Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Obama-SebeliBus?

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-16T22:55:00.000-05:00

With tonight's SurveyUSA poll showing MCCain ahead...

2008-08-21T20:33:00.000-04:00

With tonight's SurveyUSA poll showing MCCain ahead by 23 points in Kansas now, Sebelius could not bring her own state into the fold. And her selection would outrage Hillary supporters for implying all women are interchangeable.

p smithYou're comment on HRC hits the nail on the ...

2008-08-21T09:23:00.000-04:00

p smith

You're comment on HRC hits the nail on the head. She put Obama into a bind by letting on that she wanted the veep nod, but I doubt she ever did. Naming her would be calling her bluff. She'd have to be enthusiastic even if she was throwing up between events. For Obama, the only decision is whether she would be the one who is most likely to help him win.

Disagree on your take on the others, tho. I think the reps would breathe a sigh of relief if it's Biden. He's the safest pick, but doesn't bring a state and can be portrayed as too liberal. The reps would run against them as "Liberal and Liberaler." He's an attack dog, but he takes a long time to make a point and so goes off message a lot, comes across as imperious and can be muted by references to his own errors in the past. Bayh doesn't add the stature that Biden brings and doesn't bring a state. Also, I think they'd be happy with Sebelius since she doesn't bring a state and will do nothing to soothe HRC's supporters.

Kaine puts a red state in play, helps with Catholics and moderates and has been a governor who has to make decisions. Doesn't help on the International front tho, but neither do Bayh or Sebelius.

Thanks.

That´s an interesting theory - although honestly, ...

2008-08-21T08:54:00.000-04:00

That´s an interesting theory - although honestly, most ways from the battlegrounds of the rust belt to Denver, Colorado lead through Kansas. And all the "obvious" VP picks except from Tim Kaine have rust belt connections.

OK. Let me get this straight. Obama is going to ...

2008-08-21T08:10:00.000-04:00

OK. Let me get this straight. Obama is going to spend a couple of the most visible days of his campaign making six stops in states that Nate's projections tell us that he has a 1% chance of winning (KS), a 0% chance of winning (KY) and a 13% chance of winning (MO)?

I just don't get that as smart when the election will be settled in Michigan, New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico (at least he HAS to go to Colorado).

Barack unwittingly spoke the truth when he said in...

2008-08-21T04:15:00.000-04:00

Barack unwittingly spoke the truth when he said in jest, "you're likeable enough, Hillary". Likeable enough in the eyes of 7 million holdouts to send those holdouts (many in battlegrounds)over to McCain in a heartbeat if Hillary is in any way dissed in Denver, e.g. if Sebelious is picked for Veep as some kind of a generic alternative to the real HRC.

The Clinton supporters who would potentially defect are virtually all women. I'm afraid McBush trumped the impact of any insults to Hillary, perceived or real, when he made it clear that he'll be a staunchly pro-life president.

Laura in WA,If the superdalegates chose Hillary, t...

2008-08-21T02:21:00.000-04:00

Laura in WA,

If the superdalegates chose Hillary, the Obama supporters go for McCain 80%-20%.
The Democratic Party is divided.

Just to be clear, I was quoting (and disagreeing with) someone else's post regarding Hillary and the superdelegates. I agree that the chaos that would result from an overthrow of Obama at the convention (not that there's any chance of that happening!) would be such that it would virtually guarantee a McCain victory.

And, as I said in my post, I'm not impressed at all by the fact that Hillary is polling a whole 3 points better than Obama in the NBC/WSJ poll, considering she's had nothing but positive press since May.

Naaomi. You completely misunderstand the motivati...

2008-08-21T01:11:00.000-04:00

Naaomi. You completely misunderstand the motivation of the 7 million or so Hillary holdouts. They aren't part of the "vast majority" of Hillary supporters who will, as you point out, go for Obama in the end as a way of party regulars going "home". Those 7 million voters are still for Hillary because they actually LIKE her, and every bit as much as Halle Berry or Chris Matthews like Obama. Barack unwittingly spoke the truth when he said in jest, "you're likeable enough, Hillary". Likeable enough in the eyes of 7 million holdouts to send those holdouts (many in battlegrounds)over to McCain in a heartbeat if Hillary is in any way dissed in Denver, e.g. if Sebelious is picked for Veep as some kind of a generic alternative to the real HRC.

There's something else to point out. The U.S. had ...

2008-08-20T22:32:00.000-04:00

There's something else to point out. The U.S. had a draft from the Korean War up to the early 1970s. It only became an issue at the peak of the Vietnam War. While I do think that a draft would be a negative for the Republicans, and that Obama should exploit it, I also think that Democrats generally do too much wishful thinking in the sense of hoping for some magic bullet issue to arise that will instantly turn everyone blue.

It doesn't happen that way, or at least you can't plan on it. If the Democrats want to regain their rightful place as the predominant political force in this country, they're going to have to rebuild from the ground up, starting with a revamping of their communications.

This is a significant problem, but it could be much worse. When it comes to policies, the Democrats are in excellent shape. By contrast, the Republicans have a well-oiled propaganda machine and a complaisant media willing to rubber-stamp it and shove it out the door, but when it comes to policy and governing they are a disaster on wheels.

I'd much rather have the Democratic Party's set of problems. To me, they are far more easily fixable. This is a matter of awareness and tactics more than anything. If Democratic leaders could be bitch-slapped into realizing that they'd better learn to spit it out in short, punchy sentences, that would solve half the problem right there.

The other half of the problem is confidence. Democratic leaders need to worry about how they make their case, but they need to STOP worrying about their values and their policies. The public is fully on board with the Democratic agenda to a point that I haven't seen since I was a little kid in the 1960s.

All the Democrats really need to go is get the hell up off the floor, and get the fists a-flyin' full speed ahead. If Obama would drop the pussy act for a while and call bullshit on McBush and the Republicans, I think everyone would be shocked at the spike in his numbers that would result.

Good God, I'm starting to think that if we want some balls on the ticket we ought to nominate Hillary Clinton instead.

Please let it be Sebelius.or Schweitzer.

2008-08-20T22:25:00.000-04:00

Please let it be Sebelius.

or Schweitzer.

Today in speaking with an audience at one of McCai...

2008-08-20T22:18:00.000-04:00

People, as a group, act in their best economic int...

2008-08-20T22:12:00.000-04:00

People, as a group, act in their best economic interests. They will buy alternatives if they are really cost-effective. Pure free-market economics.

Oh, spare me your phony free-market lectures. Your Republican Party is a master at corporate welfare, a/k/a fascism lite. You know it, and I know it, and everyone else knows it. So, if you're going to shovel that sort of bullshit at me then you're no better than some "pastor" at the First Freeway Church of Jesus H. Christ the Mad Republican Torturer.

Republicans don't have any special love for oil companies

Actions speak louder than words. The Republican Party is hooked on Big Oil. Democrats are intimidated by Big Oil.

. If solar panel providers need guaranteed volumes to make their businesses work (which is a subsidy), the technology isn't good enough yet. There is so much more to it than the theoretical efficiency of panels. When it's right, they won't be able to make them fast enough.

Once again, you don't have a single clue about the subject. You are simply spouting dogma based on the phony free-market rhetoric. The fact is that there is a long history of highly successful aid to emerging (and estalished) industries, both in this country and elsewhere. For you to deny this shows that you're not serious.

Too many people are falling for half-truths about potential alternative energy sources. They're only hearing "not enough government money" as the negatives. It much deeper than that. Most wanna-bes aren't even close to being able to be commercialized in massive scale (including solar), and those that are will require years to roll out. There are no "whites of their eyes" to see yet.

Once again, you don't know anything about the subject. I, on the other hand, do, and you're simply wrong. Solar power is technologically mature. Oil is subsidized like crazy. Republicans hate it when gasoline is taxed, but they have no objection whatsoever if a gallon of gas goes from $1 to $5 and Exxon gets all the money.

It is hugely dangerous to form social policy on the basis of unproven new sources of energy

Solar, wind, and geothermal are technologically mature and are proven. They are not implemented on any sort of scale in the U.S. because the Republican Party is in hock to Big Oil, and the Democratic Party is too afraid to say anything about it.

OK, Pluckon, if we can leave the Kool-Aid, vitriol...

2008-08-20T21:12:00.000-04:00

OK, Pluckon, if we can leave the Kool-Aid, vitriol and paranoia out of it, the points are simple;

1. People, as a group, act in their best economic interests. They will buy alternatives if they are really cost-effective. Pure free-market economics.

2. Republicans don't have any special love for oil companies, any more than they do for supermarkets and their favorite restaurants. Every dollar that an oil company gets from a consumer is in a voluntary exchange. The way to make everyone better in that game is to help increase supply and competition. Instead, by artificailly limiting supply, prices are higher than they would be normally.

3. If solar panel providers need guaranteed volumes to make their businesses work (which is a subsidy), the technology isn't good enough yet. There is so much more to it than the theoretical efficiency of panels. When it's right, they won't be able to make them fast enough.

4. Too many people are falling for half-truths about potential alternative energy sources. They're only hearing "not enough government money" as the negatives. It much deeper than that. Most wanna-bes aren't even close to being able to be commercialized in massive scale (including solar), and those that are will require years to roll out. There are no "whites of their eyes" to see yet.

5. It is hugely dangerous to form social policy on the basis of unproven new sources of energy, so in the meantime, oil is it until proven otherwise by the market.

The Potter Stewart method will prevail.

pluckon--thanks for that other link. Very funny to...

2008-08-20T21:10:00.000-04:00

pluckon--thanks for that other link. Very funny too and I missed it.

Today in speaking with an audience at one of McCai...

2008-08-20T21:09:00.000-04:00

Today in speaking with an audience at one of McCains famous town hall meetings, McCain issued a verbal statement that could turn this election on its head and give it to Obama. Contained within a long question was (Paraphrasing) "Don't we have to institute a draft to catch Bid Laden and secure our country" to which McCain answered "I agree with everything you just said!"

Now, whether McCain didn't hear all the question, or McCain wasn't listening, or McCain was having a "Senior Moment" doesn't matter. it came out of his mouth. Why is this so big?

Because it would turn Obama's 20 point lead among 18-35 into a 40 point lead and SUPER energize those people like no other singular issue. On top of that, there are millions of parents with 15-25 year olds who couldn't care less about politics, but that word "DRAFT" freezes them in their tracks and they become energized political fiends at the mere thought of sending their child to a war.

Now, all summer I have been saying how the Obama camp has been asleep at the wheel. They let the Phil Graham "Mental Recession" comment go. They let McCain gaf after Gaf go. Obama can build his entire campaign about this and heres why:

Attacks only work if they have some inherent latent truth. Republicans are seen as the "WAR" party, and McCain as further right of Bush when it comes to foreign policy. It doesn't matter if McCain never meant to say this. I'd have an ad on the air tomorrow with pictures of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia and Iran. Paint McCain as neo-con extreme with his own recorded words with the "Draft being labeled on McCain's forehead.

"McCain will institute a draft to secure Americas place in the world, your son or daughter will be going to boot camp, and then Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Russia next year, to defend our country when McCain is sworn in."

Let McCain deny it and then make it a huge part of the convention. This Obama's chance to bury McCain. Turn McCain's greatest strength into his greatest weakness. It is there for the taking, but will obama take it?

For months now I and others have been critical of the Obama campaign and there need to play fair , not attack, and play defense all the time. Its time to attack. This issue is a killer and could turn the election on its head. No single word is more feared by republicans than "DRAFT", Let McCain spend every day defending the charge while Obama turns the campaign in his favor.

Sebelius was born Kathleen Gilligan and raised in ...

2008-08-20T21:05:00.000-04:00

Sebelius was born Kathleen Gilligan and raised in a Catholic family in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Let's hope she wasn't born on an island ...

LAT, that was hilarious. They also had another rea...

2008-08-20T21:03:00.000-04:00

LAT, that was hilarious. They also had another really good one about the recent Fixed News mockumentary about Obama:

http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/19/fox_news_obama_documentary_in_8367.php

Since some of the more partisan among you have bee...

2008-08-20T21:01:00.000-04:00

Since some of the more partisan among you have been quite dismissive about Governor Sebelius I would make the following observations:

Someone posted an excerpt from Wikipedia about her, noting that you know-nothings could have found that out in about 30 seconds. But it's so much more fun to sneer than to engage in reasoned discourse.

In view of the comments about, "What's she done" and the attacks on the depth of her experience, I would note that she won her first election in the year that W was elected Governor - and he had no prior experience - and she has been in public office since - that's 22 years, turkeys.

I've added a larger part of the Wikipedia entry for her. Note the accomplishments listed there. You trolls will actually have to read and evaluate this so I assume you won't bother.

BTW, she would bring to the office of VP far more experience, and varied experience, than W had when he became president.

*******
Sebelius was born Kathleen Gilligan and raised in a Catholic family in Cincinnati, Ohio. She attended the Summit Country Day School, a Roman Catholic secondary school, followed by Trinity Washington University, a Roman Catholic university in Washington, D.C., and later earned a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Kansas. She moved to Kansas in 1974, where she served for eight years as a representative in the Kansas Legislature and eight years as Insurance Commissioner before being elected governor.

Sebelius is the daughter of former Ohio governor John J. Gilligan, and thus they became the first father/daughter governor pair in the United States after her election. Her husband K. Gary Sebelius is a federal magistrate judge and the son of former U.S. Representative Keith Sebelius, a Republican. They have two sons. She also visits her childhood and current vacation home, located in Leland, Michigan, north of Traverse City, Michigan.

Early political career
She was first elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986. In 1994 she left the House to run for state insurance commissioner and stunned political forecasters by winning — the first time a Democrat had won in more than 100 years. She is credited with bringing the agency out from under the influence of the insurance industry. She refused to take campaign contributions from insurers and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, the state's largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. The decision by Sebelius marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts.

Governorship

First Term
2002 Election
Sebelius defeated Republican Tim Shallenburger in the 2002 election by a vote of 53%-45%. Her victory was partially the result of a divide between conservatives and moderates within the Kansas Republican Party. This divide is touched upon in Thomas Frank's bestseller What's the Matter with Kansas?. Since winning the election, Sebelius has successfully built upon her popularity and, as of January 2006, was one of the most popular governors in the country.

Second Term
2006 Re-Election
On May 26, 2006 Sebelius formally announced her candidacy for re-election. Four days later, Mark Parkinson, former Kansas state GOP Party Chair, switched his party affiliation to Democratic; the following day Sebelius announced that Parkinson would be her running mate for Lieutenant Governor. Parkinson had previously served in the state House during 1991–1992 and the Senate during 1993–1997. Parkinson was viewed as a pro-business moderate who strongly supported public education. This was somewhat reminiscent of the fact that John Moore had also been a Republican, before switching just days prior to joining Sebelius as her running mate.

She was challenged by Republican Kansas State Senator Jim Barnett. A September 1 Rasmussen poll showed Sebelius with an 11 percent lead over Barnett. Other polls gave Sebelius as much as a 20 percent lead. As of 2004, 50 percent of Kansas voters were registered Republicans, compared to 27 percent as registered Democrats. Sebelius, nevertheless, won a landslide re-election — with 57.8 percent — of the vote to Barnett's 40.5 percent. Because of Kansas' term limit law, her second term as Governor is her last.

Recognition
In 2001 Sebelius was named as one of Governing Magazine's Public Officials of the Year while she was serving as Kansas Insurance Commissioner.

In November 2005, Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education — all without raising taxes, although she proposed raising sales, property, and income taxes. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the Legislature

Darío @ 7:06 PM said... "If the superdalegates cho...

2008-08-20T20:57:00.000-04:00

Darío @ 7:06 PM said...

"If the superdalegates chose Hillary, the Obama supporters go for McCain 80%-20%.
The Democratic Party is divided."

sorry, but that is just stoopid stuff [IMO]. No Obama support would dream of voting for McCain EVER [well, unless the only other candidate was Cheney} IMO.

Please try to make some sens or have some facts to support your assertions - or at least have the decency to say it is just your opinion, cuz...

via Sullivan this really funny bit about vp specul...

2008-08-20T20:54:00.000-04:00

via Sullivan this really funny bit about vp speculation. might as well laugh as we wait no?

http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/20/if_they_imd_obamas_vp_prospect_1_8389.php

Actually Tom, party regulars on both sides almost ...

2008-08-20T20:50:00.000-04:00

Actually Tom, party regulars on both sides almost always come home in the last two or three weeks before Election Day. It is the independents that you have to woo with diligence, which is why it makes sense that Obama has refrained from getting too negative with McCain, since Indys don't like negative campaigns, by and large.

This highlights yet another Democratic blindspot. If you do the numbers, you'll see that turnout in presidential elections has declined by about 10-15% since the early 1960s. That's roughly 30 million voters lost.

Who are these people? Hard data would tell us, and I don't have it. So I'm going to guess that these people are disconnected folks on the margins. Low wage earners, busy, etc. Not all of them, but a high proportion.

You're not going to attract them through conventional means. But if the Democratic Party stood up and made a $12 minimum wage, and a FICA holiday on that $12, a centerpiece of its agenda, I dare say that you'd get a few million of those people out to the polls. And you'd keep 'em for a long time.

The Republicans would scream bloody murder. Class warfare, blah blah blah. Well, let 'em. The more they scream, the more you'd know it was working. And it would free the Democrats from the eternal chase of the swing voter, who by and large are the dumbest rocks on the beach.

So, it's Putin and Medvedev sitting across the neg...

2008-08-20T20:44:00.001-04:00

So, it's Putin and Medvedev sitting across the negotiating table from Barrack Obama and Kitty Sebelius

Gee, last time I looked, ol' Vlad charmed with pants off of George W., and now Russia is in Georgia and there ain't a damn thing anyone can or will do about it.

Unfortunately, neither Obama nor any other Democrats seem to have the confidence to take off the gloves and start swinging. Weaklings lose elections, and they deserve to.

Tomthress wrote, "Unfortunately, if they (Hillary ...

2008-08-20T20:44:00.000-04:00

Tomthress wrote,

"Unfortunately, if they (Hillary voters) don't come back during/right after the convention, I'm not sure that Obama will have much more of an opportunity to bring them into the fold."

Actually Tom, party regulars on both sides almost always come home in the last two or three weeks before Election Day. It is the independents that you have to woo with diligence, which is why it makes sense that Obama has refrained from getting too negative with McCain, since Indys don't like negative campaigns, by and large. You'll notice McCain hasn't really increased in the polls with his neg-cam, he's just brought Obama back down to his level. McCain will have to figure out a way to go from 45% to 49 or 50%, and he's not going to get it done if all he has in his arsenal are ads attacking Obama.

As for Hillary, Obama doesn't need her. The vast majority of Hillary voters will come home in the end, with or without her on the ticket. Or Sebelius for that matter. Kerry's problem in 2004 wasn't that Dems didn't come home in the end, his problem was that there were as many Reps as Dems, and the Reps had a better GOTV effort. That is clearly no longer the case.

Finally, I know it's a long shot but I keep hoping it's Mark Warner that is the surprise VP choice. Barring a shocker in Michigan, Obama is just about certain of 260 EVs, and Warner is a huge favorite in VA. He is up about 25 points in his Senate race. He would have to be a solid favorite to deliver VA for Obama and guarante 270. Do we really care if the Senate has 55 or 56 Dems in it? Warner should be where we really need him, which is on the ticket as VP.

we'd all love it if it were so that these technolo...

2008-08-20T20:42:00.000-04:00

we'd all love it if it were so that these technologies were worked as you indicate

They DO work. They're being installed as we speak. But it could go much faster if the federal government did more. Your Republican Party has been dead-set against it, because it's run by the oil companies.

problem with asking the goveernment to push immature technologies is that if they get behind something and taxpayers invest a huge amount of money in it, then future change is stifled

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. The theoretical limit on solar panel conversion of photons to electrons is about 25%. That backed by several decades of hard science, funded by the government. Current panels are now at 22-23%. The technology is mature.

The issue is now manufacturing efficiency, and that's mainly a matter of volumes. This is tailor-made for the government to step in and assure the volumes. Combine it with a local manufacturing requirement, and maybe China wouldn't be the emerging leader in solar panel manufacturing.

There is only one reason that this isn't being done in a massive way right now: It would seriously hurt the U.S. oil, natural gas, and coal industries. The Republican Party is in their hip pocket, and in some places the Democratic Party is too.

There is absolutely no energy crisis in this country. Nor is there any intrinsic reason to worry about hydocarbon resources in the Middle East. We have the technology, right here, right now, and mature -- to replace all of it, at least insofar it's used for energy and not plastics.

And, on the plastics front, they're making gigantic strides on fabricating that stuff from plants. The first big factories are going on line in 2009, and that whole sector may not need subsidies. But the solar, geothermal, and wind stuff does need government involvement.

Hell, oil is massively subsidized by the government. The Republican Party wants to keep it that way, and the Democratic Party is all too often afraid to rock the boat.

I think he pick Bayh at the end.

2008-08-20T20:41:00.000-04:00

I think he pick Bayh at the end.