Obama's Disadvantages:
I agree with co-blogger Ilya (below) that McCain started this campaign with some serious disadvantages, and one can argue that it's surprising that the presidential race is as close as it is.
On the other hand, consider this: Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, and Humphrey. Those are the last five northeastern or midwestern liberals to win the Democratic nomination. Moreover, no Democrat has won the presidency without at least one member of the ticket being widely perceived as closer to moderate than to liberal since at least 1948, perhaps 1940. (I don't know enough about how Truman was perceived in 1944, or his running mate in 1948).
What's Shrum up to this go round? Advantage, Obama.
Which is why Obama will win, because to most of the country he is perceived as closer to moderate than to liberal.
Perhaps that is true, or perhaps the relentless harping on irrelevancies like Ayers prevented McCain from pointing out Obama's true nature. Certainly McCain did not run a campaign focused on independents, but instead tried to rally his base, so we'll never know if he would have succeeded if he'd tried.
Then again, in fairness, Gore would have won in 2000 but for Nader.
When it comes to pulling the lever behind the curtain how many Americans will go for a friend of a terrorist (Ayers), a racist (Wright), Marxists (his school mentors) whose wife was never proud of her country, and who is the farthest left in the Senate? Even blackness can't overcome those negatives.
Biden says paying taxes is patriotic but Obama is going to give 95% of us a tax break. Thus we will be less patriotic.
I'm still confused about whot Obama's tax plan is. Does it apply to 95 percent of working americans, over 200,000, over 250,000, or the top 2 percent? Those are not the same. Also, it it before or after he lets the Bush tax cut expire?
I already don't feel patriotic on April 15th and I will fell less so with what I think is Obama's true plan: tax and spend even faster than the Republicans.
It's not clear to me that JFK was widely perceived as a moderate, notwithstanding the fact that modern conservatives have chosen to adopt him. I mean, he certainly wore the label "liberal" pretty proudly.
After his own experience as VP, Truman insisted that Barkley sit in on cabinet meetings. This was the beginning of the VP being considered a part of the Executive Branch.
I'm not so sure trading those five on that stage for the likes of McClellan, Adelman, and the mercurial Christo is entirely to the D advantage.
Consider a different data point: No black man has ever won the Presidency (or until this year the nomination of a major party).
No, looking at isolated data points isn't really analysis. I suspect when historians look back on this election they will conclude that McCain contributed to losing this election (if that indeed happens) because he (1) moved to the middle in the primaries and to the right in the general, (2) picked Palin as his VP (if he'd picked Romney or Lieberman I think he might now be winning), and (3) ran a rudderless campaign. I also suspect that the Obama 2008 election will be viewed as a highpoint of American political campaigns, one that ultimately will be viewed as a watershed extension and vindication of the 50 state strategy of Dean.
I doubt you could even find a single issue on which only 10% of the American public is to Obama's left. Yeah, maybe it's all the media's fault that the guy at the 45th percentile is losing the middle to the guy at the 90th percentile, but I sorta doubt it.
Does OK think that a natural thing like a wet dream is worse than a circle jerk which is several people standing in a circle masturbating each other? Or maybe he just doesn't know what a circle jerk is? Why was my comment worse that the acceptable ones???
You think 35% of Americans are more conservative than Sarah Palin? Can you identify 35 Senators who are more conservative than she is? Can you identify 35% of the House who are more conservative? (For that matter, can you identify 35 members of the House who are more conservative?)
I'm not sure what issues you're thinking of, but I'm curious to know. Surely you aren't thinking of libertarians, both because they make up a tiny fraction of the American population and because they are far to Palin's left on social issues. So - who? On what grounds?
I find it bewlidering that so many people seem to genuinely believe that being black is an electoral advantage. It's not like African Americans are flooding into Congress, or any other elected body that springs to mind.
Clothes spending springs to mind...
If anyone had predicted a year ago--sight unseen--that any GOP candidate would be within single digits at this stage of the race, they'd have been laughed out of the room.
But whatever McCain did wrong, Republicans are also going to have to explain two straight elections of losing seats in both Houses of Congress -- going from a minority party there to even a smaller minority party in both. It ain't all about McCain and Obama.
Finally, put me down for the proposition that being black has been much more of a hindrance than a help to Obama.
Honestly, who doesn't have a friend who is a racist?
If you don't have ANY friends who are racist in the least, then you probably don't have many (or any) friends.
And who isn't a little bit racist, at least in some way?
Have you ever heard of implicit bias?
Wright can't be reduced to simply a racist and nothing more. He served in the Marines and in the Navy. How dare you slander our servicemen.
He personally provided medical care to the President of the United States - a white Southern man who was known for saying "n---r." A real black militant psycho racist extremist would have used that opportunity to hurt, and not heal, that white President.
The problem of course is that the voting public will be none too pleased if Obama turns out to be a big liberal and probably revolt in the 2010 off year elections like they did in 1994. Or, if Obama governs from the center, the left will feel more betrayed than they ever have. What wil the Kos Crowd say if the chosen one, puts Paul Volker in at treasury, lets the bond markets determine fiscal policy, and bombs Iran to keep them from getting a nuclear weapon? The knashsing of teeth will be amazing. In contrast, if Obama raises taxes, regulation and goes on a spending bender and raises the deficit to a trillion or so, the American public will feel a bit betrayed. I guess he can pick his poison.
Now it looks like I'll have to eat some crow.
Agree. I used to come here to read serious commentary from well-informed people that challenged my world view.
Now I read the comments mostly for the comedy value. And I wonder what percentage of it is merely satirical.
I think there is some truth in that statement.
1. His flagship campaign stump boils down to "Tax cuts for everybody except the really rich!"
2. His Washingtonian stance against involvement in foreign wars.
3. His desire to expand capital punishment to crimes other than homicides (e.g. child rape).
4. His frequent use of Biblical language.
5. His lack of "gun control" as a campaign issue.
etc.
The first time I hear the term liberal used was when one of my classmates called Eisenhower a liberal. Looking back I would say that the Eisenhower Administration was the best Republican administration in history.
Well, take it up with the guy who said Obama is more liberal than 90% of the American public, I guess.
They must be missing all the bloviation about Obama being a socialist or communist after one (probably ill chosen) phrase about redistribution of income while referring to the tax rates.
Whatever Obama's disadvantages as a *candidate*, his main disadvantage as a *president* would be that the American people are simply far too cynical to be mesmerized by dreamy rhetoric for much more than a few months. The mainstream media *wants* to be perceived as cynical, and they won't be willing to carry his water for him once he IS the center of Washington power. His honeymoon is going to end almost before it begins. He's gonna make Clinton's first 100 days look like a model of productivity in comparison.
You've got to be joking.
Thanks, MSM! You did a fine job obscuring this man's inexperience, lies and radicalism.
Thus, after the election if the media starts reporting some negative stories, it will just be due to the efforts of true journalists like Rush and Malkin getting the word out!
Of course, if anything is reported as going well for Obama post-election, that's just selective reporting and you can rest assured Obama is secretly both incompetent and diabolical.
Thus the liberal MSM lives on forever!
I'm calling BS.
Especially given the reaction of conservatives to McCain's slide in the polls.
In 2000, a single state's electoral votes made the difference, and Bush lost the popular vote, (47.9% Gore to 48.4% Bush)
In 2004 Bush even with flagging approval ratings won with 50.7% of the electoral vote to Kerry's 48.3%. Bush called it a "mandate."
On a college campus at the time it seemed like a "no brainer" that kerry would win, but that turned out to be not true. Bush was NOT a popular president among the "blue half" of the country in 2004.
What makes you think the electorate has changed so much between 2000, 2004 and 2008 that would give Democrats a 10 point or more advantage naturally?
Sure there are models talking about who will win, but you seriously think it shifted 10% in one direction in 4 years regardless of who was actually running? That's just blatant dissembling.
and sure, every political related comedy show will now go off the air because they only exist to make fun of conservatives. I mean, them making fun of a democratic president never. happened during the clinton years.
Forget civil rights, and it might be possible to argue Nixon was more liberal than JFK.
Settle down. I'm only contesting the statement that Obama's honeymoon "is going to end almost before it begins."
hopeblame]"if he'd picked Romney or Lieberman I think he might now be winning"
Yeah, because the Investment Banker-looking guy would be in such high demand presently. "Two old white guys who lost to Bush" isn't exactly a blood-pumper either.
McCain had to go young and different, and Palin was (and is) the best option, given the choices.
More aptly, I think, most of the country perceives Obama to be closer to a moderate than is McCain.
far to Palin's left on social issue
s.Fixed that for you. Abortion: one issue to rule them all!
"I find it bewlidering that so many people seem to genuinely believe that being black is an electoral advantage. It's not like African Americans are flooding into Congress, or any other elected body that springs to mind."
That's because well-meaning "progressives" herded them into their own special districts. I voted for Obama at least in part because he can pass as black.
Hell, the Daily Show might actually be watchable for the first time in years if Obama wins. People in power who take themselves very seriously are always a ripe target for comedy, and Obama's sense of his own importance is bloated way beyond anything Clinton ever dreamed of claiming. America loves building people up and then laughing at them.
But seriously, even though 90% of the media are voting for Obama, they know they need to keep an audience. They may be committed to Obama's political cause as individuals, but as businesspeople they have to bow to the consumer. Clinton certainly didn't have the media carrying his water for him. Heck, even though there was no Fox News back then, I remember CNN's Inside Politics as being quite watchable back then and not entirely a Clinton cheerleader. Yeah, there were some media folks a bit too caught up in the mood on Inauguration night, with Clinton busting out the sax and everyone dancing to "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow", thinking this was the start of something big. But as soon as the gays in the military issue popped up (about a month into the presidency IIRC), the bloom flew off that rose, the media saw a ratings-grabbing topic and ran with it, and the entire 100 Days plan was derailed.
I find that McCain's stump speeches lately have been better because he's more upbeat and humorous. McCain doesn't come across well when he attacks hard and when he's very serious.
Obama did well in the debates because he came across as very likeable and trustworthy. Hillary would have had some problems vs. McCain in this regard (not saying she wouldn't have won).
I'm sure his infomercial will be the same. His campaign understands well the nonverbal part of communication and Obama's looks, persona, and communication skills make him a natural.
So, at least in the T.V. area, the more likeable candidate will win again.
Does the "100 days" rule even really apply when an incumbent president got elected to his second term? I just don't really know either way.
I admit I also don't recall that much about Bush's first 100 days. I recall he got two of his major initiatives passed, his tax cuts and his faith based initiatives. That's certainly a decent performance.
Here is my prediction: Between Nov. 4 and Jan 20 there will be three narratives: 1) Obama's floating and declaring of various administration picks, 2) The actions of the Lame Duck Congress, and 3) Republican infighting.
After From Jan 20 till April, there will be Either of the following narratives: 1) Obama's New Mandate is On the March, or 2) Republicans Stubbornly Obstruct the Will of the People. The merits of the various initiatives will get very little play on Big 3 news.
After April, I hope the honeymoon is over (and I plan to vote Obama).
A year ago, a Democrat was 55-60 percent to win the Presidency on intrade. So I call shenanigans.
Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. All this talk about Obama being a terrorist or a socialist, but even while that meme is floating out there, Obama is still gaining in the polls. The traditionally mudslinging fear isn't going to work anymore. And it certainly doesn't explain the congressional races, or the governors' races. The Dems are looking at a clean sweep across the country.
It's funny -- when the Repubs were winning majorities, Sean Hannity &Co. talked often of the wisdom of the American people, that they are truely conservative, and that they know what to do on election night. Come next week, will thye be compliaining about how stupid Americans are?
The Repubs controlled all branches for most of the past 8 years, and controlled congress since 1994. Did they complain about the MSM media back then? No. Apparently, either the MSM wasn't that liberal, or people were smart enough to ignore it. Come next week, they will have to admit that either people got dumber, or the people just couldn't somehow resist the siren call of the liberal MSM. Either way, it's going to make the repubs look silly. Worse for them, they will not have focused on the real problem, which is that they are completely out of step with mainstream America.
That is a bitter pill that they will refuse to swallow for several years yet.
1) Voters do not equate McCain with Bush. McCain has been triangulating like Clinton since 2000 and is not perceived as the incumbent.
2) GOP candidates winning after two tern GOP Presidents is hardly unheard of. Bush 41 won easily against an Obama like candidate. But for some shenanigans in Illinois, Nixon probably should have won against Kennedy. Ford came in just short after Watergate.
3) The polls are grossly over assuming the percentage of Dems who will vote in this election. Historically, the proportion of Dems, GOP and Indis who actually vote do not vary my more than a point or two. The best Dem years were 1996 and 2000, when it was Dems +4 over the GOP. Remember 2006's Dem takeover of Congress? That was only Dem+2. Thus, the polls with Dem+6 to +12 weights are pure nonsense. Folks, when you take the more accurate likely voter tracking polls and adjust their partisan weights to conform the the best Dem historical percentage of the vote, the race as been statistically tied for a week now.
4) The undecided appear to be breaking hard for McCain as they did for nearly all white candidates in biracial statewide contests in 2006. Gallup's Traditional tracking poll showed this yesterday and Rasmussen followed suit today. I expect the IBD/TIPP and Battleground polls with longer tracking periods to follow suit by Friday.
Folks, this race will end up within a point or two and may not be called until November 5. Hang onto your seats!
The difference between this election and Dukakis, Mondale, etc. is the mass immigration during the Clinton administration and accelerating under Bush. Today's immigrants are generally low-skilled, low-wage workers and their dependents, who see Government as the provider of guaranteed health care, housing and education. They are thus natural Democrats -- as Obama stated, health care is "right."
Furthermore, today's immigrants are predominately non-white and often have a visceral dislike of whites due to colonialism, and see Obama as a natural ally. For example, Obama has 70% of the Latino vote, even though poor Latinos and Blacks are often bitter rivals in urban areas. The Left accuses whites of racism for splitting their vote between McCain and Obama, but the racism is really in the alliance between "peoples of culture" who support Obama by a supermajority.
You've got to be joking.
[That said, I agree with the rest of your post.]
A "Democratic win going for 55c to 60c on the dollar means almost nothing.
1. That also means people were paying 40c-55c on the dollar to bet that a republican would win.
2. I love the idea of Intrade as a predictive factor, but betting 55c on the dollar that democrats will win is not the same as predicting they will win in an absolute landslide, nor is it the same as a candidate polling at 55-45. Obama's going for 85c on the dollar now and McCain is going for 14-15 (up 2c today from yesterday) that doesn't mean he's polling at 85c)
3. Most importantly, I'm talking about a landslide here, not just "a win." I wrote pretty clearly in the first post that there are lots of predictive models that say that suggested democrats would win this time around. Intrade backs me up on that.
I'm arguing against the concept that a landslide was the only possible outcome of the election and the fact that Obama is "only" up by 6-8% just shows us how weak of a candidate he is, and that another democratic candidate (regardless of who they were and how they campaigned) would be up by 10% or more. That's the claim I'm calling BS on.
Given the extraordinary circumstances of the 2000 election, I dont think its a good comparison.
Oops. I think we were agreeing from the start then. I thought you were arguing that it WAS surprising that Mccain isn't getting beat by double digits.
Or maybe you're right. EVERY SINGLE pollster has it wrong. And you know better. In which case, you should really open up your own polling business. You could be right while everyone else -- the folks who, you know, do this for a living -- is wrong, and then you could watch the business just flow to you.
For those who don't know, HR800 [presumably it'll get a new number when it's reintroduced] would establish a workaround for union organizers who don't think they can win a secret ballot. They can just get 50% of the proposed bargaining unit to sign representation cards -- in public, in the presence of whatever Teamsters the organizers choose to send to your house.
The Democratic party thinks this is a winner of an issue, but I think it'll be a tough sell to bypass elections in a reasonably democratic country if the opponents do their persuasion right.
I think that Labor will call in this chit by mid-February at the latest, and I think it'll hurt Obama.
-dk
-dk
Um, no, its called a realignment, and it happens every ~30 years or so. 10% is a major shift, but a look at voter ID stats suggests that a realignment was in the works (as there was an almost 10% shift) and the hopes for a GOP victory in the Presidential race rested on a nontraditional Republican.
No one was dissembling. You just don't know your political science. The voter ID shift has been underway since 2005. Exactly what the composition of the electorate will turn out to be -- whether all these new self-identified Democrats will turn out to vote -- is the major variable between various polling models. Only Zogby is using 2004 numbers. If the electorate expands and Obama picks up half of the remaining undecideds (which I doubt) he could top 55%. I think 52/46/2 is much more likely.
You're calling Latinos racist because they put aside their racial rivalry against Blacks to vote for the Black guy they like the policies of?
Ockham's razor suggests that, rather than desiring to suck at the government's teat, new immigrants (who often came to this country at great personal risk out of the desire to actually be able to enrich themselves by working hard, as opposed to working hard and remaining poor in their own countries) are voting for the party whose supporters don't spew hate-filled rhetoric against them. Maybe if the Republican anti-immigration people could distinguish between legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants, or showed any sign of wanting to thus distinguish, Hispanics would vote more evenly.
This is just more poisoning the well and complaining about the drought.
Interesting, you provide several non-racial reasons for why minorities support Obama (health care, education), then conclude they must be racist for supporting him.
God I hope so.
The GOP may need to "rebrand" if they lose on Tuesday, but they can't do it by becoming more liberal and embracing big government. People who want a big nanny state government "protecting" them will always wind up in the Democrat Party at the end of the day.
I agree with this. I would honestly rather see the GOP become a vibrant minority slowing up liberal legislation than have a repeat of the last 8 years where half the GOP fogot what they were supposed to stand for.
I don't think turning into "democrat lite" is going to strengthen the party.
In case you don't know what a "jesus nut" is, it is also called the rotor retention assembly nut, which holds the helicopter blades on the rotor shaft on many helicopters. If a "jesus nut" fails, the results are appropriately catastrophic. However, applying this to the Republican strategy over the last several elections suggests a wonderful pun.
OK, but I will be happy if Obama gets 271 electoral votes; "a win" is a win.
So what you're saying is the size of the realignment will be determined at least in part by the result of the election and related voter identification metrics.
It seems somewhat circular to me then to use this as support for the argument that "anyone suggesting the republican candidate would be within 5 points of the democrat a year ago would be laughed out of the room."
This is why I'm always slightly confused by Republicans using the fact that Democrats ran and won using "republican" policies as an attack.
Some policies work, some of those policies are in areas that are traditionally republican. The general idea of free trade is one that first popped into my head. There are very few, if any, serious trade policy theorists that would suggest that hardline protectionism is a good thing in any respect. The calls for protectionism generally come from the political arena, not the academic one.
So the democrats, just like the republicans, now accept the general notion of free or mostly free trade, and while they try to placate those asking for protectionist policies, the economists tend to win. I see the ability to accept when something has worked over political calls and ideology as a strength, not a weakness.
Geez, you're right! The right did certainly complain about the MSM media even when they were winning. Their rationale was that Americans are smart enough to see through it, that Fox news is able to 'balance' it and so on.
But of course, they will just blame the MSM media this time for losing the election.
The card-check recognition part of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is routinely misrepresented. The key part opponents leave out is that under current law -- a rule which has existed for many decades -- employees can be recognized via card check. And this happens with some regularity. However, under current law, card check can only happen if the employer agrees to it. EFCA would not give the employer the option to insist on elections.
The right of individual employees to require an election would be unchanged by EFCA -- if 30% want an election, there would be one.
It's also worth noting that six states currently use the EFCA model of card check for recognizing unions under state public sector labor laws, and there have not been any horror stories I've heard from those states. And a number of provinces in Canada have used mandatory card check also.
Yes and no. A small win is of course a win, but it can be challenged in several states for so-called voter fraud, and there will be a lingering sense that Obama didn't truly win. This can hamper his legislative initiatives. Plus, there will be inevitable arguments that McCain could and should have won but for (fill the blank). It will make for a divided electorate. That might not be bad, but it's different than if the electorate is fairly unified.
On the other hand, a landslide would quell any notion of ambivilence within the electorate as to their choice. It would force the opposition to look internally to see whether they are truly out of step with the rest of the country and reform themselves (instead of just blaming others for the loss). There will be a clear mandate on certain initiatives, such as the development of alternative energy, and a drop of divisive issues, like the gay bashing of the repubs.
But most important, it would be seen as a repudiation of 8 years of Bush mishandling of the country. A slim win would make it harder to make that case.
Or they can take the easy out and blame the Mortgage Crisis, which, as we all know, was a bomb set by the Democrats that exploded in the Republicans' face. NO Republican, with any sensible platform, could hope to win with such stacked odds.
Or so the narrative will be. Hell the narrative already is that way in many quarters.
Here are today's polls from PA, the state that the McCain campaign is trying to get people to believe they can win, and they state they must win, given how strong Obama is in all the Kerry states + NH, NM, COL, and VA (we'll ignore the fact that Obama is also leading, albeit by not quite as much, in OH and FL, NV and maybe some other states too).
Again, these are PA Polls released today:
Marist:
Obama 55-41 (+13)
Quinnipiac:
Obama 53-41 (+12)
AP/GfK:
Obama 52-40 (+12)
Franklin &Marsahll:
Obama 53-40 (+13)
Muhlenberg/Morning Call Daily:
Obama 53-42 (+11)
But you know that these polls are all off by double digits, right?
Not true, at least not according to the exit polls. Voters were asked who they would have voted for in a two man election. The margins in both the popular vote and the electoral college would have been little changed in both elections. E.g. from a Nov.5, 1992 New York Times article:
Why the AG? In the unlikely event we up in some kind of replay of the 2000 situation, why would it not again end with the Supreme Court?
The entries posted thus far demonstrate that the human imagination has few, if any, limitations.
Come on, that has to be fabricated! I mean seriously, since when did guys sporting tweed jackets go around threatening people?!
You never heard of Boss Tweed?
Not up until know, but from Wikipedia he doesn't seem to have been a violent chap as such. Which makes me wonder if he really was of Irish-Scottish descent...
I'm sure others have already hit you on this, but I don't see what the northeasterners have to do with it. Midwesterners have lost since Truman, yes. But in the case of all but Humphrey, I think you'd be incredibly hard-pressed to make the case that they could've won their elections had they been from the South. They lost for other reasons. So it's really just a meaningless factoid.
And why would the left care that Republicans are setting a narrative about Obama "not being their president", when that phrase was used by the left for years regarding Bush?
Oh, pleeeezzze, PC! The report you link breathlessly states:
If we're allowed to base arguments on the "feeling" standard, then BHO's saying his grandmother was a "typical while woman" allows arguing that BHO is equal to H. Rap Brown in animus towards white people because someone might "feel" that all animus that in any way can be related to race is equal. Try something a little less ridiculus as an argument.
Sure says something about our secure financial systems freed from any sort of effective identity fraud regulation, doesn't it?
Nope. Just says Axelrod turned off all the security options on the software. Nothing to see here. Move along.
I might have missed something in the thread, but who are the people you're talking about (with IQs of 100 and 150)?
Amen, brother. I for one hope that these are exactly the diagnoses the republicans settle on.
If you really think that, there's a website you should be visiting. You face the opportunity of profits galore.
Nope. Just says Axelrod turned off all the security options on the software. Nothing to see here. Move along."
What is being hidden, and how do you know this?
Because why make it worse?
Here are today's polls from PA, the state that the McCain campaign is trying to get people to believe they can win, and they state they must win, given how strong Obama is in all the Kerry states + NH, NM, COL, and VA (we'll ignore the fact that Obama is also leading, albeit by not quite as much, in OH and FL, NV and maybe some other states too)...But you know that these polls are all off by double digits, right?
Probably by between 9-11 points .
Here is some homework for you. Go find the exit poll partisan voting percentages in PA for the last 3-4 general election cycles. Then, compare them to the polling partisan percentages used by the polling.
If you are too lazy to do the research, DJ Drummond posted an article showing the gross over counting of Dems in the state polls. Here is the money chart from that article:
Pennsylvania: D+5 in 2006, SUSA using D+19, 15 point variance
Indiana: R+14 in 2006, SUSA using R+1, 13 point variance
Nevada: R+7 in 2006, SUSA using D+6, 13 point variance
Colorado: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance
Iowa: R+2 in 2006, SUSA using D+10, 12 point variance
Virginia: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance
Ohio: D+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+13, 10 point variance
Missouri: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+7, 8 point variance
North Carolina: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+5, 6 point variance
To answer your question in part, SUSA is adding 15 points of Dems to PA to cook their poll.
Note also that no Dem for years has won more than 51% of the PA vote.
Finally, the LA Times is reported last week that the Obama campaign inadvertently disclosed its internal polling results for Pennsylvania showing a tiny two point Obama lead rather than the double digit Obama lead fabricated in the media polling.
If you think that leak was inadvertent I have a bridge to sell you.
Why would Obama leak it on purpose?
The president you are referring to is Lyndon Johnson, who, prior to receiving medical care from a Navy Hospital Corps group including Wright, had signed both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One could make the case that he had been the president most beneficial to black Americans of any since Abraham Lincoln until that time, and arguably including Lincoln.
Your description of LBJ, even if literally accurate (which I don't know -- I'm not aware of LBJ being known for use of racial epithets), would still misrepresent his position vis-a-vis the black community.
"What is being hidden, and how do you know this?"
Who needs to hide? I voted for the guy, I'll let you drive the GoogleBus.
1) The Obama campaign pointedly declined to deny the poll was authentic, but rather stated the negligent party would be disciplined.
2) The 2% Obama internal poll lead is the same margin Kerry won PA by in 2004.
3) A 2% lead in a state he lost badly to Clinton during the primaries has far more credibility than nonsense polls with a 13% lead.
Face reality. Many of these polls are intentionally gaming us.
Two reasons I can think of. The first is to keep Obama supporters motivated. A double digit lead will make people lazy. The second is to let the McCain campaign think they have a chance in PA so the campaign spends resources there. That would divert limited resources to other states that are actually closer in the polls.
I don't know if either of those are the case, but the Obama campaign has been extremely disciplined. I seriously doubt that internal poll was released by accident.
I seriously can't believe you just played "I'm taking my ball and going home" by closing comments in your Obama/Khalidi post after people called you out for blindly posting the McCain campaign's talking point of the afternoon, without giving any context to the post. How are you still a contributor here?
Are you kidding me? There is video and audio of him saying "n----r." This has been common public knowledge for decades. Let's get real here.
I just find it strange that the Republicans in this campaign have attacked Wright so much. Wright served his country in the Navy and the Marines. He personally served the President of the United States, and he serves poor communities to this day. Ooh, he said fiery things in a speech expressing his disdain for the Government policies! Libertarians have never done that! Traitor!
Where is the respect for our servicemen?
Your record of predicting poll trends is, as I mentioned earlier, documented at Balkinization. I see you've now moved from "the polls will show a McCain lead soon" to "all the polls are just wrong."
Me, I trust the professional pollsters and the folks at www.fivethirtyeight.com who interpret and explain them more than I trust partisan hacks. We'll see who was right on Nov. 5.
But I have to ask you this. You say, Many of these polls are intentionally gaming us. Honestly, why would a professional pollster, whose professional reputation and therefore ability to attract customers and business, intentionally lie? I mean, if you're right that EVERY poll of PA is off by 9-11%, that would make them look pretty stupid -- and you think there would be a big market opportunity for somebody to come forward now and get it right, so they could market themselves next year as being the only one who got it right.
If what you were saying was remotely plausible, that is.
I'll be a bit more blunt (at the risk of being rude). I find your assertion and the story you linked to even less convincing than RFK, Jr.'s comic book on Republican vote stealing. See http://stealbackyourvote.org/ Unlike the story you linked to -- the allegations in which were based on "feelings" -- at least RFK, Jr. has a few facts he relies on.
P.S. Of course, if Obama "only" wins PA by a couple of points, and "only" wins a bunch of other states where polls say he is up 8 points or more, then Obama still wins the election. Bush claimed a mandate with less.
Since I've done this for a living, I'll give you the highpoints:
When processing credit-card data online, there are numerous "levels" (for lack of a better word) in how closely you verify the card.
The very basic level is "Yep, this is a real credit card number that works". That's what Obama's site is using for donations.
You can work your way up to levels wherein the credit card number, the billing address, the security code, the name, etc are all verified against the cardholder. This is far more secure (a credit card thief would have to not only have possesion of a valid CC number, but have physical possesion of the card AND know your billing address). This is roughly what McCain has on.
You might ask yourself: Why use less security when you can use more? Speed. The more secure the match, the more time it takes to process the card and the more points of failure (databases being down, queries timing out, etc.)
The claim is, basically, Obama's campaign is using minimum security to violate campaign law by allowing all sorts of illegal donations.
This doesn't really track, though. In the end, credit cards have to match to a real person -- banks will kick it out, the money will be grabbed back. And if it's a stolen card, the rightful owner will complain and the banks will credit it back.
So in short -- Obama's campaign makes it quicker to donate money, at the expense of having to -- monthly -- send some unknown amount of it back (which will happen more or less automatically without any real work on the Obama's campaign part).
Their actual biggest problem with that is getting illegal donations, but since they already have to do the FEC legwork on that anyways, it's all caught anyways.
For a store, which sends you "stuff" when you send them "money", it's vitally important to make sure the payment is legit BEFORE you mail off the "stuff". (It's hard to get that stuff back). For a campaign, which undoubtably runs off the usual 'borrow and repay' accounting to smooth out receipts, the calculus is different.
In short, the Obama campaign makes it quicker and easier to donate money, at the expense of some unknown amount of extra hassle when doing their FEC auditing, whereas the McCain campaign chooses a slower method that has less overhead at the end.
The end result is the absolute same. The money is all audited in compliance with FEC rules, and any illegal money is sent back at the end of each filing period.
If you're conspiracy minded, you might concoct some elaborate plan in which to create millions of temporary dollars to use now that will have to be paid back at the FEC accounting period.
Given that Obama's campaign has been using this method the entire time, and you can check their FEC filings to see if they're having to kick back an unusual amount as illegal or coming from stolen credit cards, there's really nothing to it.
Apparently, stealing credit cards to make illegal donation to political campaigns doesn't happen very often, and the amount of illegal foreign donations appears to be the same regardless.
Bluntly, the whole thing's a lot of black helicopter nonsense.
Why?
Finally, the LA Times is reported last week that the Obama campaign inadvertently disclosed its internal polling results for Pennsylvania showing a tiny two point Obama lead rather than the double digit Obama lead fabricated in the media polling.
A very clever trick to make McCain waste his time there. Please remember that no Republican has won PA since George H.W. Bush. What does McCain have going for him that W. didn't? His maverick image? Pissed away with the Palin pick and the campaign he's run.
RPT: "What is being hidden, and how do you know this?"
Who needs to hide? I voted for the guy, I'll let you drive the GoogleBus."
Pretty good answer!
Col
O- 53
M- 45
Virginia
0- 53
M- 44
FLA
O- 51
M- 47
Of course, as those of us following the EC map know, if Obama gets any one of those states (or several others where he is leading, e.g. Ohio), Obama wins the election.
Thanks for the explanation.
He also has a 54-45 lead for Obama among those who have already voted.
From HR800 as passed by the House and sent to the senate:
In other words, while under current law and the new law the employer can agree to a union without an election if the union gets cards from 30% of the would-be bargaining unit, they don't have to. They can call for the election. I can see why the company might want to let the union in without an election -- some unions have excellent reputations for insisting on quality service from their members and for not draining their employers dry. I can, however, see why the employer might want an election instead.
What would be new is that under the new law, even if the employer chooses to resist, if the union gets to 50% they're in, whether the union members really would want them there if they got to vote in private, or not.
When I was a youth, during the Cold War, one of the claims made against the so-called democratic socialist republics behind the Iron Curtain was that the ballots were not secret. Supposedly you voted by choosing either a preprinted ballot for the Communist Party candidate, which was one color, or a write-in ballot, which was a different color. However, we don't do that [and you got to see pictures of a lever-equipped voting machine with a curtain]. This was considered an argument for our system -- rightfully so, IMHO, if what they said about the Communist nations' balloting procedures was correct.
Would you like us to choose our president by a voting regime where the candidates got petitions signed in public or in front of the neighbors and where a president was chosen as soon as any candidate got to 50%, without a secret ballot election? How is this different from Card Check? As I have tried to show by anecdotes, secret ballots is kind of a cherished Democratic institution.
-dk
I doubt there were very many white southerners of LBJ's time who did not use the term n****r or some similarly derogatory term at some time or other. While it was considered crude even then, it's use was hardly limited to Klansmen.
You say, Many of these polls are intentionally gaming us. Honestly, why would a professional pollster, whose professional reputation and therefore ability to attract customers and business, intentionally lie?
As with most things, follow the money.
Ask yourself who pays for these polls? The news media.
Which party dominates the news media? Over 80% of the news media vote for Dems.
To whom do the Dems in the news media slant their stories? Pew and CMI make it clear that the Dem media overwhelmingly slants their stories toward - drum roll please - Mr. Obama and the Dems and against McCain and Palin.
Polls are simply news stories. Thus, if the Dem news media systematically and grossly slant their other news stories in favor of Obama and against McCain and Palin, why not their polls?
I mean, if you're right that EVERY poll of PA is off by 9-11%, that would make them look pretty stupid -- and you think there would be a big market opportunity for somebody to come forward now and get it right, so they could market themselves next year as being the only one who got it right.
To date, the Dem news media have never been shy about looking so stupid that their reputation is below than that of used car salesmen. Why should they care if their polls look stupid?
However, you do have a point about there being a business opportunity here.
Just as Fox News is flourishing and the NYT is slowly going out of business, if conservative news organizations would pay for fair polling, then the pollsters they hire would provide the product being paid for. Investors Business Daily has done this with the excellent TIPP poll, which was the most accurate in 2004. Fox News has gone part of the way by using the excellent Rasmussen poll, but they also pay for the less than accurate Opinion Dynamics.
By "the left" I assume you mean the 9-10% of the population that didn't support Bush by the time we invaded Afghanistan. Can we expect all but 10% on the right to put country first by rising above their ODS and supporting a President Obama? Can we expect you to?
"Moderate?" I know the spelling doesn't work, but it's a proven scientific fact that LBJ's middle name was "New Deal." You can check the Gooogle tubes. I certainly don't have to tell you that LBJ's programs are more expensive today than what remains of FDR's New Deal. I (mostly) support those programs, so in light of LBJ's screwing up Viet Nam I'm not too crazy about claiming him as a liberal, but if LBJ wasn't a liberal, who was? And if his domestic agenda wasn't liberal, what can anyone on the right possibly think they have to fear from an Obama administration? (Other than the Sharia courts, of course.)
Yes, super-clear. Like in the Pew story, where they say this:
As for the CMI piece -- well, let's just quote from CMI's "about us" page, shall we?
Huh. And you say that CMI came out against the liberal media? Go figure!
Here is the problem with your conspiracy theories about the polls being rigged: while many reporters do vote Democratic, most owners of media companies do not. Most newspaper publishers endorsed Bush, both times. Why? Most big business owners are conservative Republicans (no surprise there, the Republican party's policies typically favor them).
As a reality check about the polls, I suggest that you look at those commissioned by Fox News. They show Obama with a sizeable lead, last time I looked.
I will grant you that the polling organizations have a hard time dealing with new voters who have not voted before, in terms of predicting accurately the likelihood that they will vote. So, Obama's numbers could be overstated to the extent his support depends on these types of voters.
I understand what EFCA would do. I teach labor law. My point was that employees would have the same rights to elections after EFCA. The 30% number is for decertification. Indeed, if Dana Corp. is still the law (look it up if you don't know it, it's a 2007 NLRB decision), that decert election could happen quite soon after recognition.
As you seem to understand, all EFCA would do is change the employer's right to run an anti-union campaign in an election. If you want to defend your opposition to EFCA as a defense of the right of employers, I understand. It's just that much of the opposition to EFCA pretends that it is protecting the rights of employees. And again, EFCA doesn't change those rights.
Bart:
You are into some deep conspiracy theories now. Don't trust any poll! The media is making them all lie! But they still stay in business because . . . well, it's a big conspiracy!
In the real world, at least most of the better regarded polls are at least mostly accurate at least most of the time in predicting elections. No reason to think this one will be different.
I don't think stealing cards is what is alleged, rather using several names on the same card to get around the donation limits. Can you send me a link detailing how exactly this is caught?
Yes, I realize that this is entirely obvious to everyone else in the known universe.
Charge to the bank issuing the card (actual transfer of funds) gets kicked back because of a name/cardholder mismatch.
Obama's folks get notified that the charge is declined, and thus remove it from their tally. Money never actually enters Obama campaign accounts, because it never leaves the bank.
As noted -- cardholder/name mismatch can be detected at the time of charging (Obama's website) or you can wait a few days and just let the bank/issuer accept it or decline the transfer. The former takes extra time and adds a point of failure (but is well worth doing it if you plan on shipping goods BEFORE the issuer gets around to accepting/declining the charge), the latter means your bank account has to be healthy enough to accept random chargebacks and your cash-flow has to be sufficient to handle hiccups like that.
The mechanics of a credit-card transaction are basically the same on the internet or in real life.
The real life version is: The McCain people basically checks your photo ID, call your credit card company to insure you have the money, then process it as "donated".
The Obama campaign just charges your card without checking your ID, figuring that few people are trying to cheat them, and just tells the credit card company "X dollars on Y card for Z person" and considers it donated. The credit card company processes it and sends back "Okay" or "No, Z is not an authorized user of card Y" or "Insuffient Funds" or "This card was reported stolen" and the Obama campaign amends their account.
Both folks have to take your name and verify you're a legal doner by the end of the quarter, no matter how they processed your money.
In the end, the guys that issued you the card will sit down and check to make sure all the P's and Q's match, and will also send you a statement so YOU can make sure all the P's and Q's match. McCain just does it up front, making the process more complicated and slower (relatively, that is) in return for having to go back and amend his accounts less often.
Nevertheless, describing LBJ in relation to African Americans as "a white Southern man who was known for saying 'n---r'" is still misleading, since he also did more in terms of civil rights for blacks than any other 20th century president.
So portraying Jeremiah Wright as a great racial healer, on the grounds that he didn't kill LBJ when he was assigned to give him medical treatment, seems to overstate the case.
Thanks for that. I learned something.
He only needs 269. That's a tie, and then the House would hand it to him.
But Randy is right that a big win is better than a small win.
The article says this:
I think that goes beyond "the 'feeling' standard." How ironic that NR is writing about "The Coming Obama Thugocracy."
I know you're talking about Wright, but you also could be talking about those wacky secessionists that the Palins pal around with (video, video). AIP was founded by, and glorifies, the man who said this:
Vogler was apparently interested in certain things that may not have been strictly legal. For some strange reason, he was killed "in a plastic-explosives sale gone bad."
There's a way to get it to give you permalinks (I could show you how), but it might just be easier to use opencongress.
DavidBernstein:
I saw poll number suggesting that most voters identify Obama as liberal, but I can't tell you where. As for JFK, he ran with a southern moderate.
"Moderate?" I know the spelling doesn't work, but it's a proven scientific fact that LBJ's middle name was "New Deal." You can check the Gooogle tubes. I certainly don't have to tell you that LBJ's programs are more expensive today than what remains of FDR's New Deal.
You're looking at the 1964 LBJ. Was LBJ perceived as a liberal in 1960? I would think Humphrey would have been the liberal alternative that year.
Humbug. Even as an Obama supporter, I have a natural disinclination towards landslide elections. Gives exactly the wrong impression ...
On race, no. But he worshiped FDR and was an economic New Deal populist down to his bones.
Adolfe Hitler's credit card was charged.
The Obama campaign hasn't even been doing name verification.
In this kind of analysis, I think it makes sense to treat incumbents and non-incumbents separately. When running as non-incumbents, Nixon and Reagan did not exceed 51%. In the post-FDR era, only Ike and Bush I have done that (exceed 51% while running as a non-incumbent). No Ds.
If Obama wins his first term with 51% or more, he will have accomplished something that all of the following did not accomplish:
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
JFK
Truman
When you say "was charged," do you mean that the Obama web site accepted the transaction, or do you mean that the bank actually accepted the charge, rather than declining it? Because if you mean only the former, then you have no point. What matters is the latter. And if what you mean is the latter, then please show proof.
And also please show proof that the bank account was in the name "Adolfe Hitler," because if that's not the case, then you also have no point.
Do you mean they're not doing name verification at the time the donation is being entered on their web site, or do you mean they're not doing name verification at the time they receive the funds from the bank? Because if you mean the former, and not the latter, then you also have no point.
And by the way, the morons who are entering donations for "Adolfe Hitler" are committing fraud. And the bloggers who are encouraging this are encouraging fraud. And in the end, it just means the moron is giving Obama money under the moron's name. Because the moron's bank has the moron's name.
So it's all good. Please keep up the good work. Here's an idea: see what happens if you if get a large number of people to make donations for large amounts. Please get this done as soon as possible, and then report back.
They don't NEED to. The company issueing the card does it.
Say I, a pernacious evil liberal, steal your credit card, issued by Mastercard. I then go to Obama's web site and donate 200 dollars under the name "Awesome McAwesome".
Obama's web site will process the charge, get told "Yep. THat's a valid Mastercard number" and go "Great! Thanks for donating" and add 200 bucks to their books. Then, however often they send off receipts (daily, weekly, whatever) they will tell Mastercard "Oh, hey, Awesome McAwesome gave us 200 bucks on card X. Transfer that to our campaign account Y".
And then Mastercard will say "No, because the cardholder is NOT named Awesome McAwesome". Your card will be credited back the amount, and no money will go to Obama's account.
Look, the actual differnce between Obama's donation page and McCain's is the SAME difference between a store that checks your ID and one that just swipes the card.
Putting a fake name on the charge? It just means the bank catches it QUICKER. I can donate 100 bucks under Awesome McAwesome using my own credit card, and it'll show up as a donation on Obama's site for about two days before my card issuer kicks it back and refunds the charge.
An actual thief would use the cardholder's real name, so it wouldn't get fixed until the card was reported stolen or the holder noticed the charge.
You can't avoid donation limits that way -- in the end, a credit card has to match to an actual person's real name on a real credit card. If you lie about your name when you donate, the money will ultimately never get donated.
Actually, worse, the CC companies charge the merchant a $25 fee for the chargeback. So Obama is now down money, not up.
I'm not certain how Adolfe Hitler, Doodad Pro and the others got through, yet reports are that the credit cards were actually billed. My understanding is that it was done without providing the Obama campaign a correct name.
If I approve the transactions, they go through. Even without having given my correct name.
If your claim is correct, then Morat20's explanation becomes a lot less persuasive.
I read that article, and what it says doesn't amount to much. If you read carefully, the main issue the article talks about is with prepaid credit cards. And that has nothing to do with what the righty bloggers are whining about.
This is the part you don't understand, even though it's been explained several times. It doesn't matter that the donor entered the card number "without providing the Obama campaign a correct name." Here's why it doesn't matter: because the bank does indeed know the correct name that goes along with that card number. And when Obama presents that card number to the bank in order to get the money, he gets your real name from the bank.
So the fact that you originally entered a phony name makes this much difference, in the end: none whatsoever.