Even the Losers Get Unlucky Sometimes

David Weigel | October 15, 2008

National Review's Corner blog hasn't been covered in glory recently (cough, cough), but John Hood's even-tempered take on the election is a nice corrective. Against all the fears of ACORN, against all the money Obama has spent attacking McCain, Hood reminds us that a Democratic win this year was about as surprising as a rainstorm in April.

Ronald Reagan led a political revolution in 1980 against decades of Keynesian nonsense and cultural rot — and then saw his party lose congressional seats in 1982. Bill Clinton led a Democratic takeover of Washington in 1992, which lasted two years. Bush and the GOP won full control in 2004, which lasted two years. In modern times, American political power has had a quicksilver quality. Does that mean that the upcoming election isn't important? Hardly! But it won't be the last word on the future of our Republic. No single election ever is.

Also, it wouldn't greatly surprise me if on Election Day the Republicans achieve a net gain in governorships, even as the party loses additional ground in D.C.. In the state of Washington, no Republican has been elected governor since 1980. But Dino Rossi is virtually tied with incumbent Gov. Christine Gregoire in the latest polls. And in North Carolina, my home state, Republican Pat McCrory and Democrat Bev Perdue are tied, even though Obama is running quite well here. No Republican has been elected governor in NC in 20 years. In some states, Republicans are also poised to make legislative gains after disappointing cycles in 2004 and 2006.

All true! We forget this now, but there were Democrats in 1984 convinced that a Reagan re-election would mean nuclear war, the dismantling of the New Deal, and the coming of the cockroach as the superior life form on earth. Don't believe me?

In retrospect, the Democrats were destined to lose an election against a popular incumbent president during an economic expansion.

The only thing Hood misses here (if he's missing, as opposed to just not talking about it) is the potential rachet effect of an Obama presidency. A charismatic Democrat with a congressional supermajority is going to be able to pass, among other things, card check and national health insurance. Republicans have warned for years that these sorts of measures would allow mega-funding of union political activity and a entitlement that no Republican will be able to roll back. They've been right! Which is why they should cut McCain loose (unless he crushes Obama in tonight's debate, etc. etc.) and keep the Democrats' Senate majority down to a managable 55 or 56.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|10.15.08 @ 12:01PM|#

All true! We forget this now, but there were Democrats in 1984 convinced that a Reagan re-election would mean nuclear war, the dismantling of the New Deal, and the coming of the cockroach as the superior life form on earth. Don't believe me?

I'd say that the insane expansion of the bureaucratic class is definitely evidence in favor of the last point.

|10.15.08 @ 12:05PM|#

The big thing also to fear is the fairness doctrine and the FEC. I don't people realize how easy it would be to kill off the political blogsphere. My first thought when I heard the idea that the FEC would regulate political speech in the form of blogs was "fuck them I and millions of others will start blogs as a form of civil disobedience and they will never be able to shut all of them down". Now I realize that is very naive. They don't need to shut every blog down, just the ISP. The feds already hold ISPs responsible for what goes on on their servers in the context of file sharing and child porn. They could do the same thing with political speech. Just tell blogger and any other service that hosts blogs that they are going to be responsible if there is impermissible political speech or in the newspeak "campaingn contributions" on their server. Then when I started my "fuck Obama" blog, it would just be deleted by the service provider.

Yes, there would be law suits. But, that is not as much as a problem as it looks. You just get someone to bring suit before a friendly district judge who affirms the rule. It would take years for it to work its way up through the appellate courts and in the meantime the FEC can be out shutting down blogs.

|10.15.08 @ 12:06PM|#

If I were a Republican down-ticket candidate in 2008, looking at the gap between the parties in new registrations and in primary turnout, I would not feel good about being "virtually tied" in the polls.

Jerry|10.15.08 @ 12:12PM|#

Republicans & Democrats will agree on a health care system which will be "privately" managed but where politicians will decide what is covered and not, and put blame on the free market when premiums rise again.

|10.15.08 @ 12:13PM|#

"They fell for our trap! We let Obama win by running a shitty campaign, and accomplish our real goal of taking back Congress in two years. Maybe. We fooled them again!"

I don't know why the GOP is so anti-drug when they seem to be constantly high.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:21PM|#

The Fairness Doctrine affects broadcast TV because the airwaves are considered public. ISPs are private, just like cable TV.

|10.15.08 @ 12:24PM|#

"The Fairness Doctrine affects broadcast TV because the airwaves are considered public. ISPs are private, just like cable TV."

Sorry to be unclear on that. The FEC would not apply the fairness doctrine to blogs. They would apply McCain Feingold to blogs and make it illegal to advocate for a particular candidate without registering. Since registering is a particularly onerous process, it would make political blogging much harder. It could enforce the rule by telling ISPs that they are responsible for any unregistered political advocacy that goes on on their servers. Then the ISPs do the policing.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:25PM|#

Why would they make a law that would shut down DailyKos?

|10.15.08 @ 12:25PM|#

The FEC panel ruled against doing that months ago.

|10.15.08 @ 12:26PM|#

I found out on DailyKos, actually, from the seven zillion posts they had denouncing the idea.

|10.15.08 @ 12:27PM|#

"Why would they make a law that would shut down DailyKos?"

Because they wouldn't apply it to Daily Kos. It is called selective enforcement. But even if they did, who is to say Kos will always toe the line? Getting rid of Kos is a small price to pay in order to shut down people from criticizing incumbant politicians. You would find more than a few Republican quizlings who would go along with that, especially if you shut down a few leftist blogs to show that you were fair.

|10.15.08 @ 12:28PM|#

"The FEC panel ruled against doing that months ago."

It was a close vote and who is to say they can't change their minds.

|10.15.08 @ 12:29PM|#

But it won't be the last word on the future of our Republic. No single election ever is.

Umm.. he acts as though the republicans have a different political philosophy than the democrats. Maybe once-upon-a-time they did, but at this point, it's not like the current Republican administration is being run from a constrasting ideological position other than perhaps war and HOW money gets spent.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:29PM|#

The shutting down of blogs is pretty far down there on the list of bad things Democrats will do when they're in charge of the government, in terms of the probability of it happening.

Someone has been reading too much Jonah Goldberg.

So, the evidence that this is something to be concerned about is that it lost?

You are demonstrating perfectly John Hood's point.

Just Plain Brian|10.15.08 @ 12:33PM|#

The feds already hold ISPs responsible for what goes on on their servers in the context of file sharing

Exactly - and they'll stop it just as effectively as they've halted file sharing.

|10.15.08 @ 12:38PM|#

"Exactly - and they'll stop it just as effectively as they've halted file sharing."

Just make it hard. You can always e-mail. Further, Congress can just change the law. They don't need the FEC. If the law says it applies to the internet it does. The Democratic Party hates talk radio and has made no secret of its desire to enforce the fairness doctrine and kill it off. That in iteself would probably be the worst blow to the 1st Amendment that has happened in my lifetime. Why do you guys have so much faith that they won't go after blogs? There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats; Democrats of the leftist variety know how to use and weild power.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:38PM|#

Rush Limbaugh would head over to Sirius Satellite Radio as soon as that happened.

|10.15.08 @ 12:41PM|#

Those were the days my friend. Parachute pants, moon boots, fishnet tees, glacier glasses and a cocaine fueled economy.
Tom Petty was right.

|10.15.08 @ 12:42PM|#

"Rush Limbaugh would head over to Sirius Satellite Radio as soon as that happened."

And probably make more money doing so. But he wouldn't be as effective or influential as he is on broadcast radio. Most people don't have satillite radio. Look at Stern. Stern isn't nearly the cultural force he once was. It is because he is in the satilite radio ghetto as opposed to broadcast. The Fairness Doctrine would go a long way to killing off broadcast radio because it would deprive them of one of their last really popular formats. Also, doesn't sattilite radio have some of the spectrum? Couldn't you apply it to them as well if you really wanted to?

Just Plain Brian|10.15.08 @ 12:42PM|#

Why do you guys have so much faith that they won't go after blogs?

My point, John, that you seem to have blown right past, is that despite all the talk about "stopping file sharing", it's easier to do and more widespread than it ever was.

"Going after blogs" is not the simple task you believe it to be.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:43PM|#

Satellite radio is like cable TV. It is privately owned, it's not the public airwaves.

Shouldn't you be looking out for an ACORN Black Helicopter?

|10.15.08 @ 12:44PM|#

"My point, John, that you seem to have blown right past, is that despite all the talk about "stopping file sharing", it's easier to do and more widespread than it ever was."

Really? Easier than it was when napster was around? Easier than it would be if they just let it happen? Just because a law can be circumvented doesn't make it right. By that logic there is nothing wrong with the drug laws since drugs are so easy to obtain.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:45PM|#

Actually, do you still think the President being able to declare whoever he wants an "enemy combatant" and holding him as long as he wants is still a good idea, John?

|10.15.08 @ 12:45PM|#

BDB, ummm, dude,
the ACORN copter is blue.

BDB,

You would have no objection then to the Fairness Doctrine or applying McCain Feingold to the internet? Anyone who thinks that is a bad idea and bad for the country and the 1st Amendment is just a black helicopter nut? Is that it?

So blue is the new color of the Coming Liberal Fascism?

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:47PM|#

John--

Anyone who thinks that will happen even though it was rejected, even though no one is even talking about it, even though Obama is not that stupid of a politician to blow his political capital on it is a nut, yes.

You're an even bigger nut if you think the way to prevent that is to vote for McCain, the author of the law.

|10.15.08 @ 12:47PM|#

"Actually, do you still think the President being able to declare whoever he wants an "enemy combatant" and holding him as long as he wants is still a good idea, John?"

I never thought that was a good idea dumbass. There is a whole set of laws and traditions regarding that determination. I have always advocated following that international law. What I have objected to is handling terrorism through the judicial system.

Just Plain Brian|10.15.08 @ 12:47PM|#

Just because a law can be circumvented doesn't make it right.

Don't change the subject - I'm talking about whether they can. And just look at your example of "file sharing" - they can't stop it.

|10.15.08 @ 12:49PM|#

I can always count on BDB for a gratuitous ACORN reference.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:49PM|#

Not to mention we had a unified Democratic government from 1993-1995 and the world didn't end, and I believe Rush was more popular than ever.

"You're an even bigger nut if you think the way to prevent that is to vote for McCain, the author of the law."

McCain has never said he would apply it to the internet. McCain is a quizling about the 1st Amendment. But he wasn't the only sponsor of that law. There was another, Russ Feingold. Advocating for Obama on the basis of the first Amendment is like those old "Vote for Cthulhu, Why choose the lesser of two evils" bumber stickers. Yes, why vote for the quizling when you can have the real thing.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:50PM|#

So where did Obama say he wants to apply it to the internet, John? Or are you just doing baseless speculating?

|10.15.08 @ 12:51PM|#

BDB, you weren't around when it was a popular subject, but John has been quite reasonable on the "enemy combatant"/phony military tribunals issues all along.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:51PM|#

Seriously, there are dozens of other bad things a Democratic government would actually do that you could be talking about (higher taxes, protectionism, being in hock to big labor) that would have more resonance.

|10.15.08 @ 12:52PM|#

"Not to mention we had a unified Democratic government from 1993-1995 and the world didn't end, and I believe Rush was more popular than ever."

The left wasn't nearly as crazy or as angry as it is now. Further, Clinton wasn't nearly the leftist that Obama is. Clinton was a centrist Southern Governor. Maybe Obama is to. I don't think anyone really knows what he is. But, this is not 1993. Further, Clinton couldn't call anyone who disagreed with him a racist. I also don't recall children giving the pledge of allience to Clinton or any of the other creepy weird stuff that has arisen around Obama.

Do I think we will get a dictatorship? No. But you better beleive the 1st Amendment is going to take one hell of beating if the chosen one wins.

Just Plain Brian|10.15.08 @ 12:52PM|#

and I believe Rush was more popular than ever.

I don't know, that was after "Roll the Bones", and while I still enjoyed the album, I think overall their popularity was waning a bit.

|10.15.08 @ 12:53PM|#

Thank you Joe.

|10.15.08 @ 12:54PM|#

Rush was pretty much done by what 87?

BDB|10.15.08 @ 12:54PM|#

See? Again, it's not "Obama will raise your taxes" it's "OMG THERE WILL BE AN OBAMA YOUTH AND STORMTROOPERS!"

Exhibit "A" why the Republicans are getting their asses kicked.

Fluffy|10.15.08 @ 12:57PM|#

I think national health insurance is more likely in a McCain presidency than an Obama presidency.

Unless Obama has MASSIVE majorities in both houses of Congress.

If Obama has even 60 Democrats in the Senate, you still need Democrat unanimity behind a particular plan. And I think they wouldn't get it, because you'd have a Blue Dog or two opposing the idea from the center, and one or two liberal members would oppose anything that's not single payer, under the theory that if they hold their breath long enough single payer will get passed.

McCain, on the other hand, could just do what Bush did with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and say, "We have to take this issue away from the Democrats". By "take the issue away" he would mean "pass a plan that expands the size of government, just not in the precise way the Democrats asked - that'll show 'em!" And McCain would get the support of most of his party and enough Democrats to get it done. [Again, just like the Medicare prescription drug benefit.]

|10.15.08 @ 12:57PM|#

IMO the last good Rush was "Moving Pictures"

|10.15.08 @ 12:58PM|#

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/4/163822/2443

Good roundup of FEC's rejection of the effort to strip blogs of the media exemption in McCain-Feingold.

Those crazy leftists, not only did they try to apply M-F to blogs, but they...uh...have never questioned the existence of the media exemption, nor its application to blogs. Hmm.

Paranoid delusion.

Who said anything about stormtroopers?

And BDB, I'm sorry if you don't think this, but the seal, the "Obama Youth" and all of that is, as John called it, "weird". It just is.

|10.15.08 @ 12:59PM|#

Oh, and let's not forget the federalist columns. And the fact that he draws crowds.

so very weird.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 1:00PM|#

No more weird than Bush circa 2003.

Fluffy|10.15.08 @ 1:00PM|#

No. But you better beleive the 1st Amendment is going to take one hell of beating if the chosen one wins.

John, which candidate has done more to offend against the First Amendment in his political career to date: McCain or Obama?

Let's not talk about your fever dreams of what might happen in the future for a moment. Let's talk about what has actually happened to date.

Who has more 1st-Amendment-hating legislation and votes to his credit - McCain or Obama?

BDB|10.15.08 @ 1:01PM|#

I find the entire Cult of the Presidency to be weird, no matter who is in it.

|10.15.08 @ 1:02PM|#

fluffy, this is an emotional issue and there is no good reason to cloudy it all up with facts and such.

Oh, and let's not forget the federalist columns. And the fact that he draws crowds.

Federalist columns? I don't even know what you mean. And I don't care that he draws crowds; I do get kind of creeped out by the fact that like, 20 people have "fainted" at various rallies.

No more weird than Bush circa 2003.

Uh huh....and that wasn't weird to you?

BDB|10.15.08 @ 1:03PM|#

"Uh huh....and that wasn't weird to you?"

Extremely weird. The aircraft carrier thing and the NRO crowd comparing him to Churchill and Alexander the Great was a bit...much.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 1:05PM|#

And at the same time, the ZOMG! THE COMING BUSH DICTATORSHIP! crowd was just as weird.

|10.15.08 @ 1:06PM|#

all I see, really, is the Crazy Right co-opting the insane paranoia of the Crazy Left. "Stormtroopers...George Bushitlerhalliburton ZOMG..."

BDB, that was way too weird.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 1:06PM|#

TAO--

Exactly. It's like a mirror image. Of course the crazy left in this decade under Bush was a mirror image of the crazy right under Clinton in the 1990s, which was a mirror image of...you get the point.

|10.15.08 @ 1:12PM|#

I do get kind of creeped out by the fact that like, 20 people have "fainted" at various rallies.

I'm sure you do. The fact that every candidate has had people faint at their rallies now and then - standing around in the sun for hours tends to do that to people - notwithstanding.

The McCain people decided to push the meme that the enthusiasm surrounding Obama is somehow unique and frightening, and you bought it.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 1:13PM|#

"The McCain people decided to push the meme that the enthusiasm surrounding Obama is somehow unique and frightening, and you bought it."

That meme became self-defeating as soon as they picked Palin.

|10.15.08 @ 1:16PM|#

That meme became self-defeating as soon as they picked Palin.

And the "Obama speeches are like Nazi rallies" meme became self-defeating, oh, about last week or so. For SOME reason.

Nigel Watt|10.15.08 @ 1:17PM|#

The McCain people decided to push the meme that the enthusiasm surrounding Obama is somehow unique and frightening, and you bought it.

Enthusiasm for either of those bastards is frightening.

|10.15.08 @ 1:18PM|#

There is a great story about a Cardinal talking to Napoleon at the height of Napoleon's power. Napoleon tells the Cardinal that he is going to destroy the Catholic Church in the name of reason. The Cardinal responds by asking how Napoleon thinks he can do that when Catholics have been trying to destroy the Church for 1800 years and still haven't succeeded.

That is how I feel about Obama and American Democracy. I have no doubt that many of Obama's supporters are loathsome people with a creepy dedication to him and would, if they could, do a lot of damage to American Democracy. But again, America has been trying to destroy its democracy for over 200 years now and it is still here. I don't think those clowns will accomplish much beyond the usual looting and stealing that goes along with political power.

But, that doesn't mean they can't do some damage. Look at Canada and Europe. Those are free countries to and they have "human rights commissions" that have effectively ended free speech in important ways. In England, it is illegal to defend yourself when someone breaks into your home. If it can happen there, it can happen here.

|10.15.08 @ 1:19PM|#

The fact that every candidate has had people faint at their rallies now and then - standing around in the sun for hours tends to do that to people - notwithstanding.

joe, it's the totality of the circumstances. You can say that Obamamania is all just some manufactured hysteria by the right wing, but looking at the youth, the seal, the faitings, the rallies, the big columns....blah blah blah.

The McCain people decided to push the meme that the enthusiasm surrounding Obama is somehow unique and frightening, and you bought it.

As Nigel said, enthusiasm for either one is frightening. You're just mad that I'm calling *your* candidate's followers on it.

|10.15.08 @ 1:24PM|#

the word is "quisling", not "quizling"

please continue with this inane thread

Just Plain Brian|10.15.08 @ 1:29PM|#

Napoleon tells the Cardinal that he is going to destroy the Catholic Church in the name of reason.

...and as a result several Catholics threatened to cancel their subscriptions

|10.15.08 @ 1:36PM|#

I was around in 1992. The "Man from Hope" enthusiasm was no different than what we're seeing this year. Maybe a bit less widespread, but no less intense among the faithful.

It was generally met with eye-rolling, as I recall. All politicians try to gin up enthusiasm, and some of them succeed.

The only reason people are buying into the idea that Obamamania is any different than the responses to Dubya and Clinton and Reagan the first time they ran is because enthusiasm for McCain is so incredibly low.

|10.15.08 @ 1:40PM|#

If you want to see an unusual level to devotion to a candidate, go back to Ron Paul threads from this spring and summer. I saw more Ron Paul signs than all other candidates combined back then, and I lived in Massachusetts.

I never felt the need to talk about it being scary and fascist that there were people who found him inspiring because, really, there's nothing unusual about that.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 1:45PM|#

Joe--

I also blame the LiberalFascism meme. It coincided with Obama's candidacy.

|10.15.08 @ 1:47PM|#

When the GOP gives up on its fervor to name every goddamn thing in the country after Reagan, it'll be time to address Obmamania.

|10.15.08 @ 1:54PM|#

Joe,

If Obama wins, the question will be how quickly do other Democrats start criticizing him. If it takes anything more than about a month, then yes it is creepy.

As far as Clinton goes, if Bush had ever put on anything approaching the Hollywood inagural that Clinton put in in 1992, liberals would have gone even more apeshit. That thing was really creepy.

The thing that makes Obama a problem is the race issue. I am not sure this country is mature enough racially to have a black president. How are people going to react when he is unpopular and people start slamming on him like they do all Presidents? Can Obama resist the temptation to play the race card? Will his supporters? If they don't, it will be a bad deal for everyone and create a lot of bad blood.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 2:00PM|#

John--

When Doug Wilder was elected Governor here, he was an EXTREMELY boring and cautious Governor. Why? Because he was black, and if he did anything that even remotely rocked the boat he was afraid he would be seen as a leftist radical even if it was moderate, because he was black. I think Obama will be an extremely, extremely boring and cautious President in the same mold for the same reason.

|10.15.08 @ 2:01PM|#

I'm curious to see with the no doubt Dem majority in Congress if the Dems will now be inclined to stuff so much pork into war funding bills because they knew there was no way in hell the prez was gonna veto them. Will the Blue Dogs emerge again? Remember they gave Clinton fits for a time...

|10.15.08 @ 2:10PM|#

BDB,

Obama is at heart a boring nerd. I honestly don't see how anyone ever thought he was a good speaker. Did you see him in the last debate? He came accross as a pedantic TA teaching a freshman poly sci class. His wife in contrast I think is the real deal black woman with an attitude. They will really have to put a muzzle on her.

I guess really the question is how stupid is Obama. Does the whole thing go to his head and he starts beleiving his press clippings or does he act boring and cautious like you say. I think it will probably be the former right up until bad things start happening to elected Democrats. At that point, if the Republicans are smart, they will work with him and make sure that the entire looney left gets completely disillusioned with him like they did with Clinton. In case anyone forgot, Nader got real votes in 2000 for a reason.

|10.15.08 @ 2:14PM|#

That's odd, John. Even his political opponents have felt the need to say "Yes, he gives very good speeches, but...," and find reasons why his ability to give spellbinding speeches is actually a bad thing. Remember "just words?"

I imagine there were particularly partisan Democrats in the 1980s who couldn't understand why people thought Reagan was a good speaker, too.

|10.15.08 @ 2:16PM|#

Joe,

I watched the Berlin speech and I laughed. It was the most rediculous thing I have ever seen in my life. It was pathetic. The only thing more pathetic about it was that anyone thought it was a good speech. Regardless, at some point he had some kind of something going for him. Whatever that was seemed to have been lost in the last debate. The earnestness, the humorlessness and the professorial tone is going to wear very thin. Of course when it does and the first Dem looses an election by being associated with Obama the media spin will be "racism and hate returns to America".

|10.15.08 @ 2:18PM|#

I think spellbinding is a strong word, joe, though he is certainly a good prepared speaker. He's not particularly skilled at extemporaneous speaking, though. Then again, few people really are.

In the end Joe, I don't think obama is very smart and I guess that is what bothers me. For the record that fact bothers me about Bush. I have never listened to one of his speeches all the way through even though I agree with him. In contrast, I could always listen to Clinton. He drove me crazy but I could stand to listen to him because it was obvious he was a very smart guy. I don't get that feeling at all with Obama. I just see a guy who reads what is in front of him and thinks he is smart but really isn't.

|10.15.08 @ 2:19PM|#

Tom Sawyer was my final Rush straw. The fairness doctrine would send most hacks to XM/Sirius but Limbaugh wouldn't have to go. His ratings are worth forking over rebuttal time, especially in the future radio wastland post-FD

BDB|10.15.08 @ 2:21PM|#

Obama's speeches wore thin by Berlin (really, his 2004 speech, his speech at the end of every primary/caucuses night, and his Berlin speech were basically the same speech), but he re-tooled his standard speech and was much better at the convention. Dropped the lofty. fluffy stuff and came more "Down to earth".

Why do you think Obama won in the post debate snap polls, John? I don't mean the cell phone txt polls, the real ones? Was McCain just worse?

|10.15.08 @ 2:22PM|#

James Ard,

I guess Randy Rhoades and her 10 listeners could be the loss leader for Rush.

|10.15.08 @ 2:24PM|#

"Why do you think Obama won in the post debate snap polls, John? I don't mean the cell phone txt polls, the real ones? Was McCain just worse?"

McCain is boring and a lousy speaker. I really have no idea how smart McCain is. Also, there is a difference between winning a debate intellectually and winning one polticially. You could get up and wipe the floor with someone and come accross as a mean guy and lose politically. Not that that is what happened but there is a difference. The polls that I saw had McCain winning debate number 1 and the second one being a draw with neither one of them doing very well.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 2:25PM|#

The CNN polls had Obama winning both. At first the pundits said McCain won it (both times) and then the polls contradicted it and they backpeddled.

BDB|10.15.08 @ 2:29PM|#

Personally I think its because McCain just plain looks old.

|10.15.08 @ 2:34PM|#

Pro Lib,

Barack Obama does well at town hall events, and don't forget the responses from his students at the University of Chicago Law School in the story Reason linked to some time back. He's a good extemporaneous speaker.

I think it's the artifically-shortened and controlled format of the modern cable nooz debate that's his nemesis.

EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|10.15.08 @ 2:37PM|#

the coming of the cockroach as the superior life form on earth

Umm. Paulsen?

hotsauce|10.15.08 @ 2:50PM|#

That's an excellent point, Jerry. Politicians are canny enough to leave themselves outs. This is why I do not think we will see, in our lives and probably well beyond, much nationalization. Much full nationalization, that is. As long as private actors are involved -- even remotely -- the scum will freely blame the "free" market.

|10.15.08 @ 2:57PM|#

"The only reason people are buying into the idea that Obamamania is any different than the responses to Dubya and Clinton and Reagan the first time they ran is because enthusiasm for McCain is so incredibly low."

Very interesting thought joe. But do you think enthusiasm for Carter '80, Bush '92 or Gore '00 isn't similar to McCain '08? Remember, Carter and Bush both faced primary battles as incumbants and all faced 3rd party opponents (Anderson '80, Perot '92 & Nader '00) who splintered support from their bases.

Obamamania seems similar to Reaganmaina (88-present). What seems to make it unusual is it coming on the front end as opposed to after his presidency.

hotsauce|10.15.08 @ 2:58PM|#

Who has more 1st-Amendment-hating legislation and votes to his credit - McCain or Obama?

The fallacy here is that they haven't been in public life as long. See "Dow sustains biggest loss ever" vs. percentage loss.

Dwayne Mayor|10.15.08 @ 3:02PM|#

I don't think obama is very smart and I guess that is what bothers me.

What do you think about McCain or Palin then? They mus scare the shit out of you.

Ack..."must," that is.

Another Phil|10.15.08 @ 3:03PM|#

IMO the last good Rush was "Moving Pictures"

Nonsense. Their most recent album, Snakes and Ladders, was good, but not among their best. But the previous one, Vapor Trails was fantastic.

|10.15.08 @ 3:40PM|#

"Why do you think Obama won in the post debate snap polls, John? I don't mean the cell phone txt polls, the real ones? Was McCain just worse?"

Most likely because he's ahead in the polls. It's like having the crowd at a baseball game call balls and strikes. Whichever team has the most umpires on their side is going to win.

That said McCain is a lousy candidate by both traditional and libertarian measures. By libertarian measures he was always kind of lousy, but I think a younger McCain would have done better traditionally than he has this time around.

|10.15.08 @ 3:53PM|#

Am I the only one who doesn't buy John's, "Clinton was on the right side, but at least he was one of the good ones" BS? My guess is that he forwarded the Vince Foster emails on AOL and Tawanna Brawley accusations. He sounds like a liberal that says, "Why couldn't W be more like his father," when they kicked and screamed and thought he was a threat to global prosperity back in the day. It's easy to compliment someone that's in your rearview mirror.

Hogan|10.15.08 @ 3:58PM|#

something tells me you don't mean tawanna brawley

tawana, excuse me

|10.15.08 @ 3:59PM|#

Fuck off Mo. I mean really fuck off. If you don't have anything to say beyond pretending what you think other people think, shut the fuck up. Thankfully God has spared me wasting my time knowing you, so you have no idea what I actually thought in the 1990s. And no I never beleived that Vince Foster was murdered. Take it elswhere douchbag.

|10.15.08 @ 4:17PM|#

So we've already had the election, then? Good, I'm glad it's over- I was tired of hearing about it.

|10.15.08 @ 4:18PM|#

I refuse to vote for either the socialist or the "maverick." I just need to figure out a good way to get my money out of the country when the socialist wins.

JB|10.15.08 @ 6:35PM|#

I hope folks are ready for communism 2.0

|10.15.08 @ 7:34PM|#

Hogan,

Oops, you're right. I get my politically motivated rape accusations mixed up.

"I must of hit her pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh kid?"

Fine, but outside of the exaggerations, you missed the point. Partisans always remember their previous foes more fondly than their current ones. It how idiot hawks can say something like, "Iran is a greater existential threat than the Soviet Union. At least the Soviets were rational." Just like you forget a lot of the shit you hated about high school, you forget what you hated about the guy from 16 years ago and hate the guy today with the fire of a thousand suns.

Obama is no dummy, he's easily the smartest candidate (arguably with Romney) since Clinton. Just because you don't like him and he's not a blowhard that overcomplicates simple ideas (like Kerry or Gore), doesn't mean he's dumb.

MJ|10.15.08 @ 7:50PM|#

"I refuse to vote for either the socialist or the "maverick." I just need to figure out a good way to get my money out of the country when the socialist wins."

Then be prepared for the treason charges when you don't patriotically lie back and enjoy the rape of your paycheck and investments.

|10.15.08 @ 8:35PM|#

Then be prepared for the treason charges when you don't patriotically lie back and enjoy the rape of your paycheck and investments.

Well, if I get enough money out of the country in time, then I don't really need to be here either...

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements