NYTimes wrote:Record Deficit of $482 Billion Forecast
....When Mr. Bush took office, he predicted that federal debt held by the public — the amount borrowed by the government to pay for past deficits — would shrink to just 8 percent of the gross domestic product in 2009. He now estimates that it will amount to 40 percent.

Woody wrote:You'd rather surrender like a sissy than win?

The White House and many economists prefer to measure the deficit as a share of the economy.

dajafi wrote:Obama/Kaine?

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has told close associates that he has had "very serious" conversations with Sen. Barack Obama "about joining the Democratic ticket and has provided documents to the campaign as it combs through his background," the Washington Post reports.

Politico also cites sources that say Kaine is on a list of finalists.

Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Joe Biden and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius are also being vetted, according to "sources with knowledge of the process."

I have the feeling that Obama would disqualify anyone who said anything about the process--like most pols, he's into control and timing--but if this is for real, it's an interesting play.

Kaine couldn't run for re-election next year because of Virginia's goofy one-term-and-out rule, so he'll need a job... is he popular enough in his state to move Virginia from "toss-up" to leaning-Democrat? He's Catholic; maybe that helps a little in other states. He probably qualifies as an outsider and comes off as vaguely post-partisan--certainly not an ultra-liberal. And he won't overshadow Obama--he's a pretty dull speaker and doesn't have his own national profile.

On balance I guess he would be a pretty strong pick.

Bayh strikes me as another likely option--he's hawkish, centrist, and popular in his home state of Indiana. But he'd cost the Dems a Senate seat, unless Mitch Daniels loses re-election, and as a second-gen Senator he's too Washington-insider to reinforce Obama's brand. Actually, the past pick he'd most resemble is Gore in 1992.

drsmooth wrote:

Laexile wrote:I think both candidates will be best served by enhancing their strengths, not trying to shore up their weaknesses. Obama is running as an outsider. An outsider reinforces his message. Picking Bill Richardson might reinforce that Obama doesn't have foreign policy experience, not make people feel secure.

He's trying to attack McCain at the weakness of his strength, his experience makes him too much of an insider. McCain can't walk away from positioning himself as the experienced candidate. So he has no defense. Classic marketing. Jack Trout would be proud. Independents that will vote for him will go for the outsider message. Don't dilute that.

McCain's base loves him for being a maverick. He can't sell that he's not the same old same old Republican by adding the same old same old Republican to the ticket.

could you re-state this in a way that anyone not living in la-la land might understand even a little of it?

Laexile wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Laexile wrote:I think both candidates will be best served by enhancing their strengths, not trying to shore up their weaknesses. Obama is running as an outsider. An outsider reinforces his message. Picking Bill Richardson might reinforce that Obama doesn't have foreign policy experience, not make people feel secure.

He's trying to attack McCain at the weakness of his strength, his experience makes him too much of an insider. McCain can't walk away from positioning himself as the experienced candidate. So he has no defense. Classic marketing. Jack Trout would be proud. Independents that will vote for him will go for the outsider message. Don't dilute that.

McCain's base loves him for being a maverick. He can't sell that he's not the same old same old Republican by adding the same old same old Republican to the ticket.

could you re-state this in a way that anyone not living in la-la land might understand even a little of it?

Nothing LA about this. It's classic marketing strategy written 30 years ago by two marketing gurus in New York.

TenuredVulture wrote:I know my whole Trotsky/Neocon theory sounds a bit silly, but having just read chapter 10 of Hayek's Road to Serfdom, and further recalling the relationship between neoconservatism and Straussianism, I'm coming to the conclusion that the road from Trotskyism and neoconservatism is not very long.

Philly the Kid wrote:Historically, have 2 Senators ever won the White House?

Philly the Kid wrote:It's more complicated than just that... Obama has to consider a variety of factors... if he goes with richardson then it's a Black and a Latino, that can work pro it can work con. Same with a woman. Does he want 2 first on his ticket at the same time? On the other hand, I think a governor and a state like NM can do him some good. Biden feels very forced and un-natural. There was a time when I thought Biden could be very presidential himself, and kind of stood for something. A small unknown state like Delaware isn't going to help Obama very much. Historically, have 2 Senators ever won the White House?

There are many more factors than just playing to your strength rather than trying to cover a weakness.

Laexile wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

WilliamC wrote:I can honestly say that if I was a Democrat and and that was a Republican ad I would still say that it was one of the dumbest ads I've ever seen.

Most Presidential ads are pretty dumb, including McCain's but that just is a big "WHAT THE HELL?".

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - but I don't think it's remotely a "WTF" for anyone who almost literally is counting the days till Jan. 20, 2009.

But those people are already voting for Obama.

Most of them, certainly. But you really don't think this could win any converts, especially undecideds? We'll have to disagree.

BTW, I don't know if you're a conservative or not, but didn't you say, about one page back, that you hate liberals? What was I to think?

Buddy, I think you're looking at this from way too much a true believer point of view. This ad, like Fahrenheit 9/11, hits Democrats who dislike Bush perfectly. The problem is that those people already are sold. It's way too over the top and preachy that everyone else has "hope" and you'd better get it too.

If someone was going to be sold on "hope" or "change" they'd have been sold by now. Now they're just laughing at that. At this point Obama needs to be sold to undecideds based on real, not nebulous, concepts.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I know my whole Trotsky/Neocon theory sounds a bit silly, but having just read chapter 10 of Hayek's Road to Serfdom, and further recalling the relationship between neoconservatism and Straussianism, I'm coming to the conclusion that the road from Trotskyism and neoconservatism is not very long.

How is it silly? The first generation of neocons were all, to a man, former Trotskyites--angry Jews sitting around the cafeteria at City College. Their goals changed, but the personalities didn't.

Between 1870 and 1950, the average American’s level of education rose by 0.8 years per decade. In 1890, the average adult had completed about 8 years of schooling. By 1900, the average American had 8.8 years. By 1910, it was 9.6 years, and by 1960, it was nearly 14 years.
...
America’s edge boosted productivity and growth. But the happy era ended around 1970 when America’s educational progress slowed to a crawl. Between 1975 and 1990, educational attainments stagnated completely. Since then, progress has been modest. America’s lead over its economic rivals has been entirely forfeited, with many nations surging ahead in school attainment.

This threatens the country’s long-term prospects. It also widens the gap between rich and poor. Goldin and Katz describe a race between technology and education. The pace of technological change has been surprisingly steady. In periods when educational progress outpaces this change, inequality narrows. The market is flooded with skilled workers, so their wages rise modestly. In periods, like the current one, when educational progress lags behind technological change, inequality widens. The relatively few skilled workers command higher prices, while the many unskilled ones have little bargaining power.
...
[T]he skills slowdown is the biggest issue facing the country. Rising gas prices are bound to dominate the election because voters are slapped in the face with them every time they visit the pump. But this slow-moving problem, more than any other, will shape the destiny of the nation.

Second, there is a big debate under way over the sources of middle-class economic anxiety. Some populists emphasize the destructive forces of globalization, outsourcing and predatory capitalism. These people say we need radical labor market reforms to give the working class a chance. But the populists are going to have to grapple with the Goldin, Katz and Heckman research, which powerfully buttresses the arguments of those who emphasize human capital policies. It’s not globalization or immigration or computers per se that widen inequality. It’s the skills gap. Boosting educational attainment at the bottom is more promising than trying to reorganize the global economy.