With the exception of the point about the economy, every other point was as true in August as it is today. Nevertheless, McCain actually led briefly in August. You're pretty much left with only three options to explain Obama's current lead: 1) The financial crisis, 2) Some combination of good campaigning by Obama and bad campaigning by McCain, or 3) All of the Above.

Further, one of your points is:

"The enthusiasm gap, with far fewer Republicans than Democrats saying they are fired up about supporting their candidate"

Are you arguing that the enthusiasm gap has absolutely nothing to do with the candidates and their campaigns? Or is it possible that good campaigning by Obama and/or bad campaigning by McCain helped to create this 'enthusiasm gap'?

Jane,

At least your Shift key is still intact. There is that.

With the exception of the point about the economy, every other point was as true in August as it is today. Nevertheless, McCain actually led briefly in August. You're pretty much left with only three options to explain Obama's current lead: 1) The financial crisis, 2) Some combination of good campaigning by Obama and bad campaigning by McCain, or 3) All of the Above.

He didn't actually lead. He was roughly tied in the polls as a result of a convention-generated boost. Such boosts are common, and virtually never last. And, yes, the financial crisis has made a real difference, since voters tend to blame the Republicans for it much more than the Democrats.

It's possible that both of these statements are true:

A) McCain had no chance, no matter what he did

B) McCain ran a really awful campaign

I think the impact of B is that the loss will be especially large, and with significant downticket effects.

In four years Republicans will be back in the majority by ridding four years of economic suffering under Dems. This is the American way of taking control.

Actually, I am a long-time computer programmer, currently working for a company that is doing cutting-edge web development work on certain websites. (Call it Web 2.0 if you want to drop names, but I don't... I think the designation is vague and stupid.) And I am making some pretty decent money. Not rich, but decent.

But I am not so self-absorbed as to think that just because I might be okay today, that our country is also. That is EXACTLY the problem that I was trying to point out! If sheeple would wake up and look beyond their cozy warm apartment, they might see that things are not so damned good.

You are in denial.

The Republican party no longer effectively represents you, as a libertarian. It no longer represents intellectual conservatives or moderates, or small business owners. It panders to the absolute worst of small, petty people who are jealous of others' education and success (in case this is unclear, see Palin, Sarah), and is slavishly devoted to only two groups: those who adhere to a foreign policy that was outdated before it was implemented, and a small subset of private sector benefactors.

It does not represent you.

I feel like I have to say that over and over to you, because you and the rest of the conspirators are like jilted ex-lovers, thinking the cool kids with the cocktail parties and constitutional mandates are gonna come back someday. They will not. They don't care about you.

Normal people, those who are separated far enough from the echo chamber that your personal circle has become, have recognized this. They realize that libertarianism, friedman/smith free market theories in toto, and H.W. Bush realism are no longer welcome in the elephant's trunk.

Those things are welcome in the Democratic party of the Junior Senator from Illinois, or at least provided an opportunity by him (see Sullivan, Andrew; Buckley, Christopher; Kmiec, Douglas). And that, not some unfair deck stacked against the remnants of a once-proud tradition.

We'll have you anytime. Just quit it with the hysteria.

James Q: OK, I'll bite:

1) Economy: most likely in a recession now, but there were seven solid years of growth before that. That can't be sniffed at.

2.) Foreign policy: The threat of Islamic terrorism is clearly lower. Significant success in democratizing Iraq, and implanting the possibility of a democratic state in the middle east.

3.) Taxation: Federal taxes are the lowest in generations, as a percentage of the economy.

4.) Domestic social policy: I don't really know what you mean by this. Liberals should like the increased spending; conservatives should like the small attempts to tamp down on abortion.

5.) "Freedom of the citizens": Again, don't really understand what this means, but if you think the Patriot Act has significantly diminished American freedoms, you're smoking something.

6.) Actual national or personal security: National security is unquestionably better than it was in Sept. 2001. As for personal security, the crime rate is lower than it was seven years ago.

7.) Inflation, National Debt, Spending: Inflation is worse now, but was tame for most of the last seven years. As for national debt and spending -- I agree with you.

8.) Emergency Preparedness -- As shown by the recent hurricanes, unquestionably better than it was seven years ago.

Look, I'm not a Republican. I do not support the President. I will not be voting for McCain (or for Obama or Barr -- all are worthless.) If you want to talk about "freedom of the citizens," the McCain-Feingold bill signed by Bush was one of the greatest infringements of freedom in our history (fortunately its worst provisions have been eviscerated by the Supreme Court.) The point of my little list here is to point out that most of the things liberals complain about regarding Bush and the Republicans (with the exception of spending/national debt) are things we could reasonably describe as a success. The things he has failed miserably in (spending, being the "handmaiden of socialism" as one blogger called him, McCain/Feingold) are exactly what a liberal would want his president to do.

And for that reason, the Republicans are in deep trouble in this election.

Ilya,

What you're obviously missing is that my side is always right so my side should always win, and if my side isn't winning then it must be that someone on my side did something wrong -- presumably something that I disagreed with when they did it.

If sheeple would wake up and look beyond their cozy warm apartment, they might see that things are not so damned good.

I'm not exactly a fan of being called "sheeple". I had a professor once who called his students something similar and while he thought it was funny, it did him no favors in getting people to like him or seriously consider his substantive remarks.

With respects to your comments though, if enough people like Oren think they are doing better, don't you think they are a better judge of it than you? Some people we've affected around the world are better off as well. I recently spent more than a year living in a remote town in Iraqi Kurdistan. Trust me, many of the people of Soran and most of their 5.5 million compatriots are better off now than they were 6 years ago

Ilya,
While you're correct to say that McCain's lead (or statistical tie) with Obama at the end of August and after the Republican convention can be attributed in large part to the convention/Palin bump -- one that is traditionally short-lived, it is nevertheless difficult to gauge whether the conditions you identified (sans one) contributed to (or caused?) McCain's current standing in the polls. It's not the severe economic downturn that alone has served Obama. Rather, this downturn has provided Obama with a better (and more timely) reference point by which to highlight the "defects" of GWB's administration. Obama had attempted to paint McCain as the second (or third?) coming of GWB but this did not reasonate with the electorate until the dramatic downturn in the stock market (and related financial failures reflecting an ongoing (if not longstanding) credit/financial crisis). Without the financial events of Sept 15-Oct. 10 (coupled, of course, with McCain's own political blunders, e.g., suspending the campaign), it is difficult to know whether Obama would enjoy the projected electoral college lead he does.

I entirely agree. You see this every election, people trying to explain the result in terms of campaign strategy. Partly because it gives journalists a lot more to talk about than just saying that the Democrat was destined to win. You'd agree, though, that some of McCain's moves have made this a less close race than it could've been, right? Suppose he had gone with Pawlenty, won the debates, actually articulated a positive policy agenda, eschewed some of the scuzzier tactics, basically continued in the vein of his convention speech - I know I at least would still be voting for him. Wouldn't have won him the election, certainly, but I don't think he'd be losing in North Carolina, or being forced to go on the air in states like Montana.

MatthewM wrote

1) Economy: most likely in a recession now, but there were seven solid years of growth before that. That can't be sniffed at.

There were not seven solid years of growth during the Bush administration. In fact, despite a growing population, there was a significant contraction in employment for most of the first term of the Bush presidency. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, employment was 137,778,000. Two years and 8 months later, in September 2003, employment was 137,609,000. Thus during a period of a growing population, the Bush economy was destroying more jobs that it was creating. And even though total employment did rise after that, unemployment was much higher. In November 2000, there were 5,336,000 unemployed. By November 2004, despite a "recovery," the number of unemployed had skyrocketed to 7,665,000. This was not seven solid years of growth.

2.) Foreign policy: The threat of Islamic terrorism is clearly lower.

Actions of Islamic terror against the world's industrialized democracies have declined. That doesn't mean that the threat has declined. We don't know what surprises may be in store for us.

Significant success in democratizing Iraq, and implanting the possibility of a democratic state in the middle east.

I don't see it. Were it so, why are we still there? And haven't we handed the Iranians a huge gift by leaving Iraq largely in friendly Shi'ite hands?

Federal taxes are the lowest in generations, as a percentage of the economy.

But deficits are taxes too, just deferred on our future selves and our children and grandchildren. Thus taxes, properly accounted for, are actually higher than under President Clinton.

if you think the Patriot Act has significantly diminished American freedoms, you're smoking something.

If this be smoking, make the most of it.

This election, like most, exhibits a phenomenon that might be called the rooster syndrome: Giving credit to the crowing of the rooster for the rising of the sun. It corresponds to the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is also related to the deification or Canute syndrome: attributing godlike powers to the most powerful guy around. It is a common defect in public decisionmaking, and one of the reasons the Founders opposed direct democracy.

Although government can have negative effects on economic debvelopment in the short term, in general the positive effects take at least 30-40 years to become realized, and consist mainly in support for basic research and programs that encourage R&D.

A related social pathology is the inability to develop complex mental models that allow accurate prediction of the effects of various interventions. See Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems, by Jay Forrester.

Alan Greenspan was shocked that managers of public companies might make decisions in conflict with the best interests of their shareholders, but that problem is discussed as the "principal-agent problem" in "agency theory".

Considering the inability of people to make wise public and private decisions, it seems to be a miracle that our situation is not even more disastrous than it is.

Taxes. I for one am sure glad not to be paying the Clinton rates.

Yes, much better to run up the debt instead and leave the kids and grandkids with the bill.

careless wrote "Obama is a bad enough candidate that McCain had a shot at winning." That's an odd comment. Conservatives are entitled to their beliefs that Obama's policies, temperament, and approach to governing are inappropriate, but if they are reasonable observers of the American scene, they ought to admit that, however much they may disagree with him, Barack Obama has been a terrific candidate.

From January 2007 up until shortly before the Iowa Caucuses, it was common wisdom that Hillary Clinton had all but sown up the nomination, before a single vote was cast. But Barack Obama out-organized his opponents on the ground, on the Internet, and in the fundraising arena. For his running mate, he picked a sober choice that voters, whether they liked him or not, regarded as presidential, ready to assume the ultimate responsibility on day one if tragedy strikes. In contrast, John McCain's selection is widely regarded as unqualified and not likely to be ready for years, if ever, should tragedy strike. Opinion polls, even among Republicans, showed that Obama was much better at the debates than his opponent. Remember when it was thought that Democrats for Hillary Clinton, especially women, especially working-class white men, would not vote for Barack Obama? Well, Obama's skills have brought most of these voters back into his column. President Obama will go down in history as having run a very skilled campaign.

It's possible that both of these statements are true:

A) McCain had no chance, no matter what he did

B) McCain ran a really awful campaign

I think the impact of B is that the loss will be especially large, and with significant downticket effects.

Except that McCain is doing relatively well (5-7 points down), given the conditions he finds himself in.

Harry Egar:

"The ideology also caused economic disaster in, eg, Iceland, ..."

So what political ideology has ruled Iceland? Before the 2007 elections, the Progressive Party in coalition with Independence Party, the Green Movement and the Liberal Party. Hardly a bunch of right-wingers. Moreover, the current financial crisis is sweeping the world.

The ideology at fault is the New Financial Architecture. Here is one of the best articles, I've seen describing the NFA caused the current crisis. But let's be clear both parties in the US promoted NFA.

Actually, I don't think you would have been laughed out of the room. Every actual person is a complex mix of good and bad, and every actual politician is a complex mix of appealing assets and electoral liabilities. The fact that you can assemble a list of liabilities seems to mostly show that the candidate is an actual person: You could have made an analogous list for George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, for example. Or so it seems to me.

I think he'd be laughed out of many rooms, but that just goes to show you that the people in some rooms aren't that astute. Your point's a good one. If you'd told people in 1996 that Gore would lose to a really inarticulate born-again/ex-alcoholic from Texas who hadn't done anything at all with his life until 1994, and hadn't spectacularly distinguished himself since, few would've believed you. On the other hand, if you showed people video of Gore's debate performances, stump speeches, and some of the wackier moments from the convention, they probably wouldn't believe such an awful campaigner could win the popular vote. Almost all candidates have some pretty major liabilities, but somebody has to win. I think it's clear that McCain's biggest liability - being a Republican - is a lot more damaging in this climate than Obama's being inexperienced and black.

q wrote:

You've ignored Oren's point. Technology is a large factor, if not the largest, in making everyone wealthier, and that it hasn't shown much, if any, of a slowdown overshadows all of the things you listed. I should point out that many of them have hardly any effect on the populace as a whole (foreign policy, domestic social policy, freedom of citizens, arguably national security).

Did the rate of technological progress slow down in any noticeable way during the great depression? Although most technologies don't improve exponentially as with computers following Moore's law, I'm tempted to generalize Moore's law in the sense that technological progress may follow a schedule of its own which is largely independent of the well-being of the surrounding society (barring something like a complete collapse of civilization of course).

Jesse M.

(barring something like a complete collapse of civilization of course).

If civilization totally collapses, and there is no form of government, nor surviving social norms, I call dibs on Kate Beckinsale.

Trouble?
You think this is trouble?
You try crash-landing into a lake in North Vietnam in the mid-60's and breaking both your arms, then being tortured beaten and starved in a dank foreign prison for seven years.
Trouble?
This is nothing!

Jane Q. Public:

...it is miniscule in proportion...

Spell check is your friend.

My gut tells me that the best GOP campaigner would probably be losing this election this cycle, mainly because the GOP brand is rather tarnished-and I think mostly due to the actions of those in the GOP.

But I also think McCain has been a pretty terrible campaigner. I think he just has a hard time finding a message and staying on it. He just isn't a good enough campaigner to shake off the Bush presidency and the poor GOP image right now.

But I have believed for months that Obama would likely end up winning, although I still think it will be a rather close race popular vote wise, but I suspect Obama will have a rather good electoral vote count and the GOP will be licking its wounds for the next 2 to 4 years.

Almost all candidates have some pretty major liabilities, but somebody has to win.

Truer words were never spoken, this is the bottom line for every election I've ever participated in: No matter how terrible the candidates are, somebody is going to win.

Or, to be more precise, the result of pursuing an ideology that has been flogged by the incumbent party for 30 years and more.

Heck, I'd say most of the GOP's current problem comes from the fact that they rather conspicuously ABANDONED the ideology they'd been flogging for 30 years and more, when they finally got a chance to implement it. Went toe to toe with Clinton for a few days' budget standoff, and then gladly gave up to spend their majority on rent seeking while the party base that actually believed in that ideology lost all it's fire due to the knowledge that the people they'd been electing didn't really.

"H1-B has flooded the US market with a giant pool of cheap programming labor, lowering your salary and putting your job at risk."

But... Since roughly 10-20 times as many people, at least, occupy jobs which compete with unskilled illegal immigrants as those who compete with H1-B visa holders, and since H1-B visa holders are enormously more productive for the economy on a one to one basis, I'd have to say that on strict economic grounds, we should build a wall across our southern border, and increase the number of H1-B visas issued. And I say that as an engineer who might conceivably end up displaced by such a visa holder.

Any given immigration policy is going to hurt SOMEBODY, why not computer programmers? Especially since you're going to compete against those cheap programmers whether or not they're doing their work here or in India, while ditch digging still doesn't import digitally... yet.

Going by every past precedent the Democrat contender should probably be leading 55% to 45%. Add to this that the Republicans nominated an unpopular and eminently un-presidential John McCain and the lead should probably be more like 60% to 40%. Instead the race is a statistical dead heat.

Why? Probably because the left-wing of the Democrat party -- aided and abetted by the MSM -- have selected a candidate who makes Henry Wallace look like a right-wing Republican. Given the Hobson's choice the American people have in this election, I am hoping that they will hold their noses and pick the far less radical candidate, John McCain, albeit by a very small margin.

Maybe if this happens, rational Democrats might be jolted into taking control of their party away from the aging "clean for Gene" folks who've been running it into the ground for the last forty years. But I'm not holding my breath.

Those things are welcome in the Democratic party of the Junior Senator from Illinois

Ty Webb, you state that libertarianism, foreign policy realism, small businesses and intellectual conservatism are welcomed in the Democratic Party? Really? And you cite crazy Andy Sullivan, petulent Chris Buckley and Doug Kmiec as proof of this?

All it proves to me is that the D's aren't going to stand up and repudiate people who make arguments in favor of the D's. It does not prove that the D's accept any of those philosophical positions. Within the last week we've heard the statements of Obama and Dem congressional leaders indicating we're about to have a stiff tax hike (a tax hike on $150k households is going to murder Subchapter S businesses), along with heavy federal involvement in health care and the financial markets, and possibly a foray into the Sudan to Save Teh Children™. This indicates to me to that libertarianism, foreign policy pragmatism, intellectual conservatism and small business people are not part of the Dems' plans, except insofar as some of them can be duped into voting for the Dems. Face it, you guys think a libertarian leaning conservative like me is a scumbag, and you wouldn't hesitate to tell me that if it wasn't going to be a close election.

I'm of mixed feelings on whether to vote R. While socializing the medical and financial sectors will have permanent damaging effects on our culture as a free people and our economy, the crisis induced by the 'radical change' Obama promises may be what the Republicans need to make their party into a welcoming place for the aforementioned groups. On the other hand we may not recover from it; a people that grows used to being supine before goverment often finds it hard to stand back up again. How the top 49% of earners will defeat the bottom 51% at the polls, when the bottom 51% pay little to no federal taxes and become increasingly accustomed to their federal alimenta, is not clear to me. And on the other other hand, McCain also promises to nationalize health care, or do something very close to nationalization, so in the end he may do the damage he claims to be preventing. Tough call.

Norman Bates: You might be right about some of that, but I'm willing to give the Democrats a shot at this point, and especially Obama at corralling his own party (and mine, at least for now), which admittedly is fairly weak in leadership at the moment. If they screw up your life, you have midterm elections in two years and a presidential in four.

Gee, it's really unfortunate that "principled" conservatives and libertarians didn't spend their time during the Bush years pointing out his now all-too-apparent mistakes, rather than using it to ridicule and complain about those who did.

I don't think any Republican, even the second coming of Ronald Reagan, would win this election, unfortunately. Politics are cyclical, and it's time for a change. People are unhappy with how things are going right now, so they're going to blame the President. (Even though things went pretty badly under the Democrat-majority Congress, and Congress has an even lower approval rate than W!) I don't think that any of that takes away from the facts that McCain has run a very poor campaign and Obama a very good one.

My question is, why hasn't Obama been leading by double digits for months?

Jon Roland - I would also add the claim is a false dichotomy. It is assumed that if things under republicans are bad, then things under the dems must be good, when in fact it could very well (and I believe will) be worse.

This is a typically unimpressive effort by York. Let's see:

The difficulty of succeeding a two-term president of one’s own party — a feat accomplished only once since Truman succeeded FDR.

Pretty silly. There have been three cases. One win and two losses, and one of the losers won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote on what, statistically, amounted to a coin toss in FL.

The even greater difficulty of succeeding a two-term president of one’s own party who has a job-approval rating of 25 percent and a disapproval rating of 70 percent, as George W. Bush had in a recent Gallup poll.

The historically high proportion of Americans who say the country is on the wrong track — as high as 90 percent in a recent Washington Post survey.

Aren't these the same thing? And didn't McCain brag of being a big fan of Bush during the primary?

The enthusiasm gap, with far fewer Republicans than Democrats saying they are fired up about supporting their candidate.

Doesn't this have a lot to do with the campaign, and things that the "conservative commentators" you cite say are important?

The Republicans’ deficit in party identification, which ranges between five and ten percentage points.

Somewhat related to the campaign, and to Bush's unpopularity..

The financial crisis, including the 5,500-point fall in the Dow Jones Industrial Average between November 2007 and October 2008.

A big part of the problem the financial crisis has caused McCain is due to his incoherent reaction to it. Having Phil Gramm and Carly Fiorina as economic advisers didn't help either.

The war in Iraq, with nearly 4,200 Americans dead and a majority of Americans judging that the gains have not been worth the cost....

OK. But that's a legitimate policy argument, not a matter of "historical odds."

Agree with most of the post. Should add one more point: Obama has the benefit of a fawning, obsequious media determined to anoint him. While there has always been media bias, I do not recall the likes of Mondal, Dukakis or Clinton being pictured with halos around their heads on the front covers of magazines.

BTW, this post is a good argument for why it is good in the long run for the Republican party to lose. The Democrats will dominate the elected part of the govt. for the next two, and probably four, years. When things go bad, the people will blame them.

If McCain wins, OTOH, we will still have a Democractically dominated Congress, and at best McCain will simply moderate somewhat their otherwise liberal tendencies. Given McCain's track record, this moderation will be less than it would be for someone else. But then in four years we will hear blame of the "McCain economy" and the "McCain policies."

Umm, Zarkov, the Icelandic parties you listed are center and right. Contrary to what Americans might expect based on the names, the Progressive Party is centrist and the Liberal Party is center-right. With the Independence Party on the right, you've got just about everyone but the Social Democrats, who are--surprise--left.

So the parties that ruled Iceland before the last elections were, indeed, right-wing.

My question is, why hasn't Obama been leading by double digits for months?

Because he's a black man with an African name from a northern state that has been on the national political stage for 4 years?

btw, Gov. Palin just gave a good speech. She wasn't in attack dog mode, instead she was laying out what a McCain administration would do in regards to energy issues.

Kerry lost, in part, because he ran a campaign that didn't offer any ideas on what he would do. He just said "I'm not Bush." McCain is losing because he is running the worst parts of Kerry's campaign combined with the worst parts of Bush's campaigns. McCain has had to say "I'm not Bush" while being a Republican. Fair or not, it's a tough pill to swallow.

Someone up thread claimed that the support of a variety of Nobel prize winners for Obama means something.

What it means is that the academy is very Democratic and most Nobel prize winners in the sciences work in universities. Rather than proof of Obama's merit, it's really just proof of the group think that passes for thought in faculty dining rooms.

“640K ought to be enough for anybody.” -Bill Gates (1981).

"I don't think we'll ever see another Presidential election decided by more than a handful of points, given the polarization of the country." - D.A. (2008).

Bryan Long no Abortions of course!

I mean ONE that you can cite verifiable evidence for, as being better than it was before GWB and cronies?

Yes, I can think of one. I believe that we are closer to a final peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The articulation of the two-state solution is far better than Clinton's "Occupied autonomy is the best you are going to get so you better take it" approach. There is also some evidence that his articulation of this concept has changed the dialog in Israel as well and that Israel is moving politically in this direction.

Bush has also been willing to interfere with Israeli foreign aid during Operation Defensive Shield, and push for Israel to offer water rights concessions to Lebanon (though in the latter case, his hands were tied because a war over water in Lebanon would have interfered with plans to invade Iraq). I think that these two things though help push for a more stable Middle East which is not solely dominated by Israel with unconditional US backing, and I think this will long-term help our national security.

Whether a Republican (or for that matter a Democratic) presidential nominee could make that case after the past eight years is, I admit, questionable. But if the GOP doesn't stand for fiscal conservatism, what does it stand for?

The same things it stood for under Reagan, and H.W., and still stands for under W? Militarism, upper-income tax cuts, and a borrow-and-spend approach to budgeting. And in fact those are the same policies McCain is running on.

Going by every past precedent the Democrat contender should probably be leading 55% to 45%. Add to this that the Republicans nominated an unpopular and eminently un-presidential John McCain and the lead should probably be more like 60% to 40%. Instead the race is a statistical dead heat.

In national polls, Obama is consistently up 5-7 points. That's a 5-7 point lead, not a "statistical dead heat." He's effectively further ahead than that suggests when you consider his leads in all the 2004 swing states. And states like Virginia and North Carolina that used to be safe red states. The Electoral College math is very favorable to Obama this year.

So the meme really has gone from "Why can't Obama close the deal?" to "Why isn't Obama winning a huge landslide that Bush and in some ways Clinton never managed to win"?

And again, I'm curious about why Republicans and conservatives think the Republicans are about to lose House and Senate seats for the second straight election.

The difficulty of succeeding a two-term president of one’s own party — a feat accomplished only once since Truman succeeded FDR.

Uh, yeah, so the only counter examples to this were Nixon in 1960, a 0.2% difference in popular vote that could easily have gone the other way without the party shenanigans led by LBJ and Daley; and Gore in 2000, who took the popular vote.

Ty: "It panders to the absolute worst of small, petty people who are jealous of others' education and success (in case this is unclear, see Palin, Sarah), and is slavishly devoted to only two groups: those who adhere to a foreign policy that was outdated before it was implemented, and a small subset of private sector benefactors. "

thanks for the best analysis here yet. Not surprisingly, most people ignored it, because they would rather blame the MSM, stupid Americans, campaign tactics, the economy, Bush, anyone or anything other than the actual actions and principles of the current ruling party for their upcoming loss. It means at the *next* election, they will offer up the same junk, thinking that it just needs to be packaged better, but the substance won't change until the party itself changes. And that's much harder to do than just play the blame game.

I would just add that the Repub party also panders to the religious right wing whose religion consists of having only two issues -- abortion and gays. And they don't like either.

America's biggest problem is the MSM. Do you think if they gave Obama/Biden the same scrutiny they give Mccain/Palin, it would be this close? The MSM thinks Obama walks on water. They share the same ideology which is why the MSM gives him a pass. If Palin had Biden's gaffes, it would be played 24/7. Biden gets a pass. Unfortunately there are still many Americans that trust the MSM and believe the Obama talking points that get played over and over.

The Repubs have helped themselves either. They tried to beat the Dems at their own game of handing out entitlements and and being big brother. The repubs have to go back to their philosophy of small government. They also need to be more viscious than the dems in attacking their opponents. They let Obama get away with too much without questioning it; i.e. he'll give 95% of Americans a tax cut. I didn't hear Mccain destroy that whopper in the debates. BTW I'm not getting a tax cut according to Obama's tax calculator and I make less than 150k a year.

I think if we want to change this country, we have to start with the MSM. They need to be bankrupted and new organizations take their place. I wish there was a website where Americans could go to see what companies are advertising on CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times etc. Then we would know what products not to buy. I think eventually they'd get the message when their advertisers stop advertising on them. Hopefully they would then give the politicans an honest look. The politicans would stop playing games if they knew they couldn't get away with it. sorry done rambling.

Uh, yeah, so the only counter examples to this were Nixon in 1960, a 0.2% difference in popular vote that could easily have gone the other way without the party shenanigans led by LBJ and Daley; and Gore in 2000, who took the popular vote

And Humphrey 1968, after two terms of LBJ/JFK.

After two very bad snow years, Chicago mayors Michael Bilandic and Jane Byrne lost while controlling the Machine.

Bilandic yes. But Byrne lost for the same reason Bush Sr and Dole lost. A 3rd candidate split the vote. Young Ritchie Daley ran against Byrne and Washington and apparently 'split the white vote'.

Now, does the Mayor 'control' the Machine? I don't think so.

I wish there was a website where Americans could go to see what companies are advertising on CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times etc. Then we would know what products not to buy.

Why don't you just look at "CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times etc.?"

floridian said:

Well, let's see. Palin-McCain and their surrogates have already attacked the Dems for being Marxists, socialists, soft on terrorism, palling around with terrorists, associating with racists, election fraud, seeking to destroy the American economy, implicitly encouraging violence against McCain supporters, endangering US troops, etc. And this doesn't include the viral racist emails or those claiming Obama is a Muslim, not an American citizen or has a bimbo stashed in the Caribbean.

I respond:

marxists/socialists - true and accurate
soft on terrorism - true and accurate
palling around with terrorists - true and accurate
associating/palling around with racists - true and accurate
election fraud - true and accurate
seeking to destroy the american economy - true and accurate
encouraging violence against Obama supporters - please show me proof this has come from repub party leaders.
endangering us troops - true and accurate
viral racists emails - please show me proof this came from Repub party leaders.
claiming obama is a muslim, not a citizen or has a mistress in the caribbean - please show me proof this came from repub party leaders.

Since when is calling the dems out on their MSM covered up BS, vicious? The repubs should get vicious on the issues that dems attempt to claim the high ground on; for example, the repubs should call dems out publicly on race. Obama and the dems are the one playing the race card. The dems are the ones implying that if people don't vote for Obama they're racists. How about I'm not voting for obama because he is the least experienced candidate in my memory to run for office. His policy and ideas for the country are not in line with our constitution as I understand it. If I (not a lawyer) can understand what our government is permitted to do constitutionally, how does a con law professor not know? He knows but doesn't care because its all about personal power and enrichment with dem politicans. I could care less if he's black. This is an issue that Repubs should respond back forcefully. The media portrays repubs as racists because if minorities (which I am one) actually look at the record and policies of dems vs repubs, its clear which party minorities and all Americans would benefit from while not destroying the nation. The dems are the ones that promote policies that keep the poor (a significant number of whom are African Americans and latino) dependent on government. This way the dems will have a reliable stream of repeat voters. Repubs need to get vicious in reponse to dem party BS especially in regards to race and aggressively pursue minority voters. They'll listen. They need to be reminded that where has it gotten them being reliable dems for the past few decades.

A.S.:

You make a fair point, but I also think Palin had a significant effect both in producing the temporary McCain bounce and in the deflating of that bounce. When folks first saw her, she was a plus. After getting to know her, she's become a net minus, at least with the moderates and independents McCain always needed to get to win the election.

Denizens Arranger, Lee Atwater would be proud.

JosephSlater,

"But is there any part of you at all that thinks that some significant parts of America are rejecting Republican party policies, as opposed to just rejecting Bush?"

I think they're embracing Obama but they're afraid to appear too credulous to their cynical friends, so they use Palin as an excuse. Obviously Bush fatigue is the backdrop for the whole thing, but this election has always been a referendum on Obama.

Joseph Slater,

We will certainly see in 2 years whether my prediction is correct. If, as I expect, Obama is elected, will the result I predict in 2010, +25 to +40 seat gain for Republicans in the House and +3 to +4 seats in the Senate (including Joe Biden's former seat and perhaps Harry Reid's) mean a repudiation of President Obama or Democratic policies?

I should also note that this year, particularly on the Senate side, the Republicans have several factors working against them:

1) Republicans have 23 of the 35 seats up this year (Wicker of Mississippi is running for the remainder of Trent Lott's term and so is Barrasso of Wyoming).

2) No Democratic incumbents retired this year, versus 5 Republican incumbents. Of those 5, Republicans are favored in 2 (Nebraska and Idaho). Why are they not favored in the other states?

In Virginia, Democrats recruited the strongest possible candidate, Mark Warner, who governed Virginia as a centrist Democrat and left office with high popularity. There are also changing demographics in the D.C. suburbs that help Democrats.

In New Mexico, the Republicans nominated the weaker of the two candidates. I suspect Heather Wilson would be polling much better than Steve Pearce had the primary come out differently.

In Colorado, the economic climate makes Mark Udall more attractive than Bob Schaeffer.

I could analyze the other Senate races ths year as well and give my take, but my post is already rather long.

Let me ask you this: When the Democrats lost Senate seats in 2002 and 2004, did you take that as a rejection by voters of Democratic policies? Or is the policy rejection argument limited to Republicans?

Dave N

I suspect Heather Wilson would be polling much better than Steve Pearce had the primary come out differently.

I don't share the disdain for Palin that others on these board have evinced. But that's no doubt due to my lack of academic credentials.

Yet I admit that for several years I've considered Wilson to be the "most likely to succeed" among GOP women. The Iglesias firing will have to be resolved first. If she is not shown to have done anything improper, however, she could be a "contendah" at some point in the future, though not in four years.

On the other hand, the usual suspects will appear again on the VC to tell us that Wilson lacks intellectual heft. Or that her ass is too big. Or something.

What voter polls

won’t tell you



Most have a bias built in to favor Obama because they over sample registered Democrats. For example, the recent CBS/New York Times poll included eight percent more Democrats in its sample than registered Republicans. Figures lie and liars figure.

The nation’s most unbiased election survey is the “straw poll” conducted each week by America Online among its national membership. Hundreds of thousands of AOL members respond weekly to this survey that asks: “Which presidential candidate will you vote for? Who will win in November?

Respondents reside in every state, and represent Republicans, Democrats, Independents, whites, blacks, Latinos, young, old, rich and poor. Although they’re not asked about citizenship or voter registration there is no reason to say their preferences don’t reflect the true intentions of people residing across the nation.

For the last four months these weekly polls have heavily favored John McCain. In the AOL poll that closed on October 24, the vote was 56% for McCain to 42% for Obama. There is absolutely no reason to give up on Senator McCain.

Why is the true mood of the nation favoring Senator McCain? It’s because he’s not a socialist and Obama is. People are learning that Obama’s “spread the wealth around” agenda will drive our taxes up and push our net worth down, They know that higher taxes on small businesses will mean less money to hire new people, and that more American jobs will be outsourced overseas to cheap-labor nations. More voters now realize that a liberal president like Obama working with a liberal Democrat-dominated Congress will enable government to take more of our hard earned money whenever it feels like it.

Don’t let a socialist president make it harder for taxpayers to pay their bills.



Joe Angione

The Villages

Dave N.:

If the Dems do lose big in the next two Congressional elections, I will very seriously consider the fact that it is because the country is rejecting their policies.

DA: "I respond:
marxists/socialists - true and accurate
soft on terrorism - true and accurate
palling around with terrorists - true and accurate
associating/palling around with racists - true and accurate
election fraud - true and accurate
seeking to destroy the american economy - true and accurate"

Well, since you make such a compelling case . . . but keep it up, it seems to be the path to victory.

PC:
"Joe Angione really has no idea how polling works, does he? An online AOL poll? AOL!?"

Poll: A questioning or canvassing of persons selected at random or by quota to obtain information or opinions to be analyzed.

Do you know how a poll works? Do you believe polls cannot be taken online? Do you believe AOL cannot take a poll?

Barry D,

"But the GOP is not suffering from simple bad luck - they made every bad break they've suffered."

Every last one? Wow, they must have been very bad little boys and girls.

If Palin had Biden's gaffes, it would be played 24/7.

As opposed to say, McCain's gaffes (like confusing Sunni and Shia, drawing entirely false and unsupportable claims about Al Qaeda and Iran, etc) which got only minimal coverage.... That's it! The MSM must be either sexist, anti-Alaskan, or just plain anti-Palin!

Personally, I don't think the MSM has really scrutinized *any* of the Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates the way they need to, and when they do, they rarely do so in a balanced way.

Palin just makes an easy target because of the perception that she lacks experience. Few people want to really give her the credit she deserves because I think her overall political record is far more all over the map than most people are probably comfortable with, hence she makes a good target for everyone.

Interestingly enough, though I expect to (most likely) vote for Obama, I am actually very happy with all of the candidates this time around which is the first time this has ever happened in my adult life in this country.

Ed Scott / Joe Angione:

Although they’re not asked about citizenship or voter registration there is no reason to say [the AOL straw poll] preferences don’t reflect the true intentions of people residing across the nation.

Uh. There's also no reason to say it does reflect the "true intentions" of people residing across the nation. I am willing to concede, however, that morons who still use AOL both as their internet provider AND their outlet for making their political views known to the world break for McCain.

Dave N.:

I said the next two Congressional elections, because (unless something very unexepected happens next week) that's what will have happened to the Repubs. And my point is that in such a situation -- losing two Congressional elections badly -- backers of whichever party should consider whether the country is skeptical of that party's positions.

Tell you what: I've been posting and/or lurking here for several years, and I probably will be in 2010 and 2012 too, if the hosts are nice enough to keep this site around. If the Dems get spanked in one or both elections, feel free to remind me of what I said.

"... the American people wanted substance, not smears. Obama had that, McCain and especially Palin didn't." JosephSlater

You live in a fantasist's world, Joseph. Abetted by the Media-Political complex, aka the MSM-Left/Dem complex, but you live in a fantasist's world nonetheless.

Following is a study in contrasts.

As a recent editorial cartoon summarized it, Obama demands that he not be judged by his actions and legislative record (e.g., most liberal senator, ascendancy via Chicago style chicanery), that he not be judged by his friends and associates (e.g., Khalidi, Ayers, Wright, Rezko), that he not be judged by his words (e.g., redistribution, spread the wealth, socialism) and for those who presume to question any of it, they are to be targeted a la Joe the plumber, and perhaps are to be labeled "racists" as well. Is that the substance you're referring to? Or is it examples such as are reflected here and here, the former an observation by a European leader, Nicolas Sarkozy, the latter an example of Obama's decided socialist interests in his own words?

By contrast, from the pen of Elaine Lafferty, Democrat and former editor of Ms., a studied reflection upon Sarah Palin, excerpt:

"... by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts."

Again by contrast, we have Joe Biden, Barack Obama and predominant players among the MSM, whose joint mission is to ensure that people think less and with less probative effect, rather than more.

I think those who are predicting gains for the GOP in 2010 if the economy doesn't improve are underestimating just how things will likely work in our post-Obama age.

There will be no GOP pick-ups in 2010.

That same subtle bias which has limited coverage of Iraq to either stories about Soldiers being killed or the Iraqi government flailing helplessly will be inverted and we'll see reports of progress as troops secure areas and the Iraqi government gains competence. Reports of Soldiers dying will be reported matter-of-factly and without embelishment because, well, it's a fact of war that peple do get killed.

If an economic indicator can be used to show the US economy improving, or possibly improving, under President Obama, we will see it trumpted as the latest sign that recovery is just around the corner.

Unless Obama does something unexpected and governs towards the center, then he will continue to receive the same pass he has gotten from the press since day 1.

SFC B,

I think the average person looks at his or her own financial situation to assess the economy. To quote one of Ronald Reagan's lines from 1980, "A recession is when your neighbor is out of work; a depression is when you are out of work; and recovery is when Jimmy Carter is out of work."

I expect no improvement from Pelosi, Reid, et al. over the next two years. Since the Democrats will have to accept full responsibility in 2010, they will sow the fruit of their labors. I stand by my prediction.

That's not a tax problem, that's a spending problem. Tax revenues increased significantly after Bush's tax cuts. The problem is that spending increased even more significantly.

Economists have a saying: "To spend is to tax." The only question is who pays the tax.

Felix Sulla:
"...that morons who still use AOL both as their internet provider AND their outlet for making their political views known to the world break for McCain."

I don't use AOL, but thanks for identifying yourself as a librral with the ad hominem attack.

DenizenAvenger:

Many of the attacks on Palin are somewhat unfair, and they aren't the right level of scrutiny. I don't outsource my scrutiny more than I have to, and I do my own research into old news stories, general approaches, etc.

I am happy with the candidates because I think that both Obama and McCain have strong backgrounds that will help lead America in better directions. BTW, I don't actually think that McCain has sold out to the GOP either but rather just lent them some of his integrity (saying anything that he thinks will help him win the presidential election for the last 8 years). The other area where McCain wins points in my book is his military service. History seems to indicate that presidents with military backgrounds end up with leaner military budgets than those without.

Finally, Republicans tend to push harder against Israel when it comes to peace talks than Democrats do. I think that the conflicts between Israel and the occupied peoples and between Israel and her neighbors have become the primary issue in our national security. Democrats tend to unconditionally back Israel which can have results but only if the ground is prepared by a Republican administration.

Prior to McCain's runs for president, he was at least nominally pro-choice and I don't think he has given that up entirely. And I think that McCain's experience as a POW would be helpful in the areas he may have to push for regarding issues like Guantanimo Bay, extraordinary rendition, etc. I don't like his record regarding civil liberties, but nobody is perfect (and he is probably better than at least either of the two Bush's or Clinton however). My biggest concern about McCain is that he is lying so much that it is impossible to know what he stands for (so I go by his record and then only use the last eight years to slightly clarify the patterns). The second one is that there seems to be a total lack of institutional conservatism on the McCain-Palin ticket. Both candidates seem to have records of rocking the boat rather than careful planning and baby steps. Their vision is not constrained by anything more than their imagination (to allude to Thomas Sowell's important work).

Biden has a strong public service record, as does McCain.

Palin, for all my political disagreements with her in some areas (abortion, sex ed, etc) has shown herself to be a competent politician and someone who is willing to try to push for things like windfall profits taxes. In fact, her record regarding tax legislation is more redistribution-oriented than Obama's. My only concern about Palin is that she seems to be a bit of a "Christian Socialist" and I am not sure this is something our country needs at the moment.

Here are the areas where Obama wins points in my book:

1) Budgetary and health care proposals being more institutionally conservative than McCain's.

2) A strong civil liberties record both during his public service career and before it.

3) More meaningful exposure to other cultures and countries than McCain (important for constructive foreign policy)

4) An understanding that the perception of the US has become a problem of national security.

Contrary to the hype, I will almost certainly be voting for Obama because I think he is *less* of a radical change than McCain.

Ed Scott said referencing me:

I don't use AOL, but thanks for identifying yourself as a librral with the ad hominem attack.

Heaven forbid, I did not mean to suggest you were so uncouth as to actually use AOL as your ISP. But I suspect the vast majority of AOL straw poll voters do. And, I gather, you view it as a particularly legitimate and rigorous poll of TRUE public opinion...why, because you don't use it as a means of expressing yourself? Pull the other one, Ed.

Ooooooh, 'librral'! I'm gonna use that one, big guy. Good on ya! (Even if it was a typo. I was getting so tired of being called a 'librul'.)

ilya:

Except that McCain is doing relatively well (5-7 points down), given the conditions he finds himself in.

Thank you for your reply. I was going to respond to tell you why I disagree, except everything I was going to say was said (much better than I could have) by Specast.

turk:

then being tortured beaten and starved in a dank foreign prison for seven years

It was a little under 5.5 years. Other than that, I agree with what you said.

bates:

Add to this that the Republicans nominated an unpopular and eminently un-presidential John McCain and the lead should probably be more like 60% to 40%

ken:

why hasn't Obama been leading by double digits for months?

I think some perspective is helpful.

Since 1928, a non-incumbent has achieved a margin of at least 20% on this many occasions: zero.

In 1932, FDR, a non-incumbent, won 57.4% of the popular vote. Since then, no non-incumbent has done better.

If Obama wins 55% of the popular vote (which would be roughly consistent with "leading by double digits"), that means he will have done better than every non-incumbent since FDR.

The following is a complete list of all non-incumbents, since FDR, who won more than 51% of the popular vote:

Bush I, 53.4%
Ike, 54.9%

All of the following, when running as non-incumbents, won the election with less than 51%:

Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
JFK
Truman

So if Obama exceeds 51%, he will have outperformed some big names. RCP currently has Obama at 49.9% with Undecideds at 6.2%. So that projection indicates that Obama will outperform the seven names I just mentioned, assuming he gets at least 18% of the Undecideds.

In 2004, when Bush won 50.7%, Cheney and lots of other people promptly called that a "mandate."

da:

I don't think we'll ever see another Presidential election decided by more than a handful of points, given the polarization of the country.

It's true that the country is polarized, but even absent that factor, history shows that "a handful of points" is the typical victory for a non-incumbent.

jv:

Bill Clinton would be up at least 20 points right now.

When Clinton ran as a non-incumbent, his victory margin was 5.6%.

as:

The event that turned around the election is the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and subsequent crisis. If not for that, I would expect that we'd have a VERY close election.

I agree that the financial crisis had a large effect. But I think if you look closely at the polling just prior to 9/15, it's evident that Palin was already starting to pull McCain down, even prior to the Lehman bankruptcy.

As slater said:

You make a fair point, but I also think Palin had a significant effect both in producing the temporary McCain bounce and in the deflating of that bounce. When folks first saw her, she was a plus. After getting to know her, she's become a net minus, at least with the moderates and independents McCain always needed to get to win the election.

On 9/5, right around the peak of the early pro-Palin hysteria, I said this:

[there are] many things the voters have not yet learned about her. She has nowhere to go but down.

I think I was right.

michael:

By contrast, from the pen of Elaine Lafferty, Democrat and former editor of Ms., a studied reflection upon Sarah Palin

She's working as a consultant for the McCain campaign. I'm sure that's having no influence on what she says about Palin.

It's amazing what money can buy these days.

That's not a tax problem, that's a spending problem

The operation was a success, but the patient died.

LM,

"einhverfr,

Good comment (i.e., blog thread jargon for "I agree with most of it")."

Most? How about all. Well, Palin's actually middle of the road on sex ed (all of the above, sans condoms on bananas), despite the hype, and sends her kids to a public school with comprehensive sex ed, but that's a quibble. Nice spot on the Christian Socialism, though I'd contend it would be socialism on a lot tighter budget than most socialists envision, with the Christianity implicit and non-exclusive.

But she's on the bottom of the ticket. Dead on the big O.

"History seems to indicate that presidents with military backgrounds end up with leaner military budgets than those without."

See also Churchill's record as Chancellor in the 20's.

morat:

Once spent, each deficit dollar is a tax liability

But if we hand that liability over to our kids (without their consent, of course), we get to indulge in the fantasy that there's actually been a tax cut. And it's true, in a way. We cut our taxes, by raising theirs.

I guess that's what Cheney was thinking when he said "deficits don't matter."

LM,

"How can we convince him to stick around?"

Maybe shamelessly plugging his business?

Sounds like an upstanding operation. Perhaps the VC will trade some free advertising for a significant comment section quality upgrade?

Harry Eagar,

"If you read T. Roosevelt, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover out of history."

Yeah, that Coolidge was a real drunken sailor.

from the pen of Elaine Lafferty

She's working as a consultant for the McCain campaign. I'm sure that's having no influence on what she says about Palin.

It's amazing what money can buy these days.

She is speaking and acting on her own convictions

Of course she is. There's no reason to think that what she's writing is influenced in any way by the fact that she's on McCain's payroll.

Hence, by contrast, we have instances such as this.

You posted the same link twice. I have a feeling that's not what you meant to do.

felix sulla - if you think Palin has not received more scrutiny than Obama, then I would love to hear examples of the scrutiny the MSM have given Obama. what position or legislative accomplishment (bill sponsorship is not an accomplishment unless it gets passed. any clown in the senate can sponsor a bill) has he been scrutinzed for?

einhvertr - I disagree more with what you list than agree with. You claim that Mccain is lying, in what regard? what about obama? I can name a few off the top of my head...2nd amendment for example. You claim that both men have the background to lead America? what background does Obama have that qualifies him to run the most powerful nation on earth? are you telling me that going to law school, being a CO for a couple of years, being a state senator for a few years and then a senator for 4 yrs qualifies him? He is the best that the dem party has? Bill Richardson would have been a better choice. Obama was the worst and most radical choice from an experience/ideology point but the best symbolically. I have been in my career for 12 years...I am not arrogant enough to think that I can run my department let alone my company after this time. It scares me that Obama is so arrogant to think he is experienced enough or so naive to not know that he isn't ready (I'm not even considering my ideological differences with him).

You also mention institutional conservatism. You criticize Mccain/Palin for having vision not constrained by anything other than their imagination. Can you give me an example? Are American's suppose to follow the status quo even if its wrong or unconstitutional. The fight against slavery and for civil rights were not institutionally conservative. Were those people deficient because, as you say, they had a total lack of institutional conservatism? Do you think Obama's (a con law professor) ideology is constrained by say...the constitution?

You say Palin is a Christian socialist...would love to hear examples.

-how can you say Obama's budgetary and health care proposals are more institutionally more consrevative than Mccains? what exactly? (For the record, I disagree with both of their plans).

-I have issues with both of their civil liberties records. From an ideological standpoint, I hold Obama to a higher standard because he was a con law professor and should know better. What strong civil liberties record of Obama do you speak of?

- Obama has more meaningful exposure to other cultures? Surely you jest. If living overseas as a child qualifies a person as having the necessary qualifications to develop constructive foreign policy experience as POTUS, then I guess that qualifies my mom.

- Obama wins points for understanding of the perception that the US has become a problem of national security? I guess I have to cede this point because no one in the world especially the middle east, hated the US before George Bush became President. I don't want a President that feels the pain of terrorists and America haters abroad. I want a President that makes decisions in the best interest of America and not based on what other nations may think of us.

If you think that Obama is less of a radical change than Mccain, then I assume you live on the Upper West Side of NYC or San Francisco.