McCain suspends campaign to go back to DC to work on bailout

[KSig RC]

Remember: voters are stupid (OK, OK - not "stupid", but rather lazy, biased by their own experiences, and without any real desire to generally learn more than they have to). They only know what you tell them. Most do not take the time to read anything beyond the first couple of paragraphs, and the sound bite rules the day. People make decisions by forming a cohesive and coherent narrative in their own mind to either confirm or deny their original hypothesis - the first story that fits becomes the decision.

Now, repeat this to yourself over and over and over again.

Once you do this, you'll completely understand why McCain pulled this move - sure, it's spin, and it's borderline hack, but the average, undecided voter will only know what he sees and will likely not think about it on this level.

BTW - there's no way Obama takes the stage alone, that would be suicide by McCain since Obama's weakness is in unscripted situations. McCain will merely use this as a "safe harbor" anchoring his own unscripted responses - he can constantly come back to this point in his speaking. It's really ABC stuff.

[DaemonSeid]

interesting statement I just read....


Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist, said the debate is the most important thing the candidates could do right now.

"It's preposterous that we can't have a presidential debate in the middle of this economic crisis. We had a presidential campaign in 1864, when Sherman was marching on Atlanta. We had a presidential election in 1944, when D-Day was going on in Normandy," he said. "We can have a debate on Friday. In fact, it's probably the most important thing McCain and them could be doing, would be to debate the issues."

I-Reporters told CNN that no matter what, they want to see the debate go on.

Len Parks, an independent from Stockbridge, Georgia, said he liked both candidates, but now he will probably vote for Obama.

"It made no sense to me for him to suspend his campaign. I think he's kind of grandstanding here," Parks said.

Democrat Dereck Blackburn called canceling the debate a "political stunt."

"It's very disrespectful to the elections process and disrespectful to everyone who is involved," said Blackburn, who is from Manayunk, Pennsylvania.

And Republican Katy Brown, from Kent, Ohio, said in this situation, McCain needs to take Obama's advice.

"I want to see John McCain show up, I know he's trying to do his best, and I know it's his duty to be there for this vote on the economy and the $700 billion bailout. But he also needs to be there (at the debate) because Americans need to hear from him," she said. "So hopefully this doesn't hurt him, hopefully he takes Obama's advice and multitasks and shows up."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...isk/index.html

[AGDee]

The bipartisan consensus on the general direction of the legislation was reported just hours before President Bush was to host presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain and congressional leaders at the White House for discussions on how to clear obstacles to the unpopular rescue plan.

So, they've already come up with a plan that they're sure will pass the House, Senate and the President. So McCain and Obama needed to go there... why?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The bipartisan consensus on the general direction of the legislation was reported just hours before President Bush was to host presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain and congressional leaders at the White House for discussions on how to clear obstacles to the unpopular rescue plan.

So, they've already come up with a plan that they're sure will pass the House, Senate and the President. So McCain and Obama needed to go there... why?

THANK YOU!!!!

[pbear19]

Per Politico (JMart's blog) McCain and Obama will be doing interviews with the three major networks tonight.

It will be interesting to see the reaction if McCain does cancel the debate, given that he beleives he has time to do interviews.

I read a comment by a Dem somewhere (maybe in this thread?) about how other presidential debates in the past have been held during greater crises (one during WWII, one I think that involved Lincoln maybe). Now I cannot find it. Was it somewhere on GC, or has anyone else seen it? I thought it was interesting to see that candidates have not cancelled debates in the past in the midst of big(er?) crises.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Per Politico (JMart's blog) McCain and Obama will be doing interviews with the three major networks tonight.

It will be interesting to see the reaction if McCain does cancel the debate, given that he beleives he has time to do interviews.

I read a comment by a Dem somewhere (maybe in this thread?) about how other presidential debates in the past have been held during greater crises (one during WWII, one I think that involved Lincoln maybe). Now I cannot find it. Was it somewhere on GC, or has anyone else seen it? I thought it was interesting to see that candidates have not cancelled debates in the past in the midst of big(er?) crises.

my post 52...just scroll up...hell I want that fact checked...LOL


And didn't BUSH do debates while soldiers were spilling their guts 4 years ago when some of teh fighting was at it's worst??

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Remember: voters are stupid (OK, OK - not "stupid", but rather lazy, biased by their own experiences, and without any real desire to generally learn more than they have to). They only know what you tell them. Most do not take the time to read anything beyond the first couple of paragraphs, and the sound bite rules the day. People make decisions by forming a cohesive and coherent narrative in their own mind to either confirm or deny their original hypothesis - the first story that fits becomes the decision.

Now, repeat this to yourself over and over and over again.

Once you do this, you'll completely understand why McCain pulled this move - sure, it's spin, and it's borderline hack, but the average, undecided voter will only know what he sees and will likely not think about it on this level.

Unless those voters are watching David Letterman or The Daily Show.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Unless those voters are watching David Letterman or The Daily Show.

I would bet The Daily Show doesn't have a lot of undecided viewers. Their viewership lines up nicely with a demographic of overwhelmingly Obama voters, that is social liberals under the age of 30.

Letterman I have no idea how many or who watches.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Unless those voters are watching David Letterman or The Daily Show.

How many are?

I'm dead serious, by the way - this is exactly the kind of work that firms pay me to perform every week. I'm not making this up - this is literally the mechanism for political consulting and spin. Verbatim.

[DaemonSeid]

had to remove and revise....bid again...lol

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=190254971633

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

How many are?

I'm dead serious, by the way - this is exactly the kind of work that firms pay me to perform every week. I'm not making this up - this is literally the mechanism for political consulting and spin. Verbatim.

LOL. I don't know. But it often seems to me that the effect of people like Letterman can be undervalued in shaping public opinion, even if in subtle ways.

BTW, not sure I'm following on the kind of work firms pay you to perform every week. PR? Polling?

[AGDee]

McCain says he will be at the debate!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

LOL. I don't know. But it often seems to me that the effect of people like Letterman can be undervalued in shaping public opinion, even if in subtle ways.

This is very true - and I think that McCain probably made a massive, massive misstep there. People like Letterman, who are viewed (rightly or wrongly) as objective and somewhat trustworthy just by nature of being there every night, carry massive credibility.

BTW, not sure I'm following on the kind of work firms pay you to perform every week. PR? Polling?

Check your PMs - we don't often work with polling firms or polling data, mostly because the major polls (Gallup excluded) use questionable methods (and there's more money in private-sector work). If you've ever heard Zogby speak, the dude's pretty big on himself and his 'unique' style.

However, the last 15 years have seen major strides in decision-making research - both sides use a variety of consultants, often separating the "image" consultants from the "message" guys, unless it's a strategist like Rove who can handle both.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Remember: voters are stupid (OK, OK - not "stupid", but rather lazy, biased by their own experiences, and without any real desire to generally learn more than they have to). They only know what you tell them. Most do not take the time to read anything beyond the first couple of paragraphs, and the sound bite rules the day. People make decisions by forming a cohesive and coherent narrative in their own mind to either confirm or deny their original hypothesis - the first story that fits becomes the decision.

Now, repeat this to yourself over and over and over again.

Once you do this, you'll completely understand why McCain pulled this move - sure, it's spin, and it's borderline hack, but the average, undecided voter will only know what he sees and will likely not think about it on this level.

BTW - there's no way Obama takes the stage alone, that would be suicide by McCain since Obama's weakness is in unscripted situations. McCain will merely use this as a "safe harbor" anchoring his own unscripted responses - he can constantly come back to this point in his speaking. It's really ABC stuff.

I agree with a lot of this post...but not all. Voters' historic biases do tend to drive their future actions, but there are circumstances, particularly economic circumstances, where they act in a contrary fashion.

Take 1992. Bill Clinton was an alleged womanizer, pot-smoker, draft dodger, clearly the "first story" narrative most people got of him wasn't the most flattering ....but the country was in a economic rut (like now??) and voters set aside the collective "morality" issue and voted for the guy they felt had the better economic recovery plan. People do vote on a variety of issues, but when economic security is seen as threatened, a lot of other issues get pushed aside. ...So I don't think the first story that fits, always sticks.

(I'm not ascribing the motives attached to Clinton in '92 to either Obama or McCain, but am saying that while "change" or risk is a high hurdle, but one that people will readily jump if they feel their economic circumstances are sufficiently threatened.)

I read the Associated Press' tick-tock on McCain's actions/whereabouts today in DC (which I'm sure will get wide play on the more liberal media outlets.) It's not clear to me that his possible upside was worth the risk of postponing the debate when 100 million people (many uninformed on the political postering angles being played) were planning to tune in to see these guys square up.

I agree that McCain has to show up to debate. He's not going to give his opponent the undivided attention of 110 millon people.

[CrackerBarrel]

To be fair it still isn't a bipartisan consensus, the House GOP Caucus still opposes it, so the Democrats have apparently just started to decide that they'll pass it themselves (seeing as how they had a majority to start with).

The idea is/was that they need to get more members on board so it looks like a bipartisan deal and not a party line vote and is more reassuring to citizens. And according to GOP congressional leaders that won't happen unless they end up with something McCain will support. So from that perspective, having him in the negotiations will help get GOP support and make the bill look better, even if it would have passed to start with.