The Progressive Policy Institute’s putting together a series of “memos to the next president” arguing for this or that initiative as a top priority. They are by design neutral as to the identity of said president.
I’ve contributed a piece arguing that the next president should make reform of congressional elections, through public financing of campaigns, and redistricting reform, a top priority, to build some sense of real momentum about “changing Washington.” Though it’s cast in terms of being applicable to either candidate, I do think this makes particular sense for Obama, who needs to quickly mobilize public opinion for “real change” before or while undertaking tough initiatives like universal health care. That’s all the more appropriate now that there’s so much doubt about the fiscal “room” he will enjoy to do anything big.
Check it out here.

Those of you who read TDS’ Swing Voter roundtable earlier this year will remember that there’s a lot of disagreement about how to define swing voters. But such disagreements tend to shrink in the course of actual campaigns, as, gradually, the universe of potentially persuadable and motivatable voters converges with “undecideds.”
In his Wall Street Journal column today, Karl Rove, casting about for reasons to be optimisitic about John McCain’s campaign, suggests that there are “probably more undecided and persuadable voters open to switching their choice than in any election since 1968.”
At FiveThirtyEight.com, Nate Silver decided to test Rove’s assertion with actual data. Using the “unaccounted for voter” percentage in the last Gallup Poll (chosen because it’s been around forever), Silver compares that to the number at roughly the same date in earlier election cycles, and concludes:

In the Gallup tracking poll that straddled October 1st, 8 percent of voters were unaccounted for. This figure is significantly higher than 2004, an unusually partisan election in which just 2 percent of voters were unaccounted for. But, it was no higher than 2000 or 1976, and lower than in 1988. On average, since 1936, 6.8 percent of voters were unaccounted for in the Gallup poll as of October 1st, as compared this year’s 8 percent; the difference is not statistically significant.

To determine “persuadable” voters, Silver looks to the Pew Research poll’s numbers for people who have “decided against” one or the other candidate, indicating they are not open to further persuasion. The results are pretty much the same as with “undecideds”:

[A]s of Pew’s most recent survey from late last month, 42 percent of voters said they had decided against Senator McCain, and 37 percent said they’d decided against Senator Obama. This leaves 21 percent of voters who are theoretically open to either major party candidate. We can compare these to the Pew numbers released in Early October 1992, Late September 1996, Early October 2000, and Early October 2004….
This year’s numbers are right in line with past elections, again with the mild exception of 2004, when an unusually high fraction of the electorate had ruled out either George Bush or John Kerry. And remember, more voters have decided against McCain than Obama. The candidates to exceed the 42 percent of voters who have thus far said “no how, no way, no McCain” were George Bush, Sr. in 1992 (46 percent), Bob Dole in 1996 (44 percent), and John Kerry in 2004 (45 percent), all of whom lost their elections.

It’s possible, though not likely, that the undecided or persuadable vote could go up or otherwise change at some point between now and election day. But its current size and shape is not, contra Karl Rove, grounds for belief that Obama’s current lead may not be as significant as everyone thought.

All but forgotten amid the excitement of the presidential race, the 11 governorship elections that will also be decided on November 4th are nonetheless important to the future of the Democratic Party. Dems are defending six governorships, Republicans have five. Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball ’08 has the inside skinny on each of the races, and an excerpt from his take follows:

…We think the most likely national outcome ranges from a net Democratic gain of one governorship, to a net Republican gain of one. This is no earth-shattering shift either way, yet one party will get minor bragging rights–unless the highest probability outcome occurs: that is, shifts in two or three states produce no net change in the total of 28 D, 22 R governors (the current net line-up).

Sabato, who has an impressive track record in his election outcome predictions, rates MO as the most likely Dem pick-up, and he sees WA and NC as toss-ups.

Recent public opinion dynamics have favored Democrats, to be sure, leading, in conjunction with the curent economic disaster, to some predictions of a 1932-style Democratic landslide. But as Chris Bowers points out at Open Left today, we’re in an era where the margin of error, and of victory or defeat, is much smaller than in the past.
Here’s Chris’ analysis on the limits of the swing vote and its implications.

8.5% is the maximum victory: First, as I warned on Monday, please keep in mind that an 8,5% national victory is the maximum. In the last sixteen national elections (U.S. House and Presidential), the largest victory was Bill Clinton’s 8.51% victory in 1996. The simple fact is that no one wins by double digits anymore. This goes for the large Republican victories in 1988 (President–7.72%), 1994 (5.9%), and 2002 (4.6%). It also goes for the large Democratic victories of 1992 (President–5.56%), 1996 (President–8.51%) and 2006 (7.9%). “Landslides” are now 5-8% national victories, not anything larger. Given that a very real percentage of Democrats and Independents won’t vote for him because he is black, it was always absurd to think that Obama was going to break this mark. When Obama reached an 8% national lead, the only place for him to go was down.

Chris is right, in terms of recent precedents, and if that bothers Democrats hoping for a gigantic Obama landslide, it should be comforting in case McCain catches a break and moves ahead between now and November 4. The probability of any particular electoral outcome is not that far outside the MoE of most polls. It will likely be a close race, in popular votes at least, no matter what happens. And that’s why all the Obama campaign’s tactical advantages in money and the “ground game” may matter so much. But Democrats should avoid getting too caught up in either the highs or lows of the polls.

Does anyone else out there find it a little odd that Senator McCain is so obsessed with trashing planetariums? I understand that a hefty portion of his base harbors a medieval suspicion of science education in general. But you would think that a Senator, a former pilot at that, who prides himself in being a strong champion of our national security would at least get it that teaching young people about the cosmos is a good way to get them interested in physics, rocket science and the like. Here’s what McCain said at the debate:

He [Obama] voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

It wasn’t just the words. it was the contemptuous tone, as well as the monumental hypocrisy behind it. It’s OK to squander $300 U.S. taxpayer dollars per month on each of thousands of Iraqi government employees, with no end in sight. But a couple of million dollars on America’s oldest planetarium? How outrageous. Then there’s the duplicity of calling it an “overhead projector” to make it sound like a grade school slide machine, when he knew better.
it wasn’t the first time McCain trashed planetariums in attacking Senator Obama. Back in September McCain was quoted as saying “And when you look at some of the planetariums and other foolishness that he asked for, he shouldn’t be saying anything about Governor Palin.”
To which theoretical physicist JoAnne Hewett responded:

Quite frankly, I am left speechless at the phrase: ‘planetariums and other foolishness…Sorry, but replacing 40 year old equipment at one of the leading science education facilities in this country (the Adler Planetarium is located in downtown Chicago and is the oldest planetarium in existence today) is one of the best investments in the future that I can think of. I’ve always equated planetariums with science education – an area where the US seems to be lacking.

What is even more worrisome is the subtext behind McCain’s contempt for planetariums. It’s not just a reactionary attitude toward science. He has never placed much value on education in general and sees federal investment in education as a waste. If elected, he and Palin could do serious damage to America’s ability to compete in the years ahead with other nations which are making major investments in upgrading their educational systems. It would be hard to devise a quicker way to turn America into a second-rate power than electing the pair of them. One more reason to write another check for Obama.

There’s a fascinating new study of the most recent presidential campaign advertising expenditures by state, released today by an outfit called the Wisconsin Advertising Project (based at the University of Wisconsin in Madison).
The analysis covers advertising expenditures (not actual airings) during the week of September 28-October 4, and includes RNC buys, a major component of the McCain campaign’s effort. It doesn’t include ad spending by “independent” (i.e., 527) groups, but a separate part of the analysis suggests that such spending is significantly down from 2004, and isn’t a large factor in most battleground states at this point (the only striking 527 spending figure is $914,000 spent by the pro-McCain group Vets for Freedom in California).
Overall expenditures were $17.5 million for Obama and $11 million for McCain. That’s double the level of spending for the first week of September. Nearly all of McCain’s ads were negative, while only about a third of Obama’s ads were negative.
But the more interesting numbers are about where the two campaigns are targeting their paid media resources. In a number of the more obvious battleground states (OH, PA, CO, NM, NV, WI and MI, where McCain did one large ad buy before shifting resources out of the state), Obama’s overall 3-2 spending advantage was roughly reflected in state expenditures. But Obama outspent McCain by more than 2-1 in MO and NH, by more than 3-1 in FL, VA, and IN, and by well over 8-1 in NC. All told, in FL, VA, IN, and NC–all states that went for Bush by comfortable margins in 2004–Obama spent about $6.1 million last week, as compared to about $1.5 million for McCain.
The only two battleground states where McCain outspent Obama were IA (by about a 3-2 margin) and MN (a 5-1 margin), both Kerry states, albeit narrowly, in 2004. Obama’s been steadily in the lead in IA throughout the race, and has led in almost every poll of MN, though sometimes by small margins.
It’s obvious from these numbers that McCain is gambling that an improved national position (without which, of course, he’s going to lose in any event) will pull him across the line in places like VA, IN, NC, and perhaps even FL, without a major expenditure of money, while Obama is using his overall advantage to play aggressively in states won by Bush in 2004. Florida’s a particular dilemma for McCain: almost nobody thinks he can win without that state, but it’s a very expensive place to compete.
None of these figures, of course, include money spent for “ground game” registration and turnout efforts, and in “new media,” both areas where Obama is almost universally thought to have an advantage everywhere.
I realize this analysis is just a one-week snapshot that may not accurately convey the ultimate picture of the “ad wars” in the battleground states. But it does help illustrate the extent to which Obama is not only in the lead, but on the offensive. This matters, since early voting has already begun or is about to begin in many of these states, and undecided voters are beginning to focus and make up their minds.
And from a strategic point of view, it can’t be a good sign for McCain that he seems to be spending more money and time in Iowa, which he’s almost certainly already lost, than in NC, where he absolutely must win.

As Ed noted last night, one of the surprises in the second presidential debate is that McCain did not pursue the “change the subject from the economy” strategy that his campaign had heavily telegraphed, and that his running-mate had already initiated in remarks about William Ayers and Obama’s “radicalism.” The names “Ayers” and “Wright” never came up.
Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith have a pretty thorough discussion of that development at Politico today. Statements by McCain staffers after the debate made it clear this was a strategic decision by the campaign, not some temporary tactic based on the debate format, or a “let Sarah do it” division of labor. They’ve concluded McCain can’t “change the subject” so long as the economic crisis is actually getting worse. Yesterday’s plunge in the Dow was probably the clincher.
We’ll see if the decision sticks should McCain’s poll ratings fare worse than the Dow going forward.

The CBSNews/Knowledge Networks poll of uncommitted voters taken right after the debate gave 40 percent to Obama, with 26 percent for McCain and 34 percent undecided.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll of “debate-watchers” had 54 percent saying that Obama “did the best job” in the debate, with 30 percent for McCain.
In a SurveyUSA poll, California debate-watchers give it to Obama more than 2 to 1 (56 percent Obama, 26 percent McCain, 18 percent ‘no clear winner).
Democracy Corps dial-testing of 50 undecided voters gave Obama 38 percent, with 30 percent for McCain, and 42 percent saying they would vote for Obama if the election were held today, compared with 26 percent for McCain.
A Media Curves poll of 1004 respondents found Obama the winner by a margin of 52-34, with 14 ‘don’t know.’

I and others here at TDS will probably have more to say tomorrow on tonight’s second presidential debate, but for the moment I will just mention some surprises.
Number one was McCain’s decision to spring a new mortgage buyout/renegotiation proposal. I’m sure we’ll find out more details soon, including some that make the proposal less ambitious than it sounds. But it had to create some vast heartburn in ConservativeWorld. Remember that Republicans in Congress and in the administration fought tooth and nail, and successfully, during the bailout negotiations to fight a Democratic proposal to let bankruptcy judges have mortgage rate and principal renegotiation powers. Now McCain’s talking about a wholesale renegotiation system that will go far beyond people in bankruptcy. Go figure.
Number two, of course, was McCain’s failure to follow the strategy that his campaign and his running-mate had signled as its last, best hope to win: attacking Obama’s “radical” views and associations. Over at The Corner tonight, there was considerable apoplexy that the names “Ayers” and “Wright” didn’t come up. Maybe McCain’s decided to let others make that case, while pretending he has nothing to do with it.
Number three, which was probably less a surprise than a disappointment, was how boring the whole thing was, and how poor a job Tom Brokaw did as moderator. Aside from his tiresome hectoring about time constraints, and his arbitrary decisions about who got follow-up questions, Brokaw seemed to have picked the blandest questions imaginable from the many at his disposal. One question that he chose and then amplified was heavily loaded, stipulating a gigantic Social Security crisis that most Democrats deny.
Number four, which was a pleasant surprise, was how Obama managed to get across a couple of important but complex points despite struggling against the many attacks McCain threw into his path. One was about the national marketplace for health insurance that McCain would create, which would have the effect of allowing insurers to evade current state regulations on preexisting conditions and mandated coverage generally. This is a really big deal (He probably shouldn’t, however, have cited the home state of his running-mate, banking paradise Delaware, as an analogy).
Surprise number five is that unless I somehow missed it, McCain did not utter the word “maverick” (or for that matter, refer to his mavericky running-mate). This omission undoubtedly ruined a lot of debate drinking games. On the other hand, those who were playing a drinking game based on the number of times McCain said “My friends” were unconscious by the mid-point.

Something potentially important happened on the campaign trail today. Via Marc Ambinder, this is a snippet from prepared remarks for Sarah Palin today in Florida:

John McCain and I will protect the entitlement programs that Americans depend on – and above all, Social Security. No presidential election cycle is complete without the Democratic candidate coming down here to Florida to try to stir up fear and panic on this issue. And if you expected any better from the guy who promised to get rid of “old-style politics,” you’re in for a disappointment – because Barack Obama has exploited this issue the way he exploits so many others.
So, let there be no misunderstanding: John McCain has always kept his promises to America, and as president, he will keep America’s promise to our senior citizens.

Methinks she protesteth too much. John McCain strongly supported Bush’s wildly unpopular partial-privatization scheme in 2005. He’s been evasive about his Social Security proposals during the current campaign (unlike Barack Obama, BTW), but he did allow as how he thought the fundamental pay-as-you-go financing system for the program was “an absolute disgrace,” and his budget and economic plans make gigantic savings from “entitlement reform” a very big deal.
Moreover, this very week, the McCain-Palin campaign issued a “clarification” on its health care plan suggesting that it would be financed with $1.3 trillion in unspecified savings from Medicare and Medicaid.
So how trustworthy does McCain sound on “protecting entitlements?” That Palin paused from her attacks on Obama’s associations with William Ayers to raise the subject in senior-heavy Florida indicates that Team McCain is very nervous on the subject, and for good reason. But “just trust us” is not the most compelling counter-argument.