McCAIN FINALLY TROUNCES OBAMA

If you have 30 minutes to kill, the annual Al Smith foundation dinner from two weeks ago is very entertaining. For the uninitiated, the dinner is essentially a stand-up comedy event for whatever candidates and public figures are asked to speak. And for the first time in their series of appearances on the same stage, McCain schools Obama.
online pharmacy flexeril best drugstore for you

Granted, they are both just reading jokes written for them by someone else, but McCain's comic timing and material are superior.

Obama looks uncomfortable for some reason and commits the cardinal comedy sin of stopping to elicit a response from flat jokes.

Just move on, man.

A for McCain, B- for Obama.

MEXICAN STANDOFF

So the thing I can't figure out about the left-leaning skeptics' and pessimists' position, meritorious as it may be: if McCain isn't losing, why does everyone involved in his campaign seem to think he is? The McCain/Palin folks are less a campaign than a gangbang of finger pointing, back-stabbing, and self-interest these days.

online pharmacy flexeril no prescription

buy zydena online buy zydena no prescription

If they were confident about pulling off some early November surprise, Palin wouldn't be campaigning for 2012 and the hired help wouldn't be pre-emptively spinning the loss with an eye toward future employment.
buy clomiphene online buy clomiphene no prescription

SIGHTINGS

It is popular among political scientists to discuss the impact of large-scale turnout among young voters and African-Americans on our elections. This is akin to discussing what would happen if a comet hit the Earth – we make guesses based on fragmentary evidence, but no one has actually witnessed it.

It is an unquestioned fact that if voters between the ages of 18 and 24 are least likely to vote (or even be registered). In fact, the relationship between age and turnout is positive and persists until very old age.** Mountains of evidence also exist to show that black voters lag their white counterparts in turnout, although increased mobilization efforts may be closing the gap. This creates a vicious cycle in which politicians talk more about issues relevant to people who vote while ignoring issues relevant to young or black voters. They're playing the percentages. This is why you hear so goddamn much about Medicare and prescription drug prices and almost nothing about student loans, urban blight, or the decaying market for careers as opposed to entry-level jobs.

It also happens to be true, however, that young or black voters lean left. It is standard operating procedure for Democrats to attempt to increase turnout among these groups. Some have even based entire electoral strategies on it, and history is littered with their failed campaigns. The reasons for failure are numerous and conjectural – young voters have less life experience, may not consider politics important, may be ignorant of registration/voting procedures, or simply don't hear anything interesting out of the candidates (see above). Lower black turnout is speculated to be a function of cynicism, scapegoating by mainstream (white) politicians, socioeconomic deficits, etc.

Obama is not the first candidate to invest significant resources into turning out voting-eligible black or college-aged Americans. Several have hoped that it would put them over the top, only to be sorely disappointed. The thing is, young voters get real excited, swear they will vote, and then…..they don't. Likewise, large numbers of new black registrants are added each election season with a negligible increase in turnout. So this strategy, although common, has yet to produce a demonstrable victory.

We may see a meaningful increase in black- and young-voter participation in 2008, but a careful analysis of demographic splits suggests that the result will not be as impressive as many observers expect. Black voters are about 12-14% of the electorate, a disproportionate number of whom (compared to other ethnic groups) are ineligible to vote. Increasing black turnout by 10% (an ambitious goal) would only increase overall turnout among all eligible voters by about 1%. Since black voters choose the Democrat about 93% of the time – maybe 99% this time around – the majority of that increase will benefit Obama. So the 1% increase is significant enough to matter in really close states (note that some, like Iowa, Nevada, and NH have negligible black populations) but most of it will be insignificant, falling in states like Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, Illinois, and so on. It may help a tight race in Ohio, NC, or PA, although they would have to be very close for this to matter.

The effect of young voters is even more dubious. Let's say that they really jack up turnout rates from 30% to 60%. Well, 18-to-24s only comprise 8% of the electorate. And the split in their allegiances, according to available polling data, is something like 65/35 Obama. So even doubling 18-to-24 turnout is unlikely to have a statistically significant impact on electoral outcomes unless a particular state is extremely close.

In short, if Obama wins big it is going to be on account of his appeal to middle-aged and older white voters. I don't think this is the case because said voters are "more important" – they are simply the most numerous by far.

I am a fairly committed anti-skeptic at this point in the race. Turnout among college-aged and black voters, however, will remain firmly in the "believe it when I see it" camp. My feeling is that the makeup of the electorate will change while overall turnout increases only slightly. The reason is simple: for every person who would not ordinarily vote but will turn out for Obama, there is a Republican in Illinois or New York who is dangerously close to thinking "Um, fuck it." Right or wrong, Republicans have been demoralized by nine months of a bad candidate, a worse running mate, and incessant messages about the impending bloodshed in Congress. In areas not broadly considered competitive, apathy (or overconfidence) might suppress turnout as much as other circumstances promote it.

**Turnout increases with age because voters become "stakeholders" in their 30s/40s, buying homes and having kids. They have more to gain or lose. Another bump occurs at age 65, as the elderly have time on their hands. But at very old ages (80+) the relationship between age and turnout becomes inverse, as mobility, the ability to drive, and mental faculties tend to decline rapidly and take political participation with them.

PLAUSIBILITY, OR: NORTH DAKOTA?

The American public has the long-term memory of a fruit fly desperately trying to escape from a blazing bong. It is also, as we are all aware, light on facts. These two things, combined with a healthy dose of denial among half the population, leads to some very curious interpretations of what is or is not plausible in the context of this election.

It has become very fashionable lately for polling numbers to be rejected out of hand because, well, obviously the results are ridiculous. Montana? North Carolina? Georgia? North Dakota? Pffffft. That's retarded. Anything which puts Obama ahead, or even competitive, in those states surrenders credibility immediately.

When did the 2000/2004 incarnation of the electoral map become the alpha and omega of American political geography? Maybe, just maybe, there was a constant in those races (Our Leader) and two opponents who had limited appeal. In 1996 – as if ancient history like twelve years ago could ever be relevant! – Clinton/Gore won states in the deep south and 51% of the vote in West Virginia, where Obama's recent polling competitiveness has been the subject of mockery.

The Democrats also carried Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico in that race, proving more than competitive in the mountain west. Bob Dole won South Dakota that year – by 3%.
buy orlistat online buy orlistat no prescription

Raise your hand if you realized any of this. The point is that it wasn't all that long ago that the states we now definitively classify as "red" or "blue" were competitive – not quite the Verdun-like fortresses of partisanship they are now made out to be.

Montana? Can Obama really be competitive in Montana? Well, Montana has a Democratic Governor (Brian Schweitzer, a finalist in the VP search), two Democratic Senators (Max Baucus and future leadership-appointee Jon Tester), and a Democratic majority in the State Senate. Frankly, I'd be more suspicious if the polls indicated that Obama had no shot. Is he the favorite? No. Are polls showing the state to be competitive completely off base? Up to you, but it does not appear to be an outlandish idea.
buy lexapro online buy lexapro no prescription

North Dakota? Two Democratic Senators and a Democrat in its At-Large House district. Bill Clinton had some traction there. Again, you'd be foolish to call Vegas and put money on Obama, but a poll indicating competitiveness shouldn't be rejected out of hand.

North Carolina and Virginia both have huge African-American populations and young, growing populations overall. Northern Virginia and the Research Triangle aren't exactly backwoods GOP country. Warner is winning his VA Senate race in a laugher (after a narrow win by Jim Webb in 2006). It's not much of a stretch to see a weak GOP Presidential candidate struggling, or even trailing, in these environments.

We will know the outcome of this election for certain in just 11 days, but pieces of data suggesting that our electoral map won't look like 2004 aren't cause for skepticism. The Bush years are over. Anyone who lived through them is likely to have a hard time believing that. But it's true. We respond differently as a nation to different candidates and, as McCain is quick to remind you, George W. Bush isn't running. Compare 1984 to 1996, 1996 to 2000. You'll see significant differences. Hell, 20 years ago California was GOP country and West Virginia was one of the mere eight states that Michael Fucking Dukakis won. What you see in 2008 simply isn't going to look like 2004, regardless of who wins. Different times, different issues, different voters, and different candidates. If a Democrat can get elected to Congress in rural Utah and Hawaii chooses a female Jewish Republican Governor, there aren't too many things that should be considered geographically implausible in American politics.

UPDATE: TWO WEEKS OUT

I was part of a group email exchange recently in which some Obama fans noted their unshakable pessimism, the idea that McCain will somehow win irrespective of the current conditions. This is the nagging feeling that Democrats have earned from decades of being the Washington Generals of American politics. Nothing can ever go right. They will always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I would like to share that pessimism, especially after 2004. Try as I might, I just cannot make the math work for McCain. There are only two ways to conjure up a McCain victory at this point: electoral fraud, which I do not endorse, or the assumption that literally hundreds of polls conducted by independent, Democratic, and Republican organizations are wrong, with which I can't agree.

To win, McCain will need to prevail in every single swing state and two or more states (depending on which ones) in which he currently trails by a statistically significant margin. I do not have the words for how unlikely or implausible that appears at the moment. The polls will narrow over the next two weeks as undecideds finally extract heads from asses, but there are only two ways to get around the data showing Obama in the lead. First, assume that the polls are just wrong. All of them. Significantly wrong. In a dozen states and nationwide. That sounds more like a childish denial of reality than a logical argument. Second is to believe, absent any empirical evidence, that he's about to mount an overwhelming and rapid comeback. Good luck with that.

Money-wise, Obama's recent figures stagger me. Regardless of my preferences, I find the amount of money required in these elections to be sickening. Obama raised more than $5 million per day in September – that means that his campaign raised $58 per second for an entire month. McCain isn't exactly hurting, raising tens of millions as well, but the fund raising by Obama has dwarfed anything conceivable even a few years ago. Obama can literally piss money away on any half-cocked idea that crosses the campaign's mind. Campaign hard in North Dakota? Why not! Thirty minutes of network TV time? Buy it! Six million dollars worth of advertising during each NFL game? Do it! It is like an episode of Supermarket Sweep at this point, sprinting down the aisles, arms outstretched, pushing anything in reach into the cart.

What's he doing with that cash? He's straining McCain to the mental and financial breaking point. Unlike Kerry, who unwisely devoted all of his attention to just a few states, Obama is running hard and running hard everywhere. McCain can't just focus on "swing states." He has to waste precious time and money making sure he holds Indiana. That is not good.

I expect very little to change in twelve days. Barring some world-shattering event (the Russians invade, the stock market plummets to zero, etc) I feel like the dynamics of this race will not substantively change in such a short time. Minds are largely made up and the contest becomes a battle of who will show up on Election Day. McCain should spend less time throwing the kitchen sink of "hot button" issues at the media to turn undecided voters against Obama. Instead, he should do everything in his power to keep his existing supporters motivated. If they say "fuck it" and give up, he has no chance. If they stay fired up, he has some chance. Hoping that his base outnumbers Obama's support might not make great odds, but they're better odds than throwing inane smears around and hoping they work.

Obama's plan shouldn't change: stay calm, talk about the economy. That's it. As long as everyone's focus remains on our pitiful economic climate, the odds of voters flocking to McCain's "message", whatever the hell it is, are slender.

DON'T QUIT YOUR DAY JOB

There is a divide among political scientists between those who treat polling or survey data as sacrosanct ("Of course it's reliable, look at how scientifically we collected it!") and those who consider it slightly more accurate than flipping a coin. I fall somewhere in the middle. Polling is riddled with issues that aren't easy to explain away or "correct" with post-measurement methodological voodoo (social desirability and question-order effects, for example) but a dozen polls all pointing in the same direction are a reliable indicator of a trend. I suppose I could describe myself as a believer in Zaller's "Miracle of Aggregation" theory with respect to polling – any one is of limited value, but in quantity they paint a useful picture.

My attititude suggests, therefore, that I believe Obama is going to win.

buy symbicort inhaler online healthempire.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/symbicort-inhaler.html no prescription pharmacy

Why? Because it is essentially impossible to find a poll that says otherwise right now. He has won every nationwide poll since Palin opened her mouth and he is the clear trend leader in every important battleground state. His electoral vote total will range between 313 and 375 – a crushing victory – based on aggregated single-state polls. Polling has him ahead in utterly improbable places like North Dakota and North Carolina.

In short, and I say this with due respect to my pollster colleagues, if Obama loses this election the entirety of the contemporary polling industry should be ridiculed into oblivion. Now that literally every single poll is pointing squarely at a solid Obama victory, his defeat would not mean simply that the polls "got it wrong." It would mean that they got it so utterly, overwhelmingly, and inexcusably wrong that the entire art, science, and industry of measuring public opinion will have to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch. This would not be "getting it wrong" like some journalist who picked the Red Sox over the Rays. This would be Dewey Defeats Truman wrong. Maginot Line wrong. They'll Hail Us As Their Liberators wrong. Coke II wrong. Historically, epically wrong.

Could they really be that far off? Well, there are two ways to be wrong in this game – missing high and missing low. Here are a pair of logical, ostensibly plausible scenarios that illustrate how.

  • Scenario 1: McCain Wins – Let's say that there is some characteristic about likely McCain voters that makes them unwilling to admit their support. Maybe they're embarrassed or maybe they just like fucking with the librul media and its polls. Whatever the reason, they're saying "Undecided" when their preference is McCain. So in every state where the polls split along the lines of Obama 47, McCain 45, McCain will come out on top because the 8% of respondents indicating "Undecided" or "Don't Know" are really his supporters.
    buy azithromycin online healthempire.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/azithromycin.html no prescription pharmacy

  • Scenario 2: Obama Hits 400 EV – Polls are often accused of undercounting young, black, and low-income voters (more on that later this week). They also under-represent cell phone users in most cases, although good organizations are correcting for that in their samples now. But for the sake of this argument, suppose that turnout among (overwhelmingly Democratic) college-aged and black voters positively dwarfs anything we've seen before. Both demographics turn out in droves, far in excess of the rate at which they are sampled in polls.
    buy clomid online buy clomid online no prescription

    Obama not only wins everything he is currently predicted to win but pulls a few "holy shit!"-style upsets in places like Tennessee, Louisiana, and Georgia.

    Is either scenario likely? We can only speculate at this point.

    buy cipro online healthempire.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/cipro.html no prescription pharmacy

    I know enough about the guts of big polling operations – and some of the folks involved – to be certain that they have thought of these issues. Gallup et al employ high-level statistical wizards and experts in polling methodology to correct for or avoid such landmines. I have confidence in my colleagues. What I don't have confidence in is the efficacy of quantitative ways to "correct" the inherent limitations of survey-based research. When shove comes back to push, we are still basing conclusions about an electorate of over 180 million eligible voters on the responses of ~800 yahoos who are lonely enough to sit on the phone talking to a pollster (or worse, a robo-dialer) for 15 minutes.

    The error and obstacles inherent in this process means that we shouldn't be shocked if polls are wrong – we should be amazed that they're ever right. But this year, with every single indicator pointing in the same direction, there will be consequences for being wrong. The entire industry can't just chuckle and say "Well, nature of the beast!" Heads will roll, souls will be searched, and we will have to go back to the drawing board. The Smooth Jimmy Apollo excuse from The Simpsons ("When you're right 52% of the time, you're wrong 48% of the time!" "OK Jimmy, you're off the hook.") isn't going to cut it. It's not possible to blow something this badly and simply go back to business as usual.

  • THE TIME MACHINE

    Although not a "writer" per se, perhaps my favorite living writer not named Thomas Frank is recording engineer Steve Albini. He writes very little these days, but when he was younger and had a more active pen (not a metaphor for his penis – an actual pen) he authored some of the most classic rants about the music industry you would ever hope to read. He has heavily influenced my writing style, probably more than anyone realizes.

    Among the classics is a 1994 rejoinder to Chicago music critic Bill Wyman entitled "Three Pandering Sluts and their Music-Press Stooge." Mr. Wyman had written a feature about three successful "indie" musical groups – Smashing Pumpkins, Urge Overkill, and Liz Phair. Aside from the copious swearing and Albini's uncanny ability to be a complete dick in writing, my favorite portion is his conclusion: "Clip your year-end column and put it away for ten years. See if you don't feel like an idiot when you reread it."

    Sure enough, fourteen years later Wyman's effusive praise does seem ridiculous. SP went into a nosedive and even their "good" albums sound incredibly dated now. Urge Overkill disappeared 15 minutes after this was written. Liz Phair attempted to turn herself into a teeny-bopper, the results of which were so embarrassing that she should have been imprisoned. Wyman, in short, bought marketing hype and spoke glowingly about what turned out to be flavors-of-the-minute. Now that those artists' fad has passed, the author's laudatory words are silly in hindsight.

    Lesson learned: if you're going to write something down for posterity and general consumption, put a little thought into it with an eye toward avoiding future embarrassment. Before something is drowned in praise, be fully informed and make sure it has some staying power.

    Right-wing columnists, of course, are unable to feel shame or humility and their employers never hold them accountable for their past inaccuracies. It's simply not worth it for them to fret about how their words will look weeks, months, or years later. The only thing that matters is stoking the prejudices of their base and getting through the day's talking points. Nonetheless, you have to wonder if some of the pundit class regrets their words about Sarah Palin during and immediately after the GOP convention. Without knowing anything about her, they dove headlong into hyperbolic ass-kissing mode. I wonder if re-reading that stuff makes them feel like idiots yet.

    Bill Kristol, who privately lobbied McCain to pick Palin, gave us the classic shitburger "A Star is Born?" on September 1. At least he covered his ass by noting:

    If Palin turns out not be up to the challenge for which McCain has selected her, McCain will pay a heavy price. His judgment about the most important choice he’s had to make this year will have been proved wanting.

    Bullseye, Billy! But caveats and restraint were soon off the table as Kristol followed up a week later with "A Heartbeat Away." Here he lets us know that:

    McCain didn’t just pick a politician who could appeal to Wal-Mart Moms. He picked a Wal-Mart Mom…A Wasilla Wal-Mart Mom a heartbeat away? I suspect most voters will say, No problem. And some — perhaps a decisive number — will say, It’s about time.

    Kristol was actually shy compared to some of the others. Ron Dreher said "Why does the Angry Left hate Sarah Palin? Because of the potentially transformative power of her example" in his handjob piece, although he certainly changed his mind in a hurry! Ann Coulter chimed in with the characteristically-intelligent "The Best Man Turned Out to Be a Woman." Cal Thomas humiliates himself in "Steel Magnolia," laden with gems like:

    McCain's selection may be risky, my bet is that the pretty, pro-life, gun-toting, hockey mom is going to pleasantly surprise a lot of people with her toughness and common sense view of life and the world.

    Monica Charen tells us, in "Game Changer," that:

    McCain must also have sensed that a young, attractive woman from a western state would inject a dose of energy and enthusiasm into the race. On this, McCain may not have even guessed at how right he was (though one senses that Cindy McCain knew). Sarah Palin is political dynamite. She has transformed Republicans from flaccid to fired-up overnight. Just by being pro-life, small town, patriotic, and religious, she set the teeth of the media types on edge. By being all of that AND smart and articulate, and a budget hawk, she sent conservatives over the moon.

    The return trip from the moon didn't take long. Ross Mackenzie blows his colleagues away, though, unhinging his jaw like a snake to swallow a few extra inches of wang for the right-wing base:

    So how about a single word to describe John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running-mate? Sensational. If he becomes the next president, he may well look back and see this decision — this long Statue-of-Liberty pass downfield — as winning the game for him before Labor Day. What’s so terrific about Gov. Palin? How much time do you have?

    We all know, for example, that writing an email or phoning someone while angry is a bad idea. Emotional, knee-jerk reactions never look good in hindsight. The world of right-wing media operates by different rules, but only to a point. Some well-known righties have done rapid 180s on Palin; others will defend her to the bitter end. All of them, however, have left a trail of words that we outside of the 30% Club will be only too happy to revisit.

    GINANDTACOS PRESENTS: GREAT MOMENTS IN BEING RETARDED

    This is the McCain campaign in a nutshell: his "Joe the Plumber" prop from last evening's debate is related to a man who married into the Keating family. Not exactly a close relation, but why in the name of god would McCain use an example – an example he KNOWS we are going to dash off and research – that will lead back to, and hence remind everyone of, his Keating Five connections?

    The only good answer? Because he is retarded.

    WITHOUT FEATHERS

    (I want to preface this by stating quite clearly that I am not implying that this presidential election is "over." My comments refer to the position in which McCain finds himself right now and does not suggest that no change can take place before Election Day)

    While many commentators have opined that this election is fascinating, unprecedented, and unique in numerous ways, I believe that twenty years from now we will still be studying what happened to McCain in the short time between the GOP convention and the second presidential debate. Republicans' heads must be spinning right now. Electoral fortunes rise and fall, but rarely so rapidly.

    The most basic of questions will suffice here: what in the hell happened? McCain emerged from the convention on even footing with Obama for the first time. It felt like a race. It gave every indication of being an eight-week dogfight until Election Day.

    online pharmacy buy stromectol online no prescription pharmacy

    For a moment it even looked like Obama would be the underdog. Now, just a few weeks later, adjectives like "pathetic" and "desperate" seem a lot more fitting than "strong" or "energetic." How did McCain go from possible front-runner to worrying if he could hold Montana? I will suggest three answers.

    First, there is a portion of the electorate that does not pay any attention to the races until after the conventions. They have a limited interest in politics and, if you'll forgive the metaphor, they don't turn the ballgame on until the 9th inning. I will go to my grave convinced that "Undecided" responses in pre-September polling are proxies for "I have paid no attention whatsoever." Part of what happened recently, in short, is that some of that 10-15% of undecided/no-answer respondents in the polls we've been seeing all year have finally decided to pay a little attention to the race.

    online pharmacy buy trazodone online no prescription pharmacy

    buy flexeril online buy flexeril no prescription

    Once they put some thought into it, many apparently realized that they don't like this McCain fellow so much.

    Second, these voters began to pay attention at the height of the latest installment of our financial distress. Economic trouble is always the harbinger of doom for incumbents and the incumbent party.

    Third, the turning point in this entire race: Sarah Palin talked. The second she opened her mouth, non-Republicans found it nearly impossible to take the McCain campaign seriously.
    buy wellbutrin online buy wellbutrin no prescription

    The campaign, which invested so much capital in McCain's wisdom, experience, judgment, and professionalism, suddenly felt like a PTA meeting in a trailer park. McCain had it right in January – in these difficult times Americans are looking for someone serious, someone in control. His decision to try to sell "folksy" and "Main Street common sense" could not have been more poorly timed. This economic crisis is a moment at which Americans don't want to look across the table at their candidate – they want to look up to someone, someone who seems like he or she knows what the fuck is going on and is prepared to handle it. We're not interested in someone who "shares our values." We're interested in someone who can fix a potentially catastrophic problem.

    Post-Palin, the McCain campaign has sputtered and my hunch is that he's going to regret this decision until he dies. If his appearance in the last few days is any indication, that may be soon. He looks tired, angry, and desperate.

    I do not know what miracle McCain can conjure at this point, but unless the polls are wrong – utterly, completely, historically wrong – he had better think of something fast. His recent efforts to right the ship landed with a thud; his ads are terrible, the Ayers/terrorist thing only stuck with people who weren't voting for Obama anyway, and he's burned a lot of his credibility and veneer of dignity by resorting to rolling around in pig shit in the desperate hope that he'll find a diamond buried in the pile. Emily Dickinson famously described hope as "the thing with feathers." McCain 2008 is starting to look pretty bald.