Perhaps this explains some of the allure of Palin; an outsider who can hopefully be tough but fair. Women normally bring moderation to extremes. Let's hope she does.

I'm hard pressed to see how Obama will have a hard time. If his first couple years are good, the GOP aren't going to be able to do anything.

God, I hope it's a lot. Either outcome is beyond depressing.

I think he's exaggerating the problem if Obama wins; I think he's understating the problem if McCain wins. In the latter case, not only in the Congress, but in the country at large, there will be an irrevocable and dangerous division that will not only make the country ungovernable, but that might well lead to national stalemate and even decline. Our problems will not be addressed; they will fester. Conservatives will dismiss this as an issue - they love America far less than they hate Democrats and liberals. For them, the victory will be sufficient unto itself. But for those of us who actually do care about the country above all else, a McCain victory based on this kind of vile campaign will leave deep and irreparable scars.

What's this, the 'we'll stamp our feet and hate you mommy' gambit?

If I didn't know how much of an advantage the Obama crowd has in the ground and money games, I'd be impressed. That there is the legitimate smell of fear.

I don't think there would be a problem for President Obama - he laid out an agenda in unusually specific terms in his acceptance speech, it's solidly in the Dem mainstream, and if he wins he'll have solid majorities *and* a popular mandate. Plus he appears to have good relationships with several Republican senators, e.g. Hagel, Lugar and can probably make reasonable deals with them to avoid most filibusters.

But McCain is running an astonishingly negative campaign, with hardly any policies beyond more big taxcuts and some nebulous "reform" of earmarks. On top of that, if you base your whole campaign on lies then who in Congress is going to trust you enough to make deals ? He's going to be starting right where Bush leaves off, with instant gridlock.

One variable he didn't consider: popular vote/electoral vote. It seems as if the election will be close, meaning an increased possibility of a 2000 result. And, given the past 8 years, we might even have recounts in multiple states. That really could poison the well.

Assuming congruence of popular vote and electoral vote, I think Kevin's overly worried. I'm not that worried about Palin's being another Pat Buchanan.

Kevin exaggerates a bit. Much depends on whether congressional Dems increase their margins to veto-proof (doubtful). But, if the Demes are even close to a veto-proof majority, don't expect McCain to do much.

If Obama wins and the Dems maintain their majority (likely), their biggest problem will be in overreaching (a la the Clinton and health care).

Kevin Drum is, like many people who blog constantly, taking total leave of his senses, if he ever had any.

Vicious campaign? What planet is he on? This is a trivial and sedate campaign all the way around. Focus on the mountains, don't get lost in all the silly foothills.

The campaign would have been considerably more uplifting if Obama had agreed with McCain to to multiple town forums, as his earlier rhetoric suggested. And as Newt Gingrich and others had suggested for this election cycle. Too bad, opportunity missed.

One of the larger problems for McCain may be that not only will Dems be mad, but he hasn't exactly made friends with Republican Senators either. I'm not sure how much help and support he will get there.

In particular, if McCain wins and actually does veto legislation with earmarks, I have a feeling the negative reaction will be bipartisan (remember the reaction to Clinton's line item vetos?). While I think many earmarks are abusive, the way our institutions are designed almost guarantees that they will exist.

If Obama wins? Hopefully he'll learn from the early days of Clinton not to anger Congressional Leaders; there is also a good chance he will keep Congressional majorities longer than Clinton did, which will alter what Republicans can do (see Dems the first six years of Bush, and really in the last two). And as unpopular as Obama may be among conservatives, so far there is no evidence to suggest any zipper scandals.

A lot, a lot. McCain has buddies aplenty in Congress and if he wins they'll be under a lot of pressure to accomodate him.
The Obama/Clinton example is poor. In 1992 the Dems won a huge victory, controlling the White House, both houses of Congress, most governorships and most state legislatures. The Republicans certainly went on a jihad against the guy two years later but the bad feelings between Clinton and Congress initially came from failure to control his own party. The current mood among Democrats suggests Obama won't have that.

I love how Kevin belives it is McCain who "is unloosing" the forces - not Obama. I also think he is underestimating the reaction not to an Obama election but to the far left pull if Pelosi and Reid can push throught their agenda. As we have seen already in this election cycle there are a number of moderate Dems in the south and west who would be extremely vulnerable to another Republican backlash (similar to the one Clinton had)if the leadership moves to far -- overreaching -- as the stated earlier.

The Republicans will certainly try to make this happen as it is the only way they know to govern. With Obama and the Democratic congress they won't have much say, though what say they do have will likely be bitter and sulking. With McCain there will be deadlock on everything except what he is intent on and what he is willing to accept as quid pro quo. It will only be possible if it appeals to the majority though. McCain's coalition was always small and weak and his leadership reactive rather than proactive. His winning won't change that.

"The CAMPAIGN is getting nasty"?

Is this precisely correct, or maybe precisely half true?

What has Obama said that's NASTY?

Compare: saying what Obama said about policy,pigs and lipstick, and saying Obama said Palin was a pig.

Or, saying Obama advocates sex education for kindergartners to anything Obama has said.

Really, McCain opened a considerable nastiness gap? And shouldn't those trying to be in the truth business take care not to suggest otherwise?

To be effective, the next administration will have to overcome significant obstacles. Only a couple of these have to do with this year's campaign.

As a poster upthread suggested, the level of venom in this campaign is pretty low relative to the amount of emotion being expended on it. Personally, I think this is mostly a matter of a softer generation of Americans whose feelings are more easily hurt than they used to be. Harry Truman was called a fool and a Communist dupe in his time, Lyndon Johnson a babykiller and traitor to his race, Richard Nixon a warmonger; Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, John Kennedy, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan all had attempts made on their lives. Yet today the Democrats appeal for sympathy because Republicans make fun of the phrase "community organizer" and the Republicans want people to be outraged because a few bloggers have questioned whether a woman with a handicapped infant to care for is a good choice to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

It's easy enough to listen to the two campaigns and say, "boo hoo; what a bunch of sissies." The fact is, though, that this kind of appeal for sympathy works in modern American politics. Most Americans -- and certainly most American voters -- have no experience with anything resembling real suffering, and no experience either with what government at the national level does. They are therefore prone to "identify" with candidates who "understand" them -- that is, who are willing to sympathize effusively in public with their fears and insecurities -- while being fairly unresponsive to politicians whose chief credential is past accomplishments in government. They are also receptive, as earlier generations of Americans would not have been, to campaigns that portray their candidates as victims.

There isn't any doubt that the campaigns that result from the need to appeal to this kind of electorate can lead to administrations ill-suited to take the hard -- that is, the unpopular -- decisions often needed to address difficult national problems effectively. This is a problem of significant dimensions, but it didn't originate with this year's Presidential campaign.

The US will be "only barely governable"? he's not only exaggerating a lot, he's also underestimating the term "ungovernable"... I'm not pretending to be an expert on US politics, but a congress reluctant to work with legislation and an impeachment are not really that dramatic in terms of ungovernability if you take other less stable nations as an example... maybe it will be more complicated to pass certain laws, but barely governable??

I think there's a bigger problem that this election has exposed: the complete lack of trust in the news media. After Rathergate four years back, the media lost a lot of trust. Polls now say a majority of Americans think the media is trying to get Obama elected. That's very dangerous (one way to look at how this plays out is how the media has treated Palin: they've thrown so much false dirt at her that many Americans probably won't believe them if the media comes up with some real dirt). If Obama is elected and the perception persists that the public was fooled by the media into electing someone who will bring fundamental change to the country, there won't be much left of the media's reputation. So, people will turn to disparate sources to get their news, ones that are biased, but openly admit them. These sources can be even more shady. The hope of some objective reality that we can all agree on and base decisions on will go down the drain.

That said, if you believe in the durability of the US system, there will still be issues that invoke enough outrage that an objective reality can shine through: a good example of that is currently oil drilling; the notion that we shouldn't exploit our own resources while the price of oil from regimes that hate us destroys our economy is insane enough to drive through the disparate voices (and no, nobody's serious arguing that just drilling for more oil will solve our energy problems...

If Obama wins he gets to work with a Democratic Congress. If McCain wins he can do what he promises to do: wield the veto pen, or threaten to wield the veto pen, as Palin did in Alaska.

"If McCain wins, he’ll face a Democratic congress that’s beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk."

Firstly this campaign isn't that vicious. It's true that many Democrats are accurately described as 'beyond furious' but that has been a constant since the 2000 election. If they lost to Jesus Christ running under the GOP label (not that He would) they would arrive with a serious foam on the mouth.

What McCain has been doing can be more accurately described as silly; I've seen the newsclip of the Obama speech and it's obvious that the target isn't Palin. It also isn't very nice of Obama: He is variously describing McCain or the GOP as the 'pig', and Palin or Palin/McCain as the lipstick.

It might not be nice but it is funny and effective - probably why McCain ran the atack ad.

Nasty personal attacks are part of politics in this country. Some candidates can pose as above the fray (as Obama often has) because others are taking care of the serious business of putting the boot in. Others must act more directly, but in every campaign the boot gets put in. I'm hearing loud cries of injury from Democrats about MCCain, nbut they didn't protest when Palin was getting shafted 10 days ago. They protest 'Swift-Boating' but fall silent when memos are falsified and used before the ink is dry - on a formerly respected national news show by a formerly respected new anchor no less.

Either way it's filthy, either way it's wrong, but there are no innocents. It doesn't matter whether it's done more directly or it's financed by shadowy figures whom the media refuse to investigate - the end result is the same and I think the public rightly judges it as the same.

In the end this kind of thing doesn't change many minds. The current chaos IS hurting Obama, however. Obama has the advantage and no mistake. McCain can only win by throwing a spanner into the works, as he did with the Palin nomination. But the Democratic 'talking heads' (one is tempted to use 'jackasses') fell into the trap with their stupid assaults on Palin.

Obama has a winning program; if he is allowed to take it to the voters and is smart in his strategy he will win. Chaos therefore is McCains best chance - foodfights like the present one are good for him because when everyone is covered with banana cream pie nobody looks good.

The Democrats need to calm down and get back to the issues. Obama has never lost his calm (to his credit) - now the rest of you need to emulate his example.