Is Barack Obama planning to use the Olympic Games to roll out the national introduction to his running mate? Obama has purchased $5M worth of ads during the Olympic fortnight, unusual in that so rarely do presidential candidates purchase national ad time.
Conventional wisdom has held that neither candidate would pick his running mate during the Olympic Games, because once underway the Games would occupy the nation’s attention at the expense of political news. Granted, some of this is coming from commentators on MSNBC, who can’t exactly claim neutrality – the NBC family would love the Olympics to drown out every other current event. But it has been taken as a given that neither candidate would get much chance to reach voters with his message during those two weeks.
The vice presidential pick is big political news, but consider what the Obama campaign’s ideal scenario is: dozens and dozens of ads aimed at a national audience permitting the Democrats to define and frame the ticket on their own terms. Biographical spots, smiling running mates, optimistic, patriotic, flag-waving images, and no countering ads from the Republicans that define the ticket in negative terms. It’s a mass first impression of an optimistic, change ticket Obama would want to make, and almost a free field to make that impression (there are no reports of any McCain Olympic ad buy, and negative ads during the Olympics feel tonally off). The goal is just enough attention so that huge numbers of viewers come away absorbing a positive feeling from seeing the visuals, with the Games providing just enough cover to elide viewer attention to the dissecting commentary that accompanies such big news.
So how would the VP announcement unfold? It’s unlikely – though certainly possible – that Obama would reveal the pick in an ad itself. The campaign showed a fondness for all-network, blanket, two-minute closing ads during the primary season and there would be huge anticipation if they could simultaneously promise a big announcement while keeping the lid on the secret. However, in this case it would amount to giving NBC an exclusive and would unnecessarily risk catty feelings among rival networks.
Instead, an all-network press conference during the day followed quickly by the first introduction ad in Olympics prime time would both capture a lot of eyeballs and allow the Obama camp to control the all-important imagery. For what it's worth, Michael Phelps – so big a story that the Olympic schedule was adjusted specifically to put him in American prime time – has individual gold pursuits during prime time on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday next week.
How much time would you need to cut some of those ads? 21 hours?
Update: Well, no sooner did I post this early this morning than we heard John McCain is buying $6M worth of ad time for the Olympics. Smart move, not to leave the entire playing field to Obama. (Perhaps in a panic they read this post? Ha ha.) Some of our regular knee-jerk Obama-is-an-arrogant-celebrity commenters who posted early in reply may have to recalibrate the kneejerkery. Still, I think McCain is at a disadvantage by the nature of the Olympics themselves. As I said above, there would be something tonally jarring to come off a feel-good event and be confronted with a negative ad. McCain should use the opportunity to reinforce his own biography, and perhaps also introduce his own running mate during the freebee framing time. Al Giordano has a smart speculation post about it possibly being Pawlenty here.
8.05.2008
What Would You Do With $5M in Ad Time? [UPDATED]
by Sean Quinn @ 7:40 AM...see also advertising, vice president
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

171 comments
My money is on picking Bayh on Wed., before the Olympics.
As for ad time - he needs to reintroduce himself to the public after this week of crappy polling, forget introducing the running mate!
Obama needs to spend all 5 million on attacking John McCain.
He's acting like a wuss.
I'd talk about the need to invest in medical research, into things like cancer and alzheimers.
Sort of like - there was a time when we all pulled together to send a man to the moon. We had self-belief, and we acheived our goal.
With proper funding, we can achieve something similar for a subject closer to home for millions of Americans - beating cancer and alzheimers.
Millions of Americans are haunted by the spectres of cancer and alzheimers. But with focus, and the proper funding, I believe we can beat them. Nothing is impossible.
Let's overcome the dangers of cancer and alzheimers. Let's set Americans free of living in the shadow of those diseases.
Cancer and Alzheimers can be overcome.
We can do it! Yes we can.
etcetc
You know, cos CANCER and ALZHEIMERS are a DANGER to Americans. We have to DEFEAT CANCER AND ALZHEIMERS.
Of course, I'd probably be more subtle. And I wouldn't even mention McCain.
Will people really vote for you based on a medical research position?
I am all for attacking McCain, lets see the oil attack ad, please!
Some. Maybe not many.
Of course, the real point is to get people talking about Cancer and Alzheimers. And associating them with danger. In a political context.
So it's sort of an attack ad on McCain's health and age, only framed in a positive way.
Even better if it means in the debates McCain gets quizzed on what he thinks about cancer and alzheimers.
Andy,
To beat CANCER and ALZHEIMERS you need new solutions, not OLD ones.
Let's not beat around the BUSH, the OLD ways of doing things have failed, we need a GRAND PArticular plan.
I like the idea Andy, but I am just not inventive enough to see how you can make the tie. Maybe through surrogates?
I agree we need to hit back at McCain, andthere are so many ripe issues - Send McKaskill to attack on Cindy's druug addiction. Send Hillary out on McCain's Keating Five ties. Do SOME THING!
They didn't get Hillary out fast enough because they did not respond quickly enough, and they were too positive. The repubs are unshackled compared to Hillary, they must hit back early and often.
Where were the surrogates saying Obama's "dolar bill" comment was always part of his stump speech, why are they bringing it up now? Noone before ever thought it was racist, and it isn't...
Andy: I like the idea. But maybe it is better to link it to health insurance: "Cancer. It can happen to anybody. Will you be able to afford treatment? 42 million American's can't. They don't have health insurance ..".
Then you do the same on Alzheimer, with a stronger notion on age: "The American population is growing older. That is fine. But it means more and different health risks. Who will take care of you when you cannot take care of yourself anymore? Can you afford health insurance for your old age?" etc. You could link in pictures of the late Ronald Reagan, but that might possibly be too obvious..
Frank from Germany
Whether Obama announces during the olympics or not. I don't think it's going to make that much difference when he announces (except for NBC, lol). I think he should wait till after the olympics. But then again, if he wants to announce early, to get a bounce; then get his second bounce during the nomination, why not.
I think all of these ads are only going to re-inforce John McCain's thought that Obama is nothing but a "celebrity" with very little substance.
The McCain campaign was actually the ones being racist by bringing up the dollar bill comment in the first place.
All Obama was doing was prepping his audience for any upcoming spears. He has a right to do that. The fact that he did it with so much humor, common sense, and acceptance by the 98% all white, conservative Missouri audience, must of scared or pissed off the McCain campaign. But they were probably just waiting for that moment.
What makes this even more outrageous, was that the McCain campaign had already placed a not so flattering illustration/picture of Obama on a $100 dollar bill in one of their ads.
The media went completely silent on this, and McCain's Karl Rove Proteges knew this.
But once again the GOP is going to the toilet. I do think Obama needs to hit back, and hit back hard. There's too much hit with McCain (low IQ, low grades, low character, scandals, flip-flops, low intelligence, low memory, etc.).
But either way. If voters feel Obama's the one for economics. He will win.
Once the olympics start and voters are not paying attention. Obama will creep up again (as he already has in Gallup) to a 5-6pt default daily tracker lead. I'm not sold on the daily trackers either.
Obama also needs to seperate the economy from energy (at moment GOP on more equal public perception with energy than the economy), and he needs to continually bring up George Bush and the Republicans.
PS:
I don't think Obama should make negative or attack ads during the olympics. He should talk about himself, plan and vision.
He can make contrast with McCain, but not hit him with a club.
I'm speaking about the commercials.
I just found this Huffington Post article(www.huffingtonpost.com/bil-browning/obama-will-name-bayh-his_b_116752.html)...it should only add to the Obama-Bayh hype...also check out www.ObamaBayh08.com, the result is rather intriguing. I ran similar combos with other potnetial veeps and got nothing like that result.
Is Olympic ad time much less expensive than I'm thinking? Superbowl ad time is like $1MM/30 sec. Even if the Olympics are 1/10 that cost, Obama has bought 50 30 second adds over 3 weeks. Basically, two ads per night. I guess that's impressive (I haven't seen a single Obama ad here in MN), but it's hardly an ad blitz...
Obama will be criticzed for his Olympic ads. He is intruding on an event where he has no business intruding.
The man just can't help himself.
Pete,
I'd just as soon see an entertaining ad or two during the Olympics. I'm actually looking forward to the possible combinations...Tampons, beer, The Office, and Obama all in 120 seconds! Bring it on!
I'm sure he'll be criticized whatever he does by the 20% deadenders. No use worrying about that!
On this date in history August 4, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led President George Bush 50% to 46%.
For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration, January 2005.
jack black:
That's great! So what you're saying is, whoever's ahead on August 4 in Rasmussen loses the election, right?
Oh hey, McCain's up 1 today. Guess we got it in the bag. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yes, the uppityness, er, arrogance of Obama! How dare he buy advertising!
Meanwhile, if McCain had done it, it would be brilliant.
Maybe broken record trolls work. I dunno. But they sure are trying.
PeteKent said...
"Obama will be criticzed for his Olympic ads. He is intruding on an event where he has no business intruding."
Of course he will, Pete. Afterall, Obama was critisised by Republicans and their allies in the "liberal media" for shooting hoops with US servicemen, having 200,000 people watch him speak... and he will no doubt be critisised for giving his acceptance speech in a football arena in front of 75,000 supporters.
All of a sudden, doing things bigger and better isn't the American Way.
Btw, Nate. You should be advising Axelrod.
A few thoughts for all here:
1) Olympic Ads - they are MUCH less expensive than the Super Bowl...$5M will buy a lot of coverage...look for great visuals and positive message
2) This is the PERFECT venue for positive, pro American, feel good, bio ads rooting on our team
3) Rasmussen has over 80% of adults saying they will watch the Olympics and for many this will be their first real intro to Barack and maybe his running mate....Bayh??
4) VP Selection websites - per another poster the ObamaBayh08 is the only combo URL that is not privately owned. It links to the Dem party website...hmmm
5) Bayh - not my first choice but clearly a solid one. Does no harm, capable, could step into Presidency if had to, attractive, young, experienced, half insider, half outsider based on IN Gov. experience, can tilt IN and its 11 EV and shore up middle class white midwest vote.
Yes he is a bit boring but clearly is loyal, can go on the attack and stay on message, discrete and will support Obama , great relationships on the hill ....
6) IN - one of 3 states Barack said he had as birthday wishes. IA he has already and VA he can get without Kaine on the ticket
7) Biden - saves him for Secy of State - a great role for him
8) Richardson - saves him for Energy Czar where he would be superb
We'll see what Wed. brings. With Barack going on vacation next week it would be perfect for a couple of days together then a week for Bayh on his own and the Ads to help do the team intro...good strategy when McCain has nothing to fight back with
And I forgot, Bayh is an olive branch to Clintonistas.....
Cora: "unless we can determinate who these undecided are there is a focus problem for directing ads".
Actually, we can learn a bit from the Economist/ YouGov polls on the undecideds. They are primarily
- independents (47% of all undecided)
- moderates (61%)
- female (60%)
- 30-64 years old (81%)
- white (87%)
- <50k$ income (49%)
- no or only some college (78%)
They mainly think BO is intelligent (59%), competent (29%), genuine (27%) and inspiring (26%), but also feel he is inexperienced (59%), hypocritical (30%) and phony (30%). 63% think he says what other people want to hear, not what he believes.
McCain, on the other hand, is perceived by undecideds as patriotic (68%), experienced (53%) tough (42%), intelligent (39%) and competent (32%), but also as boring (22%) and tired (21%). 50% think he says what he believes.
This means, first of all, BO has still work to do on his credibility and on closing the experience gap, but may on the other hand exploit McCain's perception of being boring and tired (i.e. age).
The main issues for undecideds are the economy (50%), health care (14%), social security (10%) and environment/global warming (7%). Most people that are focused on Iraq, terrorism, immigration and education have already made up their mind.
86% of undecideds say the USA is 'off on the wrong track', 74% disapprove the way Bush handles his job, 54% rate the economy as poor, 56% think it was a mistake to have invaded Iraq, and 70% think global warming is a very or somewhat serious problem. 67% favour legal recognition of gay couples, 66% think abortion should in general be legal, and 61% favor raising taxes on incomes above $200,000. On health care, positions are mixed, and a disproportionate share of undecideds (27%, compared to 17% in the total) don't have a clear opinion.
In short: Undecideds are in majority potential change voters, which lean Democrat on issues, but have not yet come to terms with Obama as a candidate, or with his positions on certain issues (notably economic policy, health care, and global warming).
So, that's the target group analysis. Any advertisement professionals out there that want to step in?
Frank from Germany
Jack Black,
In 2004 the Dems held their convention at the end of July. The Kerry-Bush poll you site was done in the days preceding the convention, after Kerry got his bounce and before the Republican convention. The true comparison will be a poll taken just after the Dem convention this year.
If the regular posters at this website were to decide the election with one vote apiece, I think it would be a fairly accurate microcosm of the national polls at this moment... Obama would win by about 3 or 4 points.
For a while McCain had the edge in here... but then the registration requirement eliminated everybdoy with an iQ lower than body temperature and the Republican advantage disappeared overnight.
I expect the same thing to happen in real life. Three months from this morning we will wake up to a different world. It's almost hard to imagine how great it's going to feel.
The true comparison will be a poll taken just after the Dem convention this year.
In late August 2004, Kerry was in the middle of the Swift Boat mess. A better comparison would be after both parties' conventions. Not that a post-DNC comparison is useless, just not as definitive as you're making it sound.
The new Rasmussen pool is tied 44-44. McCain win with leaners 47-46.
To answer the question, "What Would You Do With $5M in Ad Time?"
I'd run positive, feel-good ads featuring Obama (and his running mate) expressing their hopes and dreams for the future of the country, backed up with clear eceonic/foreign policies. I'd also run attack ads planting seeds in the American people's minds about McCain's lies and flip-flops. That'll soften him up for a huge media blitz after the Republican convention and in the fall, where they can then destroy his candidacy by using his own words against him.
I think Americans would not like negative ads during the Olympics. I do think that ads contrasting the two could work well. I think he will have ads that feature what he can do for us. Positive, solid, and hopeful.
I would enjoy seeing the Obama surrogates use the phrase "back in his day" when referring to McCain. For instance, "Back in his day, we had an oil crises and did little to nothing about it." Or "Back in McCain's day, more people had pensions to rely on. Now few people do and they worry more about their financial security."
There's reason not to run ads during the Olympics. As long as they are positive and reintroduce his bio, it'll be ok. The only reason you won't see more spots from House/Senate candidates is because the buy is so expensive. Besides, it's not like the Olympics aren't political already. Hello, 1972 in Munich, Moscow and LA Olympic Game boycotts...plenty political. A few commercials is nothing.
"McCain, on the other hand, is perceived by undecideds as patriotic (68%), experienced (53%) tough (42%), intelligent (39%) and competent (32%), but also as boring (22%) and tired (21%). 50% think he says what he believes."
Hey Frank. Did you notice that only 39% and 32% of those independents you quoted, felt McCain was "intelligent and competent". I think that screams volumes more than "boring and tired". Obama was almost 60% with intelligence, and near tied with competence (and you it's only that close, because of Obama's perceived "lack of experience".
Regarding the past week; I think we have a tendacy here (espeically with the trolls) to draw to much (or crow out loud) out of one week. That's all it is/was, one week. I wouldn't be suprised if Obama was up to +4, or +5 in todays Gallup poll (though I don't crow about dailys). At the moment, Rassmussen is going to be behind Gallup for a while, because they moved Republican ID +2%, and use a "likely voter", than registered model.
I guess this was to give shortsighted Republican's something to crow about. Lol.
I think the Olympic ads, as long as their tasteful are fine. AS someone here said earlier. The deadenders are going to criticize Obama for any/everthing he does anyway. Their no better than our lazy media.
By the way. That Huffpo, Bayh-VP article, was based off intuition; not facts. Meaning; it wasn't based off of any inside information. I'm suprised Huffpo gave it that type of signage.
Oh well. I guess everyone covets more eyeballs.
Darío said...
"The new Rasmussen pool is tied 44-44."
Wait, I thought McMagoo had his first lead, albeit by 1 percenatge point, in months? That didn't last long, did it?
That didn't last long, did it?
44-44 without leaners, 47-46 with. Same deal as yesterday; obviously, everyone on both sides has been hyperventilating about the latter figure. Rasmussen's specific quote:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows the race for the White House is tied once again-- Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 44% of the vote. However, when "leaners" are included, it’s McCain 47% and Obama 46%."
McCain decided he wanted in any any pissing contests and invested 6 million in an ad buy during the olympics.
It would be EXTREMELY risky to go negative during the olympics, but I wouldn't put it beneath his team.
Maybe for most of the country Bayh is a boring pick; a do no harm kind of guy, sure, but nothing to get excited about. But then again, if you aren't already excited about Obama himself, what's it going to take. It would be more than a little self serving to expect the electorate to get even half as excited over his VP pick as they were about the man himself. But I do have one question, to which I have my own suspicions, but no actual answers. Bayh's the sort of guy that appeals to the sub-50k working social conservative, right? Popular dem in red state? How much appeal is he going to have in, say western Ohio, where Indiana-esque voters are most of the population? Or, say, in southern Michigan? Or any of those states on-the-toss-up, most of which have a balance of "Latte Liberals" to spread the good word and "Working Class Whites" who don't get much policy detail, but hear good things about Obama, see his regular-guy persona, and think that now they too can hitch themselves to the Obama bandwagon.
I think that people have been overplaying the importance of the 50 state strategy in all of Obama's decisions. He knows he's got a broad appeal, he's not had nearly half a year to feel out where it's firm and where is a little softer. There's no reason he wouldn't use a opportunity like this to help him out "on the margin," so to speak. I mean, if McSame looses MI/OH what are his win percentages? And what kind of "cred" would Obama need to bring those states home? Someone like Evan Bayh, maybe?
I just the hope real Obama comes out after the convention. Right now is not hammering back at mccain. Remember kerry thought the same way by ignoring the attacks and not responding was a good idea and look what happen to him. I bet if hillary was the nominee she would be the one doing the attacking and she would would be up 10-15 points now.
Sam
Where does this idea that the Olympics are popular come from?
I have heard it so much now that it has become CW, but my understanding was that the networks always take a bath on the Olympics because rating are so low...
Has anyone even looked at past races and coverage during an Olympics?
Based on Frank's numbers, it seems that the audience that Obama should be targeting are people who believe that the country's on the wrong track and that Obama is more intelligent than McCain, but worry about Obama's lack of experience.
This ties in nicely with McCain's Britney/Paris and "The One" ads which end with the simple question, "Is he ready to lead?"
The goal of Obama's Olympic (and other) advertising should be to get people to answer "Yes" to McCain's question.
One way that I think might be effective is to have some well-respected experts touting Obama's abilities. If he could get, say, Colin Powell to endorse him in an ad, I think that would go a long way to easing foreign policy concerns. I'm not exactly sure who would work in terms of economics - maybe former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who's associated with Reagan, or perhaps a Warren Buffett?
I had a question for Nate, too. We all know the scope of Barry's "Appalachia Problem," but I also remember seeing maps of past Democratic and Republican wins of Ohio. I seem to recall that when the Blue Team wins the state, historically, they've done it winning Ohio's piece of Appalachia. However, if (yeah, I'm already referencing my own speculation, so sue me) Bayh is a pick to help shore up Ohio, presumably that would be parts of western Ohio, right? Are there parts of Ohio in Indiana media markets that would already be familiar with Bayh? How demographically similar are western Ohio and Appalachian Ohio? When we talk about "changing the shape of the map," maybe we're not just talking about the national map. Maybe there will be new regional precedents set...
We're watching another inept democrat squander an election. Every year we hear, "We're not going to be swift boated" or "The voters won't buy this crap this time."
If we've learned anything, its the stupidity of the American people can never be underestimated. This is a country where 40% of the people can't point out Canada on a map. And we want them to understand concepts like renewable energy, or foreign policy?
The people who decide these elections are very stupid, and vote on issues like who they want to have a bear with. Thats how we got Bush, twice. And we'll get the war hero this time.
How many times have we heard Obama say "I have faith in the American people." Thats why he will lose. Democrats have faith in the people, the republicans know they are stupid and don't know anything about policy, so they turn it into a patriotism, troop loving character contest. Thats what uneducated, unsophisticated people vote on.
We've even found a new name for them, Low Information Voters. Give me a break, is that like sanitary engineer? They're stupid, period. When stupid people settle your elections, you get bad governments, and your country goes down the shit hole.
With $5 million I'd run ads talking about Obama's energy policy. It would be the same as his attack ads on McCain, but with the emphasis reversed for the Olympics.
Instead of leading with an attack on McCain being a tool of big oil, and THEN talking about Obama's energy plans, I'd start with Obama's energy strategy:
1. $ - tax rebate
2. regulation to curb energy speculators.
3. Windfall profits tax.
4. Invest in alternative energy.
THEN, I'd contrast this with McCain's strategy of drill, drill, drill.
This is the perfect wedge issue for Obama. A sizeable majority of Democrats already like his plan and Republicans don't. This appeals to his base and gets the Republicans on the defensive, having to attack Obama's plan instead of talking about McCain's plan (he flip-flop from no-drilling, to to drill, drill, drill) or attacking Obama for not having a plan.
I'd even go so far as to up the stakes. The Bush White House has released studies that show that:
1. Drilling for oil in the Continental shelf can expect to bring 200,000 barrels of oil a day to the market -- in 20 years time. (Time Magazine ran an article on this saying "Obama was right." http://www.time.com/time/
politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html
2. Inflating their tires for the 27% of drivers who underinflate them and getting a tuneup can add 800,000 barrels a day INSTANTLY! (Once again according to the Bush Energy Department). And the money goes directly to consumers, not to big oil! Win! Win!
I'd counter-attack McCain for ridiculing this sensible idea.
Thus, 2-fer. Explain Obama's energy plan, and attack McCain for ridiculing his call for consumers to take action for themselves to lower their fuel bills.
Most Americans can get some instant price relief simply from tuning up their cars and inflating their tires. So, how is this bad and a sign that Obama's some kind of joke?
BTW: To give you an idea how stupid the "drill, drill, drill" mantra is, U.S. oil consumption is 20 MILLION barrels of oil a DAY. And drilling in new areas will add 200,000 barrels in 20 years time?
Seriously, THAT'S McCain's big idea about energy that he's pushing so hard?
Obama should be hitting McCain constantly on this: "Do you favor an energy plan that gets 200,000 barrels of oil a day in 20 years or one that can save us 800,000 barrels a day right now? Today? And the money stays in your pocket?"
At least what Obama proposed is an immediate help to consumers, as much as McCain ridiculed it!
"Every year we hear, 'We're not going to be swift boated' "
Ummm...this is actually the first national election since the first swift boating. If by "every year" you mean this year only, then I guess you're right. But you still come off like kind of a d-bag...
Matt J.H... in your constant bashing of the Democrat strategy and passionate urging for Obama to go negative, you're actually starting to sound a lot like a concern troll.
I don't think you are, though... I think you're just terrified of losing again and panic makes you lash out.
Remember one thing... If Obama wins he will be president and the people currently running his campaign will be his chief advisors. So if you have confidence that they can govern the country, you should also have a BIT of faith in their ability to run a campaign. Shouldn't you?
That's what it's all about, actually... the conduct of a campaign is sort of a simulation that allows the country to decide what kind of managerial and organizational skills a governing group will display in office.
The Obama people are cool, smart and audacious. So far they are doing everything just right, and they will continue to do so with the Olympic buys, the VP pick and the overall campaign strategy going into these vital final months.
I've watched a lot of elections, and my confidence in Obama's group increases with every passing day.
So relax, kid. Log off the Net and take a holiday. Don't ruin your summer. I promise you that come October, you're going to be feeling pretty good about this election.
I for one am interested to hear PeteKent's revised opinion about Olympic ad buys. Perhaps some sort of doublethink is in order?
"Every year we hear, 'We're not going to be swift boated' "
Ummm...this is actually the first national election since the first swift boating. If by "every year" you mean this year only, then I guess you're right. But you still come off like kind of a d-bag...
This is the first year we've heard it referred to as swift boating. But it has existed for many elections.
I don't think you are, though... I think you're just terrified of losing again and panic makes you lash out.
Remember one thing... If Obama wins he will be president and the people currently running his campaign will be his chief advisors. So if you have confidence that they can govern the country, you should also have a BIT of faith in their ability to run a campaign. Shouldn't you?
I have complete confidence in his ability to lead the country, but thats different than winning an election. When you govern you set the agenda, right now in this campaign, McCain is setting the agenda and Obama is playing Defense all the time.
I'm worried because I have reason to be, yesterday was the first day Obama played offense in weeks. If He's not willing to get dirty or attack McCain he will lose. In a year when the democrats should win by 10, were tied. Yes its early, but I have seen no evidence Obama's campaign has a clue how to deal with the media.
The McCain camp is taking Obama's campaign to school. They look like amatures. Leading is realizing when things are not going well and fixing the problem. When I see the problem fixed, it will ease my concern.
The McCain camp is taking Obama's campaign to school. They look like amatures.
What utter nonsense. Maybe you ARE a concern troll.
Taking my analysis above a bit further, it seems to me that the main target group should not be Nick's "sub-50k working social conservative", but the middle-aged politically moderate low education / low income white woman - hairdresser, nurse, supermarket cashier etc., possibly single. A few, diverse thoughts on this demographic:
1. These women should have a lot of social contact in their jobs, with people from all strata of the poulation. They will probably form their opinion primarily in talking to other people, tend to break late and vote with what they perceive to be the majority vote. Aggressive adevertisement is more likely to alienate them to the aggressor, but positive messages, especially visual messages, should do well (they won't listen to the TV, they are listening all day in their job).
2. Do they mind about what other people think about them? Most likely. Do they mind what other countries think about the USA? Presumably as well. Was Obama's trip to the Middle East and to Europe a mistake? Not at all, at least not when it comes to convincing these women to vote for him (remember, the economist/YouGov poll I cited from was taken before the Berlin speech).
3. A woman on the ticket would probably help. Sebelius?
Frank from Germany
I love all your posts FrankN.
I think a woman and a black are more than most pathetic white American males can handle. Lets do the safe VP pick.....
If He's not willing to get dirty or attack McCain he will lose.
Wow... capitalizing He's just as you would capitalize Him and He with God and Jesus. Uhm... not maybe. When you drop hints at the Messiah message (the most dependable troll message you can find on the web at this moment), you tip your hand. This is a concern troll. Ignore the poor boy with fake concern. He doesn't want Obama to win (or he doesn't understand how to actually help with it).
Olympic Ads are a good idea regardless of whether he picks a Veep this week. But both sides have to be positive in ads that run during the Games. Moving from a gauzy, feel good, Bob Costas piece about some middle American Athlete who overcame countless odds, walked hundreds of miles barefoot through the snow (etc., etc.) to get to the Games right into an attack ad would be too jarring for Mr. and Mrs. America and probably get a negative reaction. Wrap yourself in the flag and let your surrogates and 527's go negative on the Internet and in speeches.
IMO, it would be a mistake for either candidate to experience "premature veepselection" until they have a better take on what they are going to need to win. Bayh doesn't bring a state, has ties to the DLC that will further alienate an alienated base and doesn't bring "gravitas" to the ticket. Obama would only pick him if he is certain he's going to win anyway, which he shouldn't be.
Michael Dukakis went on vacation during August too as did, I believe, John Kerry so he could go windsurfing (that worked out well for both of them). What are they thinking? I am deeply worried that the campaign has become overconfident and complacent.
The problem, Nate, is that Carl Rove reads and enjoys this site. so of course anything you say that can be helpful to the dark side, will be. Hi carl! rot in hell okay? great!
There is a consensus among folks who think about this stuff a lot that only two Veep picks in the last 50 years have moved votes in a material way in a General Election: Lyndon Johnson (positively and in such a way that he influenced the outcome of the election) in 1960 and Dan Quayle (negatively, but only costing Bush a point or so and not influencing the outcome) in 1988. So, picking a Running Mate with an eye to influencing a particular demographic across the country is probably not wise (not to mention that the selection of any woman but HRC would drive her avid supporters nuts).
I believe that Obama should wait until the last possible minute to make this selection, when he has a sense from his internal polling and focus groups of where things stand. If this election is as close as I think it is and certainly will be by the end of August, then he should pick a VP that might (emphasis on "might" for the reasons cited in the prior paragraph) help him in a state that he needs to protect (PA or MI come to mind) or in a state that is in play but that he might otherwise not carry (VA and OH come to mind). This criterion under that scenario rules out Biden. It would definitely rule in Richardson, were he not a tabloid headline waiting to happen and, Obama's prime criterion of selection should be "First, do no harm."
If Obama's internal polling tells him at the end of August that he's got this thing locked up (an eventuality that I don't forsee), then my personal choice would be Wesley Clark. He's a terrible campaigner and won't bring a single vote, but he's the guy that Obama would want to be able to trot out as the co-face of his campaign in the tragic event that there is a Terrorist or other event that puts the focus on McCain's Security credentials. In that case, I'd think of the selection of Clark as an "Insurance Policy."
Vacation? You have less than one hudred days to go before the most important election you will ever have - AND YOU GO ON VACATION!!!!
If he really goes through with a vacation I will be sorely dissappointed in B. Obama.
Nick Said, "if you aren't already excited about Obama himself, what's it going to take."
Last look less than 50% of the voters are voting for Obama, and somewhat fewer than this number are excited about it, (I am sure I could do the math, but will leave it to the experts on here if they want to figure that out.) so I do not know what it would take to get excited about Obama, but currently most people clearly are not.
Speaking of the political skills and smarts of Team Obama...
I am constantly bemused by these oft-repeated screams from both sides that the polls are so close... while Obama should be leading by 15 or 20 points!
Why should he? Stand back and look objectively at the whole picture. Obama is young. He's skinny. He's liberal. He's BLACK. And a couple of years ago, nobody outside of Illinois had even heard of him.
He shouldn't even be outpolling Ralph Nader. Yet they've handily knocked off the most formidable juggernaut in American political history, and are now running strongly against a 50-year legend that's deep, deep in the American psyche.
Talk about some spectacular campaign skills. The Obama team is just simply astounding and I can't wait to see what they come up with next. We'll be talking about their feat for decades.
You guys have no clue on energy still. McCain's mantra as you state is not drill drill drill. It is drill, alternative energy, conservation. New sources and reduction in use. Obama's plan is outlaw SUV's and trucks and most luxury vehicles (at the "increased mileage standards" he proposes none of the current manufactured models of these vehicles can be produced), inflate your tires, alternative energy, greater taxes on oil and its profits. So lets limit the choice Americans have in what vehicle they drive, leaving 100% required to buy the foreign built Toyota Prius, have police stop and do random tire checks to make certain people are not illegally underinflating, and force Oil Companies and Car Manufactures to raise prices by taxing their profits to a greater extent than they are already taxed. Oh yeah, Alternative energy too, which both candidates agree is a priority.
McCain's plan makes sense. Obama's is a plan for distruction.
Obama's up 4 in today's Gallup: 47-43. His biggest lead in a week.
destruction that is
"[Obama] is intruding on an event where he has no business intruding. The man just can't help himself."
I love how deliciously often Pete Kent is proven wrong. This time it was within literally hours.
Gallup Tracking August 5th.
Obama 47, McCain 43.
Rasmussen tracking Obama 44, McCain 44. With leaners, Obama 46, McCain 47.
One of two is a lie.
McCain is still up 1 in Rasmussen today, tying his biggest lead in months in that poll.
In the recents days, i have always said than Obama underperforming with this numbers. For exemple, McCain lead by only 1 points on Rasmussen because Obama has only 75-78% Democrats with him and trails by 15 amoung independents.
McCain is on top with his numbers and he has not the lead. I repeat, but it's not good for him. Obama has a good shot for increase his numbers, not McCain.
Gallup Tracking: Obama +4 (47-43)
"McCain is still up 1 in Rasmussen today, tying his biggest lead in months in that poll."
That is the most telling statement on this race in a while.
Ha
So I went through this early on and then see now the comment about Mc Cain's buy... Peter Kent where are you ? Isn't Mc Cain intruding on a national event? This seems to have had a stunning effect and brought complete silence. I was thinking I could kick back and watch the olympics and enjoy 5 million dollars worth of Obama... now Mc Cain. That should be boring. Will HE burn the flag for attention? This old gizzard is way out of touch and I am pretty old myself so can speak from the wisdom of age.
The 2-4 points of Gallup seems about right considering the obvious increase in voter turnout in November and the strong maco trends favoring Dems. The Ras LV screen can't model turnout this election.
There have been no game changing events since Obama clinched. The variability since then is just normal fluctuation during the summer.
Obama's campaign is smart to hold back the negative campaigning and I hope they will wait until after the Olympics to name a VP.
No need to bring out the big guns now. Very little has changed.
Hey Mule Rider:
You're not only the worst poster in here, you're the worst person.
Now back off, douche-face.
What a coincidence, I feel the same about you... AND the mule you rode in on.
Mule Rider, lets count all the times you called Cuggle names:
-liberal idiot
-moron
-shit-for-brains
-radical nut-job
-worst poster
-worst person
-douche-face
It's fine to argue but no one is going to take you seriously if you can't control yourself.
No one's really said anything about this yet, so let me be the first. That speculation about Pawlenty as McCain's Veep pick is the best news I've heard this week. Here's why.
I live in Minnesota. In the last election he won by 26,000 votes in a state with something like 4 or 5 million people. The ONLY reason he won was because his challenger, who WAS extremely well respected and WAY ahead in the polls, called a newpaper columnist a Republican whore 5 days before the election. And the ONLY reason it was close enough to matter was because the Republicans invested SO much money in Minnesota thinking it would be a swing state.
These smug Minnesota Republicans who got into office by the skins of their teeth did pretty much exactly what Bush did...declared a stunning victory (even though the margin of the win was negligible), and they had the audacity to GLOAT about how even though they sunk so much money into Minnesota, it was a good investment, because the Dems had to spend money defending Minnesota that they could have spent in Ohio, so essentially they were patting themselves on the back for Minnesota winning the election for Bush indirectly.
But Minnesota is a blue state with a maverick streak of voting for Republicans and Independents for Governor, and usually one of our two state Senators ends up being a Republican, but we NEVER vote for Republicans for President. Yet the Republicans INSIST on thinking it's a swing state.
Now this year they think they can get a bounce out of Pawlenty as the VP pick, not just because he can help them carry Minnesota, but states like Iowa and Wisconsin as well. But essentially Iowa is too far away to be touched by our TV signals, and only the towns right across the border...smaller already more conservative towns in Wisconsin receive our TV coverage, so few in either state outside Minnesota even know who Pawlenty is. Minnesota is theoretically the only state where he COULD help.
And think about how he won re-election, due to a scandal brought on by his more popular opponent, and by a razor thin margin. Since then we had a HUGE disaster where a bridge fell down, killing 13 people, injuring over 100 others and costing the state and federal government about half a billion dollars.
What Minnesotans know is that Pawlenty signed a pledge with the "Taxpayers League", an organization made up of the richest Minnesotans dedicated to lowering their taxes. His pledge stated he would never raise taxes. And he hasn't...he's cut state services so local taxes will be raised. He's implemented fees if he can get away without calling them taxes. But he hasn't raised taxes. One of the taxes he fought tooth and nail against was a 5 cent per gallon gas tax hike to pay for roads and BRIDGES.
He hired his Lieutenant Governor to run the Department of Transportation, and when told that the very bridge that collpased was structurally deficient and they could either opt for repairs/replacement or stepped up inspections, she went for inspections (at the behest of our Governor) because they were cheaper. He has been the first to say "don't place blame," because many in Minnesota blame him.
Now fast forward almost a year to the day. The weekend before the one year anniversary, an overpass bridge on our other main freeway lost a 1,200 pound, 6 foot long chunk of concrete that fell on two cars...you probably didn't hear about that one on the national news because no one was killed. Another bridge that started to crumble because it's 50 years old and needs some repairs.
So, Pawlenty's stock in Minnesota HAS to have gone down...even if he was liked by a fractional majority, that can not POSSIBLY be the case here anymore after some of what he's pulled. Recently he jeopardized $350 million in federal funding to extend commuter rail service to St. Paul by using a line item veto to remove every single thing St. Paul wanted out of a state bonding bill to get back at a Democratic legistlator from St. Paul.
His going on a national stage and playing theater with tire gagues isn't going to fly in mostly blue Minnesota, where by and large McCain's idea of repealing the 18.5 cent gas tax is a laughingstock. Indeed, I see Obama stickers and yard signs ALL the time in the Twin Cities area, no matter WHAT part of town I'm in, rich, poor or inbetween. I just for the first time saw a McCain yard sign, have yet to see a bumper sticker. McCain is not popular here except with folks like what you find in the taxpayer's league.
And remember Obama got 2/3 of the vote in the primary. And remember also, Pawlenty, McCain's national campaign chair, was unable to deliver Minnesota to McCain (Republicans here went for Romney by stunning margins). If McCain picks Pawlenty, and I hope to God he does, what it will do is it will further diminish Pawlenty's stature in Minnesota, as he has this aw shucks thing going for him where he's been very clear in the past that he thinks his job is to govern Minnesota and not to be thiking about higher office. If he backs away on that, people here will see his ambition and will distrust him even more.
Then of course, the Republicans will HAVE to invest money in Minnesota and Wisconsin and Iowa, three states they won't win, and the Democratic leaders of those states will be able to gloat come November 5 that it was because they had to spend so much money on these losing ventures that they weren't able to compete where it would have mattered.
In your face, Pawlenty.
What is this about being excited about Obama?
I voted Democratic in 2006 (not straight ticket, but mostly Dem).
I don't like what Bush is doing.
This puts me with about 2/3 of the population.
If nothing else happens, if both candidates bore me to tears and I can't even remember their names when I'm in the voting booth, I'll vote for the Dem. Same as the 2/3 of the population in the same boat as I am.
In order to vote Republican, I have to either dislike the Democratic nominee or like the Republican one. And, again, the same is true for about 2/3 of the population. This is why "generic Dem" thrashes "Generic Rep" by about a 2-1 margin.
Getting excited about Obama is nice for GOTV volunteers and his bank account. But the standard that'll get him elected is a whole lot lower than that.
I'm sorry, I'm usually a wallflower, not a poster, so I don't think I made my point clear, in regards to voter excitement. When I said, "if you're not excited about Obama, what's it going to take," I didn't mean that everyone should be excited about him, but rather that most of those (middle aged women excluded, of course) who are likely to become genuinely... giddy--I suppose--about a democratic presidential nominee are already feeling thusly. There are, of course more voters than the excited ones that can be persuaded to vote for a Democrat, but chances are most of those are likely to be convinced rather than excited. They are inherently wary or disinterested, and probably aren't going to be all that moved by an "enthusiasm" pick, or one that caters to the base. I'm as progressive as they come, but I understand that we've already got Obama, and if we want this coalition to work, lets find someone that won't piss off the base, but will still... I mean, I know there is little chance of adding to the coalition, but let's say, "placate the inclined but wary voters on the margins."
And I know veeps don't bring in states, I didn't mean to imply that, but just as HRC had a proven track record with "the working whites" so too does Bayh (and I'm not saying he's the only one, but he is the Veep du'jour) with the midwestern swing demographic we find along the southern Great Lakes, region, right? I'm not saying he's my fave, but I think there may be more upside than the fanatical left gives him credit for.
Gallup tracking - Obama +4
Looking at the RCP Obama vs. McCain I believe the post Europe narrowing has mostly come from McCain picking up undecideds not Obama loosing support. I think these undecideds are very much still up for grabs and certainly not died in the wool supporters of either candidate. These are the people who were for Obama when he looked good in Europe. I don't think they're bouncing around is anything to be too worried about...
Not to say I would mind a little Obama offense. :)
Higglytown,
Your probably a big McCain supporter,and thats great. Your probably a big drilling supporter, and thats great. But your characterization of the two candidates energy plans is completely false.
McCain's emphasis is drilling and nuclear. Obama's emphasis is conservation and renewable. Saying Obama will legislate the cars people can drive is nonsense and you know it.
Every expert on the planet agrees conservation is the simplest, cheapest most effective way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Its typical for conservatives to mock Obama's "Pump up your tires" quote. It sounds silly. However, even the macho guys at NASCAR agree along with one of McCain's potential running mates Charlie Crist.
I am a drilling supporter as well, but it is not realistic to believe we can drill our way out of this mess. We employ drilling, however the long term plan has to be geared towards renewable energy. Even Nuclear is very expensive and considered old technology as far as energy is concerned.
If we do not move towards renewable we will regret it in 20-30 years.
Mule Rider... oh, so you're a Somebody, are you? Wow, coulda fooled me.
You arrived... what?... two or three days ago, and everything you've posted since has been all about You, and other people's reactions to You?
I won't respond to you again, since this site is much too good to be co-opted by the preening vanity of little jerks like you.
But I do advise you to head back to MySpace where you can get into a really good flame war with the other kids. It's just not going to happen here.... sorry.
At the risk of drawing Mule Head's intemperate ranting toward myself, and as someone who has to listen to actual professionals argue about markets for most of my workday, I'd like to remind everyone that the various possible explanations for high oil prices (supply/Peak Oil; demand/China/India; and speculators) are NOT mutually exclusive.
Speculators, or traders if you prefer, usually do better taking advantage of existing trends than just showing up randomly in some market where nothing much is going on and trying to create a fuss of some kind.
Love the BLOG!
I find this unbelievable:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Topless_in_Sturgis.html
Imagine if Obama suggested Michelle should take part in a low class, often nude, beauty pagent, judged by half drunken bikers in a craze? What would the media do with that.
I wish some PAC or someone would break out this side of McCain's unbelievable personality and sexism.
I think this story should have huge LEGS!
The Olympics probably favor Obama, who can run a mushy world-unity message.
Or they could benefit McCain, who can run a USA! USA! USA! message.
And McCain's ads are no more "negative" than the wildly popular Mac-Vs-PC ads, so I wouldn't get your hopes up about him turning anyone off.
Saul Alinsky (who Obama claims to be inspired by) noted that happy ridicule is a wildly effective tactic, partly because it's kinda fun. Ironically, it's McCain who seems to be employing it.
Maybe I'm just masochistic, but I really miss the anonymous comments.
In your face, Pawlenty.
I think the American people want change and they believe Obama is vastly more change than McCain. But they question Obama's experience. I know some believe picking a running mate like Joe Biden will only enforce Obama's perceived lack of experience, but I disagree.
Obama needs to re-assure. His trip oversees went great, but he's still seen as inexperienced. Thats baked in and is Obabma's biggest weakness. He's got change sown up.
Biden is catholic, born in the rust belt, everyday kind of guy with ample experience. Also a great attack dog, which Obama needs.
His downside, been in Washington forever, too honest. If Barack is not going to take Hillary, he needs Biden. Bush took the old war horse and it served him well.
Reply to Matt JH,
From Obama's Website on his Energy Plan.
"Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years."
In other words Vehicles must double their fuel efficiency to meet these standards within 18 years. Any model or make that cannot double it fuel economy must be phased out and replaced by fuel efficient vehicles. So an SUV that gets 12-15 MPG must be replaced by some vehicle that gets at least 24-30, if not as previously stated, they would be phased out.
Now how are we going to pay for all of this? Will the car companies be required to invest and produce these cars? No. They have say over their own destinies. Instead we willl raise taxes to pay for these new American made fuel efficient cars.
From Obama's website,
"His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines."
Maybe that actually means "Obama" himself will invest. However my interpretation is that Obama, rather than allowing us to decide what companies to invest our money in, will tax us so he can properly invest our hard earned money in "vehicle technology."
The idea of a national ad buy is sort of getting under my skin.
Is he really buying national time? I have no problem with the idea of a "50 state strategy". As I've said before a "50 state strategy" is really a 20 state strategy. One of the reasons I like it is that the additional reach states like Montana, North Dakota, etc don't actually cost that much. You can run a wider campaign without all that much problem. A truly national campaign involves paying a lot for extraordinarily expensive media markets in New York, LA and Chicago. I'm not sure what you get in return.
I hope that this is actually being reported as a "national" buy but really means that he is trading with somebody else, I'll give you 1NY spot for 5 of your Clevelands.
Darío said "Gallup Tracking August 5th.
Obama 47, McCain 43.
Rasmussen tracking Obama 44, McCain 44. With leaners, Obama 46, McCain 47.
One of two is a lie."
Darío,
The two polls have a five point margin between them. Do you understand what is meant by "margin of error?" If you look at the margin of error of the two polls, you can see that the five point margin between the two is not statistically significant.
Two different samples having a difference which is statistically insignificant cannot lead to a conclusion that one sample represents "truth" and the other a "lie." It cannot lead to any conclusion, since for statistical purposes, they both say the same thing: "it's a close race."
To whoever was tittering about the obamanbayh08.com site...it was registered back in May '07, and to a private party.
(all info publicly available via a simple whois command)
$ whois ObamaBayh08.com
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: OBAMABAYH08.COM
Created on: 06-May-07
Expires on: 06-May-09
Last Updated on: 22-Feb-08
Administrative Contact:
chan, joe joechan24@yahoo.com
1156 commonwealth ave
apt 47
allston, Massachusetts 02134
United States
(617) 271-6092
One of the posters above suggests that the contrast between Gallup tracking poll and the Rassmussen tracking poll today shows that one of the two is a "lie."
This is nonsense. The two polls are but 5 points apart, each with a reasonable MOE and different polling philosophies.
The Gallup Poll is an RV poll that calls land lines and cell phones with a live interviewer.
The Rasmussen Poll is an LV poll weighted according to the pollster's turnout model that calls land lines with an automated response system.
Just the statistical noise and the weighting present in Rasmussen would be factors in a divergent snapshot of the race. Neither pollster is "lying" and each have good reputations.
Take the numbers together for the likely conclusion: Obama has a lead nationally, there is plenty of time left for things to change based on events, but if it stays this close then voter turnout and partisan enthusiasm will be the keys to victory.
Higglytown, perhaps you are in the market for a new Ford Escape SUV? MPG 34/30 (hybrid) Or you could pick one of the many choices listed at http://www.hybridsuv.com/.
With Gasoline costing around $4 per gallon the demand for SUVs has dropped. That by itself could improve average fuel efficency.
From Obama's Website.
"Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation."
These are not my quotes but a summary of his plan. With my notations in parentheses (sp).
1. Close Enron Loophole, making excessive speculation illegal. (Good goal maybe.)
2. Make certain same people who would speculate in our markets cannot make the same transaction in unregulated offshore markets. (Good goal maybe, but no specifics about how we will regulate "unregulated offshore markets," which by definition are "unregulated."
3. Get every country in the world that has futures markets to get on board and pass the same legislation. (Good goal maybe, but a little bit on the impossible side.)
4. Litigate. Hire lawyers to enforce all of these new and fancy national and international laws against speculation. (Yeah for me and my kind.)
I wonder if the Olympics are that big of an impact at all....don´t we have summer olympics and presidential elections at the same year every time? Ok, China is a few hours behind the US so all the mid-day events will be in our prime-time - but the big dramatic decisions will be late at night! And the Olympics usually consist of story arcs of a certain athlete, or a team story, or human rights´ protests..nothing that would make these Games different than other Olympic Games.
Neither campaign should retreat into "holiday mode", there will still be evening news, there will, of course, be commercial breaks and the Web will keep on spinning.
Dale,
I also live in MN and I agree with pretty much everything you said in your post re: Pawlenty. I think the problems with that pick go even deeper, though. Timmy is a yes-man in a state full of independents. If Mike Hatch wasn't a complete idiot, Timmy would be back in the private sector selling unnecessary software to little old ladies. But Hatch is a buffoon and Pawlenty is the Governor. So be it.
I don't particularly like Obama, and I don't particularly mind McCain. Obama's people seem afraid to let him compete, and McCain's people don't know when to back off; but to me that has more to do with their staffs than the candidates themselves.
There is utterly no way that I can support a ticket that includes Pawlenty. This is a deal breaker for me, and I'm pretty sure I'm the demo that this pick is supposed to shift (educated independent upper-middle class white dude from MN)
If Mitt Romney is a used car salesman, Timmy is Mitt's aww-shucks cousin. he works at the store too, but he doesn't really get anything done. He just slicks his hair back, grins, and tries to emulate whoever is calling the shots.
"Btw, Nate. You should be advising Axelrod."
nah. im sure ax's got his own nate.and im wildly alienated by the MSM. basically, there are three types of media. gaffe-centric (that's your traditional, mainstream), policy-oriented (that's practically almost non-existent in a truly independent way, although a few policy centers do exist), and process-driven. that latter is the most exciting and the most relevant, as far as im concerned. it's more conducive to thoughtful discussions and rather (almost) immune to talking points. and it makes the difference. i'd prolly say that 538 is about as a good a process-driven website as you're ever gonna get these days. of course, it could get better, with (even more in-depth analysis) but i find the msm less and less relevant as long as i can spend a few minutes in here. so hats off nate.
Do you think its possible that Rasmussen's slight lean towards the Republicans indicates a small Bradley effect in the Gallup poll?
I see no reason why there should ever be a Bradley effect in an automated poll. Perhaps its just one of the differences between automated and personally assisted.
The difference in the tracking polls has not been that much over time. I think the Bradley effect has gotten a lot smaller over the years, but it might still be around at a percent or two. Perhaps, that is why Gallup is generally slightly more favorable to Obama than Rasmussen.
Nobody has mentioned this within the context of the political campaign but I expect one of the biggest stories of the Olympics to be the pollution.
I was in China last year and it is really bad. Hard to see the top of a skyscraper from the street bad.
I'm curious about how this will play out in a political context. It could bring the environment back up to the forefront of the discussion. It also could highlight the fact that any environmental policy is silly unless it includes China.
One way or another, I expect we'll be talking more about the environment in the next couple of weeks then we are right now.
Obama Goal 2, Enact windfall burden protection.
"Barack Obama supports imposing a windfall profits penalty on oil selling at or over $80 per barrel."
Any profit a company makes on oil over 80 dollars a barrel goes to the government to invest on our behalf. So if oil is at $120, company gets 2/3rds of their profit, government gets 1/3. This is over and above the tax margin on companies which says that they pay close to 60% on any income over $250,000 already. So you subtract the 60% (actually more I am rounding it down) leaving them 40%, then they get two thirds or 26.67%, and the government gets their 73.33% of oil company profits. First 60% as tax margin, next 13.3% as Windfall elimination.
After the close to 75% tax burden then Obama will require drilling all over the United States, throughout our National Parks, accross the beautiful landscape that is America, including in ANWR and other strategic areas.
"Require Oil Companies to Use Existing Drilling Leases: The 68 million acres of stockpiled leases have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production. The Obama plan would force oil and gas companies to either produce or pay a fee on unused federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling."
Now lets say they have oil leases in ANWR, that the government does not allow them to use. Obama says regardless of the law you must drill on those leases or pay taxes for owning oil leases you are not drilling on. We do not know the amount of these taxes, but it will be cost prohibitive to have leases on areas where government regulation currently will not allow drilling. All oil leases get abandoned further setting us back. Trust me, if companies can drill for oil and make money they are. It is government regulation that is preventing it in most areas.
Tax them 73.33% when they drill. Then if they do not drill and do not have profits, tax them for not drilling and making a profit.
You have to wonder what McCain is going to do with his $6 million? Is he going to launch more biography pieces? Fluff pieces touting his energy plan?
He fired his last campaign staff who aired such ads and got a Rove disciple who only knows how to jump instantly in the gutter and attack.
Perhaps Nate's assumption is WRONG that it would be "too jarring" to come off an emotional "Olympic moment" (typically some syrupy "feel-good" story about a gymnast who overcame breast cancer plus and her dog tragically running away to make the Olympic team). Then suddenly there's McCain's attack ad.
That may be the conventional wisdom though.
Digby (digbyblog.blogspot.com) has some interesting analysis on this. She points out that McCain doesn't care if the media criticizes him so long as they give publicity to his attacks.
If they say the attacks are fine, that's nice. If they criticize them then they are talking about them and giving them more publicity, plus the right-wing can complain about "liberal media bias."
Having jarring attack ads may actually suit McCain's purposes fine. If it gets the nodding-heads talking about how "inappropriate" they are that might be a plus.
I think we're seeing a full replay of the Rove strategy from 2004 of "turn out the base." From now till the election it's going to be pure gutter-ball for McCain. He must hope that he can match Bush's turnout from 2004, at 94% of Republicans plus excite the base and get them to work for him.
That might be his view of the only possible strategy. Try and replay 2004 and defy the Democratic base to show up and out-vote him.
That would be counter-intuitive, but perhaps McCain thinks it could work if he demonizes Obama enough.
The smart money would say no, that you can't mobilize your own base by savagely attacking your enemy without also rallying the enemy base in defense of "their guy."
But, maybe he figures he has nothing to lose.
McCain's Plan on oil drilling,
Remove government obstacles to companies drilling oil domestically on valid leases so that onshore oil can be executed legally and profitably.
(Obama is not saying he will remove the obstacles to onshore drilling or make it profitable to drill onshore, instead he will tax companies that decide not to drill in non-profitable areas for not drilling.)
Drill Offshore to increase the amount of oil available as a total resource to further enhance supply.
Again Obama's plan will not work, McCain's plan makes sense.
Re:
"Gallup Tracking August 5th.
Obama 47, McCain 43.
Rasmussen tracking Obama 44, McCain 44. With leaners, Obama 46, McCain 47.
One of two is a lie."
An Obama lead is within the Rasumussen margin of error.
Higgly, maybe if you keep making enough posts about it, you'll convince yourself!
I think the rest of us live in reality-land. This is not a board for partisan hacks.
Hiigly: "Any model or make that cannot double it fuel economy must be phased out and replaced by fuel efficient vehicles. .. Now how are we going to pay for all of this? Will the car companies be required to invest and produce these cars? No."
Come on! It is not that such cars don't exist. I just checked on the Ford Germany website. They are advertising a Ford Focus Diesel ECOnetic, which, according to their statement, needs 4.3 liters of diesel per 100 km. If I have calculated correctly, that should be 142 mpg. That's an American company. They have the technology, and also factories to produce it!
And, if I remember correctly, Ford is just closing a number of SUV plants in the USA for lack of demand. Should not be too difficult to set up a new plant for them to produce some of their European models in the USA. Well, and if they don't? I read that VW is going to build a new plant in Kentucky. Their cars are also quite fuel-efficient ..
AP/Ipsos poll reports 47/41 lead for Obama (according to Halperin's the Page)
Obama regulating commodity futures is just as much of a farce as McCain supporting offshore drilling. It's probably dumber, because it would hurt the economy rather than just being a fruitless distraction. If we regulate market "speculation", Wall Street will die. Everyone will leave the US markets, and then you'll see a real depression again.
I thought BO was supposed to come up with a real plan for energy? He met with Warren Buffett and Volker who surely didn't support this crap. Obama needs to ally with Pickens and Gore and talk about what a future without foreign oil would look like. The message has to be distilled into a talking point (ie. "The winds of change.") Then he needs to pick a side and fight for it.
"Maybe if you'd get your head out of your ass and pay attention, you'd now what's really going on...
Higgly knows what's going on..."
Oh, my bad. I guess what's going on is that apparently every single aspect of McCain's policies is amazing and every single aspect of Obama's policies is awful. After all, Higgly says it, and he knows what's going on!
I thought you a bit more intelligent than that, Mule. I've seen you make some good points at times, but Higgly is clearly blatantly biased to the point where he's just reciting the current talking points much of the time. I expect better out of you.
frankn,
you did mess up the conversion quite a bit :)
4.3l are about 1.13 gallons per sixty miles. that makes a gas mileage of about 53. That's still good but not quite as impressive.
Obama plan,
"End Oil and Gas Industry Tax Breaks"
Excellent, way to get on board. These are the tax breaks that Obama voted for and McCain voted against to begin with. Its nice to see Obama coming around on the issue.
"Obama regulating commodity futures is just as much of a farce as McCain supporting offshore drilling. It's probably dumber, because it would hurt the economy rather than just being a fruitless distraction. If we regulate market "speculation", Wall Street will die. Everyone will leave the US markets, and then you'll see a real depression again.
I thought BO was supposed to come up with a real plan for energy? He met with Warren Buffett and Volker who surely didn't support this crap."
Oh, you mean like the depression and dead Wall Street and empty US markets we had before speculation was loosened in a midnight bill by Phil Gramm's buddies?
I'm fairly sure going back to the previous legislation of only allowing oil speculation for those who actually intend to refine the oil they're buying futures in is exactly what Buffett and Volcker told Obama was good.
Or would you care to argue this year's speculation bubble is a *good* thing?
Of course cars exist with better fuel economy, I am not saying they don't. I am saying Market forces drive fuel economy and purchasing habits for vehicles. Legislating this makes no sense. And raising our taxes for paying car companies to produce vehicles in the US that are already being made over seas makes no sense.
"Excellent, way to get on board. These are the tax breaks that Obama voted for and McCain voted against to begin with. Its nice to see Obama coming around on the issue."
So then you should be supporting Obama on this, right? Since he switched to the right position and McCain switched to the exact opposite wrong position of leaving the tax cuts in place for a couple million in donations?
I have yet to see the drill, drill, drill people acknowledge the fact that it will take 20 years to extract any meaningful amount of oil from offshore drilling and even then, it will address only 1% of TODAY'S oil demand.
What's the point?
"Obama believes we should use existing organizations, like NATO, to make energy security a shared global goal. We should take steps to engage the largest new consumers, China and India, including by inviting them to join the International Energy Agency."
Once again we should use NATO, the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" to curb use in places like China (for those geographically non-inclined China is not in the North Atlantic.) Or maybe we should start a global NATO type organization wear we could raise such concerns, we could grab ahold of FDR and Churchill's 1942 plan and call it something like "the United Nations." Because creating another NATO like organization, other than the UN, will be much more effective than the current UN at raising such concerns.
Here is a more detailed picture of the AP poll noted above:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRESIDENTIAL_RACE_AP_POLL?SITE=WIMAR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This is a request from someone who loves this website. With regard to "Tipping Point" states, instead of just presenting this data in map form, what would really be fun would be to see a vertical listing of the 50 states and their respective percentage margins, ranked the way they must be ranked to determine tipping point, with a big yellow horizontal highlighting the state name where the 270th EV would be found on any given day. That way, we could see the states directly above and below the 270 point, see how they may bob up and down each week on this ranklist, and watch the up or down movement of the yellow 270 horizontal as the race progresses. Showing the map alone, I think, may tend to obscure a sense of how the race is actually evolving.
Higglytown,
I have to respectfully disagree with you. I do think it makes sense that the government gets involved in an issue like this. I am sure as a republican you hold the view that the market can regulate everything. But market failures do exist. Most economists would probably agree that the price of hydrocarbons presents such a market failure. The price of hydrocarbons does not include the environmental damage done by them. Thus the government has to find a way to guarantee an intelligent use of fuels. One way to do this is to heavily tax hydrocarbons. I have a feeling that that would not go over well in the US. The other way is to reduce the demand and thus the environmental impact. One very effective way to do this is to require certain standards. In my opinion you should be able to drive your Hummer. But if you want to do that you will have to pay a hefty fine whenever you drive a vehicle that causes more pollution than the standard set by the government.
Fabian
"inviting them to join the International Energy Agency"
Another huge issue with this statement, The IEA is a body of the OECD. In order to join the OECD you must maintain a representative democracy and maintain a free market economy. By inviting China specifically to join the IEA, you must first require them to give up their communist government, and open their markets completely to free trade, or convince the other democratic nations of the world that democracy is not that important. Good luck on that Obama.
Frank,
There are ~4 litres per gallon and ~60 miles per 100km, so that Ford gets ~60 MPG. That's pretty impressive for an American company, but why are they listing the specs in metric? Made in Japan?
The point on drilling is there is oil there and until someone comes up with a plan that will make the entire universe oil free it will continue to be used. I disagree about 20 years, I think 5-7 is more likely, but if it is 20 years, do you want to wait to get it. If we know we will need it, and we will, why not start now. Or instead we could wait 8 years and start then and it will be 28 years. Not making drilling available makes no sense. Especially from the party of the guy that says he will require our oil companies to drill in our national forests, because they hold those leases.
This argument that is will take 20 years to reap a benefit so we should start later instead of sooner makes no sense. Reagan and Bush Sr. should have started this 20 years ago, and we may not be in this crisis right now, because we would have new oil coming to the market.
"This argument that is will take 20 years to reap a benefit so we should start later instead of sooner makes no sense. Reagan and Bush Sr. should have started this 20 years ago, and we may not be in this crisis right now, because we would have new oil coming to the market."
Yes, clearly if we had started this drilling 20 years ago (and this would be somehow different from the lands they already own but aren't drilling on...how?), then now we'd have an extra....200k barrels a day, 2% of our usage. CLEARLY we'd still have $1.50 gas if only we had 2% more domestic production right now.
Alternately, we could have kept raising the fuel standards like we did from 1980-1985, and then we'd have far less demand. Or we could have listened to pretty much anything Carter said about conservation.
But hey, the oil company-owned party has decreed that its talking points are DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, DRILL DRILL DRILL. And repeat them like a loyal sheep you do.
In other words Vehicles must double their fuel efficiency to meet these standards within 18 years. Any model or make that cannot double it fuel economy must be phased out and replaced by fuel efficient vehicles. So an SUV that gets 12-15 MPG must be replaced by some vehicle that gets at least 24-30, if not as previously stated, they would be phased out.
Yes , the models as they exist today will be obsolete. However new technologies will allow for these vehicles to be acceptable. Listen clown, I travel to Canada and Europe every year, and they have had liberal governments. You know what, they're not that bad. In Canada it was the Liberals that balanced the budget and introduced fiscal discipline. Something we could use.
I could say electing McCain would be the end of civilization with all the CO2, were all going to die!!
But that would be extreme. You are using extremes to make your point, and its ridiculous.
Smart move by McCain to buy time on the Olympics. Can't wait to see his ads.
His patriotic story and pro-American bent should blend perfectly with the themes of fair but fervent competition.
Can't imagine where he got the idea from, can you?
LOL
Looks like Bayh will be announced tommorow.
I do not believe McCain will pick Pawlenty. Rob Portman would be a much better pick, but as you all know, no one listens to me!
Wjere can I find the Zogby poll? I need to read it, after the shock og Gallup continuing to move in Obama's favor . . . must be statistical noise or regression to the mean or some such.
The viewership of the last 3 olympics has skewed heavily female (the reason for all the up-close-and-personal segments) in part because guys don't gamble on it like they do football and March Madness.
Humor is the best form of political attack and when a candidate is riduculed they are reduced in the public eye (e.g., Carter in 1980, Dukakis in 1988, Bush in 1992). Obama is being reduced right now.
P.S.
Obama is pandering a lot with the Wind Fall prophets tax. a $1000 tax credit to 50,000,000 families is $50,000,000,000. Even Exxon mobile can't afford that. We all know nonsense when we hear it.
Fabian, rdweber: You are of course right - I made a conversion mistake. The specs are metric (liters/km), as this is the official EU standard. That Ford is most likely not produced in Japan, but either in Germany (Saarlouis) or in the UK. Due to the high GBP, I would assume they build in Germany.
"Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply"
Ethanol will save us. Companies will be required to produce ethanol or they will be severly punished. Is this more fines and taxes? We do not know. But Ethanol will be a requirement. Who will be required to produce it? We do not know. If companies fail will the government jump in to meet this goal? We do not know. It is just a requirement.
"PeteKent said...
Smart move by McCain to buy time on the Olympics. Can't wait to see his ads. "
HAHAHAHAHA.
Just when we all thought Pete had no credibility whatever, he goes into the negatives.
At least Dubya never changed his mind. You, like McCain, just blatantly contradict what you said days before and pretend nobody will notice.
Elway poll of WA:
Obama 47
McCain 35
Pretty much in line with current polling from WA, but an improvement from the previous Elway poll of the state in May, which had been Obama 44-McCain 38
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/145212.asp
The Oil speculating is what drove the price up. There was no sudden shift in demand. A combination of US Dollar decline, with a falling US market meant lots of hedge funds and money managers took they're money out of stocks and put it in oil.
Billions and billions of new capital in the oil futures drove it up. Now they're taking prophets and putting it back in stocks so it goes down. Long term however, demand is out stripping supply and us drilling offshore will do little.
With tens of millions coming out of poverty in Brazil, China and India every year, we need a paradime shift in the way we see energy. Drilling and nuclear is old thinking.
MATT J.H. -
You're pretty much spot on here. Global demand is rising no matter what due to China's and India's massively growing middle class. We're in a speculative bubble now, and it should probably be down to $100 by the end of the year, but not much lower than that, and it'll start creeping up again.
A paradigm shift is the only way off the addiction, and it's going to be painful, but the sooner we get over the hump and adopt alternate sources, the less painful it will be.
Ahhh the McBush campaign realized it would literally lose the race because of the free ad time and "self-defining" Obama would have.
so, if you are a democratic partisan, why does your website advertise two conservative banners? the one on top is john mccain with that sleazy celeb ad, but we can pretend that's legitimate and allow it and move on. but the one on the left is some swill about obama and social security. doesnt it tick you off to support those and know that traffic here leads to that place?
I'm an econ major and a big Warren Buffett admirer. When you say Buffett wouldn't have supported this, I strongly disagree. I've been studying Buffett for years and I think he is totally behind this. Its even possible he was one of the people that helped put the idea in Obama's mind.
Republicans often times like to talk about taxes in a vacuum. Taxes are bad. Cut taxes. They never really make the link between taxes and government services. Saying I don't like taxes is like saying I don't like paying for groceries. Yeah, but you have to eat.
A while back there might have been large amounts of government waste and it might have been possible to cut a lot of fat from government without hurting the muscle. We've cut about as far as we can.
Its less possible now. The Republicans have tried to "starve the beast" for 8 years now. End result: FEMA couldn't effectively deliver water in a hurricane and bridges are collapsing during rush hour. Even with this incompetence, both the national debt and government spending have gone up during the last 8 years.
Face the facts. The government needs money to survive. We need taxes. If we raise taxes on one thing, we can cut taxes elsewhere and vice versa.
It is intellectually deceiving to be having the windfall tax debate in a vacuum. If you don't want the extra revenue from taxing oil companies, where are you going to get it. Raising income taxes? Cutting bridge maintenance? Cutting the military? Be specific. Also, don't just say pork. There are a couple of extreme examples of pork (normally sponsored by fellow Republicans) but most pork is simply roads and hospitals that the communities will actually need. Be honest and tell us which roads and hospitals you will decline to fund. McCain said during an interview, "I can find you $100 billion tomorrow". When the next day came, the press was expecting a detailed spreadsheet. Somehow, one wasn't made available.
Once you get to a realization that government needs to raise funds, the question becomes how to do it. Is a windfall profits tax a better way than simply raising income taxes? The answer is yes because ultimately the oil companies will drill anyway. You are taking away some of their profits but they are making absurd profits at these levels. Making $10 a barrel isn't as good as making $50 a barrel, but as long as its greater than 0, they will do it.
Buffett knows this. Volcker knows this. Obama knows this. Will McCain ever learn?
New AP-IPSOS poll. Obama lead by 6 (47-41)
The poll was conducted from July 31-Aug.4
Mule said:
"I respectfully disagree with the "speculative bubble" hypothesis y'all propose...
The difficult thing is...how do you prove it one way or the other...people say, "Look, it was a bubble. See how it's bursting and we're going back to below $100 per barrel.""
Well, I wasn't trying to be as daft as to say that because it's gone down recently, it was necessarily a bubble. I think most people called it that even at $140, primarily because commodities just don't double in a year when demand goes up 5-10%. It seemed to a lot of trained eyes like speculation fears that Saudis were exaggerating their capacities, plus a healthy dose of Iranian saber-rattling to stoke fears of a Strait of Hormuz blockage. You're right in that fears of reduction in demand have made a difference in lowering the price recently.
ajbeecroft, Washington is a blue state.
This pool say nothing. The most important pools are in the really swing states.
ClarkJeffrey:
It is a principle of economics that if you tax a thing, you will get less of it. A windfall profits tax would have the opposite effect of what we really want: more and cheaper oil. It is a bad idea.
Ask your econ professors where all the Keynesians went. Fiscal policy seems immaterial these days and our economy has shrugged off big deficits for years. Monetary policy is where it is at!
Also while it is fashionable in “progressive” circles to discount supply side economics, the lowering of tax rates has historically caused money to flood into the Treasury as economic activity is stimulated. Raising taxes stifles growth. Obama’s bottom up theory was discredited years ago. Don’t you recall the Welfare State?
All of that does not argue against fiscal discipline and for wasting the people's money, but I do get a kick out of how the Dems become deficit hawks once they get out of office.
Obama will tax and spend us to perdition. We need lower taxes across the board. We certainly need corporate tax relief and do not need more taxes on investment. Especially out of fairness.
Obama is not a naïf. He is a crypto-socialist who would compromise your comfort and convenience in order to achieve a society ordered around his belief structure. In that, he is a very dangerous man.
The new Rasmussen pool said also that voters trust for McCain on Key Issues Growing.
The republican candidate leads Obama in Iraq (51-39), energy (46-42) and ties in economy (45-45).
Obama leads only in education and health care.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/voters_trust_for_mccain_on_key_issues_growing
Wow, Pete, that libertarian babble might actually hold some weight if we didn't already have a recent president who raised taxes. Clinton come to mind? How was the economy during 92-00 compared to 01-08's festival of tax cuts to the rich again?
Yes, clearly given the effects of massive corporate tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts Bush has instituted what we need is....MORE OF THEM!!! Bring on massive deficits!
"The new Rasmussen pool said also that voters trust for McCain on Key Issues Growing.
The republican candidate leads Obama in Iraq (51-39), energy (46-42) and ties in economy (45-45).
Obama leads only in education and health care."
Yeah, wonder if that has anything to do with Rasmussen re-weighting all his numbers for his conveniently sudden drop in Democratic identity.
I noticed he changed his congressional generic results today from 13 to 10 after they were up an hour...I guess he forgot to cook them.
From the point of view of a casual observer it appears that a speculative bubble in oil is popping. The narrative based on Mule Rider's numbers would be that speculators miscalculated the reduction in demand and are losing lots of money. If any of the financial companies start blaming any of their losses on the volatile oil market then that will feed the narrative.
The events can be spun to support either side’s points. Speculators are a convenient scapegoat so I expect politicians to continue to blame them. The facts concerning speculators might be less important than a good narrative on this issue.
Ads during the Olympics would be interesting .. though appropriate given the incredible attention that the 08 campaign has received. It would be great to have a feelgood upbeat Obama ad where he rails against negative attacks. And then have the followed by a McCain attack ad.
Where are the McCain talking points on the just out AP/Ipsos poll?
emperorwillis said...
Ads during the Olympics would be interesting .. though appropriate given the incredible attention that the 08 campaign has received. It would be great to have a feelgood upbeat Obama ad where he rails against negative attacks. And then have the followed by a McCain attack ad.
------------
Issues based ads from Obama focusing on the economy, energy, Healthcare and social security would be more effective. Some "feel good" bio ads from Obama would also be a plus.
I still don't think calling McCain out too much now is the most effective strategy.
there are 2 schools of thoughts with regard to timing of the vp announce
1. before olympics
pro=potential double bounce (vp announce and convention)
con=perhaps announce is drowned out by the olympics
2. after olympics
pro=guaranteed press coverage
con=no double bounce since its so close to the convention
I think (1) is best. I dont think us americans really care much about the olympics. And in addition, Obama and his running mate will have a couple of weeks to see what the public, pundits, gop are saying about the running mate. They will then be in a better position to rock the convention
PeteKent,
You're kind of full of it. Y'know. Have you ever taken an econ course? It sounds like you get all of your econ knowledge straight from GOP talking points.
It is a principle of economics that if you tax a thing, you will get less of it. A windfall profits tax would have the opposite effect of what we really want: more and cheaper oil. It is a bad idea.
This is not true. It all has to do with elasticity of supply and demand. Google it if you've never heard the term before. The basic principle is that producers will continue to produce anything that is profitable up until the point that it is no longer profitable.
Obviously, there is a little truth to what you are saying in normal economic times. Higher taxes mean marginally less production. However, the difference with a windfall profits tax is that it occurs only in times when production is already at peak levels and is unlikely to be lowered because of a raise in taxes. In other words, if it costs $50 to drill a barrel of oil and oil costs $150, they are going to drill it anyway if you put a $50tax on it. If oil is at $70 a barrel and it cost $50 + a $50 tax, they won't drill it. That is part of the point of a windfall tax. It hits only at the point where the elasticity of supply isn't that big of an issue and is hence more efficient than other forms of taxes.
Fiscal policy seems immaterial these days and our economy has shrugged off big deficits for years.
So unbelievably wrong that its amazing you even said it. One of the reasons why our long term economy has so much of a problem is the high overhead of accumulated interest. Do you have any idea how great life would be if we didn't have to pay such an absurd amount in interest every year? We could easily cut taxes drastically and still afford a government that could provide roads, hospitals, FEMA, a strong military and everything else that the people want. What you are suggesting is basically living off of credit cards and rolling one balance into another. It just makes the debt larger.
Ultimately, the interest rate will go up as well. We still pay relatively low interest rates based on the global economy's belief that we will somehow pay it all off. If they decide we don't have that good a credit rating, we're seriously fucked.
I really suggest you start reading some actual economists writings and stop relying so heavily on GOP talking points. Deficits do matter.
PeteKent:
Why should anybody here pay any attention to your posts when you post the following in the same damn thread?
"Obama will be criticzed for his Olympic ads. He is intruding on an event where he has no business intruding.
The man just can't help himself."
..and within hours...
"Smart move by McCain to buy time on the Olympics. Can't wait to see his ads."
You're a hack and a shill with no credibility.
"I'd like to see a proposal for a windfall tax on farmers/ranchers and see how well that goes over."
It should be pretty obvious why it doesn't go over well. Farmers and ranchers are seen as geniune hard-working Americans who deserve every dime they get, while oil company executives are almost universally reviled as incredibly greedy pigs who will do whatever it takes to squeeze every last dime at the pump.
Now, is that fair? Not really. Oil companies don't actually make a larger percent of profits from revenue, from what I've seen. But these are politicians, and if you're going to give people help because of gas prices, you may as well go for the proposal that has the most support by attacking the biggest public enemy. Nobody's perfect, but at least one of them isn't taking millions in donations from oil companies and proposing billions in tax cuts for them.
Hey I have a request for Nate. not sure if this is where I can leave the request but I'll just write it down here.
You've got the "Electoral Vote" average along the left side of the screen. that's great but I think we could benefit from having one more stat. During your simulations, which result occured the most? or which were the top 3 results.
I'll give an example. According to your stats, it looks like the most likely electoral results are
1. Obama wins 293-245 (Dems pick up OH, NM, IA, CO)
2. Obama wins 306-232 (Dems pick up OH, NM, IA, CO, VA)
3. Obama wins 273-265 (Dems pick up NM, IA, CO)
It would be great if we could see what score the simulations came out with most often. I know there's the "Electoral Vote Distribution" which is kinda what I'm looking for. It would really be cool if we could see the actual number (say, the 3 most popular results) in the left nav right under "Electoral Vote".
:) willis
Mule Rider,
that is a terrible argument and I hope you are aware of this!
For one the retailing business as a whole is not very profitable. Margins exceeding 2% of revenue are rare. If anything high food prices hurt margins at retailers because in a highly competitive field like retail raising prices is extremely difficult.
Surely there is a windfall profit for farmers. But farming is a business that is not dominated by a few multi billion dollar companies but by smaller farmers. These farmers have seen the cost of it's inputs rise significantly. Land is more expensive, seeds are more expensive...
Oil companies on the other hand have a fairly reliable cost base. Yes, the higher price of steel and the shortness in exploration capacity will cost them money, but really there are no inputs that vary in price. The $20 extra per barrel is pure profit.
This is not to say that a windfall profit tax is necessarily a good or bad idea but your comparison lacks credibility.
I bet most grocery stores are making a killing...even as costs are going up to them, the prices they are and will be able to pass along will far exceed that (with food being so inelastic during times of tight supply).
You would lose. Safeway's profit margin is only 2.3%...others are far lower. Do you guys ever bother to actually look things up before you talk?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=SWY
I'd like to see a proposal for a windfall tax on farmers/ranchers and see how well that goes over.
Our current subsidies of agribusiness are a horrible economic idea and one of the areas that I strongly disagree with Obama on. They are wasteful and unnecessary. McCain is right on this one.
We subsidize the hell out of farmers during bad times because we feel so sorry for poor farmer John even if most of the money goes to millionaires with thousands of acres.
A windfall tax might be a good way to cover the cost of the farm bill. Just say we'll help you out and subsidize us you if there is a drought but you have to pay it back during windfall times. I actually suspect that farmers would like this policy more than just removing the subsidies altogether.
Also, for what it worth, you mention "ranchers". Farmers are having real good times. Ranchers aren't. Livestock producers are getting hit by rising food prices worse than anyone else. They are having to deal with rising supply costs and falling demand for the end product at the same time.
Great idea emperor willis, is this how you got to be emperor?
Farmers are in a very different position. Th ey are largely small business-men.
Hey - LETS ALL CLICK ON THE PARIS AD AND COST JOHN McCAIN MONEY!!! If you see Paris at the top of your browaser, press the ad 100 times to make sure John pays dearly!
It is infuriating that misleading repub negative ads are still playing and still work.
haha Brad - oh how i wish :)
All of my quotes above are from Obama's energy plan, with my view on each. Certainly some of my views may have been presented more extremely than others, but I was trying to explain an overall view of why Obama's step by step plan will not work. It does not make sense. Go to his website and read the plan. Its his plan not mine.
Well, you're right, Higgly, it does not make sense. Of course, "it" refers to pretty much everything you've said in this thread.
But hey, at least it'll stop you from saying that his whole plan is inflating tires. Maybe.
I just looked at the AP poll and it seemed right in line with the Gallup RV Poll. Although, AP does not add up their numbers correctly when they do inital and leaners with John McCain and Obama. I beleive inthe RV Poll it should be 46 to 41 for Obama with Barr and Nader. 47 to 43 w/o Barr and NAder.
Again, right in line with Gallup. Still, too many Hispanics in this poll, but as it is a RV Poll I don't think it really matters.
Looking at the current RealClearPolitics polls in the average says this RV/LV discrepancy is a huge problem no one knows how to address:
AP-Ipsos 07/31 - 08/04 833 RV 48 42 Obama +6.0
Gallup Tracking 08/02 - 08/04 2674 RV 47 43 Obama +4.0
Rasmussen Tracking 08/02 - 08/04 3000 LV 46 47 McCain +1.0
CNN 07/27 - 07/29 914 RV 51 44 Obama +7.0
USA Today/Gallup 07/25 - 07/27 791 LV 45 49 McCain +4.0
Pew Research 07/23 - 07/27 1241 RV 47 42 Obama +5.0
Only USA Today/Gallup and Rasmussen tracking use LV models and only they show McCain leads. The average Obama lead of registered voters is 5.5 points. McCain's average lead in the likely voter models is 2.5 points.
I know there has been plenty of discussion here before about the meaning of and salience of each. I'd have to make an additional plug for the RV's though-- to hold off assumptions on who's "likely" to vote given that this primary season was fairly unprecedented in turnout and excitement (due to its sheer length and intensity). With the assumption that the registered voters who stampeded the polls in the primaries will be doubly excited about the election that *really* matters, I'd say the RV's have it.
Are all RVs considered to be LVs?
Willis,
The RealClearPolitics map of the electoral college said Obama takes 322 and McCain 216.
Obama takes OH, NM, CO, MI, IN
Pete Kent: Whatever both candidates say, the US will inevitably have to increase taxes on the short to medium run. The size of the budget deficit is not sustainable, and will on the medium term not be financeable anymore. Currently, the way out is through the money press (labelled as "providing liquidity to the financial markets"), but that cannot continue forever without devaluating the USD even further. The consequences would be inflation, driven by rising import prices and fuelled by monetary oversupply, followed by rising interest rates (due to inflation, and in order to attract foreign capital to finance the trade deficit). This would lead to further deterioriation of the real estate market, more banks to be bailed out by the FED, and so on and so forth.
So, to me, the question is not, whether taxes will be raised, but which ones will be raised. You are right in saying that excessive profit taxes will be hurting, but that is mostly applying to tax rates above 50-55%. I don't expect any politician to go there. Clearly hurting are labour taxes, including any social security / health care contributions levelled on employers - an instant incentive for reducing employment.
What is generally believed to be the economically most acceptable form of tacation is taxing consumption - in general (VAT / sales tax), or the consumption of certain products like, e.g. tobacco or alcohol.[Without going into details, this only applies to taxing final consumption. Taxing intermediate inputs can be quite a disaster.] The downside to consumption taxes is that they drive inflation, and leave less money in people's pocket, thus potentially increasing poverty.
What does that mean? The next president has to choose between:
(a) raising profit/ income taxes, thus reducing investment incentives and encouraging capital export - problematic when you run a huge trade deficit and need to import capital;
(b) raise VAT/ sales taxes: hurts low-income groups the most, and will increase poverty; or
(c) raise gas tax: hurts the middle class (the poor often don't have a car at all), but stimulates investment, reduces the trade deficit, and makes local products more competitive /higher transport costs on imports).
I would recommend option (c), also as a means to effectively combat climate change.
Unfortunately, the whole issue seems so far not to be discussed at all, by neither of the two candidates. Probably, both assume the electorate will not like the message, and any mention of the need for tax increase will kill the chance or wimning.
We had a similar thing here in Germany in 1994. The Social Democrats stated that taxes needed to be raised to finance the costs of upgrading East Germany's infrastructure, while the Kohl government promised to not raise taxes. Kohl won, raised taxes (income, tobacco and gas tax) mmediately after winning, and lost the next election in a landslide.
So, it may be wise for both candidates to keep low profile on the tax/ budget deficit issue. On the other hand, why do 67% of respondents to the economist/ YouGov poll think that Obama is not saying what he believes in, and 50% think so about McCain? Maybe the American electorate is not so stupid, and at least somehow aware that unpleasant surprises will be coming up after the election ..
emperor:
No-- ironically, not all "registered" voters are "likely". It's the reverse. Likely voters are registered voters who have consistently shown they can show up to the polls, so they've voted in years past or are absolutely confident they'll show up this year cause they're so engaged, etc. So it seriously skews away from first time and apolitical voters. The issue that it's "likely" that some voters are being registered to vote between now and the election is a separate matter entirely.
Dario,
RCP has Obama winning IN and NV. Both are below 50% in Nate's models though so I don't think they would be in Obama's column for the most likely electoral results.
honestly, at this point, I really don't see what else Obama can do. He missed the small window of opportunity he had to make offshore drilling another gas tax holiday, and then embraced the opposition plan without any reason whatsoever. Where's his ammunition at this point? He can't go negative during the Olympics, he can't.
McCain's ads will be positive during the Olympics, contrasting the negativity he's been obsessed with. It will cripple Obama given recent polling.
What Obama needs is a new uplifting message complete with something that leaves a sour taste in the mouth of voters who say "McCain" while *NOT* going overtly negative. It's a massive problem that, frankly, I don't see the Obama campaign overcoming until the convention (if then).
Mule Rider,
I would stop spilling if only your counter argument wasn't even greater garbage.
Oh and by the way in econ 101 they only teach you how to take a first derivative, that won't help much.
I am well aware of the fact that 90% of the grains are produced by 10% of the farmers, however that is a stupid counterargument since that is still 96000 people (according to the EPA) compared to 5 big oil companies. See a difference?
"Only for livestock guys"
Are you kidding me? You tell me to do research and then you spill this out? Look up some of the input prices for farmers. Pesticides...
I happen to live in a farm ing state and let me tell you when talking to farmers they can pretty easily debunk your argument.
Your bit about grocery stores is the worst though. Did you actually read my argument? Retailing is a terribly unprofitable business. Higher food prices are not going to lessen competition between the hundreds of different retailers. That's just plain stupid.
Mule Rider,
Comparing oil producers to farmers is somewhat legitimate (though the ripostes that farmers are facing higher input costs, and farming is far more distributed, are legitimate as well). But comparing oil producers to grocery stores is just silly. Grocery stores are not producers of the scarce commodity, they're just a distribution channel. Their mark-up is limited by the competition between grocery stores to be the most efficient distribution channel. The oil equivalent is the gas station owner, who makes the same 2 cents/gallon margin whether the base cost is $1 or $4.
I'm a commodity analyst...I've got the inside track on these things.
Hey, I’m a hedge fund manager. I guess only Wall Street guys have the time to post on these boards.
When livestock producers adjust production enough, THEY WILL BE seeing those price hikes that the crops/grains people enjoyed...then you will see who is profitable.
Not entirely true. Yes a rise in input prices does get partially passed onto the consumer. But the producer typically has to eat at least some of the costs as well. If they all got passed on, you would never see companies objecting to their products being taxed. Would you?
Exactly how much of the extra costs get passed on is dependent upon the elasticity of supply and demand. Less technically put, if the price goes up, are people going to buy less of it? Will suppliers make less of it?
Meat is to a certain extent a luxury good. It has a much cheaper replacement available.
People want to buy it but they don’t need to buy it. If the price gets too high, they will buy considerably less. A poor economy would already be putting indirect pressure onto meat demand. The increasing prices have a more direct effect. It can’t be denied that when people have less money and meat cost more, people will substitute veggies and grains for meat at least some of the time.
Elasticity of supply is another issue. Basically, the question is how much of the cost of production is overhead. With too much overhead, there is a big reason to continue to make the product even when the price for the finished good just barely covers your marginal costs. The producers end up eating almost all of the price increase themselves and continuing to operate at a loss.
If anybody is curious about why airlines continue to sell tickets at roughly the same prices that they charged five years ago even with fuel costing four times as much, the answer is elasticity of supply and demand. Rising fuel prices hurt airlines far more than they hurt airline passengers. I know. I’m one of the fools that watched an airline investment lose 95% of its market value over the last year.
I admit that I’m not an expert on the meat industry but I do know that input prices aren’t just directly passed onto the consumer and that while the amount of the impact on producers varies across industries, rising input prices at a time of fairly elastic demand is not good for any industry.
PeteKent's true colors.
PeteKent said (yesterday):
"his conversion to Christianity makes him an Apostate for whom the penalty is death under Sharia law"
.
This is PeteKent at his worst. There is no Obama conversion from Islam to Christianity. There is no person who is both informed and honest who says there was.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment