Chris Matthews gives Howard Dean his due

Amen. Thank you Dr Dean.

$150 million for Obama

Suck. On. That. McCain.

Obama's September fundraising explains why he's been able to outspend John McCain so widely: He raised over $150 million in September alone, adding 632,000 new donors.

The average donation for the month was less than $100. The average contribution for the campaign is $86, Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer said in an email.

(snip)

Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney, meanwhile, emails that the committee raised $49.9 million for the month, leaving it with $27.4 million on hand as of the beginning of October.

Poll-itics: Wow! edition

By GottaLaff

UPDATE-- Gramm-pa McCain's team responds to this poll:

Bill McInturff, Sen. John McCain's pollster, writes:

"The financial tsunami has produced one of the most difficult and volatile times to conduct polling in modern times. During these uniquely volatile last few weeks, I have seen as much day-to-day movement as I have witnessed in my 20 plus year career as a pollster."

I guess Gramm-pa McCain has Obama "right where he wants him":

The jawdropping numbers from the CBS News / New York Times poll are, yes, the top-line...Obama leads among likely voters 53% to 39%. But more than that: which candidate will raise your taxes? Respondents, by 51% to 46%, say it's McCain. [...]

He's tied among whites, shooting up fifteen percentage points since the last survey; he's winning men and women; he's marginally improving his standing among white evangelicals; he's substantially improved his standing among self-described moderates and among independents (a full third of this group swung toward Obama); Obama's now getting 82% of Clinton supporters.

You can bet that McCain's polling team will respond to this one...a lot of the deltas in this poll are probably unprecedented for their time period.

Wow. L word*.

*Landslide

The 'L' word: Obama on track to a Landslide

By GottaLaff

(Click on image to make it dance)

I just heard Craig Crawford use the L word on MSNBC, too. Are you ready for The Happy Post-O'-The-Day?:

Barring a dramatic change in the political landscape over the next three weeks, Democrats appear headed toward a decisive victory on Election Day that would give them broad power over the federal government.

The victory would send Barack Obama to the White House and give him larger Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate — and perhaps a filibuster-proof margin there.

That could mark a historic realignment of the country's politics on a scale with 1932 or 1980, when the out party was given power it held for a generation, and used it to transform government's role in American society.

Insert Smiley Face here.

The Democrats are also widely expected to take big gains in House and Senate races. Like Obama, they're reaching deep into once solid Republican territory. Even such stalwarts as North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole and Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, could be in jeopardy.

Building on the Democrats' sweeping wins two years ago when they seized control of both chambers of Congress, big gains this year would be reminiscent of the Republican gains in 1978 and 1980 that delivered "the Reagan Revolution."

Insert Happy Dance here. Former Reagan political adviser Ed Rollins:

"Barack has met the threshold," Rollins said. "Once Reagan met the threshold, people wanted to get rid of Carter and they did in a landslide. This is going to turn into a landslide."

Insert cartwheels here. Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia:

"It could hardly look better for the Democrats."

Insert cheers here. Independent analyst Charlie Cook:

But as of this week, Obama now leads in enough states to secure more than the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency.

He could lose some of those leads, of course. There's still one more presidential debate on Wednesday. And events could change. A terrorist attack, for example, could turn voters back to McCain's political strength: his standing on foreign policy and national security.

"But I don't know if even that would work," Cook said. "It's not like people would forget their pocketbooks."

Insert back flip here. Stuart Rothenberg:

"Republicans appear to be heading into a disastrous election that will usher in a very bleak period for the party. A new generation of party leaders will have to figure out how to pick up the pieces and make their party relevant after November."

Insert champagne toast here.

Polls Show Landslide Scenario Unlikely

By GottaLaff

Now there are predictions based on unpredictable polls. Go figger:

From the fever swamps of the blogosphere to the halls of academia, there is a chorus of voices who have come to the same conclusion about the presidential election: Barack Obama is going to win in November, by something resembling a landslide.

Yet for all the breathless analysis and number-crunching that has convinced observers Obama is en route to an epic victory, there is one key historic fact that is often overlooked-most popular vote landslides were clearly visible by the end of summer. And by that indicator, 2008 doesn’t measure up.

In five of the six post-war landslides (defined as a victory of 10 percentage points or more) the eventual winner was ahead by at least 10 percentage points in the polls at the close of August, according to a Politico analysis of historical Gallup polls. Over the past week, however, Gallup’s daily tracking poll pegs Obama ahead of John McCain by a margin of 2 to 5 percentage points.

The one exception to the August rule was 1980. Ronald Reagan was trailing slightly in the August polls before surging forward to win by roughly a 10-point margin.

By comparison, the biggest post-war landslides-1964, 1972 and 1984-were signaled by a large, double-digit advantage held by the eventual winner at the close of August.

So the author's definition of a landslide is 10 points or more. Chuck Todd's is 5 or 6. Anyway, this goes on and on for awhile, until finally:

Several pollsters agreed that race is a significant factor in this election, though they count others of roughly equal influence.

“This may sound kind of harsh, but if the Democratic nominee were a white male from a red or purple state, the theory would be dead on that this would be set up, there would be a very, very high probability for a Democratic landslide,” said Brad Coker, the managing partner of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

Coker said that, in his view, two factors along with race are anchoring down Obama. He cites Obama’s political inexperience and that “you’ve never had a young guy win by such a large margin, post-war.” Coker added that Obama’s ideology and geography were also factors, though of lesser importance in his view.

But even if Obama built a big lead, it would also not necessarily presage a big win. In 1976, Carter led Gerald Ford in the summer by about 20 percentage points in some polls. Ford closed in by Election Day. Carter barely pulled out a victory.

If nothing else, the contours of the 2008 political environment suggest there is still hope for Democrats who expect nothing less than a resounding victory.

“The conditions are ripe for either a near-landslide, maybe 53 percent, or a landslide,” said the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato, though he notes the race looks to be significantly closer.

Second-guessing landslides is like second-guessing veep picks. A total waste of time, but we continue to feed on it, talk about it, and snark about it.

We (and by "we", I don't mean the regular readers of this blog, who do this regularly) should be talking about that last part, how race is playing a factor... and who might be feeding that factor. And who else. And why. And how.

And then they should take a whole bunch of polls about which would be the best way to rid ourselves of people who employ such tactics, who insist on perpetuating race baiting for their own personal gain. I'd be happy to participate in a poll like that.