Election 2008, United States

[Ancien Régime]

Austrian economics mandates no intervention so there is no open question.

Of course, history kind of backs the Austrian side up, seeing that there were two depressions in the 20s - one had a great deal of government intervention, the other had almost none. Guess which one lasted longer?

:)

 

[Surgo]

Guess which country was bigger?

Government invention from the US government in the 20s? Not really. We see government intervention later on, mostly with the whole dramatic economic expansion of WW2. Which clearly ended the depression.


The no intervention model was tried and tested for 16 years in Chile. Guess what happened? This analysis of Keynesian economics vs. the Chicago school is a bit dated for obvious reasons (the author is no longer alive), but still quite useful if biased.

 

[SAN DIEGO SUPER CHARGERS!]

The House voted down the bailout bill:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7641733.stm

Lets recap:

McCain suspended his campaign to make sure the bailout would succeed.

On Monday morning, he took credit for its success and blamed Obama for doing nothing.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/29/mccain-calling-the-shots/

On Monday night, he blamed Obama for its rejection for again watching on the sidelines.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/83b6609e-8e54-11dd-9b46-0000779fd18c.html

gotcha #1 (Couric interview with Palin and McCain has to protect her)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMNHgJH2680
Pay attention to his body language

gotcha #2 (warning stupidity in this link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0TSpfE00I

 

[Surgo]

If you're going for historical McCain moments that relate to Wall Street, don't forget the bribes he took to look the other way before the Securities & Loans crisis of the 80s. Four other senators (all Democratic) also took bribes, and all resigned out of shame for it. This is often called the "Keating Five" affair.

 

[Kietharr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA

I find this video very disturbing. I absolutely fucking hate it when people use their kids to push a message, those kids have no clue what they're singing about.

 

[Ancien Régime]

The no intervention model was tried and tested for 16 years in Chile. Guess what happened?

Um - Chile having the best economy in Latin America?

Leaving aside the silliness of acting on the same theories that actually caused the credit crisis in order to fix the credit crisis (deficit spending/artificially low interest rates/manipulation of the money supply/fractional reserve banking amirite), the essential problem with Keynesianism is that it sees the economy as a machine, to be managed by all-knowing central planners, while Austrianism sees the economy as the aggregate choices of individuals.

As for "intervention", the premise is ridiculous. People simply will not become risk-averse indefinitely. At some point, the rewards will become greater than the risks of doing business, and at some point, people will psychologically become more willing to invest.

too tired/busy/lazy to write up a comprehensive refutation of keynesianism (there is a LOT of stuff I haven't read)

 

[Surgo]

I'm sorry, but nothing you just said makes sense. Whereas I'm talking about Keynesian economics as a whole, you're talking about what Paulson wanted in a bailout bill.

Um - Chile having the best economy in Latin America?

Is there a place we can find stuff like misery index, standard of living, median and average wage vs cost of living, etc.?

Leaving aside the silliness of acting on the same theories that actually caused the credit crisis in order to fix the credit crisis (deficit spending/artificially low interest rates/manipulation of the money supply/fractional reserve banking amirite)

Come again? First, see Keynesian theory vs bailout plan. Second, this doesn't even make sense when talking about the bailout plan. The credit crisis was caused by lending to people who couldn't pay it back. This lending appears to be caused by a doubling of the global capital in the last 6 years and thus people looking for a place to invest their new wealth*. The bailout plan...what? I don't even know what you're talking about. It appears to me that you're just thoughtlessly repeating libertarian soundbites.

the essential problem with Keynesianism is that it sees the economy as a machine, to be managed by all-knowing central planners, while Austrianism sees the economy as the aggregate choices of individuals.

So why is the first a problem while the second is not?

Also, talk about misleading or mistating. "all-knowing" central planners? Uh, no. Nothing requires that. All that's required is spending in the event of a depression. It doesn't take someone to be all-knowing to realize that they're in a depression.

As for "intervention", the premise is ridiculous. People simply will not become risk-averse indefinitely. At some point, the rewards will become greater than the risks of doing business, and at some point, people will psychologically become more willing to invest.

There are two things wrong with this statement. First, it's talking about the bailout plan as desired by Paulson, not Keynesian economics. The bailout plan as desired by Paulson was socialization of the risks, but not socialization of the rewards. I think even Deck Knight and I can come together on this point and agree that that's a bad idea, to say nothing of you and me also agreeing on the point. Nothing about Keynesian economics demands that, however. You can socialize the risk and the reward (buying a stake in troubled companies is obviously one way to do it, not to mention the simplest) instead, which again I think we can all agree here is vastly superior to the former without so many inherent problems.

Secondly, that's nothing but armchair psychology (and it assumes an infinite number of infinitely generous bailout plans, all acting immediately -- something that is obviously divergent from the real world). You don't actually have any proof of your chain.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/business/media/29carr.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=This American Life&st=cse&oref=slogin

 

[akuchi]

'Palin, which magazines did you read before you became running mate?'
'Most of them'

A stunning answer from a brilliant candidate; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oliverburkemanblog/2008/oct/01/uselections2008.sarahpalin

 

[Luduan]

Chile also has one of the worst income distributions in the world: http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/eco_cou_152.pdf

'Palin, which magazines did you read before you became running mate?'
'Most of them'

She also responded with "silence" when asked to discuss a single SCOTUS case besides Roe v. Wade, something any high school graduate should be able to do with little effort, nevermind someone who is running for Vice President: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonat...re_interviews_and_tell_her_story.html?showall

 

[Ancien Régime]

The credit crisis was caused by lending to people who couldn't pay it back. This lending appears to be caused by a doubling of the global capital in the last 6 years and thus people looking for a place to invest their new wealth

I agree with that, but why would people, without political intervention, invest that capital by deliberately lending to people who could not pay it back (as opposed to productive industry - manufacture, agriculture, etc)? Even if you assume that people aren't perfectly rational (a weakness of Austrian theory), you can't assume people are stupid.

I do admit I was rambling though and putting togther Keynesian stuff with stuff that isn't (but happens to be bad fiscal policy)

Of course, it doesn't help that a lot of this new capital was created by fiat, rather than through exchange/production.

So why is the first a problem while the second is not?

Because the first assumes that the economy can be scientifically/rationally managed (which suffers from the same problem as socialism, albeit on a smaller scale - there is too much information for any sort of management to be possible).

Any intervention affects the economy in wholly unpredictable (and often negative in the long-term) ways, because people will respond to changing economic conditions differently.

Of course, I doubt that you argue for persistent intervention into the economy as much as for emergency intervention.

All that's required is spending in the event of a depression.

And because spending is multiplied, that justifies government intervention to initate spending - and this effect will be multiplied, correct? The problem that I see with that theory is:

1: It assumes savings are "idle" - in reality, "hoarded" money provides an incentive to improve the quality of services
2: Because this money is extracted by force, rather than productive activities, one could argue that there is a negative multiplier caused by the fact that the money was taxed in the first place.

Doesn't one of the scenarios of Keynesianism outline a situation where people refuse to spend money, which hurts employment, etc, which makes spending more risky, making people refuse to spend money, etc.

I said this scenario was impossible - people would eventually spend money and invest.

Both of these positions are based on a priori assumptions of human nature.

(note i'm somewhat noob at econ)

 

[Hipmonlee]

Doesn't one of the scenarios of Keynesianism outline a situation where people refuse to spend money, which hurts employment, etc, which makes spending more risky, making people refuse to spend money, etc.

I said this scenario was impossible - people would eventually spend money and invest.

Both of these positions are based on a priori assumptions of human nature.

The problem is that the rational choice is not to be the first to spend the money. The best strategy for any self interested individual is to wait until everyone else starts spending before taking any risks with their savings.

This is pretty obvious when you look at what is going on at the moment. I havent heard any financial advisors recommend that people spend up large in the short term.. So to get out of a situation like this, you need some sort of mutually agreed communal spending.. IE the government.

So curing the recession without intervention requires large scale altruism, whereas having government intervention allows people to act rationally. The first is more of an a priori assumption about human nature than the second.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ancien Régime]

The problem is that the rational choice is not to be the first to spend the money. The best strategy for any self interested individual is to wait until everyone else starts spending before taking any risks with their savings.

In theory that is true, but the fundamental flaw in that statement is that you are assuming that there is only one rational choice (or even that "rationality" can be determined by an outside judge) - if there is some potential gain to be gotten from spending the money, then there will be someone, or a group of people willing to take that risk.

To the risk-taking investor or consumer, spending is a rational choice because while there is a risk, if there is a potential gain to come from that risk, they will take it.

So it is impossible to assume that "since nobody is spending money, nobody will spend money" because *someone* will spend money.

 

[Hipmonlee]

But will enough people spend money to end the recession?

It could well be that enough people will take the risk, but the best way for those people to go about it is in some kind of coordinated fashion, and the best way to coordinate something like that is through the government.

It isn't entirely necessary, I mean we could just remain in a state of recession for a thousand years - technically that is an option. And it isnt guaranteed to have the best outcome (because no course of action ever could be), but in general, governmental intervention is more efficient at ending recessions than leaving it to a free market.

Have a nice day.

 

[Deck Knight]

If you're going for historical McCain moments that relate to Wall Street, don't forget the bribes he took to look the other way before the Securities & Loans crisis of the 80s. Four other senators (all Democratic) also took bribes, and all resigned out of shame for it. This is often called the "Keating Five" affair.

Actually, McCain was the one who brought the other four in and has since been cleared of all misconduct. McCain always cooperated with the authorities and was the only one who bothered to show up at testimony.

Anyway, of more importance is the bailout. I emailed NRO and basically my vent was this:

No bailout. Not now, not ever. The only "Trust" that will come from a huge, pork-laden bailout bill will be the Wall Street kleptocrats "trusting" that John Q. Public can be soaked worth his every dime no matter how many risky, ridiculous investment vehicles Wall Street makes off fundamentally insolvent mortgages. Bailing them out would be corporatism, the soicialization of losses. The only similarities between corporatism and capitalism is that they begin with "c" and end with "ism." Free market means freedom to fail, and I for one do not support bailing out yachts that are "too big to fail" when dingys are left to be absorbed in the wake regardless. The fallout will hurt because they have been screwing around for too long, but it will hurt more if Wall Street gets a blank check from John Q Public and is rewarded for taking outlandish risks without fear of reprisal.

Now to be sure, this isn't all Wall Street's fault. What started this mess off was Barack Obama's fellow travelers at ACORN. The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (I call them the Asshole Conmen Organizing Repulsive Nastiness). Obama trained these public agitators and rank fraudsters, and sympathizes with them. A Community Organizer's job is apparently intimidation and voter fraud. ACORN and their ilk pushed for the Community Reinvestment Act way back in 1992. Basically the CRA mandated that lending institutions lower their standards for poor and minority buyers. Any time a bank ACORN deemed not sufficiently good enough to the poor and minorities (as in, people who could not afford mortgages at a market rate) wanted to merge or expand, ACORN would show up and intimidate their offices with threats and agitate the executives in their homes.

How did they get away with it, you ask? Democrats supported such intimidation agitation as "consciousness-raising." The "Housing Trust Fund" that the Frank-Dodd amendment would have put into the original bailout bill woulf have served as a slush fund for ACORN. That's right, "Friend of Angelo" Countrywide sweetheart Dodd and See No Evil Frank wanted to spend tax money benefiting the very fraudsters who started this mess rolling. Apparently the crisis wasn't bad enough to stop sending pork to the source.

I repeat, Barack Obama trained ACORN thugs in Chicago. It is his breed, the Democrat-machine backed thug, that started this snowball rolling. ACORN is currently facing dozens of fraud charges in 12 states. Theirs is a systemic program of election fraud. A vote for Barack is a vote for election fraud, for undermining democracy and the fundamental right in a democracy of free and fair elections. That is why Barack Obama scares the shit out of me. Between his ties to these thugs, The Obama Youth, and former Fannie Mae execs Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson being his close financial advisors, he is directly tied to every single corrupt individual or organization responsible for this mess.

Electing that man would be rewarding all of the corrupt actors that brought on this mess. Never mind he's spent the last week and a half being irrelevant to anything, because Obama is the puppet, and a puppetmaster pulls his string. He plays the clean, articulate, bright, reformer character while the puppetmaster issues his directives and they are carried out dutifully. Thus why Obama has had little to say on this matter, other than that he did not lift a finger to either help or hinder the bailout bill. I'm sure that is Leadership in Obama's mind, but it isn't in any rational person's.

 

[Surgo]

There's a serious problem with your analysis, Deck Knight. That problem is that your ire is extremely misplaced; CRA loans have actually been profitable and not at all at fault in the subprime mortgage crisis.

* http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10321685_ITM (a bit older, unfortunately, but still telling)
* http://www.newamerica.net/blog/asset-building/2008/no-larry-cra-didn-t-cause-sub-prime-mess-3210 (newer)

The Community Reinvestment Act was also passed in 1977, not 1992. It was amended in 1992.

 

[Ancien Régime]

But will enough people spend money to end the recession?

Yes, because in this case the more people take on the risk, the less that risk increases, spurring more people to take on risk that would have previously been unacceptable.

It could well be that enough people will take the risk, but the best way for those people to go about it is in some kind of coordinated fashion, and the best way to coordinate something like that is through the government.

but in general, governmental intervention is more efficient at ending recessions than leaving it to a free market.

...why is "coordination" better?

Remember, it's not just about spending - you could spend a trillion dollars to dig holes then fill them up again, which would create a demand for food, lodging and lemonade for the laborers working on the holes. But at the end of the day, you've gotten nothing produced other than food, lodging and lemonade, and 1,000,000,000 literally buried in holes.

(and no I'm not arguing that the government response would be that, but that the government has a tendency to malinvest)

Whereas the free market is more likely to invest in productive enterprises like technology, food, and agriculture (not that government cannot, but government investment is inherently less efficient because government does not produce any wealth - just confiscates it.)

As for the CRA, one must consider that Fannie and Freddie - which could NEVER have survived on the open market with its poltically-driven bad lending practices - were mostly supported by Democrats. (remember, the mantra of "affordable housing" was openly preached in ignorance of economic realities)

 

[Surgo]

Digging holes and filling them up again is a perfectly fine way to go about it. The point is that it gets the wheels of investment and demand moving again, whether there's an end product or not. Though end products are good. I think we can all agree on that.

The free market is not likely to invest in enterprises at all during a depression. That's pretty much why it's a depression. It's why they're calling this the "credit freeze".

Do things 'sort themselves out' in the long run? Yeah...sorta. The Japanese had no intervention; it's now been 15 years and they're still recovering. 15 years. As John Keynes once said, "in the long run we're all dead".

 

[Ancien Régime]

Do things 'sort themselves out' in the long run? Yeah...sorta. The Japanese had no intervention; it's now been 15 years and they're still recovering. 15 years. As John Keynes once said, "in the long run we're all dead".

They had no intervention...the same way America under Hoover had no intervention.

Japan's development model over the past 50 years has emphasized government intervention and planning in the economy. During its recession, government interventions have manifested themselves as fiscal stimulus packages involving large amounts of public works, increases in the monetary base, interest-rate cuts, bailouts and nationalization of some banks, direct government lending to businesses, and increases in government spending despite some tax cuts. These interventions have tried to maintain the existing structure of production preventing the necessary market processes from working to correct the artificial boom's malinvestments.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_02/powell120602.html

btw Chile's misery index (inflation + unemployment) is about 16.0 based on some projections I found looking the two categories up. Not reliable, but yeah. However, their unemployment has usually hovered around 5% and their inflation was between 5 and 6%.

(in short their misery index for a decade was lower than ours is now)

 

[StrangerDanger]

Thank you, Obama. Now, let's watch the economy blow up. =\

uhhhh lol it was the house republicans that block voted the bill down after speaker pelosi's speech (a really shitty reason imo. Her speech wasn't any more partisan than anything else that flies through there.).

Also, who flew back to Washington to "save the day" and unite the house republicans who would inevitable destroy the bill? John McCain.

 

[Hipmonlee]

The reason coordination is better because one person cant do it alone.

Like, if I put my prices down, then I run at a loss, so I am relying on my competitors to follow suit, and for that to eventually get back to my suppliers. But if they know I am running at a loss my competitors might just choose to not lower their prices and wait till I run out of money.

So basically I would have to take a loss which may result in a benefit to the community at large, which in turn will benefit me, but of course not to the extent that it benefits everyone else. But it may also just result in a big loss to me and no benefit.

Especially since the market is huge, and the time it will take for the benefits of my cost cutting to get back to me could be very very long. But more importantly my impact on the market is probably going to be negligible. If I am a baker, and I cut the cost of my bread to match what I believe its real cost ought to be given the current conditions, then people in my local aread will get cheap bread and I will run at a loss, but it isnt likely that the price reduction of that bread is going to make it back to the farmers producing my flour.

So any movement needs to be from something very very big. For a large company to say: "hey, in this time of financial crisis, we are going to intentionally operate at a big loss in order to kickstart the economy" and if they did, then if the investors are acting in their rational self interest they will probably sell, which will cost the company and make such an undertaking even more expensive for them.

This is why it requires coordination. You are asking people to take personal losses for the good of the whole. Whenever you have a situation like that, then the problem is that it is always the rational (and obvious) choice to say "ok, but the person taking the loss should be someone other than me".

Have a nice day.

 

[Deck Knight]

uhhhh lol it was the house republicans that block voted the bill down after speaker pelosi's speech (a really shitty reason imo. Her speech wasn't any more partisan than anything else that flies through there.).

Also, who flew back to Washington to "save the day" and unite the house republicans who would inevitable destroy the bill? John McCain.

Moreover, house Republicans balked at their own leadership. Trust me StrangerDanger and Surgo, I've got plenty of ire for all the idiots who tried to push the bailout, including Bush, Obama, and McCain. The difference is that Obama has ties to both the original agitators and the current criminals (Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson), whereas Bush and McCain tried to fix Frannie Mac back in 2005, and Barney Frank (chair of Finance Committee) made a See No Evil Stump Speech. Just like with the gay prostitution ring run out of his own basement, Barney Frank couldn't see what was obvious to everyone else, and we have to suffer for his incompetence. I have to suffer specifically, because guess what MA district this immoral pitstain happens to be elected from? The one I reside in. No one runs against him, but so help me God in 2012 when I will turn 25, I will run against him if only in a vain attempt to make him blow some cash. I know I will lose, so I will spare nothing to expose his long, long list of hypocrisies, corruptions, and stupidities.

John Boehner's excuse for Republicans voting against what he called a "crap sandwich" was weak and stupid. Everyone knows Nancy Pelosi is a bitter partisan and suffers from Queen Bee Syndrome, and has all the compassion and sense of a starved, beaten crocodile. Thankfully she is the first, last, and only Speaker that will be able to claim single digit approval rating. She sure did "Clean up the House." That's got to be a great booster for woman, their first speaker is such a dismal failure that anyone, anyone at all could do better.

In McCain's defense, McCain called attention to the House GOP who otherwise would have been steamrolled, and the House GOP knocked out the Frank-Dodd Amendment. Since the Bill wasn't a Christmas tree for liberal activist groups like ACORN, a lot of safe liberal democrats voted it down. You see, even when it is the worst financial crisis in the world, liberal Democrats cannot live without their fat pork binky.

I'm also not blaming CRA for the bulk of the problem, just being the start of it. Wall Street and especially the crooks at Frannie Mac bear the brunt of the blame for turning what they knew was insolvent garbage into an investment vehicle. Obama's ties to the community agitators are still valid criticisms. Again, he wasn't just some innocent observer, Obama's job as a community organizer was literally to train ACORN agitators. He is tied with them and their Saul Alinski origins heart, mind, and soul. He is also tied with Franklin Raines, the CEO at the time these idiotic investment vehicles were made, and Jim Johnson who continued the fraud. Frannie Mac has doled out millions of lobbying dollars to keep this under wraps, and it is finally coming to the head. Chris Dodd, who has been around forever and is supposed to be the oversight for Frannie Mac got the most lobbying contributions. Barack Obama got the second highest amount, yet was only in the Senate 4 years. Obama is as dirty as anyone in this, and only the media being in the tank for him keeps this from being public knowledge.

No bailout for private companies. I don't do business with Wachovia. The only money they should get to me is money I agree to pay them for services rendered. Otherwise they can get off my lawn.

One last point: Paulson, when asked where the 700B number came from said they just made the number up. One source said the bailout could cost 2.5 Trillion dollars. The bailout that was supposed to get trust back would barely have covered 25%. This is why i distrust government, and especially why I hate and loathe systems that demand government control of everything. The government is bad enough with power split 1,000 different ways. I can't imagine what a single autocrat would be capable of getting away with, although George Orwell's 1984 provides a chilling possibility.

For a much longer, better analysis that I can possibly give, a video that Time Warner tried to get off on Copywright Infringement for use of "Burning Down the House (The Music has since been removed, and the video remains)": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4 It will be an enlightening 11 minutes of your life.

 

[Surgo]

If nothing else, I think we can all agree that socializing the risk without also socializing the reward is extraordinarily retarded.

 

[Luduan]

Ironically, it was Larry Craig who led the crusade against Barney Frank in his gay prostitution scandal. Also ironic are your continual references to the works of Orwell, a socialist.


Election News:
Conservative commentators are now complaining about the moderator of the VP debate, Gwen Ifill, because she is writing a book entitled "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama". Interestingly, the book was announced two weeks before both campaigns agreed on her moderating, yet the McCain camp claims to have had no knowledge of its forthcoming, meaning they either are lying or are completely inept at basic research (a simple Google search would have sufficed). I am surprised Palin did not read the article breaking the story in July; after all, she does read "all of them".

* http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/gwen.ifill/index.html?eref=rss_us

Polls:
Obama leads McCain by 7 points according to Rasmussen, continuing a week long trend. In my state, a toss-up, Obama leads McCain by 3. Obama's lead has widened to 8 in Pennsylvania, while McCain's has narrowed to the same margin in Mississippi.

 

[Misty]

I had a rather fascinating thought today. See what you think.


Back in August, when Obama's numbers were slipping as a result of the Russia-Georgia War and McCain's negative attacks, two schools of thought prevailed as to Obama's response. One school said that Obama had slipped off his message; the other said he needed to go more negative. While some indications show that he gave some thought to the second school - with marginal results - it generally would seem that Obama decided to stay "above the fray".


Now I want to discuss the current situation. Far from plummeting like in August, Obama's numbers are now rising spectacularly. So, what's different now? Palin's numbers have dropped, sure; but mostly people credit the financial crisis. Question is, why does this matter?

Observers would posit the standard axiom that "poor economic conditions benefit Democrats". That's all good and well, but should it work this well? I think there's a bit more to it. Here's what I think: I think it's an issue of message - going back to my discussion of August.

Think about it like this: We have a world in chaos. Great powers are invading their neighbors, Pakistan is imploding, Iran's nuclear program is accelerating, a trillion dollars disappears from the stock market within hours. Republicans claim that this benefits the person with experience - but I think this is a bit shortsighted (and probably partisan, but never mind). I think it benefits the person who APPEARS THE MOST PRESIDENTIAL - in other words, someone who projects leadership, someone who can say "I have these problems under control." Let's do a compare/contrast.

In August, in response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, it was McCain who projected leadership. McCain took a hard line against what was obviously a calculated and aggressive move. Meanwhile, Obama and Bush projected weakness - calling on "both sides" to "cease violence". Later on, both moved to a harder line; but by then it was too late to fill the perception gap. McCain gained significantly in the polling.


Contrast that with now. Obama has been demonstrably calm about this whole economic issue. His message has been consistent - albeit a bit dodgy, but McCain has been similarly dodgy. On the other hand, McCain's response has been erratic, going from "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" to bashing Wall Street greed. Like Obama, McCain makes a poor populist, and it shows. His worst mistake was trying to move the debate; the voters' response to the crisis was to want the debate MORE, not less.

In conclusion, Obama has found a message almost entirely by accident - "I'm calm and confident, and I can lead in a time of crisis." This narrative not only resonates, it even fits - consider how Obama's tightly-controlled ship contrasted with Hillary Clinton's crisis-a-minute campaign, and then McCain's until Schmidt signed on.

Obama's "cool" demeanor has been decried, but in this case I believe it's become a trump card. Obama appears like a calm leader, giving people confidence that, despite his low experience, he has the personality to survive as president.

 

[SAN DIEGO SUPER CHARGERS!]

Damn, Biden laid the smackdown when he turned the "Maverick" into failure towards the end of tonight's debate.