Whistling Past the Electoral Graveyard?
by Mark Noonan on August 28th, 2008 at 09:45am
From Kausfiles:
On the record Time coffee featuring Obama campaign manager David Plouffe: Plouffe argued for paying less attention to the ups and downs of the polls because a) Obama would beat McCain on turnout and b) swing voters would probably break one way or another after the debates. The audience consensus–which in this crowd was almost by definition CW–seemed to be that Plouffe was whistling past the graveyard, relying on turnout machination to make up for a worrisome message problem. … P.S.: Plouffe also said the McCain campaign was “obsessed with news cycles.”
The advantage is still with Obama, but there’s trouble in Obama-land…and the speech tonight with Obamessiah at the Greek Temple might actually be the very worst idea Obama - or his advisors - ever had.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
August 28th, 2008 at 9:52 am
You have been wrong before Mark and I suspect you will once again be wrong.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Oh Sunny you have no idea how wrong Mark can be. Back in 2006 Mark was actually convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans would have a GAIN in the House and Senate.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Electoral college is exactly where the GOP is going to get schooled. But we’ll discuss that in November.
Move along… nothing to see here…
August 28th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I love how you see bringing the public into what has always been a political “insiders only” event as a negative - talk about missing the point.
It’s amazing how you dark-siders can look at anything a Democrat does and wonder, “What’s the most cynical, whining, distorted way we can spit on these people?”
Is this part of your Christian mission? Seems like a sin to me.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Speaking of being wrong. Growth 3.3 percent this quarter. Can we have an apology from all of you losers that said we were in a recession?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Love this McCain quote from his book: “”I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time.”
Rich - That’s the GOP economic platform - “Everything’s fine! Trust us! POW!”
August 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
The polls are showing almost a tie now and as McCain campaign is much more effective I expect the result to continue changing in McCain favor
August 28th, 2008 at 11:20 am
What The Hell Is He Thinking??
I’m trying to see what the hell Obama is doing with all his Greek speech style and other dramatic gestures. Is he just so in love with himself that he want others to see him in somewhat surreal way?
Does he think it is working? With the gaps in …
August 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I guess we’ll see if it’s a mistake or not. Remember, though, the creepy acceptance speech in front of the ‘Green Screen’ that McCain gave! I think the difference between the WARMONGER McCain and the hopeful future Obama sees will be VERY striking.
Also keep in mind that millions of Pro-Life Christians were praying for rain tonight, but that the weather forecast is for a warm, sunny evening. However, God has answered their prayers by sending two hurricanes to the Gulf Coast set to hit during the RNC.
These hurricanes could be a stark reminder of the incompetence of McCain and the Republicans eating birthday cake when Hurricane Katrina hit and killed or displaced THOUSANDS of folks.
It looks like God not only cares about the unborn, he also cares about the impoverished and those in need. These hurricanes may be God’s way of reminding us that the GOP is NOT ‘Pro-Life’. . .
August 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
uh, I doubt Obama’s podium could be any bigger than this:
http://www.terrygydesen.com/newsite/camp92/camp1.html
Is that George Bush Sr doing an imitation of Julius Caesar?
August 28th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Didn’t GW Bush famously say that God had chosen him to be President? Didn’t many of his followers (including Mark) agree that God selected Bush?
Clearly McCain offers the same foreign and economic policies as Bush. So if you love Bush and what he’s done to the country and economy, then you’ll LOVE McCain!
If, on the other hand, you think Clinton did a better job with the economy and diplomacy, then vote for Obama!
August 28th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
If, on the other hand, you think Clinton did a better job with the economy and diplomacy, then vote for Obama!
um, Coulter, there’s a minor problem with that logic. Two key components in the marvelous Clinton economy were NAFTA and a capital gains tax cut, both GOP sponsored bills which Clinton signed in spite of opposition from his own party. Guess which 2 economic lynch pins Obama wants to undo. Yup, you guessed it.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Fiscal Conservative Ronald Reagan - $200+
Billion Deficit
Fiscal Conservative George HW Bush - $300+ Billion Deficit
Tax and Spend Liberal Bill Clinton - $200+ Billion Surplus
Fiscal Conservative George W Bush - $482+ Billion Deficit
John McCain - My friends, you will be pleased to know I am a Fiscal Conservative.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
>>Two key components in the marvelous Clinton economy were NAFTA and a capital gains tax cut, both GOP sponsored bills which Clinton signed in spite of opposition from his own party.<<
Ummm, I think you may have a major problem with your logic, spook. In 1993 (and with a Democratic Congress), Clinton signed the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993″. THe GOP widely objected to this bill and claimed that it would “cause a massive recession”. Instead, we had budget surpluses and the largest economic expansion in our history.
When Bush (and Reagan) cut taxes on the top 1%, they claimed a “trickle down” effect which would lead to INCREASED Federal revenue and budget surpluses. The Democrats warned of budget deficits resulting from reduced tax revenue. Guess who was right? What happened to the National Debt (which Republicans have claimed “don’t matter”?!?!) during the 80’s and during the 2000’s? Compare this with the 1990s and the expansion of the middle class.
Now Obama wants to raise taxes on the top 1% to Clinton-era levels. McCain wants to lower taxes further on the extremely wealthy. . . Obama would give more tax breaks to the middle class, except that McCain defines “Middle Class” as those making less than 5 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!
August 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“When Bush (and Reagan) cut taxes on the top 1%, they claimed a “trickle down” effect which would lead to INCREASED Federal revenue ”
And so it did as is well known. Sadly, Reagan was burdened with a Dem Congress that had to be bought off with socialist tripe to encourage them to oppose the murderous Soviet Union. Therefore, your deficit. We would have been better off, certainly, with Carterism.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Hey megapotamus. . . remind me who controlled Congress from 2000-2006. I thought it was the DeLay-Frist era which vastly ballooned the deficit and grossly increased the National Debt.
Again, if you like the Bush economy- then, by all means, vote for McCain! After all, his policies are IDENTICAL to Bush when it comes to the economy and foreign policy.
If, however, you liked the Clinton years of economic prosperity, good relations with our allies, etc. . . then you should vote for Obama.
The Bush years show us what unfettered Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress will do to this country. Let’s see what unfettered Democratic control will do. . . then, if it fails (as you predict), you can blame the Dems and harken back to the “good ‘ol days” of GW Bush’s economy!
August 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Jayhay: It’s amazing how you dark-siders can look at anything a Democrat does and wonder, “What’s the most cynical, whining, distorted way we can spit on these people?”
Mark Noonan | August 28th at 2:23 am: there is the most effective way to take down Obama’s image, and ensure it gets on You Tube - have a belching contest using Obama’s name. I mean, “Barack Obama” belched out will be highly vulgar, but probably also very funny…
These GOP strategists keep coming up with the most amazing ideas. How could the GOP’s platform possibly succeed without this kind of of creative thinking?
August 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Ummm, I think you may have a major problem with your logic, spook. In 1993 (and with a Democratic Congress), Clinton signed the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993″. THe GOP widely objected to this bill and claimed that it would “cause a massive recession”. Instead, we had budget surpluses and the largest economic expansion in our history.
Coulter, in all fairness, there is disagreement among economists as to whether or not the OBRA of 1993 played any part in the economic expansion of the 90’s. Had nothing else changed on the political or economic landscape, you’d have a pretty good argument that the OBRA of 1993 was one of the rare instances of taxing ourselves into prosperity. The problem, however, was that before a full Clinton Budget reflecting the massive tax increases contained in the act was 60 days old, the GOP won back control of Congress in November of 1994. There were two reasons for the huge GOP gains: the tax increases themselves and rampant corruption, largely by Congressional Democrats. And, of course, to give credit where credit is due — the Contract with America was one of the most brilliant political strategies by either party in my lifetime.
During the first 2 years of Clinton’s first term, the economy basically went sideways. The growth in federal revenues that had been so robust following the third increment of Reagan’s tax cuts (revenues grew at an annual rate of 6.9% from 1985 to 1990) dropped precipitiously during the first half of the 90’s. Reflecting both Bush 41’s tax increase in 1991 and Clinton’s in 1993, the annual growth in federal revenues dropped to an annual average of 4.8% during the period 1990 to 1995. Percentage-wise that’s over a 30% reduction (in the growth of revenue, not net revenue). Part of the GOP platform in the midterms of 1994 was putting the clamps on federal spending, something they did extremely well for several years. The budget surpluses so touted by the Clintonites grew largely out of the tech explosion, the capital gains tax cut of 1996 and a reduction in the rate of growth of the federal budget, none of which Clinton had much to do with, other than signing the cap. gains cut legislation.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
BTW, just to clarify; the federal revenues I referred to in the previous post were just revenues from individual income taxes, not total federal revenues. This dates back to some research I did back in the late 90’s using the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. as a source.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Spook,
Thanks for your fair response. I would agree that the ‘96 Congressional elections did contribute to the prosperity. . . political gridlock tends to be good for the economy.
However, the biggest contributing factor was Clinton’s competence and ability to listen to others with whom he disagreed. Say what you will about his politics, but he had the political wisdom to borrow good ideas from the opposing party and co-opt them as his own.
Bush, however, has governed wholly from an ideological perspective. His refusal to listen to others or even look at empirical evidence, whether it be regarding foreign policy, economics, etc has had devastating consequences. He has been a disastrously incompetant President.
John McCain, while once willing to buck his party, had co-opted EVERY Bush idea. The “maverick” who once stated that it was ‘irresponsible’ to cut taxes for the wealthy during wartime has now fully embraced the Bush tax cuts. Never before in the history of society have their been tax CUTS during war! If Bush was dead-set on a voluntary war, the LEAST he could have done is to figure out how to pay for it! And don’t forget that the GOP regularly put their party above the best interests of our nation- from rampant pork-barrel spending to cronyism, to politicizing the Justice Dept, etc, etc.
And I would agree that the “Contract with America” was brilliant “strategy”. But the GOP, once in control, abandoned most of their own principles. . . I mean “term limits” and “fiscal responsibility” disappeared entirely from their vocabulary once they got the Majority!
Again, we’ve seen what GOP control of every branch of government has brought us. If you want more of the same, vote McCain. If you want new ideas, new leadership, if you want the rest of the world to look up to us again, vote for Obama.
McCain is no different than GW Bush on anything substantive. Obama is much more like Clinton or (dare I say it) Reagan in his ability to listen to others and to co-opt the other party’s ideas.
For all his “experience”, what has McCain accomplished? He himself has admitted that he doesn’t know much about the economy. I know he sponsored “McCain-Feingold”, but what else?
Obama worked with Luger to secure loose Nukes, he (with Tom Coborn (R)) sponsored the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (which shows REAL fiscal responsibility), he sponsored lobbyist reform, etc, etc.
What, again, has McCain done except to lobby for war in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Russia?
August 28th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
After doing much research, I can’t find ONE SIGNIFICANT BILL that McCain has authored or sponsored during his long Senate career!
There’s McCain-Feingold (which Conservatives RUE), but that’s about it. There’s his Immigration Bill (which Conservatives also RUE) and McCain himself now opposes.
That’s it?!?!?!
Obama has authored and sponsored more significant legislation during his 4 years in the Senate than McCain has during his entire career!
August 28th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Obama is much more like Clinton or (dare I say it) Reagan in his ability to listen to others and to co-opt the other party’s ideas.
Coulter, the heavy lifting on the loose nukes issue was actually done by Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn well before Obama even got to the Senate. Obama was nothing more than a Johnny-come-lately who attached his name to a non-controversial bill where there was absolutely no political downside. Who opposes cleaning up loose nukes? If Obama wants to impress me he can cite something he’s done that might have resulted in political risk, something I would add, that has defined much of John McCain’s political career. Obama only follows through on low-risk opportunities. Leaders, however, do things without regard for popular opinion or personal ambition. They do it because it’s right, or at least because they believe it’s right. That is the central difference between true leaders and wannabes.
I assume, when you cited the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 you were not aware that McCain was a co-sponsor.
On every other issue - global warming, taxes, immigration - Obama has not deviated from the party line. Not once. You have to ask yourself, is this because Obama truly believes in these things - or does he merely follow them for personal gain? If the latter, then Obama is no leader, but a follower.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Obama has authored and sponsored more significant legislation during his 4 years in the Senate than McCain has during his entire career!
Pretty neat trick considering he’s only been a Senator for 3 years and 7 months, and he’s been campaigning for President for nearly half of that time. He’s never even convened a meeting of the subcommittee on Afghanistan that he chairs.
What “significant” legislative achievements did your “much research” uncover for Obama besides the one noted in the previous post which was co-sponsored by McCain?
BTW, I’m not going to do “much research” to refute your assertions about McCain. I don’t even like McCain; it’s just that I don’t even like Obama more. And that’s all this election is to me: damage control. Given that the Dems are likely to increase their margins in both houses, a President Obama, with significant, possibly veto-proof majorities in both houses, could do damage that could take a generation or more to repair. I think a President McCain, working with a Democrat Congressional majority could actually accomplish some things that the majority of Americans could support — like cutting pork barrel spending and developing a rational energy policy. Unlike Obama, McCain has proved, and as you note, sometimes to the dismay of Republicans, that he can work with those on the other side of the aisle.