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

[PanzerJaeger]

You brought up freedom of speech as a defense of the borderline hatemob rhetoric starting to float around the McCain campaign appearances. If that's how you feel (that free speech should be paramount) then you're best off attacking Bush supporters instead of Obama ones. Stop defending "principles" in a one-sided fashion and you won't be called out for it quite so often.

You are lost.

If you weren't so busy looking to attack at every angle, you'd realize that I just asked CA about the freaking tee shirts... oh and your misguided and completely unrelated attack on Bush applies just as easily to Obama. Nobody lets protesters into their events.

[ICantSpellDawg]

McCain clearly lost the debate. I was not impressed.

Oh - btw Lemur, did you watch the Colbert Report where your buddy Silver from 538 ripped on McCain and kept saying he is non-partisan? Hey, he was wearing a purple tie, that must mean he isn't partisan!

That was a laughable mockery of middle-ground everywhere. I officially don't trust that site.

[Koga No Goshi]

McCain clearly lost the debate. I was not impressed.

Oh - btw Lemur, did you watch the Colbert Report where your buddy Silver from 538 ripped on McCain and kept saying he is non-partisan? Hey, he was wearing a purple tie, that must mean he isn't partisan!

I don't think someone need be partisan to rip on McCain at this point. From a strictly "how did the campaigns perform" campaign sense, it's over. It would take something drastic and unforeseen like a sudden terrorist attack to swing things at this point. McCain ran on a pure Karl Rove style campaign and it failed to gain enough traction, his one and only major boost was picking Palin, before anyone knew anything about her.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe, but the kid kept saying "I'm not partisan", even though in his precious FAQ he concedes that he supports Obama and almost always Democratic pols. I just don't know what partisan means anymore if it doesn't mean supporting one party (or group of individuals) over another. It's one thing to say you are not partisan in your professional life even if you are in your private life. It is another thing entirely to actively promote one party over another in your editorial and then go on television and claim impartiality. It is a gripe I have with a number of people on FOX news.

[Koga No Goshi]

Maybe, but the kid kept saying "I'm not partisan", even though in his precious FAQ he concedes that he supports Obama and almost always Democratic pols. I just don't know what partisan means anymore if it doesn't mean supporting one party (or group of individuals) over another. It's one thing to say you are not partisan in your professional life even if you are in your private life. It is another thing entirely to actively promote one party over another in your editorial and then go on television and claim impartiality. It is a gripe I have with a number of people on FOX news.

If someone insists 50 times they're not partisan, it's just as credible as when someone says 50 times that they're not racist. The lady doth protest too much.

But, don't be any more shocked seeing someone support Obama on the Colbert Report than I am when I glance at Fox 3 seconds after the debate is over and it already declared McCain/Palin the winner according to its "Fox text message poll."

[ICantSpellDawg]

If someone insists 50 times they're not partisan, it's just as credible as when someone says 50 times that they're not racist. The lady doth protest too much.

But, don't be any more shocked seeing someone support Obama on the Colbert Report than I am when I glance at Fox 3 seconds after the debate is over and it already declared McCain/Palin the winner according to its "Fox text message poll."

Go to MSNBC after the debate and see if you can keep your dinner in your stomach.

[Koga No Goshi]

Go to MSNBC after the debate and see if you can keep your dinner in your stomach.

*Shrug* There's balance in mainstream news now. I'm not losing sleep over it. When Fox was the only overtly biased network on TV and you had to go to cable late-night for anything progressive I didn't see anyone crying out for the fairness doctrine or equal time regulation.

[CountArach]

Common law? And, if the police said it was offensive, is it a summary offence?

It was a summary offence at the time.

I personally thought that McCain came off as somewhat uncertain about how best to handle the economy and jumped from place to place.

[Tribesman]

Didn't McCain accept an endorsement from a well known anti-Catholic/Semite? I cannot recall clearly, I remember flipping past the story.

Perhaps I should have added drug smugglers to the list so its clearer which group McCain actually belonged to and dealt with , as opposed to Obama who just sat on meetings with an ex-terrorist that had no terrorist agenda at them .

[OverKnight]

My friends, I just read the transcript of the debate and my friends I was not impressed by either candidate. Mostly, my friends, that one and the other one payed lip service to a question in the first few sentences of their reply and then rolled out pre-packaged talking points, some of which were word from word from the 1st debate.

I wish there was a debate where a moderator was empowered to pursue questions, force the candidates to actually, you know, answer the questions asked of them.

Perhaps if I had watched the debate I might have come out with a more positive impression, particularly if visuals seem to be heightened in a "Town Hall" style debate.

[Big_John]

i felt bad for mccain when he got the "thank you" joke out and giggled just seconds before obama trashed him.

[CountArach]

Best moment:

"Thank you all for joining us and... Senators you are in the way of my script"

[KukriKhan]

I embarrassedly admit: it put me to sleep, halfway through. Mister Cool-as-a-cucumber meets Mister Unbridled Optimism. v2.0 On the other hand, I watched it on C-Span, so had no talking heads telling me what to think.

From what I did see, overall winner: Brokaw. He laid down the 'timing rule' 4 times at my count, reminding both that they had personally signed off on the rules beforehand - yet chose to ignore the rule AND the repeated reminders from the Moderator. If I had been the Moderator, I'd have given them both 3 warning points and a 72-hour gag-order.

All I saw were reworked campaign stump speeches. No new information, or better insight into either man. Zero help to me as a voter. I'll watch v3.0, hoping to glean something, but frankly, I'm not holding my breath. Both camps seem to have decided that the contest is over, and the best tactic now is to ride it out until November, and make no mistakes.



It was like watching an NFL game, with no forward passes, and a running game that could only gain 5 yards, then retreat 5 yards.

[Koga No Goshi]

It was most definitely a valid criticism of this 2nd debate that both candidates just "fit" talking points that we've all heard before to whatever question was at hand.

But, given how much success the GOP in particular has done with a "uniform set of talking points, repeated consistently" strategy, and also how few people are as politically attentive as the people in this thread are, I wouldn't be surprised if the "idea" behind it is to always be giving the same viewpoints to any new voters or viewers who are tuning in. On the practical side.

On the cynical side, yeah, I think that the viewpoints are out, they're not going to fantastically morph or change, and both are just trying not to make mistakes. Also in fairness I think that McCain dragging out the same attack points from the first debate that didn't even resonate much the first time, like the "preconditions" dramatics, didn't help in terms of reducing the redundancy of what each candidate said and had to respond to.

[GeneralHankerchief]

There was one new feature offered in last night's debate: McCain's Bailout: The Expansion Pack (Housing Market Invasion). Aside from that, it was really a snoozefest.

[Don Corleone]

My friends, I just read the transcript of the debate and my friends I was not impressed by either candidate. Mostly, my friends, that one and the other one payed lip service to a question in the first few sentences of their reply and then rolled out pre-packaged talking points, some of which were word from word from the 1st debate.

I wish there was a debate where a moderator was empowered to pursue questions, force the candidates to actually, you know, answer the questions asked of them.

Perhaps if I had watched the debate I might have come out with a more positive impression, particularly if visuals seem to be heightened in a "Town Hall" style debate.

Hey there, Overnight. Always good to see a fellow chowderhead around these parts. Are you in Odin's neck of the woods (Springfield), or mine (I live in Southern NH, work in Wilmington)?

I couldn't bring myself to watch more than 1/2 hour of the debate. I think somebody needs to tell McCain that pacing around the stage like that makes him look manic, almost a visual queue confirming Obama's latest ad. Neither one said anything remotely of value as far as I could tell, but granted, I only had it on for 1/2 hour. Well, that's not 100% true... I did hear McCain talk about stabilizing housing by buying up mortgages and resetting the terms. Interesting. Last week, when a couple of economists proposed it, everyone was talking about how crazy of an idea it was. I give Obama the credit on that one, not jumping on the 'latest theory', but waiting to see what would actually make sense. One thing about the current crisis... money does not seem to slow it down... the Fed has thrown good money after bad and the LIBOR has continued to climb and the stock market.... well, Mrs. Corleone won't be visiting her folks this Christmas, let's just say that.

[Lemur]

Economist magazine polled a bunch of economists, as well as interviewing them to see what they thought of the economic proposals of McCain and Obama. Results are worth a read. Full text below the tag.

Examining the candidates

Oct 2nd 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

In our special report on the election we analyse the two candidates’ economic plans. Here, we ask professional economists to give us their views

AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

Does their opinion matter? Economics is just one of the many things the next president will have to worry about; voters still seem to prefer Mr McCain on foreign policy. And even on the economy, economists may not have the same priorities as the population at large. Arguably, what a president says about economics on the campaign trail is less important than how he responds to the unexpected challenges that inevitably arise once he is in office.

Yet economists’ opinions should count for something because irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach policy decisions with the same basic tool kit. Their assessment of the candidates’ economic credentials and plans represents an informed judgment on how well they will handle difficult trade-offs between efficiency, equity, growth and consensus-building.

Regardless of party affiliation, our respondents generally agree the economy is in bad shape, that the election is important to the course of economic policy and that the housing and financial crisis is the most critical economic issue facing America.

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.

“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.

On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.

Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.

Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

[Lemur]

Oh - btw Lemur, did you watch the Colbert Report where your buddy Silver from 538 ripped on McCain and kept saying he is non-partisan? Hey, he was wearing a purple tie, that must mean he isn't partisan!

I finally got around to watching that. Here's the clip, for those who don't do DVR. I didn't think he was notably partisan, certainly nothing that could compare to the more vehement hacks at Fox or MSNBC.

He slammed the Dems for being losers, and later compared McCain to a not-so-great baseball team. Ouch, that's one partisan dude, fer sure. Better hate on him something fierce! And how dare he apply baseball statistical methodology to the election and predict a winner?

Going all the way back to the now-locked thread about poll sites, I really don't understand why the rightwingers on the board got such a chapped set of buttocks about this guy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

My post still applies.

No. I was asking if the police had the ability to file a charge based on what they felt was offensive, or if they had the ability to immediately punish the wearer.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Does that last chart show the actual distribution of economists by party or is the survey tilted?

[Lemur]

That's what the economists who were polled say is their party affiliation, for what it's worth. This is the fourth Presidential election cycle where The Economist has polled economists, so it's a bit of a tradition. My understanding is that they're more concerned with polling qualified, well-respected economists than with creating any sort of neutrality.

[Koga No Goshi]

That's what the economists who were polled say is their party affiliation, for what it's worth. This is the fourth Presidential election cycle where The Economist has polled economists, so it's a bit of a tradition. My understanding is that they're more concerned with polling qualified, well-respected economists than with creating any sort of neutrality.

Which is how it should be on issues-based polls or points or policy analysis.

But yeah the media has been trained and backhanded that it needs to craft the appearance of neck and neck equality between the parties in order to be "balanced." Rather than giving equal weight to facts and falsehoods.

[KukriKhan]

That's what the economists who were polled say is their party affiliation, for what it's worth. This is the fourth Presidential election cycle where The Economist has polled economists, so it's a bit of a tradition. My understanding is that they're more concerned with polling qualified, well-respected economists than with creating any sort of neutrality.

That article is dated last Thursday, Oct 2nd. Three days after the first 'bailout package' was voted down, and the day before the 'bailout package v2.0' got passed, signed, sealed, and delivered.

One wishes the econ's had spoken up publicly about a more viable solution to the supposed crisis, rather than picking a candidate. They might as well have predicted the Superbowl, for all the leadership they've provided in these times.

Or maybe they think this isn't a crisis afterall. That the markets will correct themselves without gov't meddling. So they can afford to dally into politics.

I'm not saying they're wrong; it's clear to me that Obama will take the oath in January, barring some last-minute revelation that he routinely sleeps with Putin's illegimate 12-year cousin, while dining on sautee'd bar-b-qued aborted fetuses. <---(note: all of that is a lie, for effect - except the "Obama will win" bit).

I am saying: Johnny-come-lately so-called experts on economic policy and mechinations having, much less expressing, an opinion on who will "save the economy", are automatically suspect in my book, unless they've stood up to be counted with a firm, detailed, alternative plan of their own.

p.s. Where is econ21 when we need him?

[OverKnight]

Hey there, Overnight. Always good to see a fellow chowderhead around these parts. Are you in Odin's neck of the woods (Springfield), or mine (I live in Southern NH, work in Wilmington)?

I'm north of Boston in Somerville MA.

If I had any intestinal fortitude, I'd watch the debate instead of just reading the transcript to gain a full appreciation. I've been a bad voter, I didn't watch the Veep debate as well. In my defense "folksiness" is like nails across a chalkboard to me. Everytime I hear Palin speak it reminds me of "Fargo", like she's a Hummel figurine come to life.

Shallow perhaps, but. . .aw geez.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm north of Boston in Somerville MA.

If I had any intestinal fortitude, I'd watch the debate instead of just reading the transcript to gain a full appreciation. I've been a bad voter, I didn't watch the Veep debate as well. In my defense "folksiness" is like nails across a chalkboard to me. Everytime I hear Palin speak it reminds me of "Fargo", like she's a Hummel figurine come to life.

Shallow perhaps, but. . .aw geez.

"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

"Could ya be a little more.... spa-cific?"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Fair enough question, considering Gibson himself didn't know.

Anyway, I suppose the Obama partisans will resist drawing anything from the fact that McCain treats reporters much better than Obama, though they're baised against him.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10...y4507703.shtml

NASHVILLE, TENN.) - After most of the previous 12 months covering Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency, it was interesting, instructive and, well, relaxing to follow John McCain for the last few days. The differences between the two are striking.
...
Behind the scenes, where the public is not allowed, there are other differences.

Obama's campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it's all for security reasons.
...
The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.

The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.

And part of a new article from Camille Paglia:

Yes, both Todd and Sarah Palin, whom most people in the U.S. and abroad had never even heard of until six weeks ago, have emerged as powerful new symbols of a revived contemporary feminism. That the macho Todd, with his champion athleticism and working-class cred, can so amiably cradle babies and care for children is a huge step forward in American sexual symbolism.

Although nothing will sway my vote for Obama, I continue to enjoy Sarah Palin’s performance on the national stage. During her vice-presidential debate last week with Joe Biden (whose conspiratorial smiles with moderator Gwen Ifill were outrageous and condescending toward his opponent), I laughed heartily at Palin’s digs and slams and marveled at the way she slowly took over the entire event. I was sorry when it ended! But Biden wasn’t — judging by his Gore-like sighs and his slow sinking like a punctured blimp. Of course Biden won on points, but TV (a visual medium) never cares about that.

The mountain of rubbish poured out about Palin over the past month would rival Everest. What a disgrace for our jabbering army of liberal journalists and commentators, too many of whom behaved like snippy jackasses. The bourgeois conventionalism and rank snobbery of these alleged humanitarians stank up the place. As for Palin’s brutally edited interviews with Charlie Gibson and that viper, Katie Couric, don’t we all know that the best bits ended up on the cutting-room floor? Something has gone seriously wrong with Democratic ideology, which seems to have become a candied set of holier-than-thou bromides attached like tutti-frutti to a quivering green Jell-O mold of adolescent sentimentality.

And where is all that lurid sexual fantasy coming from? When I watch Sarah Palin, I don’t think sex — I think Amazon warrior! I admire her competitive spirit and her exuberant vitality, which borders on the supernormal. The question that keeps popping up for me is whether Palin, who was born in Idaho, could possibly be part Native American (as we know her husband is), which sometimes seems suggested by her strong facial contours. I have felt that same extraordinary energy and hyper-alertness billowing out from other women with Native American ancestry — including two overpowering celebrity icons with whom I have worked.

One of the most idiotic allegations batting around out there among urban media insiders is that Palin is “dumb.” Are they kidding? What level of stupidity is now par for the course in those musty circles? (The value of Ivy League degrees, like sub-prime mortgages, has certainly been plummeting. As a Yale Ph.D., I have a perfect right to my scorn.) People who can’t see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism — the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary.

Which I again assume the partisans will ignore or dismiss so as to keep their assumptions intact.

And in something totally unrelated, I must express skepticism towards The Economist's "poll" posted by Lemur. They say it's unscientific and they are right. The methods used are poor for gaining any statistically significant data. It does bring up some points, like McCain's tense relationship with economists, but using it as a means to judge economist's approval of the two plans is not a good idea.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Biased against McCain? If Obama had said "(expletive) you" to a reporter, I doubt very much it wouldn't be playing around the clock.

McCain has been the darling of a private little media that followed around the "Straight Talk Express" for quite awhile now. And many of his little anger management outbursts have been politely unreported, or reported only very quietly.

But, yes, continue with the victim complex that you're on the receiving end of a big, bad, out to beat up McCain media. There is no basis whatsoever for a claim that the media is biased for Obama and against McCain outside of your imagination. When that accusation was levied for the millionth time they did a media study and found that Obama had been mentioned negatively more often than positively.

[CountArach]

I finally got around to watching that. Here's the clip, for those who don't do DVR. I didn't think he was notably partisan, certainly nothing that could compare to the more vehement hacks at Fox or MSNBC.

Thanks for posting that up - I've been waiting for the clip. I thought it was one of his better media appearances and hopefully it will drive a lot of traffic to his site.

[Big_John]

i'll bite, CR.

my guess is paglia is suffering from the same hormonal responses as rich lowry. she's way out there, as per ususal. that said, i can't tell if this is facetious:

" People who can’t see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism — the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary."

i can't imagine anyone actually believes that.

but moreover, it's funny that a mccain voter should be interested in what camille paglia thinks. she's the elite of elite, and about as high up in the ivory tower as is conceivable. a veritable archetype of the out-of-touch, ivy-league intellectual that republicans seem to have adopted as their red-herring since 2000. strange bedfellows.

in any case, her analysis is not compelling. for one thing, i thought biden won easily, on 'debate points' and intangibles like poise and presence, and legitimacy (and arguably authenticity). and i never got any sense that biden himself felt otherwise, not sure where she's getting that. and her obsequious effusion about palin's native american contours and mystical energy is just... creepy. perhaps the "liberal journalists" edited palin's interviews to make her look like a dummy, but the alternative seems more likely, pagila's charge of cutting-room floor shenanigans notwithstanding.

[Big_John]

i should note, i've never followed pagila's work, but i did once see a c-span interview with susan sontag, in which sontag made pagila out to be a loon. so i'm not 100% impartial toward's pagila.