Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh, and that bounce seems over, Angus. And its the fading Palin star that seems to be one of the bigger drags for McCain. I'd put your assessment at closer to 50/50.
oh really.
During the 2 weeks the press is fascinated by "the Palin story", that you think is most likely to damage McCain - McCain's polling numbers rise.
3 days after an issue (the economy) starts dominating the news, something I've been saying all along would benefit Obama - Obama's polling numbers rise.
Of course you tell me it is the Palin story that is killing McCain, "proof" of which can be found in polling coincidental with a large Wall Street reversal. I'd put your assessment at 80% smoke & mirrors.
-
giovanni,
Kos has screwed up by going after Palin (she's the Veep for f'sake) and indulging in a scrap on the ground of the Republicans choosing. I respect the ability of negative politics to work if done properly. All Kos needs to do is attack McCain (never Palin) and attack him on his weaknesses.
-
So, could you explain to me again Angus how it's in anyone's interests to stop talking about how McCain and Palin (that's Sarah, Giovanni, not her children) aren't competent to lead.
It is in Obama's interest, because if it comes down to a contest of records, on what they have achieved, McCain will smash Obama. Reconciliation with Vietnam, McCain-Feingold, the surge, earmark reform does trump worked for Bill Ayers, won a Senate seat in a no contest, voted Democrat lots, ran a campaign against H Clinton. Take the records in isolation, dig into the candidates past and McCain wins.
So Obama supporters should be talking about the economy, healthcare and the WoT. The future, not the past are where McCain's negatives lie.
-
And Angus, just as a thought experience, can you share with this conservative exactly what the positives of McCain-Palin are -- apart from he was tortured four decades ago, and Sarah Palin has a vagina and a disabled infant.
Craig,
I weight any assessment 90%McCain/10%Palin, because he is running for President not her thus effectively discounting Palin. You don't seem to which I cannot fathom. No swing voter is going to base their decision on the relative merits of Palin v Biden or even Palin v Obama.
Objectively McCain is more experienced, has a greater knowledge of foreign affairs and a better track record on bi-partisan actions than Obama. He is probably more of a fiscal conservative than Obama, without actually being a fiscal conservative in any real sense.
Of the two, if they were running in NZ, I'd probably pick Obama.
-
But, once more, I don't really get your point -- because as far as I can see, you're arguing that McCain and Palin (who is back in media lockdown) shouldn't actually be subjected to any questions at all. Really smart strategy. Not.
I am arguing that questions of the McCain campaign should be couched in references to the economy. How it is that 8 years of Republican mismanagement has led to this slump? What changes to long-standing practice are needed to regulate the financial sector? Who is most likely to be a force for changing the system of regulation some old guy who has been in Washington since 12 BC or fresh faced Obama?
Anything that can be framed as a long standing screw up favours Obama. His negative inexperience becomes positive freshness if it can be seen that McCain has spent his long Senate career helping to create the conditions for this recession. (Incidentally freshness will also favour Palin, but she is the Veep and does not matter.)
-
I offer the explanation that the Obama negatives attacking Palin highlights have caused the damage to the Obama campaign.
My bad english, will rephrase: Attacks on Palin are critical of weaknesses (negatives) that are shared by Obama. Causing a swing voter to question Palin, will cause the swing voter to also question Obama on having the same weaknesses.
I'm sorry, I'm new to this fine website. When did Obama attack Palin exactly?
He never does, because he understands that raising questions about Palin's lack of experience, religious affiliation, foriegn affairs qualifications and insularness play to negatives in his own profile.
What I am trying to point out to Craig, Simon, et al is that the strategy employed by Obama is smart and intelligent. Disagreement and hilarity ensues.
You're really got to work on Angus-speak. Apparently, the way to win an election is to avoid making any criticism whatsoever of your opponent's qualifications, public statements or record as a public official. I do hope he's not billing anyone for that strategic advice.
Really funny is how the Obama canpaign consistently prefers to focus on issues like the economy, healthcare or the WoT; rather than the opposing Veep's "qualifications, public statements or record". I'd really like to be billing someone, but since Obama is already spending $100s of millions carrying out the exact same strategy I don't think he'd be interested.
Hopefully the economy going into tailspin will drown out enough of the left-wing PDS sufferers who continually bloviate GOP talking points and allow the Obama campaign to gain some traction on the issues. One can only hope, because there is stuff all chance the windbags will stop sabotaging Obama's campaign willingly.
-
Sorry, but anyone who wants to seriously claim that Obama hasn't been subject to any scrutiny since he entered the Democratic Primaries last February is either delusional or just lying. (You may want to choose your own description.)
Craig,
Yes - Obama is subject to substantial negatives in experience, foreign affairs, religious affiliation, cross party cooperation as a result of his long examination in the press. Every time these subjects are broached in the run up to the election they play favorably for McCain over Obama. Any chance that highlighting them might cause Biden to annihilate Palin, seems somehow less important.
-
Uhhh, seriously Angus, you still miss the obvious point. It ain't about attacking Palin, it's about the moral corruption that her choice indicates. And no amount of stomping your feet and saying 'it ain't so, it ain't so' is gonna change that.
Simon I am telling you that some of the weaknesses you express concern about in Palin - inexperience, ineptitude of foreign affairs, unwillingness to engage outside her political sphere, religious affliation - are seen as weaknesses of Obama compared to McCain. The Palin themed stories produced by the netroots hit the GOP favored talking points for the GOPs preferred electoral debate. I am telling you that no matter how factual you are in you're attacks that you inflict more friendly fire than anything else.
Nor is cherry picking data to suit. Picking one poll which is a clear aberration on Congressional Approval is just that, and it's dishonest.
I do not find 20% approval to evoke any different sentiment to 9%. I am curious that you do find 9% to 20% means "a clear aberration", if so it must follow that gaining an approval of say 33% would be much more positive than 20% in your eyes.
...if you are closely following the data and commentary on that and a variety of other sites, which I am, you'll notice that you are rather misreading the trends. McCain has lost a bit of ground this week and quite a bit in the past seven days, especially if you factor in polling lag. But I guess you missed that, eh?
How does 538 projecting a McCain win imply to you that McCain is losing? Because to me when they project a McCain win, it appears they are projecting a McCain win. Some kind of misreading is going on for sure.
BTW - since you called the combined bounce as having ended last week with a dead heat and McCain is now 2% ahead, how do you explain this?
I offer the explanation that the Obama negatives attacking Palin highlights have caused the damage to the Obama campaign.
And if you couldn't quite get the 100% thing, maybe that's why you are misreading polling data.
I do understand what you meant to say.
-
Yippee, a US election post with only passing reference to the Governor of Alaska and in which an issue has actually been raised.
-
God, this is like going around in circles, playing Angus says: Angus says..gets rather badly shot down; Angus says again..gets rather badly shot down and so on. I'm not sure why you bother, but bother you do.
The attacks on Palin corrospond to an alarming slide in Democrat polling. Attacking Palin is a losing strategy, please stop doing it.
PS - the approval of Congress was surveyed at 9% on 27/9/08 by Rasmussen.
PPS - 9% + 100% is 109%.