6 ms·

For non-americans, what happened a month ago (see supertracker) that caused what looks like the start of a landslide for obama. Was it palin?

by trapper 18y ago

rms 18y ago
It was the changing of the campaign narrative from being about all sorts of things to being solely about the economy in wake of the financial crisis. Barack Obama is widely viewed as being more sound on economic issues.
- robg 18y ago
  I think Palin is a big part of that dynamic, especially after the Paris Hilton line of attack. Say McCain had picked Romney, they could have been hammering away at the experience card on both foreign and economic policy. By picking Palin, McCain basically killed the experience campaign, especially when she started blathering in uncontrolled settings, and they've gyrated around ever since trying to find a compelling narrative without sufficient knowledge or experience to address the economic realities. As evidence, independents now break in a big way for Obama where they weren't prior to Palin. EDIT: Just to be clear - Palin got the ball rolling downhill, after an initial and short bounce. The economy kicked it that much further.
- ajross 18y ago
  Actually, no, the elbow in the curve is a little before the bailout crisis. It corresponds roughly with the first debate and with Palin's more or less disastrous interviews with Gibson and Couric. What seems to have happened since is a feedback reaction.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
What I'm hearing is that the economic crisis is the cause. When polled for "keywords", people vote the economy at 55% and the rest of the issues are in single digits. The economy went up as a major issue as McCain's numbers went down. In general, McCain should be at double-digits according to most of the fundamentals. I'm amazed that it is as close as it is.
- rms 18y ago
  What fundamentals are you referring to that favor McCain?
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Sorry. I meant the fundamentals indicate McCain should be way down in the weeds. Specifically: - One party president for last 8 years - Republican dealing with major economic crisis - Low approval ratings on everybody in Washington. McCain is not Change Candidate - Dems are outspending McCain by a factor of something like 3-to-1. (probably a debatable ratio, depending on how you count. No argument that Obama has his own satellite station playing campaign commercials, his own 1/2 hour special on all major channels, did not take fed money, etc)
    - robg 18y ago
      You're forgetting RNC spending which draws the money comp much closer. Also, 538 is really good at reviewing the respective ground games. Obama built a powerful organization during the primaries (he had to) and they've kept on building. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama ahead of his polls by three or four points in the final counts. On the "should be" line, let's just reflect for a minute that America, after 8 years of a ranch farmhand, is about to elect a black technocrat with a Muslim name as POTUS. There's no "should be" for that scenario. It's utterly amazing.
      - rms 18y ago
        Despite Obama's clear understanding of technology, I'm not sure a lawyer/career politician can qualify as a technocrat. Hu Jintao is a technocrat. Barack Obama just has good technology policy. But yeah, it's pretty amazing. It might be enough to restore the rest of the world's faith in America.
        robg 18y ago
        Labels aside, he had the good sense to hire a Facebook co-founder to run his on-line operation: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/technology/07hughes.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/technology/07hughes.html?_... I know I wouldn't be surprised to see Hughes running the "Google for Government" initiative. That proposal is a huge step forward in transparency and accountability that any technocrat could love. The proposed technology czar is also really cool. How about Woz as a cabinet member?
mattmaroon 18y ago
It's probably a lot of things. Some of it was that McCain (as with Obama before him) had gotten a short bump from his convention. So he was a little higher than he should be for a brief point there, as all politicians usually are after their party's convention. Palin energized the base at first during the convention, and certainly got a flood of media attention, but then she scared off moderates, especially the women she was hoped to bring in. They've overwhelmingly decided she's not fit to be President (the numbers are so big that even a very significant % of people who will vote for them think that). Then there's the economy. It's pretty easy for the Democrats to point out that the Clinton years were very good. Taxes on the wealthy were higher than they were now, we had a budget surplus and national debt was under 5 trillion. Now we have a huge budget deficit and the debt has more than doubled. In fairness, that's probably an oversimplification, as it's not all Bush's fault. But we Americans pretty much blame or credit the President, and, by extension, his Party, for everything good or bad. So Obama's same message of McCain = Bush grew in effect. Then there were the debates (2 Presidential, 1 VP), where public opinion polls all concluded that Democrats won. Plus McCain's erratic behavior in choosing Palin, suspending his campaign, and introducing a new and not very conservative or detailed plan to buy up mortgages at a debate. He's giving off one signal after another that he's the inferior candidate. So it's been more or less a symphony of destruction. Just one mistake after another on his part, combined with the economy.

For non-americans, what happened a month ago (see supertracker) that caused what looks like the start of a landslide for obama. Was it palin?

by trapper 18y ago

For non-americans, what happened a month ago (see supertracker) that caused what looks like the start of a landslide for obama. Was it palin?

rms 18y ago

It was the changing of the campaign narrative from being about all sorts of things to being solely about the economy in wake of the financial crisis. Barack Obama is widely viewed as being more sound on economic issues.

robg 18y ago
I think Palin is a big part of that dynamic, especially after the Paris Hilton line of attack. Say McCain had picked Romney, they could have been hammering away at the experience card on both foreign and economic policy. By picking Palin, McCain basically killed the experience campaign, especially when she started blathering in uncontrolled settings, and they've gyrated around ever since trying to find a compelling narrative without sufficient knowledge or experience to address the economic realities. As evidence, independents now break in a big way for Obama where they weren't prior to Palin. EDIT: Just to be clear - Palin got the ball rolling downhill, after an initial and short bounce. The economy kicked it that much further.
ajross 18y ago
Actually, no, the elbow in the curve is a little before the bailout crisis. It corresponds roughly with the first debate and with Palin's more or less disastrous interviews with Gibson and Couric. What seems to have happened since is a feedback reaction.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

What I'm hearing is that the economic crisis is the cause. When polled for "keywords", people vote the economy at 55% and the rest of the issues are in single digits. The economy went up as a major issue as McCain's numbers went down. In general, McCain should be at double-digits according to most of the fundamentals. I'm amazed that it is as close as it is.

rms 18y ago
What fundamentals are you referring to that favor McCain?
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Sorry. I meant the fundamentals indicate McCain should be way down in the weeds. Specifically: - One party president for last 8 years - Republican dealing with major economic crisis - Low approval ratings on everybody in Washington. McCain is not Change Candidate - Dems are outspending McCain by a factor of something like 3-to-1. (probably a debatable ratio, depending on how you count. No argument that Obama has his own satellite station playing campaign commercials, his own 1/2 hour special on all major channels, did not take fed money, etc)
  - robg 18y ago
    You're forgetting RNC spending which draws the money comp much closer. Also, 538 is really good at reviewing the respective ground games. Obama built a powerful organization during the primaries (he had to) and they've kept on building. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama ahead of his polls by three or four points in the final counts. On the "should be" line, let's just reflect for a minute that America, after 8 years of a ranch farmhand, is about to elect a black technocrat with a Muslim name as POTUS. There's no "should be" for that scenario. It's utterly amazing.
    - rms 18y ago
      Despite Obama's clear understanding of technology, I'm not sure a lawyer/career politician can qualify as a technocrat. Hu Jintao is a technocrat. Barack Obama just has good technology policy. But yeah, it's pretty amazing. It might be enough to restore the rest of the world's faith in America.
      - robg 18y ago
        Labels aside, he had the good sense to hire a Facebook co-founder to run his on-line operation: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/technology/07hughes.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/technology/07hughes.html?_... I know I wouldn't be surprised to see Hughes running the "Google for Government" initiative. That proposal is a huge step forward in transparency and accountability that any technocrat could love. The proposed technology czar is also really cool. How about Woz as a cabinet member?

mattmaroon 18y ago

It's probably a lot of things. Some of it was that McCain (as with Obama before him) had gotten a short bump from his convention. So he was a little higher than he should be for a brief point there, as all politicians usually are after their party's convention. Palin energized the base at first during the convention, and certainly got a flood of media attention, but then she scared off moderates, especially the women she was hoped to bring in. They've overwhelmingly decided she's not fit to be President (the numbers are so big that even a very significant % of people who will vote for them think that). Then there's the economy. It's pretty easy for the Democrats to point out that the Clinton years were very good. Taxes on the wealthy were higher than they were now, we had a budget surplus and national debt was under 5 trillion. Now we have a huge budget deficit and the debt has more than doubled. In fairness, that's probably an oversimplification, as it's not all Bush's fault. But we Americans pretty much blame or credit the President, and, by extension, his Party, for everything good or bad. So Obama's same message of McCain = Bush grew in effect. Then there were the debates (2 Presidential, 1 VP), where public opinion polls all concluded that Democrats won. Plus McCain's erratic behavior in choosing Palin, suspending his campaign, and introducing a new and not very conservative or detailed plan to buy up mortgages at a debate. He's giving off one signal after another that he's the inferior candidate. So it's been more or less a symphony of destruction. Just one mistake after another on his part, combined with the economy.