Counter argument.

It's friggin' August! Talk to me about polls in September & October.

I never viewed Barack's stands on these issues as short-term bids to get a bounce in the polls.

I view them as long-term strategies -- by which I mean, strategies that designed to bring "Reagan Democrats" back home and sustain a governing consensus well beyond this November.

That's the more important point. But, as secondary point, I also don't think the claim you're making about short-term effects is possible either to prove or to disprove. You and I could make any arguments we wanted by pointing to different polls. E.g., if you look at overall national polling, Barack has been doing just fine in the same period. And indeed, Gallup says that he has been *increasing* his lead in battleground states. But more importantly, do I know that he's been doing well because of his stand on the death penalty? Well, no. Correlation doesn't prove causation.

So the whole argument is kind of moot. What it boils down to is this: you see these issues as profoundly important concessions to the right; I think they're well-chosen, and largely symbolic, gestures of inclusion. Neither of us feels the way we do because of polling evidence; we feel the way we do because we have different political philosophies.

Saying he didn't is assuming it's November and the elections are over and he lost.

For all you or I know his numbers could be worse had done all that you wished. So we are both guessing when you say it has hurt him and I say no so much.

Failing that you have no proof you are right and I have none that you are wrong.

I agree. Neither of us will ever have geometric proof.

I would suggest that the most important objective in moving to the right is not measurable in short-term polls: to neutralize attempts by McCain to brand him as an out-of-touch liberal. Such strategies have previously been effective against Gore and Kerry. Obama is to an extent even more at risk than Gore and Kerry because he may have to depend on former red states for support.

It's noteworthy that in contrast to some early positioning, McCain has been leaving "liberal" off of his "out-of-touch" attacks, possibly a result of Obama distancing himself from the left. To an extent, the outcry from the left may actually have helped him by underscoring differences.

In an ideal world, of course, Obama would not have to hide from the word, "liberal," and I hope that a Democratic candidate will one day soon reclaim, but evidently, the Obama campaign does not feel that they can do so in this election.

Gee, the campaign has barely begun, but already Obama has lost. You now can understand why some people conduct national campaigns, and others carp on the internet.

One more thing: all the issues you consider Obama to be using to "emphasizing his 'moderate' nature" were effectively one-off things where he was asked his position (with the exception of FISA, which was also not widely publicized). None of these has been repeated by the campaign or even the usually-over-repetetive MSM, only by bloggers like TPMers who are upset about them. While Obama is generally distancing himself from the left wing of the Dems, I don't see these issues as really being part of that or they would have been emphasized, and I certainly don't see them as being part of a "failure" on his part.

Tankard's appeal to fresh fish has failed.

Tankard: get a fucking job.

Do neither of you have a job?

Shortly after becoming his party's presumtive nominee,

There is nothing "presumptive" about it. He is the nominee, end of story.