2008 Presidental Election: Obama v McCain

Boygabriel wrote: So 'this race is a dead heat' and Obama's in 'deep doo doo' is based on the fact that his lead in some swing states is 2-5 points?

I'm not a big poll person, but like I said before, Obama has consistently received less votes than the polls predict. I would say that a 2-5 point lead is not good for him, and that it definitely needs to be higher for _any_ level of comfort. Nevermind that it is within the margin of error.

Boygabriel wrote: It's a close race right now for sure, but contrary to what SevenOneEighty is so fond of saying, I don't think it's a dead heat. Obama is winning. Generally by 5 points. I don't see how you can call it a "dead heat" when one candidate is basically never ahead in the polls.

As I've said repeatedly: Is it close right now? Yes. Is it a "dead heat"? I don't think so.

I suppose I'll buy that, since polls don't mean much to me anyhow though I really don't care.

Furthermore, any discussion of the polls right now has to include forward-looking analysis. So given a 5 point lead prior to picking a VP and the conventions, why am I confident in Obama? The same reasons I've been saying for months:

Historical precedent (bad economy, unpopular war, unpopular incumbent)
Motivation and excitement of base (Democrats) or lack thereof (Republicans)
The fact that McCain is actually terrible when it comes to his one supposed strength (foreign policy), similarly, his admitted weakness on the most important issue to all voters (the economy)
The massive unpopularity of a war where one candidate is closely identified with opposition to it, and the other is possibly the war's biggest cheerleader
...to mention a few things

Well, shoot. Let's hit a few others then. Experience. You can argue about it till the cows come home but McCain has been there years and years while Obama hasn't even finished a single term. You can turn that on its head as a strength for Obama, but when it comes down to it, I think it will matter to some people. As for foreign policy, it folds into the same thing for some. So McCain's sucks, Obama hasn't really been around long enough to have much of one. His big ballyhoed first trip to Iraq was supposed to boost him, and at best it did nothing, perhaps even dropped him. As far as economy, they both suck. A lot. There is nothing there from either.

I think a lot of the chatter about this "being a dead heat" or "why can't Obama put him away?" is bland, generic Democratic pessimism, without much thoughtful analysis about this race and how these two candidates stack up head to head.

The pair of them don't amount to a hill of beans! Revolt! Anarchy!

Ahem. Sorry.

On the other hand, I saw a trailer for Oliver Stone's new film W. over the weekend.

Ha.

Ha ha.

Ha ha ha!

Carnivore wrote: All this is true. There's only one major factor on McCain's side, but it's a huge one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09blow.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=racism%20obama&st=cse&oref=slogin

OMG! WTF! So there is only one reason someone would vote for McCain, they are a racist? This is where we have devolved to? If you aren't onboard with Obamania, then you are racist? Heh.

daver wrote: [quote=Carnivore]All this is true. There's only one major factor on McCain's side, but it's a huge one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09blow.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=racism%20obama&st=cse&oref=slogin

OMG! WTF! So there is only one reason someone would vote for McCain, they are a racist? This is where we have devolved to? If you aren't onboard with Obamania, then you are racist? Heh.
I didn't say that. I said that if you look at major points that will swing large numbers of people in either direction, the only major one of those on McCain's side is racism.

alafairnadia wrote: right? yeesh. most wealthy folks I know are anti-Obama - they have no interest in further taxation! lots of very religious folks are anti-Obama. not sure that anyone has measured it but a lot of mccain's pandering to ex-Clinton supporters has been successful.

I agree that I don't understand why these people are making these decisions - I think they're just dumb. but still. they're out there.

Unless your friends make over $600k (making them part of 1% of the electorate), they'll do better or approximately the same with Obama- not exactly a large group of voters.

I'll give you the religious freaks.

Carnivore wrote:
Unless your friends make over $600k (making them part of 1% of the electorate), they'll do better or approximately the same with Obama- not exactly a large group of voters.

I'll give you the religious freaks.

Religious freaks? Lets take abortion, which is a pretty big issue to many voters with a sharp divide between the two candidates.

Differences start at $250k, and can be significant below that depending on how Obama's flopping ends up on SSN payroll tax. He had stated support for eliminating the cap at $97,500 of income. This would be rather significant for many people well below $250k.

Some other issues offhand that may be big ones for some folk include Cuba, gun control, school choice, international trade, death penalty, capital gains and dividend taxes, and, uh, nucular, er, nuclear power.

Well, I tend to let Military commanders who are THERE and witnessing events summarize. You will likely dismiss all of this as Bush propaganda because it does not fit the ideology of your team. These events are not a coincidence.

Our increased presence has made things better.
Our Military rocks and they did a great job in obvious - and not so obvious - ways. Counter terrorism tactics, special forces, boots on the ground - all helped quell the violence against US personnel - which is NO LONGER in the news...or an election issue it seems.

Yes, There is much work to do (as there was in this country - just watch the John Adams series on HBO). But I will NOT dismsiss what has happened and why it has happened just because theguy who may not be in "my party" decided to do it (McCain/ Patreaus).

We have to stop calling our own successes - failures and coincidence.
We have become self-loathing in this country -I just don't equate us as being "as bad as the Nazis" as some do.

We have to stop dismissing our military forces as having "no effect" when we think it is politically expedient for us and then saying they are destroying the world when it isn't something we agree with (commentators from Dailykos/ Huffingtonpost/Salon/ MSNBC etc.).

Ask yourself Why YOU are you so quick to dismsiss all military strategic successes in Iraq giving them NO credit? Do you know everything that was done militarily for the surge? No?

The Military portion of this exercise has been WON by the US military. Continued success is not guaranteed. But It is now time for the Iraqis to STEP UP.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5937279.html

Here's chapter and verse on how the surge worked
There are specific reasons why things are better in Iraq
By PETER MANSOOR Washington Post
Aug. 11, 2008, 10:52PM

Given the divisive debate over the Iraq war, perhaps it was inevitable that the accomplishments of the recently concluded "surge" would become shrouded in the fog of 30-second sound bites. Too often we hear that the dramatic security improvement in Iraq is due not to the surge but to other, unrelated factors and that the positive developments of the past 18 months have been merely a coincidence.

To realize how misleading these assertions are, one must understand that the "surge" was more than an infusion of reinforcements into Iraq. Of greater importance was the change in the way U.S. forces were employed starting in February 2007, when Gen. David Petraeus ordered them to position themselves with Iraqi forces out in neighborhoods. This repositioning was based on newly published counterinsurgency doctrine that emphasized the protection of the population and recognized that the only way to secure people is to live among them.

To be sure, some units conducted effective counterinsurgency operations before the surge, including Col. H.R. McMaster's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tall Afar in 2005 and Col. Sean MacFarland's 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, in Ramadi in 2006. More generally, however, the coalition approach before 2007 was focused on rapidly shifting security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. As sectarian violence spiraled out of control, it became increasingly evident that Iraqi forces were unable to prevent its spread. By the fall of 2006, it was clear that our strategy was failing, an assessment courageously stated by Gen. George Casey and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in their year-end review of the Joint Campaign Plan.

The arrival of additional U.S. forces signaled renewed resolve. Sunni tribal leaders, having glimpsed the dismal future in store for their people under a regime controlled by al-Qaida in Iraq and fearful of abandonment, were ready to throw in their lot with the coalition. The surge did not create the first of the tribal "awakenings," but it was the catalyst for their expansion and eventual success. The tribal revolt took off after the arrival of reinforcements and as U.S. and Iraqi units fought to make the Iraqi people secure.

Over time, in areas where there were insufficient forces to provide security, U.S. commanders extended contracts to Sunni (and some Shiite) tribes that volunteered to stand up against al-Qaida in Iraq. These payments ensured that tribesmen could feed their families until the economy recovered and services improved. Payments generally followed the commencement of tribal rebellions and were not, as some claim, their cause.

As U.S. units established smaller outposts and destroyed al-Qaida havens, the area under Iraqi and coalition control expanded. Security improved dramatically after the last surge units arrived and the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, under Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commenced a relentless series of operations to drive insurgents out of their long-held sanctuaries.

Improved security led to greater Iraqi confidence and lessened the need for, and acceptance of, Shiite militias that for too long held sway in many neighborhoods. When the Mahdi Army instigated a gunbattle in Karbala last August that forced the cancellation of a major Shiite religious observance, the resulting public pressure compelled Muqtada al-Sadr to declare a unilateral cease-fire. Without the improved security conditions created by the surge, this cease-fire would not have been declared; nor could it have been observed, because the militia would still have been needed to protect Shiite communities from terrorist attacks.

The increase in U.S. forces, moreover, was dwarfed by the concurrent expansion of Iraqi forces by more than 140,000 troops. Over time, Iraqi units grew more capable and increasingly took the lead in providing security, backed by coalition advisers, ground forces, intelligence and air power. Operations this spring in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and elsewhere — though not always smooth — have demonstrated the growing effectiveness of the Iraqi army. Without the change in strategy and additional forces provided by the surge, the effort to improve the capabilities of Iraqi forces would have died stillborn, swallowed by the sectarian violence that was ripping Iraq apart by the end of 2006.

The Iraq war is not over, but our war effort is on a firmer foundation. In the end, the Iraqis, appropriately, will determine their future. The surge has created the space and time for the competition for power and resources in Iraq to play out in the political realm, with words instead of bombs.

Success is not guaranteed, but such an outcome would be a fitting tribute to the sacrifices of the men and women of Multi-National Force-Iraq and their ongoing efforts, along with their Iraqi partners, to turn around a war that was nearly lost less than two years ago.

Mansoor served as Gen. David Petraeus' executive officer in Iraq from February 2007 to May 2008. He holds the Gen. Raymond Mason Chair of Military History at Ohio State University and is the author of the forthcoming book Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander's War in Iraq.

AND


I would love to see YOU debate this guy on these issues at hand.
Interestingly, I know if the surge had been a democratic idea (Pellosi, Obama or Hillary's), I doubt this would even be a so called "debate". Granted, we should have started with the proper number of troops in Iraq to begin with if the invasion was so necessary - we failed at that initially - even though we won the military battles.

We have to get beyond this ideological silliness.
The MILITARY surge worked and is working.
I say, on to Afghanistan and finish the job we started there.

Straw man?
Did you READ what the brigadier general said? LOL!!
You sound like some of the folks I heard on the way to 'Burning Man'!

I know and understand the successes in Iraq makes Obama and liberals who were against it look very bad (because he was against the surge) so you are right to find tedious ways to redefine the argument!

I. If before the Iraqi military is trained properly, if american troops withdrawal too soon and if the payments stop the violence will continue and rise up. Its best to keep them going and consider to part of the the building effort.
see below #II-C

II. I have some idea what success in Iraq looks like, but I definitely know what failure looks like. Here is my list so far. we paid off many in times of war - that is the war we are fighting.

Is that really your Argument against the military surge?

A. Violence in Iraq against US troops at is lowest levels since the beginning of the war.

B. Terrorists who were coming in to Kill US troops have been killed and have run for the hills.

C. Iraqi Oil revenues this year will top $80 BILLION! Woohoo! good for the Iraqis They can start making their own payments.

War is ugly and imperfect.
Sorry it can't wrap up for you like a TV episode.
That is the world we live in.

I know this is hard for many to accept becuase Obama was against it.
But dont worry - he will be for it before the end of the month! HAHA!
Mark my words.

On a related note - this article makes a lot of sense:

http://www.slate.com/id/2197007/

Iraq's Budget Surplus Scandal
WHY DO WE HAVE SUCH A HARD TIME HEARING GOOD NEWS FROM BAGHDAD?
By Christopher Hitchens
Updated Monday, Aug. 11, 2008, at 6:53 AM ET

One day I will publish my entire collection of upside-down Iraq headlines, where the true purport of the story is the inverse of the intended one. (Top billing thus far would go to the greatest downer of them all: the tale of Iraq's unemployed gravediggers, their always-insecure standard of living newly imperiled by the falling murder rate. You don't believe me? Wait for the forthcoming anthology.) While you wait, you might consider last week's astonishing report about the Iraqi budget surplus and the way in which the report was reported.
Largely attributable to the bonanza in oil prices, to new discoveries of oil since the eviction of Saddam Hussein, and to the increasing success of Iraqi exports via the pipelines to Turkey, this surplus could amount to as much as $79 billion by the end of this year. A good chunk of that money is sitting safely in a bank in New York. I would call this good news by any standard, though of course I understand the annoyance of Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and others involved in the auditing of Iraq, who complain that all the unspent wealth is a bit much, given the heavy outlay from the U.S. treasury for the rebuilding of Mesopotamia.
Yes indeed, Iraq should pay for its own reconstruction. But, just before we all join hands on this obvious proposition, may we take a moment to apologize to Paul Wolfowitz? Of all the many slanders hurled at this advocate for Iraq's liberation, probably none was more gleefully bandied about than his congressional testimony that Iraq's recovery from decades of war and fascism could be self-financing. Now the opponents of the intervention are yelling that Iraq ought to be opening its bulging wallet right away.

There will be time enough for that to happen, since Iraq's vast resources are back in the hands of its own people and are no longer "privatized" as the personal property of a psychopathic crime family. Sen. Levin, who with Sen. John Warner, R-Va., requested the original report from the Government Accountability Office on Iraq's finances, was the ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee investigating the "oil for food" outrage. He knows perfectly well what used to happen to Iraq's oil wealth, which was prostituted through a U.N. program and diverted to such noble causes as the subsidy of suicide bombers in Gaza and the financing of pro-Saddam and "anti-war" politicians in London, Paris, and Moscow. While this criminal enrichment of Iraqi and overseas elites was taking place, the population of the country was living on garbage and drinking tainted water as a result of the U.N.-mandated international sanctions.
I think we should be glad that the luridly sadistic and aggressive Saddam Hussein regime is no longer in power to be the beneficiary of the rise in oil prices and thus able to share its wealth with the terrorists, crooks, and demagogues on its secret payroll. I think we should also be glad that its private ownership of Iraq's armed forces, and its control over a party monopoly called the Baath, has been irrecoverably smashed. Iraq's resources are no longer at the disposal of an aggressive, parasitic oligarchy. Its retrained and re-equipped army is being deployed, not in wars of invasion against its neighbors and genocide against its inhabitants, but in cleanup campaigns against al-Qaida and the Mahdi Army. An improvement. A distinct improvement.
It is in no spirit of revenge that I remind you that, as little as a year ago, the whole of smart liberal opinion believed that the dissolution of Baathism and militarism had been a mistake, that Iraq itself was a bottomless pit of wasted dollars and pointless casualties, and that the only option was to withdraw as fast as possible and let the inevitable civil war burn itself out. To the left of that liberal consensus, people of the caliber and quality of Michael Moore were describing the nihilist "insurgents" as the moral equivalent of the Minutemen, and to the right of the same consensus, people like Pat Buchanan were hinting that we had been cheated into the whole enterprise by a certain minority whose collective name began with the letter J.
Had any of this sinister nonsense been heeded, it wouldn't even be Saddam's goons who were getting their hands on that fantastic wealth in such a strategic country. It would have been the gruesome militias who answer either to fanatical Wahhabism on one wing or to fanatical Shiism on another, and who are the instruments of tyrannical forces in neighboring countries. Hardly a prospect to be viewed with indifference. I still reel when I remember how many supposedly responsible people advocated surrendering Iraq without a fight.
Before 2003, there was, in a way, a socioeconomic basis for fascism in Iraq, in that the lack of oil on Sunni turf supplied an imperative to the Tikrit-based gangsters for the domination of Kurdish and Shiite areas that did possess the needful oilfields. Now, new discoveries of oil and new laws on regional and provincial decentralization provide at least the socioeconomic basis for federalism. Again, a distinct improvement. This element of the substructure, as we Marxists say, does not in itself guarantee the superstructure, any more than the vast new wealth in Iraqi coffers is automatically a promise of prosperity for all. (After all, in spite of a huge improvement in prison conditions in Iraq in general, one has to admit the crimes and coverups of Abu Ghraib.) But does anyone seriously regret that these questions are being addressed in their only feasible context, namely the post-Saddam era that was the necessary if not the sufficient condition?
So, yes, major combat operations appear to be over, and to that extent one can belatedly say, "Mission accomplished." If there is any Iraqi nostalgia for the old party and the old army, it is remarkably well-concealed. Iraq no longer plays deceptive games with weapons of mass destruction or plays host to international terrorist groups. It is no longer subject to sanctions that punish its people and enrich its rulers. Its religious and ethnic minorities—together a majority—are no longer treated like disposable trash. Its most bitter internal argument is about the timing of the next provincial and national elections. Surely it is those who opposed every step of this emancipation, rather than those who advocated it, who should be asked to explain and justify themselves.

I understand your frustration.

Boygabriel wrote: Where's the part where Obama was right and McCain was wrong about one of the worst foreign policy adventures in U.S. history ? Oh snap!

Not that I think McCain is "right," but I would say that using the word "was" will be appropriate if/when Obama is elected and proceeds with his current plan to pull everyone out and everything is rosy. The other issue with "was" is when are we talking about exactly? Obama's war position hasn't been the Waffle House or anything, but there have been some significant hedges and wavers over the years for sure.

AND

Speaking of Details:
That is EXACTLY OBAMA's weakness in this entire campaign. As this election moves more to issues and away from cult of personality and phrases, Obama has had to shift his positions on several things: on Oil drilling, Iraq, domestic spying... Surely you've noticed.

So What specifically are Obama's DETAILS on/in Iraq in reference to all of your "what ifs" you list in previous posts?

McCain supported and implemented a strategy that is working.
Obama is complaining and says it is not a solution....Well.. what are HIS plans, specifically for Iraq - NOW? At some point, We've all work with guys like this in our offices: never having a solution, but always complaining...

Please outline, in Detail: Here is his big shining moment.
What specifically will Obama do about Sectarian Violence should it start again?
What specifically will Obama do about Al Sadr?
What specifically is Obama's strategy for getting troops OUT of Iraq?
What specifically does victory in Iraq look like to Obama?

No one can build a real reputation on talking about what they are "going" to do or would've done. At some point, you have to actually do something...

I think this is exactly why McCain is still in this race.

deathscythe257 wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]
Even after we stormed the beaches in Normandy, there was much work to be done in WWII.

I'm sorry, while you've been able to make some decent arguments regarding the surge (though I agree with others that you've been sidestepping the question posed and trying to play debate team), the fact that you even dared to make this comparison completely erases any credibility you may have ever attempted to muster.
Yeah, that's like a Godwin by inference.