Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Your first mistake is trying to seperate media and blog-created issues from the campaigns. Both sides generally latch onto those bits of information and quickly create ads surrounding those issues. If you want to know their policy choices, you're much better off going to their sites and reading them for yourself.

ahh screw that. can i sell my vote on eBay?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

AP already has a "questionable" reputation when it comes to fairness down the stretch in political elections and this article doesn't help that cause much. You can post articles in support/opposition of a candidate, but resorting to the race card when nothing is there is silly and hurts the AP's credibility.

much like obama's lipstick on a pig comment, right?

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm just saying its funny saying you are voting for someone because he won't run a negative campaign when the big political story of the day is that that candidate is going to get into the muck and go negative big time.

As its already be stated in the thread, the negative and false ads from the other camp sparked his response. Those ads will sway voters despite them being unfounded and factually incorrect. I liked the fact that he tried to stay away from running a negative campaign for the most part but at this stage I agree with the fight fire with fire mentality, even though I don't like negative ads. I guess what I am saying is that I can understand why he would hit back.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The problem as I see it is that the liberal-leaning media is dishonest in that they refuse to admit any political leanings when their work indicates otherwise. I'd be floored if you could find a Conservative/Republican support who won't admit that FOXNews leans right and the network itself is pretty open about those leanings.

hence their tagline of Fair and Balanced that can only be explained by the right wing fans as Sarcasm.

[larrymcg421]

This is what John McCain said previously about the Rev. Wright issue:

I'm making it very clear, as I have a couple of times in the past, that there's no place for that kind of campaigning, and the American people don't want it.

I only post it here as a point of reference, noting that it is now October, and John McCain is 7 points behind.

[ISiddiqui]

Remember how Obama dealt with the Wright issue (even when Wright went crazy)? That's what he needs to do now with the Ayers/Rezko stuff. Him flying off the handle and going all negative makes it look bad for someone who basically tried to say he was above the fray (a post-partisan).

[Kodos]

Obama can't be afraid to go negative like John Kerry and Michael Dukakis were. We see what that got them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Obama can't be afraid to go negative like John Kerry and Michael Dukakis were. We see what that got them.

Kerry's problem is that he never dealt with the swiftboating until it was waaay too late, not that he didn't go negative. I fear people have taken the wrong lessons from that election.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by mtolson

As its already be stated in the thread, the negative and false ads from the other camp sparked his response. Those ads will sway voters despite them being unfounded and factually incorrect. I liked the fact that he tried to stay away from running a negative campaign for the most part but at this stage I agree with the fight fire with fire mentality, even though I don't like negative ads. I guess what I am saying is that I can understand why he would hit back.

Let's not pretend he's above the fray though. The fact is that Obama apparently has an edge in the polls. If the normal chain of events continue, he'd end up being president, so he doesn't need to do anything other than what he had been doing. McCain is going into attack mode because he's hoping to change the normal course of events. If Obama was the one down 7 points, I think you'd see the two sides swap places as far as initiating attacks (heck, it wasn't that long ago that Obama gave the green light to the 527's).

[larrymcg421]

I agree to a point, but I think there's a point where you have to fight fire with fire. If he doesn't, then the criticism will be that he didn't fight back (see: Dukakis). I mean, John McCain has built his reputation on being above the fray as well, so why does he get a pass for going negative? What happened to the John McCain that ranted against this stuff in 2000, 2002, and 2004? This is just more proof that the "maverick" John McCain that I used to have a ton of respect for is not the same person that is running in 2008.

Furthermore, I don't think tying McCain to a Savings and Loan scandal will be seen in quite the same way as saying Obama pals around with terrorists, especially since it seems more relevant to what is currently affecting voters. Still, I actually welcome McCain to go negative with these kinds of attacks. If he keeps that up instead of hammering home important economic recovery messages, then he will suffer the same fate as Herbert Hoover and George Bush Sr.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, he SHOULD fight against the allegations. And he SHOULD say McCain is trying to deal with stupid shit instead of the issues. Going after McCain on Keating is dumb, dumb, dumb though.

First and foremost because McCain's response to Keating scandel is probably one of the most powerful stories of his political career. He was down and out as a result of a scandel and decided that politics was messed up and that's when he decided to become a reformer and change politics so something like that would never happen again. It's kind of a "born again" story and people tend to like those.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd agree in regards to the 2-3 years after 9/11, but I'd totally disagree after that. There's been nothing even remotely weak-kneed about their coverage since then.

I disagree. There are plenty of issues where a real media, let alone a biased one, would have at the very least asked some tough questions. Torture and telecom immunity come to mind. Bush got virtually a free pass on both.

(And yes, I realize that has as much to do with the media deciding that the public wouldn't be interesting in boring stuff like privacy rights. That's still not the behaviour of a biased media.)

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, he SHOULD fight against the allegations. And he SHOULD say McCain is trying to deal with stupid shit instead of the issues. Going after McCain on Keating is dumb, dumb, dumb though.

First and foremost because McCain's response to Keating scandel is probably one of the most powerful stories of his political career. He was down and out as a result of a scandel and decided that politics was messed up and that's when he decided to become a reformer and change politics so something like that would never happen again. It's kind of a "born again" story and people tend to like those.

I agree. Plus, it shows his ability to reach across the aisle, and work with members of the opposing party!

[larrymcg421]

Look, I'd certainly be happy if he didn't go negative, but I guess what I'm wondering is why you're giving free pass to McCain? This whole discussion started based on the idea that it was a mistake for Obama to go negative because he's a different kind of candidate that is above those kinds of tactics. However, isn't that also McCain's MO? I mean, he's the "maverick" and has even tried to co-opt Obama's change message.

[larrymcg421]

McCain campaign announcing Medicare cuts.

Is he trying to lose the election?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, he SHOULD fight against the allegations. And he SHOULD say McCain is trying to deal with stupid shit instead of the issues. Going after McCain on Keating is dumb, dumb, dumb though.

First and foremost because McCain's response to Keating scandel is probably one of the most powerful stories of his political career. He was down and out as a result of a scandel and decided that politics was messed up and that's when he decided to become a reformer and change politics so something like that would never happen again. It's kind of a "born again" story and people tend to like those.

Except McCain seems to now be changing his story. In a call this morning his lawyer now alleges that the whole investigation was a partisan witchhunt. It's a very starnge turn when the redemption story was pretty powerful. From Mark Halperin:

McCain attorney John Dowd attempts to set the record straight on McCain and the Keating Five scandal in a media call.

Describes his former relationship with Charles Keating as "social friends," calls situation a "classic political smear job on John."

Thinks that the committee went too far in suggesting that McCain's intervention with regulators was poor judgment.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Look, I'd certainly be happy if he didn't go negative, but I guess what I'm wondering is why you're giving free pass to McCain? This whole discussion started based on the idea that it was a mistake for Obama to go negative because he's a different kind of candidate that is above those kinds of tactics. However, isn't that also McCain's MO? I mean, he's the "maverick" and has even tried to co-opt Obama's change message.

Cause McCain, if he stands pat, loses big. It's an attempt to throw whatever at Obama and hope that it sticks. I think those that ask isn't McCain also has problems with these attacks aren't looking at the polls... and how you act depending on where the polls are trending.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

McCain campaign announcing Medicare cuts.

Is he trying to lose the election?

Or more likely, he's making sure his mouth isn't writing checks that his ass can't cash. Obama would be wise to do the same and admit that the current situation makes it very unlikely that universal health care would have a chance of becoming reality.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's disappointing that it's has become common for you to respond to a substantive post that takes apart one of your own by dismissing it with a Limbaugh-style contentless retort. You've been in radio too long, Cam.

Actually I didn't think there was much in the post worthy of my time or attention, with one exception that I needed to think about before I answered. However, I'll go ahead and respond point by point, though I really do think that the level of political discourse on this board has fallen way off from 2004. I may not have ever agreed with JohnGalt, but at least the guy made me think. There are a few others still posting who can make me think, but the vast majority of this thread has been taken up with people who think their original contribution to the political debate is to repeat the talking points they take in throughout the day. The main problem I have with this thread is that you make a serious and substantive post, but you may have to spend a page and a half responding to morons before someone makes a substantive rebuttal to your original post. I have better things to do with my time, including playing with my kids, talking politics with my neighbors, taking my wife out to dinner, and watching "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" (which is what I did yesterday while not responding).

Be that as it may, here's your point by point substantive response to Larry.

Larry says he wasn't trying to introduce moral equivalency into the discussion by bringing up Liddy in response to Ayers. I think Larry's either an incredible moron, or being completely disingenuous. I'm going to go with option #2, but again, why should I waste my time responding to someone who's going to completely ignore any reasonable point I make? I acknowledged Larry's point, but he wasn't willing to offer me the same courtesy. At that point discussion can only devolve into argument, and we all know how satisfying arguing on the internet can be.

Larry says McCain appearing on Liddy's radio show after Liddy's comments about shooting federal agents in the head reflect poorly on McCain, but he's not willing to make the same statement about Barack Obama appearing in William Ayers home after Ayers had signed his name to a declaration of war on the United States, and had participated in a movement that led to the death of a San Francisco police officer. Again, on the one hand we see Larry bringing up Liddy as a counter-example of McCain, but only to bludgeon McCain while refusing to hold Obama to the same standard, and without any compelling logical reason why it is fair to do so. If we're going to begin saying that a politicians appearance on a talk show implies affirmation of the host's opinion, we're going to see a radical change in the make up of guests on shows across the country.

Larry says since McCain is a "maverick" and "different from your usual Republican", he's supposed to be better than making an attack on the Obama/Ayers connection. I just don't buy it. I think Obama has had a friendly relationship with a guy who I find reprehensible. Obama was 8 when Bill Ayers was setting off bombs. I wasn't even born, but I wouldn't be chums with a fella like that.

Larry says he's excited about Obama because:

1) He's exciting (and he's exciting because he's a great candidate)

2) He represents a much better chance to get things done that Larry thinks this country needs.

That's Larry's opinion, and considering how well thought out and articulated it is, I won't try to sway him.

The one interesting bit in Larry's post was the last remark he made, about not being sure you can claim that Ayers "lost".

Well all I hear from conservatives is that the only reason we lost Vietnam is because our troops didn't get support stateside. If that's the case, then I'm not sure you can claim that Ayers "lost".

I originally thought this was more along the lines of what my original post was all about (when I faulted society more than Obama for rehabilitating Ayers' image), but realized Larry was speaking only of the outcome in Vietnam and not the "Revolution" at home. It's another indiciation that Larry doesn't know a thing about Ayers or the Weather Underground. Vietnam was the catalyst, but not the Cause of the WU. From their Port Huron statement:

The search for truly democratic alternatives to the present, and a commitment to social experimentation with them, is a worthy and fulfilling human enterprise, one which moves us and, we hope, others today. On such a basis do we offer this document of our convictions and analysis: as an effort in understanding and changing the conditions of humanity in the late twentieth century, an effort rooted in the ancient, still unfulfilled conception of man attaining determining influence over his circumstances of life.

One petty little war was chump change compared to the radical societal changes Ayers and his buddies hoped to bring about. While it's true that Ayers, his wife, Tom Hayden and others have successfully rehabilitated their image, they've done so by placing themselves in ultra-liberal enclaves in which their views are perfectly at home. Bill Ayers fits in well in Hyde Park (as does Obama). He wouldn't fit in so well in Weatherford, Oklahoma. That's ultimately why Ayers matters. Hell, we still argue over the Confederate flag... why wouldn't some of us be concerned about any type of association between an unapologetic domestic terrorist and a presidential candidate?

Finally, I don't think it's become "common" for me to respond to a substantive post with dismissive comments. I think I've done it twice in this thread, and apologized for one statement. I think you're actually overestimating the number of truly substantive posts in this thread. This really has become a political circle jerk, and there are much better places online and in the real world to have a political discussion with Obama supporters who still have their heads screwed on straight. I need to remember that when I'm tempted to read this thread.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Going after McCain on Keating is dumb, dumb, dumb though.

First and foremost because McCain's response to Keating scandel is probably one of the most powerful stories of his political career. He was down and out as a result of a scandel and decided that politics was messed up and that's when he decided to become a reformer and change politics so something like that would never happen again. It's kind of a "born again" story and people tend to like those.

Even more interesting is the fact that Obama finds McCain's activities in the Keating 5 to be disgraceful, yet he is happy to have another one of the Keating 5 (John Glenn) on his side campaigning for Obama. It makes it blatently obvious that it's politics as usual rather than any sincere outrage at the situation. Very inconsistant message being delivered.

[SirFozzie]

Polls out today:
PA Morning call daily tracker:
Obama 49
McCain 38

SUSA New Hampshire:
Obama 53
McCain 40

SUSA Virginia:
Obama 53
McCain 43

Suffolk Virginia:
Obama 51
McCain 39


The Ayers stuff, if it's going to work, needs to start soon to arrest the McCain slide

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Polls out today:
PA Morning call daily tracker:
Obama 49
McCain 38

SUSA New Hampshire:
Obama 53
McCain 40

SUSA Virginia:
Obama 53
McCain 43

Suffolk Virginia:
Obama 51
McCain 39


The Ayers stuff, if it's going to work, needs to start soon to arrest the McCain slide

Would you mind posting the demographic data on those polls? I'd be interested to see the breakdown on those numbers. Thanks.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think you're actually overestimating the number of truly substantive posts in this thread.

I can't really argue with that. But when people feel the need to post about every possible Obama/McCain news story and argue about it incessantly, it tends to turn into something like this. And it just so happens that there are a lot more vocal Obama supporters than McCain ones on the boards. I don't know how exactly you propose to turn that around. I haven't exactly done my part so far to keep it from devolving, so I'll try to increase my personal quotient of intelligent discourse as opposed to "Obama r0x0rs" posts.

I've always respected you as a debater, Cam, even when you've pissed me off beyond rationality. Your continued participation in the thread is greatly valued, at least by me.

[Tigercat]

The financial crisis is going to end up being a stroke of luck for Obama like the advent of the televised debate was for Kennedy. Its all about Image, and after 8 years of Bush and the financial crisis, many undecideds are probably willing to just vote the candidate who's image says "change." Obama would be that candidate even if he didn't use the word change ever other sentence. Without the financial crisis the image of Obama as too much of something different might have been what would sink him in the voting booth.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Polls out today:

The PA & VA numbers seem a bit higher than I'd expect, but NH seems about right. I never quite understood why people thought McCain would really compete in NH. The NH of 20 years ago, maybe, but there's a large portion of NH's population who are just basically commuters from Boston.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Would you mind posting the demographic data on those polls? I'd be interested to see the breakdown on those numbers. Thanks.

Picked it up from 538.. I'll see what I can do.

edit: SurveyUSA Virginia (SurveyUSA Election Poll #14502)

and Suffolk Virginia: Suffolk University - October 6, 2008

And SurveyUSA New Hampshire http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2...hnson-in-1964/

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Larry says he wasn't trying to introduce moral equivalency into the discussion by bringing up Liddy in response to Ayers. I think Larry's either an incredible moron, or being completely disingenuous. I'm going to go with option #2, but again, why should I waste my time responding to someone who's going to completely ignore any reasonable point I make? I acknowledged Larry's point, but he wasn't willing to offer me the same courtesy. At that point discussion can only devolve into argument, and we all know how satisfying arguing on the internet can be.

My point was that while what Ayers may have done is worse than what Liddy has done, Obama's link to Ayers isn't nearly as strong as the link McCain has with Liddy. Furthermore, Obama has denounced Ayers while McCain has called Liddy a patriot. If Obama hadn't denounced Ayers, then I would agree with you.

Larry says McCain appearing on Liddy's radio show after Liddy's comments about shooting federal agents in the head reflect poorly on McCain, but he's not willing to make the same statement about Barack Obama appearing in William Ayers home after Ayers had signed his name to a declaration of war on the United States, and had participated in a movement that led to the death of a San Francisco police officer. Again, on the one hand we see Larry bringing up Liddy as a counter-example of McCain, but only to bludgeon McCain while refusing to hold Obama to the same standard, and without any compelling logical reason why it is fair to do so. If we're going to begin saying that a politicians appearance on a talk show implies affirmation of the host's opinion, we're going to see a radical change in the make up of guests on shows across the country.

Already dealt with Obama appearing in Ayers home. It was organized by State Senator Alice Palmer, and it is not even known that he knew about actions that Ayers committed when he was 8 years old.

Larry says since McCain is a "maverick" and "different from your usual Republican", he's supposed to be better than making an attack on the Obama/Ayers connection. I just don't buy it. I think Obama has had a friendly relationship with a guy who I find reprehensible. Obama was 8 when Bill Ayers was setting off bombs. I wasn't even born, but I wouldn't be chums with a fella like that.

Obama condemned Ayers actions. McCain has not condemned Liddy's actions or comments.

Larry says he's excited about Obama because:

1) He's exciting (and he's exciting because he's a great candidate)

2) He represents a much better chance to get things done that Larry thinks this country needs.

That's Larry's opinion, and considering how well thought out and articulated it is, I won't try to sway him.

I wasn't trying to make any well thought out or articulated opinion. I was simply responding to the idea that you seem to think all liberals think Obama is some sort of hero. I don't think he's perfect, and I actually supported Hillary early in the primaries. I'm simply explaining why liberals are excited about him, because he's not dead weight like Kerry or Dukakis.

The one interesting bit in Larry's post was the last remark he made, about not being sure you can claim that Ayers "lost".



I originally thought this was more along the lines of what my original post was all about (when I faulted society more than Obama for rehabilitating Ayers' image), but realized Larry was speaking only of the outcome in Vietnam and not the "Revolution" at home. It's another indiciation that Larry doesn't know a thing about Ayers or the Weather Underground. Vietnam was the catalyst, but not the Cause of the WU. From their Port Huron statement:



One petty little war was chump change compared to the radical societal changes Ayers and his buddies hoped to bring about. While it's true that Ayers, his wife, Tom Hayden and others have successfully rehabilitated their image, they've done so by placing themselves in ultra-liberal enclaves in which their views are perfectly at home. Bill Ayers fits in well in Hyde Park (as does Obama). He wouldn't fit in so well in Weatherford, Oklahoma. That's ultimately why Ayers matters. Hell, we still argue over the Confederate flag... why wouldn't some of us be concerned about any type of association between an unapologetic domestic terrorist and a presidential candidate?

Because he, uh, denounced him. If he hadn't done so, then I'd understand. But there's absolutely nothing that supports any kind of notion that Obama shares the views Ayers held back then. The links between the two are very, very slight.

Finally, I don't think it's become "common" for me to respond to a substantive post with dismissive comments. I think I've done it twice in this thread, and apologized for one statement. I think you're actually overestimating the number of truly substantive posts in this thread. This really has become a political circle jerk, and there are much better places online and in the real world to have a political discussion with Obama supporters who still have their heads screwed on straight. I need to remember that when I'm tempted to read this thread.

Look, I debated you point by point. You may not like what I had to say, but saying that I'm not making substantive posts as your excuse to ignore my rebuttal to you is really lame. I'm also not going to use your little cute debate tactic of presenting two options as the reason for my response, one of them being a direct insult, and then saying it's probably the other one. That's just weak. How about the fact that I simply disagree with you? And I gave the reasons why in a post that responded to everything you said.

Furthermore, I don't think it's accurate to say I can't see negatives with Obama. You may want to imply that because I don't agree that there is a connection with Ayers, but this is just one issue and your assu,ption is way off base. I participated in an exercise with ISiddiqui where we switched sides, and I made two substantive posts where I think I hit Obama pretty hard in a lot of different areas.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, I appreciate your response, Cam. I found it more thoughtful than your initial post on the subject, though I still disagree with you on the Liddy/Ayers comparison.


It does bring up an interesting question, though: can we believe in rehabilitation? Cam points out that Ayers has never apologies for his actions or recanted what he said and did, but clearly outside of this he's carved a role for himself in society that has (at least) probably done some good. After all, that's what his participation in the forum (linked by someone else) was all about. Should a politician necessarily avoid anyone like this, or are there gradations?

Likewise Liddy & McCain. Liddy's never apologized for what he did, although unlike Ayers, he did serve time. Unlike Ayers, his rhetorical flourishes have come significantly more recently. But perhaps they're obviously rhetorical. I'd have to imagine that the only reason McCain's appearance with Liddy (and calling him a "patriot") won't get more exposure is because most people would just view what he said as normal right-wing radio tripe. Perhaps it was.


Since modern American politics is all about cherry-picking examples and then blowing them out of proportion to swing the electorate, it's not surprising that there's a lack of substantive debate on the issues, especially when most people are convinced that not much will change anyway. Sad, but true.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

The financial crisis is going to end up being a stroke of luck for Obama like the advent of the televised debate was for Kennedy. Its all about Image, and after 8 years of Bush and the financial crisis, many undecideds are probably willing to just vote the candidate who's image says "change." Obama would be that candidate even if he didn't use the word change ever other sentence. Without the financial crisis the image of Obama as too much of something different might have been what would sink him in the voting booth.

I agree that it clinches the election for Obama, but the same factors probably doom him in 2012. He can't deliver close to what he promises in this environment.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree that it clinches the election for Obama, but the same factors probably doom him in 2012. He can't deliver close to what he promises in this environment.

Yeah, it's an interesting problem to have. If things continue, it likely gives him the election while handcuffing his presidency to the point where he'll have to create a new record deficit if he actually wants to deliver on even half of his promises.

[flere-imsaho]

Of course, if the economy is out of a recession by 2012, that could conceivably be a big selling point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Picked it up from 538.. I'll see what I can do.

edit: SurveyUSA Virginia (SurveyUSA Election Poll #14502)

and Suffolk Virginia: Suffolk University - October 6, 2008

And SurveyUSA New Hampshire SurveyUSA » Blog Archive » In New Hampshire, Obama May Out-Perform Every Democratic Presidential Candidate Since Lyndon Johnson in 1964

A number of note was that the Suffolk poll had 45% of those polled listed as being Democrat. That seems extremely high. At best, you should see something in the 38-39% range. But I may be missing something in those numbers.

Thanks for posting those numbers.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Of course, if the economy is out of a recession by 2012, that could conceivably be a big selling point.

That's true. It could be like 1984 or 1996 for him. Of course, things don't recover right away, which is why 1982 was a disaster for the GOP and 1994 was a disaster for the Dems. So the Dems should definitely be worried about 2010.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Of course, if the economy is out of a recession by 2012, that could conceivably be a big selling point.

If Obama was elected and managed to do that in only 4 years, he would deserve 4 more years. It would be a minor miracle given the depths of this problem. It's not going to resolve itself anytime soon, no matter what the government does.

[Arles]

Whomever is president is going to have a tough initial 2 years. If it's Obama, it won't be quite as tough as I feel he will get atleast 6-8 months of "honeymoon" from most in the media. Still, the 2010 election will go against the party in power. So, whomever wins the White House will probably lose seats in the congress. The more I look at this, the more 1992 seems eerily similar to 2008:

1. Fresh, new upstart democrat going against a fossil republican having issues with the base (ie, read my lips).
2. Democrat promises middle class tax cut, health care reform, getting out of Iraq (although, it had been pretty much down by 1992).
3. We are in the midst of a recession (close to one in 08) and financial crisis (S&L ended a little earlier than the 92 election, but still there).
4. Republican in the White House and the democrats control both houses of congress.

What ended up happening is Clinton won, immediately realized there would be no middle class tax cut (and raised taxes more than he planned). The economy didn't rebound and set up a major win for the republicans in congress in 1994. I could see this happening in 2010 for the republicans after an Obama win (which I would put at about 80% likely right now). Outside of the Perot factor, everything seems very similar.

Now, Clinton went on to win re-election in 1996 and we had a very strong economic recovery. So, from that point, history could be kind to Obama if he wins re-election. But, the first two years of Obama will probably not look all that good (or McCain, for that matter if he wins).

[Daimyo]

As an Obama supporter, I have no problem admitting that I am disappointed in the campaign running the Keating Economics attack ad. I think its bad form and a poor strategic move. He wipes the floor with McCain on the issues that matter most right now and they should really just stick to emphasizing that.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

As an Obama supporter, I have no problem admitting that I am disappointed in the campaign running the Keating Economics attack ad. I think its bad form and a poor strategic move. He wipes the floor with McCain on the issues that matter most right now and they should really just stick to emphasizing that.

I think you're right. Not to but Obama is well ahead on the scorecard in the final round and he just needs to dance around the ring and take his victory. People trust him more on the economy and a lot of people like him. Why go toe-to-toe in the final 3-4 weeks when the status quo gives you the election?

All Obama needed to do was come out today and say "It seems John McCain is resorting to the swift boat tactics that republicans always seem to reach for at this point. It's disappointing given his earlier comments about staying out of negative attacks, but not all that surprising. I guess the "Maverick" is a lot more like the normal politician than we all thought."

Then, let the independent groups slam him on Keating. The best parallel is the Michael Moorer - Foreman fight. Foreman was done and all Moorer had to do was dance around him and win the title. Instead, he decided to give a disparate, flailing man a puncher's chance and go toe-to-toe in the final rounds. Now, one small gaff by Obama or Biden that elicits sympathy for McCain/Palin could swing a group of independents attracted to Obama's "change" mantra. It's a very dangerous (and somewhat pointless) game for someone who is in the lead to play.

If this ends up hurting Obama and McCain wins, the Palin "rope-a-dope" attack on Obama may go down as one of the more shrewd moves in political history. Many democrats are terrified of another "swift boating" and feel the need to go in swinging this time. As someone (I think it was Molson) said earlier, that's not the reason the swiftboat worked against Kerry.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

As an Obama supporter, I have no problem admitting that I am disappointed in the campaign running the Keating Economics attack ad. I think its bad form and a poor strategic move. He wipes the floor with McCain on the issues that matter most right now and they should really just stick to emphasizing that.

I agree, and furthermore I would just hope for a higher road from team Obama. (Higher road as in focus on issues even in the face of personal negative attacks.) Although I still don't think they will come close to going as far as the Clinton/Carville team did in '92.

[Young Drachma]

I think they're scared of being swiftboated at the end and I think the Keating stuff is more a clarion call to McCain's people in effect saying "you don't wanna go there on the shady dealings, because if you wanna go, we'll go toe to toe."

Not voting for either and while I don't like it, I think they probably have to make sure they never looked like they're getting punk'd in the media for fear of letting the story turn away from the economy to something more favorable to McCain's turf.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think they're scared of being swiftboated at the end and I think the Keating stuff is more a clarion call to McCain's people in effect saying "you don't wanna go there on the shady dealings, because if you wanna go, we'll go toe to toe."

Swift boating worked because the war was the main item and Kerry was A) extremely unlikeable and B) never handled it well in a response.

This McCain-Palin attack on Obama with Ayers/"air-raiding villages" has either already been handled or is meaningless in this economic climate. People like Obama and I think a lot want to root for him. Why give them a reason to start disliking him and feel all his "change" and "politics of hope" comments are just lip service?

for fear of letting the story turn away from the economy to something more favorable to McCain's turf.

By responding they've just done that. Having a "who's skeletons are worse" debate when the economy is a mess and democrats are winning that debate is extremely stupid. Now, the next week it's going to be the right-leaning media slamming Obama on Ayers/Wright/killing civilians comment and the left will be all about Keating. Why do this when the economy is a big winner for Obama right now? Like a former likeable democrat presidential candidate said, "It's the economy, stupid".

[JPhillips]

As long as Obama doesn't devote his speeches to Keating this is fine. The video is designed to force the media to say, "but McCain's got his own problems..." when discussing McCain's attacks. If it becomes the central focus of Obama's campaign I think he's made a big mistake, but if it's just a one day web event it seems pretty smart to me.

[flere-imsaho]

I would have thought one of the major reasons for the Keating ads would be to take advantage of the current issues with Wall Street. Just as people are a bit annoyed with Wall Street fat cats, remind them of McCain's association to them.

Basically the same reasons Arles gives for Swift Boat above make sense for "Keating-Boat" right now.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

McCain campaign announcing Medicare cuts.

Is he trying to lose the election?

Dude, McCain's health plan is some of the scariest crap I've heard in a long time. He's going to tax worker-plans to give a $2500 health care credit.

a) $2500 does not come close to paying for health insurance. You are going to be paying a whole lot more than that

b) Private (non-group) health insurance sucks bad. They will not pay for anything, and drop you in a heartbeat if you get too expensive. Without the protection of a group (where they'd lose a lot more than your single policy), you better never get sick.

c) Companies (like mine I'm sure) are going to stop paying for insurance all-together because it is already very expensive. Add to it taxes and the fact that you now can supposely get your own with this health credit, there is no reason for small-medium size businesses to continue providing coverage.

d) McCain has already bragged to the insurance companies how he plans on deregulating them "like we did banking." Who-hoo! No regulations on an already crooked industry while giving us even less and less power by removing us for group coverages!

The good thing about this I guess is once more and more people get dropped from work coverage and learn how crappy indiviual coverage is, then maybe there will be enough outcry to actually help people instead of lining the insurance companies pockets.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

McCain campaign announcing Medicare cuts.

Is he trying to lose the election?

BTw, if Obama wants to make attack adds, he really does not have to alter the truth at all. Just tell people what McCain wants to do to thier healthcare. I can't believe anyone would think his plan is a remotely good idea.

[larrymcg421]

Research 2000 has a new poll out for the Georgia Senate race which shows only a 1 pt lead for Saxby Chambliss. This confirms the SurveyUSA poll that showed a 2 pt lead for Saxby. Chambliss was up by 18 in mid-September so this is very encouraging.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think you're right. Not to but Obama is well ahead on the scorecard in the final round and he just needs to dance around the ring and take his victory. People trust him more on the economy and a lot of people like him. Why go toe-to-toe in the final 3-4 weeks when the status quo gives you the election?

All Obama needed to do was come out today and say "It seems John McCain is resorting to the swift boat tactics that republicans always seem to reach for at this point. It's disappointing given his earlier comments about staying out of negative attacks, but not all that surprising. I guess the "Maverick" is a lot more like the normal politician than we all thought."

Then, let the independent groups slam him on Keating. The best parallel is the Michael Moorer - Foreman fight. Foreman was done and all Moorer had to do was dance around him and win the title. Instead, he decided to give a disparate, flailing man a puncher's chance and go toe-to-toe in the final rounds. Now, one small gaff by Obama or Biden that elicits sympathy for McCain/Palin could swing a group of independents attracted to Obama's "change" mantra. It's a very dangerous (and somewhat pointless) game for someone who is in the lead to play.

If this ends up hurting Obama and McCain wins, the Palin "rope-a-dope" attack on Obama may go down as one of the more shrewd moves in political history. Many democrats are terrified of another "swift boating" and feel the need to go in swinging this time. As someone (I think it was Molson) said earlier, that's not the reason the swiftboat worked against Kerry.

Completely agree.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Research 2000 has a new poll out for the Georgia Senate race which shows only a 1 pt lead for Saxby Chambliss. This confirms the SurveyUSA poll that showed a 2 pt lead for Saxby. Chambliss was up by 18 in mid-September so this is very encouraging.

Wouldn't this be more a confirmation of the complete uselessness of these polls more than an encouraging sign that goes either way?

I don't have any connections or particular following of Chambliss or the race he's involved in but how else would you explain losing almost a pt a day except for complete random polling?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

Wouldn't this be more a confirmation of the complete uselessness of these polls more than an encouraging sign that goes either way?

I don't have any connections or particular following of Chambliss or the race he's involved in but how else would you explain losing almost a pt a day except for complete random polling?

Wild jumps in polling aren't unheard of. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 probably cemented George Bush's polling numbers almost overnight. Even under more normal circumstances, an erosion of support that is being seen here, while probably unusual, wouldn't be inconceivable.

If the polling showed wild swings in both directions, then that would be an argument for problems with the polling. If there was a consistent trend in one direction, then it would be a somewhat useful indicator.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

Wouldn't this be more a confirmation of the complete uselessness of these polls more than an encouraging sign that goes either way?

I don't have any connections or particular following of Chambliss or the race he's involved in but how else would you explain losing almost a pt a day except for complete random polling?

When the first poll came out that showed a close race, I said it was an outlier and didn't want to get my hopes up. But now we have two polls showing a close race. Now it's possible that both polls are wrong, but less likely than when it was only one poll.

Now if the polls were +17 and +1 a couple weeks ago and then +18 and +2 today, then I would say they are completely random. But there were two polls int he 17-18 range a few weeks ago and today there are two polls in the 1-2 point range.

As for the reasons, it could be Obama's recent surge (both polls also show Obama getting much closer in GA than he had been for a while) due to the economic crisis, more people finally getting to know Martin, or it's certainly possible the earlier or recent polls could be wrong. The last part seems unlikely because the polls have followed both national and local trends.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Completely agree.

+2

It seems to me that part of the strategy is also to get Obama down in the muck and hope to tarnish some of his "above the fray" reputation.