RealClearPolitics has an electoral vote map up that is very revealing. It gives Obama 264 electoral votes in his "safe" column (270 needed to win) and McCain 163 safe state votes.
Eight states are in the toss up column: OH (20), IN (11), VA(13), NC (15), FL(27), MO(11), CO(9), NV(5) totaling 111 votes.
Look at the math: Obama needs only 6 more votes, meaning he has to win only 1 of the toss ups (even if its Nevada, it would be a tie, and the Democratic House would elect Obama). Currently he's leading in 5 of the 8, with NC and IN fluctuating around a tie and McCain leading slightly in MO.
But McCain has to win EVERY ONE of the toss up states because he needs 107 votes to bring him to 270.
Nothing short of Obama being caught in bed with the proverbial dead woman or live boy is likely to allow that to happen. I don't even believe a major terrorist attack would turn people back to McCain at this point. Obama has proved the more calm, steady and presidential.
Check it out at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
Ralph
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Catching up
I've been out of town and missed the discussion on wealth redistribution, socialism, and Ayn Rand. I'm just as happy to side-step that one, though if I had to choose it would come closer to socialism than to Ms Rand.
I went to visit my sister, and I can report that the Obama campaign is alive and well in small town, Middle Georgia. This county went decisively for Obama in the primaries, has a large African-American population, plus a small but dedicated group of enlightened white folks, both young and of a certain age. Obama has had campaign workers there organizing volunteers and get out the vote activities for some time. Still, there are a lot of McCain-Palin yard signs.
The nearest daily newspaper is the Macon Telegraph, which reprinted a morning-after-debate article from the Chicago Tribune. It began: "They were in the same room Thursday night, but Joe Biden and Sarah Palin often seemed to be participating in separate debates. . . . One debate dealt with issues. The other served as a platform for Palin's unique brand of Alaskan-bred populism and twangy asides." This is not the usual red-state fodder we see in the local papers.
So, don't count us out yet. The latest polls in Georgia show a sharply declining lead for McCain. In SurveyUSA polls on 9/14-9/16 and 9/28-9/29, he dropped from +16 to +8. In Adv/Polling Position he has dropped from +18 (9/10) to +8 (9/17) to +6 (9/30).
Democrat Jim Martin, contesting incumbent GA Senator Saxby Chambliss, says an independent poll has shown the difference between them within the margin of error.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthhammer has essentially conceded the election to Obama. In a sort of backhanded compliment, he says: "Obama has shown he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition. Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president."
McCain really has no options left except to go super-negative. So far, though, the smears seem to be warmed over stuff (Wright-Ayers-Rezko), and I'm not sure those carry much impact anymore. The attempts to distort his statements and voting record are also not new. But who knows what they might be saving or invent? And where are the Swift-Boaters? Waiting until the last minute, or have their funders given up?
Sarah Palin was a 2 week wonder, and with her winks and "you betcha's" she can still excite some people, mostly those who would vote for McCain anyway. She seems to have turned off more than she's bringing in, since independents went against her decisively in the debate.
I don't want to get over-confident and be surprised; but today I can't help feeling pretty optimistic.
Ralph
I went to visit my sister, and I can report that the Obama campaign is alive and well in small town, Middle Georgia. This county went decisively for Obama in the primaries, has a large African-American population, plus a small but dedicated group of enlightened white folks, both young and of a certain age. Obama has had campaign workers there organizing volunteers and get out the vote activities for some time. Still, there are a lot of McCain-Palin yard signs.
The nearest daily newspaper is the Macon Telegraph, which reprinted a morning-after-debate article from the Chicago Tribune. It began: "They were in the same room Thursday night, but Joe Biden and Sarah Palin often seemed to be participating in separate debates. . . . One debate dealt with issues. The other served as a platform for Palin's unique brand of Alaskan-bred populism and twangy asides." This is not the usual red-state fodder we see in the local papers.
So, don't count us out yet. The latest polls in Georgia show a sharply declining lead for McCain. In SurveyUSA polls on 9/14-9/16 and 9/28-9/29, he dropped from +16 to +8. In Adv/Polling Position he has dropped from +18 (9/10) to +8 (9/17) to +6 (9/30).
Democrat Jim Martin, contesting incumbent GA Senator Saxby Chambliss, says an independent poll has shown the difference between them within the margin of error.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthhammer has essentially conceded the election to Obama. In a sort of backhanded compliment, he says: "Obama has shown he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition. Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president."
McCain really has no options left except to go super-negative. So far, though, the smears seem to be warmed over stuff (Wright-Ayers-Rezko), and I'm not sure those carry much impact anymore. The attempts to distort his statements and voting record are also not new. But who knows what they might be saving or invent? And where are the Swift-Boaters? Waiting until the last minute, or have their funders given up?
Sarah Palin was a 2 week wonder, and with her winks and "you betcha's" she can still excite some people, mostly those who would vote for McCain anyway. She seems to have turned off more than she's bringing in, since independents went against her decisively in the debate.
I don't want to get over-confident and be surprised; but today I can't help feeling pretty optimistic.
Ralph
Pain - Lying, Lusting for Power, and Missing Tax Income
I'm beginning to wonder if Sarah Palin is one of those people who literally can't tell the truth. If maybe the lies she tells on the campaign trail are less about dirty politics and more about pathology. She kept repeating that 'bridge to nowhere' line long after it had been discredited. She has done the same with the lie about Obama raising taxes 94 times. The latest example of her unwillingness to speak the truth is in her ridiculous remark about Afghanistan, claiming falsely that Obama had said all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians.
That lie was discredited over a year ago because the Obama statment came in the context of a request for more troops over there - "It requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages, and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."
Of course, you can't expect Palin to actually know history, so she would be unaware that air raids were killing civilians and were basically ineffective militarily against the Taliban, or that conservatives, even Bush, were asking for more troops there, too, and citing civilian losses as oen of the reasons.
But is it too much to ask a candidate to stop repeating a lie that was discredited a year ago?
One of the scary things about Palin's history is her seeming lust for power. When she ran for Mayor of Wasilla a friend told her, You could be Governor, and Sarah's response was , I want to be president. In Alaska, she has a long hsitory of using people then stabbing them in the back and using them as stairsteps. And there's every reason to believe she'd do the same with McCain. Already she is questioning his decision to pull out of Michigan, saying she wants to campaign there. She wants to? It's all about her, I guess. No, let me amend that. She said, "Todd and I..." want to campaign there.
Todd and I? So is Todd about to become the de facto VP, just as he was the de fact Governor?
And the hubris of Palin - 5 weeks on the ticket and she's going public with his displeasure over McCain's strategy? A little uppity, isn't she? Who's at the top of the ticket here? Don't cry for me Argentina.
Now the tax returns. For 2007, the gross family income was listed as $166,000. $58,000 was Todd's income.
But Palin's slary was $196,531.50 as Governor of Alaska. Let's see, that puts her and Todd's combined income at $254,000. And apparently, the $60,000 per diem she collected, which the IRS requires her to list as income, is not listed.
What's going on here? Instead of the over $300,000 she had in income last year, she lists $166,000. Was this an unamended return the McCain campaign released? Did the Palin campaign knowingly try to deceive reporters by releasing a return they know understated their income? What would be the point?
Well, you can't have good old regular Joe hockey Mom Sarah making more money than Joe Biden, can ya? You betcha not! So if she has to lie to maintain her cred - well, golly gee. Let's not be like that irritating Katie Couric and ask her to answer this basic question.
And while we're talking about lies - that cutesy, folksy, smarmy Palin at the debate was an act. Go back and take a look at the videos of her debates in Alaska. Obviously, she thinks people are dumb enough to fall for it.
She may be right.
That lie was discredited over a year ago because the Obama statment came in the context of a request for more troops over there - "It requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages, and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."
Of course, you can't expect Palin to actually know history, so she would be unaware that air raids were killing civilians and were basically ineffective militarily against the Taliban, or that conservatives, even Bush, were asking for more troops there, too, and citing civilian losses as oen of the reasons.
But is it too much to ask a candidate to stop repeating a lie that was discredited a year ago?
One of the scary things about Palin's history is her seeming lust for power. When she ran for Mayor of Wasilla a friend told her, You could be Governor, and Sarah's response was , I want to be president. In Alaska, she has a long hsitory of using people then stabbing them in the back and using them as stairsteps. And there's every reason to believe she'd do the same with McCain. Already she is questioning his decision to pull out of Michigan, saying she wants to campaign there. She wants to? It's all about her, I guess. No, let me amend that. She said, "Todd and I..." want to campaign there.
Todd and I? So is Todd about to become the de facto VP, just as he was the de fact Governor?
And the hubris of Palin - 5 weeks on the ticket and she's going public with his displeasure over McCain's strategy? A little uppity, isn't she? Who's at the top of the ticket here? Don't cry for me Argentina.
Now the tax returns. For 2007, the gross family income was listed as $166,000. $58,000 was Todd's income.
But Palin's slary was $196,531.50 as Governor of Alaska. Let's see, that puts her and Todd's combined income at $254,000. And apparently, the $60,000 per diem she collected, which the IRS requires her to list as income, is not listed.
What's going on here? Instead of the over $300,000 she had in income last year, she lists $166,000. Was this an unamended return the McCain campaign released? Did the Palin campaign knowingly try to deceive reporters by releasing a return they know understated their income? What would be the point?
Well, you can't have good old regular Joe hockey Mom Sarah making more money than Joe Biden, can ya? You betcha not! So if she has to lie to maintain her cred - well, golly gee. Let's not be like that irritating Katie Couric and ask her to answer this basic question.
And while we're talking about lies - that cutesy, folksy, smarmy Palin at the debate was an act. Go back and take a look at the videos of her debates in Alaska. Obviously, she thinks people are dumb enough to fall for it.
She may be right.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Palin Passes 3rd Grade Test - Biden Wins Debate
Clearly, Sarah Palin passed the 3rd grade test last night. She showed she was capable of stringing together a couple of sentences where there was subject-verb agreement. She was competent at delivering platitudes and slogans and speaking in simple, abstract phrases.
But like a 3rd grader, she tended to repeat the same few words - reform, maverick, etc. - without offering a single specific to support her statements. This, again, is typical of a 3rd grader's writing ability.
And like a spoiled 3rd grader, Palin showed an inability to stick to the topic, and a refusal to follow directions and answer the questions asked.
Virtually all the polls showed Biden won the debate by double digit margins, even among independents and undecided voters. Among independents, Bidon was perceived as the winner by 47-21 percent.
Most telling, when asked who was qualified to be VP, 87% voted for Biden. That was double the number who said Palin was qualiified.
Biden answered questions, offered specifics. Palin threw out campaign slogans and canned lines.
What we have to hope for is that there are more voters who want a VP who can actually think, than there are voters who want a cheerleader who is comfortable smiling, winking, being cute and flirty, and treating ideas as if they're silly inconveniences that it's okay to shoo away.
But like a 3rd grader, she tended to repeat the same few words - reform, maverick, etc. - without offering a single specific to support her statements. This, again, is typical of a 3rd grader's writing ability.
And like a spoiled 3rd grader, Palin showed an inability to stick to the topic, and a refusal to follow directions and answer the questions asked.
Virtually all the polls showed Biden won the debate by double digit margins, even among independents and undecided voters. Among independents, Bidon was perceived as the winner by 47-21 percent.
Most telling, when asked who was qualified to be VP, 87% voted for Biden. That was double the number who said Palin was qualiified.
Biden answered questions, offered specifics. Palin threw out campaign slogans and canned lines.
What we have to hope for is that there are more voters who want a VP who can actually think, than there are voters who want a cheerleader who is comfortable smiling, winking, being cute and flirty, and treating ideas as if they're silly inconveniences that it's okay to shoo away.
Debate
My impressions of the debate:
Sarah Palin outdid herself -- measured by the low bar of expectations we've seen in her interivews with Katie Couric.
She didn't fall on her face; she was never at a loss for words, as she was with Katie; she just kept blathering on.
But she didn't answer questions; twice near the beginning Gwen had to refocus her on the questions she had completely side-stepped.
If you like feisty women who can talk talk talk and string together cliches and memorized talking points, and be folksy and aggressive at the same time -- she's your gal.
But Joe Biden was great.
He was sharp, focused, vastly knowledgeable, passionate, argued straight to the point every time, countered Palin's misstatements forcefully, always kept his focus on John McCain and his policies. He showed he can be tough and also tender. His talking about his loss and being a single Dad, even getting choked up, effectively countered all her Mom talk.
And, in doing all that, he came through as genuine. She sounded canned, spewing out practiced lines.
Focus groups and instant polls showed uncommitted voters favored Biden by good margins, as much as 2:1. But let's also acknowledge: a lot of people like that feisty hockey mom from Alaska (aka Joe Six-pack) and they probably thought she was great. Well, she was great -- at being Sarah Palin. I just think that's not what we need in the Vice President's office.
Ralph
Sarah Palin outdid herself -- measured by the low bar of expectations we've seen in her interivews with Katie Couric.
She didn't fall on her face; she was never at a loss for words, as she was with Katie; she just kept blathering on.
But she didn't answer questions; twice near the beginning Gwen had to refocus her on the questions she had completely side-stepped.
If you like feisty women who can talk talk talk and string together cliches and memorized talking points, and be folksy and aggressive at the same time -- she's your gal.
But Joe Biden was great.
He was sharp, focused, vastly knowledgeable, passionate, argued straight to the point every time, countered Palin's misstatements forcefully, always kept his focus on John McCain and his policies. He showed he can be tough and also tender. His talking about his loss and being a single Dad, even getting choked up, effectively countered all her Mom talk.
And, in doing all that, he came through as genuine. She sounded canned, spewing out practiced lines.
Focus groups and instant polls showed uncommitted voters favored Biden by good margins, as much as 2:1. But let's also acknowledge: a lot of people like that feisty hockey mom from Alaska (aka Joe Six-pack) and they probably thought she was great. Well, she was great -- at being Sarah Palin. I just think that's not what we need in the Vice President's office.
Ralph
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Palin Biden Debate Doesn't Matter At All
I think the Conventional Wisdom about tonight's debate is wrong. I think it doesn't matter how Palin performs. Oh, it will matter to the media, but not to voters. I think they have made their decision and, barring a blow up, it's Obama.
Look in particular at the recent polls in Pennsylvania, where Obama is up by double digits. This is in a state where the majority of voters don't agree with him, and a large number find it difficult to vote for a black man. During the primary, these voters surged for Hillary, despite the fact she shared little, other than skin color, with them. No amount of reasoning could shake them. Once they committed, they were loyal to the end.
I think they have made the same committment to Obama. I think Palin's overwhelming stupidity in the Couric interviews, combined with McCain's seeming to blow up the initial bailout agreement, and his subsequent performance as the arrogant, grumpy old man in the first debate with Obama, really made Pennsylvania blue collar workers decide, this is not the person we want to vote for. McCain trying to run on Palin's skirttails doesn't help with that demographic group, either. Blue collar workers can be very stubborn, but once they've decided, they'll back their candidate no matter what.
Palin's words, combined with SNL's devastating satire of her, has made her a laughing stock, and no one wants to say, 'My candidate is the laughing stock'. McCain's crotchety behavior has made him seem old and possibly out of it. No one wants to be seen as voting for an old man who is out of it. Especially if his back-up is a woman who is clueless.
I think the polling trends show that voters have decided, we've heard enough, we don't want to listen any more, let's get it done with.
Look in particular at the recent polls in Pennsylvania, where Obama is up by double digits. This is in a state where the majority of voters don't agree with him, and a large number find it difficult to vote for a black man. During the primary, these voters surged for Hillary, despite the fact she shared little, other than skin color, with them. No amount of reasoning could shake them. Once they committed, they were loyal to the end.
I think they have made the same committment to Obama. I think Palin's overwhelming stupidity in the Couric interviews, combined with McCain's seeming to blow up the initial bailout agreement, and his subsequent performance as the arrogant, grumpy old man in the first debate with Obama, really made Pennsylvania blue collar workers decide, this is not the person we want to vote for. McCain trying to run on Palin's skirttails doesn't help with that demographic group, either. Blue collar workers can be very stubborn, but once they've decided, they'll back their candidate no matter what.
Palin's words, combined with SNL's devastating satire of her, has made her a laughing stock, and no one wants to say, 'My candidate is the laughing stock'. McCain's crotchety behavior has made him seem old and possibly out of it. No one wants to be seen as voting for an old man who is out of it. Especially if his back-up is a woman who is clueless.
I think the polling trends show that voters have decided, we've heard enough, we don't want to listen any more, let's get it done with.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Everybody gets a turn
I don't know if kid hockey leagues in Alaska are like kid baseball leagues in Atlanta, but maybe that's where Sarah Palin got her latest nutty idea: that everybody gets to play, and everybody's effort is valued equally, regardless of skill.
I think that's an admirable philosophy for kids learning to play sports together. But we should grow up from there and realize it doesn't apply to choosing Vice Presidents.
One of Sarah's memorable lines from today: She was asked about the media's criticism of her as McCain's VP choice. Said Palin, "Oh, I think they're just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying -- you know what? It's time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they're out of sorts, and they're ticked off about it."
Right. Joe Six-pack has been under-represented in the Vice President's office for a long time. Now is the time to correct that discrimination.
I'll bet there haven't been any hockey mom/non-readers on the Supreme Court either. Forget law school. Let's put Sarah Palin on the Supreme Court, if Johnny B. doesn't get elected and bring her along for on-the-job-training to be President.
And while we're at it: perhaps it's time to open up the neurosurgery staff at Walter Reed to ordinary Americans. Let's put some everyday Americans in charge of brain surgery, let them take care of all those brain injured, multiple amputee, PTSD boys back from Iraq.
Let's hear it for diversity -- Joe Six-Packs arise !!!! Hockey Moms arise !!!! Claim your rightful places !!!! You can do anything you want to do !!!!!
Now, all scornful satire aside: I think she actually believes it.
Ralph
I think that's an admirable philosophy for kids learning to play sports together. But we should grow up from there and realize it doesn't apply to choosing Vice Presidents.
One of Sarah's memorable lines from today: She was asked about the media's criticism of her as McCain's VP choice. Said Palin, "Oh, I think they're just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying -- you know what? It's time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they're out of sorts, and they're ticked off about it."
Right. Joe Six-pack has been under-represented in the Vice President's office for a long time. Now is the time to correct that discrimination.
I'll bet there haven't been any hockey mom/non-readers on the Supreme Court either. Forget law school. Let's put Sarah Palin on the Supreme Court, if Johnny B. doesn't get elected and bring her along for on-the-job-training to be President.
And while we're at it: perhaps it's time to open up the neurosurgery staff at Walter Reed to ordinary Americans. Let's put some everyday Americans in charge of brain surgery, let them take care of all those brain injured, multiple amputee, PTSD boys back from Iraq.
Let's hear it for diversity -- Joe Six-Packs arise !!!! Hockey Moms arise !!!! Claim your rightful places !!!! You can do anything you want to do !!!!!
Now, all scornful satire aside: I think she actually believes it.
Ralph
Waiting . . .
Today has that anticipatory tension: something big is about to happen, and we are just waiting. Can't do anything but wait, and yet the consequences are enormous. Like the night before D-Day invasion of Normandy, or the big break for an unknown singer called to fill in for the ailing star at the Metropolitan Opera.
1. Wall Street is waiting to see what the Senate does today, and then the House tomorrow, about the economy. Looks like the Senate has put in some stuff to appeal to Republicans but risks losing some Democrats in the House (tax breaks). At this point, I'm back to being confused about whether it's really necessary and whether this is the right way to go.
2. We're all waiting to see how the Biden-Palin debate turns out. Both camps, and the press, are playing the "expectations" game for all its worth (and more). It's becoming clear, from her debate history on the much smaller stage of Alaska, that Palin is not going to just roll over and look dumb. What we can expect is that she's the master of the non-answer and the side-step to talk in grand generalities about what she believes in and what she's against. And she can be charming, witty, and vicious in attack mode.
So, if you're impressed by that, as many people will be, you'll be wowed by her.
But if you like intelligence, knowledge, thoughtfulness, ability to stay on the subject and actually answer questions, then we'll have our worst fears confirmed about her obvious, dangerous unsuitability to be that one heartbeat away . . .
Gwen Ifill can do a lot to try to hold her to the questions and, if she won't, make that very obvious. It's good that she's the moderator.
3. The other sense of waiting is what's beginning to feel like a groundswell for Obama in the polls. My favorite electoral tracking site FiveThirtyEight now has Obama leading in all of the battleground states, with the exception of: NC and IN as toss-ups; and MO tilting ever so slightly to McCain. This adds up to electoral 336 to 202. And the people who actually put money on it at InTrade are similar at 338 to 200.
I try to calm my excitement, remembering the ups and downs of polls. But my gut tells me that we're seeing the swell toward a landslide victory for Obama. Look where we are, besides the polls: by consensus, Obama won the debate on McCain's preferred topic; he now looks better vis a vis the economic recovery package, calmly working effectively behind the scenes, not trying to steal the limelight, letting the process work, looking presidential; McCain looks awful physically, besides having fatally damaged his "brand" of honest straight-talk; he got testy in an interview with Des Moines newspaper board; more and more conservative pundits are saying negative things about him and Palin. Add in the two main factors that decide elections: the economy and the duration and popularity of the incumbent. It should be a landslide.
And at least so far we aren't seeing the SwiftBoat type of ads on a large scale. Maybe they're saving them for the last week; but that wasn't what they did before.
All in all, it's a waiting feeling, but the kind that feels more like excited anticipation than anxious worry. Dare we hope? At long last, dare we hope that the Bush nightmare is almost over?
Ralph
1. Wall Street is waiting to see what the Senate does today, and then the House tomorrow, about the economy. Looks like the Senate has put in some stuff to appeal to Republicans but risks losing some Democrats in the House (tax breaks). At this point, I'm back to being confused about whether it's really necessary and whether this is the right way to go.
2. We're all waiting to see how the Biden-Palin debate turns out. Both camps, and the press, are playing the "expectations" game for all its worth (and more). It's becoming clear, from her debate history on the much smaller stage of Alaska, that Palin is not going to just roll over and look dumb. What we can expect is that she's the master of the non-answer and the side-step to talk in grand generalities about what she believes in and what she's against. And she can be charming, witty, and vicious in attack mode.
So, if you're impressed by that, as many people will be, you'll be wowed by her.
But if you like intelligence, knowledge, thoughtfulness, ability to stay on the subject and actually answer questions, then we'll have our worst fears confirmed about her obvious, dangerous unsuitability to be that one heartbeat away . . .
Gwen Ifill can do a lot to try to hold her to the questions and, if she won't, make that very obvious. It's good that she's the moderator.
3. The other sense of waiting is what's beginning to feel like a groundswell for Obama in the polls. My favorite electoral tracking site FiveThirtyEight now has Obama leading in all of the battleground states, with the exception of: NC and IN as toss-ups; and MO tilting ever so slightly to McCain. This adds up to electoral 336 to 202. And the people who actually put money on it at InTrade are similar at 338 to 200.
I try to calm my excitement, remembering the ups and downs of polls. But my gut tells me that we're seeing the swell toward a landslide victory for Obama. Look where we are, besides the polls: by consensus, Obama won the debate on McCain's preferred topic; he now looks better vis a vis the economic recovery package, calmly working effectively behind the scenes, not trying to steal the limelight, letting the process work, looking presidential; McCain looks awful physically, besides having fatally damaged his "brand" of honest straight-talk; he got testy in an interview with Des Moines newspaper board; more and more conservative pundits are saying negative things about him and Palin. Add in the two main factors that decide elections: the economy and the duration and popularity of the incumbent. It should be a landslide.
And at least so far we aren't seeing the SwiftBoat type of ads on a large scale. Maybe they're saving them for the last week; but that wasn't what they did before.
All in all, it's a waiting feeling, but the kind that feels more like excited anticipation than anxious worry. Dare we hope? At long last, dare we hope that the Bush nightmare is almost over?
Ralph
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
It gets worse
Seriously, folks. More dribbles of the Palin-Couric interview are coming out, and it just gets worse. Like this exchange:
Asked what newspapers and magazines she reads, Palin - a journalism major in college - could not name one publication.
Asked what newspapers and magazines she reads, Palin - a journalism major in college - could not name one publication.
"I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media," she said at first. Couric responded, "What, specifically?"
"Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years."
"Can you name a few?"
"I have a vast variety of source where we get our news," Palin said. "Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, 'wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America."
No wonder she doesn't know anything about the world outside her own little domain.
Ralph
Electoral polls
More than the daily tracking polls, I'm fascinated with watching the electoral vote predictions, based on latest polls at FiveThirtyEight.com. This site is produced by Nate Silver, who not only accumulates and updates state by state polls on a daily basis, but he also factors in the reliability of various pollsters. So you get not just raw data but the results of analysis of data.
Obama has been steadily and rapidly climbing in the past 2 weeks. Today the predicted electoral vote would be 329.3 to 208.7. (270 needed to win)
Nate uses a rating scale based on the polls, factoring in how recent they are and his reliability ratings, then maps it out on an ascending scale for each state: tie, tilting, leaning, likely, safe.
As of today, the states that have been considered in play get these ratings:
For Obama: 329.3
Tilting: Florida
Leaning: Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire
Likely: Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Safe: New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa
For McCain: 208.7
Leaning: North Carolina, Missouri
Likely: Montana
And Indiana is tied.
Another interesting electoral map to watch is InTrade.com, which is not based on polls but on actual investments (bets) by individuals in who will win that state. This is flashing into the headlines today because the latest results are giving it to Obama 353 to 185. That is people voting with their pocketbooks, ie whom they think will win, not necessarily whom they prefer.
These numbers follow the FiveThirtyEight ratings with these exceptions: Indiana goes to McCain, but North Carolina goes to Obama.
Ralph
Obama has been steadily and rapidly climbing in the past 2 weeks. Today the predicted electoral vote would be 329.3 to 208.7. (270 needed to win)
Nate uses a rating scale based on the polls, factoring in how recent they are and his reliability ratings, then maps it out on an ascending scale for each state: tie, tilting, leaning, likely, safe.
As of today, the states that have been considered in play get these ratings:
For Obama: 329.3
Tilting: Florida
Leaning: Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire
Likely: Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Safe: New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa
For McCain: 208.7
Leaning: North Carolina, Missouri
Likely: Montana
And Indiana is tied.
Another interesting electoral map to watch is InTrade.com, which is not based on polls but on actual investments (bets) by individuals in who will win that state. This is flashing into the headlines today because the latest results are giving it to Obama 353 to 185. That is people voting with their pocketbooks, ie whom they think will win, not necessarily whom they prefer.
These numbers follow the FiveThirtyEight ratings with these exceptions: Indiana goes to McCain, but North Carolina goes to Obama.
Ralph
Where does the money come from?
In the wake of yesterday's House failure to pass the bailout (aka recovery) bill, and just as I thought I was beginning to grasp the complexity and insanity of our financial system and its credit default swaps, now comes the announcement that the "The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression. The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide."
I'm really back in the dark now. Berneke was part of the team asking for the $730 billion bailout, without strings or oversight. Now his organization just ponies up almost that amount with the stroke of a pen and without have to ask anybody, or get any bills passed, or suffer the help of Senator McCain.
Where does the money come from? Are they just printing some more money, which means the value of it goes down? Is this just more hockus-pockus with faux assets? And, if this is a good idea, why didn't they do that before?
I'm lost, again. Anybody got a quick explanation?
Ralph
I'm really back in the dark now. Berneke was part of the team asking for the $730 billion bailout, without strings or oversight. Now his organization just ponies up almost that amount with the stroke of a pen and without have to ask anybody, or get any bills passed, or suffer the help of Senator McCain.
Where does the money come from? Are they just printing some more money, which means the value of it goes down? Is this just more hockus-pockus with faux assets? And, if this is a good idea, why didn't they do that before?
I'm lost, again. Anybody got a quick explanation?
Ralph
When Does Hypocrisy Become Pathology?
It seems to me like the McCain/Palin team have taken hypocrisy beyond the level of dirty politics into the realm of pathology. There are so many instances, I don't know where to start. The Straight Talk Express doesn't talk to anyone, and bans reporters(Maureen Dowd) from McCain's jet. Palin is asked a question at a town hall meeting by a citizen and McCain dismisses the stupidity of her answer by blaming the press for playing 'Got ya'. AND ACTUALLY, isn't that the role of the press? To play 'Got ya'? To catch, in this case, would-be presidents and VPs when they lie or speak in a manner that reveals their ignorance?
We're told Palin is a strong woman candidate, but she has to be shielded from the press and voters. Anyone who points out lies and inconsistencies in her record is accused of being sexist - yet her opposition to equal pay isn't anti-woman? Palin mouths the word 'transparency' but no one who works for her is allowed to answer a subpoena or talk about the Troopergate scandal. The only 'investigation' she'll participate in is one that is conducted in complete secrecy. Transparency doesn't extend to her tax returns - which she still has not released. She fights politics as usual, but has indulged, from the beginning of her career, in accepting all kinds of gifts in return for her support on issues involving laws and financing(http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/540128.html)
Or what about her college transcripts. She's prepared to be President, but we can't know what, if anything, she studied at such august institutions as North Idaho College - a community college with no apparent qualifications needed for admission, or Matanuska-Susitna College - a really small school that also seems to accept anyone who can breathe. Wouldn't it help us make informed decisions if we knew about the rigor of her intellectual training. Or how about McCain's medical report. He's running for President, yet we can't see how severe his cancer is, how long it is estimated by doctors that he has to live. Transparency?
The most recent example of hypocrisy - the Democrats who voted for the bailout bill are responsible for its failure to pass, not the Republicans who voted against it. McCain takes a partisan swipe at Obama on the failure of the bailout to pass - it's Obama's fault because he behaved like a true stateman, working behind the scenes, not posturing in public - and immediately after this swipe McCain goes on to say, This is not the time for partisan politics. McCain finds it essential to airdrop in to DC last week, after spending $5800 on make-up so he'll look good in his interview with Katie Couric, , but doesn't know if he'll make the vote this week. He's an outsider, but an insider who can pull his party together. He's for the common man but he owns 13 cars and 8 - 13 houses. He's a 'populist' who favors tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. She is a devoted mother who after her water breaks gives a speech, flies on 3 jets, and takes 12 hours to find a hospital - a great example of a pro-lifer putting her unborn child at risk. She welcomes and accepts her daughter's pregnancy, but threw her out of the house when she first found out.
I think this pattern of behavior is so ingrained, there's no way either of them can change. Can you imagine how this would play out if they were elected?
We're told Palin is a strong woman candidate, but she has to be shielded from the press and voters. Anyone who points out lies and inconsistencies in her record is accused of being sexist - yet her opposition to equal pay isn't anti-woman? Palin mouths the word 'transparency' but no one who works for her is allowed to answer a subpoena or talk about the Troopergate scandal. The only 'investigation' she'll participate in is one that is conducted in complete secrecy. Transparency doesn't extend to her tax returns - which she still has not released. She fights politics as usual, but has indulged, from the beginning of her career, in accepting all kinds of gifts in return for her support on issues involving laws and financing(http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/540128.html)
Or what about her college transcripts. She's prepared to be President, but we can't know what, if anything, she studied at such august institutions as North Idaho College - a community college with no apparent qualifications needed for admission, or Matanuska-Susitna College - a really small school that also seems to accept anyone who can breathe. Wouldn't it help us make informed decisions if we knew about the rigor of her intellectual training. Or how about McCain's medical report. He's running for President, yet we can't see how severe his cancer is, how long it is estimated by doctors that he has to live. Transparency?
The most recent example of hypocrisy - the Democrats who voted for the bailout bill are responsible for its failure to pass, not the Republicans who voted against it. McCain takes a partisan swipe at Obama on the failure of the bailout to pass - it's Obama's fault because he behaved like a true stateman, working behind the scenes, not posturing in public - and immediately after this swipe McCain goes on to say, This is not the time for partisan politics. McCain finds it essential to airdrop in to DC last week, after spending $5800 on make-up so he'll look good in his interview with Katie Couric, , but doesn't know if he'll make the vote this week. He's an outsider, but an insider who can pull his party together. He's for the common man but he owns 13 cars and 8 - 13 houses. He's a 'populist' who favors tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. She is a devoted mother who after her water breaks gives a speech, flies on 3 jets, and takes 12 hours to find a hospital - a great example of a pro-lifer putting her unborn child at risk. She welcomes and accepts her daughter's pregnancy, but threw her out of the house when she first found out.
I think this pattern of behavior is so ingrained, there's no way either of them can change. Can you imagine how this would play out if they were elected?
Monday, September 29, 2008
What's the superlative form of pathetic? pathetickest?
OK, a few days ago I was speculating that Sarah Palin might be playing dumb to lower expectations for the debate (I didn't really think that). Scratch that. They couldn't possibly be stupid enough to do this on purpose.
1. In more clips of the Couric-Palin interview, Katie asked her about the export of democracy. "What happens if the goal of democracy doesn't produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections and Hamas won."
Palin's answer, in full, was this: "Yeah, well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we're seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel ... and we're hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will."
Jeffery Goldberg says, "The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, . . . . The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power."
2. It's also being leaked out that, asked to talk about Supreme Court cases, the only one she could discuss was Roe v. Wade. She didn't even try to change the subject but just sat there in silence.
3. Palin and McCain went back for a do-over interview with Katie, and there's a clip up of their discussing her gaffe about military action in western tribal areas of Pakistan, where she contradicted McCain's position and took Obama's position.
Sitting there in the interview, McCain and Palin side by side, across from a serious looking Couric, it looked like nothing more than a father having been called in by the principal because his daughter has gotten in trouble. And he, like an indulgent father, was chuckling and saying "of course she didn't mean that; it's was just gotcha journalism." In truth it wasn't a journalist at all but a voter who asked her the question.
How does she stand it? Or maybe she really doesn't realize, and doesn't feel, the humiliation that we all experience vicariously in listening to her cluelessness.
I'm not even sure any more than I can enjoy Thursday night's debate; it might just be too painful to watch. Schadenfreude has its limits.
Ralph
1. In more clips of the Couric-Palin interview, Katie asked her about the export of democracy. "What happens if the goal of democracy doesn't produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections and Hamas won."
Palin's answer, in full, was this: "Yeah, well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we're seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel ... and we're hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will."
Jeffery Goldberg says, "The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, . . . . The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power."
2. It's also being leaked out that, asked to talk about Supreme Court cases, the only one she could discuss was Roe v. Wade. She didn't even try to change the subject but just sat there in silence.
3. Palin and McCain went back for a do-over interview with Katie, and there's a clip up of their discussing her gaffe about military action in western tribal areas of Pakistan, where she contradicted McCain's position and took Obama's position.
Sitting there in the interview, McCain and Palin side by side, across from a serious looking Couric, it looked like nothing more than a father having been called in by the principal because his daughter has gotten in trouble. And he, like an indulgent father, was chuckling and saying "of course she didn't mean that; it's was just gotcha journalism." In truth it wasn't a journalist at all but a voter who asked her the question.
How does she stand it? Or maybe she really doesn't realize, and doesn't feel, the humiliation that we all experience vicariously in listening to her cluelessness.
I'm not even sure any more than I can enjoy Thursday night's debate; it might just be too painful to watch. Schadenfreude has its limits.
Ralph
Blame game
I thought the House Republicans who tried to blame the failure on Nancy Pelosi's "partisan" speech, thus causing 12 of them to switch their votes, was ludicrous -- as did Barney Frank who lampooned them in one of his characteristic zingers.
But now I think that has even been surpassed by McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Zounds !!! It must be catching in the McCain campaign -- the inability to speak coherently about important issues.
This interview with MSNBC is worth watching or reading the transcript to see how absolutely looney they all have become: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/mccain-camp-blames-obama_n_130359.html
It's Nancy's fault -- but then it's really Obama's fault, but it's never clear how he even means that. See, John McCain worked the phones all day; he got the Republicans to the negotiating table. But he had to keep a low profile, because if it had looked like he would have been the key to its success, the Democrats would have killed the deal. "That's what happened today. They were not going to let McCain do the job that he was trying to do, deliver a bill to help the American people. The American people will lose as a result of this."
More about McCain's helpful role: "He took the process from dead in the water to a vote in the House of Representatives this morning. absolutely dead in the water, no hope whatsoever, a bill everyone condemned. This morning we had a vote only because of John McCain. That vote could have been successful, but the Democrats behaved poorly. That's too bad."
He never quite got back to explaining how it was Obama's fault, except this: "Where was Barack Obama today? If you look at what he said, he was praising the passage of the bill. Bill didn't pass."
So it's his fault? He praised the bill, said he supported it, and it didn't pass. So it's his fault? McCain keeps a low profile, and he's the victim of the bad Democrats who killed the bill rather than let him get credit for it. Obama keeps a low profile (in order to avoid injecting presidential politics into the process), and it's his fault it didn't pass.
This is McCain's chief economic adviser?????
You'd think he could at least do simple math. Economists deal with numbers, no? Democrats voted 140 yea, 95 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 133 nay. So it's the Democrats fault it didn't pass !!!!!!!
Sarah Palin, you're contagious.
Ralph
But now I think that has even been surpassed by McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Zounds !!! It must be catching in the McCain campaign -- the inability to speak coherently about important issues.
This interview with MSNBC is worth watching or reading the transcript to see how absolutely looney they all have become: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/mccain-camp-blames-obama_n_130359.html
It's Nancy's fault -- but then it's really Obama's fault, but it's never clear how he even means that. See, John McCain worked the phones all day; he got the Republicans to the negotiating table. But he had to keep a low profile, because if it had looked like he would have been the key to its success, the Democrats would have killed the deal. "That's what happened today. They were not going to let McCain do the job that he was trying to do, deliver a bill to help the American people. The American people will lose as a result of this."
More about McCain's helpful role: "He took the process from dead in the water to a vote in the House of Representatives this morning. absolutely dead in the water, no hope whatsoever, a bill everyone condemned. This morning we had a vote only because of John McCain. That vote could have been successful, but the Democrats behaved poorly. That's too bad."
He never quite got back to explaining how it was Obama's fault, except this: "Where was Barack Obama today? If you look at what he said, he was praising the passage of the bill. Bill didn't pass."
So it's his fault? He praised the bill, said he supported it, and it didn't pass. So it's his fault? McCain keeps a low profile, and he's the victim of the bad Democrats who killed the bill rather than let him get credit for it. Obama keeps a low profile (in order to avoid injecting presidential politics into the process), and it's his fault it didn't pass.
This is McCain's chief economic adviser?????
You'd think he could at least do simple math. Economists deal with numbers, no? Democrats voted 140 yea, 95 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 133 nay. So it's the Democrats fault it didn't pass !!!!!!!
Sarah Palin, you're contagious.
Ralph
House bails on bailout
The Hosue has just defeated the the Wall Street rescue bill 228-205 with sizable numbers of both Democrats and Republicans voting against it, although a larger percentage of the latter.
Am I too paranoid and cyncial to be thinking that somehow McCain is behind this? Will he now make another rescue-dash to Washington to bring the House Republicans on board after some tinkering and a revote? Or is he going to now say that he saved us from a bad bill being passed?
Somehow, he will try to make some political captial out of it, I'm sure.
So, what now, Congress? The President and leaders of both parties strongly urged passage of the bill. Too many constituents, who probably do not understand the whole situation and are reacting naturally with outrage at little guys having to pay for big guys' mistakes, have flooded their representatives with negative messages. And it's 5 weeks from re-election time, with 100% of these House members up for re-election (unless they're retiring).
So, what IS the next move?
Ralph
Am I too paranoid and cyncial to be thinking that somehow McCain is behind this? Will he now make another rescue-dash to Washington to bring the House Republicans on board after some tinkering and a revote? Or is he going to now say that he saved us from a bad bill being passed?
Somehow, he will try to make some political captial out of it, I'm sure.
So, what now, Congress? The President and leaders of both parties strongly urged passage of the bill. Too many constituents, who probably do not understand the whole situation and are reacting naturally with outrage at little guys having to pay for big guys' mistakes, have flooded their representatives with negative messages. And it's 5 weeks from re-election time, with 100% of these House members up for re-election (unless they're retiring).
So, what IS the next move?
Ralph
Palin as American Idol
A friend emailed this to me - from a Hadley Smith, PhD, Dallas Texas, who I believe is the President of a consulting firm for executives needing leadership development.
MCCAIN’s TARGET AUDIENCE CHOOSES TO REMAIN IN A CLOSED SYSTEM WHILE SEEKING SOLICE BY INDULGENCE IN FALSE COMFORTS FOUND IN THE EFFORTLESS ROUTES OF UBIQUITOUS CONSUMER MENTALITIES, ADDICTIVE PREOCUPATIONS WITH (UN)REALITY SHOWS, VIDEO GAMES, SHALLOW CELEBRITYHOOD, AND THE SELF-SEALING UNIVERSE OF ELECTRONIC ENTERTAINMENT (OBSESSIVE SPORTS AND FASHIONS NOT WITHSTANDING). THESE ARE THE DRUGS OF CHOICE FOR DROPPING OUT.
SUCH SECONDARY REALITIES PROVIDE AN INSTANT, MANUFACTURED IDENTITY, A SWIFT AND SENSATIONAL ESCAPE FROM THE OVERWHELMING PRIMARY REALITIES WHICH THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND AND CANNOT MANAGE. DOING THAT WOULD REQUIRE NEW LEARNING, SELF-REFLECTION, OWNERSHIP OF THEIR IGNORANCE, VISION, AND OPENNESS TO OTHER DIMENSIONS AND WAYS OF BEING. TO BE SURE, THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN PROCLIVITY; MUCH OF AMERICA IS OPTING OUT OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT BY VARYING DEGREES THROUGH SUCH PALLATIVES. BUT THIS ROUTE IS DECIDEDLY RICHER IN THE CONSERVATIVE GROUPS WHICH MCCAIN’S STRATEGISTS HAVE TARGETED. IT IS THE INVENTIVE SNARE THEY HAVE DEVISED FOR GAINING SUPPORT FOR HIS CANDIDACY.
BY CREATING PALIN AS A POPULAR CULTURE ICON STRATIGISTS KNOW SHE WILL BE ARDENTLY EMBRACED: SHE REPRESENTS THE SUCCESSFUL AND TRIUMPHANT “THEM” AND SERVES AS THE CELEBRITY HERO WHO WILL SANCTIFY THEIR INSULARITY, SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS, AND RETURN THEM WHOLE AND PROPEROUS TO A SIMPLIER TIME. THEIR APPLAUSE IS NOT ABOUT SUPPORTING THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR NATIONAL OFFICE IN UNPRECEDENTED TIMES; IT IS ABOUT SHORING UP THEIR FRAGILE IDENTITY!
And what better way to cement that celebrity than by having a wedding? No wonder the distracted Mom couldn't think when she spoke with Katie - so much on her mind. Who can't relate to that?Sunday, September 28, 2008
We're on the move
My optimism has returned. The good news from the electoral tracking polls boosted my spirits. And now there's this: The Stockton, CA newspaper, The Record, has endorsed Obama with a unanimous vote of its editorial board.
So why is that so significant?
Because it is the first time in 72 years that they have endorsed a Democrat, FDR being the last one.
The Record's editorial had this to say (excerpts):
"Barack Obama is our choice for president of the United States.
So why is that so significant?
Because it is the first time in 72 years that they have endorsed a Democrat, FDR being the last one.
The Record's editorial had this to say (excerpts):
"Barack Obama is our choice for president of the United States.
"He has demonstrated time and again he can think on his feet. More importantly, he has demonstrated he will think things through, seek advice and actually listen to it.
[The last eight years have left a cynicism in American politics.] "This must end, but John McCain can't do it. He can't inspire, nor can he really break from a past that is breaking this nation
"McCain, who has voted consistently for deregulation, started off two weeks ago declaring the U.S. economy fundamentally sound but ended the week sounding like a populist. Who is he really?
"He tends to shoot from the hip and go on gut instinct. The nation cannot go through four more years of literally and figuratively shooting now and asking questions later.
"But the fact is, we worry he won't have four years. If elected, at 72, he would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He's in good health now, we're told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president.
"And that brings us to McCain's most troubling trait: his judgment. . .
"Obama can inspire, and our nation desperately needs an inspirational leader. . . .He offers hope. A new way of doing business. And a belief that our system of government can be made to work.
"He's the clear choice."
Thus spake a Republican newspaper abandoning its 72 year record to support Barak Obama!!!
Ralph
Palin Believes Earth, Dinosaurs 6,000 years Old
From the L.A. Times, one of the most widely-regarded newspapers in the US
Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.
Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.
The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism.
What else can you say?
Polls
Three tracking polls that include 1 day post-debate (9/25 to 9/27) have Obama leading by 8% (Gallup), 6% (Rasmussen), and 5% (HotlineFD). The full effect won't be evident for 2 more days (they cover a 3-day spread). Of course you can't separate debate effect from McCain's DC stunt effect. And there is still an undecided or other vote of 6% to 11% in these polls.
I'm guessing that it's those previously uncommitted voters that Obama was going after in the way he handled the debate and that the polls will reflect that more in the next couple of days, when the 3-day spread will all be post-debate. This it, more of the undecided will swing into Obama's column.
Even more encouraging though is the electoral vote tracking at FiveThirtyEight: Obama is now leading in electoral votes 325.5 to 212.5. This is a rapid change and reflects CO, MI, VA, PA, and NM leaning strongly to Obama; OH, FL, and NV leaning to him; and even Indiana leaning slightly to him. In addition, he has made some inroads in MO and NC, so that they are only slightly leaning to McCain now.
Ralph
I'm guessing that it's those previously uncommitted voters that Obama was going after in the way he handled the debate and that the polls will reflect that more in the next couple of days, when the 3-day spread will all be post-debate. This it, more of the undecided will swing into Obama's column.
Even more encouraging though is the electoral vote tracking at FiveThirtyEight: Obama is now leading in electoral votes 325.5 to 212.5. This is a rapid change and reflects CO, MI, VA, PA, and NM leaning strongly to Obama; OH, FL, and NV leaning to him; and even Indiana leaning slightly to him. In addition, he has made some inroads in MO and NC, so that they are only slightly leaning to McCain now.
Ralph
Money
Now that the first debate is over, and FiveThirtyEight is showing Obama with a 317.8 to 220.2 margin in electoral votes (FL and Ohio now slightly leaning to Obama, VA definitely leaning, MI and PA definitely in his column, and even Indiana tied) the financial crisis/bailout got my attention again.
I can only go so far in trying to understand the complex system. Mickie Nardo researches it and explains it in (relatively) easy terms at 1 Boring Old Man (on list of links to the right), especially his post from last night "follow the (unregulated) money."
I did get some enlightenment on the other side of the coin from an NPR program, "This American Life," explanating why the credit market is so precarious. In simple terms I could understand, it explained that many big businesses operate on such a thin margin of liquid assets that they routinely borrow short term loans called "commercial paper" just to operate day by day.
They had a guy explaining that its his job each day to look at how much money his company has and how much they need that day, and then he calls up one of his lending sources and makes a deal like: give me $990,000 today and I'll pay you back $1,000,000 tomorrow. And they do this every day.
It's not that they're in dire straits; that's just the way they operate. On other days, he may find that they have surplus that day over what they need to pay that day's operating costs, so they will turn around and lend some out. Apparently they prefer to do this than to have a nice little pot of operating money. He explained that, most of the time, it's almost a clerical job to do this, it's just automatic. You see how much you need that day, and then make calls and arrange the loan.
But that's how precarious it is. When the lending banks get scared and decide not to lend (or don't have it) then within days a business like this could fail, even though it was considered solid a few days before.
It's all a house of cards in many dimensions and in all directions. And that's why people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd say we have to do something quick to reassure the lending banks, so they'll keep making these loans. If they don't make these instant, short-term loans -- even relatively small, fairly solid businesses won't get operating money and will start failing quickly.
I hate the idea of bailing out Wall Street, but it's short-sighted not to. It's also short-sighted if we don't fix the systemic problem (deregulation) that led to this disaster.
Ralph
I can only go so far in trying to understand the complex system. Mickie Nardo researches it and explains it in (relatively) easy terms at 1 Boring Old Man (on list of links to the right), especially his post from last night "follow the (unregulated) money."
I did get some enlightenment on the other side of the coin from an NPR program, "This American Life," explanating why the credit market is so precarious. In simple terms I could understand, it explained that many big businesses operate on such a thin margin of liquid assets that they routinely borrow short term loans called "commercial paper" just to operate day by day.
They had a guy explaining that its his job each day to look at how much money his company has and how much they need that day, and then he calls up one of his lending sources and makes a deal like: give me $990,000 today and I'll pay you back $1,000,000 tomorrow. And they do this every day.
It's not that they're in dire straits; that's just the way they operate. On other days, he may find that they have surplus that day over what they need to pay that day's operating costs, so they will turn around and lend some out. Apparently they prefer to do this than to have a nice little pot of operating money. He explained that, most of the time, it's almost a clerical job to do this, it's just automatic. You see how much you need that day, and then make calls and arrange the loan.
But that's how precarious it is. When the lending banks get scared and decide not to lend (or don't have it) then within days a business like this could fail, even though it was considered solid a few days before.
It's all a house of cards in many dimensions and in all directions. And that's why people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd say we have to do something quick to reassure the lending banks, so they'll keep making these loans. If they don't make these instant, short-term loans -- even relatively small, fairly solid businesses won't get operating money and will start failing quickly.
I hate the idea of bailing out Wall Street, but it's short-sighted not to. It's also short-sighted if we don't fix the systemic problem (deregulation) that led to this disaster.
Ralph
Low Bar = Breathing is a Victory
The problem with lowering expectations is that simply being able to breathe can appear to be evidence of stunning intellectual achievement.
Because McCain had such a horrible week, all he had to do was step onstage at the debate Friday and appear to be coherent and he would be seen as suitably presidential. That's what happened.
(By the way, did you notice that on Wednesday he 'believed' the financial crisis was so severe he had to suspend his campaign and fly to Washington, yet yesterday he spent the whole day in DC and never set foot on the Senate floor?)
With Palin, she has been so unremittingly clueless in her interviews that if she can string together two sentences, one without a slogan, pundits will say she 'reassured' the electorate that she is capable after all.
(By the other way, has there ever been an instance in history where the VP nominee was hidden from the press after the presidential debate, prevented from uttering a single word of commentary?)
I like Biden. He certainly has a base of knowledge, and can be funny and he has been through these debates before. All that should make him a shoo-in to show better than Palin.
But let's be honest. Did he ever win over voters in any of the debates he participated in while running for president? No.
Competence and knowledge from Biden will be seen as failure by the media, and a majority of debate viewers. Just as Obama's calm control was criticzed from the left who wanted him to be mroe passioante. Being able to speak as intelligently as a 5th grader from Palin will be seen as proof she could be president.
Furthur, if Palin directly attacks Biden she will be seen as tough. If Biden responds, even if his attacks are substantive, he will be accused of bullying. Biden has no chance to 'win' this debate because the type of aggressive debating he'd engage in were he debating another man will cause him to be criticised. So in essence, he cannot 'win' this debate.
What he needs to do is be as calm as Katie Couric and hope Palin will hang herself with her own pitard Thursday. Biden can only win by Palin losing.
Because McCain had such a horrible week, all he had to do was step onstage at the debate Friday and appear to be coherent and he would be seen as suitably presidential. That's what happened.
(By the way, did you notice that on Wednesday he 'believed' the financial crisis was so severe he had to suspend his campaign and fly to Washington, yet yesterday he spent the whole day in DC and never set foot on the Senate floor?)
With Palin, she has been so unremittingly clueless in her interviews that if she can string together two sentences, one without a slogan, pundits will say she 'reassured' the electorate that she is capable after all.
(By the other way, has there ever been an instance in history where the VP nominee was hidden from the press after the presidential debate, prevented from uttering a single word of commentary?)
I like Biden. He certainly has a base of knowledge, and can be funny and he has been through these debates before. All that should make him a shoo-in to show better than Palin.
But let's be honest. Did he ever win over voters in any of the debates he participated in while running for president? No.
Competence and knowledge from Biden will be seen as failure by the media, and a majority of debate viewers. Just as Obama's calm control was criticzed from the left who wanted him to be mroe passioante. Being able to speak as intelligently as a 5th grader from Palin will be seen as proof she could be president.
Furthur, if Palin directly attacks Biden she will be seen as tough. If Biden responds, even if his attacks are substantive, he will be accused of bullying. Biden has no chance to 'win' this debate because the type of aggressive debating he'd engage in were he debating another man will cause him to be criticised. So in essence, he cannot 'win' this debate.
What he needs to do is be as calm as Katie Couric and hope Palin will hang herself with her own pitard Thursday. Biden can only win by Palin losing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
