What can we learn from Terry McAuliffe
2 Comments Published by Augur on Thursday, May 15 at 12:27 PM.
Terry McAuliffe is a happy and tenacious warrior. A true party animal. Throughout this cycle his mendacity has been maddening. I often wonder whether or not he feels like he's lying, whether he actually processes his own spin. Is there a straight face test? There doesn't seem to be. In the mind of Terry McAuliffe, there is no truth; there is only message. Because of his optimism, despite my hating him, I can't help liking him. Very soon Hillary's campaign will be over, and for better or worse (almost certainly better), the showman will be silenced. Below is a video from TPM of various clips featuring Terry the unflappable optimist at his best.
While I would never want to emulate him, we can learn lessons from McAuliffe about tenacity, loyalty, staying on message, and the power of optimism. It will be interesting to watch how this loss impacts his position within the party.
I'm reminded of another lesson from the best teacher at Illinois, Ira Carmen. Professor Carmen once said, "I've never met a successful person who wasn't also an optimist."
While I would never want to emulate him, we can learn lessons from McAuliffe about tenacity, loyalty, staying on message, and the power of optimism. It will be interesting to watch how this loss impacts his position within the party.
I'm reminded of another lesson from the best teacher at Illinois, Ira Carmen. Professor Carmen once said, "I've never met a successful person who wasn't also an optimist."
Labels: 2008, Augur, Democratic politics, message
It is very rare to see Laura Bush in the White House Briefing Room. For the last seven years, she has stayed almost completely behind the scenes. Today's briefing could have been handled by any number of officials in the Bush Administration, and her speaking to the issue was likely intended to demonstrate her devotion to humanitarian relief and her opposition to the junta. Laura Bush handled herself very well.
If I were a GOP operative, I would constantly advocate for a greater public role for Mrs. Bush. Consider the following factors: (1) Her husband's approval rating is hovering around 30%; (2) As much as many liberals love Michelle Obama, far too many Americans see her as an angry black woman who isn't proud of her country; (3) it helps Republicans to continually use the stand up line "Do you really want Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do?"; (4) Cindy McCain looks more like a First Lady than any other First Lady in History.
Because of the last factor, more than any other, elevating the role a first lady can play, and perhaps even should play, in public life only helps John McCain. One reasonable strategy for the Republicans going forward is to elevate the public roles of both Laura Bush and Cindy McCain.
Labels: 2008, Augur, republican politics, strategy and tactics
Hillary Clinton is arguing that she has overtaken Obama in the popular vote. She counts her margin in Florida and all of her votes in Michigan, she has more votes than Obama. While a semi-reasonable argument can be made for counting Florida, the argument that Michigan should count doesn't pass the straight face test, since Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary making this argument is a net plus for Obama because the ridiculousness of counting Michigan reinforces the notion that she is intellectually dishonest and fundamentally untrustworthy.
Obama can use light humor and assert that her math is beyond fuzzy -- it lacks common sense. How do you make an electability argument relying on data from a race in which you were the only one on the ballot?
Obama has another opportunity, and a difficult math problem of his own. The popular vote doesn't include everyone who voted. Many of the caucuses are conducted in a manner that results in those voters being excluded from the popular vote. As you know, Obama has smoked Hillary in the caucuses. Here's my question to the Agora: How should Obama count the voters who caucused for him? Imagine you are his communications director - what approach would you take?
A few options:
(1) for each state where the vote wont count, multiply Obama's percentage of the vote by the best turnout estimate and claim the result as the popular vote. It may help to give this number a name like "the true popular vote"
(2) say Obama won X states where none of the folks are counted in Hillary's popular vote total
(3) just keep saying an estimated X voters are left out of her equation - estimate of total number of voters - and say most of these supported Obama
(4) concoct your own method
A few considerations:
Obama can use light humor and assert that her math is beyond fuzzy -- it lacks common sense. How do you make an electability argument relying on data from a race in which you were the only one on the ballot?
Obama has another opportunity, and a difficult math problem of his own. The popular vote doesn't include everyone who voted. Many of the caucuses are conducted in a manner that results in those voters being excluded from the popular vote. As you know, Obama has smoked Hillary in the caucuses. Here's my question to the Agora: How should Obama count the voters who caucused for him? Imagine you are his communications director - what approach would you take?
A few options:
(1) for each state where the vote wont count, multiply Obama's percentage of the vote by the best turnout estimate and claim the result as the popular vote. It may help to give this number a name like "the true popular vote"
(2) say Obama won X states where none of the folks are counted in Hillary's popular vote total
(3) just keep saying an estimated X voters are left out of her equation - estimate of total number of voters - and say most of these supported Obama
(4) concoct your own method
A few considerations:
- reminding people of the specific states may remind folks that most of these are unwinnable for dems
- some of these states have small populations
- making up a number might make him look as sketchy as Hillary
Labels: Augur, Barack Obama, communications, message, politics, tactics
Recently several of your contributors here have been emailing each other about John McCain's character. If you've been visiting the Agora for long, you can guess where the battle lines were drawn. In today's news cycle we have evidence that both sides in our debate can cite: McCain's repudiation of the North Carolina GOP's ad featuring Rev. Wright.McCainiac: "Did you hear McCain condemned the NC attack ad? What a great guy! See, he's about a new kind of politics, character and substance."
Dumb Anti-McCain Response: "Yeah, but if he's the nominee, what does it say about his leadership skills that he cant even get the NC GOP to stop running the ad?"
Astute Anti-McCain Response: "The worst thing for Obama is for McCain to go on TV and say 'OMG don't run this ad...it's so awful...no one look!!' McCain takes that position for two reasons: (1) it makes him look good, and (2) he knows that his condemnation of the ad takes it from running in a few local NC markets and instead shifts it to running in an unending loop on cable news for free."
McCainiac rebuttal: "You conspiracy theorist wack job, so he isn't supposed to say 'don't run the ad.' He sure isn't supposed to say 'run the ad.' No matter what he says you'll think he's up to something. I suppose we blew up the Pentagon too, right Jackass?"
Responding to the McCainiac: "Time will tell. If in a few days he's still trying to talk about his condemnation of the ad, why that type of ad is harming our politics, etc. That shows McCain is just a typical opportunist pol w/ a good PR shop. If McCain doesn't take shameless steps to try to keep spinning this, and merely says 'I've made my views on the ad clear, I'm done discussing it. That just gives you guys an excuse to keep running it.' Then score one for the McCainiacs."
Labels: 2008, Augur, John McCain, politics, tactics
One of the most commonly quoted "facts" about Barack Obama on conservative talk radio is that he is the "most liberal member of the Senate." The National Journal does an annual study where they rank Senators on a political spectrum by cobbling together the results from a sample set of "key votes." Here is a link to the oft quoted report. This report itself is critiqued and refuted all over the blogosphere. I wont address the methodology here or discuss potential bias or motivation for picking the votes to lead to this result, thought it probably does bring in a few dollars. Instead, I want to make a brief tactical suggestion:
The Obama campaign should quietly approach 3-5 other publications and public interest groups and have other studies with a different methodology find him in the middle of the pack, say the 42nd most liberal Senator. Doing this costs the campaign very little, and it creates a nice rebuttal for the National Journal piece. It creates the following helpful argument: "Wait, that's just one of several rankings. The Clinton supporting National Journal just wanted to sell magazines. All the other studies show Obama in the middle of the pack."
A little something for all the little John McCainiacs out there, as Mother Jones points out: "This line from the NJ press release is awesome: 'Republican presidential candidate John McCain did not participate in enough roll calls to receive a composite score.'"
The Obama campaign should quietly approach 3-5 other publications and public interest groups and have other studies with a different methodology find him in the middle of the pack, say the 42nd most liberal Senator. Doing this costs the campaign very little, and it creates a nice rebuttal for the National Journal piece. It creates the following helpful argument: "Wait, that's just one of several rankings. The Clinton supporting National Journal just wanted to sell magazines. All the other studies show Obama in the middle of the pack."
A little something for all the little John McCainiacs out there, as Mother Jones points out: "This line from the NJ press release is awesome: 'Republican presidential candidate John McCain did not participate in enough roll calls to receive a composite score.'"
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, politics, tactics
Tonight may be the final Democratic debate. Lets use this thread for any debate predictions, and for anyone who is interested, to live blog comments on the debate. A few previews: WaPo, Politico & ABC.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, live blog, politics, predictions
Today's new Washington Post - ABC News Poll is very bad news for the Clinton campaign.
Her unfavorable numbers have jumped from 40% in January to a record high 54%. How can any of her surrogates make an argument based on electability while holding a straight face.
This is simple math: 100-54 = 4 years of John McCain.
One of the most stark changes in Clinton's numbers is the dramatic fall in the honest/trustworthy metric. As reported by the WaPo:
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy.
Bosnia + her recent negativity (perception she'll say anything to win) + increased awareness of Mark Penn's Duplicity + increased discussion of past dishonesty by both Clintons + unanswered questions in tax returns (it doesn't seem like public service = $100 million).
In other news, the Huffington Post may now be discussing the next phase in the elitism message, if it sticks. Apparently in 1995, while talking about working class whites, Hillary Clinton said "Screw 'em" in a meeting.
Her unfavorable numbers have jumped from 40% in January to a record high 54%. How can any of her surrogates make an argument based on electability while holding a straight face.
This is simple math: 100-54 = 4 years of John McCain.
One of the most stark changes in Clinton's numbers is the dramatic fall in the honest/trustworthy metric. As reported by the WaPo:
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy.
Bosnia + her recent negativity (perception she'll say anything to win) + increased awareness of Mark Penn's Duplicity + increased discussion of past dishonesty by both Clintons + unanswered questions in tax returns (it doesn't seem like public service = $100 million).
In other news, the Huffington Post may now be discussing the next phase in the elitism message, if it sticks. Apparently in 1995, while talking about working class whites, Hillary Clinton said "Screw 'em" in a meeting.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Hillary Clinton, polling analysis
Below is a riddle I heard from my friend Mujeeb last night. No Googling! Post the answer when you have it.You are in the forest and come to a fork in the road. One path leads to salvation and the other to damnation. There are two men standing just before the fork in the road. You know that one always tells the truth and one always lies, but you do not know which of the men is the honest man and which is the dishonest man.
You can ask the men one question, and one question only to determine which path you should take. What question do you ask?
Check out this blog entry at the Huffington Post. It is by Joshua Roman, a friend of Urbanagora.
With Hillary gaining in both nationwide and head to head polling, and with the campaigns becoming dirtier and dirtier, there is a good chance the Clinton campaign will again hint at the formation of a joint ticket. This post discusses: the implications of a dream ticket, how Obama's campaign should respond if a joint ticket is suggested again, why people assume Hillary would head the ticket, who needs who as a VP, and the impact Hillary Clinton would have down ticket if she were Obama's VP.
In other news:
(1) My least favorite Democratic Rep. John Murtha has hit the trail in PA for Clinton. Prediction: within the next two weeks he will say something so stupid it will dominate the news cycle.
(2) More proof that Obama is a rock star. People bother watching videos of him just relaxing and talking on the phone.
(3) Senator Bird is still going strong.
(4) New Obama Girl hotness.
(5) As expected, very few will actually spend their rebate checks, but this isn't about economic policy, it's all about politics.
(6) Dr. Kevorkian to run for Congress! This will reinvigorate the assisted suicide debate. I remember talking to Dr. David Gill when he was running against Tim Johnson about this issue. Doctor Gill rejected my suggestions that he lose this element of his platform. In part because unlike Tim Johnson (arguably the single biggest disgrace to the U.S. Congress), Doctor Gill has integrity. Gill was convinced most of America was ready to support this. I'm not sure we are there yet, at least not in the Midwest, but it will be interesting to see this infused into the national debate.
(7) Interesting things are happening with Puerto Rico. They are moving up their primary. It didn't make much news, though it should have, but recently Puerto Rico changed its primary system from a caucus to a primary, and from being winner take all, to a hybrid proportional system. This move was evidently done to favor Obama. Obama is doing surprisingly well in Puerto Rico, due in part to a campaign blunder by the Clinton campaign. As I heard it, the Clinton campaign cancelled a meeting with the Governor of Puerto Rico, and Obama's camp heard about it and swooped in the next day. This agility appears to be paying dividends. It is curious that no other states have tried to increase their clout exponentially by making their Dem primary winner take all. Probably for fear of push back from the DNC.
(8) Hillary Clinton totally lied about Bosnia.
(9) My favorite GOP operative Roger Stone pwn3d Spitzer. Check it out. For more on Stone, you should seriously check out this amazing write up. I love his comic approach, his showmanship, and his rules to live by. Also, anyone who gets a tattoo of Nixon's face on his back is someone you don't want to mess with.
(10) David Brooks on Clinton's odds.
With Hillary gaining in both nationwide and head to head polling, and with the campaigns becoming dirtier and dirtier, there is a good chance the Clinton campaign will again hint at the formation of a joint ticket. This post discusses: the implications of a dream ticket, how Obama's campaign should respond if a joint ticket is suggested again, why people assume Hillary would head the ticket, who needs who as a VP, and the impact Hillary Clinton would have down ticket if she were Obama's VP.
In other news:
(1) My least favorite Democratic Rep. John Murtha has hit the trail in PA for Clinton. Prediction: within the next two weeks he will say something so stupid it will dominate the news cycle.
(2) More proof that Obama is a rock star. People bother watching videos of him just relaxing and talking on the phone.
(3) Senator Bird is still going strong.
(4) New Obama Girl hotness.
(5) As expected, very few will actually spend their rebate checks, but this isn't about economic policy, it's all about politics.
(6) Dr. Kevorkian to run for Congress! This will reinvigorate the assisted suicide debate. I remember talking to Dr. David Gill when he was running against Tim Johnson about this issue. Doctor Gill rejected my suggestions that he lose this element of his platform. In part because unlike Tim Johnson (arguably the single biggest disgrace to the U.S. Congress), Doctor Gill has integrity. Gill was convinced most of America was ready to support this. I'm not sure we are there yet, at least not in the Midwest, but it will be interesting to see this infused into the national debate.
(7) Interesting things are happening with Puerto Rico. They are moving up their primary. It didn't make much news, though it should have, but recently Puerto Rico changed its primary system from a caucus to a primary, and from being winner take all, to a hybrid proportional system. This move was evidently done to favor Obama. Obama is doing surprisingly well in Puerto Rico, due in part to a campaign blunder by the Clinton campaign. As I heard it, the Clinton campaign cancelled a meeting with the Governor of Puerto Rico, and Obama's camp heard about it and swooped in the next day. This agility appears to be paying dividends. It is curious that no other states have tried to increase their clout exponentially by making their Dem primary winner take all. Probably for fear of push back from the DNC.
(8) Hillary Clinton totally lied about Bosnia.
(9) My favorite GOP operative Roger Stone pwn3d Spitzer. Check it out. For more on Stone, you should seriously check out this amazing write up. I love his comic approach, his showmanship, and his rules to live by. Also, anyone who gets a tattoo of Nixon's face on his back is someone you don't want to mess with.
(10) David Brooks on Clinton's odds.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, David Brooks, heroes, Hillary Clinton, Joshua Roman, politics, pretty girls, Roger Stone
I made a quick list of some thinks I like and dislike, and I thought, why not share them with the Agora.
Likes:
(1) this electoral mapping tool (check out the historic races)
(2) futurist trend spotting
(3) Billy Collins
(4) "Yer so bad" by Tom Petty
(5) the cold side of the pillow
(6) the Huffington Post
(7) Jeffersonian curiosity
(8) Ira Carmen and public intellectuals
(9) thetodd's consistently rational, warm, and thoughtful commentary and Jaybandit's corner
(10) my "Underdog" glass
Dislikes:
(1) the ban on money transfers that ruined online poker, which has made me a worse player because it is easier to patiently wait for good cards when you're playing 6-8 tables, than in a live game
(2) when people use the verb "did" or "do" to act on a place, such as "we did Cancun" or "Dude, we're gunna do Deleware"
(3) being called "dude"
(4) blog redesigns taking much longer than they should because we have a shortage of design ability [if you want to help, we would really appreciate it -please email urbanagora@gmail.com]
(5) the words "clearly," "precipice," and "turd"
(6) living life in six minute increments
(7) being addicted to my blackberry
(8) when people who aren't significantly better than me at chess get chess related tattoos
(9) my inability to understand why anyone with an IQ over 85 would support Hillary Clinton - doesn't the illogical, dishonest, and exaggerated messaging bother you? I need to figure this out if I want to get better at politics
(10) the merciless shrew who refused to negotiate and charged me $25 for my Underdog glass
Likes:
(1) this electoral mapping tool (check out the historic races)
(2) futurist trend spotting
(3) Billy Collins
(4) "Yer so bad" by Tom Petty
(5) the cold side of the pillow
(6) the Huffington Post
(7) Jeffersonian curiosity
(8) Ira Carmen and public intellectuals
(9) thetodd's consistently rational, warm, and thoughtful commentary and Jaybandit's corner
(10) my "Underdog" glass
Dislikes:
(1) the ban on money transfers that ruined online poker, which has made me a worse player because it is easier to patiently wait for good cards when you're playing 6-8 tables, than in a live game
(2) when people use the verb "did" or "do" to act on a place, such as "we did Cancun" or "Dude, we're gunna do Deleware"
(3) being called "dude"
(4) blog redesigns taking much longer than they should because we have a shortage of design ability [if you want to help, we would really appreciate it -please email urbanagora@gmail.com]
(5) the words "clearly," "precipice," and "turd"
(6) living life in six minute increments
(7) being addicted to my blackberry
(8) when people who aren't significantly better than me at chess get chess related tattoos
(9) my inability to understand why anyone with an IQ over 85 would support Hillary Clinton - doesn't the illogical, dishonest, and exaggerated messaging bother you? I need to figure this out if I want to get better at politics
(10) the merciless shrew who refused to negotiate and charged me $25 for my Underdog glass
Labels: Augur, Random Ramblings
Today would be President James Madison's 257th birthday. I visited his estate at Montpelier today to pay a few hours respect to the man and the mind that arguably did more than any other to shape our republic. His home is currently undergoing a dramatic renovation, for more on that click here. If you can find the time, take a few minutes and read about the father of our constitution, the draftsman of much of the Bill of Rights, an author of the federalist papers, a Congressman, a Secretary of State, our Fourth President, -- the Sage of Montpelier.
If you have time to read just one work of Mr. Madison, read The Federalist No. 10.
If you have time to read just one work of Mr. Madison, read The Federalist No. 10.
The great Eric Zorn posted a link to a series of six short, funny videos illustrating Hillary Clinton's logic in the primary campaign. Zorn tells us the videos are by Chicago filmmaker Steve Delahoyd and Schadenfreude.
My favorite two are based on the Michigan Primary and her overstated claims about her experience.
My favorite two are based on the Michigan Primary and her overstated claims about her experience.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, Eric Zorn, funny
Obama quickly responded to the political controversy of the day: several controversial statements from past sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Instead of making a public statement, he wrote this Op-ed for the Huffington Post.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, politics, religion
Prince Geoffrey: "You fool. As if it matters how a man falls down."
Prince Richard: "When the fall is all that's left, it matters a great deal."
- "The Lion in Winter"
I was impressed with Governor Spitzer's speech in his resignation announcement today. The grace, poise, and principle he showed in this final announcement seem irreconcilable with the slimy stupidity he has shown for at least eight years. I'm sure many of us would have a very different feeling about Spitzer had he walked out and said "fuck it, I'm done" and thrown his papers up in the air. But on some level, it seems like it doesn't really matter. What's done is done.
To what extent do you think it matters how a man falls?
The most telling statement in Spitzer's speech might be "As human beings our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." I can't help believe that we haven't seen the last of him. While his career in public life might be over, I wouldn't be surprised if he forges a new place in history. He's only 49. Assuming he is able to keep his law license, he could emerge as a legal-do-gooder like RFK Junior. He will never again be able to credibly attack the evils of personal sin, but he can still be a credible advocate against corporate greed and corruption, and with repentance, hard work, and humility, he may yet rise from this humiliating fall.
Prince Richard: "When the fall is all that's left, it matters a great deal."
- "The Lion in Winter"
I was impressed with Governor Spitzer's speech in his resignation announcement today. The grace, poise, and principle he showed in this final announcement seem irreconcilable with the slimy stupidity he has shown for at least eight years. I'm sure many of us would have a very different feeling about Spitzer had he walked out and said "fuck it, I'm done" and thrown his papers up in the air. But on some level, it seems like it doesn't really matter. What's done is done.
To what extent do you think it matters how a man falls?
The most telling statement in Spitzer's speech might be "As human beings our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." I can't help believe that we haven't seen the last of him. While his career in public life might be over, I wouldn't be surprised if he forges a new place in history. He's only 49. Assuming he is able to keep his law license, he could emerge as a legal-do-gooder like RFK Junior. He will never again be able to credibly attack the evils of personal sin, but he can still be a credible advocate against corporate greed and corruption, and with repentance, hard work, and humility, he may yet rise from this humiliating fall.
Practice Pointer: Dont get cute with Congress
4 Comments Published by Augur on Friday, March 7 at 5:22 PM.
Al Kamen of the Washington Post wrote a delightful piece called "The Face of DHS Looks a Little Pale." Take a look for a great example of Congressional showmanship, and a good laugh. Here's a brief recap:
Homeland Security Secretary Cherthoff attended a House hearing questioning his Department's diversity practices. Who did he bring with him to this hearing? Ten aides, all of whom were white males.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) took notice, and asked all of Chertoff's aides to stand up. Watt says to Cherthoff: "You brought 10 staff people with you...all white males. . . . But I hope you've got more diversity in your staff than is reflected here. Please reassure me that is the case." Cherthoff responds: "I think that is definitely the case." So far, not good, but not completely humiliating.
Watt was about to move on when Cherthoff chimes in, "I wouldn't assume that the ethnic background of everybody behind me is self-evident." Watt responds: "I wouldn't assume the ethnic background of everybody behind you is self-evident, but I think I know an African American when I see one. . . . If anyone wants to stand up and volunteer and tell me they are an African American, I hope they will do that right now." Of course, no one stood.
At this point people started laughing. Watt kept pouring it on: "If anybody is a female that's sitting back there and wants to stand up and volunteer to tell me that . . . I hope they will do that right now. And I want the record to show clearly that nobody stood up to volunteer in either one of those categories."
To round out the pwnage, Watt chided Cherthoff: "So if you want to make that point and be cute about it . . . let me be explicit about it. . . . If we are going to do law enforcement in this country . . . we need to understand that there is an element of diversity in our country that is not represented here."
Taking ten white guys to a hearing on diversity -- he deserves it.
Homeland Security Secretary Cherthoff attended a House hearing questioning his Department's diversity practices. Who did he bring with him to this hearing? Ten aides, all of whom were white males.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) took notice, and asked all of Chertoff's aides to stand up. Watt says to Cherthoff: "You brought 10 staff people with you...all white males. . . . But I hope you've got more diversity in your staff than is reflected here. Please reassure me that is the case." Cherthoff responds: "I think that is definitely the case." So far, not good, but not completely humiliating.
Watt was about to move on when Cherthoff chimes in, "I wouldn't assume that the ethnic background of everybody behind me is self-evident." Watt responds: "I wouldn't assume the ethnic background of everybody behind you is self-evident, but I think I know an African American when I see one. . . . If anyone wants to stand up and volunteer and tell me they are an African American, I hope they will do that right now." Of course, no one stood.
At this point people started laughing. Watt kept pouring it on: "If anybody is a female that's sitting back there and wants to stand up and volunteer to tell me that . . . I hope they will do that right now. And I want the record to show clearly that nobody stood up to volunteer in either one of those categories."
To round out the pwnage, Watt chided Cherthoff: "So if you want to make that point and be cute about it . . . let me be explicit about it. . . . If we are going to do law enforcement in this country . . . we need to understand that there is an element of diversity in our country that is not represented here."
Taking ten white guys to a hearing on diversity -- he deserves it.
Labels: Augur, dirty republicans, funny, practice pointer, showmanship
Seventy five years ago yesterday, on March 4, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt was sworn in to begin his first term. He delivered his famed inaugural address where he declared:
"Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
My grandfather, like many of his generation from rural Midwest, credits FDR and the New Deal from keeping our family from starving. This speech reminded me that our country has made it through far tougher times. More importantly, it ignited a fury that burns against the politics of winning by making people afraid. Candidates that drum up fears of economic devastation, of never ending war, or of terrorism, should be rejected. We should all hunger for a rebirth of FDR's optimistic, uniquely American, spirit and resolve.
Update: The brilliant and lovely Dr. Rachel Maddow has a similar post up today. She says, in part:
"Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
My grandfather, like many of his generation from rural Midwest, credits FDR and the New Deal from keeping our family from starving. This speech reminded me that our country has made it through far tougher times. More importantly, it ignited a fury that burns against the politics of winning by making people afraid. Candidates that drum up fears of economic devastation, of never ending war, or of terrorism, should be rejected. We should all hunger for a rebirth of FDR's optimistic, uniquely American, spirit and resolve.
Update: The brilliant and lovely Dr. Rachel Maddow has a similar post up today. She says, in part:
In January 1941, at a time when the world was at war and the United States was more threatened than we had ever been in our history, FDR stood before the US Congress and hailed freedom from fear. That remains the paradigm of Democratic leadership in a threatening world.
When a politician looks at risks to our country and sees an opportunity for political exploitation, rather than an opportunity to rally the nation around our unified strength and fearlessness, that politician spits in the face of Democratic leadership and patriotic values.
If there's one thing we ought to have learned from the George W. Bush presidency, it's that there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans on whether the American people should be encouraged to cower in fear.
Labels: Augur, heroes, history, Rachel Maddow
Chris at the Outside Report now has a prediction thread up. It goes all the way to the convention. It's worth a read, as Chris is consistently rock solid.
As for my thoughts -- I am worried about Obama. This is more based on a gut feel, than rational analysis, but Clinton seems to be gaining momentum in the last few days. I'm not sure if it's enough to temper the aggressive climb Obama has shown in the last few weeks, but this is a predictions thread, so stands must be taken, even if it leads to my falling flat on my face:
Clinton takes Rhode Island and Obama takes Vermont.
Clinton takes both Texas and Ohio popular vote. The early calling of one of the two states, coupled with a better caucus strategy/trickery by the Clinton campaign either brings her very close or wins the TX caucus. Despite losing the TX popular vote, Obama either ties or wins TX on pledged delegates.
My rationale: (1) Democrats are fickle. We quickly get buyers remorse, and while we've pretty much picked Obama, we've waited in line at the cashier of democratic primary politics, and we're just about to check out. We fear the buyers remorse that may be coming. (2) Hillary's been winning the pop culture war with SNL, crazy as it sounds, I think her Daily Show visit tonight could be big. (3) Despite Obama's solid performance in the last debate, people started asking about the media handing this thing to her, crazy as it sounds SNL validated the Clinton campaign's complaint, and people trust fake news as much or more than real news. (4) The Obama NAFTA blunder will be on every paper in Ohio tomorrow, probably Texas too, but that's a big part of my rationale for Ohio.
If I'm wrong, here's my best guess at why: (1) Incredibly high OH turnout, and the bad turnout modeling in Ohio polls. (2) Some reports suggest Obama may be up in TX early voting, which shouldn't be the case given recent trend lines. (3) Not enough time for the NAFTA story to really sink in around Ohio, particularly among blue collar dems who really care about NAFTA, but might not always reliably read the news. (4) Polling models on Latinos in TX, way off. (5) My gut about her momentum is a few days ahead of reality, because of inside-the-beltway-think.
Assuming I'm wrong, if Hillary wins either OH or TX, she will stay in the race through at least Pennsylvania. The next two contexts should favor Obama, but after that, as Chris mentions, could be rough waters. And what will it say about Obama that he couldn't land his knock out punch after his massive spending spree leading up to March 4th.
As for my thoughts -- I am worried about Obama. This is more based on a gut feel, than rational analysis, but Clinton seems to be gaining momentum in the last few days. I'm not sure if it's enough to temper the aggressive climb Obama has shown in the last few weeks, but this is a predictions thread, so stands must be taken, even if it leads to my falling flat on my face:
Clinton takes Rhode Island and Obama takes Vermont.
Clinton takes both Texas and Ohio popular vote. The early calling of one of the two states, coupled with a better caucus strategy/trickery by the Clinton campaign either brings her very close or wins the TX caucus. Despite losing the TX popular vote, Obama either ties or wins TX on pledged delegates.
My rationale: (1) Democrats are fickle. We quickly get buyers remorse, and while we've pretty much picked Obama, we've waited in line at the cashier of democratic primary politics, and we're just about to check out. We fear the buyers remorse that may be coming. (2) Hillary's been winning the pop culture war with SNL, crazy as it sounds, I think her Daily Show visit tonight could be big. (3) Despite Obama's solid performance in the last debate, people started asking about the media handing this thing to her, crazy as it sounds SNL validated the Clinton campaign's complaint, and people trust fake news as much or more than real news. (4) The Obama NAFTA blunder will be on every paper in Ohio tomorrow, probably Texas too, but that's a big part of my rationale for Ohio.
If I'm wrong, here's my best guess at why: (1) Incredibly high OH turnout, and the bad turnout modeling in Ohio polls. (2) Some reports suggest Obama may be up in TX early voting, which shouldn't be the case given recent trend lines. (3) Not enough time for the NAFTA story to really sink in around Ohio, particularly among blue collar dems who really care about NAFTA, but might not always reliably read the news. (4) Polling models on Latinos in TX, way off. (5) My gut about her momentum is a few days ahead of reality, because of inside-the-beltway-think.
Assuming I'm wrong, if Hillary wins either OH or TX, she will stay in the race through at least Pennsylvania. The next two contexts should favor Obama, but after that, as Chris mentions, could be rough waters. And what will it say about Obama that he couldn't land his knock out punch after his massive spending spree leading up to March 4th.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barck Obama, Hillary Clinton, politics, predictions
Here's a thread for anyone on the Agora wishing to discuss the Russian election, we have at least two Russians who contribute to the Agora (Lally and Anna), and perhaps they can weigh in.
A good starting place may be this Economist editorial: "An ugly victory."
One brief comment, I recently attended a moving talk by chess champion turned Putin agitator Garry Kasparov. In discussing Putin's 75% approval rating, he said "It isn't remarkable that Mr. Putin has a 75% approval rating. It is remarkable that 25% would answer a telephone poll from an unknown caller and say they disapprove of Mr. Putin."
A good starting place may be this Economist editorial: "An ugly victory."
One brief comment, I recently attended a moving talk by chess champion turned Putin agitator Garry Kasparov. In discussing Putin's 75% approval rating, he said "It isn't remarkable that Mr. Putin has a 75% approval rating. It is remarkable that 25% would answer a telephone poll from an unknown caller and say they disapprove of Mr. Putin."
Labels: Augur, foreign policy, international politics, Russia
Bold Ad by Clinton in TX: This one's for Ann
1 Comments Published by Augur on Sunday, March 2 at 1:47 PM.
While browsing Hillary Clinton's campaign website, I saw this remarkable ad suggesting that deceased, former Texas Governor Ann Richards would support Hillary Clinton. The theme is "this one's for Ann."
It will be interesting to see how this plays. The ad itself is very effective, but it definitely has the potential to backfire. Richards' sons have already objected to the video. And in a higher way, it seems low to exploit the memory of a revered Texas political hero, and imply that Texas voters have a debt to Richards they can only pay by voting for Hillary Clinton. In this sense, the ad is exploitative and indecent.
It is a little tough to attack, because the Clinton camp will respond by saying, essentially that the ad was intended to honor Governor Richards memory, and that she was important to both Hillary and to history, and that Obama's campaign should be ashamed of itself for daring attack the dreams of little girls everywhere.
Update: Obama to run ads in Ohio featuring endorsements from former Presidents Harrison, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, & Harding.
It will be interesting to see how this plays. The ad itself is very effective, but it definitely has the potential to backfire. Richards' sons have already objected to the video. And in a higher way, it seems low to exploit the memory of a revered Texas political hero, and imply that Texas voters have a debt to Richards they can only pay by voting for Hillary Clinton. In this sense, the ad is exploitative and indecent.
It is a little tough to attack, because the Clinton camp will respond by saying, essentially that the ad was intended to honor Governor Richards memory, and that she was important to both Hillary and to history, and that Obama's campaign should be ashamed of itself for daring attack the dreams of little girls everywhere.
Update: Obama to run ads in Ohio featuring endorsements from former Presidents Harrison, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, & Harding.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Hillary Clinton, politics
Check out "Presidential Run Done, Kucinich Is Fighting to Keep Seat in House" by Paul Kane, in today's Washington Post.
Evidently, the people of Ohio-10 are getting a little sick of Denny running for President instead of delivering for his district. As Kane reports, "Triad Research, a local pollster, showed that Kucinich's job-approval rating fell from 78 percent in 2005 to 56 percent late last year."
Here are a few other highlights from Kane's article:
Denny's opponent accuses him of being a sell out: "He doesn't want to be our congressman anymore. It's clear he's left the building. The guy's got Hollywood fever, and that would be fine if he was using his national stature to actually get things done," City Councilman Joe Cimperman, Kucinich's main opponent, said in a telephone interview."
Mr. Cimperman is using humor and clever tactics to gain ground: "Cimperman has resorted to attention-generating stunts. He appeared at Kucinich's Cleveland office with a videographer, who taped him handing a "Missing" poster with a large Kucinich mug shot to a front-desk worker.... Cimperman also showed up at Kucinich's home with local pastries, sausage, Stadium Mustard and a map of Ohio, accusing the lawmaker of abandoning his roots in favor of 'eating sushi with Sean Penn.'"
I was disappointed to read that Kucinich appears to be trying to intimidate his opponent into backing down, this seems like the sort of petty threatening activity one would never expect from Kucinich: "Kucinich asked the Department of Homeland Security whether Cimperman's unannounced visits to Kucinich's office and home violated federal laws."
As much as I love Dennis Kucinich, whose views were probably the closest to my own of any of the Presidential candidates, I wouldn't want him running anything. His disastrous tenure as Mayor of Cleveland provides ample evidence of incompetence.
In truth, he isn't the kind of Congressman I would want representing me. He has been pathetically inept at passing any meaningful legislation. He lacks pragmatism, and is guilty of letting the good be the enemy of the perfect. He picks grandstanding over impacting policy.
Worse yet, in economically depressed Ohio, he has also failed to deliver for his district. Kane mentions a Taxpayers for Common Sense study showing that Kucinich was next to last among Ohio Democrats in bringing home federal dollars for his district, bringing in less than $8.1 million. Federal spending for jobs and on infrastructure could make a dramatic difference in the lives of his constituents: "Kucinich's unorthodox side has been on display for decades. But recently it began to grate on local activists who want him to focus on a region that has lost 40,000 jobs in the past 10 years."
These activists have a point. He hasn't delivered for his district and he hasn't been an effective legislator. While I hope he stays in the national spotlight as an outspoken advocate for the progressive movement, the people of Ohio's Tenth Congressional District deserve a better representative. Odds are, Denny will hold his seat. Hopefully this close call serve as a wake up call.
Evidently, the people of Ohio-10 are getting a little sick of Denny running for President instead of delivering for his district. As Kane reports, "Triad Research, a local pollster, showed that Kucinich's job-approval rating fell from 78 percent in 2005 to 56 percent late last year."
Here are a few other highlights from Kane's article:
Denny's opponent accuses him of being a sell out: "He doesn't want to be our congressman anymore. It's clear he's left the building. The guy's got Hollywood fever, and that would be fine if he was using his national stature to actually get things done," City Councilman Joe Cimperman, Kucinich's main opponent, said in a telephone interview."
Mr. Cimperman is using humor and clever tactics to gain ground: "Cimperman has resorted to attention-generating stunts. He appeared at Kucinich's Cleveland office with a videographer, who taped him handing a "Missing" poster with a large Kucinich mug shot to a front-desk worker.... Cimperman also showed up at Kucinich's home with local pastries, sausage, Stadium Mustard and a map of Ohio, accusing the lawmaker of abandoning his roots in favor of 'eating sushi with Sean Penn.'"
I was disappointed to read that Kucinich appears to be trying to intimidate his opponent into backing down, this seems like the sort of petty threatening activity one would never expect from Kucinich: "Kucinich asked the Department of Homeland Security whether Cimperman's unannounced visits to Kucinich's office and home violated federal laws."
As much as I love Dennis Kucinich, whose views were probably the closest to my own of any of the Presidential candidates, I wouldn't want him running anything. His disastrous tenure as Mayor of Cleveland provides ample evidence of incompetence.
In truth, he isn't the kind of Congressman I would want representing me. He has been pathetically inept at passing any meaningful legislation. He lacks pragmatism, and is guilty of letting the good be the enemy of the perfect. He picks grandstanding over impacting policy.
Worse yet, in economically depressed Ohio, he has also failed to deliver for his district. Kane mentions a Taxpayers for Common Sense study showing that Kucinich was next to last among Ohio Democrats in bringing home federal dollars for his district, bringing in less than $8.1 million. Federal spending for jobs and on infrastructure could make a dramatic difference in the lives of his constituents: "Kucinich's unorthodox side has been on display for decades. But recently it began to grate on local activists who want him to focus on a region that has lost 40,000 jobs in the past 10 years."
These activists have a point. He hasn't delivered for his district and he hasn't been an effective legislator. While I hope he stays in the national spotlight as an outspoken advocate for the progressive movement, the people of Ohio's Tenth Congressional District deserve a better representative. Odds are, Denny will hold his seat. Hopefully this close call serve as a wake up call.
Labels: Augur, Democratic politics, Kucinich
