The new Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/ Public Opinion Strategies/National Public Radio poll of battleground states, conducted 8/12-14, has Obama ahead by one percent. 65 percent of lv’s say they are seeing negative ads about Obama, with 48 percent saying they are seeing negative ads about McCain.
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll of adults (about 86 percent rv’s), conducted 8/15-19, has Obama ahead 45-42. 25 percent said the candidates’ veep choices “would have influence” on their vote.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, conducted 8/18-18 with (with oversample of Hispanic voters), has Obama ahead 45-42 percent. “a statistical dead heat.” The poll also found “Only half of those who voted for Sen. Clinton in the primaries say they are now supporting Sen. Obama. One in five is supporting Sen. McCain.”
Fivethirtyeight.com has an impressive, comprehensive multi-poll analysis of Senate races that has some good news for Dems, especially Mary Landrieu, who is now well-ahead. “Our model is now characterizing Louisiana as “safe” Democrat.”
Zogby’s 8/15-19, 2008 battleground poll of 10 states sees Obama with 260 electoral votes, with 163 for McCain and 105 electoral votes “too close to call.” Zogby moves FL into the McCain column, and has CO and NH now undecided.
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of lv’s, conducted 8/19-20, has Obama leading by a margin of 42-39. 45 percent would vote/lean toward the Dem candidate in their congressional district, compared to 38 for the GOP candidate.
The Princeton Election Consortium latest meta-analysis has Obama up 1.38 percent in recent polls, with an electoral vote edge of 291-247.

With, praise Jehovah, the veep speculation on the Democratic side finally about to end, thought I should give a shout-out to at least one blogger who has been evaluating the field not in terms of electoral heft, “theories of change,” or any of the other political factors, but in terms of an often-ignored policy optic. The Progressive Policy Institute’s Katie Campbell, whose new blog, movingupusa.org, focuses on “upward mobility” agendas for low-income Americans, has done profiles of Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, Kathleen Sebelius and Bill Richardson, based on what they’ve done and proposed for low-income families.
Campbell’s analysis is particularly valuable in terms of Kaine and Sebelius, whose state-based records aren’t as familiar as those of their Washington counterparts. Check it out.

The big buzz in Democratic circles today, even eclipsing veep speculation, is about the precise amount of damage John McCain might have done himself yesterday in admitting he didn’t know how many houses he owned.
At a time when an awful lot of Americans are losing, or afraid of losing, their one home, this wasn’t a terribly felicitous remark, particularly from a candidate whose age and focus have occasionally been questioned. And Barack Obama wasted no time leaping on the gaffe, suggesting it showed that McCain was generally out of touch with the economic woes of middle-class families. It is, in fact, reminiscent of the iconic moment in the 1992 campaign when George H.W. Bush expressed amazement at his discovery of grocery-store scanners.
Team McCain has fired back the only way it knows how, by making an immediate reference to McCain’s POW experience: “This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years — in prison.”
The timing of the gaffe is unfortunate for McCain, since the Democratic gathering in Denver will offer lots of opportunities for speakers to mock the Republican candidate’s wealth and self-ignorance. But expect convention message-managers to take care that they don’t overdo it. Just prior to the 1992 convention, Vice President Dan Quayle delighted late-night comics by stubbornly insisting that the starchy tuber from which french fries are made was spelled “potatoe.” On the second day of the Democratic festival in New York, word came down from the high command to the speech and rehearsal staff: “No more potato jokes.” Even the most powerful gaffe sometimes needs to be allowed to sink in naturally.

Larry J. Sabato has an analysis of the size and meaning of the “post-convention bounce” in favor of each of the two parties’ candidates going back to 1960, as measured by the difference between before and after convention Gallup polls. Sabato’s charts show a range of -1 in 1964 to +28 in 1992 for Democratic conventions. ’04 was a zero bounce year for Dems. But Sabato points out,

The size of the bounces can be deceptive in predicting the November winner and loser. Nixon’s big 1960 bounce led to a loss, while his nearly equal 1972 bounce resulted in a landslide. Similarly, Jimmy Carter’s 1976 bounce of 13 percent presaged his triumph, but his 12 percent gain in 1980 couldn’t stop a landslide defeat. Also, George Bush’s miniscule 2004 bounce of 2 percent didn’t prevent his victory.
Bounces can fade quickly. Historically, this has been truer on the Democratic side. Jimmy Carter slid from 63 percent after his convention to 51 percent on Election Day 1976, Michael Dukakis from 54 percent to 46 percent in 1988; and Bill Clinton from 59 percent to 43 percent in 1992.

In other words, despite the abundant media coverage about the post-convention bounce, it won’t mean much — “meaningless in a predictive sense,” as Sabato says.

It’s not unusual for presidential candidates to have elaborate “whip” operations at conventions, to ensure communications and coordination among widely scattered delegations.
But Hillary Clinton’s convention team is “whipping” its delegates for an unusual purpose: to repress any anti-Obama signs or gestures.
Headed by longtime Clinton operative Craig Smith, the 40-member whip team will work closely with Obama campaign officials to “help foster the image of a unified front during a roll-call process Clinton herself has described as an emotional ‘catharsis’ for her disappointed supporters.” As one Clinton staffer put it:

“If people get down there on the floor and want to start blowing kazoos and making a scene we want to make sure we’ve got people who stand in front of them with Obama signs,” said a person involved in the planning.

Apparently, the lure of convention floor passes helped ensure that plenty of people signed up for the Clinton whip team.

Amidst this week’s veep-o-mania, and preparations for the Democratic National Convention, an item of potentially long-term significance slipped into the Washington Post today, in Dan Balz’s report that the Obama campaign will ask the convention to create a Democratic Change Commission to review the presidential nominating process.
According to Obama campaign chief David Plouffe, this commission (to be appointed by DNC Chair Howard Dean) would be instructed to propose ways to reduce the power of superdelegates; to come up with a primary/cacusus calendar that reduces “front-loading” and eliminates Super Tuesday-style megaprimaries; and to set conditions on the power of state parties to hold caucuses rather than primaries.
The first item on this agenda, of course, reflects the sudden rediscovery and potentially awesome power of superdelegates this year. The second and third involves longstanding demands of reformers who think the current state-driven nominating calendar is crazy and capricious, and too distorted by low-turnout caucuses.
Maybe I’m being Machivellian here, but I suspect Team Obama is interested in introducing these reforms on their merits, but is quietly establishing the means for accomplishing them in the guise of accomodations made to Hillary Clinton supporters to keep them quiet and happy in Denver. The forces supporting the current chaotic system (well-positioned state parties generally, and “gatekeepers” like Iowa and New Hampshire in particular) may well have their guards down at this particular moment. If Obama wins in November, he will be in an excellent position to ram through truly significant changes in the nominating process. And now he will have the vehicle for them.

Speculation continues that John McCain is seriously considering Joe Lieberman and/or Tom Ridge for his running-mate, fueling panic and anger on the Right, particularly among anti-abortion activists.
The Politico has a lengthy story on the possibility of a “Lieberman surprise,” including assessment of possible conservative “blowback,” up to and including a floor challenge to his nomination. The internal campaign argument for risking conservative fury and going with Lieberman is said to be the usefulness of a theoretically “bipartisan” ticket in reinforcing McCain’s “putting country first” message. Ross Douthat (who generally thinks the “McLieberman” ticket’s a terrible idea) suggests that Lieberman should actually be less offensive to right-to-lifers than Ridge, since he’s not a plausible 2012 or 2016 candidate.
All of the talk about Lieberman, of course, could be a head-fake designed to make conservatives more amenable to a Ridge choice, or to stimulate the Right to paroxyms of joy if the Veep is a conventional conservative like Pawlenty.
One thing is for sure: if the McCain-Lieberman ticket somehow does materialize, the happiest camper in the world will be Lieberman Communications Director Marshall Wittmann, the longtime McCain disciple who’s wandered all over the political spectrum over the course of his career, landing with Lieberman as sort of a port of last resort.

A little addition to the veepstakes hysteria Ed referenced yesterday: I was roundly ridiculed for floating an idea in conversation with friends a few months ago, probably with good reason. Now, Michael Moore is putting it out there via email and his website post “Caroline: Pull a Cheney! An Open Letter to Caroline Kennedy (head of the Obama VP search team) from Michael Moore.”
Yes, I know. An Obama-Kennedy ticket would be doubling down on the perception that the Dem ticket’s experience is limited. But jeez, the idea is appealing on a number of levels. As Moore puts it in a couple of nut graphs:

What Obama needs is a vice presidential candidate who is NOT a professional politician, but someone who is well-known and beloved by people across the political spectrum; someone who, like Obama, spoke out against the war; someone who has a good and generous heart, who will be cheered by the rest of the world; someone whom we’ve known and loved and admired all our lives and who has dedicated her life to public service and to the greater good for all….That person, Caroline, is you.
…And Barack, if you’re reading this, you probably know that she is far too humble and decent to nominate herself. So step up and surprise us again. Step up and be different than every politician we have witnessed in our lifetime. Keep the passion burning amongst the young people and others who have been energized by your unexpected, unpredicted, against-all-odds candidacy that has ignited and inspired a nation. Do it for all those reasons. Make Caroline Kennedy your VP. “Obama-Kennedy.” Wow, does that sound so cool.

Kennedy’s gender is a plus, although you couldn’t blame feminists for complaining that more experienced women were passed over. Yet, Kennedy, more than anyone in her family, evokes the passionate spirit of hope her father, JFK and uncle RFK embodied so elegantly. She has natural dignity and real class (in the positive sense of the term), elements in short supply in American politics. She is extremely bright, intensely patriotic and deeply concerned about civil liberties. Her speech to the 2000 Democratic convention was a smash, as much because of her ability to personify the renewal of lost hope as the content of her speech. Talk about mediagenic. Romney or Pawlenty would look like moral midgets compared to her, and it would be fun to watch exasperated Republicans try to attack her without looking creepy.
When called to serve, the Kennedys have always answered. But no, it ain’t gonna happen, since Ms. Kennedy seems too level-headed to do crazy, even if Obama’s team went for it. It’s too late for a trial balloon to do any good, with Obama’s decision expected any hour now. Yet Moore’s proposal resonates because Kennedy symbolizes a time when all Americans could be rightly proud of their President, however idealilzed were our perceptions back then. She bears that precious memory for the nation with both humility and poise.
It’s not too late, however, to put Ms. Kennedy’s impressive skill set to good use. If Obama decided to embrace the interesting idea put forward by Paul Waldman, to name his cabinet and some key appointees in advance of the election, or even if he does it later in keeping with tradition, Caroline Kennedy would make an excellent U.N Ambassador. Having her represent us at the United Nations would signal that America is determined to earn the respect and admiration of the world, not through militarism and intimidation, but by providing moral leadership and a higher level of humanitarian concern.
It’s often said that America lost some of its spirit when JFK was assassinated, and the sense of loss deepened with the assassinations of MLK and RFK. Obama’s pending nomination has helped reclaim some of that spirit. A leadership role like that of U. N. Ambassador for Ms. Kennedy would be yet another step forward — and it would also be smart politics.

Well, here we are a few days at most before Barack Obama’s running-mate announcement, and exactly ten days before McCain’s, and nobody much knows what’s going to happen.
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire provides an assortment of confident predictions that Obama will choose Kaine, Biden, Reed or Sebelius. Several somebodies are obviously wrong.
And on the Republican side, conservatives went into crisis mode today over reports that the McCain campaign was sounding out GOP officials around the country about the potential repurcussions of a pro-choice Veep (presumably Ridge or Lieberman). Meanwhile, the news that McCain was going to announce his decision in Dayton, Ohio, on August 29, led to speculation that the Bush White House’s favorite, Ohioan Rob Portman, was the choice. But Portman indicated less than a month ago that he hadn’t been vetted.
We’ll all know soon enough, but those who are bored or annoyed with the endless veep speculation should understand that it’s provided a public vetting of potential heartbeat-from-the-presidency prospects to complement the private vetting. And that’s a good thing.
Until quite recently, this potentially momentous decision was often made casually, and with little or no vetting. Nixon picked Spiro Agnew during the 1968 Republican Convention, mainly because he was one of only two “moderate” candidates not vetoed by Strom Thurmond, whose championship of Nixon in the South headed off a lethal delegate stampede to Ronald Reagan. Nobody knew enough about Agnew to figure out that he was taking sacks of cash from highway contractors, and would continue to do so until the revelation of his corruption forced him to resign. The politically disastrous choice of Tom Eagleton by George McGovern in 1972 was a panicky last-minute decision made after more desirable running-mates had turned down the position, and without the benefit of the minimal vetting that might have exposed his serial drunk-driving charges, if not his electro-shock therapy sessions. (As Hunter Thompson later said: “There were any number of political reporters who could have told them that Tom Eagleton was a man who didn’t mind taking thirteen or fourteen tall drinks now and then.”). Another highly significant Veep choice, according to most accounts, was a sheer accident: the Kennedys offered the vice-presidential nomination to Lyndon Johnson in 1960 because they assumed LBJ would turn it down.
Hasty and fortuitous running-mate decisions are now a thing of the past. Given the political and meta-political implications of an unwise choice (aside from the more recent examples, cf. John Tyler and Andrew Johnson in the 18th century), enduring endless Veep speculation is a small price to pay for that.

The fascinating thing about New York Times columnist David Brooks is his ability to faithfully serve the interests of the Republican Party while maintaining a stance of ironic detachment and independence. His column today is a small masterpiece of the genre. Entitled “The Education of McCain,” it is devoted to the story-line that the GOP candidate is deep down the same unconventional and wholly admirable man he’s always been, but who has been forced by contemporary political realities to slavishly follow the party line and personally attack Barack Obama.
Touting McCain’s “long-running rebellion against the stupidity of modern partisanship,” Brooks says there’s just no question that McCain’s current campaign rubs against his very nature:

In a thousand ways, he has tried to preserve some sense of self-respect in a sea of pandering pomposity. He’s done it through self-mockery, by talking endlessly about his own embarrassing lapses and by keeping up a running patter on the absurdity all around. He’s done it by breaking frequently from his own party to cut serious deals with people like Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. He’s done it with his own frantic and freewheeling style, which was unpredictable, untamed and, at some level, unprofessional.

But alas, alackaday, McCain had to abandon the Straight-Talk Express because of “too many 25-year-old reporters and producers seizing on every odd comment to set off little blog scandals.” And he had to run a nasty, negative campaign because “McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama.”
Poor, poor John McCain, forced to behave like a regular politician, even though he’s not.
This story-line is of inestimable value to the McCain campaign, which is engaged in a high-stakes gamble that its candidate can talk out of both sides of his mouth to conservatives, who must be convinced that McCain is if anything a more principled right-winger than Bush, and to swing voters, to whom he is being marketed as a reforming centrist with no loyalty to anyone other than his country. McCain has taken this game to a new level of duplicity in recent weeks. The man who relentlessly channeled the conservative message at Saddleback Church over the weekend is hard to reconcile with the subject of his current network ad, which describes him as the “original maverick” always ready to reach across party lines to battle drug and tobacco companies and Big Oil. (This last assertion must have spawned some head-scratching or cynical belly-laughs among the oil executives who have been showering McCain with campaign contributions after his flip-flop on offshore oil drilling.)
Brooks would have us believe that all the glaring contradictions and vicious tactics characterizing the McCain campaign are just the unfortunate byproduct of our benighted political system–which, presumably, the Real McCain will deal with in office, when he’s not defeating evil somewhere overseas.
One way or another, Democrats need to take on the “Original Maverick” story-line and expose it as a deceptive and hypocritical stunt.