For whatever it's limited worth, I thought McCain had a few opportunities to do some real damage tonight, and basically blew it. For example, on the Ayers issue, if McCain was going to use it at all, once Obama acknowledged that he and Ayers served on a foundation board together, McCain could have come back with Obama's quote from his debate with Hilary, in which he suggested that Ayers was just some guy who lived in the neighborhood, and only then added that Obama had either his first, or one of his first, fundraising get-togethers in Ayers' home. That would have reinforced McCain's point about the issue being Obama's forthrightness with the American people.
When McCain challenged Obama on whether he has ever gone against the party leadership, he could have followed up by pointing out Obama's 100% liberal voting record in the Senate. (Surprising that the "L" word hasn't come up in this campaign, given that the percentage of American's calling themselves liberals is still rather low.)
When Obama discussed his very limited relationship with ACORN, McCain could have noted that it's been well-documented from ACORN's own contemporaneous web publications that Obama worked closely with ACORN over the years--again, hammering on "forthrightness."
When Obama defended increasing taxes by referring to Warren Buffet, McCain could have pointed out that Buffet's income is almost all from capital gains, and that Buffet started out with inherited wealth. By contrast, many entrepreneurs who work their way up from nothing will face marginal state and federal tax rates of almost 60%. McCain could have then challenged Obama to defend the proposition that someone who works 80 hours a week, creating jobs for the community should "spread the wealth" to that extent--my recollection from polls I've seen is that only a tiny fraction of Americans think taxes should be that high for anyone. I can think of a few more examples, but you get the idea.
On the other hand, I thought McCain was effective when he pointed out that he isn't President Bush, and when he called Obama "Senator Government," even if that was inadvertent. But, in general, McCain just isn't able to rattle off the kind of detailed critique that could throw Obama off his game, while Obama plays an excellent defense.
UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin has a similar, but more detailed, analysis.
FURTHER UPDATE: Here are Obama's exact words about ACORN, from the debate transcript: "The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get register (sic) at DMVs." It's all over the blogs, with links to sources, that Obama was a trainer for ACORN. The Obama campaign itself changed its "Fight the Smears" website from stating "Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity," to "Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee." That's an implicit acknowledgment that Obama worked for/with, but was never officially "hired" by, ACORN. It was a pretty brazen, and seemingly unnecessary, lie by Obama, but McCain didn't call him on it.
And how about this for the relevance to McCain's campaign: "We are going through a terrible economic crisis that few Americans understand. American will have to trust their leaders when we propose solutions to this crisis. We are still engaged in a 'War on Terror' that necessarily involves secret intelligence work and covert action, and that requires the American people to trust their president. If Barack Obama can't be forthright about [Ayers, ACORN, his position on gun control pre-2008, and so on], how can Americans trust him on the economic crisis and issues of life and death."
Note that I don't think that Obama is necessarily less trustworthy than McCain, and I, in fact, don't trust either of them, or any "political leader." McCain, however, does have the advantage of having a (perhaps undeserved) reputation for straight talk, while Obama has a Clintonian lawyerly way of evading difficult questions, and, for that matter, he also tends to pass the buck to subordinates when people point out that he took some rather non-mainstream positions in his legislative campaigns. If McCain were a more effective campaigner, he could be taking better advantage of this dynamic.
McCain: 894/899 U.S. Naval Academy
Obama: President, Harv. L. Rev.
What do you expect?
P.S. What is the problem with Obama in providing his original long form birth certificate?
MCCAIN 73% 65,429 votes
OBAMA 25% 22,482 votes
Reasons to vote for McCain: gridlock with Congress, school choice, healthcare, international trade, energy, spending reduction, tax reduction.
The worst that can happen under Obama: new interminable socialist programs, tax increases, less school choice and dumber young folk, welfare spending, "spreading around" of wealth, reduced travel and work rights of Americans, stupid energy policy.
The worst that can happen under McCain: women will have to look to the states for their abortion rights, as they did pre-Roe, and a unified SCOTUS that will end up making us all genuflect, especially those 95% who are in prison for sex and drug crimes and for not realizing that Amerika is a Christian country.
No contest.
Despite McCain's obvious dislike for Obama, he is still a person of (some) integrity. I think he simply feels uncomfortable with the personal attacks. He realizes how insubstantial the charges are, but also feels pressured to raise them. His body language is all off- plus, if he goes too negative, it appeals to the base (such as you) but turns off the people still undecided he needs to win.
It was close to a no-win situation. As you point out, McCain needed an Obama stumble; I think he realizes at this point that going entirely negative wouldn't win the election and would lose what's left of his reputation. However, he isn't good at articulating the positive parts of his platform that are relevant to the American People now (domestic issue). He gave a halfway decent answer on corporate taxes, which is tough to defend in this format . . . but absent a major Obama gaffe, this was unwinnable debate.
And Obama plays great defense.
Yeah. Word on the street. Tough guy. Knows what's going down. And so forth.
BTW, wasn't it just a year or two ago that immigration was going to be the big domestic issue in the campaign? Obviously the economy has had to replace that, but even before the economy went south there was no mention at all of immigration... probably since they essentially agree and so neither has anything to gain...
McCain did miss chances, but don't give Obama credit for a tie- being present is not qualification for being President.
I think there is a telephone poll for the 1932 election that is calling your Drudge report. You might want to check out the poll results coming out from undecided voters. I have yet to see anything less than a 10 point Obama win, an the CBS snap of undecideds is Obama 53, McCain 22.
Except perhaps at the polls
McCains made the three week agrument front and center
Senator Government Senator Taxes, Senator spending
Its going to hit - also no one believes a 95% tax cut coming from a democrat
CNN poll: Obama 58, McCain 31
MediaCurves Independents: Obama 60, McCain 30
I happen to think this was a better McCain performance, but Obama did what he needed to do. He made people feel comfortable voting for him.
I would be happy to see an actual poll of undecideds, as opposed to a a self-selected 'vote on Drudge' poll. Do you have a Dailykos poll you'd like to use too?
Blah. All McCain showed tonight is that he can just barely argue his way out of paper bag...but that is it.
He is definitely a one-bagger presidential candidate. Wait, can I not say that? lol.
It was McCain's best debate, without doubt. He still got his ass kicked, regardless.
Would that make you some kind of an [gasp] elitist?
With the financial crisis looming, McCain has to give voters a damn good reason not to punish him for the sins of his fellow Republicans. That may be too tall an order to begin with, but after seeing him in the last couple of debates I can't tell if he's even trying anymore. I have my problems with Obama (actually more with the prospect of Dems controlling both the White House and Congress), but at least he still looks like he wants the job, understands it and is enthusiastic about it. McCain, not so much.
I hope not. What this country should have is a complete ban on abortions. This mealy-mouth idea of prosecuting doctors, but not women, is ridiculous. If the killing of an unborn child is murder, then the person who instigated the killing is just as guilty. If abortion is wrong for the Federal government, it should be wrong for the states. Where is the courage of our convictions?
but if you're a little less in tune with all of the talking points and blog debates, you'll think that mccain did a better job tonight of presenting an agenda and highlighting some of the candidate's disagreements.
but it's definitely frustrating watching mccain let obama off the hook time and again...can't help but think of how the other candidates would've cleaned up tonight...
That said, Bernstein is right: McCain whiffed on a few softballs lobbed his way. I will vote for Obama with a fair degree of trepidation, mostly because I know he will be supported by a an iron-clad majority in the House and very close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That worries me, and I don't think McCain drove that home (did he even mention it?)
Is this sort of like how Fox is fair and balanced?
Wow, I give you three separate actual for real polls, and you try to peddle that? Yo truly need to get out more.
TO clarify: among all CNN viewers, Obama won 58-31, among indies, Obama won 57-31. If anyone can find a real poll showing less than a 10 point Obama win, I'd be all ears.
I literally laughed coffee onto my laptop when I read this.
I believe your continuous repetition of Sean Hannity's talking points on any otherwise respectable blog proves otherwise, Professor.
Acorn and Ayers are done as issues in this election. The biggest benefit of these "scandals" was that very few people understood the details of them so Republicans could push the relationship to the limit with "Pallin' Around with Terrorists" and McCain could darkly hint about "knowing the full extent of the relationship". Obama's answer was reasoned and calm, and seems much more believable to non-Fox viewers than the idea that Obama hangs out with terrorists. Just due to the relative audience sizes of the debate versus cable news I think this answer will stick a lot longer with voters than the accusations.
The real damage to McCain isn't just that these attacks have raised his negatives, it's the opportunity cost of not talking about the pain of voters and starting to eat away at Obama's lead on economic issues.
There's no reason that the Democrat has to be the most trusted candidate on the economy in the race, just as Republican's don't automatically get defense as their issue. I think people's feelings on the relative strengths of the parties is more fluid than the MSM talking heads will ever admit. McCain gave Obama two bye weeks to own the economy while he "pal'd around" with useless claims. oops.
Obama was on the defensive the entire time. McCain exposed Senator Government for the marxist that he is.
There's nothing wrong with being an elitist if you are actually elite, but that's not what I meant. I meant I'm not a member of the Republican base. In fact, I'm someone who needs persuading to vote for the Republican candidate.
that's cool. doesn't make it true.
While technically true, serving on a board with someone does not really indicate that much more than being from the same neighborhood.
I have the joke response (those that were not watching FOX News or CSPAN) and the serious response- they did snap polls of general viewers (including committed voters) and of independent voters. The results were roughly equal. They're also in line with every snap poll I've seen so far.
.... still waiting for any contrary evidence.
Supporting multiple government bailouts (banks, homeowners, corporations)--he should have led the charge against it. Taking over home mortgages, violating the sanctity of contracts? Why aren't we objecting to that, in addition to the moral hazard arguments? Forcing banks to accept nationalization--not a peep. Abolishing government departments--don't hear about that anymore. What a wasted campaign.
Well, gee, didn't you hear Ayers helped write Obama's autobiographies...
Pretty much. There were so many incoherent moments tonight. The time he tried to go after Obama on abortion and instead sounded like he was mocking mothers' health, the "Obama says nuclear energy to be safe, and that's somehow a bad thing" line (sure, there's a point he's getting at, but the way he puts it it sounds like he's attacking Obama for caring about safety), the muddle over Colombian trade, the botched retelling of the Joe The Plumber story and the insane returns to him thereafter (does he really think this election turns on the votes of small business owners), this odd, telegraphic line:
I would have, first of all, across-the-board spending freeze, OK? Some people say that's a hatchet. That's a hatchet, and then I would get out a scalpel, OK?
and so many others. The weird approach to Ayers. He doesn't care about an old washed-up terrorist, he just wants to know the full extent of the relationship. Don't we already? Why call him old and washed-up, thereby cutting into your own attack? The obscure allusion to the "Sarah Palin is a Cunt" t-shirts that no one but political junkies like me will get. The claim that Palin gets special needs issues better than anyone in America, reminiscent of the time his daughter went on TV and said that no one understands war like the McCains. The shocked "Zero?" when he realized his handlers' talking points were wrong and Joe The Plumber wouldn't be fined if he didn't provide his employees healthcare, and the bitterly snarky "Hey Joe, you're rich, congratulations" response. The flat-out awful and incomprehensible rebuttal to Obama's whining about Ledbetter:
Obviously, that law waved the statute of limitations, which you could have gone back 20 or 30 years. It was a trial lawyer's dream. [awkward pivot]
Let me talk to you about an important aspect of this issue. We have to change the culture of America...
To date, we have four polls. CBS, CNN (two different polls), and MediaCurves. I could toss in SurveyUSA as well. All have similar resounding Obama numbers.
J. Aldridge has people voting on Drudge on the internet.
The polls I cite are discounted because they're all leftie bastions.
Drudge, on the other hand, is noted for attracting a broad swath of the uncommitted American public.
No wonder there is an inability to converse in America today, when we cannot even agree on basic ground rules for facts.
He didn't do it. And I think that's because he was in pure "prevent defense" mode all night. The public polls certainly support that strategy, and I have a strong notion that Obama's internal state-by-state polling is even more powerful.
Well, don't worry about Tivo'ing his show. He's basically just an outlet for pushing the "Greatest Hits of the Insane Right Wing Blogosphere" out into mainstream conversation. Partial birth abortion? Check. Acorn controls the election? Check! Obama's fake birth certificate? Oh yeah baby!
that's cool. doesn't make it true.
I think it is generally true that "Angry, difficult to understand accusation from a desperate party" is often bested by "Calm, easy to understand explanation from the smiling accused". This has been a pretty good technique for the Bush press secretaries, hence the lack of public outrage at complicated legal/political matters, such as the US Attorney firing scandal or FISA.
Whatever complaints you or the other ditto-heads have about Obama's explanation of Ayers, those will not filter out to even a tiny percentage of the 60 million or whatever viewers of the debate.
[Yes, I saw the "gotcha" clip of Obama talking about "spreading the wealth," and I understand that, but what does that have to do with Joe's ability to own a business?]
i agree i won't filter out. still doesn't make what obama said tonight true. nor does it make me a ditto head.
I wish McCain would have pointed out that it's rather cruel to make young people - who have lower incomes than their middle-aged peers - subsidise the health premiums of the middle-aged people. Yes, it costs more to get insurance when you're older, but it's still a smaller fraction (generally) of income.
Obama's nonsense about employers dropping coverage was senseless. He obviously doesn't understand the difference between the total cost and the per capita cost. Yes, per capita cost would increase if healthier people dropped out of an employer's coverage pool, but the total cost would decrease. Freakin lawyers don't get these things.
Come on, you've got to be smarter than that. Huge sample size doesn't mean a thing if you have massive sampling bias. You could poll 30 million registered Republicans, or residents of the Deep South for that matter, and ask them who they think won the debate, and their answers would be less indicative of national opinion than a poll of 50 randomly selected Americans.
I hate to break the news to you, but these intertubez can be unreliable. 130,000 votes does not equal 130,000 unique people. I hope I don't have to explain this, but even ignoring bots and script kiddies, it's trivial to vote multiple times. I simply don't understand why you choose to deny every single credible poll in favor of one self-selected internet poll.
Where you a Ron Paul supporter?
Dude, Joe's marginal rate is going to go from 36% back to the Clinton-era 39%! Joe is toast!
FYI, I am a S-Corp small business owner, and I hate paying taxes. Especially since I live in California. Double especially when I found out what incredible money-sinks Alaska and the other red states are! I will hate having my marginal rate go up, but it's better than borrowing that money from the Chinese and paying it back over the next hundred years.
Too bad I can't vote for a low-taxes and small-government candidate. :(
This says a lot about you.
Wow, someone needs to google:
Literary Digest Truman Dewey
Right away.
Sorry to shock y'all hardcore types, but I suspect "the average guy" likes it just fine to have judges who are fair to him. The average guy thinks that "fairness" and "the law" are SUPPOSED to be the same thing.
Those of you who've seen a plaintiff's face when her case gets tossed on procedural grounds (and n.b., I would be the one working to get it tossed) know what I'm talking about.
The above-quoted comment just confirms the impressions of others on this debate, that if you're already a conservative, then McCain sounded fine -- but if you're someone McCain needed to win over, then not so much.
Seriously? You think that's a winner with voters? The Republican talking heads kept repeating this after the debate. It just goes to show how tone-deaf the McCain camp is right now. Right now, lots of Americans, whether you think they are right or not, don't think "fair trade" has been fair for American workers. Stories of Chinese milk poisoned with melamine don't give American consumers warm fuzzies. And now you want to believe that labor agreements that don't protect us on any of those issues are what most Americans want and that it's a winning political point? If so, please keep repeating it. I can't wait to see how that one bounces for the McCain team.
No, the only real supporters of the GOP are the federal-teat sucking red staters and the state-institution employed Professors who give their policies plausible academic cover.
Us Blue staters are always voting against our interests, you know, helping out those flyover folk by giving them our hard earned money. What's the matter with California?
I mean, if you were a space alien, would you provide the original long form birth certificate that shows that?
RealClearPolitics, which as most of you know tilts right, has Obama about where Bush was ... not counting "toss-up" states.
Will the GOP recognize this problem and come back stonger than ever?
Or will they continue to listen to their nuttiest members (like those pushing the Ayers crap) and continue to marginalize themselves?
Reagan did something because he recognized what was wrong with the Democrats and provided an attractive, simple-to-understand solution. The current GOP candidates offer nothing more than divisiveness and fear.
Does John McCain use Medicare? Look it up. Sorry, "Try looking it up."
Racism has become a punch line. If you do not vote for Obama you must be racist.
If Obama had his first fundraiser in Ayers' house, then why didn't Ayers make a donation to Obama's campaign?
Maybe he agreed to write books for Obama or provide certain services?
Nah. We Dems are much more understanding than that.
Stupidity, ignorance, partisanship, greed, and a desire to see clones of John Roberts on the SCOTUS are all plausible non-racist motives.
(John Roberts always looks like a genetically engineered human to me, anyway. An inspired casting agent would've picked someone w/ his looks, not Richard Burton, for O'Brien in the film of Nineteen Eighty-Four.)
Phew.
Because the bastard's not just a terrorist, he's a *cheap* terrorist.
What a great TV spot: "Friends, I have served on a board with Obama. I had the chance to donate at his first fundraiser. But I didn't. Because I perceived the menace he poses for America. That's why I, Bill Ayers, unrepentant ex-Weather Underground terrorist leader, am endorsing John McCain for president in 2008."
That would be BETTER than an Osama video.
"Professor Volokh, the partisan bickering here is stale. Please disable comments on your blog. The comments (including my own) serve no purpose."
Kids these days!
You've got a bright future ahead of you, even if you chose your school poorly. Don't give up hope yet!
"There's nothing wrong with being an elitist if you are actually elite
This says a lot about you."
He's writing the post. We're writing the comments. Questions?
Theo: McCain is also *rich*. He can put his healthcare on his wife's Amex card.
Oh, a dickhead on the Internet. Let me tell my mother.
Few if any women and men that graduate from the bottom of the military academy go on to be a US senator, and or marry into money. McCain knows he owes much to his family line and money that came with marriage. This race is his last run for the White House win or lose. Obama is in many ways everything he could have been.
It could be that when you ask the Hawaii authorities for a birth certificate, this computer-generated thing is what they give you. That's what Maryland does, as I found out when I requested a copy of my birth certificate from 1954, and instead of getting a copy of the microfilmed original record, I got something computer generated that looked like Obama's.
Which is not too surprising, since he's basically an idiot.
We are so screwed.
That's how I've been able to conceal my Zimrodian heritage.
Can you present some proof? This claim, often presented and never proven, appears to be wrong. The event at Ayers' house was a fund-raiser for Palmer, not Obama. And that event was not the launch of Obama's campaign. See here:
I look forward to this interesting "objectivity" on the next Israel-Palestine DB post. Should be interesting.
Of course, if you sincerely believe that Israel is mostly right, and that 90% of the trouble is that the Palestinians are anti-semitic jerks, then you're not going to sound very "objective."
Sorry if our comments on McCain are insufficiently Broderesque.
This is the best campaign slogan. Better than lost pensions, or jobs.
"Or will they continue to listen to their nuttiest members (like those pushing the Ayers crap) and continue to marginalize themselves?"
Its not the nuts. Or even the members. And it doesn't happen to even be crap. On this one, we're the refs, and we don't much like being worked, so you might want to follow Obama's lead and shrug it off instead of rubbing your thoughtspace dominance in the faces of voters.
"Reagan did something because he recognized what was wrong with the Democrats and provided an attractive, simple-to-understand solution. The current GOP candidates offer nothing more than divisiveness and fear."
Well, he offered more than a mere solution. He offered a positive vision. You're dead on about what's missing, but not about the thin gruel that's there. Reagan wouldn't have been scared away by a bunch of his opponents crying wolf from calling an Ayers an Ayers, past and present, and laying out the case for what that means about Obama. I happen to believe that Obama would effectively present a countercase, but not even getting to that point is not good for the electoral process.
FWIW, the Faux poll is here. It shows Obama ahead, 67/33. With 69292 votes. But I think some of those voters might be dead people. Or voters phoning in from the planet Zimrod. I heard ACORN has a branch up there.
(Meanwhile, McCain produces a *selection* of his medical records &lets some reporters look at them for a few minutes. This from the oldest-ever president if elected. And the news folks shrug it off. What a bizarre nation we live in.)
True. Part of that countercase might be to point out that the claims about "unrepentant" (you linked to a story that used that word six times) are based on somewhat shaky evidence. The typical reference is a NYT interview Ayers did, but he says those statements are being taken out of context. And no one seems to recall that he also said this:
And, for the record, here is Obama's "guy in my neighborhood" quote, which doesn't sound as bad as your paraphrase:
I also thought it was good that McCain didn't relentlessly demand for Obama to answer questions about Ayers or ACORN. That might have entertained a few of the people here, but the average voter, frankly, doesn't give a damn about it. And those are the people whose interests are being placated.
It probably would have been better for McCain if those issues weren't discussed tonight. Instead of letting rumors run rampant in the blogsphere, Obama was given the perfect forum to dispel those rumors in his own words.
Now, there's nothing left to say. And if McCain insists on saying more about Ayers or ACORN on his stump, even more voters are going to lose interest in McCain. McCain is too busy listening to the conservative base to understand the wants of the average voter.
Hey...you can't change a player's game in the 9th ending.
That issue is discussed here.
"That might have entertained a few of the people here, but the average voter, frankly, doesn't give a damn about it."
There are several different average voters, and they live in several different states. Most don't give a damn about it because the R's have been thoroughly discredited and thus tuned out and the corporate media is over the moon for Obama.
I worry about what happens when he steps on some of those corporate toes once in office and they start sending the barrels of ink against him. You don't think they know how to make the case about lack of proper vetting? There's a lot of there there and they can hold it over Obama's head. He'd better get some advice from Bill about how to turn it into a mere Whitewater.
What kills me is that Bernstein manages to parrot the Hannity talking points even as he tells us that he doesn't watch Hannity. "Great minds" must think alike.
"About that Birth Certificate AGAIN: Am I to understand correctly the only known copy we have seen was the one released on KOS?"
No, neither candidate has presented their birth certificates for public viewing. What has been posted online for McCain and Obama are called a "Certificate of Live Birth", which is a government record that lists your birthplace, time, etc. but is not the actual birth certificate.
"'We did go off track … and that was wrong,' Ayers now says."
Thanks. That's helpful. But I think rehabilitating Ayers is a lost cause. After Bush and McCain, powerful dads getting their sons out of trouble is not a helpful category in which to participate.
My theory is that Obama learned from the failure of his Alinsky-inspired community organizing efforts and radical-chic ed reforms with Annenberg. That seems like it should be plausible to most intelligent people, given his subsequent career and, I trust, sensible leadership in the White House.
You are very much mistaken with regard to Kerry. As the RCP page from '04 shows, after 10/11 Kerry led in exactly 3 publicly-released polls out of 37. That election was actually quite close, relative to this one. Check out the current RCP polling page--you've got to go back 34 polls, to 9/25, to find a McCain lead of any magnitude.
The polls correctly predicted Bush the winner in '04, and they are presently projecting Obama the winner by a much more comfortable margin than Bush. The plain fact of the matter is that unless some event extrinsic to the campaign itself alters the dynamic of the race, Obama will win.
Appreciated, Anderson.
David Warner:
The Ayers thing is done and the electoral process is better for it. Are you concerned that the "lack of vetting" will lead to Ayers being appointed Secretary of Education?
Tell us how this lives on and rears its head after the election.
Buddy, you need to go back and take an Econ 101 class. Joe the Plumber is a small businessman. Most of these types work their tails off to earn a good living. Raising taxes on these business makes it hard to improve your equipment (called 'investing in your business') or hire additional help (called 'providing employment'). Joe needs incentive to work that hard. Usually the incentive is the $$$ he earns to provide a nice living for his family. However, if Obama decides to take all his extra money and 'spread it around', what incentive does Joe have now to work his tail off, invest in his business and provide employment for others? None.
McCain is known for his verbal attacks in Washington DC. The word choice that McCain uses when he address Obama is well known as to record. McCain is also known for his voting record. Few men and women from the Working Poor and or Working Class in recent history become ranking US Senator or get a chance to become president.
The word choice that McCain often uses when he talks to Obama is that of Superior to Subordinate. When he frames the story of abortion he frames the plight of women in the same manner. In trying to paint Obama as being for the great Republican bugaboo of late term abortions (because, you know, there are so many women running around and deciding after being pregnant for six or more months that being pregnant is no longer convenient for them), Obama replied that he didn't vote for the late term abortion ban because it had no provision for the health or life of the mother. McCain went on to talk about tax and spend liberals and the evils of socialism, but then he could suddenly find money for cripple children, adoption and school vouchers. Never mind he spoke early about cutting and freezing budgets. Never mind that he voted all the time or most of the time against federal programs to help children and families.
Unlike McCain, Obama's dad left town when Barrack was 2 or 3 and he did not have some one to open the doors for his Harvard education. Obama did not marry rich. No one gave him a job because of his given name.
Something called "google" directed me to abc news from 2004:
"Among registered voters who watched the debate, 42 percent called Kerry the winner, 41 percent said Bush won and 14 percent called it a tie. That's similar to the outcome of the second debate, while Kerry won the first among viewers by a nine-point margin."
Are these the debates you're referring to?
and..... this is probably why Joe seemed a little angry. Obama is taking his opportunity to really make a good living away. I know I'm angry about this myself.
I hope McCain takes your advice and spends the remaining days of the campaign harping on these petty, trivial matters that mean nothing to most Americans.
"I'd like Obama a lot better if he more forthrightedly admitted he flirted with radical ideas (and people) when he was younger, but I acknowledge that candor doesn't necessarily win votes."
I think it was more than a mere flirtation. All the better to know their limitations and motivate one to seek alternatives, as it is evident he has. Definite Prince Hal dynamic. There is a lot of hope out here for future Agincourts, hopefully non-military.
Really? What positions did Obama appoint any of the people you listed to fill? He listed a number of people who are serving as advisors. That might give you a clue.
OK, I did. I Googled search Volokh.com on "ayers" "fundraiser" and "first". Around 30 hits, most of them repeating David's unsubstantiated talking points. For instance, your unwillingness to source your claim is what you said here although then, it wasn't the first fundraiser.
"I'm going to sleep now, so I'm not going to hunt links, but neighbors have been quoted as saying they were part of the same social circle, Obama held one of his first fundraisers when he was a nobody at Ayers' house, etc. etc. "
Another commenter referenced this article but no claim of fundraising there.
Fellow Obama-whacker Jim Lindgren tried to tie Obama's fundraising efforts to Tony Rezko here but no Ayers as first fundraiser there.
Someone else linked to this article and claimed it as proof that they held a fundraiser. But what did the article say?
"In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate."
So it looks like it's back on the Professor to step up with some facts to back up his statements.
"The only examples we (the public) have are Ayers, Reverend Wright and Rezko."
Only? Unlikely. Start with Warren Buffett. No doubt they'll be some doozies as well, but he's assembled a pretty wide bench. I don't think that after the current administration that this point is a particularly strong one.
Apples to oranges (and apparently false, per markH). You're talking about insta-polls about who won debates, I'm talking about actual general election polling ("Who will you vote for?") Bush held a very small but consistent advantage in general election polling during October. Obama now holds a medium-sized, consistent advantage this October. Conclusion: Obama is on his way to victory, barring a genuine October surprise (not McCain deciding to hit him on Wright or something).
"Are you concerned that the "lack of vetting" will lead to Ayers being appointed Secretary of Education?"
Why should he accept a demotion?
"Tell us how this lives on and rears its head after the election."
Hell hath no fury like a media scorned.
It was such a winning strategy for the Clinton machine so McCain should have certainly doubled down.
Apparently, a large percentage of American voters want a president who stays calm in the face of challenges, cares about their problems, and provides steady leadership in times of crisis. McCain got in the most "digs" in this debate, but Obama clearly won the temperament battle. According to the opinion polls, calm trumps angry.
No, I was looking at this CNN hit piece:
TEMPE, Arizona (CNN) -- A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate found that respondents gave a significant edge to Kerry over Bush, 52 percent to 39 percent.
The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
The numbers were similar to the results of a poll taken the night of the first debate September 30 in Miami, Florida. That night Kerry was favored by a 53 percent to 37 percent margin.
Aside from policy, where I don't agree with Obama on much, I think it's fair to say that Obama is in many ways everything that McCain could have been. Obama does practice, to an extent, the sort of intellectually honest, straightforward, non-attack-driven politics that McCain appeared to embody back in 2000. Whereas McCain's running a pretty substance-free, often dishonest, Rovian campaign. Now, Obama's far from perfect, which is why I write 'to an extent,' but he's a lot closer than McCain.
To be fair, I'm sure McCain was much better when he was alive...
(John Roberts always looks like a genetically engineered human to me, anyway. An inspired casting agent would've picked someone w/ his looks, not Richard Burton, for O'Brien in the film of Nineteen Eighty-Four.)
Naw. All of us Hoosiers look like that. Which you might have known if you'd get your A&F clad arse out of the Fire Island Starbucks every now and then and drive through the Heartland on the way to your pedicure. Or whatever it is liberals do these days.
Wow, really? The "hit piece" you refer to cites results of three snap polls. And...that's it. Cites results. Nothing else. That's a hit piece?
Do you dispute the polls? Or do you really think that reporting on a poll constitutes a "hit piece"?
Reminds me of Colbert's line about facts having a well known liberal bias.
All in all I thought McCain did a good job. Obama looked smirky like Biden did in the VP debate, used talking points as answers on most issues, and still provides a foggy explanation of his economic 'plan' and health care.
So, rather than going out and getting a job, student loan or a scholarship, folks can do a hybrid Peace Corp/New Deal Civilian Conservation Corps thing and get their education paid for? How does that work?
I'm telling you, he's holding something back from us.
4) He's an extraordinarily bad campaigner, 5) He comes across as a crotchety old man who can't make an argument that is simultaneously detailed, articulate, and correct, 6) that he is as much of a big-government man as Bush and Obama, giving part of his base no reason to vote, 7) that some people don't want a subsidy-sucking* beer magnate as first lady...
I'm sure with more than 10 seconds I can come up with more...
*see Reason.com's blog for details
Shouldn't that be you liberals?
Therut,
"Good Grief!! LOL...Oh and I do not like Hannity. He appeals to the young voters though. And guess what he makes about 5 million a year and that is just for his show on FOX. Disgusting I know. But hey this is the USA and celebrity pays big."
Hannity's like JukeBoxGrad without the intelligence, wit, or (7th?) doctoral dissertation's worth of Bidenesque facts.
Bandon,
"calm trumps angry"
Who knew?
The #2 reason why McCain is going to lose: the media.
The #3 reason why McCain is going to lose: his unwillingness to attack Obama on Wright and his horrible timing for bringing up Ayers.
Also, the economy.
But let's not blame Palin.
Aai a day or so for Colin Powell to weigh in. In the meantime, ponder the role of Saddam Hussein's former lobbyist, Bill Timmons, another new member of the McCain campaign. No problem there, I suppose.
The only McCain play left is full on voter suppression. Two and a half weeks of noun-verb-ACORN.
The #1 reason why McCain is going to lose: the media.
The #2 reason why McCain is going to lose: the media.
The #3 reason why McCain is going to lose: his unwillingness to attack Obama on Wright and his horrible timing for bringing up Ayers."
Everywhere I go, to the grocery store, the gas station, the bank, the receivables ledger, the worldwide stock markets, the unemployment departments, the bankruptcy courts, things are really very good; indeed terrific! It is only the liberal corporate media that are convincing people things are not good, and have not been good. How dare they believe their lying eyes! And how dare they not share the concern about board member Ayers! Wow.
I'd like you a lot better if you forthrightedly admitted that you are incessantly making a claim that's not supported by facts: that "Obama had his first fundraiser in Ayers' house."
TruthInAdvertising summarized some of the non-evidence here. I looked around in a similar manner, using a site search for fundraiser ayers obama. The most relevant thread is here, where the claim was made, and challenged. One or two people purported to show proof by providing links that point (directly or indirectly) to a CNN report here. Scroll to 5:07 for the relevant portion. Angus then explained how the CNN claim is poorly sourced.
To review: the three key primary sources on this point are Politico (2/22/08), CNN (10/6, I think), and Chicago Sun-Times (10/15/08).
None of these sources say it was a fundraiser. And the 10/15 article establishes pretty clearly that it was Palmer's event, not Obama's. A different date and location is provided for Obama's first event.
Thanks. I guess.
I'm also better-looking than he is, but you'll have to take my word for it.
And yet, throughout the campaign McCain has run on change, has run on Obama-knows-Ayers, has run on Obama-was-wrong-about-the-surge, has run on Obama-wants-to-meet-with-Ahmadinejad, has run on everything except "Obama will raise your taxes, regulate through the wazoo, and generally do all the things that cause people like Mike Dukakis, John Kerry, Walter Mondale, etc., to lose."
Now, this is your cue to say, "Well, but that says it was a fund-raiser for Palmer," which is true, but it's highly unlikely that she would ask for money for herself, introduce Obama as her chosen successor, and yet not be asking for money for him, also. Seems sort of unimportant anyway; if the Ayers association is irrelevant to people, then who cares whether it was a fundraiser or just a gathering, and if the Ayers association matters to people, then who cares whether it was a fundraiser or just a gathering? Either way, he was introduced at a political event at Bill Ayers' home.
The difference between Mr. Nieporent's last comments and DB are stunning - Mr. Nieporent sensibly asking "why [Senator McCain] does not attack [Senator Obama] on the merits", and DB arguing that since Senator Obams is untrustworthy when accused of something slimy, we just can't trust him with anything. I think that DB is now the majority in the Republican Party, and that is why they shall lose. Thankfully. Have a real argument and get a freaking agenda that is relevant to people's lives, fellas, then people might vote for you. Sheesh.
How far does that "trust" analogy go? Should Michelle not "trust" Barack to pick up the clothes from the cleaners? Can I assume that he, like all untrustworthy people, will breach if I sign a contract with him? Can I not "trust" him to give me sound legal advice, to give me a fair grade in one of his classes, or not to damage my car if I lend it to him? So many different uses of the word "trust", and yet DB conflates them all. I know that the only quality that I look for in a person I have to "trust" (i.e., depend on) to do something important is he be someone I can trust (i.e.,g believe the veracity of his statements). Yep, that's the leadership that the country's looking for as we teeter on the edge of the Great Depression - the other guy fibs, so put me in charge of everything.
Unbelievable. I gotta get me a professorship.
@DB:
Counting all the McCain missed opportunities misses the point that Obama let go a lot of opportunities as well. And even then, the debate was Mr. Crotchety vs. The Unflappable. It doesn't matter what chances McCain missed. Like Bob Dole, he was long on service and short on accomplishment, so when his chance finally came up, he was out of luck, despite feeling entitled to the presidency.
@everyone who is trying to have a logical argument about polls with JAldridge and therut:
Don't waste your breath. The argument that "scientific" polls are biased while a non-randomized poll is valid because it has 130,000 "people" is pure idiocy and not worth discussing. And the other argument completely confuses the poll about who won the debate and the poll of voting preferences. Yes, John Kerry won the debates, but he was behind or very marginally ahead in every poll of voting preferences. In contrast, Obama not only won the debates, but he's now well ahead in every tracking poll and every major poll as well.
Rove tried to make an argument on Fox that all the polls with wide margins have a Left bias (sound familiar?). The one "careful" poll, according to him, has a margin of 3%, withing the MOE. This is actually factually wrong. SUSA and Rasmussen have a traditional Republican bias--that is, they usually overestimate Republican support. CBS and Gallup are similarly slanted to the other side. Others--Hotline, ARG, Pew, Fox, Zogby--often tilt unpredictably, but lack an identifiable bias. Overall, it is a reasonable statistical conclusion that Obama has a 6-8% lead and is near 50% support--which would make it statistically significant and virtually insurmountable. McCain must reverse both his own decline and Obama's rise--simply closing the gap will change nothing. After this debate, he's going in the opposite direction.
A couple of other observations:
McCain is running against Walter Mondale, not Barack Obama. That cannot be helped--just like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all used the same advisors, McCain is stuck with the old-guard of Republican politics who think that what worked for Reagan or GWB would work for any Republican candidate.
John McCain is the Joe Isuzu of presidential contenders. Simply saying, "You can trust me" and "I know what I am doing" won't convince anyone. Obama is right--the wheels have come off the Straight-Talk Express.
A few weeks ago, a study suggested that McCain supporters get most of their news from TV while Obama supporters are more diverse in their sources. It seems that it's actually worse--McCain supporters get most of their information from FoxNews, which is simply acting as an echo chamber. Conservative bloggers tend to copy each other, which means that their information also comes from the same sources. So they are all absolutely baffled why others do not see what they see. This also explains why those at the McCain and Palin rallies are "afraid" of Obama.
As for reasons why McCain should lose, I disagree with the ordering. In the spring and early summer, GWB was the top reason for people turning away from McCain. The ranking of factors at that point was 1) GWB (including Iraq), 2) economy, 3) Obama. Post convention, the order has changed. It is now 1) economy (McCain is erratic), 2) Palin (poor judgment), 3) GWB (more of the same). The War has been nearly forgotten. I strongly disagree that Palin is not a factor. Many Republicans and Conservatives who are not that keen on the Base are simply afraid of the possibility of President Palin. She makes their mind up for them by spouting nonsense, as she has in the last four days, for example, proclaiming that the legislative report has cleared her of any wrongdoing and found that there was no abuse of power or unethical behavior. One may disagree with the validity of the report or its legal implications, but there is no question that there was a finding of violation of the ethics act and abuse of power. Combine that with McCain's lack of leadership skills and inability to make sense of the economy, and it's easy to see why he's losing.
But if you think that GWB is a non-issue, just take a look at the Senate races. Dems are virtually guaranteed to go +8 and have a chance to go +11, including some states that have been Republican strongholds for at least a generation. (Make that +10 once they boot Lieberman to the curb.)
By the politics of almost anywhere in the civilised world (ie outside the USA) Obama would classify as centre-right and McCain as lunatic right.
But that once it got to the general election, the Republican nominee could simply point out how liberal Obama was. Since voters have regularly rejected liberal Democrats for the presidency -- who was the last one to win, LBJ? -- this would likely be effective.
This is impossible for McCain. For him to attack Obama as a Liberal would mean that he has to run as a Republican in order to define the respective territories. Running as a Republican would likely be the only thing worse than he's doing now, as he would necessarily have hitched his ride from GWB.
Everybody knows W is poisonous, even the local election out at my Mom's has the Republican candidate printing their side of the issues on a blue background, the Democrat incumbent's on a red background. McCain just simply hasn't been able to hoist the (R) flag, though we'll see how desperate and lashing he gets over the next three weeks.
STFU, David. Please.
1) the VP question -- he should have emphasized that Biden repeatedly said that Obama was not ready to be President -- and that he would have been proud to serve with McCain
2) on the education question, he should have emphasized Obama's involvement with the Annenberg Challenge, and the radical programs and ideas that Obama "threw money at".
(I've watched all the debates, and McCain clearly won this one -- but the media gave it to Obama based on his "unflappability".)
McCain's biggest mistake was in not pursuing the themes that gave him the lead for a little bit -- the theme that made Obama the issue. The "rock star" and the "Democrats saying Obama isn't ready" commercials worked.... and by abandoning those themes, McCain abandoned the single advantage he had in a year when the Democratic nominee had all the advantages. The next (series of) commercials should have been about "Obama will say anything" to be President -- focussing on the numerous times that Obama has said stuff that he later denied saying. That would have made McCain's "Obama will raise your taxes" line much more resonant, because Obama has consistently said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class and McCain needed to establish the foundation where people would be skeptical of such claims.
I don't think Obama did much other than spout his talking points. Obama, however, didn't have to do much more than that. He was on the defensive for most of the night, but it was a safe defense, and he was sitting on his lead, so as far as the debate changing anything-Obama wins, because he didn't make any big mistakes.
I think the biggest loser of all the debates is the media and "old guy" moderators. If the debates need anything, they need something younger, fresher and a design that will force the candidates away from their talking points. It was the talking point regurgitation that made all the debates rather boring. Shoot if it wasn't for Joe the Plumber half the more interesting exchanges wouldn't have happened.
20 years from now the only person that will remember any of these debates will be Joe the Plumber when he tells his grand kids about his 15 minutes of fame.
With apologies to Professor Kerr, McCain has a really bad case of Acorn Derangement Syndrome.
JBG--I was going to go along with the Hnnity/JBG comparison. But then I read last night (on this thread?) that Hannity makes $5 mil. per year from his FNC show alone.
Sorry, buddy. But that is "smart."
Snore. The market just went down 700+ points (again), etc., and you want McCain to start huffing and puffing over something that, while is has orgasmic effects here on the VC, most voters are, if not indifferent to, lukewarm about. McCain had enough sense to stay away from the nonstarter of an issue.
I was watching the NBC feed for the debate last night (please, don't ask) and they had their 6-pack panel of undecideds. They did the typical hand raising questions. I thought the following two were the most informative:
1. How many of you know someone who won't vote for Obama because of his race?
3 hands shot up (slowly...).
2. How many of you know someone who won't vote for McCain because of his pick of Sarah Palin for VP?
All 6 hands shot up like they were gunners in a 1L torts class.
As for Bernstein wishing McCain had attacked more, I recommend looking at the analysis at fivethirtyeight.com. The insta-numbers were running even *until* the Ayers/ACORN exchange, and then Obama starting pwning McCain. Why? Because it was prefaced with the question of who had been running negative ads more, and if you live in a battleground state, you already know the answer to this (McCain has a commanding lead, and he has not run a positive ad in my state for at least three weeks that I've seen):
So yes, perhaps in an alternate universe were independents want the red meat the base does, and McCain is an effective communicator, and Obama is easily rattled, and people weren't worried about real issues, and they hadn't already been exposed to this on the TeeVee by insinuation over and over again, it might be effective.
In other news, I have a pony.
1) He didn't defend himself when McCain attacked him for slandering McCain's supporters, as if he had actually done such a thing. Obama was talking about people who were yelling "Kill him" at rallies, and McCain said, "I won't stand here and let military wives and veterans be slandered" when Obama had done nothing of the kind. Clearly nothing but a ploy to set up future stump speeches.
2) The head of McCain's transition team lobbied for Saddam Hussein. Talk about guilt-by-association.
Only in America can you act like a four year old for two hours, not listen to questions, constantly interrupt, and be considered the better debater.
With regard to several of the comments, sure, I'd love it if political campaigns were decided based on voters thoughtfully deciding between two candidates who have presented their deepest thoughts on the major issues of the day. That's not how campaigns are decided, however, which is a major reason I don't think much of politics. McCain will likely lose because he is tarred with his association with Pres. Bush, which right now is much more powerful than all of Obama's dubious associations combined. But if you think that the marginal vote for Obama is coming from people who have closely studied their health care plans, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
I think that is what people 'in the know' would have wanted, but I thought Obama did a perfect job. He basically ignored attacks and refused to take the bait. He appeared above it all, and *gasp* Presidential. Engaging in a tit-for-tat with McCain would simply have tarnished both of them, and Obama didn't need to do that.
McCain was using tactics.
Obama had strategy.
Given his current standing, saying he was playing defense may be a little too pat. Instead, he used the chance to appear calm, cool, rational, and connected to the voters' problems. Given what I've seen, it was a wise choice. He's been nmaking a lot of them. But that's what you get when you have your plan and stick to it. Somehow, it seems to work better than trying to keep throwing up 'game-changers'.
VP? How about that gal from Alaska, goshdarnit?
Suspend the campaign? Why not?
Go negative in the battlegrounds with all my ads? Sure!
Try a different debate strategy each time? Well, something's got to work!
It goes to temperament- and I think this last debate continued that theme.
You're right, thanks, I didn't notice.
But how does that explain all the people who've been making statements (mostly prior to 10/15, when that article appeared) that it was a fundraiser? What was their source? Were they reading an advance copy of the article? Were they being fake but accurate?
There all sorts of reasons why she would "not be asking for money for him, also." Here's one: he's perfectly capable of asking for money for himself, at his own event, that he calls for that purpose.
You weren't there. Sam Ackerman was. He said this:
He was perfectly free to say this:
But he didn't.
All you've got on this point is pure speculation. The people (like DB) who are claiming it was a fundraiser for Obama are pretending that they know this for a fact, even though they don't. Sound familiar? It's the same habit that you've got.
There are really three separate claims that are being made. I agree that the fundraiser aspect is the least important of the three. Let's review the three:
A) It was an Obama event, not a Palmer event (this would mean, among other things, that the location was chosen by the former and not the latter).
B) It was Obama's inaugural event.
C) It was a fundraiser.
I think A and B are clearly more important than C. And the evidence seems to indicate that A and B are false.
He was "introduced" to certain people at that event, and he was "introduced" to other people at other events, including events that preceded this event.
By using that word ("introduced"), you seem to be claiming B. That's the claim that DB and lots of other folks have made. Trouble is, that claim appears to be false.
How do you know how much I get for my show?
I stand corrected ass regards your OP. I think that our difference is that you believe that the attacks could have been effective; I do not, both because of the person delivering them and because of the place we are in during the campaign. I'm not sure what would have worked for McCain; but he clearly performed at his best during the first 20 minutes before Ayers and ACORN came up.
(How's the new trophy-wife working out?)
Let's look at this logically. It's OK if we give a break to small business, but only without a ceiling on the size of the business. So Exxon Mobil qualifies.
I had not noticed that progressive income taxes made everyone content to work for minimum wage. Thanks for pointing it out.
One of the big problems with all this political debate is an unrecognized assumption that the status quo is in some way privileged, and that any change is from correct to incorrect. The truth of government is that the status quo is the a jumbled equilibrium of political ideas and individual interests and should have no privilege at all. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would agree.
"And this from a libertarian who will be voting for Obama."
This made me laugh...seriously. No true libertarian (small or capital "L") would EVER vote for Obama. You're joking, right?
It's clear McCain won against those he most needs to win over: Drudge report readers and people named "Joe."
Soon he'll move onto readers of "The Corner" and people named "Bob" and then the election is pretty much over.
And to all those people who think Obama won? Well, you just love Obama so I can't trust you. Only those who love McCain are truly objective, since we're not blinded by love for the Obamessiah or hatred for the PalinCudda.
Some of us feel that Liberty is more important than security or comfort. Given what Ben Franklin had to say on the subject, we find ourselves in good company.
Funny how it is such a non-starter of an issue that Obama and his campaign and his surrogates continue to lie about his pro-2A creds. If people love gun control so much, why not embrace it?
A picture is worth 1000 words.
(Not Photoshopped, BTW. It's the photo used on the front page of Der Standard website this morning.)
LOL, another sneering Brit! I am guessing that you must be an Obama supporter. Don't speak too vigorously, since Euro-trash sneering tends to turn off American voters.
Four years ago--eight years ago--that argument resonated with me. Hence my votes for Bush. But in the last eight years, we have run up another five trillion dollars in the national debt and permitted our financial institutions to run amok with greed and inadequate regulation. Right now, I am more concerned with the fact that I have lost several hundred thousand dollars of my lifetime savings than with the probability that I will have to pay a few thousand dollars more when the next income tax time comes around, and I want those who blew up the bubble that just burst to be regulated so they can't do it again. How are we going to pay off the national debt--it's got to be done sooner lr later? Paying taxes is the only way I've heard of. And how are we going to make financial assets safe for those who have worked and saved all their lives? Regulation is the only way I've heard of.
Having the temerity to post on an American internet site about the American Presidential race when he's not American! I think he even kinda insulted America while not being American! Can't stand for that.
Whatta tool, just sitting there being not American all day!
Am I the only one who was disturbed by Obama's proposal to create "American jobs" by investing in "Soylent Green industries"?
I'm telling you, he's holding something back from us.
No matter how you slice it, it's all about investing in people. Plus, you know, "reduce, reuse, recycle".
From a purely partisan point of view, I would like nothing better than for McCain and Palin to make guns a central issue in every campaign speech from here on out.
Toledo beats UM, Obama comes to town, and you're still complaining?
Ingrate.
Isn't the top bracket going back to 39% from 36% That's going to make Joe unwilling to keep working?
Also, isn't it a bit detrimental to this "loss of incentives" theory that millionaires live and work even in the bad old European countries with higher tax rates?
Higher taxes are unfortunate, but when you've got a skyrocketing deficit and national debt, not least because of a foolish, expensive war, then you've got to get the money somewhere. And taxation is better than borrowing it from China. Someone should ask Joe the Plumber what's *his* plan for reducing the deficit. Earmark elimination ain't gonna do it.
Actually, at least according to Nate Silver (who accurately predicted the rise of the Rays), CBS and Gallup balance Rasmussen and SUSA's ideological bias, but are otherwise infected by far greater pollster introduced error. That said, I think your 6-8% and roughly 50% conclusions are still correct.
Imagine for a moment that the top marginal bracket went to 90%.
If you worked a job that paid by the hour (like many jobs), if you worked an extra ten hours per week, you would effectively get paid for only one hour.
Would this be worth it to you? I know that I would forgo the extra ten hours of work (and one hour of pay) and spend it on myself and my family. My customers, employees and the economy would ultimately pay the price for my lack of economic output.
Now going from 36% to 39% may not make much of a difference in the case of an individual, who factors many things into this decision. But across the span of the entire economy, a 3% tax hike becomes significant. For a business with several employees that is struggling, it could mean the difference between hiring or firing a couple of employees because it can't afford to pay them any more. And often, these will be lower income employees who are not directly affected by a progressive tax rate.
Ultimately, having the government take more money out of the productive economy and spend it on unproductive things is going to rebound upon everybody, regardless of how much their income is.
As for the (more plausible) rest of your comment: Yes, there will be incremental negative consequences from higher taxes. But there are also incremental negative consequences from higher deficits, higher national debt, and the kind of cutbacks that would be necessary to pay those down w/out raising taxes. As they say, TANSTAAFL.
(Also, doesn't Obama's plan try to address the specific point about hiring new employees by providing tax credits for small businesses that do just that?)
This country is in T-R-O-U-B-L-E financially, and the squeaks from those who would be paying 39% not 36% frankly don't sound very ... patriotic, to borrow a word.
There were some people calling the EV for Kerry on the eve of the election, but that wasn't surprising -- the EV was very close, decided by Ohio, and Ohio went Bush by, what, 20,000 votes? That is just the kind of situation where polls by nature are likely to be confounded.
Of course no one is suggesting raising top marginal rates that much. Also, how many hourly workers are there in the the top bracket (say over $250,000 per year)? I would say it is very few--maybe divers on oil rigs and a few other highly skilled technicians.
So your argument is just silly.
Would have just been more pointless meandering. You, I, John McCain, and Barack Obama know that the ACORN meme is a political tempest in a teapot. ACORN was ripped off by canvassers filling paid by the registration filling out bogus registrations. They are required by law to turn them in because only an election board can reject a filled out form. A number of election boards have said this is registration fraud unlikely to lead to voting fraud it just gives them much more work. McCain can't push it since he praised ACORN just 2 years ago. Both ACORN and Ayers are distractions of a political nature, nothing more.
The real question is should you be able to pay canvassers at all, and if so maybe you should have to gives some money to the election board to pay for all the increased support?
Anderson, it's not some OTHER thing, it is the SAME thing, just a difference in degree. I used 90% to more clearly illustrate the consequences of marginal tax rates. I am an engineer, not a philosophy grad, so the comparison may be clearer to me than to you.
Incidentally, we have had 90% marginal tax rates in this country, imposed by FDR during WWII. However, WWII was a special situation where the government ran the entire economy with the focus of winning the war, so I am not going to generalize from that period to a peacetime economy.
I agree with this and the ultimate solution to this as to be to start cutting government spending at some point. Unfortunately, both of the major candidates are big government spenders. The huge blockbusters on the horizon are the Social Security and Medicare entitlements, whose spending will balloon through demographic pressures. They will make the war spending look like trifles.
There is no patriotic duty to pay taxes, sorry. There is only a legal duty to do so. Patriotism, legality and morality are different things. If you want to find patriotism in paying taxes (an involuntary act), I can find patriotism for you in all kinds of voluntary acts of commission and omission.
The idea that a rich individual is giong to stop working cause they make 10% less on that last 5K didn't wash with me. But a small business...that makes some sense.]
You missed the "Imagine for a moment... " with which I began my response to Anderson's question. Try reading the whole post the next time, not just some parts of it :-)
What does it matter? If his mother was a citizen who had lived in the US for 5 years it doesn't matter where he was born - he was born a US citizen.
He's submitted a valid birth certificate from Hawaii, supposedly you can look up his birth announcement in the local hawaii paper a few days after his birth, its a non-starter for anyone other than conspiracy buffs. Might as well be obsessing about McCain being the Manchurian Candidate from his POW time.
It is peurile to argue that raising the top marginal rate to 39 percent is the same as raising it to 90 percent. Would lowering the rate to 36 percent be the same as lowering is to nothing? My sympathy for Joe the Plumber weakens when I hear him complain about the hardships of making over $250,000 a year. To paraphrase, I don't feel his pain. McCain probably hasn't a clue what it's like to make $250,000 a year. His wife's inherited fortune, coupled with his military pension and his government salary, put him way, way over that measley income.
Please don't give the tinfoilers more ideas.
Let me reiterate a prior comment to DB:
Thank you for this post. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Re: your hope for significant spending cuts, that is Not Going To Happen. Defense can be cut some, but even w/out the stupid Iraq war (which Obama is trying to get out of, not least on fiscal grounds), we are going to be spending lots of money on soldiers, anti-terrorism, etc.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not going away, and that's the vast majority of the rest of spending.
Since you like arguments "from the extreme," look at what happens if the gov't cuts ALL (or 90%?) of discretionary spending outside those 4 areas I've named. The effect is trivial. And we know that's simply not going to happen in any event.
Much to the dismay of many smart people, Americans like the welfare state. They like Grandpa having Medicare. They even like the poor having Medicaid. We don't much care for the poor, but we're not quite to the point yet in this country of wanting to see them dead.
Taxes have to cover this. We can discuss which taxes and how high, and jigger the tax credits to favor this or disfavor that, but we have to pay taxes, and in the short term at least, we have to pay higher taxes.
Incidentally, Joe the Plumber was talking about running and expanding a small business that might pull in over $250K a year, not his personal income.
Instead of staring at the squiggly lines that CNN provides, I decided it might be fun to watch the live trading at Intrade. There was a bunch of selling right around the time that Ayers came up.
Gosh, this is tiresome. Have you read this thread? I already mentioned that video. I even indicated exactly the minute and second you should scroll to in order to hear the relevant statements. I also pointed to Angus's comment which explained how poorly sourced that video is. Treating Alice Palmer as a reliable source regarding Obama is a lot like treating Lyda Green as a reliable source regarding Palin.
By the way, please notice that CNN does not quote Palmer saying that this was Obama's inaugural campaign event. Palmer doesn't even say that Obama organized the meeting. She only says that the didn't organize the meeting herself. In other words, it's entirely possible that someone else organized it on her behalf.
CNN's other source is Dr. Young, the same source who was quoted by Politico. According to CNN, Dr. Young said this was "Obama's political coming-out party." That's the smoking gun you're looking for. But here's what that same source told Politico:
Young clearly told Politico that this was a Palmer event, not an Obama event. There's nothing in the Politico article, via Young or any other source, that even hints at the idea that this event was "Obama's political coming-out party." That's a bit hard to explain, and it casts doubt on the way CNN quoted Young. Either Young decided to change his story, or CNN is being careless. Or both. Meanwhile, multiple sources in the Sun-Times piece tell a different story, and are pretty emphatic about it.
Meanwhile, this is what Power Line said on 4/22/08:
What's the basis for that claim? Of course they don't tell us. You're asserting that the source for that claim was the CNN report. I guess that means Power Line has a time machine. The CNN report came out in October.
This is a standard case of the usual suspects in the echo chamber inventing their own facts, and then repeating them emphatically, and then quoting each other as proof.
It would be better if you didn't tell a lot of people. I already get too much email.
========================
sarcastro:
You just don't remember what I looked like back in the Flintstones era. I was quite dashing.
That picture is priceless. Unbelievable.
Another liberal who knows nothing about economics. Money comes from the US Mint. We can print as much as we want.
The key words there are "unproductive things." Here's a good example: breaking things and killing people on the other side of the planet.
You might want to consider the possibility that this could actually be a very good thing for you, your family, and your country. Measuring wealth and well-being in strictly short-term economic terms leads to some distortions. The true religion in the US is money, and that might not be such a great idea.
The law was different then. But that's a quibble, because the other parts of your argument are correct, and more important.
kevin:
See above.
Speaking of polling, I think it's amazing that Obama is leading in VA (by 8.6%, according to RCP). In the last 80 years, only three D candidates (for president) have won VA: LBJ, Truman, and FDR.
If Obama wins VA, he will be doing something that all the following Ds failed to accomplish: Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, JFK, and Stevenson.
In 2004, Kerry had a lead in VA in this many polls: zero. Bush's lead was never smaller than 2%. This year in VA, McCain hasn't polled above 50% since April.
Similar story in NC. The last D to win NC was Carter.
Um, yes, but Obama is not talking about reducing the deficit with the money, he want to increase spending. Completely different. You will see the debt increase, and productivity and income in America decline. Quite likely we will see reduced tax reciepts even with a higher tax rate.
"Another liberal who knows nothing about economics. Money comes from the US Mint. We can print as much as we want."
"Money" in the form of coinage is produced by the the U.S. Mint. Money in the form of paper currency is produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Excuse me Buddy, I never suggested that Obama would take away all of Joe's profits. But decreasing the amount of money he get to keep for his extra effort, tends to be a strong disincentive.
Keep in mind, it is likely that Joe gets to keep less than half of the extra money he would earn for his extra effort. In addition to the higher FIT, he also pays State Income Taxes as well as Social Security. And as an owner of the business, he will both sides of that tax (whereas 'wage earners' split the SS tax with their employers). Less than half! Can we discuss that with Obama?
You mean there's paper money available in this country? I've got to stop carrying all these coins around.
Triangle_Man: Brilliant line about investment in people. But what does Particle Man think?
Is he talking about business revenue of $250K/yr? Does he not understand the difference between revenue and profit?
Could be I guess. Following an NRO link I found this article by leading Republican thinker Rush Limbaugh, which clearly indicates he doesn't understand the difference, so why should Joe?
You mean there's paper money available in this country? I've got to stop carrying all these coins around.
If we keep going the way we are, we'll be able to use it for tissue paper...
"Here" is a link to an NRO post saying that the statutes in effect at the time of Obama's birth (1961), when applied to his mother, a citizen, would not have given Obama citizenship if he were born abroad.
But I thought NRO and VC readers would be asking a different question -- what did "natural born citizen" mean to the framers? Who cares what statutes say more than 200 years later!
Would a foreign-born McCain or a foreign-born Obama have been a "natural born citizen" in 1789 because they were born to American citizens?
Most scholars have said yes.
For a business with several employees that is struggling, it could mean the difference between hiring or firing a couple of employees because it can't afford to pay them any more. And often, these will be lower income employees who are not directly affected by a progressive tax rate.
Struggling small businesses don't make $250K/yr. And if you hire an employee the pay is a tax-deductible expense, so the higher tax rate has nothing to do with it.
Would a foreign-born McCain or a foreign-born Obama have been a "natural born citizen" in 1789 because they were born to American citizens?
Most scholars have said yes.
Thank you for posting this.
i take it your voting for obama then. reports came out a while ago that mccains plan will increase the debt greater than obamas. (search marginal revolution for numerous convenient links.)
It was mlstx, not me, who posted those interesting and helpful remarks.
A lot of interesting facts are emerging about Joe the Plumber. For example, he's a registered Republican, and he's not a licensed plumber. He appears to be some kind of a plant.
It also appears that he was really talking about buying a business with a value of $250k. That means the revenue is probably some fraction of that.
Like a ficus or something? Unlikely. Although there was a movie like that in the late '50s. So anything's possible.
A lot of interesting facts are emerging about Joe the Plumber. For example, he's a registered Republican, and he's not a licensed plumber. He appears to be some kind of a plant.
A pretty good recounting of the conversation is found here.
Is there specific information on him appearing to be some kind of plant? I've seen a lot of speculation at this, but the evidence does not seem persuasive.
He also thinks Social Security is a joke. One has to wonder if his middle name is Sixpack.
In any case, Joe the Plumber is a registered Republican. That's half the evidence right there.
If you ever lose it, you can't get another one. I lost mine, and have to settle for one similar to Obama's.
Under McCain, the government will be buying up a slew of mortgage loans at the housing bubble inflated amounts. How does this constitute a spending reduction? The savings from cutting out one planetarium projector earmark will cover, at most, six bubble mortgages. And "tax reduction" equates directly into "deficit increases." We have to start paying for W.'s spending binge at some point.
I can't readily find poll date from mid-October 2004, but Gore did win the popular vote in 2000, as you may recall. Bush was a few points ahead of Kerry at this time in 2004.
Are you seriously suggesting that the taxes a business pays will have no effect on how many employees it can afford to maintain? Wow!
It has become a joke. Or is it a crime?
Considering that the guy was playing football in his front yard - quite a strategic plant, jukeboxgrad! - when Obama walked up to him, the press has dug into his background with an alacrity not seen around Obama himself.
* Five years experience before you can even apply.
* To be a US citizen - presumably to avoid leaks!
* This fee, that fee and more fees, to be paid every year.
Still more licensing in the county and in the cities.
This is quite a sweetheart deal for licensed plumbers.
Suppose you have a business and are considering hiring an extra worker, who will cost you $50K/yr. How would you decide whether to do that or not?
I think you would estimate how much extra revenue the new employee would bring in. If it's more than $50K you'd make the hire, if less, not. Suppose you conclude that there will be $75K in additional revenue, so you're $25K ahead by hiring. Why would the difference between paying 36% and paying 39% on that $25K matter?
This is a pretty simplified analysis, and I can think of reasons why there might, sometimes, be a small effect. But the idea that Obama's tax plan is going to be devastating to small business is silly, for a number of reasons that are being overlooked.
First, Obama also has a number of tax benefits for small business.
Second, this particular increase is on individual incomes above $250K, not small business profits per se. If a small business (organized as LLC, Sub-S, or partnership) has profits of, say, $400,000 but more than one owner there will be no tax increase.
Third, the $250K is taxable income, not AGI. Individuals with that level of income normally have a fair amount of deductions - mortgage interest, state taxes, etc. It's probably a fair guess that few people with AGI under $300K will actually face a tax increase.
Charming. The City of Toledo Plumbing Board of Control may consider a punishment for Wurzelbacher. That should teach him about speaking up to his betters.
I think that would depend on if he did work in the City of Toldeo or other townships in Lucas County.
That's pretty ironic, given all the GOP hysteria over ACORN.
Here's an idea: try reading the article you cited. It says this:
Guess what he told Obama: that he's a plumber. So he's a phony. Also see this:
And this:
And of course it's just a coincidence that the guy is related to Charles Keating. See also here.
Wrong. He walked up to Obama.
I hope McCain announces loud and clear that he hates unions as much as you do.
"Guess what he told Obama: that he's a plumber. So he's a phony."
That's an incomplete statement. He could indeed be a plumber. He would not need to be licensed/registered depending on where he worked. I suppose a more accurate statement would be if he had told Obama that he did "plumbing work", again depending on where he worked in Ohio.
"And of course it's just a coincidence that the guy is related to Charles Keating. See also here."
The first source you cite says the following:
"You see, Joe Wurzelbacher is apparently (emphasis added) related to Robert Wurzelbacher. Who is the son-in-law of (are you ready...?) Charles Keating!"
The second article you provide makes a more definitive assertion:
"Turns out that Joe Wurzelbacher from the Toledo event is a close relative of Robert Wurzelbacher of Milford, Ohio. Who’s Robert Wurzelbacher? Only Charles Keating’s son-in-law and the former senior vice president of American Continental, the parent company of the infamous Lincoln Savings and Loan"
The latter article says "close relative" - how is Joe Wurzelbacher related to Robert Wurzelbacher? Has that been determined? If you're going to make the statement "And of course it's just a coincidence that the guy is related to Charles Keating", it would be helpful if you provide some more factual information to back up that claim.
From the Toledo Blade article:
But hey, if you want to persuade everyone that the evil McCain campaign planned for Mr. Wurzelbacher to be in his front yard for an unscheduled Obama stop, be my guest.
Also, re: the Keating connection, people are starting to realize that there is actually no proof that the two are related. Maybe they are, but nobody has actually provided some tangible evidence. I suspect that the resident jukeboxgrad of some other blog has seized upon the last name and created himself a connection. Read the comments to your own two links and read the blog posts themselves carefully.
Why can't Joe the Plumber just provide his long-form birth certificate? How else can we ever truly know that he wasn't born a Keating in Kenya?
Lily, later: Excuse me Buddy, I never suggested that Obama would take away all of Joe's profits.
Whatever.
///jukeboxgrad writes:
"Guess what he told Obama: that he's a plumber. So he's a phony."
That's an incomplete statement. He could indeed be a plumber. He would not need to be licensed/registered depending on where he worked. I suppose a more accurate statement would be if he had told Obama that he did "plumbing work", again depending on where he worked in Ohio. ///
So now do we re-open the question of Obama's calling himself a "law professor"? Perhaps if Obama were not a "phony" he would have said he "teaches some classes" at UC Law.
///related to Robert Wurzelbacher. Who is the son-in-law of (are you ready...?) Charles Keating!" ///
Is my wife's sister "closely related" to my dad? I bet she doesn't even know his first name.
This is really stooooopid.
Considering that the guy was playing football in his front yard - quite a strategic plant, jukeboxgrad! - when Obama walked up to him
Wrong. He walked up to Obama.