Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Congrats to McCain

For tightening the race back to only 2% lead among Gallup likely voters, despite Obama spending ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS in the first TWO WEEKS of October. This while McCain, who unlike Obama kept his promise to take public financing, is limited to only $84 million for the entire general election period. I'm sure Obama made the right strategic decision to break his unequivocal pledge to remain in the public financing system, but that doesn't make it right, he lied plain and simple.

19 comments:

Joe The Ploomber said...

BFD. I just glanced at the current national polls average (reported on Yahoo) and it states that Obama leads by 6.7% and projects 355 electoral college votes for Obama versus 156 for McCain.

right-wing prof said...

You have to look at the tend my man and the momentum. If you see McCain leading in PA early tuesday evening get ready for a long night. If you see Obama leading in FL early tuesday get ready for a long 4 years.

Dawg Doc said...

The trend has been a stable lead for Obama of 6-8 points. There has been no movement towards McCain other than within the MOE. The 2% Gallup result is specious because it eliminates many of the people who were interviewed but Gallup Gods think are unlikely to vote based on prior election turnout. I can't put stock in that methodology and you shouldn't either.

State polls are what matter most and those have been solidly in Obama's favor for more than a month. McCain has a huge task ahead of him. I'm not saying it can't be done but the signs are not promising.

You are right about Pennsylvania, however. If PA goes early for McCain he could offset the western losses of NM, CO, and NV. He'd still have to keep every other Bush state from 2004 and that looks unlikely.

In any event, if VA goes to Obama early then it is over before it begins. Oh, and if he wins, it will be a long 8 years for the GOP in the wilderness. Of course, the party could emerge from it returning to the roots of the party I embraced as a 19 year old in 1984 rather than the party it has become. Ronald Reagan would have left today's Republican Party just like he did the Democrats in the 1950's.

right-wing prof said...

The Gallup poll is not specious, it is the same likely voter model that Gallup has always used. They don't just ask people "are you going to vote" they press them on the matter. Did you vote last time? Do you know where your polling place is, etc.. And this is how they determine "likely voters." Now the newest Rasmussen poll has a 3% Obama lead. IBD which was the most accurate of the polls 4 years ago has the race at 4%. I think 3-4% is much more likely that 5-7% at this point.

McCain still has an uphill struggle but I rate him a 1/3 chance.

As for a "long 8 years in the wilderness" I think it is most likely whoever wins is a one-term president for reasons I may elaborate on in a new post. We may be in a recession right now, but just barely. Unemployment is still only around 6% and GDP growth has not been more that 0.3% in a quarter. If this turns into a real recession (say 8% unemployment and real GDP contraction of 3%), whoever is in office is going to get the blame and it's not going to be pretty. Meanwhile Obama isn't going to come remotely close to delivering on his $1trillion in promised spending or any of his "tax cuts", quotes because he hasn't actually proposed cutting any tax RATES, just handing out checks.

Dawg Doc said...

Let's just say I disagree with your assessment that whoever is in office will get the blame. W did not get the blame for the recession in 2001 that began AFTER he came into office. Reagan was not blamed for the recession in 1981-2 and won an incredible reelection victory. Of recent presidents, only GHW Bush suffered the consequences of a recession and that was primarily due to the late occurrence of it, even though it was over by the time of the election.

As for unemployment, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. Most economists expect it to reach 8% by the end of 2009. If we used the methods used in Europe it would exceed 10%. America is headed for a serious fall due to all the use of credit in the past. I truly hope in many ways Americans forego the use of credit as a response to this crisis. Of course, that means a smaller, leaner, meaner America with fewer jobs and consumption. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Dawg Doc said...

Oh yes, the tax cuts. I'm not expecting one and neither should you. No matter who wins the deficit spending by the profligate Bush administration will require massive tax increases in the near future. Neither candidate has been honest about this.

David Walker today said that both candidates will add to the national debt but McCain will add more to it.

right-wing prof said...

Well I hope you are wrong, but if unemployment is 8 or 9% in late 2009 or early 2010 and Obama and/or a Democratic Congress try to say "sorry this is George Bush's fault" I think they will find few sympathetic ears. Especially given that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd share at least as much of the blame for the situation.

right-wing prof said...

Surely you meant to say the profligate spending by the Bush administration and the Reid-Pelosi congress!

Anonymous said...

I'm not a political person normally, but I just don't understand how so many people can support Obama when he has lied so many times. Two examples: public financing and when he was elected to represent Illinois, he promised during the campaign that if he was elected, he would not run for president in 2008. How can we trust this person in the white house? Not to mention the ridiculous amount of money he is spending on his campaign? When the regular people in this country are struggling to make ends meet, he is spending money like it was water! I'm personally afraid that he will win on Tuesday and that the next four years are going to be very difficult.

Dawg Doc said...

I'm not going to give the Reid-Pelosi Congress a pass but they have approved only one of Bush's budgets, the others came under unified Republican control of Congress. At least President Clinton actually submitted balanced budgets to Congress for approval. No Republican has done that since Eisenhower (I think).

Dawg Doc said...

Anonymous,

Do you have a link for your assertion of Obama's assurance not to run in 2008?

I am careful to distinguish between a lie and changing one's mind. We all do things that we said we would not do at one time. Usually that is due to a change in circumstances or available information.

I don't fault Obama for abandoning the ineffective public financing system in the US. Had he stuck to his pledge he would have been outspent by the Republicans who have superior fund raising abilities at the RNCC and through the 527's.

What we need is a public financing system that makes ALL private spending illegal. If both candidates had the same amount of money to spend and could not be helped by outside interests it would be a fair system. Otherwise it benefits the side with the deeper pockets. Historically that has been the GOP.

Obama abandoned the broken system when circumstances showed that he could raise significantly more cash than he would get from government coffers. Hey wait, now you're angry because Obama isn't spending taxpayer dollars to run for president? Oy vey!

right-wing prof said...

Dawg,
Obama knew full well about 527s, the Repbulican fund-raising ability and the details of the public system when he made his pledge. He lied plain and simple.

Dawg Doc said...

Prof,

That wasn't my point. My point was Obama did not know how good his fundraising ability would be.

right-wing prof said...

OK then we agree. He made a pledge and he decided to break it once he realized he'd have more money even if it meant not being a man of his word. If the situation was reversed the left-wing media would be hysterical over the "obscene" amount of money being spent. Clearly Obama has unlimited money but I think we can still judge him on how he is wasting it. For example, why spend $1million+ on EACH network for tonight's infomercial, why not just put it on one network? Talk about in your face campaigning!

Dawg Doc said...

Why spend it on each network? To "spread the wealth" around! LOL. He's even buying time on that bastion of the far-right Fox.

I do think if McCain were doing the same thing we'd hear a little more about it from the media but not much. They are, after all, the beneficiaries of all that spending. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I remember the left-wing media being "hysterical" about Bush's huge fund-raising advantage in early 2004 ...

Wait a second: no I don't.

right-wing prof said...

That's because he didn't have one. Obama is the first candidate to opt out of the public financing system since it began. Bush and Kerry both took the public money, Bush did not have a fundraising advantage.

Anonymous said...

"That's because he didn't have one. Obama is the first candidate to opt out of the public financing system since it began. Bush and Kerry both took the public money, Bush did not have a fundraising advantage."

The first sentence is incorrect. The public financing system kicks in after the political conventions. (Notice I said *early* 2004.) Before that, Bush had a significant fund-raising advantage. Additionally, candidates are allowed to raise money for their parties' national committees throughout the general election.

Granted, Obama's advantage is much bigger than Bush's was, but as I said before, Bush did have a sizeable advantage early on in the race, and the media didn't make much of a big deal of it. (Evidently, since you didn't even know Bush had a big advantage!)

Or you might consider how the New York Times treated Bloomberg when he ran for mayor last time. For a mayoral race, Bloomberg---a Republican---spent shocking amounts of money, even by NYC standards. Did the New York Times get hysterical? No: they endorsed him.

Anonymous said...

And advantage is an advantage. But a lie is...a lie. From a liar.

Obama promised. He reneged.

I'm not too excited about my "tax cut" he promised, either.

Liar.

Well, if you can't beat 'em fair...lie.