Why McCain will lose

I've been paying less than close attention to the race recently, as the dearth of recent blog posts indicates. My new job being very demanding, I haven't had much time at all the last ten days. But I almost feel like saying, what does it matter? What has really changed in the interim? Nothing. The state of election has remained the same. The national polls are identical. The Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and South Dakota polls are basically identical to what they were. Obama's gained a small lead in Florida. The Missouri, Virginia, and Pennsylvania polls have tightened in favor of McCain. The Georgia, Indiana, Arizona (!), and Arkansas polls have tightened in favor of Obama. The West Virginia polls are all over the place. The big story is Palin's wardrobe! Who cares about that. Of course she has to buy new clothes. What a non-story. You're really running out of anything substantive to talk about when this dominates two news cycles.

I'm not trying to justify my lack of blogging enthusiasm, but my forced hiatus seemingly at the worst time of the campaign has not missed anything major. The fundamental dynamics of the race has remained the same. So much in electoral politics comes down to the argument you make. McCain has been unable to make an effective argument as to why he should be president, and that's why he will lose on Tuesday.

The NYTimes a week ago had a cover story on the incarnations of McCain. There is such an eerie similarity to Hillary's loss to Obama (though she basically tied him). At first McCain was the experience candidate. The RNC are still running ads attacking Obama on this. They way the ad is phrased is "No Executive Experience." A telling phrasing -- Palin does have executive experience, so she's "most experienced" than Obama. But of course she's not. She's way more inexperienced than Obama.

The Palin pick has really blunted this line of attack. It can no longer be the main reason to elect McCain. However, that doesn't in itself mean the pick was a bad idea. Running on "experience" doesn't work anyway, in my view. If experience is so great, why is this the first time in nearly fifty years that a senator is going to be president? Senators have a greater claim to be presidential timber in terms of experience than anyone else. The reason is voters don't care about experience as a reason to elect someone. It is, rather, a threshold you have to pass in order to be a serious candidate. Once you're there, more experience doesn't help you. The problem is that Palin has issues with that threshold, making Obama look more experienced by contrast. So she has taken away this factor, but again this is not a decisive thing.

Abandoning "experience you can trust" McCain chose the "maverick change" tack with the Palin pick. That is, "Change is coming" but not such radical, untested change. Change that contrasts well with Obama's change. So McCain tried to run against Bush, against Washington, as Obama-lite. This was an interesting chess move. As I've detailed previously, it didn't work because McCain didn't take it seriously. If you are going to bring change, if you are going to be a fighter for the people against the establishment, then you can't be the candidate of bipartisanship. McCain wanted to have it both ways. He wanted to be the bipartisan candidate, which he could have laid claim to with some plausibility. He's bucked his own party to work with the other side, etc. etc. But being the candidate who plays nicely with the other children in the sandbox is a good strategy if you are ahead, and is at cross-purposes with a claim to be a maverick and shake things up.

In a highly-charged, visible race for the presidency, you have to be consistent. You can't be the candidate of change if you want to continue the policies that the party in power has implemented in the recent past. You can't be the candidate of bipartisanship if you are going to shake things up. You have to choose an argument, and hammer away at it. McCain didn't want to choose, and the bailout bill was his Rubicon. He refused to cross. I contend that he had to oppose the bill to win. The problem was that he couldn't. To oppose something with such an elite consensus behind it, a candidate has to be uber-persuasive and hyper-articulate. It is a very difficult thing to do. McCain didn't have it in him.

It is all well and good to say a candidate should do this or that, but in reality the positions a candidate can take on issues is pretty constrained. When everyone agrees that something is good or bad, you had better really know your stuff if you are going off into heterodoxy. The safe view is always the one that most people hold -- this is a democracy after all! McCain couldn't oppose the bailout because with the debates coming up, he could not persuasively make the case that the Washington consensus was wrong. So opposing the bailout was not even an option for him. I make this judgment based on McCain's debate performance. When the questions were on the economy, he would breathe heavily into the microphone, and his words sounded hesitant, like he didn't know what he was going to say next. When the questions were on foreign policy, the adrenaline went rushing through his body, and he spoke with passion and conviction. It's because he knows his stuff with foreign policy, but doesn't have a clue on economic issues.

So McCain was really in a bind. But it's not unexpected for him to be in a bind. Here is a candidate with a lot of liabilities. He's not a great speaker or stump campaigner. (In an appearance at my institution last week, McCain said "agree with Obama" rather than "disagree with Obama" and didn't catch his misstatement until he had finished a 3 minute diatribe -- it was embarrassing, and was played all over the local news.) His great asset was that he was a media darling, yet it's no contest who the media prefers when it comes to him or Obama, or even Hillary. His signature issue set is foreign policy, but he's identified with a disastrous decision on that front, the Iraq war. So it was never going to be easy for McCain. If the financial crisis had come after the debates, McCain might have been able to take a different path and oppose the bailout forcefully in sound bites and canned speeches. Not having to talk about it for extended periods of time from memory might have given him other options. But the way it played out put him in a tight spot.

Why should we elect McCain? That question has not been answered by the campaign. And that is why McCain will lose.

A double-standard?

Can you imagine if Sarah Palin said "When the stock market crashed in 1929, President Roosevelt got on television and told everyone to calm down"? Can you? Can you? It would be pandemonium!

Now Biden has said this: "We"re about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help."

This is the downside of Biden, straying off-message. Especially by being too into himself and not the good promoter of the top of the ticket.

In the end it doesn't matter. The economy is the main issue, and unless we bomb Iran soon, foreign policy is not going to reach the top of voters' concerns.

I've always liked Biden. He gets a pass on the silly comments because he's been around and knows his stuff. So doesn't he deserve a pass? Palin, one could argue, does not. But it still is a double-standard.

Biden was a great pick because it showed Obama being serious about being president. It was a pick with a view to governing, not to winning. I think in the end a running-mate who is a gimmick (Palin) doesn't help you. The political advantage of a running-mate comes when the political advantage is secondary to governing. Reagan picked Bush, Clinton picked Gore, W picked Cheney, and now Obama picks Biden.

The Last Debate

(This is PotusBlog's 400th post!)

Obama came out strong, just like the first debate. McCain got the question first and started with a typical politician's response, not giving specifics and somewhat avoiding the question. The contrast with Obama, who seems sharp and direct by contrast. McCain followed up with a good personal appeal to a man Obama met on the campaign trail, and the Obama just took all the wind out of his sails with a quip that was actually funny (!), "Joe the Plummer's been watching Sen. McCain's ads." Got a small audience response--that's important, because all the studies show that audience reaction has a huge impact on TV viewership evaluation. McCain's joke, "We're talking about Joe the Plummer" when Obama mentioned Buffet, was just as funny but got no audience reaction. Obama's joke a little while later about Fox News also got a laugh, as did his joke a little past that saying "congrats" to McCain for the Cardinals beating the Cowboys. A pro-Obama audience it seems.

McCain came out with passion on taxes after his opening two salvos, and made up for lost ground, putting Obama on his heels. McCain had a great moment, looking Obama in the eyes and saying "I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to vote for President Bush you should have run four years ago." Oh yeah! Where was this passion in the last two debates? McCain should have done this from the beginning. The anger and passion makes him seem a lot more vigorous. The late night comedy shows have had a field day making fun of the McCain ticket, and McCain himself as old and doddering. As has been widely remarked, they don't know how to make fun of Obama. Call it the comedy gap. McCain showing controlled anger I think would mitigate this a little bit. But only a little.

"I give you tremendous credit for that" Obama on McCain's opposition to torture. Why do politicians phrase it this way? I think it would be better to say "You deserve tremendous credit for that."

McCain was passionate about negative ads, defending the people at his rallies, the relationship of Obama with Ayers and ACORN, putting Obama again on his heels. "I've roundly condemned" his despicable acts, Obama said. I think it would be more effective to look into the camera and say "I condemn them." But Obama ran through the whole story on Ayers and ACORN with a lawyer's closing argument that brought overwhelming evidence to bear that these are distractions that a desperate McCain is focusing on because he's got nothing else. I give the exchange to Obama.

Obama's a pro. Speaking well of Biden and not even mentioning SP when asked to compare the two. That's exactly right. McCain had a much more difficult time (of course). It's hard to listen to him refer to SP without SNL ringing in your ears. McCain flubbed his "breath of fresh air" line about her, and I had a jolly laugh about McCain accidentally saying "breasts." If he said that word on live TV in a debate in reference to Sarah Palin, his campaign would be over! Bush could nuke Iran and Russia and Pakistan on Nov. 3 and Obama'd still win!

Obama would smile when McCain spoke about him. That made it seem like McCain was distorting Obama's positions. It was a subtle "there you go again" message implicit there. I thought it was a very funny moment when an hour into the debate Obama looked into the camera and told Joe the Plumber that his fine for not providing health care would be "zero." McCain had said that "he'd sure like to know what that fine's gonna be." "Zero!" said McCain, and then went on a flurry of blinking that just looked so funny on the split screen.

McCain went over the line with Joe the Plumber. He should have dropped it. His obsession with J the P became a parody of itself. SNL must be so happy for this; their script writes itself on this one.

I thought the rest of the debate was super boring. I was bored. I thought McCain through everything and the kitchen sink at Obama, and the former did well, but Obama weathered the storm with aplomb. He is our next president; that's what I kept thinking watching his performance--not based on the polls as much as his performance.

Palin on SNL?

Consensus: McCain missed the boat

I agree with the Hammer over at the Washington Post--McCain is throwing too many hail marys, making Obama look cool and stable.

I've always argued that he had to throw hail marys.  The real problem is not that he's doing so, it's that the last one fumbled badly.  The gimmicky "let's-suspend-the-campaign" when he had no intentions of following through on skipping the debate was really bad.  The fill-in for Rush Limbaugh today was bemoaning the chance McCain had to rally voters for change by opposing his party's capitol hill leadership and taking a very popular position opposing the bailout.  

I advised McCain's team to oppose the bailout on 9/22.  I guess they aren't reading this blog, or else they felt that the downside I listed--that McCain couldn't pull it off because he doesn't know enough about economic issues--certified the decision not to oppose the plan.  

Yet it is becoming more and more clear that this might be *the* turning point in the campaign.  McCain had a shot, and he blew it.  Airball.  He is sinking in the polls.  On the ground in Ohio people have the sense that the tide has turned.  A former White House employee admitted to me over the weekend that McCain missed a big opportunity.  

Palin in the debate was all about stealing the change message.  Effective--if it had been backed up with substance.  Palin didn't provide substance.  McCain could have provided it for her, by taking a popular position sharply divergent from Obama's on such a visible issue.  

McCain shot an airball with time running out.  There's still time left, but it starting to look like desperation-ball for the Republicans.  

Palin survives

Joe Biden outclassed SP at every turn in the Veep debate, and it didn't matter. He had to be deferential to her, and that worked in her favor.

The format worked massively in her favor. She would wilt in a format like the first presidential debate, which allowed for detailed follow-ups. Basically, Biden would say something, Palin would respond, Biden might respond to SP but then Ifill would move on to another question. Palin got lucky, I thought.

Palin would have won the debate if she had dropped completely the word "also." By the end it was so painful. The end of the debate was grating--I agree completely with Chuck Todd that Biden had a great end of the debate.

Palin successfully stole Obama's message of change. That was impressive. She also played up seeming real and in touch--also impressive. McCain has to be very happy. She gives his ticket a softer edge, allows him to steal Obama's change message, and fires up his base, all while complementing his maverick image. Everything he needed.

Fighting Biden to a draw is exactly what Palin needed to do. She garbled and mangled answers. She got facts wrong. But she will be forgiven it. I think this gives McCain a short little bounce, but that's it. Biden was too impressive. His tear-up when he was talking about his injured kids was powerful. He made a very substantive case that McCain is not a maverick. But he was hampered by the debate format and his opponent's gender.

The Veep Debate

Palin needs not to be humiliated

The Veep Debate tonight might well decide the election.  If SP is humiliated, the combination of McCain's bungling and the economic crisis will combine to sink his campaign, perhaps for good.  If SP really tanks, it's even probably sunk for good, I would say, though nothing's for certain (especially with Bush possibly orchestrating an October surprise).

The expectations are super low for SP.  This favors her, big-time.  If she makes a barely passable showing, the story'll be her come-from-behind triumph.  Or at least her supporters will think so; the media is another story.  Will they gang up on her?  I think so, but I also think they have to be sensitive to their clientele, and they don't want to be seen picking on her.  So they'll gladly make fun of whatever is awkward and unbecoming.  I really don't see how SP can avoid the mockery she is about to get dumped on her.  However, if she's poised, they vipers can't unleash their venom, because they'd be picking on her.

And of course Biden does not want to be seen this way either!  But he won't.  He's too good of a politician to flub it up.  Democrats don't have to worry--this one's all on SP.  Biden will be fine, he's done this numerous times.  He won't mess it up.  But he can be fought to a draw by the ordinary gal Pal(in) if she's passably articulate.

But I just don't think she will be.  Best odds, 40% she pulls through.  

Post-debate reflections

True to this blog's motto, "We're only two or three news cycles behind," I want to give some post-debate reflections.

This was probably the most important debate, as long as there's no major fumbles in the next two (as there was not in this one).  The first thing of note is that the debate was indeed a draw, as the commentators have stated.  And the reason is that the middle of the debate was even, and was bookended by two bad moments for each candidate--Obama looked so sharp at the beginning while McCain was embarrassingly bad, and Obama was hammered by McCain at the end of the debate.

So if voters are making up their mind based on actually watching the thing, it really matters whether you tuned in ten minutes late and watched until the end, or whether you caught the beginning of the debate and broke off without seeing the end.  Like the very first TV debate between Nixon and Kennedy (which resulted in different winners depending on whether people listened to the debate or watched it on TV), these two scenarios would result in vastly different impressions of who won.

If you watched the whole thing, you thought it was a draw.  I agree with conventional wisdom that a draw favors Obama.  I think Obama won.  He proved he can be president.  The VP debate this week will validate Obama's choice of Biden, humilitate McCain's choice of Palin, and last Friday's debate will be but a memory.

SNL lampooned McCain the night after the debate for his gimmicks.  McCain can get away with gimmicks because he is such a substantive candidate, has a long record.  He has capital to spend on this score, and I think he should spend it.  I thought he should have opposed the bailout--that would have been a really substantive way to shake up the race, instead of a gimmicky way, but he decided to play it safe.  That won't win him the election.  The bailout will probably pass today, in which case McCain could have his cake and eat it too--posturing in a popular way (no one likes the bailout) while not taking the blame for it not passing.  Of course, would it have passed if he opposed it?  Perhaps not.  And what the bailout is doing is delaying the (inevitable) economic pain that has to come sooner or later.  You don't run for president nowadays talking about how short-term pain is good.  You run by promising everyone the world.

McCain really came into his own last night.  He doesn't think much of Obama, but managed to conceal his contempt.  He started out so flat, it was just terrible.  But he gained his footing when he started talking with passion about earmarks.  That passion never left him.  It made him seem really genuine, in contrast to his gimmicky campaign.  If Palin has any chance against Biden it's to seem genuine as opposed to Biden's slick Washington mountebank demeanor.  

But Obama won the debate.  His flubs at the end were even excusable, I thought.  McCain was snearing in his face, and Obama can seem like he has a legit beef that his positions are misrepresented.  His line the next day was a powerful one: "John McCain had a lot to say about me in the debate, and not much at all to say about you.  He never even mentioned 'the middle class' once."

Likewise, McCain's flubs at the beginning were excusable, in the sense that he was really sharp the whole rest of the debate, which is tough for a 72-year-old in the bright light standing for 90 minutes.  

Obama won because he did exactly what he had to do.  Unlike McCain, Obama can't resort to gimmicks.  He can't go after McCain passionately.  He can't get down and dirty.  The reason is the bubba vote--a young black upstart attacking an American hero would only produce backlash.  He had to show that he's up for the job, presidential.  He had to get people comfortable with him as a leader.  He did that.  

I think he should have mentioned his Christianity and how it guides him in life.  Why doesn't he do this?  America doesn't elect secular candidates, or at least hasn't yet.  Change might be around the horizon, but why risk it?  Obama could have boxed in McCain, who would sound too much like Bush with his belligerent attitude to every major foreign policy problem, mixing in any God-speak.  Obama's married with two kids, McCain ruthlessly cheated on and then divorced his  wife, who was faithful to him while he was a POW and remains faithful to him to this day, in order to wed a young heiress.  But there's one reason why Obama can't do this: it conjures up Wright, and there's no way Obama wants that.  He's better off with the whole thing being a forgotten piece of ancient history.  

Neither candidate has much of a sense of humor, and McCain's jokes fell flat, but he did have two moments when he really flummoxed Obama with humor--the line about not being able to hear Obama, and the imaginery sit-down with Ahmadinejad.  

McCain's brilliant gambit

John McCain will probably lose this election. But even if he does, his top adviser Steve Schmidt should go down in the pantheon of legendary political consultants.

So far, the McCain campaign has done two things I have found to be brilliant.

1. The Celebrity ad.

2. The Palin pick (risky, but necessary).

Add to that now a third. Is it a mess in the McCain campaign? I got this email:

Could McCain possibly do anything else to reduce his chance in November? Backing out of the first debate (or trying to) makes him look weak and unprepared, and I assume that you've heard about the fiasco with canceling Letterman (supposedly because he had to leave for the airport), being interviewed by Katie Couric when he should have been on Letterman, and Letterman broadcasting part of the Couric interview. David offered to "drive him to the airport" since apparently he must have been running late! What a mess.

The Letterman thing was a fiasco. But who watches Letterman? Young people, who will vote for Obama anyway. The Letterman thing was bad. It really made McCain seem like he's a faker.

And of course he is. This whole thing about "suspending his campaign" is a gimmick (like Palin). But the reason it's all brilliant is that McCain needs gimmicks. His poll numbers are sliding. The economy mess only helps Obama. He has to shake things up--he just has to.

He is doing so by, again, stealing Obama's message of "new politics." First he stole "change" at the convention. Now he's going after Obama's post-partisanship message. He has a claim to it with the maverick image, so he can pull it off.

The Letterman fiasco is a bad piece of scheduling perhaps. But McCain will be forgiven by voters. Letterman is a comedian. Going on a comedy show is not the first priority of the day in a crisis. Obama canceled SNL because of a hurricane (and it stunk as a result). At least Couric is a journalist.

People can understand that the rules change in a crisis. That's what gives this move of McCain's plausibility as something other than the gimmick that it is. Yes, shouldn't we abandon partisan politics and all work together in a crisis? McCain is seizing the initiative, which is exactly what he needed to do.

This move by McCain is another brilliant stroke by a campaign that understands that it cannot coast into the White House. It has to continue to shake things up, again and again, in order just to stay even with Obama, and have a chance to win in a squeaker.

The race in Ohio

I got polled last Sunday (at 3pm) by Rasmussen.  I live in the Ohio's swing-district-of-all-swing districts, so it was thrilling to think that my opinion would actually be listed to.  A few interesting things about the poll.  It was a robo-poll which moved along at a fair clip.  There were a few demographic questions in the middle of the poll.  It gave the option to vote for Barr, Nader, and McKinney.  The most interesting question was, "If you had to make the toughest decision of your life, who would you ask, Barack Obama or John McCain?"  

In the local paper here, the fact that McCain was up in a poll (not the Rasumussen one) was front page news.  Of course, McCain was not really up in the poll--he had 48, Obama 42, but the margin of error was 3.3% so it's a statistical tie.  

Obama is having difficulty in Ohio.  It's the same old story--people feel uncomfortable with him waltzing in and taking over the country.  And why shouldn't they?  Obama's inexperienced.  He's not tried and true.  There are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical of Obama without being racist.  There was a forum last week in West Virginia blaming racists there for not supporting Obama.  I heard the same opinion from a WV native at APSA in Boston.  I said recently here that there was no way that Obama could win West Virginia; however, he's been creeping up on McCain in the polls, to the point where they're basically tied in the Mountain State.  

In Ohio, there was an Obama volunteer who had a hilarious venting in the letters to the editor section of my local Sunday paper.  It was well-reasoned, even eloquent, if it wasn't so sarcastic.  The lady was choking on her own disbelief that people would support McCain/Palin.  It was an interesting snippet of the race, because this lady obviously has knocked on a lot of doors, or made a lot of phone calls, or both, and has heard the same thing over and over--that people relate to McCain (and especially Palin) in a way they don't with Obama.  

That's why money is not so much a factor in this race.  Obama might raise more, and will continue to be able to raise more while McCain's finished (he's taken his $84 million of government money and can no longer accept private donations), but both have enough money to compete, and that's all that matters.  Obama poured money into Ohio and PA in the primaries, and he got creamed by Hillary.  Money is not the answer.  It pays for legions of enthusiastic volunteers to become disillusioned and crabbed like the lady who had to vent in public about how stupid the people are who she's trying to pursuade to vote for Obama.  

McCain needs to oppose the bailout

Reading through the NYT today, it became clear to me that John McCain needs to oppose this huge bailout.  

First of all is the front page story, "2 Candidates Back Bailout, With Caveats."  It's a misleading title.  Read the story, and it says McCain could back the bailout.  It never says he does.  So he's leaving his options open.  The theme of the article as far as McCain is concerned (based on a phone interview with him) is that he's trying to appear bipartisan.  He's doing that in other ways--promising to make the WH less political, saying he'd appoint Andrew Cuomo to be SEC chair.

Yet McCain is also sounding more populist.  He has to.  The convention featured the rollout of McCain's message: "Change you can trust."  A little change, not too much, not "Change you can believe in."  It's a brilliant strategy.  If your opponent has a popular message, you need to steal it, or lose.  McCain wants to win with this strategy.

The strategy requires that he oppose the bailout.  I base this on my conviction that McCain needs to make bold gambles to win.  He can't coast into the White House.  Only by making bold gambles will he put Obama on his heels, outside his comfort zone.  If Obama makes this a race on personality and telegenicity, which he did with Hillary by blurring any distinction between their positions, and is trying to do with McCain, he'll win.  McCain can't let that happen.  He needs bold moves.  Palin was a bold move, and it seems to be working out so far.  But that's not enough, as I've argued.

William Kristol's column today in the NYT clinched it for me.  Here you have a neocon agreeing with Paul Krugman across the page.  There are a lot of reasons why a massive bailout is a bad idea.  The reason why it might be a good idea is simply that: "It might work."  But what if it doesn't?  McCain could draw out the consequences of that.  He could show he's a maverick by opposing the Bush administration.  He might be able to appeal to some independent voters who are dissatisfied with a bailout as a solution.  He can appeal to small-government conservatives who think massively expanding the size of government is a bad idea.  And perhaps most of all, he can appeal to ordinary people with populist rhetoric that incenses the Wall Street Journal editorial board.  But that's exactly the right crowd to incense.

Making this move might shift the focus off of McCain's ties to the vested interests he would otherwise be seen to be tied to.  A damning article on his advisor's ties to Fannie and Freddie is on page 18 of the NYT.  Take the attention off this, take the initiative, and put Obama on his heels by opposing the bailout--that's what McCain needs to do.  What would Obama's response be?  I think it would put him in a quandary.  Supporting Bush when even McCain isn't?  That would get Obama clobbered, I think.  Yet Obama would clearly like to play things cautiously and bipartisanly, and rely on his own charm and eloquence rather than policy differences to carry the day.  He'd have to oppose the Democratic Congress, if the latter decides to pass the thing.

Of course, what's inhibiting McCain from doing this really is his total lack of understanding of what's happening.  He doesn't have the vocabulary and knowledge to argue the case effectively, and that's a prerequisite.  

Yet one could argue that Palin doesn't have the vocabulary and knowledge to take on Biden in a debate, and yet McCain picked her anyway.  The presidential race is not for the faint of heart.  I say, go in there and get your hands dirty arguing for the common man.  If you slip up, you'll be forgiven more readily than if you were arguing for the bailout of the rich--that's the same way with Palin, as she'll be forgiven more readily for her faults because she's an "ordinary person."

It's still Obama's race

A lot has happened in the presidential race to reflect upon.  And then again, not a whole lot.  The dynamics of the race still favor Obama.  Yet I would agree with a headline I saw two months ago, that it's Obama's race to win, not Obama's race to lose.  

First of all we can assess the conventions from a distance now.  The Democrats had a good convention.  The Republicans had a spectacular convention.  Obama received a bump, but the Republicans quickly neutralized it with the Palin pick the Friday after, and a solid convention that highlighted their VP pick.  McCain took his first lead in the polls since the head-to-head with Obama was secured in June.  

You can see how the race has looked from the graphs above.  First is the intrade price for McCain.  This is driven by a market consisting of people who are putting their money where their mouth is, picking McCain or Obama to win.  Only very recently has McCain been given over a 50% chance by this market.  

After the Palin pick and the Republican convention, Democrats were all in a tizzy.  Glum.  Doom and gloom.  The Palin picked worked on so many levels.  First of all is the "regular person" effect.  McCain is a longtime senator married to a rich heiress--he's more like John Kerry than Joe Sixpack.  Palin gives him the regular-person feel, which they can use against Obama, portraying him as an elitist.  It really was so remarkable, and was remarked upon ad nauseum, that Obama did not get a bump from his overseas trip.  His polls did not nudge.  Not a bit.  In fact he actually lost ground to McCain, as can be best seen in the supertracker poll aggregation graph (from fivethirtyeight.com), and also in McCain's rise in the intrade graph.  All the Obama team's hard work down the crapper, with one McCain Paris Hilton ad.  That ad has over 2 million views now on YouTube.  

Secondly, Palin fires up the base of the party.  They are drooling about getting one of their own in power, grooming her for the future from Mass. Av.  She is such an attractive politician, and the effect she has on conservatives is similar to the effect Obama has on liberals--finally we have someone who can represent our views and look good on TV doing it, without bringing up the baggage of the past (Clinton, Bush).  

Third, Palin appeals to a key demographic--married voters in the midwest.  Palin sounds exactly like a Wisconsin hockey mom.  This helps McCain in Minnesota, a key swing state in that it's the only one McCain really has the ability to take from Obama.  As Jay Cost has noted, it was winning the demographic of white women that made the difference for the GOP from losing in '96 to winning in '00 and '04.  

So Palin was a great pick.  She just has to look poised on TV from now until the election, as Jay Cost has also noted.  That's doable.  

However, I stand by my early analysis of Palin.  As we go along, Palin will lose some of her star appeal.  She will begin to wear more thin.  Attention will be diverted to other things.  

Democrats should not panick.  Even already in this past week there has been a rebounding in the polls for Obama, who is now barely up.  Democrats should ask themselves this question: did they honestly think that McCain would never be up in the polls against their man?  McCain had a great convention and a great VP pick, and he benefited from that.  But he will need more than that.  He will need Obama to fail to close the deal with Americans.  If Obama stumbles, McCain will win.  If Obama does not stumble, but fails to close the deal, McCain could back into the White House just like he won the GOP primary by a whisker.  

And that was the problem with the Democratic convention.  It did not close the deal with the American electorate.  I had one big problem with the convention: it did not give us a reason to vote for Obama.  Voting is about emotion, but not just the emotion of an indefinite mood.  Emotions are tied to explicable reasons.  There are reasons you feel angry or hopeful or pensive.  Campaigns need to conjure them up.  Playing not to lose, in sports as in politics, means you will lose 95% of the time.  The Republicans are too good for Obama to try to coast to victory.  Plus Republicans have a natural presidential majority--Democrats haven't won a majority of the votes cast for president in the last 30 years.  

The Democratic convention did not go after McCain enough.  It simply didn't.  It seemed like all the "new politics" bs was being taken seriously.  I've had some conversations with the Obama organizer in my county (I live in Ohio's swing district par excellance--the middle of the Democratic "C" in the eastern part of the state), and it was almost worrisome how he took the "new politics" line so seriously, and indeed seemed to be already making excuses as to why Obama would lose the state!  The Republicans had no qualms about going on the attack.  

Obama did better in his speech at the convention, and he's starting to go on the attack now.   There's plenty to attack.  One of the pitfalls of having a long voting record is there's plenty of things to attack.  From Bill Press: 

In 2000, McCain supported legislation authored by Sen. Phil Gramm that forbade federal agencies from regulating financial derivatives that greased the skids for passing along risky mortgage-backed securities to investors. Today we’re suffering the consequences.Gramm’s legislation was the key. Without it, AIG could never have veered from the solid ground of life insurance onto the shaky ground of sub-prime mortgages. And John McCain championed that legislation.

The changing economic situation clearly benefits Obama.  It reminds everyone of the failures and lies and mismanagement of the Bush administration.  Bad news on the ins watch will almos always help the outs.  But it has to be utilized.  From David Sirota:

Until this week, Obama largely avoided the contrasting FDR-style populism the nation wants and the moment demands.

For example, instead of endorsing forceful re-regulation months ago when the financial meltdown commenced, Obama responded with a vague white paper that not only offered few hard-hitting prescriptions, but denigrated key Depression-era regulations.

Likewise, despite slipping in the industrial heartland, Obama has muted his criticism of NAFTA. Indeed, one Obama adviser last week called trade only "an issue of symbolic importance." 

Tina Fay is SP

McCain playing it safe

RCP linked to a great piece by Rocky Mountain News this morning on McCain's speech.  Here's the best parts:

I've known for a while that I missed the real John McCain - the one who didn't care what anyone else thought - but I didn't know we'd get the John McCain who would, on the night he accepted the long-sought nomination of his party, not seem to care if anyone thought at all.

[T]there he was - standing where he must have thought he'd never be standing - and basically telling everyone to calm down.

[T]here were no new ideas. There wasn't even a theme, unless it was that McCain favored victory in Iraq. (You can start the USA chant anytime.)

This is one thing you never thought you'd say about McCain, but in this speech, it was as if he simply wanted to make the case that he was the safe vote. And in this campaign season in which nothing seems safe, where nothing is typical, where nothing is foretold and little is even foreseen, it's hard to see how playing it safe (see, for example: Obama's pick of Joe Biden) is the best strategy.

I disagree with disparaging the Biden pick, but agree with everything else.  I've been trying to put my finger exactly on what was so wrong about the speech last night.  McCain was playing it safe--this is the best description.  But he can't!  That's why Palin was a good pick, or at least seems so at this point.  McCain can't play it safe and win.  He has to go out on a limb.  Instead, he played it safe, and looked really old doing so.  

There should have been more red meat.  He should have told people why Obama would be dangerous.  He should have drawn sharp contrasts.  Most importantly, he should have led with his bio but then connected it with what that means for the future.  I just thought he looked way too much like Bob Dole.  

McCain's Speech a "C"

It's all USA all the time with McCain's speech.  "He's a true American."  "He loves his country."  I've never seen a more blatant wrapping of a party around the flag.  This is the alterization of Obama through a positive message.  The Republicans are very good at doing this--attacking through implication, never mentioning what they are even attacking.  

The protesters.  "Please don't pay attention to the ground noise and the static."  McCain smiled.  "Please...please...please...please."  Smile--"Americans want us to stop yelling at each other."  I thought that was a good line.  But then McCain looked really annoyed when the crowd started yelling "USA!" when he was trying to speak again.  It got under his skin.  

"She's worked with her hands and nose."  A funny flub: "She knows...", was what it was supposed to be.  He did it again with the "parents and students" line, when he had to start over and emphasize the right word to make the line make sense.  

"Change is coming."  McCain stole Obama's message.  Pretty good.  Palin allows him to do that.  

McCain's timing was off.  He couldn't decide when to stop for the applause.  Also, he kept looking down too at the end of each line.  Palin was much better at delivery, and Obama too.  McCain's speaking was really horrible.  It just doesn't come off as believable.  

He did show passion with fighting the big pork-barrel spenders in Congress.  He had kind of a Sister Souljah moment talking about how Republicans "lost the trust" of Americans.  "We're going to change that."  He delivered this line so flatly, however.  "He's really not a good speaker," said my wife.  "He strikes me as very insincere.  Let's get him off the stage and get Palin back up there."

There was a big monitor on the wall right under to the camera.  (I finally saw it in a wide shot.)  So McCain kept looking into the camera, just like Palin and Rudy last night.  It was much more effective than the Dems, because looking into the camera connects with TV viewers.  

McCain looked stiff walking out.  The podium was the right size--he didn't look like he was hiding behind it.  His arm disability was very distracting.  Brian Williams explained it last night, so we were looking for it subconsciously, and we never got over it.  

He talked about hearing the news of Pearl Harbor as a kid.  He's old!  A contrast with Obama, reminding me of Dole, of looking to the past.  He talked about "changing the way government does almost everything."  But this was belied by his look, which I always describe as doddering.  Does he have the energy to deliver all this new change?  He just didn't seem vigorous enough.  The night before he praised Palin on the stage and didn't know where she was and had to do a 360-degree turn, looking like an old grandpa who's not sure where people are when he's talking about them.  

The phrase "caretaker government" was ringing in my head as a description of what a McCain term would be.  All the talk of his biography--he's had a great life.  Now he should be put out to pasture?  I think the Republicans overdid it with his bio.  Why can't he be satisfied with the life he's led?  In other words, the question was not answered, why should he be president?  "Because he puts his country first."  That's alterization, not an answer.  The answer is "Because he's a maverick who will shake up Washington."  This answer was an afterthought, however.  It's clearly stealing Obama's message, but the important point is that it was actually McCain's bio that was front and center.  But loving your country and serving your country is not a reason why you should be president.  Then we would all be president!  His call to service was fine and all, but it did not answer the question, "So McCain serves a cause greater than himself, so what?  Why should he be president?"  It is an attack on Obama--he's only in it because he's power-hungry.  

At the end it was "fight this, fight that; stand up, stand up, stand up and fight."  I thought it fell flat.  My wife: "That was good."  I suppose it was.  What do I know?  

I give it a C.  Not bad, but certainly not good.  

Palin and the teleprompter

It's not exactly Bill Clinton level (who gave the first six minutes or so of his first State of the Union Address from memory), but Sarah Palin handled the malfunctioning of the teleprompter with alomb.  It only happened a few times, apparently, but Palin had to deal with a teleprompter that would skip ahead, and she did so smoothly, it seems, by repeating lines from memory and by ad libbing (the "lipstick" line).  

Well, whatever.  I'm more impressed with how smooth she was and how she could look into the camera.  

Palin for President

A great night in primetime for the GOP.  Rudy was good and Palin was great.

Rudy at one point said, at the end of a litany of Democratic errors on the economy: "and sent jobs elsewhere."  What?  That's a criticism of Democrats?  I was scratching my head.  It seemed like Rudy was too--he stumbled and stuttered and paused going into his next line.  Did he add that?  Was it an accident?  It sure seemed like it at least.

Rudy's speech had so many red-meat attacks.  Why couldn't the Democrats do that?  As Pat Buchanan said last week, Rush Limbaugh attacks McCain a lot more harshly than the Dems.  I didn't understand it.  Paul Begala's line keeps ringing in my ears: "You can't go on the attack with a fist in your face."  

The Dems ignored the fact that the US went into a war on false pretenses, which is costing $400 million a day.  Why did they ignore that?  It baffles me.  Tie Iraq to the economy.  Obama did it in the primaries.  But it was ignored at the convention.  

"Can you imagine how they are going to shake up Washington?" said Rudy.  Wow--it's amazing how after 8 years of nearly completely solid Republican rule, that this line could be effective.  Yet it is, because a lot of (mainly married) people, a lot of Republicans, perceive the media, academic and government elites to be stacked against the values of ordinary families.  The elites vs. the common people--the protests of an EJ Dionne or The Nation notwithstanding (and apart from its truth)--is not something that inherently favors liberals.  A lot of people in the flyover states feel with good reason that rich urban liberals look at them with patronizing contempt.  So the Republicans can get away with running against the establishment, when for crying out loud they are the establishment.

One teleprompter or screen for the Republicans seemed like it was in front of the podium.  It didn't seem like the Dems did that.  Why didn't they?  Everything in Obama's speech was left, right, left, right, always looking at his face at an angle, never into the camera right at the TV audience.  It's clear why the GOP does it.  McCain's face doesn't look great at an angle!  But I think it's much more effective on TV to look the camera straight in the eye.  

Palin:  "I guess a small-town mayor is kind of like a community organizer, except that you have real responsibilities."  

The clinging to guns and religion comment was hammered hard by Rudy and even harder by Palin.  Some great lines.  "John McCain won't talk about small town folks one way in Scranton and another in San Francisco."

"Here is a man who's authored two memoirs [memoirs!] but not a single big law or reform in the Senate."

"Here is a man who talks about the wars America is fighting without ever using the word 'victory,' unless he's talking about his own campaign."

"There are some candidates who use 'change' to promote their careers.  And then there are some, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.  They are the ones who's names and images appear on monuments, not buttons and banners and self-designed presidential seals."

"The American presidency shouldn't just be a part of a journey of self-discovery."  

She used the phrase "our opponent" rather than "Sen. Obama" or "Obama."  That's classic political tactics going back to FDR.  

She played up her fighting the special interests in Alaska.  This is a big reason she was picked, because it really does fit with McCain's image.  

How many times did Palin slip up?  On Venezuela she clearly did, but smoothed it out semi-nicely.  I still have the slipups of Obama, in a home-run out-of-the-ballpark speech, he still slipped up a few times.  Biden slipped up.  It's inevitable.  But Palin was really remarkably smooth.  

SNL hasn't done a parody of Palin yet, but I can already hear Amy Poeler in a wig imitating her accent.  

She hammered Obama on taxes and growth of government to choruses of boos.  Relating it back to her family members who own a small business.  Very good--relate it to a personal level.  Not something Obama's great at.  Clinton was brilliant at it, and he never got over 50%.  

Palin was able to mix up the speed of her speech with facility.  It keep the thing moving, and kept it interesting.  It never really lagged.  

Tom Moe was trotted out as the Lenny Skutnik of the speech.  

Social issues were never mentioned.  Smart.  The picture of that little Down syndrome baby was worth a thousand words.  Plus, you want to run away from your strength when your supporters are already aware of it, in order to court those who aren't supportive.  

Right after the convention coverage ended, the local news coverage began, and it talked about Obama's trip to my county.  The coverage was not good for Obama--the people interviewed seemed to think Obama was out of touch.  And then Obama messed up the name of the town, calling it "New Pennsylvania" instead of "New Philadelphia."  Not a great night for Obama, and a great night for Republicans.  

After Palin's speech, the question should be whether the GOP ticket shouldn't be reversed.  

Palin is a gimmicky prop

A comment to the last post reads: "I'd love you hear your ideas on how Obama-Biden can neutralize this republican shot in the arm, while still courting women voters. Also, how comfortable are you of Palin's ability to lead the country? Did McCain show a lack of judgment in this regard?"

A "Republican shot in the arm" indeed. John McCain needed precisely a shot in the arm. When I heard the news about Palin I was outside a panel at APSA in Boston. So I got to tell a few people as they came out and get their assessments. The first person I told had a reaction which was mine precisely: "Oh, so McCain does want to win!" The next was also interesting: he thought Palin could turn into a liability, a Geraldine Ferraro all over agin.

I think both are right. I think McCain had to go outside the box, outside of the Romney/Pawlenty yawn-fest. McCain can not back into the White House, these summer polls notwithstanding. When asked for my pick the evening before, I said that Romney/Pawlenty would not surprise me, but that Palin or Huckabee would show that McCain wants to win. The reason Huckabee would have been better is because he is a tested campaigner. He has experience in the bright lights. He can bring in a lot of votes and excitement in corners of the GOP.

On Meet the Press this morning, the comatose Andrea Mitchell opined about Palin:

She is not appealing to the same women who were really voting or supporting Hillary Clinton on ideological issues, but they think that they can peel off some of these working class women, not college-educated, who--the blue collar women who were voting for Hillary Clinton and may be more conservative on social causes.

That's right. So much of national politics comes down to culture. True-blue Hillary ideologues are not going to support McCain over Palin. But Palin does have cultural bona-fides to appeal to the lower-class Dems who supported Hillary but not because of her feminist roots.

This evening I got the feeling that it's all downhill for McCain-Palin. I just think everything has gone so well this weekend for them. I mean, Palin got such a great reception, that I think it will become apparent, even relatively quickly, that she can't meet the high expectations. She's going to make gaffes. She's just going to. McCain's team better start planning now what to do when that happens. Her showing up and giving McCain a fresh face and incredible backstory will only last so long. And what happens when wears off? The press will gleefully tear her apart. Precisely what Hillary was hoping they would do to Obama. But Obama is a white-wine liberal, a Harvard Law man. He is one of the elites' own. Palin's angle is appealing to the working stiffs. The conclusion to this syllogism should be crystal-clear: the press will have no compunction in tearing her to shreds when given the opportunity.

So Obama/Biden should bide their time and focus on looking presidential. Obama had an edge on Hillary--he looked presidential. I forget who it was who had a sister teaching politics, I believe, and who insisted at the beginning of the primary season that "America will elect a black man first before they'll elect a woman--you watch and see." We watched and saw it happen on the Democratic side. The press is ga-ga right now for the Alaskan beauty queen. But the novelty will wear off. Again: then what? McCain's choice was more important than Obama's because McCain's a geezer. No one in their right mind would ever dream of insisting that Palin is qualified to be president. And the argument, "So Obama isn't either," would hold good for me two years ago--it doesn't hold now. Obama earned the right to be president with his grueling slug-fest that deposed the reigning heavyweight champion of the Democratic Party. Campaigning is a lot like what you have to do as president. So don't tell me Obama isn't ready, he is. Palin will have two months of very hard campaigning before the election. She can't grow into it. There's no room for error. If she really did try to get her sister's ex fired, that could be the October-surprise of all October-surprises.

The one thing McCain was smart about was getting a solid conservative, to generate excitement with the base that he just doesn't generate on his own. Today on MTP, Mitchell also said:

And in terms of the abortion issue, it has so fired up the base. The evangelical base, the, you know, the foundation of what John McCain needs, the people who came out in Ohio and elected George, you know, George Walker Bush, this is the, the key group that now is so energized. They were sitting on their hands, they were not excited about the other alternatives. They would have completely rebelled with Joe Lieberman.

Mitchell, of all people, was actually more in tune that Republican "strategist" Mike Murphy, who said:

[I]f we get into a social issues debate with those particular swing voters, we're in big trouble. I believe that McCain cannot win in this environment without ticket splitters, people who vote for him for president but vote Democrat down the ticket. He may need as many as one out of five of his ultimate voters to be a ticket splitter. So the question is in a bad base year for Republicans, if we get caught on pure base issues--I agree, the evangelical vote loves her, but I, to the point I said earlier, I'd rather have lukewarm evangelicals and a whole lot of voters.

This is the failed median-voter model of elections which has been so thoroughly disproven in the last two presidential elections. Of course, each election is a new situation, and if any election would follow a median-voter model, it would be this one. But it is insanity for Republicans to be more concerned with the lakefront set--these largely mythical independent voters, who will probably go with the tide and vote Obama anyway--than the lower-class cultural voters and married people, who vote in much larger numbers anyway. Focus on the base, get them excited--this sound principle has not gone out the window no matter who is running.

David Gregory (who I'd see in my Starbucks when I used to live in DC) said:

A lot of the working-class voters in states like West Virginia or Ohio, where she was debuted, or Pennsylvania were Democrats primarily for economic issues if not social issues. Obama still has an advantage there, even if he hasn't grabbed the issue completely. I think Sarah Palin helps John McCain get it.

Well, there's no freaking way Obama's going to win West Virginia. Obama has given up on it completely--he hasn't even opened up a campaign office there yet. This is why Hillary would have been a better nominee--WVA and Arkansas would be states she could move into the Democratic column, but Obama doesn't have a chance.

Here's the ultimate truth about Palin: she's an affirmative action pick. She undercuts McCain's "experience" and "judgment" motifs. This is not clear now, but it will be when Palin's novelty fades. Voters can sense gimmicks. They can sense desparation. McCain is desparate to win, but Palin is a gimmick. She's a prop. Unless she has a flawless two months, in which case it was a brilliant move. I doubt it. But then again, I doubted that the inexperienced Obama could muscle his way to the top of the greasy pole.

Palin a knockout?

Here's what a POTUS reader writes via email:

Brilliant!

(unintentionally so, since according to the Prince of Darkness Ol' Blunderbuss was ready to pick Joe Lieberman up until last week, apparently)

Several advantages this gives McCain:

1.) Neuters Biden. Also, can't wait for him to make a gaffe at the VP debate and infuriate women everywhere.
2.) Woman = unprecedented, plus she's a regular person, something Biden and Obama most assuredly are not
3.) She will be ridiculed by the press and the elites, but no matter, it will play well in gun hugging, beer chugging, NASCAR watching Appalachia -- exactly the demographic Obama's gotta win.
4.) Can't be attacked on the experience issue since it will just boomerang back to Obama's thin resume. She has more executive experience than Obama (can't believe I'm writing that)
5.) She'll inspire the base
6.) Allows McCain to hammer Obama on Infant Born Alive Protection Act (see number 5)
7.) Proven reformer and about as far (3000+ miles) outside the beltway as you can go

Your thoughts?

I agree. It looks brilliant at this point. Palin's had a great weekend. But we'll see. She is not a battle-tested candidate on the presidential campaign trail. Obama and Biden are. As far as experience goes, Palin not only has very little but has a lot less than Obama when it comes to the national spotlight. A lot less. The blinding spotlight is now turned on full blast. It doesn't get any brighter. Palin is not going to be judged by voters in the voting booth in November on her fabulous introduction back in August. Rather, she'll be judged on what she's done since then. And if it's gaffe after gaffe, then she'll actually be a drag on the ticket. I would be shocked, completely shocked, if she didn't make any gaffes. I think it's impossible. She's going to make some, perhaps a lot. I don't anything about her, and need to read more.

So right now it looks like a great choice, but we'll see.