The STL Debate Night Experience

A friend and I (Craig here) decided to venture down to Washington University to soak in the atmosphere surrounding Sunday night's presidential debate. While there was no way for a regular Joe like me to get into the debate, or even near it, I figured there would be enough activity on campus to make the trip worthwhile.

Before I headed out, I made a map in order to orient myself and find the festivities:

The roads highlighted in yellow were closed down, and I denoted the Uber dropoff point (top center) and the locations of the media sets (in the green areas).

Upon arriving, I first encountered the C-Span bus, the Fox News set, and the MSNBC set.

The CNN set was off by itself on the other side of the library.

The Fox News set was the only one that was set up for an audience to watch the debate. It had chairs, a large elevated TV screen, freebies, and ice cream. Here's a news story on the debate-watching crowd.

 Anderson Cooper on the big screen

A T-shirt, pin, and magnet

Here are some of the characters and sights I encountered:

 

This was at the MSNBC set, of course.

 

Not sure what this is about.

There was a line at the Trump cutout, but not for Hillary.

Chris Matthews

There wasn't a huge crowd out and about during the debate, though a lot of students and signs were present during the weekend's pre-debate coverage. Maybe I will check that out next time (Wash U hosts lots of debates). Beyond the group at Fox News, there were only about a dozen people watching at MSNBC and 2-3 dozen at CNN. I think most students joined the rest of America and went back home to drink during the debate. About an hour into it, I took another lap around campus to see what was happening, and then left a bit before the verbal duel ended. Therefore, I did not get to hear the crowd react to the Ken Bone moment.

In all, it was a fun night. I like to involve myself in events like this in whatever way I can, as long as I don't have to fight a crowd or wait in a long line (it was for the latter reason that I did not attend the Trump rally here in March).

Election Optimism/Pessimism

As you can imagine, this blog will be voting, and pulling, for Mitt Romney tomorrow. As we head into election day, I really don't know how to feel. I have reasons for strong optimism, and reasons for dark pessimism. Let me recount some of these reasons.

The Negatives

• The polls are a bit on the negative side in all the wrong states.
• Nate Silver's site (*shakes fist)

These negatives are data-based so, while I only listed two bullet points, they are significant. My positives are more intangible, but there are more of them:

The Positives

• Romney seems to be ahead big with independents, which would suggest Obama needs big Democrat turnout to overcome this, turnout he got in '08 but seems less likely this time around.
• Romney is getting huge crowds at events; some of Obama's crowds are rather meh.
• While I would expect folks like Karl Rove and Dick Morris to predict a big Romney win, when people like Michael Barone and George Will do it, I take notice. While they lean right, it does not benefit them at all, and it does hurt them, to be way wrong. So they might be on to something. (Yeah, there are probably similar people on the other side saying the opposite, but I pooh-pooh them) 
• Early voting numbers seem to have declined for Obama compared to last time.
• The Redskins Rule

All told, I have to say I'm leaning pessimistic for tomorrow. But I still hold out hope for change.

Good Strategy?

I was reading capsules in the local paper about county council races that will be decided in November, and I came across one candidate whose chances of winning might not be great.  Here's why:

• In regards to his campaign strategy, the candidate, who shall remain nameless, will, according to the article, "rely on his 37 years of community involvement, instead of going out to meet potential voters."

• In regards to the budget, he said, "I would probably propose that we do a [new] half-cent sales tax."

In local races like this, being known by a lot of people is often enough to win, so this candidate might be able to overcome these hurdles. I hope not. I'll let you know how this race turns out.

Too Many Signs

Today is the big Democratic gubernatorial primary in Virginia, where I happen to be at the moment. You may recognize one of the candidates, Terry McAuliffe, who was a Clinton crony back in the day. Humorously, this ultimate Washington insider is trying to run as a Richmond outsider. It doesn't look like he'll win, which makes me happy.

Anyway, I have seen a lot of campaign signs, and I think McAuliffe has the most. Often, his people will put a bunch of them in the same spot on a roadside. Check out this site for an egregious example.

From a strategic standpoint, what is the point of this? I understand candidates want to get their names out there, but come on. I figure there are two types of people; those who know about an upcoming election, and who's running, and those that don't. I'd expect the former to be more likely to vote. Campaign signs impact the latter group more, I would think, but will they show up at the polls? Maybe if there was a presidential election, people would go vote for that, and then when they get to the governor spot on the ballot, say, "Hey, I know that name! I'll vote for him." But I don't really see how signs translate to votes.

My main theory is that a lot of signs suggest a lot of support for that candidate. People see that and think, "Hhmmm, a lot of people like that guy. I'll consider voting for him." But that would seem to only work if you saw the signs in a lot of people's yards, because that means that family endorses that candidate. When 20 signs are dropped on a roadside, it's different. In fact, it seems like more of a turn-off. But I guess we'll find out tonight how the signs worked for McAuliffe.

Science and Politics Don't Mix

I didn't realize that both McCain and Obama have bought in to the autism-thimerosal fallacy. But I guess we can't expect much more from two politicians who want to saddle our economy with expensive, questionable fixes to questionable global warming:

Mr Obama and John McCain blundered into the MMR vaccine row during their presidential campaigns. "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate," said President-elect Obama. "Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it," he said.

His words were echoed by Mr McCain. "It's indisputable that [autism] is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it," he said. "There's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in the vaccines."

Exhaustive research has failed to substantiate any link to vaccines or any preservatives. The rise in autism is thought to be due to an increased awareness of the condition.

Hot of the Presses

This must be why the media wanted Obama to win (well, other than its liberalism, of course)

The scenario was repeated from coast to coast as newspapers found themselves scrambling to meet unparalleled demand. Some newsstands were cleaned out before dawn.

Papers sold out in Atlanta, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Detroit, Chicago, Miami and Los Angeles, among other cities. Some newspapers sold extra editions on the streets or special commemorative copies online. Others began offering front pages laminated or mounted on marble or wood.

I will admit that I also went out and bought a paper yesterday, but that's what I normally do. I have a quite a collection of historical newspapers going all the way back to 1991.

Small Solace

At least Al Franken (apparently) didn't win.

UPDATE: In addition, as Power Line points out:

Barack Obama's victory almost certainly means that neither Hillary Clinton nor Al Gore will ever be president of the United States.

A Preview of an Obama Presidency?

• A citizen dare question Obama? He gets insulted and investigated by the campaign and by the media.
• A reporter dare question Biden? Her station loses access to Obama/Biden.
• Criticize Obama on the radio? He will try to prevent you from getting on the air.
• Run ads against Obama? Get investigated by the authorities.
  

The Fairness Doctrine can't be too far behind.

What We Expected

Sometimes, when a student asks a professor for a letter of recommendation, the professor tells the student to compose the letter for the professor to sign. It appears the New York Times editorial board similarly delegated responsibility for writing its presidential endorsement to the Obama campaign. The article is filled with the same half-truths, empty arguments and sophistry that we are used to from the Obama/media complex. I'd like to highlight a few of the most egregious statements:

"Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment."

• The Times suggests that running for president qualifies someone to be president. In that case, I should apply to be editor of the Times, and tell them that I am just as qualified as Obama is.

"In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism."

• McCain is not the candidate who's been ripping on CEOs and rich people throughout the campaign, trying to state that paying taxes is patriotic and that the rich don't pay enough. Obama is the candidate of class warfare. As for racism, the Times fails to produce an example of it coming from McCain, because it can't. That is completely false. Elsewhere in the article, the Times tries to tie McCain to those e-mails your crazy aunt has been sending around, when it is clear that no such tie exists.

"The American financial system is the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies...Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business."

• The American financial system is victim to government-mandated loosening of mortgage lending standards. McCain tried to reform Fannie Mae, but the Democrats stood in the way, and Obama took more money from Fannie Mae that all but two other senators.

"Mr. Obama is clear that the nation’s tax structure must be changed to make it fairer."

• Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005.

"His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment."

• Pat Buchanan asks, "Has anyone ever asked Joe about his own and his party's role in cutting off aid to South Vietnam, leading to the greatest strategic defeat in U.S. history and the Cambodian holocaust? Has anyone ever asked Joe about the role he and his party played in working to block Reagan's deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe, and SDI, which Gorbachev concedes broke the Soviets and won the Cold War?" Biden also voted against the 1991 Gulf War and against the Iraq surge. Experience is no good if Biden keeps getting it wrong.

Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal [Supreme Court] judges than some of his followers might like, but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues."

• What reason do we have to think Obama would be less liberal that the current Congress? Obama has been rated the most liberal senator. McCain is much more likely to disappoint his party on judges that Obama is.

"Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He’s been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife’s love of her country."

• Uh, Obama is linked to a domestic terrorist! And his wife did say that this is a mean country that she'd never been proud of until Obama became a presidential candidate. And I don't think nutty e-mails qualify as "tough attacks." In addition, Obama has been the recipient of full-fledged, all-out support from the media. I'd say he's been subject to less scrutiny than any modern presidential candidate. He's also been subject to less scrutiny than Joe the Plumber, for that matter.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The lives of many trees were utterly wasted to produce this inane, canard-ridden endorsement. Luckily, I don't think anybody cares who the Times endorses, especially since we all knew this was coming.

So That's What Community Organizers Do!

Register fake voters, that is, including Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys (in Nevada):

An activist organization on Tuesday defended its voter registration practices amid new allegations of voter fraud and a call from Republican lawmakers to investigate irregularities.

In Ohio, Democrat Barack Obama told reporters that the group's registration problems should not be used by the GOP as an excuse to keep voters from turning out on Election Day.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN, has registered 1.3 million young people, minorities and poor and working-class voters, the group says.

Some of those registration cards have become the focus of fraud investigations in Nevada, Connecticut, Missouri and at least five other states. Election officials in Ohio and North Carolina also recently questioned the group's voter forms.

The Health Portion of the Debate

Despite the fact that Drudge thought tonight's debate was "boring," I thought the health care portion of it, at least, was interesting. It illustrated important differences between the candidates. Obama favors the employer-based system we have now, while McCain seems to prefer a individual-based approach. I'm with McCain on this.

When people get their health insurance from work, they are beholden to their employer. How many people do you know who stay at a crappy job, or go out and get a crappy job, for the health benefits? And what if you lose your job? Under McCain's plan, people would receive tax incentives to purchase their own insurance. This would allow us to change jobs as we please without worrying about coverage.

In addition, you can probably find a plan that fits you better than your employer can. At my last job, I liked the plan we had, but I know that several of my co-workers were unhappy with it. Also, my employer was paying more for my insurance than I would have had to pay for my own plan. These problems would be eliminated if we had been empowered to purchase our own coverage.

McCain is also right that we should be able to shop across state lines, just like we do for car insurance (maybe Geico could get into the business). That way, people could escape ridiculous coverage requirements (maternity or mental health, whether you want it or not) that we find in states like Massachusetts and California.

In short, giving people more influence and control over their health insurance will lead to better coverage and lower costs. If you agree, vote for McCain.

Proof of the Obvious

From Instapundit via Power Line:

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O[bama] is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working."

ND a No-Go for Obama

Earlier this summer, I was surprised to see electoral map projections that depicted North Dakota as a toss-up. North Dakota hasn't gone blue since 1964, despite the fact that its entire Congressional delegation is Democratic. I realized that the hippie college students in Fargo might be excited for Obama, but I didn't think that would be enough to put the state's 3 electoral votes in play.

Now, however, whatever potential Obama had in the state has been abandoned, as Obama has pulled his paid staffers out of the state. He moved them to Minnesota and Wisconsin, traditional blue states that have been close for the last couple of elections. I was under the impression from Democratic types that states like these would vote overwhelmingly for Obama, but apparently that is not the case.

The idea of ND being a battleground is kind of exciting (Obama even had an office in Rugby), but I'm glad that this Obama flirtation will go no further.

I Suppose I'll Comment on the Convention

I haven't said too much about the conventions of the last two weeks. As far as the speeches go, it's hard to judge them. How commentators evaluate a speech depends on what party they are in, it seems. What's important is what the average, undecided voter thinks of them, and that's not me (although I claimed to be undecided today when trying to avoid answering some high schoolers' question about who I was voting for). However, I'll offer a few thoughts on McCain's address, from my conservative perspective.

• McCain is not known for being much of an orator, so Obama beats him on that count, but how many people really care about that?

• I don't like when politicians talk about how they met Mary Walters from Lisbon, Colorado, who is behind on her mortgage and has osteoporosis. I want policy proposals, not emotional stories. But I guess there are those out there who want to know that the candidates, to borrow a Bill Clinton phrase, "feel their pain." Also, it was not great when McCain mentioned a location, and that state cheered, right before McCain talked about cancer or war death or some other sad occurrence.

• I don't think McCain knew that, when the crowd started chanting "USA, USA," that they were trying to drown out protesters. He seemed to be thinking, "What are you doing, people? I'm speaking here." But he obviously saw that old hag parading down the aisle in her pink shirt.

• I really liked the end of his speech, when the crowd was cheering and he was fired up. Rather than waiting for them to quiet down, he pressed on, and it provided a great closing image for the voters.
  

Shallow RNC questions

I promise I won't take over Craig's role on this blog, but I have a couple questions...

1. Why can't people seem to figure out how to hold a sign right side up? It's not that difficult people!

2. Does anyone else start craving a Hershey bar every time those brown signs pop up? Oh, uh, me neither.

3. Wasn't it the cutest thing when Piper licked her hand then fixed baby Trig's hair? Gross, but cute.

MacKenzie on McCain's Pick

I am going to usurp Craig's territory for a moment and talk about politics. I'm sure he will still weigh in eventually with his opinion but I just have to tell you, I am super excited about McCain's VP pick.

Before yesterday, I was really tired of the election and was ready to be done with the whole thing. I was still planning on voting but mostly because I really really dislike Obama and the thought of him becoming our next president really gives me the heebie-jeebies. But now, I am pumped up again. (Obviously, when was the last time I wrote a political post?)

I didn't have high hopes for his pick either. I thought he would go with Romney and I have never liked him. I can't help but think "USED CAR SALESMAN!" every time I see old Mitt. So I'm happy about Palin simply because she isn't Romney.

I'm also happy she is conservative. I would have felt a little annoyed that he was taking his base for granted if he had gone the moderate route. And yes, election wise, he probably could have, I would still have voted for him over Obama, but I am glad he didn't. I don't know a lot about her yet, but everything about her record sounds good to me.

And, I can't not say it - I'm glad she is a woman. Mostly because it would just be great, not just to see it happen, but to be a part of it. But also because - how ridiculously awesome would it be if it was the Republicans who first got a woman elected? I often feel like Democrats have a holier-than-though attitude when it comes to women and minorities and as a woman, it annoys me.

I was actually talking to Craig a few days ago about how the Democrats would respond if we had a woman (in response to someone mentioning Kay Bailey Hutchinson). I didn't think it was a real possibility but I was trying to guess their response just for fun. Since black Republicans aren't "real" blacks, would they try and deny that a woman Republican wasn't a real woman? No, it seems like they are going to try and pass this off as an insult to women - "how dare McCain think that women will vote for him just because he has a woman as his running mate! How unintelligent does he think women are?" is something I have heard a few times on the major news networks in the last 24 hours.

I don't really think that is going to fly. Personally, I am left thinking how dare Democrats think that all women think like them just because they try and pass off their party as the one that stands for women and minorities. How unintelligent do they think I am?

I've heard a lot about this being a "hail mary pass." I couldn't disagree more, I think it is a bold move, but I can't be the only person excited about this and if I'm not, I think it will pay off.

Dem Ticket Complete

It is ridiculous how long ago I called it that Senator Biden would be the VP pick. It must have been in June. I might be able to find proof somewhere on the Internet that this is the case, but I don't have time. Plus, I wouldn't lie (would I?).

By making this pick, Obama admits his lack of experience, especially in the foreign policy arena. However, Biden voted for the Iraq war, the same vote that Obama pounded Hillary on during the primaries. Presumably, Obama thinks that he made a better choice on Iraq than his supposedly knowledgeable-on-foreign-affairs running mate.

Nonetheless, this pick should boost Obama's experience factor. Some are saying that Biden will help Obama win white working-class voters, but I don't see that being true. Biden comes across as a Washington insider, not as a friend of the little guy, and he's not known as a fighter for the middle class.

Biden is known for being long-winded, and saying some impolitic things, which could create a campaign-trail kerfuffle this fall. Also, Biden can be kind of arrogant, which is a trait shared by Obama. Such a combination could be off-putting to the average voter.

In the end, though, VP choices don't usually make a whole lot of difference. It's just something fun to talk about and speculate on during the boring summer days of the election season. Now bring on the conventions!

Are You Qualified to Vote?

A subject line in my junk e-mail caught my attention today (I guess that's the purpose of subject lines). It said "Voters Should Pass a Minimal Civics Test." I read the linked article, and I completely agree with this, although it will never happen:

I have never been an advocate of the popular notion that "everyone should vote." Some people look at me as if I am somehow un-American when I say that I am not in favor of encouraging people to vote who would otherwise never darken the door of a polling place. I really don't want someone on the streets of Hollywood, who just failed to identify the vice president of the United States on one of Jay Leno's "Jay-Walking" segments, helping to select the person who will lead my government for the next four years.

That first statement especially resonates with me, because I absolutely hate when, around election day, people say, "I don't care who you vote for, everyone should just be sure to get out and vote." If people aren't motivated to vote without hearing pleas like that, they should maybe stay home.

Head over to that link and take the sample test the author provides. I think it's a little excessive, but it's got some good, basic questions on it.

Dakota Outlier

As a native of the upper Great Plains, I still pay attention to that area. As a North Dakotan, I am often mistakenly thought to be from South Dakota. People generally mix the two of them up. (Insulting, I know.)

Anyway, I'm surprised that Hillary Clinton won South Dakota in Tuesday's Democratic primary. I would classify South Dakota as a "lily-white state" - one with a minute number of minorities. A look at this map shows that other such states went to Obama. Examples include Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa.

The issue of Obama's church may have something to do with this. That wasn't really an issue when the other white states voted. Also, SD had a primary, rather than a caucus, which many of the above mentioned states had.

I would think it would be unsettling for Obama to lose a contest after the media has been calling him the winner for weeks now. But that isn't getting mentioned too much in the news.

The Latest Political Uproar

Do you think the whole "Hillary brings up assassination" furor is a big deal? If you missed it, here's what she said:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Michael Goodwin at the NY Daily News thinks its horrible:

We have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul. One consumed by raw ambition to where the possible assassination of an opponent is something to ponder in a strategic way. Otherwise, why is murder on her mind?

Also, Drudge clearly thinks it's a big story. To me, on the one hand, this seems like nothing. She was just listing examples of presidential campaigns lasting into June (of course, campaigns of the past didn't start two years before election day). On the other hand, I think of the Clintons as being conniving and diabolical, so I don't know if anything they do is an accident. Based on the uproar, though, if this was planned, it didn't work too well for them.