The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[halplm]

no.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, I for one will step away, and I'm sorry for my duplicate post. I missed the earlier one.

I would recommend anyone worried about the current polls to start reading this site:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

It's really, really not time to hand the election to McCain.

[Holbytla]

Ellie wrote:

How is McCain a "change" from Washington, exactly?

Well maybe I am reading this wrong or too much into it, but wasn't he being portrayed as a maverick and someone who alienated the hardcore portion of his party? Isn't that the change his campaign referring to? Someone not afraid to break ranks?

I have a hard time buying this whole "change" thing from anyone. I see it as a catchphrase really and no more. I find it difficult to swallow that any one with a good chance of becoming president, isn't steeped in Washington politics. I see too much of a political machine in place on the two sides of the aisle for any true outsider to break through or true change to become reality. It seems to me that the word change is being used subjectively by everyone and not in the strict sense of the word.

The whole thing about "the media is attacking Palin" is a tactic, in my opinion, to persuade voters to ignore what the media says.

The media is what brought you Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. It's what brought you John Edwards' affair. "Lies!" is what John Edwards said. He had reason to fear the media. He was covering something up that didn't jibe with his public persona of devoted husband!!

There's nothing to attack the media about unless you are afraid of the court of public opinion.

I think you may be right that this is a tactic of sorts, but I am also leery of the motivation of the media. Well some of the media to be fair. They are looking for stories good or bad, and Palin is certainly a story.

I think maybe some similarities can be drawn from the media treatment of Obama and Palin. Obama experienced/experiences somewhat of a love affair with the media. Again, some of the media. He was big news to them, they saw some charisma in him, and they kind of exploited that angle for a bit. Then came the digging and the Wright stories etc.

Palin certainly made a big splash on the scene and again some of the media were enchanted with this figure. This was another story that got a lot of play and again she experienced somewhat of a love affair with the media for a time. Then the digging began on her and anything that looked like a story was a story.

I guess what I am trying to say here is that once the media has a story, like Obama and Palin, every angle is exploited and is sold as news. Everything. The spotlight is shining brightly on them and everything is blown out of proportion. Everything concerning them is news.

I don't think I have seen too many things I would qualify as an attack during this campaign, but more like overexposure.

Any campaign passing off these stories as an attack, is probably them trying to deal with the intense scrutiny. And in some cases over scrutiny.

[sauronsfinger]

Prim
the 538 site is a great site. I notice that their projections are based on a slim 1% percent popular vote lead by Obama. I have felt all along that unless he goes into election day ahead by at least five percent in the reliable polls, that he will lose. There is a very real Bradley Effect to consider in contested elections where race is a factor.

These next two weeks are very crucial. McCain has stolen the momentum from the Dems with the Palin pick - both in timing and the pick itself. The Dems must now pretty much neutralize Palin and then, having done that, turn their sights on McCain. They need to hit hard. Obama needs strong debate performances. And they need strong TV ads that use the economic differences between the two men as the real wedge issue to seperate one from the other.

I fear that if they fail to do any of those things, its four more years.

[Primula Baggins]

<steps back in for one noncontroversial post>

sf, what Nate at 538 points out repeatedly is that the popular vote does not elect the president. National polls reflect every state, including states like Georgia and West Virginia that Obama can't and never was going to win, and states like California and New York that McCain can't and never was going to win. What matters is the state polls, and notice that at what's probably the height of McCain's post-convention surge, Obama is still ahead in enough states to add up to a comfortable electoral vote margin.

And, I'll say again, this is a predictable bounce, foreseen by everyone who watches polls. It is very unlikely that it reflects a permanent change. As has been pointed out elsewhere, at the same point in the race after the Democratic convention in 1988, Michael Dukakis led Bush Sr. by 17 points in the national Gallup poll. What goes up most likely is going to come down.

The main point, of course, is that polls mean nothing until Election Day, though I admit I'm happier when Obama is up, as he has been pretty consistently. And will be again.

[vison]

There was an Obama spokesman on tv just now that was spinning the per diem story as tax payers paying for Palin to stay at her own home. That is so blatantly absurd I don't even know how to respond to it. But it's not worth responding to here, because everyone here buys into that spin, and refuses to look at how per diem works for government employees, and how it is used throughout the country, for all government... and how staying at home, would actually SAVE money, vs staying at hotels and such. Again, I'll ask, why has no one detailed on this level how much tax payer money Obaman has wasted traveling and such, and staying in hotels, ect. etc...

First: What is "blantantly absurd"? The story appears to be factual. NO ONE is entitled to charge the taxpayers a per diem for staying in their own house. This is wrong, no matter who does it. No one would question her charging per diems if she was staying other than in her own house. Do you understand that part? I understand how per diems work, halplm. But I don't think you do.

Second: Mr. Obama's traveling expenses are paid by his campaign, not by the taxpayers. Do you understand the difference?

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Prim's right. The polls that are the most revealing are state-by-state polls that show the probable electoral outcome of those states, and then show who would have the most electoral votes if the election matches the polls. That's why Electoral-Vote.com is such a valuable resource.

It's quite possible (and has happened before) that someone can win the popular and lose the electoral.

Right now they're showing Florida tied and Obama victorious. That may change by the time the reader clicks the link. One thing they don't show is what will happen if Bob Barr's lawsuit is victorious.

[sauronsfinger]

I would think the only real chance Obama has to change the last few elections in Florida is to blanket the state in the last two weeks with media ads over the issue of Social Security. If McCain continues to refuse to provide meat on that bone, then Obama should expand his position a bit and use the contrast to bury McCain in Florida painting as the candidate who would destroy Social Security.

There are many Florida voters who would respond to that message above all else. Right now I would put more money on Ohio going the way of Obama than I would Florida, all things being equal.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

That is true as well. There is a sizable population in Flordia that wants to keep the system going for one more generation so that they can ensure that they receive transfer payments from their children and grandchildren and not be the last victims. That will come later when Generation X altruistically and voluntarily does away with taking their children's future for their present benefit.

[Ellienor]

CG, why don't you rail against government retirees (both federal and state), for similarly raiding the kitty? Just curious. My husband's father is a senior level federal agency retiree, retired in 1972, has now been retired longer than he worked for them, and gets $10,000 a month (according to my husband's oldest brother, who handles his finances. Dad is 95).

[sauronsfinger]

Thats idealogical dogmatic self serving horsepucky CG and you know it.


Generation X - the 13ers - altruistic ... what a load. I would strongly urge you to read either GENERATIONS or THE FOURTH TURNING by Strauss & Howe so you can educate yourself as to the actual research done into generational profiles. You will find that the 13ers are the opposite of altruistic. If they give up on Social Security its because their slacker side simply will cause them to shrug their shoulders and allow the worst angels of government to screw them. And the whole time they will say "see, we told you so". It will not so much be something forced upon them , as it will be something they allow to happen due to their own lack of social involvement and political resolve. Its their own self fulfilling prophecy.

[halplm]

There was an Obama spokesman on tv just now that was spinning the per diem story as tax payers paying for Palin to stay at her own home. That is so blatantly absurd I don't even know how to respond to it. But it's not worth responding to here, because everyone here buys into that spin, and refuses to look at how per diem works for government employees, and how it is used throughout the country, for all government... and how staying at home, would actually SAVE money, vs staying at hotels and such. Again, I'll ask, why has no one detailed on this level how much tax payer money Obaman has wasted traveling and such, and staying in hotels, ect. etc...

First: What is "blantantly absurd"? The story appears to be factual. NO ONE is entitled to charge the taxpayers a per diem for staying in their own house. This is wrong, no matter who does it. No one would question her charging per diems if she was staying other than in her own house. Do you understand that part? I understand how per diems work, halplm. But I don't think you do.

Second: Mr. Obama's traveling expenses are paid by his campaign, not by the taxpayers. Do you understand the difference?

No money is spent staying at her home, money is spent staying at hotels.

I was not referring to Obama's campaign expenses, but his expenses as an elected official.

What is clear is that my posts will continue to be deliberately misunderstood and twisted.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I don't know that it is horsepucky, SF.

I do know that when the time comes for us to collect, we won't do to our kids and grandkids what the boomers are doing to us. It's for their sake that we will do it.

[sauronsfinger]

That is because you have a radical extremist and very non-representational attitude towards government and the function of government.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

So it is radical extremist and very non-representational to say "I won't take from my kids and grandkids" and the proper attitude towards government and the function of government is "give me their money."

Interesting is one word for that.

Actually, you're right. Most people do view the government that way these days. And that's a shame.

[sauronsfinger]

Again, you take something, pervert it , twist it, subvert it to your own extremist viewpoint and then heroically battle the ugly strawman of your own creation.

But what else is new?

Discussing any government program with you is akin to discussing the shape of the earth with the Flat Earth Society. It is pointless.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I said that you were right, and you say that my position is pointless and perverted. That's also interesting.

[Primula Baggins]

Please take this to PM or Nan Elmoth.

[sauronsfinger]

If you look at the last two elections - 2000 and 2004 there is a very good correlation between the popular vote and the electoral vote.

In 2000 it was
Republican popular vote 47.9%
Electoral vote 286 or 50.7%

Democratic popular vote 48.4%
Electoral vote 260 or 48.3%

In 2004 it was
Republican popular vote 50.7%
Electoral vote 286 or 53.1%

Democratic popular vote 48.3%
electoral vote 251 or 46.6%

The relationship between the popular vote and the Electoral vote was closer than for any two consecutive elections in over 100 years. With only seven different states having less than three points between Dem and Rep vote in 2004, there is no real reason to see a serious change this time.

I would be willing to wager than Obama will lose due to the wild card of race - the Bradley Effect - if he does not have a lead of five points of more in the reliable polls going into election day. And that is regardless of how the state by state polls have it. The national polls have shown a a remearkable accuracy - almost always within the statistical margin of error - over the past two elections. State polls far less so.

[vison]

No money is spent staying at her home, money is spent staying at hotels.

I was not referring to Obama's campaign expenses, but his expenses as an elected official.

What is clear is that my posts will continue to be deliberately misunderstood and twisted.

halplm, let me try this just ONCE more. Mrs. Palin was paid for more than 300 nights for staying in her own home - that is, she accepted per diems AS IF she had stayed at hotels for those nights but she did not stay at hotels she stayed at her own house and claimed the money anyway. It amounted to over $60,000. Is that clear enough?
Mrs. Palin also incurred perfectly legitimate expenses as Governor and no one can object to those expenses.

Mr. Obama's expenses as a Senator are as legitimate as Mr. McCain's expenses as a Senator.