Who wins the white house

[Dan Wishengrad]

I like fun, JR, and always appreciate humor -- even when it is at my own expense. Bring it on!

Back to the topic here, a new national poll out by AP has Obama leading McCain 48-42% and Clinton and Mac statistically tied. But there's still an awful lot of time between now and the first Tuesday of November. Much can and will change in the mood of the American electorate.

Interesting results this weekend too. With McCain now anointed as the certain GOP nominee, Huckabee beats Mac handily everywhere except here in Washington state, where they were virtually dead-even in Republican caucus voting. Huckabee is threatening to sue here, claiming some of his would-be delegates were disenfranchised. It is very interesting, in my opinion, that Sen. McCain didn't do better, and has to be embarrassing to those in his camp. This is certainly not the type of GOP-electorate up here in the Northwest that would be expected to favor MH over JM. Ron Paul obviously had his best showing yet, and likely took votes away from McCain, but still...

[Zeuslax]

Well, it's safe to say that McCain is a done deal. Obama pretty much looks like the prospective candidate on the Dem side. 10 straight for Obama. Texas, PA and OH will determine if Hilliary will continue or if Obama walks.

[JW]

I am really glad that i have 9 months to figure out who i am going to vote for, because right now I have no clue. I do like some of the Obama and Clinton platforms, however I am finding it very hard to lean toward a pro-choice candidate because I am a pro-lifer, which will probably ultimately lead me to vote for McCain. The more that I think about McCain, the more I feel comfortable with that vote.

[Jac Coyne]

I'm glad there's nine months left because that should give Obama enough time to learn how to walk on water. And cure cancer. He already has Halle Berry saying she'd doing anything he tells her to do ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8605.html ), which is never a bad thing, but just think of all the other babes who'd get in line once he turns water into wine.

It's just too bad his wife hates America.

[UkraineNotWeak]

Jac, I'm with you. This obsession with Obama is driving me crazy. Can one liberal on this board tell me what he has done? Can anybody in general?

[laxfan25]

Jac, I'm with you. This obsession with Obama is driving me crazy. Can one liberal on this board tell me what he has done? Can anybody in general?

I don't know if I'd qualify as a liberal, but I'll try to give my impressions.
I think Barack's appeal has more to do with what he might do, rather than what he has done. You might have noticed that people are tired of the same 'ol politics, and are DEFINITELY tired of George Bush - many Republicans included. Hillary Clinton was an option, but as I myself had said previously, it would have been more of the same old thing from day one, as the attack dogs would have been out even more vociferously than they are now. Make no mistake, she has the cajones to be an outstanding president from an ability standpoint, but she is a bit of a polarizing figure.

Barack brings a message of hope, one that seems to resonate with people and galvanize them to action and support. This was a phenomenon first seen in his Senatorial race. I was kind of amazed to see that he didn't win just with the votes of inner-city Chicago citizens - he had very surprising support in rural Illinois as well. Hope for a better future is a very powerful thing, and Barack Obama delivers that message of hope better than anyone in a long, long time. People can detect insincerity very readily, and they don't see that in him.

I will be the first to admit that these lofty dreams will be brought to earth fairly quickly when confronted with the realities of the budget situation and the vagaries of an evolving world, but people trust his instincts to move in the right direction. Many decisions that the next president will face are unknown to all of us right now, but those that support Obama believe he will make well-reasoned and intelligent choices when confronted with those situations. It won't be easy, since many issues don't have any "good" options, such as what to do in Iraq.

The polls of him head to head with McCain are close right now, but as he gains more exposure during a national campaign his following will continue to grow. Clinton had a double-digit lead very recently in Texas, and from what I heard this evening it is a dead heat. It won't be surprising if he pulls out the win there and puts a fork in Hillary's presidential aspirations. If he does, I'll make bank that you will see him getting sworn in next January 20th.

I'm not expecting a miracle worker, just a breath of fresh air. Breathe in, it feels good!

[CATLAX MAN]

Jac, I'm with you. This obsession with Obama is driving me crazy. Can one liberal on this board tell me what he has done? Can anybody in general?

I don't know if I'd qualify as a liberal, but I'll try to give my impressions.....

Just to play devil's advocate here, I didn't really see an answer to the question in that missive that was posted.

[laxfan25]

Jac, I'm with you. This obsession with Obama is driving me crazy. Can one liberal on this board tell me what he has done? Can anybody in general?

I don't know if I'd qualify as a liberal, but I'll try to give my impressions.....

Just to play devil's advocate here, I didn't really see an answer to the question in that missive that was posted.

UNW said he didn't understand this obsession with Obama, and I tried to give my explanation - I think Barack's appeal has more to do with what he might do, rather than what he has done. If that's not good enough, so be it. I do think you'll still be scratching your head in November.

[StrykerFSU]

The cover of this week's The Economist asks, "But could he deliver?". That's the big question now. What will be really interesting is what the country's attitudes become towards Sen. Obama once he is more fully vetted by the national media.

If the Dems think that the GOP will be less motivated to defeat BO than Billary, I think they are mistaken. His voting record is extraordinarily leftist and many of his proposals leave a lot to be desired for a good portion of the country. To paraphrase the leader in The Economist regarding his proposed Iraq strategy, his policy amounts to little more than pulling out as fast as possible, call a peace conference with Syria and Iran, and keep his fingers crossed. Or how about on Social Security:

"Spending for retirees -- mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees -- shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902336.html
While his phenomenon of hope plays well against HC, I don't know that it will have the same power in a general election against a true American hero. I just don't see huge numbers of independents going over to a completely unproven Senator. With all due respect to the Senator, I don't know that he's been in charge of anything at all.

Further, as many pundits point out, we are going to get change no matter what. If you think that Sen. McCain is cut from the same cloth as W then you just haven't been paying attention. Ah, but by change they mean no more Washington insiders. That's great on the campaign trail but when it comes down to it, the Presidency of the U.S. is not the job where you get your feet wet. If I'm picking the next CEO of Microsoft do I want the guy who has been working with Bill Gates for 20 years or do I want the guy who's been with the Purchasing Department since August?

But OK, the Dem's have their heir to the Kennedy mantle (except from the Chicago political machine instead of Boston) and everyone is enthralled with the hopefulness of it all. We'll get to see him strut his stuff and maybe he'll make us all believers when he gets around to actually talking about how he's going to make change...but maybe not. I think the paucity of his record will become more important than the grandness of his oratory.

Samuelson sums it up quite well:

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscuration. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media -- preoccupied with the political "horse race" -- have treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

[GrizLens]

I love it when people resort to the uber-bunk "Tell me one thing they've accomplished" line... Like they've got a solid grasp on policy and legislation. When candidates/pundits start talking real policy, "Joe Everyman" falls right to sleep. You want a candidate who actually talks policy? You should have voted for Al Gore back in the day. Snore!!!!!!!!

[laxfan25]

Ah, but by change they mean no more Washington insiders.

Seems to be pretty successful path to the White House - Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush - all could be considered non-Washington insiders.

Where is the outrage about crushing our children with taxes regarding the "free" war we've been waging in Iraq?? It's one thing to go to war based on exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscuration, but to do it without paying for it at all, while promoting an agenda of permanent tax cuts for the upper crust is the height of hypocrisy. If this war was being waged on a pay-as-you go basis we'd have been out of there a long time ago. Of course Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld never believed in their wildest dreams that we were going to be in Iraq with significant forces for more than a year at most. My, my, but somebody screwed up big time and the board of directors has called a meeting for November. We'll just have to wait and see who the new CEO is going to be.

[StrykerFSU]

I love it when people resort to the uber-bunk "Tell me one thing they've accomplished" line... Like they've got a solid grasp on policy and legislation. When candidates/pundits start talking real policy, "Joe Everyman" falls right to sleep.

I don't know, I kind of like to know what a candidate has planned should they win.

Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush - all could be considered non-Washington insiders.

Well in that list we have one V.P., four governors, and the former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces - Europe...with the exception of Mr. Truman that's some serious executive experience. And now we have a one-term U.S. Senator...

Laxfan, I think it would be a mistake to try to make this election about Bush policies. I talk about Obama's plans for managing our Social Security crisis and you come back with "Bush Lied"? Yes, we will need to pay for the Iraq War...regardless of who wins in November. And if Obama wins we will also have to pay for more people claiming Social Security and for universal health care, among other social programs. That may be music to the ears of some, but not all. He is going to need more than rousing speeches to make fiscal conservatives see anything but red.

Let's be realistic here, the left will vote for the Dem candidate and the right will vote for the GOP's. The battle is for the middle. As I alluded to in my previous post, Obama's short record in the U.S. Senate is noteworthy only in its leftist nature. You throw a John Edwards on his ticket and it's even worse. McCain on the other hand is known for bucking the GOP establishment on matters such as campaign finance reform, illegal immigration, and the use of torture; issues that might be of interest to moderates and independents. He also voted twice against the Bush tax cuts because they didn't also require a reduction in spending. So if I'm sitting somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, who am I going to choose? The far-left Senator from Illinois or the moderate Senator from Arizona? And that doesn't even begin to address the disparity in foreign policy experience, no small issue in this day and age.

Hey, I get it. Obama is swell. I look forward to hearing his ideas.

[laxfan25]

Hey, I get it. Obama is swell. I look forward to hearing his ideas.

I'm glad to hear you're on board!
In this era of sound bites and more interest in how candidates are attacking each other it's not surprising that an in-depth discussion of issues doesn't garner a lot of attention. However, that does not mean that Obama has not enunciated his proposed postions on a host of issues.
Here is a link to his thoughts on the top 20 issues -
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

My list of "outside-the-beltway" Presidents was just in reference to the statement that people were looking for a change by not selecting a Washington insider.

As for it to be a mistake to not make this election about Bush/GOP policies, I do believe that will be a main focus of the election, and a pretty good winning strategy. After all, wasn't a previous winning tagline something like - "Are you better off than you were 8 years ago?" When the population is left to decide if we've been left a better legacy under a GOP administration or if they'd like to turn in a different direction - that is going to determine the outcome. The areas where you say that McCain has bucked his own party - campaign finance reform, immigration, toruture - aren't going to create a stark contrast with his Democratic opponent. They do tend to irritate the conservative base of the party though, and have kind of lessened their enthusiasm for McCain. This will be reflected in fundraising as well as in organizing a grass-roots infrastructure, something Obama has done remarkably well.
As to how moderates and independents will break? I have a feeling that the balance will tip towards Obama - but we shall see.

I had to smile at the "slur" you use against Obama - he is a "leftist"!! I guess that could be a codeword for communist-sympathizer? I suppose Hugo Cavez is in line for Secretary of Energy? I just don't think that dog's gonna hunt anymore. One of the old axioms about the American public is that they are liberal on social policy and conservative on fiscal policy, and my feeling is that that still holds true.

My current thought on the underticket is that the nod would go to Bill Richardson, a safe, experienced choice with little ambition of his own outside of getting the VP nod. That selection would help tremendously with the segment that I think will contribute the lion's share of Obama's winning margin - the Hispanic vote. It's going to be problematic for the GOP to make immigration a major issue in the campaign given who their nominee will be - agreed? And every time the issue is raised it will just serve to solidify the Democratic edge with that constituency.

As far as the cost of social programs - this is something that needs a serious look. In reality, Social Security is not nearly the fiscal crisis tha the cost of healthcare is; whether through Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance - they are all getting whacked with huge cost increases. So healthcare is something that will be a big issue, But hey, out-of-control spending without proper funding hasn't stopped this administration - so what's the big deal? Seriously though - very serious topics that will be a the center of contentious debates.

Looking out to November - let's say that right now if there are 10 voters - 5 go for Obama and 5 go for McCain. If by the time the election rolls around one of those McCain-leaning independents switches over to Obama - I think Barack will be OK with that narrow victory. The top of the ticket is just one consideration though. As Barack Obama has shown (to the quizzical surprise of some) he is pulling large masses of voters, many for the first time. This bodes very well for long coat-tails, and is one of the strongest reasons to have him heading the ticket rather than Hillary Clinton. Have you noticed the trends in voting numbers in the primaries to date? Almost every one has reached record-setting levels - in many cases doubling previous turnouts. I do believe this is keeping the McCain campaign staff up at night.

That's all for now!

[KnoxVegas]

Ah, but by change they mean no more Washington insiders.

Seems to be pretty successful path to the White House - Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush - all could be considered non-Washington insiders.

Technically, only Carter, Reagan, Clinton and GHB con be considered outside the Beltway.

[Dan Wishengrad]

There's still too much time between now and November to accurately predict the outcome. But a key factor will be, as always, actual voter turnout.

There can be plenty of criticism lobbed at both Senators McCain and Obama, but the actual primary turnout to date doesn't bode well for the GOP. In state after state so far in 2008, the turnout in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has been incredibly high and, in many cases, simply record-shattering.

In an era of "red and blue states", it is obvious that the vote in key battleground states will decide this election. Look at a true "bellwether" state, like Missouri. The "Show Me" state can go either way, and how Missouri votes often echoes the national results. Missouri Republicans split their vote almost evenly between McCain, Huckabee and Romney, each of whom polled less than 200,000 votes. Clinton and Obama basically split the Democratic vote with around 400,000 each. Minor candidates in both parties registered fairly inconsequential numbers. The margin of difference between all those who turned out to vote for a GOP candidate for President (under 600,000) compared to those who turned out to vote for a Democratic candidate (over 800,000) is very telling. This is a pattern being repeated over and over and over.

The GOP will have to fight hard in '08 to keep supposedly "safe" red states in it's column. Record turnout, especially among African-Americans, could bring Southern states relied on for GOP delegates into play this year. For Sen. McCain to have any hope of winning the White House, he must hold the South and prevail in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and the other key battlegrounds. But as each state votes this Spring, it is clear there is much higher turnout and more enthusiam on the Democratic side. Sure, this can change by November.

But will it?

EDIT NOTE: Virginia -- supposedly "safe" GOP state -- results:
McCain 244,135
Huckabee 198,247
Paul 22,066
Romney 17,532

Obama 623,141
Clinton 347, 252

GOP totals: 481,000+
Dem totals: 970,000+

Is this key Southern state still a certain bet to vote Republican in the general election?