The June fundraising figures for the Obama campaign finally came out yesterday, showing a $52 million haul for the month, and rebutting rumors that the Obama Money Machine had ground to a virtual halt.
John McCain’s campaign raised $22 million in June, about the same amount received by Obama in May. Last week the Wall Street Journal predicted that Obama’s June totals would be around $30 million, an estimate that was only off by about 70%. More generally, and vaguely, there was considerable behind-the-scenes speculation in political circles that Obama’s alleged “move to the middle” might be discouraging his small-donor base. That doesn’t appear to have been the case in June.
Just as importantly, as of June Obama was still tapping donors who hadn’t “maxed out” in terms of the $2,300 contributions limit for the pre-general-election period. As Jim Kuhnhenn of HuffPo explains, only $2 million of Obama’s $52 million for June was “general election” money. Overall, Obama has raised about $340 million, with $12 million being designated for the general election. He can roll over any unused “primary” money to the general election if he wishes, but the key thing to remember is that his campaign hasn’t even begun to go back to its one-and-a-half-million primary donors for general election contributions.
Meanwhile, the DNC had its first good fundraising month in a long while, raising $22 million (as compared to less than $5 million in May). In terms of cash-on-hand, combining personal and party funds, Obama and McCain are roughly even right now. McCain, of course, will receive $84 million in public financing after the convention, but Obama does seem to be back on track towards his goal of raising about $300 million for the general election.

Meteor Blades over at Daily Kos has a riff, “Poll Finds Massive ‘Whining’ in Florida, Ohio,” discussing the new NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health poll (toplines here) in relation to Phil Gramm’s “whiner”-driven “mental recession.” Blades does a nice job of presenting the data, which shows majorities of respondents in both states worried about real-world economic problems.
The poll is interesting in that it gets respondents to break down the sources of their economic discontent into categories such as “Problems paying for gas” (55%); “Problems getting a good-paying job/raise in pay” (39%); “Problem buying/selling home/home losing value” (36%); “Problems paying for health care and insurance” (32%); “Problems paying for college/education cost” (26%); and “Losing a job” (26%) and other problems. Respondents also saw a connection between the Iraq mess and their economic problems:

…according to the poll, the top two things people in Florida say would help the most are stopping American jobs from going overseas and pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.

As Dee Moskona, a 47-year-old attorney and mother in Miami, quoted in Blades’ report puts it, “Iraq is draining everything.”
If Democratic registration meets high expectations, swing state voters will elect leaders who will address their very real economic concerns and bring home our troops — and our money.

One of John McCain’s favorite themes is to cast himself in the role of a latter-day Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican “reformer” with a taste for an aggressive military posture, who’s not allergic to public sector activism on occasion. Indeed, in a recent New York Times interview, asked to name a conservative “model” for his politics, McCain said: “I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold.” This has also been a favorite talking-point for a variety of McCain fans and advisors, ranging from the former “Bull Moose” blogger Marshall Wittmann (a longtime McCain associate who’s currently Joe Lieberman’s press secretary) and columnist David Brooks.
Inevitably, he was going to get some conservative grief for the TR-as-model claim, and it came in abundant and even hilarious measure from historian Michael Knox Beran today at National Review.
Beran’s piece is a long excoriation of TR as an anti-capitalist, a statist, an egomaniac, an emotionally erratic opportunist, and even a proto-fascist. His message to McCain is very blunt:

In advertising his hero-worship of Teddy, Sen. McCain exhibits a little too blatantly an aspect of his own psyche that would best be kept under wraps. He, too, has been accused of political narcissism. If he wants to reassure conservatives, he needs to persuade them that, unlike Roosevelt’s, his own policies will be grounded in something more solid than expediency and a canny reading of the whimsies of the moment.

If you’re interested in Beran’s analysis of TR as representing “the degenerate philosophy of late romanticism,” you can read the whole thing. But his conclusion is funny enough:

All in all, John McCain would do best to talk more about Ronald Reagan, and less about Theodore Roosevelt. And while he is at it, he might come up with a new “favorite book,” one that isn’t, like For Whom the Bell Tolls, a maudlin lament for a socialist bridge-bomber.

From the “true conservative” point of view, you see, Papa Hemingway backed the wrong side in the Spanish Civil War. McCain needs to flip-flop on that issue as well.

It was Primary Day in my home state of Georgia yesterday, yielding two results of national interest in a very low-turnout event.
In the Democratic primary to choose an opponent for incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, a scattered and low-spending field produced a runoff (in three weeks) between Dekalb County CEO Vernon Jones (40%) and former state Rep. Jim Martin (34%). Jones benefitted from a strong African-American vote, particularly in rural areas of the state, while Martin got some mileage from his statewide race for Lieutenant Governor in 2006, along with a host of endorsements. Jones gained a lot of notoriety from boasting that he’d voted twice for George W. Bush, but also tried to link his candidacy (via some photo-shopped images on fliers) to Barack Obama’s. Martin, a much more conventional national Democrat, should be favored in the runoff, but anything could happen given the very low turnout characteristic of runoffs in Georgia.
Meanwhile, down in the 12th congressional district, which runs from Augusta to Savannah, Democratic incumbent John Barrow beat a challenge from state senator Regina Thomas by better than a three-to-one margin. Barrow had drawn the ire of a lot of national progressives as a “Bush Dog” who supported war funding and FISA, and opposed SCHIP expansion. But he was also endorsed by Barack Obama, and had a huge funding advantage. He will be a solid favorite in November to retain his seat against Republican John Stone, a longtime congressional staffer.

This morning’s most important read, by John Judis at The New Republic, is about the kind of foreign policy John McCain would likely operate as president of the United States. It’s not a very reassuring picture. McCain’s neoconservative advisors are one problem, and his League of Democracies fixation is another:

[T]he greatest problem with McCain’s division of the world is that it threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. McCain isn’t advocating a new cold war, but, if he initiated a global struggle against autocracy by founding a League of Democracies, the resulting split would roughly reproduce the cold war confrontation between West and East. By building a new organization that excludes Russia and China, the United States would create gratuitous tensions with these countries. Even without such provocation, U.S. and European relations with Russia have been growing more fractious since 2002, and McCain’s approach threatens to exacerbate them in particular.

But perhaps the biggest problem, says Judis, is that McCain’s highly temperamental personality tends to disproportionately affect his foreign policy thinking, leading him to “personalize foreign policy conflicts.” His powerful hatred of Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example, could have a big impact on a McCain presidency’s behavior.
Please read the whole thing, particularly if you are one of those folks who flirts with the idea of voting for McCain because of his experience in foreign policy.

Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis has an instructive post on poll interpretation. Sher discusses three new polls that have Obama ahead by 9, 8 and 6 points. Contrary to MSM spin that he should be “doing better,” however, Sher argues that “a final victory with that margin would be earth-shifting.” Of today’s New York Times article ,”Poll Finds Obama Candidacy Isn’t Closing Divide on Race,” Sher says the headline:

…makes it sound like massive numbers of whites have an unfavorable opinion of Obama.
The complete poll data shows that 1) 31% said they are “undecided” or “haven’t heard enough,” and 2) McCain doesn’t do much better, only scoring a 35% favorable rating from whites, with a similar number also not expressing an opinion.
The article also notes that McCain leads Obama among whites 46%-37%, a 9-point margin. (The other two polls today have McCain up 8 and 7 points among whites.)
But it doesn’t tell you that in 2004, President Bush beat Sen. John Kerry among whites by 17 points.
Obama runs at least 8 points better among whites than Kerry, not to mention performing vastly better among Latino voters (39 point lead) than Kerry (9 points).

An equal opportunity debunker, Scher has this to say about WaPo‘s article on its poll, noting

…this line buried at the bottom of the Washington Post analysis of its poll: “The candidates are tied among whites who earn less than $50,000 a year, while McCain leads by 10 percentage points among those earning more than that.”
Yes, Obama runs better among white working-class voters than other whites.
Not a half-bad step forward for race relations, in my book.

Amazing what a little clear thinking can do.

At National Journal today, the estimable Charlie Cook offers some thoughts on the chattering-class obsession with handicapping the vice presidential options of Barack Obama and John McCain. He notes that Washington “insiders” don’t have a great record of getting this stuff right in the past, unless the choice was fairly obvious:

Ronald Reagan’s 1980 selection of George H. W. Bush was not a shocker, nor was Michael Dukakis’ 1988 selection of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas, nor the 2004 selection of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. But none were foregone conclusions, either.
But the 1988 selection of Sen. Dan Quayle, R-Ind., was a total surprise, as was the 2000 selection of Dick Cheney.
Bill Clinton’s 1992 pick of Tennessee Sen. Al Gore was a bit unusual — similar age, adjacent states, similar ideology, no prior personal relationship — and not many thought that Gore would choose Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., either.
For that matter, Rep. Geraldine Ferraro’s selection by Walter Mondale in 1984 was a big surprise, too.
In short, the political community has a sorry track record of picking running mates.

Not being completely inured to the temptations of veep-speculation, Cook goes on to suggest what ought to be the main criteria for both candidates:

For what it’s worth, my view this year is that a choice that looks overtly political, a crude attempt to curry favor with the voters of one state or demographic group would be seen as just that, political, and that is not good in this environment.
This is a time when picking someone enormously qualified for the job is the primary factor. Picking someone who might be of some help in securing 270 electoral votes is secondary, but still of significant concern. That is, in fact, the right politics.

We’ll soon know if Charlie has any better idea than the rest of us about the choice to be made by Obama and McCain.

In the same issue of The New Yorker that features the questionable cartoon cover of Barack and Michelle Obama, and a less-than-entirely flattering profile of Obama’s Chicago roots by Ryan Lizza, there’s another piece that probably won’t get the attention it deserves: Hendrik Hertzberg’s analysis of the recent charge against Obama of serial flip-flopping.
Hertzberg goes through the issues on which Obama has supposedly flip-flopped or “moved to the right” and makes some astute judgments:
Iraq policy? “A marginal tweak.”
Abortion? No change.
Faith-based programs? “A shift of emphasis.”
Death penalty? “A substantive tweak,” but still a tweak.
On public financing of campaigns, Hertzberg suggests that Obama broke an ill-advised promise, but didn’t really change positions.
It’s on FISA that Obama most obviously did a “U-turn,” though Hertzberg seems as baffled as I am as to whether it was politics or substance that led him to do so. Hertzberg notes the broad spectrum of civil libertarian opinion about the gravity of FISA, but leaves it to the reader to decide how much this matters.
But in general, all the talk about Obama’s “flip-flops” obscures a basic reality:

Meanwhile, McCain has been busily reversing his views in highly consequential ways. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they favored the rich; now he supports their eternal extension. He was against offshore oil drilling as not being worth the environmental damage it brings; now he’s for it, and damn the costs. He was against torture, period; now he’s against it unless the C.I.A. does it. He keeps flipping to the wrong flops

Flip-flopping is bad politically. But flip-flopping to the wrong position is worse. Maybe Obama’s done that on FISA. But McCain’s made a habit of it, and even where he hasn’t, he tends to wind up with positions that should disturb any voter unhappy with the Bushian status quo.

Gerald F. Seib’s column in today’s Wall St. Journal addresses the effects of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse and the deteriorating economy in general on the upcoming election, and he sees increased chances for a Democratic sweep. As Seib succinctly puts it,

Voters think the country is in a mess, and they are more inclined to trust Democrats to clean things up.

One reason says Seib, is that the traditional GOP panacea/meme, “Let the markets work things out” won’t play so well in the current climate:

…the Bush administration, resistant to intervene in markets, and reluctant to ride to the rescue of investors in the specific case of the housing mess, stepped up over the weekend to offer a virtual government guarantee that Fannie and Freddie would stay solvent.
It grows ever harder for Republicans to campaign against government intrusion in the marketplace the more Republicans themselves appear to be losing faith in letting markets work. And if voters want intervention in the economy, why not get the real deal with Democrats? In sum, it is hard to imagine new economic scares represent anything but more bad news for Republicans, who tend to get the blame for things that go wrong simply because they have controlled the White House for the past seven years.

And, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds even one-third of Republicans now disapprove of Bush’s job performance, includng 20 percent who “strongly disapporve” — and all-time high. In addition, 52 percent of Independents now “disapprove strongly” of his job performance. The poll also found that “a broad majority finds their finances to be a cause of stress in their life.”
All of which is making John McCain sweat more than a little. Seib explains,

…the mortgage crisis also has left Sen. McCain trapped between this instinct to act and his party’s inclination to let markets work out solutions. Maneuvering in that middle ground has left him uncomfortable at times, caught between a desire to help homeowners and distaste for bailing out investors and speculators who made bad bets.

Regardless of the presidential contest, Seib believes Democratic Senate candidates could be the major beneficiaries of the growing economic insecurity:

when the Journal/NBC News poll asked voters last month whether they preferred a Democratic or Republican controlled Congress to emerge from the election, voters responded by a whopping 52% to 33% margin that they wanted Democratic control…Increasingly, the question is how many innocent Republicans will be sucked under by these currents, and whether there is even a chance that there will be enough of them to give Democrats the magic 60 seats they need to create a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate….A fresh examination of the roster of Senate seats up for election this fall shows that Democrats have legitimate shots of taking over 10 seats now held by Republicans — and are in real danger of losing only one, that of Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Seib is not alone in that asessment. At a press breakfast held last Saturday, Nevada Sen. John Ensign , chairman of National Republican Senatorial Committee gave a list of the ten “most competitive” U.S. Senate seats up on November 4, and only one is currently held by a Democrat. Bob Benenson of CQ Politics lists the ten Senate seats most likely to flip to the opposing party as VA, NM, NH, CO, MS, NM, AK, OR, ME and LA — all but LA currently held by Republicans. The only difference in the two lists is that Ensign had NC instead of MS.

The steady growth of publicly-available political polling in recent years has in part been due to the developing of automatic calling technologies–often known as “robocalls”–that make surveying less expensive and complicated than in the past. But this technological development has collided with another: the significant number of people, particularly younger folk, who don’t own a land-line phone.
As pollsters Paul Maslin and Jonathan Brown explain at Salon.com, many of their brethren are simply missing cell-phone-only voters, who, since they also tend to be concentrated in a particularly pro-Obama demographic, may represent a hidden margin for Obama amounting to perhaps 2 percent of the electorate.

By law, cellphone users cannot be called by an automatic dialing system (to prevent obnoxious telemarketing), and cellphone numbers are not part of the normal random-digit-dialing residential-exchange universe. Survey companies prefer to conduct polls using automatic dialing, but to find cellphone-only voters, they must employ the less-efficient hand-dialing method. Cellphone users must be sampled separately and at greater cost in time and money. This means that polls utilizing the cheaper and more efficient means of making survey calls do not include cellphone interviews.
And as survey respondents, these voters are less cooperative anyway. Even if they are contacted, they are less likely to take a call, or to arrange a call-back, than land-line households — further increasing the cost of reaching them.

Maslin and Brown dismiss substitutes for surveying of completely “wireless” voters as inadequate, and offer some evidence that this omission matters in polling results: “Gallup Poll results from earlier this year (prior to Obama’s designation as the presumptive Democratic nominee) had a 4-point swing in favor of Obama once cellphone-only respondents were folded into the overall sample.”
Most intriguingly, Maslin and Brown suggest that a similar failure to fully account for new technologies may have been an important factor in the most famous failure of the polling industry: the 1948 presidential election won by Truman against the predictions of virtually every polling operation. “Pollsters may have missed some Democratic voters in 1948 because they were technologically behind Republican voters. They were less likely than Republicans to have land lines.”
Tuck this insight away in the back of your mind for the next time you read a poll based on robocalls.