2008 USP(G)ET pt. II: counting the days to 2012 primary thread 1

Maybe it's more significant. How the hell would you prove it though?

did Obama really claim that he will cure the sick?

i think he claimed he would increase research funding enormously, much of it specifically targeted towards cures for the leading diseases - something many docs think might be possible and many pols have been talking about for years. remember LIeberman's "American Center for Cures"? perhpas the surrogate went overboard, but i'd give people a lot of leeway to counter bullshit on Fox.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/15/palin_had_tanning_bed_installed.html

The core of the palin narrative is down-home small town, small business, (whilst, perversely also being 'sam'z club'). It's is, and has been, a profitable myth for the GOP to exploit. What you don't seem to get is my point that unless you get a body of people (swing voters) invested in the success it is an easy target for such attacks, and many others.

i thought business was the community we had to win over. now it's swing voters? the reason i'm seeming tetchy here is because you seem to be applying an abstract notion of how things work and not confronting our realities. i think you're simply wrong that swing voters need to invested in the success of a health care program for it to work. swing voters are typically busy people who only pay attention to their needs. some of them need and will get health care and will support its creation and oppose its dismantling. some of them will ignore the issue coming or going but aren't going to be driven to vote against it.

The core of the palin narrative is down-home small town, small business, (whilst, perversely also being 'sam'z club').

this is a non-sequitur - most swing voters are not small-towners, and it's palin's personality and gender that have appealed to people (most of them unhappy Republicans, rather than swing voters, who still haven't made up their minds), not her narrative, which doesn't have much to do with small business (who, btw, obama exempts from employer contribution to the new plan and gives a tax credit).

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS201335+09-Apr-2008+BW20080409

you seem to be applying an abstract notion of how things work and not confronting our realities

or perhaps it's that you've taken to heart perennial republican lines of attack - it's gonna hurt small business, pleads mike huckabee, e.g. - without recognizing that they don't really hunt anymore

wow

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Suburban swing voter women would like to know whether they're going to be sodomized by Capital Gains Tax for selling off their business premises on retirement. If Obama can reassure my mom on that level, she won't care about his experience or where he goes to church in Chicago when she goes to vote for him. I hope continued exposure to Palin lies and Blizzard County conniving has dampened her enthusiasm for the Palin pick (I had to sit through boring uterocentric argument she'd have laughed off if deployed on behallf of HRC).

i thought business was the community we had to win over. now it's swing voters? the reason i'm seeming tetchy here is because you seem to be applying an abstract notion of how things work and not confronting our realities. i think you're simply wrong that swing voters need to invested in the success of a health care program for it to work. swing voters are typically busy people who only pay attention to their needs. some of them need and will get health care and will support its creation and oppose its dismantling. some of them will ignore the issue coming or going but aren't going to be driven to vote against it.

except in the case that someone comes along and offers them a tax cut for obliterating boondoggle that is worthless to them.

The only reason that we still have a national healthcare system in the UK is that dismantling it is politically untenable. Unless Obama does something to make this the case then he may as well not even start setting one up.

I don't see how the small town narrative is a non-sequitur. Timne and time again the GOP have managed, through abstract ideas, to get people to vote against their socio-economic self interest and will continue to do so. I'll say it again Obama has to make universal healthcare so ingrained in the system within 4 years that no serious republican can stand on a platform of dismantling it.

The only reason that we still have a national healthcare system in the UK is that dismantling it is politically untenable

perhaps that would have some relevance to the US if we had a 60-year-old national health care system (or a country the size of Oregon, or a more liberal polity with some sense of solidarity). obama is not setting up a national healthcare system and most of the swing voters and other voters you're worried about would never support one on the front end, let alone the back.

I'm pretty sure that if Team O conducted a root and branch cost study they'd be appalled by the amount of $20 tampons charged to hospital bills (up from $10 in 1984, when my mom discovered one such item on her bill) which are then blithely paid by insurers. It's not just the pharmaceutical industry that benefits from our collective distance from any tally-up of hospital bills, there are all kinds of sneaky little inflations that happen as a matter of course and only a handful of people try to police this when looking after patients, or indeed while they've been one.

In a climate where there may be need for increased regulation of financial services, might there also be the same need in healthcare, and would it be urgent enough that people who don't like 'big government' (unless it's big to fite terrism) would accept or encourage the move?

wow

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

― gabbneb, Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:55 AM (2 hours ago)

yeah that column is crazy

can't stand Cohen but I'd say the press is officialy off McCain's jock, en masse

valiant effort by Drudge here, lol

OBAMA BOOM ECONOMY: RECORD BANK IN BEV HILLS, $28,500 A PLATE!
Tue Sep 16 2008 06:25:55 ET

The nation's financials may be in a spiral, but cash is flowing into the Obama campaign faster than Marvin Hamlisch can play "Niagara"!

Yesterday, Obama declared how we are in "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

Today he will host a dinner in Beverly Hills --- costing attendees $28,500 dollars each!

Hundreds of high rollers, including some of the biggest executives in film, television and music, will munch gourmet chow and hang out with the candidate.

Streisand will then sing at the five-star Beverly Wilshire, no doubt reviving the Depression-era standard "Happy Days Are Here Again" with new urgency.

Obama is set to break a single-day fundraising record of $9 million.

Tuesday's events in Tinseltown come after Obama racked up a record-breaking $66 million dollars in fundraising last month, beating his previous high mark of $55 million last winter.

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are still very, very difficult times," rival McCain said, sunny-side up.

"Sen. McCain, what economy are you talking about?" smiled Obama.

Developing...

sunny side up??

Is this Cohen guy known for having a particular political alleigance/schtick?

"Keep Your Sunny Side Up" was an old tune McCain probably whistled as he skipped to kindergarten.

Health Affairs: McCain, Bam healthcare plans won't work.

http://tinyurl.com/5nkl75

he's one of those Democrats who only ever seems to criticize Democrats - xpost

he's ostensibly a center-leftist, but his schtick is typical of the sort of permanent beltway insider that has historically loved and been quite unwilling to doubt mccain

Health Affairs: we hired some people specifically to find flaws in candidates' health care plans; they found flaws

xp, ty.

http://www.nybooks.com/images/palin_sarah-20081009.png

McCain campaign bringin teh lolz

Addressing the nation’s economic crisis, Holtz-Eakin told reporters traveling with the campaign “there’s no magic solution. And I don’t think that it’s at this moment imperative to write down exactly what the plan has to be.” He also said a president isn’t someone who needs to be heavily involved in policy specifics, which should be handled by “quality” advisers,

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/09/22/080922sh_shouts_saunders?currentPage=all

quality advisers like Phil Gramm

exactly

http://i33.tinypic.com/2q0ja68.png

^ lol I saw this one myself -- RIM is canadian too lol

roflz

the more desperate McCain looks like the less likely he will win the election

wow that cohen column is http://www.geocities.com/play_kool_2005/dhalsim.gif

xpost I dunno, his 'people' have been saying ridiculous bullshit for months and months now.

oh man my rss is blowing up with this blackberry thing, everybody's on it.

in with the screen name first

How dare you mock this man's credentials.

http://www.leighbureau.com/data/speaker/DHoltzEakin_full.jpg

It's amazing to me that in the face of the rising drumbeat of bad economic news, dramatic Wall Street failures, etc., McCain's poll numbers are holding up and even improving. There is some serious decoupling going on here. Whatever Obama is doing to try and paint McCain as out of touch on the economy doesn't seem to be working. Maybe he needs a new tack. I don't think endlessly replaying clips of McCain saying that the fundamentals of the economy are strong is working.

He shouldn't let McCain get away with blaming the current crisis on Wall Street "greed" when his tax plan would reward the elite at the expense of middle-class Americans. If McCain is against greed so much, why doesn't he support reforming the carried interest loophole that allows private-equity hedge fund managers to pay far lower tax rates than their janitors and secretaries. The fact is that McCain subscribes to the economic philosophy that greed is good - that greed at the top drives economic growth, so those at the top should be given a break.

It's amazing to me that in the face of the rising drumbeat of bad economic news, dramatic Wall Street failures, etc., McCain's poll numbers are holding up and even improving. There is some serious decoupling going on here.

Or maybe you need to wait more than a day for the polls to reflect what's going on?

haha. What's the URL for that blog where they pore over and aggregate polls?

Something with a number in the title.

Jeez, how long do we need to wait? It's been going on for months!

xpost.

I knmow of two: fivethirtyeight.com and electoral-vote.com

www.fivethirtyeight.com

538 was the one I was thinking of. Thanks to you both.

In the most recent Gallup poll I've seen on this issue, from Sep. 5-7, McCain had gained ground dramatically on Obama on the question of who could better handle the economy. Maybe that was just a temporary post-convention bounce, but it's worrying.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110170/Economy-McCain-Gains-Ground-Obama.aspx

That probably reflects the mindset that either of them would be fucked when dealing with this mess.

It's also possible that from where most Americans are sitting the economic situation may appear to be improving. In places like New York the failure of Lehman looms large, but in middle America, things like falling gas prices and lower mortgage rates may seem more important.

I'd swear you people don't remember '00 and '04.

Sure I remember. 2000 didn't matter and 2004 was the one where no one was going to fall for Bush again.

mccain is dropping in the polls as of yesterday, I believe. cnn reported that his convention bounce was basically gone; palin's favoribility rating has plummeted; trendlines are in obama's favor, and he's up in Virginia.

Yea, Joe FlyoverState moves a little slower on stuff than we do.

I'd swear you people don't remember '00 and '04.

One thing I remember from '00 was that Gore tacked left on economic issues in the final weeks, sounding much more populist with "people vs. the powerful" rhetoric, which helped his poll numbers, but not enough.

what I remember is the Republicans always sound desperate. That Gore & Kerry had teletoxic personalities didn't help, but sounding desperate usually works OK for them.

He shouldn't let McCain get away with blaming the current crisis on Wall Street "greed" when his tax plan would reward the elite at the expense of middle-class Americans. If McCain is against greed so much, why doesn't he support reforming the carried interest loophole that allows private-equity hedge fund managers to pay far lower tax rates than their janitors and secretaries. The fact is that McCain subscribes to the economic philosophy that greed is good - that greed at the top drives economic growth, so those at the top should be given a break.

you may be interested in the remarks Sen. Barack Obama (D - Ill.) delivered in colorado today

Those remarks:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/16/prepared-remarks-senator-barack-obama-golden/

Am I the only one who thinks the term "economic philosophy" is a bit bland? For example: "We've had this philosophy for eight years. We know the results." Wouldn't "ideology" be better?

pretty amazing to compare all the specific policy prescriptions in Obama's speech vs. McCain's spokesman today talking about "I don’t think that it’s at this moment imperative to write down exactly what the plan has to be."

next pundit to say "when is Obama going to move from this amorphous hope/change message into specifics??" gets a kick in the nutz (saw Chris Matthews say this last night)