« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »
September 30, 2008
She reads all of them
These Sarah Palin interviews keep getting harder and harder to watch. How hard is it to just name one publication by name? This is what you get as a culture when you vilify intellectualism.
I believe this isn't a clip leftover from Couric's interview last week, but a completely new interview recorded on Monday. If that's the case, I wonder if Couric asked about those examples of McCain supporting regulation that Palin promised to bring her last week? That would make my week.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 29, 2008
Quote(s) of the day
Number one:
"What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this."
- Steve Schmidt, McCain's chief strategist, giving McCain preemptive credit for the passage of the bailout package that never passed.
And number two:
"Sen. McCain interrupted his campaign, suspended his campaign activity to come back to Washington to get Republicans around a table. Without Sen. McCain, House Republicans would not have appointed a negotiator, which would not have moved this bill forward. It's really Sen. McCain who got all parties around a table to hammer out a deal that hopefully is in the best interests of the American taxpayer."
- Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director, doing the same on Fox News today.
So I assume McCain is now willing to take similar credit for the bill's defeat? Not quite. He's blaming Obama and other Democrats for "putting politics ahead of country."
Obama's reaction: "It is important for the American public and for the markets to say calm because things are never smooth in congress and to understand that it will get done."
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 5:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 28, 2008
Bad news
An interesting ad from the Obama camp.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 5:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 25, 2008
The Palin-Couric interview
Some liberal bloggers have been floating the idea that McCain's "suspend the campaign" stunt was really basically an elaborate attempt to distract people from Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric that began running last night.
Now, I initially dismissed this as paranoia and still don't think it is even close to the primary reason for McCain's actions. But the more I watch of the interview, the easier it is to believe that some McCain staffers heard her answers and sometime yesterday afternoon said, "My god, we have to do whatever we can to make sure this gets buried in the news."
It's that bad. And the thing is, McCain bears some of the responsibility. By shielding Palin for so long, he has put a lot of pressure on her to perform well. If McCain hadn't made a big announcement about going to Washington, the big news of today would have been Palin's interview, just like it was after her interview with Charlie Gibson aired. That's what happens when you limit access leave the public hungry for more information.
And now he wants to postpone the VP debates? Could it be that he doesn't think she's ready to face Biden? Or he'd prefer to have the debate after many early voters have already made a decision? As David Letterman says, something doesn't smell right.
But don't take my word for it. Watch the videos and ask yourself if she's ready to take over as president.
On foreign policy:
On the economy:
Watch CBS Videos Online
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:58 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
September 23, 2008
The man with the plan
Obama gave one of the clearest, most substantive explanations of the election (by either candidate) about what "changing Washington" means in Greenbay yesterday. He absolutely owned the reform issue. He offered a lot of promises, all of which he may not be able to live up to, but he at least offered more specifics than McCain, whose plan for reform seems to consists of 1) vetoing earmarks and 2) bringing Sarah Palin to Washington.
Unfortunately, I've hardly seen any mention of the plan in either the mainstream press or political blogs. Part of that is because of news about the financial crisis. But it is also because the speech was primarily about issues and plans, rather than an attack on McCain (although there was some of that). If Obama had taken the podium and called McCain a "grumpy old man," it would be on every front page in America. But talk about actual issues? Crickets.
Give it a watch:
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The financial crisis explained... by the Brits
This is hilarious but also sheds light on how ridiculous the whole situation is. We're basically rewarding very wealthy people for greed and incompetence simply because they are so powerful that the alternative is total financial collapse. Interesting times...
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 22, 2008
McCain's "Two Americas" revisited
I wrote a couple of weeks ago about how John McCain essentially drove a wedge between rural and urban America with the Sarah Palin pick and the overall tone of the RNC. And although I still think that is one of the biggest strategic benefits she brings to the ticket, a new poll from the Center for Rural Strategies suggests he still has some work to do to win rural voters by the margins he needs.
Not that he isn't ahead. McCain leads Obama 51%-41% in the survey of 13 swing states. But that isn't enough to win the election. While Obama isn't going to actually win rural voters, McCain needs to improve on his current numbers for a few reasons:
- Bush performed better in rural counties. In 2004 Bush won rural counties by nearly twice McCain's current margin. His dominance in rural America essentially won him the election: "Kerry won nearly 52 percent in urban areas, where 73 percent of the voters lived in 2004. The Democrat failed to crack 40 percent in rural and exurban counties, which had 27 percent of the vote."
- Bush was ahead by more in September 2004. Although, not by much. At this point in the election Bush was leading Kerry with rural voters by 13%. He expanded that lead significantly by election day, and the McCain camp is looking to do the same. A Republican strategies and "adviser for the poll" (let that serve as a grain of salt when looking at the results) claims McCain is on pace to reach that goal.
- The economy is rural voters' top concern. Fifty-one percent of rural voters cited the economy as their top concern, followed by energy prices (25%), and Iraq (21%). Conventional wisdom says that's bad news for McCain, but it's not as serious of a problem as it seems, as I'll explain in a moment. Moral values, by the way, was at the bottom of the list.
The bottom line is that McCain will lose the election unless he grows that 10-point lead (he may have to double it). Obama will likely win cities by bigger margins than Kerry or Gore, so McCain has his work cut out for him. But there are some things working in his favor:
- He has momentum. His overall margin hasn't increased by much—McCain lead Obama by nine points in a similar survey conducted in May. However, is favorability ratings have improved (primarily with Republicans and Independents), and voters' perceptions of him have improved on every single issue, even "most likely to bring change" and the economy, two categories Obama led in May.
- He has Sarah Palin. While she's losing her shine elsewhere, she still remains very popular in rural areas. Sixty-five percent of respondents said she represents the values of rural communities, and 54% said she's ready to be president.
- He can win on any issue. As I alluded to earlier, it's no longer a major problem that the economy is dominating the election. Rural voters now favor McCain 46-45 when it comes to dealing with economic issues. The fundamentals of his rural strategy are strong. If the focus turns to Iraq, taxes, or values, however, his advantage in rural areas grows significantly.
It could swing either way, but the rural-urban divide could very well determine the election. We know where both candidates will win, but the question is how much they will win by in those areas. Obama is already where he needs to be in urban areas, and his focus should be primarily on boosting turnout. McCain has to really run up the numbers, and Sarah Palin has helped with that (so far).
Also posted at TMV.
UPDATE: I missed a question that reveals a major hurdle to Obama's rural strategy: Voter's were asked if the "people in my community" are ready for a black president. Only half (53%) said yes, while 23% said their community wasn't ready for a black president, and 29% opted not to answer or said neither option was appropriate. This stat wasn't included in the press release and initial coverage of the survey, but those numbers are higher than national averages.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 7:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 19, 2008
Boo! Vote Republican
Even though they are easily misread and are often just used to confirm pre-existing biases, I can't resist a good political psychology study. The latest suggests your political stances may be tied to how easily startled you are:
From ABC news:
In the study, released Thursday in the journal Science, Rice University professor of political science John Alford and his colleagues studied 46 subjects with strong political beliefs. They subjected these people to startling stimuli then compared responses with their stated viewpoints on key political issues.Those subjects who were the most startled by the unexpected or disturbing stimuli were also the ones who were most likely to favor such issues as increased defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War.
The people who were less startled by the stimuli, which included such things as a spider crawling across the face of a terrified person or loud, unexpected noises, tended to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control.
To poke a few holes, the study was based on a very small sample of people who already held strong political beliefs, so it's tough to jump to any serious conclusions without more comprehensive research. But it does touch on an interesting notion—that our beliefs and perceptions of the world may be tied to biology. Past research suggests as much as 30%-40% of our beliefs may have biological roots, according to the political scientist who conducted the study.
But add to that another study about how misinformation changes people's perceptions of candidates, even after they hear refutations of the false information, and an ugly picture emerges. Here's how it works:
In experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University, volunteers were given various items of political misinformation from real life. One group of volunteers was shown a transcript of an ad created by NARAL Pro-Choice America that accused John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court at the time, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."A variety of psychological experiments have shown that political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people's preexisting views. People who did not like Roberts to begin with, then, ought to have been most receptive to the damaging allegation, and this is exactly what Bullock found. Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to disapprove of Roberts after hearing the allegation.
Bullock then showed volunteers a refutation of the ad by abortion-rights supporters. He also told the volunteers that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad. Although 56 percent of Democrats had originally disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation, 80 percent of Democrats disapproved of the Supreme Court nominee afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval of Roberts dropped only to 72 percent.
Republican disapproval of Roberts rose after hearing the misinformation but vanished upon hearing the correct information. The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place.
The effect may be more pronounced with conservatives, who upon hearing a refutation "might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation," according to the authors.
So we've basically learned something that politicians have known for decades: that scaring and lying to voters actually works (maybe more so for Republicans). Great.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 15, 2008
The truth about taxes
If there ever was a doubt that a lie repeated often enough can supplant the truth in people's perceptions of reality, take a look at the two graphs below. The first is from the Tax Policy Center and compares the after-income effects of the McCain and Obama tax proposals.
Now, take a look at what Americans believe each candidate's tax proposal will do:
Although only 1% of Americans will see an actual tax increase under Obama's plan, 53% believe he will increase their taxes. I was a little curious why Republicans hammered Obama so hard on taxes during the convention when his policy actually benefits most Americans more than McCain's. I guess they just thought they wouldn't get called on it.
H/T to Hilzoy. Cross-posted at TMV.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:54 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
September 12, 2008
To be fair, the bar is pretty low
From HuffPo: "In arguably his toughest interview yet, co-host [of The View] Joy Behar asked John McCain...."
Note to the nation's journalists: Notice the follow up questions? How they didn't let him get away with obvious talking points (for the most part)? The hosts of The View are doing your job better than you are. Let that sink in for a minute.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
It's almost like they want to lose
Democrats have a trump card up their sleeve this year that could possibly win the election (or at least shift the momentum in Obama's favor), and they either don't know it or they for some reason are unwilling to play it.
From the New York Times:
Congressional Democrats have scrapped plans for another vote on expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, thus sparing Republicans from a politically difficult vote just weeks before elections this fall.Before the summer recess, Democrats had vowed repeatedly to force another vote on the popular program. But Democrats say they have shifted course, after concluding that President Bush would not sign their legislation and that they could not override his likely veto.
I don't get this. The majority of Americans favored expanding SCHIP last year, and health care is a major voter concern that is getting overshadowed by other issues.
So why in the world would Democrats back down on the one battle that, politically, they're sure to win? As soon as the bill comes up for a vote, the entire focus of the campaign is going to shift to health care, which is good for Obama. McCain has barely articulated a health care policy, and voters seem ready for genuine change from the current system.
There are basically two possible outcomes. The political pressure may get so intense that a few Republicans cross the aisle to override Bush's veto. Fine, the bill passess and Democrats win the battle. But they also win if the bill fails. First, it puts Bush back in the headlines, and the more voters are reminded of the current administration, the more they're going to want something different. And it puts John McCain in a tight spot. Odds are, he would either vote against it or (more likely given his recent attendance record) not show up to vote.
And that's when Obama should go on the offensive. I'm not going to get into the actual merits of either side's argument about the policy, but it's politically tough to defend a vote against a health insurance program for children.
Rahm Emanuel has the right idea when he says, "Those who opposed this bill can face the voters and explain why they believe 10 million kids should not get health coverage." But that's not going to happen as long as the issue sits on the back burner.
And if the Democrats don't take control of this Senate session and steer the course of the debate, the Republicans will. Does anyone believe for a moment that they will back down on offshore drilling just because they think it won't pass? They will gladly shut down the government just to make energy the central election issue.
I usually don't like characterizations of Democrats as spineless because it implies compromise and nuance are undesirable in politics. But they surrendered this battle, one they could have won, before it even began. Sometimes, the shoe fits.
Cross-posted at TMV.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 10, 2008
I can't belive I'm writing about lipstick-wearing pigs
I have lost all respect I once had for John McCain. The John McCain who really was a maverick and spoke out against torture in Iraq, and the John McCain who would have made a decent nominee in 2000 but was victim to the same divisive, smear politics that now fuel his campaign.
This lipstick-on-a-pig controversy is nothing but faux outrage. McCain has used that phrase to describe Hillary Clinton, Obama used it well before Sarah Palin entered the picture, but now the McCain campaign is acting as if it was some sort of out-of-the-blue sexist insult aimed directly at Sarah Palin.
And Obama has a point. You can dress up the McCain-Palin campaign with the labels of "maverick" and "reformer," but at the end of the day you're still going to find the same petty, divisive politics that Karl Rove used to get George Bush into the White House. And this latest flap proves it.
Don't forget what McCain's manager said just last week: "This election is not about issues." It can't be about issues for them to win. If it's about Iraq, they lose. If it's about the economy, they lose. If it's about health care, they lose.
So they have to make it about personality and mini-controversies. And the worst part of it is that the media just plays along. That's why I've never bought into claims that the media has an inherent liberal or conservative bias—it implies the media puts a lot of actual thought into its political coverage.
Most news outlets cover politics like a pack of dogs chasing a flashlight beam. They don't care where that bright spot on the wall is coming from. They see it and think, "Go get it!" Then it moves to the floor, and they run as a wild pack, barking at the top of their lungs, coming up with nothing. Over and over. Meanwhile, the guy sitting in the chair with the flashlight is doubled over in laughter at how easy it is to fool these simple beasts with such a basic tool.
Chuck today basically admitted as much this morning, saying "I think the McCain campaign is laughing their butts off this morning. That any of us have taken the bait on this lipstick thing, I mean, this is a joke. They have beaten the Obama campaign on these little -- what I call -- sort of shiny metal object days, right? They're able to say, "Oh, look, shiny metal object."
Obama at least seems genuinely interested in talking about the issues that matter in this election. Here's his response to today's controversy:
"See, it would be funny, but the news media decided that would be the lead story yesterday. This happens every election cycle. Every four years, this is what we do. This is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about...Enough!"
But those tactics have worked before. And if they work this election, we'll see them again next time, and the time after that, until the American people prove to campaign managers that you can't win elections that way.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:38 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 9, 2008
Quote of the day
"You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid."- Barack Obama, attacking Sarah Palin's claims about cutting taxes and reducing spending in Alaska.
I hope he's right.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 7, 2008
Cue John Mellencamp
Look, I grew up in an incredibly small town in rural Tennessee and have spent the majority of my life in areas so sparsely-populated they could barely sustain a single movie theater or bowling alley. I know small towns. I like them. I don't live in one right now, but at a later point in my life I could see myself moving back.
However I don't buy the small-towns-are-inherently-superior argument that Republicans tried to shove down our throats from the RNC last week. It's nothing more than cynical pandering and identity politics. One of the central Republican arguments from last week was that Obama is too "cosmopolitan" (a phrase uttered without irony by the former mayor of one of the biggest cities in the world), and as a result, different.
The fact is, small town communities tend to be pretty homogeneous, both in demographics and ideology. The slower-paced lifestyle and stronger sense of community is wonderful to experience, but if you're going to serve in the executive branch of one of the most diverse nations in the world, that shouldn't be your only perspective. The notion that small town Americans will, and should, vote for a candidate just because he/she understands "small-town values" is ridiculous and should be insulting.
There's no denying that some small town inhabitants hold stereotypes and look down on their urban counterparts (just as some people who have always lived in metropolitan areas look down on rural America). The problem is a lack of perspective on both parts. If you haven't spent time in both settings, you don't know what makes America tick. It's not one or the other, but unique contributions from both that give American its character. I would wholeheartedly back a proposal from either party to initiate a rural-urban exchange program, where small-town and big-city high school students swap places for a year. Both would be better off for the experience.
But Republicans know this, and so do Democrats. Like I said, it's nothing but political pandering. Criticizing small-town American is probably the only thing that can still be considered politically incorrect in today's climate. Which is why this segment from The Daily Show last week skewering the RNC was so brilliant:
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 5, 2008
The difference between Palin and Bush? Lipstick
I know, Sarah Palin is a Washington outsider with no direct ties to the current administration. In that sense, she does represent a clean break from George Bush. But when you get past the narrative and look at her positions on actual issues, she's much closer to Bush ideologically than McCain is.
The Palin pick was designed to fire up the segment of the Republican party that has always had the most enthusiasm for Bush: social conservatives (i.e., the Christian right). She has succeeded in exciting that crowd, but not by bringing any radically new ideas to the table. On the issues, she represents new packaging for a lot of the same (and often out-of-touch) ideas:
Abortion. Palin is strongly pro-life, and has suggested that she would oppose abortion even if her own daughter were raped. A lot of Americans are pro-life to an extent, but her views are pretty extreme and the country isn't as evenly divided on this issue as it sometimes seems. Only 18% of Americans agree that abortion should be illegal in all cases, and the majority (53%) consider themselves pro-choice.Iraq. We're still learning about her positions related to Iraq (and she still seems to be learning them as well, saying last year that "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."). However, speaking to ministry students, she has described the war as "a task from God." That's eerily similar to language Bush has used, and considering 64% of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, it's not exactly a mainstream sentiment.
Ethics. Outing Valerie Plame. Firing attorneys for political reasons. Destroying White House e-mails. Warrantless wiretapping. The list of the Bush administration's abuses of power is long, and the last thing we need is another Machiavellian executive branch. Palin, however, has been accused of firing employees for personal/political reasons... several times. Troopergate is the most well-known case, but she has also been accused of firing a police chief who didn't support her as mayor and pressuring a librarian who (hypothetically) refused to ban books(!).
Global warming. John McCain has been praised for his relative sanity (particularly compared to Bush) when it comes to addressing global warming. Palin, on the other hand, admits that Alaska will be affected by a changing environment "because of its location," but does not "attribute it to being man-made."
Education. She supports "school choice," but still seems committed to funding public education. That's a pretty boilerplate Republican position, so it's not a major deal. But she also favors teaching creationism alongside education and is opposed to explicit sex education (I'll refrain from commenting on the irony and obvious consequences...).
Obviously, I picked the issues where she's is closely aligned with Bush. Take a look at her other stances for yourself. She's a talented speaker and politician and has started out as a fairly popular VP pick, particularly with the Republican base. But McCain needs independents and moderates, not the base, to win, and as Palin's views become more well-known, a lot of those voters may be turned off.
McCain's strategy is to keep her in a cone of silence and away from the media, hoping the campaign-driven narrative will overshadow issues. That's a risky strategy. We still don't know a lot about her ideas about issues like foreign policy, and she's still new enough to the national scene to be able to offer new positions or clarify statements that might not appeal to the middle-class women the campaign is targeting. The media silence leaves only her past statements to provide some sort of indication about where she stands and what she believes.
Also posted at The Moderate Voice.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack