CJK's blog

The latest "advice" were getting from prominent conservatives is to abandon the presidential campaign and dump all our resources on tight Senate races so the Dems don't get to 60.

While I think limiting the Senate losses is important, will this strategy really work? If we essentially surrender the presidency a week before the election, what stops the Obama machine from swamping Senate races with their money too? And how will we get all the severely demoralized conservatives to the polls in this case?

Even if it does work, will it matter? Democrat senators couldn't stop the Bush tax cuts when they had 50 seats. Republicans couldn't stop the Clinton tax increase and gun control bill with 43 seats (and a lot of conservative democrats). Democrats couldn't stop the Reagan agenda even though they controlled the house. And if we give up the presidential election and Obama wins in a landslide blowout, couldn't he claim that he had a huge mandate for change and frighten some of the more moderate Republicans into switching sides?

Finally, I don't think this election is over. I am under no illusions of our chances, and if this was any other election I would agree that we have lost at this point. But this election has been so wildly unpredictable that I think anything can happen at this point, including the polls being wrong. Again, not likely, but possible.

The presidency is at least worth fighting for. We shouldn't surrender it to save Ted Stevens.

Maybe all the "this election is over" hype will depress Democratic turnout. We know that the Dems are more likely to not vote, and the "traditional" gallup tracker has Obana's margin much closer than the expanded turnout scenario.

And it certainly isn't over. After the debates, Gallup put Clinton at a 12 point lead over George Bush in a race he won by six, and a 24 point lead over Dole in a race he won by eight.

Indeed, a Pew poll conducted AFTER the 1992 election was over STILL over-estimated Clinton's lead by seven points.

The new ABC/Washington Post Poll, if accurate.

I don't care that Obama is up 10 points.

I don't care that he is rated a safer choice than McCain.

I don't care that he's preferred on the economy 2:1.

I don't even care that he has a higher favorability rating than McCain.

But...

44% have a "strongly favorable opinion" of him?

I can see how some people may like Obama's policies and personality.

But think about it. This is a man who tried to legislate the first U.S. military defeat since the Vietnam War. This is a man who has voted for infanticide in the Illinois Senate. This is a man who has associated himself with some of the most vile people I have ever heard of, and didn't seem to mind until they became campaign issues. This is a man who wants to raise taxes on business during a recession. This is a man without any notable accomplishments whatsoever in his short political career.

And one out of two people have a "strongly favorable" opinion of him?

At first I was disgusted. Then I realized it was worst than that.

Three weeks away from an election, half the population is either a) utterly clueless about Obama's record or b) they know and don't care.

And that, my friends, is more terrifying than any horror movie that you will see this month.

Nearly conservative I've read says that this election, three weeks away, is over.

I'm pretty surprised considering that I'm usually the more pessimistic one. Just last month we thought this election was in the bag and now we're saying its over? The poll numbers, while bad, generally aren't in double-digit territory. What has happened is that a very small and impressionable portion of the population (say 10%) has changed their mind, not because of anything Obama or McCain have done but rather because the economic death spiral causes them to want Democrats the same a way a terrorist attack would make them want Republicans. If some calm is restored then people will be able to think more rationally about the situation.

Everybody is also trashing the McCain campaign as no better than Bush in 1992 or Dole in 1996, the last two Republican defeats. But at this time in 1992 Bush was down 13 points while he only lost by 5.5. Dole was down twelve to twenty-two points in the same time period in 1996 (with the Gallup tracking poll showing a 16 point gap on election day). He lost by 8.5. The point is that even those awful campaigns managed to dig into sizable Democrat leads under unfavorable circumstances. I think it's safe to say that this election has been closer than the last two in terms of polling. Throw the Bradley effect in there and the race may not be as lopsided as it seems.

We shouldn't say its over until its over.

John McCain has one last chance to expose Barack Obama, and that means going negative during the final debate.

I keep hearing that negative attacks can backfire during the debate. It's true that a risk exists. But it really is all or nothing here, and at this point doing something, even if risky, is far superior to doing nothing.

Here's what needs to happen:

--Repeatedly call attention to the fact that Obama has done nothing to show that he is ready to be president. When he denies it point out that his own vice-presidential nominee said so on tape.

--Contradict Obama on every single policy position he puts forward.

--Associate him with the corrupt Chicago culture.

--Flatly state that this country just can't afford Obama's crippling tax increases on people and businesses in these dire economic times. Say we should be doing the opposite.

--Call his tax cut plan a vote-buying scheme since he gives income tax cuts to non-income tax payers.

--Say that his plans mean defeat in Iraq, and thus should disqualify him as commander in chief (I don't care if its a domestic policy debate).

--An Ayres or Wright bomb should be dropped but only if built into a larger theme ("how can you do X when you couldn't even muster the moral courage to stand up to a terrorist/your racist preacher/Rezco for X years").

--Say that his health care plan will inevitably lead to a government takeover, and it would mortgage the country to China.

--Say he's a rubber stamp for our incompetent/liberal/out of control congressional leaders who caused the financial crisis, with whom he has voted with 97% of the time.

--Explain his involvement with ACORN and Fannie/Freddie and then say that it should disqualify him from handling the economy.

--When speaking about any of the above, use words like "reckless", "naive", and "deeply troubling".

Since everyone is giving advice to the McCain campaign, I might as well throw in my two cents on what the message should be.

On the positive side, McCain has to grab two or three pro-growth economic policies and repeat them until election day.

On the negative side against Obama, his message should basically state what everybody's been thinking but nobody actually wants: this man is a fraud.

A hoax. False hope. An empty suit. A tool of the Chicago machine.

Maybe not that bluntly, but it should be a recurring theme. Obama must be painted--no, blasted--as someone who has done absolutely nothing in his short carer to show that has the experience, judgement, or basic qualifications to lead Americain these trying times. Every one of Obama's policies must be exposed as either in direct contradiction to his record or actually harmful to the country.

Have McCain memorize this:

--When Obama says he'll cut taxes for 95%

Obama's plan is a bribery scheme. He's offering tax credits not actual tax cuts. Essentially his message is "vote for me and I'll everyone $500". Half the people getting this "tax cut" won't even be paying taxes in the first place. This isn't leadership. This shows that Obama will say anything to win and has adopted an economically unsound tax policy. McCain on the other hand will cut taxes for working families.

--When Obama busts out "tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas" for the 12,637th time in his career.

Companies don't send jobs overseas because they are given tax breaks, they send jobs overseas because its cheaper to produce a shoe in Brazil than a shoe in America. Besides, outsourcing only accounts for 2% of actual job losses in this country, the rest being relocated to other states that have less unionization and lower taxes. If Obama was genuinely interested in saving these jobs, he'd offer to reduce our crippling business tax rate of 35%, the second highest in the world. Instead, he says he'll raise taxes on American business, leaving American workers to take the hit when they don't have enough money to succeed.

--When Obama mutters something that sounds vaguely protectionist

Obama, doesn't want to say it, but he wants to impose protectionist policies that will only serve to hurt American exports in these dire economic times. The last time we raised taxes and tarrifs simultaneously during an economic downturn we had a great depression.

--When Obama goes off on taxing the rich

Well, as recently as last March Obama voted to raise taxes on the middle class. That is a fact, but lets get to what he's saying. When Obama says taxing the "rich", he's really talking about imposing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax increases on small businesses and investments. In other words, the things that keep this economy moving. We just can't afford Obama's crippling tax increases during an economic downturn.

--When Obama talks about saving Social Security

The fact is is that even if we enacted his enormous social security tax increases, it would only solve about 25% of the expected shortfall.

--When Obama talks about health care

Obama's plan is hugely expensive but does not do anything to address the root of the problem, the rising cost of health care. Before we have a takeover of healthcare by the same government who created the Fannie/Freddy mess, we need health care reform that eliminates perverse tax incentives and enhances competition in a manner that will keep health care costs down.

--When Obama says we can't drill our way out of this

Of course we can't. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't so long as it is part of an all of the above energy plan that includes clean/liquified coal, nuclear power, and oil shale exploration, all of which Obama opposes.

I saw the debate as an uneven draw. The economic issues inflicted damage on McCain, who was clearly unprepared, but the shift to foreign policy meant that McCain improved his position as the debate wore on.

Other points

--No serious gaffes, although there was a lot of BS

--Obama was well briefed and held his own for the most part

--McCain explained the earmarks issue in the best manner I have ever seen presented, although I don't think he should have harped on it.

--Obama lied when he denied voting to raise taxes on those making more than $42,000

--McCain failed to call out Obama for his BS enough

--Obama failed to BS his way through the Iran meetings and nuclear power

--Linking Obama to Bush in terms of stubborness was one of McCain's best lines.

--Obama: "No American soldier ever dies in vain" WTF? What did you think would happen if we abandoned the Iraqis?

--McCain's closing was strong

--I doubt this will change the state of the race by a significant margin

Obama definitely has the advantage going into the first debate. He's ahead in the polls, and the financial meltdown has been strangling the McCain campaign to the floor.

Since Obama is considered weak on foreign policy, he only has to give some smart, poll tested answers that he's spent the last the three days memorizing and it will be declared that he has exceed expectations.

If Obama beats McCain in the debate, McCain is toast. 

If Obama and McCain both perform well, then Obama benefits from not looking clueless. 

If Obama and McCain both perform badly, then the race continues unchanged, with Obama ahead by a small margin.

If McCain beats Obama, he still has a chance.

So as you can see here, the outcome of the debate is more depenent on what Obama does than what McCain does. Assuming Obama doesn't screw up somehow (a big assumption) he will come out on top. The only other way he can lose the debate is if McCain knocks him off balance with a sharp attack of his own.

And of course, if McCain says anything that could be interpreted as a Gerald Ford moment we can kiss this election goodbye. 

Fred Thompson--Good speech in general. But he was all over the place, with no single message.

Mitt Romney--He sounded a little forced. His message was that government was bad, but I don't know if the undecided independents agree with that sort of messaging.

Mike Huckabee--He was good, and had some excellent lines. But he could have helped a little more if he explained the Republican economic plan instead of talking about school desks.

Rudy--His knocks against Obama were great, especially the voting present stuff. Still no economic message, though.

Palin--Obviously the best speech at the convention.

Ridge--I didn't pay attention.

Grahamnesty--He sounded shrill, although his statements on Iraq were justified and much-needed.

McCain--I don't know. The delivery was mediocre, but improved. I thought that he was good when he talked about policy, but that only took up about 10 sentences. I don't think it changed any minds or convinced anybody. The one good thing I can say is that it powerfully refuted the arguement that he wants a third Bush term by showing that he was his own man.