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.