OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[MACTEPsporta]

I was playing with numbers (yes, I am that bored at work), and it's not looking good for McCain. Obama can lose OH, FL and PA,!!!! and still have a good chance to win. Fivethrityeight has Obama winning 3 out 4 of their mock elections, and I am coming up with similar results. It will take McCain a monumental effort to change the picture to favour him.

Here are my new toys:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

http://www.270towin.com/simulation/

[Teal]

Obama better be reeeeaaally careful here...
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

Governor Blunt (comes by the name honestly) had this to say about it:

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”


There's no good reason for this crap. Blunt is right...Obama needs to grow up and take it-free speech for everybody, or free speech for nobody.

[webdanzer]

For all the Palin-mania, she may end up costing McCain the election. If she gets drubbed in the debates, how many independents will still vote for McCain? Speaking personally, complete and utter incompetence by Palin, which I don't think has been shown yet, might be the only thing that gets me to vote for Obama.

Politico has compiled some of Palin's 'greatest hits.'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13991.html

These may have you leaning left.

[RobVarak]

I was playing with numbers (yes, I am that bored at work), and it's not looking good for McCain. Obama can lose OH, FL and PA,!!!! and still have a good chance to win. Fivethrityeight has Obama winning 3 out 4 of their mock elections, and I am coming up with similar results. It will take McCain a monumental effort to change the picture to favour him.

Here are my new toys:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

http://www.270towin.com/simulation/

I'm not sure that that particular scenario is realistic. According to FiveThirtyEight, who's state-by-state numbers are basically unrivaled, just losing OH alone drops Obama's chances of winning from approxmiately 75% to just a hair over 50%.

Obama's chances of winning the election despite losing OH, PA and MI are about 3%.

[FatPitcher]

It looks like the Democrats have successfully pinned the mortgage problems on McCain, not an easy feat considering the underlying facts. Obama will be cruising to victory in November, which is fortunate for 2 reasons:
1) McCain would only continue to take the Republican Party in the wrong direction as President: economically liberal, socially conservative, interventionist. While he'd certainly be a better president than Obama, we're better off in the long run not having Democrats vs. Democrats Lite in our elections.
2) Historically, there has been no faster and more effective way to turn the country against left-wing Democrats than to give them control of White House and Congress.

[JRod]

2) Historically, there has been no faster and more effective way to turn the country against left-wing Democrats than to give them control of White House and Congress.

If by historically, you mean just once than you would be right.

In 95-96, the Republicans did take back the House and Senate. But since the great depression, both houses have been predominantly Democratic.

The house was in Democrat control since the great depression. The Senate has fluctuated.

[Teal]

It looks like the Democrats have successfully pinned the mortgage problems on McCain, not an easy feat considering the underlying facts. Obama will be cruising to victory in November, which is fortunate for 2 reasons:
1) McCain would only continue to take the Republican Party in the wrong direction as President: economically liberal, socially conservative, interventionist. While he'd certainly be a better president than Obama, we're better off in the long run not having Democrats vs. Democrats Lite in our elections.
2) Historically, there has been no faster and more effective way to turn the country against left-wing Democrats than to give them control of White House and Congress.

I've thought for awhile that it may be best for Obama to have at it, just to show what a Carter #2 the guy is. The risk is that we get so FUBAR'ed in four years, that we can't climb out of it.

I don't see McCain as you do in #2. Believe me, I did for a long time, but this election cycle has taught me alot about him, and I respect the hell outta the man, and his stances. Is he staunchly conservative? No, not really. But he is by comparison, for damn sure...

[Teal]

If you don't mind me asking, pitcher...where do you get your assertion from about the economic stuff? Because it is SUCH a stretch of observable fact that it would frankly amaze and depress me that so many people are willing to drink so much blue kool aid...

[FatPitcher]

2) Historically, there has been no faster and more effective way to turn the country against left-wing Democrats than to give them control of White House and Congress.

If by historically, you mean just once than you would be right.

In 95-96, the Republicans did take back the House and Senate. But since the great depression, both houses have been predominantly Democratic.

The house was in Democrat control since the great depression. The Senate has fluctuated.

Aside from 1994, you should also look at 1980, 1968, and 1952. Those are the last 4 elections held after Democrats held the White House and both chambers of Congress. In each one, the President lost, and the Republican Party gained seats in both the House and Senate. In 1968, this gain was not particularly significant, however.

In 2 cases, the president became a 1-termer, while in Truman and Johnson's case, they served 1 term + the remainder of their predecessor's terms, failing to be elected as President a second time even though both were eligible to do so.

Also, when you look up these elections, you will find that the Republicans did hold a majority in the HoR sometime between the Great Depression and 1995.

[FatPitcher]

If you don't mind me asking, pitcher...where do you get your assertion from about the economic stuff? Because it is SUCH a stretch of observable fact that it would frankly amaze and depress me that so many people are willing to drink so much blue kool aid...

If you want to know what a candidate really stands for, you look at what they did when they weren't trying to appease some bloc of voters or taking contrary positions just to provide voters with some false dichotomy between themselves and their opponent. You've seen Obama swing way to the center since winning the nomination to "fool the rubes," for example, but what he did before that is a far better indicator of his political bent.

In McCain's case, he's a budget and anti-pork hawk, for sure, which differentiates him from most Democrats. However, he's also something of an environmentalist, favoring a carbon cap-and-trade scheme and opposing any ANWR drilling. He favors legalization of illegal immigrants, knowing full well that this will massively increase government spending on welfare and entitlement programs. He doesn't have a history of supporting low taxes, opposing Bush's earlier this decade--although the large deficit was a valid reason to do so.

Combine that with his assault on the First Amendment (McCain-Feingold) that has given rise to "bundlers" and 527 groups, his huge ego, his grandstanding for the press, his anti-corporate populism, etc., and he's a guy that I could never get behind except an a "enemy's enemy is my friend" sort of way.

[RobVarak]

It looks like the Democrats have successfully pinned the mortgage problems on McCain

They may or may not have done so. What's more important is that they are currently succeeding in making this election a referendum on "Bush's GOP." McCain's campaign has rightfully seen the danger in this, which is why they so aggressively tried to out-reform Obama in their rhetoric and in their choice of the manner in which they present McCain. But their ability to identify the problem doesn't seem to have helped them repudiate the charge or change the electoral turf.

McCain needs to turn this around somehow. The electorate has basically shrugged off the fact that Obama is infinitely less qualified than McCain. It's a dead-end argument at this point.

Instead McCain needs to highlight the fact that Obama is not a Clintonian centrist or a DLC moderate Democrat. He needs to cut through the moderate facade that Obama has been able to project in this campaign to shed light on the real Obama, his record, his philosophical foundations and his historical touchstones. Not just passing reference to him being the "most liberal" senator etc. These need to be sustained and accurate assertions done in a manner which will stick.

People really need to be made aware of the fact that they're not signing up for another 8 years of Bill Clinton. There will be no Eisenhower Republicanism out of this Democratic administration like there was in Clinton's second term. Obama is the Return of the FDR/LBJ/Carter/Mondale/Dukakis Liberal, a species thought dead and preferred so by the electorate for the last 25+ years.

Do I expect him to be able to make this case in 6 weeks? Not likely, but it has to happen if he wants to win.

[macsomjrr]

I need to know if Palin thinks dinosaurs were around 4,000 years ago:)

[JRod]

2) Historically, there has been no faster and more effective way to turn the country against left-wing Democrats than to give them control of White House and Congress.

If by historically, you mean just once than you would be right.

In 95-96, the Republicans did take back the House and Senate. But since the great depression, both houses have been predominantly Democratic.

The house was in Democrat control since the great depression. The Senate has fluctuated.

Aside from 1994, you should also look at 1980, 1968, and 1952. Those are the last 4 elections held after Democrats held the White House and both chambers of Congress. In each one, the President lost, and the Republican Party gained seats in both the House and Senate. In 1968, this gain was not particularly significant, however.

In 2 cases, the president became a 1-termer, while in Truman and Johnson's case, they served 1 term + the remainder of their predecessor's terms, failing to be elected as President a second time even though both were eligible to do so.

Also, when you look up these elections, you will find that the Republicans did hold a majority in the HoR sometime between the Great Depression and 1995.

Your quote...

>>>>
Historically, there has been no faster and more effective way to turn the country against left-wing Democrats than to give them control of White House and Congress.
<<<<<

So by "turning the country" you mean gaining seats. That doesn't seem to define effective. And in your scenario that would mean at the end of the Presidential term.

I had the numbers earlier not now. The House was in Democrat control since the Depression. The Senate moved back and forth. You could also say there not a more effective way of making the country progressive then having a Republican controlled White House and Congress. But you didn't see it from that point of view. Gasp!

Your whole point is really not even a point because the reverse is also true. The country likes more to change direction from the people that were in office.

If there's 8 years of Obama and the congress in ineffective, then we'll have another switch. Here's another thought, FDR's administration did more to influence the majority in the Congress more than any other event in modern Presidential History.

You know his crazy policies of social security, work programs, bank bailouts. The second great shift was the civil rights legislation, that helped move racist democrats to the Republican party and lost the south for Democrats. Their are exceptions in their but in the last century there has not been two bigger shifts in the landscape of American politics. More so than "change" politics after every administration.

[JRod]

It looks like the Democrats have successfully pinned the mortgage problems on McCain

They may or may not have done so. What's more important is that they are currently succeeding in making this election a referendum on "Bush's GOP." McCain's campaign has rightfully seen the danger in this, which is why they so aggressively tried to out-reform Obama in their rhetoric and in their choice of the manner in which they present McCain. But their ability to identify the problem doesn't seem to have helped them repudiate the charge or change the electoral turf.

McCain needs to turn this around somehow. The electorate has basically shrugged off the fact that Obama is infinitely less qualified than McCain. It's a dead-end argument at this point.

Instead McCain needs to highlight the fact that Obama is not a Clintonian centrist or a DLC moderate Democrat. He needs to cut through the moderate facade that Obama has been able to project in this campaign to shed light on the real Obama, his record, his philosophical foundations and his historical touchstones. Not just passing reference to him being the "most liberal" senator etc. These need to be sustained and accurate assertions done in a manner which will stick.

People really need to be made aware of the fact that they're not signing up for another 8 years of Bill Clinton. There will be no Eisenhower Republicanism out of this Democratic administration like there was in Clinton's second term. Obama is the Return of the FDR/LBJ/Carter/Mondale/Dukakis Liberal, a species thought dead and preferred so by the electorate for the last 25+ years.

Do I expect him to be able to make this case in 6 weeks? Not likely, but it has to happen if he wants to win.

Memo to Rob Varak.

Being likened to FDR isn't a bad thing.

And Mondale/Dukakis weren't actually Presidents. So it's nice to throw them in, but they lost. I don't know...I could go far an FDR-esque Presidency.

[FatPitcher]

So by "turning the country" you mean gaining seats. That doesn't seem to define effective. And in your scenario that would mean at the end of the Presidential term.

I don't get what you are trying to say. I see that there are words placed in order in a sentence, but I can't fathom their meaning.

I had the numbers earlier not now. The House was in Democrat control since the Depression. The Senate moved back and forth. You could also say there not a more effective way of making the country progressive then having a Republican controlled White House and Congress. But you didn't see it from that point of view. Gasp!

Again, not sure what you're saying, except for the part that's obviously wrong because you didn't do as I suggested and look up the results.

Your whole point is really not even a point because the reverse is also true. The country likes more to change direction from the people that were in office.

Even if the reverse is true, that doesn't make my point invalid. However, you only have to go back to 2004 to find a case where the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress and still made gains.

If there's 8 years of Obama and the congress in ineffective, then we'll have another switch. Here's another thought, FDR's administration did more to influence the majority in the Congress more than any other event in modern Presidential History.

Or maybe only 2-4 years, as has happened the last 4 times the Dems controlled everything, as I pointed out. And you are just making things up with regard to FDR. The Dems gained a huge number of seats in the same election that brought FDR to power, but obviously that had nothing to do with public opinion of his governance. They made insignificant gains in 1934 and 1936, followed by huge losses in 1938, a tiny gain in 1940, large losses again in 1942, a mild gain in 1944, and another big loss in 1946. From the 1934 though the 1946 election, the Dems went from having 71.9% of seats in the HoR to 43.2%. In the Senate, they went from 60 to 48 (although -11 of that was in 1946, which was technically post-FDR).

You know his crazy policies of social security, work programs, bank bailouts. The second great shift was the civil rights legislation, that helped move racist democrats to the Republican party and lost the south for Democrats. Their are exceptions in their but in the last century there has not been two bigger shifts in the landscape of American politics. More so than "change" politics after every administration.

Right...the policies that kept the depression going for 10 years while also screwing future generations. Not that everything he did was bad, of course.

[FatPitcher]

It looks like the Democrats have successfully pinned the mortgage problems on McCain

They may or may not have done so.

No other plausible explanation for why Obama would be doing better than he was right after his convention...is there? It seems to me that the recent spate of failures and bailouts is the only significant happening since the McCain convention.

[Jared]

McCain needs to turn this around somehow. The electorate has basically shrugged off the fact that Obama is infinitely less qualified than McCain. It's a dead-end argument at this point.

Wait, I thought since executive experience is the only thing that counts, McCain and Obama are equally unqualified, and the only one truly experienced to be President is Sarah Palin.

[Teal]

Watching video of those insipid idiots walking with Paulson like they were literally joined at the hip makes me sick. They're just doing this bailout s*** for a photo-op. I absolutely cannot stand Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Shumer, and the fact that Dodd is smack dab at the center of the problem, and yet is one 'working for a solution' is just plain rich.

Have you seen 'em walking down the hall together? Seriously, it looks like someone tied them together with bailing wire-Paulson in the middle, Pelosi and Reid on either side, literally shoulder to shoulder, with Chuckie, Dodd, and others halfway up Paulson's ass. The democrats are soooo concerned with being seen as something they aren't over this, I think they're overplaying their hand, but hell...nobody will f'ing notice.

[matthewk]

If you don't mind me asking, pitcher...where do you get your assertion from about the economic stuff? Because it is SUCH a stretch of observable fact that it would frankly amaze and depress me that so many people are willing to drink so much blue kool aid...

I see what FatPitcher is talking about. This weekend I've felt the same way. Even though I think it is wrong, I believe the general population feels that the financial crisis is Bush's and the Republicans fault alone. The media is all too happy to conspire to perpetuate this image, helping things along.

Pelosi and Reid make me sick. For those on that despise Bush, that's how I feel about these two.

[Teal]

This isn't optimism...it's arrogance.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... slide.html

I think he thinks too much of himself; but that's hardly news.

[Feanor]

Instead McCain needs to highlight the fact that Obama is not a Clintonian centrist or a DLC moderate Democrat. He needs to cut through the moderate facade that Obama has been able to project in this campaign to shed light on the real Obama, his record, his philosophical foundations and his historical touchstones. Not just passing reference to him being the "most liberal" senator etc. These need to be sustained and accurate assertions done in a manner which will stick.

People really need to be made aware of the fact that they're not signing up for another 8 years of Bill Clinton. There will be no Eisenhower Republicanism out of this Democratic administration like there was in Clinton's second term. Obama is the Return of the FDR/LBJ/Carter/Mondale/Dukakis Liberal, a species thought dead and preferred so by the electorate for the last 25+ years.

Nonsense rhetoric from a painfully partisan McCain supporter. Obama was actually criticsed during the primary for being more centrist/less progressive than Hillary. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opini ... an.html?hp

[RobVarak]

Nonsense rhetoric from a painfully partisan McCain supporter. Obama was actually criticsed during the primary for being more centrist/less progressive than Hillary. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opini ... an.html?hp

Well I don't think I ever claimed to be anything but a McCain supporter.

LMAO @ citing Paul Krugman in an argument about who's centrist.

First of all, Paul Krugman is a columnist, so he hardly speaks for the NY Times. Secondly, I don't give a s*** what the NY Times says on the issue. If you think that Barack Obama is a centrist relative to the US Presidency, I have some wonderful mortgage backed securities I'd like to sell you.

Hell, even his paper-think Senate resume makes it clear.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

[RobVarak]

No other plausible explanation for why Obama would be doing better than he was right after his convention...is there? It seems to me that the recent spate of failures and bailouts is the only significant happening since the McCain convention.

Well the reason that he's doing better now than he was after the convention is multi-fold. Remember that the GOP convention was immediately after the Democratic convention, so you had a week of free GOP ads counteracting any ads bought by Obama...as a result he spent less money during that period. Since then he has spent significantly more money on his ad campaign.

His post-convention bounce was also undercut by the Palin announcement and the immediate follow-up of the GOP convention. To some extent the last week to 10 days of pollling was the first "clean" period which was thoroughly untainted by the convention bounce noise.

And I didn't say the economic crisis wasn't hurting him, just that the issue was bigger than that.

Jared wrote:

Wait, I thought since executive experience is the only thing that counts, McCain and Obama are equally unqualified, and the only one truly experienced to be President is Sarah Palin.

Well what actually counts is one thing. What people so gullible that they'll buy Obama's centrist rhetoric believe is another thing entirely

[Naples39]

Nonsense rhetoric from a painfully partisan McCain supporter. Obama was actually criticsed during the primary for being more centrist/less progressive than Hillary. Hillary Clinton.

Read his books or examine his actual record and tell me he is a centrist. Despite the image he is portraying during this campaign, Obama is the farthest left democratic nominee of my lifetime.

And don't call me a painfully partisan McCain supporter. I am registered democrat who supported Obama during the primaries before I called bullsh*t on Obama's 'pragmatism' and 'post-partisanship' as I learned more about the man and his past.

[Slumberland]

Wick Allison (former publisher of National Review) has some positive things to say about scary liberal Obama:

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp ... 81822D9F8E

It does seem to me that the usual liberal/conservative categories have become a bit blurred with the neo-conservative emergence within the GOP... which is sort of this strange liberalism directed outward. Government isn't capable of helping with internal problems, but is totally capable of reshaping foreign nations, and so forth.