Return to Transcripts main page

This Week in Politics

Revisiting the Political Stories of the Week

Aired October 25, 2008 - 18:20   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(IN PROGRESS DUE TO BALLOT BOWL RUNNING OVERTIME)
TOM FOREMAN: Candidates can talk about the economy, national security, health care until they are blue. But the truth is, when it's World Series time, if you start talking about baseball, you can get into trouble fast. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I'm a White Sox fan, but since the White Sox are out of it, I'll root for the Phillies now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Fair enough, he's a guy from Chicago, White Sox fan. That was in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. Down in the crucial state of Florida, however, Obama was all about Tampa Bay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: When you see a White Sox fan showing love to the Rays and the Rays showing some love back, you know we're on to something right here. .

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Well, John McCain saw that and he started swinging for the fences.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: When he's campaigning in Philadelphia, he roots for the Phillies. And when he's campaigning in Tampa Bay, shows love to the Rays.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Well, it looks like a solid base hit, doesn't it? But it turns out that the GOP clean-up hitter was pitching a change-up as well. .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH PALIN (R), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: How about those Tampa Bay Rays? The people in this area know a little something about turning an underdog into a victor. Congratulations to your Phillies on making it to the World Series. You do know all about turning an underdog into a victor. (END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Well, it may turn out the tensions in the Middle East will be easier to solve than the tensions between baseball fans. Let's take time out and dance our troubles away for a bit with our weekly pick of the virile videos.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Let's get this segment pumping.

First up, McCain and Palin break it down Bollywood style. Randomuller.com shows us that politics is a global phenomenon. So is great dancing.

Here is the Alan Cohen experience, getting down for Obama. And he gets a little cheeky in his ode to the Illinois senator. This week, animals are hot in the video world. This guy's celebrating the bear market, get it?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Besides, one vote means diddley squat.

FOREMAN: Speaking of animals, rember linebacker Terry Tate?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You better vote, sucker!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The panic on Wall Street has now reached Main Street.

FOREMAN: And finally when it comes to financial problems, who better to turn to than the Hollywood set?

NATALIE PORTMAN: Rashida and I have determined the best course of action. Puppies!

FOREMAN: Puppies? Well, it's not like the experts have a better idea.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: Black Eyed Peas echo what we find in our devil's dictionary this week. It defines a pollster as someone who gets lied to for a living. Well, like (INAUDIBLE), I've been searching for an honest man to explain all this. And I found two of them in our Newark bureau, Michael Crowley, senior editor of "The New Republic." And with me in D.C., our own nattering naybob of numbers, senior political analyst Bill Schneider.

Michael, let me start with you. If polling is a science, how come all the polls don't agree?

MICHAEL CROWLEY, THE NEW REPUBLIC: Well, because it's really not a science. I mean, in a way, it's more of an art. And different pollsters approach their work differently.

Now part of it, of course, is just if you call a whole bunch of people, you're going to have random variations, you're going to get different people just by chance. But you also have -- polls are not just purely the numbers that the pollsters found by calling everyone. They are also -- frequently reflect pollsters' interpretations and expectations of voter behavior, the likelihood that different groups are going to vote. So a big part of polling is kind of manipulating the numbers that they find to reflect their assumptions and predictions about behavior.

FOREMAN: Let me talk to Bill about that right now, because Bill, this seems to be the problem. Most of us look to polls from the outside and say this will tell me the truth of something. But this indicates that people are more trying to shape the truth of polls, trying to say, we will make up facts and then put numbers to back them.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I hope people don't make up the numbers. There is a difference between the poll and the interpretation, as Michael just said.

The numbers are there. There's a famous story that Jack Kennedy once was told by his pollster. Here are the numbers, Mr. President. Let me explain what they mean. And the president said, just show me the numbers, I'll figure out what they mean.

Well, that's the point. There is spin and there are the facts. The problem is, no poll is authoritative. I repeat, no poll is authoritative. Not even the CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll is authoritative. They all have built into them a margin of error. The best way to approximate the truth is to look at all the polls and see if there's any general tendencies. So we do a poll poll.

FOREMAN: That's a fear argument if you talk about more established polls. But I want you to look at a graphic here of a number of polls that were taken just in the second week of September of this year. CBS News had Obama up five points. FOX News had McCain up three points. NBC had Obama up one. ABC had McCain up two. "USA Today" had McCain up ten.

Michael, how can you explain this? These people are really trying to get at the truth and they're missing it so badly or not agreeing. What do we make of that?

CROWLEY: Well, I think Bill is right, that there is this kind of more recent innovation where there are averages at the polls. And I think that is helpful because you can kind of account for outliers on both sides.

But what you're seeing is to some extent sort of random variation, to some extent difference assumptions by different pollsters about voter behavior. Who's a likely voter? What is minority turnout going to be like? But you know...

FOREMAN: Clarify that, Michael. When you talk about what minority turnout is going to be like, tell me why that would affect the results of the poll?

CROWLEY: Well, for instance, one pollster might say, I think African- American turnout is going to be roughly what it was in 2004. And I -- based on the information I have, if you make that assumption, and based on the number of African-American voters who said they were going to go for Obama or McCain, this will be the final result.

Another pollster might say, I think there's good reason to believe, based in part on questions that I've been asking voters, and some take more care to do this than others, that African-American turnout will be much higher than it was in 2004. The pollster who makes that assumption is likely going to find a better result for Barack Obama. So to some extent again, these polls involve predictions of behavior.

FOREMAN: And there are, Bill, pollsters out there who are in the business of trying to make one candidate look better or the other one look better or to shape the argument a certain way.

SCHNEIDER: That's right. Candidates and campaigns and parties hire polling operations. They do it for two reasons. One, to give them information about what's happening out there. Number two, to give them spin so they can say hey, we're ten points ahead. And sometimes they'll cook the numbers a little bit. That's not correct according to the polling profession, but they will cook the numbers a little bit so they'd be able to advance their argument. Remember, you look at a -- you show a good poll, it helps you raise money because people think you're going to win. They want to give money to a winner.

FOREMAN: Is there, Bill, certain -- are there certain warning signs we should look for? For example, there are these very quick polls, polls that occur within hours of a speech being made that say this is what people thought of that. Is that a problem?

SCHNEIDER: That often is a problem. People often don't know what they think about something. After a debate, you have an immediate impression and then you have the next day after people have talked to their friends and neighbors or hung out around the water cooler. Which is more real? Often it's what happens the next day when they've heard the spin, they're heard the analysis, they've thought about it for a while, rather than the instantaneous reaction. The second reaction is often the more lasting. That's one sign you have to be careful. It's possible to poll too quickly.

And Michael, you also mentioned that in some cases, what people are being asked is about something they haven't even seen or haven't experienced. And the question may be too simple. For example, someone may propose a very nuanced jobs program. And the question may be do you think we should have more jobs in America?

CROWLEY: Yes, this, again, is -- gets to the question, why would you have different numbers than a poll taken on the same day? Different pollsters frame their questions with different language. And sometimes it can be leading. Or sometimes they will say let me tell you something about Barack Obama's tax plan. And the language they use can bias the respondent.

So pollsters, when you talk to them, it's actually very entertaining because they are so passionate about this. And they get so angry at the way the other guy framed this question or have a lot of admiration.

One pollster said to me that the Pew survey questions read like a sonnet. You know, it brought to tears to his eyes because they were so beautifully written. So a lot lies in the way you frame the question and whether you are essentially leading the witness, some people might say.

FOREMAN: We've done polls which indicate that people aren't as confident about the whole voting and polling business as they once were. Bill, you've been in this for a long time. You've watched a lot of elections. Are you more trusting the polls now or less?

SCHNEIDER: Well, in a way more. You know why? Because there are more of them. If there are a lot of different polls, some will be good, some will be bad, some will be wrong. The only way to approximate the truth, and that's all polls are, an approximation of the truth, is to look at a lot of them, at least the good ones, and see if there's any general tendencies.

You know those polls you showed from early September?

FOREMAN: Sure.

SCHNEIDER: They seemed to be all over the place. They told a story. The story they told is McCain was catching up after his convention. After he picked Sarah Palin, there was a lot of excitement. Some of the polls showed McCain ahead. A couple of them showed Obama very close. There was -- the approximation of the truth was after his convention, McCain caught up to Obama. And then Obama started building the lead. That's what I get out of it.

FOREMAN: You have to look at them very closely. Bill, thanks for being here. Michael, as well.

Maybe we don't know what you're going to do when you get into the polling place, but you will know what happens. If you are aware of voter fraud, call the CNN voter hotline. Help us track the problem. We'll report the trouble. Call 1-877-462-6608.

When we come back, are we heading for another Great Depression? Well, we'll take a hard look at hard times. And times are certainly tough for John McCain right now. But there may be a silver lining to his position in this race, which brings us to our twip tip.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN (voice-over): That sound of hammering you hear is McCain trying to put Obama into a box, framing him as the big money insider almost incumbent president. Of course, George Bush is actually the incumbent, but he's not running. So the McCain crew is trying to make Obama look like he's already won. He's the insider, he's king of the hill. And that would make McCain the underdog.

Will it work? Keep watching. Stranger things have happened. And that's our twip tip.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: Here is a story you might have missed this week while you were sleeping or more likely getting awakened by political robocalls. The global economic crisis is worsening and the chief of the international monetary fund charged with helping developing countries weather the storm is embroiled in a sex scandal.

Dominic Strauss-Kahn is under investigation for allegedly abusing his power in an affair with a co-worker. He's denied any wrongdoing. But does this found familiar? It should. 15 months ago, Paul Wolfowitz resigned as president of the World Bank under pressure because of alleged favoritism toward an employee. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: My friends, Senator Obama wants to raise taxes and restrict trade. The last time America did that in a bad economy, it led to the Great Depression.

OBAMA: We meet at a great moment of uncertainty for America. The economic crisis we face is the worst since the Great Depression. I know these are difficult times. I know folks are worried, but I am convinced that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis because I believe in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: With the number of times you've heard about the Great Depression lately, you'd be excused in thinking it was time to invest in apples like these guys here. But is it really all that bad? Let's check out the truth.

And for that, I'm joined by "Wall Street Journal" assistant managing editor Gerry Seib.

And Gerry, I want to start off with a poll. We asked people, is another Depression likely within the next year? And 41 percent said, yes, it is. Is there any reason for them to be that afraid?

GERALD SEIB: I don't think so. You have to -- a Depression is a big event. And it takes a long time to happen. You have to remember, the stock market crashed in 1929. The Depression probably hit its worst point in the spring of 1933, four years later. It's a long, slow process to sink that far down.

FOREMAN: And it lingered until World War II really.

SEIB: Pretty much.

FOREMAN: (INAUDIBLE).

SEIB: Yes, unemployment was -- when Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1923, at almost 25 percent. It's at 6 percent today. So we're a long way from that point. FOREMAN: You bring up the numbers. I want to look at the numbers, because when we try to find the truth in our truth squad here, it can be very, very helpful to look at simple math, not what you feel about things, just what the numbers say.

Here are the numbers about the Depression. Unemployment was about 25 percent as you said in the Great Depression. Now, a little over 6 percent. That's a huge difference. Back then, 1 in 3 banks had trouble. They had serious problems. Now you're talking about 1 percent or 2 percent, that's 1 or 2 out of 100 banks. And bear in mind also that there are a lot of safeguards in place now that were not in place back then. And when you look at the stock market losses, back then like 90 percent of the value of the stock market. We're talking about 40 percent. We're going to look at the current losses right now. And that's still up and down, isn't it?

SEIB: Exactly. And you know, things can get worse. And they probably will get worse in the real economy. But there's a long gap between where we are now and where the depth of that depth of the Depression would take you.

FOREMAN: I have a lot of doubts sometimes when economic people say, oh, no, we can't get into a Depression. But at the same time, there have been safeguards put into place...

SEIB: Right.

FOREMAN: ...for all of our problems. Describe to me what we're doing differently today.

SEIB: The biggest thing that's happening now that did not happen then is that the government is acting. And particularly the Federal Reserve bank is acting.

What happened in the Great Depression was the Fed didn't loosen up the money supply. It didn't increase the money supply enough to keep the economy moving. It stood there for a long time and let that happen. In fact, it tightened the money supply at one crucial point in 1931.

Now you have the Fed doing the opposite. It has started to pump money into the system in big ways and right at the beginning. There's not a coincidence there, by the way. Ben Bernanke, who now runs the Federal Reserve System, is and was a student of the Great Depression and what didn't happen right in the 1929 to 1934-35 period.

So he's thought about this a lot. He's doing the opposite now of what the government's financial mechanisms did in those days.

FOREMAN: As people try to figure out whom to trust in their arguments about all this whole thing, though, I guess one of the fears for people is, will it be enough?

SEIB: Yes.

FOREMAN: Is there such a thing as us simply of running out of money to pump into the system and we still crash? SEIB: There is. And one of the reasons to wonder about that, I think now, is that this is a much more global economy than it was in those days. There were global ramifications of the Depression. And the international financial system was not very coordinated then.

Frankly, it's not all that coordinated now. And so their -- one of the things you're seeing this week is the reverberations of the problem of the credit markets sort of circling the globe starting here, moving to Asia, and then moving back to hit the stock market on the second way around. And so, I think when that process stops, there's still a great unknown.

FOREMAN: So are the candidates helping or hurting with the business community, with investment, with people wanting to move ahead by bringing up the Great Depression a lot? Is that a reasonable warning? Or is that fear-mongering in a way that hurts from both sides?

SEIB: It probably doesn't help in the following sense. One of the things that's going to put a brake on things now is reduced consumer spending. That's what the stock market is worried about this week, not what's happening in the financial institutions. What's happening in the real economy that consumers drive. I think you could consume -- it could drive consumer fears too far down and make things worse. But on the other hand, you can't avoid bad news either.

FOREMAN: Gerry Seib, thanks for being here. We appreciate it.

SEIB: Happy to be here.

FOREMAN: Don't go anywhere. We've got this week's politics compressed into 60 seconds. Next week's politics today. And of course, our late night laughs. And this week, we're adding D.L. Hughley to our esteemed list of late night comedians. Do not miss the premiere of CNN's newest program, "DL Hughley Breaks the News" tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DL HUGHLEY: But you haven't endorsed anybody?

SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Right.

HUGHLEY: And it's McCain and it's Obama. You know, and I'm running the show - and your endorsement, we'll probably (INAUDIBLE). And don't look at the fact that I'm black - or nothing like -- no pressure. Endorse somebody, damn it, endorse somebody.

MCCLELLAN: From the very beginning I've said I'm going to support McCain and has the best chance of changing the way Washington works and getting things done. I will be voting for Barack Obama.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) FOREMAN: It's time to hop on the fast track. Everything you need to know to get through the next week in politics. And our guide this week is deputy political director Paul Steinhauser. Halloween is upon us. So are we going to see kids dressed as politicians?

PAUL STEINHAUSER: Well, Tom, what we are going to see is a lot of big campaign commercials. We've got about a week left in this. And you know what? The campaigns, they want to get out their message. How do you do it? You advertise on TV. That's what both campaigns are doing. They got millions of dollars to do this. But the Obama campaign's got more. And they're going that extra yard.

This Wednesday, they're buying a half an hour on primetime on the major networks, Tom. We're talking big bucks in primetime.

FOREMAN: We haven't heard a lot from up on Capitol Hill lately. What are the goblins up to up there?

STEINHAUSER: Call it the forgotten story this Halloween season. But yes, there is a battle in Congress going on. And it's mostly forgotten by the national media but it exists. The Democrats, they want to expand their majorities in the House and their slight majority in the Senate. The Republicans, they have precious funds left. Are they pulling them out of some races and putting them in the other? We're keeping an eye on that, Tom.

FOREMAN: And speaking of forgotten, the U.N. is going to vote once again on the boycott against Cuba. The U.S. says it never wants to drop it. Is anything going to change this time?

STEINHAUSER: Well, there's a great political angle to this, Tom. It's called the Cuban vote in Florida, which was reliably Republican for many years. Now maybe not so reliable anymore. Cubans, though, could be crucial in Florida. 27 electoral votes at stake there. And the Cuban vote could swing the state one way or the other. That vote this week coming up could be important, Tom.

FOREMAN: Thanks so much, Paul Steinhauser, good job. And speaking of jobs, let's take a look at our late night laughs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well nation, lots of good news out there today. The Dow went up 172 points! So the economy is fixed. I tell you that took forever.

JON STEWART: How do you spend $150,000 on clothes in two months? What do you buy the original "Thriller" jacket off of Ebay? All right, got me that, all right.

PALIN: Jane, the engineer and Molly the dental hygienist and chuck the teacher.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe they went on to single out Bob the Builder, Dora the Explorer, and Thomas the tank engine.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TIME STAMP: 1857:14

FOREMAN: We have just enough time left for our political version of short attention span theater. Don't blink, you could miss it. Our one minute "Week in Politics."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: We have 15 days to go.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Only 14 days.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 13 days to go.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just 12 days.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eleven days.

BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Ten days to go.

PALIN: Spread the wealth.

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Is Barack Obama a socialist?

PALIN: It sounds more like socialism.

OBAMA: They called me socialistic.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I say it's clearly wealth redistribution.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From average Joe to everyday Ed.

JOE THE PLUMBRE: I'm a flash in the pan.

JOE BIDEN: Joe the fireman, Joe the policeman.

PALIN: Ed the dairy man, Tito the builder.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: $150,000 on clothes and accessories for Governor Palin.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Looks like a million dollars.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Biden's warning that Barack Obama will be tested.

MCCAIN: Look, I've been tested.

PALIN: John McCain is a tested leader.

OBAMA: I think that Joe sometimes engages in rhetorical flourishes.

We want to regrow the pie.

MCCAIN: He believes in redistributing wealth. OBAMA: Everybody here wants some pie.

MCCAIN: Create jobs and opportunities.

OBAMA: And we want a slice of the pie.

MCCAIN: Who gets your piece of the pie?

PALIN: We're all Joe the plumber, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Joe, Bob, Sue, Phil, that's it for THIS WEEK IN POLITICS. I'm Tom Foreman. Thanks for watching.

Straight ahead, "Lou Dobbs This Week."