October 30, 2008

"Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works..."

"... his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers...."

The Economist cannot endorse McCain.
And Obama?
Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy....
He's a risk, but he gets the endorsement.

Here's an ad:



ADDED: The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford rationalizes:
The Economist endorses Obama, as it did John Kerry (2004), Bill Clinton (1992) and no-one (1984, 1988). Yes, it endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bob Dole in 1996 and George W Bush in 2000, but to portray this particular endorsement as an Obamacon moment seems like a stretch.

You know, (unless I'm mistaken) I had not blogged any endorsements until now. But this one impressed me and really hit home. It did not feel like the usual liberals doing what liberals do.

96 comments:

Ken Stalter said...

I have been waiting to see who The Economist would endorse. McCain has a better record on free trade and thought maybe they would go for him. But I also had a suspicion they might go for Obama, though I didn't know how they would argue for him.

mccullough said...

I agree that Obama's economic advisers are very good and better than McCain's.

The problem is Obama doesn't listen to them. I haven't heard one of Obama's economic advisers say that you should raise taxes in a recession. Nor have I heard one of them say that Obama's fiscal policies will great economic growth. That's because they won't. Obama's fiscal policy is that of France, which will lead to high unemployment and stagnant GDP that is very difficult to reverse.

Nor have I heard any of Obama's economic advisors extol Obama's protectionist views.

So Obama can be credited for doing nothing and remaining calm during the financial crisis. That's about it.

Obama is an ideologue, like W. If McCain wins, I'm sure he would seek advice from Obama's economic advisers. And he would listen to them, something Obama doesn't do.

Lisa said...

What precisely HAS Obama done on the economy? Nothing except to promise tax cuts. The only problem is his tax cuts aren't affordable and don't match his talking points. He claims he won't raise taxes on anyone earning under $250,000 but he's going to increase the Social Security cap and let the Bush tax cuts expire. That sounds like an increase in taxes to me... especially when you combine this information with the fact that most of his original 'cuts' are actually deductions and credits which are phased out under the AMT. So yeah, anyone who is hit by AMT (at that's a big chunk today) is going to see their taxes go up.

Obama's SINGULAR economic policy has been a big fat lie.

LUCKY said...

Today in my Public Opinion Class we discussed how presidential election really come down to "Being all about the benjamins," and that if the economy is good the incumbent presidential party does well and if the econonmy is going down the crapper then its adios incumbent party. (think back to Jimmy Carter and Reagan)

chickenlittle said...

ken stalter wrote: I have been waiting to see who The Economist would endorse. McCain has a better record on free trade and thought maybe they would go for him.

Hasn't it been obvious they would go for Obama for some time? Lexington's thinly disguised Palin-hatred made me think Andrew Sullivan was pimping for them.

I've been an avid reader for 15 years or so, starting when I lived in Europe. John Mickelthwait's promotion to editor in 2006 marked the shift in their outlook.

Pogo said...

"But this one impressed me and really hit home."

It shouldn't have. The Economist has gone wobbly over the last 5 years or more. This doesn't surprise me in the least.

T Mack said...

And Obama(the higher the tax the better, to run things more efficiently, more government the answer,) does?

Ann your demented. Why don't you admit it, you are voting for Obama is because you have sexual fantasies about him.
Your vote for him is not based on logic or reason.

mccullough said...

Lucky,

The economy was doing real well in 2000 and W. beat Gore of the incumbent party.

The overall point might be true but Gore was not Clinton and McCain isn't W. and Obama's fiscal plan sucks.

Daryl said...

The Economist is from the Peggy Noonan wing of the party. Or, more accurately, the Eurotrash equivalent of conservative "elites."

It's violently anti-Israel, for example. You won't find that among normal American conservatives.

Europe loves Obama. The Economist loves Obama. Big deal.

And why should you expect the Economist to endorse the free trade candidate? The Economist is looking out for Europe's interests, not America's.

Bob said...

I appreciate the richness of non-US journalists telling us what we should do just as much as the US ones. Journalists are suppose to report the news; just the facts. And it is nice of them to acknowledge its a risk. But he "deserves the Presidency" - that's the really rich part! Exactly how does Obama "deserve" this? His extensive resume? His military service? His years of bipartisonship? Maybe its his accomplishments?

Ann, I see this as very much a liberal thing. If the US becomes just like Europe then it just shows how progressive Europeans have been.

Lisa said...

T mack...

I'm not voting for Obama and I find your accusation that Ann's decision is not based on logic or reason but sexual fantasies to be sexist.

Pogo said...

Re: the Economist

The mere fact that a delusion is shared widely does not mitigate its danger.

blake said...

The economy was doing real well in 2000 and W. beat Gore of the incumbent party.

No, it had started crashing months earlier, though the press was trying to pretend otherwise. The dot-com bubble has bursting.

Also note how close the vote was. W didn't win the popular vote (or he did so by such a small margin that it was maskable by election fraud).

On the other hand, note that while FDR was elected in '32, he was elected again in '36, after making things worse, and again in '40, after making bad things worse for eight years!

mccullough said...

I agree this isn't the usual liberal nonsense endorsement and that it's very substantive.

The interesting thing is that when you read it what it's saying is that we know nothing about Obama because he has no record but hope he doesn't follow through with all the bad ideas he is promising.

Meanwhile, McCain is a good guy, especially on trade, and has a long record by which to judge him but we're afraid that he's sincere about some of the stuff he has said and done during the campaign, that contradict his previous positions, means that he will govern like the man of his campaign and not the guy with 25 years of a record to judge.

Why wouldn't they think that it's more likely that McCain is doing what he needs to do to get elected and that Obama the cipher is the one who is sincere?

dualdiagnosis said...

"But this one impressed me and really hit home."


Everything you look at now is seen as reinforcing your decision, it's a natural human instinct.

mccullough said...

Blake,

I agree that the economy was sliding into recession in Nov. 2000 but that wasn't widely known and certainly W. wasn't running against Gore on a "the Dems have a failed-economic policy platform."

Also, in 1992, we were coming out of the recession when Clinton beat Bush (and Perot) by running heavily on the tough economy.

Darcy said...

I'm not trying to bash economists, but I wonder whether this field leans pretty left. Does it?
I have a very good friend in the field and he's wayyyyy left. Butthead. :)

John Stodder said...

Hey, I think I'll post something I wrote at the end of the "why is he still close thread," which nobody is reading anymore. It fits better here anyway.

I think last night's show was a wasted opportunity for Obama. He should've studied Reagan's 1980 infomercial. Reagan, who pitched Borax and GE for years after his acting career dried up, knew how to close a sale. The stuff Obama talked about last night was kind of going back to the middle of his narrative, i.e. "people are hurting out there." True, but the voters he needs are less worried about the safety net and more worried about the health of the economy.

Obama needed to address how his plans will grow the economy, boost the stock market (in which independent voters are generally invested) and turn around the housing market (lots of folks have lost a lot of the wealth they expected to retire on because their own home's appraised value has dropped).

McCain's been pretty effective at sowing fear about Obama's economic philosophy. Not everybody gets it that "you can't raise taxes in a recession," the but independent swing voters probably do.

This election is going to be decided by a few million white, over-40 married couples with a combined income at the upper end of Obama's no-tax zone, sprinkled among the swing states where the campaign is now focusing: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire and a few others. They've come to hate George Bush and want to punish him by voting against McCain. McCain's dithering on the economic meltdown made them feel even firm and more confident about voting for Obama, who got the optics right (as he does so often) on the crisis. But now they're wavering. Some of what McCain/Palin have been saying is getting through. Joe the Plumber is someone these people know. These people are educated, so they know what's behind words like "redistribution." Meanwhile, the financial crisis seems to be at a pause. The stock market has had a few good days. McCain/Palin have stopped shooting themselves in the feet momentarily.

I'm sure quite a few of the 33 million who watched Obama last night were hoping for a sign that would finally firm them up in their conviction to vote for him. I don't think they got it, which means it was a colossal waste of money. Obama is still the favorite, but he keeps leaving the door open for McCain/Palin to steal (metaphorically) his lead. If he doesn't combat the impression that he is too liberal, he could lose.

Last night's show was very liberal. Calm, measured, thoughtful liberalism, but liberalism nonetheless. This last weekend, Obama needs to take a big step to the right, and show he also cares about the people who pay the bills in this country. They want to like him, but he's got to meet them halfway.

mccullough said...

Darcy,

The three most influential economists of the 20th century are Keynes, Friedman, and Hayek.

Keynes is left the other two aren't.

Much of economics is art more than
science.

Obama's economic plans would be great if people acted like he Hopes they will act (or believe he can Change them to act) but assuming that people are pretty self-interested for the most part tends to produce better economic policies.

So if Obama's fiscal plans go through, unemployment will go up and real GDP will be stagnant as they have in France and some other Western European countries.

Lem said...

You know, (unless I'm mistaken) I had not blogged any endorsements until now.

I seem to remember a blurb about Wapo's endorsement here.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Bob said...

Ann, FWIW I don't think sexual attraction is a big motivator for you in voting for Obama. Its the lawyer thing - always the lawyers together!

Plus, we understand the whole VP thing. Its wardrobe and shoes on the one side - really, who wants to blog about fashion? But Joe, he talks substance and just keeps on with the gaffes. You do remember Joe? Well, it does seem that Obama has misplaced him right now. But I'm sure he'll be along.

Matthew said...

From the Economist piece: " . . . the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying."

My jaw dropped when I read that. As far as I can tell, nearly every "conservative" endorsement of Senator *Obama*, including the Economist's endorsement, seems based on exactly that bit of logic--he can't possibly intend to do what he and a Democratic congress repeatedly say they mean to do. I think this may reflect Senator Obama's best asset as a politician: he is an intelligent and charismatic blank slate, enabling voters who are unhappy about one thing or another to project their aspirations onto him, even if that means severely discounting or ignoring outright his actions (or lack thereof) in the past and the policies he advocates for the future.

The Drill SGT said...

Obama's instincts are completely wrong in this environment

- raise income taxes
- raise capital gains
- raise windfall taxes
- raise employment taxes
- raise health care taxes
- raise tarif's
- repudiate current trade treaties
- refuse to sign new trade treaties
- play politics with firms decisions on plant locations
- create eco-pork (e.g. more subsidies like ethanol)

Simon said...

"[T]his one impressed me and really hit home. It did not feel like the usual liberals doing what liberals do."

Well, except that they're doing exactly what they did in 2004, as Stuttaford points out. And in any event, I don't think the American public should pay heed to the opinions of the British aristocracy today any more than they did in 1776.

Simon said...

The bottom line is, like many of the aristocrats on both sides of the Atlantic, they just don't like Sarah Palin. I have some very specific anatomical suggestions for where those people can put those opinions.

Bob said...

One more incorrect instinct:
- the productive class will play along.

He assumes workers, managers, and investors will not alter their behaviors. They may not be entirely rational but they will not be inert. They will react to the incentives and disincentives.

Lem said...

I looks like even Joe the plumber has deserted McCain

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html

veni vidi vici said...

You're surprised by the Economist's endorsement of Obama?

Seems a little sheltered of you to admit that, frankly.

mccullough said...

Bob,

Workers, managers, and investors are already altering their behavior in anticipation of an Obama victory.

Obama will be trying to beat back the sea with his sword if he thinks he can change people's behavior based on his inspiring speeches.

Original George said...

..."the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror..."

Vulgar British slang for left-handed. We, in America, have risen above such prejudice.

PS--The Economist also supported Wilkie in 1940.

blake said...

I agree that the economy was sliding into recession in Nov. 2000 but that wasn't widely known and certainly W. wasn't running against Gore on a "the Dems have a failed-economic policy platform."

Right. The press was covering for Clinton, and immediately started talking down the economy when W won.

Also, in 1992, we were coming out of the recession when Clinton beat Bush (and Perot) by running heavily on the tough economy.

Right. The Press was bashing Bush, and immediately started talking up the economy when WJC won.

Point being, perception matters. These days, it's obvious. Was it as obvious back in the '30s when FDR was winning election after election, I wonder?

Darcy said...

Lem: It says in the comments below that blog post that Joe did show up later.

And thank you for the info, mccullough. :)

Trooper York said...

Why should we care what a bunch of Euro-weenies think about anything?
Screw 'em.

This is like hearing that Paris Hilton endorses hairless Mexican dogs. Just as important and just as relevant.

AJ Lynch said...

McCullough said:

"The interesting thing is that when you read it what it's saying is that we know nothing about Obama because he has no record but hope he doesn't follow through with all the bad ideas he is promising. "

That sounds like Althouse wrote it.

mccullough said...

Trooper:

The funny thing is that the leaders of the U.K., France, German, and Italy are to the right of Obama as far as economic policy goes. (They're also to the right of him on other issues).

So while the intelligentsia of Western Europe may love Obama (just like the intelligentsia of US loves Obama) their leadership doesn't believe in his BS

integrity said...

The Economist made the right call.

Professor Althouse,

I may have said some untoward things in the past during the cruel neutrality phase, but I will never accuse you of having sexual fantasies about Obama. LMAO.

T mack needs a straitjacket. Like now.

Trooper York said...

The conservative prime ministers in Europe know a weenie when they see one. Those are the kind of guys they beat. Now they will have to deal with a weakling in the US.

He will be tested and found wanting. (According to his Vice Presidential running mate).

mccullough said...

Trooper

Maybe the first test will be from Europe.

Sarkozy has already told the Israelis that Obama's stance on Iran is utterly immature and empty of all content.

You know we're in trouble when the head of France is tougher than the POTUS. Real trouble.

integrity said...

Guys, he took out the most powerful couple my party has ever had other than F.D.R. and Eleanor.

Obama is steely. I don't know if he'll win, but beware to those that underestimate his strength if he does. Bill and Hill did, and I did at the beginning. And I believe you know it, he's a tougher customer than you want to admit.

If he's elected you will see.

Biden said at the end of that quote that whoever took him on would find out he had a spine of steel. Nobody has bothered to quote that part of the gasbags' statement.

Original George said...

According to The Economist's interactive "global electoral college" map, the people of every nation in the world overwhelmingly support Sen. Obama's election, except:

Chad
Sudan
The Congo
and
Myanmar

How ridiculous...It's 53% McCain, 47% Obama in Myanmar. Sure.

Oh, Iraq is also for McCain.

What a silly magazine. (You have to read the fine print to learn that the standings in the "global electoral college" are based on people voting in the magazine's internet poll. I registered as Muulak Zagbar of Bhutan and voted for McCain.)

mccullough said...

Integrity,

If he had taken out Mayor Daley, then I'd be impressed.

That vote against the surge was a sign of weakness, not strength.

His outright refusal to acknowledge the improvements in Iraq show Obama's an ideologue just like W.

He can't even admit he's ever been wrong on anything.

The guy will absolutely wilt under pressure.

T Mack said...

"Biden said at the end of that quote that whoever took him on would find out he had a spine of steel. Nobody has bothered to quote that part of the gasbags' statement."

Everyone has a spine of steel relative to Biden.

amba said...

it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein

They should know better. No one is a bigger criminal, or more "fair game," to Islamists than an apostate.

T Mack said...

You notice how Lisa and integrity both admonished me for saying AA's choice of BO for prez was based on sex not logic.

Neither said I was wrong.
You know why? Because they know I am right.

For a better America you cannot logicly, reasonably pick BO.

mccullough said...

Amba, I agree. Just look how blacks like Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Colin Powell (until recently) get treated as heretics by a lot of blacks in the U.S.

Fanatics don't think like liberals, the sooner liberals learn this the better.

integrity said...

mccullough said...
Integrity,

If he had taken out Mayor Daley, then I'd be impressed.

That vote against the surge was a sign of weakness, not strength.

His outright refusal to acknowledge the improvements in Iraq show Obama's an ideologue just like W.

He can't even admit he's ever been wrong on anything.

The guy will absolutely wilt under pressure.



Why hasn't he wilted yet? I would have, and thrown several shitfits while wilting.

The things you are talking about are political decisions. Cold, calculated political decisions. That's what a good politician does. Do you not want him to make tough decisions in this manner?

We disagree on Iraq, I was and am against the surge. And he at the end of the day made a political decision to acknowledge progress, I think on O'Reilly. I don't think he really thinks what's going on in Iraq is progress.

I was one of the people that went berzerk when Obama capitulated on FISA. He had to do what he had to do. And it was very hard to accept, but he has preconditioned us(liberals) to understand we won't be getting our way. An ideologue does not do that. FISA was a very big deal to people like me, and it took huge balls of steel to defy us.

We're not electing a saint here. He's tough.

The Drill SGT said...

mccullough said...
Trooper:

The funny thing is that the leaders of the U.K., France, German, and Italy are to the right of Obama as far as economic policy goes. (They're also to the right of him on other issues).


while I'd like to compeltely agree, one needs to point out that the left-right spectrums are not perfectly in synch in the US and the EU, so while the leaders of the EU are all RIGHT relative to their own spectrums. they are still relatively center compared to the US left-right spectrum. It is just that "their left" is farther leftist than Obama and their right is in our center-right

SteveR said...

Since there is no real actual record to base this on, The Economist joins the ranks of blank slate endorsements. This is usually revealed by a criticism of John McCain at or near the top of list.

Dreams and hope are a good personal philosophy but its a lousy reason to vote. I'd have more respect for someone saying they were voting for Obama because they were going to get laid.

Trooper York said...

He hasn't wilted because he hasn't been under pressure yet. The refs are on his side. Every call goes his way. What is going to happen is all the stuff that was swept under the rug will come out. It always does.

Just like the extent of Clinton's sexual debauchery were kept out of the news by a compliant press. Sure some of it came out but it was minimized and covered up by people like Joe Klein. The people knew a little bit about it but not to the extent that came out later. The press covered it up because they wanted Clinton to win. Just like they want Obama to win.

Lot's of stuff is going to come out. The tape with his remarks about Israel and his real feelings about the Palestinians. Various financial missteps or crooked deals he was a part of or knew about and kept his mouth shut when he was a machine politician in Chicago. All of the stuff that the main stream media is holding back. It will all come out at the worst possible time for him. When he is facing a foreign crises of one kind or another.

Luckily we know what he will do.

Vote Present.

1jpb said...

There are plenty of nuts who make ridiculous claims about BHO being a secret socialist and communist and all sorts of other things. All of these are ridiculous.

But, he does do one thing secretly. He kicks ass. It's so funny to read how some of you are worried that he's weak. Occasionally the BHO haters are able to glimpse they see that he's tough and plays hardball behind the scenes. Of course, y'all only temporarily latch on to these situations as an opportunities to use terms like "thug." But most of the time y'all wallow in your comforting certainty that you're seeing weakness, dumb luck, uncontrollable circumstances, media bias, and so on as you have your asses handed to you.

When confronting foriegn and domestic issues I prefer strategy over seat-of-the-pants.

P.S.

Iraq victory declarers should not forget that:

--we pay off our enemies so they will behave

--in some ways much of the Iraqi government and other factions are closer to Iran than they are to us

--millions of Irais have been ethnically purged into separate partitioned zones or out of the country (take a moment to fully consider the magnitude of millions of folks being forced to partition themselves to avoid violence)

--Petraeus says that we may never have a so-called traditiona "victory" in Iraq (is he anti-American?)

--services to the population are below pre-invasion circumstances for many Iraqi folks

--the surge supporters say that removal of troops will cause the place to blowup which ironically (relative to their devotion to the surge) provides 100% proof that there is no political solution which was the goal of the surge.

Do your professional conservative leaders tell you about these details? Is this information critical to anyone trying to make an assessment of what's happened and will happen in Iraq?

P.P.S.
Trooper,

How does one become paranoid? What are your five most trusted sources of information?

dave™© said...

He hasn't wilted because he hasn't been under pressure yet. The refs are on his side. Every call goes his way.

Shorter moronic brownshirt fuck: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

I do so look forward to seeing all the exploding heads here Tuesday night. I'll have to look under the table for Blithering Misogynist Idiot, of course, as she'll be on a three-wine-box bender...

TitusAskMeIwontsayno said...

Fellow republicans and lovers of the Bush Doctrine I think it is important that we stay positive.

This election is not over by a long shot.

John Mccain and his amazing VP are going to surprise many Americans when they win this election by a mile.

What are each of you doing to ensure we win this election?

I for one, have started the first group in my neighborhood Gays for Sarah. The response has been amazing. We love her and she has a huge support from the gays. Just watch the gays are going to be the winning factor for Palin and Mccain.

Thank you.

TitusAskMeIwontsayno said...

If you join gays for Palin you get a very special scarf from Niemies.

Trooper York said...

Hey I am not paranoid. Everybody has something. If you don't think that is true then you are very foolish. McCain had a lot of stuff in his background too. I am sure not all of it has come out yet. But not to the extent of your guy.

Governor Patterson had a close advisor who was a former Catholic priest who was a close confident of the Kennedy’s. He hasn't filed his taxes for the past five years. Governor Spitzer had a secret. Governor McGreevy had a secret. Governor Corzine paid off his girlfriend mortgage when she was negotiating a union contract with the state. Charley Rangel. John Abscam Murtha. Senator Stevens. Senator Craig. Both sides of the aisle. They all have stuff. Or should I say we all have stuff in our background.Just waiting to come out if someone is looking. They are just so arrogant that they think they will never get called on it.

Put not your faith in princes.

TitusAskMeIwontsayno said...

I don't have any stuff.

My life is an open book.

Freeman Hunt said...

it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein

I assume they aren't referring to the Arab world with that statement...

If so, it would betray an incredible ignorance about race relations in the Middle East.

Jake said...

The Economist has never been the same since Marjorie Scardino took over and then went to the parent Pearson, PLC. It's so ironic that an American woman turned that "paper" into a platform for America bashing. Who reads it anymore? What a terrible waste...

mccullough said...

1jbp,

I am not an Obama hater. He's a nice guy and I voted for him to be a U.S. Senator and will vote for him again to be a U.S. Senator.

But running a political campaign isn't the same as running a war, much less governing as POTUS. It's not even a fucking contact sport.

While Obama gave a great race relations speech, a few weeks later he then had to disown the very guy he said he could no more disown than his own grandmother.

He has shown no leadership at all. Appearing calm during a financial crisis by blaming the President and the "Republican philosophy" isn't leadership.

When Obama's POTUS is he still going to continue to blame W? If unemployment rises, will it still be W.'s fault? When more soldiers get killed in Afghanistan, who is Obama going to blame?

The fact is he can remain calm because he's not responsible for anything other than running a campaign.

When it's his ass in the chair and he has to take some political responsibility, something he has run from throughout his career, we'll see what's he made of.

Trooper York said...

"Shorter moronic brownshirt fuck: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!"

Actually, I am 6'3" and never wear brown. I prefer black. You know like Mussolini. But that's a heritage thing.

Freeman Hunt said...

I don't have any stuff.

My life is an open book.


Sure, you say that, but you'll turn out to be some chaste monk living off in the desert somewhere like a hermit, except for the hour a day you spend hooked up to the Internet via satellite with your solar-powered computer.

Simon said...

integrity said...
"Guys, he took out the most powerful couple my party has ever had other than F.D.R. and Eleanor."

I don't agree. He did nothing more than provide a vehicle for passionately anti-war Democrats could reject Hillary because of her vote for the Iraq war. His path to the nomination had a touch of Gilbert & Sullivan: he did nothing in particular and he did it well. Just look like a credible candidate and do nothing to rock the boat until you have it in the bag.


TitusAskMeIwontsayno said...
"Fellow republicans and lovers of the Bush Doctrine I think it is important that we stay positive. This election is not over by a long shot."

It is if you believe the polls. That assumption ought to be questioned, though. Here's one reason, and here's another: Remember that in 2004, the exit polls didn’t reflect the reality of the race. And that was when they were asking voters what they had just done, not what they might do four days hence! Sometimes polls are wrong.

It’s easy to illustrate that point: if the polls being taken right now aren’t more-or-less uniform within their common margin of error, at least some of them are wrong by some amount. Today, RCP lists nine national polls that give Obama a lead by six different margins ranging from +3 to +8; at least some of those polls must be wrong. (What’s interesting about this is that it’s no defense to say that some of those polls might have methodology problems, or that the discrepancies are explainable. Of course that’s true - that’s the point.)

Once upon a time, polls said Hillary was the inevitable nominee, and as it happens, Truman beat Dewey after all.

Jeffrey said...

Remember when Palin was finally able (after some prompting) to come up with The Economist as a periodical she reads?

1jpb said...

Trooper,

We now have the truth about BHO.

Of course, this is a pro-BHO perspective (and they don't seem to touch on the really nasty stuff that isn't directly from the McCain folks), and surely there some are debatable entries (I was too lazy to read more than a few entries, so I don't have a good sense of the overall spin intensity.)

I'm mainly providing the link because I'm amazed that some folks have so much dedication to correcting the record as they see it.

mccullough,

He's been more right about what would happen in Iraq than anybody I can think of. (see my previous comment regarding the full reality in Iraq rather than simply saying "surge, surge, surge.") He's is been right about Afganistn, and importantly he's been warning about long term problems with our Pakistan approach for years. He was early to warn about Georgia (I provided a link in a comment a few days ago, I'm too lazy to find it in my bookmarks again.) He warned that Hamas would never be recognized and bargained with BEFORE the Palestinian elections (same thing about links.)

He does have better judgment than the professional conservatives have lead you to believe.

And,

Regarding the economy; this sky is falling BS about raising the top rate a few points back to where it was w/ WJC is silly. And, don't forget Reagan has raised taxes.

And, don't forget that we need our consumers to be able to consume, this is good for rich folks too--they always get their cut, that's what it means to be at the top of the food chain. For long term sustainability rich folks can't just shuffle paper amongst themselves.

Trooper York said...

Boy you are in for a big surprise. I hope his secret is not as bad as Spitzers.

TitusAskMeIwontsayno said...

We have supported the great George W through thick and thin and we will continue to support the republican party no matter what happens.

Agains, focus fellow republicans.

What are each and everyone one of you doing in order to elect Mccain and Palin?

It is easy to write on blogs but what we need is on the ground work.

Now let's go. Victory is within sight.

Praise the Lrod.

TitusAskMeIwontsayno said...

That's funny Freeman Hunt.

Trooper York said...

Who is the Lrod.

Now if A-Rod marries Madonna and adopts Lourdes, she could be Lrod.

But I think you are jumping the gun a little.

The Drill SGT said...

When it's his ass in the chair and he has to take some political responsibility, something he has run from throughout his career, we'll see what's he made of.

Truman he ain't

Trooper York said...

Well to be fair he could be Truman Capote.

Simon said...

1jpb said...
"[Obama]'s been more right about what would happen in Iraq than anybody I can think of."

Well, let's see. He was wrong about the decision to go in. He was wrong about the surge. And he has consistently wanted to impose a timeline for withdrawal which doens't even rise to the respectability of being wrong. What was he right about, again?

TitusAskMeIwontsayno said...

Sorry meant Lord.

Thanks for bringing up Madonna. I haven't thought about her today but now I have. Love her to death.

Gays for Palin will be holding a rally tomorrow at 8th and 23rd. We would love any gays and our gay friendly friends to please "meat" us for the rally. This is going to be a powerful statement tomorrow. It will be cutting edge. We will be all wearing fur from Alaska hunting bounties.

We will turn NY red!!!!

Fight on to victory.

jdeeripper said...

His audience is now 12 times the circulation of The New York Times, he tells me.

"And you can add up CNN, MSNBC and Fox, and my audience is 20 times that.

They have no pretence of objectivity. They are activists now and they make no bones about it. CNN, MSNBC and Fox all opinionise. Like I do. They acknowledge this, and so it has become a battle between the two medias.

The liberal media see this Obama candidacy as historic because race is a big deal to them.

They think this country committed Original Sin.

I actually believe that most of their support for Obama is that they are creaming in their jeans about the historical nature of the campaign.

They want to be a part of it.They want to make it happen. They want a stake in it.

They want to be able to say they did it if Obama wins."

JAL said...

Well integrity -- Obama is running for president. He needs more than the netroots to get elected. Spme [people call it pragmatic. Others call it political expediency ...

After the FISA vote -- "McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said ... 'charting Barack Obama's reversals on this issue reads like a road map to political expediency -- further demonstrating he uses his word as a political tool, not a principled commitment.'"

The nuanced chameleon.

jdeeripper said...

TitusAskMeIwontsayno said...Gays for Palin will be holding a rally tomorrow at 8th and 23rd.

Josh and Lindsey Graham aren't available. They're out on the campaign trail with the McCain Gang .

1jpb said...

Simon,

He correctly predicted what would happen in Iraq. McCain and Cheney (and presumably you) were totally wrong. And, I've already noted that the surge hasn't altered Iraq's destiny. We've seen that Iraq's factions live together by not living together. It's sad, but true. Happy talk from conservatives (victory!! victory!!!!) isn't going to change that fact.

At some point Iraq must be forced to decide to sink or swim. We can't indefinitely sustain a power structure in defiance of the demographic forces on the ground (we don't have Saddam's "efficiency," which is a good thing.) Pursuing such a hopeless strategy (especially as it costs us military readiness and fiscal health, and it diverts our focus from 9-11 perpetrators and other militants potentially destabilizing to Pakistan) rather than looking at the proverbial forest is not strong, it's weak.

jal,

Did you know BHO spent a lot of time getting the conservative POV (through first hand dialog) regarding FISA many months before he cast his vote? He spent a notable amount of time getting the "other" side of the issue. I can't deny that his vote was political--I can't read his mind one way or the other. But, I can say that I was not surprised by his vote because I already knew that he was going out of his way to talk to folks who were in favor of it.

You may want to do you own thinking and gathering of facts rather than listening to Tucker. That way you (like me) are less likely to be surprised by events.

JAL said...

I haven't been "listening to" Tucker whatever his name is.

I look at what Barack Obama has said and done. I just found a quote that describes what I saw happening to give it some gravitas.™

Mortimer Brezny said...

I hope McCain loses.

I hope Palin fades away.

I hope the Republican Party re-reads its Robert Nozick and its Richard Epstein and its Frederick Hayek.

I hope its intellectuals recenter around CATO and Reason instead of Heritage and National Review.

More Institute for Justice and Volokh Conspiracy. Less Focus on the Family and gay-bashing.

Perhaps then we will get a focus on the structural constitution (separation of powers, federalism, limited enumerated powers), preserving civil liberties, technological innovation, scientific progress, free speech, eliminating arbitrary regulation and bureaucratic waste, and promoting free market solutions to big problems everyone wants to solve, without the religious pandering on social controversies and hostility toward unpopular groups.

I hope the GOP relies on its deep bench of living Nobel prize winning economists and legal scholars and academics at universities like Pepperdine, George Mason, and the University of Chicago.

For that to happen, Palin must go down in flames.

May McCain-Palin lose and lose badly.

Trooper York said...

Hey Mort, glad you woke up. Or did the redhead go to sleep? Hee, hee.

John Stodder said...

What?? I agree with Mortimer Brezny??

Well, not entirely. I don't think the hostility to Palin is necessary. I actually don't think she's nearly as much of a flag waver for the social right as she's been portrayed. She doesn't insult the religious right. She is pro-life and apparently loves Jesus. But I think her political instincts are libertarian. I haven't heard of her campaigning on the Dobson line. She didn't do a holy Joanne campaign in Alaska.

I could be wrong, I suppose. But that's the hit I get off her. I think she's more Reagan than W.

My problem is with the top of the GOP ticket. That makes me a pervert I guess. I'm voting against McCain because of... McCain! And because of the GOP. And that's where I agree with ol' Mort.

br549 said...

I have no idea what commentors here do for a living, where they live, etc.

My work involves all manufacturing across the board. What I see coming is trouble, and lots of it. It has not truly started yet.

In my opinion, this is not a time for democrats on the hill and in the white house to have a majority of power. In my opinion, the democrats got us where we are at this place in time.

Cedarford said...

Before they got into McCain as a very flawed candidate and Obama's Team having high potential because they outfought, outhought, and out-organized 1st the Clinton Machine, then the conservative right, the Economist staff said this about the battleground:

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

That is pretty perceptive. Under Bush and Hastert and DeLay and Lott - the Republicans badly declined. A McCain election would only continue the decline. He would make speeches against excesses then see the same usual Corporatists and Theocrats and cultural warriors now lumped together as Palin Cultists - demanding their rightful place at the table.

Without a profound traumatic event, Republicans would no doubt continue business as usual after a McCain victory. (Deficits can be ignored, corruption is OK, trickledown works, theocracy works, government fails to work and is the problem - especialy when we are in charge. Supply-side tax cuts for the wealthy are fine, and the public is anxious to unilaterally start a war with Iran.)With a McCain victory, the Neocons, Fundies, Corporatists would be up preaching away nothing has gone wrong with Reaganomics or the 1994 Republican Revolution, or the idea of endless conflict to "democratize" 3rd Worlders. Everything is just "copasetic".

Trooper York said...
Why should we care what a bunch of Euro-weenies think about anything?
Screw 'em.


Well, because along with China, Japan, and KSA - they are our financiers. And we are the beggers since Bush's wild deficits started..
And our true allies that have actually fought alongside us and are with us fighting terrorists and took to the field in Iraq and Afghanistan - thought they could do more.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Mortimer gives us an unusually clear exposition of the "If They Lose, They'll Start Agreeing With Me" fantasy.

No, they won't.

Arturius said...

Well, because along with China, Japan, and KSA - they are our financiers. And we are the beggers since Bush's wild deficits started..

I don't disagree on the deficit spending but lets be clear that prior to Bush we were sitting on a $5 trillion national debt which was financed by the same folks. I still have yet to hear either candidate mention their plans on reducing the debt.

And our true allies that have actually fought alongside us and are with us fighting terrorists and took to the field in Iraq and Afghanistan - thought they could do more.

Not sure they can, or want to for that matter. When the Cold War ended so did Western Europe's desire to maintain any kind of significant military force much less the will to use it.

When you consider that we constitute over 36% of the total NATO force in Afghanistan, one has to really start to question whether NATO is a truly viable force. When one member out of twenty-six is going to be expected to do the heavy lifting, I think it's time to re-examine the organization.

Original George said...

br549--

``Confidence declined across all regions, all age groups and all income categories.'' ...says Nomura analyst.

Check out this Bloomberg article....Volvo truck factory orders down 99% (Yes, 99%)...container ships don't have enough goods to carry to make trips profitable....air freight down almost 8 percent.

The good news? Business tycoons the Olsen twins have written a new book! It's about "Influence." Its title is "Influence." They wrote it, too, and with writer Derek Blasberg. Its focus? The "kingpins in the world of glitz, who make us privy to their innermost thoughts -- and let us peek at their smocks, boots, art and home furnishings."

Yay!

Darcy said...

Cedarford said:
Without a profound traumatic event, Republicans would no doubt continue business as usual after a McCain victory.

Unfortunately, I agree with this. However, I don't think that handing everything over to the Dems is going to do Republicans much good, either. I would be far less worried if we weren't headed for a filibuster-proof majority.

So I have a bad choice (save Sarah Palin), and a disastrous choice, as a conservative. I'm deeply resentful of this.

JAL said...

cedarford refers to "Palin Cultists"

That's a joke, right?

Take the log out of your own eye.

I don't see people dancing and singing about Sarah Palin. People fainting at Palin's feet....

One mark of fascism -- not the fake slur tossed at GWB -- is a worshipped leader. And who might that be? (Read Fouad Ajami Oct. 30)

And to flesh it out a little more -- borrowing from a commenter SL on another site -- there is the all encompassing welfare state, REDISTRIBUTING wealth [did you like that clip today of the woman at the Obama rally -- she's not going to have to work to fill her gas tank or pay her mortgage], politically controlled health care, state pensions [they want our 401(k)s, did you notice??] and guaranteed jobs. (One of the "rights" of the FDR / Obama's "second bill of rights.")

To be a fascist one doesn't have to have an army march by saluting (though the kids in camo were eerily similar) Seeking power (start with letters to the DoJ, Joe the Plumber, the Missouri officials) and economic control over the populace is on the table.
When the economic, social and political woes are magnified and become central to the story, the Leader is the solution and the crowds flock to be soothed.

Michelle Obama tells us (heard the tape this morning) that our SOULS are damaged. ONLY her husband can HEAL and UNIFY. HE will fix it.

News flash to Michelle Obama: Your husband better keep his hands off my soul -- and my 401(k).

Are you Obama people absolutely crazy?

Or deaf and blind?

Danny said...

Mortimer Brezny said...
I hope McCain loses.

I hope Palin fades away.

I hope the Republican Party re-reads its Robert Nozick and its Richard Epstein and its Frederick Hayek.

I hope its intellectuals recenter around CATO and Reason instead of Heritage and National Review.

More Institute for Justice and Volokh Conspiracy. Less Focus on the Family and gay-bashing.

Perhaps then we will get a focus on the structural constitution (separation of powers, federalism, limited enumerated powers), preserving civil liberties, technological innovation, scientific progress, free speech, eliminating arbitrary regulation and bureaucratic waste, and promoting free market solutions to big problems everyone wants to solve, without the religious pandering on social controversies and hostility toward unpopular groups.

I hope the GOP relies on its deep bench of living Nobel prize winning economists and legal scholars and academics at universities like Pepperdine, George Mason, and the University of Chicago.

For that to happen, Palin must go down in flames.

May McCain-Palin lose and lose badly.

11:16 PM


THANK YOU!

I've been saying this all along. I know our voices won't likely be heard, but it's always nice to know that there are others in the same boat.

John Stodder said...

I would be far less worried if we weren't headed for a filibuster-proof majority.

Michael Barone says we're probably not.

Nate Silver, the poll geek at five-thirty-eight.com puts the odds of a 60+ Democratic Senate at less than 50 percent. His subconscious biases are very much to the left, so this is probably bankable, as his statistical analysis of polling data is very sound.

For me, this was also a concern, but I think it's fading.

Trooper York said...

Listen the Chinese are not going to do anything to rock the boat. Without orders from America for clothes and toys and TVs and every other freakin thing their factories are shut down and their populace do not get the twentyfive cents an hour that keeps them in rice and chicken necks. We are too interconnected for anything like that to happen.

The European's don't mean jackshit and the sooner we stop worrying about them the better off we will be. Pull out of Nato and let the Russians invade their asses if they want. Screw em. They ain't worth a shit, never were and never will be.

BJM said...

*Yawn* the Economist made a hard left turn during Clinton's presidency.

Here's a handy dandy 401(k) calculator that may amuse or dismay depending on your level of selfishness.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

For the Economist and perhaps our hostess, this is the etudes election. It is so beautiful, the elegant black man who can charm Warren Buffet. The election to the presidency of the protege of the SDS leader provides such an elegant book end to Eisenhower who refused to permit the Vietnamese to vote commumnist. But if in concert with the congress, Obama plays the leftist
etude and unemployment goes to 15% and enough of the envious don't like 'their share of the pie,' the names of the promoters will be taken, and we will suffer and learn and, unlike Eisenhower perhaps unwisely predicted for the Vietnamese, will vote again. To vote for McCain would be to vote for somebody who gets most of the basic chords right but who has to toss in the Palin chord and even the FDR buy the houses chord; no music in that.

Geeta said...

Really Appreciated to you for this post
Thanks
seo company

Geeta said...

Really Appreciated to you for this post
Thanks
seo company

Best SEO Firm said...

Professional SEO Company and Internet marketing company near Kolkata, India. We offer best SEO Services, Social Media and Link building services for all range of business and their sites.

Best SEO Firm said...

Performance – based web design & SEO Company - We provides quality and Reliable web design, seo friendly web design, SEO Service & web design service at affordable budget

Best SEO Firm said...

Should you want to bet and absolutely adore playing casino games, then you should take a look at our new web site. We provide you with complete details for proposed on the online casinos. Find out how you could perform many cool and exciting casino games and earn some cash while owning exciting. For extra info, just check out the site for by yourself. We are hunting forward to your visit.