Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Swaggs]

Trying to look at it objectively...

I'm a big fan of Biden and probably would have voted for him if he had still been active by the time NC voted, but I thought he started out really slowly and really only hit his stride during the last 30 minutes or so. I can see him as president.

I think Palin presented herself much, much better than I had expected. She stayed within her wheelhouse, regardless of the questions asked. I think she comes out (long-term) of this a winner, but doesn't do a whole lot to help McCain out in the next few weeks. I think she has the potential to become a very big player in American politics, but I still cannot envision her as president until she becomes (for lack of better terms) more "wordly" and experienced. I think she clearly salvaged and enhanced her own future tonight, whereas the past few weeks made me wonder if she had done irreversable damage to her career (even in Alaska).

[gkb]

I only caught bits and pieces, I DVR'd it and will watch the whole thing later. From what little I saw I thought Palin sounded fine and Biden, who I really don't know anything about, sounded good as well. It'll be interesting to see if this has any impact on the polls.

[SirFozzie]

Looks like Troopergate will still go on a bit longer:

Subpoenas upheld in Palin trooper investigation - CNN.com

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- An Alaska judge refused Thursday to throw out subpoenas for members of Gov. Sarah Palin's administration in the State Legislature's investigation of her firing of her public safety commissioner.

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski rejected a request by Palin's Republican allies to shut down the investigation and ruled that the subpoenas were issued properly by the state Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kevin Clarkson, a lawyer for five GOP lawmakers who filed suit in September, said the date was arbitrarily chosen by the lawmakers overseeing the investigation.

"There's no magic to this October 10 date," Clarkson said. The bipartisan committee that authorized the investigation stated only that it be conducted "in a timely manner," he said.

Peter Maassen, the attorney for the lawmakers leading the inquiry, called the suit "a complete perversion of the process" and said the Legislature had the authority to conduct its investigation.

The former Anchorage prosecutor hired to conduct the investigation, Stephen Branchflower, is slated to complete his report by October 10. In an affidavit filed ahead of Thursday's hearing, he said he has begun to draft his report despite the refusal of several Palin aides and her husband, Todd, to comply with subpoenas issued by the state Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Vegas Vic]

Thomas Dewey would have destroyed Harry Truman on Jeopardy. If FOFC had been around in 1948, there would have been a one-hundred page thread on the stupidity of the American people in supporting a bumpkin who spoke in colloquialisms over a polished intellectual who was obviously the smartest man in the room.

Jimmy Carter had a BS in Physics, and could explain in detail how a nuclear weapon functioned, but his analysis by paralysis record of governance was no match for the affable Ronald Reagan, who was blasted by intellectuals for being a vapid bubblehead.

It’s not a partisan issue. Look no further than Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater.

Something that many of you are probably never going to grasp, and quite frankly I never grasped until 2004, is that a person’s core convictions and their ability to sincerely impart those convictions to the public without flinching or parsing their words is always going to trump someone with a college professor’s command of the facts.

Truman and Reagan are probably two of the best examples of men who knew their convictions and surrounded themselves with extraordinary talent in the cabinet who shared their ideology, did the micro-analysis and relayed their recommendations back to the executive, who usually made the correct decisions to the dismay of elitists everywhere.

[larrymcg421]

The one part I found interesting was Palin's multiple mentions of stopping government interference and letting the private sector take over. Is that really the campaign message they want to go with right now? Not only are we in the midst of a crisis caused by excessive deregulation, but McCain just voted for a $700 billion government bailout package.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Pat Buchanan says she was "sensational." And that she "wiped the floor with Joe Biden." If he thought she was that, then boy I can't wait to hear what the others think...

Undead Peggy Noonan loved her!

[Schmidty]

I thought Palin sounded more real, but more nervous. I just didn't think Biden sounded authentic except when he talked about Israel and education.

Of course, I hate both sides (Obama more), and I am stupid, so take my opinion for what it's worth. I will be begrudgingly voting. Not for McCain or Obama though.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The one part I found interesting was Palin's multiple mentions of stopping government interference and letting the private sector take over. Is that really the campaign message they want to go with right now? Not only are we in the midst of a crisis caused by excessive deregulation, but McCain just voted for a $700 billion government bailout package.

larry, meet Republican Ideology 101.

Although, you're right that it seems odd to emphasize it now. Kinda like if the Dems championed cutting defense spending right after 9/11.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Thomas Dewey would have destroyed Harry Truman on Jeopardy. If FOFC had been around in 1948, there would have been a one-hundred page thread on the stupidity of the American people in supporting a bumpkin who spoke in colloquialisms over a polished intellectual who was obviously the smartest man in the room.

Jimmy Carter had a BS in Physics, and could explain in detail how a nuclear weapon functioned, but his analysis by paralysis record of governance was no match for the affable Ronald Reagan, who was blasted by intellectuals for being a vapid bubblehead.

It’s not a partisan issue. Look no further than Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater.

Something that many of you are probably never going to grasp, and quite frankly I never grasped until 2004, is that a person’s core convictions and their ability to sincerely impart those convictions to the public without flinching or parsing their words is always going to trump someone with a college professor’s command of the facts.

Truman and Reagan are probably two of the best examples of men who knew their convictions and surrounded themselves with extraordinary talent in the cabinet who shared their ideology, did the micro-analysis and relayed their recommendations back to the executive, who usually made the correct decisions to the dismay of elitists everywhere.

Sure. You can't underestimate the power of "homeiness" in politics. I agree that Palin probably saved her political career tonight by not having any major gaffes. That probably helped McCain as well, as it will help re-energize a low morale among his troups. Biden probably didn't make much a difference overall. He just didn't hurt the ticket, which is basically what he needs to do.

So, I guess if you measure the success of the debate by how much it actually helped the canididate, then Palin won. But that is mostly because that was the ticket that need any can of help right now they could get.

[Mac Howard]

It's possible that some of the swing away from McCain over the last couple of weeks was caused by Palin's poor performance in the Couric interview and that her reasonably competent performance here will pull some of those people back. It will be interesting to see how much access the media has to Palin now and whether, in interviews where she can be asked - or re-asked - to be more specific, she returns the the stuttering performance she gave with Couric or maintains that of today.

Another possibility is that she simply disappears from the campaign now as neither advantage nor disadvantage and it returns to an Obama/McCain contest.

[Big Fo]

CNN Polling on whether the candidates are qualified enough to assume the presidency:

Biden 87%
Palin 42%

[Senator]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Thomas Dewey would have destroyed Harry Truman on Jeopardy. If FOFC had been around in 1948, there would have been a one-hundred page thread on the stupidity of the American people in supporting a bumpkin who spoke in colloquialisms over a polished intellectual who was obviously the smartest man in the room.

Jimmy Carter had a BS in Physics, and could explain in detail how a nuclear weapon functioned, but his analysis by paralysis record of governance was no match for the affable Ronald Reagan, who was blasted by intellectuals for being a vapid bubblehead.

It’s not a partisan issue. Look no further than Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater.

Something that many of you are probably never going to grasp, and quite frankly I never grasped until 2004, is that a person’s core convictions and their ability to sincerely impart those convictions to the public without flinching or parsing their words is always going to trump someone with a college professor’s command of the facts.

Truman and Reagan are probably two of the best examples of men who knew their convictions and surrounded themselves with extraordinary talent in the cabinet who shared their ideology, did the micro-analysis and relayed their recommendations back to the executive, who usually made the correct decisions to the dismay of elitists everywhere.

+1

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The one part I found interesting was Palin's multiple mentions of stopping government interference and letting the private sector take over. Is that really the campaign message they want to go with right now? Not only are we in the midst of a crisis caused by excessive deregulation, but McCain just voted for a $700 billion government bailout package.

You can privatize certain aspects of the economy or the government while still having pretty strong regulation of those companies or industries. The two are not mutually exclusive. She never said anything about further deregulation if privatized.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Thomas Dewey would have destroyed Harry Truman on Jeopardy. If FOFC had been around in 1948, there would have been a one-hundred page thread on the stupidity of the American people in supporting a bumpkin who spoke in colloquialisms over a polished intellectual who was obviously the smartest man in the room.

Jimmy Carter had a BS in Physics, and could explain in detail how a nuclear weapon functioned, but his analysis by paralysis record of governance was no match for the affable Ronald Reagan, who was blasted by intellectuals for being a vapid bubblehead.

It’s not a partisan issue. Look no further than Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater.

Something that many of you are probably never going to grasp, and quite frankly I never grasped until 2004, is that a person’s core convictions and their ability to sincerely impart those convictions to the public without flinching or parsing their words is always going to trump someone with a college professor’s command of the facts.

Truman and Reagan are probably two of the best examples of men who knew their convictions and surrounded themselves with extraordinary talent in the cabinet who shared their ideology, did the micro-analysis and relayed their recommendations back to the executive, who usually made the correct decisions to the dismay of elitists everywhere.

+2

There's an exhibit in the Truman Library here in Independence that speaks to that exact phenomenon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just noticed an article on ajc.com that talked about the great rating for this past weekend's Georgia-Alabama game. It pulled a 21.7 rating, and didn't show any significant erosion in spite of 'Bama's 31-0 halftime lead. That made me curious ... Overnight ratings for the first presidential debate, all four broadcast network affiliates in Atlanta combined: peaked at a 21.0 for broadcast, might have had enough cable to match the football game (I don't get the cable overnights locally).

Just checked the overnights from the VP debate last night ... no idea what it did elsewhere but the peak quarter-hour last night in Atlanta was a 28.8 household rating, that's more than 33% higher than the Presidential round 1.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

CNN Polling on whether the candidates are qualified enough to assume the presidency:

Biden 87%
Palin 42%

For Palin, those numbers might be double what they were yesterday before the debate. And that's what she needed to do last night: not convince people that she was perfect for the Presidency but convince them she wouldn't be an absolute trainwreck.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Something that many of you are probably never going to grasp, and quite frankly I never grasped until 2004, is that a person’s core convictions and their ability to sincerely impart those convictions to the public without flinching or parsing their words is always going to trump someone with a college professor’s command of the facts.

Yes, like vapidly saying "maverick" about a hundred times and being full of no substance whatsoever so that you can't even tell people what newspaper you read for fear of saying the wrong pre-prepared statement. Yes, that's sincerely imparting your core convictions.

Her core convictions are "Yay! I'm a hockey mom who is way out of my league but will say anything to get elected and was brought onboard to be seen and rarely heard, just enough to energize the base". But at least now that she didn't commit verbal suicide on stage last night, she can go back to five minute stump speeches and never facing the press ever again.

SI

[Chief Rum]

Well, at least she's the VP nod instead of the Prez nod.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So, I watched the debate last night and read through the blow-by-blow commentary in this thread from last night. Some thoughts......

-Palin did a very good job last night. She did a good job of countering some of Biden's points. She also did a good job of eluding disaster when needed. I've mentioned extensively in this thread how she needed to work on improving her tact when trying to dodge a question, as all politicians do now and then. I thought she did well in that regard last night. She slipped up on a couple of names (the general in Afghanistan and she accidentally said 'shia' instead of 'shiite'), but that is something that just happens in a debate. Nothing terrible.

-Palin needs to stop with the 'maverick' line over and over. Look up an alternative in the thesaurus to mix things up.

-Biden's sighs into the microphone were terribly distracting. I believe I remember Al Gore doing something similar. Smirks and sighs are two big debate no-no's.

-Biden's presentation of his points was very good, but it was very bland. I think the moments he seemed most genuine were when he would chuckle or smile at a Palin rebuttal. It didn't seem condescending at all.

-Similar to the above point, I actually think the two of them had a pretty good back and forth exchange. I also think they both generally like each other and just disagree on issues. The family gathering at the end was also much more cordial than the presidential debate. It didn't seem forced at all. I think they also have an understanding of what each other are going through in regards to family members headed to war. It was nice to see.

-Both sides had some mistatements of facts or mischaracterizations, but I thought they evened out as a whole.

-The shorter response times in this debate were much better than the 1st presidential debate format. It allowed for back and forth while keeping a very quick pace. Much more watchable.

-In summary of the debate, I thought both did well. Biden demonstrated his experience along with attacking McCain while Palin handled herself well and showed she could toss a political grenade here and there. She also came across as very likeable.

-The love-fest in this thread with the CNN impressions meter was fabulous in the worst of ways. I suppose I should start posting FOXNews impressions meter readings to even out the bullsh%& in the thread. Any implication that CNN or FOXNews has no bias and a pulse of the average voter with these focus groups is laughable at best. I certainly hope that the posters in this thread are smarter than that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I agree with most everything MBBF said. I saw it as a draw, which is a win for Palin in the expectations game. She was effective at ignoring the asked question and answering what she wanted to (probably necessary for her at this point, but something that needs to be done deftly).

I don't believe that 'ignoring' is the proper assessment. She answered each question, but in the case of a couple of the questions, she didn't say more than a sentence or two before veering off on a different tangent. She never completely ignored the question.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Right, but saying something akin to "McCain is great on the economy, but I want to talk about Iraq" is something I would consider ignoring the question. I don't have time to go through a transcript this morning, but I felt like she was consistently doing this. But I'll repeat, I think she did it well enough that she could get away with it.

At the same time, I don't think this is something new to debates. I remember several debates where a candidate often used his time on a question to do a rebuttal on a previous question and only slightly address the question at hand. Your added example is a perfect illustration of my point. I'm probably splitting hairs with my idea of what 'ignore' means.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Thomas Dewey would have destroyed Harry Truman on Jeopardy. If FOFC had been around in 1948, there would have been a one-hundred page thread on the stupidity of the American people in supporting a bumpkin who spoke in colloquialisms over a polished intellectual who was obviously the smartest man in the room.

Jimmy Carter had a BS in Physics, and could explain in detail how a nuclear weapon functioned, but his analysis by paralysis record of governance was no match for the affable Ronald Reagan, who was blasted by intellectuals for being a vapid bubblehead.

It’s not a partisan issue. Look no further than Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater.

Something that many of you are probably never going to grasp, and quite frankly I never grasped until 2004, is that a person’s core convictions and their ability to sincerely impart those convictions to the public without flinching or parsing their words is always going to trump someone with a college professor’s command of the facts.

Truman and Reagan are probably two of the best examples of men who knew their convictions and surrounded themselves with extraordinary talent in the cabinet who shared their ideology, did the micro-analysis and relayed their recommendations back to the executive, who usually made the correct decisions to the dismay of elitists everywhere.

This is the exact argument that was made in favor of George W. when he was running for President. He would run the White House and the federal government like a CEO runs a business. His core convictions were strong, so all he needed was a cadre of great men and women to help attend to the detailed minutiae. Most Americans would agree that his Presidency has been a failure.

That said, I like Palin and like a lot of her ideas on government reform and energy policy. I'd certainly vote for her over McCain. It will be interesting to see how she positions herself over the next four years if her ticket doesn't win the election.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yes, like vapidly saying "maverick" about a hundred times and being full of no substance whatsoever so that you can't even tell people what newspaper you read for fear of saying the wrong pre-prepared statement. Yes, that's sincerely imparting your core convictions.

Her core convictions are "Yay! I'm a hockey mom who is way out of my league but will say anything to get elected and was brought onboard to be seen and rarely heard, just enough to energize the base". But at least now that she didn't commit verbal suicide on stage last night, she can go back to five minute stump speeches and never facing the press ever again.

SI

+1000

Sarah Palin was a complete train wreck last night and listening to the poor McCain supporters trying to dress up her performance was pure comedy. Her utter lack of knowledge on anything was astounding. I don't think she answered more than one or two questions at best. She was just horrible last night. John McCain will be forever kicking himself for nominating her after his November defeat.

As for her being a rising star in politics, I can't believe anyone with more than one functioning brain cell could even fathom that notion. She belongs back in Alaska doing whatever it is that she does there. What a sad sad party the Republican party is if Sarah Palin is your rising star.

-Cork

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Cork

+1000

Sarah Palin was a complete train wreck last night and listening to the poor McCain supporters trying to dress up her performance was pure comedy. Her utter lack of knowledge on anything was astounding. I don't think she answered more than one or two questions at best. She was just horrible last night. John McCain will be forever kicking himself for nominating her after his November defeat.

As for her being a rising star in politics, I can't believe anyone with more than one functioning brain cell could even fathom that notion. She belongs back in Alaska doing whatever it is that she does there. What a sad sad party the Republican party is if Sarah Palin is your rising star.

-Cork

**sigh**

Oh, is this microphone on?

[ISiddiqui]

she accidentally said 'shia' instead of 'shiite'

Same thing.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

-The love-fest in this thread with the CNN impressions meter was fabulous in the worst of ways. I suppose I should start posting FOXNews impressions meter readings to even out the bullsh%& in the thread. Any implication that CNN or FOXNews has no bias and a pulse of the average voter with these focus groups is laughable at best. I certainly hope that the posters in this thread are smarter than that.

I can watch almost any network and acknowledge its bias (and then shrug my shoulders while just mentally weeding through it) but it always makes me cringe when someone suggests that the level of bias at CNN and Fox news is in the same zip code. I start to wonder if I am watching the same CNN or Fox News as those people, because the idea that they are that similar seems like a ridiculous exaggeration. Now MSNBC, sure they can be as bad as Fox at times.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Thomas Dewey would have destroyed Harry Truman on Jeopardy. If FOFC had been around in 1948, there would have been a one-hundred page thread on the stupidity of the American people in supporting a bumpkin who spoke in colloquialisms over a polished intellectual who was obviously the smartest man in the room.

Jimmy Carter had a BS in Physics, and could explain in detail how a nuclear weapon functioned, but his analysis by paralysis record of governance was no match for the affable Ronald Reagan, who was blasted by intellectuals for being a vapid bubblehead.

It’s not a partisan issue. Look no further than Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater.

Something that many of you are probably never going to grasp, and quite frankly I never grasped until 2004, is that a person’s core convictions and their ability to sincerely impart those convictions to the public without flinching or parsing their words is always going to trump someone with a college professor’s command of the facts.

Truman and Reagan are probably two of the best examples of men who knew their convictions and surrounded themselves with extraordinary talent in the cabinet who shared their ideology, did the micro-analysis and relayed their recommendations back to the executive, who usually made the correct decisions to the dismay of elitists everywhere.

The one thing I would add is that the public needs to believe that the candidate "gets it". All the folksy charm in the world won't matter if the public feels like there's a disconnect between the candidate and the important issues. Reagan was effective because he was able to diagnose a problem and propose a solution in simple, easy to understand language. I doubt he would have been half as successful running on Mondale's "I'll raise your taxes" platform.

Communication style is important, but the substance also matters.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I can watch almost any network and acknowledge its bias (and then shrug my shoulders while just mentally weeding through it) but it always makes me cringe when someone suggests that the level of bias at CNN and Fox news is in the same zip code. I start to wonder if I am watching the same CNN or Fox News as those people, because the idea that they are that similar seems like a ridiculous exaggeration. Now MSNBC, sure they can be as bad as Fox at times.

We'll agree to disagree. CNN is just as bad as FOXNews in regards to coverage and especially the panel that offers their opinions on debates, elections, etc. The only difference is that FOXNews doesn't try to hide it nearly as much.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Communication style is important, but the substance also matters.

She told people two things last night that had substance.....

1. Taxes will be reduced across the board.
2. We'll reduce government interference in your lives.

Now, voters are left to decide whether they believe that and how it will happen. But there's a lot of voters that will love to hear those two things from a candidate whether you agree or not.

I also found another thing very interesting that I forgot to mention earlier. When the question was asked about what campaign promises would change with the latest financial issues, Palin gave a very straight-forward response. She said that as far as she knew, nothing that McCain has proposed would have to be removed from the plan for their presidency. I believe that's slightly different than what McCain said in the first debate (believe he said that compromises will have to be made, though he didn't cite any specifics). Perhaps the campaign has found ways to include everything since the previous debate, but I don't think the two answers were exactly the same.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't believe that 'ignoring' is the proper assessment. She answered each question, but in the case of a couple of the questions, she didn't say more than a sentence or two before veering off on a different tangent. She never completely ignored the question.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

At the same time, I don't think this is something new to debates. I remember several debates where a candidate often used his time on a question to do a rebuttal on a previous question and only slightly address the question at hand. Your added example is a perfect illustration of my point. I'm probably splitting hairs with my idea of what 'ignore' means.

I amazed that you are serious here. She blatantly ignored several questions. She even attempted to belittle the moderator and Biden by saying, "I'm sorry if I don't answer the questions the way you want me to." What that meant was, "I don't care about your silly little questions, and I'm just going to talk about what I want to."

Do candidates avoid questions in debates? Yes. Do they typically completely ignore a large number of questions and only talk about 2-3 issues? I don't think so. I could certainly be wrong as I haven't gone back to review the facts on that statement, but Governor Palin didn't care what the question was, she had a set of talking points she was permitted to discuss and would not veer from them.

[lordscarlet]

Washington Post Fact Checker

FactCheck.Org on the Biden-Palin Debate

FOXNews Fact Checking the Vice Presidential Debate

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I amazed that you are serious here. She blatantly ignored several questions. She even attempted to belittle the moderator and Biden by saying, "I'm sorry if I don't answer the questions the way you want me to." What that meant was, "I don't care about your silly little questions, and I'm just going to talk about what I want to."

Do candidates avoid questions in debates? Yes. Do they typically completely ignore a large number of questions and only talk about 2-3 issues? I don't think so. I could certainly be wrong as I haven't gone back to review the facts on that statement, but Governor Palin didn't care what the question was, she had a set of talking points she was permitted to discuss and would not veer from them.

That comment you mentioned has a wide range of perception depending on where you stand. I'm not surprised that someone in D.C. would have a negative reaction to it, but there were also a lot of people that absolutely loved it as well and felt she was sticking it to what was perceived as a partisan moderator (I disagree with that, but it certainly was an issue in the run-up to the debate).

I don't think her evasion techniques were terribly polished, but I was actually glad to see her handling the questions much better than she did in the previously mentioned interviews, even if she only did briefly answer the question before moving to other talking points. While people in Washington D.C. greatly dislike her down-home style, there's a lot of people that support her even more if she's attacked by the political elite, even if it's a warranted attack.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I amazed that you are serious here. She blatantly ignored several questions. She even attempted to belittle the moderator and Biden by saying, "I'm sorry if I don't answer the questions the way you want me to." What that meant was, "I don't care about your silly little questions, and I'm just going to talk about what I want to."

Do candidates avoid questions in debates? Yes. Do they typically completely ignore a large number of questions and only talk about 2-3 issues? I don't think so. I could certainly be wrong as I haven't gone back to review the facts on that statement, but Governor Palin didn't care what the question was, she had a set of talking points she was permitted to discuss and would not veer from them.

i wasn't quite sure i agreed with you lordscarlet, but after thinking about it i think you're right - the amount of disrespect in that "i'm sorry if i don't answer the questions you way you want me to but i'm just going to talk to the american people" thing was pretty severe, and probably was indicative of a "this is what you should talk about" thing (notably: energy - her stock fallback anytime domestic policy came up -- how'd she end up talking about energy policy on a bailout question?, and then whatever her ineffective attack was on biden/obama and Iraq that she used during the Pakistan/Iran question -- seemed to be the other thing the handlers must have said "make sure you get this in" and was very noticable because shse missed the natural opportunity to do it earlier).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Here's an argument I got into last night, curious what people's opinion might be. We all know that, around the time of the Repub. Convention, McCain took over in the polls. This lead didn't last long, though, as Obama has surged over the past two weeks.

How much of Obama's surge do you think is tied to the economic developments, and how much is the sheen coming off of Palin (which one could argue was why McCain took back the lead in the first place)?

Personally, I think it's around 90% economy, but two guys I was arguing with thought 50/50.

A lot of it was convention bounce wearing off.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Personally, I think it's around 90% economy, but two guys I was arguing with thought 50/50.

I'm with you. 90% economy. McCain's numbers didn't really start to tank until the shit hit the fan with the economic stuff. And without Palin, McCain wouldn't have even been this close right now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Here's an argument I got into last night, curious what people's opinion might be. We all know that, around the time of the Repub. Convention, McCain took over in the polls. This lead didn't last long, though, as Obama has surged over the past two weeks.

How much of Obama's surge do you think is tied to the economic developments, and how much is the sheen coming off of Palin (which one could argue was why McCain took back the lead in the first place)?

Personally, I think it's around 90% economy, but two guys I was arguing with thought 50/50.

I agree with you. It's mostly the economy. It also illustrated a key rebuttal that Palin missed out on last night. The ducks are all in a row in regards to the Fannie Mae/Mac debacle for the Republicans to lay this firmly at the feet of the Democrats. Dodd, Obama, Schumer, and Frank all received substantial amounts of payouts from these companies and in 2003 (except for Obama who was still in Illinois) they were all in hearings quoted as saying that the problems were fabricated and an attempt to rob the poor of the opportunity to own a home. Meanwhile, guys like Raines were giving themselves huge bonuses based on the quantity of loans created. Raines eventually paid back $31M in a civil suit on the matter. McCain needs to come fully equipped with the facts regarding these payouts and the quotes from Democrats to firmly lay blame on their doorstep. Failing to do so and gain a foothold would hurt his chances tremendously.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I agree with you. It's mostly the economy. It also illustrated a key rebuttal that Palin missed out on last night. The ducks are all in a row in regards to the Fannie Mae/Mac debacle for the Republicans to lay this firmly at the feet of the Democrats. Dodd, Obama, Schumer, and Frank all received substantial amounts of payouts from these companies and in 2003 (except for Obama who was still in Illinois) they were all in hearings quoted as saying that the problems were fabricated and an attempt to rob the poor of the opportunity to own a home. Meanwhile, guys like Raines were giving themselves huge bonuses based on the quantity of loans created. Raines eventually paid back $31M in a civil suit on the matter. McCain needs to come fully equipped with the facts regarding these payouts and the quotes from Democrats to firmly lay blame on their doorstep. Failing to do so and gain a foothold would hurt his chances tremendously.

Except for the fact that McCain's Campaign Manager was getting payouts from Freddie Mac until September and lied about it. So I don't know that McCain really wants to go there.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Except for the fact that McCain's Campaign Manager was getting payouts from Freddie Mac until September and lied about it. So I don't know that McCain really wants to go there.

There's also this:

When mortgage giant Freddie Mac feared several years ago that Sen. John McCain was too outspoken on the issue of executive pay, it pinpointed a lobbyist known for his closeness to McCain and hired him to work with the senator. Mark Buse, a longtime McCain adviser who had been staff director of the Senate commerce committee, signed on as a Freddie Mac lobbyist, and his firm, ML Strategies, earned $460,000 in lobbying fees in late 2003 and 2004, according to lobbying disclosures. Buse is now chief of staff at McCain’s Senate office.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How much of Obama's surge do you think is tied to the economic developments, and how much is the sheen coming off of Palin (which one could argue was why McCain took back the lead in the first place)? Personally, I think it's around 90% economy, but two guys I was arguing with thought 50/50.

I'd lean toward someone else's answer about post-convention bounce wearing off being as much a factor as anything. McCain's support has always been soft, and I believe the majority of what exists of it is most strongly rooted in "not-Obama". Once the afterglow of a good Rudy speech (and the like) started to wear off, the support softened again.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Except for the fact that McCain's Campaign Manager was getting payouts from Freddie Mac until September and lied about it. So I don't know that McCain really wants to go there.

Oh, I think he definitely wants to go there. There's FAR more dirty laundry on the Dem side in this regard including Obama himself. To let this sleeping dog lie would be a grave misstep by McCain.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

She told people two things last night that had substance.....

1. Taxes will be reduced across the board.
2. We'll reduce government interference in your lives.

Now, voters are left to decide whether they believe that and how it will happen. But there's a lot of voters that will love to hear those two things from a candidate whether you agree or not.

That's not substance- those are permanent GOP talking points just like the Dems having the government help people out more- look at the opening statements from 1976 that you posted yesterday.

Substance would be if she had actually enumerated how these things were going to happen.

SI

[JPhillips]

Pollster.com gives a much better graph. The 538 graph is based on their simulations, not polling data.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Oh, I think he definitely wants to go there. There's FAR more dirty laundry on the Dem side in this regard including Obama himself. To let this sleeping dog lie would be a grave misstep by McCain.

Obama has donations from Raines. McCain has his campaign manager and Senate Chief of Staff being paid essentially to lobby McCain. Why would McCain want to go down that path?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The only problem with it being a disappearing convention bounce is the magnitude of the change.



Obama's polling at his all time high right now. It's nowhere near as close as it was pre-conventions.

The Revolution is on!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The only problem with it being a disappearing convention bounce is the magnitude of the change.

Obama's polling at his all time high right now. It's nowhere near as close as it was pre-conventions.

The only problem I think may be upcoming for Obama is that this boost may have come a week or two earlier than it was needed. If he would have got this bounce 2-3 weeks before the election, it would be over. At this point, there's enough time that we could see this effect wear off before the election and see a move back in McCain's direction.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Here's an argument I got into last night, curious what people's opinion might be. We all know that, around the time of the Repub. Convention, McCain took over in the polls. This lead didn't last long, though, as Obama has surged over the past two weeks.

How much of Obama's surge do you think is tied to the economic developments, and how much is the sheen coming off of Palin (which one could argue was why McCain took back the lead in the first place)?

Personally, I think it's around 90% economy, but two guys I was arguing with thought 50/50.

McCain took around a 3 point lead after the convention. I think once the public vetting of Palin was complete, it was back to almost exactly even. Then a bit of a change from before both conventions, where the race was within the margin of error but Obama definitely had the lead. That's a pretty significant contribution from a VP on the ticket.

That's why I posted yesterday that I think this could have been the first race where the VP helped decide the election. This isn't to say something still couldn't happen but if things continue on this path and the economy continues to be top of voter's minds, McCain is done and Obama wins. Short of McCain picking Warren Buffet to be his VP, he was going to be screwed.

As soon as the economy collapsed, particularly with a lot of people looking at deregulation as a big cause and with the GOP still symbollic as the party in power over the past 8 years, it became a giant millstone around McCain's neck and has sunk him to 6-8 points down.

So, yes, Palin's "shine wearing off" affected the race but the economy was a larger factor.

SI

[JPhillips]

It could happen, but we're already at a point where a change back to McCain would be almost without precedent.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Obama has donations from Raines. McCain has his campaign manager and Senate Chief of Staff being paid essentially to lobby McCain. Why would McCain want to go down that path?

Because Obama is in lockstep with Frank, Dodd, and Schumer. If they're going to imply that Obama is not a 'new' change, there's no better example than Obama voting with these idiots on nearly every vote he makes. It could even be argued that putting Obama in office is just like putting one of these senators in office. I don't find the way these senators run our economy into the ground after being warned of serious issues to be flattering at all.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It could happen, but we're already at a point where a change back to McCain would be almost without precedent.

I'd be interested to see the 'one month out' figures over the last 50 or so years that back up that assertion. I'm assuming you have them, otherwise, you wouldn't have made that point.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Something that many of you are probably never going to grasp, and quite frankly I never grasped until 2004, is that a person’s core convictions and their ability to sincerely impart those convictions to the public without flinching or parsing their words is always going to trump someone with a college professor’s command of the facts.

It was 1992 for me. This was before we all knew that Clinton was an insincere bugger, but Bush clearly didn't care by the time the run-up to the election came around.

Truman and Reagan are probably two of the best examples of men who knew their convictions and surrounded themselves with extraordinary talent in the cabinet who shared their ideology, did the micro-analysis and relayed their recommendations back to the executive, who usually made the correct decisions to the dismay of elitists everywhere.

For a counter-example, let's look at Dwight D. Eisenhower. As President, he surrounded himself with extraordinary talent (really, just look at his cabinet members) who didn't necessarily share his ideology, but knew their briefs backwards-and-forward and provided the best advice, and layout of options, possible.

For the record, I'll state again that I anticipate an Obama Administration to be more like an Eisenhower Administration than any other we've seen in the 20th/21st century.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How much of Obama's surge do you think is tied to the economic developments, and how much is the sheen coming off of Palin (which one could argue was why McCain took back the lead in the first place)?

33% convention bounce wearing off

33% Palin from high to low

33% economy

1% completely random


It was pointed out in this thread that the polls got back to pre-convention levels about a week after the RNC, so it didn't really take long for that reset.

In the meantime, Palin went from, I think +13 in her favorable/unfavorable ratings to about -7. That has definitely been a drag. I'd expect those ratings to improve based on her performance last night, but I have no idea how much and whether or not it helps her ticket in the right places.

Lastly, the economic crisis has hurt McCain in the sense that a) economic issues always poll better for Democrats than the GOP, b) I think McCain's "campaign suspension" stunt backfired in the world of public opinion, c) I think most Americans believe McCain doesn't really know the economy, personally (his quotes affirming this last year certainly haven't helped him).


We've got a month to go. If McCain does no better than ties Obama in the next two debates, then I think his only real hope is a major foreign policy crisis or terrorist attack (I really, really hate to say this).

Here's what Obama's got to do:

1. Play defense in the debates/press. Don't make an exploitable gaffe.

2. Continue to press the McCain campaign in swing states with ad buys - make them spend their money.

3. Focus on the ground game. Don't let people (especially core supporters) get complacent. Obama will lose easily if the under-30s and African-Americans who are so enthusiastic about him think it's in the bag and skip the election.

Here's what McCain's got to do:

1. Either nail the next two debates, or get terrific press in the next 4 weeks that will translate into a lot of good, free, advertising. Make himself look better than Obama to the average person.

2. Take a good hard look at the polling and demographics, decide which swing states he has to win and can win, and pour resources into those states.

3. Get Palin on a whistle-stop tour of "GOP Base" events, to keep these people in a frenzy for the campaign over the next month. If the GOP Base starts to get any reason to get apathetic or defeatist, it's over for McCain.


Easily the most exciting election contest in my lifetime (the close second would be the UK General Election in 1997).