Monday, October 29, 2012

Cruising the Web

Andrew Ferguson watches the Obama campaign and notices how similar it is to the last desperate days of George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Ross Douthat puts forward his explanation of why Obama's support among female voters has been declining. The Obama campaign assumes that women vote mostly on social issues rather than economic issues.

Jonah Goldberg finds and ridicules the inherent contradictions in Obama's approach to technological innovation, the economy, and his derision of Romney's defense plan just being a game of Battleship.

Frank Bruni, a liberal and Obama supporter, examines why Obama isn't doing as well as he should be in this election. He discounts the usual explanations and argues that Obama had massive advantages in this election and he squandered them.
The main cause for this contest’s closeness is arguably Obama — and the ways in which he has disappointed, confused and alienated some of the voters who warmed and even thrilled to him four years ago. During his first term, he at times misjudged and mishandled his Republican opposition. As a communicator, he repeatedly failed to sell his policies clearly and forcefully enough.

His tone is markedly changed from 2008, a tactical decision that may not be the right one. And his moments of genuine oratorical transcendence are interspersed, as they’ve always been, with spells of detachment, defensiveness, disgruntlement. Denver wasn’t the first or only time that he seemed put out by the madness of the political merry-go-round, even though it’s a whirl he himself elected.
And that is what a supporter says about him. Imagine what the rest of us are seeing.

This seems a pretty accurate prediction of what we may hear if Romney wins.

Jonah Goldberg dissects the Panetta doctrine that we shouldn't "deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on." As Goldberg points out this would mean that we would never use forces to repel a surprise attack. That's a heck of a message to send terrorists.

The former head writer from "The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson" recalls how an applause meter used while asking the audience whom they were supporting had better predictive value than the polls in 1980, 1984, and 1988. It's also pleasant to remember when a late-night comedy show really was non-partisan.

Jay Cost examines the polls and pinpoints Obama's problem - he is losing independents to Romney. Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post sees the same problem for Obama but thinks it is because independents aren't really independent and GOP-leaning independents are more fired up than Democratic-leaning independents.

My younger daughter who lives in Maryland pointed me to this story demonstrating the economic theory of Bootleggers and Baptists by how West Virginia casino owners and anti-gambling groups are uniting to oppose spreading gambling in Maryland.

Brad Smith explains why, as a libertarian, he's voting for Mitt Romney.

Here is a reminder of what the Ohio polls looked like at this point in 2004. I'd forgotten how nerve-wracking that was back then.

When will Democrats understand that Obama's vision of women is demeaning and patronizing? We are much more than our "ladyparts."

This shows how very serious the Obama campaign is about going "Forward!". They've taken the extraordinary step of adding an exclamation mark.

David Axelrod can't defend the negativity of Obama's campaign except by attacking Romney and Republicans. They're ignoring the conventional wisdom that the last weeks of a campaign should be stressing the positive reasons to vote for their guy rather than the negative reasons to vote against the other guy.

This is amusing - see how a Republican and a Democrat would annotate the other side's PR memos about how well their side is doing in Ohio.

Bob Krumm has a typically insightful and data-driven post debunking the optimism of the Obama team.

Jonathan Last ponders whether the "collective, public freak out" on the left after the first debate in this age of Twitter might have harmed Obama more than the actual debate. I've been thinking that, sometime after the election if Romney wins, I should rewatch that debate and see if the CW that quickly congealed about it was worse for Obama than it should have been.

Surprise! The much touted plan of President Obama to reduce college costs is still a mirage.


Rick Caird said...

Funny that Mark was poo-poo'ing Althouse for noting 'desperation" from the Obama campaign. Andrew Ferguson compares the desperation of the Bush I 1992 campaign to the Obama 2012 campaign.

On the right, we have this meme of "Obama's desperation". On the left, we have this meme that "Nate Silver and his polls are right".

Me? I go with "desperation".

mark said...

Wrong again, Rick.
I wasn't criticizing (poo-poo'ing? really?) Althouse, but rather making fun of your pathetic attempt to defend yourself by elevating her:

"You are aware, aren't you, that Althouse is professor of law at University of Wisconsin in Madison. As such, her whole business is offering possible arguments."

Usually, conservatives show disdain for university professors. And far from "her whole business is offering possible arguments", she's just another blogger (left and right) offering a mix of commentary and snarky comments. No better, no worse.

Rick Caird said...

Actually, Mark, I have been reading Althouse for years. The first three entries on my Google reader are:


Notice, the first two are law professors and Betsy is a teacher. The fifth and sixth entries are:

Powerline (3 lawyers)
Legal Insurrection (law professor at Cornell)

So, your argument, "conservatives show disdain for university professors", fails. There was no need to "elevate" her. It is surprising how often you fail.

After the political entries in the Google Reader, there are about 50 economic and financial entries.

BTW, Althouse voted for Obama in 2008, but I doubt she will this year.

mark said...

Your need to edit my words undermines your argument. Are you denying the many jabs at Obama or people like Elizabeth Warren for their academic backgrounds?

You boast quite the impressive bloglist. What a snob!

Rick Caird said...

LOL, Mark.

I didn't edit a single one of your words. I am simply quoting them. I wasn't aware that quoting your words was undermining my argument. In fact, I thought it meant I was, you know, addressing your comments. Silly me.

The jabs at Warren are not for her academic background. The jabs are for lying about her Indian heritage to take advantage of "affirmative action", for practicing law in Massachusetts from her Harvard Office without have a law license, and for claiming to be on the side of the "little people" while taking corporate jobs for large sums that squashed the little people. Not one of those "jabs" have to with her academic background, only the content of her character.

I am left trying to figure out what on my Google Reader makes me a "snob". Perhaps you can enlighten me so I can address such a personal failing.

mark said...

Leaving the word "usually" out of my quote is editing.

Perhaps you're not as well-read as you'd like us to think. The "What a snob" line was a reference to Rick Santorum's widely-mocked line about Obama's emphasis the importance of a college education.

Glad I could provide a bit of enlightenment to your dim intellect.

Rick Caird said...

Mark, you are sounding like the Obama campaign, desperate. I actually left out the three dots to indicate an omission, but I doubt anyone else noticed. Now compare that complaint to your complaints about Althouse. Your posts, like Obama, are getting smaller.

Then, you take some obscure quote from Santorum and make that some kind of literary test. Quite shocking, Mark. However, if you do really want to debate the value of a college education, I am willing to engage. Electricians and Plumbers who graduate to running their own business make substantially more money than your average college gradate. But, I doubt you really want to engage

mark said...

Obscure quote? Not really. Especially to someone who claims to be well-read. For an ignorant person who only watches Fox news? Sure.

Obama looks pretty comfortable helping people alongside Gov. Christie. Imagine, a marxist, foreign-born president working with a republican while Romney tries to stay relevant with fake photo ops.

Rick Caird said...

Ah, Mark, the dreaded "Fox news" insult. Except that I don't watch Fox News, so it is not all that effective. Go ask 100 people about your imputed Santorum quote and let me know how many people recognize it. Not many, I'll wager.

However, I did look up the quote and Santorum is absolutely correct. Going to college is not a guarantee of any worldly success. How many college graduates in the Obama economy are staggering under debt, living with their parents, and armed with a worthless degree. Obama is less than a snob, he is a fool to be selling that fool's gold.

I am glad you are impressed with the President actually doing a President's job for a change. It is pretty rare for this Obama fellow. But, tomorrow it is off to Vegas again. Funny, didn't he tell us all to stay out of Vegas? Why, yes he did.

Now, if he could only be Presidential while filling us in on the Benghazi fiasco. Four lives lost so as to not interrupt a campaign slogan. Quite a guy you are supporting there, Mark. Obama is toast. It will be Romney by +100 electoral votes.

mark said...

Way to go bold, Rick. Why not?
Given that Obama has a slight lead, and will probably get a small bounce from his handling of Sandy, sounds a little crazy to predict a Romney blowout. But who knows?