Here’s Politico today:
Polls showing John McCain tied or even ahead of Barack Obama are stirring angst and second-guessing among some of the Democratic Party’s most experienced operatives, who worry that Obama squandered opportunities over the summer and may still be underestimating his challenges this fall.
“It’s more than an increased anxiety,” said Doug Schoen, who worked as one of Bill Clinton’s lead pollsters during his 1996 reelection and has worked for both Democrats and independents in recent years. “It’s a palpable frustration. Deep-seated unease in the sense that the message has gotten away from them.”
What’s the problem?
Forgetting the lessons of 1992: One of the certainties of American politics is that it is hard for Democrats to win presidential elections without a deep connection to Main Street values and economics. That would seem doubly true for Obama, given the unstated but undeniable barrier his race presents in certain areas of the country. And few nominees have ever had such an inviting target as the economic record of the Bush administration … from a ballooning federal budget deficit to higher unemployment rates to a mortgage crisis that could be the most menacing fiscal threat in decades.
and
Yet still, the Obama campaign seems to be struggling to find a consistent, cohesive economic message. One can understand why aides would not want to muddy his mantra of change and his image as a post-partisan, revolutionary figure. But blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Michigan likely won’t vote for Obama because of some meta-narrative or a series of fabulous speeches.
“The [Obama] campaign is beginning to look like other campaigns,” said a former top strategist for past Democratic presidential campaigns, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Obama is struggling with working-class whites just like John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis did, and Walter Mondale. He’s struggling with voters in the border-state South. And he’s struggling with an enormous wind at his back, a hatred for George Bush and a mainstream media that is little short of a chorus for his campaign.”
Clinton, of course, was the only one of these Democrats to actually win the struggle. As he could tell Obama, voters want to know how their lives would be bettered by an Obama presidency in very specific terms. This connection (along with independent Ross Perot) is what powered his upset run against George H.W. Bush in 1992.
I’ll follow up with a longer post tonight – I want to go back and poke the Netroots in the eye; their notion that there’s a vast, untapped well of new voters who a leftwing insurgent candidacy could bring to the polls isn’t working out so well, is it?
Obama needs to do three things right now:
He needs to clarify people’s understanding of him. The reality is that he went to a radical black church; he can’t wish those facts away. The reality is that he got his career started in association with a bunch of unrepentant former radicals; he can’t give a speech and have those facts vanish. The reality is that he’s a young man who has had less experience than we are used to in our Presidents; he can’t make that go away either. And yes, the reality is that he’s black and some people are going to be uncomfortable voting for him because of that. Can’t make that vanish either.
But he can take those facts and use his vision and speaking ability to weave them into a picture of himself that people will understand and be comfortable with. He hasn’t done it – he hasn’t squared the circle of his beliefs and his history. I believe he can, and while it’s late I don’t believe it’s too late.
He needs to let people know what’s in it for them. He’s got a lot of position papers out there, but he ought to get four or five lower and middle class families and bring them around the country with him and tell us, exactly, what his policies will mean for them. Make the white papers concrete.
And if he can’t do that – can’t draw the line from his policy papers into real changes in people’s lives – he needs new policy papers.
He needs to stop with the public knifefighting. While I don’t doubt that he’s good in a room, the public collapse of his “hope” rhetoric onto his “lipstick” rhetoric is something he won’t be able to survive.
Look. Startups are always valued on hope. Established companies are always valued on history. As soon as Barack acts like an established politician and talks like an established politician, he’s going to get valued like an established politician, and he’s not going to like that.
We’re seeing him get tested, and we’ll know in a month what he’s really all about. I supported the candidate of hope and inclusiveness, and I believe lots of people like me want the same thing. If this becomes an election about toughness, well…
bq. And he’s struggling with an enormous wind at his back, a hatred for George Bush and a mainstream media that is little short of a chorus for his campaign.
Fun data points: The most visible Republican institution has “approval ratings”:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval at a lowly 34%. The most visible Democratic institution has “approval ratings”:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance one fourth of that, at *a mere 9%* even during their convention week. And about “70% of the public already understands that media chorus is biased”:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/69_say_reporters_try_to_help_the_candidate_they_want_to_win , with most of them feeling it’s biased in favor of Obama.
It’s perptually amusing how often political analysts and wonks will talk in broad, abstract political jargon and terms, while ignoring the actual people of the republic who keep screwing up their precious analysis and polling. (And I’ll admit I am often guilty of the same.)
bq. I supported the candidate of hope and inclusiveness, and I believe lots of people like me want the same thing.
They may want the same thing, but some recent polling shows “63% of voters feel similarly about McCain”:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/63_say_mccain_likely_to_reach_across_the_aisle_51_say_obama_will (vs 51% for Obama).
“And yes, the reality is that he’s black and some people are going to be uncomfortable voting for him because of that. Can’t make that vanish either.”
The reality is also that many people are going to vote for him BECAUSE he is 50% black. Indeed, this is what enabled him to topple Hillary.
No one can conclusively say whether his race is a net advantage or disadvantage.
GK,
Given the number of black presidents vs. white presidents over the last 220 years, I think we can safely conclude that being black is not an advantage in this particular arena.
“I think we can safely conclude that being black is not an advantage in this particular arena.”
Nonsense. As per you, America has not changed at all since the 1790s or 1850s.
Per your logic, Palin’s gender is not an advantage in this arena either. In fact, it is a bigger disadvantage, since black men received voting rights before white women did.
A large number of people will vote for Obama *because* of his race. This may be smaller or greater than those who oppose him for that reason, but no one can say for sure.
Of course, leftists are just hedging so that if/when Obama loses, they can trumpet to the world how ‘racist’ America is. Of course, America simultaneously will have proven not to be sexist with a female VP, but leftists will ignore that. Palin is not really a woman, after all.
race or class or culture?
When Obama ran for his Illinois Senate seat he did relatively the poorest in the “border south” region of Illinois, where they were more likely to vote for the black guy, Keyes. This region of Illinois strongly supports Democrats in the populist vein, like Clinton, but not the bean-heads. This is the same political demographic that extends West into Missouri and East to Ohio and West Virginia. It’s a tough row to hoe if this is going to be a 50/50 election. I’d plant my seeds elsewhere.
Which is why Obama is wasting his resources in Indiana. Indiana is not in play.
“This region of Illinois strongly supports Democrats in the populist vein, like Clinton, but not the bean-heads. ”
I just can’t see any Jacksonians voting for Obama. Why would they?
GK, If, as you claim, a large number of people will vote for Obama because of his race, an even larger number of people will vote for McCain because of _his_ race…..or do you think that only black people vote for their kind and that white people don’t really take that into account?
You’re also ignoring the fact that most people who might vote for Obama because he is black overwhelmingly vote Democratic anyway, so there’s not a lot of net gain there. Obama’s race may bring out a few new voters who might not otherwise vote, but that won’t come close to counteracting the natural impulse of many white voters to vote for a white candidate.
Have you noticed many black elected officials whose district does not have a higher percentage of blacks than the national average? Do you really think that being black might bestow an electoral advantage in a country that is only 12% black? What world are you living in?
As for Palin, who votes for VP?
We’re seeing him get tested, and we’ll know in a month what he’s really all about.
So far, though, he really hasn’t risen to the occasion. I’ve read a number of comments about how is Sarah Palin going to be able to stare down Putin and that’s a completely valid concern.
But from what I’m seeing, Obama isn’t able to stare down Sarah Palin…
The only factor that matters is who each candidate can get to vote for him that _wouldnt usually vote._ Obama’s problem is that black turnout is usually very high to begin with. His other problem is the ‘cracker vote’ which perhaps doesnt usually vote but will turn out to vote against the black candidate. I dont even want to speculate on how many of those votes there are, but i fear they aren’t just confined to the deep south. The frustrating part is that if Obama loses the argument will unquestionably be made that racism cost him the election. And it may be true, to some extent.
However, if Obama loses the biggest reason will be that he insisted on running a national campaign instead of focusing like a laser on winning Colorado. Colorado virtually guarantees him a tie. It was a stroke of genius to have the convention there. It was a stroke of idiocy not to thank the state in his acceptance speech. Obama’s ego has made simple electoral victory not good enough, he wants a mandate. It may end up costing him the election by spending his resources in states he wont win.
[Drive-by from a new contributor. Deleted. If you’d like to try contributing substance, great. More of the same will eventually result in a ban. –NM]
“As for Palin, who votes for VP?”
Then why are Obama and the leftnuts are terrified of her?
“Do you really think that being black might bestow an electoral advantage in a country that is only 12% black? ”
Why did Bobby Jindal win the Governorship in a state that is about 0.3% Indian-American? Or is it that his voters care about competence, rather than color?
“What world are you living in?”
A world where far fewer people think in race-only terms the way leftists do. Leftists also don’t like it when people point out that Obama is only 50% black, rather than just ‘black’, as it makes it harder for leftists to accuse their opponents of racism.
Of course, leftists are just hedging so that if/when Obama loses, they can trumpet to the world how ‘racist’ America is (even though no other Western country would even have a black man as a major candidate for national leadership).
mark:
I don’t claim to know if Obama’s race is a net negative or positive. There’s a lot of white people who like the idea of a black man for president. If everything else was equal, I’d vote for the black guy.
I certainly don’t claim (and neither does GK from my reading) that his race is definitely a plus, just that it’s not definitely a minus. How sure are you that his race is going to hurt him?
Mark B.,
Do you really believe that there is single person in Colorado that will vote or not vote according to whether or not Obama thanked his or her state during the convention?
He needs to clarify people’s understanding of him. The reality is that he went to a radical black church; he can’t wish those facts away. The reality is that he got his career started in association with a bunch of unrepentant former radicals; he can’t give a speech and have those facts vanish.
[…]
But he can take those facts and use his vision and speaking ability to weave them into a picture of himself that people will understand and be comfortable with.
The first quoted snippet is very true, and I agree strongly with it. The second part, well, that remains to be seen.
I’ve said this before, but he’s put himself in a box on this issue: If he sincerely tells me why he’s rejected the far left and the radicalism, yes, I’ll be happier and you’ll be happier, but his base won’t. I don’t think there’s tha many people who will flip and vote against him for that, but it could translate into lost votes via apathy and lost revenue through donations and lost momentum through grass roots demobilization.
So his strategic question is, will the amount of base support lost be made up for in center support? I don’t know the answer to that, but I submit that it is not a trivially obvious question to answer.
Additionally (and I’ve said part of this before, too) Obama’s real promise as a campaign rests on the presumption that Obama’s judgement is superior to McCain’s or anyone else’s. Everything the McCain campaign does needs to attack and destroy that image. The strategy is, in my opinion, legitimate, because the Obama campaign is… well, they’re campaigning on it, for lack of a better word. (Some tactics might not. I haven’t made up my mind the pig/lipstick thing, say, even though I’m sure Obama didn’t mean it that way.)
If Obama goes on record as saying, “I had poor judgement in the past but I’ve learned better,” it will be about five minutes before the McCain campaign says, “No he didn’t. He opposed the successful Surge. Bad judgement ten years ago. Bad judgement last year. Bad judgement in 2009 on January 23rd at 3:00 AM in the morning.”
And at the same time, Kos and that ilk will be yelling, “Betrayal!”
SG, I’m not claiming that his race is definitely going to hurt him, but it’s just plumb crazy to think that being black is going to give him some sort of a boost. Now, if he were a black Republican candidate, I suppose you could make an argument that a lot of normally-democratic voters would switch from their usual patterns and vote republican simply because he was black. However, in this instance, the only switching from normal patterns I see that are possible is for a small percentage of normally-voting democrats to vote for McCain because he is white. Anyone who would vote for Obama because he is black is probably not going to be voting for McCain under any circumstances. The only advantage he could gain, as Mark B. pointed out above, is getting people who normally wouldn’t vote at all to vote for him.
Yes I do actually particularly if the failure to thank the State that hosts your convention feeds into a larger perception that Obama is thin-skinned and arrogant.
Thorley,
But who votes based on such shallow perceptions? I like to think people in Colorado have a little bit more on the ball than that. I mean, if you are inclined towards one candidate because of his general policy stances, are you really going to vote for the other guy because your candidate didn’t thank your state and is thin-skinned and arrogant? Isn’t running for president of the USA kind of an inherently arrogant act? How is not thanking a state thin-skinned?
_”Do you really believe that there is single person in Colorado that will vote or not vote according to whether or not Obama thanked his or her state during the convention?”_
In a vacuum, no. But when the Colorado op-eds and talk shows are discussing the dis instead of Obama’s healthcare plan, ultimately yes. Its all about where the oxygen is being channeled.
Mark B., Fair point. And well-made.
Thanks mark. I also think this is why Palin is going to kill Obama in Colorado especially- she looks like a Coloradoin, she sounds like one. The more focus Obama makes on her the less people are talking about Obama’s policies, which play really well in the state. But as mentioned about, people simply respond to identity politics.
Additionally (and I’ve said part of this before, too) Obama’s real promise as a campaign rests on the presumption that Obama’s judgement is superior to McCain’s or anyone else’s.
I’ve heard this claim many times but have never seen any evidence to support it. How is his judgement superior to anyone else’s?
Are we talking about Obama’s supporters or his opponents because from what I’ve seen from a lot of his supporters – and I’m including AL in this BTW – they seem to be basing their support for him (as opposed to those who are merely hardcore Democrats) on “hope and change†which is no less based on a “shallow perception†from some of his speeches and certainly not based in anything in his actual record or policy stances.
Quite possibly (even assuming arguendo that Coloradans even know much less agree with Obama’s actual proposed policies) for several reasons. First agreeing with a general policy stance, e.g. “do you support expanding access to health care†is much different than agreeing with the actual specific policy being proposed. If anything I would say that voters who are able to distinguish between the two are more on the ball.
Second, the role of a chief executive and a legislator is much different and it is quite possible that there are some voters who might prefer a candidate that they believe could do a better job running the executive branch even if they disagree with him or her generally on various issues. In which case seeing how Obama handles himself under pressure (thin-skinned) and treats other people (arrogant) is going to play into how people see how he would carry out the duties of President.
Third, there are probably more than a few voters in Colorado and other States who might have voted for Obama who didn’t necessarily agree with his general policy stances who won’t if they don’t like him personally or find him untrustworthy (which is linked in many people’s minds to being “unlikeableâ€) and give his rather sparse track record, little incidents like this are going to carry greater weight in people’s impression of Obama then they would with someone like McCain or Biden who have a longer track record.
Obama’s claim is to superior judgement based on having opposed Iraq from the beginning rather than, as Hillary and Kerry and others did, opposing Iraq only once it got unpopular.
YMMV as to whether that is superior judgement; at least it is consistency.
Good moral advice perhaps, but bad tactical advice at this point.
Not that Obama can outfight McCain. When he uses traditional Democrat-vs.-Republican attacks, Obama sounds either snobby or petulant; either way, ineffective.
What if he declared all-out war on the progressive usurpers? I always thought that this was the great opportunity that Obama represented – he was the one guy who could stand up to the PC and identity people and put them in their place once and for all. He could do all of the clean-up that the white Democrats are too weak to do: “You can come with me and join middle America, or you can get the hell out of this party.”
But I think it’s too late, now, if he ever had it in him in the first place.
Jeff, #24:
Obama’s claim is to superior judgement based on having opposed Iraq from the beginning rather than, as Hillary and Kerry and others did, opposing Iraq only once it got unpopular.
YMMV as to whether that is superior judgement; at least it is consistency.
At best, he’s trying to conflate superiour judgement on one issue into superior judgement on all issues. (Again, subject to your agreement or dissagreement on that one judgement.)
That still makes McCain’s strategy effective– expand the scope to include instances of more bad judgement, concentrate on them, and continue to beat that drum. If McCain can turn Obama into someone who guessed right, once, in the public eye, he’ll have done himself a huge favor.
bq. SG, I’m not claiming that his race is definitely going to hurt him, but it’s just plumb crazy to think that being black is going to give him some sort of a boost.
Eh, I dunno. Kerry got “88% of the African-American vote”:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html in 2004, which was 11% of the total electorate. Last I saw, Obama was pulling 98% of the African-American vote (unfortunately I don’t have a cite with a demographic breakdown of national polling, so this may be a weak assertion). That’s a 12% increase within the demographic, a 1% bump nationally, and of course it assumes that bump is _specifically_ attributable to his race; also that no other minority races will show similar increases for the same reason.
I’m certain someone could work out how racism will cost him more than 1% of the vote nationally, or how it will swing specific electoral votes away from him. But saying his race comes with a built-in boost is not really in the realm of “crazy”, especially considering it gets him halfway across Kerry’s losing margin of ~2.9%
I think it has more to do with Obama not believing in anything, than his inability to articulate a message that will resonate with Middle America. So many times his positions appear politicaly expedient, instead of coming from a set of core beliefs. The American people may be rubes when it comes to understanding basic economics, and a whole host of other issues, but they tend to be good judges of character, and can usually spot someone who is full of shit. Obama tends to be full of shit.
Or perhaps, its Obama’s message that this segment of voters doesn’t find all that appealing. I know its hard for the modern left to comprehend, but maybe a lack of euro-style socialism is not the answer to the problems America faces. In fact, it doesn’t appear to be the answer for Europe either.
The problem for Obama is he should have done “the Connection Speech” at the convention. Even if he gives it, most people won’t see it live. It would be lauded as the greatest speech in the history of the universe by the media (as was his speech in Germany and his “Rev. Wright is the black community” speech), but it won’t help.
Obama blew it.
If Obama wins now, it’ll be because McCain screws up, not because of anything he does.
As for the dotcom analogy, I posted about it “on my blog awhile ago”:http://foobarista.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-new-danger-and-dotbomb-analogy.html
Sure, he could do that. I myself don’t seem very susceptible to his rhetorical charms (I didn’t find Clinton particularly moving, either, fwiw), but clearly millions of people are.
The problem is that little boldfaced phrase. “A picture”, yes, certainly. But anybody can paint a picture. What if we want a accurate representation of what Obama actually is and stands for? That’s a bit harder to pull off. His ‘”hope” rhetoric’ deserves all the scare-quotes you can put around it, because it was just talk.
I think GK’s point that we don’t know the true impact of the race issue is a valid one.
I think that there are a lot of Whites who have bought into the “latent guilt” concept who jumped on the Obama bandwagon after he gave a couple of pretty speeches. He appeared to real be a “new politics” candidate bringing policies of inclusion.
While I personally have never bought into the “White Guilt” BS (half of my ancestors weren’t in this country until after 1900, and the other half had never owned slaves and had fought to free them), when I first heard Obama deliver a speech (in January this year), I was IMPRESSED.
By that point the Media as already goin into a frenzy. Here was the new “White Knight” done in onyx. Wow!
Then I realized that he was a senator from ILLINOIS . . . . gee, that didn’t sound good for being a honest poll. Then I found out he was from COOK COUNTY, and I knew that people were deluded.
I really think that the White Guilt trip accounted for a lot of the initial acceptance of his claims. He looked so good, and since he was black, we couldn’t go poking around in his past.
I think that any reasonable observer has to recognize that Obama has come a long way with no real track record, and without a lot of hard questions being asked. I think that the race actor accounts for a good portion of that.
How that plays in total, I don’t know, but there are a lot of people who want to vote for Obama to proave that they are not racist.
Of course, if he gets elected, the next black politician will probably be in for a lot more scrutiny since many more people will feel that they expiated their guilt.
bq. If Obama wins now, it’ll be because McCain screws up, not because of anything he does.
I think this is a very real possibility. Not that he screws up in his _campaigning_, but it seems there is a chance McCain’s ground game and GOTV effort will be eclipsed by the saturation of eager young volunteers Obama has had in place for the past year.
McCain got an enthusiasm boost from Palin, but it is very late in the game to try and convert that into a strong volunteer apparatus. It may not matter that he holds on to a 3-5% national lead, if he can’t convert it into more _votes_ on election day.
I agree with Althouse’s take that youth turnout will only happen if Obama’s already way ahead. Otherwise, the kids will spend election night hitting the bong.
The youth vote has never worked as a base voting block. OTOH, churches and evangelicals _can_ put people in the booth and deliver elections, and Palin’s got them pumped.
Unbeliever:
You think McCain’s poll numbers are inflated? A reverse Bradley Effect?
No, I think he’s got an actual 3% lead, insofar as such a thing can be assessed. But as Republicans are so fond of pointing out, poll numbers don’t mean much, what actually matters is the _votes_ you get on election day, and in which state you get them.
Remember that infamous youth vote that always trends heavily Democratic, but never shows up in adequate numbers on election day? I’m not saying this year will be The Year It All Changed (like 2004 was supposed to be), but if Obama’s election day GOTV manages to convert their extreme enthusiasm into votes while McCain’s GOTV can’t get the GOP’s usual (larger) base into the ballot box… that 3% lead may not be enough buffer.
Unbeliever –
Every four years imaginary hordes of liberal munchkins are massing to march to the polls and elect Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, John Anderson, Howard the Dean …
Et cetera, et cetera. I wouldn’t pay these youth voters five bucks to park my car.
If any of these change-crazed rug monkeys were in evidence during the primaries, I’d like to know where. The one race where I took a close look at the demographics was California, where geriatric Catholic ladies outnumbered them a hundred to one, and Hillary kicked butt.
In truth, a lot of young people vote Republican, and there are rumors that some women do, too.
Well, you certainly are doing your part, AL, by spreading Republican “memes,” you passive-aggressive rascal, you.
I see you got an Instalanche this week. Great work, again.
Why, you’re Glenn Reynold’s favorite Obama supporter!
And metrico, what would I do without you? When I talk about delusional liberals who refuse to recognize trouble when it’s at the door – you show up.
A.L.
I regard this “I told you so” attitude to be rather displaced and overly reactionary.
The polls mean nothing right now, especially the national ones. Obama still has the edge in state by state that count toward the electoral college votes. He doesn’t have to win by a landslide. For the umpteenth time, I see no reason why you are presuming that he should be ahead even more when the electorate has been so fragmented and those fragments set in stone over the past 8 years.
Plus, I don’t see any McCain momentum going forward. He’s peaked, in my view. He got a good bounce out of the convention and from Palin.
But….just wait until America gets to know Governor Palin better.
I’ve seen some clips already from her interview with Charles Gibson. What. A. Kook.
She looked like a deer caught in the headlights when she was asked her opinion on “The Bush Doctrine”…had no idea what it was.
They will almost certainly try to keep her as far from the media as possible from now to election time.
And McCain thinks she is ready to be president? Do any of you, really? Is this good judgment?
I’m so sick and tired of hearing the “because you’re white you’ll vote white” (or against the black) mantra that I could puke. I could give a damn what color a politician’s skin is. I’m looking for someone who doesn’t want to steal my money and my country and leave my children with nothing. You could dump almost all of today’s politicians in a sack, shake it up and dump them out, and you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. With damn few exceptions they are all crooks working hard to enrich themselves and their buddies while lying through their teeth about what they’re going to do for us.
I wish one of them would do this – leave us the hell alone. We don’t need your earmarks. We don’t need your empty promises. We don’t need your useless programs. And we damn sure don’t need your bankrupting of our country. The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is how fast they want to bankrupt the country and how fast they want to sell our our freedoms.
Barack Obama is black? Who cares? Baraka Obama is a Marxist. I care about that a lot. John McCain isn’t much better. He’s just slightly less dangerous to freedom than Obama is. All the “choices” we have today suck.
“But….just wait until America gets to know Governor Palin better.”
How’s that working so far?
Seriously, the vulnerable part of the GOP ticket is McCain. And yet, the Obamatrons can’t accept that there’s something newer and shinier in the public eye right now.
Why?
As to national polls not mattering, etc., trends most certainly do matter. To her credit, once Hillary! lost the mantle of inevitability, she fought back and made it close (closer than anyone shilling for Obama is willing to concede.) Obama hasn’t shown that kind of ability yet; he’s taken his first real hit and he keeps blundering, while his supporters keep waiting for the VP ticket to prove she’s less capable than the top of the Democratic ticket.
Obama didn’t get to where he is by selling the sly middle finger to America (that’s for his own jollies mostly, but it gives the Kool Kids a thrill), he got there with a narrative where he brings a different type of politics to the country. He gets ripped from some quarters for having a messiah complex, but his most ardent supporters like his confidence in himself as a transformative figure.
The truly smart thing to do is to praise Palin to high heaven for her efforts to end corruption, then hammer at McCain (obvious point of attack: Keating Five). Make the case that the Republican VP is a great person, but still only the VP.
Mollifies the PUMAs a bit, defuses the hotshot’s appeal, focuses on Obama’s newness and McCain’s ties to the past, yada yada yada.
But now: best case scenario (for the Democrats), Palin’s luster is dulled somehow, she goes to Biden-level in terms of national attention, and Obama has wasted how many weeks jousting with the second fiddle?
#37 from Glen Wishard:
bq. _”In truth, a lot of young people vote Republican, and there are rumors that some women do, too.”_
According to a feminist understanding, those aren’t real women. (link)
bq. _”Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party’s cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage.”_
So it goes deeper than just false consciousness — Palin’s actually got false gender? Wow.
Vista, you’re whistling past a graveyard.
The election is balanced on a razor’s edge, and Obama needs to be damn surefooted from here on out.
I have looked at the state polls – “have you?”:http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/todays-polls-910.html
A.L.
Yes, Nortius Maximus, and presenting herself as a woman is “her greatest hypocrisy”.
This may belong in the thread _Sarah Palin’s Lies_ (link) since apparently this is the worst deception she’s ever engaged in.
Five kids is not “lots and lots of babies”. 14 kids would be lots and lots of babies. This “Wendy” creature seems to be quite a piece of work, and not all that clear a thinker (or listener). Glad I don’t know her any better.
#40 from Vista:
bq. _”The polls mean nothing right now, especially the national ones.”_
They mean Barak Obama is being challenged by a woman; and apparently that’s something he can’t handle.
#40 from Vista:
bq. _”I’ve seen some clips already from her interview with Charles Gibson. What. A. Kook.”_
He wasn’t that bad, just badly prepared and flat lying about her reference to Abram Lincoln.
Her answer to her falsified “exact words” was good.
#40 from Vista:
bq. _”She looked like a deer caught in the headlights when she was asked her opinion on “The Bush Doctrine”…had no idea what it was.”_
Imagine the moment of terror that must have been for the men who prepared her and didn’t cover that. She was vulnerable in this first interview.
#40 from Vista:
bq. _”They will almost certainly try to keep her as far from the media as possible from now to election time.”_
I think she’ll get stronger every day from here on as her teachers cover what they should already have taught her.
And as she gets stronger, the GOP will be more and more eager to have her clobber a pretender to the Presidency who isn’t as good as she is in all sorts of ways and who has a mental weakness versus strong women.
After _decades_ of soaking himself in a culture of Black entitlement and rage, with sermons from the likes of Father Michael Pfleger of the Hillary _”white entitlement”_ sermon fame, he’s got a weakness: he really wants to slap down any dumb-@$$ cracka who would dare challenge the One. Hey _sweetie_: remember who’s boss, you white trash bitch. Hey KOS kiddies: watch while sneaky-sly me slips Hilary the finger so cleverly I can’t be called on it, and calls Sarah Palin a pig in a way that means I can’t be pinned down on that either: am I the cool playground taunter or what?
Barak Obama has a mean streak. Nobody _made_ him come out and fight for the deaths of babies who were born alive despite abortion attempts. He _chose_ to do that.
This is not a nice man, he just has a nice smile. One that’s going to get put under an amount of pressure he’s not used to and thinks he’s entitled not to have to put up with.
With his massively privileged media position, Sarah couldn’t touch Barak Obama if he didn’t want to let his his wrathful scorn out. _But he does._
Recommended viewing: _A Few Good Men_ (1992).
I don’t know what the definition of a real woman is, but Wendy Doniger proves that if your eyeglasses don’t cover 80% of your face, you’re not a real feminist. Earrings that weigh less than 5 lb. are also suspicious.
#49 from Glen Wishard:
bq. _”I don’t know what the definition of a real woman is…”_
Apparently Wendy Doniger does, since her publications include _The Woman Who Pretended To Be Who She Was_ (2005) and _Off with Her Head! The Denial of Women’s Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture_ [with Howard Eilberg Schwartz]. That implies that who gets to be a woman and who doesn’t falls into her areas of expertise.
And yes, this is on topic, because it goes to that connection to “Main Street values” that Armed Liberal was talking about.
Well, I’m the author of Intellectual Diversity in American Feminism and What Feminism has Learned from the Lives of Ordinary Women, and I wrote them both using nothing but the word DICK.
And here the thread paused for private recitation of a well loved monologue from Quentin Tarantino’s _Reservoir Dogs_ (1992).
AL; Once again, the site you link to provides further ammunition for my original point, rather than refuting it.
bq. As I’ve disclaimed before, however, we are still in the immediate aftermath of the convention period, and as such all polls need to be treated cautiously. The next movement in the polls is still more likely to be toward Obama than toward McCain.
Just what I said above.
And don’t worry, I’m not complacent; but I’m also not freaking out either. Nor would I feel justified in choosing a single point along the polling curve as justification for a particular position, given their fluid nature. Saying “I told you so” sounds like something that comes out of the mouth of a petulant child in this context.
This is a sharply divided country, largely I’d say thanks to our great Commander-in-Chief and his political handlers.
(And David Blue, sorry. “The Kook” I’m referring to in my post is Palin, not Gibson. He’s just a simple idiot. As far as the rest of your rant against Obama, its nothing more than a hateful pack of lies and blather. Marking you down as a Ditto-Head.)
_”Five kids is not “lots and lots of babies”._
Ask Speaker Pelosi. Whats she doing out of the kitchen anyway? How come nobody was all over her for slighting her family? Hah.
_”14 kids would be lots and lots of babies.”_
Ask Robert Kennedy. Oh, but he was a man. A busy man I grant you.
Vista, why don’t you enlighten us on why Palin was a kook instead of just tossing insults. I know you would prefer she was a cook, as in back in her kitchen in anchorage, but regardless…
Regarding the states, the polling trends are certainly not going in Obama’s favor. Nevada and Ohio are firming up for McCain, and Colorado has gone back to a tossup. Worse, New Mexico is back in play. If McCain takes either Colorado or NM along with Ohio and Nevada he wins. Both of those states are Palin country- outdoorsy Westerners. If McCain really wants to set the alarm bells off he’ll also send Palin to Washington state (but i wouldn’t waste too many resources there, just force Obama to respond).
Ah, Vista, you read so – selectively – sometimes. You said:
538.com (a liberal site, btw) said:
…based, of course, on a state-by state analysis.
Look, that attitude is what I’m talking about – it’s echoing talking points when you should be looking at facts with your own two eyes and making decisions based on those instead. The former is a very bad Democratic habit; ask John Kerry…
A.L.
I agree: the state-by-state polling puts McCain slightly ahead in the electoral college.
But then again #53 makes strong points that have not been addressed by AL, especially WRT Palin, who will I think in the end become a net liability rather than a plus as she is allowed to speak in front of actual people who might ask questions.
So I think the “selective reading” charge goes in both ways in this particular case…
I am predicting a shift back toward Obama/Biden after each debate and after the “Palin Bloom” has worn off (any day now).
I couldnt be happier about this latest assumption that Palin cant speak freeform. There is this mindset that Palin _must_ be an idiot, its just a matter of how long the balloon can keep inflating until it pops.
Now the media will set up the low expectations and Palin will probably beat Biden to death in the debates, once again driving the MSM into a lather. Better yet- once again people will be comparing Obama’s performace to Palins, and _Obama_ is the one that can’t string a sentence together without a teleprompter.
Everything aimed at Palin seems to boomerang right into Obama’s groin.
Mark, maybe you haven’t watched the excerpts yet from her Gibson interview.
Whether or not there is a “mindset” that she must be an “idiot” (and you do have to wonder how that arose), one only needs to listen to the woman claim that she has expertise on Russian affairs because she can “see” Russia from Alaska, or the blank look when asked about the Bush Doctrine to perhaps arrive at that conclusion after actual consideration of and exposure to her intellectual qualifications to be VP and potentially POTUS.
Personally, whether McCain can live long enough to serve out his first term or not, I am so genuinely frightened by the prospects of a Palin Presidency that I would regard giving her even the remotest possibility of becoming president as utter idiocy.
Regardless of who wins the election, it is going to be close. I think that it was a cake walk for Obama prior to the Palin nomination (Obama would have taken a 3-5% national lead, which turns a lot of borderline-red states blue, and means Obama could have gotten a sixty electoral vote margin. It’s not a cake walk now, and in fact there is a significant chance that Obama will lose by 2-3%, and maybe 10-20 EVs. The reason is very simple: McCain has utterly outmaneuvered Obama, and in the process has taken the strategic initiative from Obama, in particular being able not only to drive coverage but to set the agenda for conversation.
The one key symptom of that is that no punches are being thrown at McCain, and essentially none are landing on Palin despite a flurry of body blows from Obama, his supporters, and the majority of the media. As long as Obama continues to run against Palin, he is losing ground. McCain gets to set (even if it is indirectly, through Palin) the conversation points, which right now are energy (rather than environment or climate change, note the framing), the situation in Georgia and the Ukraine, the war in Iraq (not a good issue for Obama, with the success of the surge), who is more experienced (Obama or Palin!!!, which concedes of course that the answer is McCain), and who is more of an agent of change (which should have been a strong point for Obama, but again he is being compared to Palin instead of McCain).
In other words, where the conversation before the conventions was on Obama’s strengths, it’s now on Palin’s strengths. Unless Obama changes this dynamic, he is toast. I did think of a way Obama could change it, though: he could name his cabinet now, instead of waiting for the election to be over. Sure, he’ll come off (or at least be portrayed) as a bit snobby and cocksure for assuming victory, but on the other hand he has the opportunity to claim at least that he is trying to let the American people know exactly how he would govern, and that this election has to be about the issues. It could be a game changer for him. It could also flop miserably, because it opens up multiple avenues of attack on the campaign, depending on who he picks. On the third hand, it might force McCain to nominate his cabinet early, too, which could be used by Obama to reinforce the “same as Bush” meme he’s trying to push.
Frankly, Obama should never have allowed himself to get into this position, and he could have avoided it. By dissing Hillary so publicly, he opened the door to a Republican woman (Hutchison or Pell might have similarly helped McCain) taking away a significant number of independent women who would otherwise have voted for him. By choosing Biden as his running mate (an astonishingly conservative pick, and a good choice from a governing standpoint but not a campaigning standpoint), he undermined his message of being an outsider, and gave the Republicans the opportunity to nominate an outsider to exploit the opening. By making the election about personality and destiny and history rather than about issues, in a year when the public largely disagrees with McCain on the issues, Obama lost his biggest policy advantages and allowed the Republicans to step in with a VP candidate who also has a strong personality and a rocketing career, and whose election would also make history. That the Republicans had a candidate available that could fill all these gaps is Obama’s bad luck; that he created the gaps is his own poor strategy.
Either Obama must demonstrate a rock-solid character in adversity (he has no record of doing that, but that does not mean he cannot do so) and fight back hard (not dirty smears, but aggressive fund-raising and ground game organization, coupled with relentlessly staying on message), must make a game-changing strategic move, or will lose.
If McCain really wants to set the alarm bells off he’ll also send Palin to Washington state
FWIW, I saw an interview this morning with Rasmussen where he said Obama was +2% (+/- 3.5%) over McCain in Washington.
_Palin, who will I think in the end become a net liability rather than a plus as she is allowed to speak in front of actual people who might ask questions._
Of course, the irony here is that Obama is not comfortable speaking in front of actual people and taking questions and the media is already downplaying expectations for Obama’s town hall forum.
As a followup to my #36 above, “this post”:http://www.csmonitor.com/patchworknation/csmstaff/2008/0912/its-all-about-palin-electoral-map-in-obama-and-mccain-emails/ seems to indicate Obama’s campaign is more focused on the tactical ground game, while McCain/Palin is still refining their narrative wrt Palin. A necessary step for McCain, but unfortunate that he needs to do it at such a late stage in the election cycle; Obama is reaping a benefit of campaigning for 2 years and having a well-known quantity for Veep.
(It suddenly occurs to me that I might qualify for that silly “concern troll” title, since I’m tossing advice at the McCain camp without intending to vote for him.)
bq. Personally, whether McCain can live long enough to serve out his first term or not, I am so genuinely frightened by the prospects of a Palin Presidency that I would regard giving her even the remotest possibility of becoming president as utter idiocy.
Yeesh. This from the same side that calls the right a bunch of bed-wetters every time they point out the existence of Islamic extremist terrorism? If a PTA mom with an accent causes you to be _genuinely frightened_, I wonder how you manage to live in a world where Putin is a powerbroker without suffering a nervous breakdown.
Palin is certainly not ready to be president. Given that, I can’t fault anyone who doesn’t like her as a VP choice for that reason, but that still doesn’t add up to a compelling reason to vote for Obama.
Palin certainly has things she doesn’t know, but she has demonstrated that she can effectively lead. Obama has demonstrated that he knows things, but not that he can lead.
Ever seen an effective executive? It’s impressive how they can get to a solid plan of action even when they don’t know the details in the discussion. They get advocates for the various positions, ask insightful questions, apply their principles and out pops a reasonable answer.
Ever seen an ineffectual executive? They get bogged down in the details, often revisit previous decisions, fail to bring unhappy factions into line. Nothing productive gets accomplished.
Now, I’m not saying that Obama is destined to be ineffectual. I’m saying we don’t know if he is effective. An effective executive will be able to come up to speed relatively quickly, but I’ve never seen an ineffective executive do anything but flounder. Both clearly present risks, with Obama having a bigger upside and downside. If forced to pick between the two, it would be close but I’d go with the proven leader before the proven thinker.
And, of course, I’m not forced to pick between those two.
_” one only needs to listen to the woman claim that she has expertise on Russian affairs because she can “see” Russia from Alaska,”_
Wait a minute- Gibson _prompted_ the proximity comment.
_”GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple weeks does the proximity of the state give you?”_
_”PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”_
Care to revise your statement?
_”the blank look when asked about the Bush Doctrine”_
Tbe blank look because the question was ridiculously vague, as even “TalkLeft”:http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/11/20922/5391 acknowledges.
This stuff makes her a ‘kook’? Surely there are some actual policy differences that you could point to instead of blunders the _interviewer_ made that Palin had to try and work with?
Jeff: I like the idea of Obama floating some ideas about a cabinet, at least on foreign affairs. IIRC GW Bush had implicitly named Powell at this time. I don’t know if anybody short of a public figure like Powell would make a huge amount of political difference, but personally it would influence my vote.
#53 from Vista:
bq. _”This is a sharply divided country, largely I’d say thanks to our great Commander-in-Chief and his political handlers.”_
America is deeply divided, and I’d give the greatest individual “credit” for that division to Al Gore, for trying to win in the courts what he didn’t win in the election and then for allowing a legend to grow up that he had been robbed rather than accepting defeat and moving on. Mounting a chronic challenge to the legitimacy of a wartime President, treating him as a usurper rather than a lawfully elected leader, has been corrosive.
Since the Left already has the story prepared that if Barak Obama loses it can only be due to white racism, I’d say that radical delegitimization of a successful Republican candidate for the Presidency has become part of the culture of the Left.
That in turn has taken the Left further away from those “Main Street values” Armed Liberal likes, and further from focusing on practical benefits for some of the worse off people in society (though not the unborn, the helplessly incompetent etc., who can be treated as less than human and killed by the millions), which is what he wants.
#53 from Vista:
bq. _”(And David Blue, sorry. “The Kook” I’m referring to in my post is Palin, not Gibson. He’s just a simple idiot. As far as the rest of your rant against Obama, its nothing more than a hateful pack of lies and blather. Marking you down as a Ditto-Head.)”_
This is just a load of cheap and baseless insults.
Including to Charles Gibson, who’s no simple idiot.
On what I said though: I may be wrong. But it’s a reasonable speculation based on chronic surprising mistakes that Barak Obama makes and an obvious strong influence that would push him in that direction. I’m not just insulting the man, I think there is a weakness that’s there to be used the way Lt. Daniel Kaffee used Col. Nathan R. Jessep’s weakness in _A Few Good Men_ (1992): within the bounds of politeness and fair play, keep baiting this phony with invitations to tell us or better yet show us, exactly how he feels about some white bitch daring to challenge him.
I’d bet money he can be had. He’s fumbled too much in this situation for it to be merely a series of uncharacteristic slips.
GK: The Democratic Governor of Illinois agrees with you:
bq. _”The reality is, governors every day have to make decisions for better or for worse. That’s part of the job. It’s an executive position. And it’s a position that is like what you’re going to do when you’re president. Legislators, they do different things. They debate and they pass their bills back and forth,” he said._
bq. _”But governors make decisions, and I think it’s a tactical mistake for the Democrats to question Gov. Palin’s experience when she’s been a governor of a state,” he said. “I don’t think the size of the state is relevant. It’s the kinds of decisions you have to make as governor. They (Democrats) should focus on the issues and why the policies of President Bush ought to be changed and I think that’s what will help Obama win.”_
“Link”:http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palin_experience_defended_by_i.html
Armed Liberal:
bq. “_He needs to stop with the public knifefighting._ While I don’t doubt that he’s good in a room, the public collapse of his “hope” rhetoric onto his “lipstick” rhetoric is something he won’t be able to survive.”
We agree. That’s exactly what I’m hoping for. And the best solution for him is what you recommend.
Personally, I prefer “real clear politics”:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/ they’re electoral page is averages from every state, and you can click and see the date of the poll, and the sample size. They still show Obama with a 273 advantage. What’s interesting over the last few weeks is that even the toss op states are now 2-3 percentages for either Obama or McCain.
That’s not insurmountable, but it’s different from the even ties or .5% differences we saw a month ago.
Sorry, Mark in #65, the McCain campaign offered up Alaska’s proximity to Russia as evidence for her foreign policy credentials some time ago.
“Link”:http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/conventions/27719339.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Thus, no “revisions” necessary, she just repeated what they told her to say. Very impressive.
Too bad no one told her about the Bush Doctrine. Because even if the question was poorly phrased initially, as it was, even when it became quickly clear what Gibson was talking about she had no idea what to say about it.
“Here’s a good commentary on why this is important.”:http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php
Some excerpts:
bq. What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the “Bush Doctrine” exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
bq. Two details in Charles Gibson’s posing of the question were particularly telling. One was the potentially confusing way in which he first asked it. On the page, “the Bush Doctrine” looks different from “the Bush doctrine.” But when hearing the question Palin might not have known whether Gibson was referring to the general sweep of Administration policy — doctrine with small d — or the rationale that connected 9/11 with the need to invade Iraq, the capital-D Doctrine. So initial confusion would be understandable — as if a sports host asked about Favre’s chances and you weren’t sure if he meant previously with the Packers or with the Jets. Once Gibson clarified the question, a person familiar with the issue would have said, “Oh, if we’re talking about the strategy that the President and Condoleezza Rice began laying out in 2002….” There was no such flash of recognition.
bq. The other was Gibson’s own minor mis-statement. American foreign policy has long recognized the concept of preemptive action: if you know somebody is just about to attack you, there’s no debate about the legitimacy of acting first. (This is like “shooting in self-defense.”) The more controversial part of The Bush Doctrine was the idea of preventive war: acting before a threat had fully emerged, on the theory that waiting until it was fully evident would mean acting too late.
bq. Gibson used the word “preemptively” — but if a knowledgeable person had pushed back on that point (“Well, preemption was what John F. Kennedy had in mind in acting against the imminent threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba”), Gibson would certainly have come back to explain the novelty of the “preventive war” point. Because he knows the issue, a minor mis-choice of words wouldn’t get in the way of his real intent.
bq. Sarah Palin did not know this issue, or any part of it. The view she actually expressed — an endorsement of “preemptive” action — was fine on its own merits. But it is not the stated doctrine of the Bush Administration, it is not the policy her running mate has endorsed, and it is not the concept under which her own son is going off to Iraq.
bq. How could she not know this? For the same reason I don’t know anything about European football/soccer standings, player trades, or intrigue. I am not interested enough. And she evidently has not been interested enough even to follow the news of foreign affairs during the Bush era.
_”McCain campaign offered up Alaska’s proximity to Russia as evidence for her foreign policy credentials some time ago.”_
Alllright, but your complaint was that you ‘listened to the woman claim she was an expert’ which is factually false. She hasnt claimed anything. Fine- you have a complaint with the McCain campaign or Gibson, take them to task. But you were criticizing Palin for something that never happened.
_”when it became quickly clear what Gibson was talking about she had no idea what to say about it.”_
Lets skip the commentary and go the the transcript:
_”GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War._
_PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better._
_GIBSON: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?_
_PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country._
Thats your interpretation of ‘nothing to say’? It would appear she knew quite well what he was talking about. But you are seriously contending she has never heard of the Bush Doctrine? Thats what you’re underlying problem is, right? Do you realize how silly that sounds at the end of the day? How desperate to make her into an idiot?
One more reason to think Obama’s 50% black origin has been a positive :
Obama has even less experience than John Edwards, yet got further that Edwards did. This is despite the fact that Obama has deep ties with a wide array of anti-Americans, and Edwards does not.
Maybe Geraldine Ferraro is right.
Fallows presumes too much. He presumes that her hesitation must have been from not recognizing the term, where it could as easily have been looking for a trap in a vaguely-phrased question by an interviewer clearly not in the tank for her. He then uses this questionable premise as the foundation for an entire house of cards superstructure of how Palin is so uninterested in foreign policy that she does not even follow the news on it. Frankly, I find Fallows unconvincing.
Given Fallows’ alignments over the years with Carter (for whom he was a speechwriter), and Nader (he was one of “Nader’s Raiders”), his perspective is unsurprising. I find it just another example of how the media would be better off admitting its biases up front. (A biased position, I should hasten to add, is not necessarily incorrect. I merely make the point that his reaction is typical of those whose views he shares, and thus unsurprising. I tend to give more immediate credit to those whose expressed views cross-cut their biases than those who sound like they’re in an echo chamber.)
I think we can agree that Sarah Palin is a quick learner, and that by the time she gets her hands on Biden, he will be in trouble.
Furthermore, the big career jump has already happened. To go from being a mayor of a town of 9000 to the governor of a state is a bigger delta that from governor to VP candidate. The biggest leap has already happened.
Uh, alchemist? Your link to “RCP’s electoral map”:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/ has Obama up 1 electoral vote, 217 to 216, with 105 as toss-up, as of 1:14 PM EST. I realize it’s probably a gap between the time you posted it and the time I clicked it, and thus not your mistake… but think that means we get to claim a keen insight in calling the gap-closing before the average caught it!
I wasn’t originally going to question the electoral count, I was actually going to comment on RCP’s sliding window used to calculate the average. For states like Ohio which gets polled frequently, their 5-poll window may be sufficient to capture recent trends; for states that are polled less frequently, like “Wisconsin”:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/wi/wisconsin_mccain_vs_obama-549.html , the window still includes polls from back on August 4th–before either convention finished.
I don’t want to regurgitate the whole question of polls and polling methods. Just noting that an average provides an easily-referable estimate which tends to obscure certain data trends. As such I’m skeptical of poll averages, ever since the inclusion of Zogby polls poisoned the data pool and wrecked the analysis over at “electoral-vote.com”:http://www.electoral-vote.com/ in 2004, and turned the site’s proprietor into a bit of a conspiracy theorist based on his early November predictions. (Interestingly, electoral-vote currently has McCain up 2 EV, 268-270; funny how the same basic concept yields different results based on methodology!)
YMMV; just remember the only data point that matters is how they stand on election day.
“Palin is certainly not ready to be president.”
At this moment, that is right. But everyone assumes that McCain is going to die just two weeks after his inauguration (if he wins).
If McCain dies after, say, 3 years, then Palin IS ready, having had 3 years of VP experience.
Furthermore, the last time a VP in his early 40s was suddenly handed the reins when a President died after just a short while in office was when Teddy Roosevelt became President. He was VP for just 4 months, and was President at 42. He did rather well.
I find this whole line of argument analogous to the Obama blunder on how many states there are. I assumed Obama knows how many states there are. You can read into this kind of thing anything you want, but its probably wise to assume a basic level of intelligence and general knowledge in the opposition. The problem the left always seems to have is their assumption that they are so right about everything that anyone who disagrees is either an idiot or Evil.
bq. Thats your interpretation of ‘nothing to say’?
Nope, it’s my interpretation of “had no idea what to say about it.”
bq. But you are seriously contending she has never heard of the Bush Doctrine?
Yes I am. And both her facial expression of surprise and vacuity and her meaningless response supports this interpretation.
bq. Do you realize how silly that sounds at the end of the day?
I’m not sure how silly it might sound to you (or #74) then or at any other time of the day, but I can tell you what is even sillier sounding to me: that anyone can support this person as the VP and potential POTUS. And I’m guessing to more and more Americans after they hear her commentary tonight and afterwords (just read she’s giving her first cable interview to Sean Hannity. Now if that doesn’t speak volumes about this campaign, I don’t know what else does. At least David Blue will be watching I suppose). From what I’ve already heard, there will be a whole new grab-bag of mis-statements and flubs to talk about. Can’t wait for that.
And the media hasn’t even had the chance to revisit Cindy McCains illegal drug use or her hubbies very unseemly backdoor efforts to shield her from prosecution and scrutiny.
The Unbeliever: Yes, those are the “guaranteed” votes at this point in time, with the remaining states in the “toss-up” region. If you scroll down you see the little marker “no toss ups” = Obama 273, McCain 265.
Now some of the states are buffered by VERY old polls. But you can look through the states and see for yourself, which is a plus, and change the map as you think should be appropriate.
#77
Your calculus and analysis is anything but reassuring. Just the opposite, actually.
If we just assume Palin is a divisive figure, we still have the basic issue that the Republicans are excited. A filibuster proof Senate appears unreachable now; Congress is looking more competitive according to Gallup. Why? Because a stong Democratic Congress needs to be competive in purple states.
My “told you so” would be that one of the biggest mistakes the Democratic Presidential candidates made was boycotting FOX.
Alchemist: oops, you’re right, I completely missed that. I blame RCP’s color scheme, the small font, and the way it looked like a table header on a table I was already skimming through as I scrolled down.
If I had more time I’d dig into the differing counts between RCP vs. E-V and their methodology, but that’s more tedium than I’m willing to sit through on a Friday afternoon.
_”I can tell you what is even sillier sounding to me: that anyone can support this person as the VP and potential POTUS”_
Keep making that point. And people will keep wondering what in the world Obama is doing at the _top_ of the ticket. Heck, he doesnt even know how many states there are.
Mark, she can make that point all by herself without any help from me or anyone else.
G_Tarhune:
My only question is whether you think you are making a reasoned argument. I have to think that it’s likely. But the problem is that phrases like, “I can tell you what is even sillier sounding to me: that anyone can support this person as the VP and potential POTUS.” are emotional statements, not an argument, and it’s not going to convince anyone, and it’s not going to end the argument by clearing the room, either. So what exactly is your point? Are you hoping that by calling those of us who disagree with us idiots, dumb, silly, uninformed or any of the other explicit and implicit things you’ve been spouting that we’ll give in and see things your way? Are you hoping to convince bystanders that yours is the superior position because of what you assert about us? How’s that working out for you?
Jeff,
An argument may comprise several distinct parts, some rational, some emotional. I assume that most people who read my posts are capable of sorting out the rational from the emotional components, and are also mature enough to deal with the possibility of being insulted by my comments on the rare occasion when it might happen. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
bq. Are you hoping that by calling those of us who disagree with us idiots, dumb, silly, uninformed or any of the other explicit and implicit things you’ve been spouting
In the interest of future civility and to avoid the possibility of offending anyone’s delicate sensibilities, can you please point out specifically where I’ve called anyone here an “idiot”, “dumb”, “uninformed” or point out the “explicit or implicit things that I’ve been spouting” that offend you so I might purge my commentary of such epithets?
As far as argumentation and the “convincing of bystanders”, I would hope and expect that their recognition of arguments built upon such obvious hyperbole and straw-men would be sufficient.
#60, Jeff Medcalf:
Sure, he’ll come off (or at least be portrayed) as a bit snobby and cocksure for assuming victory, but on the other hand he has the opportunity to claim at least that he is trying to let the American people know exactly how he would govern, and that this election has to be about the issues.
That’s an interesting idea, but it’s a bit risky and depends on something I have no real ability to assess: Just how much has the bitter dog-fight with Clinton obstructed his [campaign’s] ability to think about this?
I think most people intuitively understand the notion that people, or small groups of people, only have a limited amount of collective attention they can pay to the world outside. I also think most people tend to scale that idea badly or incorrectly when thinking about large organizations like Great Big Companies or state- or national-level governments. Well, I work for a Great Big Company, and our inability to focus on multiple issues at one time is a constant source of amazement, and I’m pretty sure that the Obama and McCain campaigns are smaller than the Great Big Company I work for. So my instinct is to believe that the Obama campaign has been forced to short-change their longer range thinking just in order to get to the point where they need the longer range thinking.
That’s just my instinct based on personal experience, of course, but I don’t think it’s an outrageous supposition. So if they rush now, I would further expect them to make a less than optimal choice of cabinet picks, leaving themselves open to attack.
Which also leads me to wonder what the McCain camp will do, if they’re thinking along these lines. Since they’ve been able to devote more time to long-range thinking, they could try to force Obama into making an early declaration, by declaring now.
Or, they can let Obama take as long as he wants and then try to either steal his thunder with a similar announcement twelve hours later, or even take the opportunity to have several picks for the major posts on hand, to play against whoever Obama chooses. (All of which actions, from both sides, run the risk of politicizing the Cabinet posts a little more than I’d prefer to see, to be honest.)
Amen to that.
Also, Jeff, can you explain to me whether you also feel that Mark’s statement to me in #72…
bq. Thats your interpretation of ‘nothing to say’? It would appear she knew quite well what he was talking about. But you are seriously contending she has never heard of the Bush Doctrine? Thats what you’re underlying problem is, right? Do you realize how silly that sounds at the end of the day? How desperate to make her into an idiot?
also qualify as
bq. emotional statements, not an argument, and it’s not going to convince anyone,
??
Um, i made an argument. I posted actual transcripts as opposed to some lefty screed on what they _feel_ the answer meant. You dismissed it out of hand. So yeh, i’d say thats a pretty good example.
The term the ‘Bush Doctrine’ is far to general to agree or disagree with without clarification. Krauthammer used the term before 9/11 to refer to “missile defense.”:http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/03/05/doctrine.html Just check the wikipedia “entry”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-5 and all its sources to see how convoluted the term has become… and which after all is a _media_ term. GW never came out and said ‘here’s my doctrine, love it or leave it’.
I’d be amused, if I weren’t appalled, at the ignorance of so many on the left when it comes to national defense issues.
Palin’s answer to Gibson re: Russia was (as noted by a few people here) elicited by him. It also appeared to be edited so I don’t know what she said overall.
What I *do* know is that Alaskan military air fields scramble jets whenever Russian fighters and bombers challenge our airspace — which happened over a dozen times in the last year alone.
I also know that Alaska hosts a key part of our missile defense system.
There’s a reason the Alaska national guard has the only units that are permanently on active duty. It’s because Russia’s right next door. Because you can see it from here, as the Governor said.
Gibson showed his greatest bias when he shut down any attempt on Gov. Palin’s part to talk about her energy expertise as relevant to national security. Given where we have troops deployed right now, and who is rushing to develop nuclear weapons and the longer range rockets with which to deliver them, I find that rather telling – about Gibson and his buddies in the media business, not about Palin.
G_T,
I did give one example already, where you implied at the very least that anyone supporting Palin is silly. Here’s another, implying idiocy: “I am so genuinely frightened by the prospects of a Palin Presidency that I would regard giving her even the remotest possibility of becoming president as utter idiocy.”
I am, actually, quite difficult to offend. While I can see how you would take that from my comment, I assure you that it is not so. Nor, I would assume, are you being as smugly condescending as your comments indicate at surface reading: the written word, lacking body language and other clues, tends to be starker and more easily charged with the readers’ prejudices than is the spoken word. It’s why it’s so easy to insult people online; they aren’t quite “real” in the visceral way us animals understand with actual social contact.
All of that said, I don’t think that you will end up convincing anyone, and part of the reason why is that your emotional tone, valid though it may be, acts to turn off the ears of anyone not already in emotional tune with you to the rational parts of the argument, such as they are. I am giving you advice — you are, certainly, free to ignore it — that you would get a lot further with less antagonistic responses. That includes asking me to defend the statements of another commenter, who is clearly quite capable of defending himself.