When I read this piece of a few days ago by Michael Barone, arguing that "the old rule that economic distress moves voters toward Democrats doesn't seem to be operating," I found it somewhat persuasive. He argued that blame for the crisis cannot easily be pinned on Republicans alone, and that voters may fear that taxes will rise faster under Obama than they would under McCain (regardless of the fact that Obama is promising more tax relief for most Americans than McCain), which in turn would be more bad news for the economy. But a new poll this morning seems to say otherwise.
Turmoil in the financial industry and growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll.
Just 9 percent of those surveyed rated the economy as good or excellent, the first time that number has been in single digits since the days just before the 1992 election. Just 14 percent said the country is heading in the right direction, equaling the record low on that question in polls dating back to 1973.
More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support. The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.
It's just one poll, but still. I do think Obama is handling the crisis much better than McCain--not because he is suggesting better remedies (he continues to say little), but because his instinct to reflect before opening his mouth and his impeccable taste in advisers are both working to his advantage.
These factors I think are much more important than the supposed popularity of standard Democratic positions on economic management. Unlike McCain, Obama offers no instant bold responses, needing to be qualified or withdrawn or forgotten soon after. As ever, he looks calm, methodical and unruffled--and has his picture taken in conference with Paul Volcker, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers, who command wide respect. His response may be thin, so far, on content, but it is an altogether more reassuring posture than his rival's tendency to hasty and exaggerated certainty.
This difference of intellectual temperament has often been seen as
one of Obama's biggest drawbacks, including by many of his own
supporters. Sometimes his altitude over the issues, and his reluctance
to commit himself to simple straightforward positions, have indeed hurt
him. But the complexities of the crisis are putting those traits in a
much better light.
One can charitably say that McCain is right and wrong, because he veers all over the place.
Obama has the 1/2 humilty to admit that he is clueless as to cures, although he definitely knows what caused it: Bush, CEO salaries and some unspecified (we'll get back to you later) deregulation.
They're both inept.
WALL STREET's RECKONING!
(Yet, it Took 10 Years to Raise MinWage $1.00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27yitK32ds
"Rule one: Rush the decision. Time the game to fall in the week before Congress is set to adjourn and just 6 weeks before an historic election so your opponents will be preoccupied, pressured, distracted, and in a hurry.
Rule two: Disarm the public through fear. Warn that the entire global financial system will collapse and the world will fall into another Great Depression. Control the media enough to ensure that the public will not notice this. Bailout will indebt them for generations, taking from them trillions of dollars they earned and deserve to keep.
Rule three: Control the playing field and set the rules. Hide from the public and most of the Congress just who is arranging this deal. Communicate with the public through leaks to media insiders. Limit any open congressional hearings. Communicate with Congress via private teleconferencing calls. Heighten political anxiety by contacting each political party separately. Treat Members of Congress condescendingly, telling them that the matter is so complex that they must rely on those few insiders who really do know what's going on!"
(FYI: Republicans have blocked voting on bills by Dems for more oversight and regulation.)
Clive,
Is it true you have three testicles?
Doesn't McCain make even conservatives nervous with his drama queen moves? Who can tell if he's right, wrong or indifferent? He changes daily; he makes remarks that, while they may have reasoning behind them, consistently appear to be non-sequitors. He seems to want this crisis to be about him and his ability to respond while flailing from one response to the next. The guy is scary. You want to shout at him--get a grip; you might be the next President of the United States.
I don't think that it would be appropriate for Obama to rush in with an elaborate, specific plan.
Anything more than the basic principles he has outlined would unnecessarily politicize the debate, forcing Democrats to either support the leader of their party, or undercut him and look disorganized. It would dramatically destabilize the current negotiations over the bill, and essentially cause nothing but chaos.
Obama doesn't have a magic fix to everything, and it's for the best that he doesn't claim to.
As the bail out seems to be a definite must and a temporary issue, one cannot help but wonder what organization will do the work? The FED? Not likely since they are just an overseeing organization. The MoF? Not likely since this is a policy organization. So who is going to do the work? My suggestion: set up a temporary project organization (or put out an invitation to tender) under the responsability of the MBO, with a bipartisan overseeing board.
And stop bickering about who has got the right answers, because nobody does.
The problem is that you guys are looking at poll numbers statically.
Historically, swing voters vote the economy, but they make their move to the challenger in a bad economy in the last month or so of the campaign.
Look up the Carter/Reagan poll numbers. It was virtually tied at this point, even though Carter was the incumbent with a horrible economy, an emotionally depressed electorate, and had just survived a brutal challenge from within his own party. But, true to form, the swing voters moved to Reagan in the past month.
well..i think the fall in economy will be the next big challenge for the presidential candidate...it would be really interesting to know what they have to offer
I just want someone to come in and stop this madness! Haven't we heard this before? If you insert "Great Depression" where "Weapons of Mass Destruction" used to be in speeches...it is eerily familiar.
The rush, the fear, the knee jerk reactions from people who claim they didn't see it coming who now want to circle the wagons to figure it out...oh and would prefer that a blank check be written so they can begin to figure out how to value junk bonds. What faith should we have in any of this? As of right now, Obama has my vote on the sheer fact that he saw this coming and McCain and our own Treasury Secretary did not.
I guess once you get a PhD in Economics, you forget the basic principles of Economics 101.
bittersweet - the economy sours and Obama rises.
Why is it that people who are disappointed in their candidate of choice try to tarnish the other--or put them in the same boat? The ineptness of your candidate has nothing to do with mine.
Obama has my vote.
Please everyone go to demand the debate! Please take a minute and sign the petition.
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5583/t/3369/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=131&t=&limit=200
The House Republicans that are now holding up the bailout proposal have passed bill after bill after bill during the Bush presidency the contents and cost of which were irrelevant to them--including the billions of dollars of earmarks that were inserted at the last minute. Now, however, they are so concerned about the "contents" of the bailout proposal that they are delaying its passage and the immediate future of the markets and economy.
Why?
Because their candidate's decision to halt his campaign and return to Washington needs to be vindicated, otherwise he will look like a fool and his political shenanigans revealed as just that. There was a deal at hand earlier this week and their seems to be a genuine sense of urgency among just about everybody else to get it done. But McCain needs help. If the deal were to be done tonight, that would clear the way for the debates to go on as scheduled tomorrow night. Which would not only make McCain look foolish, but it would push him into the debates thoroughly unprepared.
As the NYT reported today, it was yesterday, immediately after a McCain rehearsal with his aides for the debates, that he decided to suspend his campaign and return to Washington. That rehearsal must have gone really well!!
"Impeccable taste in advisors"? Really? How about James A. Johnson, Obama's VP selection chief? From 1991 to 1998, Johnson served as chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae. Maybe he's not as bad as the disgraced Franklin Raines, who only provided informal advice to Obama, but...aren't we always warned about even the appearance of impropriety? Can't either candidate find more genuinely clean people out there with real integrity? Oh wait, Sarah Palin qualifies on the ethics and morals fronts, but we don't agree with her political views. So, she's out. No wonder we recycle so many of the same old self-dealing hacks.