9.05.2008

Post-Convention Six-Pack

1. No, You First. Did the Republicans benefit from having the last convention? It's not like their convention was responsive, substance-wise, to much of what the Democrats had to say. But, had the Democrats gone last, they would probably have had an easier time undercutting what the Republicans had to say, highlighting the lack of real policy meat (especially on the economy) and the lack of real differentiation from Bush. These things were already the core messages of the Democratic Convention, but had Democrats had the last word, they might have had even more resonance.

Moreover, it would be easier for the Democrats to deflate the Sarah Palin balloon had they gone last. Of course, if the Democrats had gone last, the McCain campaign might never have seen those internal polls that made them panic, and might have made a more conventional VP selection like Tim Pawlenty.

2. My Frenemies? A notable facet of McCain's speech tonight was that he seemed to be fighting the Xcel Center crowd -- and not just the imbecilic Code Pink protestors. The crowd simply wasn't giving him much love when he wasn't talking about the three P's -- Palin, Petroleum, and POW. That led to a fairly dreadful stretch of ten or fifteen minutes as he tried to rebut the Democrats on the economy, which in turn reduced the energy level and deprived Mark Salter's conclusion of some of its thunder. I don't know anything about the Republicans' delegate selection process, but it might do them some good to ensure a bit more intraparty ideological diversity. One certainly gets the sense, by the way, that there would have been very tangible risks to McCain in selecting a VP like Joe Lieberman.



3. In Which I Agree With Larry Kudlow. "In St. Paul ... There has been no reference to the populist revolt against high gas prices at the pump," Kudlow says, and he's right. As I argued last month, gas prices were the one economic issue on which the Republicans could strike a populist tone while maintaining a straight face, by pushing the issues of offshore drilling and the gas tax suspension. We heard plenty about drilling (though very little about the gas tax) -- but the populist framing was gone. Instead, it was drilling for drilling's sake, annunciated rather vulgarly with the "drill, baby, drill" refrain. That might work well enough for people like -- well, Larry Kudlow -- but the Republicans probably forsook some ground with Middle America on this issue.

4. Two-for-One? Overall, I think that the Republicans accomplished one major objective with their convention: uniting their base. But the Democrats, I would argue, accomplished two major objectives: uniting their base by bringing home the Hillary supporters, and finally hitting their stride on domestic policy with keep-it-simple-stupid, 1992-style messaging on the economy. It is possible that the Republicans' one big win will outweigh the Democrats' two. But they've essentially chosen to concede the domestic policy argument -- which is exceptionally dangerous because the last major event of the campaign is the October 15 debate at Hofstra University, a debate which is focused entirely on domestic policy.

5. Win, Baby, Win? Did anyone else get the sense that, when McCain said "Let there be no doubt my friends, we're going to win this election" -- he really seemed to believe it? Whatever else Sarah Palin has done, she certainly seems to have boosted McCain's morale.

6. Schrödinger's Catharsis. Sometime it's what isn't said that is most important -- and what McCain didn't do is to have a cathartic moment in which he called out George W. Bush. For example, imagine a line like:

"Make no mistake, my friends. This Administration was wrong in its response to Hurricane Katrina."

A simple, relatively innocuous statement like this would have made for an excellent soundbyte (even if it were proceeded by something like "...and I made sure we'd get it right with Hurricane Gustav.")

Of course, McCain could have upped the difficulty -- and the potential payoff -- by replacing "Hurricane Katrina" with something like "climate change" or "torture". But a single line like this would have had a lot of rhetorical force. McCain wasn't willing to take that risk. As it stands, I don't really understand the talking point that McCain distanced himself from Bush.

429 comments

Voice of Reason said...

Sen. John McCain’s joke about an 18 YEAR OLD Chelsea Clinton in 1998.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

– Sen. John McCain, speaking at a Republican dinner, June 1998.

(THIS FROM THE GUY WHO ACCUSED THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN OF ATTACKING SARAH PALINS FAMILY AND WHEN ASKED COULDN'T GIVE ONE EXAMPLE TO SUPPORT THAT ACCUSATION! JOHN McSAME - DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO - ATTACKING TEENAGE GIRLS SINCE 1998!)

Dave said...

He barely skimmed the idea of having dems and independents "serve with him."

If he had come out and said that he would have a bipartisan cabinet (and it looks like he's likely to pick Lieberman anyway, so why not say it?) it could have been game changing. Instead he sort of skirted it to avoid pissing off the crowd.

Larry said...

This is all transparently sexist, Nate.

cora said...

dave,

he would have been mobbed by the crowd.

Ground Noise (And Static) said...

It was a shockingly bland speech. He looked really tired. He had to hit Bush administration harder to have any chance of convincing swing voters and undecided.

OzJohnnie said...

Nate;

I'm going to be civil in this one. Crazy, but true.

On pt2: McCain is running from the Republican brand. The only thing that delegates when nuts over in his speech were the things that 80% of the population can go nuts over. The things where they sat quiet were the things that the Maverick continually shoves in our faces - immigration, climate change. If it were for Barracuda... And there is the genius of Palin. The base has an enthusiastic reason to hold their noses when voting. Double up on the gender head fake and Palin is a phenom. No significant number of Hillary! voters will follow Palin, but it sure does have Obama off his game, doesn't it?

On pt3: in your dreams. What middle ground was given up? There is no alternative being offered. Biden was leashed something fierce when he had to take back is OCS drilling gaffe yesterday. Obama's position on drilling is a massive unforced error.

On pt4: You miss the major achievement of this convention by an Alaskan mile. The Reps now have two all-star attractions to the Dems one. Obama will continually be outflanked by a good cop/bad cop routine on every issue. He can't escape short of Hillary! joining the ticket.

On Pt5: This is spot on. And not just his morale, but the bases. The GOP's ground game in the Evangelical community just got a jump start. Best bit, it's free.

On Pt6: You must have missed all that "Republicans have lost their way" rhetoric. Also, nice of Woodward to come out with his "Book of Doom", the lead quote being McCain complaining that the Bush Whitehouse "is all f***ing spin." There is a reason he is the Maverick (and all us movement conservatives despise him).

McCain has played a master stroke here. He has rallied the base and killed of Biden with Palin. He has head-faked the identity politics obsessed Dems with Palin. And he has left himself free to stand above co-opting JFK's message of "ask not..." with a theme of American Service.

You have witnessed a friggin' electoral masterpiece. I can't stand the Maverick because he has played this game on conservatives for years, but this year we love him because for the first time he has turned his skills on the Dems. And he hit a new kid that "doesn't know what he was up against."

So sure, the Maverick will turn on us again after he wins. But he will win and we have a better chance of good policy under him that Obama.

Oz.

Larry said...

I agree with this 100%:

As it stands, I don't really understand the talking point that McCain distanced himself from Bush.

He talked about how the Republican party had been "changed" by Washington, but then all the policies he advocated were Bush policies.

The only thing that might change under a McCain presidency is the blatant disregard for the Constitution.

Tito said...

I think the Republicans didn't take advantage of going second, and maybe they lost more in losing that first day than we know but it's gone now.

The Democrats did three things with their convention: Humanized the Obama's, healed the Clinton-Obama rift, and established themselves on domestic policy in such away that they can now appear to be fighting from the middle, not for the middle.

The Republicans didn't do much to establish domestic policy and instead seemed to invest that time in attacking Obama and the Democrats. Next, they spent a lot of time establishing John McCain's story, but whether that will pay off depends on how many people weren't already familiar with it. Thirdly, the tried to rally the theme of the election to National Security. With the more people in the country against the war in Iraq than for it, this seems to be a flop to me.

More people are reminded on a daily basis of the price of gas, a weakened dollar, and the housing mess yet the RNC didn't really address these issues. It's like they aren't even playing for the middle. This is an election about primarily domestic policy, and instead of establishing any kind of front on those issues, they squandered the massive time and attention they had to do so. They're left to do so over the next two months through the debates and campaigning, but it should have started this week.

To me, and I am a Democrat, but it looks like the DNC made a quick jump for the general election while the RNC just stumbled out of the blocks.

Observer said...

From the NYT tonight: "Advisers to Mrs. Clinton said that she stood ready to help the Obama-Biden ticket, but they urged the campaign not to overestimate the impact Mrs. Clinton could have, noting that she had other commitments this fall, like campaigning and raising money for Senate candidates."

More than a whiff 'you won it, you make it work' there, I think.

Jason said...

As of this moment I think this election will be decided on if the undecided voters want real change from the last 8 years or the voters choose to ignore the country's problems and vote for the new "reality TV like frenzy" that the Republicans gave America that has created the "it girl" of the moment that a large portion of America just eats up.

I just get this feeling that alot of the voters will get wrapped up into this "hockey mom story" like a next door neighbor winning some reality TV game show in becomming the next VP that it will make them want to vote for her. It's what the republicans wanted and it might be what we all get. It doesn't get more scary than that.

DarienCrow said...

John McCain is a seriously brilliant politician and you guys just got too cocky and over confident with your money manufactured candidate.

You have wasted everything you have trying to paint McCain as a Bush third term. You knew it was a damn lie but you fell right into it. Even when you know damn well he has his record of working across the aisle.

McCain is a maverick Republican and always has been. He fought hard to get the nomination even when all his party didn't support him. He knew to win this he would have to moved to the center.

How could he do this without losing more support from the hard right? He needed a star that they would love to vote for.

Answer: Sarah Palin

Now he can moved to the center with ease and keep all Republicans happy and energized.

Now Obama is in a real jam and he knows it. He's so desperate that he's now on his knees sucking Fox cock.

John McCain has smoked you all and did it in 6 days.

michele-lee said...

Fascinating. Palin gave a good speech. She's mean and nasty and willing to twist the facts out of recognition in search of political hits.
As others have said, she's more Bush than Bush was.

McCain's dreaming of being who he was eight years ago. Heck, aren't we all?

I hate to say it, but Giuliani by all rights should have won the Repubs nomination. I would have hated him, but as Mayor of a city of 8 million he actually had some claim to executive experience. Socially more liberal, law-and-order, psycho about national security and law-and-order.
No record of voting with Bush in congress.

He could have won.

McCain, like Bradley in 92, missed his opportunity to be the right man at the right time. Despite the essentially right leanings of the populace, 08 won't work for him, I don't think.

If it does, it's probably time to disband the Democratic party.

Wilson said...

On #5,

He seemed to be too sure. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to pull some underhanded stunts on election day.

hey i'm always how low they can go.

Alwasys say to yourself, how do they win from here? It's a great way of seeing all the dumb things they can do.

Ace said...

Different topic and purely speculative, but does anyone have a sense of whether Palin will be a strong help to McCain in mountain west states, especially Montana, North Dakota, and Colorado? Colorado and (Montana+ND) represent two very important win conditions for Obama, so I am worried that Palin could take these away. What do you think? (completely speculative of course)

clarkejeffrey said...

There really seemed to be a disconnect between the Palin and McCain speeches. Palin ripped inton Obama viciously and personally. No big deal...thats what politicians do. Then McCain came out and gave a postpartisan speech and said Obama wasn't that bad...he's a good guy...just a little too green and a little too liberal.

Were they going for the good cop/bad cop routine?

I don't get it. The McCain campaign has sort of been all over the place. What they do one day always seems to contradict what they did the day before. This is just the latest example.

I'm curious to see the polls out of the convention. I don't really have a good guess as to what will happen.

I tend to agree with Nate that the average independent voter won't have loved the Palin speech as much as the media implies. I guess we'll know soon enough though.

DanOregon said...

Perhaps with only three days it would have been too difficult, but I really would have "bought" the message more if they were willing to address what many people think of the party. It's out of touch. Huckabee did a little bit of that, but when the "wrong-track" is 80 percent, you really need to do something to get people's attention that things will be different, and I don't think the convention did that. Reform your own party before you talk about reforming America.

Observer said...

Count your chickens much, Crow?
Let's see some numbers by early next week. Maybe then I'll crow -- or not.

Will said...

The suggestion that the GOP's base-unity is more valuable than Dem base unity and domestic policy cred, combined, is just ridiculous. We democrats have got the best ID gap in years.

That said, John McCain was likable tonight. He seemed really soft and familiar. Familiarity in tough times might be his ticket to victory.

KevinHayden said...

I found him anti-climactic, narcissistic, calling forth themes loaded with wide-eyed 'Gloriosky, Sandy' moments.

Whatever roll that was going at Wednesday's conclusion got weighted down by a puny little man behind he curtain, the Wiztard of AZ.

Jen said...

I think he did not look Presidential tonight. The speech was well written but poorly delivered.

He looked old, tired and like he would scare small children. Appearance matters, even though it should not.

I think he gets a bump from the Palin speech, since by not giving birth while burning a book and firing an in-law onstage she exceeded expectations, which will represent McCain's high point. I think the Saturday tracking numbers show McCain's numbers start to fade.

Jen said...

Oh, and who calls themselves a maverick? I thought him refering to himself as a maverick made him look like a douchebag, pardon my language.

Observer said...

I agree that the speech was poorly delivered. But I think the bar on that was pretty low with the public; they all know that he doesn't think the 'big speech' setting shows off his good qualities either. He generated a pretty good sincerity quotient in the 'wrapping himself in the flag' portions. I think he is honestly uncomfortable playing the 'I was a POW' card himself (fine with letting others do it for him of course), and that discomfort camee through and made him seem somewhat humble about it.

Jason said...

A note about Obama on O'Reilly.

Is it just me or was it a little over the top unprofessional for Bill to do his usual put down act with Obama like he was just some Joe Schmoe?? The guy is speaking with a man running for president.

Whether Bill agrees with Obama or not, he could act a little more professional. This will probably be his most watched shows ever and he will come off looking pretty bad for trying to act all shock jock like. I didn't expect him to throw softball questions but i thought he was going way overboard trying to put words in Obama's mouth. I guess he is playing it up to look "cool" for his usual audience but it just strikes me as being REALLY unprofessional and puts a black eye on Fox News. But I guess it is O'Reilly and Fox News so I really shouldn't expect much.

KQuark said...

Billo admits the Obama was right on the Iraq War. That's the headline. Obama also got Billo to admit that the surge was not successful politically.

As to Obama saying the surge was a security success Obama has said that for a while. It was a security success for many reasons but of course Billo cut him off.

Billo also said McBush would not put boots on the ground in Pakistan. In fact McBush has never said he will attack Bin Laden on actionable intelligence like Obama.

draNgNon said...

The only thing that might change under a McCain presidency is the blatant disregard for the Constitution.

Let's face it though. That's a pretty Important Thing.

Observer said...

I thought O'Reilly was sufficiently less obnoxious than his usual self to count as civil in the interview. And I thought BO did score several good points in his Mid East comments. It won't win over regular O'Reilly viewers of course, but it's the news coverage that independents (and conservative Dems) will see that counts here.

Jason said...

I never watch O'Reilly so maybe he was being more "civil" than usual, but for the ones that are not avid fans of his...he did not come off as being someone professional enough to score an interview with a man running for the highest office in the land. I know the man has his fans...but it's really hard to see why. I think even Rush would have at least been more professional than this.

TorrentPrime said...

Will tomorrow's numbers reflect the Palin rant, I mean, speech?

Woo Is Me said...

In looking at the effect of the RNC/Palin convention, I think it's helpful to focus on a subset of Plouffe's 18 states.

Alaska is now a lock for McCain.

Iowa and New Mexico appear to be locks for Obama. (The Repubs are pulling funding for the Senate race in NM.) Wisconsin is solid.

Assuming Obama plays defense in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hamp., that leaves him at 263 EVs.

Then Obama needs just 7 EVs from Montana, Georgia, North Dakota, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Indiana. I think Palin may help a little in many of these states, except Florida. In some cases, Obama may just need 1 of these states to fall into his camp to win.

That's assuming the Palin keeps her introductory popularity translated to independents and doesn't gaffe much on the trail and in the debate. McCain still has to thread the eye of a needle.

Jason said...

After that pretty dull speech tonight McCain gave I think any large bounce will be 85-90% because of Palin. But will she be able to keep propping him up for 2 months? That's the million dollar question.

Tito said...

God, the O'Reilly interview was embarrassing for O'Reilly. I don't think anyone should be tossing any candidate softball questions, and he didn't. But when you're asking questions of a candidate and you want answers and explanations, then don't interrupt them or wave them off dismissively when they are trying to do so. I don't think it's a partisan thing, I don't think it's even a Fox News thing. Bill O'Reilly is just a horrible interviewer who can't get out of the way of his own ego in order to conduct a decent discussion. But after years of seeing his shtick, I'm not the least bit surprised.

Wilson said...

... tongue in cheek .... After tonites speech, the GOP may need to replace McCain with someone more suited to run with Palin...

Observer said...

Here's the NYT (media columnist) on the interview:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/us/politics/05watch.html?ref=us

Reader said...

OzJohnnie, nice counteranalysis, but on pt 3, "drill baby drill" is transparently unsupported by facts (which the electorate is slowly realizing), and on pts 4 and 6, McCain has absolutely not differentiated his policies from Bush, and he and Palin are only successful in the double-teaming of Obama as long as they can avoid being called on it.

And, as regards your comments on "the new kid", I'm from Illinois and please, by all means, continue to underestimate Obama. ;-)

k said...

Then Obama needs just 7 EVs from Montana, Georgia, North Dakota, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Indiana. I think Palin may help a little in many of these states, except Florida. In some cases, Obama may just need 1 of these states to fall into his camp to win.

Obama is not going to win Montana, Georgia, North Carlina, Missouri, Florida or Indiana, unless he wins the popular vote by 5% or more in which case he is set. And McCain still has a real chance in NH, though Obama is probably a 2:1 favorite there.

markymark said...

First off did anyone else think McCain's performance was baaaad? He looked so uncomfortable. Sort of reminded me of Nixon in the famous 1960 debate. I have a feeling that on paper it was a good speech that McCain didn't sell that well.

I think the big thing is did we learn anything new about McCain from his speech? I really am not sure we did. I think we did get something different from Obama, he filled in some blanks. Now there are maybe fewer blanks about McCain, but watching him speak, I am not sure I could imagine McCain being President.

But on the convention as a whole- to me it didn't seem to fit together as well as the DNC did. Lat wekk one night fed on from the last, this week each night seemed seperate and different and the connection didn't really come across.

I did think the crowd reception to McCain's speech was telling, as compared to Palin's. Is there any truth to the thought that maybe some far right people might not turn out for McCain in the hope of a better candidate in 4 years time? They have a champion now.

I didn't think the GOP waqs very consistent throughout the 3 nights. Tuesday night- service service service, wednesday night- community organizers don't count, Friday night McCain trying to rally people to service as the most glaring example.

I also think that McCain wasn't clear enough about his vision. Maybe that will come, but I think it needs to. They bashed Obama for long enough about not having clear policies, I think they need to be clearer about what they will do.

I'll be interested to see what if any bounce McCain gets from his convention. My guess is that most of it will come from Palin and the base. But they were on board already.

CRLIndoland said...

I thought the RNC was for hard core Republicans and only hard core, christian right, republicans. For me as a solid independent who favors obama, my days of support Mc Cain are 100% over. I saw no maverick what so ever. He has sold his soul the political devil and that's all I have to say about. Would he change in office as the Economist suggested. I am not willing to take the chance. The RNC convention ranked right there with a Jerry Springer episode. I caught my self saying over and over, is this for real. What happened to the educated, fiscal conservative, libertarian leaning republicans. Did this blow hards eat them all. I will place money that McCains bounce from this awfully managed convention will be minimal.

DaWolf said...

time for a morning rant....

NYTimes currently has a headline up

"McCain vows to end 'Partisan Rancor,' Seizing theme of Chang from rival"

what a slimy piece of shit after McCain has been attacking Obama for months and the Republican Convention has been attacking Obama non-stop day after day and hardly said a word abnout what they personally intend.

I really hope the US public is not stupid enough to swallow this pile of horse manure.

cora said...

CBS is out with a new poll: 42-42
and it's before the Palin speech.

NATE this poll is false, correct me if i'm wrong. Their previous poll had it 48-40 for Obama, their sample adjustements turned out to be as follows R 229, D 308, I 337. Their current poll's adjustment on party lines is R 215, D 241, I 235.

If I aply their previous adjustement to their current poll
the end result would be:

Obama 44 - Mccain 39.5
looks more plausible to me

you can work it out yourself on the 2 cbs polls:

Todays:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/AUG08B-THURS.pdf

Previous:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Aug08bPostDemConv.pdf

obsessed said...

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

– Sen. John McCain, speaking at a Republican dinner, June 1998.


I can't remember ... was it Rudy or Sarah who retold that one last night?

And Voice o' Reason - that's mighty uppity of you to be whining about it, you merlot sipping elitist.

(Hey, somebody's gotta fill in for oz and mule - I think they're still sleeping off that overdose of McCainitol.)

PorridgeGun said...

WOW, C BS!!!


Voice of Reason said...

Sen. John McCain’s joke about an 18 YEAR OLD Chelsea Clinton in 1998.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

– Sen. John McCain, speaking at a Republican dinner, June 1998.

(THIS FROM THE GUY WHO ACCUSED THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN OF ATTACKING SARAH PALINS FAMILY AND WHEN ASKED COULDN'T GIVE ONE EXAMPLE TO SUPPORT THAT ACCUSATION! JOHN McSAME - DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO - ATTACKING TEENAGE GIRLS SINCE 1998!)




Even if the Dems came out the conventions divided and PUMAs were definately voting for McCain, Obama or the DNC could have used that quote bring back Hillary supporters. I think they should still use it, just for the sake of it.


Also...


McCain is known to be disrespectful to women. He's no doubt using Palin for political gain. He called his own wife a CUNT in public.

x0lani said...

Just for reference, McCain's acceptance speech can be found here.

Nate's points 2 and 6 are mutually constructive - It's an appeal to independents while not alienating his base.

Furthermore, I'd add a 7th point, but that wouldn't fit in with the beer metaphor. It's seems that the Republicans are competing with Obama where he has been the most compelling - in biography. Both Palin and McCain dedicated a large part of their speeches to their personal histories. Palin spoke at length about her family, while McCain told a Saving Private Ryan style story of the POW camp. It seems this would aim to deflate some of the Obama adulation with inspiring narratives of their own.

Yeah, though McCain alludes to specific policy objectives, this convention was more about rhetoric. I for one, am really looking forward to the debates.

(Schrödinger's Catharsis - LOL! What's that? We don't how it a stand will be received until he takes it?)

obsessed said...

I was listening in the car and there was something at the beginning that I found very confusing - he started in with something along the lines of "I know people are having a hard time econonically ..." and it sounded like the crowd was booing - and it took him a while to get them to shut up. What was up with that?

obsessed said...

He called his own wife a CUNT in public.

What? No way. If John McCain had called his wife a cunt in public we'd be hearing about it on all the news stations.

C.S.Strowbridge said...

"What was up with that?"

I think saying there's a problem is the same as treason among many Republicans.

DaWolf said...

@obsessed

sarcasm, right?

x0lani said...

cora:
According Nate's chart, CBS has the 3rd highest error, so maybe it's a blip.

How are you applying the adjustment?

obsessed said...

dawolf: sarcasm, right?

I was thinking of the guy at the beginning of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo

Hey - those guys should make a video about the Chelsea/Janet Reno joke!

markymark said...

By the way does Chris Matthews praise every speech? I mean on any fair scale, that wasn't a good speech, certainly not a great speech.

Does anyone else notice McCain's slightly irritating habbit of repeating the same line two or three times?

I think McCain has a lot riding on the debates now. I think if Obama got a draw out of the three debates, 1 all and one tie, then I think he wins the Presidency. McCain has to find a way of hitting Obama on the issues I think. Though Obama needs to find a way of giving useful, concise answers to questions.

Quick word on the Obama-O'Reilly interview, I didn't think it would do much to convince anyone on either side of the divide, or even give useful information to undecideds. But it shows a level of guts from Obama.

PorridgeGun said...

TorrentPrime said...

Will tomorrow's numbers reflect the Palin rant, I mean, speech?


They better. After last week's Hail Mary and the unrelenting attacks on Obama this week, McCain desperately needs a significant bounce. This campaign has shown Obama consistently ahead; the only time McCain has been able to stay in the game is through character attacks. This week is a test of just how ignorant the low-information voters are. Post-DEM convention/Palin announcement, Obama has held a solid lead. I'm curious to see if these same people are as fickle as I think they are.



I don't know when, if at all, Colin Powell will endorse Obama. But If I were Obama I'd do it today to change the narrative of the past few days.

j said...

hello, my friends,

mc cain's speech was a major bore. it was like he was trying to convince himself of his own BS. where were the actual ideas with some vision. what actual steps is he going to take to turn the economy around.

when will we declare victory and get the hell out of iraq?

it was all a tribute to his POW survival...which should cause him to speak out against torture, one would think.

and bottom line: is sarah palin qualified to be commander in chief of the armed forces? does she look ready to take on the role of leader of the free world? compared to biden? i think not.

DaWolf said...

there's an excellent article on McCain here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090402842.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Toby said...

I think the Republicans had an advantage of going last ... but it was undercut a bit by coming only a week later. Last time they had a month.

Say you love football, but eight nights football on successive weeks... I'd say by Day 6, you'd be a bit jaded, and I think people were more inclined to be bored by it all.

Has anyone checked the numbers e.g how many watched Obama against how many watched McCain? How many watched Palin against how many watched Biden or Hilary? Romney against Bill Clinton?

I feel the Democrats would win all those matchups (except maybe Biden), but am not sure.

Kali said...

I agree Nate, I know Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan believe he got rid of Bush, but I don't see it. The other thing that struck me was his "reaching a hand out" to dems and independents after his surrogates, VP pick, and the attendees -by applause- spent the day before insulting and demeaning liberals. I think the trash talk got the loudest applause of the week. It was kind of like a 7th grade bully pageant.

Tito said...

I'll be interested in seeing what McCain's Nielsen ratings are. I'm guessing around 30 million, 28-32 range. I think his speech isn't gonna be as highly covered in the news since a) it's Friday and b) most news on the convention will be a "wrap-up" report for the week. I could be wrong on that though. And maybe there will be some story that steps on it anyhow. Anyway, glad we're into the general election season now. Can't wait for decent state polling to start rolling in.

markymark said...

I thnk McCain's speech solidified in my mind what the change argument is about.

For Obama, the direction of government is wrong, the Bush administration has it wrong on the important issues, health care, education, Iraq, energy, the economy. The incompetency argument is not relevant to Obama. (In some ways he fought and won this argument over Iraq with Hillary over the primaries).

For McCain, its about competency, the general direction is right, but the Bush administration has messed up. He picked out a few areas of difference from Bush, but not many really.

Incidentally there were times when he was speaking that I almost felt like it was the first time e was reading the speech. I mean actually reading it, like someone had given it to him 5 minutes before he want on stage.

borderpeak said...

Do not attack the pretty mom!

People of good heart:

Those few of you that read my posts from late at night on the west coast in the weeks before Omaba picked his VP will remember I was terribly concerned about old John getting “instant change” on the cheap by picking Palin. I disliked Clinton from “plagiarism” on as much as anyone; but, I thought Clinton should have been O’s pick out of fairness in that it was a virtual tie. More importantly, we need to win, the economy and the ecology, (one and the same in this over crowded world and century), cannot stand 4 more years of never ending oil, guns and guts. If we had put Clinton on the ticket I think we would have pre-empted this Palin muck and cruised to victory.

It is of course no use crying now, I write only to say what has occurred to a lot of us, and was best articulated by Huffington so far in what I have come across. We need to ignore Sarah Palin as often as possible! Say very little to direct attention toward her other than to our careful advantage. We need to be ever so kind to her while relentlessly but quietly referencing her ultra conservative social beliefs, (exaggerate in the high dungeon way of the Republican) her danger to our daughters. “Tut tut” about her un-American Alaska first streak, sadly note her delusions; Sarah-of-Alaska, the greatest channeler of God since Joan-of-Arc, (a few liberal priests, and Lutheran ministers might be useful here). We shrug our shoulders over her denial of modern man’s release of carbon as the cause of our current radical global warming. I note in passing that an ice sheet larger than Manhattan and only slightly smaller than Rudy’s head broke away from an island in the Canadian North yesterday. Ask if it might be true that she was for pork, before she came to live at Rabbi McCain’s casa? If we attack her head on that gives her too much stature, stature that she hasn’t earned. We turn a pop gun into a cannon, we make her a player.

We of the progress side should certainly drop the whole abuse of power thing, it is a trap. If she did something it wasn’t much. The public has had too much. The public has had 8 years of Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, their gitmo and renditions, their cronyism malfeasance. Ends justify the means when you appeal to fear and emotion? If you’re proud to be an American, no matter what, 24/7, as Sarah certainly is, you get a free pass on abuse of power. Besides, she was protecting her kid sister and Dad from a “crazy cop”. I think most people have an experience similar enough to give them empathy.

Does anyone agree, attack the old man, the growling dog, not the mom? Maybe compare McCain to Cheney, both could be painted as smarter and meaner than Bush. (I amuse myself, someone from our cyber past might have called me a wanker). I don’t know, its brainstorming. I just can’t stand to think we could go down on our third strike. When I think of 2000, I think, “I knew I didn’t like Lieberman”, but mostly I wish I believed in an all powerful God as opposed to this beautiful world because there would be a twiddle de and twiddle dum hell and that’s where the 100,000 jack asses from Florida who voted for Nader would go. When I think of 2004, I can’t believe that Bush was re-elected after dragging us into this war, the chickenhawk! A lot of these conservative chaps seem young, are they blogging with us from Iraq? Why not, maybe they can post? When I think of 2008 I think we have 60 days to flip Ohio because Sarah will nail down Colorado. I hope Obama and his people are the smart ones we think they are.

Do not attack the pretty mom!!! That much I know.

Karch said...

McCain's speech is one an old General makes to his troops on retirement.. Full of old stories, past tense, goals for the future, and a tip of the hat to the new leadership.

I call it the sunset speech.

Had this been 2000 or 2004, I think he would have had a great chance. The mood of the country has changed - we're in a crisis - its more about solving problems than culture wars or flag waving.

Brad said...

What is it with repubs?

I was in a meeting late last night, a work meeting. Before it starts a very hard right guy i work with starts into how Palin has won the election for the repubs (the rightie blogs are alight with this stuff). He goes into a really weak argument about how she wins women and indepedents.

I respond with a full tipping point analysis, latest polls, independent voter about Palin's speech, and a ton of data.

Hi answer, "Quit watching CNN"

That was it, facts that prove he is wrong don't even get into his brain, he stops them at the door with Fox News inspired lies.

This is a smart educated guy, a lawyer, a litigator who deals with facts on both sides of every other issue. He can't let his world view get rocked by fats.

I think this goes directly to Cheney's "we create our own reality" problem.

Republicans have gone from serious conservatives of the Buckley type, to crazed Rovians that can't think for themselves. The party cannot survive this way, but it also cannot be allowed to win.

I gave more to dems last night, you should to!!!!

borderpeak said...

Right on to Voice of Reason, 1st post. Obsessesed, character is not measured by, is not subject to time limits. Keating can perhaps be forgotten these many years later if you didn’t lose your retirement funds to that crook. If you tell a tasteless vulgar joke at the expense of a teenage girl who was in no way involved in your political combats, if you tell that joke from a stand in front of dozens of people, you are a cad. Its there, its been done, it’s a mark of your character. You are still a senator, still a retired naval officer, never again a gentleman. My view of how that class shit ought to work anyway. Not my side of the tracks exactly. I know if he had done that insult to my beautiful granddaughter, some kind of real bad something would have happened to him somehow. Hypothetical, involving humiliation, no threat to life or person here, thank you very much for all the good work you do secret service.

Cubs seem to be playing for the wild card. They ought to let some goats graze on the grass between ballgames.

Rhys said...

"I call it the sunset speech."

I'd say it is one of two sunset speeches.

If Americans really want their country back, if they are really ready to open their eyes and say they are tired of gimmicks, lies, pandering, snowjobs, manipulation, religious extremism and warmongering, it was McCain's.

Otherwise, it could well be the nation's.

Karch said...

Staging was bad at the RNC - Huge square stage with a large screen that never looked good when framing candidates. For McCain, the TV audience only saw bland lawn-green or blue backdrops - the Media and Pols inside the hall saw waving flags and Walter Reed Middle School. I found it annoying that I could read the teleprompter during speeches. The media booths to the side of the stage looked like empty seats on long shots.

The DNC used circular features to frame the stage. The podium was roomy by not vacuous. The back screens were readable on camera. It was difficult to notice the teleprompters and you never felt the place was empty in primetime.

Staging has an impact on the warmth or coldness viewers see.

cora said...

XOlani,

I just applied their previous adjustement to their current poll. You can find the adjustments used at the bottom of the 2 pdf's I previously attached. CBS adjusts the smaple's mix to something supposedly more reflective of the entire population. This would make sense if the adjustment factor is the same for every one of their polls, but it's not. This is why I think pollsters should supply raw data alongside adjusted data. If the two differ significantly this would be the real measure of the polls unattendability (instead of the MOE which depends only on sample size). There is an underlying dillema : how can we correctly measure party affiliation. Official registration data used in polls is way behind of polling data in terms of timeline and that's where the "guessing factor" emerges: "we suppose we must correct these data because the actual mix is....(guess)". We need some more info on the current state of voter registration trends. By end October polls will converge because there will be fewer undecided. Polling done wrong could turn out the right results ?
50 - 50.

johnsonct5 said...

Borderpeak -
I don't agree with your assertion that selecting Hillary Clinton and the VP candidate was the winning strategy for the Democrats. I guarantee that would have united the Republicans without costing McCain anything. And Sarah Palin has cost him quite alot.

DaWolf said...

if Hillary had been selected, Palin wouldn't have been. You're talking entirely different ballgames, no-one can be sure how it'll all fall out.

I really hope that the US public does not fall for this cynical ploy of McCain's, to go on the attack for literally months and then say he's innocent of partisan attacks and there need to be fewer of them.

It's simply huge hypocrisy.

Howard said...

The problem with McCain saying that Bush has failed on climate change would be that 90% of his arena audience disagrees. As it stands, the GOP "populism" consists of trying to sell supply-side economics to the country.

Citizen Grim said...

Let me get this straight, Nate.

You thought Palin's speech was bad, but McCain's wasn't far from being good?

Apparently your sole rationale on how good a speech is is whether or not it leaves Obama alone.

CRLIndoland said...

Interesting article on the power of republican resentment ploy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html?hp

PorridgeGun said...

Brad said...

What is it with repubs?


They're irrational.

rjv said...

So much of this election is now resting on whether Sarah Palin is a game-changer or a momentary distraction.

Personally, I can't see how the Republicans can manufacture any more positive momentum from Palin than what they achieved Wednesday night.

No one in Hollywood could build a more compelling and appealing narrative than what we've seen constructed around Palin in the past week. If the West Wing scripts had been this good, the show would still be on the air.

But the climax to that narrative came in Palin's speech on Wednesday night. The rest is denouement.

Not only that, but in her powerful but often nasty speech, Palin may have planted the seeds of what will be a less than happy ending. By allowing herself to be cast in the role of attack dog, she has opened herself up to attack.

Watch now as more and more stories come out of Alaska that shine a dark and malevolent light on her accomplishments.

Cavtrooper said...

Nate, if you are going to start making this another Democrat talking points website, please say so up front. I came here because you seemed to be straight up the middle and were just trying to report the numbers as you saw them. Now that Barry is starting to see trouble on the horizon, you have no problem coming out for him and doing your part on his behalf. Go back to being nuetral or risk losing many visitors.

Rhys said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090402842.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


Thanks dawolf. That hits the nail on the head over and over.

It perfectly summarizes why people like myself hate John McCain. I feel like a betrayed lover, politically speaking.

John McCain really used to be all the things people say about him now. But he's become a fraud, a joke, a parody of his former self.

The RNC was a 3-day hatefest. If not for Gustav, it would have been 4 days.

To stand up at the end and try to argue for bipartisanship was laughable, not laudable. McCain's campaign was responsible for the entire descent of this election into culture wars and ugliness, and as Dionne said, a speech at the end doesn't change it.

Let's hope Americans have enough common sense left to see through it.

cora said...

third and last poll on CBS poll.
I have reached the conclusion that current polling samples are to small (800-900 for CBS) to drown the affiliation factor. Given the US population and voting numbers, newly registerd votrs, cell phone only, a poll sample must be at least 10000, yes 10k, to afford unadjustements.

DaWolf said...

@cavtrooper

As long as his numbers are down the middle and accurate (which they are), you can always ignore the other articles.

Personally I think this is one of the best sites on the web and think if anything they should have MORE news/factchecking etc, as long as it's accurate.

Rhys said...

cavtrooper:

This site is based on facts, figures, and intelligent, educated analysis. That favors people who lean left, because they are the ones who respect and understand the importance of facts, figures, intelligence and education.

It's as simple as that.

Rhonda said...

One word for last night: Boring!

The opening video was just, fine, not great. Too long.

Sarah Palin's dress looks like something in my closet. I shouldn't talk about how she was dressed. But I just did.

The audience: Unenthusiastic. Clap on command.

DaWolf said...

@Rhys

ref: Palin's attacks on Obama for having a good education!

Brad said...

Palin is toast unless she can handle an interview froma descently unbiased source. Independents are losing faith in her already, low info voters will see the National Enquirer over the coming weeks, and that bikini gun photo circling the internet (is that thing real? It looks it) looks recent and white trash scary to independents and dems.

Palin needs to get out fast to have a shot. Have we ever had a VP who nominee who has not given an interview a week after the announcement? I sure can't think of one.

kitibo said...

I disagree with the point that McCain believes that he can win, I think that was a throwaway line. I got the sense that he was reflective of his service and his political career as opposed to forward thinking about a McCain presidency. The nostalgia and the delivery were subconsciously McCain's way of thinking

Unless something crazy happens, such as an attack, an awful Obama debate performance, or something crazy comes up about Obama, I cannot see how McCain-Palin can overcome the electoral map. The only argument that seemed to have stuck, which was the lack of experience-celebrity argument is gone due to the selection of Palin.

markymark said...

Two big days of polling coming up. Todays trackers will include Sarah Palin's speech, tomorrows will be the first to include McCain's. Sunday and Monday will include the speeches and the full media commentary good or bad. My sense is that Sunday and Monday will see a closing of the gap in the Gallup poll to 2-3 points, might even be tied in Rasmussen.

If Obama's big hurdle right now is consistent 50%, then McCain's is a consistent lead. I think the bounces will settle down to a roughly 4 point lead before the debates to Obama. The interesting thing will be how many undecideds there are. If I am, will it be 50-46, with a few declaring themselves undecided, or will it be more like 47-43 with a larger number apparently to play for in the debates.

Brad said...

cavtrooper-

The numbers are right up the middle, don't be pised because the polls show you behind (who knows, they could change next week...)

As for the comments - toughen up, I survive RedState.

C.S.Strowbridge said...

"Nate, if you are going to start making this another Democrat talking points website, please say so up front. I came here because you seemed to be straight up the middle and were just trying to report the numbers as you saw them. Now that Barry is starting to see trouble on the horizon, you have no problem coming out for him and doing your part on his behalf. Go back to being nuetral or risk losing many visitors."

Two points...

1.) Obama's in trouble? Have you seen the poll numbers?

2.) If you can find website that does this level of in-depth analysis that you think is neutral, please tell me. I don't think Nate was being unfair in his analysis, so I don't know what you expect a neutral site would do.

markymark said...

Oh just quickly, I would be interested in other peoples views on this. I remember the 2000 McCain to be a pretty good public speaker, quite effective and a bit of a rabble rouser. We haven't seen that at all in the 2007-8 election cycle. Is it my memory playing tricks on me? Or what?

Brad said...

kitibo said:

"I got the sense that he was reflective of his service and his political career as opposed to forward thinking about a McCain presidency."

Brad says:

I agree, and Palin's speech was also much more one of a person preparing for 2012. Have they given up?

Brad said...

Someone sadi:

"Go back to being nuetral or risk losing many visitors"

Brad says:

Yup, repubs cannot handle the truth. See my first post today.

Brad said...

markymark-

I think McCain just stepped on his own convention bounce. The only people who liked his speech are the right wing lying echo-chamber.

I see a narrowing today, and maybe Saturday, and then the trackers open up to 5+ consistently.

El Cid said...

The majority of Bill Clinton's legislation passed were Republican-originated and passed with a majority of Republicans and a minority of conservative Democrats against a majority of Democrats -- i.e., NAFTA.

So, why is Saint McCain "The MAVERICK" and Bill Clinton just some Democrat?

Brad said...

markymark-

Even McCain's speech of 4 years ago at the convention was much better than last night. Either he is losing it, or his Rovian handlers just cannot do a positive message.

I have seen very little on the protests from the floor last night. I would think a an Iraq war vet would get more coverage.

DaWolf said...

@markymark

I've seebn youtube comparisons of 2000 McCain v 2008 McCain, and the 2000 McCain is much sharper.

I seriously think that he's just too old. He's lost his sharpness, his speech skills have gone downhill, quite apart from the fact that he seems to have sold away his moral soul.

Doctor Pion said...

It would have been hard for him to attack the huge tax increase on oil from Alaska that his VP candidate pushed through, but he did attack her policy on earmarks. I give him a C, and the Dems a D for not yet rolling out an economics ad that talks about the 6 billion Sarah took from us to keep Alaska rolling in bureaucracy.

I'm waiting for an ad featuring McCain's and Palin's unqualified push for drilling everywhere, particularly off Virginia Beach, Cape Hatteras, Sarasota, and Destin. They will destroy tourism and eliminate the oil resources our children might need without even noticing that it is being extracted by foreign-owned companies.

And how could McCain talk about torture? He never stood up to Bush on that sad part of our history, even when he mentioned in his acceptance speech how sad he was after he had betrayed our country after extensive torture by the NV.

Rhys said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Rhys said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Rhys said...

Palin ain't running for president in 2012 unless John McCain wins and dies in office. And maybe not even then.

There are a LOT of pissed off fiscal conservatives, moderates, libertarians, conservative democrats and independents. Millions of these folks are voting for Obama only as the lesser of two evils and resent not having a better choice. True conservatives who want their party back.

If McCain loses, I am hopeful we will finally see a firehouse taken to the cesspool of neocon warmongering, deficit spending and Christalibam ideology that's become the Republican Party.

Even if losing the White House and getting their asses kicked in the Congress doesn't wake them up, the selection of Sarah Palin will be rightly seen as the moment when McCain's campaign jumped a pool full of sharks. If he loses, she'll be sent packing back to Anchorage with her tail between her legs.

P.S. The bikini/gun/pool image is a fake. It seems so believable because it sums up nicely the vapid nature of her selection and candidacy.

markymark said...

Hmmm I wonder if its an eye sight thing with McCain. He does seem to strain to read the autocue? Seems to be staring and thats when the missteps come in. I guess maybe he doesn't want to wear glasses to avoid looking older, but does he wear contacts?

He doesn't look all that sincere is the thing. Its obvious he is reading, and obviously we know they are all reading, but when you are giving a line about how honest and sincere you are, you don't want to look like you are reading a script.

Maybe thats why McCain is better in a debate/town hall setting. The questions act as prompts. He can then feed off them and deliver the stump line. My guess is he will come across as more commanding in the debates, though personally I have never found Obama a bad debater. I thought he was underestimated throughout the Democratic Primaries, save for one or two uglier displays, on the issues he is intelligent and knows his stuff, and doesn't back down.

My guess is that actually Obama might win the Town Hall style debate, McCain would probabl;y be favoured in the FP debate, and the final debate could be tied, as support hardens.

markymark said...

rhys,

Honestly have you not been watching this week? If McCain loses, and Palin wants to run in 2012, she will. Whether she gets the nomination might be a different matter, but my guess is she would hold up well in some of the early states, especially Iowa, (I am assuming the schedule is similar to this years) and enough on the right, whatever type of conservative they are, might see her as the only chance of victory.

That being said, she might prefer to wait until 2016, not wanting to take on a popular President Obama.

My best guess right now is that 2012 would be Obama/Biden against Romney/Jindal or Palin/Pawlenty maybe (that is if Obama wins).

James said...

Rhys (7:00),

It is exactly this attitude which is so unbecoming to you (and many others). In the end it seems to boil down to you are intelligent mostly because you are for Obama and his point of view! Of course, you guys probably went to colleges where the only lack of diversity was in ideas, and your outlook was probably formed in those left-wing echo chambers.

Remember that when the facts came out, Gore did worse than Bush in college (which I suspected, because I was a house-mate of Gore's at Harvard), and Kerry actually did worse at Yale than Bush did.

This time around, Obama won't release his transcript. Columbia won't either, but says he graduated without honors. Since in the Ivy League colleges a huge number of people get honors (in my time it was maybe 70% - lots of grade inflation), this means that he was probably in the bottom half of his class.

But he gets into Harvard Law.

Right...

You have here not an IQ of "almost 200" as somebody speculated last week, but rather the first Affirmative Action candidate. Clearly there was a finger on the scale in the Harvard Law admissions process. Then they do away with the history of putting in the top person (GPA) as Law Review editor, probably so they could brag about how they're the first to have an A.-A. in that job. Then BO surprisingly graduates with honors from law school, having never shown any such ability before (we know about the C's in high school).

Being left-wing in politics is not a proof that you're smart - only that you go along with the flow in today's watered-down academic environment, where the full range of ideas is rarely considered. It bothers me enormously that college kids seem never read The Road to Serfdom, as Hayek's whole point was that the nightmare of totalitarianism, which flows directly from government planning (making "democratic socialism" an oxymoron), is made reality by otherwise intelligent people with the very best of intentions.

DaWolf said...

@James

so despite all the above for Obama, finishing what was it 5th from bottom in your class (of nearly 1000 people!) or being at half a dozen colleges in 6 years is better?

Obama didn't state his race on his application to Harvard. He was NOT an affirmative action candidate (whereas Palin is an affirmative action VP)

Basically, you're just trying to muddy the waters. You only have to listen to Obama - both in speeches (which he writes), or in other appearances - to see he's bloody intelligent.

McCain? Not so much.

DaWolf said...

@James

and ref Hayek. WOW, you've read a book which expouses right-wing market beliefs! Unbelievable! How could anyone manage!

Next you'll be telling me that you've read Adam Smith.

Who's have thought it, a republican who believes in republican economics. How's the last 8 years doing for you?

KS. said...

Shorter, red-necker James: Harvard sure musta been pluggin' for that there darkie from the start, what puttin' him all the way through into some kinda llaaaw review, just for screwin' over us regular hard-workin' folk.

...

Also, Godwin.

Geoff said...

Hey folks:

A little breaking news here from Rasmussen:
Palin: Not Yet Released to Public… Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of voters. That’s a point higher more than either Presidential hopeful. 51% of voters now believe that McCain made the right choice when he picked Palin to be his running mate. Voters pretty evenly divided as to whether Palin or Obama has the better experience to be President.

Overrated said...

James said

"college kids seem never read The Road to Serfdom, as Hayek's whole point was that the nightmare of totalitarianism, which flows directly from government planning (making "democratic socialism" an oxymoron), is made reality by otherwise intelligent people with the very best of intentions."

Excellent post James. Everyone seems to forget that both Fascism and Communism (the two evils of the 20th century) stem from a total control of government and a central planning economy. The Left likes to say that Fascism is a disease of the Right, but the reality is both Fascism and Communism gets its fuel from a belief in total gov't control of the economy and all aspects of peoples' lives.

DaWolf said...

@overrated

Communism & Fascism are very similar in some respects.

Of course, I'm not quite sure what relevance that has to this election given that neither party is Fascist or Communist (and you could easily argue that Palin especially is a hell of a lot closer to Fascism than Obama is to Communism)

I mean take the UK as an example. Just how Communist have they become with their nasty, evil National Health Service?

Randal said...

After last night, I looked up definitions and etymology of ‘maverick,’ (spelled ‘mavrick’ if you’re a Republican sign-wielder who makes them on the fly). Everyone is familiar with the primary meaning in application to John McCain, but I found a couple of things rather interesting from the ‘original’ or ‘literal’ definition as given in the Free Dictionary. First, this phrase, “especially a calf that has become separated from its mother;” nope, she’s still right there. And then there’s “traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.” Reckon Obama can manage to do that?

MJ said...

Unemployment is now at 6.1%

Highest in 4 1/2 years.

Rhys said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Rhonda said...

I love Florida for it's beaches, and climate. It's a great state, and I'm not criticizing it's citizens.I have lot's of friends there....
But, Florida's messed up the last 2 elections. Both democratic candidates won the popular votes, both times. Both are mad, Gore, and Kerry. Need the democrats be studying this closely, so it doesn't happen this year? Or, maybe they are.

Rhys said...
This post has been removed by the author.
stevie314159 said...

RAS today is O+2 (early look). Since that includes dropping out a big Obama day, I estimate last night was actually O+3.

Thats probabaly where we are for a while on Ras

Geoff said...

Gosh Rhys you are such a hatemonger. Convervatism does not equate with stupidity. Using ad hominems to attack anyone who isn't a doctrinaire lefty like yourself is. I respect lefties who use logic, facts and reason and leave hateful rhetoric aside. Think about that.

Rhys said...

"In the end it seems to boil down to you are intelligent mostly because you are for Obama and his point of view!"

No, it boils down to I am for Obama because I am intelligent.

Obama's campaign is based on positivism and logic: issues and evidence and facts and reason. McCain's campaign is based on negativism and emotion: derision, mockery, resentment, class warfare and bigotry.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I only sound like a Democrat because the choice for any smart person is so obvious this year that I cannot believe this election is even close.

"Of course, you guys probably went to colleges where the only lack of diversity was in ideas, and your outlook was probably formed in those left-wing echo chambers."

The Republicans got Bush into office with a fake populist strategy based on deriding education and intelligence, and voters fell for it. They thought it really didn't matter if you were smart as long as you were "down to earth".

To my shame, I was one of them. I hated the Clintons, thought Gore was a stuffed shirt and supported Bush in 2000. I believed his lies about post-partisanship, that he was going to be an outsider, and all the rest. (Insert famous line from Who song here.)

Now McCain is cynically (to quote his own former campaign chair) recycling the same thing with Palin, only worse. It doesn't matter that she's corrupt, because she shoots moose. We should ignore her hypocritical lies about earmarks and pork, because she's a "hockey mom". We should ignore her total lack of any relevant experience, because her husband races snowmobiles. And it's "sexist" to point out that she would have no clue what to do if she ever were in a crisis.

This has become a country that celebrates mediocrity. That's why we are becoming so mediocre.

"Clearly there was a finger on the scale in the Harvard Law admissions process."

I went to a top school. I know how the admissions process works. It is based not just on strict grades, but based on an assessment of the whole person. They look at the full resume, they conduct interviews -- in fact, they spend more time vetting each candidate to a place like Harvard than John McReckless spent choosing a potential leader of 300,000,000 people.

They do this because there is more to education than books or grades, and because grades are often affected by factors outside the candidates control.

But however you get in, you have to sink or swim on your own merits. You do NOT graduate from Harvard with a doctorate magna cum laude if you are a lightweight. Your entire line of reasoning here is bigoted, uninformed and flatly stupid.

And that doesn't even get into the very obvious nepotism in McCain's career. He graduated 894th out of 899, had a bad attitude and kept crashing planes, but still got the career he wanted.

As for Palin, she makes fun of his volunteer work helping the poor and needy, when she was sportscasting and parading herself around like meat in a bikini.

"Being left-wing in politics is not a proof that you're smart"

No, but falling for the giant pack of lies, distortions, hypocrisy, historical revisionism, emotional hatemongering and other nonsense that the Republicans are offering this election cycle is proof that you're stupid.

Rhys said...

"Convervatism does not equate with stupidity."

Real conservatism doesn't. I know, because in many ways I am one.

The current GOP does. They made that abundantly clear during Bush's years and they are hammering it home in this election.

John McCain's campaign chair flatly comes out and says the campaign is not about issues. Just like that! A truly outrageous notion, and there's barely even a peep.

What does that say about our political process?

How can anyone who respects excellence, intelligence, education and who wants to really find solutions and move forward respect a campaign that flatly says it is not running based on issues?

How can anyone who claims to be educated and intelligent vote for a campaign who specifically chooses a VP candidate because she has no credentials?

You guys like to go on about white guilt? For the Republicans it is "smart guilt". People are supposed to not vote for Obama because he excels, because he makes sense, because he succeeds.

I've had enough of it, and I don't care if the truth hurts.

Geoff said...

Well Rhys, that is a reasoned argument. I hope you focus on logic and reason instead of name calling as you will be more persuasive.

Jeremy said...

Umm...who told McCain it would be a good idea to tell people that he remembers Pearl Harbor?

And to get an idea of just how out of synch the GOP is this year? That mansion in the background of McCain's first few minutes was the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. Surely, they intended to screen the Walter Reed Medical Medical Center...

Michael said...

There is simply no doubt the Republicans benefited by having their convention last, countering conventional wisdom. Stepping on Obama's speech last Friday with Palin's selection was brillant. Her speech - 40 million and no means for the Democrats to counter. Palin is now MORE popular than Obama, Biden, OR McCain. Also, this nonsense that see has no impact on Hillary voters is laughable or wishful thinking on the part of Obama supporters. Palin IS picking up the support of white working class (no college) women coast to coast - would you care to take a poll of waitresses? Also, Palin will slice some percentage points off of Obama's huge young people vote by taking a healthly chunk of young women with her. And she has excited the Christian conservative base and activated the 2004 Rove GOTV operation taking on Obama's toe to toe.
McCain-Palin will be up in the national trackers by 2 to 3 pts by this time next week.

rm said...

I never watch FOX but I tuned in last night to watch O'Reilly's interview of Obama. I felt that Obama's decision to appear on O'Reilly was partially due to McCain's refusal to appear on CNN and NBC and so was a potentially shrewd move, but I worried because O'Reilly is SUCH a conceited asshole. The interview came at the end of his show so I had to endure 45 minutes of the most unbelievable garbage from O'Reilly and his crew. Imagine those people complaining that other news networks were biased!!!
The Obama interview... at least the part that was aired last night, was pretty interesting. I felt Obama held his own and stood up to the grandstanding Billo answering his questions with intelligence and knowledge. Billo meanwhile, interrupted Obama rudely as often as he could and tried to put words in his mouth. I am not sure if I can watch another installment of Billo next week, but I will try. If I don't vomit beforehand, I want to see the rest of the interview. I do not believe that anyone can deny that it took courage for Obama to agree to do the show. I just hope that FOX does not do its usual underhanded stuff and edit Obama's responses to make him look bad. What am I thinking? Of course that is exactly what they will do.

Derek said...

Well I won't say that all conservatism means stupidity but I will say Reagonomics is stupid. First off, since when does giving rich people more money and then hope they will redistibute it to the lesser members of society (who don't contribute to parties) a good philosophy. Trickle down economics makes no sense. Also, and I know you guys want a source and I don't have it right now, but there is a recent study out that the economy grows more, and more fairly, under democratic rule thatn republican rule

James said...

Rhys,

I don't believe I said anything about my choice for this election in my post...

But it didn't stop somebody from calling me a hick within about two seconds, and somebody else from calling me a racist. I am neither.


Of course colleges consider more than just grades - after all, Gore was probably at Harvard because he was the son of the 2nd or 3rd most powerful man in America. (Way more powerful than Bush pere, back then.) Affirmative Action is a double-edged sword; I know a number of young people who could take advantage of it, but don't. Denying that it exists isn't very intelligent - the facts have been dug out of some admissions departments by means of FOIA suits, and they're not pretty - at U Mich. I believe the numbers were +220 SAT points (on the old 1600 scale) on average if you checked the A.-A. box, and -50 on average if you checked the Asian-American box.

There was a Newsweek poll a while back which pointed out that the population tranche with the most resistance to voting for an A.-A. for president was 20-29. So these policies may have some unexpected consequences in what they provoke.

When I told my (white) son about a friend whose kid refused to check the box, he said it was the coolest thing he ever heard.

I'm just saying that repeating the leftist catechism over and over again is not the way to clarity, or to victory in November. Quite the opposite actually.

Especially now that the crushing monetary advantage may be gone http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aPN78zX1eg10&refer=politics.

Geoff said...

Derek:

The key issue is whether a policy of increased regulation and government spending or decreased regulation and government spending will best spur job creation.

Check out some studies, and you'll see that increasing tax burdens and regulation on business reduce the creation of jobs.

That's the long and short of it.

Steve said...

Anyone else get the impression that after a year of sound, noise and millions of dollars, we're going to end up right where we started ...

Obama has around a 60% chance of winning and McCain has around 40%.

Obama is on offense and needs to pick off one or two red states.

McCain is in a rearguard action to hold the Bush states.

The country will continue to spend 100s of millons of dollars on this election but there's less chance of those 60/40 odds changing significantly than of Pat Robertson marrying Charlie Crist.

Geoff said...

Steve: I disagree, the debates are the great X factor which can swing the odds.

MATT J. H. said...

We must wait to see next weeks polls before we make any judgments on how the two conventions played. I think it will probably be near even, which would be an overall loss for Obama. In a year with the tide so strongly for democrats, and after such a successful convention, if Obama has not created some space, he's in trouble.

Looking ahead, we must figure out just how many non-Republicans Sarah Palin can bring in, whether or not Obama is actually going to fight Republican smears, how the debates go, and last of all whether the vaunted Obama ground game is as good as touted on election day.

If Obama does not win this election, one solitary choice will be seen as his downfall, not picking Hillary Clinton as VP. For all the negative consequences of picking her, she would have sured up 4-6 million female loyalists, adding 2-3 points on election day and not left Obama's flank open to Mrs. Palin. Its not exciting the republican base that worries the Obama campaign, its the women she may pull.

If Palen is the game changing force many have touted, and she holds up over the next 60 days, then the Republicans will win an election they had no business winning, and the democratic party will be irrevocably damaged. Watching this election, and compared with the last two, it becomes apparent the republicans are much better at running and winning elections. Why has the DNC not studied how the republicans do this and counter it.

Personally I believe that Obama's communications strategy is woefully inadequate. Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, looked sheepish, non-combative, and weak on morning Joe yesterday. The republicans pushed their talking points aggressively and unabashed while Gibbs seemed to cower not wanting a fight. This personifies this election. Gore got pushed around and lost. Kerry got pushed around and lost. Duckokus got pushed around and lost. With the exception of Obama's acceptance speech, Obama has been pushed around, and to this point has underperformed. Democrats are ready for a fight, but Obama is not. The fact Obama does not want to fight, and that he cannot stop the republicans from totally controlling the daily news cycle shows how much better Republicans are at winning elections. Its all up to the Obama ground game now, lets cross our fingers.

Geoff said...

October 28th - the day Kwame goes to jail.

count on that appearing in GOP ad onslaught to snag Michigan.

DETROIT (AP) - Only hours after agreeing to resign and serve time in jail as part of plea deal, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick expressed regret for the scandal that has engulfed the city - and left the door open for a return to public life.

Kilpatrick walked into a City Hall conference room Thursday to thunderous applause and thanked his family, backers and staff members for sticking by him during his rocky 6 1/2-year tenure.

"I truly know who I am. I truly know where I come from. In Detroit I know who I am. And I know because of that, there's another day for me," he said in a 20-minute speech on live television. "I want to tell you, Detroit, that you done set me up for a comeback."

In exchange for pleading guilty to two counts of obstruction of justice, the Democrat will get four months behind bars, pay the city $1 million in restitution, lose his license to practice law, and cannot run for any elected office for five years.

His resignation will take effect in two weeks and his sentence will be officially imposed on Oct. 28. Under the city charter, any mayor guilty of a felony is automatically expelled from office.

"I always said I would stand strong for the city of Detroit," the 38-year-old mayor said in his address. "But sometimes standing strong means stepping down."

Geoff said...

Wild ride on Intrade last few hours.

Cainer fluctuating from 40-44, Obama fluctuating from 60-56.

Right now, 56-44.

AS predicted by yours truly last night, by the weekend, we'll be in solid 55/45 holding pattern on Intrade.

Jeremy said...

So Rasmussen 3-day tracking has the race at Obama 48% and McCain at 46% (incl. leaners). This includes the full impact of Palin's speech.

I guess that's where both parties predicated it to stand about now. By Sunday I expect it to be tied or a slight McCain advantage. If it doesn't - the GOP are fucked.

markymark said...

Someone said something about how biased Fox News is, and how much right wing rubbish O'Reilly is spouting. And that was what really struck me about the O'Reilly interview with Obama, how many of the questions were loaded with O'Reilly's own opinions. I can't imagine either George Snuffalopagus or Tim Russert loading questions with an obviously liberal, or Democratic point of view, despite the fact that both worked for Democratic politicians.

The Daily show thing the other night showing the two headedness of O'Reilly and Rive (amongst others) was just hillarious. Though to be honest I laughed harder and longer at the Senators Foghorn Leghorn and Droopy Dog bit!

eve said...

I will be surprised if McCain doesn't get a good bounce from Palin and the convention. I think his speech might cut into that a little bit because a lot of people saw an old man who looked old and tired.

It probably won't last.

The press is no longer rolling over for McCain. No more msm cheerleading.

The economy is not better for most people. Despite the convention trying to convince voters otherwise, people do know which party has had the WH for the last 8 years.

Palin will continue to generate unfavorable press. She was a terrible mayor who had to agree to having an administrator run the village. She has lied from the first speech. She sees nothing wrong with abusing her power. She didn't pay her taxes on a business. etc.
There will be more because she is unethical.

Palin's far right views will attract more of the base. But they will push more voters away than they will attract. Especially women.

Harper said...

James,
If Obama is so weak intellectually, why did Chicago keep him on for 10 years as a con law professor?

stop_the_stutter said...

wow eve,

that is a total bunch of nonsense.

McCain came off as trancendant of party lines last night. He came off as non self-absorbent, and he was sharp and spoke with wisdom.

I think what you said is a bunch of partisan poppycock said out of panic from your side.

stop_the_stutter said...

harper,

because its CHIGAGO.

DaWolf said...

@Geoff

The key issue is whether a policy of increased regulation and government spending or decreased regulation and government spending will best spur job creation.

Check out some studies, and you'll see that increasing tax burdens and regulation on business reduce the creation of jobs.


This is simply not true. There are loads of studies that show that the US grows more in Democratic periods than in Republican ones.

stop_the_stutter said...

Jeremy,

That poll only includes one day of post-Palin speech. Once all three days include her speech and McCain's generally non-partisan speech, we may see McCain regain a slight lead.

Derek said...

Eve, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't think Palin will be all that important as far as her policies go. Reason 1: low information voters make up more of the electorate than the political elite. 2. She's not the top of the ticket. 3. Republicans are very good at controlling message and media. However, I do think that she will turn off some voters but mostly liberal votes, and turn on conservative voters which will increase fund raising and participation. Finally she will appeal to independent women that are not already on board with Obama (this last one is just a hunch, not an educated guess). I think she gives McCain a larger than any other VP he could have picked net gain

stop_the_stutter said...

dawolf,

you just basically admitted that your party likes higher taxes.

That's sad but true.

C.S.Strowbridge said...

"I think what you said is a bunch of partisan poppycock said out of panic from your side."

Why would the side that is up in the polls be panicking?

Is it more likely that you are projecting?

ez said...

Am I the only one actually offended by the green screen? After all of that, he comes out and--BOOM!--green screen. It's like a bad SNL skit that won't end. I mean, you're running for president, at least pretend to try. Doesn't your country deserve it?

DaWolf said...

@ stutter

McCain came off as trancendant of party lines last night. He came off as non self-absorbent, and he was sharp and spoke with wisdom.

I think what you said is a bunch of partisan poppycock said out of panic from your side.


see, I think he's a hypocrite. Simple as that. He's been on the attack, smearing for all he's worth, for months. Maybe there will be some gullible fools that will believe it but it speaks volumes of McCain's opinion of the population that he thinks they'll fall for it

Dave said...

The Palins' former business partner, Scott Richter, had an emergency motion to seal his divorce records denied in Alaska yesterday:

http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?68762762

Buckle up.

Mike said...

McCain's "Change": Artificially Flavored

Obama's "Change": No Artifical Ingredients

OBAMA/BIDEN '08!!!!

Derek said...

The democrats, including myself, should admit that Palin was an excellent pick and he did a good job. She will be a huge help to him as far as winning the race. She, like McCain, may be the only viable VP that could stop the talk of Obama's speech, excite indpedents and some conservative dems and at the same time, energize the repulbican base. The latter is mostly what won Bush reelection

Jeremy said...

stop_the_stutter

I completely agree. But if you look at the numbers Obama went from 50-45 to 48-46, meaning that Obama lost 2 points to undecideds and only one to McCain. A one point bounce after Palin's speech isn't much to write home about. At least not in my book.

Geoff said...

DaWolf:

That is not the distinction - in many of those Democratic administrations, the President's liberalism was balanced by the legislature's conservatism, leading to reduced regulation and centrist government. See Clinton/Gingrich 94-98.

The important thing to remember is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. See Clinton/Dem Congress 92-94, See Bush/GOP congress 01-06.

That's why a vote for McCain makes strategic sense IF you believe that increased regulation and taxes and government are not good for job creation. Federal largess leads to short bursts of jobs, but dependency on the state for income leads to long term decline.

See Europe and the ex-USSR.

C.S.Strowbridge said...

"you just basically admitted that your party likes higher taxes."

Where did he say that? I want you to cut and paste the exact place where he said that.

That shouldn't be hard to do, unless you are lying.

Todd said...

stutter - you do realize that the University of Chicago Law School is one of the top rated in the country - right?

stop_the_stutter said...

Obama dropping like a rock over at intrade. Now at 55.

filistro said...

Palin will not be taking questions from the press during the campaign.

The public, says a campaign spokesperson, "will learn all they need to know about her in campaign speeches and appearances."

The mind boggles. Really. Boggles.

p smith said...

The Palin speech bounce will last as long as the Palin announcement bounce. These bounces are nothing more than a statistical movement that reflects the fact that the GOP have been on our screens all week ten times as much as the Dems.

The real issue is the long term effect and that is that Palin's selection has destroyed McCain's lack of experience argument and that her attack dog speech (and the speeches of Romney, Rudy and the other failed VP candidates) undercut his laughable message last night that he wanted to see the end to partisan nastiness.

The public are not dumb. They will conclude that if he can't even control his own convention in that respect, he can hardly be trusted to bring progressive politics to Washington. His speech was flat, his message was totally contradictory and he is still behind in the race. So long as he has his mouth wrapped round Karl Rove's cock, the American public will reject him.

DaWolf said...

@stutter

not my party. I'm British (as I've said multiple times).

The debate in the uk isn't even about tax cuts. The conservatives tried to run on a tax cut basis the last 3 elections and got their arses kicked extremely hard. Right now the reason they are ahead in the polls is because they don't even argue for tax cuts any more, just on the basis of competence.

Tax cuts as a never ending pledge are ridiculous. I guarantee I earn more than most on this board, pay much more in taxes but would be willing to pay more. Why? Because some things are more important than money in the bank.

Todd Dugdale said...

da wolf wrote:
I really hope the US public is not stupid enough to swallow this pile of horse manure.

I think we have to distinguish between the public and voters.

And, again, all that we seen in the polls so far is that Palin is able to generate attention, but not votes.

79% of the electorate has already decided, per Gallup on Thursday. Subtract leaners, and that leaves a smaller than usual number of undecideds in the election at this late point.

There is analysis, and there is wishful thinking.

stop_the_stutter said...

todd,

it's CHIGAGO

Overrated said...

Why are Obama and Biden spending so much time in PA? Is this state safe for them? It appears that they are spending a lot of time in this state considering it is "off the table."

Also, where did Obama's big $$$ advantage go? 50 State strategy is now 18 and I imagine it will be 4 here soon. I think the Obama hype is starting to bump against reality. McCain is rolling out with $200 million over next 2 months according to campaign news.

Relyzinger said...

My 2 cents: I thought McCain speech was good and I liked his delivery. He looked old but wiry and wise. I used to like McCain before and that McCain on stage was the same McCain I used to like. But this time around I was skeptical unlike before. Because I feel that Palin selection was made to win the election rather than to govern the country. But that is just me.

Last night was a very subdued night especially after the very partisan night before. It was overall sweet, bi-partisan and thoughtful (I liked Cindy McCain's speech too by the way). But I think the whole convention was choreographed the wrong way. The way Democrats did was they talked about themselves and invited people to join them for three days, even the press complained "where is the red meat" then Obama delivered the red meat but not in a vicious way; in a very thoughtful way. The whole Democratic convention build up to that moment when Obama accepted the speech. They did not allow anyone else to look like the "real" "behind the doors" alpha dog other than Obama himself. On the other hand, the Republicans lost their first night of the convention (which was unnecessary and again I thought was a little bit political and cynical with Laura Bush and Cindy McCain announcing web sites when it was quite obvious that there was not going to be a major disaster like Katrina) the second night was disorganized and everyone was talking about Palin. Then the third night was an explosion of partisan attacks. (I was really turned off by the way they kept attacking someone who got 18 million votes all over the country. It was almost like they were attacking that 18 million people too saying that they were stupid, ignorant, that they did not care about their country enough.) Then Palin entered the stage and going along with the theme of the day it was way too partisan. I personally did not like that day and thought it did not reflect well on McCain's image (of course I'm talking about the McCain I like). But then the last day it was very bi-partisan. Now I don't understand the logic here. The Republicans drove Obama leaning independents away and really energized the democrats the third day ($8 million to Obama during Palin speech?) and expected some of them to come back watch McCain and be convinced that he is our guy? I just don't get this choreography.

Now during this election I learned that independents and democrats like the McCain I like but Republicans are not very enthusiastic about him; it was a very political choice for them to win the election. But Palin is their guy; she is controversial, she is partisan; she energizes them. I think now they feel like they have both the republican base energized and a thoughtful leader who is not like Bush. I don't know... I think it might work. But only if they can turn this into an American Idol like popularity contest. But I don't really see how. The third day of the convention really energized the democratic base too. And Palin will eventually have to come out and do some media interviews (which I believe she will do just fine). So I guess we will see.

Derek said...

geoff, What about FDR's administration? And what about the fact that after Reagon cut taxes we started doing poorly, then he raised taxes six times, then George raised taxes, then Bill raised taxes and we had the four best years the market has ever seen and a lot of job growth too. Not to mention that the bush tax cuts, when the economy was up, only made the rich richer as apposed to the past. First time in American history.

Geoff said...

Gosh folks you all should check out intrade.

My prediction is now outstripped. I said 55/45 as of this morning in the past few days.

Now, we're at 54.7/46.

incredible.

Money talks. If you all believe in the Messiah, go by some contracts, lots of money to be had if you are right.

I got in at 38 last week on Cainer, and i'm holding till 50.

widmerpool said...

i don't understand why all the pundits are grading his speech on a curve.

are they incapable of calling a spade a spade???

if this wasn't a bad speech, then what constitutes a bad speech? running off the stage?

Eddie B said...

MJ, unemployment is highest in 3.5 years, but I'm willing to be that's an unintended consequence of the minimum wage hike from last year.

stop_the_stutter said...

DaWolf,

I couldn't disagree more. I think that I know how to spend my money that I earn better than big papa government does.

What you have just done, in my opinion, is rationalize yourself into paying larger amounts of taxes than you really think you should be paying.

stop_the_stutter said...

It must have been an AWESOME speech.

McCain futures are now at 46!
Obama futures are in the 54s now!

dominoid73 said...

According to RealClearPolitics

Rasmussen Tracker
Obama - 48
McCain - 46

As previously discussed on this board, a huge day for Obama (+12 to +14) fell from the tracker today. I had yesterday at 51-46 and expect the spread to be Obama +4 or even back at +5 tomorrow according to the numbers. We'll see. I really have no idea where Gallup will go today. It has a great chance of holding or going +/- 1.

http://www.bostonpie.com/DailyTracker.htm
(Still the way imperfect guesses)

Todd Dugdale said...

sts wrote:
That poll only includes one day of post-Palin speech.

But the polls do include the speech she gave when she was selected. Remember how over-the-top everyone here was about that? It translated into no poll movement.

The polls also include Babygate, the Bristol pregnancy announcement, and the engagement, as well as two days of media on Palin in general. Remember how people here predicted a huge backlash for picking on a hockey mom? It translated into no poll movement.

Palin is not looking like a silver bullet at this point.

James said...

Re: Chicago keeping Obama on as a professor

1) He wasn't tenure-track; such people are inexpensive and not any big shakes.

2) He was very well connected politically, so would firing him make any sense?

3) I never said he was stupid - he obviously isn't! I was just complaining about the silly idolatry and the IQ=200 claim. In politics, if anything, one should at least have a clear, questioning, suspicious outlook.

Matt said...

stop-the-spin: no, it was a crappy speech, widely panned.

dominoid73 said...

Man intrade people are fools! BUY Obama today. The Rasmussen poll drop was expected today for reasons above. Gallup will not move today and Rasmussen will rebound for Obama tomorrow. Silly people.

DaWolf said...

@stutter

I couldn't disagree more. I think that I know how to spend my money that I earn better than big papa government does.

no, you see I don't consider this just about my money, but also about society. It's not about whether the government can spend MY money better, but whether they can spend my, my neighbours, my workmates etc money better.

Comparative to the US I would take the UK model every day of the week. You can go to university without automatically having to work your way through it (you'll come out in debt, sure, but on a tiny scale compared to the US), we have the NHS, a system that helps those out of work get back to work. A pretty buoyant economy. Overall great opportunities and not just for the already wealthy.

It's all in the margins. Right now, putting all my tax, National Insurance etc together, I pay about 25-30% of my pay in taxes. What does it average in the US? Now add in the cost of healthcare and education - still lower? Now add in the society costs - still lower?

Geoff said...

DaWolf:

The US has outperformed UK growth substantially for the past 20 years.

Facts, can't be disputed.

UK is in worst economic times right now in many decades. Is that the superior model you speak of?

UK is overtaxed and stifles innovation and new startups and job creation. US is slightly overtaxed now, and if we raise taxes, we'll end up like UK and Europe - 30 hour work weeks mandated by law, 90% upper bracket taxes and a 1.5% growth on a good year.

Todd Dugdale said...

geoff wrote:
Convervatism does not equate with stupidity.

Actually, this was one of Karl Rove's more brilliant strategies. He associated the Democrats with intellectualism, and the GOP used a very anti-intellectual approach in 2000 to win. Since Reagan, we have seen Republicans "dumbing down" their speeches and policies. Bush was the epitome of that strategy. Talk radio is a natural outgrowth of it.

Rhys is right on this.

mikewpbfl said...

Thursday, 09/04/2008
9:52 CDT: [Nate] "If the Democratic Convention felt like 1992 all over again, this feels like 1972 all over again."

1972 all over again?

Is that a predictiom of the EV map on Nov. 5th, AM?

We saw it first. A GOP landside!!!

OK... I think Nate was referencing the tone of the two conventions... but still that post had me wondering.

On a serious note. The two conventions did the job they needed to do for both parties.

We will know by Mon or Tues when the Nat. tracking polls have more data points in them.

Cant wait to see this time next weeks state polls.

See you at the debates.

Geoff said...

OFFTOPIC:

Does it strike anyone else as ludicrous that the MSM is giving as much time to the missing/dead child story in Florida as they are to the horserace, on the very day the tickets are finally formally set for real?

Amazing.

stop_the_stutter said...

Todd Dugale,

I think during the next couple days you will be proven wrong.

OzJohnnie said...

Rhys is right on this.

A more impossible sentence has never been written.

Oz.

Arnaud said...

Obama up by 2 in Rasmussen tracking is good for him.

Look, Obama has lost his huge 14 points lead from Monday.

Yerterday(after palin speach), he has gained the day by 5.

Tomorrow, he will be up by 3, i think.

http://www.bostonpie.com/DailyTracker.htm

quantman said...

Completely hidden from most of us during all this RNC convention media focus are 2 things:

1. Cheney in Georgia, promising to get Georgia into NATO, meaning if Russia-Georgia conflict happens again post Georgia in NATo, we HAVE to militarily defend them against Russian forces, by contract!

2. For the first time since 1953 (or 50+ years), we have a Cabinet level, Secy of State no less, meetiing with one of the longest serving dictators, an Islamist from the middle east to be sure.

WHY?

National Security Interests? NO!

WHY are we focused on Iraq vs. Afganhistan or Pakistan?

WHY are we screwing with Russia? National Security? NO!

IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL FOLKS!!

NO oil in Afghanistan or Pakistan!

OIL plenty in Libya, that has for decades ot been exploited. Check out press releases and Investors Presentations for our OXY (Occidental Petroleum), Exxon-Mobil, and you see all the deals our oil companies has recently struck with Libya

Guess why Sarah Palin is from Alaska?? Woman, yes. Hard Core Evangeslist conservative yes. BUT the most important thing is OIL in Alaska.

The OIL companies drive our POLITICS and the Republican Party is completely controlled by the Oil Comapanies. McCain would not do their bidding and they told him they would destroy his candidacy via floor flights and thru Karl Rove. McCain had no choice and gave in!

The OIL lobby will always win! They have never ever lost!

Don't expect to give up anytime soon! THEY have more money at stake than any of YOU will ever ever know! NOT BILLIONS OF $$.

TRILLIONS of $$.

The Saudis are in with them too!

stop_the_stutter said...

We have two days of no Palin speech/Palin bashing days still in the polls.

Once we get 3 days all with the Palin speech, throw in the McCain speech, and this should go much further than just cutting down Obama's lead.

Palin is a rockstar with more substance than Obama. Look out.

Brad said...

"1) He wasn't tenure-track; such people are inexpensive and not any big shakes."

he was offered tenure track positions, and always turned them down.

OzJohnnie said...

quantman;

You speak the trooof, man! Right on!

Oz.

(Can someone pass me the tinfoil? I think I need additional signal protection.)

PeteKent said...

A Personal Testament of Character

John McCain provided the nation with a deeply personal rationale for his candidacy last night. It is said that in a crucible of fire, steel is forged and McCain’s life story bears this out.

A Navy brat, a near wash out at the Academy, it took his captivity under horrific conditions during an unpopular war to make him into the man he is today.

McCain admitted to having been a cocky, self-centered fly boy who in the maw of cruel enemies was able to look into his own soul and take stock of himself and in the defeat of imprisonment was broken and remade.

In this he had help. From his fellow POWs, but also from America itself. This young, self-centered man discovered in the cells and torture chambers of the infamous Hanoi Hilton that he was part of a larger thing and that he was made for bigger things.

And thus a life of service began.

McCain is never going to win an award for oratory, but he is to be lauded for his sincerity and his decency. In his speech he left no doubt as to what motivates him and where he stands in terms of service to the nation.

Country First. An apt slogan. He might as well have said People First.

His peroration was stirring in its commitment to fight for the people of this nation and to do so no matter the personal costs.

This election is coming down to two things: Character and Change.

On the character issue it seems that McCain has provided the life history and complete narrative of a man who will be the people’s advocate. Over party and self-interest. In terms of change, he promises not so much a new set of policy prescriptions, but a new way of working with Washington, of shaking things up and bringing reform to a system that is broken.

McCain put the Republican Party on notice at its own Convention that it was a flawed institution that had lost is way and its claim to the respect of the people. He chose an outsider, a maverick reformer like himself, a woman of the people to run with him. The Palin choice is breathtaking for the change it represents and what it says about McCain’s character. Sarah Palin, more so than any other politician on the national stage will bring the people, the American family, into the White House and we will have our voice.

Americans are incrementalists. A friend of mine once pointed out that what he did not like about George Bush was that he worked in great big leaps. Leaping into was in Iraq, for instance, and taking head on the challenge of radical Islam. I think that that impatience of Bush’s may have been his undoing as a popular leader, as he got out in front of the nation and rushed headlong into a war that we were ill-prepared to fight at the beginning.

I think history will judge the endeavor of the Iraq war as a success, no small reason for which will be the switch in strategy that John McCain advocated, but along the way Bush lost the pulse of the nation and from that point on his Presidency was doomed.

McCain sees things from a different perspective. I do not believe that he is the risk-taking gambler of his youth. He has learned the lessons of that past, and sees the world with a clarity that other less experienced persons lack. Here Palin too will bring a special perspective and I have no doubt that he will lean on her. McCain is an admirer of accomplished women, beginning with his wife, and adding to the mix Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. And now Sarah Palin: the vox populi.

A vast populist movement is sweeping over the nation. The little guy wants to have his say, to be heard, to be reckoned with. John McCain hears those voices and will respond to them. He has dedicated his life to America. To him this country is not an abstraction, but a people as to whom he would be their humble servant.

And their leader:
Fight for what's right for our country.
Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.
Fight for our children's future.
Fight for justice and opportunity for all.
Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.
Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.
Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We're Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

What a magnificent call to arms, America, beautiful, blessed, bountiful America! Here is man who sees our greatness and our potential. Who lives to serve a cause greater than he. His country.

And he will put it first.

OzJohnnie said...

brad;

he was offered tenure track positions, and always turned them down.

Turned 'em down like those high-paying Wall Street jobs? Community organizing just to time intensive to allow a little teaching?

I'm afraid I'll have to read that from somewhere other than your post before I believe he was actually offered tenure track and he turned it down.

Oz.

Brad said...

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 47% of the vote while John McCain earns 43%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 50%, McCain 45%. (see recent daily results). "

Which repub said this was down to 2 today?

Geoff said...

Brad you're tripping.

Its one point lead without leaners, and two with.

Brad said...

oz-

U of Chicago itself reported that. It is true.

I can promise the Editor of the Harvard LAw Review was one of the most sought after graduates in the country, and as the first black editor he could have gone anywhere.

Facts, try some facts.

filistro said...

Dave... great catch regarding the application to seal Richter's divorce papers.

He-e-e-e-e-ere we go....

DaWolf said...

@Geoff

if you believe that the US is doing better over the last 20 years, that is your prerogative, but I would disagree.

What I would say is that up to about 1995 the US was doing massively better. The US then continued doing well until ~2000 and overall has slipped backwards during the last 8 years.

The UK has had continued growth since 1995. I would argue very strongly that on a per capita growth basis since 1995 the UK will come out ahead, as it comes out ahead in education, health, murders etc.

Unfortunately I now have some work to do so can't do the research, but you could start by comparing average wages in 95 in the US/UK to 2000, to 2008. I think they will corroborate this view. During this period our average taxes have been much higher than in the US.

dominoid73 said...

Should be fun to see what happens to any bounce, once the jobs report comes out today.

OzJohnnie said...

brad;

You gotta read the sentence you copy. You're quoting the poll for Thursday, numbnuts. This is Friday. Two points. See RCP.

Oz.

Geoff said...

And you guys claim that the GOP are smear merchants?

Divorce unsealing?

Please, go write for the Equirer.

PinkAkane said...

@ Michael and anyone else who thinks Palin scored with women:

I am 24 years old, white, female, college-educated, a wife and mother-to-be. Since Palin's selection, I've been talking to as many other women as possible. She is no "role model" to us "under 25's" and has actually galvanized and frightened us. Younger women in my age bracket don't view her as someone to look up to; we view her as Rush Limbaugh in a dress. Many people forget that younger women didn't grow up during Gloria Steinem's heyday; in fact, until this election told me otherwise, I viewed myself as a person first, female second. The feminist issue belongs to older women.

Secondly, it seems that Sarah Palin has angered many older women because it's such blatant tokenism and insults their intelligence on a very base level by assuming that they will vote for whichever party has a woman on the ticket, regardless of politics.

My father is thrilled to death about the choice of Sarah Palin and has been making encouraging comments about her that would be more in place for a candidate in the Special Olympics, not the presidency. He's a chauvenist. It seems that the chauvenists are the ones telling us that "bullying" Sarah Palin by critiquing her lack of credentials (and IQ points) are an affront to women and is sexist.

And that is the most sexist thing of all, the implication (coming from men) that a female candidate should be treated more kindly than anyone else. Fortunately, it seems most women are smarter than to jump on that bandwagon. I don't need Mike Huckabee to tell me about sexism, thank you kindly.

Would Obama have canceled an appearance on a media outlet because they were "mean" to poor Joe Biden? That's laughable, but somehow LAUDABLE when McCain does that for Palin? It's a disgrace, and it isn't lost on women.

I was never one of Hillary's Girls; I've been donating money and time to Obama since October and saw him in person at the Unity, NH rally. I am an independent voter as well, unaffiliated with either party. If McCain thinks he can win my white female independent vote with a cheap ploy like this, he is sadly mistaken.

Another point: There is clearly a generational gap here. Older people are impressed by the POW status of McCain. Younger people are more sold on Obama's Harvard credentials and the fact that he didn't get there because of who his parents were, but on sheer grit. Obama is today's dream for us; McCain is yesterday's "everyday hero".

Geoff said...

Community Organizers Untie!
Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors' lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama's brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

What deserves derision is "community organizing" that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.

As I've reported previously, Obama's community organizing days involved training grievance-mongers from the far-left ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub "direct actions"); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush on a government planning meeting about a landfill project opposed by Chicago's minority lobbies.

With benefactors like Obama in office, ACORN has milked nearly four decades of government subsidies to prop up chapters that promote the welfare state and undermine the free market, as well as some that have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and voter fraud. Since I last detailed ACORN's illicit activities in this column in June (see "The ACORN Obama knows," June 19, 2008), the group continues to garner scrutiny from law enforcement:

Last week, Milwaukee's top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including prepaid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards.

Last month, a New Mexico TV station reported on the child rapists, drug offenders and forgery convicts on ACORN's payroll. In July, Pennsylvania investigators asked the public for help in locating a fugitive named Luis R. Torres-Serrano, who is accused "of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he collected on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to county election officials." Also in July, a massive, nearly $1 million embezzlement scheme by top ACORN officials was exposed.

ACORN's political arm endorsed Obama in February and has ramped up efforts to register voters across the country. In the meantime, completely ignored by the mainstream commentariat and clean-election crusaders, the Obama campaign admitted failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called "Citizen Services, Inc." for "advance work."

Jim Terry, an official from the Consumer Rights League, a watchdog group that monitors ACORN, noted: "ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain. Now it looks like ACORN is using the same type of convoluted accounting scheme for Obama's political gain." With a wave of his magic wand, Obama amended his FEC forms to change the "advance work" to "get-out-the-vote" work.

Now, don't you dare challenge his commitment to following tax and election laws. And don't you even think of entertaining the possibility that The One exploited a nonprofit supposedly focused on helping low-income people for political gain.

He was just "organizing" his "community." Guffaw.

dominoid73 said...

Brad, the RAS website is still for yesterday. They are having some server issues. RealClearPolitics has their numbers from today with leaners.

OzJohnnie said...

brad;

I can promise the Editor of the Harvard LAw Review was one of the most sought after graduates in the country, and as the first black editor he could have gone anywhere.

Facts, try some facts.


That's what I asked for. Facts. I don't trust you. So, where do I look for these facts?

Oz.

stop_the_stutter said...

Brad,

Something is screwy with Rassmusen today. Those are Thursday's numbers you have. Go t realclearpolitics and check out todays polls...you'll see it there.

Matt said...

Oh shut up pete kent, you pompous windbag.

quantman said...

WHEN was the last time our President was a military man??

Not just a POW but ALL schooling and college at military colleges.

ALL experience (except for a couple years in the PR dept of his father-in-law's business IN AZ so he could run for office from AZ to become a Congressman, after he married the boss' daughter) is near 100% military!

His parents and grandparents were 100% military!

WHEN was the last time we had a 100% military man, focused purely on the Transcedental challenge of our time, as McCain calls it, a military challenge??

FOlKS, we have not had such a President not just for decades, but over half a century.

NOW, that's progress for YOU!

Go U S A, U S A, USA, USA, USA!!!

Brad said...

I just got that from Rasmussen's own website as I posted it. Looks like my cache puled yesterday's version. OOPS! Sorry.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows the beginning of John McCain’s convention bounce and the race is essentially back where it was before Barack Obama’s bounce. Obama now attracts 46% of the vote while McCain earns 45%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 48%, McCain 46% (see recent daily results). "

Remember, a regular convention bounce should have McCain up 5-10 by Sunday, anything short of that is underperforming.

Anthony said...

According to debates.org, the last debate at Hofstra is about foreign policy.

Subterranean said...

Oh god please get the goods on the Palin adultry probe...I want to see her squiiirrrmmmmm, the anticipation is just delicious.

dominoid73 said...

Geoff, I have to disagree that no one is making fun of community organizers. THAT HALL laughed (especially with Guliani(sp?)) at community organizers the other night. I can buy your argument if the hall had a different reaction, but that was contemptuous.

Todd Dugdale said...

sts wrote:
Todd Dugdale,

I think during the next couple days you will be proven wrong.


Everything I wrote, with the exception of my opinion that Palin is not a silver bullet, is simply based on polling that we have already seen.

At this point, Palin has done nothing to move the polls. And you predicted big results from the pick. There has been enough time for us to see if Palin generated wild enthusiasm off the bat, and she hasn't. Now you are, in effect, saying that it will take time for her appeal to translate into votes. Fair enough, but you are the one who has been wrong up to this point, not me.

stop_the_stutter said...

Rasmussen site back up.

Great numbers for McCain.

Overrated said...

It is a main talking pt on the left to argue that conservatives are "dumb." They argued this during Reagan and all during Bush. (It did not help that W Bush was a poor communicator and has a certain Texas machoism about him) This "dumb" stance stems in part from the helplessly liberal bent of most college professors as well as the feelings of "moral superiority" associated with social justice issues. It seems logical that by raising taxes and expanding gov't that everyone's situation will improve. It is the idea that gov't knows what is best and that individuals are not capable of choosing in their own best interests. If you oppose this line of thinking you are selfish and/or stupid.

filistro said...

Palin has fired up the base because her views are so extreme.

The Reps have tried for years to hide their more extreme policy positions. Now they are right out there for all to se... and man, are they a huge turn-off to the average voter.

OzJohnnie said...

brad;

Remember, a regular convention bounce should have McCain up 5-10 by Sunday, anything short of that is underperforming.

Now that was quick! I don't think Kerry managed flips that fast. From McCain is a bounce free hag to anything less that a lead twice Obama's is underperforming.

I'll give you this: your denseness creates an appealing sort of ballsy behavior.

Oz.