"Underwhelming"--I'll say: if I recall correctly, during the last few presidential campaigns, didn't the Republican ticket come out of the convention with a lead in the high  single- to the low double-digits?  If that's the case, then the size of the convention bounce for McCain-Palin may portend electoral trouble for them. Not that that bothers me!

It would be rich if Ted Stevens were to get elected on Sarah Palin's coattails. How's that for reform we can believe in?

I wonder how much momentum the Republicans would have if the media actually did their job and called lies lies.

They are claiming that Obama has written two memoirs and not one piece of important legislations. Two lies for the price of one. These are not "stretching the truth" and it doesn't hold water to claim that that's just the way it goes. They claim he has never crossed the aisle to get legislation passed. Lie.

We elect our leaders wanting to believe they have integrity. We expect the 4th estate to inform us when they are demonstrating that they are not. The media does not serve anyone when they let these lies pass. Or suggest that they're just minor stretchings of the truth.

We don't need more liars in the White House. Please, I want to hear/read pundits and journalists using the word "lie" when it is appropriate.

I agree with the above post.  The press (not just TNR but especially the big newspapers) discuss how "savvy" and "effective" McCain and Palin were without actually analyzing what was said in their respective speeches.  Rather than analyze policy, the press is content to analyze reactions (and an article on polling results is typical of that attitude, even when the polls show essentially nothing at all).  McCain and Palin got up there and told bold-faced lies; where is the press?  Is it really that hard to do an iota of research to inform your readership?  Instead, we get another "Was McCain Effective?  The Polls Show McMentum and Palindemonium!" article which does nothing to inform the readership.  Blech.

Knock on a door and get greeted by a very large, snarling dog. Naturally the Democrats are a bit on their heels by the appearance of Palin on the scene. Wait a few days. Ignore the dog. The economy is tanking, the issues are still paychecks, mortgage payments, healthcare. Ignore the dog.

A week ago I declared we'd be lucky if the polls began to have value before the end of the month. (My over riding sense is we may see how invalid they are on the 5th)

Nate followed a couple day later (not his words) suggesting that it would be a mess for a couple of weeks into September.  

I know he's still drawing what he can from daily reports and each 24 hour cycle provides new data. But it's problematic if Nate is in the business of predicting to admit there will be a time-frame of volatility and then press forward making sense of daily-data. It's like those guys on Apollo 13. They could do everything within their power to aim for the planet and until we heard them we didn't know if they missed and were toast or on their way to Elysium. Maybe their calculations were more reliable than the uncertainty prior to re-entry indicated but I trust the legend that their success was proved by the outcome. I doubt they want to try it three times to make sure the 'plan' was sound.

It seems that Nate's recent findings include more stipulations and limitations than he was presenting a month ago. He didn't make any promises but it was my understanding that he'd provide an estimate the end and I feel like I'm still in a process that's tumbling out of control.

Where are we on the continuum after, "Houston, we've had a problem."

In a couple of weeks I expect it will be a virtual tie, *or*, McCain/Palin will be up 1 +/-. This race is bound to remain a hair's width until the final weekend when all the "independents and undecideds" fess up and vote the way they feel today. I think there is only a 1% not sure at this point. Turnout in one of the key states will determine the winner. The only question is, which one?

I doubt McCain chose Sarah because they figured her long term benefit would exceed any initial pluses of minuses. They copped to the plea she isn't ready to face the tough questions with, "So, make us.". Now we are stuck with polls that are more foolish because they are measuring the voter's opinion of three candidates who are playing the game and one who is not.

But they were ahead of any demands by sticking the media as the enemy before her first week ticked by. They had a strategy to defend whatever spike she gave them and were committed to do little. They could gain points if she was more than new and shiny, but keeping her in hiding for a couple weeks tells me they know there's no there, there.

I've conceded greater hoaxes and frauds have stood for longer than two months but the press and Democrats can do plenty while she is smiling, waving and reading a script. All inquiry will be met with her victim claim but that wears thin, so it's foolish to postpone the first days of her whining.

A quick and easy checklist might be to culled from the most common debate questions all candidates answered in '07-'08. "It would only be fair to Gov. Palin if she had the same opportunity to inform voters as did McCain, Obama and Biden." Rather than confrontational, the press can be the good-guy and let her have all the time with the top dawgs and not worry about defending her positions on a stage like everyone else did for over a year. See, no pressure Governor and you can get that monkey of your back. (You're welcome!)

I hope she doesn't have the press and the opposition so afraid of challenging her safe-zone that they're relying on her to self-combust.

tomeg,

The outcome of the election will most likely be determined in Ohio.

Michael,

I think the polls are actually not that volatile at all.  They have been within a pretty narrow range for a long time when you look at the averages.  I do believe that who gets the bigger convention bounce is a good predictor (was this a Times article recently?  I can't remember where I read about it) of the ultimate outcome, and so far it looks like Obama is a bit further ahead post convention than he was pre-convention.  The right-wing wackjobs can get as hot and bothered as they want about Palin, but if the net of the conventions is that the race moves toward Obama rather than tightening, then McCain is on the downslope.

That said, Obama had still better figure out effective responses to the McCain smear campaign.  Make no mistake, McCain learned from his defeat at the hands of Bush in 2000 that this stuff works.  And it does, even against a war-hero.  Obama's rhetoric about getting past the divisiveness, blah, blah, blah is a very nice trope for the campaign, but if he starts believing his own BS and forgets to clock McCain when McCain throws dirty punches, he will be lucky to squeak through.

That said, Obama had still better figure out effective responses to the McCain smear campaign.  Make no mistake, McCain learned from his defeat at the hands of Bush in 2000 that this stuff works.  And it does, even against a war-hero."

Sounds like the perfect occasion for another TNR Talkback contest:

WRITE YOUR OWN ANTI-MCCAIN/PALIN ATTACK AD

Play it for laughs or play it straight, but play it.  Your party and your country needs you.

Entry 1:

"Where Was John?"

[Cue unflattering still of McCain and Palin in Mississippi before Gustav, preferably one that shows lots of cameras, microphones, and good weather.]

NARRATOR: Trailed by reporters, John McCain visited the Gulf coast ahead of this month's hurricane Gustav.  But where was he for hurricane Katrina, when it counted?

[cue photo of McCain holding birthday cake with Pres Bush in sunny AZ on the day Katrina made landfall.]

NARRATOR: Sen. McCain was a thousand miles away, celebrating his birthday with George Bush.

[cue stills/video of Katrina devastation]

NARRATOR: And where was John McCain when Congress tried to created a commission to investigate the Bush Administration's failure to respond to the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history?  He was in Washington, and he voted 'No.'  Twice.

[cue picture of McCain looking befuddled]

NARRATOR: John McCain, you can't be part of the solution if you're part of the problem.

aeromonas,

I'll take a stab a little later, but I would start with a slew of commercials like the stuff circulating on You-tube that shows McCain contradicting himself left and right, not quotes, actual clips.

"John McCain has been on both sides of just about every important issue facing our nation.  He probably cannot even remember any more which side he's on today.  That isn't the change we need.  It's the politics we cannot afford."

Next round:  Lot's of clips showing McCain stumbling over his words in response to questions, the doddering incipient senile old man that he is.

"Insurance company statistics say that, at age 72, John McCain has a 1/3 chance of dying in the next four years.  If John McCain is elected president and cannot complete his term in office, would his his vice-president, Sarah Palin, be ready to lead our nation?  Four years as mayor of a small town with only 7,500 people.  Not even two years as governor of Alaska, a state with a population not even 1/4 the size of Chicago, Illinois.  No foreign policy experience, no national experience, no fiscal experience.

John McCain likes to gamble.  Do we want to gamble with him?

The Republicans are in trouble . She's ready for the presidency, but not  ready for Larry king? Wow. They must have a sense that Mrs. Palin isn't ready for those tough questions from heard-hitting Larry.

I guess there's always Fox News. Governor Palin, do you know why Obama hates America?"

mpatrick:

Nah, this is a brilliant strategy by the McCain campaign.  They will hold back Palin until after the first presidential debate (I believe McCain will flop there) and then they will trot her out for a softball interview with Charlie Gibson or Larry King.  By then, the media will have played up the "she's not ready for prime time" message for weeks and when she does appear and is coherent and cogent, she will blast by all expectations and get a week or so of very favorable press for the campaign (there will be a dozen "Palin Plays Hardball" articles all over the place, never mind that the interview will almost certainly be perfunctory).  This is a brilliant strategy because if/when McCain underperforms in the debate, the Palin story will knock it right off the front page and mitigate any negative effect.  

roidubouloi, I agree that the numbers which reflect the decided voters have been stable on the national and state level. But groups who will vote are not in those numbers.

Add 43% + 45% and we have double digits who aren't certain. No survey which hopes to reflect an outcome when the preference is limited to two of anything can be valid until the 10-15% fall in line.

A second & third group may be outside the universe being surveyed.

1st group, New registrations appear to favor Obama but until we have hard number on the 'how many', battleground states are in play with the tiny margins we see now.

2nd group. Turnout of 18-34 (a factor in the primary contests).  I've seen breakouts where an increase of 2-3% over Gore or Kerry's total in the above demo is a win for Barack.

So the numbers we have can be static and they are still likely to change before or on election day. I consider the number of unsure and uncounted new voters to be substantial. The polls are therefore at least subject to volatility or in fact more liable to change than current numbers reflect.

maybe this is a fairer indicator of general sentiment.

www.pollster.com/.../jobapproval-bush.php

clearly, Ms Palin has the gift of public speaking. Tremendous delivery, excellent eye contact

and she really looks like Sally Fields aka 'The Flying Nun'

not so clear is how GWB 65/35 disapproval/approval figures suddenly morph in to 50/50 when

the McCain/Palin ticket essentially mirrors his policy stance and fundamentalist leanings.

but then again, this is america?

no, i believe that on average,  there are 1.2 rational minds for every fundamentalist mind in the

 country and come Nov ration will prevail over a desire to put the nation into perpetual war.

ref this piece if that is not clear.

www.tnr.com/.../story.html

Michael,

I am not for a moment suggesting that the polls say the outcome of the race is clear.  With the numbers so close, that cannot possibly be the case.  However, I think it is a mischaracterization to ssy that the polls have been, or are likely to become, volatile.  They have been pretty stable within a narrow band and consistently show an edge for Obama.  Whether that edge in pre-election polls translates directly to victory is likewise not clear given the wildcard of race.  I still think that to prevail Obama needs a couple of truthy sounding plans for the economy and needs successfully to frame McCain as doddering, out of touch, and just more Bush.  I've been saying that for months now.