What does McCain/ Obama need to do to win?

[615 Vol]

If you were the top campaign adviser for each of these guys than what would your plan be? What states should they focus on?

 

[lawgator1]

Obama: It's the economy again, stupid. Just keep reiterating that McCain supported almost all of Bush's economic policies and remind people of how he keeps changing his tune on the fundamentals ("The fundamentals are fine," "We will protect the fundamentals," What I meant was that the fundamentals are work ethic," "The fundamentals are not the people's fault," "The fundamentals are in crisis").

McCain: 1) Distance yourself from the Bush administration at every turn, including the perception, real or made up, that the same people running his government (Rove) will run yours, too. This means keep Rove off of tv helping you by saying things like that your ads are not "passing the 100% truth test;" 2) Emphasize 9/11, your war record, your reputation for speaking your mind and sticking to your guns even when its not popular, your sense of honor, and your unquestionable sense of the value of self sacrifice.

 

[volinbham]

McCain - Pennsylvania is now in play, solidify Ohio and Florida. Try to turn Colorado

Obama - Defend Pennsylvania and Colorado

 

[volinbham]

Obama: It's the economy again, stupid. Just keep reiterating that McCain supported almost all of Bush's economic policies and remind people of how he keeps changing his tune on the fundamentals ("The fundamentals are fine," "We will protect the fundamentals," What I meant was that the fundamentals are work ethic," "The fundamentals are not the people's fault," "The fundamentals are in crisis").

McCain: 1) Distance yourself from the Bush administration at every turn, including the perception, real or made up, that the same people running his government (Rove) will run yours, too. This means keep Rove off of tv helping you by saying things like that your ads are not "passing the 100% truth test;" 2) Emphasize 9/11, your war record, your reputation for speaking your mind and sticking to your guns even when its not popular, your sense of honor, and your unquestionable sense of the value of self sacrifice.

Bush only really had 1 big and 1 small economic policy. The big one was tax cuts and the smaller was free trade.

McCain has plenty of room to distance here by more clearly explaining the tax plan while emphasizing what parts of the economy will benefit - explain the logic. Also, explain how Obama's plan is not as it seems.

McCain has the energy advantage and should exploit that as well but oil in a freefall may blunt the message some.

Obama's economic policy is likewise tax-based. Keep up the message that 95% will get a tax cut and McCain is an evil bastard ... I mean only wants to help the rich.

Obama needs to get more concrete with energy policy - his goals that occur after his presidency would conclude that don't include coal, nukes and more oil production are too vague.

 

[615 Vol]

McCain - Pennsylvania is now in play, solidify Ohio and Florida. Try to turn Colorado

Obama - Defend Pennsylvania and Colorado

You really think McCain has a chance in PA?

Obama needs to focus on Big-Ten country. Areas like Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin to go along with Pennsylvania and Ohio. I would have Bill Clinton campaigning on the economy and Hillary campaigning to women. The bad economy news and if you have Bill out reminding people of how good things were in the 90's and telling them that Obama is the best choice to get us back there will help a lot.

 

[TennNC]

Agree with LG.

Obama - hit the economy hard. Continue to hit 90%. Do Republicans deserve 4 more years in the WH? But don't get in the mud on silly issues. Stick to the big ones.

McCain - remind people that they know him and are comfortable with him, he's a war hero, and keep Bush in the background and Palin as far away from the press as possible.

 

[TennNC]

Utilizing the Clintons is going to be key - that's a good point, 615.

 

[615 Vol]

Agree with LG.

Obama - hit the economy hard. Continue to hit 90%. Do Republicans deserve 4 more years in the WH? But don't get in the mud on silly issues. Stick to the big ones.

McCain - remind people that they know him and are comfortable with him, he's a war hero, and keep Bush in the background and Palin as far away from the press as possible.

I agree.

 

[615 Vol]

Utilizing the Clintons is going to be key - that's a good point, 615.

I think that was Gore's biggest mistake in 2000.

 

[TennNC]

Bush only really had 1 big and 1 small economic policy. The big one was tax cuts and the smaller was free trade.

1) McCain has plenty of room to distance here by more clearly explaining the tax plan while emphasizing what parts of the economy will benefit - explain the logic. Also, explain how Obama's plan is not as it seems.

2) McCain has the energy advantage and should exploit that as well but oil in a freefall may blunt the message some.

1) Me thinks the general voting public does not think this way.

It's "economy bad" + "W is a Republican" + "McCain is a Republican" + "McCain votes with GW 90% of the time" = "we need something different." Right or wrong, McCain is going to have a tough time winning the economy argument right now.

2) In regards to energy, McCain only has an advantage if more Americans see oil as the solution than not. Their policies actually aren't that different, and now with Palin on the ticket, her energy credit to Alaskans looks a lot like Obama's windfall profits tax break proposal. Obama's staked his claim on a major push toward alternative energy and made big oil the enemy. McCain has staked his claim to "Drill Now, Drill Baby Drill." That's what people perceive, and the nuances aren't going to change much there. Nuclear and coal - I doubt many people understand those as well as simply "Oil vs. Alternatives."

 

[VolDad]

Utilizing the Clintons is going to be key - that's a good point, 615.

IMO…Hillary’s support has been luke warm at best; just enough to keep Obama supporters happy but not enough to make any real difference in the election. She has her eye on 2012 against McCain or Palin. She does not want to wait until 2016 to run again.

 

[615 Vol]

1) Me thinks the general voting public does not think this way.

It's "economy bad" + "W is a Republican" + "McCain is a Republican" + "McCain votes with GW 90% of the time" = "we need something different." Right or wrong, McCain is going to have a tough time winning the economy argument right now.

2) In regards to energy, McCain only has an advantage if more Americans see oil as the solution than not. Their policies actually aren't that different, and now with Palin on the ticket, her energy credit to Alaskans looks a lot like Obama's windfall profits tax break proposal. Obama's staked his claim on a major push toward alternative energy and made big oil the enemy. McCain has staked his claim to "Drill Now, Drill Baby Drill." That's what people perceive, and the nuances aren't going to change much there. Nuclear and coal - I doubt many people understand those as well as simply "Oil vs. Alternatives."

Especially the people that are fresh out of a job or in the middle of a big pay cut. They are really going to look for change on the economy.

 

[KB5252]

Especially the people that are fresh out of a job or in the middle of a big pay cut. They are really going to look for change on the economy.

This is where McCain has failed to attack Obama's economic policies. He should be hammering home the idea that increasing tax on big business will force them to cut more jobs and slow an already lethargic economy.

 

[BigPapaVol]

McCain needs badly to point out that Obama's tax plan only hitting 5% of our earners is pure fraud. He also needs to point out that the economy overall is sound, but that the housing market (the largest market in our entire economy) has massively impacted sentiment. The housing market has singularly wiped out the equity in financial institutions because we believed in the limited risk there. That is not a government driven affair. If he wants to distance himself from GWB, he should point out the disastrous lack of vetoes on spending bills and make very clear that spending is exactly what he aims to control. GWB's biggest failure as a president was in spending.

Away from the economy, McCain should go miles out of his way to continue hammering Obama on his utter lack of economic knowledge and near shameful inexperience.

 

[lawgator1]

Its completely wrong to do so, but the public always blames the sitting President for economic woes. To make matters worse for McCain, the prerception of what is going on right now is that the people at the very top have been raping their corporations and screwing the middle class 401k investors, skipping out with obscene profits from make-believe oil trading, and manipulating the mortgage system to give everyone a false sense of wealth, at least on paper.

Add to that the fact that most people think that the Bush family is one of the financial elite and is tied into the network of Wall Street execs making hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is easy for Obama to make it seem like McCain is their puppet yet again.

I fully expect that to be the refrain beginning this week -- that McCain is for the rich and the rich only and that the same greed and corruption that has created the current mess will be repeated with a McCain-Palin-Rove-Cheney-Bush-Big Oil administration.

 

[volinbham]

1) Obama's staked his claim on a major push toward alternative energy and made big oil the enemy. McCain has staked his claim to "Drill Now, Drill Baby Drill."

That's what people perceive, and the nuances aren't going to change much there. Nuclear and coal - I doubt many people understand those as well as simply "Oil vs. Alternatives."

Believe me, people in Pennsylvania understand coal and probably nukes too.

This is a dangerous assumption that I hope Count Barakcula believes as well.

 

[JZVOL]

1) Me thinks the general voting public does not think this way.

It's "economy bad" + "W is a Republican" + "McCain is a Republican" + "McCain votes with GW 90% of the time" = "we need something different." Right or wrong, McCain is going to have a tough time winning the economy argument right now.

2) In regards to energy, McCain only has an advantage if more Americans see oil as the solution than not. Their policies actually aren't that different, and now with Palin on the ticket, her energy credit to Alaskans looks a lot like Obama's windfall profits tax break proposal. Obama's staked his claim on a major push toward alternative energy and made big oil the enemy. McCain has staked his claim to "Drill Now, Drill Baby Drill." That's what people perceive, and the nuances aren't going to change much there. Nuclear and coal - I doubt many people understand those as well as simply "Oil vs. Alternatives."

Are you kidding??? That is such a joke of a statistic. Everyone knows those votes include things like recognizing sports teams etc.

Dick Morris asserted that while Democrats say "things are terrible, [President] Bush is awful, and [Sen. John] McCain is more of same," "[t]hat statistic that 90 percent of the time they vote together? Ninety percent of the votes in the Senate are unanimous. Bush, [Sen. Barack] Obama, and McCain probably vote together 90 percent of the time on resolutions congratulating the New York Giants and stuff."

 

[BigPapaVol]

2) In regards to energy, McCain only has an advantage if more Americans see oil as the solution than not. Their policies actually aren't that different, and now with Palin on the ticket, her energy credit to Alaskans looks a lot like Obama's windfall profits tax break proposal. Obama's staked his claim on a major push toward alternative energy and made big oil the enemy. McCain has staked his claim to "Drill Now, Drill Baby Drill." That's what people perceive, and the nuances aren't going to change much there. Nuclear and coal - I doubt many people understand those as well as simply "Oil vs. Alternatives."

There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of Americans simply want to know that oil is going to be cheaper. Fortunately for McCain, it is rapidly heading south and fuel pricing will follow shortly thereafter.

 

[lawgator1]

There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of Americans simply want to know that oil is going to be cheaper. Fortunately for McCain, it is rapidly heading south and fuel pricing will follow shortly thereafter.

Will it? I wish I knew what the price of a gallon of gas was when the per barrel price of oil was last at $92. To be fair, we have the refinery issues in Texas, but at any rate I wish there was a chart somewhere showing what the price of gas was earlier this year when the $92 mark was last seen.

(I invoke again our earlier conversation regarding the fact that gas prrices rise on a day's notice when the price of oil goes up dramatically, but falls at what seems like a month's delay when those same oil prices go down in equal measure)

 

[joevol320]

Will it? I wish I knew what the price of a gallon of gas was when the per barrel price of oil was last at $92. To be fair, we have the refinery issues in Texas, but at any rate I wish there was a chart somewhere showing what the price of gas was earlier this year when the $92 mark was last seen.

(I invoke again our earlier conversation regarding the fact that gas prrices rise on a day's notice when the price of oil goes up dramatically, but falls at what seems like a month's delay when those same oil prices go down in equal measure)

i would say it's because the companies still have fuel reserves from when they bought it at 110-120 a barrel and they want to get their money back from when they initially bought it.

 

[lawgator1]

i would say it's because the companies still have fuel reserves from when they bought it at 110-120 a barrel and they want to get their money back from when they initially bought it.

If that were the case, it would mean that the price of a gallon of gas when oil is on the way down is based on what the refinery paid for the barrel of oil back when it bought it, whereas when the price of a gallon of gas is going up, it is based on the future price of a barrel of oil.

That's what I've been bitching about for awhile now because it makes no sense, other than mutually agreed manipulation of the price.

 

[joevol320]

If that were the case, it would mean that the price of a gallon of gas when oil is on the way down is based on what the refinery paid for the barrel of oil back when it bought it, whereas when the price of a gallon of gas is going up, it is based on the future price of a barrel of oil.

That's what I've been bitching about for awhile now because it makes no sense, other than mutually agreed manipulation of the price.

i agree, prices go up really quick but go down really slow. don't gas stations like pilot order their gas in advance? that's the only reason i can think of.

 

[BigPapaVol]

If that were the case, it would mean that the price of a gallon of gas when oil is on the way down is based on what the refinery paid for the barrel of oil back when it bought it, whereas when the price of a gallon of gas is going up, it is based on the future price of a barrel of oil.

That's what I've been bitching about for awhile now because it makes no sense, other than mutually agreed manipulation of the price.

again, I think those guys reprice to the average of their inventory on hand, so those prices simply move slower.

 

[lawgator1]

again, I think those guys reprice to the average of their inventory on hand, so those prices simply move slower.

Then why do they rise overnight upon news that the price of a barrel of oil went up a significant margin? That per barrel rise would not have affected the average price for what they paid for what is already in the supply line. It would down the road, of course, but not that fast.

And if it did affect the average, then shouldn't a similar decrease in the per barrel price have the identical effect driving the average down?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Then why do they rise overnight upon news that the price of a barrel of oil went up a significant margin? That per barrel rise would not have affected the average price for what they paid for what is already in the supply line. It would down the road, of course, but not that fast.

And if it did affect the average, then shouldn't a similar decrease in the per barrel price have the identical effect driving the average down?

remember where their inventories were? weren't they low, low.

Why didn't prices jump immediately to reflect the obscenely high wholesale pricing and why not across the board?