jerseyhoya wrote:Good book

Who wrote it?

Hey, I'll let a little plagiarism slide every once in a while when the book entertains me. Plagiarists are all the rage here, anyway. What with Biden being on the Dem ticket.

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Good book

Who wrote it?

I heard it was some Pulitzer Prize winner.

I hope that was a joke. It was not funny though.

billy beane wrote that book, no ?

It was a fantastic book. But I'm not sure how closely relevant it is to the current situation. For one thing, a "government of national unity" is always more politically salable when there's a very clear crisis. FDR and Churchill both brought numerous, high-profile leaders of the domestic political opposition into their cabinets during WWII.

Also, most of Lincoln's "rivals" from the title were his nomination competitors; Stanton was the only Democrat of the bunch (though his earlier interaction with Lincoln, during a legal proceeding years before, was particularly harsh; that Lincoln not only didn't have the guy beaten up but brought him into the cabinet might be the best testimony to his largeness of spirit).

The other thing is that Lincoln's defeated Republican rivals, particularly Chase and (at the beginning) Seward, regarded him as a vastly inferior leader--in part, I think, because he beat them largely by virtue of being less objectionable; with a lower profile, he had fewer enemies, and his appeal to the kingmakers at the convention was "let me be your second choice, and if your first choice falls short, then I'd like your support." That's how it happened--with a huge assist from the home-state (convention was held in Chicago) crowd.

Both McCain and Obama won popularly contested nomination contests. So, if McCain surrounded himself with Romney, Huckabee and Il Douche, or Obama with Edwards (yeah...), Hillary and Richardson, I wouldn't be particularly impressed--neither set of advisers would be particularly surprising or politically risky.

But if McCain put, say, Carl Levin in at Defense or Obama tapped Richard Lugar for State, that would be impressive.

CMD wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:Democrats wanted an interview, they'll get it. She'll do well, and it will drown out more of the Obama message.

But Democrats are demanding it, and they'll see what happens.

Keep focusing on her, not McCain. Real smart.

Don't you feel the attention on Palin and not McCain has a real chance to negatively impact the McCain campaign? Obama is garnering all of attention on the Dem side. Biden is a known entity, there is no need to vet him publicly, he falls largely in step with Obama's views. Palin has a lot of negatives to the average middle of the road voter once you get past her aw shucks demeanor. Does McCain want his campaign to be tied to social issues like creationism and banning same sex marriage while the Dems are focusing on real issues? Kind of negates the "maverick" image and makes people think of GWB. I think thats the impact Palin will have in the long run. She has little to bring to the table and is not very credible when discussing economic plans, foreign policy, etc... We shall see.

No - she only has to stay popular for 2 months.

Biden is known - but it doesnt matter. This race is a 2 on 1 now as far as candidates. Everyone wants to see Palin. The only way Biden makes news now is if he messes up.

Obama will wonder everyday for the rest of his lfe why he didnt pick Hillary Clinton. Really wasnt that hard.

Philly the Kid wrote:

Laexile wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:What was the answer he gave?

Essentially that as a Roman Catholic he believes that life begins at conception but that does not give him the right to make abortions illegal because it is imposes his religious beliefs on those who hold equally strong beliefs of their own. The answer was more involved but it discussed abortion from the point of view that I have always held. It is not about what you believe but your right to force your beliefs on others.

When life begins isn't a religious question. It's a medical question. Life doesn't begin at conception for a Roman Catholic and some time later for Atheists. I have no idea when life begins but if aborting a Catholic fetus is murder than aborting a non-Catholic one is too.

If Biden's religion preaches that homosexuality is wrong but he doesn't want to impose that on others that's commendable. You shouldn't force your beliefs on others. Does Biden believe that killing the unborn is murder? If so, he should think it's wrong. I certainly hope he doesn't think it's murder for Catholics to have abortions but just fine for anyone else. Biden is having it both ways here. He gets to be a good Catholic and favor allowing abortion.

You can't be serious with this stuff?

Biden can hold any personal belief he wants, but this country last time i checked separate Church and State and is a secular nation. No one gets to tell others what to believe or to inflic their views, especially religious one on the rest of us. What he believes personally is not in play with how he is supposed to govern.

(he also doesn't own 12 houses)

Are you making a case in support of murder, under the aegis of separation of church and state? Or are you simply stating that Biden's belief in life at conception does not automatically (from a natural rights perspective) deliver human rights to this life? Or, do you object that any medical definition of life will be inherently religious and thus non-legislatible?

CalvinBall wrote:I hope that was a joke. It was not funny though.

I personally not only enjoy Doris Kearns Goodwin's writing, but also find her kind of hot.

538 this morning has it 303-234 and 50.0-47.5

I think they usually update that in the afternoon, don't they, Floppy? Also, he said something about his model taking new information in slowly. Well, at this point there isn't a current national poll showing Obama ahead. So some movement should happen, one would imagine.

i dunno, I'll check it later today.

when i get back from boston im going to put all of the updated predictions and MOE from the site back into EXCEL and see how different the electoral vote looks

If you look at the electoral map, to me, there are some more or less unloseable states on both sides:
Obama basically has 248 votes (the states that went blue in 2004) in the bag--the entire northeast except NH (which was red in 2000), west coast + HI, upper midwest. I guess MI is vaguely close but I haven't seen many polls giving a serious chance for that to go red.

So to get the other 21 votes (since tie = Dem win), Obama needs to win something like:
Ohio + and any 1 of NH/NM/CO/IA/VA/variety of other states polling close
Florida (and doesn't need anything else)
CO + NM + IA (results in 269)

McCain seems to have about 200 in the bag--the entire south except FL, IN, everything in the middle of the country except NM/CO. for mccain to win, he needs:
FL + OH + VA + any 1 of CO/NM/IA

so basically as far as i figure it, if Obama can pull out a single win in just about any of the major battleground swing states, plus 1 win in any of the minor swing states, he'll very likely win. and obama doesn't need to win either FL or OH to win, he has a path to the whitehouse by just winning CO+NM+IA. i don't think mccain has any shot of winning unless he wins every major battleground state (as bush did in 2004).

jerseyhoya wrote:I think they usually update that in the afternoon, don't they, Floppy? Also, he said something about his model taking new information in slowly. Well, at this point there isn't a current national poll showing Obama ahead. So some movement should happen, one would imagine.

Here's the 538 thoughts on what they expect to see in the polls about the bounce factor and convention timing.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/ ... chers.html

While I don't think it's likely, I don't like the idea of either candidate winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote. I really think it's time for the electoral college to go.

I don't see how that graph and arbitrarily setting those expectations tracks with Obama still holding a better than 2 to 1 chance of winning the election.

Also, on the state by state front, I think you're being too dismissive of McCain's chances of winning Michigan.

The Republicans think they can flip Pennsylvania (fairly close in '04) and/or Wisconsin (very close in '04), and maybe Michigan (again, fairly close). If you really believe the cultural/soft racism factor on the margin, as I do, this is possible though it still feels like a long shot, particularly considering that Democrats are in the statehouse in all three states--which is probably worth a point or two.

The Democrats are looking very comfortable in Iowa and New Mexico. I have the feeling McCain will win New Hampshire. Holding everything else steady (PA, WI, MI), that's 260 votes for the Democrat.

Obama seems to have a stronger ground game--though I think that probably barely counters the "Bradley/Wilder factor," if at all. McCain probably has done better in terms of effective advertising and "messaging."

It comes down to

Ohio (where I think McCain now has the edge since the Zombie Army of '04 is energized by Palin's dazzling smile and sharp teeth)

Florida (probably ditto... though there's some thought that Palin's affiliation with Jews for Jesus might cancel the soft racism of the very old Jews there; if McCain had picked Lieberman and basically sent him there to live, he could have locked Florida)

Colorado (total jump ball) and

Virginia (same, maybe a bit better for McCain).

As noted, if Obama wins Colorado, NM and Iowa and loses the other three top battleground states plus New Hampshire, it's a 269-269 tie and it goes to the House, which I'm pretty sure means Obama wins.

What the H is wrong with electoral-vote.com? It hasn't been working all day.

Regardless of what the polls show in the next few days, I must admit this is very demoralizing for me.

If the Democrats fail to win this election with these underlying fundamentals, they are truly hopeless as a national party.

But beyond that, that the uninspiring, tired flip-flopper McCain can get an apparently sizeable bounce out of a convention in which

1) the Republicans made fun of Obama's past work as a community organizer

2) McCain unveiled a craven, largely unvetted choice for VP

3) That VP candidate somehow seems to have gotten credit from the religious right (the people Bill Bradley once correctly labeled "the worst people in America") for having a 17-year-old pregnant daughter who "chose" to continue with her pregnancy

4) That VP candidate also is being nominated for sainthood for giving birht to a Down syndrome child, with the insinuation somehow being that Democrats are against developmentally challenged children. (News flash: Those horrible left-wing Kennedy's started and bankrolled the Special Olympics.)

It is clear to me that this country, at heart, does not want to vote for Democrats, because it will with the slightest provocation assume the worst of any liberal and the best of any conservative.

My parents just spent some time in Toronto and told me I'd love it there. After this election, I may just have to find out. If, after the past 8 years, this country again elects Republicans, it is not worthy of me, my abilities or my tax dollars.

I am praying the American public is not going to, yet-again, reward the hypocritical, empty, dumbed-down (not to mention financially disastrous) politics of the Republican party. But I look to this election with all the optimism one would expect from a Phillies fan.

Bye bye.