The GOP October Surprise?

[RedImperator]

While I'm sure that the Palin wedding will take place late in October, I'm willing to bet that the Republicans have more up their sleeve. They might have some dirt on Obama that they haven't released yet, but more than likely they have something going on with Iran, too. The current administration will probably release some wild-eyed intelligence report of Iran making suitcase nukes or invading Israel or something else to terrify the populace; McCain's two (supposed) advantages over Obama are his foreign policy experience and his aggressiveness, and I'm sure that the republicans will find some sort of menace to trump up to scare Americans into voting for Big Mean Grampy McSame to same them.

Also, I expect gas prices to continue to drop right up to November 5th.

That's what everyone (including Karl Rove) said in the leadup to the 2006 midterms. Other than Mark Foley's perv IMs, what October surprise was there? Same goes for this year. The administration doesn't have the credibility to release a wild-eyed intelligence assessment about Iran or anywhere else. If there's any dirt left in Obama's past that the Clintons didn't dig up, it's pretty well and thoroughly buried. For Sherman to capture Atlanta, he has to be in Georgia first.

Of course, you can never completely rule out something unexpected happening, but that goes equal for both sides. The "October surprise" could just as easily be the Dow dropping 1000 points or another investment bank blowing up as an Israeli military strike on Iran or a new Bin Laden video (not that I think the latter would help McSame much).

[RedImperator]

Does every thread about the election have to contain post after post of people harping in on the stupidity of the American electorate? It's getting really old.

We'll stop talking about it as soon as people stop forgetting about it.

If the only contribution someone has is "hurf hurf hurf, Murricans r teh stoopidz", then it's spam. That's not an analysis, that's parroting the board consensus.

[Durandal]

Of course, you can never completely rule out something unexpected happening, but that goes equal for both sides. The "October surprise" could just as easily be the Dow dropping 1000 points or another investment bank blowing up as an Israeli military strike on Iran or a new Bin Laden video (not that I think the latter would help McSame much).

Or it could be records of McCain checking into Gamblers Anonymous.

[Coyote]

I thought it'd be the use of the US Army 1st Division for internal police duties, but I suppose the shameless exploitation of an 17-year-old girl's shattered life in the name of "family values" can also work.

[Yogi]

If the only contribution someone has is "hurf hurf hurf, Murricans r teh stoopidz", then it's spam. That's not an analysis, that's parroting the board consensus.

It's never spam to correct someone else's mistake. If someone says that "Turbolasers can't penetrate navigation shields . . . because they're LASERS." they will be corrected even if the person doing the correcting is just "parroting board consensus."

[RedImperator]

If the only contribution someone has is "hurf hurf hurf, Murricans r teh stoopidz", then it's spam. That's not an analysis, that's parroting the board consensus.

It's never spam to correct someone else's mistake. If someone says that "Turbolasers can't penetrate navigation shields . . . because they're LASERS." they will be corrected even if the person doing the correcting is just "parroting board consensus."

Wrong. If someone replied to your example by saying "Yes they can!", that's worthless, and that's what "hurf hurf stoopid Murricans" replies amount to.

Look, this isn't difficult. Everywhere else on the board, people are expected to provide evidence for their claims. If someone says "Turbolasers can't penetrate navigation shields . . . because they're LASERS," the correct response is, "Yes, they can, because 1) they don't behave like real lasers, and 2) lasers have canonically penetrated Trek shields." Likewise, if someone says in a political thread, "That will never fool the voters," the reply is "Yes it will. [relevant example] worked in 2004, and this is no different," or "Yes it will, because this is exactly the same tactic X used in 1996", or whatever.

This isn't up for debate. From now on, "hurf hurf" posts will be split and dumped, or just deleted outright. If you can't be bothered to post anything besides a no-evidence one-liner, you can go post somewhere else.

[Patrick Degan]

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

Who the fuck do these guys think they're kidding? Why should the rest of America care two shits about Vice Presidential Barbie's knocked-up little trailer-trash daughter getting to the church on time? What would make this some big news event that would draw every camera to it? The networks are going to pre-empt their regular programming to air Bristol's wedding? Is Fox going to interrupt it's LCS or World Series coverage for the wedding? Is CBS going to cut away from The Price Is Right and it's afternoon soap lineup for it? Do they really think some podunk trailer-trash shotgun hitching is at the same level as the marriage of Charles & Di that "the entire country would be watching"?! Last I checked, celebrity weddings of people the country actually does care about haven't exactly been put up as Must See TV. If we're not getting the latest weddings of Brittany or Paris live even on E!, what makes anybody in the Gimp's campaign believe their own bullshit about how "the whole country will be watching"?

Are these people at all connected to the real world anymore? I don't see even FoxNoise making a big deal out of this. At most it will get a footnote on the news shows, maybe a picture or two, and a column in the newspapers. Like any celebrity wedding. And the balance of the country will simply notice it for a second, then forget about it altogether the next second.

The people at Gimp HQ are on drugs if they really think this wedding is going to make a difference in anything or that it will even be noticed.

[CmdrWilkens]

The thing is this would work, a little, IF the McCain camp hadn't already worn out any patience the media had with his stunts. IF they were still in close striking range and IF it didnt' fall right into the middle of either major sproting news or the resumption of Fall TV after the end fo Baseball. Simply put October is already packed to the gills what with 3 more debtes, the NLDS, ALDS, NLCS, ALCS, Weeks 5-9 of the NFL, Weeks 6-10 of College Football and oh yeah a huge continuing crisis on the economy.

Simply put there is too much other shit already going on to distract the US from something which is an obviousl stunt for likability purposes. Sure the media will cove it (since it does involve the family of a suddenly prominent politican) but it will be AT BEST a 1 day news cycle to be replaced with whatever happens on the football field Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

Also consider who this stunt would appeal to: the low-information voter who decides on likability alone. They've already watched Palin get riddiculed on SNL two weeks runnign and probably will see it again before this. In between they've got the end of the NASCAR and Baseball seasons combined with football which now consumes Thursday night (college) Saturday (college) Sunday (Pro) and Monday (Pro). For such a voter there is simply too much else that will be tlaked about over the water cooler, too much else to think about with buddies and girlfriends for this to have more than the tiniest impact.

Moreover unless Palin is a true dick she will probably go with a Fri or Sat wedding which means they don't even get to cpature a big news cycle when and if they capture one. If you want to shift the campaign you need to do something on Tuesday or Wednesday, early enoguh int he week to grab attention but not so early as to lose everyone before the end of the week.

[Patrick Degan]

The thing is this would work, a little, IF the McCain camp hadn't already worn out any patience the media had with his stunts. IF they were still in close striking range and IF it didnt' fall right into the middle of either major sproting news or the resumption of Fall TV after the end fo Baseball. Simply put October is already packed to the gills what with 3 more debtes, the NLDS, ALDS, NLCS, ALCS, Weeks 5-9 of the NFL, Weeks 6-10 of College Football and oh yeah a huge continuing crisis on the economy.

Simply put there is too much other shit already going on to distract the US from something which is an obviousl stunt for likability purposes. Sure the media will cove it (since it does involve the family of a suddenly prominent politican) but it will be AT BEST a 1 day news cycle to be replaced with whatever happens on the football field Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

Also consider who this stunt would appeal to: the low-information voter who decides on likability alone. They've already watched Palin get riddiculed on SNL two weeks runnign and probably will see it again before this. In between they've got the end of the NASCAR and Baseball seasons combined with football which now consumes Thursday night (college) Saturday (college) Sunday (Pro) and Monday (Pro). For such a voter there is simply too much else that will be tlaked about over the water cooler, too much else to think about with buddies and girlfriends for this to have more than the tiniest impact.

Moreover unless Palin is a true dick she will probably go with a Fri or Sat wedding which means they don't even get to cpature a big news cycle when and if they capture one. If you want to shift the campaign you need to do something on Tuesday or Wednesday, early enoguh int he week to grab attention but not so early as to lose everyone before the end of the week.

I don't even see this having any effect under the best of conditions. If the Gimp/Barbie ticket was in the lead or even in close striking distance, the "wedding of the century" or whatever these deluded freaks believe it to be would make no material difference to the outcome of the race. As it is, the GOP campaign is struggling against its own ineptitude and a PR stunt isn't going to be enough to pull it out of what increasingly is looking like a death-spiral. And as you point out, the networks' lineups are already full and, despite how Big Media seem to want to fellate the GOP at every opportunity, business is business. None of them would sacrifice guaranteed revenue during a critical ratings period to devote airtime to a hillybilly-royal wedding.

A footnote on the news, a picture or two, and a column in the newspapers is all this piece of trivia would get even under the best conditions. Under present conditions, only those already inclined to vote fascist are even going to give a crap for more than a second. No way it would be getting major TV coverage or halting the campaign for a week either way.

[Gerald Tarrant]

This doesn't strike me as any sort of credible vote getter, or even big enough to sway that many people, although a few undecideds may make switches in their positions over it.

The real October surprise happened a bit early, and is the ongoing Wall-Street Meltdown. How that reflects on the Democrats depends on how well McCain can spin together some diverse facts to form the proper narrative. To wit:

• Charles Rangel's financial irregularities are becoming news, and won't reflect well on the party.
  
  More Topical to the current mess are the long-standing Democratic support for Fannie and Freddie, opposition to oversight and reform of same, and use of C.R.A. to amp up the mortgage market.
  
  Also quite a few Democrats have received big campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie.
  
  Senator Dodd and Representative Frank have both played large rolls in protecting the GSE's in the past, and they're now getting some decent air-time in conjunction with the current mess.
  
  Senator Obama is unfortunately not immune from this either, Franklin Raines and James Johnson have both been linked tenuously with Senator Obama's campaign. [side note] This is all normal politics, the Republicans had their K-Street project when they were in the majority, they'd doubtless have their own web of illicit connections if they were still in the majority, and their failure to properly regulate doesn't speak well to their brand. McCain is mostly immune from that Republican failing though, as he is on record for trying to institute reform's on the GSE's in the past.[/side note]

Which leads to what Senator McCain will need to do; tie Senator Obama to the financial chicanery that Democrats have perpetrated, point out Senator Obama's "worrisome connections" cue ominous music and plant an argument that many of these market interventions worsened the current crisis. He'll also need to have some reasonable sounding answer to the critique that de-regulation is also at fault. Who gets the lion's share of the blame for this mess should determine the outcome.

[Durandal]

The Republicans missed their chance to deflect blame away from deregulation. The Democrats, insanely enough, managed to wage a very good, coordinated campaign to get the message out that deregulation was responsible for this mess. I haven't seen any Republicans willing to stand up and seriously challenge it, either. Only the die-hards are still shouting about how they didn't do deregulation right or that the obvious solution was more deregulation.

[Gerald Tarrant]

There are two more upcoming debates, I believe one of which is supposed to be focused on economics. I can't think of a better way to inject this into the Presidential campaign than at that debate. But absent that, all that needs to be done is find the appropriate speeches on C-Spann, or in the congressional record, and find some damning quotes (they can't be out of context or it spoils the argument) of Democrats politicking on behalf of the GSE's and to protect CRA, etc. It will be very bad for the brand when after one of those commercials playing in prime-time the night before, your average American wakes up and reads the morning headlines, about the ongoing results.

[Durandal]

There are two more upcoming debates, I believe one of which is supposed to be focused on economics. I can't think of a better way to inject this into the Presidential campaign than at that debate. But absent that, all that needs to be done is find the appropriate speeches on C-Spann, or in the congressional record, and find some damning quotes (they can't be out of context or it spoils the argument) of Democrats politicking on behalf of the GSE's and to protect CRA, etc. It will be very bad for the brand when after one of those commercials playing in prime-time the night before, your average American wakes up and reads the morning headlines, about the ongoing results.

True, but McCain's weak spot is economic issues. With Obama there to hit him back on anything involving the virtues of deregulation, I doubt he'll be winning any new free-market converts. All Obama has to do is say, "Who are you gonna believe? John McCain, or your lying eyes?"

[Eframepilot]

The Republicans missed their chance to deflect blame away from deregulation. The Democrats, insanely enough, managed to wage a very good, coordinated campaign to get the message out that deregulation was responsible for this mess. I haven't seen any Republicans willing to stand up and seriously challenge it, either. Only the die-hards are still shouting about how they didn't do deregulation right or that the obvious solution was more deregulation.

The intelligent Republicans (both of them) recognize that deregulation really was a major factor in the crisis and that blaming the Democrats for making Fannie and Freddie give loans to poor minorities was not a major factor at all. Only the die-hards are stupid enough to not see how totally wrong their argument is; also, blaming the poor and minorities would probably not go over well with the electorate.

The Democrats really are handling this extremely well; the only thing they could be doing better is creating their own alternative rescue plan that doesn't involve buying all the bad securities, but I'm skeptical that any such plan would actually be better than the bailout (though the bailout certainly has enormous flaws).

[Gerald Tarrant]

The narrative that McCain would be pushing (if he made this an issue) is the same one I've been reading in a few Op-Eds. I'm not going to argue the point, I'm just going to lay out the case as I've heard it.

The sub-prime problem is largely a result of government intervention. The Community Reinvestment act, amended by Clinton dinged banks that didn't have sufficiently "diverse" portfolios, demographics being what they are many minorities found themselves with weaker credit ratings. Freddie and Fannie have themselves bought up large amounts of Sub-Prime papers (that's their mandate after all, make sure everyone owns a house), pulling these off the market increased the value of the remaining sub-prime (standard supply demand, shtick.)

The housing boom is a result of the unprecedented growth in demand for homes, fueled by government support for programs to expand home ownership. This gives you the housing bubble, which made the subprime mess so pernicious. In a "properly" priced mortgage, the loan is backed by an asset, which has a value based in reality, but with the housing bubble, the asset price was inflated, meaning the collateral is some fraction (I've heard ~70% on average, but I don't really know) of the stated value; meaning banks take a loss on foreclosure, and an asset value loss.

That's the case as I've heard it laid out. If the above is true, there are still some failings of the free-market. Specifically the Mortgage Backed Securities are opaque financial instruments. This isn't a bug but a feature, most issuing institutions probably recognized that too much Sub-Prime was toxic, so they hid the actual rating by repackaging the debt. That's what makes MBS's unsaleable now, no one really knows how much of each paper is backed by garbage, and how much is backed by Prime. This is a clear regulatory failure. What's not so clear, and what Senator McCain would probably argue (if he chose to hammer this point) is that the responsibility lies with those who ultimately drove the subprime frenzy in the first place; and if he adopts the above narrative, he will claim it was government intervention.

[tangential issue]There's a further point that I've only heard in a few places, and this is about the worst housing readjustments being in Democratic states or cities. It's only tangential, but most building restrictions occur in Democratically controlled locales, mostly freezing supply means that ceteris paribus you see higher price increases than a non-frozen supply situation. It shouldn't really be an issue for a national election, but I've heard it come up. I haven't studied it, so it could be bunk[/tangential issue]

[Edi]

Placing the blame on the Clinton admin and the CRA is of the same caliber of lies as the media causing the US to lose the Vietnam war, Iraq being capable of striking anywhere in the West in 45 minutes etc. It is a blatant attempt to spin all of the blame on liberals when it was in fact Phil Gramm's deregulation scheme that was enacted at the end of 1999 or in 2000 and which allowed all of the shit that is now coming home to roost.

Given how much of the media is in right wing hands and taking directions from its paymasters (especially in the op-ed section), it is no surprise that this lie is being spread. IF Obama wins the presidency, then in a couple of years we'll be hearing how all of this shit was his fault, mark my words.

[ray245]

I don't think that any suprise can upset an Obama's victory. The reasoning behind it is due to the economic troubles.

People just want their economy to be fixed over other details, and Obama has shown that he is able to fix the economy.

[Gandalf]

If footage of Bristol with her mother doing wedding things can appear on the media, that would help a lot with her questionable image. Every time there's a story on Palin, we'd be treated to footage of her helping her daughter with wedding flowers or something.

She can push the "loving mother" persona, which could appeal to the family values voters that helped re-elect Bush.

[Eframepilot]

If footage of Bristol with her mother doing wedding things can appear on the media, that would help a lot with her questionable image. Every time there's a story on Palin, we'd be treated to footage of her helping her daughter with wedding flowers or something.

She can push the "loving mother" persona, which could appeal to the family values voters that helped re-elect Bush.

But she already has those voters. It's the ones who are skeptical of her who would be pushed away by such a cheap, obvious political stunt.

I was actually worried that McCain's dumbass "suspension" of his campaign and rush to Washington would fool voters, but marvelously they saw through it and he fell in the polls. The American voters are not quite as stupid as we think of them. Also, his campaign has been one cheap stunt after another, and both the media and the electorate seem to be sick of them. A shotgun wedding would bring scorn.

[RedImperator]

Senator Obama is unfortunately not immune from this either, Franklin Raines and James Johnson have both been linked tenuously with Senator Obama's campaign.

McCain has about 15,000 very good reasons not to bring up campaign staffers with ties to Fannie and Freddy.