Sarah Palin Is Not a Hockey Mom

She's a hockey player. She’s a fourth-line hockey agitator, beloved by the home crowd, loathed by the opponents, injecting passion into both fan bases, the kind of home-team hero that no Stanley Cup winner goes without.

Once upon a time, I applied an NFL-replay mentality to hockey playoffs, holding on to outrages over missed calls, blatantly unfair officiating, double standards, and outright getting-away-with-stuff (which always led to an early spring exit for my beloved Blues). I wanted – and unreasonably expected – bad behavior to be proportionally punished.

And then several years ago I had an epiphany about the hockey playoffs – nobody is coming to save you. Initiators win, reactors lose. Expect adversity, because it's built in. The fourth-line, no-scoring-talent, pest agitators (or as we now call them, “energy guys”) have a specific job. Skate in, take a cheap shot, make it after the whistle. Make it against the rules. Stir something up. Put a wet glove in the other guy's face and rub it. Get the outrage flowing. Get the opponent not thinking about the game, get them thinking about your shenanigans. And what happens? The “victimized” team loses its composure, hitting back. The guy who hits second is always the guy who goes to the penalty box.

Watching Sarah Palin this week, and the reaction to her by both sides, and all the talk of hockey mommery, I realized that this is who she is. She skates into the corner, throws up an elbow, and the Democrats cry: “Foul!” Hey! She said Obama has never passed a major bill – this is an objective lie! Hey! She ridiculed community organizing the day after Service was the theme! Technically people should punish her by not voting for her over this infraction!

It’s whining, and whiners hit back second and go to the penalty box on top of it.

Sarah Palin is a person who by her own admission found out about the Iraq surge – the centerpiece of the McCain judgment argument – from television. Apologies to conservatives, but technically, objectively, inarguably, this alone makes her unqualified to be President. But we don’t live in that technical or objective world. Political campaigns – as distinct from policy and governance – are the NHL playoffs. It’s only about who survives the war of attrition to the finish line first. Is Brett Hull’s skate still in Dominik Hasek’s crease and was that same situation disallowed in every previous instance throughout that season? Yes, but so what? Dallas had a parade.

In the hockey analogy, Palin wouldn’t get within a thousand miles of an NHL All-Star Game because she’s not a scoring talent. She’s a role player, an emotion-rouser. Emotion messes with the chalkboard-drawn game plan and thus achieves a specific strategic objective. She can make game-changing agitation plays that rouse her home team and provoke the other side into counterattacks that – 100% of the time – end up punishing the team who hits back. Democrats would be smart to understand her as such, and I see a lot of reaction that doesn't seem to grasp what Palin is doing and the value she's providing. I see a lot of Democrats taking a lot of bait.

This applies more to Democratic surrogates than it does to the top-ticket duo. Joe Biden had the smart response yesterday – naming the behavior – expecting it, and then riding through without taking the bait:

“It was about how well placed -- and boy she is good -- how a left jab can be stuck pretty nice. It’s about how Barack Obama is such a bad guy.”

And that’s all he says of Palin’s antics. Name the behavior, even praising the skill with which the agitation was attempted, and then back to focus. It's "the economy, stupid."

Finally – is the analogy complete? In the end a great hockey agitator who rouses both sides emotionally (and successfully gets the other team to lose focus) still needs the home team scoring talent to come through. Successful agitator Kris Draper of the Detroit Red Wings had the clutch Steve Yzerman for a lot of years. That worked. Detroit won Cups. They had parades.

Successful agitator Tyson Nash, when he was on my Blues, was stuck with the antithesis of playoff clutch, the easily thrown-off-his-game Keith Tkachuk. That didn’t work. No Cup. Even if Palin is successful in her task of agitation and distraction, which one is John McCain?

There's More...

Contract Post

Today's Polls, 9/6

Although the topline results don't make it obvious, it appears that John McCain had a fairly strong night of polling in the daily tracking polls, which are the only numbers we have to look at today.

The Gallup tracker now shows Barack Obama leading by 2 points, down from 4 a day ago. When I attempt to estimate the daily results from the topline numbers, however, I get the following:

Wednesday: Obama +7.8
Thursday: Obama +2.4
Friday: McCain +4.2

So Obama's numbers are being propped up by a strong night of polling on Wednesday, which will cycle out tomorrow. He also held up relatively well on Thursday following Sarah Palin's speech (note: our estimate of his Thursday numbers has been revised slightly upward from yesterday's figures because of a methodological improvement I made to my tracking poll algorithm). But yesterday, McCain had a good night, most likely leading by somewhere in the range of 4 points. There is a good chance that tomorrow's Gallup numbers will show a tie or a McCain lead.

As for Rasmussen , it actually has Barack Obama gaining a point, and moving into a 3-point lead. However, it still looks like McCain may have had a relatively good night on Friday. My tracking poll algorithm will have more difficulty with the Rasmussen tracker than the Gallup tracker because Rasmussen uses a more complicated weighting procedure (i.e. weighting by party ID), meaning that we're a step further away from seeing "raw" numbers. But with grain of salt, here is what I show:

Wednesday: Obama +4.9
Thursday: Obama +3.8
Friday: Obama +0.3

Once again, I would caution against overinterpreting any of this. Conventions should produce bounces -- they are the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars in free advertising time. What we don't know is how to contextualize these bounces. An average convention bounce is about 6 points, but we don't know how the Democratic and Republican conventions interact with one another, particularly as it affects the timing of the respective bounces. Moreover, Fridays (and Saturdays) are tough nights to poll. My hunch, as I've stated before, is that whatever numbers McCain winds up with over the weekend, Barack Obama will probably be polling a couple of points ahead of those numbers by the end of the upcoming week.

There's More...

Contract Post

Wrapping Up the Conventions – What Did We Learn?

Attending two major party conventions in back-to-back weeks in this era of polarized national politics was an unbelievable experience. The most dramatic period was obviously the 12-hour span between Barack Obama’s historic MLK anniversary acceptance speech and the stunning Sarah Palin announcement. The speed with which the story changed (and then changed again with Gustav) makes Obama’s speech seem already faded into sepia.

This underscores how fast modern news cycles occur, particularly as in politics where each campaign employs teams of people whose job is to change the story when it’s not going the candidate’s way. For all the drama it generated back in March, Jeremiah Wright feels like so long ago that it might as well have happened in the 1988 election. Even the text message VP announcement story of two weeks ago seems ancient. Both conventions will seem antiquated by the first debate, September 30 26 in Mississippi. In turn, that first debate and its inevitable mini-gaffes, factual untruths and campaign spin will already be old news by the final week of the election.

So what does that leave? It leaves the macro elements – partisan ID-hood, base consolidation, evangelical, Latino and African-American turnout and the percentages they split. The organizing work each campaign puts into first identifying, registering and then herding supporters toward the polls. These are bigger than any series of moment-by-moment tempests.

There was a dramatic difference in the mood of each city – Denver and St. Paul. Denver was joyful, energized and loose, with bustling sidewalks and open parties running late into the night. St. Paul was tense, heavily defended, and featured privately cloistered gatherings, sparsely populated streets (the downtown businesses and especially the hapless cabbies took a bath) and really had only one emotional peak causing the feeling on the streets to come alive – Sarah Palin’s speech.

To be fair, St. Paul’s tone suffered from a very weird opening when Gustav essentially canceled an entire day, leaving convention-goers and news media alike uncertain where the week was headed. Unlike free-mingling, free-wheeling Denver, St. Paul saw delegates, lobbyists and journalists sequestered within a few quiet city blocks by phalanxes of riot-geared police.

Overall, the major story of the two weeks was Palin. She was the star here. To a person, Republicans in St. Paul told me how much more excited they were to hear Palin than McCain. It wouldn’t have seemed possible before, but after weeks of attacks on Obama-as-inexperienced celebrity, Republicans now rally behind a charismatic insta-icon with far less experience. By being the new flavor, Palin actually lends Obama weight. After months of well-settled storyline in the cable news surrogate wars, it’s strange to see the camps switch accusations – now Democrats accuse Republicans of having the inexperienced celebrity who inspires a cult of personality. The big winners there: The Daily Show and Stephen T. Colbert.

Now we’ll have a base v. base election, and probably an election on personality, which both sides feel they can win. This is on balance a better deal for Republicans, because an issues election in a high wrong-track year is always bad news for the incumbents. Though Dems did so in Denver, Republicans didn’t talk about the economy during their convention in any fresh way. Day 1’s theme: “the Nobility of Service;” Day 2’s theme: “Mocking Service/A Star is Born;” Day 3: “Vouching for John McCain.”

Republicans came to celebrate their new icon, and to pick fights with the media over coverage. The media covering the media’s coverage of itself is irresistible media fodder, and always a good time-filler in a 24/7 news cycle, and it will certainly crowd out Democrats trying to capitalize on public dissatisfaction with the economy.

So, what else did we learn? In no particular order:

We learned Joe Biden really, really feels reborn.



We learned that everything about Sarah Palin is catnip for partisans on each side. No matter what comes out about Palin, it will only entrench the enthusiasm for her among the base all the more.



We learned that Sarah Palin is a great Obama fundraiser.

We learned that Democrats still have issues with dropping "the effing balloons!”

We learned that Republicans still can’t figure out how to put John McCain in front of a non-lime-green background.



We learned that Newt Gingrich is available for any old schmoe, but Mitt Romney will hustle like a swivel-hipped Olympic sprint-walker to get away.

We learned that no matter how high the bar you set for Barack Obama in the Big Speech format, he can beat expectations.



And finally, Invesco Field, Section FiveThirtyEight (seriously):



The conventions are over. The campaign is finally fully underway. Strap in and enjoy the ride.

There's More...

Contract Post

Today's Polls, 9/5

You can all stop hyperventilating now.

After yesterday's polls showed little sign of Republican momentum, today's polls -- which incorporate reaction to Sarah Palin's speech for the first time -- now show some bounce toward John McCain. You can fill out basically every square in the 'B' column of your bingo card with the national polls today: CBS now shows a tie; Rasmussen shows the race tightening to 2 points (down from 5 yesterday); the Economist shows it at 3 points, Gallup at 4 (down from 7), Democracy Corps at 5, and the brand-new, Diageo-Hotline tracking poll at 6.

I would not worry too much about any one of these individual results. The CBS poll, for instance, which had shown Obama 8 points ahead over the weekend, had a fairly small sample size and a fairly massive shift in party ID, as can sometimes happen when you're ringing people up while the convention is on the tube. That doesn't mean that its tied result is "wrong" any more than its 8-pointer for Obama is "right" (polls conducted over the weekend have their own problems). But it does mean that there's probably some noise in there, rather than true movement (especially since this poll was conducted before the Palin speech).

Clearly, however, there has been some movement back toward McCain-Palin; it's just a question of magnitude. From what best I can tell (and this is not an exact science) the one-night results from yesterday's tracking polls showed something like a 1-2 point Obama lead. If -- and this is a big if -- that is the extent of the GOP bounce, this is a somewhat underwhelming result for them. Last night and tonight should be among the best individual nights of polling that the Republicans see all year. If the best they can do is close the race to a tie, or an Obama +1 on those nights, they are not going to win the race based on inertia alone.

What they need, rather, is actual momentum: enthusiasm, buzz, media cycles won, new narratives entrenched. And they might get it -- Republican spirits certainly seem to be lifted, and McCain and Palin gave a terrific, energetic performance in Wisconsin today. On the other hand, I think they may be making a major mistake if they follow through on plans to take Palin off the campaign trail. She is their narrative, buzz, momentum at this point.

A couple of state polls are out today too. Alaska certainly no longer seems to be in play, as Ivan Moore shows McCain-Palin opening up a 19-point lead, and Ted Stevens getting some coattails in his senate race as well. In Indiana, on the other hand, Howey-Gauge shows just a 2-point lead for McCain, suggesting that it still has some potential as a swing state.

There's More...

Contract Post

Palin, Biden Less Popular than Cheney

How popular is Sarah Palin? So popular that she's almost as well regarded as the original baller, Dick Cheney, at the time he was rolled out as the Republican VP nominee in 2000.

There are three fresh favorability polls on Sarah Palin that were conducted in whole or on part since her speech to the Republican Convention on Wednesday. These are from Rasmussen, ABC News and Diageo/Hotline, respectively. On average between these three polls, Palin is regarded favorably by 50.3 percent of voters, and unfavorably by 33.0 percent of voters, for a net score of +17.3:

Palin (2008)

Poll        Date     Fav    Unfav
========================================
Rasmussen  9/4/08     58       37   (+21)
ABC News   9/4/08     50       37   (+13)
Hotline    9/4/08     43       25   (+18)
==========================================
AVERAGE             50.3     33.0  (+17.3)

In the abstract, these are not bad numbers. In fact, as Scott Rasmussen points out, they compare favorably to the numbers Barack Obama and John McCain have compiled for most of the election cycle -- and Obama and McCain are relatively popular by the standards of Presidential candidates.

By the benchmark of other VP candidates, however, Palin's favorability ratings are relatively poor.

Here, for instance, from PollingReport.com, is a compilation of favorability ratings for Dick Cheney at the time of the Republican Convention in 2000:

Cheney (2000)

Poll      Date      Fav      Unfav
========================================
NBC/WSJ   8/3/00     46       17   (+29)
Fox      8/10/00     53       17   (+36)
Gallup    8/5/00     44       22   (+22)
Time/CNN 8/??/00     43       18   (+25)
=======================================
AVERAGE            46.5     18.5   (+28.0)

Cheney's favorables weren't quite as high as Palin's, but his unfavorables were only about half as much, giving him a net score of +28, easily bettering Palin's numbers. How about Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Joe Lieberman? Again, let's take a complication of polls from around the time of his respective party convention:

Lieberman (2000)

Poll        Date     Fav    Unfav
========================================
Gallup    8/19/00     55       13   (+42)
Fox       8/10/00     48       10   (+38)
NBC/WSJ   8/??/00     40       11   (+29)
CNN       8/10/00     37       14   (+23)
=========================================
AVERAGE             45.0     12.0  (+33.0)

As with Cheney, Lieberman's favorability scores weren't quite as high as Palin's, but almost nobody disliked Joe Lieberman (my, how times have changed), giving him a substantially better net score.

As we move forward to 2004, Dick Cheney's ratings had tanked -- he polled at about a 40/45 in most surveys four years ago -- but John Edwards' numbers were relatively strong compared to Palin's:

Edwards (2004)

Poll        Date     Fav    Unfav
========================================
Gallup    8/1/04      59       27   (+22)
CBS       8/1/04      35       18   (+17)
Pew       8/8/04      58       24   (+34)
Newsweek  7/30/04     52       28   (+24)
Time      8/5/04      48       20   (+28)
Annenberg 8/5/04      44       27   (+17)
Fox       8/4/04      51       28   (+23)
=========================================
AVERAGE              49.6    24.6  (+25.0)

Lest Democrats get too giddy about this, Joe Biden's ratings aren't any better than Palin's -- and worse than those of other recent VP nominees:

Biden (2008)

Poll        Date     Fav    Unfav
========================================
Rasmussen 8/23/08     48       34   (+14)
ABC News   9/4/08     54       30   (+24)
Hotline    9/4/08     42       29   (+13)
==========================================
AVERAGE             48.0     31.0  (+17.0)

Why have these past VP candidates gotten such strong favorability scores? It stems from the do-no-harm rule. The conventional wisdom is that a VP pick is more likely to be a reason to vote against a candidate than a reason to vote for him, making it unusual to select one who will trigger the strong reactions that Palin or Biden do.

Palin is probably an exception to that rule in both directions. I think she will turn out votes for John McCain. The impressive number is not so much her favorable ratings but the proportion of those that are strong favorables: 40 percent of Rasmussen's respondents, and 33 percent of ABC's, said they had a strongly favorable view of Palin. This is unusual for a VP nominee.

But, Palin will also lose votes for McCain -- and it's not clear that the losses won't outweigh the gains. Remember, favorability ratings should play into the strengths of a politician like Sarah Palin, who is charming and telegenic. But liking someone is not the same thing as wanting to vote for them; I have a very favorable view of my friend Eric, but wouldn't want his fingers anywhere near the nuclear trigger. And on preparedness measures, Palin polls unusually poorly: by a 42-50 margin (-8), voters in the ABC poll did not think she has the right experience to serve effectively as President; Biden's rating is 66-21 (+43).

There's More...

Contract Post

Crackin' a Trackin' Poll

There seems to be an unusually strong reaction in the trading markets this morning, with John McCain's stock at Intrade having gained 5 points, moving up to 44.7 percent. There are a number of reasons that trading markets can move, but I don't think it is warranted in reaction to the Rasmussen tracking poll alone, which today showed Barack Obama's lead diminishing from 5 points to 2.

The reason is that, as many of my commentators have pointed out, the movement was in part the result of a very good Obama night of interviews cycling out of the three-day rolling average. A while ago, I developed an algorithm for trying to extract the daily results for tracking polls from the rolling averages. I'll describe this methodology at more length when we have a bit more time to work with -- this is a slightly more difficult problem than it seems at first glance, and by no means is the method foolproof. But here is its best estimate of the results from individual nights' interviews in the Rasmussen tracking poll going back to Saturday the 22nd, when Joe Biden was officially rolled out as Barack Obama's VP:



Note that Monday night -- when Gustav dominated the news and the disclosure of Bristol Palin's pregnancy had broken -- was a very good night of polling for Obama, something which could easily enough be inferred because he moved up by 3 points in the rolling average that day. The algorithm estimates that the polling that day was Obama +11. But that day cycled out of the three-day rolling average today, meaning that Obama was liable to lose ground unless he had another equally huge night.

Our best estimate of the result from last night -- the first night in which voters had a chance to react to Sarah Palin's speech -- was Obama +2 (actually, Obama +1.7). That's down from his results for most of the past week or so, but not really that bad after what was supposed to be a huge emotional crescendo for the GOP.

Remember, moreover, as I've said many times, that a bounce is usually just a bounce -- meaning that it is something ephemeral which will fade fairly quickly. While the effects of various sorts of news events are difficult to disentangle from one another, I would guess that if McCain can't close to at least a rough tie in the tracking polls over the weekend, we will most likely see Obama a couple of points ahead by a week from today, once the race has a chance to stabilize a little bit.

EDIT: The Gallup numbers (now at Obama +4 for the three-day average) tell a similar story ... we show the Thursday result as Obama +1 (more precisely, Obama +1.4):



EDIT #2: There's also a discussion in the comments about Rasmussen's party ID weightings, which are adjusted on a monthly basis. If I attempt to retrospectively adjust the July and August results to reflect Rasmussen's present party ID targets, I wind up with an estimate of Obama +3, rather than Obama +2, for yesterday's interviews. The issue of weighting in general adds uncertainty to this process, however, as I don't know exactly when and how Rasmussen implements their party ID targets each month.

There's More...

Contract Post

Post-Convention Six-Pack

1. No, You First. Did the Republicans benefit from having the last convention? It's not like their convention was responsive, substance-wise, to much of what the Democrats had to say. But, had the Democrats gone last, they would probably have had an easier time undercutting what the Republicans had to say, highlighting the lack of real policy meat (especially on the economy) and the lack of real differentiation from Bush. These things were already the core messages of the Democratic Convention, but had Democrats had the last word, they might have had even more resonance.

Moreover, it would be easier for the Democrats to deflate the Sarah Palin balloon had they gone last. Of course, if the Democrats had gone last, the McCain campaign might never have seen those internal polls that made them panic, and might have made a more conventional VP selection like Tim Pawlenty.

2. My Frenemies? A notable facet of McCain's speech tonight was that he seemed to be fighting the Xcel Center crowd -- and not just the imbecilic Code Pink protestors. The crowd simply wasn't giving him much love when he wasn't talking about the three P's -- Palin, Petroleum, and POW. That led to a fairly dreadful stretch of ten or fifteen minutes as he tried to rebut the Democrats on the economy, which in turn reduced the energy level and deprived Mark Salter's conclusion of some of its thunder. I don't know anything about the Republicans' delegate selection process, but it might do them some good to ensure a bit more intraparty ideological diversity. One certainly gets the sense, by the way, that there would have been very tangible risks to McCain in selecting a VP like Joe Lieberman.



3. In Which I Agree With Larry Kudlow. "In St. Paul ... There has been no reference to the populist revolt against high gas prices at the pump," Kudlow says, and he's right. As I argued last month, gas prices were the one economic issue on which the Republicans could strike a populist tone while maintaining a straight face, by pushing the issues of offshore drilling and the gas tax suspension. We heard plenty about drilling (though very little about the gas tax) -- but the populist framing was gone. Instead, it was drilling for drilling's sake, annunciated rather vulgarly with the "drill, baby, drill" refrain. That might work well enough for people like -- well, Larry Kudlow -- but the Republicans probably forsook some ground with Middle America on this issue.

4. Two-for-One? Overall, I think that the Republicans accomplished one major objective with their convention: uniting their base. But the Democrats, I would argue, accomplished two major objectives: uniting their base by bringing home the Hillary supporters, and finally hitting their stride on domestic policy with keep-it-simple-stupid, 1992-style messaging on the economy. It is possible that the Republicans' one big win will outweigh the Democrats' two. But they've essentially chosen to concede the domestic policy argument -- which is exceptionally dangerous because the last major event of the campaign is the October 15 debate at Hofstra University, a debate which is focused entirely on domestic policy.

5. Win, Baby, Win? Did anyone else get the sense that, when McCain said "Let there be no doubt my friends, we're going to win this election" -- he really seemed to believe it? Whatever else Sarah Palin has done, she certainly seems to have boosted McCain's morale.

6. Schrödinger's Catharsis. Sometime it's what isn't said that is most important -- and what McCain didn't do is to have a cathartic moment in which he called out George W. Bush. For example, imagine a line like:

"Make no mistake, my friends. This Administration was wrong in its response to Hurricane Katrina."

A simple, relatively innocuous statement like this would have made for an excellent soundbyte (even if it were proceeded by something like "...and I made sure we'd get it right with Hurricane Gustav.")

Of course, McCain could have upped the difficulty -- and the potential payoff -- by replacing "Hurricane Katrina" with something like "climate change" or "torture". But a single line like this would have had a lot of rhetorical force. McCain wasn't willing to take that risk. As it stands, I don't really understand the talking point that McCain distanced himself from Bush.

There's More...

Contract Post

St. Paul: Thursday Night Liveblog #2: John McCain

10:26 CDT: [Sean] All right, let’s face it. The energy among the Republican partisans is bashing Obama. This is the Nobama convention. Sarah Palin was a “home run” among the St. Paul partisans because she went for it against Obama. And that was smart – she doesn’t have anything to really say about herself beyond hockey mom, short-term governor-of-Alaska, so bashing Obama was wise as both a distraction tool and revving up the base.

But for McCain, the task was different. He had to sell himself to independents, which perhaps he did – we shall see. But by nature, that meant his speech was directed outside of St. Paul, which explains why Nate noted McCain’s final stretch run was working against rather than with the applause. It wasn’t for these people here in Minnesota. I’ll recap some later after I gauge more reaction on the scene, but this is by definition a delayed verdict.

10:21 CDT: [Nate] I think that wasn't all that far from being a really great speech. It certainly spoke to the right audience. But, it was undermined to a certain extent by the various sorts of technical glitches. And it lost a lot of momentum when he started talking about the economy -- which, of course, is exactly what a lot of people were admonishing him to do. I think they'll be reasonably happy with it, but also wish that they'd sent it through one more draft and trimmed about five minutes, and rehearsed it one more time.

10:10 CDT: [Sean] At least you have to appreciate the nod to Indiana with the once-again reversion to the Hoosiers theme. If Obama played "Remember the Titans," an impossibly craptacular Disney cliched horrorshow, you have to hand the music to McCain at the end. I do find it ironic they're playing Heart's "Barracuda," given that insiders now know "Sarah Barracuda" was apparently Palin's nickname.

10:06 CDT: [Nate] A strong finish, although he seemed to be fighting through the applause rather than milking it.

9:59 CDT: [Sean] This is not the overarching theme speech I think he needed to hit the independents. McCain is coming across as a sincere guy. But running against Worshington is hard for a guy who’s been there 26 years. This isn’t his best forum – he’s far better in the town hall format that we’ll see in Debate #2. You have to grade McCain against a curve. For Big Speech format, this feels like a perfunctory performance. But those who like Big Speeches have presumably already gravitated toward Obama. I confess I don’t know how this plays among the home team here in St. Paul (more later), though I don’t feel the same wow-factor that Palin’s speech gave these partisans. Prime time ending.

9:57 CDT: [Nate] A couple of the big applause lines and emotional moments were maybe saved for too late in the speech. He can get the Xcel center crowd back, but we'll see about living rooms.

9:52 CDT: [Nate] If the Democratic Convention felt like 1992 all over again, this feels like 1972 all over again.

9:49 CDT: [Nate] The slow pacing and teleprompter errors are starting to get the better of him.

9:43 CDT: [Nate] I don't think this sort of tokenist populism is making the sale.

9:39 CDT: [Nate] Generally, a well-planned and well-executed speech so far, although in the past few minutes he's reverted to being Generic Republican.

9:27 CDT: [Sean] Wow, the protestors are dumb. Way to achieve the opposite of what you intended – making McCain a sympathetic figure. It’s a gift – handing McCain a “bigger than it all” moment.

9:23 CDT: [Nate] Yep, it looks like he's definitely in "good cop" mode tonight. Straight up the fairway so far in terms of people's expectations.

9:21 CDT: [Sean] Sort of a Predator vibe going on.

9:20 CDT: [Nate] Lawn green, not lime green. Totally different thing.

9:17 CDT: [Sean] You've got to be kidding me. The background is lime-green.

9:17 CDT: [Nate] Congratulations to Senator McCain. The only guy they could have nominated that might have a shot of winning this thing.

9:16 CDT: [Sean] Zing! Nice, Nate!

9:15 CDT: [Nate] I thought we lost you at the Captain's Corner.

9:11 CDT: [Sean] John McCain is about to accept the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

There's More...

Contract Post

St. Paul: Thursday Night Liveblog #1

9:09 CDT: [Nate]. I think McCain's goals tonight are fairly obvious. To hit a double, reach out to the center. To hit a triple, find some way to distinguish himself from Bush. And to hit a home run, do all of the above with more specificity about the economy than "drill, baby, drill!".

8:58 CDT: [Nate]. Just kind of a slow, somber night, but obviously, that's sort of the mood they're going for. I don't think it's a bad idea to choke up on the bat a little after Palin.

8:53 CDT: [Nate] I think the more interesting story is that Obama has unleashed Clinton to go after Palin. By the way, there's just not much to say about Cindy. To quite Keith Olbermann, it's the kind of thing you'll like, if you like that kind of thing.

8:39 CDT: [Sean] The Rep. Lynn Westmoreland: “Obama is uppity” story is gaining traction. You know it if it breaks through the top of Halperin during the convention.

8:29 CDT: [Sean] All right, perhaps I need to explain more fully what the Captain’s Corner is. I alluded to it the other night, but it’s basically the free upscale bar downstairs from the Press Filing Center. There are some journalists and a bunch of RNC partygoers enjoying the hospitality and large TVs. I rationalized: “I won’t miss Tom Ridge’s speech, I’ll be down in the Captain’s Corner watching. I’ll update when I get back up.”

Nope. The guys are all watching the game down there. And while the outcome is potentially in doubt, it’s unlikely the score will result in overtime. And CNN (the other TVs down there) didn’t carry Ridge’s speech. So on Ridge… sorry, everybody… I got nothin’.

8:14 CDT: [Nate] Is that a Casio Keyboard remix of the theme song from Dallas in the Sarah Palin video?

8:08 CDT: [Sean] Graham accuses Obama of offering troops “a patronizing pat on the back.” Then steals Obama’s line: “I’m not saying Barack Obama doesn’t care, Barack Obama doesn’t get it.”

8:05 CDT: [Sean] Lindsey Graham: “Thank God for Joe Lieberman.”

8:03 CDT: [Sean] Lindsey Graham is up, and he is back on the full Obama attack. “Obama and his buddies at MoveOn.org.”

7:57 CDT: [Sean] That is either the sound of the unabridged John Fogarty "Centerfield" song and delegate dancing you hear, or, alternatively, the sound of Tim Pawlenty cursing out the convention schedulers for giving him three and half minutes. Now we have Kenny Loggins' "Highway to the Danger Zone" going.

7:51 CDT: [Sean] This is high performance art. I am not sure if Joe Gibbs knows where he is. This is not a speech about politics. This is a Joe Gibbs-about-Joe Gibbs speech. Imagine being sent to sports-cliche hell, and add 100 mentions of God, that's the speech.

7:50 CDT: [Nate] Proving that truth is stranger than our bad jokes, McCain will literally accept the nomination at 9:11 central tonight.

7:49 CDT: [Sean] Please, God, someone put this Gibbs speech up on YouTube.

7:42 CDT: [Sean] Video in the hall is somber 9/11 montage.

7:36 CDT: [Nate] Gallup has the score Giants 20, Redskins 6. Rasmussen has them ahead 14-7. But Zogby Interactive has it Redskins 11, Giants 5.

7:32 CDT: [Sean] "Footloose! Footloose! Kick off your Sunday shoes!" They raced through five speeches at breakneck speed in order to play "Footloose" for three minutes and show delegates dancing in the aisles.

7:27 CDT: [Sean] Whiplash continues. Up and down, up and down. Sam Brownback is up, and there was a whole speech (Lt. Gen. Carol Mutter, Ret.) in between. (Sorry about the score posting, I forgot about spoilers. That was an early score, and already more stuff has happened. My apologies.) Brownback tries the Clinton line: "Yes! We! Will!" It's about equally effective.

7:19 CDT: [Sean] Frist already up and done. This is fast. It's all about McCain and vouching for his character, not much Obama-bashing. Not sure if they're saving it for prime time, but I'm not hearing much of last night's mockery.

7:15 CDT: [Sean] I am going to try to convince Nate to post his roster(s) in the comments and I'll post mine. In actual RNC news, they are sprinting through the speeches, seemingly determined to get to the McCain speech on time with no cramping. Pawlenty had a brief speech, sounded safe, bread and butter. Nate says it wasn't on the nets, but we have the C-Span feed in the Xcel Press Filing Center. Pawlenty would not have been the risky pick. McCain definitely shook up the race when he opted not to do the predictable.

7:13 CDT: [Nate] Burress already has 5 catches for 84 yards but can't seem to find the end zone. Wait, this is a politics forum?

7:03 CDT: [Sean] Martinez speaking. People at the poker table used to ask me who I thought McCain should pick as a VP. I would typically reply, if there were a Latino Republican who isn't Mel Martinez, that's the way to go. If McCain gets crushed in the Latino vote, it's a macro demographic death knell.

7:00 CDT: [Sean] Welcome to our final live night coverage of the Republican National Convention from here in St. Paul! Are you ready for some footb Senators? Tonight’s featured speakers include Joe Watkins (speaking now), Mel Martinez, "Sarah Pawlenty’s" husband Tim, Bill Frist, San Brownback, Joe Gibbs, Lindsey Graham, Tom Ridge, Cindy McCain, and the nominee himself. The intro video of Sarah Palin that Rudy’s 30-minute primetime speech bumped last night is re-scheduled between Graham and Ridge in the 8pm Central hour. Finally, our long national nightmare is finally over, as the tyranny of a baseball-only summer ends. 2d quarter score: NYG 13, Washington 0. By the way, 538 Nation, we’re rooting against Plaxico Burress tonight. This 84 yard stuff early in the 2d is not cool. Not cool at all.

There's More...

Contract Post

SurveyUSA: Palin's Speech Comparable to Obama's

Well, we finally have what I would consider to be some fairly definitive polling on Sarah Palin's speech last night, and it would tend to support the consensus view (which I had tended to dissent from) that she did very well.

Survey USA polled 1061 voters who watched Palin's speech and asked them to grade it from A to F. 60 percent gave it an "A" and her average GPA was 3.1. Among Republicans, her GPA was 3.7, among independents it was 3.0, and among Democrats it was 2.2.

SurveyUSA did not conduct a national poll on Obama's convention speech but they did collect numbers in two important swing areas: Tampa-St. Petersburg and Columbus, Ohio. The numbers were literally almost identical both to one another and to Palin's speech. Obama got a 3.1 GPA overall in Columbus and a 3.0 overall in Tampa. In each region, he polled at a 3.6 among Democrats, a 3.0 among independents, and a 2.2 among Republicans -- the mirror image of Palin's numbers.

I would still make a distinction between a near-term emotional high and the longer-term persuasive ability of the speech, which means we'll want to wait a week or so before we take any numbers too seriously. But certainly, the smart money is on McCain-Palin getting a bump in the polls tomorrow.

There's More...

Contract Post

All Your Base Are Belong to Her

As Nate and I wrote late last night, Sarah Palin's speech released a tremendous burst of energy on each side. Democrats were angry. How angry? $10 million for Barack Obama from Palin's speech until the time McCain takes the stage tonight. Undoubtedly, we will soon see numbers from the McCain camp announcing high fundraising figures. She energized both bases.

As much as Palin fired up and got everyone on both sides ready to go, there is a heart-mind conflict we mentioned yesterday. Emotionally, the Republican base says: Yes! Give us more of this so we can work our guts out for you. Analytically, the Republican insiders know: In 2008, swing voters are the key to winning. While last night must have felt wonderful, I'd be soberly waking up worried about some of these independent focus groups like this one in Michigan and this one of former Clinton supporters in Nevada are saying about Palin's speech.

Therefore, what we should carefully watch for tonight is the tenor of McCain's speech. He's got to reach for independents, and to do that he's got to sound like he's full of practical solutions. Hitting Obama a few times will be expected, but if it's not a broadly-articulated vision of where the country needs to go, the race will continue to be "Obama" vs. "Nobama." (The latter being a big bumper sticker hit here in St. Paul). Obama vs. Nobama is a race McCain will lose, much the way Bush vs. Not Bush turned out in 2004.

24 hours is a lifetime in politics (during a convention especially), and as much as the Palin speech story dominated the mood last night and today, this time tomorrow it will seem like a fast-fading memory. Consider: the Reverend Wright controversy that felt huge as it unfolded now feels as if it occurred eight lifetimes ago. By the time we reach the debates in a few weeks these conventions will be historical footnotes. That's the way it works, and it's one reason Obama's approach has been to let these temporary buzzes slide off - Jay-Z style - while staying focused on the larger strategy.

EDIT: More Palin links for your browsing pleasure [--Nate]

Nearly as many people watched Palin last night as watched Obama last Thursday.

But some of those people were Obama supporters -- and they're donating to their candidate in large amounts.

A Media Curves analysis found voters' perceptions of the McCain-Palin ticket improving significantly after watching her speech.

But focus groups in Nevada and Michigan were less impressed.

Rasmussen's voters think Obama is more qualified than Palin -- but not by an especially wide margin.

And SurveyUSA's voters like Palin -- but aren't as sure she reflects well on McCain's judgment.

There's More...

Contract Post

Today's Polls, 9/4

It's the final day of the Republican Convention, and the polls have not moved an inch in John McCain's direction. Time for conservatives to get nervous? Probably not yet.

True, Barack Obama held steady in the Rasmuseen tracker, which reads 50-45 Obama today, just as it did yesterday. And Obama actually picked up a point in the Gallup tracker (more precisely, McCain lost a point), bringing his lead to 7 points.

These are three day tracking polls, however, and so all that's happened so far is that one-third of the interviews will reflect one-third of the convention speeches. That's Tuesday night, when Fred Thompson delivered a rousing speech and Joe Lieberman delivered a soporific one. But almost none of these interviews will reflect Sarah Palin's speech, which was delivered too late in the evening to register.

If the polls don't move by tomorrow, then it's time for the Republicans to get a little nervous. If they don't move by Saturday, then it's time for them to get a lot nervous. But most likely they will move.

Then again, post the Palin selection, Gallup already had John McCain winning the Republican vote by something like a 90-7 margin. It's hard to do a lot better than that; Bush won the Republican vote 93-6 in 2004. So if this was a convention designed to appeal to the base, and the base had already gotten behind McCain, it's possible that there isn't that much ground to make up. Conceived of a bit differently, perhaps the Palin bounce was effectively the GOP's convention bounce, and made what was actually a fairly large convention bounce for Obama look like an average-sized bounce. I'm not necessarily saying this is the case -- Palin drew massive ratings last night and usually there is some sort of bump based on emotion alone. But it is the one thing that would make me a little bit worried if I were a Republican.

We also have a couple of state polls to look at today. CNN has three polls out: Obama leads by 14 points in Minnesota, 13 points in Iowa, and 1 point in Ohio. (Note: we use the version of the polls with third-party candidates included. Without third-party candidates, Obama's leads are 13, 15, and 2 points respectively in the three states listed above). I've never been sold on either Minnesota or Iowa being particularly competitive, so seeing double-digit numbers like this doesn't surprise me at the height of Obama's convention bump. However, I think you can argue that this is actually a pretty decent result for McCain in Ohio, as it appears to be running a couple of points behind Obama's national standing at this moment in time.

In North Carolina, meanwhile, a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll for Democracy Corps has John McCain ahead by 3 points -- about the same margin he's held in nearly all polls of North Carolina -- but this survey was in the field a couple of weeks ago, before the conventions or VP selections. GQR has a pretty good reputation and I hope they'll indulge us with more state polling, but this isn't a particularly meaningful data point.

There are also partisan polls out in Alaska (showing McCain with a large lead) and North Dakota (showing Obama with a small one) but being partisan polls, we don't list them; Pollster.com is our recommended destination for an all-inclusive approach. And look for new numbers in Indiana coming out from Howey Politics tonight.

UPDATE: Came in too late to make our simulation run today, but a new CBS poll shows the race drawing to a tie -- down from an 8-point lead for Obama over the weekend. Much better news for McCain, certianly.

There's More...

Contract Post

The Next Next President

Here's a fun little question to keep you busy until we get the polling thread up. Which living person, apart from John McCain and Barack Obama, is most likely to eventually become President of the United States? Is Sarah Palin third in this line of pseudo-succession?

There's More...

Contract Post

Cognitive Dissonance

Virtually all of the conservative commentariat, and a greater-than-would-care-to-admit-it share of the liberal commentariat think that Sarah Palin hit a home run tonight. I guess I'm just going to have to stick my neck out (along with Josh Marshall) and disagree.

You can tar-and-feather me with this later if I'm wrong. I will make this disclaimer: I'm not necessarily offering a prediction about how the polls are going to move over the next several days. Almost all conventions produce bounces, and this one probably will too (though whether it comes from Palin's speech rather than McCain's, or Fred Thompson's or Rudy Giuliani's, we probably won't be able to tell). But I don't think the speech will be effective beyond the very near term (the next 3-7 days) at moving votes in McCain's direction, if it moves them at all. And here's why:

I think some of you are underestimating the percentage of voters for whom Sarah Palin lacks the standing to make this critique of Barack Obama. To many voters, she is either entirely unknown, or is known as an US Weekly caricature of a woman who eats mooseburgers and has a pregnant daughter. To change someone's opinion, you have to do one of two things. Either, you have to be a trusted voice of authority, or you have to persuade them. Palin is not a trusted voice of authority -- she's much too new. But neither was this a persuasive speech. It was staccato, insistent, a little corny. It preached to the proverbial choir. It was also, as one of my commentors astutely noted, a speech written by a man and for a man, but delivered by a woman, which produces a certain amount of cognitive dissonance.

In exceedingly plain English, I think there's a pretty big who the fuck does she think she is? factor. And not just among us Daily Kos reading, merlot-drinking liberals. I think Palin's speech will be instinctively unappealing to other whole demographics of voters, including particuarly working-class men (among whom there may be a misogyny factor) and professional post-menopausal women. As another of my commentors put it:

Not only does Palin's inexperience trump Obama's... her "otherness" also trumps his. Where she comes from, the way she talks, her bio, lifestyle, and all the moose and caribou stuff... it makes her seem more exotic than Obama, who after all lives in the middle of America and has a life that people can readily understand.

Palin may be just as American as anybody, but she still seems to come from Somewhere Else.

This would be fine... even interesting and appealing... if she weren't attacking. But we have a deep, instinctive aversion to people who are part of us (even if we don't really like them much) being attacked by people we perceive as outsiders. Our instinct is to stiffen up, to protect.

This point may be a little bit overstated, but the fact remains that Barack Obama is extremely well known and Palin is largely unknown, and when that is the case, your perception of the known commodity is more likely to influence your perception of the unknown commodity than the other way around. If there's a certain Italian restaurant that you've been going to for years, and some stranger stops you on the street and tells you that they don't know how to cook their pasta, you're going to think that the stranger is a kook -- not that the restaurant is poor.

And not only is Barack Obama exceptionally well known, but perceptions of him are exceptionally well entrenched. In today's Rasmussen numbers, 63 percent of voters had either a very favorable or a very unfavorable perception of Obama. This is an extremely high figure. I looked up the Rasmussen numbers for other prominent politicians, and this number was the highest I could find ... actually tied with Bill Clinton for the highest:

Percentage viewing as Very Favorable
OR Very Unfavorable

Obama         63
B. Clinton    63
Gore          61
H. Clinton    60
Bush          60
Cheney        59
Pelosi        51
T. Kennedy    48
Palin         45
Kerry         45
McCain        43
Romney        38
Biden         33

This is why folks like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton (and Hillary Clinton, for that matter) are Teflon politicians. It's not that they have some magical quality that keeps them out of trouble ... it's just that a very high percentage of voters have already made up their minds one way or the other about them, and can't possibly be persuaded otherwise. With John Kerry, the swiftboating worked because voters didn't have particuarly strong feelings about him. With Obama, the Republicans spent tens of millions of dollars in an effort to brand him negatively, and moved his favorables by ... a point or two at the margins.

Ultimately, it's not that I don't think there aren't people who will find Palin's performance effective -- I just don't think there's much overlap between those people and the universe of persuadable voters.

There's More...

Contract Post

A Great Speech, For Both Bases

St. Paul delegates are giddy with Sarah Palin’s speech. The mood is buoyant, enlivened, energized. It’s a party. There are revelers. The faces shine with joy and pleasure at a convention finally fully underway. Their VP nominee did it – she hit it out of the park. There is joy in Mudville, here on the ground.

And it worked wonders – for the Dems.

In the past several hours, Dems I’ve spoken with and who’ve flooded my inbox are energized. A woman friend and Democrat who had not worked for Obama’s campaign: “I am volunteering tomorrow.” An Obama organizer who was operating on fumes five months ago: “They are not getting away with this. 10 hours of call time tomorrow.” A shorter read of the mood: “Let’s get it on.”

The mockery went too far. They played the “Obama doesn’t love America, just himself” card, over and over and over. For people already inclined to believe that (i.e., the hardcore Republican base), the speech was a smashing success. Maybe they will work a little harder, volunteer a few more hours, dig a little deeper into their pockets. But so will partisan Dems, who are far more plugged into watching the election coverage.

So my reaction: St. Paul loved this speech… and so did Chicago. Palin swung for the fences, mocking the very notion of community organizing. So did Giuliani. This was the day after “Service” was the theme, and Republicans fell all over themselves praising their party’s commitment to give back to the community. Jarring.

Fire up both bases equally, it’s not even close. Obama wins going away. In 2008, there are so many more Democrats, numerically.

So, everyone on both partisan sides has reason to celebrate tonight. Republicans can celebrate a true champion in the VP role. Dems can celebrate because the numbers don’t lie, and no energy occurs in a vacuum. Republicans can’t tie this year.

There's More...

Contract Post

Palin's Speech: Second Thoughts

The way to evaluate a speech like this is by what people are going to remember in the morning, and the only thing that people are going to remember about this speech in the morning is that she went after Obama -- a lot -- and that at times it it seemed fairly personal. It was almost kind of fun at first -- I don't think people saw it coming, and she got three or four really good lines in. But then it became too much -- sarcastic and mean-spirited. Everything else -- the outsider stuff, the family stuff, the media critique -- is going to be forgotten about. In fact, the Republicans will look like whiners if they go after the media after that speech.

I don't think the Republicans are doing as good a job as the Democrats were doing about pairing their speeches to the strengths of the speaker. It's as if they wrote seven or eight speeches, and drew lots to determine who would deliver which one. So you have Mitt Romney -- one of the wealthiest men ever to run for office -- critiquing east-coast elitism, and Mike Huckabee -- who is an economic populist in disguise -- critiquing big government, and Sarah Palin -- who voters don't know one iota about -- critiquing Barack Obama's biography.

There's More...

Contract Post

St. Paul: Wednesday Night Liveblog #4: Palin

10:24 CDT: [Sean] I think Nate is onto something. She gave a great speech for someone who would not be vulnerable to hitting back. A keynote, or frankly the Giuliani role. But after giving that speech, if she has any kind of embarrassing moment on the trail, she will be open to serious blowback. That was a Chutzpah Speech for someone with no foreign policy credentials who is fending off the Personal Scandal of the Hour. If she threads the needle and runs a gaffe-free campaign, it might work. But if her amateurism gets exposed in any way during the next few months, look out.

10:13 CDT: [Nate] Not a strikeout. Not a home run. I don't know. A double, and the runner got thrown out trying to stretch it into a triple?

10:10 CDT: [Sean] McCain onstage, ala Obama after Biden.

10:06 CDT: [Nate] This would be a terrific speech if she were still governor of Alaska and were just delivering a keynote. As a speech for a VP nominee, given all the context of the past few days, it's more complicated to evaluate.

10:05 CDT: [Nate] OK, now this is too much. They're starting to overplay their hand.

10:04 CDT: [Sean] Now past prime time. Thanks, Rudy. The attacks are sharp, they are harsh, they are certainly red meat. But what they are doing is painting Obama as someone who is a cynical self-promoter, who doesn't love his country. I was in that stadium of 84,000 people last week, and I have never seen so many American flags in my life. I think she's getting the base fired up. I don't think she's convincing the persuadables that Obama is a selfish America-hater. There are going to be a lot of smiling faces here in St. Paul in a few minutes as the crowd spills out. But I think there may be some smiling faces in Chicago too.

10:01 CDT: [Nate] I think that whole sequence of attacks against Obama was pretty well done.

9:57 CDT: [Sean] Palin plays the Obama-doesn't-want-America-to-win card.

9:57 CDT: [Nate] Why haven't they used that memoirs line before?

9:49 CDT: [Nate] We're having some server problems tonight, BTW, so sorry if we're a little slow on the uptake. That Scranton/San Francisco line worked for me a lot better than the community organizer crack. We're having some server problems tonight, BTW, so sorry if we're a little slow on the uptake.

9:48 CDT: [Sean] C-Span shows someone being forcefully escorted out by multiple police. Small town mayor mocking Obama now. Is anybody really buying that a glorified city council member is more experienced than a US Senator? The base loves it... but really? Doesn't this contemptuous tone of voice open up Palin for a catastrophic (non-sexist) Biden dismissal ala Bentsen-Quayle at the debate?

9:44 CDT: [Nate] OK, she seems more comfortable now.

9:41 CDT: [Nate] "Friend and advocate in the White House" is a good, persuadable-voters line. Otherwise, I think she may be making a mistake to start out so heavy on biography.

9:35 CDT: [Sean] The RNC schedule had a Palin video tribute planned, but Rudy was too busy enjoying his 30-minute prime time speech. They scrapped the video.

9:32 CDT: [Nate] The crowd couldn't love her any more, but for the television audiences, I think she looked a tiny bit lost out there on that huge stage without any sort of build-up.

9:32 CDT: [Sean] 2d American woman accepts nomination of major party for Vice President of the United States.

9:30 CDT: [Sean] Here's the Big Moment.

There's More...

Contract Post

St. Paul: Wednesday Night Liveblog #3: Rudy

9:11 CDT: [Sean] Rudy: "... And I accept your nomination to be the Republican candidate for President of the United States!"

9:11 CDT: [Sean] Palin's going to have to sprint through this speech to finish in prime time. "More executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket combined." Doesn't pass the laugh test.

9:11 CDT: [Sean] Public financing. Rudy's emptying the chamber tonight. Flip-flopping? This is where they want to go? The crowd loves the attack. Here comes Rudy saying Obama wants to win an election rather than winning a war.

9:11 CDT: [Nate] ...and a very sarcastic line about Hillary. They're really speaking to the base tonight. Still, I think this is the best speech of the night so far.

9:11 CDT: [Sean] Rudy actually speaking at 9:11 local time. C-Span finds the two black audience members wildly cheering the Obama resume slamming. This is a harsh attack. Nate's right. You can't claim victimhood and put this out there. The delegates are eating it up, loving the red-meat savaging of Obama (by far the most direct assault of the convention), but I don't think it works right before the Sarah Palin speech.

9:11 CDT: [Sean] Open contemptuous mocking of community organizing. Wow, terrible read of the national mood.

9:11 CDT: [Sean] "Hollywood celebrities?" Hey, I remember the 1988 election too.

9:11 CDT: [Sean] We'll be changing the thread timing in a few minutes when it catches up.

There's More...

Contract Post

St. Paul: Wednesday Night Liveblog #2: Romney & Huck

9:02 CDT: [Nate] If Palin actually uses that "Alaska is a BIG state" line, I'm going down to the Beachwood Inn and buying everyone a shot of Crown Royal.

9:02 CDT: [Sean] I felt badly for Pat Buchanan last night. The St. Paul night air was chilly. Rachel Maddow and Michelle Bernard had blankets, but Buchanan had a blanket and was hunched over, exhausted, sleeping on the table while Matthews bandied with Keith two chairs away.

9:01 CDT: [Nate] Pat Buchanan and I are kindred spirits. He thinks Palin will likely be a hit, but worries about her being "overscripted". That's exactly what I was trying to say before.

8:57 CDT: [Sean] Holy oversell, Batman! You can fit 250 Delawares inside Alaska! Wow, it's almost like Palin is 250 times more qualified than Biden, except Biden has zero (chant it with us now: "ZERO! ZERO!") executive experience. So... does that make Palin infinitely more qualified to be President than Biden? So implies the math.

8:55 CDT: [Sean] Shorter Linda Lingle: Being a mayor is the toughest-est job in the world!

8:54 CDT: [Nate] I think the media bias balloon gets deflated if/when they start going strongly negative on Obama again. That was a lot of the problem that the Clinton campaign had ... it's hard to tell the media they're not paying fair when you're not playing nice.

8:50 CDT: [Nate] On Huckabee, I'm a delivery guy too, but I just thought it was too herky-jerky thematically to build to a crescendo in the way Fred Thompson did last night.

8:48 CDT: [Sean] To follow up from earlier, Peggy Noonan told me the “chauvinism” line and attack on the media is a hand Republicans can’t play for very long. Al Giordano worries it might work until the election.

8:46 CDT: [Sean] I think Huckabee's speech was strong, but I am a sucker for delivery. I think delivery makes people pay attention rather than gloss over. Speaking of which, Captain's Corner!

8:45 CDT: [Nate] For my money, a lot of B-/C+ speeches so far tonight, but it really doesn't matter because it's all about Palin.

8:37 CDT: [Nate] Great one-liner, but Biden got three times as many votes in Florida -- a state he wasn't even competing in -- than there are people in Wasilla.

8:34 CDT: [Nate] Sean, I generally agree about Huckabee, but he's *not* a small-government conservative, and I just think this rings a little hollow.

8:30 CDT: [Sean] Huckabee is by far the best speaker the Republicans have. Empathetic-sounding. Knows how to pivot.

8:22 CDT: [Sean] Interesting that they're going with "If You're Going Through Hell" (keep on going) as the music. Not very optimistic. Curiously, also Keith Olbermann's DailyKos comment tagline.

8:13 CDT: [Nate] I really don't get the sense that the Republicans understand what the persuadable voters out there are looking to hear this year. The country has shifted to the left on the economy far more than on social issues or even foreign policy. Pretty tone-deaf, especially the hit on unions.

8:09 CDT: [Nate] Romney criticizing eastern elites? Did he get Huckabee's cue cards or something?

8:07 CDT: [Sean] Mitt's up. My emotional scars are only just now healing. This is supposed to be a harsh anti-Obama speech, let's see. Attack the media first, check.

There's More...

Contract Post

St. Paul: Wednesday Night Liveblog

8:04 CDT: [Sean] Michael Steele: "Drill, baby, drill, and drill now!"

8:03 CDT: [Nate] Chuck Todd says that Palin's speech is going to be "longer than anyone expected". They're definitely not following my less-is-more philosophy; I think she can accomplish what she needs to in about 15-20 minutes, and that if the speech is 30 minutes long instead, she's more likely to run herself into some trouble.

7:57 CDT: [Sean] Michael Steele: "Are you ready to party in this house tonight?"

7:55 CDT: [Nate] A friend says: "from watching this convention, you almost wouldn't realize that the Republicans had been in power for the past eight years".

7:45 CDT: [Sean] Joe Klein wrote today about the McCain campaign’s war against the press. Steve Schmidt’s war has picked up in the Xcel Center press filing area among furious Republican bloggers as well. Nate noted during last week’s liveblog that he found the cheering in the Big Tent off-putting, but this is equally bad. Citing the RedState and Townhall pushback against the media and the terrible reign of “liberal bloggers,” Sean Hackbarth, the Online Specialist for the Senate Republican Conference, told a sympathetic fellow Republican friend from Wisconsin in the seat next to me, “The Democratic talking points are the DailyKos talking points,” and “I realized today that these liberal bloggers have no soul.”

7:25 PM. [Nate] Whitman's not bad. Not a dynamic speaker, but she comes across as earnest and credible.

7:15 CDT: [Sean] Coincidentally, moments after Peggy Noonan left the MSNBC set, we found ourselves in line together waiting at the River Center press entrance. Nice, smart, gracious woman. She was unaware her private comments had just been aired (as was I, though it was clear something unintended had gotten on air). Noonan told me that if going for a woman was the decision they wanted, Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been the wiser pick. We also discussed eBay CEO Meg Whitman, who will address the convention this hour and is a likely candidate for California governor in 2010. Noonan was very impressed (by Whitman, and yes, I am using the tongs tonight).

7:10 CDT: [Sean] Welcome back to St. Paul for Ladies' Night. Former HP exec Carly Fiorina and current eBay CEO Meg Whitman (a strong candidate for California's governor seat in 2010) speak early, and with Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle and VP nominee Sarah Palin speaking late. It's also a night for the runner-ups, with Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani sandwiched in between. In fact, there is an excellent chance that Giuliani will be speaking at 9:11 local time. Christy Swanson just finished speaking... not to be confused with the erstwhile movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

There's More...

Contract Post

Palin's Overreach

In my articulation of Sarah Palin's goals for her speech tonight, I suggested that "it will be imperative for Palin not to overreach." The rest of her prepared remarks look like they should be pretty effective, but this is probably an exception:

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

We'll see how well she is able to deliver this line -- it is sure to get big applause in St. Paul. But it seems awfully petty for a party campaigning on the theme of service (of which there are other types apart from enlisting in the military) -- especially when Obama and Biden, if not always their supporters, have by and large been exceptionally gracious toward Palin . If you want a punchline that underscores liberal "elitism", why not go after Obama's time as the President of the Harvard Law Review instead?

There's More...

Contract Post

The Fall Campaign – Oh, It’s On

Beach season is over, the kids are back in school, and the two-month sprint to the finish has begun. A Pew survey released today shows that while the campaign accounted for 27% of the overall newshole during the summer low-attention season, it accounted for 69% of the newshole coverage spanning Denver’s Democratic National Convention through John McCain’s vice-presidential selection of Sarah Palin, crushing the previous high of 55% set during the week of Super Tuesday.



If nothing else, McCain’s willingness to roll the dice with Palin immediately changed the media focus in a way that would almost certainly not have been as intense had he picked someone expected like Tim Pawlenty, as most coverage centered on the risks and potential rewards of the pick. Pew’s study did not include the news of Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy, which broke the day after the survey period ended.

Campaign coverage accounted for 79% of network news airtime and 94% of cable coverage. Additionally, Pew finds that public opinion of both candidates has improved. Most significantly for Obama is the finding that he has impressed the Democratic base. The smooth Denver convention capped with a flawlessly executed final night led Democrats to report a greater satisfaction with Obama as the nominee, up from 39% to 54% reporting a "more favorable opinion" in the span of one week. Solidifying his more numerous base is really the ballgame for Obama.



By the same token, Republican views of John McCain became more favorable in that stretch by an even wider margin, improving 21 points to 53% "more favorable opinion," up from 32%. This is undoubtedly good news for McCain, and shows that the pick of Palin was well received among Republicans (those Republicans who had heard "a lot" about the Palin pick split 36-24 more/less favorable toward McCain).

The problem McCain faces is that if Obama's base solidifies, the numeric partisan ID advantage Democrats enjoy threatens to swamp his campaign. A tie in base favorability goes to Obama. That has always been Obama's game. Solidify and turn out the base, keep his constant edge among independents, and McCain is essentially powerless to change the outcome.

As we go forward in the campaign, look for McCain's camp to constantly push toward the middle. Attention is up, Obama's base is solidifying, so trying to stop Obama from carrying independents is now McCain's last, best hope. A National Journal survey of Republican convention insiders confirms an awareness that the swing voters are a much more important group for McCain to win. By a 55%-33% margin, GOP insiders urge McCain to go for the middle. Tomorrow night's speech will tell us whether McCain understands this need.

There's More...

Contract Post

Guess Who's a Celebrity Now?

Since her name was announced as John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin has generated more US-based internet search traffic than Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Michael Phelps and Barack Obama combined:



(source)

There's More...

Contract Post

In Alaska, Everyone's An Oil Baron

Upon announcing her bid for Alaska's governorship in October 2005, Sarah Palin made a solemn pledge to "put Alaskans first":

Palin declared her candidacy on October 18, Alaska Day, before any other Republican candidate joined the race for Governor, declaring, "It is time to take a stand and put Alaskans first". She has been an outspoken critic of Gov. Murkowski's Canadian gasline deal and wants to see entities compete for Alaska's natural gas so Alaskans get the most value for their resources. Palin said she is committed to putting Alaskans to work on the gas line and wants provisions in any gas deal for Alaska hire and North Slope gas to energize Alaska's homes and businesses first.

The statement reads ironically in light of the McCain campaign's "America First" catch-phrase. For Palin, however, it is more than a matter of rhetoric. The reason is because of an unusual provision in the Alaska Constitution that treats the states resources -- everything from fisheries to oil and natural gas reserves -- as public trusts:

It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.

This is not some sort of trivial, legal matter. On the contrary, all Alaska residents stand to benefit directly from the exploitation of the state's natural resources. In 2007, for instance, all Alaska residents were sent a dividend check for $1,654 in exchange for their share of income earned from the state's leasing of oil- and gas-rich territory. Anybody who has been a resident of the state for a year or more is eligible, including children, meaning that a family of four might expect to bring in about $5,000 in income each year this way.

The provision puts Palin in the unusual position of being sort of a landlord-in-chief, charged with negotiating oil and natural gas leases for the "maximum benefit of all Alaskans" -- which Palin generally seems to have interpreted as the maximum royalty dividend. In her 2006 campaign for governor, Palin won for essentially two reasons. Firstly, her opponents in the Republican primary were a crusty and exceptionally unpopular incumbent governor (Frank Murkowski) and a Fairbanks businessman (John Binkley) who came across as a chauvinist, allowing her to build plenty of momentum en route to defeating former governor Tony Knowles in the general election. But secondly, she promised an aggressive, "Alaska first" negotiating position vis-a-vis the oil companies, pledging that her negotiations would have provisions requiring Alaska's gas reserves to be made available first to Alaskans:

Sarah Palin stated today, "Contrary to Murkowski's recent statements, Alaska's gas belongs to Alaskans. I've been saying for months, we—- Alaskans -- need in-state use of gas. All options need to be put on the table with the goal of providing gas to Alaskans as a central provision in any negotiated contract, just a political afterthought as Murkowski is now proposing."

There is nothing untoward about this; on the contrary, Palin was arguing in essence that Murkowski was shirking his constitutional responsibilities by failing to be an effective, transparent, and hard-nosed negotiator. But these facts are important for placing a couple of things into context:

1. When Palin speaks of how she took in the oil companies, it is not intended in the same way as a Democrat might mean it, as a populist critique of the oil industry's profit margins. Alaskans, on the contrary, stand to benefit directly from the exploitation of their natural resources, and their fortunes are correlated with those of the oil companies. What Palin means, rather, is that former governors like Murkowski and Knowles had not been adequately tough negotiators, and pledged a more hard-line position.

2. Palin's popularity in Alaska is not just a matter of her charming personality. Rather, it probably also had something to do with the large royalty check she was able to deliver to Alaskans in her first year as governor.

3. Because Alaskans benefit directly from the leasing of oil- and gas-rich lands, incentives are aligned differently than they are in any other state. Arguably, higher oil industry profits are net beneficial to Alaska, since higher anticipated profit margins will in turn increase the value of leased lands.

There's More...

Contract Post

Today's Polls, 9/3

It's pretty quiet on the polling front today. The only numbers out are the national trackers: Barack Obama now has a 6-point lead in Gallup, down from 8 points yesterday, and a 5-point lead in Rasmussen, a tick down from 6. These polls will not really reflect any happenings at the GOP convention, since Monday's events were essentially canceled, and since Tuesday's occurred to late in the evening to be reflected in most interviewing.

Even though Obama moved down slightly in the trackers, our projection model still has him gaining ground, as it still has some ground to make up before it "catches up" to the current numbers. This is by design: we don't want the model to overreact to a few days' worth of polling (until the very end of the election, at least, when we will tune it to be very aggressive).

Of course, the strong likelihood is that the next move will be in McCain's direction once the Republicans get a convention bounce of their own (if it isn't, the Republicans are in a lot of trouble). But all else being equal, I wouldn't expect the Republicans to get quite as large a bounce as the Democrats did. The reason is that Obama had a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick up among white Democrats, among whom he moved up from 74 percent support to 82 percent support following his convention (per Gallup). I don't see Obama giving most of those points back. McCain, on the other hand, already had the support of something like 90 percent of Republicans, this number actually having increased a bit following the selection of Sarah Palin. I think McCain is likely to gain some ground among independents, however, and that the tracking polls will most likely wind up somewhere in the range of McCain +1 to Obama +3 over the weekend.

There's More...

Contract Post

Palin's Goal Tonight: No Potatoe

Sarah Palin's speech tonight exists within a weird middle ground between fairly low expectations and a fairly high degree of difficulty.

Voters have questions about Palin's background, her governing philosophy, her readiness to lead, and her position on a variety of specific issues. It will be impossible to address all of these within the context of a single speech -- particularly for someone who had never spoken to a national audience before last Friday. On the other hand, the pundits, recognizing the rough couple of days that she's had in the press, will most likely be inclined to react sympathetically toward her. So may voters at home, buoyed by what will inevitably be an enthusiastic response in the Xcel Center.

Under these circumstances, it will be imperative for Palin not to overreach. I would avoid any specific claims -- like her arguably false claim in Dayton on Friday that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere -- that won't hold up to a FactCheck.org vetting. And I wouldn't make any assertion to expertise in foreign policy. A claim, for instance, along the lines of what Cindy McCain said the other day -- that Palin is a foreign policy expert because Alaska is close to Siberia -- will ring hollow even if articulated well, and if articulated poorly, could easily become her Potato-e moment. The debate against Joe Biden, which Palin will have much more time to prepare for, is a better forum than that, an opportunity to demonstrate rather than assert her working knowledge of foreign policy.

I do think she has to convey a certain seriousness of purpose -- one overly cute reference to mooseburgers is probably one too many -- but there are ways to do that without invoking foreign policy, such as talking about "small town values". A throwaway applause line or two critiquing the media is probably worthwhile, so long as it seems good-natured rather than defensive.

But basically, she shouldn't try and do too much. If she pours the media half a glass, they'll most likely be inclined to call it full.

There's More...

Contract Post

St. Paul: Tuesday Night Liveblog #2

10:18 CDT: [Nate]. The CNN pundits -- Candy Crowley excepted -- are critiquing the Republicans for being too "political" in the wake of Hurricane Gustav. I'm not really sure I buy that. In a world where there is a new news cycle every six hours, Gustav was something that happened four news cycles ago. And the Republicans played it pretty safe -- just a couple of indirect and fairly generic hits against Obama. Nothing below the belt. Then again, it may not be Gustav that's boxing them in, but the fact that Sarah Palin really renders their primary critique of Obama moot.

10:10 CDT: [Sean] The emotional centerpiece of the night was clearly Thompson giving McCain’s bio. Sure, he’s a professional actor, but he did that part very well. He was less effective hitting Obama (and the Democratic Congress), as that part actually read better on paper. As for Lieberman, I’m less convinced that his bipartisanship schtick sells. People don’t think the country is in bad shape due to partisanship, they think it’s George W. Bush’s fault. Maybe his act would’ve sold better in the Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown era.

10:01 CDT: [Nate] Grades: GWB A- (hell yes, there's a curve), Thompson A-, Lieberman C.

9:59 CDT: [Sean] Somewhere, Zell Miller is rolling in his grave, my friends.

9:58 CDT: [Nate] Last couple of minutes of this speech have been better. "Speaking directly" to Democrats and independents may have woken them up from their slumber.

9:55 CDT: [Nate] It's more in the delivery than in the message, but I'd challenge any conservative who thinks this speech is working to a polygraph test.

9:51 CDT: [Sean] “Eloquence is no substitute for a record.” Fortunately for Joe, Harry Reid doesn’t have the guts to kick him out of the caucus, despite the rules established to keep Dems in the committee chairs if Republicans get their 50th caucus member.

9:43 CDT: [Nate] I think Lieberman's intro about the hurricane came across as a little cliched and insincere.

9:42 CDT: [Sean] Joe: “My friends…”

9:39 CDT: [Sean] Joe looks resplendent.

9:37 CDT: [Sean] We're starting a new thread for Joe Lieberman and the night's recap.

There's More...

Contract Post

St. Paul: Tuesday Night Liveblog

9:33 CDT: [Sean] By far the loudest applause of the night goes for the pro-life line. [edit]: yeah, but I heard GHWB was the greatest president of the last 40 years or something.

9:31 CDT: [Nate] Bio stuff was very effective, but this just seems cranky and very ... GWB in 1992. This is the first election in a long time where I think the fiscal conservative, tax-and-spend line of attack is not going to win over persuadables.

9:27 CDT: [Sean] Fred Thompson was the laziest candidate this cycle, but he was born to do this bio stuff. He’s a strong storyteller. He knows how to pause.

9:23 CDT: [Nate] Given their alternatives, they probably can't tell the POW story enough. I don't really buy that there's a fatigue factor involved when it's used as bio-building (like it's being used here) rather than as an excuse to duck questions.

9:19 CDT: [Sean] Delegates choking back tears as Thompson recounts McCain’s capture in vivid detail. Dr. Phil has joie-de-vivre.

9:18 CDT: [Nate] What's Dr. Phil got that Fred Thompson doesn't?

9:04 CDT: [Nate] Well, I don't think GWB did any damage, which is about the best they could have hoped for.

9:01 CDT: [Sean] “The angry left?” I guess 70% of the country is “left.” Nothing more painful than waiting for a laugh line after “Believe me, I know,” followed by crickets. Surprised he went for the reminder of standing in the rubble of buildings knocked down by killers and telling the country how he’d get even, because that’s when he promised to get Osama bin Laden. Prime time has started.

8:52 CDT: [Nate] She'd better hurry up or GWB is going to creep into network prime time. BTW, I know there's a serious waiting list for Republicans in Texas, but if Laura Bush resided in another state, you'd have to take her pretty seriously as a Senate prospect.

8:47 CDT [Sean] The Washington Post reports that Sarah Palin was a part-owner of an Anchorage car wash, that she failed to report her stake in the company, and that the company was eventually shut down by the state for not paying state licensing fees.

8:38 CDT: [Nate] That same story has been reported by the Weekly Standard and by NBC. What I don't get is that ... if you described the qualities of the GOP veep hopefuls in n-dimensional space, Palin and Lieberman would be about as far apart as you can get. Their strengths and weaknesses are complete opposites. So how do you get from Point A to Point B?

8:35 CDT: [Sean] David Brooks (long audio link) tells the story that McCain was set to pick tonight’s speaker Joe Lieberman, but that five Republican delegations were set to stage a floor fight against the pick. So McCain picked Palin, and then began to vet her.

8:34 CDT: [Nate] To the commenters: I think you can make a serious case that George H.W. Bush was the best president of the last 40 years.

8:25 CDT: [Sean] Nate is blogging from the future.

8:33 CDT 8:23 PM [Nate] Since we haven't talked about Sarah Palin in six minutes or so... One point of chatter among the conservative commentariat has been "Why are liberals freaking out so much about Sarah Palin?". I think there are two reasons. One, liberals smell blood in the water. But two, she reminds them of George W. Bush. There is not the same frat boy entitlement, thank goodness. But with McCain -- whatever else you say about him -- there was a certain seriousness of purpose, a certain respect for the Office of the Presidency that was hard not to admire. His campaign wasn't dumbed down. With the Palin pick, he seems -- to liberal eyes -- to have undermined those things. It's the old 50+1, smallball, base-rallying gambit, a pick less maverick than cavalier.

8:19 CDT: [Sean] Viva John McCain? Chuck Todd might get jealous.

8:08 CDT: [Sean] Bush 41 and wife arrive. Speaking of fashionably late arrivals, Nate will be joining us soon.

7:58 CDT: [Sean] I thought being blown off by Mitt Romney yesterday was the apogee of human experience, but watching the grey suited media guy with the little green bag (yeah, you) one row away follow this liveblog is a fairly down-the-rabbit-hole moment. Yes, that is AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" being played in the Xcel Center. Not just for minor-league hockey anymore. Here comes the former Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. The big guns!

7:54 CDT: [Sean] Apparently Fred Thompson's upcoming speech is a real red-meat, anti-Obama speech.

7:40 CDT: [Sean] After Michele Bachmann said, Republicans know that "service is an innately personal characteristic," I went and got a free Bud down at the Captain's Corner. They have some serious free upscale bar action going on, and when I grabbed a chip with my fingers in the hors d'oeuvres table, I was admonished for "not using the tongs."

7:28 CDT: [Sean] A former San Diego Chargers defensive back is speaking about Ray Nagin and God. Couldn't they have gotten Kellen Winslow? His son is, after all, "a %#%^ soldier!"

7:11 CDT: [Sean] Live from St. Paul, it's approximately Day Two! Tonight we expect Joe Lieberman, Fred Thompson, John Boehner and home-stater Norm Coleman, who is appearing now. The C-Span feed inside the Press Center is a bit muted as far as crowd reaction, so actual wild applause may come across as polite golf clapping here. We can report that David Gregory is a line-cutter and that the CNN beef stroganoff is sub-par tonight. The rumor has it there's free beer, so when Norm's done, we'll check that out for you, our dear readers.

There's More...

Contract Post