The Election: It’s Over (Part II)

Since we all seem to be fans of, here’s their money quote from a day or two ago:

John McCain’s chances of winning the election have dwindled to 3.7%, down from 6.5% yesterday.

Even Scott McClellan is voting for Obama. Bill Weld too. Virtually every moderate republican has flipped sides.

Muttrox curse aside, does anyone have any reason to think that McCain could pull this out?

This comic below is apparently true, I’m seeing anecdotes in other places with the same theme.

keith knight

10 thoughts on “The Election: It’s Over (Part II)”

  1. Some recent research by Pew suggests Mccain’s coverage has been by and large negative, while the reverse is true of Obama (duh). My question is how much is that worth in an election? My belief is many americans are voting on emotion this year (for very good reason), however all the left leaning media has done is paint Obama to be a saint and Mccain to be Bush and incapable of good decisions; thus fueling this emotional burden on this election. The objectivity of the media has been dwindling for some time, but this takes the cake.

    To Obama’s credit he has run a virtually flawless campaign up until this video came out a few days ago from 2001 with him talking about spreading the wealth and going against the constitution. Perhaps too little too late, since the media won’t make anything of this. If that were Mccain instead on a comparable issue, it would be on every headline here and abroad.

  2. I don’t know of that Pew research. In the past, similar studies have been next to worthless, IMO. Because (1) the determination of what is negative and positive is extremely subjective, and (2) it can’t figure out what is unfairly negative vs deserved negative. The fact that Alan Keyes gets negative coverage doesn’t mean it’s unfair, he’s a nutjob.

    McCain’s coverage is closer to the second issue – the coverage has been more negative, but IMO it’s completely deserved. He started off with the entire media in the tank, they went the other way around because of him and his actions, not just because they didn’t like him. How do you eliminate the possibility that he objectively deserved such coverage?

    As for spreading the wealth, this is the same normal view that the vast majority of Americans hold – that the rich should pay more than the poor. Simple and not very controversial. John McCain believes it also. Spreading the wealth is not communism, it’s normal mainstream American thought. In fact, it’s exactly this kind of garbage – the twisting of an innocent uncontroversial thought into an empty campaign attack – that has led to McCain’s unpopularity in the press and the populace.

    I don’t know what you mean by going against the constitution, care to elaborate?

  3. Interesting article from Politico on exactly this subject.

    There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.

    As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

  4. Many things to comment on but I’ll touch “normal mainstream American thought” first:

    A report by ATI-News/Zogby shows that 84% of Americans oppose Obama’s “spread the wealth” agenda, in favor of improving the job situation.

    When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today’s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly—by 84% to 13%—prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

    That doesn’t bode well for Barack “spread the wealth around” Obama and his “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” plan, which for the 47% or so of Americans who have nothing or next to nothing in federal tax burden will mean nothing more than a check in the mail representing taxes paid by other people.

    To Media discussion:
    Marr Penn, of Hillary’s campaign, stated a while ago “the biggest loser in this election will be the media”. He was correct.

    As soon as Hillary was defeated the media turned it’s attention to John McCain and in every possible fashion they mocked and ridiculed him (this started long before Sarah Palin was decided upon as his running mate, the economic crisis occurred or the debates). What is the root cause here? It’s like starting someone down a dirt road with a cliff at the very end vs. sending someone down a new highway to heaven. Politico just needs to admit they support Barack and not try to paint themselves as objective, anyone can insert the bias argument anywhere they see fit.

  5. Thanks for the Zogby quote (hope you don’t mind that I reformatted it) – I don’t see how it connects though. Where’s the either/or? Seriously, you’re taking an innocent quote from a 2001 interview, the barrel bottom has been scraped clean.

    Media: The media has sucked for a long time. I spend years and years complaining about it in the Gore years. It sucks up and down and back and forth and all around. I freely admit I have enjoyed seeing the other guy get it. But you don’t see any connection between the positions McCain has taken and the campaign he’s run, and the coverage? It’s been pretty clear to me. Do you acknowledge any of the criticisms against McCain or do you think they’re all thin air?

  6. I’m sick and tired of hearing about the bias in the media. Republicans are so bent out of shape about their lousy candidates and campaign that the media is the scapegoat for every screw-up, every blunder, every consensus in the electorate that goes against them, etc. Obama won the debates? Impossible — it was either a) those biased polls, or b) those biased mediators not asking Obama the tough questions. McCain down 10 points in the polls and Palin with 50+% disapproval rating? McCain claims that those polls are hogwash and his unbiased, internal polls tell a much different story. He just sounds silly with that kind of retort. What, the electorate wants to hear about the economy and foreign affairs and not palling with terrorists? That’s obviously the media out of touch the electorate. And so on and so on. Very tiresome.

  7. Its tiresome to see people like Vic Danger be so emotionally charged over nothing. Don’t ever campaign for the undecided, because undecided voters would not be swayed by people like you who can’t be rational, see the other side, and use it to try and persuade someone.

  8. That’s what I get for listening to conservative talk radio on my commute home — gets me all charged up. I’m so immersed in politics right now, especially with the rarity of one of the candidates I’m backing actually having a good chance to win. fix several times a day, hours of TV punditry every evening, talk radio, arguing on blogs — what to do after the election is over? Can’t go back to football (Raiders), or basketball (Knicks)…

  9. Geez Vic D, Raiders and Knicks…yikes! On my drive home I listen to sports talk radio and get a good laugh from listening to the various callers. Speaking of those two franchise, I still believe Isiah Thomas must have had some secret videotape of the Knicks owner for being in the job so long…and the Raiders, Al Davis who used to be an awesome owner needs to groom a successor.

  10. Ole — you’re right, yikes indeed. Throw in the Mets for good measure, and it’s been a very bleak sports picture in my household for the past, oh, coupla decades. I agree with both of your statements — Isiah definitely has the goods on the Dolans. And Al Davis was the best, but now he’s well past his prime, unfortunately.

    In a strange twist of fate, my oldest son has chosen the Pats as his team, which must bring a smile to Muttrox’s face. But at least he doesn’t have to deal with 4-12 season after 4-12 season being a Raiders fan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *