I've found it rather odd recently that it's been considered some kind of stinging rebuke in the comments here to say: "McCain is going to lose, you know" in some form or another.
Yeah, if nothing changes from today, he's going to lose.
Heck, I posted about some of the reasons he's gonna lose if they don't change their strategy (in just the last day they starting taking some of my advice -- you're welcome, Senator McCain!)
I've had many a losing candidate before, and will have many again.
For one side or the other in any election, their candidate is going to lose. Pointing this out does not further the underlying conversation, and is in fact a rather immature way to indicate you've run out of arguments on your end.
The only way it's interesting to make this an argument is if you believe in siding with whoever is going to win (which is something a percentage of the electorate does).
But if you actually, you know, believe in stuff, then a Presidential election is a chance to talk about, oh, the stuff.
As has also been pointed out in comments here, my vote "won't matter" given where I live, and it really won't matter for those who are citizens of strange foreign countries that we will someday invade -- but for this few months, it's a chance to figure out what you believe and what kind of person you can believe in, if any.
In a few weeks someone will be elected and this opportunity to have a conversation that the whole world can understand and participate in will be gone or at least reduced for a few years, because there will no longer be a binary choice between A and B, there will just be lots of stuff going on that will be harder to get a handle on.
And then this will be a blog about lolcats again.
Oct 7 2008, 12:04 am
|
|
Elation
 |
http://rlv.zazzle.com/ obama_cat_change_lolcat_poster_print-p2281642593232051217r_4 00.jpg
|
And then this will be a blog about lolcats again. YES! | |
Speaking of presidential strategy, what is your take on the effects McCain's hyper negative turn is having? As far as I can tell, it isn't helping his numbers (people seem far more concerned about the economy) but is ramping up McCain's negatives. I think this is a bad strategy.
McCain's problem isn't that he wasn't slinging enough mud, it's that his campaign has a fundamental disconnect with weight of the primary concerns of the average American, specifically the economy. The economy has consistently polled to be the largest concern this election, even during the primaries. Yet, it is an area voters see Obama as stronger and McCain has done next to zero to address this issue. Simultaneously, he is from the incumbent party, who is usually held responsible in such events, so he must overcome that burden as well. Yet, so far, his economic stance is contradictory at best (lower spending; support the bailout). Perhaps worse, it undercuts his whole message of campaigning with honor and reeks of typical partisan political attacks. So much for mavericks. And since negatives tend to turn off moderate voters and the maverick angle was their one strong spot (Obama would have annihilated most of the Republican candidates- one reason McCain kept it close was that he had distanced himself from the party), they are driving into a ditch. John McCain should have stood by principle, opposed the bailout scam and urged calmness. He should have put country over politics like he claimed. He may not have won, but I bet it would be closer. Going this road, I foresee Obama by a heavy margin, flipping several swing states. | |
Jmurph wrote:
Speaking of presidential strategy, what is your take on the effects McCain's hyper negative turn is having? As far as I can tell, it isn't helping his numbers (people seem far more concerned about the economy) but is ramping up McCain's negatives. I think this is a bad strategy. I don't know if it's helping, but I don't know that he has a choice. McCain's problem isn't that he wasn't slinging enough mud, it's that his campaign has a fundamental disconnect with weight of the primary concerns of the average American, specifically the economy. I disagree with the first assertion -- any mud they were flinging was being ineffectively flung. We've gotten to this point in the campaign with few people knowing Obama's real background, both because the press tends not to cover it in depth or ask follow-up questions on it. Probably the only thing about Obama's past that's gotten thorough coverage is his connection with Jeremiah Wright...and Wright is just one of the many disturbing connections he has. Therefore one of the best strategies open to McCain is to get more information about Obama's past out there. My anecdotal take is that Palin's ongoing attacks about Ayers are, at minimum, causing the press to talk about that in a bit of depth for the first time. I may post about this, but see this CNN report on Ayers, which is the first time I've seen a mainstream outlet actually get into some of the real details (still many more they didn't cover). I don't know if the Ayers thing will make a difference in the polls, but McCain would be completely irresponsible not to press on it. The economy has consistently polled to be the largest concern this election, even during the primaries. Two problems here: First, McCain didn't tar Obama with the Fannie/Freddie stuff fast enough or handle it or his initial responses to the crisis right...but second, near as I can tell, he just can't win on this. I've now seen multiple discussions where the history of Democratic involvement in the Fannie/Freddie situation is laid out in detail, and the response remains, literally, "Yeah, right, like the Democrats had anything to do with it." I've talked before about factual truth and emotional truth. Factual truth is that Democrats are fully involved in the things that led up to the financial crisis (those that we can reasonably assume contributed) and in the case of Fannie and Freddie are particularly culpable, and that Bush, Clinton, and Republicans (McCain specifically) were defeated in attempts to provide reasonable oversight. There's more to it of course, and there's Republican fault, but it's indisputable that Democrats have a lot to answer for here. But it doesn't matter, because it's not the emotional truth -- it doesn't fit the mental narrative of voters, so McCain can yell until he's blue in the face, it doesn't move things and McCain was getting slaughtered. He couldn't find a way to move the numbers talking about the economy so he had to move to other things. Perhaps worse, it undercuts his whole message of campaigning with honor and reeks of typical partisan political attacks. Eh, people get over it. Obama lied by promising to use public financing of his campaign, no one cares. People hand-wring about negative ads, but in the end they are both the most effective and often the most accurate ads. It's also another factual/emotional truth thing: Obama was putting out many more negative ads than McCain, but was effectively hiding many of them from the press, so McCain was getting hurt and could continue to bleed or could fight back. Anyway, campaigns pretty much always go negative, people always complain, and people always listen to the negative ads more than anything else. John McCain should have stood by principle, opposed the bailout scam and urged calmness. He should have put country over politics like he claimed. Perhaps. I think he did what he felt was best. I don't know what was best -- I'm skeptical of the bailout stuff, I'm scared by people who know more than me and whom I trust who believe it was absolutely necessary -- either to fix something or to avoid a worse attempt to fix things later. I've been hearing all along that the McCain campaign felt the last 5-6 weeks was all that mattered, and would be when they really started pushing certain messages. I didn't know if they really meant that or not, but whether it's coincidence or desperation, we are now seeing them come out with consistent hits on Obama. Maybe it won't work, but if it doesn't, I don't think anything else could right now. | |
Eh, people get over it. Obama lied by promising to use public financing of his campaign, no one cares. People hand-wring about negative ads, but in the end they are both the most effective and often the most accurate ads.
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/ the_public_financing_pledge/ Obama said he'd do it if McCain did. McCain didn't, and as such, he had no reason to continue. The Ayers connection is pure republican bullshit. They met well after Ayer's weatherman days, for reasons not dealing with that fact. You seem to forget that Ayers is a professor now. And Obama's Rezko connection isn't a positive, but if you are going after him for that, go after McCain for his role in the S&L fiasco. Keating five anyone? And Jerimiah wright is insane, so is Palin's Jew/Gay hating minister, but at least Wright's insanity I can understand, but not accept, because contrary to conservative belief, Blacks do not have it easy in America. http://www.nysun.com/editorials/palins-pastor/85166/ | |
Venom Development wrote:
Obama said he'd do it if McCain did. McCain didn't, and as such, he had no reason to continue. Um, no, Obama broke his promise, McCain kept his. McCain is accepting public financing. Again, nobody cares whether they do this or not, but Obama has a long history of talking about the importance of public financing, all the way up to the moment he opted out, because he could make more money by opting out. In other words, he's a normal politican. | |
Deadron wrote:
Venom Development wrote: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/19/ new-mccain-fund-gets-around-donation-limits/ McCain is no better. | |
Venom Development wrote:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/19/ new-mccain-fund-gets-around-donation-limits/ In other words, you were wrong about McCain not taking public financing and you now recognize that. McCain is no better. Any politician would do what either of them is doing...though Obama went the extra mile by getting others, including McCain, to promise to take public financing before he opted out. Given that, McCain would be nuts not to find every way he can to increase his money supply. As Obama said after getting his opponents thrown off the ballet so he could enter politics by running unopposed: “If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people’s business.” Hey, that's rough and tumble Chicago politics, and I respect him for it. That's what a normal, down-and-dirty politician does. | |
"So don’t you dare say anything nasty about George W. Bush and Florida, you liberal hypocrites."
Oh yeah. An article critical of Obama that popped up only after he became the nominee, by an obvious partisan hack. Yeah. No, I think I will look into this...wait, lets see what I found with a little Google power! However, in his book, Freddoso undermines his own assertion that the "incumbent state senator" he referred to during the interview, then-state Sen. Alice Palmer, was "thrown ... off the ballot" on a "technicality," by quoting from a 1996 Chicago Weekend article explaining that Palmer's signatures were disqualified because some of the voters who signed lived outside the 13th district -- a fact Witt did not mention. Additionally, Tribune reporter David Mendell wrote in his book Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, August 2007) that Palmer acknowledged at the time that her signatures had not been properly collected. Gosh darn, That Mean Ol' Obama, getting signatures that legally shouldn't count getting thrown off the ballot. Also, with Ayers, since you ignored my point earlier here is a snippet from factcheck.org "Obama visited Ayer's home in 1995 at the invitation of an Illinois state senator, according to a Feb. 22 story in Politico.com. But Politico concluded, "There’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation." And while we by no means defend or condone bombings of any kind, Clinton strained the facts to make Ayers' 1970s activities sound homicidal." | |
Venom Development wrote:
Oh yeah. An article critical of Obama that popped up only after he became the nominee, by an obvious partisan hack. Yeah. No, I think I will look into this...wait, lets see what I found with a little Google power! Not sure what you are talking about -- if you mean Obama's "If you can win" statement, that's well known and well reported, long before this campaign. I suggest a big more googling. Gosh darn, That Mean Ol' Obama, getting signatures that legally shouldn't count getting thrown off the ballot. Yes, his pattern is using procedural tricks to avoid actually having to run against people. Totally legal, totally standard politician. You can just admit that's his approach -- nothing to be ashamed of. I've posted about McCain's many flaws and such, after all. Also, with Ayers, since you ignored my point earlier here is a snippet from factcheck.org I recommend looking at the CNN video I commented in the last day or so; this is a case where the Fact Check site gets it wrong; they have a much longer and more in-depth relationship, as CNN reported. You can find it here. While I'm as guilty of Google-mining as anyone, I actually do look into this stuff before posting about it -- in this case, I've read quite a lot about the Ayers connection and take it seriously. There are other connections ("He had a Muslim roommate!") that I do not take seriously. | |
Deadron wrote:
Venom Development wrote: Did you totally skip over what I wrote? there was no "technicality" about it, Palmer admitted to getting signatures from outside the district from which she would have been elected Not only that, but the Ayers thing is overdone and overrated. Ayers turned himself in when Obama was 8. Not only that, but Republicans and Democrats alike were on the board with Ayers, and nobody has been able to produce any evidence that they had any meaningful relationship. Seriously, I wonder why almost all criticisms of Obama relate to non-policy things. Actually I think I know, it is because it is clear even to his supporters that McCain has worse positions on the issues, and would be worse for the country, but hey! we can't let a | |
Venom Development wrote:
Did you totally skip over what I wrote? there was no "technicality" about it, Palmer admitted to getting signatures from outside the district from which she would have been elected That's sort of the definition of a technicality. I said it was legal and I respected him for engaging in this kind of politics -- what would you like me to add? He found a way to get his opponents thrown off the ballet so he could get elected without opposition -- good for him. "If you can win, you should win..." People have made citizenship claims about both Obama and McCain -- if tomorrow McCain found a way to throw Obama off the ballet in a totally legal fashion, you'll be cool with that, right? Not only that, but the Ayers thing is overdone and overrated. Ayers turned himself in when Obama was 8. Not only that, but Republicans and Democrats alike were on the board with Ayers, and nobody has been able to produce any evidence that they had any meaningful relationship. I've repeatedly pointed to evidence of more than that, and won't repeat myself again today -- maybe another day! Seriously, I wonder why almost all criticisms of Obama relate to non-policy things. Not true at all -- I actually read lots of discussion and blogs from all sides of the aisle, and I've found that while Democrats tend to have a one-sided view of both Obama and McCain, conservatives tend to have a nuanced view of both. They know the good and bad about Obama and McCain from both a policy and a personality perspective, and have made their choice with both in mind (not always for McCain, either); they can also tend to articulate what they will and won't like if either candidate is elected. I've already posted about some of the policy items, repeatedly, but if I get a chance I'll do a post summarizing that this weekend. we can't let a I really feel for you, Obama, Barney Frank, Charles Rengel, and the other Democrats and Democratic officials who have had to resort to race-baiting recently. It's terrible to be in a position where that's what you've got left to argue with. I might recommend throwing in "Nazi" occasionally, as that might raise the level of debate. | |
Deadron wrote:
Venom Development wrote: When somebody doesn't abide by the rules set, then there is no "technicality" about it. People have made citizenship claims about both Obama and McCain -- if tomorrow McCain found a way to throw Obama off the ballet in a totally legal fashion, you'll be cool with that, right? Nope, and I would object to doing it to McCain also. Not only that, but the Ayers thing is overdone and overrated. Ayers turned himself in when Obama was 8. Not only that, but Republicans and Democrats alike were on the board with Ayers, and nobody has been able to produce any evidence that they had any meaningful relationship.I've repeatedly pointed to evidence of more than that, and won't repeat myself again today -- maybe another day! Right wing blogs with conjecture easily disproven by simple googling more reliable sources doesn't count. Seriously, I wonder why almost all criticisms of Obama relate to non-policy things.Not true at all -- I actually read lots of discussion and blogs from all sides of the aisle, and I've found that while Democrats tend to have a one-sided view of both Obama and McCain, conservatives tend to have a nuanced view of both. They know the good and bad about Obama and McCain from both a policy and a personality perspective, and have made their choice with both in mind (not always for McCain, either); they can also tend to articulate what they will and won't like if either candidate is elected. I've already posted about some of the policy items, repeatedly, but if I get a chance I'll do a post summarizing that this weekend. Deadron, I will say this, Out of all the conservative blogs that I read, yours is probably the one that actually deals with issues occasionally (Not counting wedge issues like Abortion which never will get changed) we can't let a Race-baiting would be calling Obama a N-----. I was simply trying to figure out the hatred that most conservatives have for Obama, and I really shouldn't have put that here since I don't think you really have a problem with that, but if you honestly don't think certain people are more hostile to Obama because of the amount of Melanin in his skin, then you are mistaken. I might recommend throwing in "Nazi" occasionally, as that might raise the level of debate. Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein McCain! | |
Venom Development wrote:
Right wing blogs with conjecture easily disproven by simple googling more reliable sources doesn't count. Right wing blogs like...CNN. if you honestly don't think certain people are more hostile to Obama because of the amount of Melanin in his skin, then you are mistaken. Well, let's go to the numbers...hmm, you are right! Poll: Racial misgivings of Dems an Obama issue Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.... Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown. Well now I guess we know who "certain people" are -- sobering! | |
"Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice."
Wow! So that would be what, like 58% to 42%? "Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment." Well, now I know that if asked if certain words apply to white people, I guess I can respond ignorant about 10-30% of the time. "Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes — including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers. Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain. Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes." Which supports my disgust at Clinton for employing the very same tactics at the end of her campaign that McCain is utilizing now. If McCain loses, and I am not sure he will, it should be because people disagreed with him on the issues. Same goes for if he wins. | |
Jmurph wrote:
If McCain loses, and I am not sure he will, it should be because people disagreed with him on the issues. Same goes for if he wins. If Obama wins, it would be nice if it were on the issues -- but my impression is that most Obama supporters know little about his actual stance on the issues (especially his new stances on most of the issues since the primaries), and are voting for him as someone who is young, energetic, a good speaker and representing change. What change he represents they don't really know, and they can't really know since he's never really done much of substance in his life, but it's probably good change so nothing to worry about... If he wins, there will be some definite positives -- from my perspective, mostly related to (hopefully) reducing race as a factor for the country. One of the downsides may be, as we've seen at times with the Supreme Court, encouraging the idea of people running for the highest offices with "no paper trail" so no one can pin them on anything. | |
Little late, but yeah, I'm rather convinced that a liberal win in the coming U.S. election isn't as likely as people think. People have it pegged as if the odds of McCain winning are slim to none. I however feel that the election will be quite close -- I wouldn't feel comfortable putting it as any more than 50/50 myself.
That said, Obama does have a fairly strong "substance". I'm quoting an IRC conversation at the moment, FWIW, but it's rather accurate. * 3 years as a community organizer * President of the Harvard Law Review (also the first black president of this review board ever, if race is an issue) * created voter registration drive that registered 150,000 new voters * 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor * 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people * chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee * 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people: ** sponsoring 131 bills ** serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works, and Veteran's Affairs committees | |
Jtgibson wrote:
That said, Obama does have a fairly strong "substance". I'm quoting an IRC conversation at the moment, FWIW, but it's rather accurate. Amazingly, with all that, he accomplished: - No substantive publications, something unheard of for an editor of the Harvard law review and a law professor. - Almost total failure as a community organizer (as he himself admits in his memoirs). - Total failure running the Annenburg challenge (so much so that supporters tend to leave that out of his biography). - No substantive legislation (the few "substantive" things were so non-controversial they required no debate and were designed to bolster his image). - A pattern of avoiding votes on controversial issues. - Chairman of at least one committee that has never even met. Sponsoring bills, by the way, is not an "accomplishment", especially when in almost all cases he was simply signing his name to a bill someone else put together and that was already set to pass. When it comes down to it, his accomplishments are basically non-existent, especially given his resume. | |
Deadron wrote:
Jtgibson wrote: Okay, Now lets list all of McCains accomplisments -McCain/Feingold - | |