U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Koga No Goshi]

Try reading the rest of his post.

There was absolutely no point unless we assume he was lying in the first paragraph.

[Spino]

Okay, if you believe this, then there is no reason to trust or believe either candidate will be better than anything. And there is very little point in discussing it, dissuading someone from voting a certain way, or encouraging them to vote another way. So according to you, we are taking a total stab in the dark, and I fail to see why you would be so convinced, given such a dark uncallable shot, that Obama will be the worse of the two.

Did you read my entire post or did you simply zone in on the select passage that offended you the most and ignored the rest?

What I'm saying is that believing everything a candidate is selling you in an election year is a sucker's bet. These campaigns count on the ignorance and apathy of the average voter when it comes to putting together an election strategy. This is why they constantly change their positions and economic plans, they're in the hunt for those ignorant voters who are taking stock in them for the first time. I believe that in order to make a truly educated decision all one need do is examine everything the candidates did prior to an election year and base your vote on that.

Think of this as a horse race. Are you really prepared to bet everything based on what the jockey or trainer tells you in pre-race interviews? Would it not be wiser to base your bet on the horse's previous races, performance on a variety of turf & track conditions, diet, medical records, etc.?

[Koga No Goshi]

Did you read my entire post or did you simply zone in on the select passage that offended you the most and ignored the rest?

What I'm saying is that believing everything a candidate is selling you in an election year is a sucker's bet.

That may be so, but that's not what you said.

You're operating on the assumption that McCain/Obama will deliver on their campaign promises & economic plans. Fat chance. The bulk of what these candidates promise in an election year means nothing. Zip. Nada. Jack. Squat.

Which leaves us with the voting record. Which shows McCain voting lockstep with Bush, and none of the "maverick" or "reformer" he is promising in the campaign. So so far, you seem to be correct.

The difference between the two candidates at this point is that Obama is not the one promising to vote the reverse of almost every single vote he's ever made, to make good on a promise of "change." Although you guys scoff and drag it through the mud, Obama's one vote against the war, which was undoubtedly controversial at the time, is why he beat out another competitor claiming that she, too, was a "figure of change", while having to rely on the voters' faith that she was going to break with her history of voting in order to make that change rhetoric into reality.

I agree you can't believe every detail of every promise made. And a lot of it will fall by the wayside as practical considerations or funding dictates. But to look at these two candidates and declare Obama the least sincere or the most likely to flip flop, is ridiculous. Who was the one saying the fundamentals of the economy were strong, 4 hours before cancelling his campaign to go work on a bailout package for Wall Street? Who was the one that voted for the war and supported virtually every single bad judgment call the Bush admin made about foreign policy? But, yes, all of that is going to "change" once he's President. The 90% voting record with the Bush rubberstamp congress will "change." He'll suddenly be a butterfly from the caterpillar.

I believe McCain has only been truly consistent and honest about one thing. He'll cut taxes on the rich. That is the only thing I feel secure he will carry through with.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here is an interesting blarticle by my favorite U.S. Naval blogger, Galrahn. I'm not sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/
Pondering the Navy of the Future

I am giving thought to writing a book, and have been given an amazing opportunity to do so. Nothing is definite yet, and if it falls through then lesson learned. The idea is one that was actually promoted by the publisher in the comments a couple weeks ago, The US Navy in the Age of Obama (or McCain). I do expect Obama to win though.

As I have made clear on the blog, I'm not very political, so the book will attempt to take a politically neutral look at what the US Navy under an Obama presidency would look like. In thinking about it, I've been taking a look at articles like this LA Times article, that focuses in on what the Pentagon is saying about the two presidential candidates.

Perhaps unlike other civilian leaders, McCain would be able to draw on his experience and knowledge of the military to reject the advice of generals and admirals.

"He is more feared in the Pentagon because he is impervious to the usual methods the military uses to roll the civilian leadership," a senior Defense official said.

Past presidential hopefuls have pledged to reorder military spending and alter war preparations. But McCain "knows where the bodies are buried," the senior official said, referring to the Republican nominee's understanding of weapons programs.

The range of views within the Pentagon about the GOP candidate is surprising and shows a complex culture struggling with the effects of waging two protracted wars while grappling with rivalries among the military branches.

There is a lot of truth to this, and I do believe the Pentagon is more worried about what a McCain presidency than an Obama presidency. I don't think that means large voter turn out in the military for Obama, but it does reflect that in almost every agency in government there is a look forward taking place.

For the Navy there isn't as much difference between the two as one might assume. Both will probably look to cut the DDG-1000, and neither is going to be very happy about the Littoral Combat Ship. Both men will take the shipbuilding problems seriously, and neither man is going to be in a hurry to make China enemy #1. McCain, as a member of the SASC, will understand the politics of the services better than Obama, but Obama will have advisers with that knowledge, and there are plenty of scores to settle regardless of what camp you are in.

The question therefore becomes, how will core philosophy guide either man as president on naval issues? If we use the last 16 years as a guide, both parties have gutted the Navy, bringing about 16 straight years of the lowest shipbuilding numbers for the Navy since the early 19th century, and this has brought us to a fleet struggling to stay above 280 ships.

I think pondering what the Navy will look like under Obama is an interesting question when given serious consideration, because one can easily be trapped by a partisan view based on a conventional wisdom theory. George Bush walked into the White House with a proclamation that the DoD would not be doing nation building on his watch, and thus transformation was born. The reality is, we have done nothing but nation building on the George Bush watch, and transformation has largely been a bridge to nowhere.

Will Barak Obama walk in with his own preconceived notions based heavily on the opinions of advisers to guide him? Repeating George Bush mistakes doesn't seem to be the Obama template. There is barely anything written from a liberal think tank regarding naval power, and yet, in many ways I find myself thinking that much of the strategic thinking coming from the Navy today would fit very well into a liberal core view of how naval forces should be postured, deployed, and operated. Ultimately, the progressive political view regarding the nations seapower will have to be developed. As one who has no idea what that would be, I'll stick to sound strategic thought and history as a guide, after all, one could hardly accuse that approach as being the Republican view today.

With a lack of information, I intend to use the 2008 National Defense Strategy (PDF) developed by Robert Gates, the 2007 Maritime Strategy, and some older research produced during the 1997 QDR that was ignored by Rumsfeld to develop what I think would be a wise US Navy in the Age of Obama.

I tend to think of Obama as a president who will enter office with low expectations but high potential for the Navy, mostly because his core values on maritime issues remain an enigma. I'm still developing my ideas, but my ultimate intent is to align the book as a guide for the Navy for America in a World After Bush.

In the end, we'll see what happens. I've never written a book before, but I figure it has to be easier than writing ~25,000 words a week for this blog.
Posted by Galrahn at 6:15 PM Comments (15) | Trackback

[CountArach]

A very fair and even-handed analysis there TuffStuff. An interesting view indeed.

The most interesting graph I have seen recently is this one, which shows McCain's result in the Gallup tracker vs the S&P500 Index:

That's a good indication of how much the economy is hurting McCain.

[KukriKhan]

Is there a similar product going the other way, i.e. S&P down - Obama up? I often hear the TV talking Heads say things like: "A floundering economy always benefits Dem's (or the opposition)".

[CountArach]

Is there a similar product going the other way, i.e. S&P down - Obama up? I often hear the TV talking Heads say things like: "A floundering economy always benefits Dem's (or the opposition)".

I haven't seen a graph for it, but generally as McCain went down Obama went up or held steady.

[drone]

Is there a similar product going the other way, i.e. S&P down - Obama up? I often hear the TV talking Heads say things like: "A floundering economy always benefits Dem's (or the opposition)".

One man's take on the economic crisis vs McCain:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The diverging political fortunes of Barack Obama and McCain can be traced to a single moment. In the middle of September, the net favorable rating for each candidate was about the same. By Oct. 7, Obama was ahead on this measure by about 16 points. Did McCain suddenly become a stumbling failure? No, the world suddenly went into an economic slide. Americans blamed the party with executive power, which is also the party most closely tied in the public mind to bankers and Wall Street. None of this was fair to McCain, who has never been the Wall Street type. But party images are vivid, durable and almost impossible to shift on short notice.

Previous to this economic free fall -- and after his transformative vice-presidential choice -- McCain was about tied in a race he should have been losing by a large margin. The public clearly had questions about Obama's leadership qualities. But the McCain campaign also proved itself capable of constructing an effective narrative: Obama as lightweight celebrity, McCain as maverick reformer. Until history intervened.

[OverKnight]

Drone, essentially Bush has screwed over McCain twice, once in the 2000 primaries, the sleazy illegetimate black baby smear, and now by being in charge when the economy tanked. He put so much effort to appease the Republican base and this is the thanks he gets?

Personally, I think Obama was pulling ahead when the crisis hit, but it has certainly hurt McCain's numbers.

[Ronin]

Barack Obama campaign pays for ads in online videogame

Obama campaigns in Paradise City

[Lemur]

Stay classy, Sacramento!

Sacramento County Republican leaders Tuesday took down offensive material on their official party Web site that sought to link Sen. Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden and encouraged people to "Waterboard Barack Obama" – material that offended even state GOP leaders. [...]

Taking credit for the site (sacramentorepublicans.org) and its content was county party chairman Craig MacGlashan – husband of Sacramento County Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan. [...]

But he defended his Web site. "I'm aware of the content," he said. "Some people find it offensive, others do not. I cannot comment on how people interpret things."

[Koga No Goshi]

*Shakes his head, walks away and say nothing*

[Strike For The South]

This is disgusting. If these two men were talking to an educated populace there polices could be better and we could make better decisions and probably have better candidates. Instead the masses now believe these men hold the keys to all of Americas success. What kind of country do we live in where people believe one man has so much control that they must vilify him. Both Obama and McCain have zealots who memorized a few talking points and go out and spew them. There is no debate merely hate and then even people who know anything about the issues are usually to bull headed to change there mind because they are well informed.

The American people want this as its much easier to blame those with power for your shortcomings than yourself. All hail the elected!

[Koga No Goshi]

This is disgusting. If these two men were talking to an educated populace there polices could be better and we could make better decisions and probably have better candidates. Instead the masses now believe these men hold the keys to all of Americas success. What kind of country do we live in where people believe one man has so much control that they must vilify him. Both Obama and McCain have zealots who memorized a few talking points and go out and spew them. There is no debate merely hate and then even people who know anything about the issues are usually to bull headed to change there mind because they are well informed.

The American people want this as its much easier to blame those with power for your shortcomings than yourself. All hail the elected!

Hey, at the very least this time they didn't give Michelle Obama an added Afro and assault rifle.

[Strike For The South]

Hey, at the very least this time they didn't give Michelle Obama an added Afro and assault rifle.

that was sarcasm by the New Yorker...you realize this right?

[drone]

It's pointless and counter-productive. McCain is not going to win California, with or without tactics like this. And when reported at the national level, things like this make Republicans seem even crazier than they really are and alienate independents.

[Strike For The South]

Im surprised Obamas campaign hasn't come back tit for tat on these.

[Kralizec]

Which leaves us with the voting record. Which shows McCain voting lockstep with Bush, and none of the "maverick" or "reformer" he is promising in the campaign.

How is this is different from Obama styling himself as a outsider and a uniter?

[drone]

Im surprised Obamas campaign hasn't come back tit for tat on these.

They don't need to. At this point, Obama just needs to sit back, wait for Nov 4th, and watch McCain's campaign and assorted unaffiliated nuts do his job for him. Unless someone can come out with a credible scandal, it's pretty much over.

[Strike For The South]

They don't need to. At this point, Obama just needs to sit back, wait for Nov 4th, and watch McCain's campaign and assorted unaffiliated nuts do his job for him. Unless someone can come out with a credible scandal, it's pretty much over.

This is true

[Lemur]

Im surprised Obamas campaign hasn't come back tit for tat on these.

To elaborate on what drone said, Obama appears to be a master of the rope-a-dope.

"Rope-a-dope" is also used in political contexts, to describe situations in which a contender allows his or her opponent to think the contender is politically weaker than he or she actually is. For example, commentator Andrew Sullivan has described Barack Obama's strategies against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, and against John McCain in the Presidential election as "classic rope-a-dope".

[Askthepizzaguy]

Okay, if you believe this, then there is no reason to trust or believe either candidate will be better than anything. And there is very little point in discussing it, dissuading someone from voting a certain way, or encouraging them to vote another way. So according to you, we are taking a total stab in the dark, and I fail to see why you would be so convinced, given such a dark uncallable shot, that Obama will be the worse of the two.

Sorry I'm late everyone.

Point of fact, if Spino believes neither candidate will deliver, then he's wasting his time trying to convince anyone that McCain is better.

[Koga No Goshi]

that was sarcasm by the New Yorker...you realize this right?

It was satire of real-life scare portrayals of the Obamas, you realize this right? You just saw one of them, a style of thinly veiled racebaiting and Muslim fearmongering and exaggerating Obama's "exotic-ness" to scare people or make ridiculous false claims about his religion or background. The reason no one "laughed" at the New Yorker Satire was because it wasn't showing off how ridiculous these tactics against Obama are--- because so many damn people have been taking it SERIOUSLY! That Rep rally in Minnesota, just the other day, a woman saying Obama's an Arab and can't be trusted.

That's how stupid people are. If people believe it literally, it's hard to make satire of it.

[Koga No Goshi]

Sorry I'm late everyone.

Point of fact, if Spino believes neither candidate will deliver, then he's wasting his time trying to convince anyone that McCain is better.

That's what gets me about the "no no no, I'm not partisan, I'm Independent... now here's why McCain is better than Obama" angle. If supposedly you're disgusted with both parties and believe both of them to be dishonest and uncredible, constant endorsements of just one party erodes your credibility as an "independent." There've been a lot of "Independents" of that variety since W took office.

[Ronin]

It was satire of real-life scare portrayals of the Obamas, you realize this right? You just saw one of them, a style of thinly veiled racebaiting and Muslim fearmongering and exaggerating Obama's "exotic-ness" to scare people or make ridiculous false claims about his religion or background. The reason no one "laughed" at the New Yorker Satire was because it wasn't showing off how ridiculous these tactics against Obama are--- because so many damn people have been taking it SERIOUSLY! That Rep rally in Minnesota, just the other day, a woman saying Obama's an Arab and can't be trusted.

That's how stupid people are. If people believe it literally, it's hard to make satire of it.

in a way it´s funny to watch....

the republican party has been throwing red meat out to the fringe base for so long that it´s come back to bite it in it´s collective ass.

these dimwits have been catered to in the party rhetoric for so long and have been driven up to such a frenzy that they have become a liability....

hey guess what....when you have a television broadcasted rally and people are shouting "kill him" about the opposition candidate....that´s not the way to attract the moderates you need to win.

[Tribesman]

things like this make Republicans seem even crazier than they really are

Do you mean it makes them seem like frothing at the mouth and spouting crap crazy rather than just the usual spouting crap crazy ?

[drone]

Do you mean it makes them seem like frothing at the mouth and spouting crap crazy rather than just the usual spouting crap crazy ?

Indeed.

That's what gets me about the "no no no, I'm not partisan, I'm Independent... now here's why McCain is better than Obama" angle. If supposedly you're disgusted with both parties and believe both of them to be dishonest and uncredible, constant endorsements of just one party erodes your credibility as an "independent." There've been a lot of "Independents" of that variety since W took office.

Just to clarify. I don't think I've ever really said McCain is better than Obama. I don't like either choice. I just believe that McCain as president, handcuffed by the inevitable Democrat majority in Congress, would be better for the country than Obama with a mandate. It's the party dynamics, not the candidates.

[Koga No Goshi]

Indeed.



Just to clarify. I don't think I've ever really said McCain is better than Obama. I don't like either choice. I just believe that McCain as president, handcuffed by the inevitable Democrat majority in Congress, would be better for the country than Obama with a mandate. It's the party dynamics, not the candidates.

::Bow:: Not you, Drone. I was speaking in general.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Indeed.



Just to clarify. I don't think I've ever really said McCain is better than Obama. I don't like either choice. I just believe that McCain as president, handcuffed by the inevitable Democrat majority in Congress, would be better for the country than Obama with a mandate. It's the party dynamics, not the candidates.

I agree to a large extent.

[Askthepizzaguy]

So, the argument is now "4-8 years of deadlocked/vetoed congressional actions" instead of an administration who can actually affect change?

We'd rather have 4-8 years of no solutions, instead of a solution conservatives don't like?

This is why I'm non-partisan, and will support my opponent when they have better ideas.