Saturday, September 13, 2008
Good job. Don't get cocky.
Gateway Pundit rounds up an orgy of links that purport to expose "panic" among the Democrats and surging support for the McCain/Palin ticket in several of the essential states. Add to that the state-by-state results accumulated on Election Projection: McCain is actually ahead in the electoral college tally for the first time, I believe. The lead may be even greater than indicated, because Wisconsin, shown as "weak Dem," has not been polled since early August. Democratic warhorses are also worried that the polls actually understate Obama's weakness, because of "hidden racism," in the words of the Telegraph.
Several things might be said about this.
First, there is a long way to go, and plenty of opportunities for such a well-financed campaign as Barack Obama's to right itself and storm to victory. The debates are still in front of us, and there are gaffe and scandal opportunities aplenty between now and November 4. Some of them will hurt the Republicans. Unless of course the Democrats and the press spend the next two months taking cheap shots at Sarah Palin, in which case McCain will win 40 states. Unfortunately, if Nancy Pelosi's sudden reticence hints at a new strategy then the Democrats are finally getting a clue. Let's hope it takes the media a few more days to digest the new orders.
Second, if the Democrats really are "panicking" this early in the game is it any wonder that they have such a hard time winning the White House? I mean, who wants to be governed by people who panic 50 days before the actual election?
Third, I seriously doubt that Democrats who count are actually panicking. This spate of stories may well mean that they are already finding their balance. If I were Barack Obama, I would be hoping that the Republicans get cocky right about now. These panic stories are just what the doctor ordered.
That said, this bit strikes me as very true:
One thing I have noticed. No matter who McCain is up against (be it Republicans or Democrats), he has an uncanny ability to get under the skin of his opponents. Most of his opponents become virtually apoplectic at some point. They make mistakes. And he simply smiles.
That capacity of McCain's may well be exacerbated in the case of Barack Obama, who is in one sense under far more pressure. McCain has the great comfort of knowing that there are much more important things in life than winning. Barack Obama, however, shoulders a far more difficult burden, for he bears the hopes not only of the Democrats who have been driven insane during the Bush years but of many millions of African-Americans, for whom his campaign has taken on a totemic significance. That is truly the weight of the world.
UPDATE: Typo in the "hidden racism" sentence fixed.
32 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Sep 14, 12:04:00 AM:
"First, there is a long way to go, and plenty of opportunities for such a well-financed campaign as Barack Obama's to right itself and storm to victory."
TH, why are you trying to depress Republicans? You've done this several times recently. You need a new attitude. Get with the program.
(If you worked for the CIA, the internal spy catchers would think you were an agent for the other side.)
Yes, Obama has access to money (right now). So did Steve Forbes. So did your boy Mitt Romney.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Sep 14, 12:21:00 AM:
I'm all about keeping my expectations low. That way I avoid disappointment.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Sep 14, 12:31:00 AM:
A positive mental attitude through the assumption of a negative result doesn't work in sports or in politics.
By Donna B., at
Sun Sep 14, 12:39:00 AM:
I take Tigerhawk's and Reynold's warnings to the GOP as "you're on a roll, please don't fall off now!"
That said, enthusiasm is contagious. Let it spread!
The next seven weeks are going to be fun, no doubt. I just can't see Palin or McCain screwing up that badly, but it's not that hard to picture Biden or Obama doing so.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Sep 14, 01:02:00 AM:
Come back with your shield or on it.
It would five to ten years for the nation to recover from four years of the Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress.
As Jack Welch, retired CEO of GE and Fortune magazine's "Manager of the Century," said: "Barack Obama with Pelosi and Reid — that's nothing but disaster."
Watch the video:
http://www.welchway.com/mediaPlayer.aspx?fileID=278
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Sep 14, 01:09:00 AM:
There is a recent poll of Wisconsin by an outfit called Strategic Vision. ~800 polled, MOE 3%.
SV has Obie up by only a few points in WI...within the MOE. Palin is playing well there with favorables better than McCain, Obama or Biden
By Georg Felis, at
Sun Sep 14, 01:49:00 AM:
The choice of Palin for VP has done something that I never thought would happen: The leftists are going nuts throwing rocks at somebody other than McCain. I expected this last 6 weeks or so to be one endless drone of test scores/Keating 5/most radical Republican ever/failure in Iraq/cancer/rich wife/Bush III/kicks puppies type stories, but instead the Left is going straight at a successful woman Governor with a darned good record and the ability to field-dress a Gibson on National TV.
For some reason they just can't help themselves and are attacking McCain on his strongest, most popular decision instead of his many flaws.
This is going to be good.
By Andrew X, at
Sun Sep 14, 04:44:00 AM:
I'm with TH. The Dems spent the last six months measuring White House drapes and wondering if their House and Senate victories might be just enough to illegalize the Republican party, and look where it got them today.
Enthusiasm is great, but we WILL lose this thing if we sit on laurels or assume it's "in the bag" or any of that crap.
Don't do it. Don't. This is a fight to the finish, and we WILL win it, IF we keep a clear head about it.
That, if I may presumptuously speak for TH, is what he is saying.
By 
, at
Sun Sep 14, 07:53:00 AM:
Bradley effect (hidden racism) means that polls OVERstate BHO's strength,not that they understate it.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Sep 14, 08:07:00 AM:
Good catch, dd -- I knew that, but made an editing error. Thanks for clearing that up.
By davod, at
Sun Sep 14, 08:27:00 AM:
The Republocans shouldn't get to complacent. Just remember, lawyers, whether working directly for Obama or not have been successful in derailing several of Obama's opponents in the past.
Look to the same approach here. I read recently that the Alaska Democrat, and the investigator, running the enquiry into Palen was at Obama's Alaskan campaign headquarters.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 08:39:00 AM:
"We’re going to have a bold energy plan that says that we are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20 or 30 percent over the course of a decade or two. We are going to ask all citizens to participate in that process, not just government, but each and every one of us are going to have — are going to make commitments in terms of increasing fuel efficiency in our cars and homes, and the government is going to be in partnership with citizens to make that happen.." -- Obama at Columbia
Interesting that virtually nobody seemed to notice this metric. It's even more detailed than the Obama web site.
With all the ads from people telling us ... energy independent in 10 years, and the U.S. 70% dependent on foreign oil .. it will be at least 3 or 4 decades to be independent.
With cries for "energy independence" dating back to before Carter, somehow Obama's plan doesn't seem very bold and it certainly isn't independence any time soon. It may slow the bleeding, but it really underscores the necessity of opting for all energy sources.
Yes, Pelosi better wake up.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 08:47:00 AM:
Strictly from the point of view of logic, it may NOT be possible for Obama to 'right himself' or his campaign, if they are truly off-track, at this point.
Axelrod and company would have to discard many of the paradigms with which their long march through the primaries were built on. Is this possible with less than 8 weeks to election day? How soon does the electorate 'freeze' in their decision making? The entire tone and outlook of the Obama campaign would have to change significantly in the next week. To what? I can't say; but if there present strategy is not working, what will? With the perception of the cupidity of the Fourth Estate's dealings with Obama, how effective would an "October Surprise" be for Obama's campaign to reverse fortunes, if such a thing were already planned?
And they are not working in a vacuum. The McCain-
Palin campaign still has more material to work with to build support. Perhaps they have an "October Surprise" of their own.
-David
By JPMcT, at
Sun Sep 14, 09:22:00 AM:
If there is one thing that characterizes the Obama campaign in my view it is ARROGANCE.
The idea that you can feed the American public idiotic excuses for notorious associations such as William Ayers ("our kids went to school together"), Jeremiah Wright ("I didn't attend those sermons"), Saul Alinski ("I was a community organizer") and on and on and on....all presumes that the American Public Awareness is basically moronic.
It gets worse...he then goes on to shape-shift and chenge those excuses in very basic detail, clearly different than the original spin, as though he is a political version of Lyin' Larry from vintage Saturday Night Live.
This attitude suggests either a colossally ignorant misread of the electorate...unlikely...or a realization that there is a substantial percentage of the voters who will support him regardless of what he says or does. I believe this to be closer to the truth.
Republicans, however, tend to suffer fools poorly. If there is a candidate who is clearly flawed, he will not get our vote. The clear example of this is the downfall of the Republican Congress, which was less a Democratic victory than a Republican defeat...we simply stayed home on election day.
So I think TH is correct. The Obamites will support him whatever he does and says...however outrageous his associations...however catastropic his defense and economic policies are. We have to keep up our guard as this will be a very close election.
We will also have to be prepared to defend a McCain victory, as there will be the usual onslaught of "racism, disenfranchised voters, hanging chads" and the usual blather that accompanies every Republican victory.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 10:07:00 AM:
Tigerhawk writes: "Unless of course the Democrats and the press spend the next two months taking cheap shots at Sarah Palin, in which case McCain will win 40 states."
What about the 17 states that Obama wins? How many electoral votes do they have?
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 12:22:00 PM:
By Escort81, at
Sun Sep 14, 12:38:00 PM:
Anybody see Michelle Obama lately? Wouldn't she be a good person to be out there rallying the Democratic base?
Long way to go here, but some of what the Obama campaign is doing in trying to fight back is hard to fathom. The story that the AP is running dwells upon whether or not Palin was actually slightly across the border in Iraq or on the Kuwait side at a camp for a re-enlistment ceremony for the Alaska National Guard. While this might reflect poorly on Palin's staff for confusion about the different stories, does the Obama campaign believe that anyone really cares what her precise GPS location was along the border? It's not as if she was a Democratic presidential candidate who claimed that while in the service of the U.S. military, he had been ordered to cross a river border illegally on a swift boat, only to be unable to later verify that story.
If I were the Obama campaign, looking to peel back centrist voters, I might hammer away at Palin's statement during the Gibson interview regarding her personal belief that abortions are not appropriate even in cases of rape or incest. Most centrists would not agree with that position (nor would they be in favor or so-called "partial-birth abortions" at the other end of the spectrum). Granted, taking it to the illogical extreme, it is unlikely that a medical professional would ever be successfully prosecuted for providing a DNC following the completion of a rape kit analysis (a jury simply wouldn't convict), and I think that even if Roe v. Wade was overturned and states decided abortion laws one by one, the reddest states would still allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. So, there is no practical effect on the country to Palin's stated belief, other that it puts her some distance from the center in one of the key battlegrounds of the culture wars. Do the Republicans pick up as many or more votes by virtue of the increased enthusiasm from the Evangelical base as it loses from the center on this issue? This could be fertile ground for Obama, especially in key swing states. He evidently has the money to do it, having raised $66 million in August.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 01:18:00 PM:
Perhaps, next time around, the Democrats should have SUPERsuper delegates, to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
By JorgXMcKie, at
Sun Sep 14, 07:16:00 PM:
Overconfidence is probably *never* a good idea. OTOH, appropriate confidence is very useful.
Right now, Republicans at least think they can win. And of course, they can. Not that long ago they were basically dispirited and not working as well (toward a victory) as they could.
The far Left and the Nutroots is Obama's problem, not the party professionals (although I'm not incredibly impressed by David Axelro).
The far Left and the Nutroots is borderline psychotic and prone to gigantic mood swings and therefore gigantic unforced errors. If Obama can't corral them somehow whatever he does may not matter.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 07:21:00 PM:
McCain/Palin is battling Obama, the liberal media, Hollywood, Academia, and every secular institution in this country. It should be impossible to ever get too cocky given the tsunami any Republican must overcome.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 07:50:00 PM:
"I seriously doubt that Democrats who count are actually panicking."
I agree. But I question if any of them are involved in the Obama effort, or want to be, at this point.
By gs, at
Sun Sep 14, 07:52:00 PM:
1. If a week is an eternity in politics, what is seven weeks? There is time for each campaign to be declared the winner more than once.
2. In a year that heavily favors the Democrats, the McCain campaign has overachieved while the Obama campaign has underperformed. If McCain falters to 'competent' or Obama improves to 'competent', IMO Obama is still likely to win. McCain must keep the initiative and remain the happy warrior; complacency would prove fatal.
3. Iirc the Troopergate report is due a few days before the election. I look for dirty tricks, e.g. a call for impeachment or a special prosecutor, or an accusation of perjury against someone as close as possible to Palin: if not the gov herself, a close family member or aide.
By The Monster, at
Sun Sep 14, 08:07:00 PM:
Bradley effect (hidden racism) means that polls OVERstate BHO's strength,not that they understate it
To me, the Bradley Effect is best understood as some portion of the people who oppose a candidate (who happens to be black) being reluctant to express that opposition to a pollster for fear that he'll be thought a racist. (And given the ease with which The Card is played, it's a reasonable apprehension.) When election day comes, and there is no one to judge you, you're free to follow your conscience, which accounts for several percentage points of difference between the polls and the actual results.
The selection of Palin will probably reduce the Bradley Effect somewhat, because some people feel liberated to express that they are "voting for the woman" rather than "against the black guy". I would expect it to be good for 2-5% difference between what exit polls say and the ultimate returns.
So when the networks jump to declare a winner a few seconds after the polls close in those Eastern blue states, don't be discouraged, and for damn sure don't give up and not bother to vote if you're in a later time zone. We're going to need to win big enough that no one will think we've "stolen it again", and also need the down-ticket votes to unseat Pelosi and Reid from their majorities, to give MavCuda as many seats as possible (including Blue Dog Dems) to build the coalition to get their agenda enacted.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 08:19:00 PM:
"the polls actually understate Obama's weakness, because of "hidden racism,"
Whatever you want to attribute it to, Bradley effect is real. The O campaign thinks it's not an issue because they go by the Wikipedia definition (voters won't tell a pollster they're voting against a black candidate) when it's actually more specific: democratic voters won't tell a pollster, even anonymously, that they're voting against a black democrat. Bradley effect doesn't occur with republicans - as the Wiki article notes, but only as an example of how it doesn't happen anymore or that it's existence is debateable.
To date, Obama has never had a lead in the polls sufficient to fully overcome Bradley effect http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart .
"The far Left and the Nutroots is Obama's problem"
Obama is part of the far left.
Your advice not to get cocky is excellent - things are still close enough to go either way.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 08:24:00 PM:
I must repeat a comment that I read on another blog - Pajamas maybe - a few days ago: running for President is by far the hardest thing Barack Obama has ever had to do in his young life, but it certainly isn't the hardest thing John McCain has had to do.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 08:40:00 PM:
Thank you for writing this.
I have been getting nervous about the state of this race for the firt time. Even at the peak of Obamania, I thought McCain would storm back. McCain has just completed an incredible two-week run. Obama's campaign is a train wreck. And where is McCain in the polls? Up 2.3 percent in the RCP average. Where's the electoral college? RCP has Obama at 273, McCain at 265.
I don't care where the popular vote's at -- I care about the Electoral College. And with Obama looking like he's going to flip Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico (21 EVs in all), I don't know which Kerry state McCain can flip to get to 270+. He's got to win Pennsylvania or Michigan (or, god forbid, Minnesota) and hold the rest of the Bush '04 states (NH is not relevant to this calculus).
Obama is in very good shape in Electoral College. He's in very good shape in the money department (presuming his money isn't with Lehman Brothers). Not reason for the Obammunists to be panicky. No reason for the McCainiacs to get overconfident.
By Rich Casebolt, at
Sun Sep 14, 08:47:00 PM:
I agree with TH ... let's not get cocky, but press the advantage wherever/whenever we can.
Now that McCain/Palin is inside the Big 0's OODA loop, let's help keep them there.
By , at
Sun Sep 14, 10:10:00 PM:
I agree with "don't get too cocky". In particular, the McCain campaign made a mistake by complaining too vehemently about the lipstick/pig remark and gave something for Obama to counterattack. Very fortunately for McCain, the "McCain is out of touch" ad has eclipsed that.
Yes, things are good right now. But they could still blow it. Wars are most often won not by the most brilliant general, but the least stupid one.
JimC
demento.fan@gSPAMISmail.cEVILom
By Jack Okie, at
Sun Sep 14, 10:11:00 PM:
Excellent advice, Tigerhawk.
rhodium heart:
Current RCP electoral vote count is McCain 227, Obama 207, Toss-up 104. Minnesota just move from leaning Obama to Toss-up.
By Diane Wilson, at
Sun Sep 14, 11:01:00 PM:
"Don't get cocky" is still the best advice around, even after you win.
And the Electoral College is really the only count that matters now. You can win the popular vote, and still lose the election. Just ask Al Gore.
But the thing is, many of those smaller, flippable states don't have frequent polls. If you dig, at least a couple of "battleground" states haven't had a poll since before the conventions. The reality is that we don't know where the Electoral College vote stands. The only sane response to that is to stay on message, stay inside Obama's OODA loop, and fight the smears by staying visible, upbeat, and fight the smears by showing the smearers for what they are (e.g., Jill Greenburg thrashing from the Atlantic).
And, sooner rather than later, Sarah Palin is going to have to do the Sunday talk shows. Once she field-dresses a couple of newsies, they'll get the message.
By Peter, at
Sun Sep 14, 11:16:00 PM:
Can we put a sock in the Bradley Effect? Polls ALWAYS overcount Democrats. I dunno why but they always do. So, Bradley lost when the polls had him ahead.
Must be racism, right? Except the polls had Kerry ahead and he is the only person on earth whiter than me. The polls always overcount the donks in their samples and folks are always surprised.
By , at
Mon Sep 15, 02:01:00 AM:
Factor in voter fraud by ACORN and others, and McCain needs to crush Obama to prevail against their deceit. Kerry and Gore didn't abide this type of behavior, but for Obama it's like a duck to water. Let's not get blind sided by Chicago style politics. Obama likes to win "the easy way"; i.e. he cheats. Just examine his record in politics.
