Also remember that Perot had enough money (and willingness to use it) to run all sorts of national TV ads.

Yep.

...because Bob Barr is such a Washington outsider.

Probably meant as an outsider to the traditional red/blue spectrum. Seems like anyone who doesn't fall in line behind a liberal or a conservative candidate or little bit of both is considered too radical to be taken seriously. Alternating status quo rulz.

I was looking at the current electoral map with No Tossup States

RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map

I find it peculiar that with the so-called "winds of change" sweeping the country, that this map would look nearly identical to 2004, fwiw. Probably the end of Bush/Cheney would be enough of a change.

Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The Democrats have all but completely dominated politics the last few years and the Republicans are on the ropes. The Republican Party needs to be rebuilt, not just in personnel leadership, but in ideals. The libertarians could jump into the fray as "New Republicans" and take over/merge with the party. We've had how many party migrations from one ideology to another in our history? After the take-over, just change the name. ;)

Maybe it is just me, but just because Barr is no longer a registered Republican does not mean that he no longer a conservative candidate. I'm sure his beliefs and the majority of the actions that he would take as president would be considered conservative. Just as Ralph Nadar is a liberal. regardless of his status as a Democrat, Green, or independent. Pat Buchanan is still a conservative, whether he runs as the Republican or Reform party nominee.

Removing the candidate from one of the two majority party does not change where they fall on the political spectrum. That is the big problem I have with folks that think a multiple party system would be vastly superior to what we have now: The third party (or fourth or fifth parties, if it came to that) would still have to compromise and align with one another in order to form a majority and pass laws.

Not that it's all that surprising, but Indiana is the latest poll to sway to the McCain side. It had long been mentioned that Indiana would likely end up being a 'red' state. What is surprising is the circumstances surrounding it. Obama had put a lot of money into Indiana in the hopes that he could steal that state. Those efforts now appear to have been in vain. This is certainly going to embolden critics of Obama's staff who feel that McCain's campaign is being run much better at this point in time.

Also, I go back to the 5 best bellweather states that I previously mentioned in this post......

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

McCain now leads in Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee on all the major polling sites. Obama leads only in New Mexico on all major polling sites. That's a very telling stat at this point.

No stat can be telling at this point of a modern presidential election, most of the "middle" doesn't pay attention to the election until post conventions.

Image is everything, and no US presidential election has had two candidates that have been so different in their images. There is no conventional wisdom for this race, and any projections are nothing but wild guesses until election night.

When I get home tonight, I'll dig up the alternative to a "spectrum". Sometimes it is represented as a quadrant but I tend to view it as a diamond. You'll see later.

I disagree with that. This is the third straight election where the Democrats have been in control early on, only to see that lead falter in August right before the conventions. There's a definite trend here and the Democrats need to figure out why history keeps repeating itself. They seem to start with great momentum and then really falter in the middle portion of the race.

its because polls mean nothing

And I could possibly buy into that. Perhaps there's an inherent bias towards the Dems early on that corrects itself as time progresses and they just haven't accounted for what causes that. I'm not saying it's intentional, but there's obviously a trend here.

With that said, that doesn't change the fact that polling trends like this do effect how the public perceives the overall race. It does have an effect when Katy Couric or Brian Williams comes on the nightly news and reports that Obama's relatively large polling lead from a month ago is now reduced to a dead heat. Perception is everything and a news blurb like that does have an effect.

That's a very good point. At some point, it becomes more about the candidates rather than the last administration. Perhaps the public in general becomes more forward-looking as the conventions approach.

I think a lot of the problem that the Democrats have is that they keep nominating these social elites. Look at Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama. They are/were all elites. The problem that each of them have is that they can be made to appear that they look down at the masses. This is not a good trait to have in a general election. Early on, it is not a problem, but the deeper you get into a campaign, the more of an impact it has.

The single successful Democrat Presidential candidate of the last 20 years was Bill Clinton. He was anything but an elite, and he won two terms.

From a style standpoint, this election is probably more similar to Dwight Eisenhower vs. Adlai Stevenson. Eisenhower (McCain) was the former military man; an affable guy, but not the most polished speaker, who sometimes fumbled for words. Stevenson (Obama) was the "smartest man in the room"; fluent, cool and cerebral, qualities that made him interesting but did not make him president.

Because he's a Republican. Most Democrats tend to run saying they understand the poor and downtrodden. An elite Democrat is going to have a hard time making that click. As Warhammer mentioned, the last two Democratic presidents were a fresh-faced governor from Arkansas and a peanut farmer from Georgia. It's a lot easier to play that card when you fit the mold.

Republicans can run as elites because their main support base lies in the wealthier class along with the moral conservatives who are more concerned about moral issues than any economic issues. They don't care who you help economically as long as you don't favor abortion.

Realistically, isn't that the result of better attack ads, by the Republicans, that have defined the Democratic candidates before they could define themselves?

Take a look at the opponents of the Dems that you are listing:

--George H.W. Bush is the son of a senator, a Yale graduate, and a multi-millionaire.
--George W. Bush was the son a president (among his father's other prestigious positions), a Yale graduate, and a multi-millionaire.
--John McCain is the son of a 4-star admiral, attended private boarding school and West Point, and isa multi-millionaire.

Excluding Kerry, Dukakis and Obama are both the children of immigrants and rose from much humbler beginnings than their opponents.

abortion rights, not necessarily abortion (I hate that missed nuance)

Point taken.

The whole elite thing is just marketing. No way Obama is more elite than than McCain. Both of them are smarter, richer, and more powerful than the vast majority of Americans.

That, though, gets to the Democrats problem. The Republicans have been masters of branding while the Dems have sucked. In August the McCain folks started relentlessly hammering the celeb angle and it's working because Obama isn't branding as well. With McCain it's easy to find a line or two that sums up him and his vision of his opponent. With Obama that's much more difficult. The change angle worked well in the primary, but they've let that fall away over the summer. They're running lots of niche issue ads state by state instead of focusing on a dominant theme of the election.

That being said, there's a long way to go, and while I still expect a close election, it's foolish at this point to proclaim anyone the winner. By mid-September we'll have a much clearer picture of where the election stands.

OK, this just keeps getting more interesting. The Dems just announced that Al Gore will be a key speaker on the final night of the convention.

Obama has run on a platform of 'change'. In response to that call, the Democrats are having Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore as key speakers. That's not change......that's the exact same thing. I don't get it.

In addition, there was an article from the Hollywood reporter at FoxNews (yes, the gay Hollywood reporter at FoxNews is likely the most liberal reporter over there) detailing the large influx of celebrities expected in Denver next week.

FOXNews.com - Stars Get Ready for Democratic Convention - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

By the way, here is a snippet from an interesting piece I read a few days ago that kind of helps to explain what Obama has been using his resources on while McCain has heavily used his on advertising (and doing a very good job of using attack ads defining Obama):

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Obama Leads Better Than 3:1 in Field Offices


BTW, there is a graph on that link that demonstrates Obama's field advantage better than simply reading it will.

I think Obama is taking a major page out of the Bush handbook with their "get out the vote" strategy, in essence building up a strong infrastructure on the ground. He will rely more on advertising in the coming months (when he will not be under the same spending restraints that McCain is, since he opted out of public financing), gambling that he will have enough time to "brand" himself just prior to the election.

McCain is using all of his money on ads right now and he has the ability to burn all of the money that he raises prior to the convention (and, in fact, he has to use it or lose it). Once the RNC holds their convention, McCain will not be able to sustain the advertising advantage that he is currently enjoying because he will have to ration the fixed amount he receives from public financing.

Two interesting strategies. I'm guessing that McCain feels he can get out in front with aggressive advertising now and be able to run the race on the terms he has defined, while Obama is advertising a little more thinly right now (and, therefore, has less ability to define the key issues in the race down the road), with the hope that he will have a stronger ground game.

It should be noted that there's quite a bit of 'under the table' coordination between the campaigns and the 527 groups that can advertise 'independently' of the campaign. I'm sure that the various 527 groups will fill in the advertising if McCain's coffers get in a bit of a pinch. That's less important with Obama as he has plenty of funds available.

And Bush is going to speak at the Republican convention. That must mean McCain is running for Bush's third term!

Seriously, of course the biggest names in the party are going to speak, and you don't become a big name by being unknown.

If Obama loses, the decision to shut down the Dem 527s will loom large.

Yeah, but there's a big difference between trotting out the departing President of the United States who won two elections and a former candidate who lost his only bid at President. Nothing like evoking memories of the failed presidential bid of 8 years ago. And the Al Gore of 8 years ago is a much different person than the current Al Gore.

Pelosi has had some PR nightmares over the past few weeks. The only saving grace is that she'll have a teleprompter and won't be answering questions.

As far as Hillary goes, I'm getting the impression that she and Bill are doing everything they can to line her up for another shot at President in 4 years. I really don't think they have the party's interests as their priority. I think Hillary is more than happy to sell Obama's chances down the river this election to allow another bid in 4 years. Bill obviously hasn't been too coy about his feelings either.

A couple of folks got concerned when I accused Senator McCain of lying (rather than diminishing the charge by referring to 'misstatements' or some other less harsh claim). I didn't accuse him lightly. Now Newsweek's Jonathan Alter is leveling the same charge:

Link: The Smear Gap

Full Text:

In summary, presidential candidates twist the truth, regardless of party. Shocking really.

You'll pardon me if I don't consider a writer at Newsweek who references a affiliated site the arbitor of truth. The digging could continue all day regarding 'falsehoods' in a campaign. I'm sure you'd disagree with that and that's fine.

Sigh.

Setting aside the whole "he's the devil" thing, would you care to take a stab at responding to anything he actually says in the article?

Um, factcheck.org is known as a pretty neutral/objective site - sort of a snopes for politics.

That's kind of like saying the GAO is a liberal think tank.

In a similar vein, there's this column by Frank Rich, part of which I've excerpted below, and which is littered with actual citations.

Ah, so you've brought out a NY Times article as well to bolster your claim. Interesting tactic. :)

Listen, there's plenty to be ashamed of on both sides and insisting that one candidate is more evil than another is foolish at best. I don't vote based on what is in the candidate's past. As much as the right and left would like to tell me that these past issues with both candidates will somehow portray how they will act in office, I still vote for party policies when I vote, regardless of what a candidate did in their past. Whether McCain is an adulterer or Obama smokes, I can be relatively sure that the policies of each party will remain relatively similar and so I vote for the party when it comes to the presidential office.

You know, I think the reason conservatives don't like the NYT is that it backs up its stories with facts and citations. Even some of the NYT's columnists do this, as in the example above. As a result, it's easier and safer to just label the NYT as a propagandist rag than to actually challenge some of those citations.

And what about the article NoMyths posted? Again, probably the same thing.


Only because "evil" is a subjective term. It's perfectly reasonable, and objectively possible, to point out that one candidate has a habit of saying one thing and then doing another.


I find this hard to believe. What if a candidate killed a child? Cheated on his wife? Embezzled money? Pursued a legislative agenda with which you did not agree?


Then why bother with the attacks on Obama and the defense of McCain?

I'd ask why the need to cancel a visit that was never going to happen? I'd also ask why the Pentagon issued a statement that visiting troops isn't political, but allowing them to show up in possible political ads would be political.

I'm just a dumb civilian, but I know full well that the military isn't allowed to even appear to endorse a candidate...something that certainly can't happen if you keep the cameras out.

The Times presents just as many facts as FoxNews. That doesn't change the fact that they're both bias and present those facts in a manner that they favor. If you can't see that, we have little to discuss.

Neither candidate broke any laws. Outside of that, it's personal opinion or moral conflicts. Moral conflicts are honestly not that big of a deal for me. I'm sure I'll be labeled as selfish if I state that I vote for the candidate that supports policies that are generally best for me, but that's the way I do it.

I said that both candidates have less than favorable issues in their background if you're concerned about them from a moral perspective. I won't apologize for attacking both of them, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't care a whole lot about that stuff when I vote for the candidate.

There was a visit scheduled to happen without press. However, the trip to Europe was no longer a Congressional trip as had been the trip to the Middle East. His Congressional companions went back to the states and his expenses were being paid by the campaign. What I have read is that Obama was told by the military to please not come to the airbase because it would be considered a political trip. John McCain had the exact same thing happen at a naval base.

I have no dog in this fight, but I wouldn't call the NYT a paper that uses facts and citations.

Just look at the crappy story they ran about McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist without any merit. What about it's story involving the Duke lacrosse players without checking the facts (and waiting until the truth came out)? It seems to like to fudge some of the biggest stories. Let's be real? The newspaper and news channels will try whatever they can do to make themselves "important". In today's age with the internet and blogging, they're like a former hot chick who's time has past. They are trying to keep themselves important. And this involves both sides of the line.

^^^ excellent analysis. :)

I know they've fired at least one reporter in the not too distant past for totally fabricating a story. Makes you wonder how on the ball their editorial staff is.

I've got a question based on Clinton's comments a couple of weeks back.

How DO you consider someone qualified to be President of the U.S.?

^^^^^

Military experience -- at a command level -- a big plus.

Cabinet experience -- a big plus.

Some legislative experience -- For me, preferably in House.

Good moral character and personal integrity.





Not a Democrat -- major, major PLUS :)

LOL. And you voted for Bush???

I'm just kidding. Why the military experience?

Swaggs, here's an example of how one can be neither liberal or conservative, along with degrees of such, with the added factors of socio-economics



"The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner."

I disagree.

Don't you want the candidates to stay on the issues relevant to the majority of Americans?

You don't know Jon very well. He'd likely be most happy with Obama sent to Iran and then being nuked by the US Air Force.

The most relevant issue to the majority of American voters is which guy they keep out of the White House.

Everything else ultimately pales in comparison to that (particularly since neither has free reign to enact their agenda regardless of which one wins).

Why waste an expensive nuke? That's almost overkill, not to mention doing hundreds of millions in civic improvement at our expense.

Bucc, that is pretty well how I view the political spectrum and it is good to see in a chart. To me, I more strongly consider the use of liberal-conservative to refer to economic beliefs on how the government should determine spending (ie: federal vs states), with the social issues waivering through time in an almost fadlike manner to attract voters (ie: in the 1940s-50s, Southern "liberals" were all for Bibles, gun rights, etc.).

Kind of a tangent, but again, is Bob Barr really a Libertarian? While in congress, he spearheaded an effort to block same-sex marriage, voted for the Patriot Act, voted for the war in Iraq, and was extremely pro-life. That is all well and fine if it is what you believe in, but on those areas he wanted federal legislation rather than allowing for states' rights (which is what I would consider a true Libertarian-minded politician to push for on social issues). Wouldn't you be more happy with someone like Rudy Giuliani, who is (theoretically) a fiscal conservative and more liberal/moderate with social issues?

My point is that, if someone like Bob Barr were to become president, would he be all that different from some congress members that are currently in the Republican party? Even if he didn't want to be pigeon-holed as a member of one of the two parties, (unless we add a third dimension to that chart) his beliefs would still fall in line with and he would have to work with members of those parties to get things done.

If you look at the two senators from Pennsylvania, you would see that the Republican is pro-choice and (leans) pro-gay rights, while the Democrat is pro-life and opposes mandatory gay rights for employer benefits (among other areas). But, they each find more common ground, in the areas that are most important to them, with the parties that they belong to. I am a registered democrat because I feel more strongly about the social issues that they more often represent, even though I wish that their economic policies were more in line with my own (more moderate/conservative) line of thinking. I believe that any third party elected (whether Libertarian, Green, Socialist, Anarchist, etc.) would find more common ground with and caucus with one of the two parties, as well.

Swaggs, I understand but I envision a different scenario. You are correct in that this would be the scenario if Barr would get elected this year but that will not and cannot happen. I see the election of a third-party candidate coming from a fundamental shift in the voter's minds, unless there is a Lieberman/Lamont type situation. Such a shift would and should manifest itself in legislative bodies, particularly Congress, and it would be from Congress that a presidential candidate would emerge. For libertarianism, it is Congress that is the key, not the Executive. In today's Congressional elections, the unions, blacks, evangelical, military and corporate lobbyists have too much of a hold on the D and R parties to make a third-party president likely or feasible now; but perhaps sometime in the future, such special interests would fade and voters get quite fed-up. It's not going to happen top-down, but the otherway instead. Got to go now, I probably need to clarify later.

It's bizarre to me that anyone would call Obama an "elite" -- a mixed-race child in a single-parent household, raising himself up in the American tradition to success through education and hard work; a family-man and community activist. Which kind of boils down to calling Obama uppity. It seems to me a stunning blindness on the part of folks who feel comfortable making such claims, while not leveling the same charges at McCain. Especially as McCain can't even remember how many houses he owns.

To me it's sad that people who want to support a Conservative philosophy -- which is perfectly legitimate, despite my own misgivings about its execution -- are continually misled into buying the negative propaganda while displaying a troubling unwillingness to address the same issues with their chosen candidate.

My own take? The "elite" issue is one raised by the same folks who are intimidated by/bitter towards folks they feel are smarter/'better' than them. Even though pretty much anyone running for president is exactly that (present Commander-in-Chiefs excluded). The "elite" charge is just a propaganda tool that Republicans use to reinforce with their base that Democrats are a 'different kind of person' than they are -- a technique they apply to pretty much every inter-personal (or cultural) issue that there is.

This may be faulty perception on my part, but I always have more trouble with the Democratic Elite than the Republican Elite since it seems like the Democrats are more interested in taking my money to share for the "general good". If we are looking at more social programs, I'd want someone in charge who had a good understanding of the people being helped. Republican Elite bother me less because they usually give me more control of my life and finances. I don't really care if they can adequately try to speak for me since the generally don't try to.

Of course that could all be faulty perception or rationalization...

Al Gore's $30,000 utility bill comes to mind.

That's a legitimate way of approaching the philosophical differences, if one with which I disagree. I'd argue that Republicans offer the illusion of personal control, while establishing a framework that actually gives people less choice -- consider how much power corporate interests have in this country, or how pollution and climate change have affected the lives of countless Americans, or how by entrenching the richest 2% of our citizens while not providing for the other 98% who don't actually have the same kind of ability to be successful harms us through class struggles, poverty, and crime.

My take is that it's just illusory propaganda, not supported by the facts. Kind of like an employer at a salaried job who gives employees a $100 bonus in order to get them to put in extra time that makes up their actual cost and then some. It's focusing on the trees, and not the forest.

That's a fair opinion, but I wonder if liberals understand that economic conservatives just have a different philosphy than them - that they believe that "entrenching the richest 2%" (though I'd use different phrasing) actually HELPS the other 98%, and the country as a whole. The liberal propaganda always frames it as rich v. poor, corporation v. individual, and no real discussion or debate of economic policies ever takes place.

Different sides of the aisle always miss each other in these arguments. Both sides are guilty of this. Take Abortion for example. Pro-choice people say women have the right to choose. But pro-lifers aren't motivated by taking away a women's right, they want to protect unborn children. Pro-Life people say abortion is murder. But Pro-Choice people aren't looking to kill babies, they're just standing up for rights of women. Here's the real argument point - what's more important, this right to aborition on the whole, or this potential life of an unborn child. The discussion never reaches that point.

Same with economics - I want to hear liberals argue something more insightful than "Rich people are bad, we should tax them". I want to hear them argue why rich people spending and investing money is NOT ultimately better for the economy than having that money go to the government instead. Why is $1,000 to the government worth more than $1,000 invested in a company?

So in other words, you're here to support the Democratic party line. First, I'd love to see the drastic effect that pollution and climate change have had on Americans.

Second, I get really tired of the demonization of wealth as though it's a bad thing. I went to school for 7 years and earned 3 degrees. My wife went to school for 12 years and earned her M.D. We both pulled out thousands of dollars in loans and worked our tail off to complete our educations. As a result, we are in the top 3% in wages amongst Americans. Anyone with the proper motivation and work could do exactly what my wife and I did. We donate a few thousand dollars to charities each year. Of course, the Democratic party line states that I'm the evil guy because I'm part of that elite that earns all that money and stashes it away to give to future generations. Worse yet, you can be sure that the same politicians that are demonizing wealth and the passing of that wealth are the same people who are in that top 2% and do everything in their power to protect that wealth, much like I do.

I have little sympathy for those kinds of party arguments. No myths, my ass.

Molson: Your error is in apparently assuming that all people on the various sides buy into that approach, which isn't accurate. Real discussion does take place, but not generally in a climate where people call each other by labels and don't take a look at the facts. I don't personally have a problem with a subclass enriching itself far beyond the majority -- we do need business owners to provide jobs, after all -- but I find the kind of class pandering that we see from Republican campaigns distasteful, as it often seems false and disrespectful to the very people who support them. What's the Matter with Kansas does a good job of considering this issue.

It's also interesting to see that the "champion of the poor" Obama has a half-brother in Kenya that lives in a shack on less than $1/month.

Obama's half-brother to Vanity Fair: 'No one knows I exist' :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

I'm not sure how the Republican elite give you more control of your life. Seems to me they want to tell me exactly how to live my life, as long as it fits their narrowly defined view of what is acceptable and moral.

Not all conservatives think that way, but many do, and liberals just completely ignore that. It's a little off-putting when liberals tell conservatives that it's all a rich v. poor thing, completely ignoring the possibility that people just might have different opinions about how to make the American economy work best. Or in other words, if you don't agree with the Democrats on something, you hate poor people and are only looking out for the rich.

I'm, uh, not a Democrat. As I've mentioned several times before.

You can find the evidence for the effect pollution and climate change have had on our fellow citizens easily via Google search. However, as it's clear that you don't believe either is a problem, I doubt my efforts to convince you otherwise would be useful.

I'm not personally interested in demonizing folks that have been successful -- that's one of the great things about our country; more than any other, an average citizen has the ability to make their lives professionally and financially successful. It's not accurate to say that anyone can do so, but certainly a greater percentage have the ability here than anywhere else.

It's unfortunate that your three degrees apparently didn't strengthen your close reading skills, but I'd encourage you to take a second look at what I was actually saying, rather than lumping me into the 'rich people are bad' category.

Fixed.

I agree. Most do, but not all. I do think that there's definitely a place for the government to step in and assist at some level. I do think that the government allow far too many to use government welfare as a crutch. I think that this is an area that needs significant improvement in regards to administration. Cracking down on those who use the system that truly don't need it would allow for a greater amount of funds for those who do need it.

I just don't like the constant demonization of wealth when there are many people who earned that wealth and didn't have it handed to them. I should state that there's significant risks in the path my wife and I took. We were $200K in debt at one point. If we failed at any point, we would have been screwed.

This is exactly the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. It's all good v. evil with people like you. You're 100% right all the time, and everyone that doesn't agree must have evil motives.

Did you even read my post? I'm arguing that people should try to address the actual substance of people's views, and not just label them with assumed motivations. It's just an obnoxious and unproductive way to make a point.

I'm going to qualify this again as being based on immediate perception and not terribly deep thought, but I can't think of a way in which they do impact my life. Clearly Republicans speak out about ethical and moral values (whether or not them follow them themselves), but that doesn't translate too much into real impact. The one place I can see where it might have an impact is on the topic of abortion, but that wouldn't impact me personally. I guess the other area that might affect my life is the fact that the Republicans seem to have forgotten their mantra of "less government". That probably results in some subtle changes in my life due to government money going stupid places.

What the hell? I was just showing you how the exact opposite could be said about conservatives. You just stereotyped liberals in your post ("liberals completely ignore that"), but you're gonna tell me I'm making it "good vs. evil"? Get a fucking grip, man.

I'm probably already sounding like an idiot in this thread, so why not keep going... I would generally agree with MBBF here. I personally think that helping the less fortunate should be a private sector issue. Churches and charity groups do a lot of good in this area and I would like to see the Government back out of it some. It is good that the Government gets involved in emergencies and crazy situations, but I think we've got too many programs that allow people to survive on the programs and not be motivated to improve their own situation. Keeping this assistance in the private sector and letting people know that the assistance is temporary so they'd better start making their own improvement plans feels like the way to go for me.

Those aren't the real issues in terms of everyday impact. Pollution and climate change, for example, are issues that have been exacerbated by Republican policies -- for all of the good that a booming corporate economy gives us, there are also a number of drawbacks. However, they're trickier issues to pin down (unlike abortion, say) because they require a certain level of education and involvement with the topic that most aren't willing or able to commit, and as such their actual impact isn't at the forefront of most people's minds.

Alternately, in terms of everyday impact, there are a whole lot of families worried about their loved ones overseas in Iraq because of Republican-driven policies. Not to mention the drain of war costs on our economy.

I'm one of those folks that isn't sold on the idea of human causation for global warming, so I'm less worried about those Republican policies.

There is a real difference between liberals and conservatives here, that's the nature of the different viewpoints, it's not a stereotype.

Liberals can say "conservatives want to screw poor people", and win elections, because a lot of people consider themselves poor.

Conservatives can't say "liberals want to screw the top 2%", because the top 2% aren't going to win an election.

Both ideas are wrong, and meaningless, and ingore the real economic philosophies behind different systems. Liberals prefer a direct, "Robin Hood" approach, and Conservatives prefer a more indirect, pure capitalist approach. It's two ideas, both aimed towards the goal of a strong economy as a whole. It's not a rich/poor issue, and the pandering to those groups as if it was is just annoying and dishonest. Liberals can frame the discussion as "the top 2% vs. everyone else", as we've seen in this thread, and that's just idiotic (though good political strategy, as long as the voters are morons). It benefits liberals for voters to be uneducated, because who would EVER vote against the 98%?

(I'm not saying that the liberal economic philosophy is necessarily "wrong" in any way, though the general liberal argument strategy seems to be to avoid the real discussion, and just stick to 98% v. 2%, poor people need money, rich people should be taxed, etc. Conservatives would do no better, and would over-simplify things in the same way when it benefits them - like terrorism).

I'll give you a perfect example. Last Christmas, I found a local home that housed single mothers who are in a difficult financial situation or suffered from spousal abuse. They had a Christmas program set up where the mother made a list of everything that she needed that would help her get back on her feet. Diapers, baby food, baby formula, clothes for baby, high chair, car seat, work clothes for mom, etc. As an optional item, she asked for a DVD and a couple of Sesame Street videos for her child as she didn't have anything like that.

This is all stuff that I'm able to provide for my child. This girl was working 50 hours a week as a nurse and just needed a boost. I spent quite a bit of money on the items she needed, but when you give those things to the person and you see the emotional impact that it has on them, you realize just how fulfilling charitable contributions can be, especially when done in the private sector. Giving suddenly becomes addictive. That organization didn't take a dime from my contribution. It all went right to where it was needed. That's how it should be.

Except not all liberals say this, which is what you seem to be insinuating. You post that I "fixed" was willing to offer exceptions for conservaties - "not all conservatives think that way, but many do", but then implied that all liberals think alike.


What? Are you kidding? Many conservatives do say this, and it does help them win elections. Where do you think campaign contributions come from? I'm not sure you've been paying attention to elections for a long time if you don't think Republicans appeal to the top 2%.

Regardless of what polls say, I think this presidential election has been "over" for quite some time. The newspapers may say one thing, but I'll eat my hat and swim to China if McCain pulls this election. This should be, and probably will be a landslide victory for Obama. The local elections will be interesting, however, at least in my state...

My wife works in a partnership with Habitat for Humanity. Every time she goes on a trip to build home, she comes back very rejuvenated and ready to plan another trip so she can help more people. The people that get Habitat homes have to put in "sweat equity" on their home or on other Habitat homes so it isn't just a free hand-out. Charity done in this manner does tend to breed more charity.

The downside to all of this is that volunteers are temporary. People lose interest and many people don't have interest at all. Forcing everyone to pay (taxes) may result in more money, but it doesn't result in more caring. I can see where it is easier to have higher taxes and government programs so charity groups don't have to spend so much money just to raise awareness. I do think though that dropping government programs would result in more charitable giving. I'd love to see it tried, but I can't imagine any politician cutting a major welfare program.

I'm going to quote this post for permanence because I believe you'll be swimming to China come November.

I've never seen a conservative TV ad that highlights the plight of the downtrotten top 2%. That group is going to vote conservative, and contribute lots of money anyway. I'm not saying conservatives don't "appeal" to that group, just that that can't be their mainstream message, whereas the opposite is pretty much the entire liberal mainstream message.

(I say "conservative" instead of Republican because I don't feel the Republican party is fiscally conservative anymore)

I definitely thought this until the last week or so. It's amazing that it's even this close. Obama losing would be the biggest failure in the history of the modern Democratic party. It would end his national political career, and would have to cause some kind of major shake-up/revolution within the party.

Looks like the Zogby poll showing McCain with a 5 point lead looks to be a huge outlier at the moment. 5 separate polls have come out since then that all show Obama with a small lead.

Out of curiosity, how much bigger a failure would this be than 2004?

I think much bigger. Bush was unpopular in '04, and the Dems definitely blew it, but Bush is even more unpopular today. And then, I think there was this sentiment about maintaining consistent leadership in the middle of the "war on terror".

And John Kerry was just awful. If Obama can't get America excited about the Democratic party and what it stands for, it can't be done. Where does the Democratic party go from there?

As much as the biased side of me wants you to be correct, it is really tough to say. If it was even Kerry/Gore vs McCain I would agree with you.

This is still a country that would vote for JFK over Nixon based primarily on the fact that JFK looked better on camera. This is still a country that will vote for the guy that who's background and appearance is most like their own.

After those who vote by party and by issues take their sides, It will come down to charisma vs more-like-us. I am not sure which I would bet on at this point.

Dola, was Bush the perfect carrier for the conservative movement? Clinton for liberalism? Certainly not, winning a presidential election isn't about being the best carrier of the flag for either party. It is a series of popularity contests. The Democratic party was not significantly better off after their last 2 term president, and the same for the Republican party today. Actually, in terms of power held, both parties are worse off afterwards.

If the Democrat party moved themselves closer to the center, this thing would be all over. They could say they are pro-choice, but against partial birth abortion, they could favor a tiered energy policy (something I haven't heard from either side FWIW), they could favor a a thoughtful tax increase or look to make government more efficient, rather than raise taxes, etc.

What I find funny, is that the Democrats won Congress in 2006, but have not really done anything with that. Their approval rating is lower than Bush's. Why? If they really wanted to do things for the people of the country they could push all sorts of legislation and force Bush to have to sign or veto some of these things. I have not seen it done.

Michael Phelps, is that you? :)

I do agree with you that Obama should win this election. With that said, there's no way that this race should be a dead heat at this point, yet it is.

What's the difference between a thoughtful tax increase and raising taxes?

As for Congress, while they haven't been terribly effective, the big problem is that the Dems are playing by agreed upon rules and allowing the Republicans to block bills in the Senate through threat of filibuster or often a single hold. (Coburn put holds on over 100 pieces of legislation) They've tried to play with a gentlemen's agreement while the Republicans play to win.

I think people have similar concerns about an Obama presidency. Can he deliver everything he promises in the face of the realities of Washington? Or will we hear "he hasn't been effective, but its not really his fault"?

The persuasive power of the presidency is significantly greater than a U.S. senator. Ask Bush and his personal army in Iraq that is now rumored to be leaving in June '09. I don't believe in coincidence.

I do wonder how much of his Obama's lost of ground is due to:
a) His shifting of positions (moderating)? Are people really seeing just another politician? He seems to be shifting his views on Iraq, taxes, and such.
b) Are Americans looking for actual goals, plans, and action, instead of just charm?
c) His "rock star" campaign even thought he still is a inexperience senator from Illinois? I think that is one of two things that hurt Kerry in 2004 (Hollywood).
d) Are Americans always looking for an actual candidate with real plans, other than just what the candidate is (McCain is Bush III) and offer really no changes? (What killed Kerry in 2004)
5) The little stories (his minister, his Muslim background, ect.).

Plus I find little evidence that there's a strong pro-McCain element to the likely GOP voters that did still exist for Bush four years ago. Smaller than it was halfway through his first term but existent nonetheless.

True, but it's still America. Obama's platform is essentially, "I'll make the country better through change". If everyone thought he could actually do that, everyone would vote for him.

I think is part of the problem, I'm seeing, is what exactly is change. He really isn't getting that part out or has any real plans to follow that, and I wonder if voters are seeing through this (and in connection to my post above).

Democrats are nothing more than enablers of Republican policy. This is why there's very little substantial differences between the two parties.

Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush because self-identified Democrats disapprove of both of them. Usually, supporters of the party in charge approve of the job their office holders are doing (i.e. Bush and the 30%ers). In this case it's not true, hence the historically low rating.

Congress has been very effective (and almost always is) in doing what it wants to do and serving its own interests. Unfortunately the interests of the Federal government and those of ordinary citizens are almost never the same.

In both this and a large portion of your economic argument you're leaving out the reality that people don't agree on what's better. Many of the arguments against Obama are policy based arguments. If you don't agree with his vision of economic policy or healthcare policy or Iraq policy, or whatever, you won't vote for him, but that has nothing to do with a perceived empty rhetoric.

Easy, rather than repealing the entire tax cut, which they have said they want to do several times, you could repeal say half of the tax cut (that said, raising taxes while the economy is in questionable shape is not good sense anyway). Plus, let's not forget about how many judges the Dems are holding up in Congress. That is a travesty, and I can't see how anyone can say the Democrats are playing by a gentlemen's agreement. Hell, look at how they acted in Congress from 2002-2006 when they were a minority party.

Actually, most people that I know that are having second thoughts about Obama are having them for exactly this reason. They listen to him, and it is just rhetoric. What he needs to do is give a speech, talk about what he wants, and how he is going to do it. I have yet to hear that from him. I've heard what he wants to do, but have yet to hear a game plan of how he hopes to implement it.

I think Chevy Chase summed it up well when he was guest-hosting SNLWeekend Update last year:

"On Tuesday, candidate Barack Obama proposed setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world. A novel idea. He also hopes to save the polar ice caps, the whales, to make love, not war, and to buy the world a coke."

Obama will give a speech about health care, and he'll say that "we have to make health care more affordable to Americans". No shit, who doesn't want that? I guess I can infer that the answer is "more taxes", when we already spend far more than any other country, per GDP, on healthcare (about 15%) for a system that most agree doesn't work. Does anyone really think Obama can fix the health care system during his term?

You're arguing a different point that I'm not going to get into. I'm trying to point out that "better" is a genuine point of disagreement. Neither Obama or McCain can bridge all gaps because at heart people have differing interests and beliefs, but that doesn't mean that the candidates or voters are necessarily being dishonest.


You didn't just bring up judges. Compare the record from 2001-2008 with the Clinton years. Far more judges are being confirmed than when the situation was reversed. I'd argue the same thing as to holds and filibusters. The numbers aren't even close between this Congress and the previous one. AS far as I know the Dems also haven't ordered the Capitol Police on the Republicans yet, either.

Part of the judge issue, as well as the overall fixation on what happens to the Dems if they lose the White House speaks to our continuing fascination with an almost monarchical executive. I simply don't have a problem with Congress acting within the scope of the Constitution to limit the power of the executive. If the government is split the executive shouldn't get all of his nominees confirmed without a genuine effort to work with the opposition.

Isn't this what killed Kerry in 2004? His empty rhetoric and the I'm not Bush strategy? I think Americans, on average, are really good at reading through the BS and look for substance.

Clearly. Look at how much substance we've gotten as a country over the last seven years.