TW: A recent book, Game Change, about the 2008 election recently garnered much attention for all the wrong reasons. The cable networks had a field day with Harry Reid's comment about Obama's light skin. Yet another cable journey into nothingness. The book apparently contained some interesting stuff though, little of which one heard about.
From Economist:
"... “You guys have a lot of work to do,” notes one operative to his colleagues after trying to coach Mrs Palin on the basics of policy. “She doesn’t know anything.” The image of the governor of Alaska, slumped and dishevelled, surrounded by hundreds of scattered index cards and unresponsive almost to the point of catatonia, is not one that will easily be shrugged off. Nor will her claim that her selection was “God’s plan”, which might, of course, be true, though not in the sense that Mrs Palin intended.
As for Mr Edwards, his brazen infidelity with a political hanger-on and videographer, who rambled on about reincarnation and who introduced herself as a witch, only serves to demonstrate that America dodged a bullet in 2004 when Mr Edwards was the vice-presidential nominee.
...Mr McCain comes off badly too, but the book’s account is tinged with sadness, as The Economist’s own reporting of the maverick politician’s tragic final act was also inclined to be. The transformation of the lion of the Senate into the baffled old man who, all too obviously, had little idea how to respond to the collapse of America’s financial system in mid-September is painful indeed to read. The candidate had to be warned by his staff to stop telling everyone that he didn’t understand economics. One refreshing thing about Mr McCain was always the healthy contempt in which he held the nastier sort of Republican (“Why would I want to be the leader of a party of such assholes?” he is quoted as saying). But in the end he gave them what they wanted by plumping for Mrs Palin..."
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15268818
Showing posts with label 2008 Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Elections. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Classic Posts: My Favorite Campaign Videos From '08
Silverman schleps for Obama
The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.
Lil O'Reilly v. Frank
Tina Fey in a skit that will live in infamy
What happens when a flack is caught between a rock and a hard place
Victoria Jackson off-meds
Trumka pulls no punches
The infamouse interviews
Jack Cafferty twists off...
Venetians for Obama
The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.
Lil O'Reilly v. Frank
Tina Fey in a skit that will live in infamy
What happens when a flack is caught between a rock and a hard place
Victoria Jackson off-meds
Trumka pulls no punches
The infamouse interviews
Jack Cafferty twists off...
Venetians for Obama
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Cheney 2008!
TW: A little tardy but Douthat (late of the Atlantic, now at NYT as resident conservative voice), poses an interesting what if, as in what if Cheney had been the 2008 Republican nominee. Not that he would have won (Douthat frames the idea as an intellectual exercise not a viable hypothetical), but the implications are worth pondering.
Douthat's point is that McCain is a non-standard Republican unrepresentative of the party's core constituents. Cheney on the other hand is very much reflective of the Republican base. An election in 2008 between a true representative of the core would have put that core up to the test. As it is the core (and their talk radio trumpets) can lie back like typical ideologues and claim they just need a purer Republican to regain power. Douthat suspects the ideologues are very wrong therefore the Republican day of reckoning was merely delayed when McCain became the nominee.
Specifically Douthat posits that issues such as torture and fiscal conservatism amidst a world-wide demand contraction need airing in the forum of an actual election rather than the incestuous netherworlds of talk radio and conservative symposiums.
I agree with Douthat, as I have written several times, the Republicans are molting, any measures to accelerate their emergence from a rather messy pupa will help the Republicans return to a viable, constructive opponent.
From Douthat at NYT:
"Watching Dick Cheney defend the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, it’s been hard to escape the impression that both the Republican Party and the country would be better off today if Cheney, rather than John McCain, had been a candidate for president in 2008.
...At the very least, a Cheney-Obama contest would have clarified conservatism’s present political predicament. In the wake of two straight drubbings at the polls, much of the American right has comforted itself with the idea that conservatives lost the country primarily because the Bush-era Republican Party spent too much money on social programs. And John McCain’s defeat has been taken as the vindication of this premise.
We tried running the maverick reformer, the argument goes, and look what it got us. What Americans want is real conservatism, not some crypto-liberal imitation.
“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.
This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.
As a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might – might! – have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that’s necessary if it hopes to regain power.
If a Cheney defeat could have been good for the Republican Party; a Cheney campaign could have been good for the country. The former vice-president’s post-election attacks on Obama are bad form, of course, under the peculiar rules of Washington politesse. But they’re part of an argument about the means and ends of our interrogation policy that should have happened during the general election and didn’t – because McCain wasn’t a supporter of the Bush-era approach, and Obama didn’t see a percentage in harping on the topic.
He wasn’t alone. A large swath of the political class wants to avoid the torture debate. The Obama administration backed into it last week, and obviously wants to back right out again.
But the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Douthat's point is that McCain is a non-standard Republican unrepresentative of the party's core constituents. Cheney on the other hand is very much reflective of the Republican base. An election in 2008 between a true representative of the core would have put that core up to the test. As it is the core (and their talk radio trumpets) can lie back like typical ideologues and claim they just need a purer Republican to regain power. Douthat suspects the ideologues are very wrong therefore the Republican day of reckoning was merely delayed when McCain became the nominee.
Specifically Douthat posits that issues such as torture and fiscal conservatism amidst a world-wide demand contraction need airing in the forum of an actual election rather than the incestuous netherworlds of talk radio and conservative symposiums.
I agree with Douthat, as I have written several times, the Republicans are molting, any measures to accelerate their emergence from a rather messy pupa will help the Republicans return to a viable, constructive opponent.
From Douthat at NYT:
"Watching Dick Cheney defend the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, it’s been hard to escape the impression that both the Republican Party and the country would be better off today if Cheney, rather than John McCain, had been a candidate for president in 2008.
...At the very least, a Cheney-Obama contest would have clarified conservatism’s present political predicament. In the wake of two straight drubbings at the polls, much of the American right has comforted itself with the idea that conservatives lost the country primarily because the Bush-era Republican Party spent too much money on social programs. And John McCain’s defeat has been taken as the vindication of this premise.
We tried running the maverick reformer, the argument goes, and look what it got us. What Americans want is real conservatism, not some crypto-liberal imitation.
“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.
This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.
As a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might – might! – have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that’s necessary if it hopes to regain power.
If a Cheney defeat could have been good for the Republican Party; a Cheney campaign could have been good for the country. The former vice-president’s post-election attacks on Obama are bad form, of course, under the peculiar rules of Washington politesse. But they’re part of an argument about the means and ends of our interrogation policy that should have happened during the general election and didn’t – because McCain wasn’t a supporter of the Bush-era approach, and Obama didn’t see a percentage in harping on the topic.
He wasn’t alone. A large swath of the political class wants to avoid the torture debate. The Obama administration backed into it last week, and obviously wants to back right out again.
But the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Confessions Of the Advocate
TW: These ex-post facto confessionals from campaign insiders always intrigue me even if I doubt even the ex-post facto perspective is completely without agendas. Steve Schmidt, McCain's former campaign manager, has made several headlines speaking bluntly about the sorry state of the Republican party. Therefore I suspect he is burning up what limited credibility within the party he had remaining. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager also made some remarks. Here are some highlights from a recent roundtable:
Via Dana Milbank at WaPo:
Schmidt's comments-
"...On the Bush-Cheney drag: "The first night of our convention was President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I literally thought by the second night of our convention we could be down 25 points."
On Katie Couric's interview of Sarah Palin: "That is one of the two most consequential interviews that a candidate for national office has given, in a negative way, the other being Roger Mudd's interview of Ted Kennedy . . . when he couldn't answer the question of why he wanted to be president."
...On the Republican Party: "It is near-extinct in many ways in the Northeast, it is extinct in many ways on the West Coast, and it is endangered in the Mountain West, increasingly endangered in the Southwest . . . and if you look at the state of the party, it is a shrinking entity."
...Schmidt spoke openly of McCain's reluctant choice of Palin after hopes of running with former Democrat Joe Lieberman were scuttled by the right, which threatened a convention floor fight. "That would have had the effect of blowing up the Republican Party," he said, "and when you look at all the challenges we had during the 2008 election cycle, blowing up the party wasn't one of the menu items of things that were going to improve our situation."
...[Schmidt] joked about the GOP leadership vacuum ("this 'Lord of the Flies' period"), mocked the party's presidential strategy ("Hold the South and we'll spend $80 million trying to flip Ohio")
...He willingly accepted responsibility for denying Palin the right to speak on election night, because "if you lose, the concession speech is a singular moment" that "acknowledges the legitimacy of the victory and refreshes, if you will, the constitutional order."
...[on Obama]As a political proposition, his first 100 days have been successful," he said. "His approval rating is in the 60s, there has been dramatic improvement in the 'right track' number, he's had success . . . at passing legislation, and the Republican Party as a matter of reality in the first 100 days has not done anything to improve its political condition."
Plouffe's comments-
"I think the scoreboard of how many House Republicans voted for a certain bill is a flawed measure, because the truth is there's very few House Republicans that worry about the middle of the electorate anymore," the president's former campaign manager said.
"We've won all there is to win in the House, so these folks are worried about their primaries, and Newt Gingrich is calling all their shots and pulling out the dusty playbook from 1994 and saying, 'Just oppose the president, and maybe if things don't go well you'll profit.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042304209.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
Via Dana Milbank at WaPo:
Schmidt's comments-
"...On the Bush-Cheney drag: "The first night of our convention was President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I literally thought by the second night of our convention we could be down 25 points."
On Katie Couric's interview of Sarah Palin: "That is one of the two most consequential interviews that a candidate for national office has given, in a negative way, the other being Roger Mudd's interview of Ted Kennedy . . . when he couldn't answer the question of why he wanted to be president."
...On the Republican Party: "It is near-extinct in many ways in the Northeast, it is extinct in many ways on the West Coast, and it is endangered in the Mountain West, increasingly endangered in the Southwest . . . and if you look at the state of the party, it is a shrinking entity."
...Schmidt spoke openly of McCain's reluctant choice of Palin after hopes of running with former Democrat Joe Lieberman were scuttled by the right, which threatened a convention floor fight. "That would have had the effect of blowing up the Republican Party," he said, "and when you look at all the challenges we had during the 2008 election cycle, blowing up the party wasn't one of the menu items of things that were going to improve our situation."
...[Schmidt] joked about the GOP leadership vacuum ("this 'Lord of the Flies' period"), mocked the party's presidential strategy ("Hold the South and we'll spend $80 million trying to flip Ohio")
...He willingly accepted responsibility for denying Palin the right to speak on election night, because "if you lose, the concession speech is a singular moment" that "acknowledges the legitimacy of the victory and refreshes, if you will, the constitutional order."
...[on Obama]As a political proposition, his first 100 days have been successful," he said. "His approval rating is in the 60s, there has been dramatic improvement in the 'right track' number, he's had success . . . at passing legislation, and the Republican Party as a matter of reality in the first 100 days has not done anything to improve its political condition."
Plouffe's comments-
"I think the scoreboard of how many House Republicans voted for a certain bill is a flawed measure, because the truth is there's very few House Republicans that worry about the middle of the electorate anymore," the president's former campaign manager said.
"We've won all there is to win in the House, so these folks are worried about their primaries, and Newt Gingrich is calling all their shots and pulling out the dusty playbook from 1994 and saying, 'Just oppose the president, and maybe if things don't go well you'll profit.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042304209.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Campaign In a Couple of Minutes
TW: Talking Points is good at putting video compilations together. This one pulls those memorable moments from the endless campaign together into two or three minutes. Good stuff.
ps the weird white haired guy that periodically appears is Mike Gravel the iconoclastic Dem that kind of ran in the Dem primaries but not really
ps the weird white haired guy that periodically appears is Mike Gravel the iconoclastic Dem that kind of ran in the Dem primaries but not really
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Voting By County With African-Americans Stripped Out
TW: Results for the recent POTUS election by county with African-American votes stripped out. From: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/11/estimates_votes.html
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Another One For the Good Guys
TW: AP called the Alaska Senate race for Mark Begich tonight, sending Ted Stevens out to pasture (or jail depending on the result of his sentencing/appeals). That makes 58 seats for the Dems with MN and GA still pending...
Monday, October 13, 2008
My Take On Potential McCain Comeback Themes
TW: This article by Joe Klein (Time) was written 10/2, I answered the same day but am setting the post for 10/13 to give myself a chance to look foolish should any of them materialize between then and now. Klein outlines possible themes which would turn the election momentum back toward McCain (recall on 10/2 Obama was up roughly 6-7%)
From Klein (and TW)
"Several Republicans--Reagan Administration sorts--have said to me in the past few days, "It's over. McCain blew it." I dunno. We have a month left--and all sorts of things can happen. Here's a list of some of them, in order of likelihood: TW: first of all I think it is unfair to ever say this election was ever McCain's to "blow", he was swimming upstream all year against currents that have only gotten more and more extreme.
1. McCain finds a gut-bucket issue that works--my personal suspicion is that it will be immigration demagoguery, even though he wrote the comprehensive bill. Obama's position in favor of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants is an area of legitimate disagreement between the candidates and an obvious target. TW: Cannot see it, McCain is not positioned to be a populist on immigration even if he were I believe he would lose more Latino votes than gain fearful "native" votes.
2.Osama Bin Laden weighs in: He did it last time, releasing a tape hammering Bush on the last weekend of the campaign. The CIA assessment was that bin Laden wanted Bush--whose policies had brought many new recruits--reelected. This time, you could see Osama "endorsing" Obama...TW: Osama is always a wild card, certainly what is good for the US (e.g. getting rid of Bush or putting in Obama) is what he will try to prevent. A significant attack changes everything in terms of mood and focus. If the US somehow gets Osama in the next month that would immediately even with the economic crisis change the narrative.
3. McCain does better in the next two debates--one of them is a town meeting, his favorite format. Another possible opportunity for McCain is that the first debate was watched by a mere 50 million, probably because it was held on Friday night. The town hall debate audience will be much larger, I suspect, giving McCain a second chance to make first impressions. TW: Doubt it, I think the impact of the debates recedes geometrically from the first to the last, people pay less not more atttention, minds are made up, Obama can just play it very cool.
4. Obama screws up somehow--yeah, yeah, highly unlikely. But not impossible. After all, he did make the
"cling to religion and guns" comment. More likely, will be a revisitation of a past screwup--Jeremiah Wright inserts his humble presence into the campaign. Some youthful political indiscretion is unearthed. TW: Always possible although after two years I would be quite surprised if something new came up (the Clintons were not timid vetters). As I have posted previously I think Wright will re-appear but his impact will be muted (assuming they do not find a tape of Obama in a direct inflammatory interaction with him).
5. The economic issue recedes and national security comes to the fore. Iraq blows up again (the Shi'ites diss the Sunni Awakening), Pakistan disintegrates and the disposition of the nukes is unclear--and then there's always the not-so-unthinkable...another terrorist strike. (Although given McCain's erratic behavior in the past month, I'm not so sure this would be an advantage for him.) TW: This is very similiar to point 2 above. But Iraq or even Pakistan "blowing up" probably hurts McCain more than Obama. Iran would be a more likely tricky situation if say Israel attacked the nuclear facilities. If Russia decides to invade Ukraine, then yes McCain gains but I do not think that will happen.
TW: What I think this piece demonstrates is the challenge McCain faces a month before the election. True gamechanges become more difficult with every passing day
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/game_changers.html
From Klein (and TW)
"Several Republicans--Reagan Administration sorts--have said to me in the past few days, "It's over. McCain blew it." I dunno. We have a month left--and all sorts of things can happen. Here's a list of some of them, in order of likelihood: TW: first of all I think it is unfair to ever say this election was ever McCain's to "blow", he was swimming upstream all year against currents that have only gotten more and more extreme.
1. McCain finds a gut-bucket issue that works--my personal suspicion is that it will be immigration demagoguery, even though he wrote the comprehensive bill. Obama's position in favor of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants is an area of legitimate disagreement between the candidates and an obvious target. TW: Cannot see it, McCain is not positioned to be a populist on immigration even if he were I believe he would lose more Latino votes than gain fearful "native" votes.
2.Osama Bin Laden weighs in: He did it last time, releasing a tape hammering Bush on the last weekend of the campaign. The CIA assessment was that bin Laden wanted Bush--whose policies had brought many new recruits--reelected. This time, you could see Osama "endorsing" Obama...TW: Osama is always a wild card, certainly what is good for the US (e.g. getting rid of Bush or putting in Obama) is what he will try to prevent. A significant attack changes everything in terms of mood and focus. If the US somehow gets Osama in the next month that would immediately even with the economic crisis change the narrative.
3. McCain does better in the next two debates--one of them is a town meeting, his favorite format. Another possible opportunity for McCain is that the first debate was watched by a mere 50 million, probably because it was held on Friday night. The town hall debate audience will be much larger, I suspect, giving McCain a second chance to make first impressions. TW: Doubt it, I think the impact of the debates recedes geometrically from the first to the last, people pay less not more atttention, minds are made up, Obama can just play it very cool.
4. Obama screws up somehow--yeah, yeah, highly unlikely. But not impossible. After all, he did make the
"cling to religion and guns" comment. More likely, will be a revisitation of a past screwup--Jeremiah Wright inserts his humble presence into the campaign. Some youthful political indiscretion is unearthed. TW: Always possible although after two years I would be quite surprised if something new came up (the Clintons were not timid vetters). As I have posted previously I think Wright will re-appear but his impact will be muted (assuming they do not find a tape of Obama in a direct inflammatory interaction with him).
5. The economic issue recedes and national security comes to the fore. Iraq blows up again (the Shi'ites diss the Sunni Awakening), Pakistan disintegrates and the disposition of the nukes is unclear--and then there's always the not-so-unthinkable...another terrorist strike. (Although given McCain's erratic behavior in the past month, I'm not so sure this would be an advantage for him.) TW: This is very similiar to point 2 above. But Iraq or even Pakistan "blowing up" probably hurts McCain more than Obama. Iran would be a more likely tricky situation if say Israel attacked the nuclear facilities. If Russia decides to invade Ukraine, then yes McCain gains but I do not think that will happen.
TW: What I think this piece demonstrates is the challenge McCain faces a month before the election. True gamechanges become more difficult with every passing day
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/game_changers.html
Thursday, October 2, 2008
An Important Poll: Who Economists Support?
TW: I know some Republicans say screw the economists lets have the moose hunters run things. While economists like everyone else are fallible, one should heed their advice...
From the Economist:
"...80% of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject....
A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so....
On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.
Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s....
Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation... Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/which_candidate_do_economists.cfm
From the Economist:
"...80% of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject....
A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so....
On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.
Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s....
Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation... Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/which_candidate_do_economists.cfm
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Can the Dems Get To 60 Seats In the Senate
TW: A new poll in Kentucky has me thinking about the Senate races. The Dems have dreams of getting to 60 Senate seats which would allow Senate Dems to achieve cloture and greatly increase their operational control of Congress. Going from the current 51 which includes Lieberman to 60 would require another wave election like 2006. Recall though until the Mark Foley scandal blew up the first week of Oct 2006, the Dems while ascendent were not expected to gain control of the Senate or even necessarily the House. When a "wave" hits, the ascendent party suddenly takes almost all close races plus previously barely competitive races become tos-ups. You can go to Congressional Quarterly or Stu Rothenburg's site to get regular status reports but roughly the Dems situation is as follows:
They will likely not lose any Senate seats, Landrieu in LA is the only vulnerable seat but expected to hold.
Mark Warner is heavily favored for John Warner's open seat in VA
Tom Udall is favored for Pete Domenieci''s open seat in NM
Mark Udall (Tom's cousin) is favored for Wayne Allard's open seat in CO
Jeanne Sheehan leads incumbent John Sununu in NH
Mark Begich leads incumbent Ted Stevens (the crooked one) in AK
Those five would get the Dems to 56. The Dems are in tight races in 3 more to get to 59:
MN with Al Franken v. incumbent Norm Coleman
MS with Roger Musgrave v. incumbent Roger Wicker
NC with Kay Hagan v. incumbent Elizabeth Dole
So the Dems would have to pull a sweep just to get to 59 unless...the wave hit putting another 3 or 4 seats in play
KY with Bruce Hubbard v. incumbent Mitch McConnell
OR with Jeff Merkley v. incumbent Gordon Smith
ME with Tom Allen v. Susan Collins (Smith and Collins are decent Senators just in the wrong party)
"Dave" Palin had really helped the Congressional Republicans by energizing their base but she may no longer be enough. The KY result is only one poll but if legit these races are correlated, if McConnell is truly struggling then several other Republicans will be as well. All the tight races get really interesting for the Dems and those marginally competitive races like KY, OR, and ME become competitive. We still have five weeks though many things can change either way.
From Taegen Goodard:
"A new Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll finds Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in a dead heat with challenger Bruce Lunsford (D), 41% to 41%, among likely voters...McConnell does inch ahead 45% to 44% [if leaners included]. Knocking off McConnell would dramatically help Democrats in reaching 60 seats in the U.S. Senate.
Said Larry Sabato: "If Lunsford is actually doing this well, its got to be because the public is so upset by the economic meltdown and may be blaming the legislative leaders. If this is true, Democrats may win a lot more seats in both the House and the Senate than people are predicting."
They will likely not lose any Senate seats, Landrieu in LA is the only vulnerable seat but expected to hold.
Mark Warner is heavily favored for John Warner's open seat in VA
Tom Udall is favored for Pete Domenieci''s open seat in NM
Mark Udall (Tom's cousin) is favored for Wayne Allard's open seat in CO
Jeanne Sheehan leads incumbent John Sununu in NH
Mark Begich leads incumbent Ted Stevens (the crooked one) in AK
Those five would get the Dems to 56. The Dems are in tight races in 3 more to get to 59:
MN with Al Franken v. incumbent Norm Coleman
MS with Roger Musgrave v. incumbent Roger Wicker
NC with Kay Hagan v. incumbent Elizabeth Dole
So the Dems would have to pull a sweep just to get to 59 unless...the wave hit putting another 3 or 4 seats in play
KY with Bruce Hubbard v. incumbent Mitch McConnell
OR with Jeff Merkley v. incumbent Gordon Smith
ME with Tom Allen v. Susan Collins (Smith and Collins are decent Senators just in the wrong party)
"Dave" Palin had really helped the Congressional Republicans by energizing their base but she may no longer be enough. The KY result is only one poll but if legit these races are correlated, if McConnell is truly struggling then several other Republicans will be as well. All the tight races get really interesting for the Dems and those marginally competitive races like KY, OR, and ME become competitive. We still have five weeks though many things can change either way.
From Taegen Goodard:
"A new Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll finds Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in a dead heat with challenger Bruce Lunsford (D), 41% to 41%, among likely voters...McConnell does inch ahead 45% to 44% [if leaners included]. Knocking off McConnell would dramatically help Democrats in reaching 60 seats in the U.S. Senate.
Said Larry Sabato: "If Lunsford is actually doing this well, its got to be because the public is so upset by the economic meltdown and may be blaming the legislative leaders. If this is true, Democrats may win a lot more seats in both the House and the Senate than people are predicting."
Monday, September 15, 2008
538 Silver's Take On the Wall Street Turmoil
"People...seem to think that this will be some sort of linchpin event in the campaign. I don't necessarily buy that, because I think that most voters grasp intuitively that markets are markets, and that policymakers have less to do with their direction than they might with something like job creation.
To the extent there are opportunities, however, you'd think they'd favor Obama. He should have the much easier time of things, because people naturally associate Wall Street with the Republicans, and because he can simply link the troubles to the failures of the status quo under George W. Bush.
McCain, by contrast, is under more pressure to actually propose solutions, which is difficult because there aren't a lot of good ones here. He certainly needs to improve his messaging over where it was in his morning appearance in Jacksonville today, where he was borderline incoherent on the subject of the financial crisis."
To the extent there are opportunities, however, you'd think they'd favor Obama. He should have the much easier time of things, because people naturally associate Wall Street with the Republicans, and because he can simply link the troubles to the failures of the status quo under George W. Bush.
McCain, by contrast, is under more pressure to actually propose solutions, which is difficult because there aren't a lot of good ones here. He certainly needs to improve his messaging over where it was in his morning appearance in Jacksonville today, where he was borderline incoherent on the subject of the financial crisis."
More Rothenburg Analysis Of Where the Election Stands
TW: As I have mentioned previously Stuart Rothenburg is about as analytical and unbiased as any of the politicos out there, his latest:
"Don’t assume that the first flurry of polls we’ve seen this week will reflect the 2008 electoral landscape two or three weeks from now. Like the Democratic convention bounce...the Republican bounce...is likely to dissipate...For months, I’ve argued that the public’s disconnect between McCain’s brand and the GOP brand was filled with both risk and opportunity for Republicans. Either the party’s terrible image could rebrand McCain, causing him to plummet in the polls and dragging him down to defeat, or McCain could redefine the Republican Party and improve its image.While the CNN poll suggests that McCain’s image — or running mate Sarah Palin’s — has re-branded his party, it is far too early to conclude that that is exactly what has happened. The recently released NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, which rarely jumps around erratically and therefore has earned my admiration, showed less redefinition of the parties...unless and until other surveys confirm a new political reality in the electorate, it’s wise to be cautious and assume that Republicans are still swimming against a strong tide."
"Don’t assume that the first flurry of polls we’ve seen this week will reflect the 2008 electoral landscape two or three weeks from now. Like the Democratic convention bounce...the Republican bounce...is likely to dissipate...For months, I’ve argued that the public’s disconnect between McCain’s brand and the GOP brand was filled with both risk and opportunity for Republicans. Either the party’s terrible image could rebrand McCain, causing him to plummet in the polls and dragging him down to defeat, or McCain could redefine the Republican Party and improve its image.While the CNN poll suggests that McCain’s image — or running mate Sarah Palin’s — has re-branded his party, it is far too early to conclude that that is exactly what has happened. The recently released NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, which rarely jumps around erratically and therefore has earned my admiration, showed less redefinition of the parties...unless and until other surveys confirm a new political reality in the electorate, it’s wise to be cautious and assume that Republicans are still swimming against a strong tide."
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Politico: McCain Has It Figured Out, Lie Because It Works
Politico has a must read on why McCain in addition to adopting vast swaths of the Bush policy agenda has now adopted the Rovian campaign style which has lowered the standards of American politics over the past 10 years. This approach is a proven winner it is up to Obama and ultimately the American people to make it a has-been approach.
The money quotes:
"McCain’s tactics are drawing the scorn of many in the media and organizations tasked with fact-checking the truthfulness of campaigns. In recent weeks, Team McCain has been described as dishonorable, disingenuous and downright cynical...The furor presents a breathtaking contrast to McCain’s image as a kind of anti-politician who plays fair, disdains politics as usual and has never forgotten how his 2000 presidential campaign was incinerated by a series of loathsome dirty tricks in the South Carolina primary.
McCain seems to have made a choice that many politicians succumb to but that he had always promised to avoid — he appears ready to do whatever it takes to win, even it if soils his reputation...We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it...a campaign that is now unapologetically aggressive and aimed almost entirely at keeping Obama off-message, even if it means hitting him below the belt in the process
Every day not talking about the economy, the war and how to fix a broken system is a victory for McCain...They’re going to ride it as long as they can and as long as the mainstream media puts up every ridiculous charge.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13412.html
The money quotes:
"McCain’s tactics are drawing the scorn of many in the media and organizations tasked with fact-checking the truthfulness of campaigns. In recent weeks, Team McCain has been described as dishonorable, disingenuous and downright cynical...The furor presents a breathtaking contrast to McCain’s image as a kind of anti-politician who plays fair, disdains politics as usual and has never forgotten how his 2000 presidential campaign was incinerated by a series of loathsome dirty tricks in the South Carolina primary.
McCain seems to have made a choice that many politicians succumb to but that he had always promised to avoid — he appears ready to do whatever it takes to win, even it if soils his reputation...We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it...a campaign that is now unapologetically aggressive and aimed almost entirely at keeping Obama off-message, even if it means hitting him below the belt in the process
Every day not talking about the economy, the war and how to fix a broken system is a victory for McCain...They’re going to ride it as long as they can and as long as the mainstream media puts up every ridiculous charge.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13412.html
Debunking Mythology
As mentioned previously, the Obama campaign is now releasing detailed memos rebutting point by point (footnoted) the myths being propagated by McCain
Key myths addressed in this memo include amongst others:
1) McCain Myth: Palin Visited Troops In Iraq
2) McCain Myth: Palin Is a Fiscal Conservative
3) McCain Myth: Palin Has Succeeded in Signing a Deal to Build Alaska’s Long-Stalled Gas Pipeline
4) McCain Myth: Palin’s Energy Experience Will Lower Gas Prices and Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil
5) McCain Palin Myth: Sarah Palin Told Congress “Thanks But No Thanks” On That Bridge to Nowhere
6) McCain Myth: Sarah Palin NEVER Sought Earmarks As Governor
7) McCain Myth: Palin Cut Taxes
8) McCain Myth: Palin Is a Reformer Who Brought Ethics Back to Alaskan Politics
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-the-straight-talk-express/
Key myths addressed in this memo include amongst others:
1) McCain Myth: Palin Visited Troops In Iraq
2) McCain Myth: Palin Is a Fiscal Conservative
3) McCain Myth: Palin Has Succeeded in Signing a Deal to Build Alaska’s Long-Stalled Gas Pipeline
4) McCain Myth: Palin’s Energy Experience Will Lower Gas Prices and Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil
5) McCain Palin Myth: Sarah Palin Told Congress “Thanks But No Thanks” On That Bridge to Nowhere
6) McCain Myth: Sarah Palin NEVER Sought Earmarks As Governor
7) McCain Myth: Palin Cut Taxes
8) McCain Myth: Palin Is a Reformer Who Brought Ethics Back to Alaskan Politics
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-the-straight-talk-express/
Quote of the Day:
“I think the McCain folks realize if they can get this thing down in the mud, drag Obama into the mud, that’s where they have the best advantage to win,”
Matthew Dowd (former Bush advisor)
Matthew Dowd (former Bush advisor)
Time Klein: McCain Wags the Dog on Taxes
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor, is an honest man--which means he's something of a liability on the Straight Talk Express. ...he admitted...that Barack Obama's economic plan would reduce taxes for most people. And now, in a forthcoming book by Fortune columnist Matt Miller, he makes it clear that the next President is going to have to raise taxes.
"If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian," he tells Miller...and then he immediately makes it clear that the "spending side" part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf. "It's arithmetic." Federal revenue today is 18.8 percent of GDP and federal spending is 20 percent. Holtz-Eakin observes that "the pressure are there" to lift spending [on entitlement programs, mostly] and taxes to 23 or 24 percent of GDP by around 2020, and to as much as 27 percent if health costs remain out of control.
Miller does the arithmetic: that's an annual tax hike of $550 to $700 billion, well beyond the range of any spending cuts that McCain has or might propose. (Those vaunted earmarks cost about $20 billion per year.)
Miller concludes: So why does tax-cutting mania persist among Republicans....'It's the brand,' {Holtz-Eakin} said, 'and you don't dilute the brand.' "
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_mccain_tax_increasescontin.html
"If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian," he tells Miller...and then he immediately makes it clear that the "spending side" part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf. "It's arithmetic." Federal revenue today is 18.8 percent of GDP and federal spending is 20 percent. Holtz-Eakin observes that "the pressure are there" to lift spending [on entitlement programs, mostly] and taxes to 23 or 24 percent of GDP by around 2020, and to as much as 27 percent if health costs remain out of control.
Miller does the arithmetic: that's an annual tax hike of $550 to $700 billion, well beyond the range of any spending cuts that McCain has or might propose. (Those vaunted earmarks cost about $20 billion per year.)
Miller concludes: So why does tax-cutting mania persist among Republicans....'It's the brand,' {Holtz-Eakin} said, 'and you don't dilute the brand.' "
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_mccain_tax_increasescontin.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)