From FiveThirtyEight.com comes a pretty depressing story on the McCain campaign's GOTV efforts in Missouri and the surrounding states. Low numbers of staff, poorly led staff, and so on paint a depressing picture of the effort McCain is putting into GOTV efforts. Also depressing is the complete lack of McCain and Republican press secretaries being willing to even talk to FiveThirtyEight.com's people. I know the guy(s) running it are liberals; does that automatically disqualify them from getting any response or access? The site is pretty freakin' sweet, and is a tremendous resource for everyone, for everyday people and for campaign operatives. Why thumb your nose at them, for no apparent gain? Money quote:
Let’s be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.
Emphasis in original. Back to Missouri real quick: the state went for Bush by about 7% in 2004. That's really enough margin to play with?
HG
I notice that fivethirtyeight's statistical model has McCain's chances for victory down to slightly less than one in six. And to think, a month ago it was actually giving McCain the edge for a few days.
Of course, one in six is still better than what election08.cs.uiuc.edu is giving, which is none in six.
So get ready for the crapstorm, folks. Get ready for the GOP to fling every kind of crap they can, truth be damned. Get ready to hear that Obama's a Muslim drug addict who drove OJ Simpson's white Bronco during the getaway. Get ready for those last-week FUD ads, push polls, and trick robocalls. And, yes, get ready for barely disguised race-baiting.
The Republican brand is so destroyed that they have nothing going for them but fear of the unknown. So expect them to hit that note as hard and as often as they can.
Nabob.....I wish you were wrong,,,,but nope,,,,,the crap is going to be flung. The last holding on of a failed system is in the making,,,this country is really going to see some sweeping changes.
I think you're right. I think people -- well, lots of people -- have realized that trickle-down economic policy is just a bag of beans, not a magic beanstalk in the bunch. And that takes away one of the three legs of the GOP tripod -- borrow-and-spend trickle-down economics, military spending, and that ever malleable, pliable thing called "family values." We'll still probably see the occasional Republican in the White House, but in Congress there's going to be a Democratic majority for the foreseeable future. People have learned their lesson.
By the way, there was another interesting installment in the New York Times' series "The Reckoning." Remember how everyone here was trying to blame the failure of Fannie Mae on those damned Democrats and liberals trying to force them to make more and more loans. Turns out the big growth bubble was after 2000 -- i.e. Dems not in control of Congress -- and the main pressure was coming from loan companies like the toads of Countrywide:
Greed, folks. Good old unfettered greed, unleashed on the economy by the Greedy Old Party knowing full well that, in the end, if it all went cockeyed, they could dip into *your* pockets to bail them out.
I'm not sorry the Republican Party has destroyed itself, but damn it, did they have to take so much of the country down with them?
@Nabob: How do you square your disgust at the actions/philosophy/ideals of the "Greedy Old Party" with the actions (or inactions, maybe...) of people like Sen. Dodd or Jim Johnson? They were receipients of the largesse of Frannie Mae and Countrywide, respectively. You've (rightly) decried Republicans that were complicit in this mess, but people like Dodd or Johnson were at least equally complicit; to ignore the actions of the opposing party gives an incomplete picture.
Re: "...in Congress there's going to be a Democratic majority for the foreseeable future."
Slightly OT from your comment: this past month I saw a blog post pointing out that dominant political philosophies (and concurrent political power) has cycles of 30 to 40 years. It's obviously not precise, but the writer looked at Presidential administrations for his data, and looked at the cycles of Left versus Right (liberal/progressive vs. conservative/traditional) Presidential administrations. Going back through US Presidential elections, his idea seems (on a surface exam, at least) to be largely supported. The realignments that did occur were fairly momentous: the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828; the election of Lincoln in 1860; and FDR in 1932. The exception (which I think proves the rule) is the dominance of the Republican party after the Civil War, given the liberal use of the "bloody shirt".
Given the financial crisis we're currently in, I think Nabob's point, of a Democratic majority for the foreseeable future, is more than plausible.
(I know half my post had nothing to do with darn near anything, I just wanted to share. :-) )
HG
Thanks for the posts. Of course, the Democrats are also complicit. I'm frustrated not with the lack of enthusiasm for Democrats, but the lack of imagination on our parts to hold our political system accountable.
We've fallen into the deepest trap of the two party system and we end up with these circular arguments:
D: We've hit rock bottom--this is the worst administration in anyone alive's lifespan. Vote D!
R: Oh yeah, well the democrats have been complicit and like taxing you. Vote R!
D: No, we would tax less than these guys running everything. Vote D!
R: Don't refer to the past! Live in the past! Vote R!
It's crap. If both sides suck, kick the crap out of both of them and get a good ballot together. Oh wait, if you try the closest major party will try to run you of the ballot.
This sucks.
Jim Johnson ain't got nothing on Rick Davis. What's the difference between the two? Johnson was a minor advisor who is no longer with the campaign. Rick Davis is McCain's campaign manager, and guess what -- he's still there. A mere matter of two million dollars from Fannie and Freddie.
The Republican brand is so destroyed that they have nothing going for them but fear of the unknown. So expect them to hit that note as hard and as often as they can.
Of course my first response is, "how dare you use blanket insults that label every Republican a racist?". But then I remembered that you aren't me, so this doesn't count. :)
There is no doubt that the GOP is going to go down to and live on the low road for the next 30 days. The problem with that strategy (or is it a tactic?) is that it is will be too little too late. If they were going to paint Obama as a radical terrorist sympathizer they should have done it a long time ago. Perceptions have, imo, been set at this point. People are going to Obama and the Dems pretty quickly now and once that choice has been made it is hard to un-make it. As a point of comparison, Bush and Rove had the Swift Boat ads out in early August, and the "I voted for it before I voted against it" clip had been in full rotation for weeks at this point. Remember the giddy Republicans and their flip-flops at the convention? The character traits were long since set at this point. You might not have agreed with Bush, but you always knew where he stood. It was appealing to the indendents, even though I am not sure why.
Also, I saw that Palin said Obama was "palling around with terrorists" today. It is my opinion that saying the criticisms in this way really undercuts whatever potency they may have. Again, people have already been introduced to Obama and many are choosing him as their candidate. To come out with something so over-the-top as "palling around with terrorists" renders the criticism mute as it exposes the extent to which Palin will stretch the truth.
I think the assault may bring Obama's numbers back down to earth, but they won't change the game. Unless something new comes out about Obama, this is a failing tactic (or is it a strategy?). If McCain really wants to win he needs to become much more personally appealing very, very quickly. Just slamming Obama for a month before the election won't get it done.
But that won't stop them from doing it, and (most likely) doing it very, very poorly.
@Nabob: I think calling one of the people put in charge of theVice Presidential search/vetting operations "a minor advisor" is somewhat of a stretch. Outside of specific policy statements, the choice of VP is, arguably, one of the most potent indicators of a campaign's outlook and ideas. And yes, I intentionally stated it that way to emphasize how much higher in the foodchain Davis is compared to Johnson. Again, I'm not saying anyone is incorrect or foolish to focus on Republican complicency (spelling?) in the current credit crisis/mortgage meltdown; just that one shouldn't overlook the Democrats involvement either. Doing so, in my opinion, gives us Xian's post: "I'm frustrated not with the lack of enthusiasm for Democrats, but the lack of imagination on our parts to hold our political system accountable."
And he's right, it does suck.
(As an aside, this financial crisis has been brewing for months now; if you knew a problem was brewing, and very likely would metastasize, why wouldn't you jettison anyone connected to the problem -- meaning, dumping Davis altogether, or moving him to a background, "unpaid advisor" status...seems like an unforced error that could've been minimized or avoided)
HG