Topic: US Elections 2008

[erik]

Some say elections are only about perception management

From The Times
October 31, 2008
Barack Obama lays plans to deaden expectation after election victory

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece

Tim Reid in Washington

Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of “hope” and “change” are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.

One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, “so there’s not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair”.

The aide said that Mr Obama himself was the first to realise that expectations risked being inflated.

In an interview with a Colorado radio station, Mr Obama appeared to be engaged already in expectation lowering. Asked about his goals for the first hundred days, he said he would need more time to tackle such big and costly issues as health care reform, global warming and Iraq. “The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference,” he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how “hard” it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time.

“I won’t stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy – especially now,” Mr Obama told a rally in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday, citing “the cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq”. Mr Obama’s transition team is headed by John Podesta, a Washington veteran and a former chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton. He has spent months overseeing a virtual Democratic government-in-exile to plan a smooth transition should Mr Obama emerge victorious next week. The plans are so far advanced that an Obama Cabinet has been largely decided upon, with the expectation that most of his senior appointments could be announced shortly after election day.

Yet Mr Obama and his aides are under no illusions about the size of the challenges the Democrat will inherit if he enters the Oval Office. Tom Daschle, the party’s former leader in the US Senate and a strong contender for the post of White House chief-of-staff in an Obama administration, said last month that the winner next week would have only a 50 per cent chance of winning a second term in 2012.

Not only will the next president take office with the country sliding into a potentially long recession — and mired in debt — but the challenges abroad are immense. There is an unfinished war in Iraq, a worsening situation in Afghanistan and an unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan to contend with. Iran appears intent on acquiring the bomb and there remains the ever-present threat from al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists.

If he wins, Mr Obama will inherit a Democratic-controlled Congress, and might even have the benefit of a 60-seat filibuster-proof “supermajority” in the Senate. Such a scenario would allow him to push through legislation largely unfettered by Republican opposition. Yet it also means that should the country still be mired in recession in three years’ time, voters — who have short memories — will probably blame him and the Democrats on Capitol Hill. Those stakes have led Mr Obama to conclude that while expectations need to be tempered, big things need to be achieved very early in his first term, when he will still have the political capital to achieve some of his most ambitious legislative goals.

Having promised “real” change, the pressure will be on him to deliver. In the Colorado interview, Mr Obama added: “The next president has got to come quickly out of the box.”

The early priorities being lined up if he takes power are a mixture of symbolism and substance. He plans to make a major address in a big Muslim country early in his first term. Having pledged on the campaign trail to close Guantanamo Bay, he is also determined to make early moves to rid America of the controversial prison. Yet what to do with the remaining inmates looms as an intractable problem, as many of their home governments refuse to allow them to return.

Mr Obama’s first legislative goals will be to follow through on his pledge to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest Americans, and to push through a hugely expensive Bill to provide near-universal health insurance.

[Jahn]

"Tom Daschle, the party’s former leader in the US Senate and a strong contender for the post of White House chief-of-staff in an Obama administration, said last month that the winner next week would have only a 50 per cent chance of winning a second term in 2012."

The article is down to earth but statements like this above is only another useless piece of speculation that is so common these days. Different experts making a forecast of  situations they cannot know a iota about.

Though, I heard the other day one reason why Bush were elected twice, that was because it is seldom a change of a president if the US are in war. I cannot say if that is true.

 

[erik]

Well, that

Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

suggests that it si not about speculation any more. These people seem to be serious about letting the air out fo expectations now. Managing percpetions.

[Jahn]

The article is down to earth

Meaning that of course he will have a tough time to deal with the mess that the US are in and it is of course wise to be realistic, to get the voters and the public realistic figures. Bush could cheat and lie to get support to enter Iraq but that type of politics will not work in the future.
Rome wasn't built in one day.

Much of today is also built on short term rewards, instant access. That "Change" is a slow process and I would say that the US will perhaps need 3 periods (at least 10 years) with a president that works in the same direction as senator Obama before there has been significant change. before we can say that it is a healthier society.

The recession, the national debt, the infra structure and the health/welfare system. It is great issues to deal with.

First the deficit must go down to zero, now it is about 8 percent, at the same time you are expected to increase the welfare, that is a difficult equation. Then reducing the national debt while at the same time put billions and billions in to the infra structure. That is the second very difficult equation. And I haven't even mentioned the climate issue.

Will the US "save money" if they left Iraq tomorrow? And if they do, to what price will they "save" that money?

[erik]

The estimates say that in order to keep his promises, Obama will need several trillions of dollars, and he would end his reign with a national debt of 550 billion dollars.

But that is the least of his concerns. As a human, he will be subjected to enormous pressure to behave according to 'public' expectation. Attention of billions will be on him - bending his will. I am sure he actually can do almost nothing to 'change' the US.

People expect change from him, while not being able to effect it themselves. These 301 million Americans struggle trmendously to change themselves even a little, but for some unknown reason expect Obama and others to change the world, or country or whatnot.

Can Obama change the views of 100 million rednecks or of 18% of electorate constituted by end-timers? Can Obama change any American citizen by his power of the US president?

Nope.

Expect it from him is as good as expect God to change the world and compensate for human stupidity. Having faith in Obama or any other human institution is as good as religion.

We just so badly need a shoulder to lean on and rest our hopes on.
God, president, armed forces, police, shaman next door...
mystic ancient knowledge, light...etc

All the same.

No way will they do what we expect.

[Jahn]

The estimates say that in order to keep his promises, Obama will need several trillions of dollars, and he would end his reign with a national debt of 550 billion dollars.

Eh, I found out on Wikipeda and another site that the US national debt just passed 10 trillion dollars.

Year, USD billions, Percent of GDP
1980: 930.2   33.3%
1990: 3,233    55.9 %
2000: 5,674     58,0%
2007: 9,008     65.5 %
2008: 10,024    72.5%

Maxing Out the National Debt Clock
October 09, 2008 10:14 AM ET | Katy Marquardt |

Are you surprised? Times Square's National Debt Clock, which has been tallying up money owed by the U.S. government since 1989, is running out of spaces.

In September 2008, the digital dollar sign was eliminated to make way for an extra digit—the "1" in $10 trillion (the national debt is currently $10.2 trillion). Now, a new clock is in the works that will make room for a quadrillion dollars of debt, according to the Associated Press. Anticipated completion is early 2009.

A little history on the clock: It was created in 1989 by Manhattan real estate developer Seymour Durst to inform the public about the nation's snowballing national debt (back then, it was $2.7 trillion). Seymour died in 1995, and the clock is now owned by his son, Douglas Durst.

According to the Treasury, the national debt has grown more than $500 billion each year since fiscal year 2003. The $700 billion government bailout could send the national debt to more than $11 trillion, says the AP.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[Jahn]

But that is the least of his concerns. As a human, he will be subjected to enormous pressure to behave according to 'public' expectation. Attention of billions will be on him - bending his will. I am sure he actually can do almost nothing to 'change' the US.

People expect change from him, while not being able to effect it themselves. These 301 million Americans struggle trmendously to change themselves even a little, but for some unknown reason expect Obama and others to change the world, or country or whatnot.

Can Obama change the views of 100 million rednecks or of 18% of electorate constituted by end-timers? Can Obama change any American citizen by his power of the US president?

Nope.

Expect it from him is as good as expect God to change the world and compensate for human stupidity. Having faith in Obama or any other human institution is as good as religion.

We just so badly need a shoulder to lean on and rest our hopes on.
God, president, armed forces, police, shaman next door...
mystic ancient knowledge, light...etc

All the same.

No way will they do what we expect.

Barack Obama has already created change. On the energetic level he has changed the direction but I agree the tension in the US public is enormous and it is a huge task to reform the fundamental structure. There is so much under the surface.

Obama has engaged people, he have "created" new voters, he has created a new way of funding a campaign, he has more money to his campaign than any other candidate before despite that he refused common (fedral?) funding. And that is because of many many small contributions and not large contributions from a few. This is real abundance and that is real engagement of the masses. So yes, he has already changed many citizens.

And he is not alone, if he win he is on top of the whole elected political system with majority for the democrates in all instances, both the congress and the senate. Th US empire may be on the start to end, but I would not underestimate the possibilities for the US to be able to deal with the difficulties.

[erik]

You do believe that such a change is going to have any lasting effect? Sounds like JFK to me. A little shake up of sleepy minds - something DIFFERENT, but no CHANGE as purposeful action.

You are correct on numbers. 550 billion is the size of likely budget deficit of Obama's government at the last year of his administration (and not the national debt as I said). In 2008 - under Bush -  it is 190 billion.

"Reality Check: The Cost Of Obama's Pledges"
Wyatt Andrews
CBS News
October 29, 2008

Without question, the Barack Obama infomercial served as a very slick and powerful recitation of the biggest promises he's made as a presidential candidate. But the very bigness of his ideas is the problem: he seems blind to the concept his numbers don't add up.

Obama has already proposed a new stimulus package of $188 billion over two years. His tax cuts will cost $85 billion a year. His "army of new teachers": $18 billion; Renewable energy: $15 billion. CBS News and various independent experts estimate Obama's total first year spending could exceed $280 billion.

Still Obama repeated his claim he can find the money to pay for every proposal.

"I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost," he has said.

The fact is the savings Obama has identified do not cover his spending. According to a CBS News estimate, he's around $90 billion short. The Obama campaign disputes this, saying everything including the stimulus is paid for over 10 years. But other analysts say - even presuming Obama saves money in Iraq and chops the federal budget as promised - he falls short.

Let's break all of this down, starting with his highly suspect, and widely discredited, claim that he can find federal "spending cuts beyond the costs" of his promises. Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.

Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive - $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper?

And that's just the beginning of what Obama would spend.

Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign's own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.

Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.

Fact: Obama's claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years - a fact Obama neatly glosses over.

Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he's addressing.

Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it's for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once.

Remember he also mentioned rebuilding the military ($7 billion/yr); his education initiative ($18 billion/yr); and his energy initiative ($15 billion/yr). He did not mention the $188 billion that he would spend on the brand new stimulus package he has proposed.

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

[tangerine dream]

For the record I am a non major-election voter, for the last 10 years.  I've voted a few times in local elections when and where I believed my vote would speak for something.  Once again it comes down to not fighting against.  When it became obvious to me that I was no longer voting for a candidate, but instead voting against the one I disliked the most, I stopped the battle. 

I completely understand and agree with you kaycee.


Here's a youtube y'all might find interesting:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&eurl=http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/39561-one-million-see-mccain-s-youtube-problem

[Jennifer-]

Putting politics aside.. has anyone noticed the light that shines within Obama?

Open your heart and look.. its really quite stunning.

Like I said.. all politics aside...

[tangerine dream]

Putting politics aside.. has anyone noticed the light that shines within Obama?

Open your heart and look.. its really quite stunning.

Like I said.. all politics aside...

I don't follow politics, but I have noticed his light. 
 

[Jennifer-]

[Angela]

Putting politics aside.. has anyone noticed the light that shines within Obama?

Open your heart and look.. its really quite stunning.

Like I said.. all politics aside...

We were just talking about this the other day.  There's something more behind the politics with him.  It's as if he wants to tell us something, but can't right now.  And you're right ... he shines.

[Angela]

Did anyone watch the presidential debates?  They had an meter ...

 "The audience meter is called a Perception Analyzer Dial described by a news story from SMU as a "palm-sized electronic dial meter."When focus group participants like what they are hearing, they turn the knob on the dial to the right; when they don’t like the candidates or their ideas, they turn the knob to the left.

The results are immediately aggregated into squiggly lines that run across the bottom of the screen, at the same time the candidates are speaking. The advantage of this simultaneous broadcasting of the debate, and the select audience’s reaction to that debate, is that voters across the country can avoid having to think about what the candidates are saying, and instead focus on what some other unknown people think about what the candidates are saying — thus reducing the strain of thinking for oneself. " ... heh! an opinion from this site ... http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-136.php

Anyway ... what I noticed was that, even at the end of the debates when they had a question and answer with this randomly selected group of people and they were all still "undecided", during the debate when Obama spoke the women's meter would go into agreement with him.  The men's meter would go into disagreement.  It was totally reverse when McCain spoke. Interesting.

[Jennifer-]

I did not watch it.

Anyway ... what I noticed was that, even at the end of the debates when they had a question and answer with this randomly selected group of people and they were all still "undecided", during the debate when Obama spoke the women's meter would go into agreement with him.  The men's meter would go into disagreement.  It was totally reverse when McCain spoke. Interesting.

Yes, that is interesting.