Who do you want to win the American election?

is_that_so

ghostdancer wrote: »

well you're wrong, it was last week McCain said one of them, but anyway....

and it's less than 6months since Bush and McCain said how ridiculous that Obama comment was.

and even less since the CIA did exactly what Obama was criticised for suggesting, and took out the al-Qaida no.3 in he region.

once again he shows his judgement trumps the incompetent experience of McCain.
McCain doesn't even know the difference between the different waring factions in Iraq, and al-Qaida, and who Iran is allegedly training. he repeated it 3 times for christ's sake.
or maybe it was just a "senior moment", those wacky senile old people, at least they won't be running a powerful country.....


for a president who's supposed to know about war and conflict, he doesn't seem to have a clue....

and he's already admitted that he doesn't really know anything about the economy either.

but those issues don't matter, right?

As I have already said I see him as a pragmatist as was Reagan.
TBH I don't see them going for a Democrat as things stands and I think they have absolutely screwed up by allowing it to get to where it is. Karl Rove and Co will have an absolute ball with what has come out on Obama lately and Clinton is Clinton. If they lose the Dems can blame who they like, but losing The White House after one of the most unpopular Presidents ever would smack of total political incompetence.

Jim_Are_Great

Manic Moran wrote: »

So you feel that Ireland was wrong to take this approach?

Yup. But wrong in an Iraq sort of way; wrong with hindsight, but since we're stuck with it, we may as well make the best of it.

But this isn't an Irish economy thread, it's a US Presidential election thread. This all got started by me saying that John McCain talks irresponsibly about the economy. The corporate cuts he proposes may give the American economy a boost, but if it does, it'll be short-term, with possible long-term damages. Coupled with the immediate and obvious detrimental effects on welfare, and the impending (some would say current) US monetary slump, I'm saying McCain's top-down tax structure is irresponsible. What was good for Ireland in the eighties isn't necessarily good for the US now.

Overheal

Still undecided over McCain? Have a look at this video:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=163285

I apologise for the poor connection speed of the website (the server is french!) :-/

Manic Moran

Coupled with the immediate and obvious detrimental effects on welfare

There is a very large school of thought in the US that this isn't a bad thing. In Europe, even Conservatives need to be somewhat socailist in outlook in order to get elected. This is of some confusion to Americans who see the issue in slightly more black and white terms.

There is some logic to the arguments of both sides of the aisle. Extremists on the right believe there should be no welfare at all, though most people on the right think that there should be something in place, at least for short term assistance as everyone goes through the occasional bad patch through no fault of their own. (Lay-offs etc). But a reduction in welfare spending can be argued to have positive economic effects: Taxes can be lowered, allowing more disposable income to families, and the government's expenditures can be focused more on the acquisition of government-required products and services, itself turning more money back into the economy. And the budget might possibly actually get balanced. Besides, they say, welfare, if it is going to be a government issue, should be a State-level issue, not a Federal issue. Let the States sort out their healthcare or education or unemployment or whatever benefits, and let the Federal Government deal with the issues it was originally created to deal with.

NTM

Jim_Are_Great

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is a very large school of thought in the US that this isn't a bad thing. In Europe, even Conservatives need to be somewhat socailist in outlook in order to get elected. This is of some confusion to Americans who see the issue in slightly more black and white terms.

Annoyingly this is true, and creates the need for straightforward, bi-partisan action on fundamental welfare issues like healthcare, federal action on which even the staunchest of anti-taxists would have a hard time arguing against.

Manic Moran wrote: »

welfare, if it is going to be a government issue, should be a State-level issue, not a Federal issue. Let the States sort out their healthcare or education or unemployment or whatever benefits, and let the Federal Government deal with the issues it was originally created to deal with.

The counter-argument to that is, given that basic welfare issues are fundamental entitlements (I'm talking about basic health care and so on) the federal power should be exercised to ensure that welfare on this level is kept in place, and state governments can expand on that model as they wish, but reduce it no further.

Overheal

GREENSBORO, N.C. — Presidential candidate Barack Obama, largely ignoring his Democratic rival for now, ridiculed likely Republican nominee John McCain on Wednesday for offering "not one single idea" to help hard-pressed homeowners facing foreclosure.

"George Bush called this the ownership society, but what he really meant was 'you're-on-your-own' society," Obama told a town hall meeting here, tying McCain to a president whose popularity is low. "John McCain apparently wants to continue this."

The Illinois senator touched on some themes he's likely to strike today at 9:15 a.m. ET in what his campaign bills as a major economic address, at New York's Cooper Union.

Tuesday, McCain warned that some proposals for government intervention in the housing crisis would rescue banks and borrowers who acted irresponsibly.

Campaigning in California on Wednesday, McCain told reporters "we may have to do more" to help homeowners. "But raise taxes as Sen. Obama wants to do, or some kind of massive bailout that is a needless expenditure of taxpayer dollars, is obviously something that I don't support," he said.

Still, McCain said he was open to solutions beyond his party's standard prescriptions, saying, "I will not allow dogma to override common sense."

At Obama's town hall in North Carolina, which will hold its primary May 6, economic questions dominated — about the cost of college tuition and the availability of health care coverage. He also fielded a question about what role religion played in his life.

In response, the Illinois senator spoke at length about his faith and then raised an issue the questioner hadn't: controversial comments by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, about racism in America.

Wright's comments have been targeted because they "spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country," Obama said, saying the furor was a "distraction" from larger issues on Iraq and the economy.

Meanwhile, former president Bill Clinton rejected the notion that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton might back away from the presidential race to prevent weakening the party's prospects in November.

"Let's just saddle up and have an argument," Clinton said in Parkersburg, W.Va. "What's wrong with that?"

Manic Moran

Going back to the tax rates, I just looked them up.

The average corporate tax rate in Europe is in the mid-20% range. Ireland has 12.5% for trading income, 25% for non-trading income.

US corporation tax is between 35% and 39% depending on revenue, plus State tax. (In my neck of the woods, 8.8%). Is there any wonder that the US businesses are going outside the US to do their business? It seems to me that the US can probably not only afford to drop a few percent points to get somewhere closer to European standards, but needs to to retain what industries it has left.

NTM

dave2pvd

Manic Moran wrote: »

US corporation tax is between 35% and 39% depending on revenue, plus State tax. (In my neck of the woods, 8.8%). Is there any wonder that the US businesses are going outside the US to do their business? It seems to me that the US can probably not only afford to drop a few percent points to get somewhere closer to European standards, but needs to to retain what industries it has left.

NTM

US federal corporate tax ranges from 15-35%, on a sliding scale based on net revenue.

Manic Moran

Not many corporations with an income of under $50,000 a year (the 15% band) have the option of moving abroad. The limit for 34% is anything over $75,000, which is still pretty low. Pretty much any company which can choose where it does business is going to be in the mid/high thirties band, which is why I didn't include them. You are technically correct, of course.

NTM

LuckyLloyd

Clinton is now finished as far as the presidency goes, and is only relevant in terms of how long she is willing to drag this out and how much damage to Obama's campaign she is comfortable wrecking in the process. The real question now is whether Obama can win?

Latest state wide poll taken from here:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/May10.html



(Outlier poll causing Indiana to tie)

It is important to note that this poll would include a certain degree of Clinton supporter anger which would lead a supporter who is most likely going to vote Obama once they clear their heads and some time passes from her withdrawal declaring for McCain here.

It is very likely (like almost certain) that Obama would cede New Hampshire to McCain and McCain will lose Iowa to Obama in comparison to the results of 2004. After that, who knows?

States that Obama could make a fight of:

Colorado
New Mexico
Nevada
Ohio
Florida

The context to this election will be somewhat similar in terms of economic and geopolitical climate to the 92 election between Clinton and Bush. The country has moved on significantly since then, however it is somewhat interesting to take a look at what Clinton was able to do:



If Clinton can swallow her selfish pride and not drag this out to August 25 Obama has a genuine shot. He will need to dodge a lot of mud and decisively win the head to head debates though - and generally be as perfect as possible. The longer the primary campaign is allowed to run though - the worse his chances become.

LuckyLloyd

Whoops, forgot about the Ross Perot factor in the 92 election, which makes including it in the above post kinda pointless. :rolleyes:

is_that_so

Interesting stuff. I've also been looking at Rasmussen and they have polls to beat the band.
Their Balance of Power Indicator shows it extremely close. Looking at the list above I see two states I am not sure Obama will win; Ohio and Florida. I also reckon that PA will be very tough for him, simply because it has a lot of blue collar workers who seem to be unmoved by him and who might favour McCain.

One question is who McCain will have as a running mate.
He could go into the pack or maybe he could go for a woman.
There are at least three on the GOP side worth considering. This time around there are definite benefits to it, especially if they pick a relatively moderate candidate.

Elisabeth Dole who is an incumbent in NC and very experienced.
Susan Collins from Maine
Olympia Snowe also from Maine and very bi-partisan

LuckyLloyd

is_that_so wrote: »

Interesting stuff. I've also been looking at Rasmussen and they have polls to beat the band.
Their Balance of Power Indicator shows it extremely close. Looking at the list above I see two states I am not sure Obama will win; Ohio and Florida. I also reckon that PA will be very tough for him, simply because it has a lot of blue collar workers who seem to be unmoved by him and who might favour McCain.

One question is who McCain will have as a running mate.
He could go into the pack or maybe he could go for a woman.
There are at least three on the GOP side worth considering. This time around there are definite benefits to it, especially if they pick a relatively moderate candidate.

Elisabeth Dole who is an incumbent in NC and very experienced.
Susan Collins from Maine
Olympia Snowe also from Maine and very bi-partisan

I agree that Obama is going to be a dog in Ohio and Florida. However, the states I listed will be close along with states that Kerry won which could be lost such as PA and Michigan. It's all up in the air at this point and it is difficult to properly guess which way things will go until the general election campaigns go into full swing and the effects of the different budgets and personallities in play are felt.

I agree that the picking of a VP will be crucial on both sides. McCain is old and Obama is black (I know I'm being direct) so the respective neccesities for a VP who is viewed as capable of stepping into the Leadership role and a VP who can genuinely appeal to undecided blue collar whites cannot be underestimated.

LuckyLloyd

Clinton > McCain > Obama:









Total Electoral Votes: 59

---

Obama > McCain > Clinton

















Total Electoral Votes: 71



Now this is an admittedly pretty crude metric, but you can look at some of the more "fundamental" measures that pollsters use to determine support. From pollster.com:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_v_mccain_and_v_clinton_b.php

But this far out from Election Day, horserace numbers are, ultimately, close to meaningless, especially without an incumbent. We look at many other indicators of campaign health, frequently referred to in pollster parlance as "beneath the surface." Two recent public polls from USA Today/Gallup and from CNN/Opinion Research (before Obama's race speech) show that despite the coverage of Obama's slippage in the general election matchup, he remains stronger than McCain on most dimensions. In many ways, Obama is also stronger than Clinton.

On Most Dimensions, Obama is Stronger Than McCain

Obama is most likely to best McCain on measures of empathy, such as "cares about people like you," or understands problems Americans face in their daily lives." He also does very well on being "someone you would be proud to have as President." McCain's weakest dimension is "generally agrees with you on the issues" and both Obama and Clinton have a clear advantage over McCain here.

Obama does less well on items related to experience, such as "is a strong and decisive leader" and "has the right experience to be President." However, despite these disadvantages, more items from both surveys are seen as describing Obama than McCain.

In both surveys, Obama is described by more traits than is Clinton. Once again, his strengths are on empathy, but he also exceeds Clinton on "would work with both parties to get things done." Obama trails Clinton on experience and decisiveness, as he trailed McCain, but it's important to note that Clinton also trails McCain on these measures (although by not nearly as much).

McCain is strongest on "honest and trustworthy," and Obama is close to even with him on that measure. But it is Clinton's weakest dimension on the USA Today/Gallup poll (it wasn't asked in the CNN/OR poll). In fact, Gallup has tracking that shows Clinton to be the weakest she's ever been on this measure since 1994.

It's really not close who the stronger candidate is between Clinton and Obama in a race against McCain. By almost any metric: fundraising abilities, head to head polls, the "fundamental", "below the surface" polling questions seen above, etc., you're going to get the same answer.

Of course, if you subject yourself to right-wing noise outlets and only right wing noise outlets, you're going to get the obvious reflexive talking points about what a terrible mistake the Democrats made, how they've nominated the worst candidate possible, how Obama is doomed, blah blah purple monkey dishwasher. If you actually look at the empirical evidence instead of media bluster, it's not close.

Manic Moran

Another problem with the comparison to 1992 is that the Democratic candidate didn't then have the advantage of being in the middle of a rather unpopular war, but on the other hand, an Arkansas chap from Little Rock is going to have better sway in the Southern/Midwestern states than a city boy from Illinois. The big-city states are going to go D regardless.

NTM

is_that_so

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If you actually look at the empirical evidence instead of media bluster, it's not close.

I'd be very wary of "empirical data" especially that which has been been gleaned from polls. This is the same type of empirical data that predicted that Obama would win Ohio. The quality and reliability of polls in the campaign to date have varied enormously, probably due to the uniqueness of this campaign on the Dem side.
A little bit of the real world on this and not from the right wing.

.. Both sides say the states clearly in play now include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
...

Full story


I think he really needs two out of PA, Florida and Ohio. The empirical data is that he lost two out of three here and would probably have lost Florida as well in a real election. His camp acknowledges this difficulty and the need to attract the "Hillary" constituents.
If McCain gets all three it's all over.

There is an assumption in all of this that the Dems can "unite". Being a catch-all party this has always been problematic and the GOP have always been a lot better at it.

There's a piece on this in The Sunday Times , which brings up some historical facts about how hard unity and support of the nominee is to achieve. In 2004 there was also a problem with the "young vote" which never came out.

... Howard Dean, the Democratic party chairman, whose once-promising 2004 presidential bid collapsed in Iowa, said he spent months trying to persuade his supporters to rally behind John Kerry, the nominee. And they did not even dislike Mr Kerry. Gary Hart said that after he lost his divisive primary battle against Walter Mondale in 1984, he worked tirelessly – and held more than 40 campaign events – imploring his supporters to back the nominee. “And I was not able to move [them],” he said.
...

Manic Moran

From another board, I just had to cross-post.

"We in Germany cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election in the US.

On one side, you have a woman who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, running against a lawyer who is married to a woman who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with big tits who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there really a contest here?"

NTM

Lirange

I got a laugh out of that.

I don't find Mrs. McCain attractive though. A bit of a Paris Hilton Barbie Doll theme going there. Not my type.

JP Liz

Has Hillary Clinton still got a chance?

Manic Moran

Slim. Not impossible, but very slim.

NTM

gordon_gekko

hillary would have beaten mc cain , not sure obama will

Manic Moran

From Newsweek today.

A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama's glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

<snip>

In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
[Me: The man's a politician. This is a surprise? McCain's done the same thing]

<snip>
In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June's NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.

This last is critical. It is the independents that swing US elections, not the Party Faithful.

Frankly, I am pleased to see this sort of poll result. I've always known it was going to be close, a look at the Electoral College map would tell you it was a toss-up, but I get seriously irked by Democrats who think a Democratic victory is all but a God-Given right and that they don't need to work for it. Anyone who assumes that they are a shoe-in deserves to get smacked. I'm not saying that Obama believes he's a shoe-in, I think he's far too intelligent for that, it's just many of his supporters give that impression. It also indicates, I think, that people may be starting to pay more attention to the candidates themselves as opposed to which of the two is in the same party as the current President.

NTM

zuchum

gordon_gekko wrote: »

hillary would have beaten mc cain , not sure obama will

i don't think this is true. Clinton is far more detested by Republicans than Obama ever will be. She represents everything they have railed against. They would have been motivated to vote against Hillary,not so much Obama.

Neither do I think the independents is that important. You may say Independents wing elections,but you have to remember that the Republican base doesn't support McCain as much as they have supported previous candidates.

Obama really should win this election. Unless something twice as effective as Swiftboat occurs, I think he will.

SteveS

zuchum wrote: »

Neither do I think the independents is that important.

The percentage of die hard voters in both parties is about the same, so undecided voters have a great deal of influence. The other factor to consider is people that have voted Republican, but don't like Bush. I think many of the party faithful will line up behind McCain because they have no viable alternative. OTOH, there are many angry conservatives that don't like what Bush has done and don't like the direction that the neo-cons are taking the party. They may have some disagreements with Obama, but believe he is a better overall choice.

is_that_so

An interview with the Governor of Virginia Tim Kaine, a possible VP on the 6.1 News last night also emphasised the importance of independent voters. They will be crucial.

Linky

Manic Moran

Anyone catch the latest on jibjab? "It's time for some Campaigning"

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

NTM

Manic Moran

Latest Zogby poll shows a 1% lead for McCain. Apparently the World Tour backfired a bit, and many of Obama's supporters don't like his moving a little to the right on some issues.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Latest Zogby poll shows a 1% lead for McCain. Apparently the World Tour backfired a bit, and many of Obama's supporters don't like his moving a little to the right on some issues.

NTM

I generally take polls with a pinch of salt after watching Penn+Tellers "F' you Frank Luntz" (you can find on youtube). Checking Zogbys website their map of USA would put Obama in the lead.

According to CNN, AP, USA Today and Gallup, Obama is ahead. But again I would take those with a pinch of salt.

At the end of the day there is only one opinion poll that matters.

For the life of me though I can't figure out how McCain could be gaining in the polls, if anything he should be dropping. Latest Meme on McCain I've seen is "Pick McCain, Pick a City" (taken from Scott Ritters speech on battlefield nukes/attacking Iran).

CtrlSource

The real election campaign won't kick off until after the conventions, or at least until both have announced their VPs. But it's interesting to see how close it is. i see nothing too wrong with them being neck & neck for now. Obama is such a newcomer that many are still getting the measure of him

banquo

Anyone see Obama's method of annoucing his VP by text? I'd say he'll announce it wednesday evening / thursday morning to get the most coverage.