home

The Game Changer: The Economy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:02:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It may take the Left blogs a few days to catch up, but Obama has his game changer - the economy. No more Palinpalooza. Carville rules again - "it's the economy, stupid."

The tracking polls show small movement towards Obama - DKos/R2000 (8/12-14) has Obama by 3, 48-45. Ras has a tick in Obama's favor with McCain's lead trimmed to 2, 49-47. Hotline says Obama by 2, 45-43. And Gallup says McCain by 2, 47-45.

After today, expect an Obama poll resurgence as he sledgehammers on the economy and McCain's fealty to the policies of George W. Bush. And if he rolls out a Big Dog tour, expect a huge bounce for Obama.

This is a game changer. This campaign is back to real issues, starting today.

By Big Tent Democrat, speakng for me only

< What Matters: McCain Clueless On The Economy | Palinomics: Grade D >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Game Changer: The Economy | 191 comments (191 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What's the sell? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    I think Obama can do well just replaying the McCain's assessment of his own economic knowledge.  But what's his positive sell?

    Standing beside (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    William Jefferson Clinton and reminding everyone that they are both Democrats.

    That's the sell.

    Parent

    And get me Warren Buffet on his other side (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    (and maybe Michael Bloomberg right behind them) and that picture would be worth some big votes.

    Parent
    Can we get Buffet is some pictures with Obama? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    I strongly recommend doing that if possible.

    Parent
    We're talking to each other unfortunately (none / 0) (#29)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    I am clueless as to why someone with some pull can't get this through to the campaign.

    Of course, it just might be that Buffet doesn't want that high of a profile.

    Parent

    Buffet isn't that into Obama... (none / 0) (#179)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    In December/07 Warren Buffet headlined a Hillary fundraiser, while maintaining he would support either of the eventual Democratic nominees.

    However, it appears he didn't expressly endorse Obama until Clinton suspended her campaign.

    Safe to say, Buffet is a "tepid" Obama supporter.

    Parent

    Bloomberg agrees with McCain (none / 0) (#185)
    by souvarine on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    Says Ben Smith at Politico:
    I just now asked the New York mayor, a former Wall Street hand who's been in the mix in the current crisis, whether he agrees with McCain that the fundamentals of the American economy are strong.

    "I do agree that fundamentally America has an economy that is strong," he said.

    I'm not a Bloomberg fan, and Obama's flirtation with him at his Cooper Union speech suggests to me why Obama won't capitalize on this crisis. The Obama campaign's rhetoric attacking McCain on the fundamental strength of the American economy is in too much tension with Obama's pro-market campaign.

    Parent

    Kinda hard. . . (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:15:14 PM EST
    since he's just spent eighteen months trying to convince people Bill Clinton isn't a Democrat.  But people have short memories, I guess.

    But really, while that might well help, it's not what I had in mind.  The "vote for me because I'm not a Republican" works for me, but for the swing voter what's the takeaway.  What's Obama going to do?

    Parent

    Correct. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    Even if McCain offers bad solutions he is offering solutions. The old adage applies: You can't beat something with nothing.

    Parent
    I'd be (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM EST
    glad to see this but will Obama swallow his pride enough to do it? Clinton has promised to campaign in the closing weeks of the election but I don't know that anything else has been planned. Do you?

    Parent
    hee! (none / 0) (#5)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    I quickly read your title and thought it said "What the hell".

    Anyhow...yes, he had better sell the (far) superior points of the Democratic platform soon.

    Parent

    McCain's Comments Today (none / 0) (#171)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:30:02 PM EST
    They should get an ad out right away showing McCain's stupid comments of this morning vs. the stock board on Wall Street and all the headlines about Merrill Lynch, Lehmann Bros. and AIG. Now another top economist just said that bank deposits may be at risk. Are we now going to see a run on banks?

    Parent
    And it's looking like (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    Obama has a better shot at Virginia than Ohio.

    Though if it's "the economy stupid," he should win both.

    But I agree: Obama can make this issue his if he just tries a little.

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:07:34 PM EST
    OH is gone. The polling there has not favored Obama at all. He certainly may have a shot at VA if SUSA is right.

    Parent
    If he runs as well with VA whites as he does (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    nationally, he will win Virginia.

    McCain will likely lose without Virginia, especially because I am very doubtful that he can pick up any Kerry states this year.

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    know. PA has not been looking good for Obama has it? Lately at least.

    Parent
    Obama was still ahead (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    even with McCain's bounce. I'm not too worried, to be honest.

    Parent
    I dunno... (none / 0) (#165)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:21:11 PM EST
    re Kerry states, the polls in my state are scaring the Hell out of Democrats right now.  Both our solidly successful uncharismatic governor and the questionably successful charsmatic nominee are running lousy campaigns against Rossi, McCain and the Republicans.

    Washington State could fall down the rabbit hole this year.

    Unbelievable.

    Parent

    It really is unbelievable (none / 0) (#175)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:41:04 PM EST
    I expected the governor's race to be close, but not looking this dangerous for Gregoire and, frankly, it makes no sense to me. Rossi has nothing to offer and his cronies in the BIAW may be facing action from the AG's office for breaking those campaign finance rules. How could he be ahead of Gregoire in polls?

    As for Obama, we were told all through the primaries that he was securely 6-8 points ahead in all polls against McCain. This state never should have been up for grabs.

    Parent

    I have always worried that WA might not (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    be the cakewalk so many people assumed. To me, the wild cards are; 1.) Motivated Republicans, angry about what happened in 2004. Will they show up in numbers that swamp greater than average turnout among younger voters? 2.) Libertarians. Who will they vote for at the top of the ticket? Washington isn't really as "blue" a state as people assume. Democrats owe their success in statewide elections in recent years almost entirely to the large number of former moderate Republicans who have been voting Libertarian (as a result of the Christian Right take over of the state Republican party in the 90s). Washington is one of the only states where the Libertarians actually qualify as a major party. (Rossi, who comes across as more moderate -- compared to the Christianists -- represents the party's attempt to win those moderates back. It almost worked in 2004 and may work even better in 2008).

    I've been worrying about this ever since my precinct caucus. I expected to see a lot of new, young voters supporting Obama (like the many who had come out for Dean in 2004). But, instead, most the new participants in my precinct were angry, middle aged men. Instead of speaking FOR Obama, they ranted AGAINST Clinton. I really wondered if they had ever voted Democratic in the past -- and whether if, once a Clinton, wasn't on the ballot to vote against, they would bother to show up for Obama in the fall.

    Parent

    And if you remember (none / 0) (#188)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    the race card played against Chris in the '04 primary by the AA Sims supporters who wouldn't vote for her in the general (shades of things to come, eh?)...then seeing Chris innoculate herself by endorsing Obama only to have Sims back Hillary (wha???) in the primary and caucuses...sigh...what a nightmare.  Now get this:

    Rossi leads in latest poll, McCain closes gap

    The latest poll from Rasmussen Reports shows Republican Dino Rossi leading Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire by six percentage points, 52 to 46. It marks the first time since February that Rossi has led in the monthly Rasmussen tracking poll, and the first time that he has broken the 50 percent barrier. Rossi had been mired at 43 percent for three consecutive months prior to the latest poll. (PolitickerWA)

    http://politickerwa.com/bryanbissell/2137/rossi-leads-latest-poll-mccain-closes-gap

    Rossi pulls in big donors

    OLYMPIA -- Republican Dino Rossi has gone to great lengths to define his 2008 bid for the governor's office as a grass-roots campaign fueled by contributions from "regular folks," not the fat cats and lobbyists who typically invest in politicians. (Chris McGann, Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/379084_donations15.html

    Parent

    interesting thing about that poll (none / 0) (#20)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    McCain wins in the 35-49 demographic. That's my demographic. Child-raising age. There is room for improvemement there, I think. McCain = endless war, McCain = bad for economy. And Obama for war as a last resort, Obama for schools, health care, etc...all those kitchen table issues.

    Parent
    Don't give up on Ohio (none / 0) (#25)
    by WS on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    Its going to be hard but Obama can still win it especially if the Clintons help him out there.  We shouldn't give up on states and later find out on election day that we could have won it like what happened to Gore and I think Obama knows that.        

    Parent
    I am downgrading Ohio (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:15:14 PM EST
    I think the election is in Colorado & Virginia this year.

    Parent
    I'd (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:25:38 PM EST
    be surprised if Obama carried CO.

    Parent
    I think he still can (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:38:09 PM EST
    If he listens to Bill Clinton.

    Parent
    he's (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM EST
    going to have to swallow his pride then.

    Parent
    Today could be a good day (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    to do that, or not, it's up to Obama.  It's about making Command decisions ;)

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#35)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:15:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Bill (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    can't deliver OH for Obama. He's going to have to do it himself.

    Parent
    Obama has the right message... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    criticizing the right's economic philosophy.  Now he needs to talk about the need for regulation.  He can make the case easily now that Government needs to work for the middle and lower class as well as the upper class.  "Trickle up pain" is a perfect statement.

    And McCain said again today "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."  Who else said that today?  G. W. Bush.

    Also, check out RedState.  They are scrambling to explain how this news from Wall Street is somehow a GOOD thing and an epic win for free market economics.  hah!

    The economic message (5.00 / 6) (#154)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    It does seem that whoever has the better economic message will win. BUT, that message has to be clean, crisp, readily understood, and positive. The handwringing--either by Obama or McCain, I believe, will be tuned out. Think about this: McCain gained a lot this summer with a simple program of limited offshore drilling combined with move toward alternative energy. While we may differ, the strong majority of citizens like it (to the point where our own Cong. Udall in Colorado--whom I respect very much--moved his message while seeking election now to the Senate to align fairly closely with McCan.) If we check our political history, Americans tend to rally around a reaffirmation of American know-how/funamentals COMBINED with a practical step or steps to correct a situation. So--while we might gasp to hear a statement that fundamentals are sound in the midst of this crisis, think about the need that many people have for calm reassurance in a crisis together with a specific proposal that allows us to say "okay, sounds worth trying, lets go for it." I am a Democrat--so, I hope that the Democrats (perhaps, as a unified Presidential & Congressional front) can propose that first step(s). Because--again--whoever can look us in the eyes and say what he WILL DO (and not just what the other guy isn't doing) should win this race. This moment is an opportunity--especially, for Obama--but also for both Obama and McCain. Its really a leadership invitation.

    Parent
    This is an excellent post (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    I wish I could rate it a "10"

    Parent
    Okay, that is the bright side (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    Palin game over and thank God.  McCain is beating him to the surest punches though already today.

    Game changer! (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Howard Zinn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:13:51 PM EST
    I'd agree.  Palin is beginning to lose some of her new car smell, with the interviews and, you know, actual issues cropping up in the news.

    Obama and his crew need to keep hitting, and I mean keep hitting, at the "fundamentally sound" quote from McCain.  Put it in commercials.  Put it in every speech.  Hell, hire a McCain look-alike and tattoo it on his forehead.

    They need to keep this up for at least a week, if not more.  Make McCain go on the defensive about it.  This quote is like the perfect storm: it ties McCain to Bush, it points out how out of touch McCain is, and it shows his incompetence regarding the most important issue now, the economy.

    McCain opened up the door for these vicious, pointed attacks recently.  He made his bed, now let's put him to sleep!

    Today on Wall Street (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    Conservative colleague: "This news will be good for McCain, people know this is no time for Obama to be raising their taxes."

    Me: "Come on, 95% of people get a tax cut from Obama's plan!"

    Him: "Yeah, but the other 5% are a big deal, those are the people that drive the bus.  You can't go raising capital-gains rates right now."

    Even more conservative colleague: "Give me a break, who is even going to have capital gains right now?"

    I will say that the mood around Wall Street really doesn't seem different from any other day.  I haven't seen any gray men diving from the fourteenth floor.

    Do those people EVER think (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    there is a time for raising capital gains?

    Answer: no.

    If the economy is good they it's time to "give the people their money back" or "grow the economy further."

    If the economy is bad we "can't risk further injury to the economy."

    Parent

    By the way (none / 0) (#90)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    My "conservative colleague" is really not THAT conservative.  He didn't decide between Bush and Kerry until the last day, if you can imagine.

    But for some reason he's really hyped up this year about Obama raising taxes.  I don't understand how anyone with economic savvy can fail to realize that under present economic conditions, if you give corporate America and the super-wealthy a bunch of extra money, they are not going to turn right around and use it to invest in new infrastructure and job-creation.  Under different circumstances, sure, but no one is thinking expansion right now.

    Parent

    Clinton raised taxes in '93 (none / 0) (#139)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    and it changed the whole picture.  Longest peacetime recovery in our lifetime.

    Parent
    I hope it's not too much O/T (none / 0) (#184)
    by prittfumes on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:02:14 PM EST
    but what's up with the SRI poll that shows Obama's 18 point lead down to 5 among LV's? In New York of all places.

    Parent
    Game changer? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:22:30 PM EST
    It should be.  But I'm not convince it will be.  

    Obama's initial statements today were off the mark.  Where were the solutions?

    If he can't win the news cycle today ... he never will.

    How so? (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    How were they off the mark?   Please explain.

    Parent
    There wasn't a clear ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:44:19 PM EST
    problem/solution statement that can be easily bited for local and network news coverage.

    Watch network news tonight and you'll see what I mean.

    Parent

    And what did McCain say (none / 0) (#134)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    that was easily digested?

    He didn't say anything.  He simply said he was going to reform things.  

    I thought this line by Obama was pretty good.

    ""Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street.... This country can't afford another four years of this failed philosophy."

    Seems perfect for a sound bite to me.


    Parent

    At this stage in a GE ... (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    campaign you have to move from "they did" to "I/we will."

    Obama could have reversed his statement to make it a "I/we will," and he didn't and that's why he won't win a news cycle that he should have won easily.

    A solution, even a bad one, always beats a mere recitation of the problem.

    There was an implicit solution in Obama's statements today, but that's not good enough.

    This isn't rocket science.  This is GE politics 101.  A course he's currently failing.  And this is a pass/fail course.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    I would give your point more credence if you didn't say things like Obama needs to focus on what he will do.  McCain's entire campaign has been an attack on Obama.  Yet he is running a good campaign?

    You're right it isn't rocket science.  Obama is winning this election.  McCain had a convention bounce that is dissipating.  That's the only bright spot for him so far.

    Parent

    Yup ... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    he's a shoo-in.

    /snark

    Parent

    He said this: (none / 0) (#146)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    The McCain-Palin administration will replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street. We will rebuild confidence in our markets and restore our leadership in the financial world.

    Watch.  This is the bite that will run.  And that will hold the McCain campaign at least at parity today.

    I disagree with McCain's statement from a policy standpoint.  But it's more effective than anything Obama has said from a political standpoint.

    Hopefully, Obama will offer a better bite this afternoon.

    Parent

    If Obama cannot be specific on the (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    economy, and start to echo the effortless wonk-talk of Bill and Hillary Clinton, he's not going to get enough traction soon enough to make a difference.  At some point, people are going to ask why Obama can't talk the economic talk like the Clintons can.

    People are afraid - this economic news is scaring people - and telling them the economy is not fundamentally sound without telling them how you are going to get it back on track may result in people choosing to go into denial and vote McCain just because it's too scary to take a chance on the guy who's not offering them much more than statements of the obvious.

    As for the left blogs catching up, I think you have your work cut out for you countering the daily onslaught of Palin posts from Jeralyn.

    And in a bit of OT that may come into play, how badly is the NY Post story on Obama trying to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of American troops until after the election going to hurt him and distract from his economic message?

    And I see where his lead in NY is down to 5 points - 5 points in New-Freakin'-York, for heaven's sake!

    standing next to clinton not enough (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Exeter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    He needs to tout Bill Clinton as commerce secretary.  

    No (4.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM EST
    don't expect an Obama resurgence. McCain has already been all over the place getting out in front of the issue. He's talking about how we need to get rid of golden parachutes, how the gov. isn't being a watchdog, talking about how strong the american worker is, best in the world.

    Obama has already been walloped over the head. I wish it wasn't so but it is.

    BTW, I don't trust the Dkos poll. I remember back in 1992 Rush Limbaugh was touting that his polls showed Bush I getting reelected with 48% of the vote. I look at the DKos polls the same way.

    I would say that there's still a 2 pt. advantage to McCain and with him going on the offensive FIRST THING THIS MORNING while the Dems were asleep at the switch I don't expect much to change.

    Seriously, "fundamentally sound" AGAIN (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    I'm  sorry, but that's obviously just not going to work for McCain--not matter what his (decent) paid media says.

    Parent
    He's (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:10:12 PM EST
    saying that it's fundamentally sound because of the American worker and how they are the best in the world.

    And no one wants to hear the "sky is falling". They actually want something positive to be said in these times.

    McCain got out in front of Obama already. He went on the offensive immediately. Where was Obama? The Dems came out with the same arguments that they've already had "not McCain".

    Parent

    When you're explaining, you're losing (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:11:56 PM EST
    and McCain is going to have to explain this one again.

    He "fired" Phil Gram for a reason, you know.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    but he's also proposing solutions. Where is Obama? If he can't swallow his pride and get out there and use this opportunity he deserves abandonment by the party base.

    Parent
    He is out there... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    why can't you be honest about this?

    Official Statement (that will no doubt be in the stump speech all day today.)

    This morning we woke up to some very serious and troubling news from Wall Street.

    The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that are generating enormous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.

    The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store. Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's a philosophy we've had for the last eight years - one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It's a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise, and one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises.

    Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up - from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street.

    This country can't afford another four years of this failed philosophy. For years, I have consistently called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market - rules that would protect American investors and consumers. And I've called for policies that grow our economy and our middle-class together. That is the change I am calling for in this campaign, and that is the change I will bring as President.


    Parent

    Official statement? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:20:34 PM EST
    This is crazy. Stump speech? That's insane. He should have been on t.v. this morning talking about this. He should have been talking about why this is a reason to vote for him strongly and convincingly. No more weasel press releases. Put yourself out there.

    Parent
    I don't agree... (none / 0) (#80)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    but that's a fair statement.  Saying that Obama is doing nothing and that he has already lost the issue, however, is not factual.  It is sensational and doesn't help us.

    Parent
    Obama's statement is not going.... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by alexei on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM EST
    anywhere.  A leader is out there front and center, proposing solutions and calming the fears.  McCain is saying the economic framework of American can doism is fundamentally sound and he is proposing reform in language people can viscerally understand (no more golden parachutes, etal).  

    Obama and his campaign don't get it.  This is a crisis, act like it is and get out there leading on it.  Instead, he and the Dems have ceded the stage as GAthe6th stated.

    Parent

    Yup ... (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    that's absolutely right.

    This was a chance for Obama to look presidential, and instead he just looks like a politician running for office.  A politician running in Democratic primary.

    That won't do at all.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    if you look at this like the GA situation, you'll see where my opinion is coming from. In that case, McCain was out there proposing solutions while Obama issued a press release and went back to being on vacation. It's not the first time Obama's done this kind of thing

    Parent
    He isn't on vacation... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    is lying the same as trolling?  Because you seem awfully close.

    Parent
    No but (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    issuing a press release and then going to to preach to the choir is exactly how much different from being on vacation? Not much imo.

    I didn't say he was on vacation this time. You missed the implication that Obama wasn't there in front of the issue and and was "off somewhere".

    Parent

    Look... (none / 0) (#153)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    I'm not used to exagerated rhetoric designed to belittle our candidate getting thrown around on left-leaning sites.  So when you said, "Went on vacation" while he is traveling through swing state I took offense.

    But I'm especially offended that you would call what McCain did today, "proposing solutions."  He has none.  Zero.  He went out today and talked.  That's it.

    Parent

    Oh... (none / 0) (#159)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    an apology is due.  I just caught, "in that case."  Sorry.  Still don't agree with you, but I want to be fair.  He was indeed on vacation when Georgia happened.

    Parent
    GA6thDem (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    is over limit on comments attacking Obama. Please come back another day.

    Parent
    Thank you! n/t (none / 0) (#173)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST


    Parent
    That is a lie. (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:14:02 PM EST
    Obama put out a tremendous press release today and made headlines pin-pointing the problem at Wall Street on the free market delusion that dissolving oversight and regulations was a GOOD thing.

    McCain can't win the argument by talking about how hard the American people work.  That isn't the issue.  The American people have been working hard and getting screwed by an economy set up from the top to favor the upper-crust.  McCain's observation about the worker just points out how NOT fundamentally strong our economy is.  

    The American worker continues to work hard for less while CEO's get bonus checks from screwing up their company - and it all happens while the GOP led government looked the other way in the name of their false religion of free market economics.

    Give me a break.

    Parent

    too bad Obama did not read his statement (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:16:36 PM EST
    instead of "issuing it"

    lost opportunity, IMO

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    for making the point. Press release do ABSOLUTELY nothing.

    Parent
    so obvious (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM EST
    I was shaking my head to myself this morning.

    Reminds me of the Georgia crisis.

    What's going on in that campaign???

    Parent

    Except to say that I'm too busy to (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:20:52 PM EST
    actually talk to you.

    Parent
    Write a letter... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM EST
    maybe next time he'll do a press conference from his plane on the way to Colorado.

    Parent
    LAME (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    this crisis was announced this weekend. If he ha made a podium statement yesterday, at his convenience, it would be used as a contrast with McCain's fist pounding.

    Instead the contrast is McCain's face vs a written statement

    And Palin's face vs an empty podium waiting for Biden

    Their timing was off.

    Parent

    PRESS (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    release! Press release! This is so wussy. Give it up. He needs to be getting on television telling people why this is a reason to vote FOR him! He needs to be offering solutions! He needs bullet points to take advantage of this situation.

    He can not sit on his duff and issue press releases. He who makes the news wins.

    Parent

    He's on his way to Colorado... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    a swing state where he'll make his case.

    But your concern is noted.

    Parent

    A stump (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:22:04 PM EST
    speech does nothing. The only people who go to that are people who can take time off work or family. In other words, he probably preaching to choir once again.

    He should have been on tv this morning pounding the pulpit on this issue.

    Parent

    He could have made a statement on the tarmac (none / 0) (#132)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    Seriously. Excuses are not going to get the Obama team very far. If he doesn't get his face and his voice out there immediatley then all people will see and hear at the top of the nightly newscast is McCain, McCain, McCain.

    Parent
    Disagree... (none / 0) (#183)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:31:30 PM EST
    Why make a statement on an empty tarmac when you can stand-up in front of a packed house in a nominally republican strong-hold in a swing-state and give the rebuttal?  

    Plenty of time to get it on the evening news.  And, I imagine more of the same later today as he continues his travels across Colorado.  

    Parent

    Well, I hope you're right (none / 0) (#190)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    So far, every top-of-the-hour headline on radio news has featured the McCain soundbite. Even on NPR.

    My point is really that Obama needs to be the first one out of the gate with statements to the press, no matter what the issue. This is show time and he's operating like he's still in rehearsal. He's been giving away the podium to McCain.

    Biden talked about the economy at a campaign event today, which was also played on the radio news (after McCain's), but he just sounded like he was yelling.

    Parent

    AND looking presidential (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:20:39 PM EST
    looking confident!

    making people feel that he will fix it.

    Parent

    More like... (none / 0) (#55)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    making people feel like he didn't care.  You are impressed that he got up, parroted Bush, and lied through his teeth?  

    Parent
    People are getting ready for work (none / 0) (#62)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:24:11 PM EST
    they see Mccain and get an impression. Then they hop in the shower.

    They see words in a press release and see.....

    Parent

    How about Drudge headlines... (none / 0) (#71)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    with Obama pounding McCain's economic philosophy.  This is a win.  Just wait and see.  

    Issues this big aren't won and lost on Monday morning.

    Parent

    From your lips to (none / 0) (#82)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    FSM's ears.

    Parent
    Obvioulsy (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Drudge sees Obama's statements as a positive for McCain or he wouldn't be putting them front and center would he? When are people going to realize that Drudge is nothing more than a internet organ for the GOP.

    Parent
    I meant Obama SHOULD have been looking (none / 0) (#68)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    presidential and inspiring confidence.

    Parent
    The press release was weak in (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    my opinion when compared to McCain's podium pounding on CNN in the early morning hours.  Dem's have been running Congress for two years and done nothing much about economic issues.

    Parent
    Agreed on the press release (none / 0) (#60)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    but I never have bought the argument that Dems could fix it all in 2 years with a 50:50 senate (including Lieberman IIRC) and without a veto proof margin in the House.

    I see that argued all the time, but it will take YEARS of clean up (all Dems working together at all levels of government) to fix the depth of the mess Bush has created.

    Parent

    "fundamentally sound" (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    Think about psychology. As GA6thdem notes, most people really don't want to be told the "sky is falling." As I recall, the social-psychology of the US--the ole Frontier Theory & Man-on-the-moon approach--is grounded in optimism. Really, think about applicable adages such as "glass half full." (There's a reason for the durability of adages.) Another quick example: The years it took me to understand even a bit the positive reaction to Reagan's "morning in America." President Clinton fit this country very well--the knowledge and the optimism. People could feel it. Hand-wringing by a Presidential candidate only gets him so far; he HAS TO ASSERT his fundamental belief in the fundamentals, as it were, to connect with the very people he is trying to lead. Only then, do people really listen to the steps that he is proposing.

    Parent
    McCain is basically correct (none / 0) (#52)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    that the fundamentals are sound.  See my post below.

    Parent
    McCain was out in front of this... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    saying again that our economy is strong.  Nice move, right?

    But he's right about the American worker.  Worker productivity continues to rise, even though they aren't gaining any greater share of the GDP that also showed growth.  

    The economy is "growing" and workers are working harder, but the middle and working classes continue to struggle more by the day.

    Why?  GOP economics.  They can't win this argument.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    he said the fundamentals are strong because of American workers. Now the soundbite version might help Obama. We'll have to wait and see.

    Parent
    Why troll rating (none / 0) (#36)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    On a post that has no factual errors and is not trolling? You may not like what it says, but wtf?

    Parent
    OT (none / 0) (#2)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:04:33 PM EST
    Holy S**! SUSA has Obama up by 4 in Virginia.

    Ras will report on Virginia tonight too (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    Let's see if they agree.

    Parent
    crossing all my digits (none / 0) (#8)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:06:45 PM EST
    I would really like some good news today.

    Parent
    Ras says tie. (none / 0) (#192)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:30:11 PM EST


    Parent
    It's about time. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST


    I am a macroeconomist (none / 0) (#14)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    and I wanted to add these thoughts to this thread.  Here are some tips for assessing macroeconomic fundamentals:  (1) Watch productivity (GDP per worker).  As I tell my students, this is the most basic fundamental of  all.  Productivity growth has continued to be good.  (2) Watch interest rates.  This is the key variable for assessing financial market disturbances like the Lehman failure.  The people running the Fed right now are very smart and proactive, and they are fully capable of containing the damage.  If interest rates remain reasonable, then they have accomplished their mission.  Furthermore, the commercial banks continue to be strong, and this strength can be leveraged to prop up weaker parts of the system.

    Bottom line - the economy may not be so weak, and the economy issue so potent, as political commentary has suggested.

    50 days to the election (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    Excuse me Professor, but you are wrong on the politics for sure.

    Parent
    If a short-term crisis can be avoided (none / 0) (#44)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:18:54 PM EST
    then voters will be more responsive to longer-term economic issues such as spending reform and health care.  On these sorts of issues the politics do not work so sharply against McCain.

    Parent
    Spending reform???? (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    heh.

    Parent
    ask 10 macroeconomists (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    get 10 separate replies.

    Is that how the saying goes?

    This one agrees with McCain.

    Parent

    And right now, (none / 0) (#186)
    by prittfumes on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:32:09 PM EST
    the politics is all that really matters.

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:20:59 PM EST
    But this is politics, not economic theory. It is about perceptions.

    When, in the last few weeks the news is that 4 major financial institutions are in big trouble, you can talk theory to people all you want, but that's not going to convince anyone.


    Parent

    I don't think interest rates (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:12:04 PM EST
    can remain what would be deemed "reasonable" but that will be a ways down the road won't it?  That that would begin to affect the voting consumer?

    Parent
    A serious spike in interest rates (none / 0) (#31)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    would be a huge deal as far as both the fundamentals and the politics.  But the Fed has shown itself willing to manage aggregate liquidity in large-scale and unprecedented ways.  I believe that a damaging spike can be avoided.

    Parent
    It scrambles my brain (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    to attempt to adjust for that even though I know what you say about using unprecedented ways and means is true. It goes against everything fundamental I was taught. But they aren't doing anything once considered fundamentally sound and that has been where I lose my way.  

    Parent
    "Fundamentally sound" means (none / 0) (#95)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:37:51 PM EST
    keeping inflation low.  Too much liquidity precludes a "credit crunch" but can lead to higher inflation down the road (6-12 months, say).  So far the Fed seems to have contained inflation.

    Parent
    What about deflation? (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    Isn't this a major part of the problem for Lehman, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Merrill Lynch, with its real estate-related losses and a loan portfolio backed up with deflated collateral?  Moreover, the loss of confidence and sense of diminished financial integrity from falling home equity (the greatest asset of the middle class), as well as concern for the value of retirement accounts, both in value and in their safety (when held by Lehman or Merrill Lynch), bring to mind the historic horror that was the financial fundamentals of the 1930's.   An unnamed Merrill Lynch broker is quoted in the NYT as saying that 100 top people flew the storied brokerage firm into a moutain.  Actions like we are seeing are not fundamentally good for the US financial system.

    Parent
    The Fed can handle this (none / 0) (#170)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:29:47 PM EST
    by injecting liquidity (especially, by serving as a lender of last resort).  A correction in asset prices (such as home prices) will involve losses for some people, which is simply the market at work.  It remains to be seen whether there will be any widespread damage to confidence in financial institutions, which would affect credit markets more broadly.  Also, bear in mind that our monetary policymakers are much more knowledgeable and competent than those of the 1930's.  

    Parent
    Yes, thankfully John Maynard Keynes' (none / 0) (#182)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    influence on Franklin Roosevelt's monetary and fiscal  policies, including regulatory safeguards, has not been fully replaced by Republican  icons, such as  Leon Strauss and Milton Friedman. Although, Friedman seems to still be at work with the cavalier thinking that home losses are just part of the market place (except when we socialize losses for some big guys) so move along, nothing to see here.

    Parent
    Contained price inflation? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:40:42 PM EST
    Consumer prices have been rising in some cases drastically.

    Parent
    Greenspan calls all this (none / 0) (#109)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:44:07 PM EST
    a once in a century financial crisis.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080914181841.fsmkqu8s&show_article=1

    Parent

    Prof G seems to have fallen (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:47:03 PM EST
    off the economic map a bit.  The professor must not have been buying a lot of milk and food and stuff lately like I have ;)

    Parent
    gas too. (none / 0) (#123)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    and I am not an economist, but transportation of goods requires gas, no?

    Parent
    Last time I checked (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    We weren't "Old Europe" enough to have any hybrid diesels running the highways of the United States.

    Parent
    Watch "core inflation". (none / 0) (#137)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    Declines in oil prices are good news for the "non-core" part.  In any case, I was discussing the future inflationary consequences of current bail-outs.  Greenspan is discussing the financial side.  If the Fed blows it, of course, then we are sunk, but I have high confidence in them.

    Parent
    Reality doesn't matter (none / 0) (#41)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    Perception does, and perception of economy is just terrible. To whos advantage is this? Everyone would say democrats, but since Obama has lost almost all edge on this issue to McCain I am not sure.

    We'll see in a couple of weeks.

    Parent

    Reality vs. perception (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Coral on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    Reality depends on whose point of view you're talking about. From the seat at the "kitchen table" of families at the median-household-income range, with threat of job layoffs, difficulty getting jobs for recent college grads, rising health care costs and loss of insurance, the mortgage meltdown and threat of foreclosure (or abandoned homes in the neighborhood....well the reality is pretty bad.


    Parent
    Of course you are correct (none / 0) (#89)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    about "kitchen table" reality.  I am commenting on the idea that current conditions (the "cycle") amount to a "crisis situation" in which such hardships have become much worse than usual.  I do not believe that this is correct.  Over the longer term, however, conditions may well have become unfavorable for middle-class voters (the "trend"), which supports the Democratic argument irrespective of cyclical conditions.

    There is some important recent research that argues against the "declining standard of living" idea based on problems in the construction of price indices (these questions are absolutely critical but very technical).

    Parent

    I was agreeing with you (none / 0) (#91)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    That even if "reality" is that the economy is not doing badly the perception is that it is doing terribly.

    Parent
    I suppose I think (none / 0) (#65)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    that reality matters more than perception in economic matters (the basic "Chicago" argument).  This notion is very hard to refute empirically.

    Parent
    whose reality are you spouting? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    because people are hurting in reality.

    And the term "sound" as in "the economy is sound" is an opinion.

    Parent

    I think we are talking about (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    fresh hurts.  Yes, people are hurting and now this, but will this become a felt fresh hurt to consumers in a way that will affect this election?

    Parent
    If you have a 401K, yes. (none / 0) (#92)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    The economy can roll along with all this stuff, yes. But that is talking about whether we will collapse or not. WAY WAAAAY before the economy collapses, we have people losing their retirement, etc. This will hurt the 55+ crowd, who were counting on that money soon for their retirement.

    Parent
    See, and I'm out of touch with that (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:37:18 PM EST
    because I pulled our money out of the stock market about two years ago.

    Parent
    I am IN touch with it (none / 0) (#105)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:42:25 PM EST
    because my mother just retired. Her investment condo is sitting unsold, her investments are at risk (although she has placed them in safer places) and she is depending on SS.

    Parent
    Yes, my "adopted" mom's (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    investments were already looking very shot before this morn.  I haven't heard from her yet today.

    Parent
    Yeah. My parents lost $$$ (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    in the last black monday in 1987...they lost my college fund.

    This time they counted mostly on real estate.

    Ugh Ugh Ugh.

    And we are middle to upper middle class.

    You know that means things are worse down the line.

    Parent

    Widespread, aggregate collapse (none / 0) (#101)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM EST
    means disaster.  I refuse to speculate about where the political polls would head in that case.  But I put a very low probability on such a disaster between now and the election.

    Parent
    that seems to be where you are setting the bar (none / 0) (#120)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    professor.

    Parent
    Correct, as far as this thread goes. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:05:37 PM EST


    Parent
    The professor seems to be spouting (none / 0) (#99)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    the Republican reality. In particular, the reality of those making more than $5 million a year. You know, the ones in McCain's economic world.

    Parent
    The professor seems to be spouting (none / 0) (#100)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:39:57 PM EST
    the Republican reality. In particular, the reality of those making more than $5 million a year. You know, the ones in McCain's economic world.

    Parent
    Democrats express appropriate concerns (none / 0) (#122)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:48:19 PM EST
    about the circumstances lower-income households.  My point is that current conditions do not suggest significant deterioration in these circumstances relative to long-term trends.  In other words, recent economic events do not enhance the long-standing Democratic argument (nor do they take away from that argument).

    Parent
    erm..how about upper middle class (none / 0) (#126)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    and lower?

    Parent
    greenspan disagrees with you (none / 0) (#127)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080914181841.fsmkqu8s&show_article=1

    as I said, ask 10 economists...get 10 answers.

    Parent

    Greenspan is talking about (none / 0) (#142)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    the current financial crisis.  The effects of this on output and employment are yet to be determined.

    Parent
    Not an opinion. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:42:47 PM EST
    This is about evaluating aggregate growth, employment and productivity.

    Parent
    Yes, but unemployment is way up (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    Moreover, unemployment is lasting a lot longer than 13 weeks, which is why the Congress passed an extension of benefits back in June, and is gearing to pass another one.

    Parent
    Unemployment numbers (none / 0) (#131)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:52:27 PM EST
    are extremely noisy.  But a sustained rise in unemployment is certainly consistent with an economic slowdown which could be hitting the middle class right now and presumably impacting the politics.  I like to watch the productivity numbers, but of course unemployment is another relevant indicator.

    Parent
    It's hitting everywhere but the upper class (none / 0) (#152)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    I acknowledge your statistics but they do not reflect what we, the little people, are seeing down on the ground. Reality.

    This is what we call a "disconnect".

    And when I see people abandoning their cars all over my county because they can no longer afford to drive to work... when I see the busses packed to capacity and drivers having to leave people waiting at the stop because there is no room... when I see people who used to shop at the "nice" grocery store now going to Top Food and Drug or Fred Meyer for groceries... when I hear friends saying "We'd love to see you but we can't afford to go to a restaurant"... THAT IS REALITY. It matters not whether your statistics support that because the political perception is that the economy is in the sewer.

    Parent

    Your anecdotal observations are of interest. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    But bear in mind that the statistics I discuss have been crafted (in response to the Great Depression) to provide useful measures of exactly the factors that your observations describe.  The measures have long demonstrated their effectiveness.

    Parent
    please. (none / 0) (#133)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    spare me. I conduct models of complex ecosystems. How healthy they are depends on what you are using as indicators.

    You are saying that everyone in economics agrees about what indicators are appropriate for an economy this complex?

    Really?

    Sorry, I've been in academia too long to buy that.

    Parent

    I applaud your skepticism. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Macroeconomists do however focus on output, employment and productivity.  The monetary branch adds inflation and nominal interest rates to the mix.  Recent work has looked more closely at job creation, job destruction and unemployment (this is my area).

    Parent
    If... (none / 0) (#156)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    productivity and employment are two markers, what do we conclude when they are headed in opposite directions?  Productivity goes up, but employment and buying power go down.  That may show continued strength for the economy in terms of GDP, but not in terms of policy, right?  Can we call an economy strong where workers work harder for less over a sustained period of time?

    You know WAY more about this than me, but I'm struggling to wrap my head around that one.

    Parent

    Concern about living standards (none / 0) (#163)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    involves long-term trends.  Have they experienced sharp deterioration in recent quarters?  Will they do so between now and the election?  I do not think so, based on my reading of productivity growth and interest rates.

    You raise interesting points about policy, but I would have trouble responding within the scope of the topic of this thread.

    Parent

    Greenspan appears to disagree (none / 0) (#113)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080914181841.fsmkqu8s&show_article=1

    Parent
    Greenspan is only conjecturing about (none / 0) (#158)
    by Prof G on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    the real effects (i.e., on output and employment).  Be aware that his views on this dimension carry limited weight in an academic context.  In particular, I am on very solid ground in urging you to watch productivity and interest rates.  In particular, if interest rates spike, then the situation has become dangerous.

    Parent
    ONLY conjecturing about real effects? (none / 0) (#191)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:28:11 PM EST
    Why would we actually care about the academic context?

    Parent
    Curious about those polls (none / 0) (#30)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    The dkos poll and the hotline poll seem to "favor" Obama while the other two "favor" McCain. Have any poll geeks analysed the weighting on these polls or looked at other methodological factors that explain these differences? They seem to be consistent in the way they lean so there must be some sort methodology that produces the difference.

    Ras uses questionable methodology (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    because they weight for party.

    R-2000 seems to have a slight Dem house effect. Gallup usually seems about right.

    Parent

    What about hotline? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    Is that new? Have you examined it?

    Parent
    The company they use (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    mostly does private market research and I don't really know them. I've heard rumors that they don't weight beyond the census, which is a good sign. Their numbers seem OK, but I have no great way to judge.

    The election is close, and everyone's pretty much in the same ballpark.

    Parent

    Yeah, mix them all together and you get (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    a big fat tie. Hard to beleive it's tied, but hoepfully BTD is right on this post. It's hard for me to beleive that economic news of this magnitude will not change the game one way or another and the dem brand will indeed favor Obama.

    Getting Bill out there...two thumbs up imo.

    Parent

    The problem is ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    McCain will take 70% of undecideds.  So polls like hotline that show a largish (at this stage) block of undecideds are trouble for Obama.

    A poll that shows Obama ahead by 2%, but only covers 88% of the field is not good for Obama.  IMHO, that means he's losing.

    And I'm not alone in that assessment.

    Parent

    Generally, probably yeah (none / 0) (#104)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:42:03 PM EST
    I tend to think that Obama will do a little better than that--if he gets his message right.

    Parent
    If Obama gets the message right ... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    the undecided pool shrinks.

    I'm looking at the poll the way it's intended, as a measure of how things would stand if the election were held today.

    IMHO, the Hotline poll tells me that if the election were held today, McCain would win by 5%.

    Thankfully, the election is not being held today.

    Parent

    It's the Texas primary writ large (none / 0) (#150)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    I hope there were lessons learned.

    Parent
    Let's hope so ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:16:47 PM EST
    let's really hope so.

    Parent
    What does (none / 0) (#73)
    by WS on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:26:05 PM EST
    Dem house effect mean?

    Parent
    Their polls tend to slightly favor Dems (none / 0) (#94)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    in my experience.

    Parent
    It may be unfair of me, but... (none / 0) (#114)
    by skuld1 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    I have doubts about the accuracy of a poll with the name DKos in it.  

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#61)
    by sas on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    McCain is out there this AM right away.  Where is Obama?  Further, with all Obama's close Wall Street ties, I fail to see how this helps him.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:26:05 PM EST
    What are Obama's big ties to Wall Street?

    As for his response....

       "The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store. Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.

        "I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's a philosophy we've had for the last eight years -- one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It's a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise, and one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises.

        "Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up â€" from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street.... This country can't afford another four years of this failed philosophy. For years, I have consistently called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market â€" rules that would protect American investors and consumers."

    A heck of a lot more lucid than McCain's "We need more unregulations" claptrap.

    Parent

    This is (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    weak. It's too wordy and sounds like something out of academia. What would have Bill Clinton done in this situation? He would have been out there in front of the cameras telling you in no uncertain terms that the GOP was responsible for this failure and how he is going to solve it.

    Obama's statement is meandering and boring.

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    So the problem with his response was that he didn't boil it down to a soundbite?  But McCain's response was good because it was only 2 long paragraphs rather than 4?

    If you get bored reading that you may have ADD.  

    Parent

    You forget (none / 0) (#145)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    According to some commenters here, Obama can say too little and be too wordy at the same time.  McCain can say "reform" and that's a solution; Obama can say "change" and that's only a slogan.

    There's just no point responding to it anymore.

    Parent

    It's (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    not that it needs to be a soundbite so much as he needs to start thinking in bullet points.

    No, McCain's statement stunk imo. The reason he's winning the cycle right now is because he's getting out there and pounding the pulpit and offering solutions.

    It's not a battle of statements. It's a battle for news cycles. McCain went on the offense. Obama sat on his plane and issued a statement.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    McCain is offering solutions?  Where?

    The only thing I've seen from McCain is Sarah Palin the Hockey Mom and ads and about how awful Obama is.

    I still understand why everyone thinks that McCain is winning right now.  He had a bounce from the convention and picking Sarah Palin.  The poll numbers continue to regress back to where they were before the convention.  His 5 point Gallup lead is now 2 and declining(remember those are 3 day averages).

    By the end of the week, Obama will be leading in the Gallup.

    And that doesn't even speak to Obama's electoral advantage.

    Parent

    On the (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:58:52 PM EST
    news this morning.

    Obama has no electoral advantage. Disabuse yourself of that notion right now. He's depending on squeaking into office or even tying in the EC and having the congress vote him into office.

    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#157)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:10:54 PM EST
    TV news producers don't care who is more lucid, they only care about who has the video and the ready sound bite to put at the top of the newscast.

    Parent
    communication (none / 0) (#177)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:45:59 PM EST
    No, its not just about sound bytes. It's about being clear, concise, direct. Remember the famous Mark Twain comment: (paraphrasing) I'm sorry about my letter; it I had had more time, it would have been shorter.

    Parent
    Something to tease "Big Tent" about. (none / 0) (#67)
    by JeriKoll on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    "After today, expect an Obama poll resurgence as he sledgehammers on the economy and McCain's fealty to the policies of George W. Bush. And if he rolls out a Big Dog tour, expect a huge bounce for Obama." -Big Tent, Sep 15, 2008

    Alright, Big Tent, you have spoken.

    I will be sure to let you know how it works out.

    :)

    A "Broder's Boy" Moment? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Oje on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM EST


    Parent
    You can't take BTD literally (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    until he does three write ups saying it. That is my BTD worship rule.

    Parent
    Ha. With links. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:20:32 PM EST


    Parent
    I actually don't think (none / 0) (#174)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    Bill Clinton is available to campaign for Obama until sometime in October.  So, expecting the Big Dog to hit the stump immediately and shore up whatever Obama's Economic message is -- and I couldn't tell from that statement he released;  he needs a good editor and to start understanding the beauty of Bullet Points -- is a bit of a pipe dream.

    But I could be wrong and welcome any correction.

    Parent

    That's just McCain's way of saying (none / 0) (#81)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:28:33 PM EST
    that no matter how much the heavy hitters screw up, we'll just pile more of the crap on the workers' shoulders, becasue we know you can handle the extra heavy load.

    It would seem (none / 0) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:33:00 PM EST
    that Obama is no longer playing nice with McCain...

    Honor indeed

    not just 401K (none / 0) (#112)
    by candideinnc on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:44:42 PM EST
    People will be upset about their retirment funds after this week on Wall Street, but the place where they feel the squeeze first is at the gas pump.  Keep tying McCain and Palin and Bush and Cheney to the gas industry, and see if you don't get people real angry, real fast!

    I thought the price of sweet light crude (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    took a dump today too?

    Parent
    Palinpalooza (none / 0) (#124)
    by magster on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:49:09 PM EST
    I'm not sure which blog I was reading about Palin obsession, but the post pointed out that Palin's approvals have tanked over the last week to a net + 4 (down from a net + 17).  I'm not sure the Palin obsession that has brought some of her dirty laundry in the open, especially the "bridge to nowhere" lie, has been harmful.  And it may have been helpful when mixed in with the McCain dishoner theme that's developed.

    Commercials..... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Oje on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    Are these the ads released today?

    It seems McCain still has the cue ball in hand. Obama is still fighting last week's character skirmish while McCain quickly pivoted to economic issues. And, I think Obama's release is too wordy and vague, as Ga__Dem indicated.

    Obama is not good at connecting the dots. He does need the Big Dog splashed across the airwaves.


    So (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:58:42 PM EST
    Mccain finally gets around to talking about the economy and he is ahead of the curve?  Obama has constantly talked about the economy for months.

    Those quotes are pretty harsh.  They will have more impact than some vague ad from McCain on how he'll fix everything.

    Parent

    Daily Kos Poll: Obama's Up 48-45 (none / 0) (#149)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:04:22 PM EST
    Link

    Looks like Obama's plan is working.

    Obama has been lying low (none / 0) (#169)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    for a while, doing modest-sized campaign stops (unless I missed a big presentation of late, other than the education speech).  He now has an opening to use market regulation as a jump off point to re-present his previous economic ideas - green jobs, middle class tax cuts, etc.  He needs to impress people with his knowledge, with his legacy (Clinton) and with the ambition of his plans.  

    I truly hope this is a game changer.  It looks like it will cut out the possibility of McCain dragging out accusations of "ageism" from the Obama ad we saw over the weekend about email...at least for a while.

    If Obama... (none / 0) (#181)
    by mike in dc on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:04:03 PM EST
    ...gets back to where he was polling-wise in early August by next Friday, he'll be in great shape going into the first debate.  I think he needs to be leading by 6 or more in the aggregate polling going into the last 3 weeks of the campaign.  The target should be not just a win, but a popular vote win by 5 points or more, which would give him an Electoral College landslide.  Holding a big lead in the last weeks of the race also has a substantial diminishing effect on GOP attacks, because the media will then describe them as "desperate".

    BTD, I think (none / 0) (#187)
    by Andy08 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:49:31 PM EST
    you are correct this might be the game changer.
    We'll see what happens from now until the first debate.

    The Game Changer: The Economy | 191 comments (191 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment