How does a bailout deal play presidentially?

For the sake of this discussion let us assume both that the newest claims of an imminent deal are accurate and that both Obama and McCain go on record supporting it with their duly noted regret that it was needed, etc.

Is either of the candidates helped or hurt by the prospect given the events of this last week?

Will any of McCain’s more hard-line small government, less regulation core (including but not limited to the Ron Paul lovers) vote for Barr just to send a message, especially if they begin to feel that McCain is going to lose anyway?

It looks to hurt the Republicans more. Rightly or wrongly the public blames the Reps more than the Dems. Even if Obama and McCain line up behind it I think the perception is that the Dems are just having to fix the Reps mess. (Before anyone jumps on me about assigning fault when there is plenty to go around I am merely pointing out what seems to the be the beliefs of the American public and am making no comment here on assigning actual fault).

Also to throw a different hypothetical into the mix - McCain is going to get more and more desperate to come up with a gamechanger. The gutsy gambler he is going to frantically look for another chance to play double or nothing on his support deficit. Could he go for totally trash talking the deal as a way of trying to capitalize on the discomfort with the concept felt by both his base and by much of the rest of the electorate as well? I know it wouldn’t make much sense for him to so after he has said so clearly how much it needs to be done, but he’s done lots of other wildly inconsistent moves already …

I think that Obama is helped simply by the discussion focusing on the economy. It doesn’t matter exactly what is said, just that “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Republicans like to gloat that when it comes to the military Dems are seen as weak. But the flip side to that is when it comes to the economy Reps are seen as weak.

The specifics of the bailout also don’t help the Republicans, as it may cause some dissatisfaction with the lingering small-gov’t voters. I read a quote that said that the Republicans in the house were resisting lining up with McCain from a distrust of him and this policy, hinting that they would rather he sunk by himself rather than buoying himself on their “brand.”

Well, as I said in another thread, many conservative blogs and commenters (Michelle Malkin, for example) don’t believe in the dire warnings of what could happen if the bailout passes. They’re willing to take the chance of Depression rather than “let socialism get a foothold in America.” IOW, a lot of the fear that’s being spread by themedia and Wall Street simply does not seem to have gained ground in many of them.

If McCain supports this thing, he could be running a risk if that really is the majority opinion.

Predictable of any second-placer, but true. He can perhaps best do that by out-populisting Obama, playing up the unfair-looking aspects of the deal and hanging them on the big-government, big-spending Lib’rul Democrat Party and their Most Lib’rul Of All Members they nominated, while he alone fights for the Working People. He can demagogue this thing to death if he can avoid taking responsibility for it.

I wonder, given my last post: WHY don’t many conservatives (at least off the Hill) seem to disbelieve the dire consequences? I mean, if they thought things really are as fragile and doom-worthy as we’re hearing, they’d at least hesitate before saying “no bailout in no form EVER” as they are now. Is it an extreme belief in or concern for the free market? How mainstream is such a view? (Given the poll I mention in my other thread apparently showing a majority lack of concern for their economic well-being, they might very well reflect America here.)

I don’t know if this is off-topic, but I think it could very well affect how they act on their beliefs in the ballot box and how widespread the reaction is.

I’d say it helps Obama modestly for the reason that’s already been given: people blaming the Republicans for the conditions that made the bailout necessary or possible. But neither candidate is going to voice any enthusiasm about this and the public seems unhappy about it, too, so it’s more of a question of who gets stuck with it, even though both are decrying the conditions. I think that’s McCain.

Something occurred to me: Republicans have spent the past few months painting Obama as an ineffectual newbie with no real power or experience. That’ll make it a lot harder for them to stick him with responsibility for the bill, especially since McCain left for DC first.

Of course, it’s still possible, given that the Democrats are the majority party, but it’s still harder.

It’s not going to work that way. The strongest Congressional opposition to this deal has come from Republicans. And this is more of a Congress vs. White House conflict, not Democrats vs. Republicans.

Wow. The previously mentioned blog commenters are now talking about revolution and secession. (Of course, they also put 100% of the blame for the whole mess on Democrats and the MSM for the “cover-up.”) Not that I think it’ll actually happen, but it does demonstrate the depth of feeling I mentioned before - leaving me more confused than ever, especially considering how well it seems to jibe with that poll I linked to.

It certainly points to some sort of poll box churning, at least to me - if not on the Presidential level (specified by the OP), at the very least at the Congressional level.

Could you post there about whether or not its enough to get them to vote for Barr? (I know, hardly scientific polling, but still, I’m curious.)

McCain is having trouble getting the congressional republicans on board.

Which is another way of saying: “So, John, How’s that maverick thing workin’ out for ya?”

McCain now wants Bush to spend 1 trillion without Congressional approval.

(found via this post:)

Does the executive even have that ability?

Has Mac finally lost his mind?