The 2008 Presidential Campaign: What Happened and Why?

[Maria]

It's very, very close Ellie: 0.2% difference between Obama and McCain in Missouri, so they are taking their time about deciding if the numbers are right or not.


Edit: Our reputation as a castrated bell wearing sheep is at stake....

[Primula Baggins]

Hey, who says it's over?

North Carolina's finally been called for Obama (yay Wampus!), and though they're still counting, it appears that one of Nebraska's EVs, for Omaha, is likely to go to Obama as well. That would bring the final tally to 365-173 (Missouri has been called for McCain by many though not all maps, and I don't see any chance it will swing the other way).

That said, I do agree that discussion of the Obama presidency deserves a fresh thread. But there is already some good discussion of the transition and appointments going on in the Cabinet Appointments thread, and maybe that would be a logical one to continue as a discussion of his presidency.

In any case, I don't think we ought to start discussing it here. I am a horribly lazy shirriff and am so happy when I don't have to move posts around (those things are heavy, some of them!).

Edit: But I agree that post-campaign dissections fit here just fine.

[axordil]

Perhaps it should continue as long as it's productive, then, like an old milk cow.

[Primula Baggins]

Yep.

[sauronsfinger]

Statement from Harry Reid regarding Joseph Liebermann of Connecticut:

"Today Senator Lieberman and I had the first of what I expect to be several conversations. No decisions have been made. While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus. I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come, and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps."

So it looks like Lieberman is not being dispatched quickly or with any passion. I suspect the additional 3 Senate seats still up for grabs may determine what happens to Lieberman. I would not be at all surprised to see some arrangement worked out which strips Lieberman of his chairmanship, keeps him as a Democrat and treats him as a back-bencher in the caucus.

[Frelga]

It looked like Indiana got pushed over to Obama by the 1% of votes for Barr. Assuming, of course, that in absence of Barr this 1% would have voted for McCain, which is not necessarily a given. Indiana and North Carolina, IIRC.

[Maria]

Missouri had three 3rd party candidates, any one of which would have given Obama the edge over McCain, if they'd voted for him.

[Túrin Turambar]

David Leip has updated his U.S. Election Atlas with a 2008 page.

Holding your mouse over the swing button shows how the states moved from 2004, which is particularly interesting.

[halplm]

Statement from Harry Reid regarding Joseph Liebermann of Connecticut:

"Today Senator Lieberman and I had the first of what I expect to be several conversations. No decisions have been made. While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus. I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come, and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps."

So it looks like Lieberman is not being dispatched quickly or with any passion. I suspect the additional 3 Senate seats still up for grabs may determine what happens to Lieberman. I would not be at all surprised to see some arrangement worked out which strips Lieberman of his chairmanship, keeps him as a Democrat and treats him as a back-bencher in the caucus.

In other words, if you you go against Obama, you get pushed down to the lowest levels.

The decision has been made, they're just trying to make it look good. Lieberman is done.

If there's another outcome, I'll be impressed, and won't be quite as doom and gloom. I think the chances of that are about... 1%

[River]

Huh? I'm not following.

[JewelSong]

Didn't Lieberman more or less defect?

Why should the Dems (or Obama) trust him to be loyal to the ideals and programs of the new administration.

Hal, I'd love to see you less gloom and doom about almost anything..and not automatically assume the worst of people in every situation.

[Ellienor]

The man attacked Obama in a speech at the RNC convention. Apparently the Dems tolerated his support of McCain before, but the speech at the RNC convention was a bit too much "in your face."

Obama's complete lack of any rhetoric regarding a "Democratic" mandate (in his speech, he called again for everyone to work together, and specifically reached out to those that didn't vote for him) is the only thing saving Lieberman's rear now. To kick him out would look churlish in the face of Obama's position on bipartisanship and inclusiveness.

This is not my original thought, I read it somewhere (Politico, maybe?)

[Túrin Turambar]

Didn't Lieberman more or less defect?

Why should the Dems (or Obama) trust him to be loyal to the ideals and programs of the new administration.

Because he's consistently voted with the Democrats, even after he lost the nomination for his Senate seat? This whole 'let's boot Liberman now that we have the majority' attitude smacks too much to me of Bush's 'either you're with us or against us'.

[Túrin Turambar]

Something which has slipped under the radar, but which I find interesting, is by how much some of the safe Republican states in the west and Midwest shifted. The 8% swing in Nevada was visible because Obama easily won the state. But Nebraska also swung by about that much. Idaho and South Dakota swung from Republican to Democratic by some 7%. North Dakota, Montana and Utah swung by almost 9%. Kansas moved by about 6%, still above the national average swing. It could be the start of a trend, similar to the break-up of the Democratic south in the 60s and 70s.

[JewelSong]

Didn't Lieberman more or less defect?

Why should the Dems (or Obama) trust him to be loyal to the ideals and programs of the new administration.

Because he's consistently voted with the Democrats, even after he lost the nomination for his Senate seat? This whole 'let's boot Liberman now that we have the majority' attitude smacks too much to me of Bush's 'either you're with us or against us'.

Hm. I had a different impression, L_M...more like what Ellienor said above. I had the distinct impression that Lieberman was noticeably moving towards the Republican "side" and was, in fact, on the short list of McCain's picks for VP.

I'll have to look up that speech he gave at the RNC.

[Túrin Turambar]

Didn't Lieberman more or less defect?

Why should the Dems (or Obama) trust him to be loyal to the ideals and programs of the new administration.

Because he's consistently voted with the Democrats, even after he lost the nomination for his Senate seat? This whole 'let's boot Liberman now that we have the majority' attitude smacks too much to me of Bush's 'either you're with us or against us'.

Hm. I had a different impression, L_M...more like what Ellienor said above. I had the distinct impression that Lieberman was noticeably moving towards the Republican "side" and was, in fact, on the short list of McCain's picks for VP.

I'll have to look up that speech he gave at the RNC.

All those things are true, but he still votes more Democratic than Republican. It's largely his pro-Iraq War position that associates him with the Republicans (and McCain in particular).

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Lalli, you asked a while back why the non citizens take their opinions of Obama and the Bush presidency so you can inform your friends.
First of all, bear in mind that I approach this from the left but I have heard plenty of conservative voices in my country echo my opinions.
These were my own observations:
Bush cowered in hiding after 9/11. Getting him to a safe place was sensible. Disappearing from contact with his own people was a disgrace. A British leader would not have lasted the week after that.
His cowboy justice remarks praising the memory of lynch law.
Guantanamo. I heard him respond to a journalist saying aloud, do not worry about the people in Guantanamo, they are all bad people. A ruler who decides who is bad and should be imprisoned indefinitely is a despot.
Abu Ghraib. There was clear evidence that the techniques of torture and humiliation were imported with sanction from above.
Katrina. Is New Orleans rebuilt yet?

Now for Obama. I can't speak for others feelings about him though informed or not the whole of Britain is enthused by him. My very first opinion of him was very similar to my first opinion of Palin. He appeared personable and people had spoken good things of him but his words such as I had read seem waffly platitudes. Then I learnt he had background in Illinois and the Senate much as Palin had background in Alaska and I became more confident. Then I saw his campaign and became convinced, much as I saw Palin's campaign and became appalled. He took on the Clinton machine with intelligence, style and kept his political honour. He built up a vast army of volunteers and used them efficiently then went on to do the same against McCain. He tackled the Wright attacks by giving a mature discourse on race. Everything I saw of him just added to my respect for him. I had become dispirited by the previous choices of Presidents who were quite frankly dumb. I had enough of that at home with John Major.
About the race thing; for me it's icing on the cake. Yov was right way back when when he said it would seem strange for a week then not seem strange any more. Obama just seems to have so much class. Were he here in our political establishment he would rise to the top too.

Anyway, that's one doggurned foreigner's opinion.

[sauronsfinger]

One of the things that holds a part together and permits them to deliver most of their members for key votes is party discipline. It is also probably the one thing that average citizens either object to or do not understand. Regardless of how you feel about it, both parties use it and cherish it as a device - weapon if you want to use that word - to preserve whatever power and clout they have when it comes to Congress.

To say that Joe Lieberman is being purged because he supported John McCain and not Barack Obama is only a small part of the story. To use that as the excuse shows how little some folks really understand about the political process and how the system really works.

Lieberman started the process of breaking from the Democrats himself when he ran as a Democrat in his states primary two years ago and lost the Democration nomination. His next step was to turn his back on the rightful Democratic nominee and run as an Independent. In previous years, when he won the party nomination, he fully expected the losing opponents to step aside and support him. But now, he changed the rules in the middle of the game, got a new ball, and turned his back on the party which had supported him for his career. He won the general election and his seat in the Senate. That was Strike One.

When he got back to the Senate he caucused and organized with the Democrats and generally supported them with the exception of the war in Iraq. That would have been fine and without any sanctions. Senators deviate from party of major issues and its no historic development. A senator is free to vote any way they want to vote.

Step Two was supporting John McCain for the Presidency.

Step Three was his major speech at the Republican Convention.

Step Four was being joined at the hip to McCain on the campaign trail and acting as the Official Whisperer In His Ear correcting McCain in several embarassing gaffes before the cameras. Democrats felt that McCain would have suffered much more public damage from those gaffes had Lieberman not been there to quickly correct them.

Step Five was Lieberman campaigning for down ticket Republicans other than McCain. Its one thing to say 'I am supporting this Republican candidate for President out of conscience because of the war'. Its quite another to say 'vote for Harry Nickels for County Drain Commissioner because he is a Republican'. That really ticked off the Democrats.

This is not about opposing Barack Obama. This is about enforcing party discipline - something which both parties do as a matter of course.

[JewelSong]

Is there really an office of "County Drain Commissioner?"

[tinwë]

I believe the County Drain Commissioner is responsible for flushing our tax dollars down the toilet.

Now, on to much more important things: the selection of the First Dog. In his acceptance speech Obama promised his daughters that they would be getting a new puppy when they moved into the White House. There has been much speculation as to what type of dog they will, or should get. It thrills me to no end, and just increases my respect for the Obama family, that they seem to be leaning toward a pound puppy:

Obama girls to get a puppy