Frankly, I had found the campaign becoming boring. It's mostly because Obama was cruising (smartly) and McCain was flubbing (not smartly). However, something came up today. The Rasmussen Poll which I trust to be fairly accurate shows Obama up only 3 points. Now, that's a daily tracking poll that is better used to discuss trends than realities.
Actually, the raw vote isn't nearly as interesting as some of the issue questions. For the first time ever, voters trust John McCain almost as much as they do Obama on the economy (Bill O'Reily is exclusively reporting that tomorrow's poll will actually show McCain ahead in this category). This is a potential problem for Obama. He is winning this election based on folks resenting Republican leadership of the nation in combination with bad results for their pocket books. This element is the most important feature to the Democrat's lead in generic polls. Voters still trust McCain by a wide margin in foreign policy and that advantage has widened over the last month.
However, Obama is slipping on what should be his best issue. Why? Because McCain finally stumbled onto the message that Hillary found at the end of her campaign: Obama doesn't have the experience to handle the economy. The recent discussion of "redistribution" has really hurt Obama. Upwards of 60% of people in an Zogby poll didn't agree with Obama's tax plan. It's a problem for him.
Obama's real problem is that he's not within the of the political norm in suggesting that those Americans making over 250k/year should send checks to those who make less. There has always been some level of redistribution of wealth in the country, and it's a very good thing that there is. However, in America it's usually sent money from the rich to the poor though education, health care and job training... programs that promote opportunities to succeed... not direct, no questions asked hand-outs such as Obama's tax credit ("tax cut for 95% of Americans" despite the fact that only about 50% of Americans pay federal income taxes).
I predict that McCain is still going to lose, it's too late. But, don't expect it to be 7 points and don't go to bed too early Tuesday. McCain's tax policy is becoming more popular and if he can link it to the economy going forward he can hurt Obama even if he doesn't have enough time to actually come back and win.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Okay, you gotta watch this!
This is a traditional dinner. Every October Al Smith's foundation hosts a dinner where in the local DC politicians give comedic speeches/roasts. McCain and Obama both gave a talk. Barack was really good but I have to say McCain was absolutely fabulous. Watch:
McCain
Part 1
Part 2
Obama
Part 1
Part 2
McCain
Part 1
Part 2
Obama
Part 1
Part 2
Thursday, October 16, 2008
:-)
More on the debate later today. I haven't actually watched it yet... I know bad blogger very bad... Until then enjoy Reuters photography
Monday, October 13, 2008
Obamanomics and McCain's focus on friends
Over the last week both candidates have unveiled slightly different stump speeches and ads. The McCain camp has decided to focus on Barack Obama's associations with radicals in Chicago politics while Obama has focused on blaming McCain for people's economic woes.
Here's a brief run down.
Obama:
What:
He argues that McCain's philosophy of deregulating markets is responsible for the financial crisis.
Why it works:
The Republicans are still seen as the party in power. They controlled the congress and the White House and despite a recent change they still take the blame for bad news.
What he's not telling you:
Both the Bush white house and John McCain sponsored regulation of securities based on home loans in 2003 and 2006 respectively. In both cases those regulations were blocked by Democrats in congress. While it's fair to say that the Republicans did not push hard enough for these regulations, it's untrue to argue that Republicans are, alone, to blame for the lack of regulation. Fact is that Democrats in the house had supporters who were interested in providing low income people with homes. These constituents urged their members to block regulation that would make it more difficult for those low income folks to get a loan. While it's noble to want people to be able to afford a home, when those regulatory proposals were blocked it encouraged sub-prime lending and contributed to the crisis. McCain can't explain that, because it's about 6 steps removed from "they were the party in power so they did it." Unfortunately, while the Republicans have a very good argument that, though good intentioned, the Democrats contributed more to the financial melt-down that Republicans, it just is too complicated for a poor communicator like Bush or McCain to explain.
McCain:
What:
He argues that Obama's associations with William Ayers, Rev. Wright and Tony Resco disqualify him to be president because he's shown a lack of good judgement in the past and is presumably radicalized himself.
Why it's working:
These guys are villains, there's no doubt. Ayers is a self proclaimed terrorist, and Obama did work closely with him on a fairly dubious education program in Chicago. Wright is a radical and he was Obama's spiritual advisor up until those videos came out and to believe Obama didn't know is to believe Clinton didn't inhale. Tony Resco is a felon, currently in prison for being a slum lord, and Obama worked closely with him to help provide housing to low-income folks in Chicago. Among people who don't give Obama the benefit of the doubt it hurts him to be associated so closely.
What he's not telling you:
First, this is Chicago. Obama was an ambitious Harvard grad who was interested in moving up in the Chicago political system. Thing is, these radicals and former terrorists are in control of Chicago. In that way these associations damn Chicago, as much or more, than they did Obama. To succeed in that political environment it requires these deals with bad people. In that way Obama's associations might be dismissed as somewhat less voluntary and more utilitarian than they normally would be. Still bad folks but if Obama was practically interested in moving up the political ladder he had to cow-tow to them... or get out of Chicago.
Second, It's the economy stupid. The real reason that Obama is getting a pass is because nobody cares! The folks are prioritizing their wallets. These associations are just not important enough to move the dial in comparison to those issues where Obama is winning. So it ends up being just so much hot air that is off topic because doesn't address the real issue this year: the economy. It also helps that Obama maintains some of his "well I just like the dude regardless" appeal.
Conclusions:
Despite promoting policies that will objectively hurt any economic recovery Obama is winning the issue. The appeal to folks of goodies given out by the government now with money borrowed or higher taxes has worked. It will keep working for awhile even and our country is prosperous enough to afford a bit more anyway. Still, there will be a few folks out there who get a check in the mail from Obama and laid off in the same month because taxes went up.
I guess the end is that Obama isn't so far to the left or unlikable that he's an unacceptable alternative to the Republican party folks want to throw out of office, and McCain isn't a good enough communicator to change that basic fact regardless of policy. It's not impossible that McCain can manage another surge but I'm not counting on it.
Here's a brief run down.
Obama:
What:
He argues that McCain's philosophy of deregulating markets is responsible for the financial crisis.
Why it works:
The Republicans are still seen as the party in power. They controlled the congress and the White House and despite a recent change they still take the blame for bad news.
What he's not telling you:
Both the Bush white house and John McCain sponsored regulation of securities based on home loans in 2003 and 2006 respectively. In both cases those regulations were blocked by Democrats in congress. While it's fair to say that the Republicans did not push hard enough for these regulations, it's untrue to argue that Republicans are, alone, to blame for the lack of regulation. Fact is that Democrats in the house had supporters who were interested in providing low income people with homes. These constituents urged their members to block regulation that would make it more difficult for those low income folks to get a loan. While it's noble to want people to be able to afford a home, when those regulatory proposals were blocked it encouraged sub-prime lending and contributed to the crisis. McCain can't explain that, because it's about 6 steps removed from "they were the party in power so they did it." Unfortunately, while the Republicans have a very good argument that, though good intentioned, the Democrats contributed more to the financial melt-down that Republicans, it just is too complicated for a poor communicator like Bush or McCain to explain.
McCain:
What:
He argues that Obama's associations with William Ayers, Rev. Wright and Tony Resco disqualify him to be president because he's shown a lack of good judgement in the past and is presumably radicalized himself.
Why it's working:
These guys are villains, there's no doubt. Ayers is a self proclaimed terrorist, and Obama did work closely with him on a fairly dubious education program in Chicago. Wright is a radical and he was Obama's spiritual advisor up until those videos came out and to believe Obama didn't know is to believe Clinton didn't inhale. Tony Resco is a felon, currently in prison for being a slum lord, and Obama worked closely with him to help provide housing to low-income folks in Chicago. Among people who don't give Obama the benefit of the doubt it hurts him to be associated so closely.
What he's not telling you:
First, this is Chicago. Obama was an ambitious Harvard grad who was interested in moving up in the Chicago political system. Thing is, these radicals and former terrorists are in control of Chicago. In that way these associations damn Chicago, as much or more, than they did Obama. To succeed in that political environment it requires these deals with bad people. In that way Obama's associations might be dismissed as somewhat less voluntary and more utilitarian than they normally would be. Still bad folks but if Obama was practically interested in moving up the political ladder he had to cow-tow to them... or get out of Chicago.
Second, It's the economy stupid. The real reason that Obama is getting a pass is because nobody cares! The folks are prioritizing their wallets. These associations are just not important enough to move the dial in comparison to those issues where Obama is winning. So it ends up being just so much hot air that is off topic because doesn't address the real issue this year: the economy. It also helps that Obama maintains some of his "well I just like the dude regardless" appeal.
Conclusions:
Despite promoting policies that will objectively hurt any economic recovery Obama is winning the issue. The appeal to folks of goodies given out by the government now with money borrowed or higher taxes has worked. It will keep working for awhile even and our country is prosperous enough to afford a bit more anyway. Still, there will be a few folks out there who get a check in the mail from Obama and laid off in the same month because taxes went up.
I guess the end is that Obama isn't so far to the left or unlikable that he's an unacceptable alternative to the Republican party folks want to throw out of office, and McCain isn't a good enough communicator to change that basic fact regardless of policy. It's not impossible that McCain can manage another surge but I'm not counting on it.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
North Korea
As some of you know my interests in foreign policy have focused on North East Asia. Well, something interesting happened. Today the United States removed North Korea from its list of state-sponsors of terrorism.
But, who cares right? Sure they've got nukes, chemicals and germs... but really? Does anybody take these guys seriously? They're always bluffing right?
Right.
They are bluffing. Ironically that's the reason why the Bush administration's decision to remove them from the list of state sponsors or terrorism was wise. North Korea is wacky but is no longer a threat to the United States or its neighbors. North Korea is a basket case, there's no doubt about that. But, once it's understood, its basic policy is that the government wants to be acknowledged as the legitimate sovereign entity in its territory. That's it. It's not terribly interested in southern expansion, it has no current beef with Japan or the US and isn't likely to be a revisionist power in the future.
However, it's government's legitimacy is tied up in opposing the United States and a series of rather over the top ideological goals that make it very difficult for the leadership to act reasonably and still maintain their power over the indoctrinated public. The US wisely offered the North Korean's an out. Make the removal from the list of state sponsors of terror the big win... and the little loss of denuclearization is less important to the people.
So yes, they were bluffing. But it was good that this time the Americans were able to fold anyway. Hopefully the North Koreans can see the benefits of joining the world-system that its neighbor China has enjoyed and become something closer to an oddity than a threat.
But, who cares right? Sure they've got nukes, chemicals and germs... but really? Does anybody take these guys seriously? They're always bluffing right?
Right.
They are bluffing. Ironically that's the reason why the Bush administration's decision to remove them from the list of state sponsors or terrorism was wise. North Korea is wacky but is no longer a threat to the United States or its neighbors. North Korea is a basket case, there's no doubt about that. But, once it's understood, its basic policy is that the government wants to be acknowledged as the legitimate sovereign entity in its territory. That's it. It's not terribly interested in southern expansion, it has no current beef with Japan or the US and isn't likely to be a revisionist power in the future.
However, it's government's legitimacy is tied up in opposing the United States and a series of rather over the top ideological goals that make it very difficult for the leadership to act reasonably and still maintain their power over the indoctrinated public. The US wisely offered the North Korean's an out. Make the removal from the list of state sponsors of terror the big win... and the little loss of denuclearization is less important to the people.
So yes, they were bluffing. But it was good that this time the Americans were able to fold anyway. Hopefully the North Koreans can see the benefits of joining the world-system that its neighbor China has enjoyed and become something closer to an oddity than a threat.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Good news everyone!
So I've been thinking about this for awhile and reading more about the market and finance than I ever wanted to in the last few days. There appears to be only one thing on which the experts seem to agree: they don't know what will happen next or when. However, as a rank amateur I am going to make a prediction. Are you ready?
All this stimulus has to have an effect eventually, money is money and it's pouring out of the federal government like it's going out of style. So... it's time to predict a bottom. That's right I'm going for it. Mark your planners it will be at roughly 7600 on Tuesday of next week. Now, don't expect a big ole rally and 1000 points back per day for a week. What I think we will get is a trading range similar to what we saw between 2004 and 2006. It will bounce between 8500 and 10500 for awhile. Then... it's likely to go up. That's when we need to start thinking about inflation and raising rates. This credit crisis averted the inflation crisis... but that problem isn't going away. It's a tough time for markets, no doubt.
All this stimulus has to have an effect eventually, money is money and it's pouring out of the federal government like it's going out of style. So... it's time to predict a bottom. That's right I'm going for it. Mark your planners it will be at roughly 7600 on Tuesday of next week. Now, don't expect a big ole rally and 1000 points back per day for a week. What I think we will get is a trading range similar to what we saw between 2004 and 2006. It will bounce between 8500 and 10500 for awhile. Then... it's likely to go up. That's when we need to start thinking about inflation and raising rates. This credit crisis averted the inflation crisis... but that problem isn't going away. It's a tough time for markets, no doubt.
I was depressed today
Seriously, the news was full of reports about another 7% loss. 3rd worst day ever only a week or so after the worst day ever? Market down 40% over the last 52 weeks? And this isn't about a few collapsing blue chips - it's about a liquidity trap a la 1929. It's enough to make me wonder how high those windows are on the corner of Wall and Broad...
I do have one thing that's keeping my spirits up though. My favorite, hometown, team shows promise. Check out what former LA times' writer J. A. Adande has to say. Enough to make me smile... even today.
I do have one thing that's keeping my spirits up though. My favorite, hometown, team shows promise. Check out what former LA times' writer J. A. Adande has to say. Enough to make me smile... even today.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Some Debate Comments
The Worst Debate Ever - Politico
With the country at one of its most interesting — not to mention terrifying — moments in a generation, John McCain and Barack Obama met in Nashville for what was surely one of the dullest and least satisfying presidential debates in memory.
McCain's jabs fall short of Obama - Newsweek via BBC.
John McCain was facing not one but two opponents. One was the Democratic nominee sitting on the bar stool across the red-carpeted stage from him. The other was his own veep nominee - who drew 70 million viewers to her debate against Joe Biden last week.
Paging Rick Warren - Fred Barns of The Weekly Standard
With the country at one of its most interesting — not to mention terrifying — moments in a generation, John McCain and Barack Obama met in Nashville for what was surely one of the dullest and least satisfying presidential debates in memory.
McCain's jabs fall short of Obama - Newsweek via BBC.
John McCain was facing not one but two opponents. One was the Democratic nominee sitting on the bar stool across the red-carpeted stage from him. The other was his own veep nominee - who drew 70 million viewers to her debate against Joe Biden last week.
Paging Rick Warren - Fred Barns of The Weekly Standard
A presidential debate at its best gives voters a glimpse of a candidate's personality, quick-wittedness, likeability, sense of humor, judgment, basic honesty, knowledge, even character. If the debate is a success, voters get a sense of whether they'd be comfortable with the candidate in the White House for the next four years. Voters got none of that in last night's so-called town hall debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. What they saw instead were two presidential candidates mostly on autopilot, repeating whole paragraphs from their stump speeches in response to policy questions. Spontaneity was absent. So was lively discussion.
Stalemate works in Obama's favor - CBS news
An electorate starving for answers to the nation’s economic crisis didn’t receive much nourishment from the two presidential candidates in their second nationally televised debate. Aside from a new-sounding proposal from John McCain aimed at buying out troubled mortgages, both candidates relied on recitations of their stump speeches mixed with fresh empathy to try and convince voters they are best positioned to take over the reins of an increasingly chaotic and unsettled country.
Boring debate ends in bad feelings - National Review Online
This was the worst-moderated debate in the history of presidential debates,” one McCain campaign insider told me just moments after John McCain and Barack Obama left the stage at Belmont University in Nashville. “The audience and the American people should feel robbed — that the one opportunity they had to ask questions of the presidential candidates was taken from them by Tom Brokaw.”
Debate Review #2
BORING
I'm so glad I went to the basketball game last night rather than watch that snoozer. There was nothing to recommend that debate. I heard nothing but talking points for 90 mins. It was like two competing stump speeches. Because the candidates were not allowed to directly engage each other and the moderator was not allowed to ask follow-up questions the whole thing sucked. This debate could have been written from position papers taken from the two candidate's websites. YAWN!
As for the debate's impact on the campaign I think it can't help but be minimal. McCain did have the chance to introduce the line that the financial crisis was the result of a shared set of screw-ups involving both parties. Barack was able to score points on his assertion that the Republicans have a failed economic philosophy. Still, there was no punch. I can't help but think that this was a non-event all told.
The economy still is the #1 issue. Obama wins that issue on fundamentals. So, baring something happening he's winning. McCain did nothing to change that basic calculation last night. So while I think we all lost by having to watch that terrible debate, Obama won by not losing as much... I guess.
I'm so glad I went to the basketball game last night rather than watch that snoozer. There was nothing to recommend that debate. I heard nothing but talking points for 90 mins. It was like two competing stump speeches. Because the candidates were not allowed to directly engage each other and the moderator was not allowed to ask follow-up questions the whole thing sucked. This debate could have been written from position papers taken from the two candidate's websites. YAWN!
As for the debate's impact on the campaign I think it can't help but be minimal. McCain did have the chance to introduce the line that the financial crisis was the result of a shared set of screw-ups involving both parties. Barack was able to score points on his assertion that the Republicans have a failed economic philosophy. Still, there was no punch. I can't help but think that this was a non-event all told.
The economy still is the #1 issue. Obama wins that issue on fundamentals. So, baring something happening he's winning. McCain did nothing to change that basic calculation last night. So while I think we all lost by having to watch that terrible debate, Obama won by not losing as much... I guess.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A debate? Already?
Did you know? Tonight John and Barack will be chatting with a few dozen voters about this and that. Here are a few things to think about while you are watching.
1) Does McCain criticize Obama to his face? McCain is going to take a page from the Clinton play book and ask "will the real Obama please stand up?" Where as Hillary had trouble with alienating the Democratic base McCain has no such restrictions. He might try to hit Obama on taxes, inexperience and his political allies. All of which could hurt Obama... if McCain does it. The problem is that slinging mud can splatter at close range. McCain has to be careful to keep smiling while being disagreeable. Anger isn't going to play.
2) Does McCain answer on the economy? He's got an old stock answer that ought to work. "He'll raise taxes and that will hurt the economy." Repeat. The other thing McCain can do is explain that he's a regulator and that Obama has sided with those members of the Democratic party that allowed Freddy and Fanny to go under. Of course... Obama can hit McCain by pointing out that Republicans advocated for looser security regulations. See if McCain can stop the bleeding on the economy.
3) When it does get around to Foreign policy, can Obama link it to the economy. Is he able to discuss America's roll in the world and how he's got the answer to help save the globe's economy not just America's. Then, can McCain point out that Obama's anti-trade position won't help and that he's got the experience to get things done.
Prediction: Obama wins. This debate will be about the economy. The built-in advantages to the party out of the White House will trump any good or bad policy. As long as Obama doesn't mess up, and he won't, he can't lose. I believe that McCain can start making the case that his policies are better.... but he can't finish it. McCain's only built in advantage is that he's at home in the town-hall style and Obama can be stilted.
1) Does McCain criticize Obama to his face? McCain is going to take a page from the Clinton play book and ask "will the real Obama please stand up?" Where as Hillary had trouble with alienating the Democratic base McCain has no such restrictions. He might try to hit Obama on taxes, inexperience and his political allies. All of which could hurt Obama... if McCain does it. The problem is that slinging mud can splatter at close range. McCain has to be careful to keep smiling while being disagreeable. Anger isn't going to play.
2) Does McCain answer on the economy? He's got an old stock answer that ought to work. "He'll raise taxes and that will hurt the economy." Repeat. The other thing McCain can do is explain that he's a regulator and that Obama has sided with those members of the Democratic party that allowed Freddy and Fanny to go under. Of course... Obama can hit McCain by pointing out that Republicans advocated for looser security regulations. See if McCain can stop the bleeding on the economy.
3) When it does get around to Foreign policy, can Obama link it to the economy. Is he able to discuss America's roll in the world and how he's got the answer to help save the globe's economy not just America's. Then, can McCain point out that Obama's anti-trade position won't help and that he's got the experience to get things done.
Prediction: Obama wins. This debate will be about the economy. The built-in advantages to the party out of the White House will trump any good or bad policy. As long as Obama doesn't mess up, and he won't, he can't lose. I believe that McCain can start making the case that his policies are better.... but he can't finish it. McCain's only built in advantage is that he's at home in the town-hall style and Obama can be stilted.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Too little, Too late
I hate it when I'm right. The rescue plan for 700 billion dollars has had an underwhelming effect on world markets. Why? Because it was too slow. The liquidity crisis was and is one of confidence. Nobody was willing to lend money so it all dried up. It's not that the money supply was inadequate, it's that the nerve was missing. The rescue plan had the potential to restore some confidence and prime the pump for creditors to continue lending... if it was acted upon quickly. Unfortunately the government failed and acted too late.
The bailout was meant to prime the pump... the problem was by the time it got there the pump had run dry. Now what was meant as a primer is about the only available capital in the market at all. And as big as 700 billion seems, it's not even close to enough to keep the market moving. The government can't actually raise, print, or borrow enough to do pay for even one day's worth of credit demand in the world. It's impossible. Because we didn't act quickly enough that 700 billion is likely not going to be very useful to the broader economy beyond those specific earmarks and programs that were tacked on as sweeteners to specific congresspeople.
Net effect: bad. This isn't the time to quit your jobs folks. We now have the worst of both worlds, a busted economy stuck in a liquidity trap and future government intrusion into financial markets. Not only do we have no credit, when it does come back it'll be subject to closer inspection by oversight boards that will raise costs and disincentives for capitalists taking risks and investing their money. What a miserable failure of good governance.
The bailout was meant to prime the pump... the problem was by the time it got there the pump had run dry. Now what was meant as a primer is about the only available capital in the market at all. And as big as 700 billion seems, it's not even close to enough to keep the market moving. The government can't actually raise, print, or borrow enough to do pay for even one day's worth of credit demand in the world. It's impossible. Because we didn't act quickly enough that 700 billion is likely not going to be very useful to the broader economy beyond those specific earmarks and programs that were tacked on as sweeteners to specific congresspeople.
Net effect: bad. This isn't the time to quit your jobs folks. We now have the worst of both worlds, a busted economy stuck in a liquidity trap and future government intrusion into financial markets. Not only do we have no credit, when it does come back it'll be subject to closer inspection by oversight boards that will raise costs and disincentives for capitalists taking risks and investing their money. What a miserable failure of good governance.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
This and that
Well I thought I'd be able to have a debate review yesterday. Turns out I still don't know what to think. The problem is that Sarah Palin's appeal escapes me a bit. It's the same problem I had with Obama at the start of this campaign. I couldn't wrap my mind around why people supported him when he so consistently lost on points in every debate. I've mentioned it before, the "eh, I like him/her..." seems to be the most important factor. So while simple scoring of the debate would seem to indicate that Biden won, because Palin was likeable, and didn't screw up she might actually move the dial further. I'm excited to see the polls on Monday... but until then I'm a terrible judge of what might happen. As such, I'm not comfortable speculating.
It should also be remembered that this is the VP debate. Even when Quale had his "you're no John Kennedy" moment the polls hardly moved. So maybe this whole exercise is really not all that important to the process as a whole.
Some sort of good news is that the House finally passed the bailout package. It was so stuffed with pork and "sweeteners" that I can't believe they weren't blushing while voting for it. However, something is better than nothing. The market didn't respond. The conventional wisdom was that the stock prices had anticipated the package passing and didn't go up because it was already factored in. I'm sure that this package wasn't the best thing we could have, but not passing it would have meant another insane blood-letting. Maybe we'll have some stablity in the market now though. It's possible that the worst is over and we'll be able to claw back a bit. P:E ratios are good and by the points we'd expect the market to go up... still it'll take some couragous folks to prime the pump and get it moving.
It should also be remembered that this is the VP debate. Even when Quale had his "you're no John Kennedy" moment the polls hardly moved. So maybe this whole exercise is really not all that important to the process as a whole.
Some sort of good news is that the House finally passed the bailout package. It was so stuffed with pork and "sweeteners" that I can't believe they weren't blushing while voting for it. However, something is better than nothing. The market didn't respond. The conventional wisdom was that the stock prices had anticipated the package passing and didn't go up because it was already factored in. I'm sure that this package wasn't the best thing we could have, but not passing it would have meant another insane blood-letting. Maybe we'll have some stablity in the market now though. It's possible that the worst is over and we'll be able to claw back a bit. P:E ratios are good and by the points we'd expect the market to go up... still it'll take some couragous folks to prime the pump and get it moving.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Ad Roll
I'll be doing a rundown of links as well as a more thoughtful break down of the debate after I've had a chance to see how the polls and media have digested it overnight.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Palin vs Biden: First blush
Well, I watched the whole thing. Pretty fun. My first impression was that Biden won the debate. However, I suspect myself of not being a good judge. So much of Palin's appeal is lost on me. Similar to the way I just don't get how Obama casts a spell over such a large number of people by saying nothing. I'm going to withhold final judgment.
Some of the snap polls are indicating that Biden won. These polls are taken among people who say that they watched the whole debate. The methodology on these things is so suspect I'm not sure they're worth anything. Frank Luntz (this link is to his website... the focus group results aren't up yet but I assume they will be.) also ran a focus group of likely voters that seemed to greatly favor Palin. I'm pretty sure that the polling today is totally useless. Unless you're Solidad Obrien, then it's an opportunity.
For now I'll simply use my own tips and give grades based on how well I think each candidate fulfilled my expectations.
Sarah:
1) Answer the questions. Evasion is the worst thing you can do.
She got better about staying on topic but often ignored the moderator. I think that this was strategic decision by the campaign. She was told to just hit her points and ignore the moderator. Her grade would be lower but maybe the campaign is smarter than me. Grade: D+
2) Pause and breath. The rap on you is inexperience, reciting from memory won't help.
She did well here. She started nervously but eventually settled into her element. Grade: B
3) Debate Barack. You've still got more star power than Joe, don't let him take you to his level.
She succeeded here. She stayed on Obama and didn't let Biden bait her. Not that he really tried. Grade: B+
4) Be likable. You're a winner because people like you. Tell a joke, smile and be in good humor.
Again, she did fine. She managed to give out a few zingers and smile. She was likable. Grade: B-
5) Become the "change agent." Debate "Washington," next to Joe people will believe you.
I think she could have done more. The focus on "maverick" over "reformer" I think is wrong. Actually, I'd have her say "change." But, I guess that's a bit too bold. Grade: C+
Over all: B-
Joe:
1) Be kind. You're the sort of guy who can tell, listen and laugh at a joke. Keep that attitude.
Can this guy smile or what? He did very well with his temperament. Grade: A-
2) Debate John. You're the adult. Don't get distracted, there's no need to correct Sarah.
He did get in jabs at McCain, but he wasn't able to really hit him hard. This is probably because the debate really was the Sarah Palin show... so maybe it's not his fault but he still doesn't get great credit. Grade: C.
3) Demonstrate your knowledge. Tell stories about what you've seen/done.
He did this, but it didn't have much to do with Palin. Though he had to get it in. Grade: C.
4) Don't try too hard. Obama they love, you're the insurance in case he can't handle something.
Joe again didn't make himself noticeable on this point and was thus effective. He reinforced Obama and deferred to him. Good for him. Grade: B.
5) Be causal. Sarah's the one on trial tonight, you just need to show up and not screw up.
He was able to demonstrate that he's ready from day 1 and he would be an effective advocate for Obama's policies. Like those policies or not... Biden didn't make himself a problem. Grade: B.
Over all grade: B.
I'm waiting for some more information before I'm ready to decide who really is going to benefit from this debate. Here's what some CNN folks think.
Some of the snap polls are indicating that Biden won. These polls are taken among people who say that they watched the whole debate. The methodology on these things is so suspect I'm not sure they're worth anything. Frank Luntz (this link is to his website... the focus group results aren't up yet but I assume they will be.) also ran a focus group of likely voters that seemed to greatly favor Palin. I'm pretty sure that the polling today is totally useless. Unless you're Solidad Obrien, then it's an opportunity.
For now I'll simply use my own tips and give grades based on how well I think each candidate fulfilled my expectations.
Sarah:
1) Answer the questions. Evasion is the worst thing you can do.
She got better about staying on topic but often ignored the moderator. I think that this was strategic decision by the campaign. She was told to just hit her points and ignore the moderator. Her grade would be lower but maybe the campaign is smarter than me. Grade: D+
2) Pause and breath. The rap on you is inexperience, reciting from memory won't help.
She did well here. She started nervously but eventually settled into her element. Grade: B
3) Debate Barack. You've still got more star power than Joe, don't let him take you to his level.
She succeeded here. She stayed on Obama and didn't let Biden bait her. Not that he really tried. Grade: B+
4) Be likable. You're a winner because people like you. Tell a joke, smile and be in good humor.
Again, she did fine. She managed to give out a few zingers and smile. She was likable. Grade: B-
5) Become the "change agent." Debate "Washington," next to Joe people will believe you.
I think she could have done more. The focus on "maverick" over "reformer" I think is wrong. Actually, I'd have her say "change." But, I guess that's a bit too bold. Grade: C+
Over all: B-
Joe:
1) Be kind. You're the sort of guy who can tell, listen and laugh at a joke. Keep that attitude.
Can this guy smile or what? He did very well with his temperament. Grade: A-
2) Debate John. You're the adult. Don't get distracted, there's no need to correct Sarah.
He did get in jabs at McCain, but he wasn't able to really hit him hard. This is probably because the debate really was the Sarah Palin show... so maybe it's not his fault but he still doesn't get great credit. Grade: C.
3) Demonstrate your knowledge. Tell stories about what you've seen/done.
He did this, but it didn't have much to do with Palin. Though he had to get it in. Grade: C.
4) Don't try too hard. Obama they love, you're the insurance in case he can't handle something.
Joe again didn't make himself noticeable on this point and was thus effective. He reinforced Obama and deferred to him. Good for him. Grade: B.
5) Be causal. Sarah's the one on trial tonight, you just need to show up and not screw up.
He was able to demonstrate that he's ready from day 1 and he would be an effective advocate for Obama's policies. Like those policies or not... Biden didn't make himself a problem. Grade: B.
Over all grade: B.
I'm waiting for some more information before I'm ready to decide who really is going to benefit from this debate. Here's what some CNN folks think.
Debate Prep
It's Sarah vs. Joe, here are a few pieces of unsolicited of advice.
Sarah:
1) Answer the questions. Evasion is the worst thing you can do.
2) Pause and breath. The rap on you is inexperience, reciting from memory won't help.
3) Debate Barack. You've still got more star power than Joe, don't let him take you to his level.
4) Be likable. You're a winner because people like you. Tell a joke, smile and be in good humor
5) Become the "change agent." Debate "Washington," next to Joe people will believe you.
Joe:
1) Be kind. You're the sort of guy who can tell, listen and laugh at a joke. Keep that attitude.
2) Debate John. You're the adult. Don't get distracted, there's no need to correct Sarah.
3) Demonstrate your knowledge. Tell stories about what you've seen/done.
4) Don't try too hard. Obama they love, you're the insurance in case he can't handle something.
5) Be causal. Sarah's the one on trial tonight, you just need to show up and not screw up.
Okay, that's it. I'll be here on the blog during the debate, I might even try my hand at "live blogging" so please feel free to comment along with me.
Sarah:
1) Answer the questions. Evasion is the worst thing you can do.
2) Pause and breath. The rap on you is inexperience, reciting from memory won't help.
3) Debate Barack. You've still got more star power than Joe, don't let him take you to his level.
4) Be likable. You're a winner because people like you. Tell a joke, smile and be in good humor
5) Become the "change agent." Debate "Washington," next to Joe people will believe you.
Joe:
1) Be kind. You're the sort of guy who can tell, listen and laugh at a joke. Keep that attitude.
2) Debate John. You're the adult. Don't get distracted, there's no need to correct Sarah.
3) Demonstrate your knowledge. Tell stories about what you've seen/done.
4) Don't try too hard. Obama they love, you're the insurance in case he can't handle something.
5) Be causal. Sarah's the one on trial tonight, you just need to show up and not screw up.
Okay, that's it. I'll be here on the blog during the debate, I might even try my hand at "live blogging" so please feel free to comment along with me.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
This is why you come to the Blog People
Credit to E-Bomb for this. Now you can play VP debate with your friends at home. It's easy, when the blue guy says the words in blue mark it down. When the red gal says the words in red mark that down. Whoever gets a line, row or diagonal first wins. I still haven't figured out a good drinking game for this though...
Two economists having a chat
It's super long. Here's a table of contents:
A bailout plan written on tissue paper (04:15)
The next shoe to drop: hedge funds (03:33)
Yves is gobsmacked by the irresponsible Paulson bill (10:22)
Why bailouts do more harm than good (10:11)
A short history of risky business (09:15)
So now what’s gonna happen? (09:42)
A bailout plan written on tissue paper (04:15)
The next shoe to drop: hedge funds (03:33)
Yves is gobsmacked by the irresponsible Paulson bill (10:22)
Why bailouts do more harm than good (10:11)
A short history of risky business (09:15)
So now what’s gonna happen? (09:42)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
