In this article, entitled, “How to win a presidential debate,”Paul Waldman repeats a bit of standard wisdom, which I've long since accepted:
there are a few things a candidate and a campaign must do if they hope to win these debates. The first is to understand that the goal is not so much to win the debate but to convince the press that you won the debate. The first step to doing that is to shape their definition of "winning." In the next week and a half, we'll see an absurd amount of discussion about "expectations," as though an election were a round of golf in which everyone is judged according to his or her handicap.
Waldman acknowledges that managing expectations is not the whole game; among other things, the occurrence of a "single, crystallizing moment" is key in determining a debate's significance.
In any event, here's my question: is it possible that this year the expectations game and opinions of the pundits may – at long last – not turn out to be the most important factor in resolving who "wins" the debates?
More under the fold:
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 157 words in story)
digg it
Just a quick diary/comment here for those who are frustrated who think that the Obama campaign is not being direct and aggressive enough in calling McCain and his cohorts liars.
Don’t forget what happened to Bob Dole.
My memory fades, so I’m relying on Wikipedia here. The basic story is that in 1988, Dole was interviewed by Tom Brokaw, not realizing that Bush was in the studio at the same time. Brokaw asked Bush if he had anything to say to Dole. Bush responded “No, just wish him well and meet again in the south.” Dole, apparently not expecting to see Bush, when asked the same question about the Vice President said “Yeah, stop lying about my record.”
According to both my memory and Wikipedia, this remark “prompted some members of the media to perceive him as angry about the loss. That slowed his momentum and he was not able to recover. Bush defeated him again in South Carolina and went on to the nomination and ultimately, the Presidency.”
More analysis beneath the fold.
There’s More…
:: (2
Comments, 214 words in story)
digg it
Hello. Despite my screen name, I am best known as John Q. Bounce Voter. Some people think I’m Mr. Swing Voter, but I’m not so sure that’s appropriate. In any event, fact, I’m having a bit of an identity crisis, and wonder if you guys can help.
You see, before the conventions, I was not paying too much attention to this election. I knew that McCain was a genuine war hero and that Obama was a black guy who could speak well: for those were the two things everyone seemed to agree upon. But that aside, I was mostly a blank slate. My guess was that McCain was kind of mavericky and I was a bit worried that Obama was not a true American. On the other hand, McCain sure looked old. That was about the extent of my information, though.
Join me below the fold if you’re curious how the conventions changed my views.
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 836 words in story)
digg it
I need to vent. After the speech, I heard pundit after pundit absolutely rave about how good the speech was, including the historians on PBS. The only ones who seemed to dissent were Jeffrey Toobin, Rachel Maddow and Michael Gerson.
What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on here? Did they get caught up in the mood of the convention hall? Or is it as simple as they are all part of a conspiracy to make this race closer than it really is?
If you like to hear venting, join me under the fold.
There’s More…
:: (1
Comments, 197 words in story)
digg it
On his front page of his blog now, Al Giordano has a post entitled, “don’t blow it, netroot bloggers.”
Read here: http://narcosphere.narconews.c…
He worries that the netroot blogging community – and I think he means those who run blogs, write on blogs and contribute to them – are in danger of giving Palin and the GOP a valuable way of striking back.
More below the fold.
There’s More…
:: (7
Comments, 232 words in story)
digg it
First Read has just confirmed that Bristol Palin, the 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant. The confirmation was made “to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.”
Before anyone takes some guilty pleasure in poor Bristol’s sad predicament – and uses it as an easy opportunity to reflect further on the hypocrisy of the right-wing – let me just caution everyone about what may be coming.
More below the fold.
There’s More…
:: (4
Comments, 158 words in story)
digg it
One line of attack – or at least inquiry – I’d personally like to see pursued more seriously concern’s McCain’s so-called political philosophy.
A recent interview with Time Magazine – http://www.time.com/time/polit… provides the context. Time quoted him as saying, “I follow the philosophy and traditions of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.” This claim is one I have heard frequently from McCain (not to mention other Republicans). Presumably, McCain cites Roosevelt and Lincoln in order to demonstrate that he is independent and moderate.
But such a comparison is, quite frankly, inane. Any casual observer of politics should know that Roosevelt and Lincoln have virtually nothing in common with today’s GOP. Moreover, one would be hard-pressed to come up with a coherent philosophy connecting all three former presidents.
So why not challenge McCain to explain and amplify what exactly he means when he says he embraces the philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln and Reagan? This is not merely an academic debate; for McCain makes this type of comparison often, plainly because he thinks it shows him in a positive light. If pressed for an explanation, though, I think McCain would be exposed as a shallow thinker, an unprincipled politician and someone beholden to the right-wing of his party.
Simply put, McCain should not be allowed to posture as a moderate or independent by the facile maneuver of invoking Lincoln and Roosevelt.
After reading this site regularly, it finally occurs to me that my definition of “progressive” may well be different from many, or most people, who post and comment here. Rather than debate the definition of “progressive,” though, I thought I’d simply ask the following:
Can you name me 3-5 Senators or Congressman who you consider to be prototypically “progressive,” “centrist” and “conservative”?
And for bonus points, after doing that, could you tell me where you currently think Obama really belongs on the spectrum? I would guess that he should be placed pretty squarely in the “left-center” continuum, but again, that could be because I have a different preconception about who else should be considered “progressive” or “centrist.”
I have a modest proposal how pressure on Obama could be constructively redirected: apply it to influence him to choose a running mate from a slate of progressive individuals.
My reasoning is simple.
First, I think it’s apparent that, once Obama has made a public decision (such as supporting the FISA bill), it is extremely difficult to persuade him to change his position; for no candidate wants to be seen as changing his mind as a direct response to pressure, thereby exposing himself to charges of vacillation and weakness.
Second, there has been a growing apprehension, if not outright suspicion, of Obama on the part of progressives, due to a series of comments he has made since the primaries ended, which at least arguably indicate a move rightward.
Third, the single most effective way Obama could reassure those on the left that he shares progressive values is by choosing a progressive running mate.
Fourth, because pressure to pick a progressive would precede the actual selection of a running mate, Obama should be less concerned about the appearance of caving into pressure than he would be when the pressure is to make him change his mind about (or to adopt) any specific policy decision.
Fifth, it is better to present a slate of possible candidates because there is a greater chance of a consensus among activities and a greater chance someone from the list would be chosen.
Thus, I would urge a petition consisting of two parts: (1) a sentence or paragraph setting forth the need for a true, progressive to be named as Obama’s running-mate; and (2) a list of perhaps 5-10 specific people who would meet that standard.
Perhaps I’m being totally unrealistic, but I think that if everyone who joined the group(s) trying to pressure Obama on FISA created a similar group behind this idea, it may be possible to have an actual influence on what Obama himself has called his most important decision over the next few months.
The reaction to Obama’s speech before AIPAC leaves me a little concerned about whether is, or can be, a consensus about a “progressive foreign policy.” I would like to provoke more discussion about this here.
Off the top of my head, this is what it means to me when I think of a “progressive foreign policy”
(1) Emphasizing diplomatic, rather than military solutions.
(2) Pursuing international cooperation and multinational agreements.
(3) Offering humanitarian assistance to often-neglected areas and groups, such as some in Africa.
(4) Reconsidering certain entrenched dogma, such as the isolation of Cuba.
(5) Modifying the amount and method of military expenditures. At a minimum, this means changing the appropriations method so that big ticket-items do not get preference automatically.
What have I left out? What else do you think most “progressives” would agree about when it comes to foreign policy?
I would like more discussion about what kind of “leverage” Hillary really has right now, and is likely to have in the future. It seems to me that people have been using the term “leverage” in a number of different ways, and none have much support.
First, Hillary is said to have leverage because of the sheer number of delegates she controls. But aside from influencing the platform, how does this kind of control really matter? And since Barack is likely to agree upon virtually anything in the platform, how would this type of leverage translate into anything important?
Second, I believe some use Hillary’s “leverage” to refer to her sway over her loyal constituency. The implication is that she has the ability to control certain voting blocs. But how realistic is such control? Could she really have a significant effect on how, for example, older women vote? Frankly, my view is that her actual control in this regard is close to negligible. Or to put it differently, I believe that exterior events, and the fundamental choice between Obama and McCain, will vastly outweigh anything that Clinton might do.
Third, some have noted that Obama seeks access to Clinton’s fundraisers. But while she surely can facilitate meetings, does it make sense to believe that the fundraisers would not make themselves available to Obama eventually, even if Clinton objects?
In my opinion, the discussions about leverage often assume that there is some realistic threat of Clinton using whatever influence she has in a way that would affirmatively threaten the party. Thus, without promises of a prominent position in the new administration, she would signal to her supporters that there is friction between her and Obama, and she would thereby implicitly discourage them from voting.
On reflection, though, that kind of scenario seems fanciful. For Clinton knows that any promises Obama made to her now would be unenforceable and worth little. When they meet in the coming days, he can tell her that she’s under serious consideration for the VP, or even guarantee her the spot. Then, she would presumably proceed to campaign vigorously for him for the next six weeks. At that point, though, nothing would stop him from changing his mind. And she will be in no position to reverse course and start acting like she no longer supports him.
So, my basic question remains: what genuine “leverage” does Hillary really have?
In an earlier diary, I haltingly suggested that Feingold would be a good POLITICAL choice. The more I think about it, the more sense this makes to me. I expand my comments here because I’d really like to see the counter-argument.
Most seem to assume – as I did at first – that Feingold could not be chosen simply because, well, his reputation is too far-left. But how much does this really matter in terms of getting elected?
Virtually anyone Obama (realistically) picks is going to be subject to the usual smears: i.e., “tax and spend,” “out of touch,” “far-left,” “the most liberal person in the …..” But are these simplistic labels really going to resound this year?
Personally, I doubt it, for a few reasons. First, this is an anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-insider type of year. To put it differently, the so-called liberal or progressive positions on the major issues truly seem to have mass popularity for a change.
Second, I submit that Obama would have a field day counter-punching in this context (and the guy is an amazing counter-puncher). If the GOP exclaims, “hah, this selection proves that Obama is a flaming libera,” then Obama can easily respond that such attacks are more of the same, old Washington game. Thus, the GOP attack will enable Obama to underscore his core message of change.
Moreover, a Feingold choice would be perceived by the media as bold, which in turn would help him attain an image of strength and confidence. (In stark contrast, a choice of Clinton would run the danger of showing weakness and capitulation.)
Of course, the Feingold choice would also be reinforcing when it comes to actual policy choices; indeed, unlike almost all of the other possibilities, these two would have no trouble reconciling all of their policy positions.
So, please tell me, what is the POLITICAL case against Feingold, other than the general assumption that he will be subject to simplistic smears?
Elsewhere, I’ve suggested it may be more productive to consider the likely “narratives” that would result from particular VP choices, rather than focus on polls. While this process is naturally more speculative, I think we can make a few worthwhile observations.
At the outset, I believe it is important to stress that Obama may be uniquely capable of framing any narrative, due to: (1) his relative lack of a track record; and (2) his eloquence. With that caveat, consider some likely story-lines about three possible selections: Edwards, Webb and Feingold. (I select these names somewhat arbitrarily, just for the purpose of stimulating discussion).
The Webb narrative In the case of Webb, I believe the narrative may be changeable, insofar as he too – like Obama – is still somewhat of an unknown quantity to much of the country.
To the extent that Webb is known for anything right now, I’m guessing it is that: (1) he has military experience; (2) he is a former Republican; (3) he is from a potential swing state, Virginia. Thus, the media may be quick to spin this choice as reflecting Obama’s concern that: (1) he lacks military experience; and (2) he wants to carry Virginia.
Those who are more politically active may also be attuned to Webb’s alleged record of “sexist” comments. And for that reason, the media may be eager to spin his selection as showing a disregard for Clinton and her core constituents. In other words, a Webb selection could provide fodder for those with an interest in continuing the story-line that the Democratic party is hopelessly divided.
On the other hand, Webb’s history as a Republican will naturally mesh with Obama’s “post-partisan” image (for better or worse).
Further, as I said earlier, I believe the Webb narrative could be changeable. Although I’ve heard different things about his record on abortion, my understanding is that NARAL now rates him very highly, which is likely to reassure some Clinton supporters.
Additionally, though Webb’s military background could highlight Obama’s lack of military experience, I do not think this is a likely problem; for Webb (in my own, subjective estimation) has proven quite articulate and adept at framing issues. Considering Webb’s early opposition to the Iraq war, there’s no reason why his military background can’t be used to further Obama’s claim to superior judgment (as opposed to overshadowing Obama’s inexperience).
Moreover, Webb’s personal story is interesting and sufficiently unusual that the military background may not dominate.
The Edwards narrative
Because Edwards is so much better known, I do not think there is as much potential to frame the narrative. But the good news is that the natural narratives are pretty good.
What are some common impressions of Edwards? My guess is that the general public thinks of Edwards in the following, alternative (or even conflicting) ways: (1) he is a wealthy trial lawyer; (2) he cares about the poor; (3) he favors universal health insurance; (4) he voted for the war, but is now vociferously opposed; (5) he already lost an election as the VP nominee.
In light of these impressions, I would anticipate the following early story-lines about choosing Edwards. First, I imagine that the media will be especially eager here to note that Hillary was passed over (more so than if Obama chooses anyone else). Again, this angle will feed into those who want to paint the party as divided. The next natural story will be to question how the two of them can reconcile Edwards’ former criticism of Obama’s health plan.
But the pushback could help Obama look strong. He will emphasize that he is not concerned with former criticism, but more concerned with picking the best and most capable people. In this regard, Edwards can reasonably be portrayed as someone with important experience, both inside and outside of government.
Further, Edwards’ message really was not very different from Obama’s during the campaign; so there should be fairly few policy differences to reconcile.
To some extent, an Edwards selection may be viewed by some as a look backwards, but I don’t think that is a significant drawback. For Edwards has, at this point in his career, earned the right to be called a reformer.
And for what’s worth, I also expect that an Edwards selection would reassure many party insiders, who care about demographic and regional balance, and who want the VP nominee to be a figher.
The Feingold narrative
While a Feingold nomination may be fanciful, I think there are some very compelling likely narratives in his favor.
To most of the public who has any idea who Feingold is – and to most of the media – Feingold, I assume, has the following associations: (1) he is VERY liberal; (2) he is from Wisconsin; (3) he co-sponsored reform-oriented legislation.
Naturally, this selection would be subject to an immediate barrage of GOP criticism – echoed by so-called moderate pundits – that Obama has endorsed the far-left wing of the party. But if the GOP went down this inevitable route, I think it would just amount to being suckered into taking the bait.
Faced with the criticism that Obama has proven he’s out of touch and another Commie-liberal, Obama will calmly and cogently belittle the GOP as resorting once again to the old, smear tactics that have resulted in gridlock and ineffective government. In other words, I think that Obama’s counter-punching ability in this context will be much more effective than the GOP attack.
Further, over time, I anticipate that the media will characterize the selection as a bold one, demonstrating Obama’s strength and confidence.
Additionally, I’m guessing that a Feingold selection would be among the most palatable to those who believe that an offer should be made to Clinton, since his pro-choice credentials are impeccable.
While this type of analysis is obviously speculative and subjective, I think it is the next necessary step, after the polls are digested. And because it is so subjective, I would be very interested in hearing comments and criticisms.
The proposal by McCain and essentially echoed by Clinton for a summer holiday from the gas-tax has already been soundly belittled by pundits. Among others, Thomas Friedman wrote today:
“It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away.” He adds, “This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.”
Still, many seem to assume that, even though the so-called liberal elites recognize that the proposal is blatant pandering, that is not how the working-class, blue-collar types will react. And I wonder whether this assumption is accurate.
If the proposal is so obviously ridiculous – and will clearly have only a tiny benefit for the average voter (estimates are that the average driver may save $25-50 in total) – then why should Mr. and Mrs. Blue Collar Voter not recognize the absurdity of the proposal? It seems to me that the pundits and politicians may well be underestimating the voters here, and even displaying their own brand of out-of-touch elitism.
To put it differently, isn’t it a form of elitism to assume that voters are too ignorant and blind to recognize blatant pandering? Or am I the one who is giving too much credit to the average voter?
Until tonight (the night of the Pennsylvania primary), I’ve always assumed there was a negligible chance that Obama would select Clinton as the vice-president.
But it’s slowly occurring to me that such a choice could actually play into a natural narrative for him: i.e., that he is a genuine uniter, willing to work with anyone.
With proper fanfare – and a proper amount of “framing” – I think it is possible to pitch Hillary as VP in this manner. To pull it off, they will both have to appear sincerely reconciled, and be willing to go to incredible lengths to show such sincerity. But I think they could pull this off.
Ideally, this arrangement would not have to be thrust upon us. But if the party really does appear fractured, then maybe the most important factor will be unity, above and beyond other, more typical considerations.
I’ve often wondered why Clinton seems to do better with the very latest deciders. In other words, though Obama usually erases huge leads, he seems to give up some of the lead in the final days.
Today, First Read suggests that the late deciders just happen to fit within Hillary’s demographics, for some reason or another:
“Looking inside the poll’s demographics, the highest undecided totals are in the more rural parts of the state — and that’s not good news for Obama. In the so-called “T” region of the state (almost everything between Philly and Pittsburgh), Clinton leads 51%-37% with 11% undecided; this is one of the few demographic groups sporting double-digit undecided. Two other interesting crosstabs with high undecideds also signal the potential that the undecided vote will break for Clinton. Among bowlers (24% of the electorate) and gun owners (38% of the electorate), Clinton leads big among these cultural conservatives: She’s up 54%-33% among bowlers and 53%-28% among gun owners. So while the poll shows Clinton with a narrow — and arguably narrowing — lead, the clues inside the numbers indicate this is her race to lose and that her lead could expand.”
Increasingly, I hear people observe that, barring some catastrophic meltdown from Obama, he is destined to be the candidate. At the same time, they lament how the protracted campaign – particularly in view of Clinton’s need and evident desire to damage Obama – poses a serious risk to the Democratic party’s chances in the general election.
This sentiment raises the following question for me: assuming that one agrees that the sooner Clinton drops out the better for the party – an assumption I realize is debatable – would there be any point to an online movement to encourage her to do so? Would a simple petition help?
If nothing else, might this kind of activity garner some press and help color the mood of the superdelegates? Or does such a movement already exist?
And let me be a bit more specific. I happen to live in New York, and I want Hillary Clinton to remain my Senator for years. Would it be effective to create a petition signed by New York Democrats, expressing the view that we admire and respect Hillary Clinton, want her to remain our Senator for years, but also urge her to suspend her campaign immediately (or perhaps after Pennsylvania) for the greater good of the party?
Finally, is any such online petition just a total waste of time, not even worthy of media attention?
According to the paper, Obama’s positions are somewhat more progressive than Clinton’s positions in this respect.
For example, Clinton supports mandatory minimum sentences (for some crimes), the death penalty (even lobbying to expand its application), and “three-strikes you’re out” laws. Obama is opposed to mandatory minimums and has not directly addressed the “three strikes” laws, but is generally opposed to harsh mandatory sentences. Obama, however, does support the death penalty for “heinous crimes.”
Further, Clinton opposes a retroactive change in the United States Sentencing Guidelines that would decrease the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine, while Obama favors such a change.
For those interested in these issues, the Sentencing Project is worth checking out.
Last week, there was a thread arguing that Obama should take a more progressive stance generally because that would be a good political strategy. One relatively young reader then posted that he was already disillusioned with Obama for not being more bold. In reply, I wrote that, having come of age in the 70s and 80s when times were quite bleak for Democrats, I was willing to cut Obama more slack and forgive him for pandering to the middle occasionally. We agreed that our different perspective might be related to our age.
Then, another reader said that, if I thought I was more cynical from growing up in the 70s, it was nothing compared to how disillusioned his generation was, having grown up during the Vietnam war, a war escalated largely by Democrats at the cost of social advancement.
I mentioned this story to my father, who said he was still upset about how badly Adlai Stevenson fared.
All of this makes me wonder about a few things:
(1) Which living generation of Democrats do tends to be the most cynical? Which generation tends to be the most idealistic?
(2) How far back can we trace these cycles of disillusionment in the Democratic party? As far back as FDR?
(3) Do Democrats tend to be more bitter and cynical than Republicans?
