Help Us, Barack Obama. You're Our Only Hope!

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Barack Obama jumping to a nine-point lead over John McCain, up from a two-point deficit after the Republican convention. As the Post points out:

As a point of comparison, neither of the last two Democratic nominees -- John F. Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000 -- recorded support above 50 percent in a pre-election poll by the Post and ABC News.

The reason? Take a guess.

More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support.

Polling aggregators give Obama only a modest lead, mostly due a 2-point McCain lead in the Battleground Poll. Margin of error and all that stuff. But the trend is crystal clear: Obama had lost his footing after the GOP convention, but McCain lost momentum after the crisis on Wall Street started building. Even after five days of a consistent message (Regulation today! Regulation tomorrow! Regulation forever!), McCain remains the Republican candidate trying to follow a Republican president, facing off against the nominee of a party that people trust on the economy. McCain's been modestly successful in blunting the Democratic edge (by this point in 1992, Clinton was blowing Bush away on voters worried about the economy), but modest only takes you so far. In this case, to 44 percent of the vote.

Comments

[Mo]

But the trend is crystal clear: Obama had lost his footing after the GOP convention, but McCain lost momentum after the crisis on Wall Street started building.

Alternatively: McCain got a predictable (though stronger than expected*) bump after the convention. The bump predictably disappeared (enthusiasm for Palin trailed off). Current economic crisi gave Obama a bump this week.

* Thanks to the Palin nom

[madmikefisk]

I'd have to see the internals of the poll, but, if accurate, it's pretty dangerous stuff for McCain. (Considering where almost every other poll has been lately, however, this seems well into "ridiculous outlier" territory.)

What scares me is that a wide percentage of the American people trust either Obama or McCain on the economy, when both are basically trotting out the same central thesis -- that the era of free markets was a failed experiment that we need to put behind us.

[Fluffy]

The economy is to me where Obama is weakest, so these findings are disconcerting.

But this is what we get for fellow-traveling with Republicans all those years, and allowing the GOP to paint itself as the party of the free market.

Now, because of that, even though W has been one of the worst free market / small government politicians in American history, the current crisis can be successfully sold to the public as the product of "laissez-faire".

[Gilbert Martin]

The GOP needs to do more to play up Obama's connections to Fannie Mae and Franklin Raines to demonstrate he is joined at the hip to people and institutions that have been a big part of the problem.

[Mo]

The economy is to me where Obama is weakest, so these findings are disconcerting.

I agree. Though I would argue that McCain is weaker. What's distressing is that there isn't a single knowledgeable person on economics on either ticket. There's no Dodd, Romney, Corzine, Rubin or Gramm on either side. Sure they're there as advisors, but BFD. Maybe Obama will do something crazy and appoint Buffett as Treasury Secretary. Now that's a guy I would trust with a $700B blank check to buy distressed assets.

[The Angry Optimist]

This poll is definitely a ridiculous outlier, and spinning a story around it is even more silly.

[madmikefisk]

The GOP needs to do more to play up Obama's connections to Fannie Mae and Franklin Raines to demonstrate he is joined at the hip to people and institutions that have been a big part of the problem.

They tried... and they were portrayed as being racists for doing so.

Fluffy: I agree, though... I've talked with people at the university I attend for graduate school, and the usual response to hearing that I support free markets is "so you're just like that evil George W. Bush, then"... I then proceed to make them lose their minds by explaining that, compared to me, GWB is a Marxist. Ah, messing with college students.

[joe]

Obama had pulled into the lead before the big economic news broke, most likely because McCain's convention bounce faded, a process helped along by Palin's disasterous interview with Charles Gibson.

There's little doubt that the news about the economy has helped Obama, but let's not search too far afield to fitgure out why McCain's lead eroded then vanished over a couple weeks following the convention.

Still, nine points is big. It's almost certainly an outlier, but how big an outlier? We'll see.

[Geoff Nathan]

Hate to just say 'me too', but Fluffy has hit the nail on the head. Between the sudden green turn over the past year, and 'everyone's' perception that this crisis was caused by deregulation I'm very pessimistic about economic freedom in this country. And, because of the Bush overreaction on security (everybody needs to read the last chapter of the last chapter of Dan Gardner's book 'The Science of Fear. Website here) our personal freedoms are shot too. Sigh...

[horsewithnonick]

WASHINGTON - Presidential rivals Barack Obama and John McCain warily addressed the nation's financial crisis and a proposed $700 billion response Tuesday, demanding changes in the Bush administration's plan without specifying exactly what would trigger their outright opposition.

The financial meltdown is bedeviling both candidates, who know the Nov. 4 election could turn on voters' sense of who can best keep the country from a deep recession. They have acted cautiously so far, avoiding the intense debate in Congress and offering similar calls for greater oversight and taxpayer protections, which rank among the less controversial criticisms of the plan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_economy;_ylt=AkiXOwaSH4ZGeOK9kHRWB5CM5QcF

The point? Neither of these guys has the remotest clue how to handle this mess, so they support whatever the polls tell them they should.

It's ignorance and cynicism, transparent and obvious - in a sane world it would result in millions of voters rejecting them both. Instead, it is reported by the AP, and people just shrug.

We are soo doomed.

[brotherben]

Gilbert Martin,
I saw a commercial last nite that hammered that association.

[Fluffy]

They tried... and they were portrayed as being racists for doing so.

They also ran into a machine-gun crossfire of revelations about key McCain staffers being on Fannie's payroll.

It certainly didn't help that Gramm held his hand out for UBS on his lunch break from being McCain's economic advisor.

[joe]

Fluffy,

The economy is also where McCain is the weakest. Obama doesn't have to outrun the bear; he just has to outrun McCain.

Remember when this was going to be a national security/Iraq War election? Good times, good times.

They tried (to link Obama to Raines) and they were portrayed as being racists for doing so. Maybe that's because Barack Obama doesn't actually have any connections to Franklin Raines. Funny how of all of the people an images they could have used to represent Fannie Mae, they decided to use four photos of the face of a guy with no connection to Obama or his campaign.

[Mo]

Dude, Gilbert, you need to expand your reading beyond reason and NRO. McCain's staff is chock full of lobbyists for Fannie and Freddie, including his campaign manager. That would be a dumb tack.

I gotta say, I'm surprised the Dems haven't busted out the Keating Five yet. Right now seems a perfect time. It pretty much writes itself.

Scary voiceover:

During the last major financial crisis. Five senators corruptly aided the head of a failing bank. One of those senators was John McCain. Now there's a new crisis. Can we trust him to have the best interests of the American people rather than his donors?

John McCain, wrong then, wrong now.

[Daniel]

I see the liberal media is close to accomplishing it's long held goal of electing BHO even though they had to sacrifice any credibility they had left to do it.

[joe]

Mo,

Did you see yesterday's story? McCain's campaign manager, who we were told severed his ties as a Fannie Mae lobbyist two years ago, is STILL on their payroll.

Frankly, I'm glad that McCain and Obama aren't trying to take the lead on crafting the policy on this, but are deferring to more knowledgeable people in Congress. Not only does that make it less likely that we'll see a poll-dictated solution, but it indicates a welcome departure from the Cult of the Presidency way of doing things.

[Mo]

I see the liberal media is close to accomplishing it's long held goal of electing BHO even though they had to sacrifice any credibility they had left to do it.

Ahh yes. When Dems lose it's, "Diebold stole it!" When Reps lose it's, "The media stole it!" How does the media get blamed, when the most watched news network (by a long shot) is Fox News and Rush is the most listened to radio personality? Are the 7 people watching MSNBC that powerful?

[Mad Max]

"During the last major financial crisis. Five senators corruptly aided the head of a failing bank. One of those senators was John McCain. Now there's a new crisis. Can we trust him to have the best interests of the American people rather than his donors?

"John McCain, wrong then, wrong now."

Please, who in 2008 cares what a Presidential candidate did during the 1980s? Anyway, it's not as McCain praised the S&L bailout in a newsletter or anything.

[sam]

@ Gilbert Martin
"The GOP needs to do more to play up Obama's connections to Fannie Mae and Franklin Raines to demonstrate he is joined at the hip to people and institutions that have been a big part of the problem."

Gee, maybe the GOP can get Rick Davis to weigh in -- he knows a lot about Fannie Mae, I hear.

[Don Mynack]

The dumbassery in the McCain campaign concerning the bailout is simply astounding. The American people are outraged by it - follow Gingrich's advice and come out solidly against it. This is the issue that could cost him the election - if he lets Obama outmaneuver him on this then he is dead in the water.

[Fluffy]

Maybe McCain can run an ad saying,

"I'm just going to get the economy alone in a room and tell it, 'Stop the bullshit.'"

Or maybe he can say,

"I know how to win economic wars."

"How, Senator?"

"Resolve."

[joe]

Huh, look at this.

Strange things afoot at Intrade.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/intrade-betting-is-suspcious.html

[The Angry Optimist]

Seriously, the Keating Five thing looms large in this one.

[R C Dean]

McCain really screwed the pooch on this one. I actually think he and Obama came down on, broadly, the same response, but there's no question Barack looked a lot better than flailin' McCain.

[joe]

You know, Fluffy, John McCain didn't solve any financial crises for five and a half years...IN A PRISON CAMP.

He can't articulate any principles for how to deal with this situation because of the injuries he endured during his captivity, YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD.

[R C Dean]

Now there's a new crisis. Can we trust him to have the best interests of the American people rather than his donors?

Both parties, and Barack in particular, have their hands so dirty with Fannie/Freddie money and incestuous relationships that I really don't think there's an advantage to either side in opening this can of worms. Unfortunately.

[brotherben]

If the current badministration is successful in lighting the fuse in Pakistan, will the residents of Jesusland circle the wagons around McCain and ignore the economy?

[Mo]

Please, who in 2008 cares what a Presidential candidate did during the 1980s? Anyway, it's not as McCain praised the S&L bailout in a newsletter or anything.

It's the last major financial crisis in American history. If there's information* on the candidates reactions to it, it's pretty relevant.

* Granted Palin was a sportscaster and Obama was a law student (or organizer, not too familiar with the timeline), so their reactions are pretty worthless. McCain and Biden were both Senators at the time, that's very germane.

[BDB]

I wonder if Obama can come up with an effective one liner when McCain pimps his status as a POW when he's at a loss for an answer or in a corner friday?

[Stupid is...]

How stupid was Bush to choose a VP that would not be able to run for president in 8 years with the semi-incumbent advantage? How stupid is Obama to do the same?

(Didn't work out for Al Gore, Hubert Humphrey, or Richard Nixon, admittedly.)

[Abdul]

How stupid was Bush to choose a VP that would not be able to run for president in 8 years with the semi-incumbent advantage?

I think Bush looks pretty smart. Given his unpopularity, no one could ride his coattails to victory this year. They only chance the GOP had was someone percieved as a Maverick who does have a track record of criticizing Bush from within the party.

[Lefiti]

Don't believe the polls. McCain will win handily.

[Mo]

Besides, Bush, the last incumbent VP to win an election was Truman. LBJ doesn't count because he was already president when he ran for president. I don't know what incumbent advantage you speak of.

[joe]

Truman was also President when he ran in 1948.

Incumbency advantage only accrues to the actual incumbent president, not his VP. By definition, the swing voters who decide elections "vote for the man, not the party."

Maybe there is some such advantage, but if so, it is highly attenuated.

[Elemenope]

I wonder if Obama can come up with an effective one liner when McCain pimps his status as a POW when he's at a loss for an answer or in a corner friday?

"I mean no disrespect John, we all admire your service and the pain you went through during your years of captivity, but just what the fuck does it have to do with tax policy?"

That might just work.

[P-Diddy]

joe,
Oh yeah. Duh!

According to Wikipedia:
Four sitting Vice Presidents were elected President
1. John Adams (1789-1797) was elected President in 1796.
2. Thomas Jefferson (1797-1801) was elected President in 1800.
3. Martin Van Buren (1833-1837) was elected President in 1836.
4. George H. W. Bush (1981-1989) was elected President in 1988.

One non-sitting former Vice President was elected President
* Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968. He had been Vice President to Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961.

Looks like there is no VP advantage for running for president (unless you become president). 5 out of 43 is awful. You're better off being a Senator.

[Mo]

Oops, P-diddy was me. Joke from the other thread

[Reinmoose]

Elemenope -
I'd think a better one liner would be something like:
"and I once had to sit throught the torture of a performance of Ma Rainy's Black Bottom - can we get on with the topic of discussion now?"

[Reinmoose]

for the record, it is actually torture to sit through that play

[Ethan]

The GOP needs to do more to play up Obama's connections to Fannie Mae and Franklin Raines to demonstrate he is joined at the hip to people and institutions that have been a big part of the problem.

McCain and his campaign have similar connections, so I don't see how that's a winner.

The problem for McCain now is that further tax cuts for the rich now seem even less appealing. Tax cuts on top of a zillion dollars in bailouts? The average person can easily ask: What have the rich done with all that extra money over the past 8 years? Well, they've destroyed our economy, left us with the bill, and are even richer as a result. Perhaps the religious tenet that letting the rich pay low taxes will benefit everyone else was...(gulp)...a lie.

[joe]

I liked Ma Rainey's Black Bottom.

Oops, P-diddy was me. Joke from the other thread

Well no wonder I couldn't make those lines scan.

[meerdahl]

1) Or, if you look at the internals of the poll, the result could be because they oversampled the democrats:

Democrat: listed 38, leaning 16.1, total 54.1%

Republican: listed 28, leaning 9.8, total 37.8%

2) Position of the NYT/Obama Campaign/Joe: "Did you see yesterday's story? McCain's campaign manager, who we were told severed his ties as a Fannie Mae lobbyist two years ago, is STILL on their payroll."

Position of the McCain Campaign: "Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006."

Obama directly received over $100,000 from Freddie Mae / Mac. The guy he named as head of his VP search committee was CEO of Freddie Mae, until things blew up.

I'm not sure it is good politics for the Obama campaign to put this matter in the spotlight.

3) Hillary would have been beating McCain like a rented mule at this point, without any dodgy poll sampling.

[Elemenope]

Both parties, and Barack in particular, have their hands so dirty with Fannie/Freddie money and incestuous relationships that I really don't think there's an advantage to either side in opening this can of worms.

I've heard this before, and it doesn't track. Fannie employees have donated lots to Obama, sure. But Obama is also tits-deep in contributions from military servicemen and their families; why no accusation of him being in the pocket of some general?

That's how comparatively silly it sounds.

[cadaver dog]

Besides, Bush, the last incumbent VP to win an election was Truman.

Elections where the incumbent president doesn't run (and thus block the incumbent VP from running) are relatively rare. Since 1920 there have only been five of them. Nixon and Gore lost, Hoover and Bush won, and in 1968 the VP didn't run.

So it's not surprising that there would be long gaps between incumbent VP victories.

[Earle]

Poll: Obama has 4-point Mich. lead - Detroit Free Press -
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080923/NEWS15/80923030/1215/NEWS15

VA Poll: McCain +3 -
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheRcpBlog/~3/401764417/va_poll_mccain_3.html

Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/23/ST2008092303897.html

ABC News/WaPo: Obama +9 -
This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone
Sept. 19-22, 2008, among a random sample of ...1,082... adults, including
an oversample of African Americans (weighted to their correct share
of the national population), for a total of 163 black respondents
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheRcpBlog/~3/401657536/abc_newswapo_obama_9.html

OH Poll: Tied at 46 -
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheRcpBlog/~3/401221448/oh_poll_tied_at_46.html

CO Poll: Obama +7, Udall +8 -
PPP surveyed 1,084 likely voters
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheRcpBlog/~3/401031848/co_poll_obama_7.html

Poll: Obama regains lead from McCain in Colorado
surveyed 1,418 "likely" voters
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_10541465?source=rss

Obama Boom: Democrat Takes 52-43 Lead, Erases McCain Gains -
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AbcNews_Politics/~3/EC7R-B6Pobo/story

Poll: Obama Poised To Win Delaware -
survey of 900 Delaware adults, 816 of whom are registered to vote
[ ed note ] HOW can you include people who are NOT registered to
vote & will NOT vote because they are not registered
http://www.nbc10.com/politics/17546472/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news

Poll: McCain nips at Obama lead in state -
poll of 1,313 Wisconsin voters
http://www.htrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080924/MAN0101/809240509/1358&located=RSS

Poll: Florida leaning by 2 points to Obama -
http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/story/906156.html

look at the extremely SMALL samples here !! THIS is basis of all those
polls you hear about in FACTUAL numbers. keep these SAMPLE
numbers in mind,next time you haer so & so's standing in a particular
state,national poll. [ ed note ]

Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Spread
total Average 09/11 - 09/22 -- 46.7 45.1 McCain +1.6
InAdv/PollPosition 09/22 - 09/22 545 LV 46 46 Ti
Rasmussen 09/21 - 09/21 500 LV 50 46 McCain +4
Big10 Battleground 09/14 - 09/17 619 RV 45 46 Obama +1
Ohio Poll 09/12 - 09/16 869 LV 48 42 McCain +6
Marist 09/11 - 09/15 565 LV 45 47 Obama +2
National Journal/FD 09/11 - 09/15 400 RV 42 41 McCain +1
Rasmussen 09/14 - 09/14 500 LV 48 45 McCain +3
CNN/Time 09/13 - 09/14 913 RV 47 49 Obama +2
PPP (D) 09/13 - 09/14 1077 LV 48 44 McCain +4
SurveyUSA 09/12 - 09/14 692 LV 49 45 McCain +4
Suffolk University 09/10 - 09/13 600 LV 46 42 McCain +4
InAdv/PollPosition 09/10 - 09/10 500 LV 48 47 McCain +1
Univ of Cinci/Ohio 09/05 - 09/10 775 LV 48 44 McCain +4
Strategic Vision (R) 09/07 - 09/09 1200 LV 48 44 McCain +4
Quinnipiac 09/05 - 09/09 1367 LV 44 49 Obama +5
Rasmussen 09/07 - 09/07 500 LV 51 44 McCain +7
CNN/Time 08/31 - 09/02 685 RV 45 47 Obama +2
Quinnipiac 08/17 - 08/24 1234 LV 43 44 Obama +1
Columbus Dispatch 08/12 - 08/21 2102 RV 42 41 McCain +1
Rasmussen 08/18 - 08/18 700 LV 48 43 McCain +5
PPP (D) 08/12 - 08/14 950 LV 45 45 Tie
Quinnipiac 07/23 - 07/29 1229 LV 44 46 Obama +2
Rasmussen 07/21 - 07/21 500 LV 52 42 McCain +10
PPP (D) 07/17 - 07/20 1058 LV 40 48 Obama +8
SurveyUSA 06/20 - 06/22 580 LV 46 48 Obama +2
Rasmussen 06/17 - 06/17 500 LV 44 43 McCain +1
Quinnipiac 06/09 - 06/16 1396 LV 42 48 Obama +6
PPP (D) 06/14 - 06/15 733 LV 39 50 Obama +11
Quinnipiac 05/13 - 05/20 1244 RV 44 40 McCain +4
SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 600 RV 39 48 Obama +9
Rasmussen 05/15 - 05/15 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1
Quinnipiac 04/23 - 04/29 1127 RV 43 42 McCain +1
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 527 RV 47 45 McCain +2
Rasmussen 04/08 - 04/08 500 LV 47 40 McCain +7
Quinnipiac 03/24 - 03/31 1238 RV 42 43 Obama +1
PPP (D) 629 LV 49 41 McCain +8
SurveyUSA 03/14 - 03/16 532 RV 50 43 McCain +7
Rasmussen 03/13 - 03/13 500 LV 46 40 McCain +6
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 629 RV 40 50 Obama +10
Ohio /Univ of Cin. 02/21 - 02/24 970 RV 47 48 Obama +1
Rasmussen 02/17 - 02/17 500 LV 42 41 McCain +1
SurveyUSA 02/15 - 02/17 542 RV 44 47 Obama +3
Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 1748 LV 42 40 McCain +2
SurveyUSA 01/04 - 01/06 535 RV 50 43 McCain +7
SurveyUSA 12/13 - 12/15 539 RV 47 38 McCain +9
SurveyUSA 11/09 - 11/11 533 RV 52 37 McCain +15
Quinnipiac 10/01 - 10/08 946 RV 39 42 Obama +3
Quinnipiac 08/28 - 09/03 1430 RV 42 41 McCain +1

[cadaver dog]

And note, the incumbent VP losses (1960,2000) were both extremely close elections, so close that there is doubt as to whether the results were correct, while the VP wins (1928,1988) were landslides. So I'm thinking it's an advantage.

[Syd]

The Angry Optimist | September 24, 2008, 9:59am | #
This poll is definitely a ridiculous outlier, and spinning a story around it is even more silly.

Not that much of an outlier. Obama's clearly ahead right now, by 4 - 6 points. McCain's lost his campaign bounce, people are having second thoughts about his choice of a running mate, and he's taking a bath on the economy. If Obama does well during the debates he could well win the election by nine points.

[Elemenope]

Not that much of an outlier. Obama's clearly ahead right now, by 4 - 6 points. McCain's lost his campaign bounce, people are having second thoughts about his choice of a running mate, and he's taking a bath on the economy. If Obama does well during the debates he could well win the election by nine points.

It might also have *something* to do with the fact that the Palin bounce disappeared...right around the time she finally got around to opening her mouth in public for an interview.

Esp. in viewing the McCain/Palin numbers among independent women, mayhap some of them finally realized that the candidates' abortion policy is somewhere to the right of the Catholic Church. In the 13th Century.

[Mo]

meerdahl,
Johnson left Fannie Mae in 1998, a full decade before. Granted there were improprieties when he was CEO. I don't see how Davis not getting paid for a whole two years is irrelevant, but Johnson, who's being gone for a decade, is relevant. Besides, the Times said Davis was a consultant, not a lobbyist.

[joshua corning]

why no accusation of him being in the pocket of some general?

Becouse Obama voted against this bill

S.190
Title: A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/26/2005
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 5/25/2006
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/26/2005

Which would have stopped Fannie Mae from creating this mess in the first place.

[joe]

joshua,

Now tell us why requiring Fannie and Freddie to own only securitized mortgages rather than individual mortgages - which is what S190 would have done - would have prevented a financial meltdown caused by securitized mortgages.

[joe]

Hello?

[joe]

The sad part is, those Republicans had a perfectly valid reason for wanting Fannie and Freddie to own MBSs instead of mortgages; they thought it would shield them from risk in case the real estate bubble popped.

What a fiasco this is.

[joe]

Becouse Obama voted against this bill

How do you vote against a bill that's killed in committee, when you aren't on that committee?

[shane in wva]

Bush isn't helping with these words inside the Wallstreet Bailout Plan...

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Who would want people like that running their country?

[Kolohe]

Huh, look at this.

Strange things afoot at Intrade.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/intrade-betting-is-suspcious.html

My take is that it's someone taking advantage of the relatively thin volume, lack of liquidity, and most importantly lack of counterparties at Intrade. It's like someone taking advantage of a penny stock in a OTC board, but without the risk of SEC getting in your grill. I would guess InTrade themselves will eventually want to do something about stuff like this if they wish to maintain their credibility. (or they might just rely on a hope they will grow enough so that counterparties emerge organically)

[joe]

To what end, Kolohe? To make money, or to make their candidate's chances look better, or what?

[Kolohe]

How stupid was Bush to choose a VP that would not be able to run for president in 8 years with the semi-incumbent advantage?

I think Bush looks pretty smart. Given his unpopularity, no one could ride his coattails to victory this year. They only chance the GOP had was someone percieved as a Maverick who does have a track record of criticizing Bush from within the party.

I disagree. The conventional wisdom at one time (and still is to a large extent) "if we could only have a person in charge that was unconstrained by political considerations, he could take bold steps to solve all kinds of problems". And so, by this theory, Bush ceeded vast authority to Cheney should have been an unalloyed boom.

But I am coming to the conclusion that one needs that political feedback loop, especially at the highest levels. It seems there need to be some balance; a politician that does *everything* wrt polls, and one that disregards the consequences entirely, are both suboptimum outcomes.

[Kolohe]

joe-
to make money

[Kolohe]

much like someone who's pumping and dumping a stock isn't concerned about the industry or even the macro economy.

[Kolohe]

Hm, McCain just said he's suspending his campaign to go back to washington a 'fix the economy.'

Will this move work to stem the starting ebb tide of his support?

You betcha.