*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[Clifton]

Is this the lemming thread?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Is this the lemming thread?

It is now. Why couldnt you keep your lemming self out of here?

 

[kaa]

Think about it. Could the news possibly be better for the democrats right now? The economy is sliding. We're talking about bank runs. We're talking about bank failures. The world is coming to an end, the democrats are set up as the opposition party, and the BEST Obama can do is a 3-4 point lead over John McCain? What's going to happen when the news turns around? We all know what is going to happen. McCain is going to surge into the lead.

I heard Sean Hannity say the exact same thing last night.

Hannity is correct.

 

[NCCommish]

Think about it. Could the news possibly be better for the democrats right now? The economy is sliding. We're talking about bank runs. We're talking about bank failures. The world is coming to an end, the democrats are set up as the opposition party, and the BEST Obama can do is a 3-4 point lead over John McCain? What's going to happen when the news turns around? We all know what is going to happen. McCain is going to surge into the lead.

I heard Sean Hannity say the exact same thing last night.

Hannity is correct.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Think about it. Could the news possibly be better for the democrats right now? The economy is sliding. We're talking about bank runs. We're talking about bank failures. The world is coming to an end, the democrats are set up as the opposition party, and the BEST Obama can do is a 3-4 point lead over John McCain? What's going to happen when the news turns around? We all know what is going to happen. McCain is going to surge into the lead.

How confident are you in a McCain victory?

 

[kaa]

Kerry looks like he was up about 3-4 points in the second week of July in 04. Of course as usual the republican surged in the polls in the autumn.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v75/hedgemann/3waybig.jpg

Hell in July or August of 04, most people are saying Kerry is going to win this. But it only happens if the democrat has an enormous lead in the summer.

 

[shining path]

Something for Hannity's fans to keep in mind: Jesus hates Sean Hannity.

 

[kaa]

Think about it. Could the news possibly be better for the democrats right now? The economy is sliding. We're talking about bank runs. We're talking about bank failures. The world is coming to an end, the democrats are set up as the opposition party, and the BEST Obama can do is a 3-4 point lead over John McCain? What's going to happen when the news turns around? We all know what is going to happen. McCain is going to surge into the lead.

How confident are you in a McCain victory?

I feel completely at ease about it. There's simply not a doubt in my mind.

 

[NCCommish]

Something for Hannity's fans to keep in mind: Jesus hates Sean Hannity.

Stays here down?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Think about it. Could the news possibly be better for the democrats right now? The economy is sliding. We're talking about bank runs. We're talking about bank failures. The world is coming to an end, the democrats are set up as the opposition party, and the BEST Obama can do is a 3-4 point lead over John McCain? What's going to happen when the news turns around? We all know what is going to happen. McCain is going to surge into the lead.

How confident are you in a McCain victory?

I feel completely at ease about it. There's simply not a doubt in my mind.

$1000 confident?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Think about it. Could the news possibly be better for the democrats right now? The economy is sliding. We're talking about bank runs. We're talking about bank failures. The world is coming to an end, the democrats are set up as the opposition party, and the BEST Obama can do is a 3-4 point lead over John McCain? What's going to happen when the news turns around? We all know what is going to happen. McCain is going to surge into the lead.

How confident are you in a McCain victory?

I feel completely at ease about it. There's simply not a doubt in my mind.

$1000 confident?

 

[The Juggernaut]

Think about it. Could the news possibly be better for the democrats right now? The economy is sliding. We're talking about bank runs. We're talking about bank failures. The world is coming to an end, the democrats are set up as the opposition party, and the BEST Obama can do is a 3-4 point lead over John McCain? What's going to happen when the news turns around? We all know what is going to happen. McCain is going to surge into the lead.

How confident are you in a McCain victory?

I feel completely at ease about it. There's simply not a doubt in my mind.

$1000 confident?

or :backpedal: ? I just can't decide!!!!

 

[kaa]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

 

[shining path]

Something for Hannity's fans to keep in mind: Jesus hates Sean Hannity.

Stays here down?

He let it slip in the "All in w/ middle pair?" at 2+2. It's no secret anymore.

 

[NCCommish]

Something for Hannity's fans to keep in mind: Jesus hates Sean Hannity.

Stays here down?

He let it slip in the "All in w/ middle pair?" at 2+2. It's no secret anymore.

Oh, well then my apologies sir.

 

[bigbottom]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

It also seems as though he is relying exclusively on the last two elections as his evidence of this historical trend.

 

[videoguy505]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

2004. Obama's about where Kerry was in the electoral. Digging for 2000.

 

[videoguy505]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

It also seems as though he is relying exclusively on the last two elections as his evidence of this historical trend.

Four of the last five

In 1988, Michael Dukakis was ahead by an average of 8.2 points in 5 June polls. In November, George Bush won by 7.8 points.

In 1992, George Bush was ahead by an average of 4.9 points in 14 June polls. In November, Bill Clinton won by 5.6 points.

I don't actually have any June polls for 1996 (if anybody's sitting on a big stash of Clinton-Dole data, you know where to find me). But in Gallup's July poll, Bill Clinton led by 17 points. In November, Clinton won by 8.5 points.

In 2000, George W. Bush was ahead by an average of 4.7 points in 14 June polls. In November, Al Gore won the popular vote by 0.5 points.

In 2004, John Kerry was ahead by an average of 0.9 points in 16 June polls (this was pretty much his high-water mark all year). In November, George W. Bush won by 2.4 points.

So in four out of the last five elections, an average of June polls would have incorrectly picked the winner of the popular vote. That's kind of a problem for anybody who is overly confident about how this election is going to turn out.

 

[whitem0nkey]

sorry if honda.

did you guys see next weeks New Yorker?

Link

looks like they stopped the satire and went with a more factual cover.

 

[kaa]

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thr...threadid=987060

That article shows the trend of republican autumn rallies.

1996: Clinton up by 16 points on Dole in July. He only won by 8. Dole closed, but the lead was too big.

1992: This is a strange year with 3 major candidates. I'm not really looking at this.

1988: Dukakis was up by 6 points in the summer. He had been up huge in the spring but I'm not looking at that. The 6 point lead was not big enough. Bush rallied and won.

1984: Reagan LED by 10 in the summer. Reagan would rally and push that even higher in the fall and won by 16.

1980: Reagan led by 2 over Carter in the summer. Reagan would rally and win by 10.

1976: Carter was up HUGE in the summer 49%-28%. And he almost LOST because Ford had an ENORMOUS rally to only lose by 2.

Look at that. Every single year except that throwaway year in 92 where we had 3 candidates, the republican rallied as we moved to the fall. And unless the democrat had an ENORMOUS lead, he lost. And even then Carter almost lost anyway with a huge lead.

Maybe you think this year will be different, but it is irrefutable what has been going on every single election in that sample.

 

[kaa]

There has to be something to this. Perhaps republican voters are more likely to be on vacation in the summer and thus harder for pollsters to contact? Then in the autumn they come home from out of town which allows the pollsters to include them in the poll? I dunno. But there's is definitely a reason.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

2004. Obama's about where Kerry was in the electoral. Digging for 2000.

This would be very compelling evidence if this election was pitting John Kerry against George Bush, and nothing had changed in the demographics or mindset of the country between 2004 and 2008. Other than, I guess, helping conservatives sleep better at night, comparing pre-elections polls of 4 and 8 years ago with current pre-election polls is about as accurate as consulting a Ouija board.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

It also seems as though he is relying exclusively on the last two elections as his evidence of this historical trend.

Four of the last five

In 1988, Michael Dukakis was ahead by an average of 8.2 points in 5 June polls. In November, George Bush won by 7.8 points.

In 1992, George Bush was ahead by an average of 4.9 points in 14 June polls. In November, Bill Clinton won by 5.6 points.

I don't actually have any June polls for 1996 (if anybody's sitting on a big stash of Clinton-Dole data, you know where to find me). But in Gallup's July poll, Bill Clinton led by 17 points. In November, Clinton won by 8.5 points.

In 2000, George W. Bush was ahead by an average of 4.7 points in 14 June polls. In November, Al Gore won the popular vote by 0.5 points.

In 2004, John Kerry was ahead by an average of 0.9 points in 16 June polls (this was pretty much his high-water mark all year). In November, George W. Bush won by 2.4 points.

So in four out of the last five elections, an average of June polls would have incorrectly picked the winner of the popular vote. That's kind of a problem for anybody who is overly confident about how this election is going to turn out.

So it looks like, from summer to election, the Democrat gained ground in 2 of 5 elections, and the Republican gained ground in the other 3. But in one of the elections (2004), the Republican gain was only 3.3 points, which probably isn't enough for McCain to win.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Think about it. Could the news possibly be better for the democrats right now? The economy is sliding. We're talking about bank runs. We're talking about bank failures. The world is coming to an end, the democrats are set up as the opposition party, and the BEST Obama can do is a 3-4 point lead over John McCain? What's going to happen when the news turns around? We all know what is going to happen. McCain is going to surge into the lead.

How confident are you in a McCain victory?

I feel completely at ease about it. There's simply not a doubt in my mind.

So you don't want Obama to win anymore?

 

[bigbottom]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

2004. Obama's about where Kerry was in the electoral. Digging for 2000.

This article isn't particularly helpful given that many of the polls relied upon were in May, when Hillary was still in the race. I would like to see a July 2008 to July 2004 comparison, however.

 

[videoguy505]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

2004. Obama's about where Kerry was in the electoral. Digging for 2000.

This would be very compelling evidence if this election was pitting John Kerry against George Bush, and nothing had changed in the demographics or mindset of the country between 2004 and 2008. Other than, I guess, helping conservatives sleep better at night, comparing pre-elections polls of 4 and 8 years ago with current pre-election polls is about as accurate as consulting a Ouija board.

Just trying to answer BB's request.

 

[kaa]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

It also seems as though he is relying exclusively on the last two elections as his evidence of this historical trend.

Four of the last five

In 1988, Michael Dukakis was ahead by an average of 8.2 points in 5 June polls. In November, George Bush won by 7.8 points.

In 1992, George Bush was ahead by an average of 4.9 points in 14 June polls. In November, Bill Clinton won by 5.6 points.

I don't actually have any June polls for 1996 (if anybody's sitting on a big stash of Clinton-Dole data, you know where to find me). But in Gallup's July poll, Bill Clinton led by 17 points. In November, Clinton won by 8.5 points.

In 2000, George W. Bush was ahead by an average of 4.7 points in 14 June polls. In November, Al Gore won the popular vote by 0.5 points.

In 2004, John Kerry was ahead by an average of 0.9 points in 16 June polls (this was pretty much his high-water mark all year). In November, George W. Bush won by 2.4 points.

So in four out of the last five elections, an average of June polls would have incorrectly picked the winner of the popular vote. That's kind of a problem for anybody who is overly confident about how this election is going to turn out.

So it looks like, from summer to election, the Democrat gained ground in 2 of 5 elections, and the Republican gained ground in the other 3. But in one of the elections (2004), the Republican gain was only 3.3 points, which probably isn't enough for McCain to win.

I posted a link to the graph of the 2000 polling. Gore was ahead for most of that summer.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

That politico link seems to back up kaa's argument pretty well. Unless someone comes up with some contrary info, I'll concede that kaa's "republican surge" theory has some eveidence supporting it.

 

[kaa]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

2004. Obama's about where Kerry was in the electoral. Digging for 2000.

This would be very compelling evidence if this election was pitting John Kerry against George Bush, and nothing had changed in the demographics or mindset of the country between 2004 and 2008. Other than, I guess, helping conservatives sleep better at night, comparing pre-elections polls of 4 and 8 years ago with current pre-election polls is about as accurate as consulting a Ouija board.

When the republican rallies just about every election regardless of candidate over a period of 30 years, it probably makes more sense to start seriously considering it might be a trend. You'd have to make a case as to why 2008 will break the trend.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thr...threadid=987060

That article shows the trend of republican autumn rallies.

1996: Clinton up by 16 points on Dole in July. He only won by 8. Dole closed, but the lead was too big.

1992: This is a strange year with 3 major candidates. I'm not really looking at this.

1988: Dukakis was up by 6 points in the summer. He had been up huge in the spring but I'm not looking at that. The 6 point lead was not big enough. Bush rallied and won.

1984: Reagan LED by 10 in the summer. Reagan would rally and push that even higher in the fall and won by 16.

1980: Reagan led by 2 over Carter in the summer. Reagan would rally and win by 10.

1976: Carter was up HUGE in the summer 49%-28%. And he almost LOST because Ford had an ENORMOUS rally to only lose by 2.

Look at that. Every single year except that throwaway year in 92 where we had 3 candidates, the republican rallied as we moved to the fall. And unless the democrat had an ENORMOUS lead, he lost. And even then Carter almost lost anyway with a huge lead.

Maybe you think this year will be different, but it is irrefutable what has been going on every single election in that sample.

It's interesting that you left 2000 off and deceided not to count 1992. In both of those years the Democrat was behind in June and closed the gap to win the popular vote, although losing the election in 2000, of course. So in half of the last 4 presidential elections the Democrat has closed stronger. I'm not sure you understand what "irrefutable" means.

 

[Orange Crush]

sorry if honda.

did you guys see next weeks New Yorker?

Link

looks like they stopped the satire and went with a more factual cover.

I don't think I've seen a better rendition of Cheney.

 

[bigbottom]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

2004. Obama's about where Kerry was in the electoral. Digging for 2000.

This would be very compelling evidence if this election was pitting John Kerry against George Bush, and nothing had changed in the demographics or mindset of the country between 2004 and 2008. Other than, I guess, helping conservatives sleep better at night, comparing pre-elections polls of 4 and 8 years ago with current pre-election polls is about as accurate as consulting a Ouija board.

When the republican rallies just about every election regardless of candidate over a period of 30 years, it probably makes more sense to start seriously considering it might be a trend. You'd have to make a case as to why 2008 will break the trend.

Sure, but it's important to figure out where those surges come from. If the surge is primarily due to significant gains in traditional red or blue states, the surge's impact is lessened. If the surge occurs in battleground states, it's far more relevant.

 

[kaa]

I'll be interested to see what happens when school starts up in september. Republican parents coming home from vacation. Put the kids on the bus. Answer a gallup poll or two.

 

[Clayton Gray]

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thr...threadid=987060

That article shows the trend of republican autumn rallies.

1996: Clinton up by 16 points on Dole in July. He only won by 8. Dole closed, but the lead was too big.

1992: This is a strange year with 3 major candidates. I'm not really looking at this.

1988: Dukakis was up by 6 points in the summer. He had been up huge in the spring but I'm not looking at that. The 6 point lead was not big enough. Bush rallied and won.

1984: Reagan LED by 10 in the summer. Reagan would rally and push that even higher in the fall and won by 16.

1980: Reagan led by 2 over Carter in the summer. Reagan would rally and win by 10.

1976: Carter was up HUGE in the summer 49%-28%. And he almost LOST because Ford had an ENORMOUS rally to only lose by 2.

Look at that. Every single year except that throwaway year in 92 where we had 3 candidates, the republican rallied as we moved to the fall. And unless the democrat had an ENORMOUS lead, he lost. And even then Carter almost lost anyway with a huge lead.

Maybe you think this year will be different, but it is irrefutable what has been going on every single election in that sample.

It's interesting that you left 2000 off and decided not to count 1992. In both of those years the Democrat was behind in June and closed the gap to win the popular vote, although losing the election in 2000, of course. So in half of the last 4 presidential elections the Democrat has closed stronger. I'm not sure you understand what "irrefutable" means.

Arguing with kaa is like arguing with BGP.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Here's 2000. Again if you're looking at the summer months, particularly up until september, Gore held the lead. It was a slight lead of maybe 3-5 points. Then Bush closed in the autumn and reversed it and won.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/mon...tory_2000_1.gif

If you were betting on the outcome in summer 2000 or summer 2004, you'd pick the democrat. And you'd lose both times. The leads weren't big enough.

Okay, but the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency. Without an analysis of the electoral map in those elections at this stage, your point isn't particularly meaningful.

2004. Obama's about where Kerry was in the electoral. Digging for 2000.

This would be very compelling evidence if this election was pitting John Kerry against George Bush, and nothing had changed in the demographics or mindset of the country between 2004 and 2008. Other than, I guess, helping conservatives sleep better at night, comparing pre-elections polls of 4 and 8 years ago with current pre-election polls is about as accurate as consulting a Ouija board.

When the republican rallies just about every election regardless of candidate over a period of 30 years, it probably makes more sense to start seriously considering it might be a trend. You'd have to make a case as to why 2008 will break the trend.

2004: Kerry 46 percent - Bush 44 percent (Dates 6/21-6/23) Broke Republican

John Kerry looked solid at this point, holding a slim edge despite his fateful March comment that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." But the Swift Boat offensive was yet to come.

2000: Bush 45 percent - Gore 36 percent (Dates 6/23-6/25) Broke Democrat

The CNN/Gallup weighting of likely voters had George W. Bush ahead by even more: 52 percent to 39 percent. But that lead would evaporate over time as Al Gore climbed back and ended up winning the popular vote by a half-million votes, only to lose the electoral vote.

1996: Clinton 51 percent - Dole 35 percent (Dates 6/27-6/30) Broke Republican

Though at 51 percent in the Gallup poll, President Bill Clinton ultimately fell short of the 50 percent mark he so dearly desired, leaving Jimmy Carter as the last Democrat to win a majority. Sen. Bob Dole’s decision in May to resign from the Senate and seek the presidency the “hard way” provided him with only a fleeting uptick in the polls. Clinton won by 8 percentage points.

1992: Bush 32 percent - Clinton 31 percent - Perot 28 percent (Dates 7/9-7/10) Broke Democrat

Though this poll suggested something close to a dead heat, a large sample size mid-June poll actually showed Ross Perot ahead of the pack and Clinton in a distant third.

Your own link completely contradicts the point you are trying to make. The real gist of the article is that 2/3 of the time, the polls at this point accurately predict the winner. 1/3 of the time a candidate can come from behind and it could be either a Democrat or Republican. Every election is different, and anything could happen between now and November to change the current lanscape.

 

[Voltaire]

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thr...threadid=987060

That article shows the trend of republican autumn rallies.

1996: Clinton up by 16 points on Dole in July. He only won by 8. Dole closed, but the lead was too big.

1992: This is a strange year with 3 major candidates. I'm not really looking at this.

1988: Dukakis was up by 6 points in the summer. He had been up huge in the spring but I'm not looking at that. The 6 point lead was not big enough. Bush rallied and won.

1984: Reagan LED by 10 in the summer. Reagan would rally and push that even higher in the fall and won by 16.

1980: Reagan led by 2 over Carter in the summer. Reagan would rally and win by 10.

1976: Carter was up HUGE in the summer 49%-28%. And he almost LOST because Ford had an ENORMOUS rally to only lose by 2.

Look at that. Every single year except that throwaway year in 92 where we had 3 candidates, the republican rallied as we moved to the fall. And unless the democrat had an ENORMOUS lead, he lost. And even then Carter almost lost anyway with a huge lead.

Maybe you think this year will be different, but it is irrefutable what has been going on every single election in that sample.

John McCain would be the shortest president since 1888. He's got no shot.

 

[The Juggernaut]

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thr...threadid=987060

That article shows the trend of republican autumn rallies.

1996: Clinton up by 16 points on Dole in July. He only won by 8. Dole closed, but the lead was too big.

1992: This is a strange year with 3 major candidates. I'm not really looking at this.

1988: Dukakis was up by 6 points in the summer. He had been up huge in the spring but I'm not looking at that. The 6 point lead was not big enough. Bush rallied and won.

1984: Reagan LED by 10 in the summer. Reagan would rally and push that even higher in the fall and won by 16.

1980: Reagan led by 2 over Carter in the summer. Reagan would rally and win by 10.

1976: Carter was up HUGE in the summer 49%-28%. And he almost LOST because Ford had an ENORMOUS rally to only lose by 2.

Look at that. Every single year except that throwaway year in 92 where we had 3 candidates, the republican rallied as we moved to the fall. And unless the democrat had an ENORMOUS lead, he lost. And even then Carter almost lost anyway with a huge lead.

Maybe you think this year will be different, but it is irrefutable what has been going on every single election in that sample.

John McCain would be the shortest president since 1888. He's got no shot.

Tye Webb for the win!

 

[higgins]

Arguing with kaa is like arguing with BGP.

I thought kaa was BGPaiMei.

 

[Fennis]

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thr...threadid=987060

That article shows the trend of republican autumn rallies.

1996: Clinton up by 16 points on Dole in July. He only won by 8. Dole closed, but the lead was too big.

1992: This is a strange year with 3 major candidates. I'm not really looking at this.

1988: Dukakis was up by 6 points in the summer. He had been up huge in the spring but I'm not looking at that. The 6 point lead was not big enough. Bush rallied and won.

1984: Reagan LED by 10 in the summer. Reagan would rally and push that even higher in the fall and won by 16.

1980: Reagan led by 2 over Carter in the summer. Reagan would rally and win by 10.

1976: Carter was up HUGE in the summer 49%-28%. And he almost LOST because Ford had an ENORMOUS rally to only lose by 2.

Look at that. Every single year except that throwaway year in 92 where we had 3 candidates, the republican rallied as we moved to the fall. And unless the democrat had an ENORMOUS lead, he lost. And even then Carter almost lost anyway with a huge lead.

Maybe you think this year will be different, but it is irrefutable what has been going on every single election in that sample.

John McCain would be the shortest president since 1888. He's got no shot.

Oldest, baldest, shortest. He has the trifecta!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thr...threadid=987060

That article shows the trend of republican autumn rallies.

1992: This is a strange year with 3 major candidates. I'm not really looking at this.

:

:

1980: Reagan led by 2 over Carter in the summer. Reagan would rally and win by 10.

And 1980 had three major candidates, plus it was the Libertarian parties high water mark for votes, yet you count 1980 and dismiss 1992?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Here's a good and thought provoking NYT article on Obama and some of the challenges of US disengagement:

July 17, 2008

In Iraq, Mixed Feelings About Obama and His Troop Proposal

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.

BAGHDAD — A tough Iraqi general, a former special operations officer with a baritone voice and a barrel chest, melted into smiles when asked about Senator Barack Obama.

“Everyone in Iraq likes him,” said the general, Nassir al-Hiti. “I like him. He’s young. Very active. We would be very happy if he was elected president.”

But mention Mr. Obama’s plan for withdrawing American soldiers, and the general stiffens.

“Very difficult,” he said, shaking his head. “Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: for now, we don’t have that ability.”

Thus in a few brisk sentences, the general summed up the conflicting emotions about Mr. Obama in Iraq, the place outside America with perhaps the most riding on its relationship with him.

There was, as Mr. Obama prepared to visit here, excitement over a man who is the anti-Bush in almost every way: a Democrat who opposed a war that many Iraqis feel devastated their nation. And many in the political elite recognize that Mr. Obama shares their hope for a more rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

But his support for troop withdrawal cuts both ways, reflecting a deep internal quandary in Iraq: for many middle-class Iraqis, affection for Mr. Obama is tempered by worry that his proposal could lead to chaos in a nation already devastated by war. Many Iraqis also acknowledge that security gains in recent months were achieved partly by the buildup of American troops, which Mr. Obama opposed and his presumptive Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, supported.

“In no way do I favor the occupation of my country,” said Abu Ibrahim, a Western-educated businessman in Baghdad, “but there is a moral obligation on the Americans at this point.”

Like many Iraqis, Mr. Ibrahim sees Mr. Obama favorably, describing him as “much more humane than Bush or McCain.”

“He seems like a nice guy,” Mr. Ibrahim said. But he hoped that Mr. Obama’s statements about a relatively fast pullout were mere campaign talk.

“It’s a very big assumption that just because he wants to pull troops out, he’ll be able to do it,” he said. “The American strategy in the region requires troops to remain in Iraq for a long time.”

It is not certain exactly when Mr. Obama will arrive here or whom he will meet. Such official trips are always shrouded in secrecy for security reasons.

But as word spread of the impending visit — Mr. Obama’s first as the presumed Democratic nominee for president — there were fresh reminders of the country’s vulnerability. In the past two days, around 70 Iraqis were killed in suicide bomb attacks, despite recent gains in safety that Mr. Obama uses as one argument for withdrawal.

And despite those improvements, street interviews remain risky in Iraq. For this article, 18 people were interviewed about their opinions of Mr. Obama, in Baghdad, in the northern city of Mosul, in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, and in the Sunni suburb of Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad.

Even as some Iraqis disagreed about Mr. Obama’s stance on withdrawal, they expressed broad approval for him personally as an improvement over Mr. Bush, who remains unpopular among broad portions of Iraqi society five years after the war began. No one interviewed expressed a strong dislike for Mr. Obama.

Saad Sultan, an official in an Iraqi government ministry, contended that Mr. Obama could give a fresh start to relations between the Arab world and the United States. Mr. Obama has never practiced Islam; his father, whom he barely knew, was born Muslim, but became a nonbeliever. Mr. Sultan, however, like many Iraqis, feels instinctively close to the senator because he heard that he had Muslim roots.

“Every time I see Obama I say: ‘He’s close to us. Maybe he’ll see us in a different way,’ ” Mr. Sultan said. “I find Obama very close to my heart.”

Race is also a consideration. Muhammad Ahmed Kareem, 49, an engineer from Mosul, said he had high expectations of Mr. Obama because his experience as a black man in America might give him more empathy for others who feel oppressed by a powerful West. “Blacks suffered a lot of discrimination, much like Arabs,” Mr. Kareem said. “That’s why we expect that his tenure will be much better.”

But Mr. Obama also frames the sometimes contradictory feelings Iraqis have about America as the withdrawal of troops has moved closer to the political mainstream in both countries. Already, the units brought in for the so-called surge last year have left, and the Bush administration has in recent days acknowledged the need both to transfer troops from Iraq to an ever-more-volatile Afghanistan and to recognize that a broader withdrawal is an “aspirational goal” for Iraqis.

Mr. Obama has advocated a withdrawal that would remove most combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Despite some fears about such a departure, that stance is not unpopular here. Many Iraqis hate American forces because soldiers have killed their relatives and friends, and they say they want the troops out.

“Of course I want the American forces to leave Iraq,” said May Adnan Yunis, whose sister was killed, along with a female and a male co-worker, when they were gunned down by American soldiers while driving to work at Baghdad International Airport three weeks ago. “I want them to go to hell.”

After the killings, a statement by the American military describing the three employees as “criminals” who shot at the soldiers inflamed Iraqi officials even more. In a rare public rebuke of the American military, the Iraqi armed forces general command described the American soldiers’ actions as crimes “committed in cold blood.”

For General Hiti, who commands a swath of western Baghdad, the American military is a necessary, if vexing, presence. He ticks off the ways it helps: evacuating wounded Iraqi soldiers, bringing in helicopters when things go wrong, defusing bombs, getting detailed pictures of areas from drone planes.

But the issue of withdrawal is immensely complex, and some of the functions mentioned by General Hiti would not be affected under Mr. Obama’s plan. The senator is calling for the withdrawal of combat brigades, but has said a residual force would still pursue extremist militants, protect American troops and train Iraqi security forces.

In negotiations on the future troop presence, both sides were initially focused on concluding a long-term security agreement. But the Iraqi government is now rejecting that and has focused solely on a temporary agreement to begin next year after the United Nations mandate that serves as the legal basis for the American military presence expires.

For weeks American officials had insisted that widespread Iraqi objections to the long-term pact were merely overheated words from Iraqi politicians. Now, they acknowledge that they underestimated Iraqis’ fears of acquiescing to what the Iraqis see as a colonial relationship that would allow American forces to indefinitely operate permanent bases under special laws.

“The Iraqis have a real political issue here,” said one American official, who said the Iraqis viewed any deal that would replicate the broad powers Americans now have “as a scarlet letter.”

But for some Iraqis the American presence remains the backbone of security in the neighborhood. Saidiya, a southern Baghdad district, was so brutalized by violence a year ago that a young Iraqi television reporter who fled thought he would never come back. But a telephone call from his father in December persuaded him to return. An American unit had planted itself in the district, helping chase away radicals. The family could go out shopping. They could drive their car to the gas station.

“The Americans paved the way for the Iraqi Army there,” said the young man, who married this year. “If they weren’t there, the Iraqi forces could not have taken control.” Even so, he agreed with Mr. Obama’s plan for a faster withdrawal. American forces “helped the Iraqi Army to get back its dignity,” he said. “They are qualified now.”

But Iraq is now a complex landscape. Some areas are subdued, and others are still racked by violence and calibrating troop presence will be tricky.

Falah al-Alousy is the director of an organization that runs a school in an area south of Baghdad that was controlled by religious extremists two years ago. Former insurgents turned against the militant group, but local authorities still rely heavily on Americans to keep the peace; the Iraqi Army, largely Shiite, is not allowed to patrol in the area, Mr. Alousy said.

“Al Qaeda would rearrange itself and come back, if the Americans withdraw,” he said. As for Mr. Obama’s plan for withdrawal, “It’s just propaganda for an election.”

Most Iraqis dislike the fact that their country is occupied, but a few well-educated Iraqis who have traveled abroad say they would not oppose a permanent American military presence, something that Mr. Obama opposes. Saad Sultan, the Iraqi government official, said his travels in Germany, where there have been American bases since the end of World War II, softened his attitude toward a long-term presence. “I have no problem to have a camp here,” he said. “I find it in Germany and that’s a strong country. Why not in Iraq?”

Reporting was contributed by Alissa J. Rubin, Mohammed Hussein, Riyadh Muhammad, Anwar J. Ali and Suadad al-Salhy from Baghdad, and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Mosul.

Link

 

[Orange Crush]

Add another name to the list of Obamacans: Larry Hunter

I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.

This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.

When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.

 

[timschochet]

Add another name to the list of Obamacans: Larry Hunter

I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.

This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.

When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.

I don't disagree with this guy's priorities, if you truly believe that (a) Obama has a better chance of "solving" Iraq and (b) Obama will protect individual rights to a greater extent than McCain. Since I don't believe either of these to be correct, I think it's fair to return to discussion of economic policies and health care, and these issues are decisive for me. Obama if elected will enact the largest entitlement program in history which we have no way to pay for, and which will hurt us severely over time much more than it will help us. He deserves to be defeated for this alone.

 

[Sulla]

Here's a model that has predicted the US Presidential campaign winner in 14 of the last 15 elections:

One simple way to predict a victor

By Clive Crook

Alan Abramowitz, a politics scholar at Emory University, has shown that summer head-to-head polls convey almost no information about the forthcoming election. (Subsequent head-to-head polls are not much better.) Instead, he has a simple “electoral barometer” that weighs together:

1) the approval rating of the incumbent president,

2) the economy’s economic growth rate and

3) whether the president’s party has controlled the White House for two terms (the “time for a change” factor).

This laughably simple metric has correctly forecast the winner of the popular vote in 14 out of 15 postwar presidential elections.

The only exception is 1968, when the barometer (calibrated to range between +100 and –100) gave Hubert Humphrey a wafer-thin advantage of +2; he lost, with a popular vote deficit of less than 1 percentage point. The barometer not only picks winners but pretty accurately points to winning margins, too. In 1980, Jimmy Carter had the biggest postwar negative reading (–66); Ronald Reagan beat him by nearly 10 percentage points.

President George W. Bush’s net approval rating (favourable minus unfavourable) is currently –40; the economy grew at a 1 per cent annual rate in the first quarter; and Republicans have had two terms in the White House. Plugging the numbers into Mr Abramowitz’s formula gives the Republican candidate a score of –60, about as bad as it gets: second only to Mr Carter’s in the annals of doomed postwar candidacies. The barometer says Mr Obama is going to waltz to victory.

Why has this barometer been so much more accurate than the wisdom of Gallup? That is hard to say – but as a factual matter, its superiority is indisputable. Even if you do not buy it, it ought to inform your reading of the polls. A wide winning margin, which is what the barometer predicts for Mr Obama, renders moot all the detailed electoral map analysis of swing states, solid states, toss-up states, states leaning one way or the other. All this wonderful stuff might matter if the margin in the national popular vote is thin. If it is wide, the toss-up states move together and that is that.

The unsettling thing about this way of predicting the outcome, of course, is that it does not matter whether the Democratic candidate is Mr Obama or Hillary Clinton – or Joe Biden or Dennis Kucinich, for that matter. The Republicans’ choice of Mr McCain was equally beside the point. On the merits, one candidate may be much better than another – a separate and endlessly interesting question. When it comes to predicting the result, the barometer says that as long as the incumbent is not running, it makes no difference.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3bf5c59a-5666-11...?nclick_check=1

 

[The Z Machine]

I've been convinced since 2007 that the next President would either be a black man or a woman. The Republicans really don't stand a chance here. Sulla's link really highlights the reasons why.

People want change. That's a fact. How bad they want it determines the outcome. If they want it REALLY bad, the opposition party wins. If they want it only *slightly bad*, the sitting president's party wins.

I'd like to see this model applied to other countries to see if it holds true. I think it would have a hit % of around 75% or so.

 

[bigbottom]

Real Clear Politics has now moved Nevada and Virginia into Obama's column on the no toss-up electoral vote analysis. They have Obama up over McCain 322-216 in that count.

Keeping the toss-up states as toss-ups, Real Clear Politics has the count at Obama 255 (just 15 shy of the required 270), McCain 163, and 120 electoral votes as toss-ups.

Interestingly, if Obama keeps the states that are currently solid or leaning Obama, and takes the toss-up states of Colorado and New Mexico, and McCain takes the rest of the toss-ups (Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida), they'll end up at 169-169.

 

[Spiderman]

Here's a model that has predicted the US Presidential campaign winner in 14 of the last 15 elections:

One simple way to predict a victor

By Clive Crook

Alan Abramowitz, a politics scholar at Emory University, has shown that summer head-to-head polls convey almost no information about the forthcoming election. (Subsequent head-to-head polls are not much better.) Instead, he has a simple “electoral barometer” that weighs together:

1) the approval rating of the incumbent president,

2) the economy’s economic growth rate and

3) whether the president’s party has controlled the White House for two terms (the “time for a change” factor).

This laughably simple metric has correctly forecast the winner of the popular vote in 14 out of 15 postwar presidential elections.

The only exception is 1968, when the barometer (calibrated to range between +100 and –100) gave Hubert Humphrey a wafer-thin advantage of +2; he lost, with a popular vote deficit of less than 1 percentage point. The barometer not only picks winners but pretty accurately points to winning margins, too. In 1980, Jimmy Carter had the biggest postwar negative reading (–66); Ronald Reagan beat him by nearly 10 percentage points.

President George W. Bush’s net approval rating (favourable minus unfavourable) is currently –40; the economy grew at a 1 per cent annual rate in the first quarter; and Republicans have had two terms in the White House. Plugging the numbers into Mr Abramowitz’s formula gives the Republican candidate a score of –60, about as bad as it gets: second only to Mr Carter’s in the annals of doomed postwar candidacies. The barometer says Mr Obama is going to waltz to victory.

Why has this barometer been so much more accurate than the wisdom of Gallup? That is hard to say – but as a factual matter, its superiority is indisputable. Even if you do not buy it, it ought to inform your reading of the polls. A wide winning margin, which is what the barometer predicts for Mr Obama, renders moot all the detailed electoral map analysis of swing states, solid states, toss-up states, states leaning one way or the other. All this wonderful stuff might matter if the margin in the national popular vote is thin. If it is wide, the toss-up states move together and that is that.

The unsettling thing about this way of predicting the outcome, of course, is that it does not matter whether the Democratic candidate is Mr Obama or Hillary Clinton – or Joe Biden or Dennis Kucinich, for that matter. The Republicans’ choice of Mr McCain was equally beside the point. On the merits, one candidate may be much better than another – a separate and endlessly interesting question. When it comes to predicting the result, the barometer says that as long as the incumbent is not running, it makes no difference.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3bf5c59a-5666-11...?nclick_check=1

The irony there is that Obama's policies most closely mirror Jimmy Carter, who had the worst post war rating on this chart.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Here's a model that has predicted the US Presidential campaign winner in 14 of the last 15 elections:

One simple way to predict a victor

By Clive Crook

Alan Abramowitz, a politics scholar at Emory University, has shown that summer head-to-head polls convey almost no information about the forthcoming election. (Subsequent head-to-head polls are not much better.) Instead, he has a simple “electoral barometer” that weighs together:

1) the approval rating of the incumbent president,

2) the economy’s economic growth rate and

3) whether the president’s party has controlled the White House for two terms (the “time for a change” factor).

This laughably simple metric has correctly forecast the winner of the popular vote in 14 out of 15 postwar presidential elections.

The only exception is 1968, when the barometer (calibrated to range between +100 and –100) gave Hubert Humphrey a wafer-thin advantage of +2; he lost, with a popular vote deficit of less than 1 percentage point. The barometer not only picks winners but pretty accurately points to winning margins, too. In 1980, Jimmy Carter had the biggest postwar negative reading (–66); Ronald Reagan beat him by nearly 10 percentage points.

President George W. Bush’s net approval rating (favourable minus unfavourable) is currently –40; the economy grew at a 1 per cent annual rate in the first quarter; and Republicans have had two terms in the White House. Plugging the numbers into Mr Abramowitz’s formula gives the Republican candidate a score of –60, about as bad as it gets: second only to Mr Carter’s in the annals of doomed postwar candidacies. The barometer says Mr Obama is going to waltz to victory.

Why has this barometer been so much more accurate than the wisdom of Gallup? That is hard to say – but as a factual matter, its superiority is indisputable. Even if you do not buy it, it ought to inform your reading of the polls. A wide winning margin, which is what the barometer predicts for Mr Obama, renders moot all the detailed electoral map analysis of swing states, solid states, toss-up states, states leaning one way or the other. All this wonderful stuff might matter if the margin in the national popular vote is thin. If it is wide, the toss-up states move together and that is that.

The unsettling thing about this way of predicting the outcome, of course, is that it does not matter whether the Democratic candidate is Mr Obama or Hillary Clinton – or Joe Biden or Dennis Kucinich, for that matter. The Republicans’ choice of Mr McCain was equally beside the point. On the merits, one candidate may be much better than another – a separate and endlessly interesting question. When it comes to predicting the result, the barometer says that as long as the incumbent is not running, it makes no difference.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3bf5c59a-5666-11...?nclick_check=1

The irony there is that Obama's policies most closely mirror Jimmy Carter, who had the worst post war rating on this chart.

Which policies?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Great article by Fareed Zakaria on Obama's foreign policy.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763?from=rss?nav=slate

The rap on Barack Obama, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been that he is a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America's enemies. John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world's dangers. Even President Bush stepped into the fray earlier this year to condemn the Illinois senator's willingness to meet with tyrants as naive. Some commentators have acted as if Obama, touring the Middle East and Europe this week on his first trip abroad since effectively wrapping up the nomination, is in for a rude awakening.

These critiques, however, are off the mark. Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.

No candidate for the presidency ever claims to have a doctrinal world view. Richard Nixon never said he loved realpolitik. Jimmy Carter never claimed to be a Wilsonian. There's no advantage to getting pigeonholed, and most politicians and even policy folk are clever enough to argue that they want to combine the best of all traditions. So John McCain says he's a "realistic idealist." Former national-security adviser Anthony Lake, who now counsels Obama, calls himself a "pragmatic neo-Wilsonian." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describes herself as an "American realist."

Against that backdrop, Obama has been strikingly honest about his inclinations and inspirations. True, he begins by praising Harry Truman's administration, which in the foreign-policy world is a little like saying you admire George Washington. (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and John McCain have all cited Truman as a model.) But then Obama takes an unusual step, for a Democrat, and praises the administration of George H.W. Bush, one that is often seen as the most hardheaded or coldblooded (depending on your point of view) in recent memory. Obama has done this more than once, most recently in a conversation with me last week on CNN. And he is explicit about what he means. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign-policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush," he told The New York Times's David Brooks in May.

Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.

Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—"dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want." This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.

Obama talks admiringly of men like Dean Acheson, George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr, all of whom were imbued with a sense of the limits of idealism and American power to transform the world. "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative," wrote Larissa MacFarquhar in her profile of him for The New Yorker. "There are moments when he sounds almost Burkean. He distrusts abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections. It's not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good."

As important as what Obama says is what he passes up—a series of obvious cheap shots against Bush. He could bash him for coddling China's dictatorship, urge him to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics or criticize his inaction in Darfur. In fact, Obama has been circumspect on all these issues, neither grandstanding nor overpromising. (This is, alas, not true on trade policy, where he has done both.)

Perhaps the most telling area where Obama has stuck to a focused conception of U.S. national interests is Iraq. Despite the progress in Iraq, despite the possibility of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, Obama's position is steely—Iraq is a distraction, and the sooner America can reduce its exposure there, the better. I actually wish he were somewhat more sympathetic to the notion that a democratic Iraq would play a positive role in the struggle against Islamic extremism. But his view is certainly focused on America's core security interests and is recognizably realist. Walter Lippmann and George Kennan made similar arguments about Vietnam from the mid-1960s onward.

Ironically, the Republicans now seem to be the foreign-policy idealists, labeling countries as either good or evil, refusing to deal with nasty regimes, fixating on spreading democracy throughout the world and refusing to think in more historical and complex ways. "I don't do nuance," George W. Bush told many visitors to the White House in the years after 9/11. John McCain has had his differences with Bush, but not on this broad thrust of policy. Indeed it is McCain, the Republican, who has put forward some fanciful plans, arguing that America should establish a "League of Democracies," expel Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and exclude China from both groups as well.

Obama's response to McCain's proposals on Russia and China could have been drafted by Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft. We need to cooperate with both countries in order to solve significant global problems, he told me last week, citing nuclear-proliferation issues with Russia and economic ones with China. The distinction between Obama and McCain on this point is important. The single largest strategic challenge facing the United States in the decades ahead is to draw in the world's new rising powers and make them stakeholders in the global economic and political order. Russia and China will be the hardest because they are large and have different political systems and ideological approaches to the world. Yet the benefits of having them inside the tent are obvious. Without some degree of great-power cooperation, global peace and stability becomes a far more fragile prospect.

Obama and McCain are obviously mixtures of both realism and idealism. American statesmen have always sought to combine the two in some fashion, and they are right to do so. A foreign policy that is impractical will fail and one that lacks ideals is unworthy of the United States. But the balance that each leader establishes is always different, and my main point is that Obama seems—unusually for a modern-day Democrat—highly respectful of the realist tradition. And McCain, to an extent unusual for a traditional Republican, sees the world in moralistic terms.

In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology—temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.