Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

What was his reason? I still don't understand why people thought Obama would be worst after meeting with like 12 different world leaders in 7 days.

Weren't people saying that Obama (being that 3 big anchors were going with him) might make a mistake and that could hurt him? Well since he didn't shouldn't the pundits now say that Obama out did their opinions and at least this one time surprised them?

Gallup did a breakdown of possible reactions yesterday. The GOP was arguing one in particular:

1. Obama's trip could end up being the basis for a shift in voter preferences to the point where he pulls into a sustained lead over McCain. This could occur on a delayed basis. It's even possible that Obama's trip, while not having an immediate effect on tracking numbers, could lay the mental groundwork in the minds of voters to the point where they are more open to an Obama presidency at some point in the future (such as the Democratic convention). In particular, this might occur if his trip removes doubts voters might have about his ability to handle international affairs.

2. Voters could simply not pay much attention to the trip, and its net impact could end up being very minor. The data so far this summer have shown little significant movement in voter numbers, suggesting that voters may, to some degree, be tuning out the election coverage regardless of the candidates' efforts to stimulate interest.

3. Voters could pay attention to Obama's trip, but decide that the trip, per se, did not demonstrate anything that would cause a fundamental shift in their voting preferences. While the news media have made a great deal out of the trip, it's conceivable that it may not appear to be significant to the majority of voters.

4. Voters could pay attention to the trip, but shift support away from Obama if they viewed the trip or the way in which Obama conducted himself in a more negative light. Conservative commentators -- and of course the McCain campaign itself -- have certainly been arguing that there are negatives associated with the trip, including a speculation of presumptiveness that a presidential nominee would make a speech more appropriate for an actual president, the criticism that the content of his speeches did not contain anything new, or that the real issues facing the voters are domestic, not international.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109105/Gallup-Daily-Obama-There-Europe-Effect.aspx

I'm sure there's a mix of everything happening, but I think the effect will last much longer than just a quick impact in daily trackers.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I'm sorry...please someone tell me that GAF has discussed the fact that Mccain, after attacking Obama 7,000,000 times for his timetable, is now agreeing with it.:lol :lol :lol Please. Thank you.

he isnt agreeing with it.

i posted this earlier:

just saw the video. mccain didnt mean it the way that blog and others are trying to spin it. he really has trouble putting his thoughts into words. sounds like he meant, 'ideally it would be a good time table, but thats not the reality' or something along those lines. the video also cuts off anything he said afterwords, so it could also be terribly misleading.

 

[mckmas8808]

Gallup did a breakdown of possible reactions yesterday. The GOP was arguing one in particular:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/109105/Gallup-Daily-Obama-There-Europe-Effect.aspx

I'm sure there's a mix of everything happening, but I think the effect will last much longer than just a quick impact in daily trackers.

But on all the Sunday talk shows they now have to say the trip so far in the daily tracking polls conducted with the American people is seen as a success.

There isn't any other way to look at it.

 

[Tamanon]

But on all the Sunday talk shows they now have to say the trip so far in the daily tracking polls conducted with the American people is seen as a success.

There isn't any other way to look at it.

You say that now, but wait until the demographic breakdowns are analyzed!

 

[mckmas8808]

he isnt agreeing with it.

i posted this earlier:

just saw the video. mccain didnt mean it the way that blog and others are trying to spin it. he really has trouble putting his thoughts into words. sounds like he meant, 'ideally it would be a good time table, but thats not the reality' or something along those lines. the video also cuts off anything he said afterwords, so it could also be terribly misleading.

No the problem is McCain has NEVER EVER said anything about a timeline or time horizon. McCain has argued that the existence of a timeline talk is ridiculas.

So for him to say that it's a good timeline, good time horizon, good idea, good thought, ideally good, etc is him flipping on his orginal speeches.

All he use to say is "based on conditions on the ground." Now he is saying it's a good timeline if the conditions on the ground are what they are today.

Again Quad keep in mind that McCain has said two things....

1. The Surge worked.
2. We succeeded.

So if the above 2 are correct then us leaving by summer of 2010 is a no brainer. How can McCain explain to the American people this fall that we succeeded in Iraq, but can't pull troops out in 2009?

 

[GhaleonEB]

You say that now, but wait until the demographic breakdowns are analyzed!

White suburban pet-owning housewives are not convinced by Obama's overseas antics.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

After this week, there is no doubt in my mind Obama can handle any world leader he comes across. Hell, I remember his confrontation with Joe Lieberman. Whatever he said to the man, stopped Joe from talking shit. He's just taking what he knows to a new level.

 

[Stinkles]

the former may (or may not, in terms of the Metro) be written in a less "objective" tone than, say, the NY Times (which, of course, has also been known to "blatantly [lie] and [make] up stories," as have major news networks, major cable networks, major magazines, and major news outlets of all shapes and sizes--everyone gets burnt, everyone has fallen into the trap of going with scoops that turn out to be duds, everyone has had fabulists on their payroll, etc), but the idea that the journalists who write articles for it cannot be considered "media" or "journalists" even, is just an ignorant statement.
.

Yep, but it's vital to distinguish between tilt, bias and agenda. The first happens on a case by case, per-article basis, sometimes through a turn of phrase, sometimes a mistake, sometimes through a philosophical point of view. The second is the effect of the first. How does it end up tilting and in which viewpoint's favor.

The third is inexcusable. Fox news has a mandate and a plan to do what it does. The NYT is a good example of appearing left-facing because of the people writing the stories and the former Wall Street Journal (not Murdoch's - we'll wait and see what he does) is a good example of a "naturally" right facing newspaper.

However, neither of those publications typically (or at least blatantly) distorts reporting - I am referring to their commentary and editorials.

The NY Post does however distort reporting, as does Fox News. Everyone distorts salacious non-news (missing white girls, celebrity antics). To find a librul version, I have to go to online free pubs - MediaMattersm, HuffPost etc.

I think the reason the "librul-media" doesn't exist is economical, more than political. Obviously corporations are naturally right-leaning. Corporations, by and large, are the media.

Moreover, it is easy to rile up the public against things they hate, harder to have them support things they love. Unfortunately, right now, the Republican election platform is built around "hate" (immigration, sexuality, religious difference) rather than "love" (environment, education, poverty, etc).

Which is a shame, because none of those things should be attached to one party.

 

[Farmboy]

1. Obama's trip could end up being the basis for a shift in voter preferences to the point where he pulls into a sustained lead over McCain. This could occur on a delayed basis. It's even possible that Obama's trip, while not having an immediate effect on tracking numbers, could lay the mental groundwork in the minds of voters to the point where they are more open to an Obama presidency at some point in the future (such as the Democratic convention). In particular, this might occur if his trip removes doubts voters might have about his ability to handle international affairs.

I thought Nate Silver had an interesting take on this, similar to the possible response cited above (in terms of 'laying the mental groundwork' for future gains):

Suppose that, in the status quo, 75 percent of voters base their vote on domestic policy, and those voters go to Obama 60:40. The remaining 25 percent base their votes on foreign policy, and they vote for McCain 70:30. Under this scenario, Obama would win the election by five points:

[Status Quo] % Voting Obama McCain
Foreign Policy 25 30 70
Domestic Policy 75 60 40
============================================
Total 100 52.5 47.5

Now suppose this: Obama emphasizes foreign policy. As a result, he cuts his deficit with McCain on that issue from 70-30 to 65-35. But he also increases the percentage of the public that base their decision on foreign policy from 25 percent to 35 percent. [...] The electorate now looks as follows:

[FP Emphasis] % Voting Obama McCain
Foreign Policy 35 35 65
Domestic Policy 65 60 40
============================================
Total 100 51.25 48.75

Now, instead of leading by five points, Obama leads by just two-and-a-half -- even though the strategy succeeded in improving perceptions about his ability to handle foreign policy.

What you're hoping for in the long-run, of course, is something like this:

[Long-Term?] % Voting Obama McCain
Foreign Policy 25 35 65
Domestic Policy 75 60 40
============================================
Total 100 53.75 46.25

That is, in the long-run, the public's emphasis shifts back to domestic policy, which is where Obama wants it. But among those voters who do want to vote on foreign policy, he has assuaged some concerns and made some permanent gains. This results in him leading by 7.5 points rather than five.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Hopefully this is pointed out the next time Fox News gets all butt hurt when someone calls them a mouthpiece for the White House.

I remember when Fox News, particularly O Reilly, attacked Dan Rathers because he said Fox News receives talking points from the White House. O Reilly asked Rathers to back up his claims. Well, now we have an inside source who also says the same.

Oh, and Rupert Murdoch admits on television that he supported Bush's policies and tried to sell Bush's Iraq war to its viewers:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0K2pLo8JV5Y

Jesus fucking Christ. If that isn't proof that Fox News is a right wing organization, then you're living in la la land.

P.S. What happened to the colored coded terrorist thing that Fox News had? Talk about propaganda. :lol

 

[StoOgE]

I thought Nate Silver had an interesting take on this, similar to the possible response cited above (in terms of 'laying the mental groundwork' for future gains):

That article is stupid. it assumes people are one issue voters.

The real reason Obama went over there is because most voters are going to vote on the economy, but of those voters, there is probably a giant chunk of them (especially women) who want a dem for economic reasons, but might have some security fears (the so called security moms from 2004).

Obama going over there and showing he knows what the fuck he's doing in foreign relations matters might help people who want to vote for him for economic reasons do so without any lingering doubts in the back of their mind.

No one votes on a single issue.

 

[GhaleonEB]

TPM has a great find, from March this year:

Flanked by fellow Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, McCain noted they'd undertaken their week long fact-finding tour of Iraq, Jordan, Israel, England and France as members of Congress's Armed Services committee -- not as some sort of campaign foreign road show. Perhaps, but discussing international affairs with foreign leaders and enhancing McCain's presidential hopes aren't mutually exclusive. Still, McCain acted the apt pupil. "I wish every senator, every senator would make this same trip," McCain said, noting several of the first-hand educational experiences he'd gotten. "They'd be better informed."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/205769.php

Whoops.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

Huh, so I guess McCain will be patting Obama on the back, when he returns.

 

[WickedAngel]

TPM has a great find, from March this year:


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/205769.php

Whoops.

It's not really a whoops or a slip, really. Those would imply a break from the norm; McCain has built his entire campaign on a consistent inability to maintain a coherent stance from one day to the next.

 

[Chichikov]

TPM has a great find, from March this year:


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/205769.php

Whoops.

It's not so much a question of substance, his latest comments are just obvious tactical maneuvering, it's a question of the quality of campaign he builds.
I would expect a presidential candidate to have fact checkers that would prevent such gaffes from happening so often.

 

[ZealousD]

Olympics. No need for either candidate to do a thing during the Olympics, no one will be paying attention.

Sure they will.

During the ads.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

It seems like lately McCain has been more Bush than Bush is Bush. Bush has been more Obama (who knows why?) and I think THE TRIP did little or nothing even though it was covered very positively in the press

 

[GhaleonEB]

Sure they will.

During the ads.

Yeah, I was just thinking how that timing could work out. Announce the veep the week before the Olympics. Campaign hard to introduce her. Then when the Olympics begin, take a week off and launch the first ads with them both, using the national package Obama's media team bought.

It seems like lately McCain has been more Bush than Bush is Bush. Bush has been more Obama (who knows why?) and I think THE TRIP did little or nothing even though it was covered very positively in the press

It's really too early to tell. But so far:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12145591&postcount=11438

 

[titiklabingapat]

I can't help but notice that the Obama campaign seems to be doing a local game once again, the same tactic they used against Clinton.

They aren't doing exceptionally well against McCain nationally, but one quick look at electoral vote trackers give Obama huge wins in many of the so called swing states, giving him a decidedly obvious win if everything holds up in November.

It's still too early to say though.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

HEY APF!!!

*WAVES WILDLY*

DAMMIT!

DON'T IGNORE ME!!!

 

[GenericPseudonym]

I can't help but notice that the Obama campaign seems to be doing a local game once again, the same tactic they used against Clinton.

They aren't doing exceptionally well against McCain nationally, but one quick look at electoral vote trackers give Obama huge win in many of the so called swing states, giving him a decidedly obvious win if everything holds up in November.

Because national poll numbers are never that far apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960
Clinton led Dole by 9% points in the popular vote, but utterly crushed him in the electoral college.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

I can't help but notice that the Obama campaign seems to be doing a local game once again, the same tactic they used against Clinton.

They aren't doing exceptionally well against McCain nationally, but one quick look at electoral vote trackers give Obama huge wins in many of the so called swing states, giving him a decidedly obvious win if everything holds up in November.

It's still too early to say though.

The Obama campaign has spent a lot of money on staffing in various places while the McCain campaign has spent money on advertising. Obama's ramp up starts with the Olympics then it goes from there. No one is going to care about what either of them do during that time, so the ads will be great for Obama. After that, hit the ground running.

 

[Incognito]

Obama's current position is eerily reminscent of his position in late October/early November when he was down 30% to Clinton. He's not overextending himself and only going after McCain in purely defensive terms. He's letting the ground game organize and then he'll deliver the knockout. For some reason, I always felt confident in Obama's chances back in those days simply because of his ground game. Obama's "game on" moment during the primaries was his speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner early November in Iowa, a speech that I believe cemented his victory. His massive organization for that event foreshadowed the amazing turnout on caucus day and his speech was a homerun. That was the day he laid his cards on the table and from that moment on, the Clinton campaign knew they were up shits creek.

That moment will happen again August 27th. I can't wait.

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12072.html

McCain's new ad attacking Obama for not visiting the troops in Germany. What a silly ad. One candidate says "I didn't want to politicize a troop visit" the other one says "Let's politicize a troop visit!"

 

[reilo]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12072.html

McCain's new ad attacking Obama for not visiting the troops in Germany. What a silly ad. One candidate says "I didn't want to politicize a troop visit" the other one says "Let's politicize a troop visit!"

Didn't the Pentagon prevent Obama from visiting the troops in Germany?

And I guess it was too much to hope for McCain not to go Karl Rove on Obama. But the GOP will be the GOP.

"John McCain is always there for our troops."

Like the time you voted against the GI Bill, asshole?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I read the reason why he didn't vote was because the GI Bill wasn't enough for the vets.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

But the GOP will be the GOP.

And the GOP be dirt.

"John McCain is always there for our troops."

Like the time you voted against the GI Bill, asshole?

Case in point.

 

[Chichikov]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12072.html

McCain's new ad attacking Obama for not visiting the troops in Germany. What a silly ad. One candidate says "I didn't want to politicize a troop visit" the other one says "Let's politicize a troop visit!"

This entire line of attack should be easily countered by contrasting McCain's and Obama voting record.

 

[reilo]

You know, with Dubya's recent foreign policy shifts, it would seem that Bush is distancing himself from McCain, instead of visa versa.

 

[Tamanon]

Besides, didn't Obama actually visit wounded troops in Afghanistan or Iraq? I could've swore that was mentioned during the trip. He'll just pop out with a forceful commercial decrying the use of the military as something to earn political points.

 

[Incognito]

I read the reason why he didn't vote was because the GI Bill wasn't enough for the vets.

That's false.

He was against the GI Bill because he felt that retention rates would suffer if benefits were extended to servicemen only on active duty for three years. Among other things. However, that didn't stop him or Bush for claiming credit of its eventual passage.

 

[Stinkles]

I read the reason why he didn't vote was because the GI Bill wasn't enough for the vets.

Edit: Incog beat me.

 

[StoOgE]

I read the reason why he didn't vote was because the GI Bill wasn't enough for the vets.

Yeah, that doesnt even make sense. "I think the troops deserve MORE, so I will give them NOTHING"

The real reason is that he thought the retention rates would drop. If we took care of our troups after they got out of the army, they would be more likely to leave. If we treat them like dogshit once their out, they will be in no hurry to leave.

 

[StoOgE]

Obama's current position is eerily reminscent of his position in late October/early November when he was down 30% to Clinton. He's not overextending himself and only going after McCain in purely defensive terms. He's letting the ground game organize and then he'll deliver the knockout. For some reason, I always felt confident in Obama's chances back in those days simply because of his ground game. Obama's "game on" moment during the primaries was his speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner early November in Iowa, a speech that I believe cemented his victory. His massive organization for that event foreshadowed the amazing turnout on caucus day and his speech was a homerun. That was the day he laid his cards on the table and from that moment on, the Clinton campaign knew they were up shits creek.

That moment will happen again August 27th. I can't wait.

Pretty much. The DNC and Obama have spent a ton of money on the ground forces, they have a TON of offices in states they consider "swing" states.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Yeah. Seems like if he had a problem, he should've debated the issue by adding his own on the floor.

 

[reilo]

Yeah. Seems like if he had a problem, he should've debated the issue by adding his own on the floor.

That would require him to actually show up.

 

[Tamanon]

Pretty much. The DNC and Obama have spent a ton of money on the ground forces, they have a TON of offices in states they consider "swing" states.

I think they realized that ads only have a temporary effect most of the time and are instead focusing on the GOTV infrastructure and timing the ads mainly for later in the campaign.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Pretty much. The DNC and Obama have spent a ton of money on the ground forces, they have a TON of offices in states they consider "swing" states.

It is so weird that it has taken someone to actually do this. I watch the shows and all they do is talk thing is old world terms. It is as if they didn't understand what Obama was doing in the primaries. They seem to have a better grasp on the rules than everybody else. That is why Obama should win this.

 

[StoOgE]

I think they realized that ads only have a temporary effect most of the time and are instead focusing on the GOTV infrastructure and timing the ads mainly for later in the campaign.

Obama also has the advantage of spending a ton of money in the primary that McCain didnt spend. And because the Dems went to all 50 states, all states have alreay been saturated for Obama months ago. Spending a ton of money now is silly.

I also think McCain going negative this early is a giant clusterfuck of a tactical mistake. Negative ads almost always backfire given enough time. Let surrogates do it, let independent PAC's do it. Dont do it yourself, and if you are going to, do it at the last minute (a la the Clintons).

 

[Y2Kev]

Obama's current position is eerily reminscent of his position in late October/early November when he was down 30% to Clinton. He's not overextending himself and only going after McCain in purely defensive terms. He's letting the ground game organize and then he'll deliver the knockout. For some reason, I always felt confident in Obama's chances back in those days simply because of his ground game. Obama's "game on" moment during the primaries was his speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner early November in Iowa, a speech that I believe cemented his victory. His massive organization for that event foreshadowed the amazing turnout on caucus day and his speech was a homerun. That was the day he laid his cards on the table and from that moment on, the Clinton campaign knew they were up shits creek.

That moment will happen again August 27th. I can't wait.

Is there more coverage of this speech? I don't really remember it, I would like to hear more about early campaign since I was so focused on February and after for so long.

And when people say "ground game," what exactly do they mean?

 

[reilo]

Is there more coverage of this speech? I don't really remember it, I would like to hear more about early campaign since I was so focused on February and after for so long.

And when people say "ground game," what exactly do they mean?

Offices. People going door-to-door. Local phone calls. Rallies. And so forth.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Is there more coverage of this speech? I don't really remember it, I would like to hear more about early campaign since I was so focused on February and after for so long.

And when people say "ground game," what exactly do they mean?

His local organizing.

 

[StoOgE]

It is so weird that it has taken someone to actually do this. I watch the shows and all they do is talk thing is old world terms. It is as if they didn't understand what Obama was doing in the primaries. They seem to have a better grasp on the rules than everybody else. That is why Obama should win this.

Bingo. All these polls also assume african american, youth and Latino turnout being roughly the same as 2004. Right, that's gonna happen :lol

 

[Learn2read]

Obama also has the advantage of spending a ton of money in the primary that McCain didnt spend. And because the Dems went to all 50 states, all states have alreay been saturated for Obama months ago. Spending a ton of money now is silly.

I also think McCain going negative this early is a giant clusterfuck of a tactical mistake. Negative ads almost always backfire given enough time. Let surrogates do it, let independent PAC's do it. Dont do it yourself, and if you are going to, do it at the last minute (a la the Clintons).

Maybe, but if this election is a referendum on Bush, McCain is completely fucked. If he can switch it so that it's a referendum on Obama, he at least has a slim chance if he can scare enough people into not voting for Obama, either staying home or voting for him.

 

[Hitokage]

Is there more coverage of this speech? I don't really remember it, I would like to hear more about early campaign since I was so focused on February and after for so long.

It was the speech just before Iowa where Obama was said to finally appear presidential in his campaign for president.

 

[Incognito]

Maybe, but if this election is a referendum on Bush, McCain is completely fucked. If he can switch it so that it's a referendum on Obama, he at least has a slim chance if he can scare enough people into not voting for Obama, either staying home or voting for him.

This election is already a referendum on Obama. It'll continue that way until election day. As long as Obama doesn't fuck up on a huge scale, the presidency is his for the taking.

 

[Incognito]

Is there more coverage of this speech? I don't really remember it, I would like to hear more about early campaign since I was so focused on February and after for so long.

And when people say "ground game," what exactly do they mean?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tydfsfSQiYc

Still amazing to watch.

I remember walking into my local Obama office the day after this speech and listening to everyone's remarks about it. What was amazing besides everyone recognizing that this speech would propel to him the presidency, was the fact that people actually stayed up to watch it. It didn't begin to 1030-11pm cst, IIRC.

 

[Tamanon]

BTW, I didn't even notice the first time, but the footage McCain's camp uses of "Obama hitting the gym instead of visiting the troops" is of him shooting baskets with the troops in Kuwait.:lol :lol

 

[Learn2read]

Round-up of this week's Late Night political humor. Pretty good
That McCain moment is painful.

 

[Learn2read]

Oh and just look how much the press hates McCain!

I bet they went back for seconds just out of spite.