ad and hit at Obama's soft underbelly.
I full expect Hillary to give Obama a rousing endorsement because she can read the tea leaves too. Zogby is a hit and miss pollster but to have OH down by 5% (which I can believe given his grave weakness in the primaries), IN down by 6%, MO down by 10% shows that the roof is caving in. If Hillary wants Obama to go down, all she has to do is decline to be his VP. All we have done is repeated the same mistake from 20 years ago and the result may not be much different.
BTW Nate,
i agree with jack Black: can we do the daily poll wrap up earlier? I do acknowedge that some people have to work just the same.
Great site and thank you for your indulgence.
Wow, Nate, you're really running on empty at this point, aren't ya?
Anyhow, the rope-a-dope strategy seems to be working. Two months of incessant hammering by McCain, and Obama's still leading. Of course, that only works if you can come out the third round and knock your opponent out. I'll believe that Obama can actually pull this off when I see it.
At least nobody's going to be cursing him with high expectations....if he's up by 5 after the Republican Convention, it'll be seen as a comeback.
MATT J. H. said...
"Obama remains very confident even though it appears his 2 month vacation has hurt him in the polls. This election really hasn't started yet so polls don't matter much. I'd venture this will be really close to the final days, and come down to turnout on the final day."
Obama doesn't look worried, does he? It's either quiet confidence or foolishness. It reminds me a lot of the months prior to Iowa. The pundits declared Hillary the nominee as Obama was underperforming in the polls. If I recall, Hillary was 20 points ahead. Obama is underperforming again. McCain hasn't led once all summer. And no, Zogby doesn't count, wingnuts. Nate would even say it was an outlier.
Of course, Obama hasn't literally been on vacation since clinching the nomination, but I don't think there is any doubt the camapaign as a whole have took their foot off the gas. My biggest criticism is they haven't attacked McCain or neutralized some of the ridiculous shit that's been put out there. McCain, it should be noted, had at least 2 months to organize and consolidate his base, while O & H were still going at it. Even the conservatrolls would concede that point. McCain also had no choice but to dump a lot of money on attack ads. And attack ads DO work. It's a no-brainer that Obama consistently leading in the Rasmussen, Gallup and Quinnipiac polls (and still is) has resulted in complacency.
One other thing - Obama hasn't even begun to hammer McCain on anything. Whether or not that'll change, we'll see. I just saw an ad connecting McCain to Ralph Reed and Abramoff. Not bad, but it doesn't have a hook. The attack ads need to be sharper.
To all you chicken littles -
the sky is not falling!!! this is crazy
Obama can pour all his resources into a couple of states and buy thing.
The georgia story will die down, people will focus again on the economy and things will stabilize.
repeat - the sky is not falling. it was just an acorn that hit my son.
THE NBC NEWS/WSJ POLL HAS HILLARY CLINTON LEADING MCCAIN BY 6.
IT'S NOT TOO LATE, WE CAN RIGHT THIS WRONG. CALL/WRITE/EMAIL SUPERDELEGATES AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT HILLARY AT THE COVENTION.
SHE'S OUR ONLY HOPE AT GETTING A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
Actually, to me that's a sign that she probably wouldn't be doing any better than Obama had she been the nominee. She hasn't gotten a hint of negative press since May (and in fact has gotten a lot of positive press since then), and she's still only doing 3 points better than Obama in a hypothetical match-up? Not that impressive.
Hey ass clown peter Kent,
I just said everything you said. Obama's campaign has been terrible. he has had no campaign for the last 3 months.
Obama started losing ground when he "Refined" his policies on Iraq, which he never did, His policy never changed. it was a McCain campaign statement claiming he was changing policies that started it. Of course the media covered it like it was a flip-flop, thats big news, but every independant website says there was no flip flop, but that doesn't matter, he was believed to have done so.
Then was the "Left wing media was in the tank for Barack." The media ran with this one because the entire election was about Obama, BUT IT WAS ALL NEGATIVE. But the Obama campaign was nowhere to be seen.
Next it was not visiting the troops in Iraq which was a lie, but McCain got a weeks worth of media out of that. Then was Paris Hilton, and the race card, all McCain camp ideas, and now its taxes which is a total fallacy as Obama's tax cuts are much better for 95% of Americans.
Its all bullshit, its media controversies and "Breaking news" media spin. McCain has had complete control of the media narrative for 2 months while Obama was MIA. The Obama campaign has has their asses handed to them and they look like amateurs. This is the same bullshit the republicans do every year and his campaign wasn't ready for it?
Its incompetence. Obama's only argument has been McBush, and Obama hasn't pushed that. He hasn't pushed anything. His campaign has no idea what they are doing. I bet they will have a tremendous ground operation, bur it's not going to matter.
All this Bill Aires nonsense is laughable. The guy had a campaign event with him 13 years ago and served on a board with him. Its Hannity 101. Its republican fodder. Its gutter politics. And it will probably work. If Obama isn't willing to do the same in return he will lose.
Polls today were in fact very bad for Obama. NH shows another melt down with McC continuing to solidify his base and Obama loosing supprt among unaffialted voters. Also the high number of undecided voters is bad for him. If the primary is any guide they will break for McC. Add to that the tow are tied on their favorability ratings while Obama has 13% more unfavorables only 5% more very favorables.
If you want a thrill or a chill (depending on your persuasion) read the detail in the Battle Ground Poll (which has McC up by 1%) on the issues and characteristics dimensions McC takes the vast majority and looking at them you wonder how Obama has a prayer.
One thing the Obama folks have to cheer about: you got MD locked up!
Let The Hype Reach Overdrive!
"
Obama Advance Teams Sent to Indiana
The Nashville Post "has learned that senior campaign officials from the Barack Obama Presidential campaign are being dispatched from various locations around the country and are converging in Indianapolis for a 'major event' to take place on Saturday."
"Saturday is the same day that Obama is expected to make his first public appearance with his yet to be announced vice presidential running mate. Indiana is the home state of Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, widely considered to be on the short list of Democratic vice presidential contenders."
Of course, Obama plans a tour of battleground states with his running mate and Indiana may simply be a stop on that tour."
Wow! So, it's Evan Bayh, right? Er. . .Not so much.
Update: An Obama aide tells the Washington Post "unequivocally that the report of a planned Indiana trip is untrue."
So this was just a rumor to get the media in a frenzy? Or was it an unauthorized leak? Or was it some kind of real event that they cancelled in order to avoid the impression that Bayh is the nominee? Or was it an event they cancelled because Bayh IS the nominee and they wanted to prevent a premature release? Or. . . .
Matt JH:
For an Obama supporter you got to sound more upbeat. Just some coaching for you, son!
Your wrote: "Its incompetence. Obama's only argument has been McBush, and Obama hasn't pushed that. He hasn't pushed anything. His campaign has no idea what they are doing. I bet they will have a tremendous ground operation, bur it's not going to matter."
I agree on all that -- come over and join the side of truth and justice. We need your find mind!
BTW Ayers is a much bigger story than folks think. The MSM was dismissive of Wright at first as well. I am certain I ehard that the Ayrers actually abbysat obama's children. Imagine having a person who once bombed the Pentagon babysit your kids!
NJ_Wingnut,
I'll bet my bollocks that you were saying the exact same thing when Obama was comfortably in the lead last month when he had multiple paths to 270. And I bet you were also saying Hillary should be on the ticket, right? You're either a Hillary concern troll or a wingnut. Either way, you're not to taken seriously...like the conservatrolls
That previous post was from http://politicalwire.com/ and their source was the the Nashville Post. Obama campaign in the Wash Post denied it.
The GOP has nothing to do with truth or justice, PeteKent. Have you been living under a rock for the past seven years?
Please be nice (and go easy with the Jesus Christ references. You can be respectful and respected at the same time without making slams and cuts on Christianity. I don't have a problem if you have disdain for the Christian establishment, but don't make that kind of an assault at the base of your argument. As I've learned, it doesn't endear people to the level of discourse you're trying to employ.
I'm not slamming Christianity. I am slamming the phony evangelical Republican political operatives who are hitchhiking on Christianity to flog their wingnut politics. And no, I won't stop it. Nor should anyone else.
Look at what just happened a week ago. Obama walked straight into a trap laid by one more slick, lying evanglist, the so-called "pastor" Rick Warren, who tilted a political debate and then lied about it.
If you want to bend over and take it, be my guest. But I ain't going to do it. If Democrats had an ounce of self-respect, they wouldn't ever put up with that kind of bullshit, either.
Waiting this long to unleash a VP pick on attacking McCain better be worth it. Obama has been mercilessly pounded by the McCain campaign the past two weeks -- to think a surrogate like his VP could have blunted these attacks makes one wonder what the hell the Obama camp is waiting for.
Baye, Kaine, Sebellius and Biden are not worthy of the suspense. In fact, at this point, if it is any of these four it will be a complete letdown.
It's shaping up to be Hillary or a left-field surprise.
Maybe he just can't make up his mind.
Pluckon:
Complete sour grapes. Warren is no Haggee and he was and has been gracious to both men.
If it was such a trap them Obama should not have accepted the invite. He declines dozens of them on a daily basis, i am sure. Like the 10 townhalls with Mccain that first he said he would do, and the he said he wouldn't.
Kinda like public finance for his campaign . . . oh never mind!
Hey, you kids! Get offa my lawn . . . !
Stop with the freeway church nonsense. You've mentioned it in like your last 3 posts. It's an insult to Christians everywhere.
No it's not an insult to Christians everywhere. It's an insult to megachurch dittoheads, and the more insults I can hurl at them, the better.
Almost the entire undecided left in the election are Hillary democrats. Latest WSJ/NBC poll where Obama is up by 3. if Obama can convince these democrats to come home, Obama wins, if he does not, it will be close through election day.
Nate:
I agree it would be useful to have a fixed hour for posting the Daily Poll update -- at least a "latest hour" for doing so.
But I wouldn't put it any time early in the day because polls often are released around the time of the "news hour."
Unless, of course, you're doing it twice. But what about 7 PM central as the "latest" time for a given day, so anyone in eastern zone gets your update about when O'Reilly and Olbermann come on?
Warren is no Haggee and he was and has been gracious to both men.
Your (current) favorite megachurch "pastor" is just one more in a long line of lying, hypocritical clergy that goes all the way back to Tartuffe. He fed the debate questions to McCain and then lied about it, and then he covered up his lies with insulting crapola about the Secret Service.
I'm fully aware that the double-digit I.Q. crowd that attends the freeway churches of America have trained themselves to shut off their brains, but I don't think the Democratic Party will ever get anywhere by thinking they can play on the opponent's playground.
If it was such a trap them Obama should not have accepted the invite.
I agree with you on that. I think it was foolish for Obama to have offered himself up to a Christian megashyster like "pastor" Rick Warren. What on earth was he thinking?
If he made a slam about how "phony evangelicals" had hijacked right wing politics and were "hitchhiking" on Christianity to push their ideals on people and gripe about being "trapped" in a ploy by Rick Warren, then he'll spiral so far out of contention, it won't be funny.
This is what campaigns have surrogates for. And besides, Obama's people don't need to launch any broadsides. Good God, if those people ever said what I'm saying, the way I'm saying it, about the megachurch Christian nutcases, they'd have to really have their heads examined.
But they should NOT have let this "pastor" get away with his baldfaced lie about the so-called "Cone of Silence." That's a matter of self-respect. You don't lay down and get screwed by anyone, even if he's Elmer Gantry with a $25 million book. You stand up and you tell the truth and you let the chips fall where they may.
I am very disappointed that Obama's campaign let Warren get away with his cheap little stunt. They didn't have to use the word bullshit to call bullshit on it, but they should have called bullshit.
"Almost the entire undecided left in the election are Hillary democrats."
This is consistent with the fact that, generally speaking (but not universally speaking), the last few days have seen Obama supporters migrate to undecided moreso than an actual gain by McCain. To be honest, I'm not really sure I understand why Hillary supporters would be going back to undecided - just because Hillary's been in the news lately, the upcoming convention leading to some nostalgia, a growing belief that Hillary's NOT going to be the VP, a hope that Hillary's still got a chance to steal the nomination? Some combination?
If the Hillary voters come back to Obama during/right after the convention, I would guess that they're probably going to stay with him through the end.
Unfortunately, if they don't come back during/right after the convention, I'm not sure that Obama will have much more of an opportunity to bring them into the fold. At that point, his best hope is that they don't make it all the way over to McCain, but instead decide to either go the protest route (Nader?) or just stay home.
Bizarre. Totally bizarre.
You guys jump on Plucky for attacking the megachurch phonies... when the sainted cross-in-the-dirt John McCain, the very same hero who is now carrying your banner for you, called them "agents of intolerance!"
Beam me up, Scotty. It's all gettign so weird down here.
What is it with this woman? She lies about being an only child and now she lies about Mother Teresa? What kind of wacko is Cindy McCain?
The Christian Science Monitor reports that Cindy McCain was caught lying about meeting Mother Teresa
Via Political Carnival:
http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/08/cindy-mccain-lies-about-mother-teresa.html
She seems nice and all, but after all the teasing if he picks here there will be serious blue balls. Quite honestly he needs Hilary at this point. He's hurting in the polls.
Anything less than Hilary, or say a Gore or even, hell, Bill at this point, will be seen as a big dud. And when someone is going for all the sizzle and razzle dazzle like Obama to have a giant dud on the resume will hurt him more than most will think. Dont pick someone to try to win a state, pick someone to win a country.
tomthress, this all goes back to a fundamental problem that the Democratic Party has faced for several decades. For all his talk about "new politics," Obama is very much the same old story in this one important dimension, which is the inability of Democrats to speak to ordinary Americans in their language.
Democrats act as if we run our elections out of a 1960s-era civic textbook. It's as if they've just stepped out of a time capsule that was cracked open when the World Trade Center collapsed.
In that world, you had orderly debates, policed by an aggressive, and progressive-leaning media, reported by three TV networks and big-city newspapers that reached 75% of every household. It was more rational, and facts tended to really count.
Democrats seem to be completely flummoxed at the rise of the subtext in political discourse. It's not so much the issues these days, or even the facts. It is the manner of presentation that trumps all of it. There aren't three TV channels, there are 150 channels. One in four people sees a newspaper every day, and the staffs of those publications have been hollowed out so facts aren't even checked half the time.
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry when people suggest that Obama ignore the Rovian character assassination and talk about health care. These people, who unfortunately seem to dominate the Democratic Party including Obama's campaign, just don't get it. Yes, of course we need to talk about health care, but how we do it, and when we do it, is just as important as what our ideas are.
And, in the meantime, when you've got the Republicans out there telling people sub-rosa that you're a Muslim, a terrorist, an uppity n-word, you'd better damn well have figured out in advance what you're going to do about it. Not only that, you'd better have a few arrows of your own in the quiver.
Come on, look at McCain. He is 72 going on 90. He is a serial adulterer. His wife just got richer because the beer associated with America was sold to a European company. He has taken at least three positions on every issue. Most of his Republican senate colleagues aren't campaigning for him, and won't attend his convention, because they think he's crazy.
This goes on and on and on, yet Obama's people seem to think, like Democrats have thought for the past 35 years, that we are in an 11th grade Government class, circa 1965. For a guy who keeps talking about "Change," wouldn't you think that Obama would realize how much the world has changed?
You might not like it, and I might not like it, but our opinions about the world + $2 will get us a tall coffee of the day at Starbucks. Obama's people has better wake up fast, if it's not already too late, and take the world as it comes, at least between now and November.
tomthress--I completely agree with your post. I think that columns like MoDo today and the news that Hillary's brother is out there in PA trying to get her supporters to back McCain just make it more likely that those who were still licking their wounds might just have illusions about what is happening next week.
One of the interesting memes out there, perpetuated by MoDo today is that it was Hillary who pushed the roll call. In fact, as Ambinder reported, the Obama camp suggested this from the beginning and she was the one who refused. For fear of having less electors at the roll call than she actually got. The most important thing for her is to keep the image of incredible power within the party. But the media will report whatever fits their narrative that Obama was overtaken by the Clintons and now his convention is not his. I can imagine the media would be screaming the same way if they had sidelined Bill Clinton or not given Hillary a prime speaking spot.
Precisely because Hillary want to remain relevant within the party she is going to have to put on some show on Tuesday. I am pretty confident she will. Bill is the question mark. But we will see.
There will always be some dems who will not vote for Obama but these I think were people who would not have voted for him no matter what. But will that percentage be such that will keep Obama getting less than Kerry got from the democrats? I doubt it. In another thread today I argued that the Republican convention with Rudy Guliani, Bush, Cheney and Co will remind everyone that McCain is a republican not some entity out there in the ether who is independent. How sobering will it be to have Cheney and Bush speaking about 'putting country first' (that is the theme on Monday) after how the country has fared? The question is--will the networks cover it? They had decided not to on Monday maybe the Bush/Cheney duo will change their minds.
You guys jump on Plucky for attacking the megachurch phonies... when the sainted cross-in-the-dirt John McCain, the very same hero who is now carrying your banner for you, called them "agents of intolerance!"
Beam me up, Scotty. It's all gettign so weird down here.
It's political Stockholm Syndrome. Democrats are scared to be Democrats, even in a year when the public is BEGGING for Democrats to be Democrats. Look, if Obama can't win it this year, and win it big, then the Democratic Party has pretty much lost its reason to exist and will need to be replaced.
My point about stats posts vs. pundit speculation was just that I think Nate is all over the stats, but has no particular insight over any of a million other pundits on other things. I think he's diluting his "brand" by posting a bunch of speculation.
And yes, it's self-interest if I can save myself sorting through the pundit posts. but I also enjoy and admire the statistical analysis, and think Nate's thinking is more likely to pervade other parts of the media if he doesn't muddy his accomplishments.
feel free to disagree, but that's my feedback to Nate.
p.s.: I think a big reason for Obama's weakness in the polls is his weakness as a candidate, and the Democratic Party's weakness as a party. The public is looking for boldness, and for confidence.
People are scared shitless! More than 80% say we're on the wrong track. Inflation's up and paychecks are NOT keeping pace. Health insurance is a mess, unemployment is rising, and a month ago I paid $5 for a gallon of regular. Five bucks, for cryin' out loud. Does anyone here heat their house with oil, or are you all in apartments where the landlord pays that bill? Because if you heat with oil, you are dreading this coming winter.
Does anyone here know how much it costs to fill an oil tank? Let me tell you: More than a thousand bucks. And you fill that goddamn tank several times during the winter. Ten years ago, I bought ALL of a winter's oil for $1,200. I switched to gas a few years ago (which is also through the roof) but if I still had oil this year's bill would be $5,000. Has Barack Obama said a single f***ing thing about it? And why the f*** not?!
So here we have an election, and you've got the Democratic Party out there showing every sign that it doesn't really even believe in itself. McCain is a shyster from the word go, but he's never in doubt. Barack Obama? He's either in Hawaii or running away from the latest attack.
I hate to see his numbers slipping, but any goddamn fool ought to be able to figure out why without spending a whole lot of thought on it.
Seriously... I want to know why this is.
John McCain can call Roberston, Falwell et al "agents of intolerance" and become the nominee of his party.
If Obama said that he would be pilloried.
Wouldn't he? Pluckon,do you think the country is waiting for a Democrat leader who's brave enough to say that? I don't. I think it would be instant political doom for ANY Dem who said that.
I'm just not sure why.
One post during the entire duration of my workday and this is it? Must be a slow ass newsday indeed.
We've heard that they're coming to Wisconsin, so that might make the road trip impossible.
I worry that all that Washington has to do in order to get America to fall in love all over again with unilateralism, authoritarianism, preemption, and big government is to paint a shiny new face on it. We're tired of the chimp face; we don't care what they do as long as it makes us FEEL good.
President Bush was wrong when he said that we'd replaced the "if it feels good, do it" mentality of America with "let's roll". We don't give a shit about rolling unless it feels good to roll.
Should we bomb Iran? Well, it might feel good to bomb Iran, because they're crazy sons of bitches who say nasty things about us. And the fallout? Well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it!
Should we drill offshore? Well, it sure would feel good to know that eventually that petroleum will end up in our gas tanks. Who cares how long it will take? It'd feel great to know we're not out of oil yet!
Should we elect a black man with Muslim heritage named Barack HUSSEIN Obama president? Well, that wouldn't feel quite right. What about the fact that his alternative is going senile and votes 95% of the time to back our unpopular moron of an incumbent president? Well, at least we know he's not a secret Muslim terrorist!
Etc.
It doesn't matter which party does it. Maybe they'll get over themselves enough to work together on it. Maybe they can find enough common ties thanks to their own private interests and their shared kickbacks from the military-industrial complex and big oil. But all they have to do to make us love the essence of Bush again is to paint something new over his chimp face and call him by a different name. We won't even know we're being screwed again.
But, Pluckon, don't you know the platform is in favor of higher oil prices? Obama said so himself in that his only regret is they went up so quickly. Forces us to use less energy and keep that nasty carbon dioxide out of the air, don't you know.
Forget that talk about maybe reducing the supply/demand imbalance by letting those nasty oil companies drill some more. We need the government to give us pinwheels and solar panels for our rooves.
filistro, for starters, it's the Democratic Party, and they are Democratic leaders.
Secondly, that's why we have politicians: to give voice to what people are thinking. The megachurch crowd is 10-15% of the electorate. A smart politician would figure out how to go after them without going after Christianity. Me, I just yammer on a website. People with more talent than me ought to be able to figure out how to skin that particular cat.
Something else: I've favored Obama, but I sure as hell didn't agree with him down the line, even when he was riding higher. I do like his coolness under pressure, but I do NOT in any way, shape, or form buy into his "post partisan" rhetoric.
To me, that's just a way for someone to tell me that he's ashamed to be a Democrat. The Republicans are not afraid of their shadows, so why should we be afraid of ours? I'm quite confident in the Democratic Party's ideas. My complaint is with our elected officials who call themselves Democrats but seem chronically afraid to say so.
I understand fully that our party really was on the ropes during and after Reagan. But now, the worm has turned. The public is BEGGING for Democrats to be Democrats. Why on earth are Democrats so afraid? I just don't understand that.
Laura in WA,
If the superdalegates chose Hillary, the Obama supporters go for McCain 80%-20%.
The Democratic Party is divided.
Well to be fair to McCain, I have no doubt that most of his super conservative posturing is total B.S. to win the presidency. If I wasn't so sure he'd keel over in office (and thus worry about whatever nut he picks as his number 2) I think he would be a much easier vote to make.
Just like Edwards running (although nowhere near the extent) it was probably irresponsible to Obama to run
Forget that talk about maybe reducing the supply/demand imbalance by letting those nasty oil companies drill some more. We need the government to give us pinwheels and solar panels for our rooves.
Not sure where you're coming up with "pinwheels," but I can tell you this much: For $1.5 trillion, we could replace the entire electric generation infrastructure with solar panels that are currently available. I've done the research on the numbers and the technology.
Now, if the government stepped in and subsidized it, along with a requirement that those panels be manufactured here, that's something that I'd be happy as a clam for the Democratic Party to get behind.
True, you'd have jobs in the U.S., and no need for oil wars. This would bother the Republicans, but I think they'd eventually find a new enemy. They always do.
McCain is that conservative in many ways; he simply is not dogmatic religiously. Even in 2000, analysis of his voting record indicated he was (bat-ass crazy) conservative.
snake ashby--your post I think is the perfect example of people giving McCain a pass on everything. He is not doing this to win the election--he has been this hard core militarist since the 90s, he has always been anti choice, if you read the NYT this weekend you might have seen clearly that McCain was one of the first to suggest we go into Iraq after 9/11. so to say he is just posturing to win? well he is now surrounded by all the most extremist of Bush's advisers who now think Bush is too soft now. (just see Bolton and his statements in the last few weeks). These people are just going to disappear when he gets elected. Think again. Even Pat Buchanan thinks McCain is just like Cheney (from an article two or 3 weeks ago).
I just don't get it--why do people keep giving this guy a pass on everything?
"For $1.5 trillion, we could replace the entire electric generation infrastructure with solar panels that are currently available. I've done the research on the numbers and the technology."
OK, if so, that would work out to a cost of only about $5,000 for every man, woman and child in America, not counting undocumented aliens. A vertiable bargain. I'm sold, what's the rollout plan?
Or how about this: In Scandinavia, about 70% of the homes are heated with geothermal heat pumps. If you dig an average of five feet into the ground it's always 55 degrees. Run pipes through, and voila, you cut the use of energy by 70% to heat a house.
The 30% you do use is electricity. See the previous solar power discussion. Oh, and those geothermal pumps provide summer cooling. Maybe the government ought to look into that, too. Make 'em here. I dare say that plenty of people would be happy not to buy oil and gas to heat their houses.
I'm not talking about ideas that came from a couple of guys with hair down to their ass standing in a booth at an alternative power display at the rainbow fair. This stuff exists now, but it needs a push. The government has done it before; the semiconductor industry was essentially created the government in the '50s and '60s, and the Internet was created by the government in the '70s and '80s.
Where are the Democrats on this? Nowhere to be seen. Too timid.
OK, if so, that would work out to a cost of only about $5,000 for every man, woman and child in America, not counting undocumented aliens. A vertiable bargain. I'm sold, what's the rollout plan?
I think you meant to write "gay Muslim undocumented aliens -- from outer space." You're a Republican, after all. We'll need to spend some money on the high-tech shield to keep them out.
THERE ARE TOO MANY MCCAIN ADS ON THIS SITE!!!!!!
Pluckon, I know your intentions are good, and we'd all love it if it were so that these technologies were worked as you indicate.
It is true that innovation will progress, and hopefully it won't be too many more years until we no longer desire to take much oil out of the ground. But in the meantime, we gotta do it or we're vulnerable not only to higher prices but also to supply disruption.
The problem with asking the goveernment to push immature technologies is that if they get behind something and taxpayers invest a huge amount of money in it, then future change is stifled. To make a big societal investment with premature technologies requires discounting a lot of years of savings to justify the expense, so we'd have to wait for the clock to tick out.
When the technologies are truly ready, they won't need any government subsidy -- the market demand will pull them along becasue they're money-saving. Then when it's time to do a "forklift upgrade," again it will be driven by hard dollar savings, not pie-in-the-sky assumptions, and no one will care if the old equipment hasn't been used long enough.
To follow up on MATT JH's doubts about Obama's ground game, I just got the following e-mail from a friend in Virginia who does political field work for various Democratic candidates:
"Can I tell you that being the swinging-est of swing states, this "ground game" of Obama's is a joke. I tried to volunteer, and as a career field operative, I couldn't take it. Advice like "spend 30 minutes talking to one voter if you need to" is the fast track to the worst field operation ever. Fortunately, my talents were needed elsewhere and I am being paid for it.
"The coordinated campaign in Virginia is so ridiculous, we've taken to calling it the un-coordinated campaign. (not so clever, but neither are they) I was cringing at the last Richmond City Democratic Committee meeting, the poor representative was so bad.
"I'm working on a race for ( Note: Omitted to protect my friend's identity), and while I am definitely voting for Obama, I worry about his campaign. I hope something good happens. I hope he isn't just a great primary candidate and a mediocre general election candidate."
So, it's Putin and Medvedev sitting across the negotiating table from Barrack Obama and Kitty Sebelius...
I'm certain that the GOP ad people can work up something to capture that scenario.
After all this suspense, if he picks a bland low profile VP its going to be anticlimactic.
This election isn´t about Putin and Medvened, is about the US economy.
I think he pick Bayh at the end.
we'd all love it if it were so that these technologies were worked as you indicate
They DO work. They're being installed as we speak. But it could go much faster if the federal government did more. Your Republican Party has been dead-set against it, because it's run by the oil companies.
problem with asking the goveernment to push immature technologies is that if they get behind something and taxpayers invest a huge amount of money in it, then future change is stifled
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. The theoretical limit on solar panel conversion of photons to electrons is about 25%. That backed by several decades of hard science, funded by the government. Current panels are now at 22-23%. The technology is mature.
The issue is now manufacturing efficiency, and that's mainly a matter of volumes. This is tailor-made for the government to step in and assure the volumes. Combine it with a local manufacturing requirement, and maybe China wouldn't be the emerging leader in solar panel manufacturing.
There is only one reason that this isn't being done in a massive way right now: It would seriously hurt the U.S. oil, natural gas, and coal industries. The Republican Party is in their hip pocket, and in some places the Democratic Party is too.
There is absolutely no energy crisis in this country. Nor is there any intrinsic reason to worry about hydocarbon resources in the Middle East. We have the technology, right here, right now, and mature -- to replace all of it, at least insofar it's used for energy and not plastics.
And, on the plastics front, they're making gigantic strides on fabricating that stuff from plants. The first big factories are going on line in 2009, and that whole sector may not need subsidies. But the solar, geothermal, and wind stuff does need government involvement.
Hell, oil is massively subsidized by the government. The Republican Party wants to keep it that way, and the Democratic Party is all too often afraid to rock the boat.
Tomthress wrote,
"Unfortunately, if they (Hillary voters) don't come back during/right after the convention, I'm not sure that Obama will have much more of an opportunity to bring them into the fold."
Actually Tom, party regulars on both sides almost always come home in the last two or three weeks before Election Day. It is the independents that you have to woo with diligence, which is why it makes sense that Obama has refrained from getting too negative with McCain, since Indys don't like negative campaigns, by and large. You'll notice McCain hasn't really increased in the polls with his neg-cam, he's just brought Obama back down to his level. McCain will have to figure out a way to go from 45% to 49 or 50%, and he's not going to get it done if all he has in his arsenal are ads attacking Obama.
As for Hillary, Obama doesn't need her. The vast majority of Hillary voters will come home in the end, with or without her on the ticket. Or Sebelius for that matter. Kerry's problem in 2004 wasn't that Dems didn't come home in the end, his problem was that there were as many Reps as Dems, and the Reps had a better GOTV effort. That is clearly no longer the case.
Finally, I know it's a long shot but I keep hoping it's Mark Warner that is the surprise VP choice. Barring a shocker in Michigan, Obama is just about certain of 260 EVs, and Warner is a huge favorite in VA. He is up about 25 points in his Senate race. He would have to be a solid favorite to deliver VA for Obama and guarante 270. Do we really care if the Senate has 55 or 56 Dems in it? Warner should be where we really need him, which is on the ticket as VP.
So, it's Putin and Medvedev sitting across the negotiating table from Barrack Obama and Kitty Sebelius
Gee, last time I looked, ol' Vlad charmed with pants off of George W., and now Russia is in Georgia and there ain't a damn thing anyone can or will do about it.
Unfortunately, neither Obama nor any other Democrats seem to have the confidence to take off the gloves and start swinging. Weaklings lose elections, and they deserve to.
Actually Tom, party regulars on both sides almost always come home in the last two or three weeks before Election Day. It is the independents that you have to woo with diligence, which is why it makes sense that Obama has refrained from getting too negative with McCain, since Indys don't like negative campaigns, by and large.
This highlights yet another Democratic blindspot. If you do the numbers, you'll see that turnout in presidential elections has declined by about 10-15% since the early 1960s. That's roughly 30 million voters lost.
Who are these people? Hard data would tell us, and I don't have it. So I'm going to guess that these people are disconnected folks on the margins. Low wage earners, busy, etc. Not all of them, but a high proportion.
You're not going to attract them through conventional means. But if the Democratic Party stood up and made a $12 minimum wage, and a FICA holiday on that $12, a centerpiece of its agenda, I dare say that you'd get a few million of those people out to the polls. And you'd keep 'em for a long time.
The Republicans would scream bloody murder. Class warfare, blah blah blah. Well, let 'em. The more they scream, the more you'd know it was working. And it would free the Democrats from the eternal chase of the swing voter, who by and large are the dumbest rocks on the beach.
via Sullivan this really funny bit about vp speculation. might as well laugh as we wait no?
http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/20/if_they_imd_obamas_vp_prospect_1_8389.php
Darío @ 7:06 PM said...
"If the superdalegates chose Hillary, the Obama supporters go for McCain 80%-20%.
The Democratic Party is divided."
sorry, but that is just stoopid stuff [IMO]. No Obama support would dream of voting for McCain EVER [well, unless the only other candidate was Cheney} IMO.
Please try to make some sens or have some facts to support your assertions - or at least have the decency to say it is just your opinion, cuz...
Since some of the more partisan among you have been quite dismissive about Governor Sebelius I would make the following observations:
Someone posted an excerpt from Wikipedia about her, noting that you know-nothings could have found that out in about 30 seconds. But it's so much more fun to sneer than to engage in reasoned discourse.
In view of the comments about, "What's she done" and the attacks on the depth of her experience, I would note that she won her first election in the year that W was elected Governor - and he had no prior experience - and she has been in public office since - that's 22 years, turkeys.
I've added a larger part of the Wikipedia entry for her. Note the accomplishments listed there. You trolls will actually have to read and evaluate this so I assume you won't bother.
BTW, she would bring to the office of VP far more experience, and varied experience, than W had when he became president.
*******
Sebelius was born Kathleen Gilligan and raised in a Catholic family in Cincinnati, Ohio. She attended the Summit Country Day School, a Roman Catholic secondary school, followed by Trinity Washington University, a Roman Catholic university in Washington, D.C., and later earned a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Kansas. She moved to Kansas in 1974, where she served for eight years as a representative in the Kansas Legislature and eight years as Insurance Commissioner before being elected governor.
Sebelius is the daughter of former Ohio governor John J. Gilligan, and thus they became the first father/daughter governor pair in the United States after her election. Her husband K. Gary Sebelius is a federal magistrate judge and the son of former U.S. Representative Keith Sebelius, a Republican. They have two sons. She also visits her childhood and current vacation home, located in Leland, Michigan, north of Traverse City, Michigan.
Early political career
She was first elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986. In 1994 she left the House to run for state insurance commissioner and stunned political forecasters by winning — the first time a Democrat had won in more than 100 years. She is credited with bringing the agency out from under the influence of the insurance industry. She refused to take campaign contributions from insurers and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, the state's largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. The decision by Sebelius marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts.
Governorship
First Term
2002 Election
Sebelius defeated Republican Tim Shallenburger in the 2002 election by a vote of 53%-45%. Her victory was partially the result of a divide between conservatives and moderates within the Kansas Republican Party. This divide is touched upon in Thomas Frank's bestseller What's the Matter with Kansas?. Since winning the election, Sebelius has successfully built upon her popularity and, as of January 2006, was one of the most popular governors in the country.
Second Term
2006 Re-Election
On May 26, 2006 Sebelius formally announced her candidacy for re-election. Four days later, Mark Parkinson, former Kansas state GOP Party Chair, switched his party affiliation to Democratic; the following day Sebelius announced that Parkinson would be her running mate for Lieutenant Governor. Parkinson had previously served in the state House during 1991–1992 and the Senate during 1993–1997. Parkinson was viewed as a pro-business moderate who strongly supported public education. This was somewhat reminiscent of the fact that John Moore had also been a Republican, before switching just days prior to joining Sebelius as her running mate.
She was challenged by Republican Kansas State Senator Jim Barnett. A September 1 Rasmussen poll showed Sebelius with an 11 percent lead over Barnett. Other polls gave Sebelius as much as a 20 percent lead. As of 2004, 50 percent of Kansas voters were registered Republicans, compared to 27 percent as registered Democrats. Sebelius, nevertheless, won a landslide re-election — with 57.8 percent — of the vote to Barnett's 40.5 percent. Because of Kansas' term limit law, her second term as Governor is her last.
Recognition
In 2001 Sebelius was named as one of Governing Magazine's Public Officials of the Year while she was serving as Kansas Insurance Commissioner.
In November 2005, Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education — all without raising taxes, although she proposed raising sales, property, and income taxes. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the Legislature
LAT, that was hilarious. They also had another really good one about the recent Fixed News mockumentary about Obama:
http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/19/fox_news_obama_documentary_in_8367.php
Sebelius was born Kathleen Gilligan and raised in a Catholic family in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Let's hope she wasn't born on an island ...
Today in speaking with an audience at one of McCains famous town hall meetings, McCain issued a verbal statement that could turn this election on its head and give it to Obama. Contained within a long question was (Paraphrasing) "Don't we have to institute a draft to catch Bid Laden and secure our country" to which McCain answered "I agree with everything you just said!"
Now, whether McCain didn't hear all the question, or McCain wasn't listening, or McCain was having a "Senior Moment" doesn't matter. it came out of his mouth. Why is this so big?
Because it would turn Obama's 20 point lead among 18-35 into a 40 point lead and SUPER energize those people like no other singular issue. On top of that, there are millions of parents with 15-25 year olds who couldn't care less about politics, but that word "DRAFT" freezes them in their tracks and they become energized political fiends at the mere thought of sending their child to a war.
Now, all summer I have been saying how the Obama camp has been asleep at the wheel. They let the Phil Graham "Mental Recession" comment go. They let McCain gaf after Gaf go. Obama can build his entire campaign about this and heres why:
Attacks only work if they have some inherent latent truth. Republicans are seen as the "WAR" party, and McCain as further right of Bush when it comes to foreign policy. It doesn't matter if McCain never meant to say this. I'd have an ad on the air tomorrow with pictures of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia and Iran. Paint McCain as neo-con extreme with his own recorded words with the "Draft being labeled on McCain's forehead.
"McCain will institute a draft to secure Americas place in the world, your son or daughter will be going to boot camp, and then Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Russia next year, to defend our country when McCain is sworn in."
Let McCain deny it and then make it a huge part of the convention. This Obama's chance to bury McCain. Turn McCain's greatest strength into his greatest weakness. It is there for the taking, but will obama take it?
For months now I and others have been critical of the Obama campaign and there need to play fair , not attack, and play defense all the time. Its time to attack. This issue is a killer and could turn the election on its head. No single word is more feared by republicans than "DRAFT", Let McCain spend every day defending the charge while Obama turns the campaign in his favor.
pluckon--thanks for that other link. Very funny too and I missed it.
OK, Pluckon, if we can leave the Kool-Aid, vitriol and paranoia out of it, the points are simple;
1. People, as a group, act in their best economic interests. They will buy alternatives if they are really cost-effective. Pure free-market economics.
2. Republicans don't have any special love for oil companies, any more than they do for supermarkets and their favorite restaurants. Every dollar that an oil company gets from a consumer is in a voluntary exchange. The way to make everyone better in that game is to help increase supply and competition. Instead, by artificailly limiting supply, prices are higher than they would be normally.
3. If solar panel providers need guaranteed volumes to make their businesses work (which is a subsidy), the technology isn't good enough yet. There is so much more to it than the theoretical efficiency of panels. When it's right, they won't be able to make them fast enough.
4. Too many people are falling for half-truths about potential alternative energy sources. They're only hearing "not enough government money" as the negatives. It much deeper than that. Most wanna-bes aren't even close to being able to be commercialized in massive scale (including solar), and those that are will require years to roll out. There are no "whites of their eyes" to see yet.
5. It is hugely dangerous to form social policy on the basis of unproven new sources of energy, so in the meantime, oil is it until proven otherwise by the market.
The Potter Stewart method will prevail.
People, as a group, act in their best economic interests. They will buy alternatives if they are really cost-effective. Pure free-market economics.
Oh, spare me your phony free-market lectures. Your Republican Party is a master at corporate welfare, a/k/a fascism lite. You know it, and I know it, and everyone else knows it. So, if you're going to shovel that sort of bullshit at me then you're no better than some "pastor" at the First Freeway Church of Jesus H. Christ the Mad Republican Torturer.
Republicans don't have any special love for oil companies
Actions speak louder than words. The Republican Party is hooked on Big Oil. Democrats are intimidated by Big Oil.
. If solar panel providers need guaranteed volumes to make their businesses work (which is a subsidy), the technology isn't good enough yet. There is so much more to it than the theoretical efficiency of panels. When it's right, they won't be able to make them fast enough.
Once again, you don't have a single clue about the subject. You are simply spouting dogma based on the phony free-market rhetoric. The fact is that there is a long history of highly successful aid to emerging (and estalished) industries, both in this country and elsewhere. For you to deny this shows that you're not serious.
Too many people are falling for half-truths about potential alternative energy sources. They're only hearing "not enough government money" as the negatives. It much deeper than that. Most wanna-bes aren't even close to being able to be commercialized in massive scale (including solar), and those that are will require years to roll out. There are no "whites of their eyes" to see yet.
Once again, you don't know anything about the subject. I, on the other hand, do, and you're simply wrong. Solar power is technologically mature. Oil is subsidized like crazy. Republicans hate it when gasoline is taxed, but they have no objection whatsoever if a gallon of gas goes from $1 to $5 and Exxon gets all the money.
It is hugely dangerous to form social policy on the basis of unproven new sources of energy
Solar, wind, and geothermal are technologically mature and are proven. They are not implemented on any sort of scale in the U.S. because the Republican Party is in hock to Big Oil, and the Democratic Party is too afraid to say anything about it.
Today in speaking with an audience at one of McCains famous town hall meetings, McCain issued a verbal statement that could turn this election on its head and give it to Obama. Contained within a long question was (Paraphrasing) "Don't we have to institute a draft to catch Bid Laden and secure our country" to which McCain answered "I agree with everything you just said!"
Now, whether McCain didn't hear all the question, or McCain wasn't listening, or McCain was having a "Senior Moment" doesn't matter. it came out of his mouth. Why is this so big?
Because it would turn Obama's 20 point lead among 18-35 into a 40 point lead and SUPER energize those people like no other singular issue. On top of that, there are millions of parents with 15-25 year olds who couldn't care less about politics, but that word "DRAFT" freezes them in their tracks and they become energized political fiends at the mere thought of sending their child to a war.
It will only be BIG if Obama makes an issue out of it. Which, to look at his tepid style, I'm not one bit confident he'll do. I'd love to be surprised, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. The more I see of Obama in the general election campaign, the more I am seeing John Kerry II.
Please let it be Sebelius.
or Schweitzer.
There's something else to point out. The U.S. had a draft from the Korean War up to the early 1970s. It only became an issue at the peak of the Vietnam War. While I do think that a draft would be a negative for the Republicans, and that Obama should exploit it, I also think that Democrats generally do too much wishful thinking in the sense of hoping for some magic bullet issue to arise that will instantly turn everyone blue.
It doesn't happen that way, or at least you can't plan on it. If the Democrats want to regain their rightful place as the predominant political force in this country, they're going to have to rebuild from the ground up, starting with a revamping of their communications.
This is a significant problem, but it could be much worse. When it comes to policies, the Democrats are in excellent shape. By contrast, the Republicans have a well-oiled propaganda machine and a complaisant media willing to rubber-stamp it and shove it out the door, but when it comes to policy and governing they are a disaster on wheels.
I'd much rather have the Democratic Party's set of problems. To me, they are far more easily fixable. This is a matter of awareness and tactics more than anything. If Democratic leaders could be bitch-slapped into realizing that they'd better learn to spit it out in short, punchy sentences, that would solve half the problem right there.
The other half of the problem is confidence. Democratic leaders need to worry about how they make their case, but they need to STOP worrying about their values and their policies. The public is fully on board with the Democratic agenda to a point that I haven't seen since I was a little kid in the 1960s.
All the Democrats really need to go is get the hell up off the floor, and get the fists a-flyin' full speed ahead. If Obama would drop the pussy act for a while and call bullshit on McBush and the Republicans, I think everyone would be shocked at the spike in his numbers that would result.
Good God, I'm starting to think that if we want some balls on the ticket we ought to nominate Hillary Clinton instead.
Naaomi. You completely misunderstand the motivation of the 7 million or so Hillary holdouts. They aren't part of the "vast majority" of Hillary supporters who will, as you point out, go for Obama in the end as a way of party regulars going "home". Those 7 million voters are still for Hillary because they actually LIKE her, and every bit as much as Halle Berry or Chris Matthews like Obama. Barack unwittingly spoke the truth when he said in jest, "you're likeable enough, Hillary". Likeable enough in the eyes of 7 million holdouts to send those holdouts (many in battlegrounds)over to McCain in a heartbeat if Hillary is in any way dissed in Denver, e.g. if Sebelious is picked for Veep as some kind of a generic alternative to the real HRC.
Laura in WA,
If the superdalegates chose Hillary, the Obama supporters go for McCain 80%-20%.
The Democratic Party is divided.
Just to be clear, I was quoting (and disagreeing with) someone else's post regarding Hillary and the superdelegates. I agree that the chaos that would result from an overthrow of Obama at the convention (not that there's any chance of that happening!) would be such that it would virtually guarantee a McCain victory.
And, as I said in my post, I'm not impressed at all by the fact that Hillary is polling a whole 3 points better than Obama in the NBC/WSJ poll, considering she's had nothing but positive press since May.
Barack unwittingly spoke the truth when he said in jest, "you're likeable enough, Hillary". Likeable enough in the eyes of 7 million holdouts to send those holdouts (many in battlegrounds)over to McCain in a heartbeat if Hillary is in any way dissed in Denver, e.g. if Sebelious is picked for Veep as some kind of a generic alternative to the real HRC.
The Clinton supporters who would potentially defect are virtually all women. I'm afraid McBush trumped the impact of any insults to Hillary, perceived or real, when he made it clear that he'll be a staunchly pro-life president.
OK. Let me get this straight. Obama is going to spend a couple of the most visible days of his campaign making six stops in states that Nate's projections tell us that he has a 1% chance of winning (KS), a 0% chance of winning (KY) and a 13% chance of winning (MO)?
I just don't get that as smart when the election will be settled in Michigan, New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico (at least he HAS to go to Colorado).
That´s an interesting theory - although honestly, most ways from the battlegrounds of the rust belt to Denver, Colorado lead through Kansas. And all the "obvious" VP picks except from Tim Kaine have rust belt connections.
p smith
You're comment on HRC hits the nail on the head. She put Obama into a bind by letting on that she wanted the veep nod, but I doubt she ever did. Naming her would be calling her bluff. She'd have to be enthusiastic even if she was throwing up between events. For Obama, the only decision is whether she would be the one who is most likely to help him win.
Disagree on your take on the others, tho. I think the reps would breathe a sigh of relief if it's Biden. He's the safest pick, but doesn't bring a state and can be portrayed as too liberal. The reps would run against them as "Liberal and Liberaler." He's an attack dog, but he takes a long time to make a point and so goes off message a lot, comes across as imperious and can be muted by references to his own errors in the past. Bayh doesn't add the stature that Biden brings and doesn't bring a state. Also, I think they'd be happy with Sebelius since she doesn't bring a state and will do nothing to soothe HRC's supporters.
Kaine puts a red state in play, helps with Catholics and moderates and has been a governor who has to make decisions. Doesn't help on the International front tho, but neither do Bayh or Sebelius.
Thanks.
With tonight's SurveyUSA poll showing MCCain ahead by 23 points in Kansas now, Sebelius could not bring her own state into the fold. And her selection would outrage Hillary supporters for implying all women are interchangeable.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
Post a Comment