Bye Bye Obama?
Michael Young | September 13, 2008, 8:25pm
From The Sunday Telegraph in London, a chronicle of a political death foretold? The Obama campaign is losing, and isn't listening to advice on how to reverse this trend. Some highlights:
The Democratic presidential candidate's slump in the polls has sparked pointed private criticism that he is squandering a once-in-a-generation chance to win back the White House...
Party elders are also studying internal polling material which warns the Obama camp that his true standing is worse than it appears in polls because voters lie to polling companies about their reluctance to vote for a black candidate. The phenomenon is known in the US as the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley, a black candidate for governor of California who lost after leading comfortably in polls...
Other Democrats are openly mocking of Mr Obama's much vaunted "50-state strategy", in which he spends money campaigning throughout the US in the hope that it will force Mr McCain to divert funds to previously safe states. Critics say a utopian belief in bringing the nation together has trumped the cold electoral calculus that is necessary to triumph in November.
Doug Schoen, a former pollster for Bill Clinton, last week declared it insanity not to concentrate resources on the swing states.
The Democratic strategist said: "My Republican friends think its mad. Before Sarah Palin came along we were investing money in Alaska, for Christ's sake, that could have been spent in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The whole thing here.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 14, 2008, 9:48am | #
joe
On the other thread I read where you repeated your line about "he justs hits me because I'm stupid and lazy."
No, the GOP doesn't madly attack Dem candidates BECAUSE of the candidates faults. They attack because that's what they do (studies in pol sci journals consistently find that GOP candidates, whether the campaign be local, state or federal, more readily and frequently resort to attack tactics). No matter who the Dems nominated the GOP would attack and attack. So no I don't think nominating a "better" candidate would prevent the attacks.
But it would protect the candidate from the attacks. When your candidate really does have this funny name, or he really does have this hard to relate to backstory, or he really does have this time spent associating with unsavory urban political figures, then it makes the attacks not only easier but they are more likely to stick.
The Dems were not thinking when they thought "well Kerry was a war hero, he's protected." The guy came home and threw his medals away. That's something the average American finds "fishy" and negates his service in the eyes of many veterans, military families, etc.
Take a look at the always nasty Jim Gilmore campaign trying to smear Mark Warne in VA this year. It's like "Mark Warner, well, he, well, he's a secret tax raiser!" Just not the same as "Barak Obama has a muslim name, his middle name is Hussein, he was friends with a hippie who blew up things, blah, blah". Having a more "armored" candidate helps. Having one that is politically nude among mosquito's, not so much.
J sub D | September 14, 2008, 12:01pm | #
Damn, you folks stayed up all night for this? WOW! I, on the other hand, am well rested, bright eyed and bushy tailed as it were. I'm able to compose clear, insightful analysis of what all of this really means and place it in perxspective.
The Bradley effect. It's real. Whether the populace has matured enougk to reduce it to the level where it gets lost in the noise, I can't say for certain. My best guess is one to two percent. The rebuttals that refer to the primaries are ignoring that Democratic primary voters and presidential election voters are two very different groups of people. The former comprise ~15 - 20%* of the latter. Dems ignore this at their own peril.
Yes, there is
always a convention bounce in the polls. There is
rarely, if ever, a VP selection bounce in the polls and we are seeing one here. How this plays out for the 50 days remains to be seen, but Obama loses the Dem nomination without charisma, so he would be foolish to disregard that quality that Palin brings to the GOP campaign. Like Hillary she's (shoot me for this if you wish) an alpha female. Unlike Hillary, she's likable.
Who really gives a good goddam if a 70+ year old man is internet saavy? Did this somerhow become the
only way to gather information in the 21st century? Using this as a talking point or an attack, even here in the tubes, is stupid, stupid, stupid.
Finally, if the Dems blow this one they have only themselves to blame. It would not shock me, I remember Ford making a race out of it with Carter. Remember Ford? The guy who pardoned the most despised man as America and as president presided over high (double digits?) inflation and unemployment
and the fall of South Vienam.. The Dems still almost blew that one.
To the Democratic Party:
Don't blow this. I dom't like Obama, but without a Damn, you folks stayed up all night for this? WOW! I, on the other hand, am well rested, bright eyed and bushy tailed as it were. I'm able to compose clear, insightful analysis of what all of this really means and place in perxspective.
The Bradley effect. It's real. Whether the populace has matured enougk to reduce to the level where it gets lost in the noise, I can't say for certain. My best guess is one to two percent. The rebuttals that refer to the primaries are ignoring that Democratic primary voters and presidential election voters are two very different groups of people. The former comprise ~15 - 20% of the latter. Dems ignore this at their own peril.
Yes, there is
always a convention bounce in the polls. There is
rarely, if ever, a VP selection bounce in the polls and we are seeing one here. How this plays out for the 50 days remains to be seen, but Obama loses the Dem nomination without charisma, so he would be foolish to disregard that quality that Palin brings to the GOP campaign. Like Hillary she's (shoot me for this if you will) an alpha female. Unlike Hillary, she's likable.
Who really gives a good goddam if a 70+ year old man is internet saavy? Did this somerhow become the
only way to gather information in the 21st century? Uses this as a talking point, even here in the tubes, is stupid, stupid, stupid.
Finally, if the Dems blow this one they have only themselves to blame. It would not shock me, I remember Ford making a race out of it with Carter. Remember Ford? The guy who pardoned the most despised man as America and was president presided over high (double digits?) inflation and unemployment. The Dems almost blew that one.
To the Democratic Party:
Don't blow this. I dom't like Obama, but without a guarantee of an early demise, I fear a McCain presidency.
* SWAG.
James Anderson Merritt | September 14, 2008, 7:50pm | #
# J sub D | September 14, 2008, 6:09pm | #
## I do, however, give a good goddam
## if a presidential candidate is not,
## or if a senator that's part of the
## legislative body that passed the DMCA
## (just to pick 1 example) doesn't know
## what the fuck he's voting about.
# If you expect a politician to not rely
# on staff (or others) for the info used
# to formulate positions on policy you must
# be disappointed often.
What disappoints me is that the casual use of, indeed the need for, large numbers of staffers to "help" our House Reps and Senators is indicative of how out-of-control the legislative branch has become, yet so many people seem to accept this sorry situation as just "the way things are." I think we'd be a lot better off if we did require our elected officials to be personally responsible for reading and understanding the legislation they voted to approve. Sure, get help from staff, other legislators, constituents, or other knowledgeable or interested parties, but at the end of the day, if you can't convince your constituents that you know what you voted for, then your vote on whatever it was should be canceled out, and perhaps you should be automatically recalled as well.
Federal bills are generally too long and complicated, and there are way too many of them. The congress is doing far more than it needs to do, including a lot of what we need it NOT to do -- things that are either not specifically permitted, or are outright prohibited, by the Constitution. This must end, and it will probably end, one way or the other, relatively soon, but I am disappointed by the lack of citizen outrage.
I always thought there was a bit of genius in the decision to put the federal capital in a humid swamp. Make it a chore to serve so that no fixed governing culture could arise, because everyone who could would be in a hurry to get the minimum job done and leave.
Sadly, air conditioning put the kibosh on that. Just as it enabled people in torrid climates to become more comfortable and (economically) productive, it has allowed the kudzu of federal government to establish a permanent stronghold in the beltway zone.
Maybe it is not guns that need to be against the law in DC, but air conditioners.
Kolohe | September 14, 2008, 11:50pm | #
final tally of post high school education of current governors.
no degree(1)
CT
bachelors only(16)
AL, AK, CA, DE*, HI, ID, ME, MO, NE, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV
*may be only associates
masters(8)
IA, KS, LA, MT, NJ, NM, ND, SC
law school(23)
AZ, AR, CO, FL, IL, IN, KY, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, NV**, NH, NY, OK, NC, OR, PA, VA, WA, WI, WY
**may not actually have a law degree
other professional degree(2)
GA(veternarian), OH (phd in psych)
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
