538.com says McCain had a 4.2% chance of winning the election. The Intrade market gives him a 15.8% chance. Obama has a commanding lead in the polls, is spending more on advertising, and appears to have a significant edge in the ground game. There are only 20 days left.
As far as I'm concerned, there are only two ways for McCain to have a shot at winning: (1) some huge world event like a major terrorist attack on American soil or a major war involving a country like Israel or Russia; or (2) McCain somehow manages to change the narrative of the campaign.
Conspiracy theories aside, the McCain campaign can't do anything about #1, so they're stuck trying to come up with some brilliant new messaging. Of course, if the McCain campaign had some great ideas, they probably would've already used them. Tonight's probably the last chance for McCain to come up with a game-changer. So, without any surefire winners, should McCain just throw whatever ideas/themes he has against the wall and see if anything sticks?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Presidential Debate #2
I think it was pretty much a tie, which is really all Obama needed.
A lot of the pundits are reading too much into McCain's body language and his "that one" comment. Let's give credit to the undecided voters; I think they're actually listening to the words of the candidates and trying to hear real solutions. McCain spent way too much time talking about earmarks and pork. He comes across as a one-trick pony. How many times have we heard about the earmark to research bear DNA? Now, he wants to repeatedly tell us about $3 million for a Chicago planetarium? Even if you're a voter who is opposed to the federal government spending money on planetariums, is that really high on your priority list right now? The American public understands that the financial crisis is a large scale problem that won't be solved by just cutting out a little pork from government budgets. There's no easy solution, so neither candidate was able to give one. Voters at least want a President who understands the magnitude of the problem and is willing to work hard to try to come up with long-term solutions. McCain would've been better served to at least sound like he was focusing his energy to working on the problem instead of focusing on $3 million projectors. His message might've been effective during good times when people just want the government to get out of their way. It's like he doesn't realize that people are actually looking to the government for help right now.
A lot of the pundits are reading too much into McCain's body language and his "that one" comment. Let's give credit to the undecided voters; I think they're actually listening to the words of the candidates and trying to hear real solutions. McCain spent way too much time talking about earmarks and pork. He comes across as a one-trick pony. How many times have we heard about the earmark to research bear DNA? Now, he wants to repeatedly tell us about $3 million for a Chicago planetarium? Even if you're a voter who is opposed to the federal government spending money on planetariums, is that really high on your priority list right now? The American public understands that the financial crisis is a large scale problem that won't be solved by just cutting out a little pork from government budgets. There's no easy solution, so neither candidate was able to give one. Voters at least want a President who understands the magnitude of the problem and is willing to work hard to try to come up with long-term solutions. McCain would've been better served to at least sound like he was focusing his energy to working on the problem instead of focusing on $3 million projectors. His message might've been effective during good times when people just want the government to get out of their way. It's like he doesn't realize that people are actually looking to the government for help right now.
Friday, October 3, 2008
VP Debate
I think James Fallows summed things up very well:
"Ifill, moderator: Terrible.
Palin: "Beat expectations."
Biden: No mistakes.
The race: No fundamental change. Which is better news for Obama than McCain."
I think he's pretty much right about everything except for the last point. I think by beating expectations, Palin at least stopped the bleeding somewhat for the McCain campaign. They can probably keep her away from interviews for the next month and get away with it now that she seemed semi-competent at the debate. But, all in all, Fallows is right in the sense that it's hard to see how Palin's performance will actually make much of a dent in Obama's lead.
"Ifill, moderator: Terrible.
Palin: "Beat expectations."
Biden: No mistakes.
The race: No fundamental change. Which is better news for Obama than McCain."
I think he's pretty much right about everything except for the last point. I think by beating expectations, Palin at least stopped the bleeding somewhat for the McCain campaign. They can probably keep her away from interviews for the next month and get away with it now that she seemed semi-competent at the debate. But, all in all, Fallows is right in the sense that it's hard to see how Palin's performance will actually make much of a dent in Obama's lead.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
"Extraordinary Times" in NYC
According to the Times, Mayor Bloomberg will announce on Thursday that he's going to seek to have the NYC term limits extended from 8 to 12 years and run for a third term. I'll make a few separate points:
1. In general, I'm against term limits for NYC mayor. There are arguments to be made that power will corrupt even the best of politicians over time and that limiting the mayor to two terms restricts his ability to overreach. But, I generally trust the voters to kick out a bum in city hall. New Yorkers seem to pay a lot attention to mayoral elections - there will be ads, debates, endorsements - the voters will have their say.
2. On the other hand, I don't trust the voters to shake up the City Council, so I think the current two term limit on Council members is a great idea. I don't know what the exact reasons are, but it's almost impossible to oust a sitting City Council member. Is it that people just don't pay attention to these races? Is it because the Democratic party machine works hard to keep them in office? Is it a fundraising issue? All of the above? I don't know. What I do know is that in 2005, 43 of the 51 city council members ran for re-election (the others were either ousted by term limits or ran for higher office). Of the 43 incumbents running, 42 were re-elected. The only one who wasn't was Allan Jennings, who was found guilty of sexual harassment by the City Council itself; his opponent had already served on the Council from 1991 to 2001 and was heavily supported by the Queens Democratic machine. The basic conclusion is that unless you do something horribly offensive (like sexually harass your employees) and lose support of the party machine, you'll be re-elected to the City Council.
3. Whether or not term limits are a good idea, it's particularly self serving for the current mayor and the current Council (the vast majority of its members are facing term limits in 2009) to extend their own jobs for 4 years. This isn't a philosophical debate at all - this is just a bunch of politicians deciding that they want to stay in office and are willing to change the rules to do so.
4. The pro-Bloomberg argument seems to be that term limits are a good idea in general, but that these are "extraordinary times" and that Bloomberg is the only person who can lead this city through them. Bullshit. The current financial crisis could turn out really bad, but it's a little soon to judge. Post-9/11 was an extraordinary time, but we didn't extend term limits then. I think Bloomberg's done a great job and is particularly well suited to handle the current situation, but couldn't some other CEO who is well-liked on Wall Street run for mayor?
1. In general, I'm against term limits for NYC mayor. There are arguments to be made that power will corrupt even the best of politicians over time and that limiting the mayor to two terms restricts his ability to overreach. But, I generally trust the voters to kick out a bum in city hall. New Yorkers seem to pay a lot attention to mayoral elections - there will be ads, debates, endorsements - the voters will have their say.
2. On the other hand, I don't trust the voters to shake up the City Council, so I think the current two term limit on Council members is a great idea. I don't know what the exact reasons are, but it's almost impossible to oust a sitting City Council member. Is it that people just don't pay attention to these races? Is it because the Democratic party machine works hard to keep them in office? Is it a fundraising issue? All of the above? I don't know. What I do know is that in 2005, 43 of the 51 city council members ran for re-election (the others were either ousted by term limits or ran for higher office). Of the 43 incumbents running, 42 were re-elected. The only one who wasn't was Allan Jennings, who was found guilty of sexual harassment by the City Council itself; his opponent had already served on the Council from 1991 to 2001 and was heavily supported by the Queens Democratic machine. The basic conclusion is that unless you do something horribly offensive (like sexually harass your employees) and lose support of the party machine, you'll be re-elected to the City Council.
3. Whether or not term limits are a good idea, it's particularly self serving for the current mayor and the current Council (the vast majority of its members are facing term limits in 2009) to extend their own jobs for 4 years. This isn't a philosophical debate at all - this is just a bunch of politicians deciding that they want to stay in office and are willing to change the rules to do so.
4. The pro-Bloomberg argument seems to be that term limits are a good idea in general, but that these are "extraordinary times" and that Bloomberg is the only person who can lead this city through them. Bullshit. The current financial crisis could turn out really bad, but it's a little soon to judge. Post-9/11 was an extraordinary time, but we didn't extend term limits then. I think Bloomberg's done a great job and is particularly well suited to handle the current situation, but couldn't some other CEO who is well-liked on Wall Street run for mayor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
