Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Hawaii was certainly a poor bellweather state in 1912. We now have 50 states, so you may want to look at the 1960 elections onwards.

Hawaii and Alaska's percentage was done by dividing by only 12 elections rather than 24 elections, so the percentage is accurate. I don't think many would argue against Hawaii being a bad bellweather state. It's generally voted Democrat in every election except for the Reagan/Bush 1 years along with one Nixon vote. It's a relatively partisan state.

Also, the District of Columbia has participated in only 11 elections, but it's much like Hawaii in that it's a very partisan voting district.

[NoMyths]

John McCain on the Corsi book:

After he emerged from the meeting, a reporter asked McCain his reaction to the new Jerome Corsi book, "Obama Nation."

"Gotta keep your sense of humor," McCain responded, before his aides shuttled reporters away.

Link: Joe Klein on McCain's campaign

But there is no excuse for what the McCain campaign is doing on the "putting America first" front. There is no way to balance it, or explain it other than as evidence of a severe character defect on the part of the candidate who allows it to be used. There is a straight up argument to be had in this election: Mcain has a vastly different view from Obama about foreign policy, taxation, health care, government action...you name it. He has lots of experience; it is always shocking to remember that this time four years ago, Barack Obama was still in the Illinois State Legislature. Apparently, though, McCain isn't confident that conservative policies and personal experience can win, given the ruinous state of the nation after eight years of Bush. So he has made a fateful decision: he has personally impugned Obama's patriotism and allows his surrogates to continue to do that. By doing so, he has allied himself with those who smeared him, his wife, his daughter Bridget, in 2000. Those tactics won George Bush a primary--and a nomination. But they proved a form of slow-acting spiritual poison, rotting the core of the Bush presidency. We'll see if the public decides to acquiesce in sleaze in 2008, and what sort of presidency--what sort of country--that will produce.

Link: The Obama campaign's response to the Corsi book: a 41-page point-by-point rebuttal to 'inaccuracies'

[Flasch186]

pretty crushing point by point repudiation of Corsi's book BUT will anyone pay attention to the truths or will they pay more attention to the controversy it creates. For shame, that McCain, who suffered the indignities of the campaign vs. Rove and the smear machine, that he would tacitly support the book and the crap within.

[JPhillips]

I love how much stuff happens under the radar that's critical to the race. Yesterday McCain said that he's in favor of reopening the Colorado River compact and folks in Colorado are pissed. Both Senators(one Dem, one Rep) issued angry statements and multiple Colorado newspapers ran with it as the lead editorial. Any Colorado folks hear this? Is it a gaffe that could cost McCain CO?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I love how much stuff happens under the radar that's critical to the race. Yesterday McCain said that he's in favor of reopening the Colorado River compact and folks in Colorado are pissed. Both Senators(one Dem, one Rep) issued angry statements and multiple Colorado newspapers ran with it as the lead editorial. Any Colorado folks hear this? Is it a gaffe that could cost McCain CO?

Was just reading about this.

I'd like to hear from Bucc and others that live in the "upper basin" states to see how they think this will play. I have seen a few articles that indicate that McCain may have just delivered New Mexico and Colorado (and put Wyoming into the "toss-up" category) to Obama.

It is pretty hard for folks from other regions to understand how important local issues can be when they are so foreign to many. The water issue is pretty foreign to me, so it will be interesting to hear some perspective from locals to see if this is just blown up by the media or a legitimate issue.

[JPhillips]

Anybody else watching the Saddleback Forum? I've generally been impressed with both men, but I really wish Warren would ask followups. There have been a lot of answers that could be challenged.

Kudos to Warren for having the balls to set this up and appear as a kingmaker.

edit: That's as sharp as I've seen McCain since the primaries ended.

[ace1914]

McCain is answers seems very rehearsed and just rehashing his campaign instead of thoughtfully answering the questions. I mean I understand you were a POW, but why did every story have to revolve around that? Obama seemed to be giving more genuine answers.

[st.cronin]

I have decided to vote RICK WARREN for President.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I love how much stuff happens under the radar that's critical to the race. Yesterday McCain said that he's in favor of reopening the Colorado River compact and folks in Colorado are pissed. Both Senators(one Dem, one Rep) issued angry statements and multiple Colorado newspapers ran with it as the lead editorial. Any Colorado folks hear this? Is it a gaffe that could cost McCain CO?

Though reading on wikipedia, it seems its a shame, because the compact NEEDS to be renegotiated. It appears that it was signed during an era of abnormally high rainfall and thus the split of water is not where it should be for normal patterns.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though reading on wikipedia, it seems its a shame, because the compact NEEDS to be renegotiated. It appears that it was signed during an era of abnormally high rainfall and thus the split of water is not where it should be for normal patterns.

Seems that way. Looks like maybe they are using the wrong figures for water distribution, so without thinking about the politics, seems like the right thing to do is to re-analyze/re-negotiate.

Political consideration: If McCain is going to "lose" Colorado over this, wouldn't he then "gain" the 6 other states involved in this pact? Probably not, so it's probably typical media over-hype.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by ace1914

McCain is answers seems very rehearsed and just rehashing his campaign instead of thoughtfully answering the questions. I mean I understand you were a POW, but why did every story have to revolve around that? Obama seemed to be giving more genuine answers.

I disagree. He seemed much more sincere to me. Barrack was just doing his same song and dance routine - Saying a lot, saying it eloquently, but really not saying anything at all.

I won't vote for either of them, but I think McCain clearly won based on pure honesty (even if it was platform stuff with lot's of anecdotes).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though reading on wikipedia, it seems its a shame, because the compact NEEDS to be renegotiated. It appears that it was signed during an era of abnormally high rainfall and thus the split of water is not where it should be for normal patterns.

Except the renegotiation that McCain is talking about would give more water to the lower basin. After reading up on the compact it does seem clear that the current water usage is too high, but as far as I know, nobody in the lower basin would agree to getting less water. I guess one positive of of the housing bust is that water usage growth should slow for a while.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Seems that way. Looks like maybe they are using the wrong figures for water distribution, so without thinking about the politics, seems like the right thing to do is to re-analyze/re-negotiate.

NPR's All Things Considered had a big story on this a few months ago. The conclusion was that yes, the figures were now a) wrong and b) out of date, and that it needed to be re-done. Of course, it should be re-done by engineers, experts & urban planners, but it'll get re-done by politicians....

Originally Posted by NoMyths

John McCain on the Corsi book

Here's two reasons why McCain, having learned his lesson from the Hagee fiasco, doesn't want to give Corsi too much airtime:

1. Group tied to al-Qaida backs McCain for prez

2. McCain fortune traced to organized crime


So, either Corsi's a nutso hack, or, as Sean Hannity and Mary Matalin would have you believe, he's an accomplished scholar just putting the truth out there.

[Flasch186]

ROFLMAO.

Regardless I think that McCain, of all people, being ruthlessly slandered by the Rove machine should be the first to want to dissolve himself from any sort of alignment with the Swift Boat types...we shall see though if the "when in Rome" statement overrides memory.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Seems that way. Looks like maybe they are using the wrong figures for water distribution, so without thinking about the politics, seems like the right thing to do is to re-analyze/re-negotiate.

Political consideration: If McCain is going to "lose" Colorado over this, wouldn't he then "gain" the 6 other states involved in this pact? Probably not, so it's probably typical media over-hype.

Not just no, but hell no.

Here's the thing. The way the compact is written, AZ, CA and NV have a combined allocation of 7.5 million acre-feet. Whatever's left gets split between Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. Senator McCain wants to increase the allocation going to AZ, CA and NV, which already is getting bad play in Colorado, and probably will not play well in the other three states.

Water is not enough of a hot-button issue in California to swing that state into McCain's column, but will almost certainly lose him Colorado and New Mexico. Possibly Wyoming. I don't see Utah going for Obama in either event, so I don't think it will hurt him there, but I do see a move like this costing him CO and NM while not gaining him CA.

If you look at electoral-vote.com, they had Colorado as "Barely GOP" and New Mexico as "Weak Dem." I would expect those two states to shift further away from him, which is 14 electoral votes he won't be getting. California he doesn't have a realistic chance at, IMO, so that's 69 electoral votes that he's not getting with this stance on the river compact.

Nevada is weak GOP, and since it would benefit from this, might shift more comfortably into his column. WY is solid GOP, but may find itself in play, and UT I just don't see voting for Obama under any circumstance. Does make me wonder what he thinks the writing on the wall is for Arizona, as that's the only other state likely to see this as a 'plus,' and that's a state he ought to win.

If you assume that that's the case, that he didn't do this with an eye towards AZ, but towards other states, then he lost 14 electoral votes while picking up perhaps five. We'll see what happens with Wyoming's 3 and Utah's 5, but that just seems like a net loss to me.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Except the renegotiation that McCain is talking about would give more water to the lower basin. After reading up on the compact it does seem clear that the current water usage is too high, but as far as I know, nobody in the lower basin would agree to getting less water. I guess one positive of of the housing bust is that water usage growth should slow for a while.

Well, while that may be what he wants (he is from Arizona, after all), a renegotiation would hammer those things out.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

New post-Warren polls are up. Ohio and Colorado are both now a slight McCain lean. All three polling sites also show a drop in Obama's electoral votes. Also, Obama is now around a one point favorite nationwide, which is down from the 6 point lead he had a few weeks ago. Those who wanted a tight race now appear to have it. Certainly makes it fun to watch.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It'll be interesting to see the poll numbers over the next 10-15 days. Kerry began a pretty big polling free-fall in mid-August in 2004. Obama's numbers are similar to Kerry in that he had a big lead in June and July and both Kerry and Obama see their numbers decreasing in early August.

Not bad, Nostradamus.

[JPhillips]

It's not that big of a deal, but if you're referencing the PPP poll of Ohio, that was done pre-Saddleback. I don't know which CO poll you're looking at, but that was likely done partially or completely pre-Saddleback as well. I don't think any state polls would have been done entirely on a Sunday.

[flere-imsaho]

Over at the NYT this weekend, there's a long article postulating what a McCain Administration's foreign policy would look like, based on his background and his changing views in the 1990s and the past decade (beginning with an "aha" moment in 1997 that brought him into the neocon fold).

In short: even more belligerent than the Bush Administration, which is nicely encapsulated by his response to Georgia.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's not that big of a deal, but if you're referencing the PPP poll of Ohio, that was done pre-Saddleback. I don't know which CO poll you're looking at, but that was likely done partially or completely pre-Saddleback as well. I don't think any state polls would have been done entirely on a Sunday.

It's the Rassmussen poll dated August 13th, so you are correct that it was before the Warren chat. McCain was ahead by 3 points in CO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

In short: even more belligerent than the Bush Administration, which is nicely encapsulated by his response to Georgia.

See, but that's the interesting part. Some of the Obama advisors and more liberal media seem to think that painting McCain as somehow being like Bush is their road to a win for Obama. As several people have mentioned in this thread, even today, they'd still vote for Bush in 2004 if they had to do it again. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but the assumption that painting McCain as another Bush is going to win an election for Obama is highly flawed. There's a lot of people that can honestly say that they disagree with some of the moves that Bush has made, but they'd still support a conservative like Bush over a liberal candidate in an election.

[JPhillips]

I think linking McCain to Bush is absolutely the way to go. I loved the John McCain's president line this weekend. I'll take the risk that Mr. 30% isn't the key to victory for McCain.

[JPhillips]

dola

I have been trying to find info on McCain's child tax credit. During Saddleback he said he's proposing a 7000 tax credit for each child! Does anyone know if he really meant that or misspoke? My guess is he meant to say deduction, but nobody seems to be checking with McCain's camp. If it really is a tax credit, I'll probably never pay taxes again.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think linking McCain to Bush is absolutely the way to go. I loved the John McCain's president line this weekend. I'll take the risk that Mr. 30% isn't the key to victory for McCain.

In related news, I'm shocked that you agree with that line of thinking.

[JPhillips]

It's just simple math. Bush is one of the least popular President's of the 20th century. I don't know whether Obama can successfully link them, but they've largely stopped trying over the past month. If people see McCain as a continuation of Bush, Obama wins.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

See, but that's the interesting part. Some of the Obama advisors and more liberal media seem to think that painting McCain as somehow being like Bush is their road to a win for Obama. As several people have mentioned in this thread, even today, they'd still vote for Bush in 2004 if they had to do it again. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but the assumption that painting McCain as another Bush is going to win an election for Obama is highly flawed. There's a lot of people that can honestly say that they disagree with some of the moves that Bush has made, but they'd still support a conservative like Bush over a liberal candidate in an election.

Small sample size FTW

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As several people have mentioned in this thread, even today, they'd still vote for Bush in 2004 if they had to do it again. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but the assumption that painting McCain as another Bush is going to win an election for Obama is highly flawed. There's a lot of people that can honestly say that they disagree with some of the moves that Bush has made, but they'd still support a conservative like Bush over a liberal candidate in an election.

Yes and no.

There's a bunch of groups who voted for Bush in 2004:

1. People who liked his first administration and wanted more of the same. These people are either going to go straight for McCain or don't like McCain (see: Huckabee supporters) and may or may not vote for him. There's nothing for Obama here, and tying McCain to Bush isn't going to affect these folks either way.

2. People who didn't like Bush all that much after his first administration, but disagreed with Kerry on too many issues. Given that by most measures the country is worse off than in 2004, tying McCain to Bush may get some of these people to a) stay home & not donate money or b) try out Obama just for the heck of it. Obama's appeal to Christian voters, and the rhetorical moderation on the issues is also part of this plan.

3. People who voted for Bush as the lesser of two tools. Assuming that these people don't also think Obama is a tool, tying McCain to Bush is exactly the right strategy here.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Over at the NYT this weekend, there's a long article postulating what a McCain Administration's foreign policy would look like, based on his background and his changing views in the 1990s and the past decade (beginning with an "aha" moment in 1997 that brought him into the neocon fold).

In short: even more belligerent than the Bush Administration, which is nicely encapsulated by his response to Georgia.

The New York Times (D) would have you believe that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The New York Times (D) would have you believe that.

Unlike (R) newspapers, (D) ones back up their stories with data, examples, and actual facts.

But as we know, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yes and no.

There's a bunch of groups who voted for Bush in 2004:

1. People who liked his first administration and wanted more of the same. These people are either going to go straight for McCain or don't like McCain (see: Huckabee supporters) and may or may not vote for him. There's nothing for Obama here, and tying McCain to Bush isn't going to affect these folks either way.

2. People who didn't like Bush all that much after his first administration, but disagreed with Kerry on too many issues. Given that by most measures the country is worse off than in 2004, tying McCain to Bush may get some of these people to a) stay home & not donate money or b) try out Obama just for the heck of it. Obama's appeal to Christian voters, and the rhetorical moderation on the issues is also part of this plan.

3. People who voted for Bush as the lesser of two tools. Assuming that these people don't also think Obama is a tool, tying McCain to Bush is exactly the right strategy here.

On #2, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Obama and Kerry regarding policy. Kerry was a 1970 Black Mustang and Obama is a 2008 Red Mustang. The age and paint job may be different, but it's still a Mustang at its core.

On #3, I don't believe anyone thinks he's a tool. His obvious vulnerability is his inexperience. I personally am not a big fan of his joking barbs at McCain either. It's one thing to point out the problems with the other candidate. But his jokes that play to the liberal core really fall on deaf ear from my point of view. Is he going to crack a joke about how the Russians "just don't get it" when they invade another former Soviet republic like he does regarding McCain policies? It just seems immature and that's the last thing I want from my leader when dealing with foreign powers who aren't fooling around and will kill people or invade countries on a whim. If he wants to be a leader, he should act like a leader during and after the campaign.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Unlike (R) newspapers, (D) ones back up their stories with data, examples, and actual facts.

Can be debated ad naseum by both sides.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But as we know, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Say what?

[molson]

I'm liberal and I hate Democrats with a passion. So I have no idea who to vote for.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Say what?

Colbert reference.

[flere-imsaho]

Sorry Warhammer, the entire post was an in-joke @ Dutch.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Can be debated ad naseum by both sides.

...and has been, mostly with Dutch. Search for "Dutch" and "AP".

Say what?

Colbert.

+1 vote for in-joke/sarcasm tags.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I love how much stuff happens under the radar that's critical to the race. Yesterday McCain said that he's in favor of reopening the Colorado River compact and folks in Colorado are pissed. Both Senators(one Dem, one Rep) issued angry statements and multiple Colorado newspapers ran with it as the lead editorial. Any Colorado folks hear this? Is it a gaffe that could cost McCain CO?

I think I keep up with the news more than the average person and I haven't heard anything about this. So unless someone starts pushing the issue, I can't see it hurting McCain here much.

[-apoc-]

Originally Posted by Ryche

I think I keep up with the news more than the average person and I haven't heard anything about this. So unless someone starts pushing the issue, I can't see it hurting McCain here much.

I would wager a large amount of money it will be in an Obama ad that will be on the air in CO probably before the end of august but definitly before september is over.

[Warhammer]

I'd like to apologize for my not being hip to Colbert.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bush is one of the least popular President's of the 20th century.

Actually, I think you will find he is one of the most popular Presidents of the 21st century.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bush is one of the least popular President's of the 20th century.

Gold. Works on so many levels.

[JPhillips]

Well that was stupid of me.

[QuikSand]

It happens. *shurg*

[flere-imsaho]

Hey, you spend enough time watching McCain campaign commercials, and it does feel like it's still the 20th century.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More polls out this morning. The newest Minnesota poll has Obama's lead shrinking to 47-45, which is a much smaller number than a month or two ago. Also, McCain's lead in GA is now 7 points, but the poll also shows that Barr is only pulling 1% of the vote, so the Barr effect in GA appears to be mostly overhyped.

[flere-imsaho]

Thanks for the poll updates, MBBF. The race is basically a dead heat right now, and the EVs are, by most accounts, almost even. However, get ready for the roller-coaster over the next two weeks as we have both conventions.

I think the GOP convention ends by 9/4, so maybe by 9/8 or 9/9 we'll be looking at post-convention polls to indicate the starting point for the home stretch?

[JPhillips]

Barr only matters if he gets national exposure. As long as he's shut out of the debates and all most all news coverage he won't matter. If he gets enough media attention it's conceivable he could get 3-5% in some states and maybe make a difference.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Thanks for the poll updates, MBBF. The race is basically a dead heat right now, and the EVs are, by most accounts, almost even. However, get ready for the roller-coaster over the next two weeks as we have both conventions.

I think the GOP convention ends by 9/4, so maybe by 9/8 or 9/9 we'll be looking at post-convention polls to indicate the starting point for the home stretch?

Yeah, we'll have to take a snapshot right before the first convention and then wait to see what it looks like after the last convention. Some like to look at the 'bumps' before and after each one, but I think the overall before and after provides the best picture of who fared the best.

I do think there's one great side effect of several tight elections. It's creating a greater interest in voting amongst the general public and increased registration. That's certainly a welcome change and I hope it continues.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Barr only matters if he gets national exposure. As long as he's shut out of the debates and all most all news coverage he won't matter. If he gets enough media attention it's conceivable he could get 3-5% in some states and maybe make a difference.

As someone who didn't pay much attention to the behind the scenes stuff how did Perot end up in the debates? Was he popular before the debates or did that cause him to move way up? I have always felt that any third party (even the communist canidate) causes the politicians to actually debate each other and offer up solutions instead of just saying what is wrong with the other one.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

As someone who didn't pay much attention to the behind the scenes stuff how did Perot end up in the debates? Was he popular before the debates or did that cause him to move way up? I have always felt that any third party (even the communist canidate) causes the politicians to actually debate each other and offer up solutions instead of just saying what is wrong with the other one.

I think it's pretty much up to whoever's running the debates, whether they invite you or not. Perot was much more of a factor than Barr is (Perot actually led in the polling for much of '92).

[JPhillips]

I found this that lays out the 1992 rules and the changes made after that. Perot not only had the advantage of being in the debates, he also had those half hour programs. I'm sure Barr can't afford to get the same level of exposure.

Back in '92, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a non-partisan, independent entity responsible for organizing the quadrennial events, employed a vague and subjective set of criteria by which to choose which candidates were worthy of combat on the debate stages. Relying only marginally on polling data, the commission essentially asked several national political pundits and scholars to weigh in on which candidates had a realistic chance of victory in November. That and the backing of both major party candidates led to Perot's inclusion.

In 1996, the commission altered it's criteria, acknowledging the subjectivity of the old system, and putting in place an FEC-approved policy that requires any presidential candidates who wish to participate in the debates to first demonstrate national support of 15 percent in five separate polls. They also have to confirm that they will be on the ballot in enough states to have at least a mathematical shot at garnering the requisite electoral college votes to be elected.