Welcome, Guest!
News analysis: Dear John McCain, yes you can!
Published: Monday, October 13, 2008 - 9:41am
FIRST OF ALL, I'd like to praise Isaac Chambers for his insightful analysis of the state of the election. He made several excellent points, and I won't argue with the idea that an Obama victory seems more and more certain with each passing day.
But what I didn't pick up from Isaac's article was the fact that for McCain, there still remain several feasible paths to victory.
For two weeks after the Republican National Convention, McCain held a solid lead over Obama. And then came news of Lehman Brothers' failure, followed by an avalanche of further financial turmoil.
Such bad news, I read, was the reason for a steady shift away from McCain and toward Obama. From mid-September onwards, Obama has been rising in the polls like there's no tomorrow.
The economic crisis isn't going away for a while. But surely we can't come home every night to worsening news. The Dow can't drop a thousand more points every day.
On the contrary, we're already seeing headlines like "Global stocks: A good start" and "Gas prices drop at record pace, downward trend expected to continue." (By the way, gas is now below $3 a gallon at local stations.)
So while full economic recovery will take time, will signs of improvement help McCain in the coming weeks? I would think so. Even if not, however, McCain could still best Obama on Nov. 4.
McCain's supporters are angry at the prospects of a loss on Election Day. They want McCain to be more aggressive, and McCain has promised to do just that. Earlier on Sunday, he assured supporters that he would "whip (Obama's) you-know-what" at the final debate on Wednesday. McCain lost the previous two debates, but that doesn't mean he can't win the third.
In the minds of voters, questions about Obama's judgment still linger. Earlier in the year, support for Obama waned a little when voters learned about his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. McCain needs to emphasize and call into question this and other dubious past associations of Obama.
McCain should also highlight how he's not Bush, and how he won't continue to drive the country on the wrong track. I noticed that he did this in the last debate, and I think he needs to do it more.
McCain needs clarify why his economic plan will bring about more prosperity. Obama's been hitting McCain hard on tax policy, so I think that more aggressiveness on McCain's part is needed.
If Obama mentions how his plan will give 95 percent of families a tax cut, McCain should note that his proposal would cut taxes for 100 percent of families. McCain should note that the leftover 5 percent in Obama's plan represents tens of millions of people, not just Fortune 500 CEOs.
McCain should mention that his planned cut doesn't leave out the middle class — that his proposed cut for the middle class is very similar to what Obama has planned. McCain should say that his tax cuts coupled with responsible government spending is a better solution than Obama's proposed tax increases.
We could host an entire debate on tax policies alone, but the point is if McCain is more aggressive on this issue, he could easily draw more voters.
In Isaac's post, he cited a lot of poll numbers, Electoral College estimates, and win probabilities. I can't say it any better than this Salon.com author who wrote: "What polling mavens too often forget is that an election is not a computer simulation or a contest decided by the best use of regression analyses in analyzing published data. As a one-time event, all that is required is for a winning candidate to get lucky, very lucky, on Election Day."
One day before the 2004 election, this prediction site estimated Kerry up with 298 electoral votes. Remember, this is a site which uses the latest state polling data, and this was its prediction a single day before the real thing.
It's been said that a week is like a year in politics. Even a day could be a long time.
An earlier version of this column was published as an entry in the OG Staff Blog.
Comments
I admitted that poll numbers
I admitted that poll numbers don't determine the election, they merely track the election. Here's a bit of context from John Harwood at the New York Times:
So 1/18 is 5.56%, almost identical to the 6.2% likelihood projected by FiveThirtyEight's model.
In the projection from 2004 you mentioned, Kerry only wins by a slim margin where the tipping point was just one or two states. In this election, the tipping point for Obama could be any of eight states, making an Obama win that much more likely. The more ways to win, the easier it is to win.
Onto policy, although McCain cuts INCOME tax across the board, McCain's tax plan would actually be an overall tax HIKE on middle class families do to his taxes on health benefits, not to mention that people would be paying more for healthcare under McCain's healthcare plan than Obama's.
It's too late for McCain to distinguish himself from Bush and have it work because that's what he's been trying to do this entire election. That's what every republican has been trying to do this election. McCain named himself the "Maverick" to address this, but the fact remains: McCain supported Bush's policies virtually all of the time. In addition, McCain and Palin's repetitiveness with the word Maverick backfired as it's been ridiculed so much.
The economic crisis isn't even showing signs of getting better. U.S. stocks continue to plummet and home foreclosures hasn't been frozen yet. An economic crisis doesn't heal after two weeks of politicians talking about it. It takes months, even years to heal. The narrative of the election will continue to be about the economy. Also, everybody know gas prices would plummet before the election– that's what always happens.
McCain has been questioning Obama's judgment and painting him as a dangerous friend-of-terrorists. But people are growing accustom to the idea of Barack Obama has president. Seeing him in the debate, he looks calm, composed, and presidential. There will continue to be angry people calling Obama an arab at McCain rallies, but these people represent the extreme. The majority of Americans just want to have job security, healthcare, and a way to pay the bills and stay afloat.
Factual points
On taxes
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc...
"The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill"
On healthcare
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/09/eveningnews/main4512490.shtml
"McCain's approach is all about driving down costs to make it more affordable. ... as insurance companies vie for their piece of the tax credit money, cheaper health insurance options would be created."
http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/09/health-care-hyperbole/
"And for a family with a $12,106 annual plan - the average cost of an employer-sponsored plan in 2007, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation - the tax credit is big enough to cover the cost of those taxes, no matter what tax bracket they’re in."
On maverick/non-Bushness
Bush's approval rating is around 25 percent. Support for McCain is around 40-some percent with "favorable" ratings even higher. Even voters who do not support McCain are aware that McCain is not Bush. The repetition of "maverick" is no less ridiculous than Obama's penchant for "hope" and "change."
On economic recovery
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postve...
"Stocks score big -- Dow jumps over 450 points as investors bet the worst is over."
Factual Points II
On taxes
The source you provided self-admittedly only looks at income taxes, not overall taxes.
On healthcare
McCain's plan still doesn't protect people from being denied for pre-existing conditions. In addition, McCain pays for the $5000 tax credit by taxing health benefits and also taxing businesses.
On maverickness
You can't compare approval ratings because Bush is not running a campaign, and he also has higher expectations as the President. Regardless, my point was that McCain's "maverick" slogan was an attempt to distance himself from Bush and it didn't work. Obama's "change" slogan is seen to have more merit than McCain's "maverick" slogan because polling shows people think Obama is more likely to bring about change in Washington.
On economic recovery
That article is referring only to the credit crisis, which is only one part of the economic crisis. Regardless, it's still a very real fear that the U.S. is heading for a depression, and that's not going to change in the next few weeks. The stock market is still down almost 40% from last year. Also keep in mind that the stock market is only one barometer of the economy's health.
I don't think so...
Taxes: The article never said that. The article is talking about taxes overall. Under McCain, everyone would get a cut; everyone would see their after-tax incomes rise. When all is said and done, the middle class will pay less, not more, in taxes.
Healthcare: McCain will take steps to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions aren't left without affordable care. McCain's plan itself would also improve the quality of healthcare and reduce costs for all Americans, with or without pre-existing conditions.
The FactCheck article I linked to says "McCain’s plan doesn’t call for taking away the tax deduction for employers." Regarding taxing benefits, the same article says "the ($5000) tax credit is big enough to cover the cost of those taxes." It's only not big enough for people with very extravagant plans.
Maverickness: Why can't I compare the two ratings? McCain's running for President and voters hold him to that same high standard. McCain's seen as favorable by 51% of voters -- would all those people consider him favorable if they saw him as another Bush? I think the "maverick" label has played a crucial role in distancing McCain from Bush. And I believe that McCain has indeed successfully distanced himself.
Economic recovery: Sure the stock market is only one measure, but it's one very crucial measure, and the sharp rise in stocks today is certainly good news because it's an indication that people are confident about improvement.
Did you not read the end of
Did you not read the end of the article?
From that you can conclude:
And finally about healthcare:
You said McCain's healthcare plan makes healthcare affordable for those with pre-existing conditions. Affordability is not the issue– virtually all healthcare companies do not cover pre-existing conditions and will actually DENY you coverage for pre-existing conditions, however minor. In addition, the $5000 tax credit does not address the fact that health care companies can still drive up prices and make decisions that aren't in the best interest of the client's health. If the U.S. government provides a low-cost option available to everybody, that offers competition for the other healthcare companies to lower premiums and insure people or they will simply loose business.
The CNNMoney article was
The CNNMoney article was published in June. The FactCheck article was published in September. The FactCheck article concluded that McCain's health care plan won't impact taxes except for those with elite plans.
And it's primarily spending increases, not the Bush tax cuts, that created the current deficit. McCain has vigorously emphasized that he'll eliminate irresponsible spending. Obama's tax strategy calls for squeezing hard-earned money out of the hands of responsible American entrepreneurs who create jobs and are the driving force of our economy. Believe it or not, despite all the corruption and greed you hear about these days, most businesspeople are honest and worked hard to earn their money.
McCain's free-market approach to healthcare will, in fact, prompt companies to reduce their prices, offer better quality care, and as a result offer plans that are in the American people's best interests. McCain said he'll work to ensure that the pre-existing conditions issue is sorted out so that people with those issues can still readily get care.
I hate the idea of the
I hate the idea of the government taking over healthcare, much as it seems necessary with the way things are now. But look at the state of Illinois, we can't even pass a budget. So, having a "low-cost option available to everybody" sounds good on paper, but I for one would be worried about the cost and implementation. I know this is a federal thing, not state, my point is I have low trust in the government's ability to handle money in general, until someone comes along and proves otherwise.
My thoughts
-Polling data is great for showing who America thinks the best candidate is. But it doesn't really affect how I feel about either candidate. I don't care who the polls say will win. I care about who should win.
-I like Obama's economic plan better than McCain's. Given the fact that the majority of Americans seem to agree with me, the economic crisis helped Obama in the polls, as the economy becomes a more and more important issue.
-Using the first link of Jason's comment, the cutoff for who has the best tax policy is $112K. Everyone making more than that would see fewer taxes from McCain, and everyone making less than that would see fewer taxes than Obama. Without any citations, I'm pretty sure most Americans make less than $112K. Does anyone know where small business owners fall in terms of income?
-John McCain is not George W. Bush. If there's anything I've disliked about Obama's campaign, its been how he incessantly gets people to think McCain is just four more years of the last eight years. I still think Obama is the better of the two candidates, but McCain would not be as bad for our country as Bush in general.
-Stop the negative campaigning. Please. I'm getting sick of hearing the candidates linked to bad people, accurately or not. Both candidates don't have spotless records, and one showing the other has interacted with bad people doesn't show one is the better candidate. I want to support the best candidate, not the least bad candidate.
-Both Obama and McCain would bring change to the White House. I happen to like Obama's changes more.
Small businesses
This survey of small business owners asked, "Do you think the business you own or operate will do better under a McCain administration or under an Obama administration?"
The result: McCain, by a 12 percentage point margin.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fsb/0809/gallery.smallbiz_zogby_elec...
Income of owners
That's a helpful stat, but does anyone know a range of how much money small business owners make per year? That would really help in terms of the "small business" argument.
I don't know. The range
I don't know. The range might be too large to be useful. In any case, here are two articles I found about Obama's tax hikes on small businesses.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html
"Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America. ... The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. ... A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_592736.html
"In the small business sector, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center reports that 'several hundred thousand small business owners' have incomes high enough to be hit by Obama's proposed tax hikes on income, capital gains and dividends.
Most of the entrepreneurial income in these more successful small businesses would be taxed away under Obama's plan, with the top federal grab of income rising to over 50 percent, totaling his proposed increase in the marginal income tax rate, Medicare and Social Security taxes, and the phase out of exemptions."
Obama is a genius though.
Obama is a genius though. His tax strategy is masterful. The way that he wants to create a large population of people do not pay income taxes and get handouts to build a core population that advocates higher taxes (because they don't pay them) and bigger government( because the government gives them money) is genius. And raising the capital gains tax sounds positively awesome. The problem is that this sucks and John McCain or anyone inside the government cannot fix this. In other words, a suggestion to the government: "Leave me the expletive alone."
What I mean by this sucks is
What I mean by this sucks is that Obama and McCain to a lesser extent still pretty bad tax policies increase the size of government which subsequently costs Americans liberties.
Jason, despite my own
Jason, despite my own personal opinions, I would like to give you props for writing a column that doesn't necessarily reflect the majority view. Way to put up a fight =]
I second this.
I second this.
(Or, majority view at Uni
(Or, majority view at Uni High)
Post new comment