Richard Haass, after a brief, uncomfortable interlude over the Ground Zero mosque, returns to smart analysis that has been more characteristic of his recent writing. He hones in on many of the questions that a number of us raised yesterday:
[T]he president reiterated his commitment to ending the U.S. military presence in Iraq entirely by the end of 2011. But would this be wise? Doing so would increase the odds that Iraq would become far messier. Iraqis themselves realize this, and if and when a new government is formed, its leaders are likely to ask that tens of thousands of American troops stay on for an extended period. There is a strong case that the United States should be prepared to do so; Iraqis should be prepared not only to ask for this but to help pay for it.
And on Afghanistan, he, too, is bothered by the fact that the “calendar-vs.-conditions contradiction at the heart of U.S. Afghan policy remains: U.S. troops will begin to depart in less than a year, but the pace of withdrawals will be determined by the situation on the ground.” Many helpful onlookers have tried to square the circle. Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton cannot be faulted for at least trying to make sense of this. But Haass is right: the two parts of Obama’s formulation are mutually exclusive. You can’t promise to be both attuned to facts on the ground and begin bugging out. We can hardly blame the Karzai government for being uneasy.
On the budgeting front, we’ve criticized Obama’s false assertion that the defense budget is responsible for the pool of red ink, but Haass makes a separate point: Obama’s own budget is at odds with his national security policy: “[S]pending $100 billion or more a year in Afghanistan will make the process of cutting defense spending and reducing the deficit far more difficult. How, then, should the United States manage its need to restore its fiscal base and remain the world’s leading power?” This is the central fallacy underlying Obama’s directive to Robert Gates: go slash the Pentagon budget and win the war. Gates is struggling to cut other places within the defense budget — so then why aren’t we taking money from misbegotten domestic spending? By the way, one could conclude that Obama’s emphasis on VA spending is an effort to preempt the argument that we are “taking money from the troops.” He is (and from the weapons they will use), but he is loath to admit it.
In speeches and political campaigns, fundamental contradictions can be glossed over. But the essence of governing is to resolve those contradictions. And the measure of leadership is to articulate what is at stake in the given choices, act decisively, and then explain it to Americans as well as to allies and foes without equivocation. So long as the administration pretends these choices don’t exist, our policy lacks coherence and credibility.
It doesn’t seem like McCain’s strong performance at the debate did much good. The polls don’t reflect any positive uptick, and at a dinner last night, where I spoke covertly with a few red guys amongst a sea of blue, the consensus was a decidedly glum feeling that McCain will lose in a blowout. We can talk ourselves up into a later about the negatives of an Obama presidency, but is there any objective data out there that suggests McCain can actually win. So far, the overwhelming collection of data points to an Obama win. Now that conclusion is a very bad way to start off a Sunday…..
“Barack Obama enlists law enforcement to crack down on opposition ads.”
Barack Obama is a non-violent ideological thug. He seems unlikely to torture or murder his political foes. However, his existential view of the world requires that he warmly and compassionately take away our First Amendment rights for our own perceived good. Obama, in his heart of hearts, is a Saul Alinsky totalitarian. Democracy is merely a means to an end. The ultimate goal is to subtly eliminate our constitutional rights. The citizenry becomes similar to the proverbial frog unaware that it is slowly being boiled alive.
Jennifer, I don’t think Sarah Palin will ever appeal to National Review editors and writers. That really does not bother me, because frankly not that many people read National Review.
I don’t know how she did against Couric because I left the room. After the Gibson travesty I could not stomach Couric for more than a minute or two. My wife watched and she thought Palin did fine. But, the fact is that the American people cannot know how she did because they cannot know which of her answers were distorted by the kind of editing that ABC indulged in.
Sometimes the polls for a debate take time to show up. The debate was on Friday, wait until after Monday when people go to work.I would say this, look at who won the debate in the same way as reading the real clear politics average of polls. In terms of the debate, the punditry has gone from McCain was the big winner to its a draw. No one found Obama as a clear winner. The best they say is that Obama did not hurt himself because McCain needed a knockout, which at this stage , is a ridiculous conclusion. Therefore, winner McCain.
The polls are basically within 5 points, which in my book is still a tossup. In 2000, I remember listening to Sean Hannity interviewing Ed Goeas from the battleground poll. It was 5 days before the election and Goeas said that his poll showed Bush up by 5. He also stated that the late breaking undecided historically side with the challenger . Therefore Bush would win easily. ABout 3 days before the election, Zogby’s poll started to show that undecided voters were breaking for Gore.On the morning of the election, there was a picture of Al Gore on the Drudge Report draped in sweat from all day campaiging. We know what happened in 2000. Moral of the story, dont get crazy about the polls right now. This is not a blowout and the general election electorate in more center-center right than the punditry thinks it is.
enlightening video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
“This is not a blowout and the general election electorate in more center-center right than the punditry thinks it is.”
Barack Obama has no chance of winning if the majority of voters know about his relationship with Bill Ayers and the Saul Alinsky activists in Chicago. Can the MSM, which is now the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, continue hiding the truth from the American people? Are they truly that powerful? If so, our democracy is in dire danger.
Um, the verdict is in. Will you now concede that Obama won the debate, just as the snap polls and focus groups suggested?
USATODAY/GALLUP:
“A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night’s presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.
“Obama scored even better — 52%-35% — when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country’s problems.
“More than six in 10 people or 63% in the one-day poll, taken Saturday, said they watched the first faceoff in Oxford, Miss. For those 701 people, the margin of error was +/- 4 percentage points. …
“More than one-third of viewers, or 37%, said they had less confidence in McCain to fix economic problems after seeing the debate; 23% said more. For Obama, the survey results were 34% more confidence, 26% less.”
By the way, today’s Rasmussen daily tracking poll has Obama at 50%, McCain at 44%. Those 3-day numbers include one full day following the debate. “This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet and marks the first time he has held such a lead for two-days running,” says Rasmussen
Ethan, you’ll get no argument from this pessimist. Michael’s admonitions about the 2000 polls are correct, however, more important than the raw numbers—which I don’t dismiss–are the trends among the different polls. These clearly show, since his announcement to suspend campaigning and to go to Washington, McCain has had serious slippage. As of now, we may be looking at an electoral college blowout for Obama, but that verdict, I’ll admit, is still too soon
to make, though a more modest Obama victory is not.
I don’t see “plenty of conservatives” being concerned about Gov. Palin.
Look what’s happened over the past two weeks regarding Gov. Palin:
1. The largest attended campaign event in this presidential season (60,000 in Florida)
2. Her competitor Crazy Joe has had a personal gaffe-a-thon
3. Her admittedly poor interview with Katie Couric
What weak-kneed conservatives (principally two: Kathleen Parker and Kathleen J-Lopez) are demurring is the relative state of the campaign. Believe me, if McCain-Palin were up in the polls by 5 or 6 points, the scuttlebutt would be how quickly Biden’s gaffes have become insurmountable and unsustainable.
Could Harry Truman have survived had he had Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson throwing “gottcha” questions at him?
We’ll see how several major events, in quick succession– last Friday, the bailout bill, next Thrusday’s VP debate– play out, then make a judgment about the polls. Keep in mind that Friday was the first day vaguely resembling a good one that McCain had had in two weeks. That’s not a rationalization for some ominous trends for McCain, just an observation about the calendar.
It’ll be interesting to see if McCain’s team shifts strategy– at some point, he has to go negative to stop the bleeding. Perhaps we’re still some days short of that, but I imagine that’s coming.
SwampFox:
Have you read Richard Dyrefuss’ The Nation comments about how poorly Senator Obama performed during the first debate? Hint: He has throw his lefties under the bus on his way to middle America.
Windshield wipers and defrost for those teleprompters….it’s the turn of the season.
Steely Tom, if McCain’s going negative means the type of ads I just saw on his website—babbling about Chicago pols—his numbers will never rise again!
Something I read a couple of days ago just keeps coming back to my mind. Gerard Baker of the London Times wrote that the winner of this election might be the real loser. He listed all of the domestic/foreign headaches the next president will have to deal with. I can see these problems overwhelming an administration quickly. Tom Daschle is quoted as saying the next president has “at best” a 50/50 chance of not being a one-termer.
Captain America: “Could Harry Truman have survived had he had Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson throwing “gottcha” questions at him?”
Yes!
But please, tell me, which of the questions asked by Couric do you consider “gotcha”?
Regarding Michael’s comments on the 2000 election, I recall the coverage of the 1980 election when I was living in Washington and reading The Washington Post every day. The Post maintained that Jimmy Carter was winning up until the final week of the campaign when it shifted to saying the race was close. My reaction when seeing that was that Reagan was going to win, which he did in a landslide, along with the Republicans capturing the Senate, which no one predicted.
SwampGas: Fallout from the debate has just started
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/28/family-told-obama-not-wear-soldier-sons-bracelet-where-media
There are some questions about his memories of what FDR did and didn’t do – -but at least he didn’t talk about FDR’s television appearance after the Stock Market Crash
As we all know, perceptions of a debate shape the election completely, or as the same story noted “Obama’s margin in the poll is not as large as the advantage Democrat John Kerry had after the first debate in 2004. Then, the poll showed Kerry to have done better than President Bush by 57%-25%. Kerry went into the debates behind in national polls, while Obama had a slim lead.” All hail President Kerry.
Re: Palin.
I agree with Mark Steyn’s take over at the NRO Corner:
The Palin nomination has generated the only real enthusiasm on the Republican side and keeping her under wraps until she can mouth the appropriately nuanced platitudes isn’t worth it. There’s nothing to be gained by taking Miss Authenticity and turning her into a Foggy Bottom bore.
Plus a gazillion interviews a day with WZZZ-AM Presque Isle, Maine would lessen the Elimination Round stakes attached to the once-a-month highwire acts with Couric and Gibson. And, as Charlie Gibson’s condescending schoolmarm act suggests, the “Name the Deputy Fisheries Minister of Hoogivsastan” school of questioning is likely to wear thinner a lot quicker than any duff answers.
By the way, my favorite repulse of the “Gotcha” technique was proposed by Andrew Ferguson (not available online) after Andy Hiller’s famous interrogation of George W Bush in 2000:
Hiller asked him to name the new prime minister of India.
“The new prime minister of India is — no,” Bush said. “Can you name the foreign minister of Mexico?”
“No, sir,” Hiller replied. “But I would say I’m not running for president and I don’t write foreign policy.”
Upon hearing this weaselly dodge, which is perfectly in keeping with the spirit of gotcha, Bush should have switched fields, to Hiller’s own area of expertise. “You’re in television,” Bush might have said. “Who played the professor on Gilligan’s Island?”
All Governor Palin should insist on, after the desperate editing of her words by Gibson, is that every interview be live. And, if they’re all disasters, they’ll wind up like Biden’s gaffes or Clinton’s adulteries. As Stalin remarked in another context, one is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.
Actually visit Gallup. They polled 1005 adults (out of 300 million), do not provide the breakdown of Democrat/Republican/Independent, and 63 percent of those they question didn’t even watch the debate.
Typo: 63 percent watched the debate.
All of the words after “I agree with Mark Steyn’s take over at the NRO Corner:” are Steyn’s. Sorry for the sloppy formatting.
Next up, Research 2000′s daily tracker, which shows a widening : Obama 50% McCain 43%
This is Obama’s strongest three-day average ever in this poll, and yesterday, the first day after the debate, had Obama ahead 51% vs. 42%.
Captain America: Who cares what Richard Dreyfuss or the far left think? They’re just as crazy as the far right. Do you think Obama won’t get their vote? Obama has always promised to reach across the aisle for solutions. You can’t do that from the far left. On major initiatives, like healthcare, Obama ran to the right of his leading primary competitors: Clinton and Edwards. Even in the primary, his main message was bipartisanship. Obviously, he will start negotiations from a position on the left.
Polls are generally useless, like those wonderful exit polls during the 2004 elections, so I don’t overreact. But how do you conduct a poll about the debate (sampling, weighting and all else being put aside) and 37 percent of the people you sampled didn’t even watch the debate?
Polls are generally useless, like those wonderful exit polls during the 2004 elections, so I don’t overreact. But how do you conduct a poll about the debate (sampling, weighting and all else being put aside) and 37 percent of the people you sampled didn’t even watch the debate?
“Actually visit Gallup. They polled 1005 adults (out of 300 million), do not provide the breakdown of Democrat/Republican/Independent, and 63 percent of those they question didn’t even watch the debate” — ian
Well, thanks for correcting the 63% error.
Here’s all you have to know about party breakdown: “Among the crucial group of independents who watched the debate — those most likely to actually be swayed by what transpired, Obama won by 10 points, 43% to 33%,” says Gallup.
In addition, Obama today has extended or maintained his lead in three daily tracking polls, which now include one day post-debate. The Gallup daily is not out yet.
All the facts point to the same conclusion: Dems liked Obama’s performance. Reps like McCain’s performance. Independents and undecideds say Obama won.
If you can prove me wrong, do it.
“But how do you conduct a poll about the debate (sampling, weighting and all else being put aside) and 37 percent of the people you sampled didn’t even watch the debate?”- ian
Yeah, ian, you should just stop talking now, because you’re starting to look like Sarah Palin in a CBS interview.
Gallup called 1,005 people to survey them on the election. Of this group, 701 had watched the debate. Only the responses from the 701 who actually watched the debate counted in the Gallup questions that pertained to debate performance.
There is nothing to prove wrong. Kerry and Gore had similar supposed showings and neither became president. The only poll that matters is the election. Regarding Gallup, the party breakdowns are not shown (how many “independents” were there?), but what I can’t get around is how you conduct a poll about a debate where 37 percent didn’t watch the debate. Gallup notes that 12 percent of that claimed to have read or seen bits of the debate, but you’re telling me that they couldn’t find 1005 adults that actually watched the debate. That point should be apolitical, because we dance around the polls every election cycle. When polls start predicting elections reliably I’ll start living and dying off each one.
“The questions about the debate were asked of a random sample of 1,005 national adults as part of the Gallup Poll Daily tracking program on Saturday. Of the total sample of adults, 63% said they had watched the debate. Another 12% said that they had seen, heard, or read news coverage of the debate, and the rest said they had neither seen the debate nor news coverage thereof.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,005 national adults, aged 18 and older, and 701 people who watched the Sept. 26 presidential debate, conducted Sept. 27, 2008.”
Sorry, but I don’t see any sentence in Gallup’s write up of its methodology that confines questions about the debate as you suggest. Your explanation is certainly possible, but that means that the sample size is 701, which doesn’t exacty inspire confidence. However I’m always happy to be edified.
Paul, ads that try to paint Obama as a far lefty, even if true, aren’t going to work at this point. How can one square such ads with ‘I agree with John’– with the conversational, even-tempered Barack of the first debate? The public won’t be persuaded that he’s suddenly disqualified as non-mainstream.
Any decent negative ads will be issue-oriented. Hell, why not use the bailout/financial crisis to reset the debate over taxes and spending?
Nice try, resorting to history as means of feeling better about the current numbers. But ask yourself this: if McCain/Palin were a stock and you were a value investor, would you buy it today? Methinks it’s yet to find a bottom….
Are these independents self-reported independents? Could they be like the faux-independents that come here? Keep in mind too that the polling has swung substantially in a very short period of time — it can also swing back.
Today’s final shoe:
Gallup Daily: “Obama Moves to 50% to 42% Lead”
“Obama has gained four percentage points over the last three days, while McCain has lost four points, for an eight-point swing in the “gap” or margin,” says Gallup.
McCain’s best chance to make a move — the national security debate — is past. He didn’t get the job done. Next up is the VP debate. Could be another tough week. Kicks off with a big McCain-gambling expose in NYT and unpopular (particularly among Republican base) bailout deal. Hey, but keep talking about taxes and Ayers — and keep insisting that Gallup polls are biased. That’s a winning strategy.
I very much doubt he loses the base under these (or any) circumstances, if most of the hard-right types in the House (Pence apparently excepted) swallow hard and vote for the deal. THe NYT will eventually find its way to the Keating Five; McCain’s folks must know that’s coming, hence Rick Davis’s delaration of war. The Times is the least of their worries at this point.
Alex, I’ll take Obama in a spectacular landslide for $100, please.
It’s not that the polls are bias so much as they tend to have little predictive validity. By the way, nice interpretation of the Gallup poll. Didn’t they teach you how to read at troll school?
I don’t think it is over, but depending on Sarah Palin on Thursday night kind of sums up where things are now.
It could happen — as they say in sports, that’s why they play the game. But pinning one’s hopes on Palin seems akin to depending on a football team to pull off an upset that currently owns a five-game losing streak and has been blown out in most of its recent outings.
“It’s not that the polls are bias so much as they tend to have little predictive validity”-ian
Really, you should just quit talking. Since 1976, every candidate who was leading in Gallup immediately following the last debate has won. Polls start getting extremely predictive at about this stage in the presidential cycle. (And since 1976, only two candidates who were leading in Gallup immediately prior to the first debate have lost).
So the polls after the first debate are not predictive. At least that was true for Gore and for Kerry. And isn’t that what we are discussing? I won’t tell you to quit talking, just to start thinking.
I actually checked. The final Gallup poll among registered voters before the 2004 election had it for Kerry 49-47. Anyway, I didn’t realize that people loved polls so much.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the last Gallup poll for Bush/Gore had it 49-42 for Bush. Bush won but I seem to recall a much closer margin and a Sup. Crt. decision along the way. So is that one scored for Gallup’s predictive validity too?
Not to continue s silly argument but just because I actually find the subject interesting, these are the final Gallup polls and the actual election results with the degree of deviation since 1976:
2004
Bush
49.0
51.0
-2.0
Kerry
49.0
48.0
+1.0
2000
Bush
48.0
47.9
+0.1
Gore
46.0
48.4
-2.4
Nader
4.0
2.7
+1.3
1996
Clinton
52.0
50.1
+1.9
Dole
41.0
41.4
-0.4
Perot
7.0
8.5
-1.5
1992
Clinton
49.0
43.3
+5.7
Bush
37.0
37.7
-0.7
Perot
14.0
19.0
-5.0
1988
Bush
56.0
53.0
+2.1
Dukakis
44.0
46.1
-2.1
1984
Reagan
59.0
59.2
-0.2
Mondale
41.0
40.8
+0.2
1980
Reagan
47.0
50.8
-3.8
Carter
44.0
41.0
+3.0
Anderson
8.0
6.6
+1.4
Other
1.0
1.6
-0.6
1976
Carter
48.0
50.1
-2.1
Ford
49.0
48.1
+0.9
McCarthy
2.0
0.9
+1.1
Other
1.0
0.9
+0.1
1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996 were not competitive elections. The Gallup poll was directly wrong in 1976. In 1980 there was a substantial deviation and in fact Gallup had Carter ahead 45-42 in its penultimate poll that year, taken after the final debate. In 2000, while Bush won the election, the Gore vote was significantly underestimated and in fact ended up with a higher percentage than Bush along the same lines as 1976. In 2004 while finding a dead heat among likely voters, the last Gallup poll found Kerry ahead 49-47 among registered voters and was wrong on both counts.. Bottom line, if Obama goes ahead substantially as in the non-competitive elections, so be it. But if the election is close we will all just have to wait and see.