Just a thought

Could Obama hire the Daily Show's writers to produce his campaign ads?

For my hand-wringing friends

c/o Lawyers, Guns, and Money:

Obama is essentially tied in the polls with McCain, even as the Republican senator experiences his convention bounce. These numbers will change with events, especially with the debates, and as the sheen wears off Palin. (A reminder: She has been known nationally for less than two weeks.) Obama has invested in a much larger field operation than McCain. The press seems to be developing a spine, if these comments criticizing the media's "outrageous" cowering before the McCain campaign from conventional wisdom apparatchik Mark Halperin are any indication.

But it certainly doesn't help to have Democrats wringing their hands and complaining about problems Obama doesn't have. Enthusiasm is the big indicator in an election that will ride on turnout, and Democrats have every reason to be enthusiastic.

Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton's spokesperson during the primary campaign, has made this point on his new blog. During the primary race, many counted Obama out, didn't understand his campaign's strategy, didn't think he could keep himself in the race. Clinton adopted Obama's change rhetoric and attacked him the same way McCain has -- on experience and for his eloquence. But Obama and his team hewed to their strategy and pulled out the win. The senator from Illinois is known as a closer, and there is plenty of time left. Keep the faith.

Palin's mindset

A few of Palin's comments from her ABC interview last night have been examined critically, but I haven't seen much attention given to this statement. Asked if she hesitated when McCain first asked her to be her running mate, she replied,

I answered him yes... because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

Seriously, what the hell is she talking about? Is she saying that, since we have to be resolute in the face of our enemies, we have to be resolute in every decision we ever make? Hesitation in the face of John McCain would reveal weakness and invite attack?

Haven't we had enough of leaders who make knee-jerk decisions and evaluate every question in terms of warfare?

False equivalency alert

Calvin Woodward of the AP helpfully notes that the McCain team is falsely claiming that Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment was a reference to Gov. Palin. However, Woodward was apparently uncomfortable just calling McCain a liar, so he says that Obama does the same sort of thing:

Obama avoids that kind of slick politicking himself. Not.

He's getting more mileage than a hybrid car over McCain's answer to a question about what constitutes a rich person.

"I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education. ..."

So far so good, but then McCain quipped, "How about $5 million?" Laughter followed, then McCain said, "No, seriously. ..." Too late.

These are not the same things. Obama was jumping on a comment that McCain clearly made about what constitutes being rich. It is quite obvious, however, that Obama was not referring to Palin when he described McCain's campaign as the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. Obama was not taking McCain out of context. McCain took Obama out of context. There's a difference. One of them is taking advantage of an opponent's poor choice of words. The other is lying. It's okay to point that out.

Controlling the debate

A reader at TPM points out something that I've been thinking about with regards to the presidential election. For the first time since 1992, the Democratic candidate has succeeded in defining what the election is about. Obama has been talking about change for more than a year now. During the primaries, all the other candidates -- including the Republicans -- were falling over themselves to catch up with him, saying that they, too, represented change.

Over the summer, McCain was running on his experience, saying that Obama was a lightweight without any legitimate credentials. His choice of Palin as a running mate undermined that. Now McCain, too, is running on change, saying that his form of change is better than the Obama version.

The Obama strategy rests on the (pretty realistic) assumption that if voters really want change, they'll pick the guy who's not of the party that currently controls the White House. It seems unwise for McCain to play on turf that so clearly favors the Democrat, but he apparently has no choice.

I have no idea how much control of message actually affects elections. Still, current polling (which is still highly volatile) nonwithstanding, which candidate would you rather be right now? Which message is stronger? "This election is about change" or "Okay, this is election is about change, but only a certain amount and type of change."

Bring it

This is good (via EotAW). Keep watching -- it gets better as it goes on.



This strikes me as a near perfect Democratic counter-attack. It's still too long for a bumper sticker, but it should work nicely in a debate.

Is it time to panic?

Why is this election so close? Shouldn't Obama be cleaning McCain's clock, given his advantages in funding, organization, charisma, party ID trends, etc?

Not necessarily. Most presidential elections just aren't blowouts. In particular, presidential elections without incumbents are usually pretty close. As I've mentioned before, the last non-incumbent to win by more than 10 points was Ike in '52. Even Dukakis, who basically refused to fight back under attacks from the Bush Sr. campaign, only lost by eight points.

To me, the closest historical parallels to this election are those of 1952 and 1968. In both cases, the incumbent administrations (Truman and Johnson, respectively) were terribly unpopular with voters, largely because of unpopular wars. The incumbents declined to run that year for fear of losing. Their anointed successors (Adlai Stephenson and Humbert Humphrey, respectively) were solid candidates wearing the albatross of an unpopular party label. And in both cases, the incumbent party lost, but it was actually pretty close in 1968. Indeed, it might have gone the other way had George Wallace not taken some southern electoral votes from Humphrey as a third party candidate that year. McCain is in the unenviable position of Stephenson and Humphrey, trying to argue that he'll pursue the incumbent party's policies but in a more competent manner. It's difficult, but again, Humphrey almost pulled it off.

Most predictions I've seen (including my own) based on the economy, presidential approval, etc., suggest that Obama will win, but only by 4 to 6 points. Is there a penalty for being black? Possibly, which would knock Obama down by one or two points. So again, a really close race, which is exactly where things were just before the convention. Then Obama got a bounce out of his convention, and then McCain got a bounce out of his convention. After a week or so, things will probably settle down to where they were just before the conventions, which was pretty close.

Of course, we should still recognize that presidential elections are not national contests, but rather 51 statewide contests. In the state polling, Obama's position still looks pretty strong, as he's likely to take all the Kerry states, and traditionally red states like Montana and Virginia are in play.

Again, we'll have a more realistic idea of what the race looks like in a week or so. But it's likely to remain a nailbiter.