The Words They Used
September 5, 2008 12:04 PM   Subscribe

"Of great concern to me, during those same four days in Denver, they rarely mentioned the attacks of September 11, 2001."
posted by swift (147 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
The death of a taboo

.
posted by homunculus at 12:12 PM on September 5, 2008 [7 favorites]


It's Giuliani's trademark, and the Democrats couldn't afford the license. Also, can't this be added to one of the existing convention threads?
posted by ardgedee at 12:13 PM on September 5, 2008 [6 favorites]


Did they mention that John McCain was a POW? Tortured, as a POW. He was shot down, and was a POW - did you know that? Have I mentioned that he was a POW?
posted by djgh at 12:14 PM on September 5, 2008 [10 favorites]


According to the second link, they tied, 3 to 3. Significantly, the tally shows Obama=2, McCain=0.
Terrorism? Well, the Republicans are ahead there, 10 to 8, but the R numbers are inflated by Giuliani's 5 "terrorisms" to McCain's solo mention. Obama, n=4.

Giuliani fits the Biden description of him "Noun, verb, 9/11." What a maroon.
posted by beelzbubba at 12:14 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Biden (October 2007): Rudy's Sentences Consist Of "A Noun, A Verb, And 9/11"
posted by ericb at 12:15 PM on September 5, 2008 [5 favorites]


What got me was that constant repetition of McCain's "I'd rather lose an election and win a war" comment. Isn't that straight out saying that he'd rather pursue illegal invasion and bombardment that the American people do not support rather than pay attention to the will of the electorate?
posted by Hildegarde at 12:17 PM on September 5, 2008 [5 favorites]


What a maroon.

And McCain is a 'mavrick!'
posted by ericb at 12:17 PM on September 5, 2008


Reform?
I'll reform you, you soft-headed sonofabitch! How we gonna run reform when we're the damn incumbent!

Y'ignorant slope-shouldered sack a guts! Why we'd look like a buncha satchel-ass Johnnie-Come-Latelies braggin' on our own midget! Don't matter how stumpy! And that's the goddamn problem right there - people think this Stokes got fresh ideas, he's oh coorant and we the past.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:20 PM on September 5, 2008 [22 favorites]


Interesting that "change" was so large in the R side. I guess they agree it's a change election. And I, for one, can't wait for the Republicans to get in there and clean up Washington!

(with apologies to my friend who sent that line to me via email today)
posted by DU at 12:22 PM on September 5, 2008


"Bob Geiger, who is a veteran, examined the major speeches at the GOP convention for any references to the men and women who are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing. The top GOPers were too busy fomenting fear to actually say anything about the troops or their families:
'What did not one member of the faux, support-the-troops line-up mention -- not even one time?

The sacrifice of our military families, the number of troops who have returned home in coffins since Bush lied us into the Iraq disaster and the trials of Iraq war Veterans.

To steal from the shrill Rudy Giuliani's speech on Wednesday, they said 'nada, nothing.'

For a party that wants to convince Americans that the entire Iraq debacle can somehow be reduced to the small amount of time spent on the 'surge,' every major speech was missing any acknowledgement whatsoever of the troops who have died and those still serving on the ground in Iraq -- except the couple of instances where they used the troops to lie about Barack Obama's record.

Even Veteran John McCain who had run the entire Republican convention under the 'Country First' marketing label, spent much of his acceptance speech focusing on himself and his POW resume, without one word for the troops still serving in a war of his party's making. He also said nothing about the nearly 4,200 troops who have died or the Veterans who have come back to neglect and mistreatment under the Bush administration.'"
posted by ericb at 12:22 PM on September 5, 2008 [5 favorites]


I'd rather lose an election and win a war

I, also, would prefer that McCain lose the election and that our various wars be won. Finally, something we can all agree on!
posted by SPrintF at 12:23 PM on September 5, 2008 [25 favorites]


And I, for one, can't wait for the Republicans to get in there and clean up Washington!

John Stewart asking Mike Huckabee about Republican "change" (starts at 2:53 of 4:17).
posted by ericb at 12:26 PM on September 5, 2008


"But he’s never — he’s never run a city. He’s never run a state. He’s never run a business. He’s never run a military unit. He’s never had to lead people in crisis."

That, it strikes me, is something that requires a serious response.
posted by MarshallPoe at 12:31 PM on September 5, 2008


"But he’s never — he’s never run a city. He’s never run a state. He’s never run a business. He’s never run a military unit. He’s never had to lead people in crisis."

Nor has John McCain!
posted by ericb at 12:35 PM on September 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


MarshallPoe: He continues to run one hell of a campaign, one that put all of Hillary's inside the beltway experience and deep bench to shame.
posted by Freen at 12:37 PM on September 5, 2008


Argh. Won't someone make Rudy go away? So many tragedies of similar or greater magnitude have occurred since - the war casualties, Katrina, the tsunami in Indonesia, earthquakes in China, etc. I know he's still profiting from the deaths associated with that fateful day, and I'm amazed that nobody has smacked him in response to his narcissistic failure to recognize how 9/11 fits into the bigger picture.
posted by sadiehawkinstein at 12:43 PM on September 5, 2008


"That, it strikes me, is something that requires a serious response."

Sarah Palin -
- Finished second in the Miss Alaska pageant.
- Has a degree from from the University of Idaho in communications
- Had a 20% ownership in an Anchorage car wash business
- Two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.
- One year as chairman of an oil commission.
- A year an a half as Governor of Alaska

Barack Obama -
- A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School
- Served as president of the Harvard Law Review
- Three years as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP)
- A consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation
- Taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years
- Served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge
- 8 years in the Illinois Senate
- 4 years in the U.S. Senate
- Sponsored 131 bills in the U.S. Senate
- Held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works, Veterans' Affairs, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and European Affairs.
- Has made official government trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.
- Authored two best selling books.
posted by Ragma at 12:43 PM on September 5, 2008 [58 favorites]


Nor has John McCain!

Well, he did run a training fighter squadron for a while.
posted by mkb at 12:51 PM on September 5, 2008


And McCain is a 'mavrick!'

You have to admin, that is a mavericky way to spell it.

mav·er·ick (māv'ər-ĭk, māv'rĭk)
n.
1. An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:53 PM on September 5, 2008 [4 favorites]


McCain has certainly run a household...he's just not sure how many.
posted by Hildegarde at 12:57 PM on September 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


What a perfect graphic of how little substance was in the Palin speech everyone is fapping about.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:00 PM on September 5, 2008


"John Stewart asking Mike Huckabee about Republican "change""

That guy looks just like Jon Stewart.
posted by An Infinity Of Monkeys at 1:00 PM on September 5, 2008


What strikes me about this campaign is how the GOP is embracing McCain as a former POW. An experience that was once a weakness, as seen by Bush and his machine in 2000 (maybe 2004, I don't remember), is now seen as a strength, something that defines McCain's character. However, in 2000 when McCain was running against Bush, the GOP implied that being a POW did, in fact, make McCain unworthy of being president because any person who endured such pain and strife would understandably be mentally unstable and thus incapable of governing a country.

I'm sure there are gross contradictions from year-to-year by both parties, but I just find this particularly striking.

My opinion, and I'm confident that many people share and can express much more eloquently, is that being a POW does not make leader. I would rather have a man who is thoughtful and an intellectual and a relative free thinker lead my country than have a man who endured a terrible life experience 40 years ago.

Does McCain deserve our respect for his service? Certainly. Does he deserve our vote because of that respect? Absolutely not.

The GOP made me sick this week. The lies, the hatred, and particularly that video last night was appalling.

/Drill, baby, Drill!
// My God!
posted by murp0837 at 1:03 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


I am also concerned that neither party mentioned the Challenger disaster, the Kennedy Assassination and the bombing at Pearl Harbor.

Also, neither mentioned the Anthrax scares, the Olympic park bombing, the Oklahoma city bombing, the Columbine shootings, the Jon Benet Ramsey case or the Nicole Simpson murder.

Basically, I want my politicians to name check as many news stories that I'm familiar with as possible - especially if they involved people getting killed violently.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:05 PM on September 5, 2008 [4 favorites]


That guy looks just like Jon Stewart.

Indeed, you are correct.
posted by ericb at 1:16 PM on September 5, 2008


Rudy "A noun, a verb, 9/11" Giuliani is the bag lady of politics.
posted by paddbear at 1:20 PM on September 5, 2008


I am also concerned that neither party mentioned ... the bombing at Pearl Harbor.

Naw, we're buds with Germany now so mentioning it would be just uncool.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:21 PM on September 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


I have to admit, I didn't quite see the angle when Palin was originally announced as the VP nominee. Now I get it... it's a greased pig. If you criticize her inexperience, they turn it into a conversation about Obama's inexperience. When you then show that his experience, while limited, has been of much greater quality than hers, they've succeeded in duping you into demote Obama to the level of a VP nominee. And so on and so forth... each argument you challenge exposes a vulnerability elsewhere.

Meanwhile, it's an interesting choice. She's attractive! She's a woman! She's from the mysterious frontier of Alaska! She's got a pregnant daughter! All of which make her the topic of conversation, which is unusual (the VP nominees are usually the sideshow of the election season) and good for McCain because he's not particularly charismatic.

Extra credit: the pregnant daughter is political gold. They can leverage the situation to bring up all their fun divisive topics (like abortion), rally an evangelical base that was lukewarm to McCain, and at the same time use her as a human shield against any criticism. After all, how dare the democrats use a poor teenage girl for political purposes! (without paying the proper patent licensing fees to the GOP)

I don't know how much of this was intentional and how much was them painting with broad (no pun intended) strokes and just lucking out. But it's pretty diabolical if they even predicted half of the current situation.
posted by Riki tiki at 1:21 PM on September 5, 2008 [11 favorites]


Van Jones: Sarah Palin Would Hate Rosa Parks
posted by homunculus at 1:33 PM on September 5, 2008


@ Ragma:

you forgot Palin got her first U.S. passport in 2006 so she could make a visit to kuwait and germany to visit the alaskan national guardsman. Oh, and there was a layover in ireland. and I guess canada. but up until recently you didn't need a passport to visit.

sh*t, I have a GED and haven't graduated college. but I've run two companies, have had my passport since I was eight years old and have visited six countries, yet I'm not a bible thumper or (conveniently pro-life) so I guess I can't run for VP.
posted by noriyori at 1:36 PM on September 5, 2008


Riki tiki -- you are right. Focus needs to return on McCain vs. Obama (which I think it will). I watched on CNN earlier today Biden talking to folks in Pennsylvania today ... and he did just that. Focused on McCain and made only one mention of "the Governor who is the Republican candidate for Vice President." He didn't even utter "the candidate who is running against me."
posted by ericb at 1:40 PM on September 5, 2008


No Interviews Till She's Ready
"A senior McCain campaign official advises that, despite the gaggle of requests and pressure from the media, Gov. Sarah Palin won't submit to a formal interview anytime soon. She may take some questions from local news entities in Alaska, but until she's ready -- and until she's comfortable -- which might not be for a long while -- the media will have to wait. The campaign believes it can effectively deal with the media's complaints, and their on-the-record response to all this will be: 'Sarah Palin needs to spend time with the voters.'

Not out of the question are appearances on lighter, fluffier television shows. But -- not for a while."
In July, McCain Promised His VP Pick Would Appear On Larry King Live.
posted by ericb at 1:43 PM on September 5, 2008


I cant stand this chorus of "change." The GOP has had all three branches of government for several years. What do they want to change exactly? They're the ones in charge. This is all their policies and cronies. The only thing I can think of them changing is the razor-thin Democratic majority in the senate now. I wish McSame would just come out against Bush. Where's the Maverick when you need him?
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:44 PM on September 5, 2008


So she was Mayor of a town of 5400 people. Isn't that about equivalent to being president of the student body at a larger high school in the lower 49?
posted by blue_beetle at 1:49 PM on September 5, 2008


Of all the phrases used during the RNC, I thought the booing at "community organizer" during Palin's speech was especially strange. I guess the Republicans think the work of Cesar Chavez, Dorothy Day, Mother Jones, Martin Luther King, Jr., and heck Jesus Christ himself are worthy of ridicule.

Then again, John McCain voted against making Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday back in 1983, a move he now generously characterizes as "a mistake".

Oh wait, let me rephrase that in Republican talking point terms...

Turns out McCain was against MLK Day before he was for it! Har de har har!
posted by turaho at 1:54 PM on September 5, 2008


So she was Mayor of a town of 5400 people. Isn't that about equivalent to being president of the student body at a larger high school in the lower 49?

Yep. And check out the voting numbers.

1999 Wasilla Mayoral Race Vote Count:
Sarah Palin -- 909

John Stein -- 292

Cliff Silvers -- 32
posted by ericb at 1:59 PM on September 5, 2008


I didn't quite see the angle when Palin was originally announced as the VP nominee.

it's dog-whistling to the base. Her politics are nearly identical to Huckabee's, if the video is anything to go by, and it is.

The dynamics of Palin, as the Huckabee simulacrum, are interesting:
For example, in Alabama, 78 percent of GOP primary voters said they are evangelical Christians, and 48 percent of them supported Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister. Their votes helped Huckabee win the state, reviving his struggling campaign.
She immediately and permanently shores up the weakness McCain had among the fundies.

Plus, as Governor of the State of _____, Palin has, arguably, as much executive experience as the current President had in 2000.

And as the anti-Hillary she serves as an attraction to the pouty HRC folks amongst us.

All in all, an awesome act of political triangulation in this choice: looking at electoral-vote.com, McCain needs OH & VA + one of NV, ND, or CO.

Hillary won OH with 54% and Huckabee got 30% of the Republican vote. Together their votes almost totalled Obama's. While Hillary got smoked in VA, Huckabee made a strong showing with 40% of the vote. Romney won NV & CO, many of those voters will eagerly want to see Palin sent to DC.

I think Obama is fucked, and nothing could make me happier.
posted by troy at 2:42 PM on September 5, 2008


Of all the phrases used during the RNC, I thought the booing at "community organizer" during Palin's speech was especially strange.

The booing through seemed so strange to me. Palin and McCain both had their "when I say [descriptor of Obama/Democrats], you say 'boooooo'" segments in their speeches, which was kind of weird, but Rudy took the cake. So weirdly giggly and smug throughout; those weird dramatic hand-flapping moments re: 'cosmoPOOOLitan'; and that long slow derisive chuckle after his own "Community organizer? What?!" line.

It played at times, especially during Rudy's stuff, as more like a puppet show in front of kindergartners than speechmaking. The image of a couple thousand white folks sitting around and emphatically Boooooing in unison was absolutely bizarre.
posted by cortex at 2:43 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


That stoop shouldered, beady eyed little midget. Every time I hear his fucking voice, I keep thinking about when he was mayor, here. And everybody kept saying the same fucking thing, "Oh sure, he's a completely bastard.... But he's good for New York! Just look at times square!" This, once you have heard it enough, finally starts making sense. Why should it start making sense? Was it because I was coming around to their point of view? Fuck. No. It's because you start realizing, eventually, how new yorkers are all so very liberal federally, but so very god damn conservative locally. they love their gay marriages, and why shouldn't they! but the new yorkers who vote (read: not the disenfranchised minorities) hate having blacks and latinos in their neighborhoods. they love the idea of all the drugs and prostitution being gone from times square, and they couldn't care less about all of the perfectly legal and decent minority business owners who were kicked out along with the prostitutes and drug dealers when the whole shebang was sold to Disney. More importantly, they don't care where those people went. Brooklyn is so much more liveable, now! Provided, of course, that by "Brooklyn" you mean "Park Slope and Williamsburg," and by "liveable" you mean "white." Rudy Giugliani is the voice and face of every god damn selfish and brutal instinct affluent new yorkers have. He is everything that is wrong with this city, he is the nasty and cruel side of gentrification. The side that, although it makes property values go up and crime rates go down, makes sure to do it by kicking out all the people that helped make it that way. Look at our marvellous Target stores! And Home Depots! And Best Buys! What? You mean people lived and worked in the buildings that used to be there? Pshaw! Not people! Just undesirables! Sure sure, they didn't want to sell those places, but since all of these big box chains and shopping centers we're building are considered public works to improve the neighborhood, they have no choice! they should be thanking us for making this neighborhood we won't let them live in any more so much nicer! And pay no attention to the fact that we routinely get cop hit squads to shoot and kill innocent men! thin blue line, solidarity, blahblah I'M THE FUCKIN BOSS AND YOU DO WHAT I SAY!

I fucking hate that cocksucker.
posted by shmegegge at 2:44 PM on September 5, 2008 [16 favorites]


you know, that was a bit of a rant. I'm calmer, now, I swear. carry on.
posted by shmegegge at 2:44 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Rudy 9u11an!
posted by clearly at 2:51 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hee hee. Didn't Mr. 9/11 call off the recovery effort the second the gold and silver reserves had been trucked out of the smoldering ruins? What a fucking douchebag.
posted by trondant at 2:52 PM on September 5, 2008



posted by LilBucner at 2:54 PM on September 5, 2008


“ ‘I am also concerned that neither party mentioned ... the bombing at Pearl Harbor.’
‘Naw, we're buds with Germany now so mentioning it would be just uncool.’”

The Germans?
forget it he’s on a roll

“’He’s never run a military unit. He’s never had to lead people in crisis.’"
‘Nor has John McCain!’
‘Well, he did run a training fighter squadron for a while.’”

He was the C.O. and won a meritorious unit commendation. Not small potatoes.
I’m not going to argue McCain’s leadership. There are big differences between pilots and everyone else. And running a flyer outfit is different than running just about any other military unit.
Fact is, he was a leader and an executive. Apparently a pretty good one.
Now the led people in crisis thing that’s just bullshit. I mean, leading pilots, hell, those guys have nerves of steel. You could have one wing on fire, the other gone and rabid bats in the cockpit and you’d get a report of “event presently occuring impeding normal operations.” Pilots, you just tell them ‘do it’ and they’re all cocky bastards who think they can take on anything. And you can’t lead men in a prison camp. You can only support each other.
Now, community organizing on the south side - those are people in crisis.
So - leader v. leader - it comes more down to the leadership style you want. I mean I trust McCain the POW more than I trust McCain the fighter jock C.O. I don’t want Bull “Great Santini” Meacham bouncing a basketball off my head telling me to get my shit together.
I want the guy who I can trust with my life, who I can cry on and who trusts me enough to break on me when he has to.
But they don’t talk about that with McCain. I don’t know why. Maybe they’re ashamed of it. He’s spoken about it. He doesn’t much any more.
So - maybe he’s not that guy anymore.
Hell, if I married the daughter of a beer magnate and had a really cushy life for 20 years I’d be soft as the Pilsbury doughboy myself.

That’s what kills me about all this. Obama is a bar of iron. And they won’t really make any headway against him unless they see that.
And I don’t think they will. They’re words show it. The whole tough guy complex. Ok, Palin is a pitbull with lipstick. Great.
I don’t need an attack dog to chew anyone’s ass off, I need the strong guy who’s going to lend me his hand.
A while ago, that would have been McCain too. He got lost in the rhetoric apparently.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:56 PM on September 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


I think Obama is fucked, and nothing could make me happier.

Except for the fact that your entire argument hinges on Clinton supporters voting for Palin. Will some of them? Sure. Will all, or even most, of them? Hardy effin' har.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:59 PM on September 5, 2008


Everything old is new again. Kerry ran as a Vietnam war hero with his rich wife at his side. A pregnant unmarried (and by the way fictitious) Murphy Brown became the symbol for "poverty of values" according to vice president Dan Quayle. POW McCain flip flopped on torture, of all things. Energy conservation and alternative sources were in with Carter, out with Reagan, now in again.

I am anxiously awaiting the "Dean Scream" from Ms. Palin. She was a communication major for god's sake so of course she can read a teleprompter with expression. That does not make her the next "great communicator", just another actor. She was later recorded at some Minneapolis meeting by local NPR reporters and she was stumbling all over herself, not making any sense. Should be interesting how she performs when some Ann Coulter clone does not supply a script.
posted by Bitter soylent at 3:02 PM on September 5, 2008


So weirdly giggly and smug throughout; those weird dramatic hand-flapping moments re: 'cosmoPOOOLitan'; and that long slow derisive chuckle after his own "Community organizer? What?!" line.

That really, really bothered me. I could only figure out two interpretations of what he was doing and neither is very good for anyone. He was either saying "I have no idea what that is, I'm honestly too wealthy to know stuff like this," or "Wow, are we really letting the once poor and low-class people run for President?" It was White privilege mocking someone who climbed their ladder. It still makes me feel a little depressed about my country.

I grew up on the south side. Its not pretty. We need more people like Obama and less like Giuliani out there.

He really made me angry and it was easy for him to do. I hope people remember this convention for what it truly was. A classist, mean, and tasteless attack on everyone who wasnt the classic GOP demographic. An attack that stooped so low, it makes people like Reagan and Gingrich seem like saints in comparision. I hope history judges Giuliani very poorly. He deserves it.
posted by damn dirty ape at 3:06 PM on September 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


Germany The world is not looking to Prussia's America's liberalism, but to its power; Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden France, Denmark, Belgium may indulge liberalism, and yet no one will assign them Prussia's America's role; Prussia The United States has to coalesce and concentrate its power for the opportune moment [to attack terrorism in Iran]... it is not by speeches and majority resolutions that the great questions of the time are decided – that was the big mistake of 1848 and 1849 the Clinton Administration – but by iron and blood.
--Rudy von Bismarck
posted by orthogonality at 3:10 PM on September 5, 2008


Will some of them? Sure. Will all, or even most, of them? Hardy effin' har.

In 2004 Ohio went 2,858,727 - 2,739,952; right now OH is polling 47-45, McCain needs a 1% swing to take it. 1% of 5.5M is 55,000 votes, 20% of HRC's total.

Right now VA is a dead-heat. Hillary got 350,000 votes there. Huckabee got 200,000.
posted by troy at 3:18 PM on September 5, 2008


Even though the Dean Scream hubbub was unfair, it WAS the end of Howard Dean. Much like the unfair "invention of the internet" slur hurt Gore immeasurably. My point probably wasn't clear but I was trying to point out the prospect of some such defining moment that ends a political career. I just believe Palin will falter so badly that the media will not be able to hide it when she is on her own.
posted by Bitter soylent at 3:25 PM on September 5, 2008


They remind us that two towers fell
And they remind us again;
They show us pictures of two airplanes,
And say a noun, a verb, a when.
They thrust their fingers and say: go vote!
And remember when you do,
There are bad men out there with evil schemes --
They've got their hateful eyes on you.

We cast our votes with shaking hands;
We cast our votes with dread;
We cast our votes in the towers' shadows;
We cast votes haunted by the dead.
It's a war we fight against terror now
And so we vote as we are directed,
But the ones that benefit from terror most
Are the ones that we elected.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:26 PM on September 5, 2008 [6 favorites]


I know it's unkind of me, but because they are pushing the POW thing with McCain as hard as they are, my brain kind of twitched at a couple of the speeches and inserted dialog which seemed appropriate at the time:

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost — there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.

But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.

They overlooked the caliber of the man himself — the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Sen. John McCain; The determinination to crash an aircraft over enemy controlled territory, the resolve be captured and tortured, and the sheer guts to think this is what makes a Presidential candidate.

posted by quin at 3:29 PM on September 5, 2008


"She immediately and permanently shores up the weakness McCain had among the fundies."

You really think this woman would make a good president?! Wow.

I guess if "Obama is fucked" we'll get exactly what we deserve...A broke-ass, backward, third rate country, 'cause that's exactly the path the GOP has put us on.
posted by black8 at 3:35 PM on September 5, 2008


For me, two things stood out.

1. Speaking as a European (who wish-vote Democrat anyway), I thought the sneering references to Europe were pretty weird. How awful it must be to live in those wretched hovels in the 7th arrondissement. Personally, I can barely sleep at night, knowing that we have effectively-enforced environmental protection legislation.

2. Jeering the concept of community organiser really made me cross. Communities? What are they? Do you mean "gated communities"? No? Oh, it must be what those funny little black people call themselves. Hahahahaha how funny.
posted by athenian at 3:36 PM on September 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


Did they mention that John McCain was a POW? Tortured, as a POW. He was shot down, and was a POW - did you know that? Have I mentioned that he was a POW?

I found this anecdote somewhere:

So the other day I was talking to this woman that works with my dad. I'm 19 so she was asking me if I was excited for the first presidential election I get to vote in and things like that. It was a nice little chat until she asked me who I was going to vote for...

Woman: Who are you going to vote for?
Me: I don't know yet. Who are you voting for?
Woman: Well I normally vote republican but I don't want to vote for someone who was in jail.
Me: What are you talking about?
Woman: John McCain was in prison.
Me: No he was a prisoner of war.
Woman: I don't care what he was in jail for I'm not voting for him.
Me: ...
posted by martinrebas at 3:45 PM on September 5, 2008 [13 favorites]


I appreciate Martinrebas' conclusive proof that neither campaign has cornered the idiot market.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:05 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Except for the fact that your entire argument hinges on Clinton supporters voting for Palin.

Obama and Biden are now focusing solely on McCain. Hillary goes out on the campaign trail for them on Monday. She's expected to be the designated attack dog against Palin.
posted by ericb at 4:08 PM on September 5, 2008


You really think this woman would make a good president?! Wow.

Obama losing to this Rovian ju-jitsu will put a smile on my face 10 miles wide.

I've bailed on this country once already and I can certainly do it again.

Coolidge : Bush :: Hoover : McCain

not that I'm a "tear-it-down-to-rebuild!" type, but McCain winning thanks to the Fundies would make the next 4 years highly entertaining.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
posted by troy at 4:09 PM on September 5, 2008


So weirdly giggly and smug throughout; those weird dramatic hand-flapping moments re: 'cosmoPOOOLitan'

I took it as another coded "gay" moment. Just as Palin's mention of Obama who "who "talks one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.". It's all from the Rove 'playbook.' Nasty and divisive.
posted by ericb at 4:11 PM on September 5, 2008


McCain winning thanks to the Fundies would make the next 4 years highly entertaining.

I'm sure the people of Iraq and Iran will be laughing right along with you, and will appreciate the delightful political circus of American politics as bombs rain down on them. And I'm also fairly certain that the middle class family already struggling to pay their bills will titter at the delicious irony of it all as well. Oh, to be comfortable and privileged enough to look at political actions that might fuck up the lives of millions at home and abroad with the detached smirk of someone watching an episode of Frasier. Must be swell.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:26 PM on September 5, 2008 [7 favorites]


I just believe Palin will falter so badly that the media will not be able to hide it when she is on her own.

Ah, but it's the damned LIBERAL MEDIA / MSM! It's all fabricated stuff if it's the republicans.
posted by inigo2 at 4:35 PM on September 5, 2008


Woman: I don't care what he was in jail for I'm not voting for him.

Um, wow. Well, we'll take your vote anyway. Thanks for participating in democracy!
posted by DarlingBri at 4:36 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Shmeggege ... look. I dislike Giuliani as much as the next guy. But cocksucker and midget refer very specifically (albeit offensively) to two groups that have nothing to do with the man or his politics. Cool it, eh?
posted by spaceman_spiff at 4:36 PM on September 5, 2008


Obama who "who "talks one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."

She probably doesn't realise that one needs a certain flexibility of approach if one is trying to address an electorate of more than five thousand people.
posted by Grangousier at 4:40 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


I just believe Palin will falter so badly that the media will not be able to hide it when she is on her own.

Shit. The woman tried to BAN BOOKS and is getting away with that.
posted by inigo2 at 4:45 PM on September 5, 2008


"But he’s never — he’s never run a city. He’s never run a state. He’s never run a business. He’s never run a military unit. He’s never had to lead people in crisis."

That, it strikes me, is something that requires a serious response.


On the other hand, if you were really serious about having people experienced at running a country running your country, why do you insist on kicking out the experienced ones?
posted by Auz at 4:49 PM on September 5, 2008


"community organizer" is the new N-word.

what sort of community do you think Barack Obama was trying to organize? labor? poor people? progressives? ... BLACK people?

It all seems like coded racism to me. I think it will backfire marvelously, but perhaps I put too much faith in Americans. OOPS.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:51 PM on September 5, 2008


martinrebas: you have just proved again the dictum that the best argument against democracy is five minutes' conversation with an average voter.
posted by athenian at 4:52 PM on September 5, 2008


Did they mention that John McCain was a POW? Tortured, as a POW. He was shot down, and was a POW - did you know that? Have I mentioned that he was a POW?

As defined by the Bush administration, McCain was never tortured. I wish people would stop saying that he was when, obviously, he only underwent enhanced interrogation.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 5:00 PM on September 5, 2008 [6 favorites]




Crap, the anniversary is under a week away. What horrible thing will they do for it?
posted by Artw at 5:10 PM on September 5, 2008


LastOfHisKind - I believe that Palin torturously interrogated a sentence structure over that.
posted by Artw at 5:11 PM on September 5, 2008


spaceman_spiff: "Shmeggege ... look. I dislike Giuliani as much as the next guy. But cocksucker and midget refer very specifically (albeit offensively) to two groups that have nothing to do with the man or his politics. Cool it, eh?"

He was quoting the Pappy O'Daniel character from O Brother, Where Art Thou?

You can listen to parts of the clip here and here (autoplay warning for both of those).
posted by Rhaomi at 5:29 PM on September 5, 2008


Oh, to be comfortable and privileged enough to look at political actions that might fuck up the lives of millions at home and abroad with the detached smirk of someone watching an episode of Frasier. Must be swell.

consider it a defense mechanism?

By my lights, as it stands now at least, the vote in November is going to come down to how many fundies in OH, VA, and CO hold their nose and vote for McCain.

This population believes 2:1 that humankind does not share common ancestry with apes, 3:1 that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or otherwise not an inborn trait, and is more than twice as likely as the secular community to dismiss global warming as not a serious issue.[1]

Like I said, Obama is fucked.
posted by troy at 5:36 PM on September 5, 2008


I am also concerned that neither party mentioned ... the bombing at Pearl Harbor.

Naw, we're buds with Germany now so mentioning it would be just uncool.


Germany had about as much to do with Pearl Harbor as Iraq did with 9/11, so I guess that's appropriate.
posted by waitingtoderail at 5:37 PM on September 5, 2008


This population believes 2:1 that humankind does not share common ancestry with apes, 3:1 that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or otherwise not an inborn trait, and is more than twice as likely as the secular community to dismiss global warming as not a serious issue.

As troubling as that is on its own, it doesn't change a number of other factors in this election - such as how many states Obama already has, how much larger his base is, and how much more organized they are. Will Palin be able to attract enough Fundies to counter the numbers of undecideds who are now, thanks to her, shifting over to Obama? I don't know, and neither does anyone else until November. But keep in mind that we're not just talking about the same America that re-elected Bush in 2004; we're also talking about the same America that made Congress a Democrat majority in 2006.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:44 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Right now VA is a dead-heat. Hillary got 350,000 votes there. Huckabee got 200,000.

And Bush won Virginia by 8% in 2004.
He won North Dakota by 27%. Obama is ahead in the latest poll (although it's a statistical dead heat).
He won Indiana by 20%. They are dead even there, too.

McCain is fucked.
posted by waitingtoderail at 5:45 PM on September 5, 2008


^ McCain was fucked. Like I said, Palin saving the Republicans in November will make my day.

The country will have had its choice, and, IMHO, chosen poorly. If McCain had chosen e.g Condi, Bolton, Lieberman, Powell, or a Republican I actually respected like Tom Campbell then the defeat would sting. But getting beat by the moron vote . . . what can ya do?
posted by troy at 5:58 PM on September 5, 2008


But keep in mind that we're not just talking about the same America that re-elected Bush in 2004; we're also talking about the same America that made Congress a Democrat majority in 2006

And the same America that is ~100,000 votes away from a 272-266 split. CO, with its 9 EVs, and home to Focus on the Family, is, like OH, a 2% split state (45-43 for Obama in this case).

In this scenario, Obama's 270 EVs hinges on ND's 3 votes. Good luck with that.
posted by troy at 6:04 PM on September 5, 2008




All in all, an awesome act of political triangulation in this choice: looking at electoral-vote.com, McCain needs OH & VA + one of NV, ND, or CO.

troy, you might want to check your math. Electoral-vote.com currently has McCain at 224. OH and VA together are 33, which would give him a total of 257 (if he won them). He would still need 13 more to get the necessary 270. None of the states you list would give him that. He'd have to get both NV and CO (and that's without even considering the possibility that Obama might get FL, IN, or NC, all of which are currently within the margin of error).
posted by Hypocrite_Lecteur at 6:13 PM on September 5, 2008


In this scenario, Obama's 270 EVs hinges on ND's 3 votes.

Really? Just North Dakota? Seems there are a lot of other possible scenarios to choose from.

No one has this game figured out. But I think it's a little peculiar to think McCain + fundies - undecideds = McCain wins as if it's gospel.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:17 PM on September 5, 2008


HL, yeah, my math was bad, but 224 + OH (20), VA (13), CO (9), NH (4) = 270

The polling:
OH 47-45 Obama
VA 45-45
CO 45-43
NH 45-44

To belabor the point, there are ~60M evangelicals in this country and Palin puts them back in play for McCain. The HRC fanbloc is gravy.
posted by troy at 6:20 PM on September 5, 2008


funny how people spout shit about states they know nothing about. troy, with his rapier-like analysis talks about Colorado as if he knows it, but apparently all he knows is Focus on the Family. Colorado's current Governor is a Democrat which beat the Republican 57-40%. The most recently elected Senator is Salazar, who beat Pete Coors. The current Senate race, the last I checked, is being won by the Democratic candidate. The state's house and senate both have democratic majorities. This isn't the rabid republican state he thinks is.

This is why you don't listen to blather on the internets.
posted by Eekacat at 6:29 PM on September 5, 2008


cortex: It played at times, especially during Rudy's stuff, as more like a puppet show in front of kindergartners than speechmaking. The image of a couple thousand white folks sitting around and emphatically Boooooing in unison was absolutely bizarre.

It wasn't even that. That crowd was prompted. Throughout. What group in their right minds would, by impromptu chance, start chanting "Drill Baby Drill?" I mean c'mon, they applauded the "difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull is lipstick" line, which the NPR commentator appearing right after said was the high point of Palin's speech!

They were either prompted throughout, or they had wires leading out the back of a significant portion of the audience members' heads to a Windows machine running Groupthink 7.0.
posted by JHarris at 6:30 PM on September 5, 2008


224 + OH (20), VA (13), CO (9), NH (4) = 270

The polling:
OH 47-45 Obama
VA 45-45
CO 45-43
NH 45-44


And Obama currently has 250. So just limited to those 4 states as the toss-ups, he would need only OH, or VA and CO, or VA and NH. But as is evidenced by the RCP map, those aren't the only 4 possibilities anyway, so I find this foregone conclusion talk pretty puzzling.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:35 PM on September 5, 2008


EDIT: Er, I retract "or VA and NH". I think today is Bad Math Day or something.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:39 PM on September 5, 2008


so I find this foregone conclusion talk pretty puzzling

The polling is largely pre-Palin, no?

I could be wrong, but it's my expectation that Dobson is going to remove fatwa on McCain, freeing up a point or three in the polling, here and there.

Here's another angle that's influencing my thinking here. Everybody who's TOTALLY ENTHUSED by Obama's Biden pick, please raise your hand. . . . 1, 3, 10, 20. . . . thanks . . .

It was only by seeing Palin's church video did I understand the power of her selection. MILLIONS of Americans think, to use the term loosely, like her.
posted by troy at 6:42 PM on September 5, 2008


I watched on CNN earlier today Biden talking to folks in Pennsylvania today ... and he did just that. Focused on McCain and made only one mention of "the Governor who is the Republican candidate for Vice President." He didn't even utter "the candidate who is running against me."

Here's a videoclip of Biden today.
posted by ericb at 6:45 PM on September 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


Metaman, is that you?
posted by nonmerci at 6:54 PM on September 5, 2008 [5 favorites]


The polling is largely pre-Palin, no?

No. The map and its polling is from RCP, as it says. They compile polls from across the country and compile daily averages. And today, Obama is still at 250. Hence my bewilderment at your foregoneconclusionation.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:55 PM on September 5, 2008


Yawn. Obama's got the Kerry states plus Iowa and New Mexico, easy. That's 264 electoral votes, and all he needs to do is take one of: Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, or any two of Nevada, Montana, North Dakota. In every single one of those states Obama's ahead or within striking distance, and he has an organization that will run circles around McCain. There's a lot of work to do, but this is still Obama's to lose.
posted by EarBucket at 6:58 PM on September 5, 2008


Oh, and new voter registrations:

Colorado, Jan-July 2008: 13,352 Republicans, 66,516 Democrats, 23,437 other.

Florida, Jan.-June 2008: 77,196 Republicans, 209,422 Democrats, 26,100 other.

Iowa: Jan. - Aug. 2008: 7,515 Republicans, 69,301 Democrats, -62,922 other.

Nevada: Jan. - Aug. 2008: 1,230 Republicans, 51,547 Democrats, 7,550 other.

North Carolina: Jan. - Aug. 2008: 20,363 Republicans, 171,955 Democrats, 123,605 other.

Oregon: Jan. - July 2008: -13,349 Republicans, 122,518 Democrats.

Pennsylvania: April - Aug. 2008: 289 Republicans, 98,137 Democrats.
posted by EarBucket at 7:03 PM on September 5, 2008 [4 favorites]


Obama is still at 250. Hence my bewilderment at your foregoneconclusionation.

On the yahoo map, McCain is a 0.2% swing away from Obama in CO and 0.15% in NH. CO+NH = VA in electoral math. CO shows as a +2% Obama state on e-v.com, which is evidence that the Palin choice has already obliterated Obama's slim lead there.

I don't see why it's controversial to say that Palin is going to help McCain significantly in CO and VA. The e-v.com polling for VA is from AUGUST 12. (Upon further reflection I fully expect to see the e-v.com map shake out to 273 EVs for McCain either this week or next.)

Bush in 2004 proved that the debates don't matter to the base. People want to vote their guts, and for the person who is telling them what they want to hear.
posted by troy at 7:17 PM on September 5, 2008


On the yahoo map, McCain is a 0.2% swing away from Obama in CO and 0.15% in NH.

Are you talking about the map I posted? Because there, I'm seeing in CO, Obama= 45.2% and McCain = 44.8%. That's a difference of 0.4%, not 0.2%. Also, it's showing in NH, Obama = 44% and McCain = 43.7%. That's a difference of 0.3%, not 0.15%. Funnily enough, in both cases double what you said.

Bush in 2004 proved that the debates don't matter to the base. People want to vote their guts, and for the person who is telling them what they want to hear.

And Congress in 2006, the new voter registration numbers, and the daily compiled polls "prove" that people are sick of his shit. No one disputes that Palin helps McCain get evangelicals. But it's far from a done deal. Also, what EarBucket said.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:28 PM on September 5, 2008


It's far, far, too early to say anyone's fucked.

The way I see it, Obama keeps all Kerry states and picks up Iowa. Virginia will be closer than most years, but it's I really doubt it will go blue. Maybe in 10 years. Florida is, in my opinion the least "swinging" of the swing states. (Unless you actually count PA, MI, WI and MN, which always seems in play in Sept, but just isn't going to go red in a non-landslide year.)

I think the playing field is truly Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. (And just maybe, one electoral vote out of Nebraska from the Omaha area, since that state splits it's votes by Congressional district. But I wouldn't count on it.)

Assuming Iowa is a given, Obama would need 1)Ohio, 2)Colorado and New Mexico 3) Colorado and Nevada or 4) New Mexico, Nevada and one Nebraska electoral vote.

If you forced me to, I wouldn't bet Colorado or Nevada will flip. I think this leaves Ohio as the most likely pickup, but I think Obama is kind of stuck with three not-so great choices.

On the plus side, Obama has got the cash to dump in these three critical states. Now, I've only worked on campaigns in very small maarkets, and I don't know the actual costs of those ad buys. But- at the rate Obama raises funds- I'd imagine he could be on the air in those states nearly non-stop from now to November 4. He should still have enough to make a real play for Colorado and make the GOP waste resources in Virgina, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Georgia, even.

In conclusion, holy fuck this is going to be close.
posted by spaltavian at 7:53 PM on September 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


Bush in 2004 proved that the debates don't matter to the base.

The base gets McCain to 35%. The next 15% will care about the debates. The current political climate is causing people who haven't voted blue since '92 or '96 willing to listen to Obama. Doesn't mean he'll win them over, but he's in better shape than Kerry was about this time, and 2004 was much closer than people realize.
posted by spaltavian at 7:58 PM on September 5, 2008


In conclusion, holy fuck this is going to be close.

Can someone please explain to me, as a foriegner, precisely why this election is going to be so close? It is genuinely baffling to me. You've got an economy in the shitter, hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, a fundie blockhead as a VP candidate, George Bush at 26% approval. Your govt is sanctioning torture, ignoring global warming, wiretapping its citizens, etc etc. The list of woes is as long as your arm.

Then on the other side, Obama is one of the most geniunely talented politicans out there.

It's craziness.

The Republicans are so intellectually bankrupt they're even co-opting Obama's "change" thing now. But wouldn't the best way to change things be throwing the bums out? Why are the 74% of people who don't like Bush going to vote Republican? Are they masochists?

Please take a minute to explain.
posted by dydecker at 8:32 PM on September 5, 2008 [4 favorites]


People want to vote their guts, and for the person who is telling them what they want to hear.

a lot of us want to hear that there's hope for this world and we can work together in it - i wonder who's saying that ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:35 PM on September 5, 2008


Please take a minute to explain.

Because there are a lot of "mouth breathers" who vote against their best interests ... and respond to superficial slogans without carefully vetting the issues at hand.
posted by ericb at 9:26 PM on September 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


"...there are ~60M evangelicals in this country and Palin puts them back in play for McCain."

Those evangelicals fall for it every time, don't they?
posted by jaronson at 10:04 PM on September 5, 2008


If we're still talking about the RNC, my very most favoritist part of McCain's speech was when he talked about the two cellmates who saved his life, and can't be bothered to give their names.

Pure class, John, really a class act. Thank every fucking-republican-body holding office for the last 29 years - and their current wives - but not those guys who actually spoon fed you in prison?
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:05 PM on September 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


It'll take more than a minute, but a reading of Nixonland ought to explain it.
posted by speedo at 10:08 PM on September 5, 2008


They're mad the Democrats didn't recycle the 2004 Republican National Convention [warning: scary!].
posted by kirkaracha at 10:14 PM on September 5, 2008


can't be bothered to give their names

I think it was George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:15 PM on September 5, 2008


Can someone please explain to me, as a foriegner, precisely why this election is going to be so close?
Remember, about half the GOP disapproves of Bush because he isn't conservative enough.

Reasons for the non-landslide nature of this election include long term/structural and ones more specific to this race. (Some caveats; I'm talking in political generalities. I'm observing, not approving or disapproving. Everything I say has exceptions, and these are open to argument.) Here are some I see:

-Timing. Believe it or not, it's early. People still don't know the candidates- I know this sounds absurd, but people don't pay attention as much as informed people think. We haven't got to the debates yet, and people aren't quite sure what they have to choose between yet. Hence, more undecideds and more people open to change.

-Biography. McCain has an attractive bio and gets great press. Obama is a minority- some people just aren't ready for it. And they're not all right-wing out and out racists. Obama is easily cast as "other", and not just in race. People do resent Hollywood types "telling them how to live" (as stupid as that is), and Obama is cast in that crowd because of his overachiever, do-gooder caricature. It may be the lord's work, but only liberals respect "community organizer". Tt understandable, but a little humorous, that Lefties don't really understand what the attack on that is all about. Yeah, it is in part coded racism, but there's more to it. People resent that sort of thing, especially coming from a liberal. The community organizer thing is like Hillary Clinton's "it takes a village to raise a child". The conservative response to that was "it takes a FAMILY". Swing votes live in suburbs, where they went so they could build a 9 foot fence, buy a shot fun and be left alone.

- Negative Campaigning. Obama's campaign is not attacking hard enough, while McCain has said some devastating lines- "Obama would lose a war to win an election". The severity of the attacks are making the election over Obama's character (and if it's about your character, you're losing the argument) rather than the issues, which are Obama friendly.

-9/11. This may sound trite, or over dramatic, but 9/11 freaked a lot of people out over here, and it hasn't gone away. It scared people, angered people, and it made the morality of simple answers and self-righteousness that we see in movies attractive to people in the political arena. The same happens in other countries, but in different directions: the Madrid bombing handed the elections to the Socialists. Being in Iraq was a mistake, but it they also had the most self-assured, easy to understand story.

-Rally around the flag. Perhaps the oldest political phenomenon. We're at war, the most martial, patriotic seeming candidate has an advantage. The GOP get this as a freebie- people who will vote Democratic in down-ticket races think twice on the President, because he is the commander in chief.

-The base. Since the 80s, the GOP has awakened the evangelical Christian vote, which was much less political active in the past. These are fervent supporters who vote for the GOP 80%-90%, and abortion will keep it that way. Karl Rove's plan in 2004 was to get 4 million new evangelical votes to the polls, and it largely worked- about 3.5 million Christians who hadn't voted before or not in a long time went to the polls. Bush won the popular vote by 3 million. They have their problems with McCain but they're still GOP loyalists.

The Left, on the other hand, has never fully exploited two groups that are overwhelmingly supportive in theory: the youth vote and urban blacks. The young, especially, don't vote. Maybe they will this year, but, they say that every year. Employment just jumped to 6.1%, but if you're out of work, voting probably isn't your top priority.

-"The ten word answer". The GOP message requires less nuance, which helps in a soundbite news culture. "I'll cut taxes" vs. "I'll cut them for most people, but raise them slightly for the very wealthy". One is clear, one is easier to distort. The same is true for Iraq, national security, abortion and so on. Obama is vulnerable on this especially since the narrative the press gave him was that he's an out of touch academic- or, he doesn't stand behind what he says.

-"Two Americas" Liberal economic rhetoric is easily labeled class-warfare, which doesn't play in America. We, generally, don't resent the rich. As Vonnegut said, only America could invent the expression "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

-Message discipline. The Right is generally more in lockstep and organized. The Left is more of a coalition which doesn't get along so well. On the right, for example, business interests really don't go in for the crazy religious stuff, but they aren't affected it by it too much. The social conservatives will vote against their economic interests to be on the right side of the culture war, however. As long as GOP leaders talk the right game, they can get the fundies to vote for their economic program. Even though the "Blue State Republicans" who lead the party will never outlaw abortion, every one still goes home moderately happy.

The Left doesn't work like that so much. Lefties are much less willing to let their candidates campaign to the center without getting holier than though. Take this Metafilter thread, for example. Someone actually said Obama would govern exactly like McCain- this is because of one vote to the center that was obviously to court moderates. Look at the withering attacks from the self-proclaimed base; look how many people say they can't vote for Obama any more over one vote. The result is a less committed base- Nader, of all people, is polling at around 3%. The left is more easily dispirited, and more likely to "take their ball an go home".

In response, the Democrats often have to buck up the disparate groups that make up their coalition. The result is that the message gets diluted and sounds like a laundry list of promises to interest groups. Hence, the left gets identified less with a compelling vision and more with easily caricatured concerns: gay rights, feminists, doves, immigrants, environmentalists, etc. The Democrats also risk alienating groups within their coalition to appease others: courting immigrants often pisses off blue-collar workers, for example.

-Validation. The Left's message is easily distorted into a condemnation of the average American's way of life. No one likes to be told what to do. "Let's conserve" can come across as "you're wasteful, and you're stupid for having an SUV. Saying guns are evil pisses people who grew up shooting/hunting with Dad off. Advocating tolerance of homosexuals can be turned around into saying your religion is wrong/your parents raised you wrong/you're raising your kids wrong. Social conservatives get labeled as "mouth breathers" for example. Obama's comment about people being bitter and therefore latching on to guns and religion was absolutely correct, but very dumb to say out loud. People can be convinced that the Left thinks they're backwards hicks and need to be changed. The anger is than exploited. Obama's idealism is turned into elitism. (The obvious irony is that it's the social conservatives who want to change out we live far more than anyone else.) The right's implicit message is "I'm okay, you're okay. They're not okay, though."
posted by spaltavian at 10:15 PM on September 5, 2008 [20 favorites]


Man, I'm sorry about all the typos above. I'm on painkillers for some dental work and I'm a bit loopy.
posted by spaltavian at 10:46 PM on September 5, 2008


Late in the thread, but my 2 cents.

The Palin angle is scary as shit. She's a believe. Believer, capital B. That scares the everlasting shit out of me.

Point blank, if she were to come to power, I believe she'd be on-par with a wide variety of dystopian Sci-Fi leaders. Scary shit.

But, that's the selling point.

I think the idea is to start up the culture war again. Not like they did in the past. There's a new angle.

Go grass roots. Alienate the press. Demonize the Press. Demonize everyone who you normally relied on for getting the message out. Us against them.

So how do you get your numbers?

Churches. Youth Groups. Alternative, controllable and directed means of communication.

Sure, you might point out that churches endorsing a candidate is illegal.. But who enforces that? And how long does it take to bring a case online? A lot longer than November.

Yeah this might be paranoia, but that's the only reason I can think why you would dig up some absolutely bat-shit-insane religions megalomaniac from the backwaters of Alaska to, in the words of someone else, be one sunburn away from the most powerful person in the entire world.
posted by Lord_Pall at 10:46 PM on September 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


Can someone please explain to me, as a foriegner, precisely why this election is going to be so close?

In America most people self-identify with one of the two parties. There is little movement between them. Thus the GOP will get almost 50% no matter what it does because of abortion, guns, and other hot-topic issues. The Democratic party will get almost 50% no matter what it does because of abortion, guns, and other hot-topic issues. The USA is always at war with itself. We call this the culture war. Arguably, it stems at least as far back to the civil war.

A small percentage of people swing between the parties and there are always new voters, and old voters dying off. Its this crucial 1-2% that decides everything, and only in a handful of battlefield states.

Americans simply dont vote on competence. They vote strictly on party and ideology. At least on the federal level and especially when it comes to voting in the president.
posted by damn dirty ape at 10:57 PM on September 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


cortex: That stoop shouldered, beady eyed little midget....

It's funny, but I'd always had the impression Rudy was tall. Then I saw an un-managed (so to speak) photo of him standing next to George Pataki. Now, Barack Obama would look short next to George Pataki, but Rudy looked... um, kinda leetle.

I saw a similar picture of him next to Bush. Not quite as bad. (How about all three of them? Bush still looks taller, and Pataki is definitely stooping, in this one.)

None of this is meant to in any way suggest that I actually like George Pataki.
posted by lodurr at 4:07 AM on September 6, 2008


damn dirty ape: Americans simply dont vote on competence. They vote strictly on party and ideology.

I really think it's worse than that. I think Americans vote on image. We are a fundamentally superficial nation. For a really smart person to get elected, they have to figure out the right angle on image.

You could (rightly) point again to the lack of movement between parties. But I think that's best understood in terms of images, too -- that the ideological divide doesn't really explain much until you look at the images they deploy. What's the emotionally-charged image that appeals to Republicans most? Something that evokes feelings of being powerless against violent attack by another person. Democrats? Being powerless against nature or fate. (I'm just riffing, here, happy to have someone come back and improve those analogies.)
posted by lodurr at 4:18 AM on September 6, 2008


cortex: That stoop shouldered, beady eyed little midget....

Not that I much like Rudy, but that wasn't my comment.
posted by cortex at 6:37 AM on September 6, 2008


Can someone please explain to me, as a foriegner, precisely why this election is going to be so close?

It's going to be close because Obama is an uppity community organiser?
posted by fullerine at 6:55 AM on September 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's going to be close because most USAians treat politics more like a sports team rivalry than a responsibility of Democracy. IMNSHO
posted by jaronson at 7:14 AM on September 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Another brilliant comment wasted.

Eighty-thousand MetaFilter members and maybe three will benefit from my genius.
posted by jaronson at 7:23 AM on September 6, 2008


I wish the Democrats could use the following slogans:

Palin/McCain '08
McCain: POW, but MIA The Last 8 Years
McCain: For His First Wife Before He Was Against Her
McCain: The Other White Meat
John McCain: R (Hanoi Hilton)
posted by lukemeister at 8:43 AM on September 6, 2008


McCain/Palin -- A Bridge To Nowhere
posted by ericb at 8:47 AM on September 6, 2008 [2 favorites]




My favorite comment in one of the MeFi threads this week was that when Eisenhower was running for President, he didn't crow to Adlai Stevenson about how he was defeating Hitler while Stevenson was doing something wimpy like being a lawyer.

Even the Daily Kos often feels obliged to say "whatever you think of his politics, McCain really was a war hero". Wesley Clark had it exactly right. Getting shot down does not qualify you to be President. I'm sorry that Obama had to distance himself from Clark's statement.
posted by lukemeister at 9:48 AM on September 6, 2008


^ that was genius. I'd give you all my +'s if I could.

Some more development:

Voting for McCain/Palin is now voting for God. Fundies LOVE voting for God, even if it is personally painful, like losing Medicare & SSI in the future, or what have you.

About a third of this country wants to see the radical muslims in this world ground to paste. They don't care how, they just want this terror BS over with. 9/11.

Strongly overlapping with the above group is the rabidly militaristic. One of Clinton's first acts in office was allowing gays in the military; this did not play well in Peoria, and Obama is another pointy-headed Harvard-educated squishy liberal that no God-fearing red-blooded patriotic 'Merican would want anywhere near our Blessed Military.

It doesn't cost the "fiscally-conservative/socially-liberal" wealthy Republicans anything to coalition with the god-gays-guns fundies/rural conservatives -- being wealthy means you have the wherewithall to exempt yourself from the public system when & where necessary. Obama is proposing raising taxes on those making more than $250K. Since the mooted marginal tax rise is roughly equal to the rate of interest (5%), the economic value of keeping Obama out of office is roughly one's entire income over $250,000, ie. if you make $750K, it's worth $500K to you for McCain to win (assuming he doesn't pull a GHWB read-my-lips reversal and the Dems don't get a veto-proof majority).

The true depths of Republican laissez-faire malfeasance in the economic realm 2002-2007 has yet to surface in the public's mind, and I doubt it ever will. "hoocoodanode?" is a frequent saying on my favorite economics blog.
posted by troy at 9:51 AM on September 6, 2008


I think spaltavian's analysis is more relevant to the 2004 election than they are this year. The Republicans are falling back on the same campaign of hatred and fear, and that didn't work for them in 2006.

Eighty percent of Americans think the country's moving in the wrong direction, McCain hasn't offered anything substantially different, and Obama, who definitely represents change, will tie him to Bush. The surge "worked" (but has failed to accomplish the political goals) and that works in McCain's favor, but two-thirds of Americans now think the war was a mistake in the first place, and will say, "great, let's go home" when McCain wants to leave troops in Iraq.

McCain is more of a known quantity, and Obama is still relatively unknown. I believe McCain's popularity is residual admiration for the "maverick" stance he took in 2000 and has completely sold out since then. As people start tuning in, some of them will see that 2008 McCain is just another Republican and be disappointed. By contrast, Obama's popularity goes up as people get to know him (check the opinion polls from the primaries). In this aspect, I think this election is similar to 1980, where people didn't know if they were comfortable with Reagan, so the polls were close until relatively late, then people broke for Reagan. McCain is more like BobDole in 1996; an admirable conservative who's sold out all his principles for one last, desperate grasp at the presidency.

McCain has chosen to run a hard right, fire-up-the-base campaign, but that's also fired up the Democratic base, and there are more Democrats than Republicans. Democrats are much more enthused this year. In the primaries, the second-place Democratic candidate often got more votes than the first-place Republican. New voter registrations are heavily in favor of Democrats.

I think McCain would have had a better chance if he'd picked someone more moderate like Tom Ridge (one of his final preferred choices; i don't think Lieberman would have worked) or one of the many experienced, qualified Republican women like Susan Collins, Christie Todd Whitman, Oympia Snowe, or Elizabeth Dole. They're all too pro-choice for the Republican base, but would have appealed more to moderates.

I think it will be close, but (when I'm feeling optimistic) I think Obama will win. The Republicans will cheat, and Obama's race is a wild card, but he's running a smart campaign.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:12 AM on September 6, 2008 [1 favorite]




Okay--so we've pretty much decided that we are engaged in a "culture war" as opposed to a reasoned decision on whose policies are better for our country (and by extention, the rest of the world.) Gather 'round, kiddies, 'cuz I think I've found a way to dig ourselves out of this culture war boondoggle--A Democratic Monarchy!

Wait--hear me out. I'm not talking about a stale old God-Save-the-Queen monarchy like those Europeans have; I'm talking about a legally elected "American Idol" type First Family. The election occurs every four years and coincides with our presidential elections. Each state elects a family that embodies its own values and the runoff (coinciding roughly with the party conventions) whittles the contestants down to two or three for the extravagana this is the November election of the First Family.

Can't cha just see it---the blonde corn farmers from Iowa competing against the tree-huggers from Oregon and the Ganducci's from New Jersey putting a hit out on the rival hip-hop family from Chicago. We could have four years of putting these people through a wringer in the fishbowl they'd inhabit while the boring old policy wanks got on with the question of how the country should be run.

And here's the truly evil genius of my plan---you can vote in one election or the other but not both. It would be great--the vast segment of the American public could have the bread and circuses that they crave (and so richly deserve) while the rest of us who actually give a shit about the future of the planet can get on with the business of electing leaders.
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:33 AM on September 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


leftcoastbob, you are missing the realworld importance the kulturkampf has to its participants.

one in five pregnancies still end in murder in this country.

gays are turning our kids into sodomites and society in Sodom & Gomorrah, and we all know how that ended.

it is illegal for anyone to even mention Jesus Christ in our schools, workplaces, and government institutions (in an honorable way, swearing is allowed)

Our children are being taught to the secular humanist anti-Christian evolutionary agenda -- removing the very possibility that God's Creation is not some freak of happenstance but a loving design created by a loving creator with loving love.

this shit is important to millions and millions of voters. It's not a popularity contest.
posted by troy at 11:40 AM on September 6, 2008


The pastor predicted 3 million to 5 million more Christian conservative voters would turn out for McCain because of Palin.

Democrats post big gains in voter registration:
Since the last federal election in 2006, volunteers like Graham combined with the enthusiasm generated by the Obama-Clinton struggle to add more than 2 million Democrats to voter rolls in the 28 states that register voters according to party affiliation. The Republicans have lost nearly 344,000 thousand voters in the same states.
...
Nationwide, there are about 42 million registered Democrats and about 31 million Republicans, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:17 PM on September 6, 2008


troy: you're falling for the worst sort of propaganda. A Republican pol claims he met a pastor who he can't name and that pastor makes a guess and that proves everything.

You know what? I had lunch with an American the other day who said he had a friend who thinks that at least 5 million extra people will come and vote for Obama! Does that make you feel better? If not, why? It's as credible a claim as the one you just repeated.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:36 PM on September 6, 2008


I think troy is taking the piss, guys.

Each time he's posted, he never quite says he agrees with what's happening (though he's said it would amuse him.

In fact, he's never even said what side he's on, carefully talking about types of people "among us."

Even in the post above, where i_am_joe's_spleen calls him out for falling for the propaganda, he doesn't say he believes it, just that, "this type of shit is important for millions and millions of voters."

Well done, troy.
posted by tomierna at 2:15 PM on September 6, 2008


cortex: ...but that wasn't my comment.

Crap. Sorry. That was schmegegge, and I have no effing clue why I wrote cortex.
posted by lodurr at 2:19 PM on September 6, 2008


While I have no doubt that troy is taking the piss, I also think I have a pretty clear idea which "side" he's on. I read him as being really sarcastic. Maybe he could be more constructive in his language, but I'm not reading him as a crypto-McCainanite.
posted by lodurr at 2:28 PM on September 6, 2008


While newly minted democrats flock to the voter registration at a rate that vastly outpaces their Republican counterparts,
there's evidence that the evangelical base troy speaks of has been eroding for some time. (via WSJ)
The article visits the point of view of a former evangelical believer who has written on the subject of slacking church memberships, yet with the caveat that she didn't actually study "non-denominational" churches in her research. (presumably then it's Baptists and Assemblies of God, the long-standing evangelical bodies of worship whose attrition rate she's observing).

I don't underestimate the religious-right's potential impact on voters' habits, based on what we've witnessed in past elections; just whether the impact isn't blunted a bit by the increased fragmenting of their constituents.

Also an article in NYT examines the "vanishing Republican voter", fwiw. I think the author is a republican: he's not so convinced Virginia's staying red as troy or others might think, and uses the success of Tim Kaine and Mark Warner as examples.
posted by skyper at 3:23 PM on September 6, 2008


fwiw. I think the author is a republican...

He is. David Frum is a conservative and former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Here's his blog at the National Review (founded by conservative William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955).
posted by ericb at 3:33 PM on September 6, 2008


BTW -- Frum's article is the subject of this recent FPP.
posted by ericb at 3:34 PM on September 6, 2008


Nationwide, there are about 42 million registered Democrats and about 31 million Republicans, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.

And yet when one pencils in VA into the McCain column, the map shows a 250-250 EV tie. So much for that putative advantage.

Add in ID, WY, SD, and WV's 15 EVs and McCain is up to 265. 4.6M voters enjoying 15 EVs.

Assuming VA, home of Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, goes red, the election is going to be determined by who takes CO. According to E-v.com, Obama was up 45-43 in one poll on Aug 26. Who does more for CO, Chairman Joe Biden or the moose-shooting fundie beauty queen?
posted by troy at 3:51 PM on September 6, 2008


OK, you found me out. There's one thing that would make me happier than McCain winning thanks to the fundies, and that would be McCain losing despite pandering to the fundies (having called them an "evil influence" in a previous election cycle).
posted by troy at 3:56 PM on September 6, 2008


I think troy is taking the piss, guys.

It's called "concern trolling". The math has been wrong, the interprettation of what states Obama needs to win has been misleadingly narrow, and then comes an opinion piece by a conservative columnist citing a single source he can't name, who makes a guess. Seems awfully suspicious for someone who claims he wants McCain to lose. Just sayin'.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:13 PM on September 6, 2008


And yet when one pencils in VA into the McCain column, the map shows a 250-250 EV tie.

Only if you're a complete fucking moron who can't even pay attention to the map he's trying to call people's attention to. See down there at the bottom? What are them there grey states? What's "No Data" mean? Hmmm.

I mean, I know you're just fucking around with us. But can't you at least do it better?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:47 PM on September 6, 2008


I penciled in VA because e-v.com shows an Aug 12 poll at 45-45. With the Palin announcement I think this will shift into McCain's column.

And note that I am not "concern trolling" as I don't have any advice to the Obama campaign.

2004 kicked me in the balls, so this time around I'm just not able to invest a lot of hope in my fellow Americans making the better choice for their future. Being a male, single, white, non-draftable, upper-quintile computer geek with portable job skills I really don't have a dog in this fight, as you can tell.

The reason a McCain victory would make me happy is simply that, in my circumstances, it'd be a pretty clear signal for me to GTFO again. (The LA riots and general post-Gulf War malaise served as a similar signal to me in 1992.)
posted by troy at 5:12 PM on September 6, 2008


Virginia's close, but I think it's foolish to assume it's going to McCain just because Bush won it. If anything, Obama's got a very slight edge there, and if the state comes down to GOTV operations, as I expect it to, he'll take it.
posted by EarBucket at 6:43 PM on September 6, 2008


I don't really buy all the polling. I don't think it actually is close at all. Really, all you need is to make it appear like it might be close if you want to hijack the election.

Probably my paranoid side coming out there, but things never really did get settled with Diebold did they? I mean that issue just sort of vanished.

Obama, or at least his people, aren't the type to just let crap like that slide the way it went down last time. That's frikkin Romper Room compared to Illinois politics. In Cook County it'd be trite. And Chicago?

I hope McCain doesn't get elected. There's always these parties and baccanals at what people perceive to be the 'end of civilization' and someone has to clean all that crap up and build again.
McCain getting elected just means more work for those of us that believe. It's not like you can pull up stakes and head further west anymore.

And I don't get what the hell people are living for if it's not hope in the future and belief in the dream of truth and justice and liberty. What, the machine is just going to roll on and on and on and we'll just be nice and comfy and keep putting of the real work of building a better world until your grandkids or great-grandkids or g-g-g- whatever - choke to death in a world that can't support human life anymore?

Screw that noise. I'll make the sacrifices now. Maybe some day we'll get off this planet and people can go to hell in their own way without taking all the rest of us plus all of human history with it.

But me, I'm damn short on 'quit'
posted by Smedleyman at 8:17 PM on September 6, 2008


wow, EarBucket, if McCain's polling reverses that VA trend this month Rovian triangulation can take 100% of the credit.

Not sayin' I'm right, only what wouldn't surprise me.

It's not like you can pull up stakes and head further west anymore

ご自分のためだけで話してくれ。

But me, I'm damn short on 'quit'

Well, that and 500,000 votes in CO, OH, VA, and NH will win us the White House.
posted by troy at 9:17 PM on September 6, 2008


Re. Smedleyman's thoughts...

My company hired a firm out of Boston to do some surveys and analysis for us a few months back. Turns out they had a contract to do real-time analysis on election returns for one of the networks, so we got some insight into presidential polling in the bargain.

It turns out that some kinds of polling -- exit polling in particular -- are pretty well understood. The fact that people got surprised by returns versus exit polls in '04 and '06 was, by their explanation, largely a function of the clients (networks) not understanding what they were being told by the pollers.

Anyway, the point I wanted to get to was this: People are incredibly sensitive to racial and gender clues when responding to race- and gender-marked questions. For example, if you have an African American ask African Americans whether they voted for Obama, the likelihood of getting a "yes" is greater than the likelihood that they actually did, and what's more (at least according to the principle we dealt with at the firm), it's predictable. You get similar affects when you have a man ask a woman about voting for Hillary or a woman ask about voting for Hillary, and so on.

But these conversations were all about in-person exit polling, not phone polls. In person, verbal cues might get trumped by obvious visual cues (skin color, gender), but I would expect auditory cues to have an effect in phone surveys. If you are contracting your surveys to a company that uses people from the Detroit metro area, you'll get different results from a survey conducted by people in a people-warehouse in central Texas. Working class blacks versus working class whites. Really obvious differences in accent, rhythm and idiom.

I think about that when I look at sites like Polling Report. I look at the favorable/unfavorable numbers on the page that summarizes results about Obama, and the differences can be really sharp from one poll to another, without any obvious difference in the question being asked. Take a look, see for yourself: Some surveys routinely get splits of 60:20, others get splits of like 25:20, and the results are pretty consistent for a given survey. So there is some factor between these two surveys that creates a different response.

Roundabout, but: On the one hand, we have people who understand how to get consistent results over time and how to slice data to understand the biases that are being expressed. On the other hand, we have widely varying results, without any available analysis (I had to have a personal connection to get those insights on exit polling w.r.t. that particular firm) because it's proprietary information. (Quinnipiac and Pew probably make their data available, since they're more or less public.)

I've been looking at the prediction markets off and on. I'm skeptical about that kind of prediction, but if it worked, it would be a way to avoid expectation effects. On the other hand, it strikes me that it could be much more vulnerable to being swayed by popular zeitgeist -- most Americans don't vote, so what the zeitgeist is may not be the best way to make your predictions. On the other other hand, if prediction markets are driven by zeitgeist, they'll get more accurate as more people participate in the voting process -- and all signs are that more people will vote this time than have voted in a long, long time.

One final note, also an insight from our vendor in Boston: When my boss asked him who he thought would be in the general (this was in March or so) he said "Obama and McCain, no question." Who would win? Obama. His professional opinion was that Obama's registration efforts would pay off, since newly-registered voters are so much more likely to actually vote.
posted by lodurr at 6:42 AM on September 7, 2008 [3 favorites]


That input is very insightful, lodurr. Results definitely do vary from poll to poll, often times based on their polling methods. This is why I prefer to look at compiled averages from various sources rather than one sole "trusted" source. Thanks for the reminder.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:54 AM on September 7, 2008


Shmeggege ... look. I dislike Giuliani as much as the next guy. But cocksucker and midget refer very specifically (albeit offensively) to two groups that have nothing to do with the man or his politics. Cool it, eh?

you are entirely right. they were words spoken in anger, and I should have chilled and probably not said anything at all. I still hate the dude, and am perfectly happy with my hatred, mind you. I simply shouldn't have used those terms as if dwarfism or fellatio were bad things. I implied that there was something wrong with being short and/or a dwarf, and that being gay was wrong. I believe neither of those things, but simply resorted to angry offensive language and I apologize. I hope I didn't bother anyone too much. Really, I just lost my cool for a bit.

God damn Giuliani.
posted by shmegegge at 10:10 AM on September 8, 2008


shmegegge God damn Giuliani.
Hey! How dare you equate Giuiliani with those poor sinners screaming in Hell! Some of those people are only there for "bearing false witness" or "heresy" and stuff. They in no way deserve to have their names blackened by association with him.

Wait, did I just say "blackened"? Arrgh. Can't we just come up with a new language in which all of the common terms of criticism contain no loaded implications, and lie in our sentences as limp as we dishcloths?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:27 AM on September 10, 2008


wet dishcloths, I mean.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:53 AM on September 10, 2008


Only if you're a complete fucking moron who can't even pay attention...

Stay classy, dude.
posted by damn dirty ape at 7:18 AM on September 10, 2008


wet dishcloths, I mean.

Speak for yourself.

How dare you challenge my dishcloth credentials.
posted by lodurr at 1:57 PM on September 10, 2008


« Older Post-convention cool down.   |   Delicate Things Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments