McCain/Palin= Bush's Third Term

USA Today/Gallup poll says McCain/Palin by 4 Over Obama/Biden:

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

Here's why:

McCain has narrowed Obama's wide advantage on handling the economy, by far the electorate's top issue. Before the GOP convention, Obama was favored by 19 points; now he's favored by 3.

Clearly, McCain/Palin is not being perceived as Bush's Third Term. Too much Troopergate, too much Palin. Not enough Bush. With the demotions of Olbermann and Tweety, and the clear signals from the Obama campaign, perhaps Dems will get the message - let's get back to McCain and how he represents more of the same.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< MSNBC Dumps Olbermann and Matthews as Anchors for Debates, Election Night | Alaskans Assess Palin's Leadership and Follow-Through >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Lahdee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:08:48 AM EST
    some good old fashioned Democratic stumping may be in order. Seems the nice soft and squishy post partisan approach featuring "yes the surge sure was neat" and "okay she's competent" and "why of course we have an economic policy" may not be working.

    Amazing (none / 0) (#1)
    by robrecht on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:16:20 AM EST
    What people will believe.  McCain and Palin haven't said anything different on the economy other than Bushism 101, have they?

    People are just excited by a new enthusiastic face.  Agree, we have to push the right message.  Too important to get caught up in high school level attacks.

    Also shows that ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:17:15 AM EST
    Obama's economic message isn't getting out there.

    He seems strangely reticent to discuss his $1000 "Emergency Energy Rebate," which is essentially his stimulus package.  

    In his THIS WEEK interview, he mentioned it only in passing, not mentioning the amount or the name. Just saying something about "offering additional stimulus."

    Hillary again (none / 0) (#3)
    by WS on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:03:57 AM EST
    Just throwing this idea out there.  

    The way to squelch the bounce for McCain/Palin is to replace Biden with Hillary.  She can represent the prosperous and peaceful Clinton years and equate in people's minds that McCain is more of the same.  

    Obama gets his biggest jumps in the polls when Hillary stumps for him right after the primaries with the Unity event and then during the convention.  Plus you get two for one with Bill Clinton stumping more for him.  

    The Republicans will question why he made the wrong decision in the first place, but the Dems can say that it represents Obama's good judgment and change course when something is not working unlike Bush.  

    The media too will get off the Palin train and focus on the infinitely more interesting Clintons and their relationship with the Obamas, their relationship with each other, their relationship with the Bidens, what Palin must think, etc. etc. etc.  

    So, you're (none / 0) (#12)
    by 0 politico on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:35:09 PM EST
    suggesting bring back the CDS aspect for its distracting effect on the media and, hopefully, the voting public?

    That's good (LOL).

    The BO campaign has to get some backbone.  Asking HC and BC to help bail them out is kind of counter to the whole spiel of the primaries, isn't it!


    it's STILL the (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:17:49 AM EST
    economy, stupid!

    unfortunately, sen. obama, unlike bill clinton before him, and sen. clinton currently, really hasn't got much of an economic plan. whether that's because his grasp of economics is thin (my guess) or because he continues to think that the "change" mantra is sufficient, i have no clue.

    whatever it is, he better do something about it quickly.

    It's time to roll out the solutions. (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:24:31 AM EST
    That's all there is to it.  Break up "Obamanomics" into memorable initiatives and plans.  And push them on the nation.

    Kind of like Gore's "lockbox," but something that will win the election, preferably.

    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#7)
    by Munibond on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:30:28 AM EST
    The Democratic congress decides not to pursue CHIP, because it would be vetoed.  I thought that the short term goal of the CHIP bill was to force Bush to veto popular legislation before the election!
    And Obama says the recession might delay rescinding tax cuts on the wealthy.
    This stuff makes it hard to argue that putting the Democrats in charge means an end to Bush era policies.
    Bill Clinton said it most effectively at the DNC - we have now seen what happens when repub policies are implemented.  I think this would be a winning campaign theme, but Obama seems uninterested in adopting it.

    Forget Post Partisanship (none / 0) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:34:45 AM EST
    The poll numbers for likely voters is even worse:

    Among likely voters, McCain leads Obama, 54% to 44%.

    The Democrat's need to take a cue from the Republican's and get on message and stay on it. The public seems to have tired of the hope and change theme. They want solutions. The economy is not going to improve by November and heating bills will be kicking in. They should be able to tie the failed Republican energy and economic policies together. The message should be easy. The country is a mess and the Republican's did it!

    Perhaps the Dems should get back to (none / 0) (#9)
    by Green26 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    emphasizing issues, instead of pushing a mantra that isn't ringing true with many voters.

    As I've said before, it is just not true that the election of McCain would be 4 more years of Bush.

    i can't read polls (none / 0) (#10)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:39:33 AM EST
    They just make my head hurt.  What on earth did the percentage of people who now decided that McCain would be better at handling the economy hear at the convention?

    Bush's third term (none / 0) (#11)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    The problem isn't whether or not people perceive a McCain presidency as Bush's third term.

    The problem is, at this point in time, they don't perceive a Bush third term as being worse than an Obama first term.

    What would it take for Obama, this timid soul, to point out to people that Bush lied us into a war and gutted the constitution; instituted torture as a modus operandi; left thousands to die in the wake of Katrina?

    Obama won't say anything. He doesn't think any of this stuff is so bad that it is worth running against.

    So - if it's going to be a Bush third term, McCain might be a more comfortable choice.