If Obama Loses

Forget all the rhetoric about four more years of Bush, Old Politics vs. New Politics and all that jazz. Absent any plausible reason for a late McCain surge and victory, the inescapable fact about an Obama loss would be an ugly truth to haunt American life for years to come.

Around the edges of all the opinion poll data about what will happen in just over 48 hours is an uneasiness that points to heavy turnout, early voting, the question of whether youth registration will convert into actual balloting, etc. as imponderables in this unusual election year that shows Obama outpolling McCain on almost every issue of voter trust.

But the GOP elephant in the room is race: How many "undecideds" are rummaging around the coded attacks on Barack Obama as a wealth-spreading, terrorist-friendly Muslim radical to justify their bone-deep need to vote against a black man as president?

If enough of them do, how can we explain it to ourselves--and the rest of the world?

No last-minute scare tactics about taxes or lame McCain cameos on SNL will suffice to explain away what, given all the truths of this campaign, would be a lasting American shame.

Poll-Axed

If the Presidential election were held today, it might end up in a worse muddle than Bush-Gore in 2000. Gallup tells us Hillary Clinton can beat any Republican, while Zogby reports she is trailing five of them in their polling.

With a year to go, it's safe to say Americans are undecided--safe but how useful? With a flood of statistics from all directions, nationally and in early primary states, are polls turning the process into a numbers game that obscures the issues?

If that sounds stuffy, or even Luddite, consider the checkered history of Presidential polls. In 1936, the Literary Digest famously predicted Alf Landon would beat FDR, but he lost every state except Maine and Vermont. The mistake was asking voters who had cars and telephones, not a fair cross-section of the whole population back then.

Sampling is more sophisticated now but on election night 2000, we were whipsawed by exit polls from the Voters News Service that reported Gore winning Florida and the White House and then maybe not.

What can we believe? Gallup polls by phone, Zogby "surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls," but does it make any difference?

What does matter is that politicians and public may be getting too mesmerized by the numbers and, based on their fallible evidence, making "electability" the main issue instead of substantive differences among the candidates.

Those who like horse races can get a better run for their money at the race track rather than the voting booth.

Fred's Rotten Reviews, Boffo Box Office

“For the third straight day,” the Rasmussen poll reports today, “Thompson is the top choice for 28% of Likely Republican Primary Voters. For the first time all year, Rudy Giuliani has fallen below the 20% level.”

That’s good news for Fred, the politician. But Fred, the actor, must be bruised by the bad reviews across the political spectrum.

Gail Collins in the New York Times: “He’s here. He’s tanned. He’s ready. He looks like he needs a nap. When it comes to overhyped underperformers, Fred Thompson’s entry into the presidential race was right up there with Britney Spears at the MTV awards.”

If that sounds like liberal bias, try the dean of conservative columnists, George Will:

“Fred Thompson's plunge into the presidential pool--more belly-flop than swan dive--was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then, the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.”

If Giuliani is still diving after the anniversary of 9/11, Thompson can laugh off the critics’ carping all the way to the Primaries.