In this election year's Kids Pick the President "Kids' Vote", Senator Obama received 51% of the vote (1,167,087), and Senator McCain received 49% (1,129,945).
That Obama only beat McCain in a poll of Nickelodeon Kids by a mere 2% is telling. John Kerry won the Kids Pick the President vote in 2004 by a 14 point margin. True, the turnout in '04 was far less (about 20% of this year's) but Obama's 2-point margin about young people indicates a soft bottom with the Obama campaign.
Nick has been increasingly far left over the years. While in 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000, Nick kids successfully picked the winner, 2004 was a jump the shark moment for the kids poll.
Given Obama's charisma, the pro-Obama environment of the media, Nick's PC bias, and the impressionability of young minds, Obama ought to have won this 60-40% at least.
If kids are voting 51-49% for Obama, I wouldn't rest easy if I were in Camp Obama.
After several days of rage from conservative activists regarding a provision in the bailout bill that would send some of the profits from the sale of distressed assets the goverment buys into an affordable housing trust fund, congressional negotiators have removed section 105(d) of the bailout proposal, according to aides on both side.
In response to the completely dishonest attempts by Harry Reid and the Obama campaign to credit their candidate for saving the American economy single-handedly while discrediting John McCain's pivotal role in the negotiations, I transcribed this interview which occurred Sunday morning on Fox News Election Headquarters between Eric Shawn (ES) and Chris Wallace (CW) after a preview of Wallace's interview with Lindsay Graham and John Kerry, explaining their candidates' roles in the "Rescue Plan" (aka bailout) discussions. Regardless of how you feel about the deal itself, it is crystal clear that no deal would have occurred without McCain intervening to foster negotiations both by returning to work in Washington and continuing to work the phones after the debate.
1. Contrary to Democratic talking points, no deal was struck prior to McCain's intervention
ES: Good morning, Chris CW: Good Morning, Eric ES: From your conversations with the two Senators [Graham and Kerry] and they both represent their respective Presidential candidates, who came out on top with this bailout? CW: Certainly McCain played a much bigger role than Obama did, and here's where McCain did play a big role. For all the talk on Thursday that there was a deal, in fact there was no deal because the House Republicans, who are quite conservative as a caucus, were not going to sign on to the bill as it then stood and McCain was able to bring them in, to get them on board, there were some changes made in these meetings over the weekend and as a result it looks like this will pass with a lot of votes from Republicans and Democrats in both houses. In the House, particularly, the Democrats were not going to pass the bill even though they have a majority, unless there was a big Republicans sign-in.
2. Obama's "leadership discussion" consisted of hectoring the Cabinet Room meeting participants
ES: You know it's interesting, in what we heard from Senator Kerry saying that Senator Obama's been on the phone dealing with this for weeks and then they had this meeting, that he handled these questions for the President when they were sitting in the Cabinet Room. The New York Times says John McCain didn't ask one question. So is this all, you know, spin? CW: Well, it is a fact that Obama talked a lot more than McCain did in the meeting in the Cabinet Room. In fact, some people said that Obama kind of "hectored" everybody else. On the other hand though, you know, I think a lot of this stuff doesn't happen in those kinds of meetings. It happens behind the scenes, and McCain was very involved, as I say, in getting the House Republican caucus on board and we wouldn't have a deal today if it hadn't been for that. ES: And bottom line, how do you think this will shape out? The House goes back in session, the Senate, tomorrow. What can we expect? CW: I think we'll probably get a bill passed. They're going to work like crazy. Of course they don't go into all the details when the negotiate the deal, all the top leaders, so now the staffs have to sit together and actually put this into legislative language. It sounds like there's going to be a vote in the House first, then the Senate, and I suspect they're going to get it before the end of business on Monday. ES: All right, House back in session about two hours, three hours from now [11 am Sunday, 9/28/08] and we'll be on top of it all afternoon. Chris, good to see you as always, thank you. CW: Thank you so much, Eric.
3. Politico verified McCain's instrumental role in the negotiations
Republicans complained that the presence of the additional Democrats was making the process more difficult; by setting up shop in Boehner’s office, Paulson was able to get some breathing room after spending hours in close quarters, where at times he was hectored by some of the Senate Democrats.
Earlier in the day Saturday, Boehner had gone before the TV cameras to say that House Republicans would not agree to a bill “that bails out Wall Street at the expense of American taxpayers.”
Sources said Saturday afternoon that as many as 40 Republican senators were prepared to vote for the emerging bailout deal if bankruptcy and social spending provisions are dropped. And while McConnell was not yet ready to abandon House Republicans — or McCain — sources said his views might change if there were still no deal by Sunday evening.
For his part, McCain – fresh off his debate with Obama in Mississippi – spent Saturday calling House Republicans to test support for the rescue plan, according to one lawmaker who was contacted. In addition to President Bush and Paulson, the McCain campaign said the Arizona senator had been in touch with McConnell, Gregg, Sen. Jon Kyl, Boehner, Blunt and nine other House Republicans.
4. House Republicans represented voter anger over the initial bailout agreement
The House opened Sunday with a string of one-minute tirades about the tentative agreement congressional negotiators brokered hours earlier with administration.
None of the speechmakers - from liberal Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio to conservative New Jersey Republican Scott Garrett - was expected to back the financial markets rescue plan, so their remarks are an inaccurate metric to chart support for - or opposition to - the bill.
"It does not do what the American people are asking to do, and that is protect their tax dollars," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
5. Democrats are setting up a self-funding mechanism via ACORN by exploiting a severe financial crisis
[Senator Lindsay] Graham told Greta van Susteren that Democrats had their own priorities, and it wasn’t bailing out the financial sector:
"And this deal that’s on the table now is not a very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I can’t believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing program that doesn’t work."
With mad props to Hot Air, here is the video of Graham's interview with Greta explaining how and why they were working overtime on the bailout well ahead of their Democratic colleagues:
The netroots is engaged in some spiriteddiscussion about the lameness of Obama's responses to Palin. But the problem, and what I believe this video gets at, is that Democrats look at everything about negative politics through the prism of response rather than attack, defense rather than offense.
Michael Dukakis's failure to respond in 1988 has become something of a creation myth, spawning the legendary Clinton war room in 1992. Their job? Leave no attack unanswered.
Except the Clinton War Room was about something else too. Attack. Here's a legendary clip from the Clinton campaign documentary in which they plant a storyabout Bush 41 printing campaign signs in Brazil (you may need to go back to the end of the previous clip for context):
The Democrats were caught off-guard by the SBVT in 2004 because they learned wrong lessons from '88. Forcefully responding ("Bring. It. On.") was something of a meta-narrative for Kerry. But they forgot that response wasn't nearly enough, and done wrong, you can easily fall into traps your opponent carefully lays out. To control the agenda, you have to unleash new, original, unprovoked attacks.
The media favors new narratives. If your whole frame is simply responding to the other guy's narratives, he controls the agenda, not you.
The meta-narrative behind every Democratic campaign is "No more swiftboats." Obama seems obsessed with this. His acceptance speech was a paranoid rebuttal of McCain's attacks and a even a few non-attacks -- from Celeb to "Country First" (the subtext of which -- honestly, guys -- is more about McCain putting "party second" than about Obama).
Now, this isn't Ruffini saying don't respond. It's about responding firmly and with the facts, but never blowing your top and getting rattled. And it's about maintaining a 2-to-1 ratio of salable attacks to responses.
The problem with Kerry's response to Swiftboat wasn't just its initial timorousness. It's that the eventual response was so over-the-top that the median voter could conclude either that 1) Kerry was hiding something, and 2) even if the attacks were wrong, that the Vietnam narrative and Kerry's never-ending defense of it was so central to his candidacy that he was more interested in the past, not the future.
Kerry's hyperventilating response to the SBVT reinforced the wrong things about his candidacy. His famous $87 billion remark was actually a response to a Bush ad in West Virginia. His saying that he would have again voted for the use of force was a response to a Bush speech.
The most important thing about a good attack is not the attack itself. It's baiting your opponent to respond the way you want him to respond, because only the things that come out of his mouth will ultimately stick.
Obama seems to be falling into the trap of response-centrism. If only they could respond the right way, they figure, all will be well. But it won't be. Because the game they are playing is reactive. Instead of changing the subject off Palin by launching some explosive new attack on McCain, all they do is respond, respond, respond. And the story, day after day, is Democratic Presidential nominee responds to Republican Vice Presidential nominee. The optics of that stink for them.
In an upcoming post, I'll explain which kinds of attack work, and which don't.
A number like this not be a problem but for the fact that Obama opted out of the public financing system with a smug look on his face that suggested a gusher of cash in the offing. With him formally capturing the nomination in June, that doesn't seem to be happening. In fact, Obama's opting out is starting to look at best premature and at worst a complete strategic blunder.
Obama's campaign is denying the rumor, but as Sean has noted, if it were really impressive, they wouldn't be holding it back.
A couple of thoughts:
Remember the guy who said that Obama would raise $100 million in June with the help of HRC's finance committee and pedal-to-the-metal general election fundraising. That set the expectations bar pretty high.
$30 million in June would be slightly south of what John Kerry did the month he captured the nomination in 2004. Even if it's in the $40-50 million range, that's only incrementally better than what Kerry did as the nominee in 2004. This does not suggest that Obama is fundamentally a different kind of general election candidate.
After crowing for more than a year about the massive Democratic fundraising advantage, it seems that McCain+RNC will have over twice the cash-on-hand as Obama+DNC. That's extraordinary.
Whatever the final number is, I'm going to posit a theory about what's going on. And that's that Obama's camp dramatically misread the meaning of its Internet fundraising surge in the 1st quarter, a mistake that could send it limping into the fall even or slightly behind the Republicans.
Something struck me as oddly familiar about Wesley Clark's attack on John McCain's military service. Then I remembered that Clark has a history of doing this before. Running against John Kerry for the Democratic nomination in 2004, Clark said he was the better qualified because while Kerry had been a lieutenant, Clark had swapped hats with Ratko Mladic as a general:
General Clark could not resist taking a few jabs at Mr. Kerry, however. During an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live" as the Iowa results rolled in, former Senator Bob Dole said to General Clark that he thought the success of Mr. Kerry, also a decorated Vietnam War veteran, might have turned the general into a colonel.
"Well I don't agree," General Clark said. "Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You've got to get your facts right."
Asked later about the exchange, General Clark acknowledged Senator Kerry's military background. But, he added: "Nobody in the race has got the kind of background I've got. I've negotiated peace agreements. I've led a major alliance in war. It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that and I respect him for that. He's been a good senator. But I've had the military leadership at the top as well as at the bottom."
Back then, this came off as pure rankism. It takes on a different dimension when you're comparing your experience running wars by remote control from Belgium to someone who tortured for five and a half years.
Promoted. Jim Ogonowski has actually defeated Jeff Beatty in the signature war, 22,000 to 17,000.(A source reminds me that Beatty had 17,000 signatures certified, while 22,000 is Ogonowski's uncertified total.) -Patrick
At this time Jim Ogonowski does not have the required signatures needed to make the ballot. The Campaign has released a statement that Patrick has posted in the comments. He has fallen 30 short.
Below please find an unedited letter to the voters from Jim Ogonowski as delivered to me in a press release.
Giving John Kerry a race is going to be a lot of fun. -Patrick
Jon Keller is reporting that a new Survey USA poll shows Jim Ogonowski with a commanding lead over Jeff Beatty 60-14. It also shows John Kerry with some general election weaknesses.
If he can manage to squeeze out enough certified signatures, Dracut hay farmer Jim Ogonowski will start off with a big name-recognition boost from his run in the Fifth Congressional District special last year and a 60% to 14% bulge over Jeff Beatty. (Full disclosure: my adult son, now communications director for the Massachusetts Republican Party, worked on Ogonowski's 2007 congressional campaign.) With 26% undecided, that lead could fade fast; it'll vanish altogether of Ogonowski can't get on the ballot, an unpardonable organizational sin.
With all due respect to the game but hapless Republicans, the real issue is: are the voters sick of John Kerry? By a too-close-for-comfort 48% to 42%, they say he deserves to be re-elected. And the biggest warning sign for Kerry is that 49% of the voters say he "spends too little time on Massachusetts issues." Only 36% say he "spends about the right amount of time." This is a longstanding complaint about Kerry that he has been trying for years to dispel, with mixed success, apparently. It is far and away his most significant political weakness, exacerbated over the years by unflattering comparisons of Kerry's DC output with that of the king of federal-grant rainmaking, Ted Kennedy. I hate to say it, but the need to make up for the potential, hopefully avoidable loss of Ted's clout could be very much on voters' minds come November, forcing Kerry to make a more persuasive case to voters here that they really are job #1 for him.
Ogonowski will be on the ballot. When he is I'll give an update and ask you all to donate a few dollars.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 "we were basically at peace."
Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, "well, we hadn't declared war," The Hill's Sam Youngman reports.
Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, "well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time."
Kerry also called John McCain "out of step with history and facts."
So were we "basically at peace" on December 7, 1941 as well, Senator Kerry? Jim Ogonowski has responded to John Kerry's comments in a press release.
"Either John Kerry is naïve or he is actually using this tragedy for political propaganda to capture more headlines for himself in this election cycle.
Does he know this was not the first attack on the very building taken down on September 11th?
Does he consider the bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and on American troops on the U.S.S. Cole as being "basically at peace"?
On the morning of September 11, 2001, America and the world were reminded that evil in the hearts of only a few men can cause harm to many. Those attacks were not planned in a day. Islamic extremists had long before declared war on America and American interests.
While September 11th was a day of peace to John Kerry, for me it was the day I lost my brother. I think it would be very appropriate for John Kerry to apologize to the victims and the families of those lost on that day for his remarks."
When the deadline for certification passed yesterday, Jim Ogonowski, the Republican leadership's choice to challenge US Senator John F. Kerry, was 82 signatures short of qualifying for the GOP primary ballot, according to the state's central voter registry.
But Ogonowski's campaign aides contend there are enough certified signatures at various town offices around the state not filed yet on the computerized registry to put him across the 10,000 threshold. ...
Even if Ogonowski does get the 82 signatures he needs, his fight probably is not over.
Election specialists say he will not have the needed cushion of extra signatures to insulate himself from legal challenges.
Ogonowski's only primary opponent, Jeff Beatty, is expected to challenge the validity of his signatures before the ballot law commission.
I like Ogonowski. I worked with a coalition of bloggers to raise $20,000 for his MA-5 special campaign last fall. Back then, he had a kick-butt volunteer operation and a ton of grassroots energy. It's at least a little mystifying that this is such a close call. Stuff like ballot access should not be a close call, not for a guy who's already on the air.
