Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[BrianD]

The loser of a 2-person race is a victim?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Saying they need to have a candidate that's more likable and runs a better campaign is undoubtedly true. Saying the Bush years are the fault of the Democrats is bullshit. If Obama wins and has a Bush like eight years will it be the fault of the Republicans?

Did someone say this?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The loser of a 2-person race is a victim?

"Blaming the victim" = common phrase used to describe the metaphor I articulated. I don't particularly consider the Democratic Party a victim.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

"Blaming the victim" = common phrase used to describe the metaphor I articulated. I don't particularly consider the Democratic Party a victim.

I guess I don't get the metaphor. In a competition, I think the difference between team A winning and team B losing is an appropriate discussion. Comparing this to an abuse victim (who doesn't choose to be in the "competition") seems like a distraction from the real topic.

Edit: In other words, claiming that the losing team played poorly enough to lose to a beatable opponent seems a better comparison.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Did someone say this?

I did and I truly believe it.

[JPhillips]

Did someone say this?

That's certainly how I understand what Molson has been saying.

Originally Posted by molson

And yet the Democrats STILL can't seem to convince a majority of Americans that they have all the answers. So who's really to blame for Bush?

Originally Posted by molson

Until the Democratic Party understands that this IS their fault, they'll never win a presidential election.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If Obama wins and has a Bush like eight years will it be the fault of the Republicans?

No, but if Obama has a Bush-like 4-years and the Republicans still can't beat him in '12, then yes, it's the Republicans fault.

[JPhillips]

What an odd way of assigning responsibility.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

I did and I truly believe it.

Oh, then I guess I'll disagree with you instead. I think the Democrats offered a poor product in 04, but that doesn't absolve the Republicans from offering a poor (if slightly less poor) product in 04. The Democrats own a lot of the blame for losing the election, in my opinion, but they don't get all the blame for the results of that lost election. This is a case of "both sides need to do better".

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What an odd way of assigning responsibility.

I admit that it is

I look at the role of the Democratic party differently. They should exist for the purpose of getting like-mided people in important positions of public office. You don't do that by desperately trying to prove to the world how much smarter you are than anyone else. That's the vibe Kerry, Gore, and the party have given off in recent elections. The need to win moderates over, not alienate them. If they don't win people over and convince them to vote for the Democrat, they've failed - ESPECIALLY in an environment like '04 and this year when they have everything in their favor.

The Republicans I think get this much better - you don't see them preaching about abortion, religion, etc, as much as they used to. Those topics divide people, and give people reasons not to vote for you. They're rallying cry now is more about terrorism and leadership, and other broader things that everyone wants (good economy, etc).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Ding -- correct, sir. The folks in this thread talking about cuts as if we could just erase the items and there would be no further costs don't know what they're talking about.

I work for the federal government as a contractor currently. If the general public every stepped foot into some of the contracts currently being run by the federal government, they'd be floored. There's so much unmanaged waste in federal agencies. It's embarrassing to be honest.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I admit that it is

I look at the role of the Democratic party differently. They should exist for the purpose of getting like-mided people in important positions of public office. You don't do that by desperately trying to prove to the world how much smarter you are than anyone else. That's the vibe Kerry, Gore, and the party have given off in recent elections. The need to win moderates over, not alienate them. If they don't win people over and convince them to vote for the Democrat, they've failed - ESPECIALLY in an environment like '04 and this year when they have everything in their favor.

The Republicans I think get this much better - you don't see them preaching about abortion, religion, etc, as much as they used to. Those topics divide people, and give people reasons not to vote for you. They're rallying cry now is more about terrorism and leadership, and other broader things that everyone wants (good economy, etc).

We're unlikely to agree here as I think policy has little to do with swing voters and likability is a much more important factor. Almost always, at least at the national level, the more likable guy wins. I'll give you that both in 2000 and 2004 the Democrats had a less likable guy running. However, the party is doing pretty well as they hold both houses of congress and a majority of governorships and the margins for all of these are very likely to increase. Saying the party as a whole is a failure even if Obama loses is putting way to much importance on the executive.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I work for the federal government as a contractor currently. If the general public every stepped foot into some of the contracts currently being run by the federal government, they'd be floored. There's so much unmanaged waste in federal agencies. It's embarrassing to be honest.

I'd agree, but all of those contracts don't add up to a sizable percentage of the national debt. Clearing waste in the budget, however you define it, won't come close to balancing the budget. The options really are:

1) Cut defense spending sizably and/or
2) Cut nearly all discretionary spending and/or
3) Cut medicare sizably and/or
4) Raise taxes

Any plan that doesn't include some or all of those items isn't serious.

[Galaril]

Interesting that Chet Edwards, moderate congressman from Texas who's district includes the Bush ranch is on the Obama shortlist for VP now.

[stevew]

Is the IOUSA movie any good? I was listening to an interview with the creator on some conservative show(Jerry Doyle?) and it at least sounded interesting. I figured since it wasn't some left wing hit and run piece it wouldn't get much play.

[Vegas Vic]

Drudge is reporting that Evan Bayh is Obama's choice for VP.

FLASH: Fri Aug 22 2008 17:52:03 ET /// KMBC's Micheal Mahoney reports a company in Kansas City, which specializes in political literature, has been printing Obama-Bayh material... MORE... Gill Studios, would not confirm information about the material. They would not deny it either. At least three sources close to the plant's operations reported the Obama-Bayh material was being produced...

[larrymcg421]

That's a fantastic choice. Best thing Obama has done in weeks.

[Vegas Vic]

Story on Obama/Bayh bumper stickers

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We're unlikely to agree here as I think policy has little to do with swing voters and likability is a much more important factor. Almost always, at least at the national level, the more likable guy wins. I'll give you that both in 2000 and 2004 the Democrats had a less likable guy running. However, the party is doing pretty well as they hold both houses of congress and a majority of governorships and the margins for all of these are very likely to increase. Saying the party as a whole is a failure even if Obama loses is putting way to much importance on the executive.

Might be a good thing if Obama loses. Last time a Dem got the Executive, the Dems lost control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

[molson]

I don't remember this kind of "theater" for a VP announcement. Maybe it's just the media's obsession with it. But I half-expect Obama to have this whole production tomorrow. "OK, first let's bring out who ISN'T my running mate!". And then a series of clues and hints before Bayh parachutes in.

[JPhillips]

If that's the bumper sticker on the front page of Drudge, I'm not at all convinced. It looks very amateur. The 08 in particular looks like crap.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If that's the bumper sticker on the front page of Drudge, I'm not at all convinced. It looks very amateur. The 08 in particular looks like crap.

I saw that article. Proves that it's surely not it. Obama's team is much too graphic design savvy to ever release rubbish like that. Ever.

[NoMyths]

Man, it's not only the (perhaps incorrect) news that leaks early, but the campaign to head off any possible approval as well. This is an insane campaign season. I can't remember this level of intensity even in the last couple of Internet generations.

[NoMyths]

dola...

I grew up in Kansas. We take our amateurnish seriously out there. To me it's a sign of authenticity.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't remember this kind of "theater" for a VP announcement. Maybe it's just the media's obsession with it. But I half-expect Obama to have this whole production tomorrow. "OK, first let's bring out who ISN'T my running mate!". And then a series of clues and hints before Bayh parachutes in.

I found it interesting that Obama is going to announce his VP by "text messaging"?

[NoMyths]

Besides, wouldn't the idea of a graphic OB stylized to look like 08 cross their minds?

Edit: He's actually going to announce it by telepathy. A different kind of campaign indeed.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I saw that article. Proves that it's surely not it. Obama's team is much too graphic design savvy to ever release rubbish like that. Ever.

What a stroke of genius. Having a company print out thousands of bogus bumper stickers just to throw everyone off guard.

Brilliant!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd agree, but all of those contracts don't add up to a sizable percentage of the national debt. Clearing waste in the budget, however you define it, won't come close to balancing the budget. The options really are:

1) Cut defense spending sizably and/or
2) Cut nearly all discretionary spending and/or
3) Cut medicare sizably and/or
4) Raise taxes

Any plan that doesn't include some or all of those items isn't serious.

Let me phrase it another way: if $450 billion is such a small part of the federal budget that a reasonable tax increase will take care of it, then why would it be so hard to cut it out of the budget?

And I already pay a big chunk of my money in taxes. Income tax (state and federal), social security tax, sales tax, property tax, fees on telecomm services, yadayadayada. Where are you going to squeeze more out of me? You're asking for a $1500 increase in taxes for every man, woman, and child in this country. Given the number that are below the line that pays any taxes at all (and there continue to be more as we cut taxes at that level and offer more breaks), I'm pretty sure you're asking me to chip in more than an extra $6k per year to make this happen.

And where is the $450 billion deficit coming from? Including the one-time "economic stimulus"? From Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?, 2007 ran a $162 billion deficit, or 6% of the budget of 2.7 trillion. 2008 is a one-time blip. We don't need to cut $450 billion to balance everything. Which of course also makes the tax increase a bit easier to swallow, I know.

We run closer to a balanced budget when the economy is booming. When it's not, EVERYONE needs to tighten their belts, including ALL our governments, federal all the way down to local.

And no, we're not going to point out a single program. It's adding up the cuts that gets us a lot closer to where we ought to be, though.

[gstelmack]

Maybe a summary of my position would help: I'm not opposed to, say, rolling back Bush's earlier tax cuts to help the deficit, but I am opposed to doing that in isolation. We need to tighten the federal government's belt. Raising taxes in isolation does not fix the problem, because the government has shown it will eat up those increases, then come looking for more.

Again, North Carolina is a classic example of a state that was running a surplus in the late 90s, drastically increased spending to eat that surplus, then got hit by the 2001 recession and is now moaning about how little money they have for services when they are spending a lot more than they did a short time ago.

You want my support for raising taxes? Then get responsible on spending. Show me you'll spend my money efficiently. Show me you'll spend it on deserving items. Show me you're willing to cut some fat. Then maybe I'm willing to give a little back.

But to say that cutting the budget won't help is ridiculous. And saying there isn't much to cut is also ridiculous. I mean, we have a county superintendent of schools here making $270,000 / year. For a school superintendent! This is absurd. We have a whole cluster of administrators making over $100K / year. Medicare is riddled with fraud. School lunch programs are riddled with fraud. We have a top-heavy bureaucracy.

Or if you think you really need all that money, put it where it will do some good. Cut some of that administration, and lets start paying teachers, police, and firefighters what they are actually worth, rather than building a self-fulfilling prophecy of "we need to pay that much or he'll go elsewhere!" for your administrators (who are doing a sucky job anyway; really Mr. Dulaney, we won't miss you).

And to fix it all you want me to throw more than $6K / year more at it, when history shows you're just going to come back in a few years and ask me for it again? No thanks.

This is a two-pronged problem. Admitting that is the first step to fixing it right. Trying to tell me the only way to fix it is to raise taxes and that cutting spending won't do any good isn't going to gather my support.

[Buccaneer]

I saw a few days ago the odds on the D VP pick. It had Clinton at 5%. That's too high for my comfort. But seeing some of the quips yesterday and today (from Begala, Carville, others), I haven't seen any updated ones. Vegas Vic?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't remember this kind of "theater" for a VP announcement. Maybe it's just the media's obsession with it. But I half-expect Obama to have this whole production tomorrow. "OK, first let's bring out who ISN'T my running mate!". And then a series of clues and hints before Bayh parachutes in.

I will take it a step furthur and wonder why Obama hasn't had a "survivor" pool where people vote a possible running mate off for 9 weeks to determine his running mate. If the crap on television tells me anything about America they would eat this up.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This is a two-pronged problem. Admitting that is the first step to fixing it right. Trying to tell me the only way to fix it is to raise taxes and that cutting spending won't do any good isn't going to gather my support.

I think we're pretty close to agreement. I've never said that there's no place for budget cutting, in fact cuts are three of my four points, although to be fair we'd likely disagree about what gets cut. My point is that any attempt to balance the budget is going to be very difficult and almost certainly will have to include a tax increase. The idea that we can make easy cuts and fix the problem is a myth.

As to the total deficit, the 162 billion wasn't really accurate because it didn't include the FICA surplus that's still being funneled to the general fund or a large portion of the Iraq/Afghanistan expenses. I don't it's inaccurate to say we need around 400 billion from taxes or cuts to expect a balanced budget. That may be a little high or a little low, but I think it's a fair ballpark figure.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I saw a few days ago the odds on the D VP pick. It had Clinton at 5%. That's too high for my comfort. But seeing some of the quips yesterday and today (from Begala, Carville, others), I haven't seen any updated ones. Vegas Vic?

Hillary Clinton was not vetted by Obama's staff. She was never asked for medical records or for any 2008 financial information about her or Bill Clinton.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Hillary Clinton was not vetted by Obama's staff. She was never asked for medical records or for any 2008 financial information about her or Bill Clinton.

But does a major candidate for the presidency just 2 months ago really need to be reviewed. Didn't this already happen about a year ago by the Democratic Party? Of course I really only half say this after the John Edwards thing a few weeks ago.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Hillary Clinton was not vetted by Obama's staff. She was never asked for medical records or for any 2008 financial information about her or Bill Clinton.

That was what they implied today, saying that the PUMAs (Party Unity My Aunt Fannie) are pissed. It was covered by saying that everything is known about her (and him) anyways. But it sounds like she was never on the shortlist and maybe we'll find out after this is all over that Obama and his camp said "over my dead body" back in May or June.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

But does a major candidate for the presidency just 2 months ago really need to be reviewed. Didn't this already happen about a year ago by the Democratic Party? Of course I really only half say this after the John Edwards thing a few weeks ago.

The bigger issue would be Bill's business dealings and donations to his library. I expect there's a lot of controversial money there.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The bigger issue would be Bill's business dealings and donations to his library. I expect there's a lot of controversial money there.

Correct. There's absolutely no way that Obama could have picked Clinton as his running mate. He would have spent the better part of the campaign answering questions about Bill and Hillary's finances.

[SFL Cat]

Either Bayh ain't the guy, or the Obama people are trying to put up smokescreens.

NBC: Bayh, Kaine out of Obama’s veep race

[Vegas Vic]

Fox and MSNBC are both reporting that Tim Kaine has been informed that he wasn't the choice for VP, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Obama and Kaine are a just a few years removed from being a state senator and a city councilman. Thas't not exactly the kind of experience credentials you're looking for in a presidential ticket.

[JPhillips]

The hidden genius of this is that they keep getting more and more cell phone contacts that they can use to remind people to vote in November.

I'm not sure they're doing the right thing with the media as the line between a fun game and feeling like they're being played for fools is pretty slim.

[Buccaneer]

Yeah (about Clinton no-chance) but I wondered why up until they closed the betting, Clinton was listed as 5-1.

[Buccaneer]

It'll be interesting to see if Obama goes with an old, experienced VP, while McCain goes with a young, energetic VP.

Switching to McCain Vp for a minute. I see that Pawlenty has the second best odds. I was struck, however, by looking at the historical electoral states maps (going back to 1968) and seeing Minnesota sticking out like a sore thumb in most of the elections.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It'll be interesting to see if Obama goes with an old, experienced VP, while McCain goes with a young, energetic VP.

Switching to McCain Vp for a minute. I see that Pawlenty has the second best odds. I was struck, however, by looking at the historical electoral states maps (going back to 1968) and seeing Minnesota sticking out like a sore thumb in most of the elections.

I don't think it will happen, but I'd like to see McCain pull a big surprise and choose J. C. Watts as his running mate.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I don't think it will happen, but I'd like to see McCain pull a big surprise and choose J. C. Watts as his running mate.

That would be a big surprise, indeed.

[Buccaneer]

I have always liked JC but I wonder what he would bring that would be different than another young, energetic person? It wouldn't do anything for the black votes, I don't think.

[QuikSand]

The prediction markets have seen shares of Biden for VP soar in the last couple of hours - sellling for about $80 now to pay $100.

[Buccaneer]

As much as I like all of this as a spectator sport, the vulture media is really annoying. So many are camped outside of Biden's home that if anyone farts, it gets put into the ticker. Because of this, a lot of effort is being put into decoying, false leads and other crap like that. Why can't the vulture media do it's job after the fact instead of inventing so-called newsworthy events?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I don't think it will happen, but I'd like to see McCain pull a big surprise and choose J. C. Watts as his running mate.

Not going to happen. I couldn't find the AP story, so this is from World Net Daily.

Shocking many in the Republican fold, the Associated Press reported over the weekend Watts was thinking of voting for Obama.

Watts was quoted as saying: "I think all of America can take some pride in this (Barack Obama's success in getting the Democratic nomination)."

Asked by Hannity if the McCain campaign had courted him, he said: "I've not talked to anyone."

The former Oklahoma congressman criticized the Republican Party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.

"And Obama highlights that even more," Watts said, adding that he expects Obama to take on issues such as poverty and urban policy. "Republicans often seem indifferent to those things."

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The prediction markets have seen shares of Biden for VP soar in the last couple of hours - sellling for about $80 now to pay $100.

I think Biden would be an excellent choice for Obama. He's tenacious and he's not afraid to be an attack dog, which is what you need in a vice presidential candidate. Bayh is perceived to be somewhat of a marshmallow, and his speech at a previous Democratic convention was moved from prime time to 11:00 P.M. because he wouldn't verbally attack Bush.

[JPhillips]

I'm still bitter about Biden's support for the atrocious bankruptcy bill, but I think Vic is right. Obama needs a VP that will actually help on the stump and in the debates. Both Lieberman and Edwards were non-entities. Biden will say at least one thing that will send the Obama folks into a panic, but he'll also take the fight to McCain. I've come around and would be pretty pleased with Biden.