My sense is that if Obama can avoid being caught with a dead girl in his bed or in a submerged car somewhere, he's in.

A McCain bounceback is fairly likely because voters my not like the idea of giving Obama too much of a open-ended mandate, but I sense that people want a change. Not Change(tm) as Obama was marketing earlier, but something more fundamental, particularly on the domestic and economic end.

I think the financial crisis has been a watershed event, and it's not going away any time soon. I think most people are past their initial panic, but are fundamentally angry at Wall Street specifically and at the company management class generally.

Much of middle america has been put through the wringer this decade (remember the disaffected software engineers, Dan?) - being asked to pay the bill for Wall Street's year's long party is just too much.

Middle America wants to see Wall Street take a big haircut, it wants to see perp walks, and (as a side order) it wants to see the downsizing, 'rightsizing', offshoring, health insurance cutting managerial class take a hit for once, rather than the employee.

McCain won't do that, Obama probably won't do all of that, but more. Obama wins, Democrats get bigger margins in the House and Senate, perhaps LOT's bigger.

The downside is they will be expected to perform. If they don't perform it could be Jimmy Carter II. But in 4 or (more likely) 8 years.

Honestly, I think the McCain we've seen over the last 48 hours is who we'll see for the next four weeks. Full bore negativity and character attacks. He wants to be President desperately and sees the chance slipping away. In the process, he'll wound both himself and Obama so much that whoever wins the Presidency will be so damaged that they will be unable to effectively lead the country.

I think we are in for 4 years of such vitriol and polarization that it will make the previous 16 years look like a nationwide hippie love-in.

Over at The Democratic Strategist, Stan Greenberg and Jim Carville argue that it's not entirely the economy, and it's not just the "natural" Democratic brand edge on the issue. They contend that as people have observed McCain and Obama in their respective responses to the current situation, they've come to *prefer* Obama--He seems to be much steadier, calmer, and more knowledgeable. In other words, for the first time he's developing a *character* edge over McCain. This may well explain the current "personal" turn in the McCain campaign. Biography has been his strongest selling point--some would argue his *only* selling point--but in the crucible this campaign has become his heroic past can no longer mask his unpreparedness to deal with an economy gone haywire. TBS, no one else seems to be prepared either--but, as FDR showed in a comparable situation, the impression of confidence can go a long way. Dime-store-cowboy heroics can be convincing to voters concerned with winning wars, but they don't look impressive to voters seeking reassurance. I don't know how McCain regains that lost confidence.

Bah! A pox on both their houses.

Angus--I sincerely hope you are correct.

David--"Dime store cowboy heroics?" Such as?

1. I do not see how McCain wins, particularly after his drama queen performance when he suspended his campaign before not suspending it. (Put me down as one of those voter Carville was talking about -- I have real problems with how McCain handled this crisis, particularly with the way he gambled big, but then failed to follow through with his gamble.) BUT, Obama, during the Dem Primaries, had a way of underperforming expectations. Obama could possible lose it if he begins, once again, to pretend he's already President. The white older women who are the swing voters in this campaign hate that display of cockiness. His advisors need to tell him to watch the hubris. (And, I have a feeling this is going to be a theme of his Presidency.)

2. I don't think the voters are listening to the mudslinging. Which may mean that, while it won't do the candidates any good, it may not do them any harm either.

3. I just don't see McCain giving up and "losing honorably". That's not the nature of the sort of man who runs for President. As much as we might desire a dignified campaign on the issues, like we all seem to suppose happened in the good ol' days, but never really did, not campaigining to win does a disservice to the volunteers who work for you and the donors and supporters who have a reasonable expectation that a political viewpoint will be fought for. It's also a recipe for a filibuster proof senate, which, given the recent performances of Harry ("better sell your insurance stocks") Reid, Chuck ("Loose Lips Sink Banks") Schumer, Nancy ("Oops, I Forgot to Count the Votes") Pelosi, and Barney ("My Ex-Spouse Worked for Fannie Mae, That's a Problem?") Frank, is really, really, really scary.

I've been saying for a while that I can't imagine what else Obama could possibly do to convince voters to elect McCain. The only thing I'm unsure of how effectively the media has filtered information from the public at large. If they know everything and still elect him, it would trouble me even more, but at least it would be fair. But, I suspect that isn't the case.

I'd be much less worried about a President Obama if Congress wasn't also under Democrat control, though.

I think that the dirty/clean dichotomy is a bit of a false one. I supsect that McCain will spend most of his time efforting to finally connect with voters on the economy, but also keep hammering at Obama's lack of judgment. And he has Palin as a very effective bad cop to his good.

Obama may be in for a Carter-like slide before Election Day if it's done correctly. Ford began questioning the true Carter in the final weeks, and got much traction out of it. And Carter was a much more defined proposition than Obama is.

I still think the odds are in favor of an Obama victory, but I think the margin will be signifcantly less than the polls today are suggesting.

1 - if McCain goes very aggressive and does it well, despite punditry avowals, no one really knows how that will play - Obama fared poorly when Hillary went aggressive - McCain has to go for jugular tonight otherwise might as well just drop out. He can start by linking financial melt down to Dems - Obama's linking it to GOP [can't afford 4 more years of Bush etc etc] - that's his in, he needs to drop this on Dem doorstep [I'm looking at you Barney Frank, ACORN].

2 - Iran, declining price of crude, Iran...

3 - again, if you do it well, it works - by well I mean it can't sound petty or desperate, it has to seem like natural extension of question of leadership. Obama camp has done good job inoculating itself against 'character' questions [remember how they turned Bill and Hillary into racists] but a cunning attack can easily break through those defenses.

4 - my guess is the stories re McCain's temper and his dislike of Obama are quite accurate - meaning he will definitely not go gently into that good night.

Obama fared poorly when Hillary went aggressive

So did Hillary.

1) No. Debates will not matter.
2) Extremely unlikely. I think it matters more where you draw the line on "9/11 style attack" than anything else. There would have to be a major news event, and it would have to decisively help McCain. I'm not even sure that a "9/11 style attack" would decisively be in McCain's favor.
3) Negatives for both candidates will go up because McCain's strategy from here on out will be going negative. Obama will respond to these with attacks on McCain (as he should). "Pony Tail Guy Question" huh? I only saw highlights of the youtube debate (assuming that's what you're referencing).
4) McCain is going to go out in a pile of slime. Maybe once he gets a week or two out and it's really clear that he's going to lose, he'll change his tune for legacy purposes. Really though, you're deluding yourself if you think he's a really great guy. He's an opportunist (http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm). He's petty (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/beyond/2008/10/obama-makes-mccain-very-uncomf.html). He's angry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/06/uselections2008.barackobama2).

Don't be like Richard Cohen (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=be)Expect the worst.

Historically, Presidential candidates have gone for risk avoidance in debates. The only one who successfully threw a "knockout punch" by anything he said was Ronald Reagan, who did it twice. John McCain ain't him.

Aside from that, the tone taken by Sen. McCain and his running mate lately, and their emphasis on Sen. Obama's past associations and supposed dangerous liberalism, could backfire badly at a time when American voters are somewhere between deep concern and panic about the economy. McCain should have all he can do to merely make the case that, as he said in his New Mexico speech, "the status quo is not on the ballot" -- because his adoption of President Bush's positions on every major issue (to say nothing of his having hired so many campaign operatives who used to work for Bush) are pretty persuasive evidence to the contrary. It's become a almost a commonplace that while McCain cannot win this election, Obama can lose it, but this doesn't mean that McCain could make his already losing position even worse.

Not all political problems have solutions. I have no idea which direction McCain will take tonight, and believe that his choice could influence the results in November. It won't affect the outcome, though. As far as that's concerned: yes, it's over.

Yes, the election is over. If McCain had tried to slime Obama earlier, it might have worked. But people are comfortable enough with him now that the vast majority that are sick of the current policies will vote for him. The real question now is how many seats the Dems will pick up in the Senate.

Perhaps he will examine all options, ask himself what a maverick will do, and then do that. And tell us that is what he did; it doesn't do any good to do something without telling anyone. ;-)

McCain will sunder this country on his ambition. He'll smear, and his toadies in the MSM such as Tom Brokaw and Fox News will always give him an outlet.

That's just who he is. He is a sick, vicious person who has been verbally abusive in public to his wife (remember the c and t words, anyone?) and who fundamentally does not respect his opponent. For the Bushies, this was just business -- for McCain, it's evidently personal. The next month, I fear, will make George W Bush campaigns look like kid gloves.

I am to the point where I genuinely fear violence due to the incitement coming from the McCain campaign, directly from the lips of Sarah Palin and senior spokespeople themselves, and surely authorized by McCain. Over on the Andrew Sullivan blog, there's a note from an Israeli who points out the parallels between what is going on now and what was happening in Israel in the run up to the Rabin assassination. I was at least relieved to see that the Secret Service is looking into the joker at the Palin rally.

While this country stands at the edge of a financial abyss, the Republican Party stands at the edge of a moral one. Is fascism really the direction they intend to go? I surely hope not. We need a genuine conservative party in this country, but the Republicans at present don't qualify.

DB:
Since you quote Andrew Sullivan's blog, does it bother you that he's still demanding that Palin prove she's the mother of her younger son? Obama hasn't gotten his own hands dirty with any of the astonishing filth heaped on Palin since she was picked, but I haven't seen him do anything to discourage it, either.

Dr. Weevil.

Obama specifically said to leave the families the fuck alone.

So go fuck yourself you terrorist!!!!

Has Obama told Andrew Sullivan and the other slanderous thugs that if they don't lay off the families they'll never set foot in the White House while he's president? Has he told his campaign to avoid any contact with any website pushing these rumors? Deploring the attacks on Palin's family is all very nice, but he could do a lot more to show that he actually means it.

By the way, you might want to clean up your language and knock off the insults: they look like projection, especially the part about Jay Severin, whoever he is.

Dr. Weevil - What a delicate sensibility you have!

Sullivan ponders the Palin Family Tree - which threatens no one's safety, nor incites others to threaten anyone's safety. Unlike Palin, who enjoys whipping up her crowds into screaming "traitor!" and "kill him!," and playing racist intimidation games with members of the media.

And yet Sullivan is the "thug"? Interesting.

CaseyL - What a lying tongue you have!

Palin's "crowds" (plural) have not shouted "traitor!" or "kill him!". Either one person in a crowd of 10,000 on one particular day shouted each of those words, or no one did -- those who have heard the tape disagree. In any case, it's perfectly obvious that Palin does not "enjoy" having even one of her fans shout something so stupid and vile, and we do not even know that it was one of her fans who said it, if it was said at all. If you make politicians responsible for what a single person shouts at a rally, you will provide an easy way to dispose of any opponent: just send someone to shout impermissible things. Funny that it's character assassination to talk about vile things that Obama's pastor and mentor has quite openly and proudly said, but perfectly OK to attribute the single shouted slur of an anonymous member of a crowd to the guest of honor.

As for "racist intimidation games", that seems to be another lie on your part, but the charge is too vague to be addressed. Care to provide some evidence?