I think I speak for a lot of voters that they are simply turned off by the constant barrage of politics over the last several months. Unless one is a true junkie, the process is off-putting to the extreme.

I think that Broder is closer to the mark for a lot of voters who actually tuned in. “Naive” is what the Dems are flinging at Palin, among other uncomplimentary things, but when McCain calls Obama that adjective, a lot of undecideds on election day may just vote sure and safe.

But people could see in real time just how absurd the charge was. Independents overwhelmingly thought Obama was Presidential enough, so the claim that he was naive and “just doesn't understand” didn't resonate with what watchers saw with their own eyes. It's the problem with saying that at a campaign rally to enthusiastic supporters and no Obama to prove him wrong, and a debate where the words become empty.

Todd's second point is more apt. Obama's strategy was to paint McCain as Bush, though more in terms of policy and voting and not in character. McCain took pains to distance himself from his party.

The risk now, though, is that McCain may have gone off the deep end in making himself the maverick. It's great to move away from Bush. It's not so great to run around postponing the debate and acting like an unpredictable nut. I suppose that may have figured in to voters' responses to McCain.