[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It doesn't matter, it won't undo votes that have taken place, and it definitely isn't big enough to cause superdelegates to flock to either candidate in droves (and Clinton would need a a very significant percentage of superdelegate support to catch up - over 63%, I believe)...

In Presidential campaign ads, besson. In October.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Just be prepared for your party to lose BIG in November, Besson.

Whatever Big Mac, I'm not really interested in having this conversation with you. I prefer my debate to be well-reasoned and not dripping in emotion and partisanship.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is little here to be irked about. If you want to be irked, you should be irked about something far more important such as how a candidate voted or represented an issue you care deeply about, or about whether your candidate betrayed your trust on something that actually matters (getting a blowjob not qualifying).

The fact that it irked a pro-Obama blogger and maximum dollar campaign contributor enough to release it, and that it was enough to actually shift polls, speaks volumes methinks.

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

In Presidential campaign ads, besson. In October.

Ah, very good point. McCain is lovin' it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Nope. But as a swing state, you probably want to be a little more careful about insulting it.

PA went for Kerry in 2004 and for the Democrats strongly in 2006. I don't think they are really much of a swing state.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

PA went for Kerry in 2004 and for the Democrats strongly in 2006. I don't think they are really much of a swing state.

No one state can dictate a presidential victory (except Florida ), but politicians nonetheless usually try not to insult their proletariat too badly.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

PA went for Kerry in 2004 and for the Democrats strongly in 2006. I don't think they are really much of a swing state.

Christ besson, do you know what they say about chicken eggs?

Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are three of the more key sates in the past few elections.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

In Presidential campaign ads, besson. In October.

Hillary has given McCain far stronger material to use for ad material in other areas, and McCain has plenty of tarnishes in his own record that will keep him on the defensive, especially with Obama's campaign financing abilities (assuming that neither McCain nor Obama can work out an agreement for working with public financing).

I feel comfortable enough predicting that this little story will be completely irrelevant well before October.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ah, very good point. McCain is lovin' it.

I think its more likely a Swift Boat style group will beat the ever living tar out of those quotes.

But yeah, McCain will be grinning (cue Popeye pic)

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hillary has given McCain far stronger material to use for ad material in other areas, and McCain has plenty of tarnishes in his own record that will keep him on the defensive, especially with Obama's campaign financing abilities (assuming that neither McCain nor Obama can work out an agreement for working with public financing).

I don't get what you're saying. Hillary has blemishes on her record that McCain can use against her? Who cares if you think Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination? What matters for Obama-for-prez are blemishes on Obama's record, not Hillary's.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Christ besson, do you know what they say about chicken eggs?

Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are three of the more key sates in the past few elections.

True, but things are changing... Many say that Texas might be winnable, as well as New Mexico, North Dakota, Nevada, and even states like Virginia. I think the map will be much different this time around, but so far PA seems strongly democratic outside of polling margins for error.

A lot can happen though, so I agree with what you're saying about the chicken/egg.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whatever Big Mac, I'm not really interested in having this conversation with you. I prefer my debate to be well-reasoned and not dripping in emotion and partisanship.

Laughable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The fact that it irked a pro-Obama blogger and maximum dollar campaign contributor enough to release it, and that it was enough to actually shift polls, speaks volumes methinks.

Don't underestimate the short attention spans of voters. We've seen this before over and over and over again.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I don't get what you're saying. Hillary has blemishes on her record that McCain can use against her? Who cares if you think Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination? What matters for Obama-for-prez are blemishes on Obama's record, not Hillary's.

I'm saying that Hillary has provided McCain with plenty of ammo and arguments he can recycle, complete with observational analysis of the effectiveness of these tactics.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm saying that Hillary has provided McCain with plenty of ammo and arguments he can recycle, complete with observational analysis of the effectiveness of these tactics.

So are you really trying to suggest then that that's all he'll ever need?

Lemme just say... In a war, the more ammo the better...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So you're saying then that that's all he'll ever need?

Lemme just say... In a war, the more ammo the better...

I'm saying that he will have to zero in on a few key arguments and repeat them over and over again for them to sink into the American consciousness, and this particular argument is definitely one of the weaker ones in his arsenal not worth the emphasis.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm saying that he will have to zero in on a few key arguments and repeat them over and over again for them to sink into the American consciousness, and this particular argument is definitely one of the weaker ones in his arsenal not worth the emphasis.

Actually, I think Obama has run a fairly good campaign, but I consider this gaffe to be one of his more noticeable ones, at least in terms of popular media sound bites.

This isn't some stupid "Obama is cahoots with muslim terrorists" idiocy posted in some blogs, but a series of words uttered by the man himself.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Don't underestimate the short attention spans of voters. We've seen this before over and over and over again.

Don't underestimate the persistence of your competitors, to remind the voters of the past. We've seen this before over and over and over again.

[besson3c]

Here is an interesting map of what some of the swing states might be this time around:

Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily

I disagree with the way this guy collects this data, so take this with a huge grain of salt bearing in mind that a lot of polling data in these states that have already held primaries is very old, but again, this is just a rough idea.

One of the reasons why I disagree with this methodology is in actually taking seriously the idea that New York would go for McCain. I don't think he actually weighs the reliability of certain polls over others based on historical accuracy, he just uses whatever the latest poll happens to be regardless of who ran it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually, I think Obama has run a fairly good campaign, but I consider this gaffe to be one of his more noticeable ones, at least in terms of popular media sound bites.

This isn't some stupid "Obama is cahoots with muslim terrorists" idiocy posted in some blogs, but a series of words uttered by the man himself.



Don't underestimate the persistence of your competitors, to remind the voters of the past. We've seen this before over and over and over again.

We shall see. History indicates that the campaigns do not emphasis tactics and attacks that have not gained traction in the past. This one is not generating much traction at all, so far.

[lefty mclefty]

Pennsylvania....every February, the locals get hammered at the crack of dawn, and terrorize a small animal on national television....that Pennsylvania? There's NO offending those people... Hell, Obama picked up a few votes complimenting those folks...

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Really, there are far far far more important things for us to be talking about as a nation than this crap.

Ah yes, the all-to-common rebuttal of Obama supporters: "There are more important things to worry about".

We are examining the character of our potential leader. This is quite important, no matter how much you wish it to be minimized.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Ah yes, the all-to-common rebuttal of Obama supporters: "There are more important things to worry about".

We are examining the character of our potential leader. This is quite important, no matter how much you wish it to be minimized.

Then how about we talk about misspeakings that actually matter?

[TheWOAT]

After 4 weeks, I can honestly say that, No, Obama's campaign is not "toast." He still seems to be doing well. I think his problem will still be with people thinking he is a closet muslim, and his church pastor. I believe he will give more details of his beliefs and policy ideas once he is nominated... at least I hope he does. There is still a long way to go, and McCain and Obama still have alot to prove until November.

[OAW]

Well let's examine the impact of this latest brouhaha ....

Hillary Clinton loses traction over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, Indiana - Los Angeles Times

With three crucial Democratic primaries looming, Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be headed toward the blockbuster victories she needs to jump-start her presidential bid -- even in Pennsylvania, the state that was supposed to be her ace in the hole, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trailed Obama by 5 percentage points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters.

In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 percentage points ahead.

So basically the net effect of all this foolishness is that Clinton's former double-digit lead in Pennsylvania is now a single-digit lead that is within a hair of the margin of error for the poll. Yeah, the Obama campaign is toast alright.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

After 4 weeks, I can honestly say that, No, Obama's campaign is not "toast." He still seems to be doing well. I think his problem will still be with people thinking he is a closet muslim, and his church pastor. I believe he will give more details of his beliefs and policy ideas once he is nominated... at least I hope he does. There is still a long way to go, and McCain and Obama still have alot to prove until November.

His pastor has been another virtually insignificant and hugely inflated issue. I can see race and the contents of his race speech being an issue, but Wright is already pretty much forgotten about like all other "gates" of the moment.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So basically the net effect of all this foolishness is that Clinton's former double-digit lead in Pennsylvania is now a single-digit lead that is within a hair of the margin of error for the poll.

Had it not been for the brouhaha, I suspect Obama would have been in the lead in PA by now, since he was already tied with Clinton in the first week of April.

[besson3c]

Speaking of gaffes, what's up with the first 45 minutes of tonight's debate being about these gaffes? Dumb.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Speaking of gaffes, what's up with the first 45 minutes of tonight's debate being about these gaffes? Dumb.

There's a debate tonight?

[Ghoser777]

Yep. The debate seemed to be more about stupid things done/said instead of policy issues (the things I actually want to hear about... oh well). It will hard to paint ABC as going easy on Obama.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

There's a debate tonight?

globeandmail.com: 'Yes, yes, yes' Obama can win, Clinton says

[EricTheRed]

Obama's campaign seems to be stuck on stupid the last month.

[besson3c]

An amusing blog posting:

Let's tote up the colossal, the major, and also the very, very big issues that ABC's Gibson and Stephanopoulos have not deigned to bring up: Health care; the recession; Afghanistan; the mortgage crisis; deregulation; veterans' care; torture; restoring America's image abroad; the surveillance state; the environment.

The Constitution.

Oooohhh, but there's still one more question to come before they wrap this one up. Maybe that will tie all these questions up in one nice package. You think?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by EricTheRed 

Obama's campaign seems to be stuck on stupid the last month.

What do you mean specifically?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Speaking of gaffes, what's up with the first 45 minutes of tonight's debate being about these gaffes? Dumb.

What is more disturbing is that Obama is being exposed as the radical left-winger he is.

"But we have more important things to worry about". As if examining the character and past of a potential President isn't important.

It's funny to see the Obama congregation whining about every other aspect of the debate other than their candidate's crappy performance and shoddy answers.

[subego]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

What is more disturbing is that Obama is being exposed as the radical left-winger he is.

So, which left-wingers do you consider not to be radical?

[besson3c]

spacefreak: not interested in talking at you as long as you are uninterested in substantiating your arguments.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

not interested in talking at you

Now, there's a slip.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

spacefreak: not interested in talking at you as long as you are uninterested in substantiating your arguments.

What needs substantiation? With anything I've said in this thread, there is more than enough ammo to back up whatever it is you want backed-up.

The problem is that the candidate, Mr. Obama, is turning out to be nowhere near the gem that was sold to his followers. And now that this is becoming all too obvious, Obama followers are so upset that they're blaming everything else for their candidate's faults.

Both the Hillary and Obama campaigns are selling fraudulent products. We all knew about Hillary. Now the nation has been exposed Obama's fraud, and the Obama congregation is freaking out.

The man (Obama) can't even give a straight answer about his non-wearing of a flag pin.

[besson3c]

spacefreak: what sort of Obama answer would have satisfied you?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, which left-wingers do you consider not to be radical?

When admitted terrorists who have plotted and attacked the US are holding fundraisers for Obama, and when his run for Senate is formulated at said terrorists' house... that's pretty radical. When your spiritual advisor - a man whom you've repeatedly given thousands of dollars - is selling DVDs preaching black separatism and anti-American hate... that's pretty radical.

Last night's debate was a disaster for Obama. The facade has been lifted. And what's underneath isn't appealing at all. If anything, it's downright offensive and disgusting.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

spacefreak: what sort of Obama answer would have satisfied you?

A direct one would have been a nice start.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

A direct one would have been a nice start.

Gibson had to practically invoke the FOI Act to pry an answer from him on increasing taxes for those over $200k... or was it $97k... or maybe there's a gap there where we might have "other provisions" I guess. What about the capital gains questions? I absolutely loved it.

- decreasing the capital gains tax increased revenues.
Obama; we can use the additional money for... and... and...
- but decreasing the capital gains taxes increased revenues. You won't get "additional" money.
Obama; but it's not fair.

egadz.

[lefty mclefty]

spacefreak, put down the bong, turn on the lights, and get ready for your next president, the first afro-american to hold the office, and a breath of fresh air at that, Barack Hussein Obama....(ps he's not a muslim!)

[TheWOAT]

Barack Obama is Muslim... he also brought down the Twin Towers, shot JR Ewing, JFK, and ordered a NY Cop to kill Radio Raheim.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Had it not been for the brouhaha, I suspect Obama would have been in the lead in PA by now, since he was already tied with Clinton in the first week of April.

You keep on saying these things about the polls, but the polls themselves just don't show it. That's a link to the average of all the PA polls. Clinton had a ~15 point lead that she lost in late March, two weeks or so before bittergate. It closed to a 5-point lead at that time, and then stayed flat before and then throughout the media coverage of bittergate. Now, in the past few days, Obama has been closing again. There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any shift in the polls, or any halt in momentum for Obama, after this "issue." It was pure media-created fiction.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What about the capital gains questions? I absolutely loved it.

- decreasing the capital gains tax increased revenues.
Obama; we can use the additional money for... and... and...
- but decreasing the capital gains taxes increased revenues. You won't get "additional" money.
Obama; but it's not fair.

egadz.

That pretty much sums up the left on tax policy- it's NEVER really been about a desire for more revenue, or balancing budgets, (laughable!) or any of the other smoke screens- it's about punishing people who are successful, deciding who 'deserves' what, and some warped view of what's 'fair'.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You keep on saying these things about the polls, but the polls themselves just don't show it. That's a link to the average of all the PA polls. Clinton had a ~15 point lead that she lost in late March, two weeks or so before bittergate. It closed to a 5-point lead at that time, and then stayed flat before and then throughout the media coverage of bittergate. Now, in the past few days, Obama has been closing again. There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any shift in the polls, or any halt in momentum for Obama, after this "issue." It was pure media-created fiction.

It's also true that close to an election people's opinions sort of stabilize as the undecideds come to a decision... It is not likely that the polls will shift a whole lot between now and election day unless something utterly drastic happens.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That pretty much sums up the left on tax policy- it's NEVER really been about a desire for more revenue, or balancing budgets, (laughable!) or any of the other smoke screens- it's about punishing people who are successful, deciding who 'deserves' what, and some warped view of what's 'fair'.

It's a complicated issue that I would characterize a little differently.

I would say that the left believes in wealth redistribution as a means to stimulate the economy from the bottom up by pulling up the poor, whereas the right feels that stimulating the upper class stimulates job creation and trickle down economics to the poor.

I personally believe that there is a balance in the middle somewhere, and Bush's stimulus plan sort of acknowledges the potential and concept of stimulating the economy from the bottom up as being viable in some instances.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would say that the left believes in wealth redistribution as a means to stimulate the economy from the bottom up by pulling up the poor

Then more should just come right out and say it then: "I don't care if it raises revenues or not, I want to take things from the rich and let the poor believe it helps them." (It of course doesn't, but it's clear that leftist politicians want the poor to believe that a rich person having less= you'll somehow get more, even though we, the government, aren't really taking money from the rich and directly giving it to you either.)

whereas the right feels that stimulating the upper class stimulates job creation and trickle down economics to the poor.

As long as most people get their income from having a job and from consumers having more money to spend on whatever it is their job depends on selling or collecting from people with money, than they do from government handouts or wealth redistribution ponzi schemes, then it'll always be true that leaving more money in the hands of people that create jobs, run businesses, pay bills, buy things and hire people will help the poor a hell of a lot more than that same money being crapped into oblivion by the government.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Then more should just come right out and say it then: "I don't care if it raises revenues or not, I want to take things from the rich and let the poor believe it helps them." (It of course doesn't, but it's clear that leftist politicians want the poor to believe that a rich person having less= you'll somehow get more, even though we, the government, aren't really taking money from the rich and directly giving it to you either.)


As long as most people get their income from having a job and from consumers having more money to spend on whatever it is their job depends on selling or collecting from people with money, than they do from government handouts or wealth redistribution ponzi schemes, then it'll always be true that leaving more money in the hands of people that create jobs, run businesses, pay bills, buy things and hire people will help the poor a hell of a lot more than that same money being crapped into oblivion by the government.

This is not always true.

For a while, social security worked. Medicaid can help reduce the costs across the board by reducing strain on our emergency care from people that can't afford private health insurance. Of course, there is also public education and other public services that generally work pretty well.

It is not true that there is no place for public services, it is simply a question of what things should be public and what things should be private. Public services require administrative costs, while private services often involve regulation. It is impossible to generalize by saying that one is better than the other, they are simply different approaches to providing a service.

It is also worth keeping in mind that if you starve a public service of its resources, it becomes useless or at least less useful. Look at FEMAs reaction to Hurricane Katrina, or of other public services that people love to bitch about (e.g. the BMV, post office, etc.). So, there is a careful balance in funding the services you wish to make public.

Moreover, looking at the housing crisis, the collapse of Enron, etc. we see the effects of what can happen in the private sector when greed runs amuck and unregulated loopholes are exploited.

It's all a matter of balance.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's a complicated issue that I would characterize a little differently.

I would say that the left believes in wealth redistribution as a means to stimulate the economy from the bottom up by pulling up the poor, whereas the right feels that stimulating the upper class stimulates job creation and trickle down economics to the poor.

I personally believe that there is a balance in the middle somewhere, and Bush's stimulus plan sort of acknowledges the potential and concept of stimulating the economy from the bottom up as being viable in some instances.

I want to add two points:

1) Liberals believe that it's empirically false what Gibson claimed, that cutting taxes (capital gains or other types) causes an increase in revenues. We've been over this to death here, so I won't go into it again except to say it's not just liberals who disagree with Gibson's statement, it's virtually all mainstream economists as well as most conservative economists, including Bush's own people. Only politicians and people who believe them (including, apparently, news anchors like Gibson) think cutting taxes increases revenues.

2) It's also about fairness, which I think everyone agrees is an important issue in any tax system. If Warren Buffet pays 15% while his secretary making $50,000 pays twice that rate, there's a serious fairness issue to be considered.