2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[mr_genius]

wasn't that great or that bad. about on par with Obama's speech, which was his typical preacher sermon that got old months ago.

Edited June 4, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

I only watched the first 5 minutes, it didn't seem too bad to me.

[Nokona]

Essentially this was McCain's speech

 

Scan the room from teleprompter to teleprompter, pause for applause/laugh, wait for audience, audience applauses/laughs, awkward smile/sneer, stumble over words, scan the room from teleprompter to teleprompter.

[southsider2k5]

Thus begins the slurp-a-thon that would make the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox jealous...

[southsider2k5]

Obama can motivate me to go fight for my country in Afghanistan. McCain couldn't motivate me to move my car because I am blocking him in at a dinner party.

 

I want a president who can motivate.

 

Barack Obama couldn't motivate me to change my car insurance.

[BigSqwert]

I only watched the first 5 minutes, it didn't seem too bad to me.

The first 5 minutes were OK. You have to get into the heart of the speech where it becomes cringe-worthy with forced lines and stumbling over words.

[NorthSideSox72]

well, I for one am a believer in the fact that this election is already over, and that Obama already has the presidency locked up (unless very incriminating video comes out).

 

So, congrats Dems.

I disagree. I think its going to be a close call, and if anything, I think its leaning a bit towards McCain at the moment. Lots of time between now and November though, so we'll see.

 

[BigSqwert]

I disagree. I think its going to be a close call, and if anything, I think its leaning a bit towards McCain at the moment. Lots of time between now and November though, so we'll see.

What are you basing that on?

[NorthSideSox72]

What are you basing that on?

A quick look at the states that I believe are "in play", which ones aren't, and using one of those websites that allows you to come up with an electoral count by clicking states on the map. Its purely my opinions of course - the polls to date aren't necessarily helpful, until later. Just my current guesswork.

 

By the way, the states I consider "in play" (not definite for one party or the other) for campaigning purposes this year: NV, WA, OR, MT, ID, CO, NM, KS, NE, MN, IA, MO, MS, FL, VA, OH, MI, PA, NH, NJ. That's a lot of states that are contestable, IMO. And by the way, that list may change, depending on VP picks. If, for example, Obama picks Edwards, then NC comes into play. If he picks Richardson, then I think NM goes solid blue.

 

[lostfan]

What are you basing that on?

Electoral votes. Obama's trying to reshape the electoral map, as it stands now, the "conventional" swing states are leaning Republican. I think FL is a lost cause, he will probably get PA back, and Ohio is leaning McCain but will probably go back his way. But I think Obama's going to make a run at MO, CO, NV, NM, VA, and maybe even GA. All of those are leaning McCain right now.

[Reddy]

yeah we're gonna have another very close election... something i'm not too thrilled about.

[longshot7]

A quick look at the states that I believe are "in play", which ones aren't, and using one of those websites that allows you to come up with an electoral count by clicking states on the map. Its purely my opinions of course - the polls to date aren't necessarily helpful, until later. Just my current guesswork.

 

By the way, the states I consider "in play" (not definite for one party or the other) for campaigning purposes this year: NV, WA, OR, MT, ID, CO, NM, KS, NE, MN, IA, MO, MS, FL, VA, OH, MI, PA, NH, NJ. That's a lot of states that are contestable, IMO. And by the way, that list may change, depending on VP picks. If, for example, Obama picks Edwards, then NC comes into play. If he picks Richardson, then I think NM goes solid blue.

 

I agree with all those except for OR. There's no way that goes red.

 

NJ seems like a stretch too.

[Balta1701]

On the Obama/Clinton VP slot, as some have thought, Bill Clinton might be the dealbreaker, because the Clintons would be required by the Obama campaign to open up and disclose everything. Where all their income came from, their full tax returns, the full donor roster of all Clinton's charity work and the Clinton Library, etc.

But close advisers to Sen. Obama signaled an Obama-Clinton ticket was highly unlikely. People in both camps cited what several called "a deal-breaker" -- Bill Clinton may balk at releasing records of his business dealings and big donors to his presidential library.

[HuskyCaucasian]

On the Obama/Clinton VP slot, as some have thought, Bill Clinton might be the dealbreaker, because the Clintons would be required by the Obama campaign to open up and disclose everything. Where all their income came from, their full tax returns, the full donor roster of all Clinton's charity work and the Clinton Library, etc.

That is a REALLY smart angle by the Obama camp. Obama doesn't want her to be VP and they know the Clintons wont be open with the donors because there are some not so pleasant connections there... so, therefor, make that a condition.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

The Broader General Election: Obama to contest McCain in hardcore red states.

Axelrod makes the strategy explicit:

I thin

k

that we are going to have a larger battlefield in 2008. ... I thin

k

we are going to

s

tretch the Republican

s

, I don't thin

k

they can ta

k

e for granted nearly a

s

many

s

tate

s

a

s

they have in the pa

s

t. And I thin

k

we are going to add

s

everal to the Democratic column thi

s

year, and

s

o our coalition i

s

going to be broader.

This is feasible only because Obama has the money, but since he can afford it, it makes sense for several reasons. It sends a good message, of course, and perhaps he can pull an upset in some of these states on the margins.

 

But the widened battlefield may also force McCain to spend scarce resources defending turf he could otherwise take for granted. Obama can, for instance, run a real campaign in places like Texas and Arizona — states that an occasional poll suggests he could win but where few observers give him much of a shot. Then McCain has to decide whether to simply ignore it, and risk an upset; or to spend money on television and organization keeping up, money that then can't be spent in Ohio.

 

A smart colleague pointed out to me yesterday that Obama will try to do to McCain what he did to Clinton in Pennsylvania: Even as he lost the state, he ruined her by forcing her to keep up with his massive spending.

 

Think of this as Star Wars and the Reagan defense buildup: As the story goes, the military applications turned out to be secondary to the sheer, crushing expense, with which the Soviet Union couldn't keep up.

[Balta1701]

The Broader General Election: Obama to contest McCain in hardcore red states.

The problem with that strategy though is that it can easily backfire. George W. Bush, on Rove's advice, spent the last couple days of the 2000 campaign in California, trying to give the impression that they were so confident they'd win that they could contest there. Had his brother not been the governor of Florida, spending his time there instead of doing one or two more stops in Florida might well have cost him the election. It's a difficult balancing act.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The problem with that strategy though is that it can easily backfire. George W. Bush, on Rove's advice, spent the last couple days of the 2000 campaign in California, trying to give the impression that they were so confident they'd win that they could contest there. Had his brother not been colluding to steal the election in the governor of Florida, spending his time there instead of doing one or two more stops in Florida might well have cost him the election. It's a difficult balancing act.

 

Edited for accuracy.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

The problem with that strategy though is that it can easily backfire. George W. Bush, on Rove's advice, spent the last couple days of the 2000 campaign in California, trying to give the impression that they were so confident they'd win that they could contest there. Had his brother not been the governor of Florida, spending his time there instead of doing one or two more stops in Florida might well have cost him the election. It's a difficult balancing act.

I dunno. Obama SCHOOLED Hillary Clinton on how to run a primary. If he surrounds himself with the right people for the general, he might be hard to beat.

[Texsox]

5 months before the election and I am already tired of the whole thing. Can I just vote now and get it over?

[Rex Kickass]

The problem with that strategy though is that it can easily backfire. George W. Bush, on Rove's advice, spent the last couple days of the 2000 campaign in California, trying to give the impression that they were so confident they'd win that they could contest there. Had his brother not been the governor of Florida, spending his time there instead of doing one or two more stops in Florida might well have cost him the election. It's a difficult balancing act.

 

Contesting states doesn't mean appearances necessarily. It does mean staffing offices, operating an active GOTV program everywhere, forcing McCain to spend money on TV and Radio ads. This is actually good for the Democrats on more levels than just the Presidency.

 

McCain + RNC has a bigger edge than Obama does. But the RNC's funds will also be needed to help marginal seats in the House and Senate, because the national coordinated campaigns for House and Senate are broke. On the other hand, the DNC has less money by far than the RNC, but Obama has a great fundraising apparatus and the DCCC and the DSCC are flush with cash, letting the DNC focus both on party building and helping to staff the state offices that Obama needs to have to force McCain to spend more money in safe states.

 

This frees up less funds for difficult seats for the GOP to hold in November and could turn a 5 senate seat pickup into a 6 or 7 seat pickup.

[NorthSideSox72]

CNN has posted a fun map, showing (in their opinions) what states are safely to one candidate, leaning to one, or a toss up.

 

Here is the map.

 

I personally have to disagree with some of these. My disagreements:

 

ID, KS, NE, TN, AK: I'd call these leaning McCain, not safely McCain

WV, AR, LA: I'd call these safely McCain, unless Clinton runs with Obama (then AR is maybe in play)

VA: This should be leaning McCain, not toss-up

 

Anyone else have opinions?

 

This all changes of course based on VP choices, debate performance, and other factors that will come up as time goes on. I'm just saying, where they are at right now.

 

[mr_genius]

Anyone else have opinions?

 

As it stands now, Florida isn't a toss up. Solid McCain IMO.

[FlaSoxxJim]

As it stands now, Florida isn't a toss up. Solid McCain IMO.

 

Leaning McCain, at least, maybe not solid.

 

Depends on whether the various Rovian caging schemes and other minority voter disenfranchisement strategies are successfully pulled off, I'd wager.

 

I almost thought about putting that in green.

[mr_genius]

Depends on whether the various Rovian caging schemes and other minority voter disenfranchisement strategies are successfully pulled off, I'd wager.

 

 

uh oh

 

here we go again.

[FlaSoxxJim]

 

uh oh

 

here we go again.

 

 

Yeah, it's really waaay to peaceful around here.