VP Selection Speculation

[CO_Hoya]

That 538 website is very interesting - Nate Silver, the lead author(?) was and is a real innovator in baseball statistical analysis, fwiw.

Having said that, I don't think I've figured out to find specific info on that site. For instance:

An interesting note about that. Obama's current odds of winning (54% today) have been dropping steadily. This is a new low.

Did you find that on 538? I don't see any way to see historical plots for things like win percentage.

[Boz]

I'm sorry, I should have qualified that. I don't know if that is searchable. That is just based on checking the site pretty regularly.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that's the lowest Obama's odds have been.

My apologies for presenting my observation as hard data.

[thebin]

I've never managed to share my fellow conservative/libertarian's disdain for Biden. I think he's smart as a whip and refreshingly BS-free. Favorite lefty by far.

[CO_Hoya]

Aug 20, 2008 13:48:47 GMT -5 Boz said:

I'm sorry, I should have qualified that. I don't know if that is searchable. That is just based on checking the site pretty regularly.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that's the lowest Obama's odds have been.

My apologies for presenting my observation as hard data.

No worries. Frankly, I assumed you did find that on that site, since that seems like such a fundamentally useful thing to present.

Looking at the only historical plot I see there ("Super Tracker"), it may be more correct to say that this is the lowest he's been since June. But since I don't know if "Super Tracker" is influenced by the HRC/Obama primary war (in so much as polling of McCain vs. Obama was less meaningful while HRC was a viable alternative), it may be true that this is McCain's best showing versus the "Democratic nominee."


Now I'm starting to think that website is crap.

[Elvado]

With regard to Biden, in my opinion, his greatest strength is his biggest weakness: he shoots from the lip and is politically incorrect as hell. Would make him a lousy VP candidate, though an honest broker if elected.

[Bando]

What's with Giuliani being the keynote speaker at the RNC? Can this guy not help but fail upwards?

[kchoya]

Aug 20, 2008 13:58:27 GMT -5 thebin said:

I've never managed to share my fellow conservative/libertarian's disdain for Biden. I think he's smart as a whip and refreshingly BS-free. Favorite lefty by far.

I've always though he was pretty smart - came to speak at a couple of my Georgetown undergrad classes. His problem is he makes a much better senator than an executive.

[Boz]

Aug 20, 2008 15:59:38 GMT -5 Bando said:

What's with Giuliani being the keynote speaker at the RNC? Can this guy not help but fail upwards?

They just wanted to make it more fun for you, so you could play the Rudy Giuliani 911 drinking game.

Does Mark Warner have a drinking game? Don't think so!

;D ;D

Rudy sure didn't know the first think about running a Presidential campaign, but I think he will still be a valuable surrogate for McCain in the fall.

[SFHoya99]

Boz -- Obama's lead has been dropping steadily since he clinched the nomination -- but he was well below McCain when Hillary was still in the race.

Personally, I am fully predicting a McCain victory as I have been for a while. Reality is, Americans may not be as well off as they were 8-10 years ago, but we're generally a pretty conservative group (not in the Dem/Republican sense but the real sense of the word) and the election of a non-incumbent progressive president in U.S. history (and by progressive I mean a proponent of significant change) is almost always accompanied by a time of crisis or a split vote on the conservative ballot and often requires an incredibly charismatic progressive.

In other words, simply demographics say McCain wins. Add in more money, and I'd be shocked to see Obama win.

Now I just hope McCain is his own man -- and not a pawn of the same people who brought us the mistakes of the past eight years. I know plenty of capable Republican leaders, but if McCain's advisors are Bush's advisors, we're in trouble.

[kchoya]

Aug 20, 2008 19:27:29 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Now I just hope McCain is his own man -- and not a pawn of the same people who brought us the mistakes of the past eight years. I know plenty of capable Republican leaders, but if McCain's advisors are Bush's advisors, we're in trouble.

THAT is the big question if McCain wins. He has to play nice with the party establishment now that he's the nominee. But there's no love lost between McCain and a lot of people in the GOP.

As for your prediction that McCain wins, I still think the odds favor Obama. While the national polls are trending McCain, the electoral map still looks good for Obama.

I think all the stars are aligned for the Dems this cycle and if they can't take the White House with an incredibly charismatic candidate and a hugely unpopular incumbent Bush, they will have blown it big time.

[TBird41]

Aug 20, 2008 19:27:29 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Boz -- Obama's lead has been dropping steadily since he clinched the nomination -- but he was well below McCain when Hillary was still in the race.

Personally, I am fully predicting a McCain victory as I have been for a while. Reality is, Americans may not be as well off as they were 8-10 years ago, but we're generally a pretty conservative group (not in the Dem/Republican sense but the real sense of the word) and the election of a non-incumbent progressive president in U.S. history (and by progressive I mean a proponent of significant change) is almost always accompanied by a time of crisis or a split vote on the conservative ballot and often requires an incredibly charismatic progressive.

In other words, simply demographics say McCain wins. Add in more money, and I'd be shocked to see Obama win.

Now I just hope McCain is his own man -- and not a pawn of the same people who brought us the mistakes of the past eight years. I know plenty of capable Republican leaders, but if McCain's advisors are Bush's advisors, we're in trouble.

Unlike Bush, McCain would have to work with a Democratic Congress. That can go one of two ways--either they'll compromise, or they'll point fingers so that the other side gets blamed and they can get their party in charge (for an example of this, see the last year or so, which has been particularly bad because Bush doesn't have to worry about being reelected).

We got welfare reform and a balanced budget out of Clinton and the Republican Congress (a working relationship that fell apart once the Republicans realized they had a good shot at the Presidency). Don't know if it'd work again, but I personally think it's worth a shot, and would be better than seeing if the Democrats have the same problem with full control as the Republicans (something which seems to be likely considering 1992-1994).

[SFHoya99]

kc, i hope you are right about McCain on that point. I've said before I like 2000 McCain a lot better than 2008 McCain. But it's politics, so it is really hard to tell.

Tbird -- I know a lot of folks that think like you (balanced Congress/President). The issue with voting that way is that a) sometimes its just a do nothing stalemate as you say, b) it's hard to judge congressional movements -- what happens in two years or even in November and c) there's the Supreme Court issue.

[jerseyhoya34]

Aug 20, 2008 19:34:38 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Aug 20, 2008 19:27:29 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Now I just hope McCain is his own man -- and not a pawn of the same people who brought us the mistakes of the past eight years. I know plenty of capable Republican leaders, but if McCain's advisors are Bush's advisors, we're in trouble.

THAT is the big question if McCain wins. He has to play nice with the party establishment now that he's the nominee. But there's no love lost between McCain and a lot of people in the GOP.

As for your prediction that McCain wins, I still think the odds favor Obama. While the national polls are trending McCain, the electoral map still looks good for Obama.

I think all the stars are aligned for the Dems this cycle and if they can't take the White House with an incredibly charismatic candidate and a hugely unpopular incumbent Bush, they will have blown it big time.

I agree with that assessment, kc.

Unrelated, I think the VP "rollout" strategy designed by the Obama people has been bungled. The big announcement will likely come on Friday or Saturday, after many of the Sunday shows have already made plans and when people tend to stop paying attention to the issues of the day, concentrate on family, wind down from the week, etc. You run with the person you pick, and the only effect of delaying the announcement is to give attention to many people who won't be selected.

And, this just in from the Disaster Department, sources are leaking that McCain has selected Mitt Romney, which may be enough for him to flip-flop. This comes on a day that McCain could not remember how many houses his family owned and needed a staff to prepare the data on the issue. Mitt Romney will only reenforce the problem and the Obama attack on the houses issue.

[The Stig]

If McCain picks Romney, then it's Obama's election to lose.

Supposedly we'll know Obama's VP pick within hours.

[Boz]

Personally, I don't think Mitt Romney is a disaster, I think he's a pretty good -- not great but pretty good -- choice, but then, what do I know? I guess we'll wait and see.

I think the McCain campaign has done a far better job of bracketing Obama than the other way around so far in this election. I know that term probably makes the liberals stomachs turn, because Karl Rove practically has a patent on the tactic, but that doesn't mean that it's not smart and/or effective.

Take this home dustup, for example. A pretty big gaffe by McCain to be sure. But from reading a lot of conservative sites yesterday, Republicans were practically cheering when Obama took this issue on and attacked McCain on it. Why? Almost before the words were out of Barack's mouth, there was an ad ready to go linking Obama to Tony Rezco, about whom the seeds had been planted well in advance (by Republicans, but also by Hillary).

Or the "celebrity/The One" meme. It got some pretty good play after Berlin, but I am beginning to think that all of the ads after Berlin were designed to set Obama up for Denver, so when he gets in front of 75,000 at Mile High (or whatever they call it these days), there can be an immediate response, saying, "See? What did we tell you?"

Now, I certainly don't think these tactics are going to change the mind of Obama's base, and I fully expect some of the Obama supporters on this board might say "Oh, that doesn't work, that's just cheap shots and you're not talking about issues."

That's a fair response (though I think McCain bracketed Obama effectively as well on some issue points, such as the surge and drilling).

However, I think even the most die-hard of you might have to admit that this has been working to an extent. You may not like it (and I don't entirely disagree), but I think, if McCain ends up winning this election -- which right now seems about a 50/50 proposition -- I think it will be because his campaign was able to bracket and "define" Obama better than Obama defined himself. Right now the Obama campaign seems to be very reactive, whereas the other side, both the McCain campaign and Republicans in general, seem more prepared for anything that has come up, at least recently.

Just some thoughts.

[SFHoya99]

I don't think the VPs are going to have a lot of impact, unless Obama picks Hillary. Just me.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Agree, Boz. McCain has been far more effective than Obama in that regard.

[Bando]

Aug 22, 2008 8:28:37 GMT -5 Boz said:

Personally, I don't think Mitt Romney is a disaster, I think he's a pretty good -- not great but pretty good -- choice, but then, what do I know? I guess we'll wait and see.

I think the McCain campaign has done a far better job of bracketing Obama than the other way around so far in this election. I know that term probably makes the liberals stomachs turn, because Karl Rove practically has a patent on the tactic, but that doesn't mean that it's not smart and/or effective.

Take this home dustup, for example. A pretty big gaffe by McCain to be sure. But from reading a lot of conservative sites yesterday, Republicans were practically cheering when Obama took this issue on and attacked McCain on it. Why? Almost before the words were out of Barack's mouth, there was an ad ready to go linking Obama to Tony Rezco, about whom the seeds had been planted well in advance (by Republicans, but also by Hillary).

Or the "celebrity/The One" meme. It got some pretty good play after Berlin, but I am beginning to think that all of the ads after Berlin were designed to set Obama up for Denver, so when he gets in front of 75,000 at Mile High (or whatever they call it these days), there can be an immediate response, saying, "See? What did we tell you?"

Now, I certainly don't think these tactics are going to change the mind of Obama's base, and I fully expect some of the Obama supporters on this board might say "Oh, that doesn't work, that's just cheap shots and you're not talking about issues."

That's a fair response (though I think McCain bracketed Obama effectively as well on some issue points, such as the surge and drilling).

However, I think even the most die-hard of you might have to admit that this has been working to an extent. You may not like it (and I don't entirely disagree), but I think, if McCain ends up winning this election -- which right now seems about a 50/50 proposition -- I think it will be because his campaign was able to bracket and "define" Obama better than Obama defined himself. Right now the Obama campaign seems to be very reactive, whereas the other side, both the McCain campaign and Republicans in general, seem more prepared for anything that has come up, at least recently.

Just some thoughts.

I agree, but this could change. I think the McCain team is playing with fire by overusing the POW meme, much in the same way Giuliani overplayed 9/11 (Biden's quote "with Rudy it's always noun, verb, 9/11" comes to mind). If noun/verb/POW becomes a national joke in much of the same way, then McCain will have thrown away an asset.

[kchoya]

At 2:37 MDT, Drudge seems to be hinting at Biden with changing pictures of Delaware Joe at the top his page above the headline "Obama prepares to name running mate..."

[hifigator]

Aug 20, 2008 19:47:38 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

kc, i hope you are right about McCain on that point. I've said before I like 2000 McCain a lot better than 2008 McCain. But it's politics, so it is really hard to tell.

Tbird -- I know a lot of folks that think like you (balanced Congress/President). The issue with voting that way is that a) sometimes its just a do nothing stalemate as you say, b) it's hard to judge congressional movements -- what happens in two years or even in November and c) there's the Supreme Court issue.

Actually, I think that can work out for the better more than you would think. Government not doing anything is better on average than the alternative. So a stalemate is quite often a good thing. I think that actually helped Clinton quite a bit for much of his term. The economy was going very well for the most part, primarily because of the tech boom and the political bantering back and forth prevented a lot of social tinkering that certainly wouldn't have helped.