TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
07.09.2008
Today's Polls: The Bounce Arriveith

Here's what I think it's safe to conclude: the GOP had a successful convention. John McCain now holds a 3-point lead over Barack Obama in the Gallup daily tracking poll, his largest lead since May. And Rasmussen shows the race tied at 48-48, after having shown Barack Obama with a 5-6 point lead at the peak of his convention bounce.

We will have to see how the other polls weigh in. More critically, we will have to see what the new state-level electoral landscape looks like. Since John McCain's daily results seem to be improving over the course of the tracking window, by the way, we should probably expect this bounce to get bigger before it gets smaller.

Still, we just don't know in what direction the polls are going to move from here forward. There just isn't any precedent for so many political molecules being packed into such a tight space, with the conventions and VP selections having come right on top of one another. If one assumes that the Republicans are getting a typical 6 or 7-point convention bounce, that suggests that the race still probably leans by a a couple of points to Barack Obama once the polls return to equilibrium, the current numbers representing some sort of short-lived, dead cat bounce along the lines of what happened to Walter Mondale in 1984. If, on the other hand, one assumes that both parties have had their say and that these polls already represent the new equilibrium, things are looking up for McCain-Palin. The truth, of course, is most likely somewhere in between. Our tracking graph still regards Barack Obama as roughly a 3-point favorite, but it is designed to respond cautiously to new information. If McCain sustains these numbers over the course of the next week or so, it will shift toward him relatively rapidly.

--Nate Silver 

Posted: Sunday, September 07, 2008 2:54 PM with 115 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Eos said:

Regarding Palin, the Obamaites and Pelosians can barely keep themselves from calling her "trailer trash," which is what they really think about her and about many of the people whpose votes they need. But they know how that would play among independents and moderate Democrats. So Palin has succssfully driven a huge wedge right into the heart of the non-Clnton Democrats hypocrisy, and the Dems don't know what to do about it.

Do you notice how reluctant Hillary has been to attack Palin? She is very smart. Too bad Obama didn't have the strength and confidence to put her on the ticket.

September 7, 2008 3:10 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

Word...

I really believe that Obama is going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory and lose this thing...Women are abandoning the Obama-Biden ticket in the hope of seeing a woman in the White House, her anti-family and woman  policies  notwithstanding...

What a mess...

I can't even imagine what four more years of Republicant misrule will be like...Well, we can thank TNR and Marty Peretz for shoving Barack Obama down our throats...

September 7, 2008 3:52 PM

michael said:

Picture yourself in a boat on a river with tangerine trees and marmalade skies. Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly, a girl with kaleidoscope eyes...

Even if you aren't trippin', copyright that concept Eos.  Counterfactual history written before the event has happened. Or you could get a website and compete with Nate, call it theworldwillneverbethesamesincehillarylost.com

The end is nigh so I don't have to quit smoking, I can check out at young but married...(no names) and I think I'll apologize to all I treated unfairly. I can waste those who deserved it.

Jeeze, I hope you're correct here. Obama-Biden win and I'll be in a heap o' trouble. But while you're at it I need some picks for other races that are now ruined by the Hillary Effect. Nate hasn't given me the sort of odds I'm comfortable with so I might as well make a few wagers before the world ends.

But first, are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced? Well, I have

September 7, 2008 4:08 PM

tomeg said:

Eos, before you become irrationally exuberant, please note the tone and substance of Obama's and Biden's assessment of Palin. I don't think they are insincere or hypocritical, and the Obamaites themselves are momentarily stuck in shock, disillusion, and (if you'll allow an ironic use of a vulgar sarcasm) penis envy.  With luck, Obama can point the way back to sobriety, and the 'ites will listen. For the moment at least, liberals' fur is standing on end, and their hissing is understandably defensive. I think we may be looking at a wholly new dynamic taking shape in this race and I wouldn't count anybody out...yet.

TheOne__, please don't panic. This thing has just begun.

September 7, 2008 4:20 PM

naomi88 said:

"Well, we can thank TNR and Marty Peretz for shoving Barack Obama down our throats.."

Yeah, damn that all-powerful Marty Peretz for preventing Hillary from competing in the caucus states.

Yikes, I defended Marty.  I need to go take a purifying bath.

September 7, 2008 4:33 PM

Eos said:

Cute, Michael. Original.

If Obama had the strength to put Hillary on the ticket, things would look very different right now. If he loses, we will look back at his decsion not to pick her, and the Dems failure to nominate her, and the selection of Palin as the key events.

September 7, 2008 4:33 PM

timteeter said:

A few instructive points:

After the Democratic convention in 84, when Mondale picked Ferraro, and then again after the first debate in which, by common consent, Mondale crushed Reagan, the race was momentarily tied.  We all know how well that worked out.

At the height of his "bounce," Obama led McCain by 8 in Gallup on Monday, 9/1, and 6 on Tuesday, 9/2 in Rasmussen.  As of today (9/8), McCain leads Obama by 3 in Gallup and 0 in Rasmussen.  It is entirely possible that those leads will increase, but that remains to be seen.  More realistic numbers will be available by about Wednesday or Thursday.

Just about three weeks ago or so, Nate's model had McCain with the winning percentage, and Politico's map showed McCain winning the election.  In fact, on 8/25, McCain went ahead by a point in Gallup.  Then just *before* the Democratic convention--in fact, before the Biden pick, even--all was reversed.  Let the McCainiacs have their brief moment of exhiliration.  Unless I see a consistent McCain lead by next weekend, I refuse to panic (but I'll probably make a donation).  Life is too short.

September 7, 2008 4:42 PM

tomeg said:

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

"Word..."

The first time I recall hearing this expression was about a year ago on YouTube.

Did you ever see or hear of Sue Teller? Well, Mountain Dew was testing (I guess) a possible viral video to advertise the brand. My entree was that the actor is an octogenarian mother/in-law of close friends here in Los Angeles. Those net-mercials (there were two released) were among the funnier things I'd seen in years. So it seemed the were for Letterman and Leno, who followed up with invites to appear on their shows (which didn't happen ultimately).

Hearing "Word..." coming from an old lady I knew (she calls herself that without shame) was a total non-sequitur. I lol, and mystified. I love language.

September 7, 2008 4:42 PM

timteeter said:

Eos, if Obama had put Hillary on the ticket, McCain would not have needed Palin to pull ahead in the polls (if indeed Palin is making a difference).  Hillary would have done it for him.  She can energize the hard right every bit as much as Palin--that's one of the (many) reasons Obama did not pick her.

If you think that selecting a female governor of Alaska is all McCain needs to become President, then please mail me some of whatever it is you're smoking.

September 7, 2008 4:45 PM

tomeg said:

Eos said

"If Obama had the strength to put Hillary on the ticket, things would look very different right now. If he loses, we will look back at his decsion not to pick her, and the Dems failure to nominate her, and the selection of Palin as the key events."

You may be right, but I don't think it was lack of strength, not at all. It took strength *not to choose her* and again it reflects well Obama's sound judgment. Both ran on policy (despite the rhetoric strongly suggesting Hillary was the feminist candidate - that was a facade), and both strongly believe in their own policy priorities, which in turn flow from their personalities and most of all, philosophies. Had Obama run with Hillary the tension between they're very strongly held views and orientations would inevitably lead to disorganization and polarization. It's too bad, but I think that was and is the case. I also believe they both know it and have resolved to make the best of their respective strengths and weakness in their respective domains. That way they could arrive at an effective alliance that won't at the same time be a hindrance to the other.

September 7, 2008 5:08 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

You miss the point...Not only did the pick of Sarah Falin  energize the rabid right wing base, it peeled off some of Senator Obama's female support...According to Rasmussen* Obama's lead over McCane  among women went down from fourteen to seven points... If Obama is only winning among females by seven points on election day this race is going to be perilously close even given the fact that females will comprise a larger share of the electorate...People seem to forget that only one of four white males identifies himself as a Democrat...

BTW- I keep hearing that Mondale and Reagan were essentially tied...

Was that after the Democratic convention or both of them?

Big difference...

Also, the only time I remember the race being close was after the first debate when Reagan started free associating and got lost on the Ventura Highway...

I'd like to see a link...

*I am not fan of Rasmussen's methodology but that is all we have to work with now...

September 7, 2008 5:47 PM

woland said:

This whole talk about whether putting Hillary on the ticket would cause Obama to be in a better place is absolute nonsense.  

1.  As tomeg correctly states Obama very wisely decided not to put her on the ticket because they would not have been able to work together effectively either during the campaign or while in office if elected.  Hillary would chafe at taking directions from Obama to a huge degree and Bill would be too much of a distraction.  It would be a disaster from any rationale standpoint.

2.  There is no way McCain would have picked Palin if Hillary was VP.  McCain only picked Palin because he wanted to benefit from Obama NOT picking Hillary and because he needed to galvanize his base.  If Hillary was on the ticket there would be no female democrats to poach and no need to galvanize the base because the base HATES Hillary.  McCain would have picked a more moderate running mate and used his convention to drive toward the center rather than to the right.

A word on McCain's rise in the polls.  Chill out people!  As Silver points out, over the last week a huge confluence of events have occurred that the American people have not had time to properly digest.  I believe McCain's picking of Palin was smart short term strategy and disastrous long term thinking as is his particular wont.  The more people find out about where Palin stands on the issues, the more people consider the contradictions/hypocrisies of McCain's newly adopted advocacy of change, and the more we hear about Palin's past (Troopergate), the more it will come to be realized that McCain made a fatal mistake in choosing her.

But hey, I could be wrong and the American people are really bigger morons than I ever thought possible.  If that's the case we will get exactly the disasters that will come with a McCain victory and we will have no one but ourselves to blame.

September 7, 2008 5:47 PM

timteeter said:

All that saying "it peeled off some of Senator Obama's support" means is that more women than men were shaken in their (already light) allegiance.  McCain's bounce numbers had to come from *somewhere.*  There is no reason to suppose that temporary gains are any more or less temporary because they come more from women than from men.  In fact, if the reason is as superficial as "she's got ovaries just like me," that may make them *more* temporary.

Remember, McCain has to do more than register an increase in polls.  He has to *keep* that increase.  Why assume he will be any more successful at it than Obama?  I give the McCain campaign people sufficient credit to believe that *they* know this is temporary, and that they're trying hard to figure out how to turn a temporary gain into something more lasting.  I doubt they can.

I have no links.  But I'm sure if you google you can find poll numbers for immediately after the Democratic convention in 84 as well as after the first debate.

September 7, 2008 5:56 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

"A word on McCain's rise in the polls.  Chill out people!  As Silver points out, over the last week a huge confluence of events have occurred that the American people have not had time to properly digest.  I believe McCain's picking of Palin was smart short term strategy and disastrous long term thinking as is his particular wont.  The more people find out about where Palin stands on the issues, the more people consider the contradictions/hypocrisies of McCain's newly adopted advocacy of change, and the more we hear about Palin's past (Troopergate), the more it will come to be realized that McCain made a fatal mistake in choosing her."

You have too much faith in the American electorate... Two words:

Dan Quayle

September 7, 2008 6:00 PM

ralphnelle said:

Last week Palin benefited immensely from low expectations. It was the same thing that happened in 2000 re the first Bush/Gore debate: prepare people for a drooling village idiot, and then hit a home run by presenting a candidate who can tell a few jokes and talk a little game.

At this point the Obama strategy seems to be the opposite. Biden is complimenting her for being tough, smart, and formidable in order to ratchet UP the Palin expectations to prepare her for a disastrous fall when she finally talks to the media. We'll have to wait and see what happens, I suppose.

I just hope ABC asks her  real questions, and not an endless stream of soap opera bullshit about balancing family with work, etc.

September 7, 2008 6:08 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

If Sarah Falin  goes through a media interview without drooling the American people will embrace her while the so called  intellectuals crow how stupid she is ...

That's why the Republicants have controlled the White House for thirty six of the last fifty six years and were able to convince the American electorate in 2000 that peace and prosperity sucked...They know that running for president is like trying to be America's next Idol and vacuous Sarah fills that role...

September 7, 2008 6:20 PM

JEFF FREY said:

So far the conventional wisdom on Palin has been swinging like a twitching seismograph. First, Who? She must be incompetent because she is unknown and a former beauty pageant contestant. Second, Tabloid rumors. Third, her teenage daughter is pregnant! Fourth, she sure can deliver a speech, and does mocking and sneering well. Fifth, wow, she is everywoman! We love her and who is that old guy running with her?

Reality? No, she is not everywoman, although she might be right-wing-fantasy-woman. Her actual record does not quite match her rhetoric, and she's told a few whoppers, and if she ever does take questions from the press she'll be asked about them. Her views on abortion are well to the right of the national mainstream (like it or not, the mainstream wants abortion to be legal but rare). If she ever talks to the press, she may be asked if she really thinks a woman who would suffer long-term health damage from carrying a pregnancy to term cannot be allowed to have an abortion, or if a 12-year-old girl must be forced to carry her rapists child. Maybe she'll answer those questions well, but we'll see. Her Trooper scandal is showing new dimensions, because at least one of her staffers referred to information contained in at least two different confidential files. Going after your ex-brother-in-law by digging illegally into personnel and workers comp files is not what most people think about when they talk about reform. It's lucky for her that the Trooper is a jerk. And meanwhile, there is no evidence at all that she has thought even slightly about a whole host of national issues -- she admitted to not having thought about the Iraq war beyond general support for the troops and for whatever position Bush took. She's smart, so she has time to prepare for the limited public fora in which she might be asked about those things, but her lack of record on many issues is not in any way similar to whatever is said about Obama. We really don't know how it will turn out when she is asked to show more in-depth knowledge or thinking. All we really know now is her biography, and her ability to deliver slogans and zingers in a speech written for her. And that she has plenty of charisma,

The bottom line to me is that the needle is still swinging and hasn't settled down at all. Unless she continues to be the target of silly tabloid and below-tabloid rumors (which will fuel a backlash), I really doubt that many women are going to find her compelling unless they were leaning R anyway. She certainly is not the one to appeal to disaffected Hillary supporters. It seems a given that she will bring the religious right out in droves, and will rope in some leaners, but it is far too early to know whether her appeal will be sustained for the next two months among those who are not already part of the base.

Clearly McCain did not make a fatal error in choosing her, though. Look at his alternatives. None of them would have brought the positives she did. All were snore-inducing. If she had fallen on her face in her opening appearance, or at the convention, then it would have been a fatal error. That was a real risk, so he truly was gambling. But she didn't, so he has cleared the first round and remains all in. If she says something really ignorant and stupid, or faces the press and can't answer the questions, or the Trooper scandal turns up something worse, or she flails helplessly in the debate, then the negatives will come roaring back. I would not bet on any of these happening, with the exception of the Trooper scandal, but all are possible. If not, her "bounce" will fade in any case as people learn more and move beyond infatuation. Nobody knows where it will end up.

September 7, 2008 6:26 PM

michael said:

My counterfactual is all looking back. The great regret is Hillary and Bill refused to admit their race was lost while they continued to create chaos and conflict which they may or may not be able to repair. It certainly should not have been necessary to devote the precious hour of the convention to prove, really prove, really, really prove all as OK. It isn't a leap to imagine the Clintons out, active and behind Obama as early as April. How many hard feelings developed toward Barack after she was mathematically done? I believe she need upwards of 60, then 70, then 80% of pledged delegates after April and it was not going to happen. She also lacked the supers and only managed to freeze them. Add to those stunts the fight over Florida and Michigan and all the whining over a format she thought would favor her.

The logic seems to be: Barack needs Hillary on the ticket to secure voters Hillary pissed off and are looking at Sarah. Would McCain have taken Sarah if Hillary didn't screw with people's minds and allow the poorest excuse for the job apply based on gender?

Sorry, I don't know if the GOP wished to see Hillary and Barack share a ticket and fire up their base on the cheap but the next best thing was to have the Clintons working against Barack for as long as possible. But the "She wrecked it and only she can save it."  smells like "I shot my parents and now I'm an orphan."  

Sarah Palin would not have been on McCain's list if Hillary was off the ticket but solidly with Obama for several months at the end of the primary.

I can make a case that Hillary and her mixing it up created the best reason for McCain to turn to Sarah well before Hillary was not the VP. The opening for Sarah only existed because the Clintons created it. McCain picked a female but it was not because Hillary was not the VP. He's hoping Palin can ride Hillary's coattails of people pissed off because of her antics in the Spring,

Hillary broke it, she damn well better find a way to fix it.

September 7, 2008 6:53 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

That's sad you are  already conceding that Obama will lose and blaming that  impending loss on Hillary and Bill  Clinton...Really sad...Maybe it's because the Republicants have so far succeded in Dukasizing Obama like they did Kerry and Gore...

It's up to Obama to unDukasize himself...

Maybe they opposed him because they knew he was a sure loser...If he loses when every available metric says he should win it's his own fault and the Clintons are political geniuses for identifying it before the rest of us...

Too bad he will go back to his tony home on Chicago's South Side  while the rest of us will have to live under McCane-Falins reactionary policies...

Or maybe that was the plan of those who propped him up all along...

September 7, 2008 7:34 PM

MichLib said:

I refuse to blame Hillary for much of this at all. It's anyone's right to run for office and the fact that Hillary-bashers typically omit is that she did have almost 18 million votes. That's enormous support - and no reason for her to drop out of a race.

Michael says: "It certainly should not have been necessary to devote the precious hour of the convention to prove, really prove, really, really prove all as OK."

I much prefer devoting an hour of a convention to showing the two biggest names (Hillary and Bill) getting behind Obama than what the substance of the entire Republican convention was: pandering to the extreme wing of their party.

September 7, 2008 7:40 PM

MichLib said:

TheOneIsHere2008:

You seem to want Obama to win but you can't find a single positive thing to say about him. Instead of spouting off about people "propping him up" to ensure a McCain victory, why don't you make some effort to get your preferred candidate elected. Start by finding something positive. I think you might find it refreshing.

September 7, 2008 7:43 PM

buffaloboy said:

michael said:

"Hillary broke it, she damn well better find a way to fix it."

Yes, of course, if Obama loses, this could not POSSIBLY because of liberal nut jobs spinning absolutely ridiculous smears about Palin not being the mother of her own baby.  Nor could it POSSIBLY be because of the weaknesses of Obama and Biden themselves.

Yep, it's all the Clintons fault.

September 7, 2008 7:45 PM

rozenson said:

"Maybe they opposed him because they knew he was a sure loser"

Yes, that's it. Hillary Clinton decided to run for president so she could be the anti-Obama. And he had such a big lead in the polls heading into the primaries, too! No wonder she lost.

September 7, 2008 7:48 PM

tomeg said:

"If Sarah Falin  goes through a media interview without drooling the American people will embrace her while the so called  intellectuals crow how stupid she is ..."

Take Obama's and Biden's words about Palin at face value, pllease (or at least try to, if only as exercise).

She is a smart, articulate, hardworking (in spades, I've read elsewhere - she's taking advantage of every minute of every day studying for the role *and the job.*), with an innate understanding of strategy and tactics of a political campaign. Believe it! She is so not a dummy, if we don't stop thinking/hoping/wishing she is not a formidable running mate, we'll be blindsided.

She's the real deal, as Hillary put it. She is not aiming for Obama or Biden, even though she will continue her present line of ridicule. Her record of remarkable success in Alaska politics tells me she will run as an anti-establishmentarian, just as she and McCain now say they will run against Washington. Believe it, they have declared their game plan, no tricks, no surprises.

Palin's a populist candidate, a clear counter to Obama, who has the charisma to be a populist if he wanted, but he doesn't, it's not his game plan. He's running on policy issues - job creation, tax relief for the middle class, rebuilding the military (don't believe me on that, he said it on This Week this very morning, and I believe him), attacking the deficit, reforming Medicare (again, from his remarks earlier today).

Though his theme is change, the reality is Obama is an incrementalist; he truly wants to bring "change you can believe in" meaningful, quantifiable change. He has an agenda. McCain and Palin do not, except in the vaguest terms. They are running as the populist ticket. Ask Pat Buchanan, he saw it immediately, and got more excited than I've seen him in a over a decade.

September 7, 2008 7:57 PM

tomeg said:

JEFF FREY, you are right to caution patience, wait and see how the numbers shake out in the next week and following. I think the race is still a virtual tie, with Obama slightly ahead.

September 7, 2008 8:00 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

Eos and The oneis here2008 are Republicans, more thank likely paid for by the McCain Campaign or the RNC.

Eos deserves no explaination, we've all been reading the talking points straight from the RNC for two months. It's obvious.

Theoneis here2008 is even more obvious. Even the name is dumb. It's a reference to "The One" or Obama, but every word drips with disdain for the "TNR shoved down our throats." Sigh. Just dumb, dumb, dumb talking points. These blogs are getting absurd.

In any event, Obama was up by 9 last week. Down by 3 today. Yeah right. You see Obama throwing hail mary passes, lying with every breath, doing the things people running from behind do? No, McCain is. He knows what all the chicken littles don't - he's going to lose.

September 7, 2008 8:00 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

If Obama loses it will be because the Republicans were successful in defining him as an effete intellectual who looks down on average Americans and pals around with wanna be domestic terrorists like Bill Ayres and religious nut jobs like Reverend Wright...If you ignore the nuttie ties you have Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Mike Dukakis, and John Kerry...

Only the Democratic party could take an election where every available metric favors them and turn it into a loss or a nail bite or worse a lossr...

John Stuart Mill said the Tory party of his day was the "stupid party"...I wonder what he would say about the Democrats...

September 7, 2008 8:05 PM

kgrant1054 said:

The issue still comes back to McCain's judgment.  Palin is red-meat for the Fundamentalist wing of the party - and McCain chose her because he realized (or was helped to realize) that he had no shot unless the Fundamentalists were motivated to get out and vote.   In the end, he made the decision that he thought was necessary to win.  Not to govern effectively, to win the election.

Two thoughts spin out from this:  One, McCain has no long-term plans.  None.  He may be one of the most short-sighted candidates we have had for quite some time.  Two, if I were McCain, I would hire a food taster, as Palin is clearly ambitious, savvy, and perhaps more than a bit Machiavellian (amoral, not evil).  

The Fundamentalists will not be put off for long with Palin on the ticket, they will begin to demand to hear about the 'culture of life' more and more explicitly.  'W' was able to put them off time and time again.  McCain has already shown that he cannot.

September 7, 2008 8:05 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

Nobody has to convince me that Obama and Biden are more infinitely qualified to lead than McCain and Palin...That's not the point and has never been the point...McCain and Palin would be a disaster...

But in order to govern you must win...If the election is about issues we win...If it's about faux narratives we lose...

Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry...

I have seen this movie before....

September 7, 2008 8:09 PM

tomeg said:

Per Troopergate, all I can say after doing some research is small stuff. (It really is.)  It is messy and, yes, maybe Palin overstepped, but really, it's not a winning issue, it's scarcely an issue at all. "Who doesn't have family problems. They should just leave them alone." Just as with her daughter, there's no there there.

September 7, 2008 8:11 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

"Eos and The oneis here2008 are Republicans, more thank likely paid for by the McCain Campaign or the RNC."

-mpatrickhendri

If I am a Republican you're a genius...

Oh, your powers of deduction are sorely lacking as is your power of analysis...I have been theoneishere ojn various boards since 2005 or so... It's a cool handle, at least to me...

But if you want to obsess about my handle so be it...You can even obsess about me as long as you keeps your hands above your waist...

September 7, 2008 8:14 PM

Nippers said:

What is happening to these threads? Why are we once again debating Hillary vs. Obama? Save it for November 5.

If Obama loses, and I see little reason yet to predict that he will, the causes will be numerous and complex, but a short-lived, fast-retracted "smear" that rushed in, along with a horde of far more disturbing if less salacious facts, to fill the informational vacuum created by the surprise announcement of a far-fetched candidate will not, I promise, be foremost among them. Far more influential are the neverending, long-lived smears of right wing nut jobs, repeated almost gleefully and I think knowingly even when proven false.

And can we admit that we have no idea what would have happened if Hillary had been picked for VP? Or P? You don't think the Schmidt/Rove sump pump wouldn't have found ways to tar and feather HRC had she appeared on the ticket? Talk about naive.

Obama/Biden is a good ticket, far better than the alternative.  

September 7, 2008 8:21 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

Trust me, dude or dame, no obsession. Just bored with reading the same brainless talking points. You're proving nearly as good at hitting on the lame Republican points as Eos.

Sorry I didn't realize you had been using that handle for so long. And you're right, super cool handle. Can I be a your friend on facebook?

September 7, 2008 8:21 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

I don't have a facebook or myspace but I see you are familiar with those sites and since you insulted me I will not be one of your "friends"

Every available metric favors the Democrats...It's the most hospitable environment for a Democrat since 1932 and yet the race is a pick em or push...Why is that?

And if I was a Republican why would I say that conditions in this country are worse than at any time since the Great Depression?

Could it be that Barack Obama was a great primary candidate and a lousy general election candidate?

September 7, 2008 8:29 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

Let's have a look at the typical talking points so far:

1) I really believe that Obama is going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory and lose this thing...Women are abandoning the Obama-Biden ticket in the hope of seeing a woman in the White House

2) Well, we can thank TNR and Marty Peretz for shoving Barack Obama down our throats...

3) Regarding Palin, the Obamaites and Pelosians can barely keep themselves from calling her "trailer trash," which is what they really think about her and about many of the people whpose votes they need. But they know how that would play among independents and moderate Democrats. So Palin has succssfully driven a huge wedge right into the heart of the non-Clnton Democrats hypocrisy, and the Dems don't know what to do about it.

4) Too bad Obama didn't have the strength and confidence to put her on the ticket.

5) If Obama had the strength to put Hillary on the ticket, things would look very different right now. If he loses, we will look back at his decsion not to pick her, and the Dems failure to nominate her, and the selection of Palin as the key events.

6) Not only did the pick of Sarah Falin  energize the rabid right wing base, it peeled off some of Senator Obama's female support...According to Rasmussen* Obama's lead over McCane  among women went down from fourteen to seven points... If Obama is only winning among females by seven points on election day this race is going to be perilously close even given the fact that females will comprise a larger share of the electorate.

7) People seem to forget that only one of four white males identifies himself as a Democrat..

8) If Sarah Falin  goes through a media interview without drooling the American people will embrace her while the so called  intellectuals crow how stupid she is..

9) That's sad you are  already conceding that Obama will lose and blaming that  impending loss on Hillary and Bill  Clinton...Really sad...Maybe it's because the Republicants have so far succeded in Dukasizing Obama like they did Kerry and Gore...

10) Maybe they opposed him because they knew he was a sure loser...

11) Or maybe that was the plan of those who propped him up all along...

12) If Obama loses it will be because the Republicans were successful in defining him as an effete intellectual who looks down on average Americans and pals around with wanna be domestic terrorists like Bill Ayres and religious nut jobs like Reverend Wright...

13) If you ignore the nuttie ties you have Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Mike Dukakis, and John Kerry...

14) Only the Democratic party could take an election where every available metric favors them and turn it into a loss or a nail bite or worse a lossr...

15) John Stuart Mill said the Tory party of his day was the "stupid party"...I wonder what he would say about the Democrats...

16) Nobody has to convince me that Obama and Biden are more infinitely qualified to lead than McCain and Palin...

17) Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry...

I have seen this movie before....

September 7, 2008 8:33 PM

gennitydo said:

I know that the conventional wisdom is that the metrics favor the Dems but actually the metrics are not so overwhelming.  The predicted recession did not materialize.  Growth rate forecasts for 3Q and 4Q look good.  OECD forecasts a 1.8% GDP growth for the US in 2008, better than Japan or Europe.  Non-financial sector earnings are good to excellent and look to improve.

I think that no matter who the nominee is this was going to be a close race.  The US is a deeply conservative country and in every national race since WW2 the Dems have had an uphill battle.  It would have been an uphill battle with HRC and it is with Obama.  Maybe if he was white or she had divorced Bill, it would be easier, but still not easy.

But for Ross Perot, Watergate and some dead voters in Chicago found by Mayor Daley Snr, the Dems would not have won any non-incumbent Presidential races in more than 50 years.

I don't think Palin changes anything.  In fact, she may yet be McCain's undoing.  It is early days yet.

September 7, 2008 8:49 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

Let's have a look at the typical talking points so far:

1) I really believe that Obama is going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory and lose this thing...Women are abandoning the Obama-Biden ticket in the hope of seeing a woman in the White House

That's my opinion based on the fact that McCain has reduced the gender gap in half

2) Well, we can thank TNR and Marty Peretz for shoving Barack Obama down our throats...

Marty is an unrepentant Clintonphobe...That's like saying water's , errrrr wet...

3) Regarding Palin, the Obamaites and Pelosians can barely keep themselves from calling her "trailer trash," which is what they really think about her and about many of the people whpose votes they need. But they know how that would play among independents and moderate Democrats. So Palin has succssfully driven a huge wedge right into the heart of the non-Clnton Democrats hypocrisy, and the Dems don't know what to do about it.

That's not me...

4) Too bad Obama didn't have the strength and confidence to put her on the ticket.

That's not me but that would have prevented McCain from choosing Palin and improving his position

5) If Obama had the strength to put Hillary on the ticket, things would look very different right now. If he loses, we will look back at his decsion not to pick her, and the Dems failure to nominate her, and the selection of Palin as the key events.

That's not me either...Too early to tell...

6) Not only did the pick of Sarah Falin  energize the rabid right wing base, it peeled off some of Senator Obama's female support...According to Rasmussen* Obama's lead over McCane  among women went down from fourteen to seven points... If Obama is only winning among females by seven points on election day this race is going to be perilously close even given the fact that females will comprise a larger share of the electorate.

That's a fact.

7) People seem to forget that only one of four white males identifies himself as a Democrat..

That's a fact...If the doc tells you you have cancer is he a bad guy?

8) If Sarah Falin  goes through a media interview without drooling the American people will embrace her while the so called  intellectuals crow how stupid she is..

That's a supposition ...Are making suppositions confined to Republicants

9) That's sad you are  already conceding that Obama will lose and blaming that  impending loss on Hillary and Bill  Clinton...Really sad...Maybe it's because the Republicants have so far succeded in Dukasizing Obama like they did Kerry and Gore...

Yeah- a poster was blaming the Clintons for a loss that never happened... And yeah, the Republicans succeded in clowning  Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry...

That's why they only won with the anti-Dukakis-Bill Clinton

10) Maybe they opposed him because they knew he was a sure loser...

The Clinton's say believe he can't win...

11) Or maybe that was the plan of those who propped him up all along...

Yes, the MSM is controlled  by corporate elites who are best served by a Republican president...Why wouldn't they help nominate the weakest Democrat?

12) If Obama loses it will be because the Republicans were successful in defining him as an effete intellectual who looks down on average Americans and pals around with wanna be domestic terrorists like Bill Ayres and religious nut jobs like Reverend Wright...

True...Why else would he lose in the most favorable political climate for a Democrat since 1932

13) If you ignore the nuttie ties you have Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Mike Dukakis, and John Kerry...

See 12

14) Only the Democratic party could take an election where every available metric favors them and turn it into a loss or a nail bite or worse a lossr...

Res ipsa loquitur

15) John Stuart Mill said the Tory party of his day was the "stupid party"...I wonder what he would say about the Democrats...

Res ipsa loquitur

16) Nobody has to convince me that Obama and Biden are more infinitely qualified to lead than McCain and Palin...

????????????????????????????????

17) Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry...

I have seen this movie before....

???????????

Sherlock Holmes, you are not...

September 7, 2008 8:53 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

I had a really long post...

But your forensic skills, mpatrickhendri, are weak if you assume anybody who disagrees with you and/or is less than enamored of Senator Obama is a Republican...But when your whole argument is built on a logical fallacy i.e. ,ad hominem, your argument is dead on arrival...

September 7, 2008 8:59 PM

lsernoff said:

Reading through this string so far reminds me of The Sherlock Holmes classic "The Hound of the Baskervilles".  Remember the dog that didn't bark?  The dog that doesn't bark here is that nobody wants to even think about the possibility that the message(s) the Democratic base loves cannot, once again, produce a Democratic victory.  Would Hillary have made a difference?  Perhaps.  But on policy, Hillary's theme was not much different than Barack Obama's; it may well have been a tad to the left of Obama's.  It was certainly notably different from the vibes thrown off by Bill Clinton, who obsessed on occupying the middle ground while running successfullly for the presidency twice.  The political truth is that the themes popounded by both Obama and Hillary Clinton both have sounded much more like Gore and Kerry than "the big Dawg".

If I am right, how has this happened:  First, I think there has been inadequate recognition of the fact that the Democratic congress is even more unpopular than Bush; they just haven't been as unpopular for as long a time.  The people expect the Democrats will control congress again; indeed the media hold out the possibility of a veto-proof congress.  Maybe, just maybe, the people don't hanker for Pelosi, Reid, et al, and a president who not only won't control  them, but may cheer them on.  They remember the combination of Clinton and a Republican congress with considerable affection.  Maybe, just maybe, they think divided government is not such a bad idea.

Second, Palin.  She isn't the second coming, but she does give a big hunk of the Republican base the same boost of energy that a big hunk of the Democratic base has gotten from Obama and Hillary.  That has been lacking heretofore.  I will be astounded if she actually attracts people who were devoted to Hillary.  What she does is to give the Republican base a chance to balance the votes of  of the Democratic base.  Whatever happens, it looks like a squeaker to me, just like the last two elections, with the ever diminishing swing vote deciding the outcome.

Third, Obama has sounded a little flat since he wrapped up the nomination.  I expect he will recapture his "voice".  He is a formidable politician.  What I don't know is whether he will tack left or right.  Tacking left will re-charge the faithful, but could lose the election.  Tacking right, could make him look more Clintonesque (Bill), but turn off the enthusiasm of the base.  Not an easy choice at this stage of the campaign.  

Fourth, I tend, perhaps out of an excess of idealism, to discount race as a decisive factor.  On a crude basis, I think energized students and African-Americans voting for the first time will balance-out voters whose choice is going to be determined in the end by negative racial considerations.  Hope I'm right.

Them's my thoughts.  Have at me!

September 7, 2008 9:10 PM

sleepyavl said:

Polls mean nothing in this case, because they're not anonymous. The Bradley effect will kick in. It's unfortunate, as we'll have that crazy far-Right bastard called Sarah Palin in the White House, but that's it.

September 7, 2008 9:20 PM

buffaloboy said:

lsernoff said:

"Maybe, just maybe, they think divided government is not such a bad idea."

Not only is divided government not a bad idea, it is probably the only hope for our country.  In my opinion, two of the worst Congresses we've ever had were these: the Congress in 1993-94 (following Clinton's first election in 1992, and where the Dems had control of the WH and both chambers) and the Congress in 2001-06 (where the Republicans had control of the WH and both chambers).

Just look at the Iraq War - it was a bumbling stumbling disaster, until the Democrats finally took control of Congress.  Now, I give the Democrats ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER for making things better in Iraq - except for one thing - they were not the idiot Congressional Republicans, and they sparked the firing of Donald Rumsfeld (aka Worst Secretary of Defense Ever).

When the Congress and WH are controlled by the same party, they think it's their chance to finally implement all the stupidest ideas that their ideologues believe in.

So absolutely, each November in an even numbered year - PRAY FOR DIVIDED GOVERNMENT - never give one party of both houses of Congress and the WH if you can help it.

September 7, 2008 9:36 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

2008,

Yawn. If you're really not a republican you appear to have swallowed every talking point being pushed over the past ten years. If you're a disgruntled HRC supporter, God help you.

And by the way, I'll take you more seriously when you can write a coherent sentence that doesn't end with an ellipses.

I look forward to hearing Monday's talking points in the morning.

September 7, 2008 9:40 PM

hemlock41 said:

At least one good thing has come out of the Palin pick: it has energized sleepy to attack the Republicans rather than the rest of us. Yay, sleepy!

September 7, 2008 9:46 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

I fear to make any comments lest I be called a Republican...

I'll just make two points, quote John Adams, and call it a night...

The points:

The Democratic primary voters often force Democrats to take positions that are anathema in the general election...

And they have a uncanny ability to chose candidates that the Republicans are able to define right out of the main stream...

Now, the quote:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

-John Adams

P.S.

McCain is now leading Obama 54-44 among likely voters in the latest USA-Today Gallup Poll

www.usatoday.com/.../2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

PEACE

TheOneIsHere2008

September 7, 2008 9:50 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

"And by the way, I'll take you more seriously when you can write a coherent sentence that doesn't end with an ellipses."

-mpatrickhendi

If you think that adding two periods to the customary one undermines my arguments there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. (.) (.)

And pointing out grammatical errors and spelling mistakes on "the internets"  is usually the last refuge of someone  on the losing side of an argument. (.) (.) The funny thing is I did neither...

But the funnier thing is the paucity of time it took for me to expose you. (.) (.)

KISSES

THEONEISHERE2008

September 7, 2008 10:00 PM

tomeg said:

lsernoff said:

"Third, Obama has sounded a little flat since he wrapped up the nomination.  I expect he will recapture his "voice".  He is a formidable politician.  What I don't know is whether he will tack left or right.  Tacking left will re-charge the faithful, but could lose the election.  Tacking right, could make him look more Clintonesque (Bill), but turn off the enthusiasm of the base.  Not an easy choice at this stage of the campaign."

I commend viewing the video of ABC's This Week, aired this morning, Stephanopoulos interviewing Obama. From my watching I believe Obama is quietly tacking right. He might pull it off and keep his base, now that the Repubs have shown their hand. The Obama campaign is striking the right tone in its fundraising appeals, virtually every one stressing the need not to lose the momentum they (the base) have fueled. So far it seems to be working. I hope McCain's campaign doesn't catch on to the subtle shift in Obama's thinking.

September 7, 2008 10:11 PM

Eos said:

TheOneIsHere:

Keep making your points. Some members of the echo brigade aroiund here like to practice insult and a bit of thuggery. Don't let them distract you.

September 7, 2008 10:15 PM

Eos said:

lsernofff:

The Dems have this foolish system for picking nominees that favors candidates out to the left.

I disagree that Hillary was to the left of Obama. National Journal has her as a moderate among Dems based on her Senate votes, while Obama is the most liberal Democrat in the US Senate (Biden is third most).

Hillary had positioned herself for the general, and this required remaining in the center. It cost her the DailyKos, TNR,  and MoveOn fanatics, the fringey yuppies and post-yuppies in the caucuses and around universities, and the San Francisco-inspired cosmo crowd--all of whom play a disproportionate role in the Dem primaries.

The other problem Hillary had was Obama's racial appeal. The fact that he is black is still the best reason that I have for voting for him, and it has garnered him unprecedented sympathy from the press and made him partially immune from serious press coverage. But unfortunately, it made the Dems completely lose their minds. No one had the sense or the guts to tell him to stop stealing Hillary's nomination and to come back in eight years when he had grown up and done something besides run for office and feather his own nest. My God, HE LOST NINE OF THE LAST FOURTEEN PRIMARIES!!! He never should have been nominated.

September 7, 2008 10:29 PM

Eos said:

bufaloboy:

I agree that the idea of Pelosi and Obam running the entire federal government is pretty scary. It would finish Dems for twenty years.

September 7, 2008 10:31 PM

Eos said:

michael:

One of the tropes around tnr has always been that Hillary is to blame for everything. This election is Obama's and the Democrats responsibility. It is not Hillary's business anymore.

September 7, 2008 10:34 PM

gennitydo said:

lsernoff - the curious incident of the dog in the night-time is from "Silver Blaze" rather than the novella "Hound of the Baskervilles".

September 7, 2008 10:35 PM

rozenson said:

Sleepy, is there really reason to believe that the Bradley Effect will prove significant at all in November? I believe it's possible, but I would like to see some evidence.

September 7, 2008 10:35 PM

Eos said:

tomeg:

Obama has been flat since he won the nomination because all the air went out of the campaign as soon as Hillary left. You could feel that enery again the night she spoke at the convention.

September 7, 2008 10:36 PM

desmondclee said:

Don't look now, but McCain is up by 10 (yes, that's ten) points in Gallup's poll of likely voters.  This just from ABC News' Jake Tappers' blog.  Of course, there's plenty more time left in the campaign, and a lot of stuff can happen.  

McCain Pulls Ahead in Gallup

September 07, 2008 9:41 PM

Not the daily tracking poll, the actual Gallup poll, has Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pulling ahead of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The numbers among registered voters are 50 percent to 46 percent -- and 54 percent to 44 percent among likely voters.

Obama's campaign always said before the American people made their final decision about him, the Democrat would be judged on three things -- the VP pick, the convention, and the debates. Now two of the three have gone down, and the American people have liked McCain's stuff better.

- jpt

blogs.abcnews.com/.../mccain-pulls-ah.html

September 7, 2008 10:39 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

TheOneIsHere:

Keep making your points. Some members of the echo brigade aroiund here like to practice insult and a bit of thuggery. Don't let them distract you.

September 8, 2008 3:15 AM

I didn't know using ellipsis points makes you stupid.... It's a habit I picked up writing on the internet...

The Republicans are succesful at portraying our candidates as out of touch elitists. Anybody who denies that ,denies it at their peril...That was the beauty of Bill Clinton...He was whip smart but part of being whip smart is not to let people know you think you are smarter than them even when you know you are...Nobody likes to be condescended too...

It's depressing to be in a fight for your life in an election you should win easily...

P.S. An an aside I have been reading TNR since I was in Grad School in the 80's ... I can remember when Mort Kondracke was the editor...

September 7, 2008 10:42 PM

bhunziker said:

The Gallup/USA Today poll should have all Democrats somewhat panicked. That's a huge jump. Palin is going to give millions of voters a reason to vote against an African-American. They can tell themselves they're still voting for a historic ticket and set their conscience at ease.  

No, it's not over, but the trendlines don't look particularly good. And I'm certainly not very confident that Obama, the master of the teleprompter, will best McCain in the debates. Leave it to Democrats (including me, who voted for Obama) to nominate perhaps the only candidate who could lose in the most favorable political year for Democrats since 1964, and perhaps 1932.

September 7, 2008 10:55 PM

roidubouloi said:

I quite disagree, TheOneIsHere.

The One has left the building, because his Alzheimer's is upon him.  Empty head, empty suit.  

The only thing the Democrats have to learn from the Republicans in order to win this election and a whole bunch more is that, whatever people may say, dirty politics pays big dividends in America.  It's how Bush beet McCain, Gore, and Kerry.  McCain learned his lesson after having his hero act trashed by Bush who avoided Vietnam.  

McCain has been framing Obama as Paris Hilton, and Obama has been letting him do it.  As soon as they start framing McCain with being too confused to run the country, way out of touch with the problems faced by working families, and committed to continuing the failed policies of the Bush administration, the election will be over.  But they have to come out swinging because they have procrastinated.

September 7, 2008 10:58 PM

cal80 said:

For some time, this race has reminded me of the tortoise and the hare.  Obama was way out in front in Feb, but has coasted ever since. First he lost race after race to Hillary, and then when he was the sole candidate  his campaign fell flat.  He is still using the same basic stump speech, picked a DC insider for veep, and is still hammering away at change, but basically his campaign has been napping under a big tree.  He woke for a few minutes, when he thought they could get McCain on the "I don't know how many houses I have" thing, but that was pretty weak.  Meantime the tortoise found a turbo charged relay partner, and the finish will be close and fascinating.

I keep waiting for Obama to impress me.  He reminds me of the student that shows so much promise, but never turns the paper in or sleeps through the final.  He better start cramming for the debates, and not sleep through them like he did with the Rick Warren disaster.

September 7, 2008 11:05 PM

tomeg said:

It is quite possible, certainly, that you are right, Eos and TheOneIsHere2008 (dang, your handle is really hard for me to type, I suppose I'll have to autotype it), though it is still way too early to assess what the polls are really describing. I still believe the bumps will smooth out and we'll be back to +/- 1 to 2% split down the middle. Palin's pick did release a lot of energy firing up the conservative base. Perhaps that is what we're seeing. Then again...

My investment this year first and foremost was to change the party. Win or lose Obama's candidacy has initiated a process I believe will lead to that necessary change. With Hillary at the top of the ticket I couldn't see how there could be a comparable shift. If the election is another loss, my hope is the momentum will be toward a new generation of Democrats. I just didn't (and don't) have confidence in anybody other than Obama, win or lose. It may be too soon - or too late - to expect the party to change its spots. Perhaps the Repubs have. If so the Presidency might rightly be theirs. By 2016 the Dems will have changed or we'll

September 7, 2008 11:09 PM

Eos said:

roid:

Why do you always think that if you're losing then soemone must be cheating you? Don't you get tired of playing the poor mistreated victim?

And why do you so often insult people using terms theat invoke mental illness or terms like "Alzheimer's" that denote devastating mental loss? It is exactly the same as if you called your political opponents "retards." You should know better.

September 7, 2008 11:22 PM

aeromonas said:

This thread sux.

That's my learned assessment.

September 7, 2008 11:23 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

"I quite disagree, TheOneIsHere.

The One has left the building, because his Alzheimer's is upon him.  Empty head, empty suit.  "

-roiduboulo

Quite illiberal to make light of something as serious as Alzheimer's (Disease) but you know that because you are illiberal...Do you know that if people with Alzheimer's Disease live long enough to be killed by it and not some other disease they  literally forget how to swallow...

That's hilarious , isn't it...(SIC)

I'll check back in the morning...Maybe you can entertain us with HIV jokes...

September 7, 2008 11:25 PM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

tomeg

I don't see how anything positive can come from losing this election if we do.....If we lose this election it would be as if Franklin Roosevelt lost to Herbert Hoover...IMHO, it would demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt the Obama model was rejected...Why would you want to use it as a template?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

September 7, 2008 11:36 PM

Nippers said:

Th Bounce Arriveth and the Hands Wringeth! My god, people, McCain got a good bounce out of his convention--a bounce, per Gallup, about the same size as Obama's. You'd think the election was tomorrow.

I think what's really going on is that the posters on this site are trying to figure out what their fellow Americans think of Sarah Palin because if they think highly of her then they must think pretty lowly of posters on this site. I'll speak personally. I tremble at the thought that Palin might be popular. The thought induces all sorts of panicky second-guessing: "What if he'd picked Hillary? [we will *never* know] What if he weren't black? If only Bill could run again! I don't care what Obama has to do or say so long as he can get himself elected. Boy we Democrats sure must suck."

But these polls, though troubling for all sorts of reasons, are far from predictive. I think the Obama campaign has made a few dumb mistakes (e.g., fake pillars), but I also think they've done better than we're giving them credit for. Did you see Biden's post-convention riff on what he *didn't* hear at the GOP convention? Good stuff. Pitch perfect. On message. And Obama was good in Terre Haute.

I do agree that a lot now hangs on the debates, but a lot always hangs on the debates. If memory serves, Gore had a considerable post-convention lead in 2000 until he started harrumphing and sighing in the debates. Obama's lead last weak meant almost nothing. Likewise McCain's this week. Wait and see.

September 8, 2008 12:02 AM

tomeg said:

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

"I don't see how anything positive can come from losing this election if we do.....If we lose this election it would be as if Franklin Roosevelt lost to Herbert Hoover...IMHO, it would demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt the Obama model was rejected...Why would you want to use it as a template?"

The conventional wisdom until now has been that Democrats had a huge built-in structural as well as popular advantage this year primarily due to the unpopularity of Bush. Bush is unpopular even in his own party, it is true, but he has accepted that without complaining (which to say the least is unusual). However, the appeal of the ideology he ran on did not change for social conservatives, they just had lost faith he would be able to implement it. John McCain, as told umpteen times, is no friend to social conservatives, but compared to Obama, he has always had the chance to enroll them. They were just waiting for a sign that McCain understood their disaffection and was willing to turn and say I'll fight for you, too. Palin was that sign. As I said a couple posts back, that released an enormous energy that has fired up the base and opened a tap for money and grassroots support. It was always there for the taking, and now McCain is cashing in, thanks to his campaign team's advice. It's hard to tell yet how much and for how long the boost can carry him. The *real campaign* has only just begun, now that the tickets are filled. Lot's of time for most anything to happen.

So, I strongly disagree that this is a year of historic opportunity for the Democratic Party to retake power. Instead, it is a year when the Party decides to go in a new direction, or not. Win or lose, this is that year. Obama's candidacy is merely the beginning of the change (or beginning of beginning). Democrats either will get that they have a choice to change direction, or they will be out of the White House another 4 to 8 years, or longer, until they become willing. I hope it's this year. We shall see.

September 8, 2008 12:05 AM

tomeg said:

TheOneIsHere2008, whatever happens, I'm glad to have you with us. Eos, you too. Go ahead, drive us crazy, it's alll good. (isn't it?)

September 8, 2008 12:09 AM

icarusr said:

Mrpatrick: Having read this thread carefully ... here is my judgement: Eos is PCCostello and TheOne is LiberalReformer.  Everyone has been wondering where they went - well, they just changed handle.  PCC/Eos defending Hillary and TheOne - well, who knows.

Hemlock: I agree entirely with you on Sleepy.  The insults are still grating, but they directed away to people who kinda deserve it, so all good.

Aero: honestly ...

Nippers: great observation.

September 8, 2008 12:46 AM

ralphnelle said:

Rasmussen's tracker for the same time period says it's a tie at 48.

September 8, 2008 1:41 AM

teplukhin2you said:

come => cometh. arrive => arriveth.

Not "arriveith."

September 8, 2008 2:20 AM

JEFF FREY said:

tomeg, I thought Troopergate was small potatoes until I found that her staff had accessed confidential files and used the information in them. That is actually a big deal, not to mention illegal. But you have to hit on it the right way, because the Trooper in question is not a sympathetic character. Nevertheless, there is no good reason for a Governor's staff to be snooping in the confidential files of state employees who the Governer happens not to like.

The Palin team is stonewalling at the moment, so perhaps there is something more that will come out, but as of now it is a story that only tells itself in the context of a clearly focused attack -- a job for Joe Biden or perhaps Hillary if she is up for it.

September 8, 2008 3:36 AM

hemlock41 said:

icarus: I agree the insults are grating, regardless of who they're directed at. I'm not exactly taken with the Republicans at the moment, but insulting them only lowers the level of discussion and its value. (I was being tongue-in-cheek.)

September 8, 2008 3:54 AM

hemlock41 said:

Of course, if hurling insults is a compulsive tic on Sleepy's part and is thus inevitable/irrepressible, it *is* a minor relief that they are no longer "in-coming." At least for now.

September 8, 2008 3:57 AM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

So, I strongly disagree that this is a year of historic opportunity for the Democratic Party to retake power. Instead, it is a year when the Party decides to go in a new direction, or not. Win or lose, this is that year. Obama's candidacy is merely the beginning of the change (or beginning of beginning). Democrats either will get that they have a choice to change direction, or they will be out of the White House another 4 to 8 years, or longer, until they become willing. I hope it's this year. We shall see.

-tomeg

I don't get it. The goal of elections is to win. Everything else is misery. If the Democrats lose in 08 and Heaven forbid lose in 012 they will have been out of the White House for SIXTEEN YEARS and FORTY Of the last SIXTY YEARS. Ordinary people who look to the government for relief and minorities who look to the government for protection will get nothing while starry eyed intellectuals  reminisce about a glorious past and dream about a future that will never arrive.

The good is not the enemy of the perfect...

Yeah, I supported HRC in the primaries but I support Obama now because the alternative is so f-ing scary. This is the most reactionary ticket since Calvin Coolidge took Channing Cox and we weren't in the middle of a culture war...Obama is our General in a war against the forces of reaction  and if he loses we lose...

How did we get in this mess?

This election was ours to lose and if we do I assure you history will render a harsh judgement on those who let it and made it happen. It did not have to be.

This is awful.

September 8, 2008 5:14 AM

Eos said:

Thank you, tomeg.

I think the fundamental issue with Palin is that she dramatically exposes the Democrats' trailer trash problem--the extent to which upper echelon (I'm trying to avoid the words "culturally elite") Dems despise, have contempt for, and do not understand the middle and lower middle strata in this country. This is part of what drove the contempt for Hillary because culturally she is much more like those group--e.g., no fist-bumps, compulsive visits to the gym, or endllessly repeated declarations about having gone to Harvard.

September 8, 2008 6:22 AM

tomeg said:

JEFF FREY:  

We already won in 2006 on "culture of corruption" and the 'surge of '06' was accomplished, so we're back to politics as usual. Troopergate won't move many voters, it is "real" but not significant; *unless serious crimes were committed* - murder, millions of dollars discovered in the Caymans, perhaps Palin's having a secret abortion, kidnapping, etc.

The "Christianists" have their hero, fait accompli, and unless she is a member of a coven or a Satanist,  that could be fatal to Obama/Biden. Never have I longed for Joe Lieberman...

So we're smack dab back to identity politics, social conservatives rabid with desire.  Who knew?

September 8, 2008 6:40 AM

dc2412 said:

Under the 2-party system, the Democrats subsume what would be at least two European parties.  A Labor party and a Liberal (Liberal Democratic, Free Democratic) party.  The contradictions between these two groups are simply greater than those between Business conservatives and Evangelicals.  This is why the Democrats implode regularly.

Here's a deal the LIberals (aks "professional middle class") can make to the working-class base of the DP.  You vote for Obama - we will actively pursue union-drives at OUR workplaces.  In other words, NYC and Chicago yuppies would organize Wall Street IT shops, Seventh Avenue Fashion Houses etc.

This would show a willingness to take a risk, a willingness to adopt a working-class perspective, a sense that American workers have more to teach American yuppies than the other way around.

On board?

September 8, 2008 7:06 AM