Don't Worry, Be Happy

In response to my post on PPP's Ohio poll, I was sent an e-mail telling me to relax:

I am an Obama fellow here in Ohio and am close to the campaign director for the state. They are about 4 points ahead in Ohio and expect Ohio to be close. . . . Their ground game here is phenomenal and unlike John Kerry and Al Gore, we are all over the southern part of Ohio which is where Obama has to not get swamped to win in the state. . . . Relax.

Ok. Tell it to Paul Krugman:

Why isn’t the Obama campaign getting more traction on economic issues? . . . [T]he problem isn’t lack of specifics — it’s lack of passion. When it comes to the economy, Mr. Obama’s campaign seems oddly lethargic.

[Obama] seemed to go out of his way to avoid scoring political points. “Back in the 1990s,” he declared, “your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000.” Um, not quite: real median household income didn’t rise $6,000 during “the 1990s,” it did so during the Clinton years, after falling under the first Bush administration. Income hasn’t fallen $1,000 in “recent years,” it’s fallen under George Bush, with all of the decline taking place before 2005.

Krugman then does the unpardonable, he touts Bill Clinton's political approach on economic matters:

All this makes a stark contrast with the campaign of the last Democrat to make it to the White House, who had no trouble conveying passion over matters economic.

In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination in 1992, a year in which economic conditions somewhat resembled those today, Bill Clinton denounced his opponent as someone “caught in the grip of a failed economic theory.” Where Mr. Obama spoke cryptically in St. Petersburg about a “reckless few” who “game the system, as we’ve seen in this housing crisis” — I know what he meant, I think, but how many voters got it? — Mr. Clinton declared that “those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft, and those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded.” That’s the kind of hard-hitting populism that’s been absent from the Obama campaign so far.

Well, you can't be a post-partisan unifier and and a hard edged politics of contrast Fighting Dem at the same time. Krugman warns:

If Mr. Obama can’t find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far, he may yet lose this election.

That seems virtually impossible to me but I do agree that Obama is pursuing the one path that could conceivably lead to defeat.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< A Case Against Joe Biden for Veep | Getting Shot Down Means You Don't Cheat >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:45:53 AM EST
    12% of white voters are undecided int his poll. 13% of the electorate is AA- so if you adjust Obama to 95-5 of AA voters that gives him an extra point and a half.

    If white undecideds break 2-1 for McCain, as seems likely, that gives McCain about an extra 2 point spread.

    I would argue that the poll is best interpreted as McCain ahead narrowly.

    I agree... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:55:21 AM EST
    especially since the PPP poll demographic split for African Americans is 13%...when the 2004 exit polls showed only 10% AA participation.  But it should also be noted that Bush got 16% of the AA vote in Ohio -- an astonishing percentage (even allowing for the vote suppression that occurred in African American urban communities in Ohio.)

    Bush (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:06:47 AM EST
    got much of his AA support in OH from the gay marriage issue.

    out of curiousity (none / 0) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    Did Clinton have any AA support in OH? If so I wouldm't count these as a given to go to Obama.

    She did have some but (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:25:20 AM EST
    I wouldn't bet on it all going Obama. My AA friends who voted Clinton in the primary did so for a reason and their opinions have not changed or softened. Granted I'm a Florida voters but still...

    The AA vote... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:26:21 AM EST
    The AA vote in Ohio (18% of the primary electorate) was 13% Clinton, 87% Obama.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#61)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:34:32 AM EST
    So his AA support is about the same it was during the primary. Not a surprise.

    Although those poll numbers (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:48:05 AM EST
    may be lower than the vote would actually be if the election were held today, it may be that Obama is losing some support in the AA community. Although if both candidates are well-qualified, I will pull the lever for the female candidate, I am scrupulous about not voting for a woman if I'm not absolutely sure she can excel at the job. If there are two mediocre candidates, I vote for the guy every time. When new ground is being broken, it is important for the "first" to be highly successful, or the "second" will be a long time coming.

    She won't have to be (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:06:21 PM EST
    twice as good when it gets to be commonplace for a woman to hold that job or elected office.  I'm coming at this from a very personal perspective.  I was one of the first women accepted into an all-male engineering school. As a group our high school records put us all in the top 10% of the entering freshman class. We were National Merit Scholars, class valedictorians, and student body presidents. The reason behind it was that there was great resistance to women being admitted. It was important that we succeed, or the nay sayers could point and say that they were right, and we didn't belong there. Our first female governor in MA gave birth to twins while in office, and although she conducted state business from her hospital bed, she was unable to do the job as well as the first female governor needed to for there to be a second one any time soon. The first woman president needs to be extraordinary. Later women will be able to be just as incompetent as the guys are.

    thanks and when that happens i hope (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    that women remember this historic run. of course there have been others who set the stage for hillary's run and they need to be remember with respect also. it is a lonely walk!

    I've had the same personal experience. (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by tree on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    When I first started working I was a rarity. I was well aware that there was a human tendency to judge how well all women could do the job by how well I did it. I knew I was responsible for opening a door.

    There were a few other women in the general field but not doing what I was specifically doing. One of them was not very competent. Assumptions were made about what that said about all women's capabilities to do the job. (Of course, it really only said something about her capabilities.) Once there was a discussion about this with the men working there. I reeled off the names of a few of the men who were real nincompoops at the job, and everyone said, oh yeah, you're right. But they never saw the other men as a symbol for how their job performance should be perceived. Once there were enough women around it was easier to understand that one not-so-competent woman doesn't condemn every other woman. Until you get to that point, though, an incompetent woman can make it harder for any other woman to follow her. Sad but true.



    One wonders (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    Um, not quite: real median household income didn't rise $6,000 during "the 1990s," it did so during the Clinton years, after falling under the first Bush administration. Income hasn't fallen $1,000 in "recent years," it's fallen under George Bush, with all of the decline taking place before 2005.

    One wonders where to start with this.  Is a hypothetical two person household in 2005 living on $99,000 inflation adjusted dollars worse off than a three person household in the 1990's lining on $100,000?

    Pretty obviously not even though there was $1,000 (1%) less household income there was $16,000 (50%)more per capita.

    Picking years to compare changes in household income when household size has declined is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.  We lead the world in single person households.  This a sign of prosperity, not economic decline.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    It's always breathtaking to see the latest Republican mumbo-jumbo talking point on why Bush's economy has been just fine.  "Single-person households" is one of the best yet.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:53:03 PM EST

    When money is available enough not to need a room mate to share the rent, it is not a sign of poverty.

    BTD, you're right (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    Obama guaranteed he will win.  Nancy says he's a gift from God.


    A confident Barack Obama raised an extraordinary $7.8 million Sunday at three California fundraisers, most if it in large checks to a Democratic Party committee.

    "I will win. Don't worry about that," he said to the crowd of about 1,300 at his third event of the evening, according to the pool report.

    He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

    This just begs (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:10:03 AM EST
    reasonable people to rise and defeat them.

    Taht quote by Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:17:46 AM EST
    is juvenile and ignorant

    And will be used by McCain (none / 0) (#146)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:33:02 AM EST
    in an ad. Bet on it.

    For the love of pete (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    does Pelosi want to lose?! between Obama's hubris in that snippet and Pelosi's delusion...lies defeat.

    Amazing (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:28:55 AM EST
    I thought one of the most loathsome moments of the 2004 Republican convention was Gov. Pataki's introduction of Bush:

    On this night and in this fight there is another who holds high that torch of freedom. He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge.

    I couldn't believe the GOP would actually claim that Bush was sent by God to be our President.  Apparently I was wrong to be shocked, and it's just standard-issue political rhetoric for both parties now.


    If God is playing a part in politics now (5.00 / 6) (#181)
    by joanneleon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    then how the heck did God let us get in to the catastrophic mess we're in today?

    I'm so tired of hearing about God in this primary and election.  It's getting worse every day.  They've got to knock it off.  Pelosi sounds like some kind of nutcase.


    He has nothing to say (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by chopper on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM EST
    Obama cannot say anything sensible about the economy.  Therefore he has nothing to say.

    He blew it when he put down Clinton's Greatest Economic Expansion in History.

    Obama knows nothing about economics, history, world affairs, or running a country.

    Jeralyn's response to the last person (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    to criticize how she runs the site....

    Per Jeralyn:
    You don't make the rules here.  I do.

    I didn't know Hellothere was JM! (3.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    IMO (4.95 / 23) (#8)
    by tek on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:33:00 AM EST
    one of Obama's biggest weaknesses is that he CAN'T campaign on Clinton's successes because some brilliant guru in his primary campaign decided that he should get out and trash the Clintons.  How's that working out for ya, Obie?

    That's his base (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by mm on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:29:35 AM EST
    He wouldn't be where he is today if he hadn't trashed the Clintons.

    ...and its why BTD may be wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:43:56 AM EST
    ...about the advantages of a Clinton VP nomination.

    While Clinton was superb at changing peoples perception of her during the primaries, the promoters of CDS would have a field day if she's the VP nominee... and because she wouldn't have the kind of direct access to the public that a presidential candidate has, Clinton would not be able to respond effectively.   And while a Clinton VP slot might shore up Obama's democratic support, I suspect that there are an awful lot of "independents" who would switch their vote from Obama to McCain if Hillary is the VP nominee.


    Overstating... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mike H on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    I think Clinton would fare better with most independents than you are giving her credit for.

    Remember, CDS painted her as "not liberal enough", and quite frankly independents prefer a moderate to a partisan.

    She gained an awful lot of general sympathy over the last two months of the primary.

    Also -- Obama doesn't seem to be doing as well when she isn't in the picture.  He was better when she was his foil.  I think, if they played their cards right, they could be an enormously successful campaigning team.


    It's the economy stupid! (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by RedSox04 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    Agree with you.  I'd also add that Clinton would help Obama immensely primarily because of her reputation (whether it's accurate or not is irrelevant) as being a competent manager of the economy.

    I am now a reluctant Obama supporter, but I still think Hillary would be crushing right now.  The main reason I supported Hillary was because I thought the economy would be the major issue going into the election, and that Hillary was likely to win undecided voters (despite all of her disadvantages, primarily a hostile media and a negative public image) primarily because they would be voting on the economy.  I also thought Hillary was more likely to enact the kind of economic reforms and New Deal type programs necessary to reverse the current malaise, but that remains to be seen.

    Whatever you may think of Hillary, it's pretty hard to argue that she's not perceived as someone who would be a competent economic steward by the average American.


    RE Hillary's (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:02:27 PM EST
    so-called 'negative image:'

    "Topping the most admired women list is Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who finished first for the 11th time. Following Clinton are Oprah Winfrey, Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush and Margaret Thatcher."

    That was the '07 list...pretty remarkable for a woman who has been assauted from both sides for 16 straight years.

    Reminds one of Eleanor Roosevelt, who was also criticized, demeaned and insulted in an effort to make her shut up and go away.

    It didn't work with Eleanor and the public's admiration either.


    McCain's campaign has been on general election (4.93 / 16) (#22)
    by BronxFem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:54:58 AM EST
    mode since June 1.  You never hear talk about Huckabee, Paul, or anyone else that ran in the Republican primary.  The campain has been on the attack against Obama 24/7.  Obama's minions, on the other hand, are still focused on Hillary and Bill, still with the same themes of the primary.  It doesn't augur well for a Democratic victory in November.  It's obvious something is askew.

    underpants gnomes (5.00 / 11) (#39)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:10:28 AM EST
    I suspect that Team Obama never had a GE plan -- other than to run as the Democrat.  I mean, lets face it, in a year where the GOP was not thoroughly discredited, Obama would not have a chance.

    Clinton's primary strategy was integrated with her general election strategy... she positioned herself to win in November once she had the nomination.  It was a "flawed" strategy for winning the nomination only because she was opposed by someone whose strategy was focussed exclusively on the nomination itself.  

    Obama's overall strategy for winning was the "underpants gnome" strategy...

    1. Win nomination
    2. ???????
    3. World domination

    I'm not even sure he planned to run (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    as the Democrat with all that post partisan stuff he's into.

    I saw this little poll that has kept my mind occupied trying to figure out what it means:

    ISSUE    McCain Obama GOP Dems
    Iraq     51%    39%   40% 49%
    Economy  45%    44%   39% 51%


    Obama is not performing as well as generic Democrats on either Iraq or the Economy.  And he is coming in behind McCain too.  Is his run away from Democrats turning out to be a really bad move?  

    I did not think his post partisan gig made any sense when for the first time in a long time being a Democrat was starting to be a good thing - seemed like he was opting out of taking a clear advantage, but I couldn't prove that that would hurt him.  But now with Obama coming in behind generic Dems as well as McCain I think I may have my "proof" that running against his party has actually hurt him.


    nailed it (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:48:44 AM EST
    Here's what seems to be happening:

    campaign expert: so if you run as a democrat against republicans in this election, you can't loose.

    obama: cool, ok, so I'll run as non partisan then.

    Reminds me of 2006:

    dems: we're running against republicans because they're awful and haven't held the president accountable. We'll fight for you and hold him accountable.

    people: cool, we'll vote for you then.

    republicans (after they lost): wow, that was amazing, the dems ran as uniters with the message of no more fighting and no more gridlock. I guess we've learned our lesson, we'll be nice and work with them.

    press: yea, what they said.

    dems (esp. Pelosi): ah, ok, I guess that's what happened. Yea, we're for stopping all this gridlock and working with republicans on compromise. now who should I try to get nominated for our party...


    Pelosi actually believed that. (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:53:02 AM EST
    I know it to be true that she really believed that the whole "change the tone" in Washington thing was the message that resonated most with voters. Out here in the real world, I know that it was the war - an issue they were forced to take up by voters who kept telling them it was the most important thing to them - and yet she still thinks that they won on some political version of a Miss Manners platform.  It is stunning how out of touch she is on that front.

    Change does resonate (none / 0) (#92)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    Nancy Pelosi would be the last one we would be taking clues on though when trying to achieve that change. She can't even course correct in the House(let alone the whole country).

    pelosi seems to think that just (none / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:58:07 PM EST
    talking about it then doing the opposite is a "win win" with voters. geez, no wonder we are in so much trouble.

    I have come to the conclusion that she (none / 0) (#171)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    is a purely political animal.  Every choice she makes is calculated on its political value - no action has value in her mind beyond its perceived political benefit - "the right thing to do" is designed entirely based on political merit - which is why she is Speaker - but it is also why she is failing miserably in terms of actual leadership and governance.  Governance is part politics and part pragmatism - to choose not to lead when you are the leader is not practical - it may seem politically wise - but it is not practical and that is how she is getting herself into more and more real political trouble.

    insightful post! (none / 0) (#180)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:56:32 PM EST
    of course long term it is a political mistake.

    I was a Hillaryite in the primaries (none / 0) (#73)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:39:03 AM EST
    but there's just no question that she was running overwhelmingly a GE campaign for the primaries, and that was obvious when she and Penn rolled out the Experience Counts brand last year.

    It wasn't merely a flawed strategy, it was a fundamentally flawed one, which also violated Bill's Rule #1 for electoral success:  always be focused on the campaign in front of you, not the next one.

    As for O, I'm squarely behind him, unlike so many in these TL threads, but I definitely want him to tighten up and toughen up with a more focused message about the McCain/Bush economic royalist mindset.

    My sense of O's campaign is that they have been working out some internal and perhaps mostly candidate-centered "tension" between the desire to stay positive and deliver on the promise of a postpartisan Nouvelle Politique and the campaign's realpolitik grasp of what it will take in tougher rhetoric and aggressive strategy to defeat the nasty negative McCain-Rove machine.

    O won't win playing nice.  But I'd like to think he and Axelrod are beginning to transition to playing the sort of hardball politics that the Rs began playing a month ago with their character attack ads.  


    silly.... (5.00 / 12) (#89)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:57:20 AM EST
    ....the idea that Hillary was not following Bill's advice is just silly... and its silly because the very idea that Bill Clinton did not see November as the focus of Hillary's campaign is simply absurd.  The election is the PRESIDENCY -- the nomination is worthless unless you have a clear plan for winning in November.

    As for your thesis that Obama wants to run a 'positive' campaign -- pure nonsense.  Obama's problem is that his campaign doesn't know how to attack McCain.  There's no pre-existing "McCain Derangement Syndrome" to exploit, and he wasted the race card in his campaign against Clinton.  He can't attack McCain on 'the issues', because Obama can't really talk about the issues other than with bullet points.   And most crucially, Obama is bad at responding to attacks and counter-attacks... Clinton held her fire throughout most of the campaign season while Obama used a scorched-earth strategy against her, and when Clinton did finally go on the offensive, Obama's response was at best lame, and in fact was the basis of the claims regarding his 'arrogance'.


    I don't think you (none / 0) (#113)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:28:32 AM EST
    rebut my first point at all.  

    In fact, the overall flavor of HRC's campaign prior to IA/NH was largely playing the tough no-nonsense experienced woman -- exactly the sort of Maggie Thatcher identification that Penn recommended which, of course, is not exactly the sort of tone that is going to appeal to the type of voters who make the difference in Dem primaries, namely lib or lib-oriented Dems who are sick of this current war.

    Maggie Thatcher would have worked for the GE -- but it was a loser in the primaries.  Ditto for her response about negotiating with foreign dictators -- though O technically should have answered with a bit more nuance, his overall thrust of Never negotiate out of fear/never fear to negotiate was one which had more appeal to Dems than HRC's relatively hardline approach which was, again, the correct answer and tone for the GE.

    Re O not knowing how to attack McC, I suggested that's it's been late, but it now appears to be happening, especially in ads which go after McC's phony "maverick" label and with an improved campaign which is starting, finally, to more consistently link up McCain with Bush.

    In my view, there is also now room for tough surrogates (and possibly a VP Biden) to open up a further line of attack with McC's appalling overuse of his POW experience to deflect away any and all criticism.  Approached carefully, this could produce results.  


    Not only that (none / 0) (#118)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    but Obama and his campaign have the terrible habit of telling the press how they are going to responde to an attack before they actually do. It's frustrating because the end result never matches the hype.

    brodie - Oh Good Lord (5.00 / 8) (#133)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    "He needs to stay positive and deliver on the promise of a postpartisan Nouvelle Politique".  That language and argument, if being used by all his "new" Democratic worker bees, explains the downward trajectory of his campaign.  

    His biggest problem so far has been that he can't seem to find enough words in the english language to get to a position and not be afraid to take a stand.  He's the professor that puts the kids to sleep and makes them sorry they took his class.  There just doesn't seem to be any there, there.  


    I've been thinking the exact same thing. (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by JohnS on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:11:04 AM EST
    When is Obama's team gonna start the GE campaign? Or have they already, and I just haven't noticed!!!???

    They Have Started In Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by creeper on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:36:56 AM EST
    ...sort of.  Basically, thought, it's the same hopey-changey stuff we've been hearing for years.  Still totally devoid of substance.

    OTOH, McCain is making hay with a commercial that starts out "Washington is broken.  John McCain knows it."


    Same McCain ad (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    is running in Washington State.

    Pretty effective.

    Looks like he's stolen Obama's post-partisan message...and McCain has the history to back it up.

    Democrats.  Dum-de-dum-dum...


    "Basically, though,..." n/t (none / 0) (#69)
    by creeper on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:37:37 AM EST
    Hardly (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    And now this mornng I read that Obama may not announce his VP selection until the coming weekend. Is he that tone deaf? If he isn't choosing Clinton he won't have time to really introduce this person to the public. he will have to rely on their speach to do that ad I am not confident any of them are that good.

    Not to mention that he will spend a large amount of time after the convention justfying the choice.

    Makes me think he may be picking someone already very well known. Since I don't believe it will be Hillary I am starting to unfortunately lean towards Kerry.


    Would that not be funny? (none / 0) (#136)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    John Kerry for VP.

    Funny odd and sad (none / 0) (#142)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:24:55 AM EST
    not funny haha.

    Worried about the reactions and demonstrations (none / 0) (#176)
    by joanneleon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:44:04 PM EST
    I believe that the campaign is doing the best they can to keep down any public negative reaction or demonstrations in Denver.  

    yup (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:14:33 AM EST
    For Obama, it's the same campaign since March.

    I got a very similar email (4.92 / 14) (#10)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:35:16 AM EST
    weeks before the Election from a friend of mine who worked on Kerry's campaign.  

    He, too, told me to relax and that although it'd be close, the ground effort from Kerry in Ohio was "phenomenal" and "unlike anything he'd ever seen" and all would be fine.

    I tend not to trust campaign's ground troops as they do their best to spin whatever info they have into something beneficial for their candidate.  They thrive on a mixture of optimism and selective reading of information.

    Understandable, certainly, as it would be demoralizing to be doing all this hard work for someone only to see the writing on the wall and realize, at the end of it all, you were gonna lose.

    It is all relative. (none / 0) (#46)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:20:44 AM EST
    "What they've ever seen" might have been pretty bad.

    I have to ask.. (none / 0) (#132)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    how many times have you been approached by a campaign volunteer and listened to their spiel?

    By this time, my mind is usually made up. I don't know, if it works it works.  Sure didn't in PA.

    What Obama has to do is get out there and personally
    talk to people.  He seems to not like doing that.


    well, given this year of all years (4.92 / 14) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:42:46 AM EST
    maybe they can have a new party and throw away some of the old coalitions; maybe they can never mention the Clinton's in a positive way, maybe they can not pick Hillary, maybe, maybe, maybe.... but why?

    The problem sure sounds like some internal people are believing their own hype. I've seen it happen in companies numerous times to their detriment. Maybe not, but it sure sounds like it.

    have you seen the commercial (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    where they take the profit graph going down and turn it upside down? i thought about that while thinking about wth is wrong with the obama campaign.

    Obama (4.90 / 10) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:23:08 AM EST
    is following many paths that will probably lead to defeat. The lack of economic message is only one of them. I never saw him use the primaries to hone his message.

    I'll tell you one thing that's going to be extremely damaging: The nomination speech. Having the party spend extra money on a convention center when the same thing could have been done elsewhere sends a very bad message. It comes off as elitist and clueless and out of touch with the economic problems that your everyday voter is experiencing. I remember many of us, justly imo, criticizing Bush for having a huge bru ha ha back in 2004 when he was constantly talking about "the war" and "sacrifices made by our troops." FDR had a chicken salad inauguration during WW II.

    Just like JFK in 1960? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:42:30 AM EST
    Maybe I am just an elitist, but I don't see it.

    love that signature (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:46:24 AM EST
    of yours: Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right. Of course as soon as I saw it I immediately thought: and sometimes that light is an oncoming train. :-)

    What was (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:54:23 AM EST
    unemployment in 1960?

    What was unemployment (2.00 / 1) (#36)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08:26 AM EST
    in 1936 in the middle of the Great Depression?  

    That was the year FDR went outside in Philly, at the appropriately named Franklin Field, to give his acceptance address.  

    I don't recall people bellyaching about how Roosevelt was disrespecting those suffering from bad economic times with that extra costly evening in the stadium.

    Didn't seem to be an issue with ordinary folks since he won in an overwhelming 60%+ landslide that November.



    a speech in 1936 (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:26:58 AM EST
    is in no way comparable to a speech in 2008.

    Unless, of course, FDR had a laser light show and rock bands and media outlets with lights and cameras and tons of security, VIP boxes and a video montage of his life.

    It's hilarious, though not surprising, that you would attempt to inject a truly great Dem into your inevitable devotion to Obama in an attempt to link the two and (oh please oh please) have some of FDR -- or, as is often the case with Obama Supporters, JFK -- rub off on The One, but FDR's speech in 1936 has nothing in common with what Obama is scheduled to do later this month.

    Nice try, though.


    Well, I don't think the (2.00 / 2) (#87)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    various alien craft had yet crashed in 36 so our scientists could back-engineer that neat stuff they found onboard like lasers and so forth.  

    As for light shows, the Dems probably had to make do with bringing in -- at Gaia knows what enormous extra expense -- a number of those movie premiere spotlights.  And all at the expense of the Common Man of course.  

    And I'm sure FDR forced the SS and local police authorities to come up with plenty of extra security -- after all, Franklin Field held 100,000 that night, and just a few yrs before there had been a near-miss assassination attempt on Roosevelt.

    Huge security costs, no doubt about it.  

    Darn Dems with their fancy shows while the people are suffering.

    At least the Repubs are economically sensitive with their traditional modest indoor gatherings, with the women only being able to afford the traditional Republican cloth coats ...


    so first trash the clintons and now fdr. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    oh that's right, you compare obama to fdr when convenient. that doesn't make sense. he is so like him but then he isn't. yeah right!

    fdr didn't run around europe doing victory (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    laps before even being nominated either.

    PLEASE! roosevelt had a program and (3.66 / 3) (#65)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:36:36 AM EST
    concern for the comman man. please go do your homework.

    Doing homework might be a good idea (none / 0) (#90)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    FDR spoke in vague generalities in the election of 1932 and promised to balance the budget (which he later ignored), he did not get into specifics.

    1932 was different from 1936 (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:19:41 AM EST
    first of all.  Re-election against the tide of critics from both right and left, etc.

    Actually, though, FDR did have some specifics behind his hopey-changey infusion of confidence into a bewildered and battered public by 1932.  As I recall from recently reading about it, he talked about calling Congress into the historic special session, as he did.  I can't recall just now if he did delineate the step of the bank holiday -- I think that may have come in the long six-month hiatus then between election and inauguration, as the banks began to fail faster.

    But he did call for an end to Prohibition and how he would expedite it, as he also did, to get a lot of workers in breweries and peripheral industries back to work.  

    Most important, perhaps, is what not to do -- as in Hoover attacking the Bonus Army of veterans asking for early payments.  The Obamans have to face that attacking veterans may have worked in 2004 but it's risky business.


    i had a relative who was shot at (none / 0) (#114)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    with real bullets.

    By real federal troops as well as DC police (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:55:50 PM EST
    and some died, including infants from tear gas, too.  It's another awful chapter in our history.  I'm glad to hear that your relative survived.

    yup it was a story told in my family and i (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    learned it from my grandfather. i hope we don't see it again.

    I'll do my part -- I just finished writing (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    a lecture on it for class this fall.  And I found several photos to show the next generation, too.

    So I appreciate your posts, as I also will point out to students that public memory matters -- no matter how much some textbooks (not the one I picked; it's good on this) and other sources of "authority" attempt to rewrite our past.

    You just made the portion of the lecture that will be about the Bonus Army a minute longer!  But it will be more memorable for students -- and that's what matters: That we never forget.


    thanks, i am glad to know i added (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    something to your lecture. when i visited the anne frank house in amsterdam, i made sure to take some of the material there home with me. my sister was teaching this module to her students, so off they went never to be seen again. i say that with a smile as i knew they were being put to good use.

    as i said, molly, go do your homework. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:38:18 AM EST
    fdr was secretary of the navy. he was the veep candidate in 1920. he was a two term governor of new york. he called a special session of the ny legislature and rammed through legislation to help the voters there suffering from the great depression. in 1932 he gave the now famous "forgotten man" speech that scared the pro business democratic establishment. they opposed him. his base was the southern voters and the forgotten american people that both the repulican and democratic leadership had ignored and forgotten.

    All of which is true but (none / 0) (#147)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    doesn't help your point. The forgotten man speech is long on the problem, short on specific solutions.

    1. A vague public works program
    2. Restoring purchasing power to farmers (nice, but what specifically)
    3. Foreclosure- "Here should be an objective of Government itself, to provide at least as much assistance to the little fellow as it is now giving to the large banks and corporations. That is another example of building from the bottom up." Nice, but what specifically?
    4. Ending Smoot Hawley! Yippee that is specific.

    Here is FDR's conclusion

    Such objectives as these three, restoring farmers' buying power, relief to the small banks and home-owners and a reconstructed tariff policy...

    Vague objectives - only one specific solution (ending Smoot Hawley).

    Next time take your own advice and do your own home work.


    All the details (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    were readily available at www.fdr.com, I'm sure.

    The point hellothere was (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by hairspray on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    making is that FDR had been an accomplished politician by the time he made these remarks.  That is extremely important because in addition to vague speeches we don't see with Barak, a history of accomplishment as with FDR.

    Ah, that would be . . . "experience" (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    that mattered to voters in 1932.  Yes, FDR's record as governor when he piloted many of the programs that he would put in place as president mattered.

    Experience still matters in 2008.


    i do my homework. thanks for the advice. (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    Flying in to accept the nomination too (none / 0) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    Unheard of at the time.

    So disrespectful of the little people.


    Hehe. And that was the pre-deregulation (2.33 / 3) (#78)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    era of air travel, so it was comparatively even more expensive to fly, one assumes, than today.  What an insensitive economic elitist that Roosevelt!

    Taking the bus or hitchhiking or catching a free ride by hopping on a train, like most common people did back then to get around, well that was all obviously beneath that snob FDR.


    you get a one for name calling! (none / 0) (#127)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    No laser light shows on radio (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:21:07 AM EST
    in 1936, of course.  (TV did not debut until 1939.)

    The election may be like JFK 1960 (none / 0) (#52)
    by mogal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    Chicago held their votes until the very last and had just enough votes for Kennedy to win.

    Saint Louis County did the same during the Missouri primary and Obama won by less than 1%.

    Could this be why we don't need to worry about Ohio?


    That's like Gary in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    if you recall that primary night only a few months ago.  The Chicago Way becomes the Indiana Way.

    But beware, I brought up the realities of 1960 here a few weeks ago and was blasted by the believuhs who called it a right-wing talking point.  Uh huh.

    I'm with you.  I'm hardly right-wing.  I'm a historian.  I've read all that I can find about it, I've made my judgment, and it's a historical talking point.  Period.


    Yeah, you're just wrong about 60 (none / 0) (#120)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    since the historical facts show the Rs failed to convince an IL election board, composed mostly of Rs, that the election was fraudulently decided.  And yes, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the 1960 story about IL is a myth but remains an old standby Repub talking point.

    closing your mind and insisting that (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM EST
    "you know" doesn't make it so i am afraid.

    No, no one can be "wrong" (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    in such cases.  And there are many "Republican talking points" that actually hold up in history, sad to say for the Dems.  

    Talking points don't persuade me.  Evidence does.  And your evidence is an Illinois election board?  Thanks for the laugh.  


    I agree with you - though (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:36:01 AM EST
    others don't as we can see.  For one, Obama is bringing new politics supposedly.  Secondly, I don't think either Kennedy or Roosevelt were seeking to dismantle the Democratic Party to ostensibly make it more post-(whatever their time evokes).

    Speaking for myself only.  It rankles me - but perhaps we are in minority.  


    the polls say we aren't in a minority. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:38:22 AM EST
    The nomination of FDR was hotly contested (none / 0) (#110)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:21:54 AM EST
    and split apart previous constitutiencies. I am sure Al Smith detested FDR as an upstart (and former ally)

    FDR is an icon today. I wonder how many Democrats today would call him a sell out had they lived then?  


    Smith didn't really come out hard (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    until 1936, calling FDR "socialistic."  (As, of course, he was if that's what worked.  He was for whatever worked by then.)

    But they always had been split into the Dem camps in New York State.  Smith actually was quite a conservative Dem.  And in 1932, after his 1928 debacle and as the Depression kept worsening, a more conservative message from the candidate who had lost so hugely was not a winner.  Sadly so, as had this country had the sense to not elect Hoover in 1928, even a conservative Dem would have intervened with relief for the people, not just the banks and big business.



    fdr was a hero to the common man. (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    he may have been an aristocrat but he didn't put his nose in the air or do premature victory laps in europe. the average american loved fdr. he appealed to the base and didn't diss it like the obama campaign has done.

    Smith lost in 1928 - (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:12:24 AM EST
    and was against New Deal - the landslide in 1936 indicates most Americans were not.  His Catholicism may have hurt.

    Later, his Progressive Party(?) ran on anti New Deal sentiments, didn't it?  

    It's true Roosevelt had to keep his right and left flanks happy (a sentiment Eleanor did not share) - but really the New Deal succeeded because Roosevelt made the right compromises.  What you call a sell out may be one of the reasons the New Deal succeeded.

    I haven't taken a history class for many years but we all know the theme that Roosevelt saved capitalism.

    But unlike Hillary and Barack - Smith and Roosevelt were friend at one time -  you are right:  No doubt Smith thought Roosevelt was jumping ahead in line.  


    i think roosevelt was a pragmatist. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    i have never seen him wed to a particular idea. he wanted something that worked and he could see the horrific state people were in. i have never understood the mindset of those who didn't want to try and change the situation. smith though a good man seemed to be out of touch to me.

    the thing that bothers me most today is the chiping away at the new deal programs roosevelt set in place led by repubs and the democrats who won't lock the door. i don't see anything in the obama campaign that lightens my heart in this regard.


    I wasn't calling FDR a sellout (none / 0) (#154)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:48:18 AM EST
    I said no doubt many Democrats today (or Naderites) would call FDR a sellout, just as they call President Clinton a sellout. (That is not an endorsement of the sentiment).

    fdr had experience. he showed that as (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    secretary of the navy and governor(two terms). it was clear from his speeches where he was going and the common man voted for him. it sure doesn't look at with the polls that the core democratic base that supported fdr is coming out for obama. so saying that there is no difference just isn't so and people know it.

    i am sick of seeing former democratic presidents trashed for the current candiate's benefit. if someone has to trash past presidents from the same party, there IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT CAMPAIGN.


    Who trashed FDR? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    i am sure you don't see this discussion (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    about fdr as trashing him but i do. i watched while the clinton administration was insulted and demeaned. i am not going to sit by and watch fdr receive the same type of treatment. in order for the so called "new" democrats to gain power, the older establishment and their policies are being "trashed". that's right, trashed. i understand innuedo very well. reagan was ok but clinton was a disaster. not so!

    I am 2nd to no-one in my admiration (none / 0) (#191)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:47:47 PM EST
    for FDR and his accomplishments.  

    I don't see pointing out that he campaigned in 1932 without specifics (other than repeal of Smoot Hawley) or that he was initially  opposed by some Democrats as "Feather Duster Roosevelt" (i.e. they were calling him a lightweight) is demeaning.

    I prefer Roosevelt as he was, not as I might have wished him to be.


    Yes, let's not forget obama is soliciting (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:36:45 PM EST
    soft money to defray the convention costs...another thing he was against until he needed it to pay for "the dumbest show on earth".
    Again I'll say, his arrogance has no bounds.

    Also (4.90 / 10) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:25:10 AM EST
    I wouldn't believe the Obama fellow in OH. Those same ground troops were supposed to deliver PA in the primary and we were told that his "internal" polls showed him winning PA.

    I've heard that those "ground troops" are actually problematic in that they are arrogant and condescending to the voters that they hope to win over.

    Perhaps they have (none / 0) (#152)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST
    memories of the Deaniacs descending on Ohio and how well that was received.



    To me, the single most striking thing (4.90 / 11) (#66)
    by frankly0 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:36:54 AM EST
    about where this election stands at this point is that I can envision McCain winning without typical and expected Republican attack politics which, to date, most certainly have not taken place.

    How bad must a Democratic nominee be to be in such a position in a cycle otherwise as favorable as this?

    I had always expected that the Democratic nominee -- even Obama -- would, at this stage, have a sizable margin over the Republican candidate, and that that his or her job would be to make sure that the buffer is not eroded so far under attack that he or she loses the election.

    How a Democratic nominee could not create such a distance between himself and the Republican absent the standard attacks, and with the public desire for change so overpowering, is almost incomprehensible.

    I can only say that a very sizable segment of the electorate must really dislike and/or distrust the guy.

    In the end it can only be attributed to a failure in Obama and his campaign to win over voters.

    This isn't the doing of McCain and the Republicans.

    It's an unforced error. It's all on Obama and his crew.


    Econ 101 (4.90 / 11) (#86)
    by salmonrising on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST
    Duh! The reason the Obama campaign cannot craft a hard hitting populist economic message a la Big Dawg is simple: these people are NOT populists!

    That is a fact. (none / 0) (#189)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    Clinton voters and Independents figured that out months ago.


    Smug, snotty elitists and wannabes, looks like.


    PPP v internal polling... (4.88 / 9) (#4)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:24:59 AM EST
    my guess is that the difference between the PPP poll and the Obama 'internal' polling is the composition of the electorate; PPP has to have some 'scientific' basis for its demographic distribution model, while the Obama campaign can add and subtract voter percentages at will because they know where they will be focussing their turnout efforts.

    But what was most notable about your correspondent's email was the predicition that "it will be close".  In other words, Obama's internal polling is showing the same trends that PPP is showing -- that McCain is gaining on Obama.  

    BTW, BTD, you've said that the reason you preferred Obama over Clinton was that you thought he would be more 'electable'?   Do you still believe that?

    Internal polling (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:06:33 AM EST
    is generally pretty good. I would just say that it isn't handed out to every Tom, Dick, and Obama Fellow, and when it is, it's usually a snapshot released for political reasons. My guess is that camp Obama polls states like Ohio regularly, perhaps even with a tracking poll. They know what's going on with the numbers better than we do, but there's no way they'd give some intern access to those numbers.

    but, but.... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08:52 AM EST
    he didn't say he was an intern.  He said he was "bestest friends" with the guy running the show in Ohio.  If you can't trust what your BFF tells you, what else you gonna do?

    heh (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:13:37 AM EST
    Don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by RedSox04 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    Internal polling is what you make of it.  The numbers aren't any better than the numbers from public polls, they're just more suited to preferences from the campaigns.  E.g., if you want to know what 60-70 year old white widowed grandmothers think, you can ask.

    That being said, I wonder about the wisdom of the Obama polling.  Primarily because they are talking about a new paradigm and the power of new registration, in taking back states like MS, SC, TN, etc.

    Pollsters aren't good at predicting how new paradigms will impact future trends.  They don't know how many of these newly registered folks will actually vote, they don't know to what extent black votes will come out in record numbers (after coming out in record numbers already for previous Dem nominees) or whether this might cause white voters to come out in record numbers (as happens often in the South).

    But it is clear that Obama is counting on a paradigm shift in calculating his odds.  Paradigm shifts are tough to poll, and this could either lead to a huge sweeping victory (which doesn't seem likely given his lagging numbers so far), or he could have seriously miscalculated.

    My belief is that the economy is the number 1 issue, and that Obama is lagging national Dem numbers because, as Krugman puts it, he's not connecting (or trying to connect) with working class voters on those issues.  Understanding that he's walking a fine line between maximizing campaign contributions (Wall Street is pouring money into his campaign in a way they've done for any non-incumbent Dem) and maximizing votes, I personally think he's gone too far towards the free market side of the equation, and his advisors are a big factor in that.


    ONLY more electable (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:41:15 AM EST
    because he was 'the media darling.'

    That facade seems to be showing some cracks, producing the horserace that the media craves.

    That doesn't bode well for the big O.


    PPP is a very good poll (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:06:24 AM EST
    It is a Democratic poll but acording to the data Poblano has, PPP has been very accurate--like SurveyUSA and Rasmussen.

    This sort of over confidence (4.88 / 9) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:25:36 AM EST
    is dangerous in my opinion and is what happens when people demand to live in an echo chamber.  They end up only hearing what they want to hear.  We haven't heard the best that McCain has to deliver yet and we haven't heard from Republican operative swiftboaters yet either.

    I take (4.87 / 8) (#7)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:30:57 AM EST
    anyone who says they have inside information from the campaign with a grain of salt.

    TL and BTD (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    are probably his 'assignment.'

    As in..."make them stop talking trash about Obama!"


    Wrong Strategy (4.87 / 8) (#30)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:02:44 AM EST
    The Democrat's are losing their edge to tie the problems of the country to the Republican's. By campaigning to bring a new type of politics to Washington, Obama has painted the Dem's with the same brush. It's no longer the Republican's mess. It's the politician's mess. Not a winning strategy for the Dem's. Their success in 2006 came from the continous attacks that were able to label the Republican's as the problem.

    "Virtually Impossible"? (4.85 / 7) (#3)
    by Mike H on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:24:31 AM EST
    Again, BTD, I'm not sure why you are thinking this.  I've long felt -- regardless of who the Dem nominee would be -- that this would be a squeaker and in now way a guaranteed Dem victory.

    People CLAIM to be tired of the spin and the old-style politics and the fear-mongering and the personal attacks... but they claimed that LAST election and the one before that, and the one before that...

    Truth is, it works.  Most Americans don't vote on issues, they vote on personality and perception.

    It may have been Obama's race to lose, but I think it's a 50-50 chance we have a McCain victory.  The GOP is too good at attack politics and those tactics DO work.

    Well, McCain has picked up quite deftly (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    on the issue of the economy and I think that issue is one that breaks through all of the personality politics.  Clinton's surge at the end of her primary campaign was largely based on her economic message rather than that experience thing.  Now Obama is up against McCain still talking about experience vs. judgment and his campaign never seemed to noticed that that wasn't a winner even against Clinton towards the end.

    I'm feeling very insecure about my position in this economy and I'm no where near the edge the way many, many people are in this country right now.  The Obama camp has been lead footed on this issue.  I think that the insiders he is surrounded with are free market types, but I think the voters he is going to need are not now that we are facing inflation and stagnant wages.  

    The difference between McCain and Obama on the gas price issue is a classic example - Obama's message focused more on helping one's self while McCain understanding the political reality has "broken the rules" and offered full on government help - all bad "help" but he is perceived as interested in helping which makes a difference.  It should be the opposite, but Dems are so afraid of proposing that government address the economy that I think they've completely missed the huge opportunity they had to own this issue in the first place.


    I'm sorry for your economic worries (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM EST
    and think you are correct in calling this.  You're not alone at all.  A key indicator I am seeing is enrollments at my campus, which have been soaring for years.

    We're cancelling classes now, cutting back on others under-enrolling for the first time in years, etc.  Enrollment is down.  That's at the public, working-class campus in town.  But it's down at the big private campus in town, too.  And that is really a bad sign, if even the well-off are worried.  


    Question: Why haven't we (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:38:01 AM EST
    picked up the right defensive moves - haven't we lost enough ballgames?  Doesn't anyone watch the game movies?

    We shouldn't even have to be playing (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    defensive for cripes sake. Tying McCain to Bush (GOP doesn't know how to lead)might work if it weren't for the "unity" schtick. It's kinda hard to criticize a particular party and it's viewpoint when you are too busy being "post partisan."

    Agree - but (none / 0) (#137)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    it doesn't hurt to make the right defensive moves as well.  

    Best defense? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    Good offense.

    Everybody knows that.

    Well, almost everybody.


    oldpro...absolutely and I am siding with (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    Paul Krugman on this one.  obama is so wrongheaded he cannot see straight...cmon HIllary!

    well how can you play offense when (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    the campaign tries to play to the repub religeous base and isn't through trashing the clintons and some fdr.

    At some point, the accumulation of (4.85 / 7) (#84)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:55:03 AM EST
    these kinds of poll results is going to become self-fulfilling, and since I see no signs of Obama changing his strategy, I think that is going to happen sooner, rather than later.

    I still think the decision to end the convention at Invesco was another one in the tone-deaf category; it smacks of belief in his own inevitability, and that is an element that will do nothing but fire up the Republicans to go after Obama with a vengeance.  History will be history regardless of whether the event takes place in a convention center or a football stadium, and the media will be there no matter what.  It's costing upwards of $5 million to stage the Invesco event, which seems like an injudicious use of funds - more fodder for the "Dems can't be trusted with money" meme that will use the same kind of footage that McCain used for his "Celebrity" ad.

    And who will be standing next to Obama on that stage at Invesco?  Tim Kaine? Evan Bayh?  Joe Biden?  John Kerry?

    Seriously, this is a slow-motion train wreck, and the only silver lining is that it might mean the Obama era is mercifully short, and people with sense can then purge the DNC of the wankers who dreamed up this strategy.

    [oh - and if you really want to read some CDS, check out Jonah Goldberg's op-ed today - but double up on your blood pressure medication, please]

    Don't you get it? (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    The Invesco field thing has as much to do with the rah-rah rock star theme of Obama as much as it has to do with an open air stadium which will allow the Hillary supporters to be drowned out, instead of having a group sound much larger in a closed arena. Wouldn't want any appearances of dissent.

    Just like his international trip (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    it will not help him with voters except those he already has.

    I predict he will have not have a bump after that concert. There will be a backlash.


    I saw the headline on the Goldberg (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    thing in the paper this morning, and it was enough for me. Not going there!

    I am coming around to agree with you on the Invesco thing. It seemed like a great idea to me at first, but now I see it as an unnecessary risk. Especially when I picture any of the 'luminaries' you mention as VP prospects. It will surely seem like much ado about nothing.


    Ground game (4.80 / 5) (#14)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:44:58 AM EST
    will only take you so far when you're looking for 60 million votes, not 18 mil.  Registering voters and sending out canvassers is good but if your candidate won't create a winning brand, you will have a hard time explaning to an undecided voter exactly what they are voting for.

    so just who are these new democrats? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:47:26 AM EST
    they sure don't seem to be any polls right now and where has obama been? oh that's right on vacation. i just wish it had been a local chicago rest stop. when this russia/georgia mess flared up, he was out of the spotlight and didn't make a good impression.

    "new" democrats.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    the PPP poll was "likely voters" -- and "likely voter" polls have an "established voting record" bias.  

    Indeed, since the questions asked in the poll itself do not seem to include a question regarding whether someone is registered, nor one about whether the respondent is planning to vote, its not unlikely that the "established voter" bias in this poll is considerable.


    PPP's methodology is rough (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:07:30 AM EST
    From audio that I've heard, they tell people who aren't registered to hang up. I don't know how they determine what a "likely voter" is, though.

    I will polling companies were more transparent with how they come to their numbers. SUSA better than the rest on that account.


    Déjà vu (all over again) (4.80 / 5) (#18)
    by JohnS on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:48:45 AM EST
    That seems virtually impossible to me but I do agree that Obama is pursuing the one path that could conceivably lead to defeat.

    It's how he ran in the primaries, and it's the  path that about half the Democratic Party was pretty certain would lead to defeat. I can only hope that Party leadership is breathing down his neck to do a 180, but I ain't holding my breath.

    the more I think about the path (5.00 / 18) (#21)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:54:38 AM EST
    so far, which has been immensely divisive to the party, the more I'm stunned by the shear stupidity. I mean it's just classic that with two candidates who ended close (in this case statistically tied), it's a no brainer to pick the other as VP. And of course it's a no brainer to brag until you're blue in the face about your recent two term president (see for example, Reagan). The fact that neither of these approaches are being taken is stunning. But then again, look at ever dem candidate other than the Clinton's for the last 40 years, I think you'll see a pattern. Sigh.

    I'm surprised the republicans (4.75 / 4) (#33)
    by Lahdee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:05:51 AM EST
    haven't tossed the "intellectual" bomb at Obama yet. He may not want to kick a little republican a**, but they sure won't be playing footsie with him. I can just see it, "talking is weak, Obama talks too much, Obama is weak."

    it would make sense. (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    The Republican's strategy always seems to be to turn their Opponent's strength against them.  Ergo, you have Obama's popularity now becoming a liability because of the Celebrity Ad -- which the allegedly Obama lovin' media played and discussed non-stop, it seems -- and the next will be his ability to make a "great speech".

    So, the "all talk, no action" meme could work quite well and, if Obama doesn't have his popularity to fall back on and feels boxed in because making another speech plays into McCain's theme, what does he do?  Haul out his resume and point to his experience?  Or insist Hillary get out there and convince the voters for him?

    Expect a commercial detailing what speeches Obama was making when he was missing votes on the Senate Floor.  All talk, no action.


    I'm no Obama fan, but in my (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:32:36 AM EST
    opinion, if Obama's strengths are being amongst the "people" then he should get closer to the "people" themselves instead of these big rallies. He's always higher than the crowds and it looks like he's looking down on them. My guess is that given his past "successes"(?) with elections, he feels he's got this in the bag, that this election is the same as all the others and therefore will turn out like all the others and so why should he go out of his way to show the people he's "got what it takes." He chooses not to do it!

    Astute comment - (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08:02 AM EST
    "Relax" (4.75 / 4) (#81)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:50:00 AM EST
    Famous last words.

    If Mr. Obama can't find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far, he may yet lose this election.

    In other words, unless Obama becomes somebody he is not, he may lose. He is by nature a cool personality - that is what a lot of people like about him.  He's not a fighter, and does not even want fighters like Wes Clark or Hillary Clinton around. This is who he is. To win Dems have to make that work, not  hope he becomes somebody else.

    Which is exactly why (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:20:53 PM EST
    he needs a vp who is not 'cool.'

    That lets out Bayh who's still in the freezer.  And Daschle, Kerry and Sam Nunn...not a temperature-raiser among 'em.

    Only Hillary, Biden (ick), Rendell or....hey!  I know!  Charlie Rangel could warm things up nicely!  Or even - perhaps especially (if we want to make history) that irreverent, savvy, fearless gay congressman - Barney Frank!?!  

    OK...I'm kidding.  Sort of.

    That's my list:  Hillary, Ed, Charlie or Barney.


    dont worry (4.66 / 3) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:49:18 AM EST
    as soon as the olympics are over and the Obama network can start broadcasting propaganda 24/7 every thing will be fine.


    Fair point (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:56:20 AM EST
    Maybe his numbers have dipped because NBC/MSNBC have been consumed by the Olympics.

    Considering the past eight years, (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:58:31 AM EST
    war and our economy, if covering the olympics is giving Obama this much of a problem he has really big problems.

    Yes (4.50 / 2) (#99)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM EST
    Lethargic on the economy.  Here in MI, I haven't seen any daylight between McCain and Obama on the economy, at least according to the ads they've been running.  Lethargic is a nice word for it.

    I'm on vacation (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lil on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:21:00 AM EST
    so I love the title, but after reading the post, I'm nervous again. I jumped on the news this morning thinking he would have juiced things uo by picking a vp. Would he wait till the convention and would that be a thriller. Somehow I'm not comforted by your Ohio friend's thoughts. maybe the beach today will be good.

    The title is (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:58:21 AM EST
    ....a song Dukakis hummed a little too much (none / 0) (#47)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:24:18 AM EST
    #1 on music charts 20 years ago this month!
    Guess I'll have to substitute "It's a small world" to get
    "Don't worry, be happy" out of my head today.

    Because it is too early to go into econ (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:57:43 AM EST
    Wait until september when everyone is back in school and the economy is not artificially propped up with stimulus money.  People feel the economy so to speak but are not yet "suffering".  People cut back first, suffer second.  Suffering will start in October and expect a market correction right around then.  

    After the Republican convention (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:01:55 AM EST
    I expect John McCain to start sounding like the John McCain of old.  I think he'll start approaching issues like that dude that used to be so attractive to indy voters where the economy is concerned.

    McCain (none / 0) (#59)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:33:58 AM EST
    will spend the whole convention doing the right wing shuffle...which will turn off indy voters like me in droves..he cannot then just turn around and magically become John McCain of 2000.

    The conventions will sharpen the contrasts in the two parties and that will drive independents away from the GOP.

    Nevertheless, it will be close..it is always going to be close in america going forward.


    Sure he can and it happens in politics all the (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:04:41 AM EST
    time, every day! An indy voter is the utmost fickle voter.  Independent = not loyal = fickle, I'm sure this is not a description that fits all indy voters but in my opinion it describes most indy voters and sometimes it even describes me.

    I think so too (none / 0) (#140)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    that would be devastating to the Democrats.

    He's baaaack.... (none / 0) (#177)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:48:23 PM EST
    with a website!


    Bill Clinton could go to town on this...Perot/Clinton revisited!


    I hope that's not their campaign strategy (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:03:30 AM EST
    to wait for things to really get bad in October. Because well, what if they don't. What if the repubs do something so that things look a little better in October. Or something happens so that the economy isn't the main thing on people's minds. You know, some sort of surprise, that happens, in, say, October. I know, far fetched. snark. But seriously, if that idea is even superficially a hope in anyone's mind about how a win will happen for Obama, he's toast already.

    you have had (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    7 straight months of job losses and will have 5 more for the end of the year.  No repub strategy is going to change that.  It takes several months for job losses to bite into the economy which then creates more job losses.  The banks have at least 2 more quarters of write downs which means scarce availability of capital. Personal credit is at an all time high and people are paying minimums.  Job losses mean defaults on credit and even less loaning.  The stimulus helped a lot of people but it really is only putting off the "recession" by a couple of months.  Summer months and the olympics are a horrible time to try and reach the masses about a campaign message, sept is right around the corner and people will start to pay attention again.

    Uh, you hone your message to (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:56:46 AM EST
    fit the moment. Obama, for instance, could have had ads running during the Olympics having something to do with the Olympic theme. They could have been funny, unique, speaking to the "people" as just a "guy." At 47, although he had a difficult primary, he should have taken 3 days vacation and back to work. McCain, who's 71, although not as difficult a primary, is still out there, looking fit. McCain shows more stamina then Obama. I think Obama thought this would be a "cakewalk" and now it's getting later and later.

    why? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    I wouldn't run any during the olympics.  And when I saw a McCain one during the olympics I thought it to be in bad taste.  Americans take vacations June thru August and it is hard to get traction to any story.  Heaven forbid anyone take a vacation, lol. McCain has to campaign because he is behind and will continue to be so and he is an incredible bore, kinda like John Kerry. Summer ad rates are cheaper but traction blows so what is the point?  
    Did i miss anything?  Oh yeah, I saw on the news they were covering nothing but Michael Phelps, which of course is yet another shining example of why you demonstrate patience relative to strategy....

    Actually, I believe I heard Obama (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    had run some ads during the Olympics. He "chose" to come out of vacation mode to talk about Russia/Georgia situation. Why not just stay on vacation, after all, he's earned it!? He owes the people of the country nothing which is in essence what I hear you saying. McCain, as you point out, kept his name in the news during June-August, why not Obama. The press travelled with him to Hawaii, his campaign people were with him, so that tells me he was only what "pretending" to be on vacation, so he might as well make some positive news for himself. How disingenuous!!! And, McCain, last time I looked was gaining ground and in national polls they were tied.

    Bore (none / 0) (#129)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    I am really worried about John sleep inducer McCain.  Press is everywhere with the candidates, it is silly to expect them to actually have privacy.  Want to make a point about something?  Not sure I can find one in your post.

    Boring candidates (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:55:12 PM EST
    don't always lose...in fact, they often win.

    Off the top of my head, here's my boring list of (ick) winners:  LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Bush, Bush...

    Don't count on a boring Republican opponent 'saving the day' for Mr. Charisma.


    I think Mr. Charisma (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    is only Mr C when he is giving a big speech.  Bill Clinton had Charisma, Barack gives great big speeches.

    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:29:20 AM EST
    Has had ads during the Olypmics as well.  They have just been lame and not memorable.

    in fact... (none / 0) (#126)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    ...it was in response to Obama's Olympic ad buy that the McCain camp bought its own time.

    Both had ads... (none / 0) (#174)
    by NWHiker on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:23:53 PM EST
    I don't know where I read this, but Obama did an ad buy during the Oympics and McCain matched it.

    Personally, I wish both had left the Games alone, but that's just me. (But what little I've been game watching has been on CBC so I really can't complain!)


    First it was Sen. Obama projecting (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:26:38 AM EST
    he was bored by the primary and wanted to start the GE, then it was we are re-grouping after the primary, then it was we don't want to debate Sen McCain on his terms, then it was that trip overseas, then it was again the big rallies, then he went on vacation. If he keeps putting off running in the GE, it will be November, the election will be over and we will hear the chirping sounds of "it's all Hillary's fault" mounting.

    perfect summary of the events so far (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:34:01 AM EST
    I think the bottom line is that Obama is too important to actually run for president. snark.

    in the debates (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    that trip overseas will prove to be quite useful.  Having the confidence of other world leaders kills McCains line of attack regarding foreign policy and leadership.  It was a very smart move.  Americans are on vacation and are not fully engaged, best time in the world to head overseas and build up quotes from other leaders for your campaign.

    that's the funniest thing I've heard in a while (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:58:21 AM EST
    I really hope Obama campaign people don't think that way.

    I can hear it now, yea, John, you may have been involved with these foreign issues directly for the last 20 some years and spent time in war and all, but hey, I met some of those folks and had tea with them. So there.

    I assume his vacation last week will have been a stroke of genius too. snark.


    Best gotcha comment (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    of the week:  "...hey, I met some of those folks and had tea with them. So there."

    Obama set himself up perfectly for that on with the snotty comments demeaning Hillary's knowledge of foreign policy/leaders, followed by his CYA quick trip abroad.

    Bad.  Just bad.  Inexperience in spades.

    Wonder when the McCain ad with O-quotes will show up?  Probably crafting it now.  I would.



    I will cut and paste this (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:02:43 AM EST
    and remind you of your lack of prescience when the debates roll around.  As far as vacations go, good for him and his family.  His children need him and August is a great time to go.

    oh, the debates is where it will happen now (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08:34 AM EST
    that's even funnier. Did you see any of the primary debates. You did notice that his clocks were cleaned right? Similar to some of these other issues, if the debates are what the Obama campaign is hanging their hat on, well, that will be interesting.

    as i stated earlier (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    Obama sucks at debating and needs someone to tell him so.

    Did we both see and hear (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:35:43 AM EST
    the same thing about that trip? I thought it a bad move.

    You know those "little people" the ones Obama wants but just can't relate too? They obviously weren't too accepting of that rock star, crowd thingie he does.

    I also think Americans in numbers, have detached from the world - leader - respect mantra.  We have doubled back to ourselves. Help us, who cares about them.


    What the heck kind of stimulus check (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:32:47 AM EST
    did you get?  'Cuz mine's long gone, as is, I imagine, most people to whom the economy is already important (mostly into their gas tanks).

    If this is their GE strategy, they're in bad shape, because most of the 'average' people I know have been talking about nothing but the economy and how the heck they're going to pay for heat next winter.


    i did not receive one (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM EST
    and the checks were spent in a staggered fashion, hence the retail figures for june and july.  August will have some of the money but just a small fraction and September will be ugly.  Expect to hear Obama moving to economy at the end of this month.  He shored up foreign support with his trip abroad and will use that in the debates.  Job loss is a much bigger concern than the price of oil and it is creeping up every month.  Job losses take a few months to "feel" as people cut way back which of course spurs more job cuts.  Obama has touched on oil and has spoke a few times about alternative energy.   I expect him to tie it all together in september which will include heavy stumping on job creation.  The summer months are almost a wash with campaigning as people are not tuned in.  Come sept they will be and October they will be plenty pissed about the state of the economy and job losses.  

    I'm surprised that (none / 0) (#32)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM EST
    this Obama "fellow" with the "closeness" to the campaign didn't use the polls and cell phones excuse to explain things.  You know, all of Obama's young supporters never get counted in polls because they only use cell phones.

    Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.   LOL

    Myself, I'm more inclined to believe what the Obama supporters claimed in NH.  The "Bradley Effect" will be working here and Obama will ended up get fewer votes than the polls predict.

    And of course, they LOVED the PPP polls in the primary in PA when it showed they would win

    PPP got burned in the PA primary (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:11:03 AM EST
    by acting like Zogby and predicting an  unrealistic AA turnout. Honestly, I made the same prediction myself, though I still expected  Hillary to win.

    Lesson: never, ever, ever make arbitrary assumptions about turnout. Weight to the census and let the numbers fall where they may--like SUSA.


    AA turnout... (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM EST
    I think that what happened in PA (as well as Ohio, and especially Indiana) is that PPP didn't anticipate an increase in 'white' turnout that drove the relative percentage of AA voters down.  I think there was some significant degree of 'white backlash' against what was happening -- not only the Obama campaign's race-boating of the Clintons, but that Obama's lead was based on overwhelming African American support for the black candidate.  

    No, I was following the polls (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    PPP just blew it. They thought AA turnout was going to be in the high teens, and everyone else said it would be 12-13%. Everyone else got it right.

    No other poll ever showed Obama with more than 45% in PA, which is where he ended up.


    Sounds like the Obama fellow (none / 0) (#50)
    by my opinion on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:25:25 AM EST
    believes they have "the math".

    Obama's weak on more than the economy. He should (none / 0) (#55)
    by WillBFair on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:29:16 AM EST
    be ripping into McSame on all the failed policies of the the Bush admin. Where does McSame get off telling us what to do on foriegn policy, after wasting out time in Iraq, or what to do about fiscal policy, after running us deep into the red, or what to do about energy, after dumping mountains of cash on the oil and war industries?
    Instead, the media is controlling the agenda with debates on abortion.

    Clinton cuts both ways (none / 0) (#79)
    by NealB on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    Younger and low-info voters probably don't remember the golden era of Clinton (it didn't outlast his two terms). Those older than, say, twenty-five may or may not think well of Clinton. The Clinton years, like the Reagan years, were a mixed bag. I don't see how inviting voters to do a comparative analysis between Bush and Clinton is all upside for Obama. Their presidencies are both part of a post-civil rights period where progress, if any, has been a grind.

    I think Obama's crew has it right in trying to distinguish themselves from ALL of the crap that's been passed off as "good for America" over the past 35 years. He's smart to try to describe himself as a break with all of it. It's the riskier path to election, but when he wins, his win will permit policy options that neither Reagan nor Clinton had.

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:59:21 AM EST
    You must be kidding me. You can not possibly mean that.

    IF you do, please confirm.

    Will know what to think of future NealB comments.


    Don't worry; be happy (none / 0) (#198)
    by NealB on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:45:22 PM EST
    Not kidding about not liking either Democratic or Republican regimes in my lifetime (that would be the "post-civil rights period"). But you're right, I don't really expect Obama to be any better.

    Even if I agreed with your premise (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    which I don't, he has no new policy initiatives. He has Clinton's economic advisors. I'm happy about that. Let's not pretend Obama is going to pull some rabbit out of a hat after he is elected. Let's also not forget he is working with this Dem Congress, possibly the least bold group of people to ever walk halls of the Capitol.

    He will be lucky to replicate the Clinton years, however limited you think they were.


    While BOLD Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:11:39 PM EST
    few as they are, are disinvited to Obama's convention...Clark, Charlie Rangel...

    Anybody covering the box score on this campaign?

    Can't wait for the movie...


    Obama must have read Krugman (none / 0) (#193)
    by DFLer on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    I just heard a clip from an Obama campaign appearance in NM on CNN where Senator O used the same talking point: Back in the 1990s, about income rising, etc., but this time said....in the 90s under Bill Clinton and then again re lowered income present day, cited George W Bush specifically.

    bout time! way to go O! ...must have read Krugman

    It is not only the one path (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jake Left on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:18:26 PM EST
    that could lead to defeat, it is a well-trodden one. Gore ran away from the Clintons in his campaign. Kerry all but forgot the name Clinton, during his efforts.

    Democrats are creatures of habit. Unfortunately, Obama seems unable to dodge the habit that helped put bush in office twice. Krugman is dead on. Vague generalities meant for the insiders won't translate into votes. It was bush and the republicans who wrecked the economy. It was Clinton and the Democrats who made things better. Why can't he just say that.

    On local TV News here in NYC ... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:13:17 PM EST
    in their report on the Obama/McCain "play nice with the evangelicals event" the anchor said something like this:

    "But what neither candidate addressed is the issue that seems to be on everyone's mind ...."


    "... the economy."

    If local news is "calling you out" you've really done something stupid.

    And when a newscaster presents McCain and Obama as two candidates that don't care about you, we all know who that hurts the most:

    The Democratic candidate.