The debates are important. For some reason, it's become trendy to deny this fact, but let's be serious for a minute. A lot of people watching the debates don't pay a ton of attention to politics and are undecided about who to vote for. There are a lot of distractions in the media and in the barbershop/hair salon. The debate this past Friday was a chance for the two candidates to make clear to the American public where they stand on the issues. From the CBS poll of 500 uncommitted voters:
MADE IT CLEAR WHAT HE WOULD DO AS PRESIDENT
Pre-debate : 37% Yes, 61% No
Post-debate: 65% Yes, 35% No
Those are the numbers for Obama; McCain's are virtually identical.
What that shows is that before the debate, approximately 2/3 of the uncommitted viewers were unsure where the candidates stand on the issues, and that after the debate, only 1/3 are. That's amazing - if anyone needs to justify to themselves why we have the debates - here's the evidence. Democracy in action!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Palin on CBS
The only positive thing the McCain campaign can take out of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric is that not a lot of people watch the CBS news.
Seriously, Palin was embarrassingly bad. I can't imagine how anyone but the most loyal supporter could watch these interviews and come away thinking that this woman is ready to be President. She certainly doesn't seem to be ready to debate Biden next week.
I think the Palin pick is going to wind up being a really bad move. I admit I was wrong about the potential upside. I thought the potential brilliance of the pick was that it would convert women voters; instead, it seems that the upside is more in rallying the Christian base. But, couldn't they have rallied the base by picking someone who was ready for primetime? Someone like Mike Huckabee. Other than gender, Huckabee seems to have all the characteristics that make Palin appealing - religious, conservative, folksy, non-elitist, extremely likable, regular middle/working class white American. And Huckabee has over a decade of experience as Governor and has actually demonstrated that he can hold his own talking about policy with the other Presidential candidates. Why didn't he receive serious consideration?
Seriously, Palin was embarrassingly bad. I can't imagine how anyone but the most loyal supporter could watch these interviews and come away thinking that this woman is ready to be President. She certainly doesn't seem to be ready to debate Biden next week.
I think the Palin pick is going to wind up being a really bad move. I admit I was wrong about the potential upside. I thought the potential brilliance of the pick was that it would convert women voters; instead, it seems that the upside is more in rallying the Christian base. But, couldn't they have rallied the base by picking someone who was ready for primetime? Someone like Mike Huckabee. Other than gender, Huckabee seems to have all the characteristics that make Palin appealing - religious, conservative, folksy, non-elitist, extremely likable, regular middle/working class white American. And Huckabee has over a decade of experience as Governor and has actually demonstrated that he can hold his own talking about policy with the other Presidential candidates. Why didn't he receive serious consideration?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Raising McCain?
Maybe I'm watching a whole different convention. Everyone seems to be in love with Palin's speech; I thought it was good, but not really sure how it swung any voters. Everyone seems underwhelmed by McCain's speech, but I think it was very effective. It was a speech directed at swing voters and it was successful. Heck, even I was starting to like McCain by the end. McCain seemed like a thoughtful, compassionate patriot. He didn't offer the bold rhetoric or bold proposals of Obama, but at least he made it seem like he's aware that there are problems with unemployment, schools, and health care, and that he's planning on doing something to solve the problems. His anti-earmark stuff always sounds good. And he repeated his POW story, but managed to make it sound like he was genuinely sharing a personal story, not hitting a talking point.
My thoughts at the end of the night: McCain might've been able to win this election on his own. I still feel like picking Palin was a stunt executed by a desperate campaign that thought it couldn't win unless it took a risky move. McCain should've had more confidence in himself.
My thoughts at the end of the night: McCain might've been able to win this election on his own. I still feel like picking Palin was a stunt executed by a desperate campaign that thought it couldn't win unless it took a risky move. McCain should've had more confidence in himself.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Palin - Live Thoughts
10:29 - hmm, seems that Rudy went so long, they had to cut the intro video. Might not matter, but I thought the Dems did a great job with their videos, it seems foolish for the Republicans to not take advantage of the capability.
10:36 - The youngest daughter is adorable. Where was the middle one?
10:38 - Did she just lock up the parents of "special needs children" vote?
10:43 - "Small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except you have actual responsibilities." Giuliani made fun of the community organizer thing, too. Is that really wise? The Democrats did a good job of establishing that Obama's work as a community organizer involved real help for recently laid-off factory workers. Making fun of it makes the Republicans seem callous.
10:48 - Wraps up the general theme about shaking things up, being a maverick etc. Talks about reform as governor - put the governor's private jet up on eBay. Great story.
10:50 - Repeats the "thanks, but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere" story despite the fact that the media has already called her out on being for the bridge before she was against it. I guess they're sticking to their guns on this one.
10:51 - Energy independence. The Republicans are really hammering this drilling thing tonight (earlier, they were chanting "drill, baby, drill"). The public seems to be in favor of drilling, but the Republicans might be overplaying their hand here. Do they really think that most Americans will believe that we can really drill our way out of the energy crisis?
10:53 - Wait, she addressed that concern - it won't solve everything, "but that's no reason to not do anything at all." Good job
10:56 - ~"Obama will make government bigger, increase taxes, reduce strength of our military". Taxes, taxes, taxes!!!
11:02 - Harry Reid can't stand John McCain. She's losing me a little here.
11:04 - Goes on for a bit about John McCain as a war hero, which is getting a little old. But, she does a nice job of tying it into her earlier point about him being like a lot of people from small towns, some of whom never came back.
11:09 - family joins her on stage. Sarah holds baby Trig. And there's McCain!
11:12 - I'm watching NBC and Brokaw just called her out on being misleading about "the bridge to nowhere."
All in all, it was a very good VP speech. I expected her to be good and it was. People who had low expectations were probably very impressed. In the end, is it enough to erase the concern that she isn't ready? I'm not sure. I'm curious to see how opinion polls shift. She gave a great speech, but other than the first 10 minutes of bio, it sounded like a speech that could've been written for any Republican VP. I imagine some voters were convinced she's ready, but that many will need to see how knowledgeable she is when she has to think on her feet without a teleprompter.
10:36 - The youngest daughter is adorable. Where was the middle one?
10:38 - Did she just lock up the parents of "special needs children" vote?
10:43 - "Small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except you have actual responsibilities." Giuliani made fun of the community organizer thing, too. Is that really wise? The Democrats did a good job of establishing that Obama's work as a community organizer involved real help for recently laid-off factory workers. Making fun of it makes the Republicans seem callous.
10:48 - Wraps up the general theme about shaking things up, being a maverick etc. Talks about reform as governor - put the governor's private jet up on eBay. Great story.
10:50 - Repeats the "thanks, but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere" story despite the fact that the media has already called her out on being for the bridge before she was against it. I guess they're sticking to their guns on this one.
10:51 - Energy independence. The Republicans are really hammering this drilling thing tonight (earlier, they were chanting "drill, baby, drill"). The public seems to be in favor of drilling, but the Republicans might be overplaying their hand here. Do they really think that most Americans will believe that we can really drill our way out of the energy crisis?
10:53 - Wait, she addressed that concern - it won't solve everything, "but that's no reason to not do anything at all." Good job
10:56 - ~"Obama will make government bigger, increase taxes, reduce strength of our military". Taxes, taxes, taxes!!!
11:02 - Harry Reid can't stand John McCain. She's losing me a little here.
11:04 - Goes on for a bit about John McCain as a war hero, which is getting a little old. But, she does a nice job of tying it into her earlier point about him being like a lot of people from small towns, some of whom never came back.
11:09 - family joins her on stage. Sarah holds baby Trig. And there's McCain!
11:12 - I'm watching NBC and Brokaw just called her out on being misleading about "the bridge to nowhere."
All in all, it was a very good VP speech. I expected her to be good and it was. People who had low expectations were probably very impressed. In the end, is it enough to erase the concern that she isn't ready? I'm not sure. I'm curious to see how opinion polls shift. She gave a great speech, but other than the first 10 minutes of bio, it sounded like a speech that could've been written for any Republican VP. I imagine some voters were convinced she's ready, but that many will need to see how knowledgeable she is when she has to think on her feet without a teleprompter.
Palin's Big Night
Forget John McCain tomorrow night, tonight's speech by Governor Palin is the most important of the Republican convention. Nate described the situation as "low expectations and a fairly high degree of difficulty." I think he's wrong. The expectations are low, but I don't see why this is all that difficult a performance for Palin to pull off. I haven't seen much of her stump speeches, but by all accounts, she's a skilled public speaker who has a knack for connecting with audiences. She's had limited time to prepare for this speech, but she presumably has a team of elite speechwriters at her disposal. This shouldn't be too tough. She doesn't need to hit a home run, just a solid double. The debate with Biden will be a real test; tonight, Palin just needs to read off a teleprompter.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Andrew Sullivan's Gone Crazy!
I enjoy Andrew Sullivan's blog. He's an insightful writer, has interesting opinions, and writes frequent updates. And most of the time, he's very thoughtful and reasoned. On the Palin issue, he's sort of lost his mind. And in his latest post indicates that he's really losing it: "I'm beginning to wonder if McCain will have to withdraw. Or can they switch after the nomination?"
Come on, Andrew! The situation's not that dire. I agree that the Palin pick looks bad right now and is likely to look bad when all is said and done, but it's early and a bad VP pick has rarely been fatal to a candidate. A lot of voters still think very highly of McCain; there's no reason for the Republicans to think about replacing him at the top of the ticket.
This statement is also somewhat ridiculous: "He got the nomination by default." That's not true. The Democratic primary was unusual in that it had two extremely popular candidates with huge followings. The Republicans had a bunch of flawed candidates, but there were certainly candidates who had followings: Romney is loved by the fiscal conservative base; Huckabee by the evangelicals. Actually, these three are a great example of the three separate policy areas I discussed in the last post - the hawk, the fiscal conservative, and the social conservative.
Come on, Andrew! The situation's not that dire. I agree that the Palin pick looks bad right now and is likely to look bad when all is said and done, but it's early and a bad VP pick has rarely been fatal to a candidate. A lot of voters still think very highly of McCain; there's no reason for the Republicans to think about replacing him at the top of the ticket.
This statement is also somewhat ridiculous: "He got the nomination by default." That's not true. The Democratic primary was unusual in that it had two extremely popular candidates with huge followings. The Republicans had a bunch of flawed candidates, but there were certainly candidates who had followings: Romney is loved by the fiscal conservative base; Huckabee by the evangelicals. Actually, these three are a great example of the three separate policy areas I discussed in the last post - the hawk, the fiscal conservative, and the social conservative.
Ron Paul
I'm impressed with the little bit I've watched of Ron Paul's event today. The mainstream press has been really unfair, basically ignoring him and his followers as an insane irrelevant group with radial views. I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul, but his views aren't insane or incoherent. I think the modern U.S. media just isn't equipped to handle third parties; they're used to framing political issues by just presenting the Democrats' position and the Republicans' position. Sometimes, there's a legitimate third view.
In a broad sense, you can break down policy issues into three categories: economic, social, foreign. Generally, most Democrats are for more socialist economic policies, liberal social policies, and dovish foreign policies; most Republicans are in favor of lower taxes and market-based economic policies, conservative social policies, and hawkish foreign policies. Of course, there's no reason why those three things should always be linked together. Ron Paul is basically in agreement with the rest of the Republicans in regards to two of the three categories, but has opposite views on foreign policy. Essentially, he's the Republican version of Joe Lieberman.
A lot of people have written about the "Reagan coalition" and pointed out that the Republican party could fall apart if the fiscal conservatives, evangelicals, and neocons can't all stick together. Nobody seems to mention that the Democrats' coalition is just as flimsy. There are plenty of union members who vote for Democrats just because of economic issues, plenty of people troubled by the Iraq war who will vote for the Democrats just because of that issue, and plenty of people who vote for Democrats just because they feel strongly about the right to choose an abortion and equal rights for gays. Those latter two groups are a little hard to identify, which is probably why nobody talks about them. But, I certainly know people who are strongly pro-choice, but don't agree with the Democrats on taxes or Iraq. And people who are strongly against the war, but otherwise agree with the Republicans.
Look, the two-party system has served us very well, but it distorts things in some ways. Would we be better served by a multi-party system that required parties to build coalitions?
In a broad sense, you can break down policy issues into three categories: economic, social, foreign. Generally, most Democrats are for more socialist economic policies, liberal social policies, and dovish foreign policies; most Republicans are in favor of lower taxes and market-based economic policies, conservative social policies, and hawkish foreign policies. Of course, there's no reason why those three things should always be linked together. Ron Paul is basically in agreement with the rest of the Republicans in regards to two of the three categories, but has opposite views on foreign policy. Essentially, he's the Republican version of Joe Lieberman.
A lot of people have written about the "Reagan coalition" and pointed out that the Republican party could fall apart if the fiscal conservatives, evangelicals, and neocons can't all stick together. Nobody seems to mention that the Democrats' coalition is just as flimsy. There are plenty of union members who vote for Democrats just because of economic issues, plenty of people troubled by the Iraq war who will vote for the Democrats just because of that issue, and plenty of people who vote for Democrats just because they feel strongly about the right to choose an abortion and equal rights for gays. Those latter two groups are a little hard to identify, which is probably why nobody talks about them. But, I certainly know people who are strongly pro-choice, but don't agree with the Democrats on taxes or Iraq. And people who are strongly against the war, but otherwise agree with the Republicans.
Look, the two-party system has served us very well, but it distorts things in some ways. Would we be better served by a multi-party system that required parties to build coalitions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
