A few days after the GOP convention, a USA Today/Gallup poll McCain surging to a 10% lead; other polls had a much smaller bounce for McCain, but the Gallup poll determined the narrative of McCain’s momentum and set the stage for a week of Democratic panic. Now, it is Obama’s turn to benefit from a similar dynamic. The ABC/Washington Post poll finds Obama leading 52% to 43% among likely voters, 52% to 42% among registered voters; that’s far a larger lead than we have seen in other national polls, but it provides the press with the data point they need to tell the story of an Obama comeback.
But while Obama’s advantage might be bigger than conventional wisdom dictates, the poll’s internals - the shifts that are driving Obama’s 11% bounce in the ABC poll - are consistent with what we have been seeing elsewhere and they paint an encouraging picture for the Illinois Senator. First is the fact that Obama’s lead is fueled by voters feeling insecure about the economy. This is the first time since the fall of 1992 that less than 10% of voters think the economy is in good shape - and we know what happened in the fall of 1992. McCain might not be an incumbent president, but in times of economic crisis the entire party in power tends to suffer.
Second, is Obama’s gains among independents - something we have seen elsewhere: Obama trailed by 10, he now leads by 14. Second is his gains among white women. This was a key demographic group in which McCain was gaining at the beginning of September. Now, Obama has surged by 19% to take a 49-47 lead. Interestingly, the most recent Diego Hotline tracking poll finds the same trend: Obama trailed by 16% among white women last week, he now leads by 1%.
Other damaging internals are also consistent with trends from other polls: Palin’s favorability rating is dropping quickly, from 58-28 two weeks ago to 52-38 today. Among independent women, Palin’s favorability rating has collapsed from 65% to 43%. The enthusiasm gap is back, with 65% of Obama’s supporters calling themselves very enthusiastic versus 34% of McCain’s (50% after the convention). And the financial crisis is suiting Obama well, as he leads by 13% when asked who is best suited to handle crisis (yesterday’s LA Times poll found the same margin). And when asked which candidates will bring change (a mantle McCain has spent weeks trying to reclaim), Obama leads by 25%.
So while the overall match-up numbers might be a bit larger than we usually see, the internals do not look like outliers. In fact, they bear a striking resemblance to voters’ perception of the candidate before the conventions. Some of it is due to a bounce’s natural fading, the rest is caused by the conversation’s turning to the economy, but there is little question that McCain’s September gains have been more than erased.
The financial crisis appears to be reminding voters why they have been distrusting Republicans over the past three years, and pushing independents back towards behaving like Democrats (as they did in 2006). And it is allowing Obama to showcase his ability to deal with a crisis on the terrain on which he is the strongest - just as a major military or terrorist development over the next few weeks would benefit McCain.
That said, McCain has two big weapons in his arsenal right now. The first is that Friday’s debate will be devoted to foreign policy - an arrangement that of course preceded the financial meltdown. The McCain campaign has been trying to change the topic for days now and put Obama on the defensive, but on Friday both candidates will be forced to talk about issues McCain feels more comfortable in, issues on which voters trust him more.
That said, this could also mean that the Friday debate ends up a wasted opportunity for McCain. It is very possible that the moderator will now include a few questions about the financial meltdown and the bailout plan, which would cut on the time that was to be devoted to foreign policy and get Obama to put in a few soundbites on economic topics. It could also make the debate feel somewhat irrelevant in the minds of viewers: McCain has to look presidential and hope that Obama looks unprepared when it comes to national security, but will that work if voters are not feeling anxious about such topics? And will viewers not feel that discussing national security in the midst of a major debate about a $700 billion bailout is a bit irrelevant?
In other words, a foreign policy debate in the midst of a financial crisis can either change the conversation to national security (which is good for McCain) or it can lower the stakes of the debate, as whatever story comes out of Friday night could be immediately drowned by financial events over the following days (which would not be good for McCain).
The second weapon McCain holds is that he seems to hold a crucial position in the debate over the bailout, as his position could determine that of wavering Republicans, either winning support for the Treasury’s proposal or lead to Congress taking a harder stance. That could put him at the center of the news in the days ahead on the financial crisis and improve voters’ perception of his ability to deal with the economy and a financial crisis.
But for the McCain campaign to make the most of the coming opportunities to reclaim some momentum will require for them to stop being so incredibly distracted. It’s one thing to lose the respect of the conservative intelligentsia (George Will’s scathing column in the Post yesterday was remarkable in the depth of his criticism), it’s one thing to make media-bashing a staple of your campaign, but the all-out war the campaign launched against the press yesterday by trying to make sure Palin never answers a single question is just stunning. It is the press, after all, that chooses how to cover stories like Palin’s visit to the UN.
At some point the GOP’s warring against the press is bound to backfire. And in some ways, it already did over the past two weeks as the media unexpectedly starting bashing the McCain campaign’s tactics, precipitating the sudden halt of Republican momentum.
Another avoidable mistake for the McCain campaign was its decision to release ads tying Obama to former Fannie Mae executives Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson. The connection to Raines was tenuous to start with, but the maneuver is now dramatically backfiring as the New York Times reported that McCain campaign manager Rick Davis has extensive ties to Freddie Mac. And after the McCain campaign (in typical fashion) responded by attacking the messenger and after McCain said on Sunday that Davis had no relationship with Freddie Mac for years, the New York Times came out with a stinging story today that reveals that Davis was on the company’s payroll from 2005 to last month, receiving $15,000 for no explicitly defined work:
One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement. The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.
They said they did not recall Mr. Davis’s doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the approaching midterm Congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis’s firm, Davis & Manafort, had been kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis’s close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House.
That last sentence is particularly damning, not just for Davis but also for McCain. In a response, the campaign does not deny the story - though it once again tries to shoot down the New York Times; they better have another response ready about how Davis might have influenced McCain. But what is most stunning about this story, as I said above, is how avoidable it was: Why would the McCain campaign think it was a good idea to open the Fannie Mae can of worms if Davis had such extensive ties to Freddie Mac? Even if no one else in the campaign knew about this, does Davis not have enough power to put a veto?
That is why I said the GOP is trying to meaninglessly pit voters agaisnt the press by painting the press as being biased even though the McCain campaign is willingly risking its credibility by spreading falsehlds and waiting for the rpess to correct them, then railing agaisnt the press of being biased. They have to remember that what the press do is primarily report on anything, whether it hurts Obama or McCain, depending on who misleads voters the most. The more you lie and deceive voters, the morethe press comes up with rebuttals. After all, it is the press’ responsibility to ensure voters are not misled by the campaigns (even though isolated members of the press corps may occasionally misprint). Thus, the McCain campaign should be faulted almost entirely for what the media is doing. But again, that is the tradition of Republicans — to rail agaisnt perceived but false press bias.
John McCain and Sarah Palin have proven to be willing to twist facts to suit the circumstances and influence voter perception no matter how untruthful their claims.
Taniel - good artcile. I had heard that the order of the debate topics had shifted a few days ago at the agreement of both campaigns. Mccain obviously wants to change the topic of discussion. For Obama that aim is to seem Presidential and to use the economic/domestic issue debate in later October to refocus the campaign on favourable ground.
I agree with you that attacking Obama for a fleeting meeting with one Fannie Mae exec is nothing compared to the McCain campign chairman getting $15000 a month for years from them for acess.
“But again, that is the tradition of Republicans — to rail agaisnt perceived but false press bias.”
- Deny, deny, deny. The tradition of liberals and their media bias.
Teezy - you rail against the “mainstream media” but no mainstream news channel is as biased as Fox News. There are very few “liberal” talk radio stations compared to Conservative talk radio so I do not see how you can argue the media is biased and Conservatives sidelined.
If the media was biased and so important how come Republicans (not the same as true Conservatives!) get elected President more often?
If the media was biased and so important how come Republicans (not the same as true
Conservatives!) get elected President more often?
Because they are masters of deception. See how Bush started the war in Iraq and used bogus intelligence reports; the apparent attempts to cover-up the CIA and U.S. attorney firing scandals; and lots of other scandals of deceptive proportions? The GOP traditionally wins elections by means of deceit. Their whiny complaints of press bias goes back to the mid 20th century and has nothing to do with real press bias but with strategies of winning public office at the cost of feeding the public falseholds and pitting voters against the mainstream press. These days, talk radio is dominated by those who profess to be true conservatives but at the same time rail against everything they see as un-GOP and not socially conservative enough in their minds. Even though who use drugs like Rush Lambaugh and at the same time support very social conservative policy positions and rail against the things they themselves commit: lying, hypocrisy, and drug abuse.
It is interesting to see the GOP try and seel the bailout plan which is state sponsored ownership of Wall Street - umm I thought that was called socialism and was so terrible we had to have the GOP to protect us from it!
“but no mainstream news channel is as biased as Fox News. ”
- That’s you’re defense? That here is one conservative biased channel that gets a fraction of total viewership? Weak.
Talk radio isn’t MSM since they don’t claim to be objective.
“If the media was biased and so important how come Republicans (not the same as true Conservatives!) get elected President more often?”
- There are many reasons for that, none of which excuse bias in the MSM.
Mike,
That’s why a growing number of conservative Republicans are coming out against (or are at least are very cautious about) the proposed plan.
Mike -
And it demonstrates the hypocrisy of those who say they oppose government invention in the free market, and they are mostly Republicans. They decry “liberal handouts” while they hand out $700 billion to reward reckless pursuits of greed, not individual responsibility and accountability for which they claim to stand for. Indeed, hypocrisy is the very foundation of Republicanism.
Who isn’t biased in regards to political coverage? The only person I can name would be Jim Lehrer (msp).
I thought that George Will did a great piece on John McCain. Will’s own words (words from a conservative) made me compare McCain with Bush. What is the difference between Bush and McCain? In 2001, there was lots of differences, and I always admired McCain for speaking against the party line in regards to the reconciliation act of 2001. But now, I wonder if this act was truly his idealogy or was it the impulsiveness that Will was speaking about.
So please (anyone), explain to me the true differences between McCain and Bush at this time.
That’s why a growing number of conservative Republicans are coming out against (or
are at least are very cautious about) the proposed plan.
I beg to differ. It is because the GOP is so fearful of being seen as less caring of the economic plight of Americans and trying to balance its conservative face with the need to apear concerned about the economy in the midst of elections. Bush and all the Republican administration guys came up with the bailout idea, and Bush does not have to worry because his term is almsot over. He is a total hypocrite.
Teezy - A Republican President and a Republican Secretary of the Treasury have proposed this bailout plan. Some Conservative GOP members may complain but the Republican party is again saying one thing (government is bad, limit the size etc) and doing another - much like they did with the prescription drug benefit, the budget deficit etc
The only study I know of regarding coverage of McCain and Obama was done by George Mason University at the end of July, and it found that the broadcast TV coverage was more negative for Obama than it was for McCain.
http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm
Saying over and over that there’s “media bias” doesn’t make it true. It has to be backed up by data. Maybe there’s media bias, maybe there isn’t. But just saying that there is doesn’t help resolve the issue. Conservatives can claim many passes given to Obama, and liberals can point to many passes given to McCain.
Anonymous,
With the additional costs that will be piled on by Pelosi and Democrat Congress, the total cost will likely be over 1 trillion. Will the Democrats maintain their ideals of shared responsibility and sacrifice and raise taxes on all workers to pay for this? Will Democrats staunchly oppose that the costs to be added to the deficit and therefore saddle future generations with the cost, something they have repeatedly railed against in past Republican deficit spending? Nah, they’ll just show that hypocrisy is the foundation of the Democratic party and leave the cost for someone else to worry about.
So please (anyone), explain to me the true differences between McCain and Bush at this time.
–Will McCain be more willing to work with the Democrats than Bush has shown in his tenure?
I’d like someone to explain to me their differences…
Mike,
In case you haven’t noticed, Bush has never been a limited government conservative. That aside, limited government does not mean NO government. Conservatives believe there are limited instances where it is needed and necessary, and liberals believe it is needed and necessary in all instances.
Who presently in the GOP (senate, president) is a “limited government conservative”? I consider a limited government conservative someone like Ron Paul.
Here are just a few differences between McCain and Bush that were cited and documented by a Democrat.
Teezy,
I believe Democrats are correct in trying to help regular Americans, if it appears they intend on adding billions of more dollars. After all, who deserves to be helped for the misdeeds of greedy CEOS, taxpayers or the financial firms that contributed to the economic difficulties of ordinary Americans? Why should, then, mistakes be rewarded? isn’t it taxpayers who are victims of the risky financial practices of those firms who contributed to the current economic mess and that are now to be bailed out with taxpayer money? Clearly, it islike punishing voters for the failrues of corporate America. Therefore, the first thing we need to do is make sure voters hurt by the actions of a few greedy individuals are compensated.
The conservative limited government crowd in the Senate would include at least:
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Anonymous,
I agree that greedy CEOs and potentially illegal accounting practices from some major financial institutions are a big part of the cause. Though, all those home owners that took on mortgages with risky variable rates that they ultimately couldn’t afford are also partially at fault.
So who will Democrats and Bush foot the bill with? Hint: It won’t be the companies they’re bailing out.
Thanks Teezy. That was a very good article on the differences between Bush and McCain. There are definitely a lot of information that proves that McCain and Bush are definitely different. This also shows that if McCain becomes President, we won’t have the same inconsistent leadership that the current President has shown.
Concerning the limited government group that you have listed, I might add Jim Bunning. The confusion with mainstream America has been that there are several forms of conservatism. You have your neo-cons (Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney), you have your social conservatives (Browning, Huckabee), your Paleo Conservatives (Buchanan), your libertarian leaning conservatives (Ron Paul) and your fiscal conservatives, which have been hiding in Washington in recent years.
With the additional costs that will be piled on by Pelosi and Democrat Congress, the total cost will likely be over 1 trillion.
Oh please. That’s simply not true.
The $700 billion figure assumes that the assets bought by the government will be worth zero by the time the government sells them. That’s probability is very, very small. If the market recovers sufficiently, the final cost will be a fraction of that. If the market does well, the taxpayers will profit.
Of course if the market continues to tank, then taxpayers are on the hook. But if nothing is done, the consequences could be far worse than $700 billion of taxpayer debt, hence the consensus opinion by those who know the situation that government intervention is not only preferred but essential.
The root cause here is not greedy CEOs and accounting practices. It’s bad mortgages which everyone in the chain ignored as long as everyone was making money. That includes home buyers, mortgage sellers, accrediting agencies, institutions that bought up those mortgage-backed securities, and their shareholders.
But placing blame, even if done accurately, won’t resolve the problem.
As for who will pay, we’re going to take out another loan, and the interest on the debt will hamper the efforts of the next administration to get anything done.
Will the Democrats maintain their ideals of shared responsibility and sacrifice and raise taxes on all workers to pay for this?
I’d like to see it, but it won’t happen. Still, I think asking the wealthy to pay a little more is better than McCain’s tax plan which doesn’t ask any of us to lift a finger for anything at all. So much for “Country First.”
There has been talk of adding another stimulus package and an auto-industry bailout to this bailout package to get enough Democratic votes.
“I think asking the wealthy to pay a little more is better”
- Its always better to ask someone else to pay more, right? So much for the “new politics”.
Teezy, yours is a universal complaint from the Right. Unfortunately, your definition of ‘bias’ is so broad that it sweeps in anyone who doesn’t take a hard Right position,
Obama has had a great deal of criticism during the primary season and in some cases, into the general. Right now, McCain is catching it full bore - I’ll agree with you on that. But there are some reasons its happening besides sheer malice.
The press loves to catch public figures tangled up in their own underwear, so to speak, and that’s a bipartisan instinct. McCain has had the brunt of it lately because of campaign missteps - he’s been cross-legged on the state of the economy, he’s caught in a misstatement about Davis’s continued involvement with Fannie Mae, many of his ads have been so over the top based on slim factual support that they invite criticism. Some of Obama’s have, too, but there may be another factor at work against McCain, and its human nature that drives it, not political bias.
McCain always made it a point to hang out with the press and curry favor. Once Schmidt and the hardheads took over his campaign, that stopped. The press no longer had the same kind of access, and as a guess, developed a deep dislike for Schmidt and his people. (The same issue plagued Clinton - press hated her staff.)
That escalated after the Palin nomination. Schmidt foresaw a firestorm of criticism (justified IMO) at the caliber of the choice and launched a pre-emptive attack on the MSM, although the MSM (other than Olberman, who is the Left’s Limbaugh) had little or nothing to do with the nastier attacks on Palin. But in his thinking, they are always an inviting target, and it distracts people. But he miscalculated.
Problem was, the attack was so brutal that some of the people in the editorial and news rooms decided that if they folded their hands in the face of this, they’d lose all self-respect and professional dignity, so they pushed back harder - and continue to do so. That’s bias only if you want to twist the plain meaning of words. It’s natural testosterone-driven response to what they perceive as bullying. Schmidt overplayed his hand, and he’s no whining about it when McCain is under relentless scrutiny.
BTW, your constant use of the word ‘liberal’ - is that like a bell for Pavlov’s dogs? Is there a coherent, objective non-adjectival definition, or is it a one-size-fits-all phrase where people can slot in whatever bias or venom is bubbling through their minds?
“your constant use of the word ‘liberal’”
- Twice in one long thread is constant? You’re funny. How many time was “conservative” used?
Teezy, I was referring to other postings in other threads, both from you and others on the Right. Maybe I should have been a little clearer in the antecedent.
But seriously - without epithets, how do you define ‘liberal’? Some of these terms get so mis/over-used that they lose all impact.
There has been talk of adding another stimulus package and an auto-industry bailout to this bailout package to get enough Democratic votes.
According to today’s NY Times, the problem isn’t that there aren’t enough Democratic votes; it’s weak Republican support–as if anyone wants to be in this situation. Something has to be done, and if fewer Republicans were posturing, maybe we wouldn’t be talking about sweeteners for more Democratic votes.
By the way, the automobile package had a fair amount of support anyway, and Obama opposes adding a stimulus package to the bailout plan (again in today’s NY Times).
Its always better to ask someone else to pay more, right?
Well, my statement applies to me, since I’m among the wealthy. So I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is, as are many of my friends and family members.
On the other hand, those who advocate tax cut after tax cut don’t seem willing to ask what we should give up to keep the books somewhat near in order–or at least the McCain campaign isn’t.
“As for who will pay, we’re going to take out another loan, and the interest on the debt will hamper the efforts of the next administration to get anything done.”
dsimon nailed something important. I don’t have the expertise to run a time value of money calculation on something like this, but if the US has to go into the debt marketplace to raise the $, who buys it, and what do we have to pay, and what do we get back, and when- and what’s the return in current dollars?
One possibility is that we’ll be looking for more foreign funds, since both the size of the offering and the diminution in US investable capital requires it, and simply put, if debt supply exceeds demand and buyers require a risk premium, the coupon may be a lot higher than it otherwise would be.
So, now we own a complex of securitized paper. Buried far underneath that lie some hard assets, but the US doesn’t either own or control these. Does the government hold to maturity? Conduct a fire sale of distressed assets? Something in between, like holding for the mid-term for a possible recovery, then dumping it in a revived marketplace?
We’re paying a premium over current market for these assets anyway, because the rationale here is not to strike a fair bargain economically, but to restore capital and the flow of credit. So we hold the 700 BB package for 3-4 years (say) while accruing debt service at 6%. That’s a highly inflationary rate, and also means adding another 42 BB to the package - assuming that 700 BB actually caps the exposure. The US then sells at par 4 years down the line. What’s the discounted present dollar value of that return 4years from now?
All of this could be the wrong way to look at it, but in the back and forth we’re subjected to, I don’t recall anyone trying to complete this simple black-board exercise.
We’re choking under debt, we’re taking a leap into the credit stratosphere and people think taxes won’t go up or that we’ll have a Christmas Tree appropriations bill for health care, infrastructure reform and the like? Forget it - Obama at least had the candor to say he can’t deliver what he’d like in present circumstances, but McCain still seems to think he’ll subsidize tax cuts with spending reductions. Maybe he’ll turn that responsibility over to Palin.
No wonder people are furious. And there are people on both sides of the aisle who are complicit in this fiasco.
The root cause here is not greedy CEOs and accounting practices. It’s bad mortgages
which everyone in the chain ignored as long as everyone was making money. That includes
home buyers, mortgage sellers, accrediting agencies, institutions that bought up
those mortgage-backed securities, and their shareholders.
My point was that corporate CEOs should be held accountable more than unwitting home buyers. The responsibility to ensure the sustainability, efficiency, and accountability of corporate America does not rest with consumers, but those in leadership role of each and every company. So, for CEOs to walk away with millions of dollars while everyone else suffers the consequences of the financial system’s failures is an act of selfishness and therefore taxpayers should be absolved of any liabilities. Also, there are other alternatives to solving the financial crisis, but Bush chose the riskier, quickier, and costlier option.