I admit to being obsessed with the "presidential horse race." McCain is a lout, the modern Republican party a train wreck, and there is really no question about who, on the merits, should win the White House. Therefore the only question is whether the better man with the better policies wins.
The selection of Sarah Palin may shed considerable light on that question. I have only the public polls to go by, and they indicate a close contest that, to the degree there is movement, is moving toward McCain. I trust, however, that McCain has access to more sophisticated analyses. If he thought he was in good position to win, he would have run off tackle with someone like Tom Ridge. Sarah Palin suggests that the McCain campaign has concluded that it is in a bad position and that, for their guy to prevail, something has to change. Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska for the last twenty months, and before that the mayor of a town of 9,000, and before that a member of the city council in the same town, and before that a sports reporter for a TV station in Anchorage, is a long pass that wouldn't be thrown in a real close game.
George Packer argues persuasively that 2008 is a replay of 1980, only with the two parties having switched sides. According to this view, the electorate wants to dump the party in power, but harbors some doubts about the other team's nominee. If Obama is not able to allay those doubts, the election will be close. But if, at the convention and in the remaining part of the campaign, including preeminently the debates, Obama stands up, looks credible, and gives as good as he gets, he could win in something resembling a landslide.
Anyway it is pretty to think so.
Comments