3rd McCain-Obama Debate 15 October

Trojan

is_that_so wrote: »

That raises the spectre of perpetual one-party government.

I agree with the sentiment. My remark was made in the context of Palin being touted as a 2012 candidate. I think the world could do with at least 8 years of someone relatively sane and reasonable in the Whitehouse.

unionman

Trojan wrote: »

My remark was made in the context of Palin being touted as a 2012 candidate.

Assuming Obama is elected, surely Palin will be seen as one of the elements that hurt the McCain campaign, which would in turn put her out of the running in any future bid for the presidency? The GOP wurely wouldn't risk it?

But totally agree, 8 years of sanity at the helm is the very least that is needed to undo the damage of the last 8.

Brian

unionman wrote: »

Assuming Obama is elected, surely Palin will be seen as one of the elements that hurt the McCain campaign, which would in turn put her out of the running in any future bid for the presidency? The GOP wurely wouldn't risk it?

But totally agree, 8 years of sanity at the helm is the very least that is needed to undo the damage of the last 8.

Excuse me, but are you touting Palin as a pillar of said sanity?

is_that_so

Trojan wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment. My remark was made in the context of Palin being touted as a 2012 candidate. I think the world could do with at least 8 years of someone relatively sane and reasonable in the Whitehouse.

I reckon Palin is a one-hit wonder and if she were ever to appear again it would be 20 years down the line when she might have added some experience to her CV.

If however McCain makes it in, I would expect the VP slot to be reduced to that "at the pleasure of the President" approach and she could end just sitting "watchin' the Russians" for four years. I'd also expect the McCain cabinet to be loaded with heavyweights to mitigate any perceived risks that exist with her at the helm.

Black Swan

is_that_so wrote: »

I'd also expect the McCain cabinet to be loaded with heavyweights to mitigate any perceived risks that exist with her at the helm.

"Heavyweights" with the qualifications of Palin, or persons with CVs attesting to their preparation to lead and make sound decisions regarding the serious economic meltdown and two runaway wars?

is_that_so

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Heavyweights" with the qualifications of Palin, or persons with CVs attesting to their preparation to lead and make sound decisions regarding the serious economic meltdown and two runaway wars?

Quite obviously the latter. Not a word I would use to describe Sarah Palin under any circumstances. The only use of the word by Ms Palin would be in reference to a moose.

Black Swan

is_that_so wrote: »

Quite obviously the latter. Not a word I would use to describe Sarah Palin under any circumstances. The only use of the word by Ms Palin would be in reference to a moose.

While temporarily overseas in the States at university, I am not drawn to either political party, seeing shortcomings in both. But it would seem that there should be several more qualified Republican women that have made government their careers that would be better picks than amateurish and weird "Northern Exposure" Sarah Palin?

herobear

so im guessing Joe The Plumber was supposed to be the october surprise.... :rolleyes:

is_that_so

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

While temporarily overseas in the States at university, I am not drawn to either political party, seeing shortcomings in both. But it would seem that there should be several more qualified Republican women that have made government their careers that would be better picks than amateurish and weird "Northern Exposure" Sarah Palin?

I think there were some and I added a few a good while back but seeing as almost all of them are pro-choice they were always likely to be ruled out.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55900862&postcount=163

Manic Moran

herobear wrote: »

so im guessing Joe The Plumber was supposed to be the october surprise.... :rolleyes:

In fairness, it seems to have been McCain's best move of the night (though the 'running four years ago comment' was a good one). Like most people, I had absolutely no idea who this Joe the Plumber chap was, and thought it was a rhetorical equivalent to Joe SixPack. Now that the media's had a bit of time to chew on it, he's leading pretty much every news source out there, and the analysts are saying that it could well have quite an effect.

Whilst acknowledging the issues in LostExpectation's thread, and I've not looked into them, perception is reality. JTP (Whose name I can't spell either) differs from Joe Sixpack in several very important ways. Firstly, he's a real person, who people can relate to. Secondly, he's not a selected example or any such, he was a guy playing ball with his kid when Obama happened by, and just went up and talked to him. Thirdly, he's a very important demographic: A labourer in a union business, who's an undecided, in a swing state. Fourthly, he's about to achieve what is basically the American Dream. Not having millions, just owning your own successful business. This guy has influence!

The man has a concern, probably shared by many other smaller business owners: "Under the Obama plan, what will happen to my finances?" Now that it has been brought to national attention, it is incumbent upon Obama to respond. His response on the day was somewhat wishy-washy. (Indeed, JTP was interviewed on the radio today as I was driving in, and said that in his opinion, Obama danced around the question.). The response was "It is not my intent to punish you for being successful, I just want to make sure that the guy behind you has a chance." There are two implications here. One is that even though it's not his intent, there may still be the 'punish for being successful' effect. The other being "If I was able to do it, when why don't other people have a chance as well? If so, then why is the punishment worth it?" Again, this is perception being reality. It may or may not be a hardship, I'm unsure as to just what sort of status a business is in when it gets to about that size. But it's obviously a concern to JTP, so it's probably a concern to others.

This is what the news is focusing on right now, and the Obama camp is now on the defensive on this particular issue.

NTM

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

I
The man has a concern, probably shared by many other smaller business owners: "Under the Obama plan, what will happen to my finances?" Now that it has been brought to national attention, it is incumbent upon Obama to respond. His response on the day was somewhat wishy-washy. (Indeed, JTP was interviewed on the radio today as I was driving in, and said that in his opinion, Obama danced around the question.).

Interesting, because I saw him interviewed on CNN this morning and he had something different to say.

Joe the Plumber wrote:

"I want to set the record straight: Currently I would not fall into Barack Obama's $250,000-plus," he said. "But if I'm lucky in business and taxes don't go up then maybe I can grow the business and be in that tax bracket - well, let me rephrase it. Hopefully, that tax won't be there."

It has also been stated by analysts that

CNNMoney wrote:

The bottom line: McCain's claim only works by using an overly broad definition of what counts as a "small business" - and even with that definition, fewer than 2% of business owners would be hit by Obama's proposed rate increase. For those who are affected, the increase would be levied only on a part of their earnings, not all of them.

This is wildly different from what McCain is portraying.


source

Manic Moran

GuanYin wrote: »

Interesting, because I saw him interviewed on CNN this morning and he had something different to say.

That doesn't condradict anything I've posted. As an aside, mind, that last line doesn't seem to indicate anything like support for Obama. (Now, I note that that doesn't contradict anything you said either!) See also on the CNN website article on the subject:

Although Wurzelbacher wouldn't say who he is voting for, he did say that Obama's tax plan doesn't sit well with him.

"Redistributing the wealth, as far as my hard work, that upsets me," he said. "That's not right. That's not American."

It's not helped much by Biden's comments:

You notice John [McCain] continues to cling to the notion of this guy Joe the plumber,” Biden said on NBC’s Today show. “I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year that are worried.”

Unfortunately, a plumber named Joe who is concerned about that $250K barrier (whether he's actually reached it yet or not) did happen to be in the random neighbourhood that the Obama campaign decided to stroll through. He seems honest enough to clear the air regarding the fact that he currently does not fall into the $250K+ bracket, making him seem even more authentic. Joe, the Honest and Authentic Plumber, has concerns on the Obama tax plan. And has a national stage to say so.

It has also been stated by analysts that

In which case the Obama camp needs to get that message out. Nothing wrong with correcting misconceptions, but the ball currently sits in their court and they must do it else the misconception will rule.

NTM

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

In which case the Obama camp needs to get that message out. Nothing wrong with correcting misconceptions, but the ball currently sits in their court and they must do it else the misconception will rule.

NTM

I think they have. But while Palin and McCain are continuing to, quite frankly, resort to degrading our presidential campaign to lies and slander, the doubt will remain.

I said already, McCain lost my vote last night. From the people I know who are undecideds, the sentiment is much the same.

The Republicans are losing this campaign more than Obama is winning it. McCain was so worried about his own party and his poor standing as a "maverick" that he alienated the independents.

That really has been his problem all along. His cries of being a maverick are totally at odds with his attitude in pandering to his party with his flip-flop on some of his issues (including his own bills) and his selection of Palin.

It just portrays him as weak.

Now the question is, do I support Obama or not.

I make over 250K, so the tax is a problem for me, which is ironic in a way because I like Obama's healthcare proposals which will eventually effect my salary to begin with.

In many ways, the next 4 years MUST be an improvement and with the exception of Palin, I can see anyone achieving that. But I still doubt Obama's experience. He talks the talk, but I wonder is he naive and if he can walk the walk.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is what the news is focusing on right now, and the Obama camp is now on the defensive on this particular issue.

On the defensive? o_O Just about every news review, poll I've seen has said the reverse.

I watched the whole thing. McCain was trying to wrap the health plan and tax issues together.

Trojan

I tell you what, if I was a plumber in the US right now, I'd be registering the business name "Joe The Plumber" for my local area, and painting it on my van, whatever my name.

Manic Moran

The Republicans are losing this campaign more than Obama is winning it. McCain was so worried about his own party and his poor standing as a "maverick" that he alienated the independents.

I think you're right. You should see what the idiots in San Bernadino's Republican group have gone and done, according to the lunchtime news.

I honestly think that "The Old McCain" could have taken on and beaten either Obama or Clinton. I had thought that the commonly accepted wisdom was that the key to winning these days was the independents. Indeed, I had thought that when McCain sailed ahead in the Primaries that the Republican Party had wisely acted upon that wisdom. However, even though it seemed that Joe Republican figured it out, whoever was running the McCain campaign refused to accept it. The Republican Party (as distinct from Republican voters) pretty much deserve to lose this. Unfortunately, as I decided some time ago that the Democrats pretty much deserved to lose as well, that leaves me in the famous 'least worst option' problem, which is about normal for a US election these days.

NTM

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think you're right. You should see what the idiots in San Bernadino's Republican group have gone and done, according to the lunchtime news.

Do I really want to know?

[edit]....no, it appears I didn't

that leaves me in the famous 'least worst option' problem, which is about normal for a US election these days.

NTM

Honestly, I don't think either candidate is a "bad" option per se, I think as with anything, the heavy scrutiny has highlighted flaws that are unappealling to voters.

Hey, there is always Nader

I think all my republican friends are voting for him so don't be surprised if he does well this year.

Trojan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think you're right. You should see what the idiots in San Bernadino's Republican group have gone and done, according to the lunchtime news.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_webbuck1.e7982b.html

Classy move.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I honestly think that "The Old McCain" could have taken on and beaten either Obama or Clinton.

If you are referring to the McCain of 8 years ago, I would agree. The McCain that debated Bush in the Republican primaries during the 2000 presidential was a different McCain than the one of the past 8 years with a 90 percent agreement voting record with the Republicans (95 percent with Bush during 2007).

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html

Sully

Trojan wrote: »

I tell you what, if I was a plumber in the US right now, I'd be registering the business name "Joe The Plumber" for my local area, and painting it on my van, whatever my name.

http://joetheplumber.com/

Already done :P

Black Swan

Just unscientifically eyeballing the polls, it would seem that McCain's attacking Obama with Ayers, et al, during the debate eroded Obama's national poll spreads?

Memnoch

I don't get why nobody but me seems to be seeing this. Or is it just that people are too afraid to admit it's happening?

Obama's 'spread the wealth around,' comment is going to cost him this election.

McCain finally has a consistent, coherent message. Regardless of who 'Joe the plumber,' is or isn't, his encounter with Obama allows the GOP to finally attack Obama on the ISSUE of the economy, and paint him with an image he had been artfully avoiding till recently.

You can see that Obama's momentum, which should really have carried on (if this incident hadn't happened) has been halted.

Mccain is going to continue to plumb this issue, along with Fox news and the GOP, and he is going to win this election. It is sad, that one sentence spoken in haste, from someone who is normally so measured in his oration is going to be the deciding factor in this election.

Yes, Joe is a fake, and doesn't represent what he pretends to, but in the final equation, that won't matter.

President Palin by 2010

CivilServant

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't get why nobody but me seems to be seeing this. Or is it just that people are too afraid to admit it's happening?

Obama's 'spread the wealth around,' comment is going to cost him this election.

McCain finally has a consistent, coherent message. Regardless of who 'Joe the plumber,' is or isn't, his encounter with Obama allows the GOP to finally attack Obama on the ISSUE of the economy, and paint him with an image he had been artfully avoiding till recently.

You can see that Obama's momentum, which should really have carried on (if this incident hadn't happened) has been halted.

Mccain is going to continue to plumb this issue, along with Fox news and the GOP, and he is going to win this election. It is sad, that one sentence spoken in haste, from someone who is normally so measured in his oration is going to be the deciding factor in this election.

Yes, Joe is a fake, and doesn't represent what he pretends to, but in the final equation, that won't matter.

President Palin by 2010

Says who?

Gallup, Rasmussen, Realclear all have Obama ahead and most likely will continue to November 4th which is only 16 days away.

Gallup 50 v 42 Obama +8
Rasmussen (GOP Leaning) 50 v 45 Obama +5
Realclearpolitics 49.6 v 43.1 Obama +6.5

Intrade have Obama at 83.8% vs 16.3 McCain

Pollster.com who aggregate a polls, have Obama 313EV against 160, 65 toss up

Maybe you don't get why anyone isn't seeing this, because it just isn't there.

That or a case of wishful thinking, if anything Obama is gaining momentum.

is_that_so

Election polls, which do count, don't tell you how people voted until they have actually voted. To win a candidate needs voters to show up to vote for them.

Historically things tighten up anyway and it remains to be seen whether it is an election-winning lead. But for now he appears to have the advantage. As others have commented here and there is much debate all round no-one, however much they think or hope things have changed, knows if there will be a Bradley effect and how much that might affect things.

Cadet?

CivilServant wrote: »

That or a case of wishful thinking, if anything Obama is gaining momentum.

That is an amazing picture.

Black Swan

It takes about 2 or 3 days to see the impact on the state and national polls after a significant event hits the media. I am curious to see if Republican former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Powell's endorsement of Obama has any impact by Monday or Tuesday.

Trojan

Superb synchronised video from debates:

http://www.236.com/video/2008/watch_synchronized_presidentia_9857.php