What are the Key Factors for Victory in the 2008 Presidential Election?

[Ivan Seeking]

I think that in part, the older folks have been impressed with his performance in regards to the financial crisis. McCain looked a bit clownish.


...and I can't believe that the average older voter will fall for this Palin crap; not for long.

 

[Astronuc]

McCain pulling out of Michigan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081002/pl_politico/22895

John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, a stunning move a month away from Election Day that indicates the difficulty Republicans are having in finding blue states to put in play.

McCain will go off TV in Michigan, stop dropping mail there and send most of his staff to more competitive states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. Wisconsin went for Kerry in 2004, Ohio and Florida for Bush.

McCain's campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Republicans had been bullish on Michigan, hopeful that McCain's past success in the state in the 2000 primary combined with voter dissatisfaction with Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and skepticism among blue-collar voters about Barack Obama could make it competitive.
. . .
But recent polls there have shown Obama extending what had been a small lead, with the economic crisis damaging an already sagging GOP brand in a state whose economy is in tatters.

 

[turbo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081002/pl_politico/22895;_ylt=AnlBno6_MUMuwo5ld1VIPlOs0NUE

McCain has pulled out of Michigan. (Michigan said he really wasn't that good, anyway.) No more TV, no mailings.

Leap-frogged by Astronuc!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sarah Silverman and The Great Schlep [profanity]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not that I normally care what he has to say, but Glenn Beck is predicting that McCain's vote for the bailout will cost him the election.

Beck definitely has a following of like-minded viewers.

 

[LowlyPion]

Campaign officials confirm John McCain shifting resources away from Michigan
by Ted Roelofs | The Grand Rapids Press
Thursday October 02, 2008, 4:29 PM

http://www.mlive.com/grpress/news/index.ssf/2008/10/campaign_officials_confirm_joh.html

 

[BobG]

Not that I normally care what he has to say, but Glenn Beck is predicting that McCain's vote for the bailout will cost him the election.

Beck definitely has a following of like-minded viewers.

Because Republican voters hate the bailout more than Democratic voters? Both voted for it. Was McCain outraged by having to vote for it or did he feel ill when he voted for it? Maybe that's the difference.

The hullabaloo prior to the vote probably hurt him some. That was kind of strange.

 

[Evo]

Because Republican voters hate the bailout more than Democratic voters? Both voted for it. Was McCain outraged by having to vote for it or did he feel ill when he voted for it? Maybe that's the difference.

I don't see how him voting for the bailout will hurt McCain either. Obama also voted for it.

The hullabaloo prior to the vote probably hurt him some. That was kind of strange.

Now that hurt him.

 

[cristo]

What does 'pulling out' of a state mean? He won't be on the ballot sheet, or he just won't bother trying to campaign there anymore?

 

[Evo]

What does 'pulling out' of a state mean? He won't be on the ballot sheet, or he just won't bother trying to campaign there anymore?

He's just not going to spend any money on ads or other forms of campaign activity.

 

[LowlyPion]

What does 'pulling out' of a state mean? He won't be on the ballot sheet, or he just won't bother trying to campaign there anymore?

He won't bother campaigning there any more unless the polls get better for him, but as we know, McCain doesn't always stop campaigning when he says he stops.

 

[Astronuc]

A few weeks ago, Obama was only 5 points ahead of McCain in NY. This afternoon, I heard that Obama is looking at 58% of the vote vs 36% for McCain.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't see how him voting for the bailout will hurt McCain either. Obama also voted for it.

It violates the essential conservative philosophy [the one that caused all of this] and offends the core of his base. Obama has no philosophical contradiction to defend. Also, McCain promised that he wouldn't sign the deal if it had additional spending attached. The original plan has expanded from 3 pages, to 450 pages.

 

[Astronuc]

This is where two critical national issues converge.

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War
on Terror Operations Since 9/11

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Summary

With enactment of the FY2008 Supplemental and FY2009 Bridge Fund(H.R.
2642/P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008, Congress has approved a total of about $859
billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy
costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11
attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror
operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military
bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

This $859 billion total covers all war-related appropriations from FY2001
through part of FY2009 in supplementals, regular appropriations, and continuing
resolutions. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $653 billion
(76%), OEF about $172 billion (20%), and enhanced base security about $28 billion
(3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1%). About 94% of the funds
are for DOD, 6% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1%
for medical care for veterans. As of April 2008, DOD’s monthly obligations for
contracts and pay averaged about $12.1 billion, including $9.8 billion for Iraq, and
$2.3 billion for Afghanistan.

The recently enacted FY2008 Supplemental (H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) includes
a total of about $160 billion for war costs for the Department of Defense (DOD),
State/USAID and Veterans Administration medical programs for the rest of FY2008
and part of FY2009. Funds are expected to last until June or July 2009 well into a
new Administration. The Administration did not submit a request to cover all of
FY2009.

While Congress provided a total of $182 billion for war costs in FY2008 — $11
billion more than the prior year — this represented a cut of almost $14 billion from
the Administration’s request. This cut included both reductions in DOD’s
investment accounts and a substitution of almost $6 billion in non-war funding that
is not included in the CRS figures above.

Congress also cut funding for foreign aid and diplomatic operations for Iraq and
Afghanistan by $1.4 billion, providing a total of $4.5 billion. For FY2009, Congress
provided $67 billion, close to the request. Earlier, to tide DOD over until passage of
the supplemental, the House and Senate appropriations committees approved part of
a DOD request to transfer funds from its regular accounts.

In February 2008, the Congressional Budget Office projected that additional war
costs from FY2009 through FY2018 could range from $440 billion, if troop levels
fell to 30,000 by 2010, to $1.0 trillion, if troop levels fell to 75,000 by about 2013.
Under these scenarios, CBO projects that funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and the
GWOT could reach from about $1.1 trillion to about $1.7 trillion for FY2001-
FY2018. This report will be updated as warranted.

From where is all this money going to come?

And how will it be spent if -
The United States
Lacks Comprehensive
Plan to Destroy the
Terrorist Threat and
Close the Safe Haven
in Pakistan’s Federally
Administered Tribal Areas

http://hcfa.house.gov/110/GAO041708.pdf

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In fact, based on what David Gergen just said, McCain may be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't: If this doesn't pass in the House, it will be seen by Wall Street conservatives as a huge failure of leadership for McCain. But since he supports the bill, he loses the Glenn Becks and Lou Dobbs of the world.

 

[LowlyPion]

If there is a tie in the electoral college there is a scenario under which we could end up with a President Pelosi on January 20, 2009

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politics/2008/10/what_happens_if_mccain_and_oba.html

 

[Astronuc]

Technically, the Electoral Colllege could vote for any eligible US citizen - even one not on the ballot.

 

[mheslep]

It violates the essential conservative philosophy [the one that caused all of this] and offends the core of his base.

If you care to demonstrate in any detail at all how conservative philosophy 'caused' all this I'm willing to listen.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have already made that point. It is the battle cry of economic conservative ideologs, and crooks: deregulation. Face it: The Republicans have had unfettered control and they destroyed the economy. Done. They have failed.

Obama is up by 49-43 in the CNN poll of polls today.

 

[turbo]

I have already made that point. It is the battle cry of economic conservative ideologs, and crooks: deregulation. Face it: The Republicans have destroyed the economy. Done. They have failed..

The people who claim to be conservatives these days have no appreciation for conservatism. Conservatives do not make risky short-term investments or start wars for no reason, nor do they put US taxpayers on the hook for the purpose of enriching their handlers. The so-called "conservatives" of today are acolytes of the neo-cons who are no more than robber-barons, engineering transfers of wealth from the lower class and middle class to the upper class. I am and have been a fiscal conservative (and a social conservative in some areas - ask Astronuc about my beliefs around marriage and fidelity!) all my life, and the Republican party is increasingly driving me away. I have always voted for the better candidate all my voting-age life, and for the first time, I am contemplating voting a straight Democratic/Independent ticket to send a signal to the Republican party.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The people who claim to be conservatives these days have no appreciation for conservatism. Conservatives do not make risk short-term investments or start wars for no reason, nor do they put US taxpayers on the hook for the purpose of enriching their handlers. The so-called "conservatives" of today are acolytes of the neo-cons who are no more than robber-barons, engineering transfers of wealth from the lower class and middle class to the upper class.

As you know, we completely agree.

But I think there is a more essential failure here: Free-market itself has failed because of the "too big to be allowed to fail" reality. So profits are privatized and risk is nationalized. But we already have that thread.

One interesting idea that I heard in this regard: Too big to fail should mean too big to exist.

The only thing saving our butts is that the rest of the world has the same problem: The US is too big to be allowed to fail.

 

[turbo]

The only thing saving our butts is that the rest of the world has the same problem: The US is too big to be allowed to fail.

I wish I shared this hope. Foreign countries have invested a LOT of money in our economy, but are we too big to be allowed to fail? If India and China have other attractive places to put money, why shouldn't they do so? I'm not talking about a decisive crash, but a re-direction of investments over the medium-term that will benefit financial markets that are not locked into maximizing quarterly profits. Just a thought.

Edit: if the US market is seen as too volatile or too dependent on exotic derivatives, investors from countries with longer "time for return" philosophies may turn to investments that are less volatile, but offering returns appropriate to their domestic growth.

 

[mheslep]

I have already made that point. It is the battle cry of economic conservative ideologs, and crooks: deregulation.

Ivan, you have repeatedly asserted the like as a given. Its clear you lay substantial blame with those that have been in charge simply because they had responsibility, whatever the cause. Fine. But I have not seen any argument from you, nor any cited sources, that demonstrate even roughly how, or which, 'conservative' inspired deregulation caused systemic mortgage securities defaults.

 

[Astronuc]

I think we may need to clearly define who or what a conservative is.

I think terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been co-opted to the point of being meaningless, and that some so-called conservatives are really faux-conservatives.


Does conservative mean - marked by moderation or caution or prudence? If so, the lack of regulation is not conservative. The reckless (speculation) in the markets is not conservative. The issuance of sub-prime and fraudulent loans is not conservative. Excessive compensation of CEOs is not conservative.

I see Warren Buffet as being conservative.

Or does conservative mean "good 'ol boys", such that as long as it's not explicitly illegal then anything goes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, you have repeatedly asserted the like as a given. Its clear you lay substantial blame with those that have been in charge simply because they had responsibility, whatever the cause. Fine. But I have not seen any argument from you, nor any cited sources, that demonstrate even roughly how, or which, 'conservative' inspired deregulation caused systemic mortgage securities defaults.

Here's one source. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why I even have to defend the point. This issue goes waaaaaay back. But beyond that, it is a fundamental failure of the free-market model. That we need a bailout is the proof. There is no such thing in a free market. And deregulation is a cornerstone of the Republican philosophy. It always has been. But never again can the argument be made that we operate in a free market; or that more deregulation necessarily leads to a stronger economy. The liberals will always be able to point to 2008 as the death of that Republican claim.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1993

I also posted a link to a great, top-tier panel discussion, on This Week, in which Robert Reich and others discuss this issue.

 

[LowlyPion]

But never again can the argument be made that we operate in a free market; ...

Good fences make good neighbors.

 

[mheslep]

Here's one source. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why I even have to defend the point. This issue goes waaaaaay back. But beyond that, it is a fundamental failure of the free-market model. That we need a bailout is the proof. There is no such thing in a free market. And deregulation is a cornerstone of the Republican philosophy. It always has been. But never again can the argument be made that we operate in a free market; or that more deregulation necessarily leads to a stronger economy. The liberals will always be able to point to 2008 as the death of that Republican claim.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...articleid=1993

The Wharton interview is interesting, I'll get back to it later, but it is clearly disconnected from these statements above.

To assert that the free market failed, one has to show that there was one active in the first place, or at least to what extent. The only conclusion I can draw so far from your posts is that anywhere excess, corruption, thievery (or Republicans) exist then one by definition has a 'free-market'.

If one takes the trouble to try an qualify 'free' in the housing market it's inescapable that it is far from lassie-faire. Housing is massively subsidized and directed by US and local governments. The largest single holder of mortgages in the United States was the quasi government organizations(GSEs/FHA), with five trillion dollars of holdings, and these organizations created the securitizations as mentioned in the interview. There is the primary residence mortgage deduction. Then the innumerable direct housing laws and acts, valuable or not, are undeniably government attempts to implement social policy by controlling the market: Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, Fair Housing Act, local Rent Control laws, Tax Payer Relief 1997 (bumped the capital gains deduction on residences to $500k). Indirectly, as a consequence of banking law, regulators have strong influence on bankers regarding with who and where they lend.

Also, to what Republican deregulation are you referring? Sarbannes Oxley? McCain-Feingold? Deregulation is perhaps a cornerstone for libertarians like Ron Paul, its hardly so for Republicans like Michael Oxley (Sarbannes-Oxley 2002 and Fannie Mae groupie) and many others.

 

[WhoWee]

As you know, we completely agree.

But I think there is a more essential failure here: Free-market itself has failed because of the "too big to be allowed to fail" reality. So profits are privatized and risk is nationalized. But we already have that thread.

One interesting idea that I heard in this regard: Too big to fail should mean too big to exist.

The only thing saving our butts is that the rest of the world has the same problem: The US is too big to be allowed to fail.

The world doesn't want us to "fail" in a final sense...but they would like to buy us cheap.

Remember the Japanese acquisitions in the 80's...they just paid too much...not enough cash flow to cover debt service.

Oil rich countries and China have hard CASH...and we want/need it.

On a lighter side, we're a great place to dump cheap products, we love gas guzzlers and we seem to really like high interest consumer loans...it's a great fit...we're so compatible with those guys.

 

[Astronuc]

Politico reports that Michigan Republicans are furious at John McCain's decision this week to abandon the state, which at one point had been considered one of his best prospects among the states that John Kerry won in 2004:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/mccain_and_michigan.html

And even Sarah Palin is questioning McCain's strategy!

For the second day in a row, Sarah Palin expressed her dismay at the campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan. This time, though, she brought up the move unprompted (!)

Palin may be only expressing her honest views on the situation, but by continuining to talk about the state she continues to give legs to a negative storyline and ensure additional days of coverage on the worst kind of process-oriented matter at this stage of the race:

Meanwhile - McCain's campaign is planning to go progressively negative in the final 4 weeks of the campaign. Remember - this is an example of how McCain will be as president.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1846269,00.html

In the past two weeks, as the financial crisis has developed, I've been traveling in Europe and Asia, talking to business leaders, bankers and academics. It has been a sobering experience. I can't remember a time when so many were so disturbed by what was happening in the U.S., or so worried about what the next few months might hold. Even in China, the post-Olympics, post-spacewalk euphoria has been tempered by the appreciation that the contraction of the U.S. market for its exports will put one of the key drivers of China's economic growth into neutral.

Everywhere, I've faced questions about what's going on in the U.S.: about who will win the presidential election and what he will do when he takes office; about why the House of Representatives voted down the financial rescue package; and about whether U.S. leaders have the combination of skill and guts to get to the far side of the crisis. What I've not found, anywhere, is schadenfreude, a sense of glee at America's misfortune. Things are too serious for that. But there is a palpable sense that the financial crisis, and Washington's stumbling reaction to it, represents a defining moment. The days when the U.S. could lecture other nations on the correct way to run their affairs are gone. The British philosopher John Gray put the case at its starkest in the Observer: "The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War," Gray wrote, "is over."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One quality in Obama gaining attention is his ability to remain calm and collected during a crisis; so much so that this actually scared some of Obama's advisors; not only during the campaign, but also when the credit crisis hit - some feared that he may be too calm and too cool. There was a sense that almost to a fault, "nothing gets this guy excited". But now this serves Obama well.

We saw during the credit crisis how McCain reacted excessively, impulsively, and erratically, if not recklessly. While pouncing on Obama for not speaking quickly enough, McCain made rash statements - announced who he would fire - suspended his campaign, rushed back to Washington, only to be repudiated by his own party. Obama acted steadily and resolutely. While gaining praise from even Wall Street Conservatives, Obama avoided political grandstanding, allowed the experts to do their jobs, and then stepped in when he could be the most help. And in the end he was needed to sway the Black Caucus and other Democrats in the House for support of the bailout bill, which he did.

In short, Obama showed great leadership and reserve during a time of extreme crisis. And while an old war dog like McCain has the advantage on issues of military matters, there is an overreaching trust factor to be considered. Who can be trusted to act rationally when the nation’s future hangs in the balance - to remain calm, and not to act on emotion during a crisis? Who can be trusted to lead, and not stampede? Who can steer the ship of State through treacherous waters with a firm and steady hand?

In 2002, when it was widely perceived as unpatriotic to question Bush and his frivolous claims, Obama warned us that we were a nation rushing to a needless war. We have seen over the last two weeks that, once again, Obama is the one with a steady hand and an eye to the horizon. It was he, not McCain, who showed great skill as a leader. It was Obama, not McCain, who acted thoughtfully, instead of reacting wildly and unpredictably. And others are beginning to notice this quality of leadership in Obama - even Wall Street Conservatives.

 

[Astronuc]

Obama clinches on Rove map
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081005/pl_politico/14294

Rove writes on Rove.com: “39 new state polls released in the first three days of October have given Barack Obama his first lead over the magic number of 270 since mid-July. Minnesota (10 EV) and New Hampshire (4 EV) both moved from toss-up to Obama, giving him 273 electoral votes to McCain’s 163, with 102 votes remaining as a toss-up.

“If the election were held today, Obama would win every state John Kerry won in 2004, while adding New Mexico (5 EV), Iowa (7 EV), and Colorado (9 EV) to his coalition. Remember, though, that these state polls are a lagging indicator and most do not include any surveying done after the vice-presidential debate on Thursday night.”

I would like to see less negative ads from Obama's campaign. Instead, he and the campaign ought to focus on the issues (the two top being US economy and national security) and leave the negative campaigning to McCain/Palin.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As of today, the cnn poll of polls still has Obama by 49-43. So there doesn't seem to be any change after the VP debate.

The remaining significantly contested States are very close, but many are favoring Obama who now has a ceiling of 345 to 193 on the electoral map. If he can just hold, or a gain a point or two in each of those States, this could be a landslide on the electoral map by up to almost 2:1.

So McCain is going to get really nasty now. This election is hardening on a trajectory highly unfavorable to McCain. He is running out of even potential paths to victory.

 

[LowlyPion]

As of today, the cnn poll of polls still has Obama by 49-43. So there doesn't seem to be any change after the VP debate.

The remaining significantly contested States are very close, but many are favoring Obama who now has a ceiling of 345 to 193 on the electoral map. If he can just hold, or a gain a point or two in each of those States, this could be a landslide on the electoral map by up to almost 2:1.

So McCain is going to get really nasty now. This election is hardening on a trajectory highly unfavorable to McCain. He is running out of even potential paths to victory.

Unfortunately for the Republicans the more negative he goes the greater the downdraft and the longer the Obama coattails.

 

[LowlyPion]

As of today, the cnn poll of polls still has Obama by 49-43. So there doesn't seem to be any change after the VP debate.

Gallup showing it 50% Obama - 43% McCain