I am becoming concerned that Obama's lead is decreasing, seemingly at the same time the world stock indexes are registering increases over several days.

It could be a simple case of random correlation of investor optimistic economic perception (in my opinion, currently unwarranted) and complex set of very different effects that define the dynamic of this campaign.

However, the clear Obama lead in the polls only emerged after his clearly superior performance in the face of the international economic meltdown.  I felt that Obama's rise was significantly dependent on the public's preference for his calmness, intellect and better policy prescriptions in the face of this historic calamity.

It is possible that a week of rising equity indicators will convince the low information voters that the economic crisis has "blown over" and Obama's economic advantage is less important.  The slip of several percentage points, combined with sophisticated and persistent Republican vote suppression efforts just may allow Palin/McCain to secure an unlikely victory.

Tell me why this isn't so.  Please...

This article from NYT shows the massive voter list purging that in many cases are erasing the expected increases in Democratic registrations.  This is happening in battleground states and may make the key difference in the upcoming election.  Many states are violating federal law by their actions, but typical lack of transparency, accountability and actions by the Bush DOJ are making these purges impossible to challenge and reverse in time.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html?pagewanted=2&hp
-----------------------------------------------------------

Now that we know how this election will unfold, we can look back on the main mistakes of the Obama's campaign, with a hopeless wish that the people who run future Democratic campaigns will change their approach that has now produced two losses and a third one on the way.

Standard Democratic Mistakes:

1.  Conceeding national security issues by acting like crypto-Republicans.

Democrats for several election cycles believe that the way to reach centrist voters is to cave in to Republicans on any issue that can be legitimately labeled "national security".  This response is near automatic, even if there isn't any public desire for Republican-proposed approach, such as was the case with FISA.  This approach yields precisely opposite effect - Democrats open themselves to attacks as being a party devoid of any alternatives and flip-flopping, they loose the enthusiasm of their base and do not gain, or even loose independents.  Democrats who have demanded a change of the party's national security strategy, such as Greenwald of Salon, are routinely maligned and shouted down as "traitors" and "left-wing radicals".

2.  Attempting to run an "issues campaign", when it is long been "not the issues, stupid".

Democratic campaign managers, have managed to learn only one way to win - the way Clinton won in 92.  They have never been able to understand and much less adjust to the plain facts that the Clinton election was an anomaly, held in the wake of the American win in the Cold War and the First Iraq War, i.e. at the time of large rise of American power and, thus, ensured safety in the minds of the electorate.  The sad facts are that many (likely most) Americans are low information voters and low information people; they have long lost an ability to understand the world around them and the issues, much less solutions to the complex problems facing this country and the world.  These voters cast their votes on issues they do understand - likeability, looks, perceived strength (both masculie and faminine) and religion.  They can't possibly be swayed with rational arguments - if you actually want them to vote for you, you have to get them to like you.  Democrats continue to mis-understand this and loose large swaths of the electorate as a result.  Recent McCain's manager's statement to the fact that this election is "not about the issues" have been predictably ridiculed by the democrats.  It is a simple statement of fact.

Standard Republican Strategy:

1.  For several election cycles, Republicans have been pursueing a simplest of all election strategies - attack the opponents strength, dampen his appeal to the base, destroy his appeal to independents, electify their own base in large numbers.  For reason that today are unfathomable, this continues to suprise and then dismay Democratic campaign managers.  Since Obama's greatest asset was clearly the excitement he brought to the young and independent electorate, it was more than predictable that Republicans would attack this aspect of his candidacy.  Therefore, the McCain's "celebrity" ad campaign was a natural direction of the Republican strategy for this candidate.  Obama campaign's weak and cerebral responses have reduced his appeal to independents.

2.  Republicans only real wrinkle on their by now completely standard "attack opponents' strength" strategy was a clever, but also quite predictable "experience feint". This fake focus on the supposed "lack of experience" was meant to encourage Obama's campaign to choose a "safe, experienced" Vice Presidential candidate - Joe Biden, whose selection further dampened the enthusiasm of Obama's base and reduced the overall ticket's appeal to young voters.  Then came the expected Republican main attack - selection of Palin, which exposed the "experience" attack as a false front.  Her selection successfully stole the excitement edge from the now moribund and tired Obama/Biden ticket and electrified the Republican base, ensuring their full support and large turnout during election.  Democratic campaign strategists and analysts were paid plenty to predict this, but they failed, once again.

Again, this strategy is so simple, in the military terms is has been used for millenia - feint left, attack right.


Conclusion:

Even though this election cycle unfolded in nearly exactly the same way, in the strategic sense, as did two previous election cycles, Democratic campaign managers proved once again, unable to unticipate and prepare for the standard frontal attack.  I don't really know why the people who run Democratic campaigns are so incapable of actually learning from past mistakes, but the sad facts is that they can't.  It is also unclear why the Democratic candidates hire these same people over and over again, and blindly follow their direction, but they do, and they loose.

Maybe in 2012, whomever the Democratic candidate is, he or she will actually try to run an aggressive campaign to WIN.  But this cycle is lost.

I have recently vigorously opposed the selection of Joe Biden as Obama's Vice Presidential candidate. I did that based on my opinion of the tactical political considerations and my perception of the real as opposed to theoretical weakness of Obama as a Presidential candidate. However, it appears that there is much more substantive reasons to be upset (or very upset) at this selection. Senator Biden worked tirelessly as a supporter, abetter and enabler of the Bush's Iraq war, advocating on the President's behalf many, many times prior to the war. In his powerful position as the chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, he provided invaluable help and support to the President's efforts to start a disasterous and illegal war in Iraq. As with FISA, the remaining question is: "Why did Obama choose this man, who on key question was on diametrically opposed sides with the candidate himself"? At this point, I am not sure I even want to know the answer... ---------------------------------------- http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492 ----------------------------------------

I think today's column by B. Obama in the New York Times is very solid, hits all the right points, is strong and committed.  I particularly like the emphasis on Iraqi's own government's desire for American troop withdrawal and correctly calling this a great opportunity.  I also like and salute his statement that he will make it clear we do not want permanent bases in Iraq.  This is of outmost importance in ending the violence and allowing us a honorable withdrawal.

All in all a winner.  Had he done this on FISA...