I hadn't seen it or heard of it before. It is nicely done, very interesting look.
Here's what the pollster said:
The next movement in the polls is still more likely to be toward Obama than toward McCain.
McCain has had a significant shift of support, because of Gov. Palin, no doubt. That shows in other polls, too. I don't reject the polls that this site has out of hand, but I am unaware of any history they have in past elections and accuracy in polling versus actual results. It is encouraging, I guess, but I don't know what to take away from it except that McCain is enjoying greater national support than he was before nominating Gov. Palin.
But, national polls are quite beside the point. The state-by-state polling is what matters, and I realize this site has the electoral vote in a dead heat (50.4 % for McCain vs. 50% for Obama). Again, I am unaware of how reliable this polling group's results are.
Zogby, Rasmussen, Gallup are all proved, to one degree or another, to be fairly reliable. Their numbers usually come in close, but in a close election, close projections can be 180 degrees away from what really happens.
This brings me back to my number one theory of just about everything: the team that should win usually wins. All else being equal, it is typically true that what should happen does happen in any kind of head-to-head competition. McCain was all but done a year ago against his own party opponents, but pulls out a win in the primaries (note: this is not head-to-head, this is more akin to round robin). Kerry was in the same boat (pun intended) in his primaries, poured his wife's money in, and got the nomination. Then, he lost the general. Why? Because he should've. Bush was better funded from the get-go, better organized, and was in the middle of a war that, at the time, was still quite new. He was incumbent. Kerry struggled to get out of the chute, won his primaries easily enough as it turned out, but lost with a populist-toned VP mate that most of America really didn't know (as it also turns out).
In this election, all of the advantages Bush had are easily on Obama's side. Funding? Obama has smashed the records. (I know he's spent a lot too and if you count RNC money, McCain has more. I'm comparing apples with apples, though and keeping the comparisons between the candidates). Popularity? He's the chosen one and he has the media pulling out all and I mean all stops to position him for victory -- and that doesn't cost him a dime. His base is and has been throughout this thing very highly motivated, more so than Bush's was in a very close race. Organization? Advantage Obama. War-time support is not what it was; most Americans prefer a stepped up withdrawal from Iraq (although they differ on the methods and benchmarks for doing it, the differences now are not as great as they were; talk of withdrawal plans is no longer "cut and run" as it would've been 2 or 4 years ago) and are weary of excuses for not having bin Laden already (even though the excuses may be perfectly justifiable). And, apparently, a good half of America is ready to support Obama even though it is wide openly known that he is friends with the hate-America crowd. Every advantage weighs, to one extent or another, toward Obama.
I'll admit that the race is close, but even in close games --- especially in close games --- the team that should win usually does.
But, let's break that down by state. Really, most states are already locked for one of these guys or the other. A half dozen to ten states will determine what happens, and in each of them the battle is too close to predict. That's where, if McCain is to pull off an upset, you have to look at a number of other variables. For example, if McCain wins by 1-3 percentage points in Ohio, what is the composition of that state's judicial branch? What about the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals? Contentious court with 10 Republican appointees -- a couple of known liberals among them -- and 6 Democrat appointees. Open battles of ideology, highly publicized, among them. Who knows how that would turn out? Florida, close race there, and we've been there, done that regarding their courts so we can guess well enough about how that state's judiciary works. Colorado? Generally liberal courts in a close race. 10th Cir. Ct. of Appeals is also left of center (had held previously there is no individual right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment; that case is now moot). There are not only voters, but judges, making these decisions where the elections may be close enough to throw results into courts.
As games wear on, competitions wear on, the strongest survives the outcome more often than not. Obama's campaign is stronger than McCain's even with the juice that Gov. Palin brings to it. It is better prepared. It's principal is stronger with more people. Unless Gov. Palin is able to truly get clear sailing through these interviews and debate, and assuming (I think safely) that there's no salacious skeleton in her closet, that equation is not likely to change
enough to change the outcome, IMHO.
The burden to change the direction of this thing is on McCain. Are there cracks in the Obama armor ("Obarmor")? Yup, lots. The one thing that McCain can hope for, again IMHO, is that they self-destruct just enough, as with an untimely fumble or a wasted time-out or whatever. So far, though, there's been too much support in the institutions of media to allow that to happen, and I don't know that it will change enough to matter.
Here's what will change my mind. Gov. Palin comes through these first round of interviews not too badly bruised for the wear, no real gaffes. She gets tainted with characterizations by media in way-too-obvious efforts to discredit or ridicule her (like Charles Gibson's "hubris" line and his "look the American people in the eye" bit, among others). Conservatives rise to her defense and begin to donate to congressional candidates. If you see any swings in congressional races, then we've got a horse race. Without that, I just don't think McCain wins.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).