Missteps of close associates aren’t helping him at all.
Gramm’s only the most recent.
He may flip before he flops.
Meanwhile Newsweek is back down from their 15 Obama lead to a mere 3 (44 to 41) while Gallup has his lead growing to 6! Remember that when Newsweek released Obama up by 15 Gallup was calling it tied? Polling does not seem to be an exact science. Still the 3 to 6 seems to the consistent mean of the polls and that is far far from forked. Kerry was up by 3 per Newsweek at this point too.
Not necessarily. As Gallup has said before (and I confirmed via a question in GQ), a consistent difference over a period of time is very significant indeed, and may even effectively nullify the MOE.
But he had the same weak support that McCain has now. Obama’s support strength is closer to Bush’s at that time.
It’s probably been brought up, but McCain had a week that should have ended his presidential run.
Wow. It reads like an idictment.
It really does. I can’t imagine being a happy and upbeat Republican when it comes to how I feel about my candidate.
The Republicans made the mistake this election cycle, that the Democrats made in the last Presidential cycle.
They decided too early and on “their man.” He wasn’t vetted well. People were voting brand over substance. I’m not sure the Republicans had a more viable candidate. Even so… a longer battle might have helped.
I think Republicans are discontent, discouraged, and looking for someone with a real platform. It will take a while for that to happen.
Well, they also ran into (what I keep hearing is) the second coming of JFK.
Do the Republicans have a rising star in their folds?
You are revising history. One year ago, McCain was being written off. As late as January, people were predicting a possible brokered Republican convention. Also here an here. On the other hand, Hillary was supposed to cruise into the Democratic nomination. Cut to a month or so ago, and Democrats were in arms because their candidate hadn’t been decided yet! And now, your line is that the Republicans decided too early? And McCain hasn’t been vetted?
That’s a very good point. I think his point might have been that the current climate determines what’s “too early” or “too late”.
Where are the choruses about how Gramm wasn’t actually a formal campaign official, and anyway McCain dumped him as soon as he said it?
Sorry, I was out late last night.
::clears throat::
Gramm wasn’t actually a formal campaign official, and anyway McCain dumped him as soon as it seemed like people didn’t like what he said. So this is just as big or small a deal as when a similar thing happened to anyone who is a politician.
To me, Gramm’s comments are indicative of what Gramm thinks, and not what McCain thinks, because we all know that McCain really has no thoughts on the economy beyond saying things like “Phil Gramm trusts me on the economy, so you should too”.
Yes. A very stupid, partisan indictment. Anyone who think that that list of minor issues and non-issues is a candidacy killer has been drinking too much kool-aid.
Let’s go down the list:
**
- McCain unambiguously called Social Security “an absolute disgrace.”**
And it is - in the sense that it’s not properly funded, that money that is supposed to go into it is spent on general funding, and that it’s completely unbalanced in the sense that current retirees will get back many times their investment, while young people would get far more if they invested the same money privately. McCain’s been talking about this for more than a decade, and people generally like what he’s saying. Al Gore said the same thing. Remember the ‘lock box’?
2. McCain’s top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of “whiners” for being worried about the slumping economy.
Poor wording, for sure. But he’s right in the sense that the amount of bitching and whining about the economy is way out of whack compared against the absolute performance of the economy, which has actually been pretty good for the last six years, and isn’t even in recession right now. The middle class saw a huge increase in their net weath due to the real estate run-up (prices are still way above where they were five years ago). Unemployment, inflation, and interest rates are all still very low.
Americans have the highest per-capita incomes of any country other than Luxembourg. They have a very high standard of living, and the U.S. has had one of the best economies in the world over the past ten years. Yet the handwringing and gloom and doom has been going on throughout most of Bush’s tenure.
**
3. Iraqi leaders call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, McCain gets caught in a bizarre denial and flip flop.**
Oh, nonsense. The statement by the Iraqis caught McCain off-guard, and he (correctly) said it’s probably just political posturing. At no point was there a formal demand from the Iraqis that the U.S. withdraw, and in fact the Iraqis are already backing off that statement. There’s nothing there to indicate that if the Iraqis officially voted on and passed a bill demanding that the U.S. withdraw that McCain wouldn’t comply if he was president. This is a manufactured outrage of interest only to readers of the Huffington post and Daily Kos and the SDMB.
4. McCain’s economic plan to cut the deficit has no details and is simply not believable.
This one’s a killer, because Americans would NEVER elect someone with an unrealistic plan to eliminate the deficit…
By the way, has Obama acknowledged that his plans will cost an additional 200-300 billion dollars per year, which would double the deficit if he doesn’t hike taxes to match?
5. McCain’s deficit plan includes bringing the troops home represents a major Iraq flip-flop.
No it does not. McCain has always said what Bush has said - he opposes a timetable for withdrawal, and believes that troops should only be withdrawn when conditions on the ground warrant it. But it’s sure looking like conditions on the ground are warranting a partial withdrawal, so it’s perfectly reasonable to include that savings in a budget. If the conditions change, the withdrawal doesn’t happen. But thats’ the same as any other budget forecast - you budget for the likely course, and reality sometimes gets in the way.
But McCain has good reason to believe the war is going to wind down in his first term - Even the Bush Administration is now considering accelerating a withdrawal.
This was what McCain said all along - that you don’t withdrawal in defeat because you’re handed some setbacks, as Obama wanted to do. You win the war, then you go home with your head up, leaving a stable country behind. This is a point in his favor not against.
Expect to hear McCain make this argument soon: “No one wants war. But my opponent wanted to recklessly disengage when the going was tough. This would have caused a collapse of the country, and we’d be back in there right now taking heavy casualties trying to restabilize Iraq. I said that we needed to stay and finish the job so that we could go home permanently. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. My friends, if you’re against the war, think this through - had we listened to Senator Obama, we’d be in the middle of a civil war now, and possible a larger middle east conflict. But the surge I advocated worked, and now we are bringing our soldiers home with their heads up, and with the Iraqi people as friends.”
6. McCain campaign misled about economists support.
You’ve got to be kidding me. So 300 economists signed a letter giving support to McCain, who has published his economic plans on his web site long before the letter was signed. So now he says that 300 economists support his plan, and some of them go, “wait a minute - we support McCain, but we don’t know all the details on this particular plan yet.” This is a candidacy-ending scandal? On what planet?
And BTW, presidents have been using such appeals to authority by collecting lists of supporters since the Presidency existed. Do you think every one who has ever signed a letter of support studied every detail of every plan the candidate offered?
**McCain makes a joke about killing Iranians. **
Oh, horrors. The guy has a sense of humor, and said something a little over the line. Yes, I remember when the “In five minutes we start bombing the Soviet Union” comment brought down the Reagan Administration. Uttered in public, during the height of the cold war.
Oh, wait - it didn’t. In fact, it didn’t hurt Reagan at all. People understand jokes.
McCain denies, flatly, that he ever said that he is not an expert in economics.
So in the one clip they offer, McCain denies that he said he wasn’t an expert in economics. The clip shown to refute this shows McCain saying that he’s not an expert on Wall Street, and defers to the secretary of the Treasury.
“Wall Street” <> “Economics.” They are not remotely the same thing. There are plenty of Ph.D. economists who could not tell you the ins and outs of various derivative instruments or tax laws or regulatory management of financial institutions. McCain may have said that someone else, but the clips they have don’t make the case they’re making.
And by the way, even if they did catch him in direct conflict, so what? This happens all the time. It’s already happened a couple of times to Obama. Candidates have to talk for hours a day. They say things sometimes that they forget. It’s not a big deal unless you’re a partisan trying to score points. This will have exactly zero effect on the election, let alone end McCain’s campaign.
**
McCain distorts his record on veterans benefits in response to a question from Vietnam Veteran, who then proceeds to call McCain out on it.**
This is the one thing on the list that could actually hurt McCain, if Obama can find a way to play it without looking like he’s attacking McCain’s military service. However, McCain is right in saying that he’s got the vast majority of support from various veterans and military groups, and Obama has to be really careful if he goes down that road, or he may find himself facing down similar attacks from other veterans groups, and I’m not sure he can win that exchange. McCain is loved by many soldiers and ex-soldiers, and they’ll go to bat for him.
**McCain demonstrates he knows nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan. **
What an idiotic comment. Here’s the full transcript of what McCain said - tell me if you think this sounds like something who ‘knows nothing’ about the region:
As to the specific ‘glimmer of improving relationship’, I’m not sure what he’s talking about, as I’ve seen no evidence of it. But McCain was just in the region, so maybe he’s hearing stuff from commanders on the ground who are seeing something that hasn’t made it into the papers yet, or he’s putting a positive spin on some very minor detail. In any event, no one cares about this statement, it certainly is not an indication that McCain is ignorant of the facts in the area (the quote above indicates he knows exactly how tough it is and where the problems are), and no one outside the Huffington Post is going to care one little bit about this.
And if McCain and Obama go toe-to-toe debating military matters and strategy and comparing knowledge of what the military is doing, Obama’s going to get his clock cleaned. McCain graduated from Annapolis and went to the War College, and actually fought in a war, and is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. His knowledge of military matters makes Obama look silly, and Obama would do well to avoid these kinds of comparisons.
Phil Gramm is still Co-Chair of the McCain campaign, a position he has held since March 12, 2007.
Incidentally, I believe it is significant that Obama has reacted very conservatively to this Gramm fuck up. It is certainly the kind of thing that could be hammered and hammered for a lot of points. But upon reflection, and given the considerable wisdom and mental maturity he has demonstrated throughout this campaign, I can see why it would be better if Obama did not push things to the point that Gramm is released. As much of a good target as he makes right now, he will be the perfect target come the fall, when ads will still be able to tag him as the Co-Chair of McCain’s campaign.
Is that a sign of “wisdom and mental maturity” or just a recognition of the political reality that it would remind people of his own comparable problem not so very long ago? stoli is aware of the reference; you should be too.
Gramm is toast, as far as McCain’s campaign is concerned. Expect him to be gone this week (if not already).
Sam. You don’t live in the US. You’ve seen your purchasing power advance by about 50% in the last 5-6 years, vis-a-vis the Canadian/US Dollar relationship.
If you live in the US, and are a typical middle/lower class Amercan(making $20-50,000/yr.) then you’ve seen your standard of living plunge the last few years. The press reports which say the economy isn’t in recession are only talking about the classic definition. Come on down and talk to real people who have to drive to work, seeing their fuel component increase double. And, the increases in food/other prices has just started. It’ll get worse as the year goes on, as the costs get passed along. Believe me, it’s happening.
I don’t care a whit about the economy the “last six years.” The US is in a recession, headed for a bad one currently. Just keep reading the headlines.
Let’s play it this way - given the current polling, which states does McCain need to pull off to secure a victory?
DemConWatch has a nice interactive of the various pollsters and projectors electoral maps. According to that summary the most generous to McCain is Rasmussen’s, which gives a current prediction of 227 McCain to 293 Obama in their summary. So let’s use that one. Going to Rasmussen directly you find that they call it 42 “safe” McCain, 123 “likely”, 62 “leans”. Assume that McCain wins all of those, including all the “leans” and assume he wins both of those that Rasmussen calls “toss-up” as well, another 18, and we get McCain up to 245. He still needs another 25 out of those currently called “leans Dem”. That could be OH plus NM or IA or CO. Or it could be MI plus CO. Or OH plus MI of course. Or winning PA and most anything else. Without winning any of PA, OH, or MI he’d need all 4 of the other “leans Dem” to fall his way (CO, IA, NM, and NH).
Of those PA and MI are pretty unlikely but OH seems possible (I don’t even understand why Rasmussen doesn’t call it a “toss-up” if they go by their own numbers - their polling places it as about even). So to go with OH he needs IA, NM, or CO. IA seems out of reach at this point (Obama is 10 ahead in Rasmussen polling). So McCain also needs CO and/or NM.
That’s quite a run of the table: don’t let any leaning your way slip to the other side, win the toss-ups, and pull off OH plus a Hispanic heavy state while current polling puts Hispanic support 2 to 1 against you and Hispanic turnout has been heavy in the Dem primaries.
Yes, lots can change.