Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Time for Obama to take a risk

by geezer in Paris Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 05:40:02 AM EST

If history is any indication, Obama will now get cautious, and play it safe.
A double digit lead causes candidates' advisers to counsel caution- "park your mouth before you run over your own foot" -sort of thing.
Bad Idea.

Polls tend to have a range of uncertainty of around three percent, even in the absence of fraud.
My wild guess is that the GOP will push the results by another 3%, using the tried and true traditional fraud techniques, and another 2% or so using the latest Rovian creations.
And anyone who discounts the Bradley effect is making a bad mistake. The best estimates suggest at least another 3-4% difference between poll words and voter deeds.
Since all these elements (except the normal polling error) work against Obama, the current 8-9% lead adds up to ---Zero, with a 3% error one way or the other.

He could sure as hell lose this. If he wins thin, he will still lose it.

Here's an idea about what I'd like to see in that 30-minute block of time he just bought.


If Obama wins by a narrow margin, the GOP will challenge the results.
Waving an ACORN flag,  (the old "Voter Fraud" flag with a new story that the eyeball-hungry media will devour), and with an armada of lawyers, they will drag it to the supremes again. Anyone care to guess how that might work out?

Obama needs a big story--one big enough to knock the GOP scams right off the front page.

Obama must also reckon with the growing possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran.

-Recent sale of 100 bunker-buster bombs to Israel:

-Recent installation of highest-end antiaircraft/antimissile system in Israel, with American crews:

-Latest Niger-Yellowcake story ( Evil Russian scientist supplies Iran with nuclear trigger designs).

There's another reason why Obama needs to go for broke. Anyone else remember the early years of the Clinton administration? Think of the incredible obstructionism, the overt sabotage from the GOP.
Accusations of--about everything: the murder of Vince Foster, drug dealing, sleazy real estate scams,
traitorous dealings with foreign powers-- the level of vitriol was just incredible.

Obama's every attempt, every policy will be sabotaged by those who'd rather starve than admit that "That One"  might be able to save their white ass from the fire.

So our hero needs a landslide, and a powerful story- now, and after.

Here's a couple suggestions as to what they might be.
The financial narrative hovers like a cloud over everything right now, and these two ideas must be seen in that light.

The biggest need in the US today is a central payer medical care system that cuts the insurance companies right out of the loop. They perform no useful service that cannot be performed far more cheaply. Medicare administrative overhead is about 1%, and the Veteran's Administration system was incredibly efficient at delivering high quality care before it was sabotaged.
This is, however, primarily a humanitarian obligation- an obligation of a civilized society's government to it's citizens. Therefore, it's a hard sell in a country that largely believes that anything the government touches turns to shit. As well, the perception that it is a citizen's responsibility to provide their own medical care is deeply ingrained still, or McCain wouldn't have dared to define it as such during the debate.

A good case can be made, however, that the % of GDP consumed by medical care in the united states (and for crappy results) could be reduced by about 5% of GDP by such a plan, if it were only as efficient as that of France.
Chart of health care costs vs. GDP

As a Keynsian stimulus, such a program may be a non-starter. Most of the infrastructure is already in place, but it needs only to be reorganized and liberated from a predatory market-model to begin providing real returns, in a national sense. Input from the ET economics brain trust would be welcome here.

But--Rail!

"Let's put America Back on the Tracks!"

-A state of the art, 21st century system. Huge savings in energy consumption down the road. A dream- that graceful, bullet flying down the track, with us along for the ride- A dream that touches something deep in most people.

-A real public-private structure, rather than a veiled predation plan, with profit potential structured by statute to prevent the advent of another generation of robber barons.

-Then retool the makers of useless gas-guzzling SUVs and billion-dollar bombers into light rail production, perhaps one of the new overhead-suspended systems that appear so good. ANY profit is better than Detroit's current circumstances. Hit 'em now, while they're on the ropes.

-A chance to renew positive business relationships with Europe-- buy a few thousand TGV units, then negotiate the right to manufacture under license, then a technology partnership, putting some of that unused design talent in the US back to work.

Is it possible that one could pay for the other?

Now, There's

Change you can Believe in.

Display:
There are any number of advisors telling him, if only he wlll listen, that the real economic stimulus needed is not mailing everyone a check for $200 so they can go out to dinner but massive public works programs. Rail could be a big one. It is a lie that Americans won't ride trains. The system has been so sabotaged that is impossible to ride them. The last time I tried to ride the train to Seattle, the only available service left at 3 a.m. The lie has been so successfully sold that any subsidy for rail is some sort of dastardly European socialism; the subsidies for the highway system are simply the natural order of things, ordained by God and presumably St. Reagan too.

At the same time he could put an end once and for all to all this earmark moaning and gnashing of teeth by instituting a regular procedure for infrastructure spending. Short term goals, long term goals, and a regular budget commitment. Just like every small town has the foresight to do. It is the absence of any such coherent plan - and it is insanity - that makes the earmark process necessary in the first place.

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. -- Dr Johnson

by melvin (melvingladys at or near yahoo.com) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 09:14:07 AM EST
I was thinking of doing a diary on the reasons why Obama might do even better than expected when I saw this piece, so I will restrict myself to just a few reasons why here.

  1. Sites like Real Clear Politics have been systematically excluding very favourable polls (for Obama) from their averages - e.g. the Daily Kos/Research 200 tracking poll which has had Obama ahead by 10-13 % points in recent days/weeks.

  2. Obama is strongest in the Battleground states where he needs the votes most - a lot of McCain's strength - and strangely his strategy - has been in gaining 30 point leads in some deep south and mid west states where Obama isn't competing anyway.

  3. Obama has an incomparably better "ground game" - see series in http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ - where they go around the battleground states looking at the campaign organisations on the ground.  This will dramatically increase his vote turnout where he needs it most.

  4. Early voting in many states means that Obama is "banking" much of his support whilst he is at a peak - which also reduced the scope for voting day vote suppression through long voting lines etc.

  5. Opinion polls have a big problem fairly representing mobile phone only voters in their polls - some do not contact them at all - and research indicates this results in a 1-2% under-estimation of Obama's vote.

  6. Pollster's "likely voter" models - used in most polls - adjust their actual research results to account for predicted actual likelihood of voting, and are based on historic voter turnouts which have tended to be low for young and black voters - but which may totally underestimate Obama's ability to change those historic patterns this time around.

  7. The "Bradley effect" is not about racism per se, but about people telling pollsters that they will vote for a Black candidate when they have no intention of doing so.  There is no evidence for it in the primaries, or indeed in recent elections where black candidates have polled in line with polling predictions and have sometimes even exceeded them.  Indeed some have argued for a "reverse Bradley" effect where people say they will vote McCain to appease friend's/family/neighbours but have no intention of doing so.  This is the first time the "Bradley effect" hypothesis will be tested in a Presidential election, so we can't be sure, but it is important to remember that the vast majority of racists will vote for McCain and have no difficulty in telling Pollsters that this is their preference.  They may or may not give race as their reason for doing so (few do) but the point is those votes are already counted in McCain's numbers.

Historically, there is little precedence for a candidate to win having been 7 points down at this stage (Reagan is the only one of the last 18 elections) - and even less precedence for a candidate to pull even further ahead at this stage.  Historically, races tend to tighten from here on in, but my point is that it is easy to make a case than Obama could lose 10 points in the polls from here on in and still win.

That is not to say that voter suppression, voting machine fraud, an attack on Iran, or a domestic terrorist catastrophe could not change the outcome of the election at this stage.  But it is getting increasingly unlikely that even a significant "bounce" for McCain based on such factors will be sufficient to win him the election.

Vote McCain for war without gain

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 09:15:09 AM EST
Excellent points all. Early voting including voting by mail over a three week period as we have in Oregon and Washington - the upper left - makes it very difficult to launch any last minute scandal and fear headlines. It also simpy makes it easier to vote, especially for working people who sometimes have trouble taking Tuesday off (more idiocy - it should be a holiday), and working people are for Obama.

By all accounts Atlanta polling stations have been swamped with early voters, including half again as many black voters as normal; this bodes well for Obama. We may see some real surprises in this election. I believe Obama will win some odd places, like Montana and North Dakota.

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. -- Dr Johnson

by melvin (melvingladys at or near yahoo.com) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 09:26:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All these points are worth considering, but I do not think they are likely to dominate.
  1. RCP does seem out of whack-- many people would agree.I blew them off.Without their numbers, it's about what I quoted above.
  2. Tactical error on McCain's part- perhaps yes, but none of the battleground states are yet firmly in the Obama camp, beyond what I see as the necessary 10 point margin, so I withhold judgement.
  3. Obama's superb ground game has already paid dividends in the voter registration area, and other areas. Yes. Assuming the ACORN scam fails.
5 and 6) It's dangerous to assume that pollsters are too dumb to learn from past mistakes.

The "Bradley effect" is not about racism per se, but about people telling pollsters that they will vote for a Black candidate when they have no intention of doing so.

Yes.--of course. As I said, voter words as opposed to voter deeds. What's your point?

Frank, all this addresses your (and my) wish and hope for an Obama victory, but does not address my other points:

-Obama will need a major victory -landslide- to have a real safety margin, and beat back another unhappy episode of "The Supremes".

-The bluedogs, the fundies, the GOP in general and the closet racists will bitterly oppose every policy initiative, every idea. He needs a real story, an "audacious" plan- a story that can ignite the nation, or, considering the speedbumps in the highway, his first term may be a short and rough ride.

"Audacious"-his word.

As yet, there's no meat on the bones.

 

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 03:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama currently has about a minimum of a 5% margin in states he needs to get to 270 ev - and a very good shot at a number of additional states.  The 3-4% margin of error doesn't apply to these numbers because it is made up of the statistical trend of a lot of polls - and the Missouri number does not yet take account of his 8% lead in todays poll there.  West Virgin is only still in the McCain camp because of a lack of recent polls to influence the trend.  Right now, Obama would win 350+ ev - and so far McCain hasn't shown anything to buck  what has become a very settled trend.  My point is there is also evidence for a "reverse Bradley effect". I can't find the exact reference but pollster.com has had a few discussions of it:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/novak_and_the_bradley_effect.php
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/bradleywilder_2008.php


Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 04:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Looks good for Obama, --yes.
But you know, we tend to get lost in the "race", the political combat thing. Assume for a moment that he wins big. He then has a mandate---for what?
As I said below, it is the political consultants and the cynics who see electoral victory as the end game.

Given the presidency, --why not do something with it?

Sigh. Perhaps I'm wrong to hope for real creative solutions. His latest economic ideas are very "safe". And rather empty.
90 more days in the old home, -eh?  

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 05:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Speak of the devil - Nate Silver has just posted on the Bradley effect...

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right

It was Tom Bradley's 1982 race for governor of California, in which he lost to George Deukmejian in spite of leading in the public polls, that gave the Bradley Effect its name. But now Lance Tarrance, the pollster for Bradley in that race, has an article up at RCP suggesting that the Bradley Effect was merely a case of bad polling -- and that his campaign's internals had shown a dead heat:

The hype surrounding the Bradley Effect has evolved to where some political pundits believe in 2008 that Obama must win in the national pre-election polls by 6-9 points before he can be assured a victory. That's absurd. There won't be a 6-9 point Bradley Effect -- there can't be, since few national polls show a large enough amount of undecided voters and it's in the undecided column where racism supposedly hides.

The other reason I reject the Bradley Effect in 2008 is because there was not a Bradley Effect in the 1982 California Governor's race, either. Even though Tom Bradley had been slightly ahead in the polls in 1982, due to sampling error, it was statistically too close to call.


Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 05:28:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and it's in the undecided column where racism supposedly hides.

What a silly thing to say.
Boy, is he wrong about that.
As any undergrad with a single course in institutional racism to his credit knows,
As any person of color can tell you,
-racism hides itself in your university on the tenure committee, in your bank next to the loan officer's desk, on the Colonel's desk who passes you over for promotion, in the personnel office when layoffs are decided--

Those whose perceptions of people--and thus votes-- are altered by race are certainly not limited to undecideds. Sometimes they themselves don't know who they are---they just "Didn't feel right about him/her,"-- when it came down to actually pulling the lever.

I think time will show there are many, many of them.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 01:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Again you are confusing endemic, institutionalised, and unconscious racism with "the Bradley effect".  Most racists (certainly all anti-black racists) will vote against Obama - and have no qualms about telling a pollster (which is often an automated computer) so, whether or not they give "race" as their primary reason.

These guys are all in the numbers above in the MCCain Column.  The argument about the Bradley effect is whether (or why) some should pretend to be undecideds (or Obama voters).  There simply is no recent evidence to support this, and as noted by Lance Tarrance (in the RCP article referenced by Nate) there never was a "a Bradley effect" in the first place - just bad polling methodology covered up by an excuse that voters were lying.  Lance Tarrance was one of the original pollsters in the Bradley elections and his Polls never showed Bradley as having better than a "toss-up" chance - i.e. within the MOE.

The Bradley effect is one of the great Urban myths of modern US politics.

Vote McCain for war without gain

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 07:32:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Again you are confusing endemic, institutionalised, and unconscious racism with "the Bradley effect"

Frank, this is a waste of both our times, and the rest of the diary is worth more consideration than it's getting.
Last round, please.
 You're wrong. And Nate's wrong, in my opinion.
You're not reading my original diary.
---difference between poll words and voter deeds.

I try hard to make my point in few words. Perhaps the above was too few.
Racism is a socially unacceptable position on which to base a vote.
Ergo, racists lie about their opinions to pollsters, and then pull the lever, in  the privacy of the voting booth, based on something- perhaps something more base.
Hence one type of polling inaccuracy.
"Bradley effect?" Bah. This is in reality a subset of a problem universally faced by all social researchers who use interview data.  
What is it that people really think-- vs. what will they admit to an interviewer?
What is the connection (if any) between their words in an interview, and their life actions?

Let's agree to disagree--or, you can assume senility or good drugs have simply addled my wits--but please stop patronizing me.

Now fire away.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 08:05:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
geezer, don't loose your point.

He has to have coattails. He has to win big. But he has to destroy the barrel heads who will do to him what they did to Clinton in his first two years...I remember it well when he couldn't get his budget through. It was heartbreaking. The reptiles had the media terms set, they got to play Waco against the Dems, they figured out how to destroy the health care proposal, they won, and continued it for the next six years, then this last 8.

Barry O'bama has to politically knee-cap the opposition, then when he is boss, sit down with them like the terrorists they are, and read the rules of behavior from here on out.  

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 10:38:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In short, we must elect a program for change, with his trademark on it and by a wide margin, or his will be a failed administration.

A mandate for a program of change is do-able NOW. All available evidence suggests that popular support for real change is strong. The economic oligarchy will never support real change. They have the power and the dough, and any ethic of communal responsibility- compassion for the "lower orders"- has long died in the world of the board room and the trading floor. So he cannot lose them by taking a chance--he never had them.

--If he has the "audacity". How do you guys do that superscript TM thing?

As many have pointed out, it will be easy to attack, to blame a black president. It's swimming down an old, foul stream--far easier than attacking a youthful, charismatic, WHITE Clinton.
-And, as you say,-look what happened there.

Obama's situation is similar in some ways to that faced by FDR, but Obama has a chance to begin his real race with a head start--and he will need it.

 

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Type
Audacity™
to get Audacity™.


A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:47:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 05:28:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On your second point, that Obama needs to sell a "big story" in the next few weeks - I couldn't agree more.  Obama has an opportunity not only to be elected with big Dem congressional majorities (something Clinton never had), but also to create a mandate for himself to pursue some really big ideas.

As you say, the instinct now, for his advisers, will be to counsel caution.  But a huge way for him to demonstrate that this isn't just about personal ambition, is to to set out a really ambitious "Plan for America".

He has already done so on Energy and Middle class tax cuts, and perhaps to list even more big plans - on top of the bail-out - risks being labeled as a typical tax and spend democrat at a time when many voters are genuinely scared that the US can't afford to do even what it is doing now.

However McCain, at least, has come up with his 300Billion plan to buy up bad mortgages, and whilst Obama has rightly criticised this as helping to bail out banks for bad lending practices, Obama should say how he would spend 300Billion to help distressed mortgage holders - reduced interest rates, principal repayment holidays, tax credits for mortgage payments etc.  He can also point to the inefficiency of the current insurance based medical provision model - as you have - and the efficiency of public transport in reducing transport costs, fuel imports, etc.

But the biggest argument has to be to cut out the profligate waste of the banking industry altogether - by making it more possible for individuals and businesses to prosper without getting into debt in the first place.  This involves progressive income distribution, social provision (where more efficient), and improving the productive capacity of the economy through education and infrastructural development.

Basically its an argument for replacing Wall Street with main street cooperative efforts and debt with personal ownership/equity.  That shouldn't be too tough to sell and would give Obama a mandate to completely change how the USA is run.

Vote McCain for war without gain

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 09:39:58 AM EST
The new slogan is "Change We Need." Please make a note of it. Several rallies are scheduled this week.

While I don't dispute the merits of public projects and spending* that Geezer has identified, I don't agree that Obama's campaign strategy will benefit from risks. That is any risk in addition to being the "first viable" AA presidential candidate --from which derives relentless fears that liars who are racist and profound racists will vote for McCain. I believe that fear is neurotic, an expression of a death-wish, a transmorgrified "Anglo disease" if you will, among self-professed American liberals. Obama is nearly the perfect neo-con symbol.

The campaign has successfully defended his margin by not promoting risky policy positions.

The campaign has successfully opposed his competitor by advancing undisputed criticism, e.g. "Keating economics". Otherwise it has introduced no new facts or "negative" advertising to the electioneering environment.

The campaign has successfully cultivated a principle of bipartisan collegiality to "frame" the safety of vested interests in his administration during the interregnum. Turn-key legislation has already been drafted, if historical events are any guide.

The campaign has successfully secured endorsements from the Democratic caucus in the House and plurality among senate Republicans in Congress, if the majority leadership is to be believed.

The campaign's strengths are precisely aimed to capture "centrist" popular culture. This ethic complements the campaign's low-value mass, as opposed to high-value niche, marketing strategy in the field.

*If the campaign were to tack from tax cut advocacy to spending --federal direct "investment" in states' agencies or federal indirect investment in private "partnerships"-- language beyond volunteerism (itself an ambiguous fiscal priority to cut from the new New Dealer cloth), it would risk alienating "centrist" electorate, those so-called Reagan Democrats and cross-over Republicans who are notorious liar financial and social "conservatives".

That's not going to happen any more than public pronoucements qualifying Isreali geo-politics. It would be pointless, when a "landslide" return depends entirely on marginal gains from Obama-qualified new voter registrations and voter turn-out to compensate for polling error(s).

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 11:22:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is any risk in addition to being the "first viable" AA presidential candidate --from which derives relentless fears that liars who are racist and profound racists will vote for McCain. I believe that fear is neurotic, an expression of a death-wish, a transmorgrified "Anglo disease" if you will, among self-professed American liberals. Obama is nearly the perfect neo-con symbol.

He is indeed a perfect villain in the Straussian world,
but Neurotic fears are the meat of politics this decade.

Obama has a chance for a real mandate, yes. But for what? More "safe" politics?
The days of "safe" are over. Totally.
 A "safe" campaign would indeed be the likely advice of most of the old guard pols, Dem or Repub---but they too are "over", as their record of election victories shows. Anyway, most of them were Hillary consultants, so there's yet hope for real ideas.
No. Obama has run a smart campaign so far, not yet a safe one.

And should I ever attend a rally, I will most carefully observe the central rule of safe politics--

Stay On Message, Say Nothing.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 04:07:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama has run a smart campaign so far, not yet a safe one.

Smart is optimized to gain votes. "Not yet a safe one" is merely being incapable of not being AA --and smart to optimize "market". That is the gist of my points above in evaluating risk-free/high-risk political strategy.

The campaign is reasonably risk adverse. Because there is no guaranteed return in accepting greater risk.

Short of buying off lobbyists' agents, popular politics is a crap shoot. In a way, the campaign is overpaying (in advert chances) for marginal gain on 50:50 odds.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 04:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Smart leaves the possibility to accomplish something in a world where "safe" is over. That entails risk--lots of it.
Getting elected is the end game only for the short sighted political consultant, or a cynic- everything he claims to oppose.

FDR correctly judged the time as requiring big risks. He and his Brain Trust took them.  

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 04:29:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
geezer in Paris:
FDR correctly judged the time as requiring big risks. He and his Brain Trust took them.  

After the election...

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True.
Thin soup, for Mr. Audacity.


Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 05:14:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
--and a tactic that may not work this time.

Obama is black. Fact. FDR was white.
Anyone who thinks this won't matter is living in a tinted bubble.
In order to effect real change, he will need a mandate for the program, not just for the man.

As of now, he has no program.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 01:50:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you imagine the uproar if the current financial melt-down had happened in 6 months time - under Obama's watch.  A coup d'etat would have been likely.  Impeachment attempts de rigoer.  Riots in the street.

However his problem is going to be his colour not a lack of mandate.  Bush had no mandate, and yet quite aggressively pursued his agenda - as has every GOP President since Reagan.

The problem is more with the Dems themselves.  They are the true conservative party in the USA - always triangulating, moderating, tacking to the centre.  No Dem President since Roosevelt has had the confidence to pursue an ideologically different agenda - except perhaps Kennedy, and he didn't get the chance.

However Obama is not going to present his choices as being different due to a different ideology, but different through force of circumstance.  The Overton window has an awful long way to go before even rational/pragmatic policy choices are viewed as politically mainstream.

Vote McCain for war without gain

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 07:42:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
except perhaps Kennedy, and he didn't get the chance.

Nor did his brother--the better man, in my view.
But Kennedy's claim to a place in history will be his dream--Apollo.

This is Much more interesting, Frank.
As I said in the diary (you did read this,--no?), there will surely be a loose coalition of blue dogs, racists of all stripes, corporate oligarchs and authoritarians who will never release their parental attachments, --a motley band who will slaughter him at every chance.
And Bush had, for a while, the best of all mandates--an anesthetized populace, glued to their TVs.
But---
Events are progressing fast.
A month ago the very idea of nationalizing ANYTHING -let alone a Temple of Finance- would have been unspeakable. Today?
The overton window is proving rather more elastic than in the old world--last year.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 08:20:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The overton window is proving rather more elastic than in the old world--last year.
More like last month.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 10:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you imagine the uproar if the current financial melt-down had happened in 6 months time - under Obama's watch.  A coup d'etat would have been likely.  Impeachment attempts de rigoer.  Riots in the street.

[MillMan's get a grip technologytm]

Two things here.

One: If, four years ago, I told you that in October of 2008 that a black man with the middle name Hussein nearly had the white house locked up, 100% of the people on this site wouldn't believe me, because it is "well known" that Americans are racist outside of the small % of Americans that embrace modern values. I think everyone here needs to recalibrate how racism works in the US. Palin's race baiting has, one one hand, made it ok to publicly display racism in some places again, but on the other, has the feeling of a "last gasp" for the old white nationalist haters of modernism.

Two, Americans will not riot until there is a critical mass of middle class Americans who can no longer afford food or housing. This is independent of who is in power, and in my opinion, of framing by the media.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 04:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now I have to take up more space to apologize for my grammatical errors.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 04:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
--has the feeling of a "last gasp" for the old white nationalist haters of modernism.

Our only windows into the real public response to Palin's zenophobia are:
1) the media, and all the circular bullshit that includes,--and
2)our personal, daily contact with people. Most Americans are pretty isolated--we love our monitors, don't we?
Perhaps it looks different in the bay area, but in Ohio, there is none of the "last gasp" flavor- rather, the feeling I get from friends and relatives is of a resurgence of an old, evil-smelling dragon.

Americans will not riot until there is a critical mass of middle class Americans who can no longer afford food or housing.

Add to that the day they tow off the SUV. THAT will do it.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Racism is going nowhere - what I'm saying is that it is ceasing to be a major cultural factor among the people that drive American culture.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 01:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Americans will never riot. The middle-class is waiting for colored people to riot, and that will never happen, because colored people damn well know (1) they will die with gun in hand and (2) Obama ain't worth the trouble.

Then all the "middle-class" 12x6s will sigh, oh what a shame. What a disgrace! Invest in prisons and personal finance workshops.

Puhleeze.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 03:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... for CO2 emissions, a Versal Health Care plan, $20b+ spending on the New Energy Economy ...

... he's got a program ... full of the half measures which were supposed to be as far as a Democrat could go, but under serious pressure to come up with policy during the primary season, he's got a program that, if elected, he can choose to "remember" rather than "forget" on January 21st.

And Americans do not listen to the details, by and large ... if there is an opportunity to amp up some of the details a notch or two, he certainly could do it if he wanted to.

And he's a sitting US Senator until he resigns the office, so if he wins, he is well positioned to be writing the legislation that he will be proposing right off the bat.

The optimistic scenario is he can get something useful through in the first fifty days, then the minority in the Senate will get their act together and obstruct further process, and he will be able to paint them as a Do-Nothing Republican Minority, and get a mid-term election more like '34 than '94.

That, then, would be his mandate.

The Republican minority will surely try to score a win against him early on, but in the early days, a President with a House Majority from his party has a tremendous amount of agenda-setting power.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 10:22:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One vote for Bruce's plan.

On November 5, put the campaign win into effect by writing and passing bills out of the program (+ a little).

Nice one.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 10:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
-amp up some of the details a notch or two-
-optimistic scenario is he can get something useful through in the first fifty days-
-paint them as a Do-Nothing Republican Minority-

Bruce, this was the old world. It's dead.
I was wrong. the time frame is now in months, not years.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:58:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The days of "safe" are over. Totally.
Beginnings are important.  Obama needs an audacious first 100 days plan and needs to accomplish much of it.  Your points in the diary about the tenacious, slimy opposition Clinton experienced are highly on point.  Obama does not have the option of just being a president during whose tenure things don't get worse.  That would be ultimate failure.

Obama needs to rout the opposition and to be seen to have long coattails in order to have the clout needed to bring fundamental change.  That is why he should take the risk of spelling out some fundamental proposals prior to the election.  Then he could claim to have a mandate to implement them.  Those programs have to play off of the current economic anxiety and show a way to a sustainable future.

After the election he needs to seize control of legislative strategy to make straight the way for what  he wants to accomplish after the inauguration.  After the inauguration he needs to perform spine implants in the Congressional Democratic leadership.  Simultaneous with pushing an economic agenda, congress needs to start a thorough examination of all of the constitutional transgressions of the last 8 years.  This will have the effect of putting the die hard opposition back on its heels.  

Henry Waxman needs to be unleashed and applauded for vigorous investigations and a justice department task force needs to be formed to go after as many as possible on criminal and civil charges.  Nothing like a bunch of criminal convictions that stand up on appeal to further demoralize the crooks who have had the run of the place. Obama will need to use his charisma and communication skills to show the public how close we have come to losing what democracy we have.  This can be effectively wound into the whole struggle to redirect the economy into one that benefits the majority of the population.

Even with a substantial victory Obama has won nothing but the opportunity to not be the weakling who failed to capitalize on the last great opportunity to reform and save democracy in the USA.  Fortunately, African Americans are accustomed to having to be better in order to be seen as adequate.  He has the intellect and the temperament.  He still has to show he can pull it off.  The hardest part starts with the inauguration.    

 

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 10:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama needs to rout the opposition and to be seen to have long coattails in order to have the clout needed to bring fundamental change.  That is why he should take the risk of spelling out some fundamental proposals prior to the election.  Then he could claim to have a mandate to implement them.  Those programs have to play off of the current economic anxiety and show a way to a sustainable future.

Exactly! Thanks, ARGeezer- you've said it better than I.
The public will, in my view, not only go along with a real program for change, and with the points in the rest of your comment, but damn him if he fails to provide them--NOW. He MUST NOT play it safe.

Safe is to fail, because the challenges are too big for "safe".
"Safe" is to be the black man "in over his head".
Winning the election is NOT the point. Change is the point.
It's time to roll the dice, while he can still make his point.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 05:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would suggest perhaps October 24 as a good time to roll it out.  Then flesh it out during the week of the 27th.  He can pop his own "October Surprise!"  Campaign Finance Reform, Comprehensive Medical Insurance Reform, Green Re-Industrialization of the USA and Transportation Infrastructure Renewal.  Start setting it up the week of the 20th with a series of national ads that problematize  each of these issues and show how McCain has stood against progress in those areas.  McCain's response would only play well to less than 30% of the electorate.

If credit is not flowing, that may be the time to propose New Banks, along the lines I have suggested.  Everyone will have all of the campaign funding they need by then.  Let us pray that he is willing and able to pull off something like this.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right
Gallup is now listing likely voter results in addition to registered voter results. Our policy since the first debate has been to use the likely voter model when we have the choice, and so that's what we will do from here forward. However, Gallup provides two separate likely voter models: "Likely Voters I", which favors Obama by 7 points, is based on "current voting intentions and past voting behavior"; "Likely Voters II", which goes to Obama by 10, is based on "current voting intentions" only.

I understand that Gallup wants to cover its butt; this is a difficult election to evaluate. With that said, I'd wish they'd tell me which of their likely voter models they think is superior and stick with it.

Just an example of how much "likely voter" predictions can be influenced by historical precedence

Vote McCain for war without gain

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 07:35:26 AM EST
... allegations in the dirty counties, then rather than the Sec'y of State covering for those boards of election, the current Sec'y of State will investigate, prosecute if she discovers foul play, and the perpetrators could end up behind bars.

That's a bit of a disincentive to stealing the vote. And I don't think there is going to be much of a Bradley effect. There will be a number of voters unhappy that they are forced to vote for a black man, but the current recession is coming in on the back of more than a decade of economic stagnation, so they'll hold their nose and do it anyway.

There certainly is a racist component to the electorate, but much of it is already part of the Republican base.

Of course, without Ohio, a Republican has a very difficult time getting elected ... indeed, no Republican President has ever been elected without carrying Ohio.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 10:01:31 AM EST
Note the court decision that occurred today, Oct. 15, by the 6th circuit. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner lost, and must now do the impossible- Verify all the votes by Friday.
I grew up in Ohio. I suspect racism there will have a powerful effect, but will not likely relate to the "Bradley Effect" as strongly as it will elsewhere. Since it is socially pretty normal to reject the idea of a black president, there is less pressure to lie about it to a pollster. Normal, not shameful.
The trend is positive, but slow. Economic collapse has helped in this.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 05:20:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Working for the Working-Class Vote
By MATT BAI
Published: October 15, 2008  NYT Magazine Preview

"I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls," Obama told me. "If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?

"I guess the point I'm making," he went on, "is that there is an entire industry now, an entire apparatus, designed to perpetuate this cultural schism, and it's powerful. People want to know that you're fighting for them, that you get them. And I actually think I do. But you know, if people are just seeing me in sound bites, they're not going to discover that. That's why I say that some of that may have to happen after the election, when they get to know you."

Hearing him say this a second time, it seemed to me a remarkable admission -- if not a retreat from his driving vision, then at least a deferral. Normally, in political campaigns, you hope people get to know you and then decide to vote for you; Obama now believed that perhaps only the inverse was possible. Once, he might have thought that if he could only win a bunch of red states and pile up 350 electoral votes, he could obliterate the red-blue paralysis of the last decade and wield his mandate like a machete against the culture warriors in Washington. Now, it seemed, he understood that even a Reaganesque triumph wouldn't suddenly erase the effect of 40 years of exploiting peoples' darkest fears or ignoring their legitimate anxieties, the twisted and bipartisan legacy of a lost political generation. If he won, Obama would likely start out as a 50-plus-1 president, no matter what the map had in store. And then the campaign would begin again. After midnight at an automotive plant in Indianapolis in May as a late shift ends. (My Bold)

For those of us concerned about his future direction, it is pretty clear that he views winning the election as just the start of what he needs to accomplish.  However I hope his continuing campaign begins with legislative and administrative accomplishments rather than with appearances at an automotive plant at shift change time, as Matt Bai suggests.  By the fruits of their labor shall you know them.  However, the entire article is worth a read.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 02:06:13 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]