• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of First Debate Election 2008 - GAF doesn't know shit

Status
Not open for further replies.
SecretDestroyer said:
You know Rove predicted that whatever way the St Louis suburbs go, so goes the nation.

Missouri has always voted for the winner of a presidental race for ages now. I don't think its status as a bellwhether is as relevant today as it used to be (minority population increases, hispanic voter increases, etc.), but I always thought that if Obama kept it close he should have a good shot at Missouri. Especially after the primary results there.
 

AniHawk

Member
titiklabingapat said:
New(old?) ARG poll in CO has McCain leading, 47-45.

On the flipside, Obama is leading in FL, 47-46.


The rest(stolen from electoral-vote):

State Obama McCain Start End Pollster
Colorado 45% 48% Sep 23 Sep 25 ARG
Connecticut 54% 38% Sep 24 Sep 25 SurveyUSA
Florida 47% 46% Sep 23 Sep 25 ARG
Florida 47% 48% Sep 24 Sep 24 Rasmussen
Missouri 46% 47% Sep 22 Sep 24 Research 2000
Montana 39% 52% Sep 22 Sep 24 Research 2000
Pennsylvania 47% 43% Sep 21 Sep 25 Muhlenberg Coll.
South Carolina 39% 54% Sep 22 Sep 24 Research 2000
Virginia 50% 45% Sep 25 Sep 25 Rasmussen
Wyoming 36% 57% Sep 22 Sep 24 Research 2000

Isn't ARG somewhat unreliable? ...As nice as it is to see a lead in Florida.
 
The nations top analysts weigh in on the debates (not stupid tv pundits)

Jeffrey C. Stewart, Professor of Black Studies:
....I wanted Obama to do more of the "you were wrong on this, John, you were wrong on that," etc., but the reality is that as a black man to be perceived as aggressive can alienate white voters. So, Obama has a tricky line to walk, and he succeeded in walking that line...

Jim Leach, Professor and former member of Congress:

The debate harkened to the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960. A read of that debate would have established Nixon as the winner; a visage, Kennedy. In this instance, Obama wins the read and the visage.

Victor H. Fazio, Attorney, former Democratic congressman:

John McCain came off as angry and disdainful. He seemed thoroughly disgusted that he even had to debate Obama, refusing to look him in the eye.

Lawrence Lessig, Professor of law, Stanford:

I don't understand why Obama ran from the corruption issues. When McCain raised the earmark "corruption" (as he called it), why didn't Obama grab the ball and run with it?


Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

McCain was stronger and more sure of himself. But it was the highest quality presidential debate I've ever seen.

Amity Shlaes, Author, columnist and senior fellow, CFR:

....The candidates moved away from the crisis topic the way you move away from a growling dog – calmly, but with dispatch....


Alan Schroeder, Professor of Journalism, Northeastern University:

This debate clarifies little.


Christine Pelosi, Attorney, author and Democratic activist:

....Both looked Presidential so the race stays the same - advantage Obama.


Norman J. Ornstein, Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute:

McCain started nervously and slowly, but clearly hit his stride when foreign policy came up. He also managed to be more aggressive. But the key question for me was whether Obama would get over the bar as a president and commander-in-chief. That is the key to this election. And I believe he clearly the bar pretty easily.


Michael O'Hanlon, Senior fellow in Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution:

No big news in terms of policy positions that I can detect. And no big surprises in terms of which issues they tended to want to discuss when given flexibility to choose.


Diane Ravitch, Historian of education, NYU, Hoover and Brookings:

I was really surprised by the debate. I expected that it would confirm my growing disenchantment with John McCain. To the contrary. McCain was sharp, incisive, knowledgeable. I thought I would confirm my leaning toward Barack Obama. Instead, I found him disappointing.


Deborah Tannen, Author and professor of linguistics:

McCain seemed to spend more time attacking, sneering, smirking and ridiculing than laying out his own plans. Obama spent far more of his time staying dignified and laying out what he plans to do to solve problems.


James P. Pinkerton, Fellow, New America Foundation :

McCain is closer to the political middle on spending, energy, and the conduct of the Iraq war. McCain had better emotion, and better historical anecdotes and perspective. But Obama looked good, spoke smoothly, and showed a savvy willingness to copycat popular Republican positions, on such issues as energy and missile defense.


Kevin Madden, Republican strategist:

Presidential debates are defined by those stand-alone "moments" that crystallize the strengths or weaknesses of a candidate. This debate lacked any real, significant moment that helped or hindered either candidate.


Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Professor of Communication, University of Pennsyl:

Reporters who trust focus groups or survey data to tell them who "won" or "lost" a presidential debate are knee-deep in quicksand.



James J. Zogby, President, Arab American Institute:

A Postscript: I was intrigued by the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not mentioned.



Steven G. Calabresi, Professor of law, Northwestern University:

Obama seemed rattled and peeved by McCain’s repeated polite but firm attacks.


Marian Wright Edelman, President and founder, Children's Defense Fund:

This debate underscored the central question that each of us must ask ourselves before choosing our next president: Will our children and our children’s children fare better than us?


Bradley A. Smith, Professor, elecion law and camaign finance:

There seems to be an idea that foreign policy is McCain's best subject, and the economy will be the best for Senator Obama. I think that is wrong.


Lanny Davis, Attorney and Democratic strategist:

....Bottom line: no game changer here.


Richard Hasen, Professor, Loyola Law School in Los Angeles:

It is hard to see how this debate changes the dynamics of the race. There were no game changers. Both candidates came across as competent and sufficiently presidential. So that's probably good news for Sen. Obama at this point, simply because he is in the lead otherwise.''


Bradley A. Smith, Professor, elecion law and camaign finance:

Senator McCain's closing was strong. Without being disrespectful, he forthrightly expressed his view that Senator Obama lacks the experience for the job.


Ron Bonjean, Republican strategist:

Senator McCain kept Obama on defense for most of the debate, but there wasn't a soundbite that defined the moment.



Roy Blunt, Rep. (R-Mo.):

Clear winner of the debate was John McCain.


Jeff Shesol, Speechwriter, presidential historian:

The "John is right" narrative that is starting to circulate, particularly among Republican strategists, is of course nonsense.


Meredith McGehee, Nonpartisan public interest lobbyist:

No questions on issues dealing with the developing world... This seems to reflect an inattention generally in U.S. Policy


Jeffrey C. Stewart, Professor of Black Studies:

The comment about McCain not wanting to sit down with the president of Spain was one of the few suprising comments so far.


Robert M. Shrum, Democratic strategist :



One looks like President; the other looks and sounds like an ex-President. Can we just skip the intermediate step-- for the sake of the country?


Ken Goldstein, Political scientist, University of Wisconsin:

My read is that Obama probably did what he needed to do -- after slow start, he seemed calm and presidential.


Tim Griffin, Republican attorney and strategist:

On issue after issue, Barack Obama resembles the respectable Luke Skywalker being trained by the legendary Yoda. Yoda wins.



David Marin, Republican strategist:

It's a good thing we finally got to foreign affairs, because the
economic conversation bordered on torturous.



Stephen M. Walt, Professor of International Affairs, Harvard:

McCain says we are "winning in Iraq." But there will be more US troops in Iraq after George Bush leaves office than there were when the "surge" began, and
our generals say that we can't take them out. The "surge" did lower violence, but didn't produce political reconciliation, and McCain's talk of victory is at
best, premature.
 
StoOgE said:
Thats what that giant graph shows. When Obama wins, he wins big and often in the simulations. McCain wins rarely and by very little in the simulations.

On of McCain's big problems is that he has very little way of winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. Obama is in a position where he could lose the popular vote by a good half point and still have a very good play at getting to 269 or 273.
 
Hitokage said:
According to today's paper, it's in the very early stages, if at all, and there are a few potential suitors. However, the situation has changed now. Wachovia isn't offering to buy, Wachovia is now put up for sale. :(


Wait what do you mean my offering to buy? Weren't they bought out by JP Morgan?
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
There are pretty clear signs that the crisis is spreading throughout the world now. China expects a slowdown, and it will probably be a serious one.

Gotta wonder tho, what could "kickstart" the economy back into action? Debts can only be paid if the economy is rolling, and as the economy slows down governments will only increase their deficits by trying to save it.

The bailout isn't enough, $700B is not enough. So what happens AFTER the bailout passes and the economy continues to slow down further (anyone who thinks the economy will head upward after the bailout is crazy, it would at least take a few months).
 

thekad

Banned
I don't think anyone is expecting for the bailout to produce an economic boom (though House Republicans will probably argue that the Democrats did come November), but to prevent economic disaster.

And what the hell is James P. Pinkerton talking about?
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
BTW I was thinking about this:

Why haven't we seen foreign companies buy out the failing US institutions?

Isn't it likely that once the gov buys the bad assets from the remaining institutions, those institutions will effectively put themselves up for sale and will be bought out soon after, something they can't do now because of the bad debt they can't get rid of on their balance sheet?
 
Ether_Snake said:
There are pretty clear signs that the crisis is spreading throughout the world now. China expects a slowdown, and it will probably be a serious one.

Gotta wonder tho, what could "kickstart" the economy back into action? Debts can only be paid if the economy is rolling, and as the economy slows down governments will only increase their deficits by trying to save it.

The bailout isn't enough, $700B is not enough. So what happens AFTER the bailout passes and the economy continues to slow down further (anyone who thinks the economy will head upward after the bailout is crazy, it would at least take a few months).

This isn't a "kickstart". They're trying to prevent the credit markets from rolling over and imploding on themselves, which would be catastrophic; there is nothing that can stop an economic slowdown at this point. The question is whether or not the engine works poorly or if the engine seizes.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Ugh. Even scholars are picking up memes:

Norman J. Ornstein said:
McCain started nervously and slowly, but clearly hit his stride when foreign policy came up. He also managed to be more aggressive. But the key question for me was whether Obama would get over the bar as a president and commander-in-chief. That is the key to this election. And I believe he clearly the bar pretty easily.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
OuterWorldVoice said:
Ugh. Even scholars are picking up memes:

When someone from AEI can't pretend that the Republican schooled the Democrat on foreign policy, you know it was bad for their guy.
 
Mandark said:
When someone from AEI can't pretend that the Republican schooled the Democrat on foreign policy, you know it was bad for their guy.

Norm Ornstien is a cool guy. Don't let the AEI employer fool you-he's a decent, moderate fellow. Franken used to have him on weekly on his radio show.
 

Huzah

Member
Ether_Snake said:
There are pretty clear signs that the crisis is spreading throughout the world now. China expects a slowdown, and it will probably be a serious one.

Gotta wonder tho, what could "kickstart" the economy back into action? Debts can only be paid if the economy is rolling, and as the economy slows down governments will only increase their deficits by trying to save it.

The bailout isn't enough, $700B is not enough. So what happens AFTER the bailout passes and the economy continues to slow down further (anyone who thinks the economy will head upward after the bailout is crazy, it would at least take a few months).

There's nothing the government can really do to kickstart the economy, but there are things it can do to kickstop the economy, like raising corporate taxes and letting the financial system collapse.

Capital has been put into bad use the last few years, creating inflated assets like housing, creating a distorted economy. Capital has to be move into more productive uses and go to other parts of the economy, but this is hard to do when the financial system, which purpose is to match make capital with productive uses, doesn't exist.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
I think that the only true justification, beyond all others, for the current economical situation, has been the attempts to stall the development of renewable energy and such innovative "disruptive" technologies.

We have been living at a time where a sector was ripe for development which would have led to a revolution of our infrastructures, leading to job creation, but this sector was forcefully kept at bay and as such we got stuck in a loop attempting to create value on what had none.

I am 100% sure that if we had been investing in the development of renewable energy across industrialized nations we would not be facing this crisis.

It reminds me of the RIAA situation in relation to downloadable media.
 

Huzah

Member
Ether_Snake said:
BTW I was thinking about this:

Why haven't we seen foreign companies buy out the failing US institutions?

Isn't it likely that once the gov buys the bad assets from the remaining institutions, those institutions will effectively put themselves up for sale and will be bought out soon after, something they can't do now because of the bad debt they can't get rid of on their balance sheet?

The hope from Paulson and Bernanke is that once the ??? of the assets are known, balance sheets will become transparent, and private capital (SWF, private equity, cash rich investors) can start making rational decisions again on who to invest with. The problem right now is that there's no market for these assets because there's to many ??? with them so the balance sheet of many financial institutions are unknown. Not to mention people are fearing a financial collapse which would make these assets worthless, so by just having the gov buying the assets and avoiding the collapse, the assets will be worth more than not buying them at all.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Huzah said:
The hope from Paulson and Bernanke is that once the ??? of the assets are known, balance sheets will become transparent, and private capital (SWF, private equity, cash rich investors) can start making rational decisions again on who to invest with. The problem right now is that there's no market for these assets because there's to many ??? with them so the balance sheet of many financial institutions are unknown. Not to mention people are fearing a financial collapse which would make these assets worthless, so by just having the gov buying the assets and avoiding the collapse, the assets will be worth more than not buying them at all.

Yes but what I meant is that once the institutions have gotten rid of said ??? a price can be put on the institutions and considering how much they have fallen recently you'd think that this would make them immediately likely to be bought, unless the markets caused companies like Goldman Sachs to see their shares' price almost double in a few days, which is unlikely. So isn't it very likely that almost as soon as the bailout passes, JP Morgan, Goldman, or others, will end up being bought by foreign institutions (unless they merge)?
 
October surprise?

McCain camp prays for Palin wedding
The marriage of the vice-presidential candidate’s pregnant teenage daughter could lift a flagging campaign
Sarah Baxter in Washington

IN an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

There is already some urgency to the wedding as Bristol, who is six months pregnant, may not want to walk down the aisle too close to her date of delivery. She turns 18 on October 18, a respectable age for a bride — and the same age as Barack Obama’s pregnant mother when she married his Kenyan father. The Democrat has already declared Bristol’s private life off-limits as far as his campaign is concerned.

The selection of Palin, 44, the moose-hunting governor of Alaska, as his running mate was one of McCain’s biggest gambles. It paid off handsomely at first, but she could benefit from a fresh injection of homespun authenticity, the hallmark of her style, provided by her daughter’s wedding after appearing out of depth away from her home state.

David Letterman, the late-night television chat show host, joked that Palin’s meetings with world leaders at the United Nations in New York looked like “take your daughter to work day”.

In a series of heavily criticised interviews with Katie Couric of CBS News, she fumbled her points about Alaska’s proximity to Russia and sounded like an over-crammed, under-informed student. Palin was stumped when Couric asked her to provide examples of McCain’s proposals for reforming the banking industry. “I’ll try to find some and I’ll bring them to you,” she said eventually. Republicans are quailing in advance of one of her biggest tests of the election, her televised debate with Joe Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, on Thursday in St Louis, Missouri.

The conservative commentator Kathleen Parker, an early admirer, shocked McCain supporters late last week by calling on Palin to withdraw. “My cringe reflex is exhausted,” she wrote in National Review Online, a conservative journal. “Palin’s recent interviews . . . all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out of Her League.”

Parker advised Palin to “save McCain, her party and the country she loves” by announcing that she wanted to spend more time with Trig, her five-month-old Down’s syndrome baby: “No one would criticise a mother who puts her family first.”

The Republicans’ Palin “bounce” ended last week as concern for the plunging economy mounted. Obama ended the week four points ahead of McCain on 48% to 44% in the RealClearPolitics poll of polls. A Rasmussen survey showed that McCain’s lead among white women voters slipped to two points, as opposed to 14 points for George W Bush in 2004.

However, Palin has a remarkable ability to galvanise the evangelical voters and social conservatives who form the Republican base. The party boasted last week that it will probably surpass its fundraising goal of $100m for September and October. Much of it is because of the grassroots enthusiasm for Palin, boosted by her decision to have Trig and to support her pregnant daughter.

McCain is expected to have a front-row seat at Bristol’s wedding and to benefit from the outpouring of goodwill that it could bring. “What’s the downside?” a source inside the McCain campaign said. “It would be wonderful. I don’t know that there has ever been a pre-election wedding before.”

When McCain picked Palin as his running mate, Bristol’s pregnancy was regarded as a potential liability with voters. The idea was to keep her condition quiet initially. However, rumours quickly surfaced that Trig was Bristol’s son. News that Bristol was pregnant, making it a near-biological impossibility for her to be Trig’s mother, had to be rushed out.

Johnston was greeted with a handshake and friendly slap on the back by McCain in St Paul, Minnesota, and treated as a member of the family during the Republican national convention when he appeared on stage after Palin’s speech.

The ice-hockey player wrote on his MySpace page he was a “f****** redneck” and stated, “I don’t want kids.” But a McCain insider predicted he would marry Bristol whenever his future mother-in-law wanted. “It’s a shotgun wedding. She kills things,” the source joked.

The McCain campaign is divided over how to handle Palin’s appearances, which have been so limited and over-rehearsed that last week Campbell Brown, a CNN anchor, accused it of sexism. “Stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower who will wilt at any moment,” she said. “If she were a man, would we be putting up with this? . . . Would she be coddled this way, cloistered this way? I don’t think so.”

Inside McCain’s camp, aides are arguing over the benefits of “letting Sarah be Sarah”. Some officials believe her appeal to voters is such that it would be worth risking a few gaffes in exchange for letting her personality shine through.

The question will assume particular importance when she faces Biden, 65, in debate. The chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee has already come up with a multitude of gaffes, from asking a wheelchair-bound man to stand up at one of his rallies to admitting that Hillary Clinton “might have been a better pick” for vice-president, without any seeming ill-effect.

McCain officials believe that Palin’s underdog status gives her a chance to shine. “Joe Biden is going to have to destroy her for it to be perceived as a victory for him,” said an aide.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...ns/article4837644.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

More gimmicks to come.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
This isn't quite a political question, but I've seen it discussed here before. I got the film Obsession in the mail today and wanted to know what I was in for before touching it. Does it say anything beyond radical Muslims are radical? Anything worth watching?
 
I don't expect much of a bump to Obama out of this at all. He's at his likely high water mark (+5-+6 ish already) already. That being said, McCain really needs to do something to change the game, and soon.

Sadly, it looks like his best 'pivot' point for his campaign will be the Palin/Biden debate, and we all know how that is going to go. He might have had a potential game changer by opposing the bailout, but his actions this week and words last night have boxed him out of that course of action.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
maximum360 said:

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

Wat
 
Ether_Snake said:
Yes but what I meant is that once the institutions have gotten rid of said ??? a price can be put on the institutions and considering how much they have fallen recently you'd think that this would make them immediately likely to be bought, unless the markets caused companies like Goldman Sachs to see their shares' price almost double in a few days, which is unlikely. So isn't it very likely that almost as soon as the bailout passes, JP Morgan, Goldman, or others, will end up being bought by foreign institutions (unless they merge)?

It's already happening. Mitsubishi UFJ grabbed large stakes in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
 

Huzah

Member
Ether_Snake said:
Yes but what I meant is that once the institutions have gotten rid of said ??? a price can be put on the institutions and considering how much they have fallen recently you'd think that this would make them immediately likely to be bought, unless the markets caused companies like Goldman Sachs to see their shares almost double in a few days, which is unlikely. So isn't it very likely that almost as soon as the bailout passes, JP Morgan, Goldman, or others, will end up being bought by foreign institutions (unless they merge)?

Banks will find capital from what ever option gives them the cheapest cost. Saying that only foreign institutions will provide capital is kind of hyperboling. There's alot of side benefits for having a working credit system that will affect banks to the positive as well. The ??? assets banks have currently create more problems than just direct mark to market insolvency. Uncertainty leads to panic, panic leads to bank runs, and no bank can survive a bank run.
 
The ice-hockey player wrote on his MySpace page he was a “f****** redneck” and stated, “I don’t want kids.” But a McCain insider predicted he would marry Bristol whenever his future mother-in-law wanted. “It’s a shotgun wedding. She kills things,” the source joked.

Well that about wraps it up for Obama.
 
A shotgun wedding like that at this point would be absolutely hilarious, and only emphasize which ticket has the real adults ready to lead and which one is nothing but pure gimmick.
 

Gruco

Banned
Ether_Snake said:
I think that the only true justification, beyond all others, for the current economical situation, has been the attempts to stall the development of renewable energy and such innovative "disruptive" technologies.

We have been living at a time where a sector was ripe for development which would have led to a revolution of our infrastructures, leading to job creation, but this sector was forcefully kept at bay and as such we got stuck in a loop attempting to create value on what had none.

I am 100% sure that if we had been investing in the development of renewable energy across industrialized nations we would not be facing this crisis.

It reminds me of the RIAA situation in relation to downloadable media.
Yup yup. Part of the reason there was such batshit demand for mortgage CDOs was that interest rates were too low to make traditional bonds worthwhile and there were no notable markets to make equities appealing considering how fresh the tech crash was. If there had been a legitimate effort for infrastructure repair and to turn alt energy and regenerative medicine into the growth industries they should be, we probably could have addressed major issues and gotten the giant pool of money a return in the process, instead of um...celebrating the ownership society.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Clevinger said:
Must suck to be that idiot redneck kid.

Well it would suck to have Palins dumb ass as your mother in law.

BUT, she is clearly pro-cronyism, he will likely get some sort of cush job with the state.

and Bristol looks pretty hot.
 
Fragamemnon said:
A shotgun wedding like that at this point would be absolutely hilarious, and only emphasize which ticket has the real adults ready to lead and which one is nothing but pure gimmick.

I think they're going to wait for Nov. 4. If they win, shotgun wedding goes as expected. If they lose, the dump the redneck :lol
 
I predict Obama will increase his five point lead to a ten point lead in a couple of days.

Americans were just looking for a reason to choose Obama, and I think that debate did it.

Tomorrow's Gallup will show an increase of +2 O -1 M, and Monday's will show an uptick of +2 for O.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom