10.05.2008

Why It (Probably) Won't Work

With Sarah Palin's attack yesterday on Barack Obama's patriotism and his ties to former Weather Underground ringleader William Ayers, the McCain campaign has left little doubt about in which direction it intends to head over the final month of the campaign. Namely, they're going to drive their campaign into a ditch -- and hope they can find a way to take Obama along for the ride.

It is a sad denouement for what was one to be a high-minded campaign focused around themes of honor and reform (themes that were resuscitated briefly during the Republican Convention), possibly accompanied by McCain's taking a one-term pledge. It is also, however, Mr. McCain's strategists would seem to have concluded, their only remaining hope.

I am not here to dispute that this is McCain's best strategy -- in the same way that an onside kick is a team's best strategy when it trails late in the game with no timeouts left. But like the onside kick, it is fairly unlikely to work.

For one thing, increasing numbers of middle class Americans may already have decided that Barack Obama is their home team. One of the more powerful dynamics during the first Presidential debate is that Obama, in the first 15 minutes of the proceedings, pointed to himself and said, "Hey! Middle Class! I'm your guy!". McCain did not mention the middle class, instead reverting to traditional Republican talking points about supply-side economics. From there forward in that debate, dial testers reacted poorly when McCain attacked Obama, or appeared to be contemptuous of him.

If this is the case, however -- and it very well could be -- then this election is over. If the middle class had decided that Barack Obama is their guy, then he's going to win. So assume for a moment that there remain a sufficient number of persuadable voters to provide McCain with a prospective path toward victory.

Even so, I think most observers have tended to overstate the extent to which this election is in fact about Barack Obama. It is also very much about John McCain. As I argued in the Los Angeles Times in August, the principal reason why McCain has been able to remain in a relatively tight race with Obama, even as the Republican brand is in shambles, is because he has largely been able to distance his brand from that of the Republicans. This is evidenced by the fact that polling during the primaries indicated that Obama was in fact headed toward a landslide victory against virtually any other Republican, whether Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney (though the later might have had some interesting opportunities in light of the current economic crisis). By contrast, for all the time her advisers spent trumpeting her electability, Hillary Clinton never had more than a 3-point lead against McCain before exiting he race, and trailed him for much of the primary season.

It may be quite difficult for McCain to attack Obama in this fashion without significantly damaging his own brand. The chart below presents a smoothed curve of each candidate's net favorability ratings since the first of the year:



What's interesting is that, with the exception of the past couple of weeks, McCain's and Obama's ratings have been fairly strongly correlated, tending to rise and fall together. This is not to say that negative campaigning doesn't work -- it sometimes does -- but it works at diminished efficiency, because you may be giving back 50 cents on the dollar by harming your own approval scores.

If the McCain campaign brings up William Ayers -- or Jeremiah Wright -- it will almost certianly be seen as attack politics. This might seem to be stating the obvious. But remember that this wasn't the case during the primaries. The Wright and Ayers stories were instead driven by actual news -- ABC's reporting of Wright's inflammatory sermons, for instance -- and were largely not pushed by the Clinton campaign. So unless McCain's oppo research team is sitting on some fresh news about Obama's ties to Ayers or Wright, the stories are liable to be reported as a typical partisan attack, which will impeach their credibility in the public's eyes and reduce their staying power.

The Obama campaign does face a bit of a dilemma. By responding to the attacks aggressively -- as they seem inclined to do -- they may be able to mitigate their impact, and possibly turn them around on John McCain. But they also keep the story in the news. The Obama campaign can't afford to be swiftboated, but it also wants to be careful not to make this the story for more than a couple of news cycles.

Ultimately, however, the fact that McCain is resorting to these sorts of attacks are an indication of just how much his brand has been damaged. They certainly aren't likely to help him to repair it.

255 comments

Matt W said...

McCain to file complaint against Obama's fundraising alleging that foreign nationals have made contributions...
Developing

James said...

quick typo note: should be "resorting" not "restoring" in last para

Matthew said...

It is sad that McCain did this.
It is especially sad because he was never that far behind in this campaign. Every time that McCain has been just slightly behind, he has tried to pull up using a gimmick ("Celebrity" and "The One", Sarah Palin, suspending his campaign) that gave him a boost and then backfired.

If McCain had, from June, played "the elder statesman", he could have kept his position, more or less. He would probably still be trailing...but he would be in distance. He could explain that his approach of lower taxes meant more sense in a recession. He could explain that he doesn't like being in the Iraq war either, but thinks it is necessary to stay until it is brought to peace. He could have explained his positions rationally and soberly, and people would respect him as an elder statesman, and he might have a chance of winning.

But I guess the gambling thing is true...he needs to take the big risks.
I really hope it doesn't pay off.

kjvd00 said...

Exactly, every time he does this it brings his own negatives up as well. Does it really result in a net gain for him? Based on what you have wrote and other analysis I've seen, I'm not convinced that it does. But yes, what other choice does he really have?


A Blue Victory in a Sea of Red?

sperricar said...

McCain campaign is falling apart. All Obama has to do Tuesday is showing he is connecting with middle class on economic issues.

David Fox said...

It would be nice to see this site use population scaled maps like these:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2006/senatecartlarge.png

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2006/

Charles M. Kozierok said...

Good analysis, quite true, and something quite a few of us have noticed. (Made a shorter and less well-argued but similar posting on my blog this morning.)

All this is going to do in the minds of undecided voters is cement in their minds the view that McCain has lost his honor and integrity (if he ever had any, which lately I am starting to wonder about.)

dpldust said...

VP Debate Pushed Undecided Voters to Obama
An Ipsos/McClatchy poll found that Gov. Sarah Palin's performance in last week's vice presidential debate actually hurt her running mate, Sen. John McCain, among undecided voters.

Before the debate, undecided voters were leaning 56% to 44% for McCain. The day after the debate, the numbers tilted 52% to 48% for Sen. Barack Obama.

Said pollster Clifford Young: "It's suggesting an overall tendency of undecideds toward Obama, so it is significant. We're catching an underlying trend that's going on."

The poll also found that Sen. Joe Biden won the debate, 54% to 46%.


******************************************************
IT'S OVER - But Sydney and Caribou Barbi (the largest political whore since ...ever) will do everything they can to polarize the electorate and bitterly divide the electorate, for the sake of, Sydney and Barbi. Country be damned, these people don't give a damn about the middle class, the lower class or any class. They need to be stopped.

Henry said...

it is sad...I use to love and support John McCain the Senator (except that he never votes), but this campaign has revealed his true character as a man and a leader. As a military man, this is incredibly disappointing.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"If McCain had, from June, played "the elder statesman", he could have kept his position, more or less. He would probably still be trailing...but he would be in distance."

Quite true. But this really goes to the central point: McCain couldn't do all these things because he *isn't* an elder statesman. This campaign has shown his true colors.. and they are a rather ugly sight to behold.

Reader said...

sperricar has it right. From Americablog:

"'We think the McCain campaign made a huge error by telling the press that their strategy was to distract from the most important issue facing voters,” a senior Obama official said. “Every attack going forward will be easy to characterize for what it is – an attempt to distract from the Bush-McCain economic record.'

This is rather brilliant by Obama. Every time McCain launches a negative ad, a negative attack, that has nothing to do with the economy, Obama can then see 'see, I told you so - the man has no interest in talking about the economic crisis.' This is going to be fun."

Absent some game changing October surprise, mudslinging, and in particular racism (watch for it!) is all McCain has left.

Juris said...
This post has been removed by the author.
clubok said...

There's one important difference between this and an onside kick: There is more at stake than just the presidency.

If the net effect of McCain's tactics (not strategy - he doesn't know what that is) is to damage the Republican brand or to suppress Republican turnout, then there could be an effect on downticket races. That 60-vote margin in the Senate might become a little bit more likely.

At some point, McCain's best approach will be to stop throwing Hail Marys and to accept his loss with dignity, rather than to drag down the whole party with him. When this point will come is a judgment call; we may have already passed it.

nick said...

"they may be able to mitigate their impact, and possibly turn them around on John McCain. But they also keep the story in the news. "

Nate, if Obama turns the attack against McCain successfully, wouldn't they want that to stay in the news as it is now a pro-Obama (if not anti-McCain) story?

borderpeak said...

The RNC is sitting on a pile of cash and it seems Sarah P. has just begun what will probably be non-stop fundraising. imho they are either planning a giant late stage Octobersmearfest or the have cut old John loose and are moving on with their new and only star.

Reader said...

"McCain couldn't do all these things because he *isn't* an elder statesman."

Which is why my jaw hit the floor when he 'suspended his campaign'.

One of the scariest traits a leader can have is to believe his own bogus hype.

argaen said...

These false attacks just don't work against Obama.

Let Mccain use hatevertising for the last month. Hillary Clinton used it for months and, other than never apologizing directly for voting for the iraq war, it was directly responsible for her failure to capture the democratic nomination.

Also, I never knew of Mccain's association with G. Gordon Liddy until today. Since Mccain and Palin brought up Ayers, other news sources are now bringing up Liddy. The funny thing is my family is full of republicans who were already on the fence about Mccain and absolutely think Palin is unqualified. I have new ammunition to win about 20 new voters for Obama. Thanks John Mccain!

Matt W said...

It is very interesting that the Loess curves generally moved together until the last 2-3 weeks or so when they diverged rapidly.

John Ford said...

These arguments only work for people that you don't need to convince. These are the grandchildren of the America Firsters of the 1930s. Yet somehow, after years of debate, the majority of Americans knew FDR was right.

Other Short answer: A member of the Keating Five needs to steer clear of "guilt by association" charges.

Obama's still wearing gloves, but he's got brass knuckles on underneath them. The "erratic" ad is a great example--he still looks cool, and he's counterpunched before McCain gets his punch off.

Real Joe said...

Obama NC Rally

Live Video

http://us.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream2

give us a major gaffe :-)

Real Joe said...

matt w said...
McCain to file complaint against Obama's fundraising alleging that foreign nationals have made contributions...
Developing


finally more good news if this is true

Juris said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Matthew said...

This also makes me regret, in a way, that there is no one to serve as a referee or umpire in a political campaign. There is no large group of non-partisan authorities who can go out and publicly condemn this.

It is funny that in American politics, the closest thing we have to this is the late night talk show hosts. Which actually might count for a lot---if David Letterman comes down on this, it probably won't sail.

Francis said...

I think there probably is a shred of honor, or something, in McCain--it's why he didn't go hard negative earlier, when he should have. Maybe he didn't think it was the right thing to do, or maybe he just thought he wouldn't need to. Anyway, for whatever reason he missed his window. Not to say these ads might not move voters but I think it'll be too little, too late.

On another note, I would love to see a Democratic 527 put out ads attacking McCain's military service and time as a POW. Turnabout is fair play:

"First he got himself shot down. Then he failed to escape after 5 1/2 years in prison. Is John McCain a brainwashed Communist agent? Why won't he answer the question???"

Juris said...

The new theme that Palin has sounded, and that is reflected in comments by his surrogates and by the RNC's claim today that Obama is getting campaign funds from "foreigners," is to play the patriotism-loyalty card in a different way.

Those Germans -- they love Obama. Why was Obama speaking to Germans -- and criticizing America to Germans? (He was, of course, criticizing Bush and his policies and calling for a new way, that's why --just as he's doing in his speeches in the U.S.).

So the McCain campaign is going to try the terrorism, foreigner -- xenophobia -- tactic in referring to Obama himself, his associates, and his policies.

Will it work? Doubt it.

Furthermore, much is yet to happen in the economic realm. Passing the bailout bill may help to calm the stock markets but the economy and jobs and housing are in the tank all the same. And it's not just in America.

alex north said...

excellent commentary, sean. mc. is in a box now. he has used the neg. campaign card this summer, and it worked--for a while, until he went too far (something the gop is very good at doing). between that and his being hooked on the big splashy play, which he has also exhausted, he boxed himself in. o. can defend himself from the mud, but must mainly stay on the attack, on the substance, or lack therein, of mc's platform. and the town hall format is quite a poor place for mc. to launch attacks on o. folks just don't like it.

Chi said...

Paul Begala on Meet The Press today laid out a good argument with example as to why this guilt by association is BAD strategy for McCain. Hint: US Council for World Freedom, John Singlaub, Iran contra scandal, anti-semitism. Does JMac really want to go there?

joel said...

As a democrat who admired McCain until the last few weeks having Palin question Obama`s patriotism was just plain disgusting.
I wouldn`t be surprised if Mccain didn`t try to go super negative in the town hall and loses more support
Even if he could win using these tactics it would just create more hate in this country.
It`s to bad the guy couldn`t lose the election with some dignity.

Lani said...

You're probably right. It wont't work.

Why doesn't anyone tell the truth about Ayers's actual statement?

I read it on his website. He said he's sorry he didn't do more for the cause not do more bombings.

Even still, the ridiculousness of trying to tie Obama to a former 60's radical is overwhelming. Ayers is an educator now and as far as I can tell, he's not wielding any bombs at the Univeristy of Chicago.

I really think the Keating 5 needs to come up. Not because it's true but because it's relatvie to what is happening today with are economic crisis.

I also think that troopergate may be more harmful to the campaign. That's why they are trying to distract voters.

If Palin is found guilty of abuse of power, it will be a huge deal. This is something that would be directly related to a candidate and their ability to lead instead of far guilt by association.

Either way, I know Obama is prepared for anything. He takes nothing for granted.

such sweet thunder said...

"If McCain had, from June, played "the elder statesman", he could have kept his position, more or less. He would probably still be trailing...but he would be in distance."

An interesting comment, one I've been spending a good deal thinking about. It's classic irony. I think in many respects, McCain was looking for a game changer with the selection of Palin. A way to avoid the possibility that the history books will remember him as a man who attempted to exploit America's (not so) latent racism in an attempt to win power. First and foremost, she was a woman; he was making history too. Secondly, she was perhaps the only person who could deliver enough excitement to flip the race in his favor, making Atwater politics unnecessary.

But in selecting Palin, McCain fell into a black hole. Palin is not going to be remembered for making history, but as a political ploy. The Couric interviews, perhaps the worst political interviews of our generation, have written her epitaph. Not even taking into consideration her extremest policies -- even for the right -- the interviews assured She will never be the standard bearer for the Republicans.

And the way Palin has killed McCain's numbers: Atwater is McCain's only option. And history will not be kind.

Alex S. said...

Well, Palin and McCain have to make these attacks by themselves to make them get any traction. After all, these stories are old. We already had an unremarksble Ayers ad by a 527 group in September.
Obama however can continue his "that´s not what the people care about" strategy and focus on the economy. His surrogates and ads however can mount NEW attacks on McCain. Today on MTP Paul Begala mentioned McCain´s relation to the right-wing U.S. Council for World Freedom, something I had not heard of before. Gordon Liddy is also still relatively unknown. And Rahm Emanuel mentioned the Keating Five today on CNN, the probably most damaging association of all because it´s related to the economy.
There is a lot of material the Obama campaign can use, Obama doesn´t need to do it himself. And I totally agree that McCain´s sinking favorability ratings weaken each of his attacks. He doesn´t have the character leverage anymore to make that work.

Wa7th said...

Generic response/defense ads could be purchased in advance of any attack ad McCain wants to do, and they only need to be a few seconds long. Just get every celebrity available to say on camera "Hey, McCain! It's the economy, doofus!" Plan to run one of those after every McCain ad, no matter what the McCain ad says.

byzantine330.blogspot.com said...

Palin : “Well, I was reading my copy of today’s New York Times and I was interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago,”

I thought she didn't read magazines or newspaapers ?

Linden said...

I met a guy in the bar last night who noticed my Obama shirt and liked it. He said he was a moderate who was leaning towards McCain until McCain picked Palin for VP. Direct evidence of the pick backfiring.

esmith said...

I'll repost this because I think it is important as to prove McPalin's unbelievable ignorance and hypocrisy :


"Yesterday’s irony was Madeleine Albright’s famous quote that reads, in full: I think there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women. No, the irony was not Sarah’s, um, accidental ”misquote” of Albright’squote (replacing the word “help” with “support,” which altered the meaning slightly, to give the impression that Abright was casting an indictment on women who don’t vote for other women).

No, the irony arose from the context in which Madeleine Albright originally made this statement. Specifically, Albright made this statement in the wake of her efforts to to have rape declared as a ‘weapon of war’,at which time she made her now-famous statement. See, Madeleine Albright was saying there must be a special place in hell for women who wouldn’t help these particular victims of rape. I shouldn’t have to point out why this is such a strange irony for a woman like Sarah Palin but, to be clear, I will.

The treatment of rape vicims is not a topic Sarah should be evoking at this time, as former Mayor of a unique Alaskan city that charged rape victims up to $1200 for rape kits used in emergency room exams used to prosecute their attackers. While this controversial law did not originate with Mayor Palin, she certainly endorsed it time every time she approved a city budget that relied on the revenue from these rape kits. And, for the record, John McCain’s voting record jibes with Wasilla’s policy.

Yeah, yeah. Sarah predicted yesterday that the evil liberal elitist media filters would do something horrible today with her Starbucks quote. What she has yet to *get* is that, when the media is critical of her, it isn’t that they are being critical of women or of Republicans or even of Sarah Palin, per se. It’s the lies, you see. It’s the lies and the ineptitude that emerge every time Sarah Palin speaks."

http://canarypapers.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/there-must-be-a-special-place-in-hell-for-a-politician-who-cant-even-steal-a-quote-off-a-starbucks-cup-without-lying/

Cello said...

This is exactly the kind of campaigning we should have expected from John McCain from the very beginning. There is a huge mythology of "honor" surrounding McCain, and for the most part it's completely baseless. Rolling Stone has a new piece that totally shatters the McCain mythology, and every American should read it.

Zenu said...

I can't believe I haven't heard anything about Keating Five.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

This would destroy McCain given our current situation if more people picked up/remembered this.

Floyd said...

Let's not count the chickens before they hatch. The McCain's campaign has this strange idea that just dominating the news cycle is the goal in itself... they have a history of 'announcements' that did not quite resolve into real developments.

Tiger10 said...

Nate, what's with all the typos in this one?
"later"-->"latter", "he race"-->"the race", certianly-->"certainly"

Otherwise, great post as usual

Real Joe said...

tiger10 said...
Nate, what's with all the typos in this one?
"later"-->"latter", "he race"-->"the race", certianly-->"certainly"

Otherwise, great post as usual


Nate had a few beers

borderpeak said...

I am passionate for Obama to win but I'd trade several points of O's lead for better economic conditions. God save us from deflation. They used to call it the Great War and then there was another. Let’s hope we can continue to call it the one and only great depression. I'm no Paul Krugman but it seems simple to me. We can pull a ton of cash out of the military and start spending it on domestic infrastructure, new technology, health care and education, (the latter two especially create an incredible return on investment). I see the military as our pyramids. The Egyptians took all their surplus wealth and buried it in the ground. The got no return on it and it eventually got the best of them. We can insure our safety for a much smaller buck and we can have jobs going forward that have a economic multiplier.

Have a good afternoon everybody.

Real Joe said...

borderpeak said...

Have a good afternoon everybody.


u 2

Chris Rich said...

We are seeing the wild gyrations of a doomed old man in early dementia stages with an unspectacular record in the military and congress finally implode.

His bizarre running mate, Minnie Moose will be no help too. It's getting near time to stop sweating polls and turn to the broader wreckage of a GOP fraud fest economy and how young Obama will clean this augean stable.

rdweber said...

Does anyone else think it's more than a little stupid that a woman whose own family members think that her home state should secede from the Union is telling ANYONE else how much they should love their country?

How can this possibly play well for McCain/Palin? I get that this can't come from the top of the ticket, but it'd be a lot more earnest coming from the war hero and not the clueless wench with a secessionist husband...

BJA said...

In the words of my neighbor, a Viet Nam vet, just a few moments ago:

"He's just not honorable anymore. I can't figure out why he wants to be president this bad."

I don't think we can overlook a whole generation of people who used to look at him favorably -- for whatever reason -- and now shake their head in disbelief. They're not going to vote for him. They're disappointed in him and he's proven to many that he's no different from any other politician. McCain himself has damaged his own reputation more than anyone else ever could.

moondancer said...

Honor and ethics are a lifelong pretense for the scoundrel. All that McCain wants voters to believe about him are lies.
As Richard Clarke said so succinctly: "McCain sees no inconsistency with loving America and lying to it's people.

Todd Dugdale said...

What is really being implied by the "Ayers issue"?

Nothing.

The purpose is merely to create doubts, not prove anything concretely.

Obama had a friendly relationship with a co-worker who was never convicted of any terrorist acts while being part of an ostensibly "revolutionary" group.

That "revolutionary" group disbanded over thirty years ago, and was most notable for being fairly lousy at robbing armoured cars, which is hardly the route to overthrowing the American government.

No sane person could look at Ayers - an elderly, washed-up ex-radical - and see any kind of credible threat to the nation's security. The innuendo, therefore, is that Ayers "mentored" Obama in his "revolutionary" doctrine.

Instead of pursuing a "revolutionary" path, however, Obama obviously has sought power by legitimate participation in the electoral system.
This is the antithesis of being a "revolutionary".

So the smear goes nowhere. It only has the potential to create vague doubts about Obama's allegiance to the political process among those already inclined to view him with suspicion. And Obama's strong "favourables" are effective insulation from vague attacks such as "the Ayers smear".

We 'know' Cindy McCain has a substance abuse problem. Does this mean that the public would believe that McCain also does, or that he would fail to fight substance abuse, or that he secretly wishes to get your children addicted? That is much more "plausible" and direct than the Ayers "connection", isn't it? Anyone who seriously thinks "Ayers" can gain traction should ask themselves how effective a "Cindy" smear would be.
How effective do you think "McCain should answer questions about his association with the substance-abusing Cindy McCain" would be?

Gerbie said...

If McShame brings up links to Ayers et al, lets look into McShame's judgement 10 years ago.

This is what he had to say about Osama Bin Laden after the Nairobi/Dar es Salaam embassie bombings;

"You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before."

Here's the interview

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/11/vest.html

Strong on national security?

Alex S. said...

The final 2 debates are going to be pretty brutal. I expect race-baiting in the final one.

DU said...

At some point, McCain's best approach will be to stop throwing Hail Marys and to accept his loss with dignity, rather than to drag down the whole party with him.

It is already at the time when it is the party's best approach for McCain to lose with dignity. It will be a long time before it is McCain's best approach to help the party.

moondancer said...

Didn't Robert Novak put the Ayers canard to bed? I recall a column last year that the GOP goons were all over this and found nothing.

GeeBee said...

Playing the "Ayers Card" with 4 weeks to go in this campaign is likely another nail the coffin for McCain-Palin. Obama has no corner on the market of past associations with questionable characters. McCain himself has a more notorious relationship if one recalls the "Keating Five". While McCain was cleared of improper actions, he was branded with "poor judgement" along with Senator John Glenn. Three of the five senators investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee were determined to have improperly interfered with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's investigation of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association and its chairman, Charles Keating. That bank's collapse resulted in some 21,ooo people losing their life savings. A backlash is beginning as the McCain-Palin negativity unfolds.

Mike said...

Since S. Palin is constantly bringing up the “hockey mom” label it think it would be appropriate to give this election a hockey analogy. It appears John McCain has pulled his goalie for an extra attacker but its only the beginning of the third period. This is never done, because it never works. Only a very rash person would try such a thing. I suspect that McCain is looking at internal polls that will not be made available to the public. These probably show an Obama landslide looming, and everything McCain does from this point is not trying to win, but to ameliorate the loss. However if you try and play the whole third period with no goalie the score is likely to be ugly.

oct said...

Doesn't Palin "Pal around" with her husband who wanted Alaska to leave the union.

Ayers only hold water one news cycle (maybe longer on FOX). Wall Street is going to put out all those bad numbers. Drag McCain's name in the mud.

IT IS the economy and 401(k)s ALL DAY LONG for 30 more days. Obama Landslide.

Dave said...

I would argue that this smear tactic by the McCain/Palin camp is not analogous to an onside kick. It is rather like a team that knows it cannot win by playing fairly who therefore purposely tries to injure the opposing team's quarterback.

Real Joe said...

McCain on the attack !!

oct said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Subterranean said...

The comforting thing is, as Lani mentioned, is that Obama is no John Kerry. BHO is obviously possessed by an overriding sense of destiny. He knows he is fated for this, and god help anyone who stands in his way.

If McCain starts getting traction with this guilt-by-association campaign, BHO will turn a fucking floodlight on the GOP ticket's skeletons.

Real Joe said...



AP Slams Palin Hard for “Racially Tinged” Remarks

“…her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.”

“Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee ‘palling around’ with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?”

“Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as ‘not like us’ is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.”

“When the 2008 campaign is over McCain might regret appeals such as Palin’s perhaps more so if he wins.”

http://thepage.time.com/excerpts-from-ap-analysis/



OMG

fred said...

Palin is already screwing McCain when they leave her alone, she is a real backstabber. Just those Alaskans do know this witch.

Palin AGAIN questions pulling out of MI:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081005/NEWS15/81005026

Vadim said...

Is Karl Rove's 273 projection an example of internals being used to down play how bad things are?

MrInsight22 said...

McCain cannot possibly win using a positive Mr. Nice Guy approach given he is behind in an anti-GOP year.

So his only chance is to go negative even though it probably won't work so don't criticize him for taking the only path with possible political survival.

He believes as do I that if every American voter knew the true facts of Obama's background from birth through 2006, Obama would not win even in such a pro-Democratic year. However, despite his efforts the media will make sure that the full facts do not get reported on CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. so his gambit is unlikely to work.

McCain needs to go on offense in the Tuesday night townhall on cultural issues and Barack's liberal voting record or he will continue to sink. No McCain spin on the economy can save him and if he did come up with a genius economic idea Barack would just co-opt it anyways being the samrt guy Obama is.

In 1976, Ford gained about 10 points on Carter in October falling just short on election day after being down 25 points in July in a heavy anti-GOP year. In 2000, Dubya erased Gore's early October 10-point lead. So some tightening of the race is likely though probably not enough for a McCain win.

Unless it is an Obama blowout, however, I expect McCain to hold onto VA, NC, and FL albeit narrowly. I expect Palin's 4 rallies in FL on Monday and Tuesday to help get the FL polls moving back in McCain's direction like her rally near Orlando two weeks ago helped in Central FL according to SurveyUSA, which said that area moved to McCain while the rest of the state was moving towards Obama.

Gerbie said...

Real Joe said...
McCain on the attack !!

That's funny. This was posted at freerepublic today as a comment on why M is losing.

"The problem with the McCain campaign is that our war hero can’t find the battlefield."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2098059/posts

syncbox said...

I have a name for McCain and Palin... G. Gordon Liddy, convicted FELON and a constant advocate of criminal and terrorist activities on his talkshow... He's an admirer of Adolf Hitler and a fundraiser and contributor to McCain's campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRvo6LWuaY
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/21/183632/631/407/572166
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/g-gordon-liddy-john-mccai_n_100134.html

oct said...

Danny Diaz (RNC spokesperson) is a Boob with a pair of working neurons. The McCain campaign is toast.

They need to raise the white flag.

Diaz is now saying Mccain has a winning strategy. LOL. He says that Obama says that he won't raise taxes but he has a history of it. Oh so Obama is lying now. But I though McCain was the liar.

They only can campaign on fear. LOL. Repubs need a regime change. They mismanage the Nation and McGramps Campaign. LOL

fred said...

Remember though, Palin was moving polls BEFORE Tina Fay and the Couric debacle. Can she still move polls? I need proof...

Todd Dugdale said...

It should also be noted that Fox News/talk radio have never stopped beating the "Ayers issue". This has gained the McCain no advantage.

The idea that the Republicans have been "holding back" on these smears thus far is sheer fiction.

HRC, FNC, right-wing talk radio, and numerous McCain surrogates have all pushed "the Ayers issue" for several months now. But somehow, now that the McCain campaign itself is promulgating it, "the Ayers issue" will ostensibly turn the tide in the election.

Once again we see Republicans believing that base appeals work on the electorate at large.

They simply cannot conceive that these base appeals would fail, so the reasoning is that they must be employed more widely and dramatically.

Carlo Graziani said...

As satisfying as it would be to Obama supporters to see a counterattack on the "Keating 5-G. Gordon Liddy" axes, I doubt we'll really see that. The Obama campaign is much too disciplined and focused. They will counterattack, but strictly on the economy and on deregulation. These are (a) of top priority to nearly every undecided voter, and (b) issues on which McCain is essentially defenseless.

Look to see "The fundamentals of the economy are sound"-bites and highlight-reel material of McCain's deregulation-loving record in Congress.

Mike Durham NC said...

testing

PorridgeGun said...

Mooseburger is dirty lying skank whore who uses her kid as a campaign prop. And McCrypt Keeper is her Pimp Daddy.


VP Debate Pushed Undecided Voters to Obama

http://st.blogads.com/985587729/80630067/click?d=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPoliticalWire%2F%7E3%2FrdaCUdruhwU%2Fvp_debate_pushed_undecided_voters_to_obama.html


Rabid Republicans in Rural MO: We. Hate. Her.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/rabid-republicans-in-rural-mo-we-hate.html



Makes you wonder what that demented cackle on Friday was based on. Certainly not the post-debate polling, that's for sure.



The 2nd presidential debate will be known as "NUCLEAR TUESDAY". Or testicle tuesday, depending on how antsy the old fart is feeling.



BTW, why are these dabates always held in deep deep RED STATES? It's a fucking travesty of fairness.

It's also a doddle to spot the wingnuts in the audience. I did that 4 years ago at the Kerry/Bush townhall debate, and every single individual I singled out as certified wingnut flocked to Bush at the end. Try it!

DashedTbear said...

Can someone please remind S. Palin that she is looking backward.
TC

Rich Merritt said...

Obama is the Antichrist. Read the latest smear.

As crazy as it sounds, if they'll resort to Palin claiming "Obama is palling around with terrorists" they'll spread the rumor that Obama is the Antichrist. Unfortunately, in certain battlegrounds like southern Virginia, North Carolina or northern Florida it might work.

Mike Durham NC said...

McCain is betting all his money on one number. I think that at this point he doesn't care anymore. He figured that he has nothing to lose and he may possibly gain some, so why not try it? What's the worst it could happen to McCain? He's not planning to run again in 2012. This is his last chance so he really has nothing to lose. This is gonna get really ugly. Juan McCain se volvio loco, señores !

sherifffruitfly said...

"they're going to drive their campaign into a ditch -- and hope they can find a way to take Obama along for the ride."


Shrug, if Clinton couldn't figure out how to drag Obama down with her, I seriously doubt that McSenile and The Idiot can.

Gerbie said...

Obama is the Antichrist.

But unfortunately exorcizing the witches from Palin failed so that's only 1-1.

fred said...

That the repubs cannot imagine a pure negative campaign working is stunning. Ig uess it worked for them in 2000 and 2004 so they will have to lose before they change...but this is just sad.

Todd Dugdale said...

Rich Merritt wrote:
Obama is the Antichrist.

I thought that Hal Lindsey had made public statements to the effect that Obama was not the Anti-Christ.

In fact, he said in August:
"And the Bible says that such a leader will soon make his appearance on the scene. It won’t be Barack Obama, but Obama’s world tour provided a foretaste of the reception he can expect to receive."

Isn't Lindsey the the leading "authority" on these matters?

Sean said...

mrinsight

Where did you get the "Dubya erased Gore's early October 10-point lead" thing? I'm hazy on the details, and I'll admit I could be wrong on this, but that doesn't seem anywhere close to true.

Thanks

fred said...

I am watching cable out of PA and I saw a picture of Obama and the beginning of that anti-Christ ad yesterday. It was covered by a stupid retirement ad after about 3 seconds. I think they actually have a video ad to go with this incredible smear...

Cugel said...

I've said this before, but nobody seems to pick up on it so I'll repeat: We don't have to guess what the effects of a Swift-boat campaign are! We have perfect evidence from 2004 what it can and cannot achieve!

In 2004 Bush ran a highly effective negative ad campaign (think "wolves ads") and the results:

Bush won 94% of Republicans
Kerry won 89% of Democrats
Kerry won Independents 47%-46%

The Karl Rove smear strategy raised Republican party ID from a -3% deficit (34%) in March 2004 to 37% (tied with Democrats) on election eve.

So, the Swift-boat scum rallied the base.

But, they also rallied the DEMOCRATIC base, and alienated Independents, who went narrowly to Kerry.

We can't tell if Kerry would have won Independents by a larger margin if Bush hadn't Swift-boated him. But we KNOW the lies didn't work well enough for Bush to win Independents.

This worked well for Bush because his GOTV efforts brought 11 million more Bush-bots to the polls than in 2000. Kerry tried to keep up, but his 8 million new voters (over Gore 2000) were swamped and he wound up losing by 2.4 million.

Since NO McCain Swift-boat campaign can possibly be much more effective than Bush's we have 2004 as the outside limits of what can be achieved.

McCain might hope to rally his base back up to 90% plus (he's winning Republicans 84-7% in the Research 2000/DKos Poll). So, he might add perhaps 8% of Republicans.

VERY unlikely, but that would be about the outside possibility. He's NOT going to add any Democrats, in fact this campaign pisses Democrats and Independents off!

Democrats get angry and more determined. Independents are disgusted and will either vote Obama or stay home.

Either way this strategy CANNOT WORK! Why? Because IF Obama wins 90% of Democrats, and McCain wins 93% of Republicans, and they split Independents evenly, Obama wins by at least 1%.

So, even taking every assumption in favor of McCain, he still loses.

The more likely assumption is that he simply loses ground among Independents while gaining among Republicans who might have drifted away from him due to the economic crisis.

Meanwhile Obama isn't going to sit still. He's going increasingly on the offensive himself. He's fighting back increasingly hard in his ads (though probably not in the debates where he has to look "Presidential" and "bi-partisan").

In the end, McCain has ZERO hope. Too bad for him he chose to go down as a bitter lying swindler instead of taking the honorable road. He probably figures he has no future in politics anyway. He's too old and it's either the Presidency or bust.

He's angry that the "Magic Negro" got in the way of his victory parade. "I'm a POW! Dammit! A War-hero and a Maverick(tm). How can that bastard be winning? It makes me so MAD!!!"

Snax said...

McCain won't get traction with this crap - he's tried this already in MI and the net result was that he has had to run-up a whit flag there already. OK - the rest of the country isn't quite as f*cked-up as MI economically, but the states that count FL, OH & NC are, and they won't be distracted.

fred said...

sean-

Go read the lead story at Pollster.com

oct said...

Why worry? McCain cant even work the weekends. He needs to suspend the campaign a lot to get his naps and his daily enema.

Palin reads a lot including the Starbucks Coffee Cup she drinks from. I hope we can find "You Betcha" or "Dog on it" or some of Palin's brilliant phrases on Starbucks cups.

fred said...

Great analysis Cugel.

Have to agree that the 527's in WI throwing this abortion smear have certainly energized the Obama base...

Brennan said...

I still want to know why there are not any articles or polls posted by Nate regarding how the Barr/Nader effect will have on this election.

THIS WILL HAVE AN EFFECT, BUT HOW MUCH AND WHERE!?

fred said...

brennan-

Agree, but it is not Barr/Nader that matter to me, it is Paul...

Stephen said...

I've seen a bunch of articles already pointing toward an analysis of the dynamic engendered by the attacks; the fact that this is the case rather than going after the substance of the attacks suggests that they are not being taken at face value and in fact that it might already be too late for this sort of thing to work even on the margins.

Joey said...

Is the RNC trying to create an October Surprise?

RNC to seek audit of all contributions to Obama campaign
http://tinyurl.com/4unlxb

interstices said...

In his prime, did't Charles Keating destroy more property value than William Ayers?

Brad said...

RNC after OBama campaign finances? I am sure they can stall that until after the election...at least I hope...

esmith said...

Rich Merritt said...

Obama is the Antichrist.


Can someone explain this? They claim that, according to the Bible the anti-christ will be of muslim descent. Now, Islam didn't come about until 700 years after Christ how can the word "muslim" be in the Bible?

oct said...

McCain is going to blow his top in the 2nd debate. I think he is on the edge. Grandpa needs a tranquilizer probably. Did you see him in front of the Iowa editorial board.

Testy old man grampy is.

He'll blow his top.

oct said...

Ayers did not even get convicted of anything for Christ sake. Keating is an actual crook that destroyed families and their homes.

PorridgeGun said...

Nate Silver said...

It is a sad denouement for what was one to be a high-minded campaign focused around themes of honor and reform...


You don't honestly believe that bullshit, do you?

I knew McCain was going the scumbag route the moment he hired Terry Nelson as "senior adviser" for his campaign. Nelson was responsible for the racist "Call Me" attack ad that took down Harold Ford in Tennessee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZF5ZTu2Go&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Nelson

oct said...

McCain is the one to watch out for. He lacks judgment and temperament.

Palin pick (poor judgment).

McCains temper is well-documented and beginning to resurface recently as the economy and polls have gone sour.

Cugel said...

The important point that the McCain camp seems to have forgotten is that there is no such thing as "the public" when it comes to Swift-boat attack ads.

People respond differently to these ads depending on whether they are Democrats, Republicans or Independents.

Quite predictably Democrats are enraged at what they perceive as lies smearing Obama.

Republicans love the ads because they are attacking Obama. They don't care if the ads are lies or distortions, so long as they think they will bring down Obama.

They also raise Republican morale to see McCain "fighting back" and help him recover some of the party loyalty deficit he's suffered the last 2 weeks (Democrats rallying to Obama bringing him up to around 88-90% party loyalty) while Republicans drifted away from McCain (down to 84% loyalty in the Research 2000/DailyKos polls, and similarly down in other daily tracker polls).

But, Independents respond by being disgusted and turned off from politics or by blaming the Republicans or Democrats.

Who they blame probably depends on whether they are Republican-leaning or Democratic-leaning.

Thus, we see Karl Rove's dictum "there is no middle." He believed that if you polarize everybody, Independents divide neatly down the middle. Then as Bush said in 2004: "If our people get to the polls we'll be fine."

But, there are at least 6% more Democrats than Republicans this year, and polarizing the campaign even more only brings more Democrats home to Obama, while bringing more Republicans home to McCain.

If party loyalty is even, and Independents split evenly (they are now favoring Obama by a wide margin), then the election will be decided as in 2004 by the difference in Party ID.

In that election Republican GOTV efforts gave Bush a 3% edge over Democratic efforts to increase THEIR vote totals from 2000.

Since Gore won the popular vote by 0.5% --- around 500,000 votes, Bush won in 2004 by 2.4% or around 2.4 million votes.

This year, a similar result would mean that Obama would win by around twice that much!

So, the amount might narrow, but unless there is some vast hidden anti-Obama vote that shows up on election day the way Republican racists hope, then it won't matter at all.

At best, Republican leaning states like Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, and Indiana will swing back to McCain. That won't be enough for him to win though.

Kevin said...

The thing about the "onside kick" analogy is that not only does it rarely work, but even more seldom do we see the team executing it make an announcement beforehand letting everyone know that they're about to attempt it.

This election season has me repeatedly wondering if officials are as stupid as they appear, or if this has all just been some fiendishly clever ruse and folks like Sarah Palin are about to reveal themselves to be these astonishingly adept hyper-geniuses in the endgame. Or perhaps that's just what they want me to wonder...?

Ed said...

MrInsight said:
"So his only chance is to go negative even though it probably won't work so don't criticize him for taking the only path with possible political survival."

I love how attack ads by Republicans are framed this way, as saying "He's just trying to win". The pundits on TV do this all the time, as if "winning" was the only thing. I think they secretly admire the ruthless win, because they thmeslves have had to throw friends under the bus to get where they are. And a dirty nasty no-holds barred fight is easier to cover - no boring research, no thinking, just quotes.

Aaron said...

What do people think about the RNC trying to get an audit of all of Obama's contributions? What could this do?

Charlie said...

I think McCain's going on the attack is very good news for Obama. Short of a complete meltdown, I can't imagine anything better, in fact.

The Ayers stuff is old news. They're regurgitating something that already got wide attention, and they're doing this after Obama has already passed the character test with American voters. What McCain is doing is asking voters to trust him and not their lying eyes.

All of the evidence from the dial testing shows that people don't like attacks. The lines turn down when attacks happen. And I happen to think that McCain looks especially bad when he's in attack mode. His facial expressions and tone of voice become just plain weird.

I think this turn of events is desperate, and probably a sign that McCain is feeling (once again) compelled to pander to his base. The hard-core fanatics are the only ones who'll be applauding attacks based on an acquaintance with some old lefty from 40 years ago.

The mainstream media is already shooting this stuff down. The McCain campaign has been running against the media, but when they run against ALL of it they lose, and that's what they'll be doing on this.

The current tracking polls show Obama up by an average of 8.25%, with an average support of 50.25%. Add in the cellphone problems and undercounting of new voters and blacks, and the likely breaking of undecideds, and Obama is probably somewhere at about 53%. I think this attack could turn 53% into 56%, and have a big impact on some congressional races.

So, while Obama's campaign will have to devise tactics to counter this line of attack, my gut tells me that this is likely to backfire in a big way. In a couple weeks they won't be calling him McCain, they'll be calling him McNasty.

bigdayqueen said...

I just can't get past the memory of 2 debates...when any candidate started in with a negative attack the dials tanked. I really think people are sick and tired of negatives. Yes, McCain is making his base happy, but the rest of the folks are disgusted.

oct said...

God the Repubs are frothing at the month with anger. Don't blame them for the negative attacks. Bush failed. McCain Campaign is failing. The got nothing left so now the negative attacks start. I think Obama's numbers go up some more. The Surge continues. This is not about terrorism. It is about the economy and people are worried, but the Repubs are not at all.

PorridgeGun said...

Analysis of RNC's Racist Ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT8ukEUuSGE&feature=related




McCain and Schmidt basically touched on similar themes with the Paris/Britney attack ads.

Peter said...

I suspect it won't be very effective: the 50% of us who have 401K/403B statements, which will be down between 20-30%, arriving this week are going to be listening for the candidates to talk a bit about the economy.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"The thing about the "onside kick" analogy is that not only does it rarely work, but even more seldom do we see the team executing it make an announcement beforehand letting everyone know that they're about to attempt it."

Very astute point, Kevin.

And in this case, Obama's already rushed all his defenders up to midfield, before the ball's even been kicked.

Charlie said...

Something else occurs to me: By doing this, McCain runs the very real risk of uncorking the really nasty stuff at the core of many of his supporters.

McCain himself might not melt down. He'll just look like a troll, making those grimaces and other faces. But his supporters might start going ballistic with the truly out of control racial stuff.

I'd hate to see it, but on the other hand maybe there'd be a certain benefit from getting all of those snakes out from under their rocks so the rest of the public can run around with shovels.

We'll see. This could be a damned interesting month.

scotte64a said...

IMO, the Obama camp is playing this exactly right by making the McCain camp's desperation the story.

Deni said...

the onside kick:

The percentage probability of a successful onside kick is about 0.12. Even if the onside kick is successful the probability of winning is only 0.41.

~Not looking good for the McCain team.

The percentage of getting an onside kick that’s a surprise onside kick is significantly higher than not.

~oops!

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"Can someone explain this? They claim that, according to the Bible the anti-christ will be of muslim descent. Now, Islam didn't come about until 700 years after Christ how can the word "muslim" be in the Bible?"

You're trying to make sense out of the Christaliban? Please.

Shain said...

When my dear old Republican Grandfather heard this the first thing he said to me was "Well shit, who didn't know Ayers? Not exactly like he is a low key guy."
I think the comment by my Obama hating Grandfather regarding this news pretty much sums up how people feel about this. Ayers is not an Osama-like by any stretch of the imagination. It was not uncommon for someone who was politically active and liberal back then to not know him. *snore*

Cugel said...

Todd Dugdale said...

Once again we see Republicans believing that base appeals work on the electorate at large.

They simply cannot conceive that these base appeals would fail, so the reasoning is that they must be employed more widely and dramatically."


This is exactly right. I put it in more wonky terms of numbers, but essentially McCain fired his campaign staff after the infamous "Green Screen" speech the day of Obama's clinching the nomination and hired Karl Rove disciples to run a Swift-boat campaign.

He figures he was losing with the "Maverick" "war-hero" campaign, so he might as well go negative. Now that he's STILL losing he'll probably accuse Obama of child incest or bestiality or secretly being the uni-bomber or something.

It's going to take a couple of elections where the Karl Rove style smear campaign gets smashed and beaten into the ground before they give it up.

2006 might have been a hint, but Republicans figured it was just Bush fatigue. Now they'll probably figure it would have worked, except Bush & the economy dragged them down.

What this ignores is that they are permanently alienating tens of millions of people by castigating them as "not real Americans."

If you're a minority then by definition you can't be a "real American." Do they think minorities don't see this crap and don't get the code-word racism in such attacks?

We're going to be a minority-majority country within 30 years and they're pissing so many people off that Hispanics are breaking for Democrats by better than 60-40? Blacks 90-10, Asians 65-35?

Overall the non-white vote will go to Obama by 40 points or more.

And that non-white vote has increased from 17% in 1996 to perhaps 27% now, while the white vote declined by an equal amount (from 83% then to 73% now). And this is continuing by around 1% per year!


There is just NO FUTURE for the Republican party being the party of angry white racists any longer. It worked between 1968 and 2004, but that America no longer exists.

They're losing whites under 35 and they will never get them back. The party identity people get when they're young they usually carry their entire life. I've been a life-long Democrat. I'd never consider switching parties, and most other voters my age wouldn't either. If you're a Republican by the time you're 30 you tend to stay one.

This is just suicide for Republicans to run these kind of racist campaigns. McCain doesn't care, but the 527 groups who are serious about the future ought to know better. They're slitting their own throats here.

oct said...

To continue the football analogy, Obama is deep into McCain territory late in the game. He has the ball (economy) and his wide receivers are in NC, IN, MO (5, 8, 10 yd lines) and FL (the end zone).

Game over in two weeks when the negative attacks cause voters to deflect in FL to Obama. Touchdown. Old voters know their money is at risk and the repubs are playing stunts to distract from their mismanagement.

Dean said...

But why is Palin wielding the ax? Here's a scenario:

McCain and his campaign know they have lost the election. The battle now is for the soul of the Republican Party in the (at least) eight years they will be wandering in the wilderness. It's the right-of-center Wall Street pragmatist clan (Romney, Giuliani, Thompson) vs. the new wave evangelicals (Huckabee, Palin?) vs. the hardcore evangelicals (Dobson, Palin?).

Even though McCain needed Palin to open up the coffers of the evangelicals, the McCain clan really doesn't want to see Palin ascendant after November. So, they'll give her all the crap work to do, the mudslinging and the lost causes of Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, etc. McCain takes the high and safe road. The idea is to diminish Palin's standing among more moderate and independent elements within and without the Republican Party.

dorkenergy said...

The election might be over a tad sooner if everyone DIGGs the story Gerbie pointed to above. Find slinkerwink's take on it at "McCain Didn't Think Osama Bin Laden Was A BAD Guy in 1998!!!"

No "SECURITY ADVANTAGE", nada, zilch, ...

Point, set, match ...

judas_priest said...

@ Brennan and Fred:

I'm not positive, but I don't think there is enough data do Nate's kind of analysis on Barr and Nader. And in how many states is Paul on the ballot?

The conventional wisdom is that as we get closer to the election, people who had earlier expressed support for a "third-party" candidate decide they don't want to "waste thier vote," and select the less undesirable major party candidate. This certainly borne out in all recent elections. Even Perot, who got respectable vote totals, got fewer votes than earlier polls suggested.

But there is one aspect I think makes for interesting speculation. What happens to people who dislike their party's candidate, can't possibly vote for the oppostion but then realize by election day that their party's guy is going down the tubes? Do then make their vote an expression of protest against their party's candidate? How about those voters who really hate the other party's candidate and so decided to vote, perhaps reluctantly, for their party's candidate, even if he isn't (conservative, liberal, whatever) enough?

If they think that there is no chance for the hated candidate to win, do they then cast expessive votes for a minor candidate who is closer to their positions?

I don't have any answers, but my guess is that if it looks like Obama will win really big (I don't forsee any realistic likelihood for McCalin to be perceived as about to win big) we will see some voters peel off for Barr, Nader or McKinney. Given the dynamics of this year, and given that people like being with the winner, this is a bigger threat to McCain's totala vote than to Obama's.

But, as I said, it's all speculative.

yiannis said...

obama needs to raise mccain's dubious associations with charles keating and his reckless gambling.

not in a fully frontal assault, but clearly enough.

he also needs to tie this politics with the George w bush politics.

that's the only way. Obama shoud say that he's happy to talk about associations after McCain brings up Ayers/Wright.

Real Joe said...

we are so fu**ed if McCain don't attack strongly

McCain ~ County First ~

Ken said...

I am so angry at the Republicans, but especially the media.

You look at the front page of the political section on CNN last night, and it says, "Palin says Obama associates with Terrorists" or some such thing (not direct quote).

The thing is, you have to dig on their site to see if it's true or not. Lots of people just read the headline and don't read anything else.

If they know it's false, why not change the headline to:

"Palin falsely acuses Obama about associating terrorists"

I mean, that's TRUE. CNN should be doing their job, but they aren't. "They want the public to decide". Bullsh*t!

It's the same when the Bush administration came out about having no WMD in Iraq. The headlines read:

"America is safer", Bush says.

Like what the hell? That headline should have read:

Bush lied about WMD in Iraq

Of course, the media never does it job, and CNN has been so conservative these last couple of months. It's pathetic!

Their headline news was totally pro-Palin. Their anchor and 3 "expert panelists" were all Republicans. Their "independent" was actually an adviser to Rudy Giuliani's campaign. They only had one "liberal". He did a fantastic job debunking, but it's hard when it's 4 against 1.

Of course, you look on CNN about info on the debate, and the first article is, "Why Palin won"

WOW.

Anyone that watched the debate knows Biden won. The news media didn't have to say, "I thought Biden was effective" 100x to convince the American people Biden won. They knew it because he did.

And of course, now that Obama is at least 8 points ahead in the national polls, CNN has taken their national poll tracker down. It used to be in nice big numbers on their main political page. No such thing anymore.

The media is a joke, and this latest attack is just one more way the media is a bunch of f*ckheads.

I am so sick of the media.

striatic said...

"Can someone explain this? They claim that, according to the Bible the anti-christ will be of muslim descent. Now, Islam didn't come about until 700 years after Christ how can the word "muslim" be in the Bible?"
--------

It's supposed to be "prophesy", so something like that isn't necessarily a contradiction.

..but then again, there very idea of the "anti-christ" has to be read into the biblical text. His existence isn't in there explicitly, and the idea that the anti-christ is muslim is reaching even farther in terms of "interpretation".

such sweet thunder said...

Cugel, I have nothing to say besides that your comment was perhaps the most interesting one I've read at this site.

tomthress said...

"The conventional wisdom is that as we get closer to the election, people who had earlier expressed support for a "third-party" candidate decide they don't want to "waste thier vote," and select the less undesirable major party candidate. This certainly borne out in all recent elections. Even Perot, who got respectable vote totals, got fewer votes than earlier polls suggested.

But there is one aspect I think makes for interesting speculation. What happens to people who dislike their party's candidate, can't possibly vote for the oppostion but then realize by election day that their party's guy is going down the tubes? Do then make their vote an expression of protest against their party's candidate? How about those voters who really hate the other party's candidate and so decided to vote, perhaps reluctantly, for their party's candidate, even if he isn't (conservative, liberal, whatever) enough?"

I could see Bob Barr picking up a noticeable (3-5%?) chunk of Republican anti-bailout votes if the winner (Obama) is a foregone conclusion come Election Day.

Real Joe said...



Obama Rumor:

Obama is a secret Jew



this will not help in FL

bigdayqueen said...

OMG..

real joe made me LAUGH!

tomthress said...

"You look at the front page of the political section on CNN last night, and it says, "Palin says Obama associates with Terrorists" or some such thing (not direct quote).

The thing is, you have to dig on their site to see if it's true or not. Lots of people just read the headline and don't read anything else.

If they know it's false, why not change the headline to:

"Palin falsely acuses Obama about associating terrorists""

Obama already won this battle, and it's the win that will ultimately win him the war. People don't believe McCain/Palin. The meme that John McCain is a lying liar stuck and it completely guts his ability to go negative against Obama. It isn't working and it won't work. When most people see a headline like "Palin says Obama associates with Terrorists" now, they ASSUME that it's not true, whether CNN or any other media outlet presents it that way or not. I really think that this was the single most effective thing that the Obama campaign accomplished in this election.

Real Joe said...

bigdayqueen said...
OMG..

real joe made me LAUGH!


did i ?

i was not a joking

some of my fellow conservatives are trying to spread things that are not believable

does any one think Obama is asian ?

that's one rumor going around

come on !

Obama is not asian

Todd Dugdale said...

Cugel wrote:
He figures he was losing with the "Maverick" "war-hero" campaign, so he might as well go negative. Now that he's STILL losing he'll probably accuse Obama of child incest or bestiality or secretly being the uni-bomber or something.

That is what I don't understand.

If they are really going to "go negative", why stick with tired stuff like Wright/Ayers/Rezko and "secret Muslim/Hindu"?

Why not pay a junkie $50 to go on tape saying that he personally saw Obama having sex with a goat while high on PCP? The junkie subsequently has an "unfortunate" fatal overdose, and the Obama campaign is now accused of "silencing" him. Poor guy, went up against the "Chicago machine" and lost. Obviously a cover-up. If you "speak the truth" about Obama, your life is in danger.

If you are going to smear, go big.

Ken said...

tomthress, I really hope you are right.

I remember Obama got a nice steady lead growing through sound campaigning. Then all of a sudden, McCain attacks and it's tied.

That trend happens a lot. I have lost all faith in the intelligence of a big % of the American people. The fact that the election is 80/20 at this point is remarkable.

And based on the past attack ads, they did cause big shifts. I sincerely hope you are correct and that it won't work.

I guess McCain doesn't care. He's going to die in 2 years most likely. Why does he care for?

The Republicans are completely dishonest, lack integrity and are entirely dishonorable. It's remarkable so many people are willing to stick up for them, lie with them and support them.

Real Joe said...

my neighbor(a McCain supporter) is worried about voting for a loosing candidate

this is very depressing

i need more good news

if i don't see a tie on Gallup next sunday i would really freak out :-(

Alex S. said...

"Can someone explain this? They claim that, according to the Bible the anti-christ will be of muslim descent. Now, Islam didn't come about until 700 years after Christ how can the word "muslim" be in the Bible?"


I would guess that it refers to the tribes of Gog and Magog whose liberation announces the rise of the antichrist. One of these tribes is supposed to be today´s Arabs. Now the common mistake that is made here is the equation of arabs and muslims. Barack Obama´s father was a muslim (by name, not by conviction) but he was not an Arab. But evangelical loonies don´t care about this distinction, of course.

striatic said...

"People don't believe McCain/Palin. The meme that John McCain is a lying liar stuck and it completely guts his ability to go negative against Obama."
--------

and, interestingly, a big part of why that stuck was Karl Rove's "100% truth test" line.

which makes you wonder what Rove was trying to do there.

Real Joe said...

Obama is not an arab or a muslim(this is coming from a McCain supporter)

some people need to wake up

Bush has muslim friends

so is he a bad guy also ?

no

Darío said...

Obama is Obama and McCain is McCain.

niedda said...

What a Palin 'the ass these ignorant conservatives are.

MrInsight22 said...

According to pollster.com's article on Gallup polls only, Gore was up by 10 points with 50% in Gallup in early October 2000 just before the debates started. Dubya got a 13% margin in Gallup at the end of October (a 23-point swing) just before the closest election of the modern era. So polls are not everyting.

As for the Antichrist theories, the Muslim aspect is of course not from the Bible (there were no Muslims then) but from interpretation of Nostradamus. Barack is the lefthanded son of a Muslim goatherd. Acording to the Bible, after the battle of Armageddon, Jesus will separate the good sheep on his right side from the evil goats on his left side and then cast the goats (the followers of the Antichrist) into hell. Goats are associated with Satan, and that is why he is depicted with horns and cloven hoofs sometimes. (Remember the Dragnet movie?)

Gerbie said...

Bush has muslim friends

so is he a bad guy also ?

not because those friends were muslims but because their famliy name was Bin Laden.

Real Joe said...

this "Obama is a muslim" slogan was started by liberal hippies

kirkaracha said...

Say it ain't so, Sarah, there you go again pointing backwards again. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future.

adam said...

We'll just have to band the people together and say "never again, will we let negative campaigning take us down..."

oh, wait.

Real Joe said...

Sarah is digging a hole

McCain needs to attack Obama on taxes, liberal values

bringing out race is not good

we already won those people

Mike Durham NC said...

The only candidate who has lost an election after hitting 50%+ or having an 8 pts lead in the Gallup polls, has been Al Gore, and we all know why. I think we're in a good position, but I don't take anything for granted.

striatic said...

"bringing out race is not good

we already won those people"
--------

you can have them.

heh.

Real Joe said...

30 days 2 go

where the fu** are the polls ?

niedda said...

Some thing fishy is going on Intrade today.

Chad said...

Living in AZ for 20 years, the "Keating 5" scandal is relatively fresh in my memory. The Obama campaign is keeping their powder dry on that one, because it is the knockout blow for McCain. Although, I would expect to hear it brought up soon (in the next few weeks) especially as the economic situation worsens and election day arrives.

I think the Obama campaign will save their big guns (Keating 5 scandal) until the week or two before Nov. 4th. By waiting, they'll limit the amount of time the GOP can spin it before the voters punch their cards. Just think if the GOP would have waited to expose J. Wright until now - they'd probably close the gap. Oh well, thank god for small favors and eager beavers.

oct said...

G H W Bush loves the Arabs. He loves the Saudis. All them terrorists came from Saudia Arabia.

George Bush is his son...so he is linked to terrorists and now McCain votes 90% of the time with Bush. So therefore McCain associates with terrorists. Q.E.D.

markymark said...

On every morning show I saw footage of this morning someone madethe point that thew negative attacks are not McCain's best strategy, that showing up McCain as the best bulwark against a liberal congress might well be. (I think Mike Murphy was espousing that theory as was George Will.) I think if this election gets ugly it cannot favor McCain. My own hunch is that people are tired of the bickering, and the culture wars, thats what the 9% is the countyr going in the right direction number is at least in part about. I think that Obama has all the aces left in the game, McCain might be able to make Obama play his hand badly, but I think that my guess is that he doesn't have the cards to really do that now. (He's over played his hand to some extent earlier in the game, what with the celebrity attack and the inexperienced attack. Maybe its time for McCain o give people a reason to vote for him.)

One thing thats been good about Obama's campaign to this point is he has attacked McCain on the issues, yes he has attacked, and to an extent to my tastes he has run a slightly too negative campaign, but his attacks have been focussed on the issues. I think the old thing about campaigning in poetry, governing in prose may have flipped. I think maybe now you have to campaign in prose, and maybe poetry in governing will help Obama seem more presidential and keep his favorability numbers and political capital high.

Max said...

"And the way Palin has killed McCain's numbers: Atwater is McCain's only option. And history will not be kind."

What's exciting about the Palin pick, if she is indeed the Republicans future "star" is that it assures a Democratic administration for at least the next 16 years. As much as I liked Hillary, her biggest liability was the passion she evoked from right-wingers simply by association with the Clintons. Had Palin been groomed for eight more years (like Bush in Texas) she could have hidden her incompetence better. But the GOP, for lack of better words, blew their wad early and now all that will be remembered of Palin is Tina Fey and she may be the only future candidate of the GOP who evokes the same type of negative passion from the left as the Clintons do from the right.

mc9cain said...

Max, I completely agree with you about Palin. Also. :)

Charlie said...

As for the Antichrist theories, the Muslim aspect is of course not from the Bible (there were no Muslims then) but from interpretation of Nostradamus. Barack is the lefthanded son of a Muslim goatherd. Acording to the Bible, after the battle of Armageddon, Jesus will separate the good sheep on his right side from the evil goats on his left side and then cast the goats (the followers of the Antichrist) into hell. Goats are associated with Satan, and that is why he is depicted with horns and cloven hoofs sometimes. (Remember the Dragnet movie?)

Excuse me, did I just read what I think I read? The Dragnet movie? THE DRAGNET MOVIE?! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Holy shit!!

oct said...

Palin should be mad at the Repubs for pulling her into McCains bad campaign too early. she is done like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Nate said...

Nothing fishy about intrade...as Nate pointed out, it can be manipulated with very little $....probably just some dumbass Republican all hot and bothered now that McCain is going negative, thinking that "finally the rest of the country will see Obama as how I see him!"

markymark said...

I don't think Palin would stand up to the rigours of a campaign by herself, ever. I think Pawlenty, Jindal, maybe Cantor, maybe Crist are the more lasting future of the GOP for better or worse.

I think that the GOP may even look at 2008 and think that waiting till 2016 maybe a better shot, as opposed to 2012, in terms of winning the White House. I think the 2012 candidate may well be Romney or some other guy with more experience. I think that by 2016 the question might be has the next leader of the Democratic Party emerged. (I don't have any names for you there, but then 8 years ago, who would have pointed at Barack Obama and said he's the next Democratic President?)

homunq said...

Actually, I think that the Bible says that the Antichrist will be Mormon. And the Anti-John-the-Baptist will be Baha'i. But get this: the Anti-Mary-Magdalene is gonna be named after a Gallic city!

Nate said...

Markymark--

Mark Warner in 2016....

striatic said...

"I don't think Palin would stand up to the rigours of a campaign by herself, ever. I think Pawlenty, Jindal, maybe Cantor, maybe Crist are the more lasting future of the GOP for better or worse."
--------

It'll be Jindal.

homunq said...

Almost makes you wonder why all three of those religions (Muslims, Mormons, and Baha'i, that is) accept the Bible as true. You'd think they'd learn not to accept their opponent's framing, maybe go a little negative more often.

joel said...

Tuesdays debate will not be the right forum to attack Obama. People in town halls want answers to questions not personal attacks.
I think if McCain goes after him on the personal stuff McCain will be trailing by double digits a couple of days later.
All Obama needs to do is show his usual steady style, McCain may just blow, he cannot believe he is losing to a guy 25 years younger than himself with no experience for an office he feels is due to him.
Also he better show Obama more respect this time around, Americans don`t like cranky rude old men

markymark said...

When you think about it the VP race for the GOP was fascinating, a Democrat (well Joe Lieberman at least), The governor of Minnesota who as far as I can tell has no governing record to speak of, Eric Cantor, who nobody had heard of, Tom Ridge, who hasn't done much for years, and infuriates the right of his party, and a 1/2 term governor of the smallest state by population (do I have that right?) who only hit the radar once the more centrist ideas had been blasted off the table by the right, and who had only had a phone conversation with the candidate by way of interview. My point being noone wanted the job. Noone serious anyway.

Brandon said...

In Colorado in 2004, Bush won by about 100,000 votes (4.6%).

How can Obama make up such a large deficit? It seems hard to me.

I hope he does

striatic said...

2016 democrats?

Maybe Brian Schweitzer.

Sean said...

mrinsight

I see, when you said up ten in the polls, what you meant was up ten in one incredibly volatile poll. Because I was looking at numbers like these...

ABC/Washington Post - Oct 10 - Bush +3
CBS - Oct 9 - tie
Reuters/Zogby - Oct 9 - Bush +1
Cnn/USA/Gallup - Oct 9 - Bush +3 (tied on Sept 27)
Newsweek - Oct 10 - Bush +2

You're also looking at one incredibly volatile poll that was taken before any of the debates. You may have missed them, but we've already had one of the Presidential debates. We've also already had the VP debate. And we're now averaging about Obama +6 nationally.

Kinda tough to compare the two situations, no?

Borges said...

Hi everybody--

Does anybody know anything about this new attack?

GOP to file fundraising complaint against Obama: http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/827764.html

OTF said...

Brandon,

In CO in 2004 Repubs had 177,000 registration advantage now they have 78,000 voter reg advantage, down 99,000 in 4 years.

markymark said...

I used to quite like Warner, but he delivered the worst major speech at the DNC, and while that didn't hold Bill Clinton back, I am not buying Warner yet. On the Democratic side my guess would be a worthy state governor who emerges from somewhere (and before someone says it no not Schweitzer, whose great entertainment but not presidential.)

Jindal, well is he maybe gonna seem like Obama lite in 2016? I think Cantor might be a name worth watching, especially if he can get a term as Virginia governor. (Is anyone strong runinng to replace Kaine yet?)

Brandon said...

Thanks for the stats OTF.

Where do you get stats for voter registration by state?

Hopefully that 99,000 and a swing of independent voters will be enough to clinch Colorado for Obama.

striatic said...

it doesn't sound like the Republians have much proof of anything on the fundraising issue. the timing is also suspicious.

if they had a smoking gun, that'd be meaningful, but this attack is so vague coming out of the gate that i'm not sure there's anything behind it.

STepper said...

@Real Joe

Better to spread the rumour that Michelle Obama's cousin is a rabbi.

That one would have more legs. http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/09/is-michelle-obamas-rabbi-cousin-a-real-jew.php

Probably won't help Obama in Florida, but at least it's not GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN McCAIN!!!

kellysirkus said...

Palin: "Enough is enough with your ticket lookin' backwards and pointin' fingers."
This lame attempt to infer that Bush is in the Past did not work, as was displayed by the nosedive on the CNN dial when she said it.
similarly
McCain: "We're turning the page on the Economy. We're moving on."
The American people want to hear about the Economy more than anything right now.
This strategy will be the final nail in the GOP coffin

markymark said...

Incidentally I agree that the town hall is not the format to go after Obama. If McCain got the tone wrong, imagine some polite looking woman starting her question off 'First of all Senator McCain what you said about Senator Obama was mean and vindictive and not want we the voters want to hear.' If something like that happened, queue landslide.

Just a thought, maybe McCain traling his 'we are going aggresive' thing is a tactic to make Obama hit first, so McCain can look the good guy? Looks like thats not working judging by the Obama ad they previewed on one of the morning shows. I think the Obama campaign are sitting on the Keating 5 stuff, and waiting if the McCain camp goes for the nuclear attack ads on Ayers or Wright or Rezko.

STepper said...

When arguing a case before a judtge, and the judge tells you what he thinks it's important to argue, I've often found my opponents tell the judge that this issue he wanted discussed wasn't important. And have them go off on their treasured talking points.

As you might suspect, my opponents did not do well with such arguments. So, I think KellySirkus is correct. This strategem will be the death rattle of the McCain shameful campaign.

adam said...

there's evidence that the Obama camp is sitting on the Keating 5 stuff, and trying to back off the McCain camp before they go nuclear themselves.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6041101.html

kellysirkus said...

I so hope McCain is stupid enough to have Sarah play the Rev Wright card.
Unleashing the Wasilla Witch Doctor and PentaCrazee tapes would be a sight to behold

kellysirkus said...

I so hope McCain is stupid enough to have Sarah play the Rev Wright card.
Unleashing the Wasilla Witch Doctor and PentaCrazee tapes would be a sight to behold

Eric said...

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/08/10/copy/STOLEN.ART_ART_08-10-08_A1_4PB01M7.html?adsec=politics&sid=101


I believe this is true without any question at all. It will not happen this time as Dems are in charge of Ohio.

OTF said...

swingstate.com gave an update of selected states as of Sept 1st and RCP had an article on it with stats as of July. If you really want to search some state election board websites have it but it is often a task to find. I bet swingstate.com will do a final update in the swing states with big switches since 2004 again for the final stats. The registration deadline for states closes Oct 6th

The states that are most interesting in the swing state battle are the following.


As of July 2008
... 2004.........2008
IA: R+4,400 D+99,000
NV: R+4,400 D+76,000
Fl: D+283,000 D+445,000
Pa: D+580,000 D+1,111,000
CO: R+177,000 R+78,000

don't panic said...

the dem's 2016 candidate will be Obama's 2012 VP (not Biden)
My guess a woman, for example Napolitano (who will take mcCain's seat at the senate) or Sebelius.
Hillary will take Dean's place at the helm of the party

Adam said...

Intrade is pretty funny. The last day graph, like the ones for the past few days, show an instant 4-5 point drop for Obama and corresponding one for McCain every several hours, in between which the other rational traders slowly creep it back to where it should be.

Someone is really blatantly trying to stop the numbers from slipping away. If it were an actual buyer who thought McCain at 35 was a good deal, he'd just be buying every 35 contract throughout the day. The rapid drop means it's someone trying to make people see "Obama -4.5" for the day because he's trying to set a narrative (and spending some noticable money to do it). Very amusing.

Adam said...

A corresponding jump for McCain, I meant.

Todd Dugdale said...

Palin said Saturday that Obama was “palling around with terrorists” because of his association with Ayers, a founder of the 1960s terrorist group Weather Underground.

Oooh, a founder of the Weather Underground.

Everyone in the Weather Underground was a founder. They lasted less than four years before they split up and went fugitive instead of "revolutionary". It's not as if they if they attracted new "non-founding" membership. They had, what, eight people in this scary group?

And they were all either caught or turned themselves in. Scary stuff, indeed.

Not as scary as the right-wing militia groups that were a hundred times larger and better armed, and which carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, of course. Robbing armoured cars is much more frightening.

Alex said...

McCain-Palin are running scared. This is pure desperation. They have no strategy left. They're worried about losing Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri? Just get ready for more slime.

Eric said...

To OTF's point about voter registration, check this out:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2008071701

Francis said...

You know, the way around Ayers is not to pretend he wasn't a radical, or that robbing armored cars is not a crime. Because he was, and it is. It's "I barely know him, didn't know him when he was a criminal, and I have always rejected his politics."

Francis said...

Site just updated. It's now more than twice as likely that Obama will win a landslide than that McCain will win at all.

don't panic said...

francis,
that's what the obama campaign did, and it's the truth, so the attack won't stick

Francis said...

don't panic--

Yes, I was responding to todd dugdale, who seems to think that bringing the Oklahoma bombers into the conversation is good politics.

don't panic said...

i love how the red bars have "flatlined" in the EV distribution graph.
hoq appropriate...

mc9cain said...

Looks like Nate Silver just adjusted McCain's chances down to 12.6%.

I am too excited about such good news. Can it really be possible that this horrible nightmare of the f**-king bastards Bush and Cheney about to end forever? Shit, I don't even care if the Sox and Cubs aren't going to make it this year. And I can't believe I'm saying that.

don't panic said...

is there any recent poll in WV?
it oddly stands out now :)

Subterranean said...

Rahm-bo is straining at the leash:

-----------------------------------

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago Democrat and Obama supporter, warned against McCain's strategy.

"If we are going to go down this road, you know, Barack Obama was eight years old, somehow responsible for Bill Ayers," he said. "At 58, John McCain was associating with Charles Keating."

"If we really want to talk who is associating with who, we will," Emanuel said.

Francis said...

I'm sure this has come up before, but does anyone know if there's a place on the site that breaks down the EV distribution a little more finely? The bar graph is kind of hard to read.

Real Joe said...



Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago Democrat and Obama supporter, warned against McCain's strategy.

"If we are going to go down this road, you know, Barack Obama was eight years old, somehow responsible for Bill Ayers," he said. "At 58, John McCain was associating with Charles Keating."

"If we really want to talk who is associating with who, we will," Emanuel said. "The American people will lose in that transaction."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD93KIJL00



this is going to get ugly

don't panic said...

my prediction of 375-380 is getting closer every day
yeah

Francis said...

real joe, you've been pining for your 527s to unleash on Obama--you can't complain if our side hits back.

mc9cain said...

Sub t - LOL rahm-bo. You must be from Chicago and familiar with the Attack Dog.

Todd Dugdale said...

francis wrote:
You know, the way around Ayers is not to pretend he wasn't a radical, or that robbing armored cars is not a crime. Because he was, and it is.

Well, I'm not trying to "find a way around Ayers". I'm saying, worst-case scenario, what have they got?

It's not really much. And Ayers' role was minimal in it. The full prosecutorial weight of the DOJ failed to convict him.

In effect, Palin is saying that Obama was associated with a guy who was associated with people that did something illegal.
Three degrees of separation.

That doesn't sound scary enough, so they have to play up the people Ayers was associated with.
And even that isn't very scary.

But you are right about the proper way to counter the smear. I am merely playing Devil's Advocate with it.

Ardent Henry said...

I have been having so much fun watching the Channel of Hate (FNC) today.

They, naturally, reflect the GOP/McCain message. Desperation permeates their airwaves.

I am getting kissy-Republican-starbursts from Ms Banderas about voter fraud in OH, & learning what an evil bastard Barack Obama is, being all-friendly-like with the WICKED Bill Ayers.

And here is John Gibson, who lost his own show of hate earlier this year cause he was so, uh, ... hateful. No kissy-starbursts from him, he's mad at Ohio, too! How dare Dems vote! The horror! (Why don't you rally your troops & vote McCain, instead of screaming, "Shame!"?)

And Ms Banderas loves to shop, it is her, "Prozac". In these tough times, she's not reaching for comfort foods- she's shopping for a new Sports Bra.

What does the marriage of Fluff & Desperation produce? The Fox News Channel, of course!

Now that's a same-sex marriage I cannot endorse.

Eric said...

What Nate's model isn't accounting for is early voting happening right now with Obama's lead in places like Virginia and Ohio. McCain's actual number would probably go to single digits with that data added in.

Eric said...

Rahm Emanuel has a lot at stake with this election. Heir-apparent to Obama's Senate seat. Better gift of gab than at least 90 of 100 Senators. He could become a real power player.

oliver said...

RE: the crazy people anti-Christ bullcrap.

Considering that Muslims didn't even exist until 700 years after the Book of Revelations was printed, it would be pretty impressive if that's what the Bible was referring to.

Of course, God is everywhere at all times, according to you dudes, so you never know...

Kylopod said...

Better to spread the rumour that Michelle Obama's cousin is a rabbi.

The article you link to does not indicate it is a mere rumor. She is related to R' Funnye (whom I was familiar with before this news was revealed). The article tries to raise doubts about whether he's really a rabbi or even a Jew. As an Orthodox Jew myself, I don't see what the big deal is. While I do have serious reservations about the Black Israelite movement he subscribes to, as far as I can see he is a legitimate convert to mainstream Judaism. I personally know an Orthodox Jewish black woman who began her journey to Judaism in his synagogue.