Joe Biden and a Possible Coming Poll Correction

Well, that was quite a debate. Check out Taegan Goddard's post-debate reaction: "The vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan was one of the best debates I can remember. It was a great service to all Americans." I could've done without all the lying (#LyinRyan was trending on supposedly conservative dominated Twitter last night), but close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades. The consensus among the punditry is that Biden won. A CBS flash poll of undecided voters backs that up. But the consensus is also that it probably won't move polling in Obama's direction. "Biden stemmed the bleeding," seems to be the most overused metaphor of last night and this morning.

But can a vice presidential debate change the dynamics? The consensus seems to be no, but the fact is that anything's possible.

Nate Silver:

Vice-presidential debates rarely move head-to-head numbers between the presidential candidates – even when there is a much clearer verdict in instant-reaction polls. So one should err on the side of caution in assuming that the debate had much influence either way.

There is a plausible hypothesis, however, that some of Mr. Romney’s recent surge in the polls reflects a growing “enthusiasm gap” between Democrats and Republicans. To the extent that Mr. Biden’s performance re-energized Democratic partisans, he may have left President Obama in a slightly better position than where he started the night.

And polling-wise, we'll probably see the president's numbers improve -- which likely would've happened anyway. But it's possible that they may improve dramatically. And that's where things get interesting.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Santorum is Busy Doing the Opposite of Fixing His 'Google Problem'

Let's be clear here; Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum will never, not in a million years, ever become the President of the United States. This is partly because Santorum's politics of hate are quickly becoming an anachronism and partly because the man is just dumber than a sack of hammers. The former reason is well-documented, while he's currently busy demonstrating the latter.

Politico:

A Google search for Santorum has generated some inappropriate results since gay columnist Dan Savage organized an online campaign to link graphic sexual terms to the socially conservative senator's name.

Now, the Republican presidential candidate says he's convinced Google could do something to remedy the issue, if the company wanted to.

"I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they'd get rid of it," Santorum said. "If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

The "Unbiased" Media Strikes Again

When I woke up this morning, I cracked open my paper and came across this simpleminded and asinine opinion piece, courtesy of the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board. Yay for the debt limit deal, they argue, because it proves that Washington still works, despite the best efforts of some imaginary, bipartisan obstruction patrol.

The ideologically-driven progressives on the far left and the rigid tea party crowd on the far right seem equally entrenched against building consensus around workable solutions.

But at some point, the relentless finger-pointing and blaming of "the other side" needs to stop so America's very real and complicated problems can be addressed in meaningful ways.

The first thing that popped into my mind was a quote from Paul Krugman. "The 'both sides are at fault' people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it's out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray," he wrote recently. "It's a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Playing Chicken With an Oncoming Train

The US hit the debt ceiling Monday. As things stand right now, we can stretch dollars until about August -- and then we go into default. I don't think people have a good understanding of what raising the debt ceiling means. It doesn't mean we're borrowing money to spend more money, it means that we're borrowing money to cover money we've already spent. It means meeting our obligations. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we will default on payments. Social Security checks may stop going out, paychecks to soldiers may stop being cut, grants to states will evaporate, and bond holders will find themselves in possession of nearly worthless pieces of paper.

Meanwhile, Republicans are playing on people's misconception of the debt limit. They've got everyone freaked out about spending and are counting on people equating the debt ceiling with new spending. It's a suicidal game of chicken, because one player is on rails -- it can't swerve. The GOP is playing chicken with an oncoming train.

Speaker of the House Boehner is demanding "trillions" in cuts or he says he'll let the crack-up happen. This is typical for the Orange One, whose political strategy playbook seems to consist only of a single page marked "Hostage Negotiations," with his party as the hostage takers. But, in this case, Boehner offers a Hobson's choice -- as economist Mark Thoma puts it, "Republicans are threatening to blow up the economy if they don't get budget cuts big enough to blow up the economy."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Ryan Plan Flops, Republicans Dither

The Paul Ryan budget plan has so far been a disaster for Republicans. Polling shows that the central idea (what pundits and talking heads call "brave" and "serious") to end Medicaid and Medicare through privatization is extremely unpopular. An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 78% oppose privatizing Medicare (with 65% "strongly" opposed) and 59% feel the same about Medicaid. Worse for the GOP, a vast majority of Americans back what Republicans see as sacrilege -- 72% back increasing taxes on households making $250,000 or more annually.

So, with Republicans being your typical finger-in-the-wind types and the prevailing wind direction being so obvious, the solution should be clear, right? Find which way the crowd is marching, then grab a flag and march in front of them. That's "leadership."

Except there's one little problem. According to the report, "Support for raising taxes on the wealthy falls below a majority in only a few groups, e.g., people who call themselves 'very' conservative, conservative Republicans and strong supporters of the Tea Party political movement."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Not Even a Bump in the Road

I had to go to Fox News to find the headline, but I knew someone out there must've written one. I ran "Palin won debate" through Google News and came up with "Sarah Palin, McCain’s Secret Weapon, Wins the Debate," from Andrea Tantaros -- billed as a "Republican Political Commentator."

There, we learn that Sarah Palin is a "Lazarus in lipstick," who "won the debate because she exceeded expectations and connected with the American people on a personal level."

"Governor Palin breathed life into the McCain campaign and rectified public opinion about her competency, which was crucial," Tantaros writes. "Republicans, heave a sigh of relief." In other words, all she had to do was avoid drowning in a glass of water and the right would declare it a triumph of statesmanship. Low expectations do that for a candidate. But isn't this a confused metaphor? If Sarah Palin "breathed life into the McCain campaign," then she's Jesus -- McCain is Lazarus. You've got to be careful with those biblical references.

After watching the debate, I scored it to Biden. I wasn't alone. Early polling from CBS gave it to Biden, as well -- 46%-33% among undecided voters. In fact, that polling showed Biden nearly twice as successful as Palin at recruiting converts to the cause; while 10% said Palin convinced them to back McCain, 18% said that Biden brought them over to Obama. Still, 71% didn't commit either way.





With Obama ahead in the polls, I thought that Biden should play for a tie. He played it a little better than that, but still pretty safe. Joe Biden has always struck me as a little bit of a dick -- the kind of guy who points at you by making pistols with his fingers, then winks and says, "there he is!" Maybe it's just me, but that kind of guy always struck me as a phony. That side of him was mostly in check last night, although I did laugh out loud when he said he spent a lot of time at Home Depot -- I have my doubts.

Later polling by CNN kind of caught me by surprise. They gave it to Biden as well, by an even wider margin -- 51%-36%. But what got me was that more found Palin likable -- 54%-36%. I found her forced, with a contrived folksiness, and stuck on "perky," like a local morning news anchor. In the end, she didn't make me think of a possible future president so much as a cartoon chipmunk with an accent straight out of the movie Fargo. Maybe she benefitted by a comparison with Biden's personality. Still, it doesn't seem to have mattered -- they gave it to Biden anyway.

Palin turned in a mostly gaffe-free performance -- although at one point, she seemed to believe a civil war general was running things in Afghanistan. Gen. David McKiernan is the man she was thinking of, not Gen. George McClellan. In the end, Palin managed to exceed expectations by not wandering off the stage.

I was switching around after the debate and I lingered on CNN's replay of the debate for a moment. They've got this weird focus group dial polling thing scrolling at the bottom of the screen -- dial up if you like what you're hearing, down if you don't. Twice while I was watching, Palin used the "mavericks" line and it failed miserably; the group dialed it down immediately. That attempt at branding doesn't seem to be working. I think it tickles people's BS sensors. I'd been wondering why calling yourself a maverick didn't look like bragging to people. I don't wonder about that anymore -- it does.

Biden did let people know there was an actual person in that suit. Talking about his family, he choked up. "But the notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- I understand," he said. His daughter and his first wife were killed in a car accident, his sons were badly injured. I guess it's true what they say about that kind of loss; you never get over it, you just get used to it. It's always there.

I don't think that there was any one place where she lost this; Palin's performance was consistently sub-par throughout. But, if you put a gun to my head and made me choose one mistake, I'd choose this:

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

Wow. She's repeating Cheney's philosophy here. Bad move -- jock itch is more popular than Dick Cheney. Biden lost no time diving on this:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

A-freakin'-men. McCain=Bush is one thing, Palin=Cheney is a clincher. Neither is a winning message.

In terms of success, I give this to Obama-Biden. Sarah Palin needed to do more than just prove she's not an actual intellectual invalid, she had to make some sort of difference in the race. She didn't. Personally, I think she did a better job than McCain did in the first debate -- he was seriously awful -- but it turns out that's not good enough. Biden didn't knock it out of the park, but he didn't need to. Obama-Biden is ahead right now, all he needed to do was just maintain the lead and not change anything. He did that.

Palin proved she was able to cover her ignorance by dodging questions. At least one time, when she should've been able to talk in depth and defend her position, she only repeated what she'd just said. And, at times when she was addressing her opponent, she was looking directly into the camera -- which struck me as a little weird. I imagined a lot of people sitting at home thinking, "My name's not Joe Biden, lady."

All in all, I found the first and only vice presidential debate mostly boring. It was newsworthy only because of its participants. Nothing really happened, nothing was changed.

Which has to be what Obama-Biden were hoping for.

-Wisco

Setting the Bar Low

In the grand scheme of things, it seems like a futile effort. Raw Story runs the headline, "Dems, press raising expectations for Palin ahead of debate." For Democrats, the danger is clear -- everyone thinks Sarah Palin is mentally helpless. If she shows up the debate tomorrow and displays more intelligence than a styrofoam cup, all the pundits will probably say she did much, much better than expected. Low expectations have their benefits in a debate; ask George W. Bush.

For the press, it may be that they're worried that expectations for Palin are so low that no one will care. Everyone thinks they know how it'll go, so it's kind of like a movie where someone's given away the ending. The media doesn't want to cover a debate no one cares about or one that everyone has already scored to Team Obama.

RS helpfully points us to other headlines:

"Palin Proved to Be Formidable Foe in Alaska Debates," the Wall Street Journal declared.

"Underestimate Palin at your own risk," the Los Angeles Times warned.

"On small stage, Palin scored big debate wins," concluded Politico.

We're also told, "Democratic aides, perhaps wary of Palin's ability to exceed the rock-bottom expectations that she's facing, helpfully forwarded those articles to reporters Wednesday morning."





Left out of the lowered expectations game is that Sarah Palin is quickly becoming as popular as an outbreak of West Nile virus. If people actually liked Sarah Palin, there'd be some danger here. But they don't. As it is, she has to do double-duty here; perform much better than expected and win some people over (or back).

McClatchy Newspapers reports that Sarah Palin's approval numbers in Alaska are now are now tanking.

Ivan Moore, a local pollster who works with both Democrats and Republicans, recently found that Palin's support had slipped to 68 percent. The poll was conducted from Sept. 20 to 22 among 500 likely Alaska voters and has a margin of error of 4.4 percent.

Inside those numbers was a dramatic drop in support from Democrats and independents, although support from Republicans remained strong at 93 percent. Among Democrats, her approval rating dropped from 60 percent to 36 percent, a 24-point drop. Among independents, it fell from 82 percent to 64 percent, an 18-point drop.

Moore said those numbers were likely driven by the harsher tone Palin has adopted on the national campaign trail, as well as the fallout from troopergate.

And her popularity isn't doing any better nationwide. After amazingly bad performances in her rare national media interviews, many see her as completely unprepared and in way over her head. "Has Sarah Palin become a liability for John McCain? Since joining his ticket, the overnight political celebrity has seen the shine come off her poll standings and doubts surface among some conservatives once excited about her candidacy," writes the Associated Press's Alan Fram. "...Palin is starting to seem very, very vulnerable."

Fram's article tells us that Palin has dropped 20 points in an NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey and 27 in Fox News-Opinion Dynamics polling. Worse, a solid majority see her as unqualified -- an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll found 61% believe that. Palin needs a gamechanger and so does McCain. A surprisingly adequate performance won't be enough to do the job.

One plus for McCain-Palin is that Joe Biden's a gaffe machine. We haven't seen much media coverage of this, but that's more a result of McCain's strategy blowing up in his face than anything else. McCain chose Palin with the intention of sucking up all the oxygen in the newsroom. He succeeded. Turns out that wasn't a good thing.

For his part, Biden seems to know this limitation. Apparently, the plan is to just answer the questions and then shut up.

Politico:

If Sarah Palin goofs, flounders, stumbles or blunders during her debate against Joe Biden on Thursday night, Biden is going to let it slide.

“If she makes a gaffe, he underplays it,” one of the people prepping Biden for his vice presidential debate told me. “At most, he says, ‘I am not sure what Gov. Palin meant there.’”

There are three reasons for this. First, Biden does not want to look condescending. For the same reason, he plans on referring to Palin as “Gov. Palin” during the debate and never as “Sarah.” (He will sometimes refer to John McCain as “John,” however, because they have been senators together for many years.)

Second, Biden knows the press is going to pounce on any mistakes, and so he does not need to.

Third, and most important, Sarah Palin is not Biden’s true target.

Fourth and unmentioned, of course, is that he plans to keep the odds of a misstatement low. The media will be more than willing to run "Palin Screws Up Again!" pieces -- in fact, they've probably got the stories already sketched out like Mad-Libs, with blanks to be filled in by the expected mistakes. Biden doesn't need to take that away from her.

With McCain down in the polls, he really needs something to pull this thing out of a tailspin. Meanwhile, the safest result for Obama-Biden to go for is "no change."

I think they'll get it.

-Wisco

McCain Loses Debate!

Remember how McCain was going to win the first debate? Remember how he was so confident that he declared victory before the debate had even taken place? Remember that?

It was, after all, McCain's bailiwick -- foreign policy and national defense. But in any debate, the person who's seen as most expert is the person who has the most to lose. Being seen as the most knowledgeable puts you in the position of defending that perception -- referring to Iranian President Achmedinajad as Akmadoodleberg or whatever the hell it was he said wasn't extremely helpful.

Still that wasn't how McCain lost the debate. It's the nature of the presidential debates, which come so late in the campaign, that voters who are still undecided react to the way candidates behave. Think about it; at this point, there isn't a lot left that we don't know about the candidates' positions. So, if you're still undecided, you're left to make your decision based on other factors -- in this case, that looks to have been how crazy or sane the candidates seemed to be.





And that, to a large extent anyway, is where McCain lost the debate. McCain was, quite frankly, a dick. At points, he was visibly angry, as if the fact that another candidate would have the gall to disagree with his positions was an affront. He accused Obama of being naive and said that he "doesn't understand" just about everything. That argument may work on the stump, but it doesn't work when Barack Obama is standing right there on stage, clearly understanding what he was talking about.

Of course, McCain seemed not to even acknowledge Obama's existence -- never once looking at his opponent. Maybe he didn't know he was there. At any rate, McCain's insistence that Obama was a babe in the woods was contradicted by the reality of the candidate's presence and performance on that same stage. McCain, widely seen as the more experienced debater, behaved as if he weren't at a debate at all, falling back on talking points and recycling applause lines from his RNC acceptance speech and from stump speeches. The audience, having been barred from applauding, sat as politely silent as they'd been directed to. Without all the wild clapping and cheers of a friendly audience, applause lines fell flat and looked like failures to the audience at home.

Throughout all of this, Barack Obama seemed the more presidential of the two. At two points, he actually took control away from the moderator, Jim Lehrer. First, in a back and forth that wasn't going anywhere:

Debate transcript from CNN:

MCCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.

OBAMA: I am not parsing words.

MCCAIN: He's parsing words, my friends.

OBAMA: I'm using the same words that your advisers use.

[To Lehrer] Please, go ahead.

LEHRER: New lead question.

Then again:

OBAMA: I've got to make this point, Jim.

LEHRER: OK.

OBAMA: He objects...

MCCAIN: I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time...

OBAMA: He -- he -- he objects...

LEHRER: One at a time, please.

OBAMA: He objected...

LEHRER: One at a time.

MCCAIN: No one can be opposed to alternate energy.

OBAMA: All right, fair enough. [To Lehrer] Let's move on. You've got one more energy -- you've got one more question.

LEHRER: This is the last -- last lead question.

None of the pundits or analysts I watched afterward mentioned this and I haven't seen anyone bring it up all weekend. Neither Lehrer nor McCain objected to this and I think it may be that Obama did it so effortlessly that almost no one noticed. But it struck me that Obama displayed leadership here and, not only did PBS's Jim Lehrer follow, but so did McCain. Obama basically ended debate and told everyone to move on and they did. The fact that no one seems to have noticed it only makes it that much more impressive.

By the time it was all over, the pundits declared it a draw. But they were going by points. As I pointed out earlier, at this point in the general election, we already know what these people stand for, what the undecideds are trying to figure out is who they are. You can win or lose one of these things on style, which is exactly what Obama and McCain did Friday night. One guy looked like a president, the other looked like the grumpy old man chasing kids off his lawn.

The results, as surprising as they must've seemed to the talking heads, were no surprise to me. Immediately following the debate, CBS News ran a flash poll of 500 respondents -- 39% gave it to Obama, 25% percent thought it went to McCain. A clear winner, but no real knock out.

Over the weekend, something strange happened. Usually, those early impressions are later influenced by the reactions of the media. And the media was pushing the tied game scenario, so I was expecting the tie story to take hold. It didn't. CNN released polling later and that one put it at 51%-38%, with Obama on top, Even later, on Sunday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll gave it to Obama 46%-34%. The media narrative of a tie -- which serves the media better than anyone -- didn't catch on. The first impression of Obama taking it stuck.

Still, it's only the first debate and those remaining undecideds are a fickle lot. Obama's rising in the polls and one reason for that is bad news for McCain/Palin:

Gallup:

Barack Obama leads John McCain, 50% to 42% among registered voters in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday -- just one point shy of his strongest showing of the year...

These results, from Sept. 25-27, span the time period since John McCain made the announcement that he was temporarily suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to work for a bipartisan solution to the financial crisis, and since Congressional leaders first announced progress towards the resolution of a financial bailout bill. The results also include one complete day (Saturday) after the first presidential debate on Friday night. McCain had reached a point where he was tied with Obama earlier in the week, but Obama has gained steadily in each of the last three days' reports. Overall, Obama has gained four percentage points over the last three days, while McCain has lost four points, for an eight-point swing in the "gap" or margin.

His big "I'm going to save America" stunt was a bust. Not surprisingly, McCain got nothing out of what I called a no win situation.

But Team McCain can still get a bounce from the next debate, right?

Yeah, that's not so likely. The next debate is the vice presidential debate Thursday and Sarah Palin is reportedly nowhere up to par. Of course, Biden will be in the same position as McCain was -- the position of defending his bona fides. Expectations for Palin are so low that if she manages not to swallow her tongue while answering the first question, she'll probably be seen as a smashing success. But the best McCain/Palin can probably hope for is a tie. "She's not as dumb as everyone thought she was" isn't much of a reason to vote for anyone.

What McCain needs is another game-changer. Palin was one, changing the format of the Republican National Convention in response to hurricane Gustav was another, "suspending" his campaign and running off to Washington was the most recent (and least effective). McCain needs another big stunt for the media to get his game back. Maybe there's a little girl stuck in well he could rescue or something. Or someone in need of his (or Sarah Palin's kidney).

But those "McCAIN WON!" ads have proven to be a tremendous waste of money. He didn't win that debate -- not by a long shot -- and he's not winning the election. Unless he can find something crazy to do in a hurry, he's not going anywhere but down.

Shotgun wedding, anyone?

-Wisco

Grampy McCain's Bouncy Ride

I try to stay away from posts about poll numbers. Polling data is great to make a point -- I used them just yesterday -- but they aren't really a story all on their own, despite the way the media treats them. Current polling shows John McCain slightly ahead of or tied with Barack Obama. But this is not election day. We're constantly being told that it's only X days until the elections, but the truth is that it's two months. There hasn't been a single debate yet, Sarah Palin has yet to give even an interview, let alone a press conference, and people seem to have the idea that Sarah Palin is running for president. For the record, she's not.

Where the media narrative had previously been that Obama "wasn't winning good enough," don't expect anyone to accuse the McCain camp of that. The new media narrative is that Sarah Palin is running for president. I don't have any numbers to back me up, but I think if you broke any media source down story by story, Palin would get more press than McCain. Which, of course, is the way McCain likes it -- being an old Washington insider running against the Washington establishment makes him a ridiculous candidate. He couldn't reinvent himself at this point, he's too well known, so he invented someone else.

I said I don't like to do posts about poll numbers, but they seem to be the big media story. Horse race reporting strikes me as lazy and not especially informative. Who's winning at the moment is a poor substitute for reporting on the issues. This isn't a football game we're talking about here, this is serious business -- the direction of the nation for the next four years. So it pays to set the horse race reporting straight when it's off the mark.





What we're getting with the "McCain's ahead!" story line are the numbers at the top of the polls, go a little deeper and you see trouble for McCain. One of the latest polls, a survey from Washington Post-ABC News, tells us that Obama, not McCain, wins the question of which "better represents your own personal values" -- 48%-44%. This despite the fact that McCain and Obama are basically tied among registered voters -- Obama 47%, McCain 46%. The economy is listed as the top concern and most believe Obama would do a better economic job -- 47%-42%. The religious right's decline seems to continue, as the survey asks which would better handle "Social issues, such as abortion and gay civil unions," a question Obama wins 48%-41%. Those "personal values?" Not the same ones that the "values voters" freak out about.

In other words, McCain's numbers have all the signs of a post-convention bounce. Obama still wins on the issues. McCain kicks Obama's ass on Iraq, 41%-51%, but Bush is in the process of taking that issue away from McCain -- drawing down troop levels and negotiating what they used to call a "cut and run." It'll be much less of an issue in November and McCain's current position on Iraq will no longer be possible. The Bush administration is quietly adopting Obama's position.

The "McCain's winning" polls already seem to be losing. A CNN poll out yesterday shows the candidates tied.

A new national poll taken entirely after the end of the Republican convention suggests the race for the White House between John McCain and Barack Obama is dead even.

McCain and Obama are tied at 48 percent each, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Monday afternoon.

Three percent of voters are undecided in the survey, which was conducted Friday through Sunday.

We're back to the "tight race narrative." The narrower the gap in polling, the more likely the poll is to be reported over and over and over. Close races get good ratings, so a close race is what's reported.

But the fact is that Obama's winning on the issues. Not only that, but people perceive Obama as winning on the issues. McCain's lead on the issue of Iraq is -- I think anyway -- probably not all that representative. I think people understand that question as who would prosecute the war better, not who would be most likely to end it. And ending it is the more popular position.

Another sign of a declining post-convention bounce for McCain; the CNN poll shows GOP enthusiasm is lower than dem enthusiasm. This has been the overriding theme of this entire election cycle. Where 71% of Democrats are excited about the election, only 60% of Republicans are. That's still a 17% increase in Republican enthusiasm, but Democrats still hold the advantage in their get out the vote efforts. Voters who lack enthusiasm aren't as likely to volunteer, donate or -- most importantly -- vote. It's hard to win when your voters stay home.

The poll Republicans are most likely to point to is the USA Today/Gallup poll, which shows McCain clearly ahead of Obama -- 49%-44%. Not only is this out of whack with other polling, but even this poll shows problems for McCain; 63% "say they are concerned [McCain] would pursue policies too similar to those of the current president." Gallup gives Bush an approval rating of 33%. Looks pretty bouncy to me. All of these polls show a significant number of people giving their votes to a candidate they think isn't as good.

Finally, when you open it up to a broader and more real world measure, Obama still holds a clear lead. Taking state-by-state polling and assigning electoral votes based on those polls, Obama -- as has been the case throughout this race -- is way ahead. MSNBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro give the electoral college race to Obama with 228 to 200. MyDD/Huffington Post breaks it down as 264 Obama, 227 McCain. Politico puts it much closer, but done. Closer because it's Obama 273, McCain 265 -- done because you need 270 to win. Electoral-Vote.com shows it even more finished (if that's not an abuse of the language), with 281 Obama, 230 McCain.

It's still Obama's race to lose and his internal numbers seem to show he's not all that worried. We're not seeing any signs of a candidate who knows he's behind. There's no calling for a million debates, no headline grabbing stunts, no Obama surrogates on every talking head show that will take them, complaining about the unfair press coverage. Obama the unflappable remains unflapped. He's hitting a little harder now, but that's more of a relief to the left than a concern.

To those on the left freaking out, I say settle down. You've got nothing to worry about at this point. To those on the right measuring drapes for the White House, I say don't get too excited. I've been saying something for a few days now that bears repeating here; it's called a bounce for a reason.

It goes up, but it comes down.

-Wisco

Marketing Sarah Palin

New polling shows that John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, is pretty popular. With a favorable rating of 58%, she beats both of the frontrunners. On the one hand, this is good news for Team McCain, who are now enjoying a post-convention bounce in the polls. The bad news is that political common wisdom holds true -- people don't vote for things, they vote against things, so high favorables don't mean a lot. Add to this that people don't tend to be very influenced by the second slot -- 55% say it won't influence their decision -- and she's pretty much a wash. In fact, polls show that if there's any effect, it's a negative one. Support for the ticket has gone down among women, thanks mostly to Palin's extremist views on abortion.

But popular is popular. The reason for that popularity is easy to explain; the only thing most people know about her is what the McCain camp is telling them. Sarah Palin isn't a candidate, she's a projection cast by the Republican propaganda machine. The words she spoke at the RNC weren't hers, but those of former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully. All Palin really did was read it well from a teleprompter -- not much of a challenge for a former TV sportscaster. We have yet to see Sarah Palin as Sarah Palin, Governor of a state with a population the size of Baltimore.





It's said that familiarity breeds contempt, but it might be more true that ignorance breeds acceptance. If all the world knows about Sarah Palin is the glowing bio put out by the campaign and words she read on TV, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that people seem to like her. She's an advertising campaign; she's designed to be likable.

So the McCain campaign is going to great lengths to protect that ignorance by keeping her away from the media. At this point in time, Sarah Palin hasn't been asked a single question by the national media. She has never said a word in her own voice. Palin handlers, not wanting to screw up their marketing campaign by letting people see that she's an actual person, have been very careful to protect the ignorance that's working so well for them.

Jake Tapper, ABC News:

Rick Davis, campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., just told Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace that McCain running mate Gov. Sarah Palin won't subject herself to any tough questions from reporters "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."

Davis assailed the way the media had discussed Palin and her family in the last week and said the campaign would wait until a less hostile media environment.

Deference? What is she, the Queen of the North? It may just be a poor word choice, but I don't think it's the media's job to defer to a vice presidential candidate. This is a job interview, not an infomercial. Not surprisingly, Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, agrees.

"She's a smart, tough politician,” Biden told Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press Sunday. “So I think she's going to be formidable. Eventually, she's going to have to sit in front of you like I'm doing and have done. Eventually, she's going to have to answer questions and not be sequestered. Eventually, she's going to have to answer on the record.”

Sooner or later, she's going to have to cut the marionette strings and come down off the stage. But Team McCain has a cunning plan. Put Sarah on TV for a fluffball interview with a friendly interviewer.

"Sarah Palin will be interviewed by ABC anchor Charlie Gibson later this week in Alaska, her first time facing the press since being tapped as John McCain's running mate Aug. 29," writes Jonathan Martin for Politico. "Per AP, the campaign offered the sit-down to the network a few days ago and it will take place after Palin returns to her home state this week."

In agreeing to sit down with Gibson, they managed to find the one network news guy most likely to ask, "Gee but you're awesome. Why is that?" Bill O'Reilly must've been busy.

It was Gibson who asked George W. Bush, "You took a lot of doubting and rather skeptical questions about the surge. I'll give you a chance to crow. Do you want to say, I told you so?" And it was Gibson, with George Stephanopolous, who turned the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary debate into an attack on Barack Obama. In fact, Gibson's performance as a moderator in that debate was so transparently biased that he was booed by the audience. Anything's possible, but I doubt anyone will describe Gibson's interview of Palin as hard-hitting or tough. No other interviews have been scheduled.

To get a hint at what to expect, we turn to the Associated Press:

The interview is a coup for Gibson, who also had the only sit-down with McCain during the Republican National Convention. During that interview, he did not question McCain about Palin's family, a decision that he fretted about for hours, Gibson said in a Web log posted last week.

"Once you know about her daughter's pregnancy, once you know about her husband's political interest in the Alaska Independent Party, once you know about the special nature of their latest child, I think that's enough," Gibson wrote.

The relevant questions about Palin all related to her experience and policy positions as a mayor and governor of Alaska.

ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said he did not believe Gibson's stated stance about family questions was key to securing the interview.

Yeah, that's going to be a real tough interview, alright. And I'm sure ABC's absolutely correct -- Gibson's promise to steer clear of 90% of the Palin-related scandals couldn't possibly have influenced the McCain campaign, who've managed to make Sarah Palin a high-profile personality that most people know nothing about. It says a lot about Gibson that he's the one they turned to to protect the public's ignorance about her.

The shadow puppetry that is Sarah Palin will continue until the media does something about it. I doubt that Sarah Palin isn't media-savvy or that she can't handle an interview. It's just that the McCain campaign believes things are pretty much perfect right now and see no reason to mess with success. They're going to keep Palin as insubstantial as a logo for as long as they possibly can. As it is right now, she's not an actual political candidate, she's Tony the Tiger -- a personality created by a marketing team, tested by focus groups, and as popular as she's been designed to be.

Sooner or later, the McCain team is going to have to take Caribou Barbie out of the package. She'll lose some of her value at that point, but they can't keep her boxed up forever. The shrink wrap is going to have to come off.

-Wisco

The Man Everyone Loves to Hate

OK, so now we've got an official Democratic nominee. As the roll call vote unfolded, the State of New York stopped the voting and Sen. Hillary Clinton moved that they forego the vote and nominate Barack Obama by acclamation. The motion carried and Barack Obama became the party's nominee.

Tonight, Barack Obama will speak to a crowd at Invesco stadium as the party's nominee. After this stupid-long campaign so far, it seems crazy to say it, but the general election is nearly underway. At least, in an official sense. Party nominations have become formalities in recent elections, tightly scripted and choreographed, without unpleasant surprises.

So, for all intents and purposes, we have a Democratic presidential candidate, a Democratic running mate, a Republican presidential candidate, and a big ol' honkin' question mark. Who is McCain's choice?

Signs point to Lieberman, but signs can be (deliberately) misleading.



First, there's the fact that there's a web ad out there, featuring McCain and Lieberman together -- two smiling faces above the words "McCain: Join Our Team." NYT columnist and founding neocon WIlliam Kristol wrote that McCain had his eye on Joementum.

He could select the person he would really like to have by his side in the White House -- but whose selection would cause palpitations among many of his staffers and supporters: the independent Democratic senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman.

On the other hand, Bill Kristol is famous for being wrong on an extremely regular basis. So regular that close observers wonder how the hell he manages to find work as a pundit. This was a man who helped found an organization devoted to invading Iraq, so I guess his blowful political analysis should surprise no one.

But there are other reasons to suspect Lieberman is the choice.

Politico:

Republican strategist Karl Rove called Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) late last week and urged him to contact John McCain to withdraw his name from vice presidential consideration, according to three sources familiar with the conversation.

Lieberman dismissed the request, these sources agreed.

Lieberman “laughed at the suggestion and certainly did not call [McCain] on it,” said one source familiar with the details.

“Rove called Lieberman,” recounted a second source. “Lieberman told him he would not make that call.”

Golly! Karl Rove must be really worried that it'll be McCain-Lieberman '08. If it's true, Rove has reason to worry. See, no one likes Joe Lieberman. In his home state of Connecticut, Lieberman's approval ratings are through the floor because of a combination of his support for John McCain and his relentless bullcrap in support of the occupation of Iraq. Lieberman scores a 45% approval, down from 52% in March -- the first time he's fallen below 50% in 14 years. If he were running for re-election today, it's likely that he'd lose.

Then again, when it comes to Connecticut, McCain literally has nothing to lose. He'll be crushed by Obama there -- polling 35%-56% in July. No choice he'll make will make any difference there. Those electoral votes will not be McCain's.

Then there's the idea that choosing Lieberman would help McCain with the Jewish vote. It wouldn't. Only 37% of US Jews have a favorable opinion of Joe Lieberman. Barack Obama -- that secret mooslum -- scores better than that with US Jews. Fully 60% view him favorably.

Finally, the base doesn't like him because he's pro-choice and everyone else in the GOP doesn't trust him because he's a proven turncoat. The only person who seems to actually like Joe Lieberman is Joe Lieberman. In short, he'd be an amazingly awful pick.

So all of this talk about Lieberman may be a head-fake. The McCain campaign may be leaking Joementum hints to make any other choice look better. McCain could even claim -- falsely -- that Lieberman was the easy choice, the politically expedient selection, but that he put politics aside and put America first with whatever other awful choice he makes -- compared to Joe Lieberman, even Mitt Romney would look good.

"I'm going to give you some straight talk, my friends," McCain could say (he always slaps a big "straight talk" label on BS). "I could've gone the easy route. I could've reached across the aisle and compromised and accepted Joe Lieberman as my running mate. But a Republican President deserves a Republican Vice President, so I made the hard choice and chose ___. The presidency's about making hard choices, my friends."

McCain's reportedly already made his choice, which he'll announce tomorrow (or leak tonight during Obama's address). I have deep, deep doubts -- despite all the obvious hints -- that it'll be Joe Lieberman.

Then again, I could be wrong. John McCain hasn't been known for extremely wise choices in this campaign. If he wants to chain that anchor to his foot, you won't hear me complaining about it.

-Wisco