If you look back at the last three presidential elections (including this one) you'll see a remarkable similarity in the distribution of electoral votes, by state. Now, it's true that GWB was on the ballot in the last 2. But in the first, he was, himself, a budding “agent for change”, running against the VP of a very popular president, with no wars, and a pretty good economy. The second time, he was an incumbent, with an increasingly unpopular, war, still a pretty good economy, running against a Senator who wasn't that well liked in his own party. In other words, two very different situations, which yielded almost exactly the same electoral result.

And, this time, we have two Senators, running, with a very unpopular president, a very shaky economy (to say the least), skyrocketing fuel prices, and a very very unpopular war (the same one as last time). Yet, once again, the distribution of electoral votes is, essentially the same.

The lesson, for me, is that the driving force is demographics; not the political, or economic, or military environment. McCain is close because most people in the South and a lot of people in Northern, heavy industry states, with large populations, like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, will vote Republican no matter what. Obama hasn't changed that. I don't think he, or anyone else could change it. I bet if the Republicans had nominated Mike Huckabee, the same question would have come up: Why is he so close?

Since his campaign makes no sense he has to simply be viewed as still the lesser-of-two-evils choice, and that a lot of his success is as a “default” candidate, which describes how he simply survived attrition during the primary contests.

It may reflect also something we saw in 2000, which is that the mainstream public is not anywhere as far left as those in the media, government, and academia (the people who were ignorant of and shocked by the 1994 elections and why they had happened), and that if there is hope (pun intended) for a non-liberal candidate, the public may choose him. Bush in 2000 was the GOP's desperation candidate — the selection of McCain was by an even weaker, more pathetic process this year. Yet once Gore lost to Bush in the debates, it shocked the public and made us believe that Bush had a chance to win, after all. And from there it was up for Bush and down for Gore and Bush won in the end. (Gore got a larger popular vote, still; Bush was not a strong winner, obviously.) McCain may be relying on the public to react to Obama and the Democrats in the same way and to quietly again vote GOP as the lesser of two evils if not out of postive (affirmative) preference if McCain does well in the debates and inspires relief if not confidence among the public.

Obama risks boosting McCain if he pulls another stunt like his Demogrant-como-Chavez-y-McGovern energy rebates financed by Jimmy Carter Again windfall oil profits taxes. I'll be curious to see how the current trend lines (more important than every followed-with-panting poll each day and its “analysis”) change (pun intended) once Obama's vote-buying and windfall profits tax scheme are common knowledge. Or will he remain so attractive (and defended and praised by the media and the bloggers) that things will not change at all?

“the 'Wilder' or 'Bradley' effect”

I discout this heavily. There's probably more of this in the minds of the people still shricking “racist” about the McCain celebrity ad than is the case with the American electorate. Now, distrust of Dem domestic and economic policy (as opposed to foreign policy, where there is distrust as well) may be boosted if Obama makes any more threats similar to that with the energy rebates and windfall profits tax stuff, which is liberal Democratic and alien to most Americans. There may be a quiet shift to McCain as there was was from Gore to Bush in 2000 after Gore lost the debates and the public realized Bush had a chance to win. if McCain also wins the debates, or if Obama does more between now and November that look bad, it could cause a shift again this year. (I do not think any such shift would be enough for McCain to win — Obama is stronger than Gore was in 2000 and McCain arguably is weaker this year than Bush was, and even in 2000 it was just the electoral college that got Bush into the White House; Gore still squeaked a win in the popular vote. The public has been anti-GOP for the past two years or more. I don't believe McCain can rely on Obama mistakes and a public shift to the GOP.)

Given the MSM's ignoring of his campaign and the near-adoration of Obama by the pressies, I'd say he's doing quite well. And given his lackluster performance [he's clearly lost a couple of steps since 2000], McCain is doing remarkably well.

Maybe, given the “Wilder” or “Bradley” effect, he will do even better in the actual balloting than he's polling. And it's truly risible whenever he wins a poll, as with the “likely voter” or other scenarios, how quickly the pious PC acolytes of the Obamanable Showman remark that said polls are “unrepresentative” or an “outlier.”

Methinks there's a lot of whistling while walking past a graveyard going on.

The negative advertising will have three effects.

It will rally the GOP.

It will rally Democrats to Obama.

It will turn Independents off to McCain.

McCain went this route because he had to. He's trying to sucker Obama into the gutter the way Hillary Clinton did. That's why they played the race card card. But, other than the dollar bill reference, Obama handles this stuff really well. He mocks it and treats it as unworthy of the American people. Remember the shoulder brush-off thing in the primary? Or how about him saying, “John, is this the best you can do?” He looks confident and unruffled.

Why is McCain doing as well as he is in the polls???

My basic thesis is that the Republicans have no credibility on the issues For any Republican to talk about being fiscal conservative or good government is laughable.

In the long run, there is not way that any conservative party can survive in the U.S. no matter how they did. The short term failures of the Bush Adminstration have just sped up the process.

BTW, I'm also interested in the answer to George Sorwell's question, as I find it baffling that McCain is getting as much support as he is.

You often make the claim that Republicans have nothing different to offer–that's part of the reason why you think they are going to disband.

And yet the polls indicate McCain is still viable in the horserace.

Why do you think that is?

Regardless how I voted in the past, I never actively disliked the other guy (except for '04, by which time I was allergic to GWB). McCain, in particular, was a man I respected, and was sorry that some very primary policy issues would keep me from supporting him, Obama or no Obama).

With this campaign, however, the respect is gone for good, not because he might well defeat Obama, but because he brought politics back to that dirty arena which we were hoping to leave forever. He had a chance to deliveer on his promise to conduct a respectful debate about issues. Instead, he has delivered a campaign of nonstop attacks, distortions and promises he knows very well he can't keep.

I'm unspeakably disappointed in McCain, in our election process and the gullibility of the public.
At this point, I wouldn't vote for McCain if he was runnning for dog catcher.

Most Americans will devote probably 1/100 of 1% of their time this year making a decision on their vote. All it takes is remembering one e-mail, one ad, or one person's off the cuff comment to make a decision.

Instead of having 50 posts analyzing the horserace aspects of the campaign, how about 50 posts looking at the policy proposals of both sides. Even through Senator McCain has zero chance of winning the election it would be 20 times more interesting to look at policy proposals instead of over analyzing the horserace

Somehow, I doubt if any of the wonk-wannabes really have the stomach for the real work of government