Campaign 2008

[Guest]

I didn't see Bush move to the center in '04. McCain sure didn't move to the center once clinching the nomination either, he's moved more right, more right, and more right. I don't put any stock into polls, so it doesn't matter to me that now the polls are finally saying McCain's ahead. Those polls don't get to the insane right that thinks polling companies just want to steal their information, identities, and take their houses. Those guys are going to vote "R" every time. I'm going to vote for McCain as well, but that sure as shit isn't why, and it's embarrassing to be lumped in with those kind.

 

Anyway, I have to leave, so we can continue this tomorrow if you'd like.

[At Home 0]

Bush was the incumbent, and in wartime too. Not to mention that he ran against John Kerry, who ran one of the worst campaigns in recent history.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

This is just a question, but if you think the country is proportioned politically in such a way, why do Republican candidates have to "go to the right?" Bush getting re-elected is all the proof you need to show that your one-third's aren't really the case. And also, why do Democrats need to become more-centrist?

 

 

(1) The Conservative media machine (talk radio, Fox News, The National Review, etc etc) has managed to totally commandeer public discourse in this country to such an extent that anything even vaguely to the left has been almost universally branded as "radical" and "Other." The whole poltical framework in this country has been forcefully heaved to the right over the past couple decades and so now a politician who would have been seen as a left-leaning centrist 30 years ago (Obama) is now seen by many as some kind of hardcore leftist.

 

(2) A lot of ppl who self-identify as "conservative" are ain reality operationally liberal People talk a big game about wanting to see lower taxes and less spending and That's My Money Not the Government's, but as soon as you try to slash the funding on their benefits (social security, medicare, etc etc) they basically lose their shit. It's the same for a lot of issues. Environmentalism, for example: When dealing in the abstract, "conservatives" are all for clear-cutting forests to build Wal-Marts, but as soon as some developer shows up and tries to pave over some wetlands in their own neighborhood they get all up in arms and go protest at City Council.

 

(3)

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

What's with this obsession Republican talking heads and operatives have with Obama and arugula? Obama criticizes McCain for not knowing how many houses he owns, and his spokesman comes back with a retort that includes Obama's choice of salad?

[At Home 0]

Because the joos own arugula

[BUTT 0]

But it's the liberals who hate Jews.

[Jingus 0]

Wait, I thought the Jews owned the whole Liberal Media? Which of course would explain their insidious plot to sneak Terrorist Scarves onto our nation's airwaves, hidden around the 1.5 chins of Rachel Ray, and then the Jews further their Muslim agenda to... hey, wait a minute.

[SuperJerk 0]

I didn't see Bush move to the center in '04. McCain sure didn't move to the center once clinching the nomination either, he's moved more right, more right, and more right. I don't put any stock into polls, so it doesn't matter to me that now the polls are finally saying McCain's ahead. Those polls don't get to the insane right that thinks polling companies just want to steal their information, identities, and take their houses. Those guys are going to vote "R" every time. I'm going to vote for McCain as well, but that sure as shit isn't why, and it's embarrassing to be lumped in with those kind.

 

Anyway, I have to leave, so we can continue this tomorrow if you'd like.

The standard practice I laid out in the conventional wisdom on presidential campaigns. I don't think it always works, but it is the general practice campaigns tend to follow.

 

Bush didn't have to move that far to the right because the country shifted right, at least on foreign policy, after 9/11. The country didn't want their tax-cuts repealed, so he had the majority of public support there (he never differentiated between the income groups on this, blurring the line between middle class and wealthy). His NCLB Act, the centerpiece of his domestic agenda that he touted every time someone asked him about domestic policy back in 04, was a law that was more or less a bipartisan effort. Bush never talked about his opposition to abortion or his desire to privatize social securty during the campaign. Thus, according to what I saw, he did campaign from the center.

 

The reason McCain is camapaigning to the right is because the right doesn't completely trust him (usually this support is earned during the primaries). He has the dilema of having to shore up his support with conservatives at the same time he is trying to appeal to independents. Obama doesn't completely have the support of ex-Clinton supporters, but he is bringing new voters into the fold (who aren't always reflected in polls), so his numbers usually beat McCain's.

 

That's my take on it, anyways.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Jerk isn't always right, but even old people bitch about Republicans now. They don't necessarily want Democrats, but they want something different. Off of pure anecdotal evidence, itself based on seeing thousands of tourists a day, there's simply more excitement for Obama. I've seen people of all age groups and ethnicities wearing shirts or hats or just buttons. Most of them have been over 50 and anywhere from 50-75% of visitors to Charleston are from south of the Ohio and east of the Missisippi. There have been two occasions on which I've seen someone with anything reading "McCain '08" compared to once or twice each day for Obama. Again, not a scientific sample at all, but when the dumbest people on the planet (American tourists) are getting on board with not only a Democrat, but a real one (NOT what Kerry was) that's had all kinds of awful rumors spread about him, its not hard to see where November's going.

[snuffbox 0]

(Hopefully) people are getting wise to the GOP's tax rhetoric and actually want to elect a Democrat and keep some more of their money.

[At Home 0]

I'm still really waiting for an aggressive campaign from the Dems. It doesn't have to be slanderous, dirty, or overbearing, but I don't think anyone is going to say that there isn't a lot on the line this fall. The election is 2 and a half months away, yet the only real action is business as usual punctuated by Obama "slamming" McCain on just one issue, which usually never amounts to anything more than "McCain's policies will lead this country into Bush territory." McCain's a pretty easy target. There's a lot to hammer him on. I've said this time and time again, but when is an aggressive campaign going to rear its head?

 

Also, Time reports that McCain picked Romney, and says, "if you're the wagering type, bet on Biden for Obama."

[2GOLD 0]

Biden vs Mitt?

Now that would be one hell of a VP debate. I hope the censor button is ready when Joe gets to respond to some of Mitt's answers.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm a fan of Tim Kaine, even just based on the youtube of him just a page ago you could see he'd be a pretty good VP candidate, but I like Biden's feistiness. Not excited in the slightest about Evan Bayh, though.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think the biggest problem right now is the press.

 

They focus on things that don't matter to most people (the veep-hype is interesting to US, but not the average person), instead of issues.

 

While coverage of Obama has been favorable, people are tired of hearing stories about fist-bumps, ties to celebrities, and how much Europeans love him.

 

McCain, on the otherhand, only seems to get on TV when he's attacking Obama (giving a voice to the annoyance from over-exposure a lot of people are feeling). His ridiculous comments about Iran, Iraq, and the economy aren't being exposed.

 

I'm pretty sure the conventions will help draw a contrast in people's minds between the parties and the issues they champion. Hopefully, the networks don't scale back on convention coverage again. Every four years they complain how no news is coming out of these things, forgetting that the public owns the airwaves and that this is the only chance most people will have to hear the candidates unfiltered by network editing and commentary.

[Guest WhackingCockDick]

Hopefully, the networks don't scale back on convention coverage again. Every four years they complain how no news is coming out of these things, forgetting that the public owns the airwaves and that this is the only chance most people will have to hear the candidates unfiltered by network editing and commentary.

Just an aside, I hate that bullshit about "the public owning the airwaves." Maybe in 1949, they had to worry about the public interest because there were so few avenues of media, but with thousands and thousands of television and radio channels available on digital cable and satellite, not to mention the Internet, there's not much of an argument that over-the-air stations are required to broadcast in "the public interest"--whatever the hell that even is--anymore, while everyone else is free from these constraints. Obviously, we don't need the Fairness Doctrine either; the fact that we're knee-deep in truthers demonstrates that nobody's opinions are being hidden.

[SuperJerk 0]

Hopefully, the networks don't scale back on convention coverage again. Every four years they complain how no news is coming out of these things, forgetting that the public owns the airwaves and that this is the only chance most people will have to hear the candidates unfiltered by network editing and commentary.

Just an aside, I hate that bullshit about "the public owning the airwaves." Maybe in 1949, they had to worry about the public interest because there were so few avenues of media, but with thousands and thousands of television and radio channels available on digital cable and satellite, not to mention the Internet, there's not much of an argument that over-the-air stations are required to broadcast in "the public interest"--whatever the hell that even is--anymore, while everyone else is free from these constraints. Obviously, we don't need the Fairness Doctrine either; the fact that we're knee-deep in truthers demonstrates that nobody's opinions are being hidden.

No, the public DOES own the airwaves. Cable networks have to negotiate with service providers to get into homes. Broadcast networks only need a license from the government to use the airwaves. In exchange for that license, they agree to provide a specified amount of information to the public. Not everyone has the internet, cable, or satelitte, and broadcast networks are the only media that has the capability to reach almost 100% of U.S. households.

[Guest WhackingCockDick]

I know the public owns the airwaves; my family worked in radio. I'm not a fucking idiot. My point is that we shouldn't. It's an outmoded concept.

[SuperJerk 0]

Should private firms own the airwaves, then? Or should we just not regulation of them altogether? Because if there's one thing the free market has proven in the last 150 years, its that the public's best interests are served when industries can operate completely unregulated.

[Guest WhackingCockDick]

Oh, burn down the FCC for all I care. Their real job is to do things like make sure that radio stations aren't bleeding over into other frequencies--and with AM HD Radio, they're obviously not even doing that--and all they really seem to do is shake down licensees into hiring black people, or go on puritanical flights of fancy like preventing nipple exposure. If that's who's regulating the airwaves, we're better off not bothering.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm not going say I agree with all FCC policies, but abolishing all regulation of broadcasters seems like it would create more problems than it would solve.

 

 

 

In other news, here's some polling analysis from Charlie Cook that I found informative:

 

Cook: Obama still outside comfort zone

Can the Democrat attract enough white voters to put him over the top?

ANALYSIS

By Charlie Cook

National Journal

updated 1:39 p.m. CT, Tues., July. 22, 2008

 

WASHINGTON - The dog days of summer are doubling as an intermission in the presidential contest.

 

The presidential nomination contests are over, but the general election campaign has yet to begin in earnest. The nominees are busy raising money, vetting running mates, planning for the fall campaign, and this week Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, is burnishing his foreign policy bona fides abroad.

 

For Sen. John McCain of Arizona, his GOP counterpart, the challenge is simply to remain in the news and not be overshadowed by the plethora of attention given to Obama's travel.

 

For the general election, Obama stands to benefit from what is almost certain to be a record high turnout and support among blacks. In addition, despite suggestions of a rivalry between blacks and Hispanics that might hurt him, he is running a bit ahead of the approximately 60 percent of the Hispanic vote Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., won in 2004, though the exact percentages that year are in dispute. Thus, Obama stands to do very well among minority voters.

 

President Lyndon Johnson was the last Democratic nominee to win a majority of the white vote, and this demographic is the thorniest for Obama. This is especially true of white voters more than 50 years of age. These voters might be the most resistant to his message of change.

 

Thom Riehle of RT Strategies, the polling firm that conducts surveys for The Cook Political Report, estimates that Obama needs between 40 percent and 42 percent of the white vote to win in November, and perhaps between 31 percent and 37 percent of the vote of white voters over 50 years of age, a group that has been a challenge for him.

 

Riehle assumes that about 14 percent of the total vote will be made up of blacks, up from about 11 percent in 2004.

 

He also assumes that about 11 percent of voters will be made up of other nonwhites, about the same as 2004.

 

A scenario that would be optimistic for Obama would give him about 92 percent of the black vote and about 60 percent of the balance of the nonwhite vote, which would give him about 19.5 percent of the total vote.

 

As Riehle points out, the share of votes cast by non-Hispanic whites has been consistently dropping, representing 83 percent of the total vote in 1996, 81 percent in 2000, and 77 percent in 2004.

 

Riehle suggests that this time around, non-Hispanic whites might make up about 75 percent of the total vote. Thus, if Obama picked up 40 percent of the total white vote, including 31 percent of the vote of whites over 50, that would represent the 30.6 percent of the total vote to get up to 50.1 percent, winning the popular vote. (Let's not worry about the Electoral College at this point.)

 

In a somewhat less optimistic scenario for Obama, Riehle theorizes that if Obama gets the same 92 percent of the black vote, but gets just 55 percent of the rest of the minority vote instead of 60 percent, he would need 42 percent of the non-Hispanic white vote in order to get the 31.2 percent necessary to get to 50.1 percent, including perhaps as much as 37 percent of non-Hispanic white voters over 50. Whew.

 

At this point, these numbers are within reach for Obama, but he hasn't yet closed the sale. While these older white voters are more open to change than usual and are less hostile to the notion of voting Democratic than they often have in the past, they haven't yet reached that comfort level with Obama.

 

They haven't decided to oppose him, but there is some hesitancy about casting their vote for him. That's what this campaign will be about.

 

Will Obama be able to establish a connection with enough of these voters to get over the top or will he come up short? The higher proportion of black voters lowers the bar a bit, but will it be enough?

 

That's why this election has in some ways come to resemble the 1980 race between then-President Jimmy Carter and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan.

 

In much the same way that voters are demanding change and are angry at the GOP and President Bush today, they were upset with Carter and wanted change in 1980.

 

Although President Bush isn't up for re-election this year, voters want him out in much the same way they wanted Carter out 28 years ago.

 

But there were reservations about Reagan, who had no Washington or foreign policy experience. Today, there is a feeling that Obama seems very bright and capable, but his national and foreign policy credentials are still relatively thin.

 

Reagan had problems crossing that threshold of comfort with voters to the point that the race heading into the home stretch was too close to call.

 

In the only debate that year, held Oct. 28 in Cleveland, the former California governor came across just as presidential, if not more so, than President Carter.

 

Having crossed that threshold, Reagan was able to harness that pro-change and anti-Democratic party sentiment over the weekend before the election into what turned out to be a rout, winning 51 percent to 41 percent.

 

 

If Obama clearly crosses that threshold, he not only wins, but wins big.

 

But if it is a close call, this election can easily go to the wire and go either way.

 

His trip to Iraq and Afghanistan might help some voters to visualize him as president, which is what needs to happen for them to reach that comfort zone with him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25801742/

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

RICHMOND, Va. - A Democratic official close to Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine says Barack Obama has told Kaine that he's not his choice to be the Democratic vice presidential nominee.

 

 

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to discuss the development, says the Virginia governor told associates about Obama's decision on Friday. Obama will claim the nomination at the Democratic convention that begins Monday.

 

Kaine arrived in Denver for the convention Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_...c3097lMHsVh24cA

 

I was hoping for Kaine the most out of the 4 names being floated right now.

 

I'll say this again: I think its a HUGE mistake for Obama to name someone with ties to starting the Iraq War. Chet Edwards, Joe Biden, and Evan Bayh all supported the war in the beginning.

 

I'm now crossing my fingers for Kathleen Sebelius.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

If all the news agencies are correct that Bayh isn't the guy (those drudge bumper stickers don't exactly match the visual style of the Obama site for instance), then I think it's Biden. Which is OK i guess. I don't have any major love for most of the VP candidates.

 

I do like the sound of Obama/Kaine just for superficial reasons (the way their names sound when read out)

[Guest WhackingCockDick]

Obama-Kaine sounds like ObaMcCain.

[2GOLD 0]

Hasn't Obama said he wants a VP who isn't afraid to disagree with him? Biden has disagreed with a lot of Obama's stands and hasn't been afraid to voice a real opinion (even a few that might be seen as stupid). Having a guy at VP who once supported the war but now realizes he was wrong isn't a bad thing, it's actually a positive. A lot of the independent voters actually might have agreed with the war at the start as well but now realize it has become a farce of what it was meant to be; those individuals are the ones Obama needs to snag as well to win the election. He can't just go into this with the "THE WAR WAS WRONG FROM THE START" attitude, he needs to show he can bring in people who saw another side to the coin but realize the current prez blew it badly.

 

He needs a VP who is different from him to show that yes, he can accept more than one viewpoint into his future White House and the future US government. It's vital if he wants to prove he's not like every other politician.

 

Yes, Biden is a democrat but it's not like Obama could pick a republican as his VP. Although honestly if he could have found one who fit, I would have been more than fine with it. His party would have roasted him, turned their back on him, demanded his head on a platter and called him a turncoat for it though so that was no chance.

[SuperJerk 0]

The rumor is floating around that the "short list" was a red herring and Obama's going with Jack Reed.

 

Damn, I hope that's true.

[BUTT 0]

AP's officially reporting that Biden is the pick.

[Jingus 0]

So it's a black guy and a party turncoat versus the dude many republicans secretly wish had been nominated for their party eight years ago. This election is gonna be one hell of a lotta fun. McCain should pick a female veep, just for the hell of it. Up the historic ante.

[Art Sandusky 0]

This campaign's gonna be a blast. Biden in prime time for a half hour on Wednesday? I'm there.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Fine with me.

 

Personally, I don't think the VP picks are going to be that big a factor in this election anyway.

[bob_barron 0]

Joe Biden says literally a lot