Me 1, Floppy 0

Lastly, North Dakota has probably followed Montana off Obama's board. This looks like it's basically going to be a seven-state election: Ohio and Michigan; Virgina and Florida; Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Throw New Hampshire and Pennsylvania in there if you want to be conservative, and perhaps Indiana and West Virginia if you want to be aggressive. But Sarah Palin quickly partisanized the electorate, and gave us a considerably less fun map.

I am not sure I agree that West Virginia is one of the 11 most competitive states in this election, but I think Nate's other conclusion, that map has shrunk, is one I agree with.

gr, you're taking a far more nuanced position than the McCain campaign.

The point isn't whether earmarks are intrinsically good or bad; McCain has seized upon them as a proxy for "wasteful government spending." When you look at them in the context of the overall federal budget, they don't even represent a drop in the bucket; cut them all, good bad and indifferent, and you've saved $18 billion.

John Cole puts it this way:

The total national debt, as I write this, is $9,679,000,000,000.00 (nine and a half trillion).

The Budget for 2008 is close to $3,000,000,000,000.00 (three trillion).

Our budget deficit for this year is going to range in between $400-500,000,000,000.00 (four hundred to five hundred billion, give or take a few billion).

The total value of wasteful earmarks in 2008 (according to CAGW) will be approximately $18,000,000,000.00 (eighteen billion).

In other words, when McCain talks about earmarks, he is talking about 3% of our annual budget deficit, .6% of our annual budget, and a number too small to even report when discussing our national debt. Or, put another way, he is talking about two months in Iraq, something he wants to keep going indefinitely.

Not only are they lying about Palin’s involvements with earmarks, they are just not being serious about the horrible economic problems we face. These are not serious people.

Emphasis mine. At this point I've lost all confidence that any of this--facts, hypocrisy, leadership, competence, honor--makes any difference. Our democracy has become a Seinfeldian "show about nothing."

Not trying to be argumentative, and also I'm not sure how much this would have changed things, but the only way this campaign was ever going to be "different" was if Obama had accepted McCain's town hall offering.

Taking shots from the middle...

Obama people have a distressing tendency to be positive they know what's best for America and when that idea is challenged, or perhaps better stated as ignored, they have a tendency to whine. It's most unrefreshing. Say what you want about someone like Tomato Pie or jerseyhoya (who by the way, I've become disgusted with regarding politics as he serves as a junior Karl Rove who doesn't give a damn what his team actually stands for, he just cares that it's his team) but they didn't whine nearly as much when it looked bad for their side.

I realized this yesterday when talking to a level-headed, exRepublican Obama guy who showed me that I don't actually hate how Obama's participated in this race. He's looked weak and whiny, but he hasn't been dishonorable unlike McCain. I hate his supporters reaction to adversity.

Also, come off the freaking 90% thing with Bush. He is not George Bush and even if he was, it ain't working with the electorate. McCain is a Republican, so it stands to reason he's going to vote Republican a fair amount and you (being all Democrats) are not going to like it. But he stands up to his party a great deal. What has Obama done that hasn't been all that party line. I'm not saying voting with Republicans on something where it's like 87-13. I'm talking about taking a position that most people in his party oppose?

I genuinely would like to know. Won't affect much, I'm in the tank for Obama, but I'm just annoyed.

i just want to say... i knew these 3 weeks between the conventions and the first debate would be some of the most mind numbingly stupid news cycles of all time...

but this lipstick thing... makes me want to blow up the entire planet.

its hard to take a step back from it and get it in perspective really... it gets dumber from every angle. this country sucks.

jeff2sf wrote:Obama people have a distressing tendency to be positive they know what's best for America and when that idea is challenged, or perhaps better stated as ignored, they have a tendency to whine. It's most unrefreshing. Say what you want about someone like Tomato Pie or jerseyhoya (who by the way, I've become disgusted with regarding politics as he serves as a junior Karl Rove who doesn't give a damn what his team actually stands for, he just cares that it's his team) but they didn't whine nearly as much when it looked bad for their side.

You are a lot smarter and more noble than I am because you vote for the candidate and not the party.

And it's not that I don't care what my team stands for, I want us to be for lower spending, lower taxes, free trade, more energy exploration, etc. I just don't care how we win.

That's a fair point, JH, just win baby. But I would argue that, no, you don't care what your party stands for, which is why you'll vote for whoever has the R behind them as long as they cover one or two of the points you've outlined. It's very Rovian. By rovian I mean morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.

I've never understood this argument. As individuals, we have core values that influence our voting. Those core values may become more nuianced as we age or educate ourselves, but they rarely change dramatically over a life time (well, lets say past age 30).

The political parties set themselves up to respond to those core values (either for self interest or because the party is comprised of like minded people that set the platform). Folks who go on about "oh, you just vote for an R" act as if there's ever been a federal election cycle where the Republican party, for example, collected a core of interests that varied greatly from one cycle or another.

The criticism, to me, would be valid if one year the Republicans were the pro-choice party (to use a clearly definable example), then the next cycle the Democrats were the pro-choice party - but it just doesn't work that way.

The tone and degrees may be different, but the core values carry from year to year. There's no "tricking" people and having them realize "Oh shit, you mean the Democrats are the bomb Iran party this time, damn, I thought the Republicans were!"

jerseyhoya wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Obama people have a distressing tendency to be positive they know what's best for America and when that idea is challenged, or perhaps better stated as ignored, they have a tendency to whine. It's most unrefreshing. Say what you want about someone like Tomato Pie or jerseyhoya (who by the way, I've become disgusted with regarding politics as he serves as a junior Karl Rove who doesn't give a damn what his team actually stands for, he just cares that it's his team) but they didn't whine nearly as much when it looked bad for their side.

You are a lot smarter and more noble than I am because you vote for the candidate and not the party.

And it's not that I don't care what my team stands for, I want us to be for lower spending, lower taxes, free trade, more energy exploration, etc. I just don't care how we win.

lower spending - well that didn't happen the last 8 years
lower taxes - yes, but disproportionately advantageous for the super wealthy ($5 million or more per annum)
free trade - meh
more energy exploration - you mean more oil exploration i'm sure

^ again, a red herring. Yes, the there doesn't appear to be a fiscal restraint party in the US today. That doesn't change the fact that one party is more likely to appeal to certain values while the other is certain not to.

jeff2sf wrote:That's a fair point, JH, just win baby. But I would argue that, no, you don't care what your party stands for, which is why you'll vote for whoever has the R behind them as long as they cover one or two of the points you've outlined. It's very Rovian. By rovian I mean morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.

If this made a shred of sense in reality, I might be offended.

VoxOrion wrote:I've never understood this argument. As individuals, we have core values that influence our voting. Those core values may become more nuianced as we age or educate ourselves, but they rarely change dramatically over a life time (well, lets say past age 30).

The political parties set themselves up to respond to those core values (either for self interest or because the party is comprised of like minded people that set the platform). Folks who go on about "oh, you just vote for an R" act as if there's ever been a federal election cycle where the Republican party, for example, collected a core of interests that varied greatly from one cycle or another.

The criticism, to me, would be valid if one year the Republicans were the pro-choice party (to use a clearly definable example), then the next cycle the Democrats were the pro-choice party - but it just doesn't work that way.

The tone and degrees may be different, but the core values carry from year to year. There's no "tricking" people and having them realize "Oh $#@!, you mean the Democrats are the bomb Iran party this time, damn, I thought the Republicans were!"

Vox, I don't really care that you just vote R or that Tomato Pie votes R. What irks me is the cheerleading and "yeah, I don't actually believe Obama thinks this way, but isn't this a great commercial because it convinces others it does" stuff. It's the same sort of East Fallowfield malarkey from the other party/board. It's like the dude is watching a baseball game.

The reason that there's no real small government party is because there's no real political demand for one. The Republicans can say they're for small government, but it's not true based on their actions (of course there are probably some individual Republican legislatures who actually vote that way, but they are rare.

What hardly anybody says of course is the reason the Republicans aren't really a small government party. It's not social conservatives, and it isn't even big business special interests. It's because small government is fundamentally incompatible with another major Republican plank--strong national defense.

There has never been a country with a powerful military that also had a small government. It's simply impossible. To say that you're in favor of small government except for national defense is like saying you eat healthy food except for the candy, cake, and ice cream you eat.

So people who vote Republican because they hope to get a smaller government are making a mistake. Alas, they really don't have much of an option.

jeff2sf wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I've never understood this argument. As individuals, we have core values that influence our voting. Those core values may become more nuianced as we age or educate ourselves, but they rarely change dramatically over a life time (well, lets say past age 30).

The political parties set themselves up to respond to those core values (either for self interest or because the party is comprised of like minded people that set the platform). Folks who go on about "oh, you just vote for an R" act as if there's ever been a federal election cycle where the Republican party, for example, collected a core of interests that varied greatly from one cycle or another.

The criticism, to me, would be valid if one year the Republicans were the pro-choice party (to use a clearly definable example), then the next cycle the Democrats were the pro-choice party - but it just doesn't work that way.

The tone and degrees may be different, but the core values carry from year to year. There's no "tricking" people and having them realize "Oh $#@!, you mean the Democrats are the bomb Iran party this time, damn, I thought the Republicans were!"

Vox, I don't really care that you just vote R or that Tomato Pie votes R. What irks me is the cheerleading and "yeah, I don't actually believe Obama thinks this way, but isn't this a great commercial because it convinces others it does" stuff. It's the same sort of East Fallowfield malarkey from the other party/board. It's like the dude is watching a baseball game.

If you had gone to a Catholic school, you'd be much more comfortable with casuistry.

Warszawa wrote:free trade - meh

i almost posted something to this affect after JH's post. i'd love that debate to open up a little bit about "free trade". what that actually means, why it actually seems to be hurting american business when coupled with other policies, and why it seems to have hindered innovation on an international scale.

i feel like its something that people think they should be for because it has the word "free" in it. but if they actually think about it for more than 10 seconds they might realize its a pretty iffy prospect...

jeff2sf wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I've never understood this argument. As individuals, we have core values that influence our voting. Those core values may become more nuianced as we age or educate ourselves, but they rarely change dramatically over a life time (well, lets say past age 30).

The political parties set themselves up to respond to those core values (either for self interest or because the party is comprised of like minded people that set the platform). Folks who go on about "oh, you just vote for an R" act as if there's ever been a federal election cycle where the Republican party, for example, collected a core of interests that varied greatly from one cycle or another.

The criticism, to me, would be valid if one year the Republicans were the pro-choice party (to use a clearly definable example), then the next cycle the Democrats were the pro-choice party - but it just doesn't work that way.

The tone and degrees may be different, but the core values carry from year to year. There's no "tricking" people and having them realize "Oh $#@!, you mean the Democrats are the bomb Iran party this time, damn, I thought the Republicans were!"

Vox, I don't really care that you just vote R or that Tomato Pie votes R. What irks me is the cheerleading and "yeah, I don't actually believe Obama thinks this way, but isn't this a great commercial because it convinces others it does" stuff. It's the same sort of East Fallowfield malarkey from the other party/board. It's like the dude is watching a baseball game.

This is two separate things: You argued I don't care what my party stands for, which isn't true.

But I do follow political campaigns like I follow the Phillies. The Republicans are my team. I like to see them win. The reasons why I'm a Republican and the reasons why I'm a Phillies fan are dissimilar. But really, the day to day of a political campaign is like the day to day of a baseball season. Sometimes umps blow calls in favor of your team, and you sort of chuckle and think "wow we got lucky." Then sometimes umps blow calls in the favor of the other team, and you flip the fuck out. Sounds like the media in politics. Sometimes a player makes a dirty play, or gets lucky on the other team, and you get pissed and think it's unfair. Then other times Utley blows someone up, and he's gritty and awesome.

You have some idealistic view of how you'd like to see a political campaign carried out. You will never see that fulfilled, because at the end of the day it doesn't work that way.

Camp Holdout wrote:

Warszawa wrote:free trade - meh

i almost posted something to this affect after JH's post. i'd love that debate to open up a little bit about "free trade". what that actually means, why it actually seems to be hurting american business when coupled with other policies, and why it seems to have hindered innovation on an international scale.

i feel like its something that people think they should be for because it has the word "free" in it. but if they actually think about it for more than 10 seconds they might realize its a pretty iffy prospect...

Free trade also produces opportunities for American business.

While some right wing economists like to charge the New Deal with exacerbating the Great Depression rather than improving economic conditions, there's no doubt that protectionism, adopted by almost every country, made things a lot worse.

Camp Holdout wrote:

Warszawa wrote:free trade - meh

i almost posted something to this affect after JH's post. i'd love that debate to open up a little bit about "free trade". what that actually means, why it actually seems to be hurting american business when coupled with other policies, and why it seems to have hindered innovation on an international scale.

i feel like its something that people think they should be for because it has the word "free" in it. but if they actually think about it for more than 10 seconds they might realize its a pretty iffy prospect...

You can debate whether or not government should do more to retrain workers who have lost their jobs or whether there should be a more extensive social safety net. But denying the net economic benefits of free trade is as dumb as arguing against the theory of evolution.

jerseyhoya wrote:
You have some idealistic view of how you'd like to see a political campaign carried out. You will never see that fulfilled, because at the end of the day it doesn't work that way.

I never said I would see that type of campaign - but you don't have to contribute to it/take so much glee in the LCD. It doesn't absolve you of your behaving like a 12 year old. This isn't a "we won, we won, f you" that you would give to the Mets fans in your life. You should get drunk if McCain wins in celebration. You shouldn't start "taunting the other team" or being proud when we find out McCain was on steroids (to take this analogy further).

jerseyhoya wrote:

Camp Holdout wrote:

Warszawa wrote:free trade - meh

i almost posted something to this affect after JH's post. i'd love that debate to open up a little bit about "free trade". what that actually means, why it actually seems to be hurting american business when coupled with other policies, and why it seems to have hindered innovation on an international scale.

i feel like its something that people think they should be for because it has the word "free" in it. but if they actually think about it for more than 10 seconds they might realize its a pretty iffy prospect...

You can debate whether or not government should do more to retrain workers who have lost their jobs or whether there should be a more extensive social safety net. But denying the net economic benefits of free trade is as dumb as arguing against the theory of evolution.

This is pretty close to 100% true.

What my b-school friends need to acknowledge is not to seemingly take the attitude to the factory worker that lost his job and has no idea what to do next "Tough luck, but in the end, America's gonna benefit". It's thoughtless and ultimately shortsighted because there are a lot more factory workers than b-school grads. If we can't figure out, or worse yet, be bothered to figure out, a way to provide softer landings when globalization happens, we're going to get adverse results.