Just a quick drive-by thought here.

At this stage of the game, I can't say I'm sure how much those ads would be meant to influence voters in the Presidential race vs meant to try to generate more contributors in those states (by showing the appearance of an effort) vs an effort to help other down ballot candidates by at least trying to create the impression that the state(s) are in play.

Not saying they are, just saying that I'm not sure they aren't.

Well, VA is definitely in play.

But otherwise I think the intent is 45% to make McCain play some defense in states where he shouldn't have to, 45% to help downballot races and 10% "just in case" the state comes into play, for whatever reason.

We've been getting a heavy dose of ads from both candidates over the last couple of weeks in Missouri. It's like a non-stop political infomercial from 5:00 PM through 10:30 PM on the big networks. I'm guessing they won't stop until the first Tuesday in November.

FWIW, I agree.

I can't think VA is all that surprising, especially given the population growth (and its progressive-leaning demographic bent up north).

What really shocks me are some of the states also in play which really shouldn't be. Like Montana.

For discussion, here are 538's current projections, sorted by likelihood of Obama victory (likelihood of McCain victory can be inferred):

State EV Chance of Obama Victory
Vermont 3 100%
DC 3 100%
Rhode Island 4 99%
Hawaii 4 99%
Connecticut 7 98%
California 55 98%
Maine 4 97%
New York 31 97%
Maryland 10 96%
Massachusetts 12 95%
Illinois 21 95%
Minnesota 10 94%
Washington 11 94%
Oregon 7 89%
Wisconsin 10 88%
Delaware 3 87%
New Jersey 15 86%
Iowa 7 81%
Pennsylvania 21 79%
New Hampshire 4 76%
New Mexico 5 74%
Michigan 17 66%
Colorado 9 65%
Ohio 20 62%
Virginia 13 49%
Nevada 5 40%
Montana 3 40%
Missouri 11 31%
Indiana 11 31%
Florida 27 28%
North Carolina 15 25%
North Dakota 3 24%
South Dakota 3 22%
West Virginia 5 21%
Alaska 3 20%
South Carolina 8 16%
Georgia 15 11%
Arizona 10 11%
Texas 34 9%
Mississippi 6 7%
Arkansas 6 7%
Idaho 4 7%
Wyoming 3 5%
Nebraska 5 4%
Louisiana 9 3%
Kansas 6 3%
Tennessee 11 2%
Kentucky 8 2%
Alabama 9 1%
Oklahoma 7 1%
Utah 5 0%

The ones I find surprising are, in no particular order: Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana.

Of note are Michigan & Ohio, which have trended firmly back into Obama's camp after Clinton's concession.

Iowa isn't too surprising given how well he did in the primary and how much time he spent there. Clinton won Montana in 92 and lost by only 3 in 1996. It's a winnable state for Democrats in tough economic times.

Ohio at 62% is a bit high I think. I mean, if he wins that, then he wins the election unless he drops a big Kerry state.

Indiana at 31% shoots up at least 20 points if he picks Bayh for VP, if not more.

I certainly think he has a better shot in GA than SC.

Oh yeah. Way to feel like my vote counts. :)

Actually it's neither, although one can debate whichever is a worse scenario. Congress is the one with the pursestrings and the "devil-in-the-details" legislation, usually declaring any proposed legislation from Executive to be DOA, or at best, guidelines to add on whatever they wish. To me, the length of time to enact legislation is irrelevant - it what comes out of that body that affects all of us, in some way or form. One of Bush's biggest failures is his inability to veto any legislation during the Rep. dominated Congress (as well as its rubber-stamping). Taking it to an extreme, I actually want no legislation to come out of Congress, except what is granted to them Constitutionally and to significantly pare down current legislative-mandated bureacracies and taxations. The same for Executive. Realistically, I want gridlock. I guess that would mean a strong Executive with the balls to veto and a Congress being forced to scale back.

Those are both a bit higher than I would've guessed. We've been seeing a ton of ads for both sides in Michigan.

As the economy tanks it is rapidly becoming the most important aspect to the coming election. Obama is currently attacked as both inexperienced and elitist but here is the oppportunity to turn the tables on McCain who has admitted to being relatively ignorant in economics and reliant on his advisors. But Gramm has shown his advisors to be elitist (what recession?) and out of touch with mainstream Americans. McCain's reliance on advisors makes his objection to Gramm's views unconvincing and I'm surprised the Obama camp hasn't made much more of this.

The New Yorker cartoon was a case, I think, of personal financial gain overcoming political commitment :)

It should be pointed out that Obama, a resident of Hyde Park in Chicago, knows most of the highly-respected economics staff of the University of Chicago, i.e. the "Chicago School" of economics, and their advice would figure greatly in his administration. And this is a pretty free market crowd.

McCain has Phil "Mental Recession" Gramm.

Rasmussen's polls out today put both Nevada and North Carolina into statistical ties.

The race will tighten up significantly after the conventions -- especially when some of the 527s out there start running racially-tinged ads in currently competitive states where that kind of crap plays.

The biggest question in my mind is how that stuff will influence the electorates in MI, PA and OH. NC and GA are sideshows for the most part. This election will be won in those three big states. It is difficult to see how Obama wins without taking all 3.

electoral-vote.com has Obama with 325 electoral votes right now. Even if you take Ohio away, then 305 is more than enough.

Even if you discredit the possibly suspect polls in Indiana, Montana, and Virginia, that still leaves him with 278.

I think McCain is going to have to take 2 of 3 from MI, OH, and PA.

Maybe not Michigan - Colorado + New Mexico + Nevada (which I think all 3 will go to McCain) more than equal MI. But, yes, if OH and PA both go blue, there is no way Obama can lose. Likewise if 1 of them goes red, it will be tough for Obama to win. That's the way I've always understood this race.

The math doesn't support your scenario. If Obama loses all the states where he has a slim or suspect lead (NV, CO, IN, OH, MT, VA) then he has 264 electoral votes. PA would certainly be enough. If anything, it looks like he could lose PA and OH, and still win if he takes VA or CO. And we're not even including MO, which is dead even right now.

It's pretty clear that McCain needs to take both OH and PA, to win this election. 1 of 2 won't be enough, unless he pulls off a major upset somewhere else.

Well, looking at the electoral-vote map, I would say these states are fairly likely to move Red by November:

3 Montana
9 Colorado
5 New Mexico
5 Nevada
3 North Dakota
3 South Dakota
11 Indiana
13 Virginia

That's 52 more, making it 251 total for McCain. In that scenario either PA or OH would make a GOP victory. Michigan would be trivia.

Dola, I guess I may be wrong about Virginia, but maybe Missouri will move red as well.

South Dakota is already being counted for him, so it puts him at 248 before those states. PA would only get him a tie and send things to the House. OH wouldn't be enough to even do that.

This isn't to say those states aren't important. I was just responding to the idea that he needed to win all three. If he only wins two of MI, OH, and PA, then it's a lock and we can forget about all of those states on your list. If he only wins one of three, then he still has a chance depending on if he can pick off one of those states you listed, which I don't think is unlikely (especially if Bayh is on the ticket.)

Well you can swap SD with Missouri, and the math becomes even clearer - Obama must win both OH and PA (if those states all go red).

Something that the guys at fivethirtyeight.com focus on is when a state might matter. For instance, regardless of whether Obama could be competitive in North Carolina or Georgia, they do not see many maps in which Obama wins those states without winning Virginia, and if he wins Virginia, then NC and GA are gravy.

Same thing with Missouri. Missouri is basically Ohio with a little more friendly GOP demographics. So, if Obama wins Missouri, then he has probably already won Ohio, in which case he will not need Missouri.

By the same token, it is hard to see McCain winning Iowa or Minnesota without winning Ohio. And, if he wins Ohio, he might not need those states.

Of course, if you do not accept the basic premise of 538--that elections are basically demographically driven and national--you probably won't accept that analysis either.

Obama must win both OH and PA if he loses all 9 of the other close states. I don't disagree with this statement, but that's a pretty big qualifier.

I wish Tim Russert and his eraser board were still around. :(

I don't think its that big a qualifier. I think the consensus is that Obama is polling high now, and that his numbers will come down.

I'm surprised that more people here don't cite the Real Clear Politics electoral college analysis more often. In 2004, most of these sites (like electoral-vote.com) were all over the board with their final predictions, while RCP correctly predicted every state except Wisconsin (which Kerry won by 0.4%). RCP also correctly predicted the popular vote outcome within 1%.

Obama is at a peak and McCain is in a trough. Things will tighten up after the conventions. The GOP goes second, and I think that will be an advantage for them. A number of the states that look achievable for Obama at the moment are not. Especially, I contend, after the race cards start getting played.

I don't see the situation playing out like that with Obama outspending McCain by more than 2 to 1.

It's a liberal dominated board.

It's a conservative dominated board.

dola

This is interesting.

I wish there were some people's pictures for me to photoshop!

Jesse Jackson obviously has too much free time on his hands...he needs to find a big corporation somewhere to shake down. If Obama wins, Jackson has shot down any chance he had to be an influential figure connected to the administration.

As for the New Yorker cover, I thought it was funny and laughed out loud when I saw it. I think one reason there hasn't been much said on the liberal side about it is because satire is rooted in truth, and the Dems are scared sh*tless something like this could resonate with the public -- better to ignore it and hope it fades away.

I confess I didn't understand the New Yorker cover. I don't get what it was trying to do.

Jesse Jackson is no more relevant than Hell Atlantic.

Phil Gramm was mostly right.

Exactly, they have extremely accurate in the past. As a matter of fact, Obama peaked at 7% better than McCain after getting the nomination, but now has slipped to 4.2% since that point. I think Obama wins the election, but I think it'll be much closer than some on the board think.

Sarcasm?

I just saw the New Yorker cover, I know the point was to be over the top but it was still a bit much IMO.

Jesse Jackson should ban himself from TV appearances until after the election (or forever), people just don't like the guy and nothing he says is going to help Obama win.

They are scared that showing how batshit crazy the right is could resonate with the public? :confused:

This board has traditionally been conservative in terms of political discussions. However, being as the events of the last seven years or so have illustrated reality's liberal bias, we've seen a marked diminishment of support for the conservative arguments in many threads, with only a handful of stalwart holdouts still supporting the conservative line.

In relation to the question at hand, I speak for myself when saying I don't tend to spend much time on ephemera such as cartoons and flag pins. There are more serious issues that deserve attention, and the majority of folks who don't hold a position tend to view such quixotic attempts as a representation of the unseriousness of a poster. Further, spending time on dumb issues dilutes the larger political discussion, and tends to create enough confusion and argument that undecided folks tend to get frustrated and decide not to be involved.

You are thinking in only one dimension again. Just because neo-conservative positions have become undefendable does not mean that it has to swing back to dubious liberal positions. Many are sick of both extremes and have come to realize the follies of an entrenched Federal govt and its ever-increasing powers. It does not mean that we all should be moderates, independents or libertarian-minded, but those have become preferred places away from the "same tired rhetoric" of blue liberals and red conservatives. I see no difference between the various stalwarts on both extremes and while arguing for a "third way" is really no better, at least it may get people thinking beyong the simpleminded red vs blue.

The only thing that's happening again is you attacking my viewpoint, despite the fact that I'm not a hardline liberal -- in fact, as a registered Independent, I'm exactly the audience you would find common ground with from your political viewpoint if you weren't so aggressively silly about treating my positions as anathema. For some reason you haven't figured out in seven years that attacking positions which are closer to yours than not doesn't help your cause. It's the same old song with you, Bucc -- you claim to be Libertarian, vacilate between philosophies that don't always reflect the way you supposedly would like to see our political system work, and reserve your fire for what you view as liberal positions, never conservative. Heck, you haven't even figured out I'm not a Democrat yet. I haven't argued for any extreme positions in my history here that I know of, besides being against the Iraq war (which was an extreme position around here at the time).

I tend to view myself as being relatively moderate with regards to many political positions. The two-party polarization that makes the kind of political effort we need impossible is something I am frustrated by as well, but I also recognize that there is not a viable alternative on the national level. Neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party has it completely right, and both sides hold positions to which I find affinity. Frankly, I might identify the fact that you don't seem to recognize the difference between the way things actually work in reality and the way you want them to work as a key source of your issues with my posts. The odd thing is that you have enough experience in the world to recognize the difference, and yet still choose to make your targets out of the very people who may be sympathetic to your cause given the right kind of reality-based reasons.

NoMyths, I was not attacking your viewpoint. I was speaking in generalities about those taking stalwart conservative or liberal positions and arguing from one side or the other. I did not reference in my last post anything about your personal positions and did not deserve to get dumped on in the same manner that you accuse me of. We were talking about "reality's liberal bias", "stalwart holdouts of conservative positions" and "batshit crazy" positions from A or B.

But to your specific charges, for those that do not fall into stalwart positions in red or blue, I do not see very much independent or moderate arguments, me included. It's just the nature of the way discussions go here. In order to make ones point clear, one typically state an opposition position to keep the discussion going. A lot of it comes from downright dislike of certain aspects of the opposition - regardless if the position one is arguing from is any better or defendable. I do that because I see very little solutions at that level. The reality is that our sphere of incluence does not include anything at that level, so one just give to Caesar what is his and go on with our lives in making a tangible difference in what we can realistically accomplish.

I realize that "reserving fire for liberal positions, never conservative" is a hyperbolic perception but I understand where that can come from. First, as you said, there are very few stalwarts of the neo-con positions here and I don't argue with Jon (not worth it) and so, the opportunities arise less. Second, the opposite of libertarianism (as I understand it) is socialism. Many of the "changes", "hope" and "fixes" people are advocating are more socialistic in nature and I have to speak up against those, just like I have against nation-building.

As far as consistency, I do argue from several angles that may be in conflict. The reason is that I mostly likely to argue as a historian, providing historical perspective (esp. for those hyperbolic statements like "unprecendented" or "worse of all time"). Those arguements have little to do with personal beliefs, like bringing up Lincoln and FDR. It's just a way of providing some perspective. Also, I view politics as a game, esp. the election campaigns, from a spectator point of view. Heckling seems to be the fun part of it. :)

I realize that you and I are alike in more ways than not (just like I have argued in the past there really is not that much different between any of the political parties, esp. making fun of those using the "far-" labels). But I have noticed one distinct difference in which I have reacted to - I don't take politics personally, nor what goes on or doesn't go on at the higher levels. It goes back to my nature of not having a favorite team I get emotional about. Nothing in politics upsets or excites me. I read too much history to get bothered much by current events. That's why I argue that in the end, while it becomes great topics to argue and discuss, we go on with our lives as best we can and find opportunities to help those we can affect.

I don't believe it's hyperbole though. Once when you started that thread about your Libertarianism I thanked you and told you that I had doubts about your sincerity before then. I simply cannot recall you ever attacking a conservative view or defending a liberal one. Ever. I had pegged you as a republican in a libertarian body.

The closest I can recall you doing when you can't defend the conservative side is call for gridlock or claim politics as usual.

I'm sure that you don't see yourself that way and maybe you have done it here; I certainly haven't read every political thread but I have to say +1 to NoMyths on this one particular point. Again, your thread about libertarianism convinced me that you aren't trying to be that way but you do come off like it. There is at least one more person that I've felt that way about here but lately I've been rethinking that on him too.

All of this comes about when people cling to silly labels instead of just saying what they feel IMHO.

I do have to manage perceptions better.

The inflammatory cover was to sell magazines. It did nothing to further the political discussion in this country.

Axxon, this year's election is interesting but not necessarily for a voter like me. There are only three choices: A, B or neither A or B. Several things about that:
- there is not a viable C or D candidate to vote for
- a truer choice for some would be A (or B) with qualifiers but since we don't do that, not much we can do except go along with either or neither
- the best chance that McCain has in winning comes down to turnout
- the simple way for Obama to win is to keep possible and likely McCain from voting for McCain, therefore it becomes a strategy of turning voters off from McCain (which we've seen here already)
- I don't think the reverse is true since the turnout for Obama will be high regardless (for many reasons)
- I am neither a supporter of Obama or McCain but interested in the race, how does that come across to those supporters of A or B?
- I have said this before but I do like Obama a little better than McCain - but NOT with a Democratic Congress
- as a libertarian, the worse scenario would be Dem Congress and Executive, just like we saw with a Rep Congress and Executive
- so, does that make me a Rep in libertarian clothing when neither candidate, nor Congress, would be libertarian-minded and can only hope for gridlock?

I would go further. I would have thought that the Jesse Jackson comments would work for Obama and not be neutral and certainly not against - it confirms that his approach is not the "radical black politics" that he was tainted with by the Rev Wright saga which I think has spooked some in the white, blue collar community. Some on the extreme left may be upset by this but their vote isn't going anywhere else when push comes to shove.

The cartoon I thought was either a shallow piece of thinking from the New Yorker - failing to see that many more would see the front cover cartoon than would read the article inside and miss the satire - or a cynical preference of increased sales over political commitment.

Yet the intent was to show all the right wing craziness regarding Obama. I mean we are talking about "The New Yorker" here. It ain't some rag.

Well, sort of; the intent was to show all the purported right wing stereotypes of Obama. Few informed, educated conservatives believe any of those allegations about Obama.

I don't think critically deciding which candidate more closely aligns can be considered anything but prudent. I don't even think intrinsically there's anything wrong with gridlock. Well, I didn't until now anyway.

Personally I think this administration has fouled things so badly that we need to right the ship and not leave the status quo. We may overcorrect but I doubt it. Having like minded congress and presidency doesn't necessarily mean a mandate as you well know but it does mean that compromise starts from strength for the powers in the majority.

So, it really comes down to how you feel about Obama as a bipartisan and he has reached across the aisle before including with McCain and gotten things done. McCain, who I actually would consider voting for if he was still the 2000 McCain has IMHO bought into the so called Bush mandate and it strikes me that he's far less a bipartisan than he was 8 years ago and while it's as much a stereotype as the New Yorker's Obama I am concerned with his age and short temper being related.

As you may remember, I consider Reagan the worst president of my lifetime and his conveniently forgetting that he'd betrayed the country by selling arms to our enemies does prejudice me against McCain. Considering how far he's tacking right these days, there's no way I could consider voting for him.

For me though, when your "bias" rings clear isn't in talking about particular candidates, it's the general throw away lines which are often telling when listening to people


Here you take a surgeon's scalpel to the conservative position and then turn around and use the widest brush possible to paint the liberal position. It pretty much is sound bite kinda fare and guess who's soundbite?

That's the kind of statements that resonate with me but again, as I understand you, your thinking is pretty conservative. Your main beef with the republicans is governmental activity not ideological differences with their goals so it makes sense you'd consider their views correct and discount opposing views out of hand.

That seems to be the difference between a Libertarian and an independent. Of course, this is vastly oversimplified too but in general it seems to hold true.

Me, I used to be pretty much an independent. I was socially left leaning and fiscally ( since I admit to not knowing jack about money ) I was willing to defer to those who had money and a balancing act here in the various governments would insure that at least some of the money would be used for the proper social programs. I honestly don't think there's any real indicator of foreign policy competence bias to either party so I hadn't even really considered that until this administration.

Now, though, this administration ( and to some degree the irrational minority positions in the Clinton times ) has so fouled my thinking that I don't know if I'll ever be able to achieve that balance again. Admittedly, McCain of 2000 would have been the guy who could have started that if any current pol could, the new version doesn't fill me with confidence and there's no way he'd earn my vote even if the democrats nominated Damian Thorne but they didn't nominate Damien Thorne they nominated Barack Obama who isn't flawless by any means but has the potential to be true leader ( he'd have never gotten as far as he has without leadership skills ) and if we're going to get this country back on track it's going to take a leader, not someone who gets his orders from the fringe of his party.

No, it was to show right wing stereotypes.

I'm glad you did state this though because it brings me to my point. Informed, educated people of either party can get the cartoon. It's not brain surgery but it requires a bit of thinking to see it. It would be a mistake to consider it something that reflects the views of the educated conservatives.

But..

Lets back off and think of the majority of the people. What would those not willing or able to figure the cartoon out think?

Lets call the groups X and Y.

X thinks the cartoon is dead on, funny and reflects the truth.

Sorry poster, I'm not attacking you but you said what I meant so well.

Y thinks the cartoon is over the top, right wing based and somehow will hurt the candidate thus was not a good idea.

This is only part of your quote but again, there's not much for example on this thread and I'm not going web surfing to find a quote which says what you just said here. Consider this representative of a general feeling not a personal one.


Now, given these two groups, which ones do you think are the right wingers? Thus my point.