…And without a real press the corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that’s the 51% advantage.

When I originally wrote my post, the McCain campaign hadn’t started their blizzard of lies. Now it seems as if the lack of a press now presents them with a distinct advantage (unless the Democrats now lie just as much).

No worries about the tone. You are right, GHWB was no idiot. The son is a case of owning ‘Faded Genes’.

As for the media ‘playing for time’, I note that the items that attract the media (particularly CNN, Fox and MSNBC), like a small child attracted to the newest shiny thing, is all over the stupid accusations that float around (‘Lipstick on a pig comment’, claims of Obama wanting people to teach sex to young children, anything related to Sarah Palin, etc.) because those news items get the most attention because they are simple and sensational. Run a serious and sober discussion of the issues (aside from the debates, which are more a game of ‘who can appear more presidential’) and the viewership will drop off. Run something about McCain claiming that Obama will put a Muslim prayer rug in the White House and the ratings will shoot up into the stratosphere (and so will ad revenue).

The reason for the focus on the aggregated poll numbers are clear: most Americans don’t understand the electoral college at all, and if you told them that their vote could mean more in a swing state, they’d be surprised to hear the reason why.

Re. the current polling numbers coming from landlines only and hence, leaving out most of the young voters, you are absolutely correct. This is the one thing that is never discussed, and I hope that higher urban youth participation might be the story that saves the day. However, I heard this might be a factor in 2000, and then in 2004, and each time ‘The Youth Vote’ was a no-show. Maybe the third time’s a charm. Sometimes I think that Obama should ‘do a McCain’ and suggest that if McCain is elected, that he will be forced to re-institute the draft. That would get the youth vote out faster (but again, depends on the disengaged, uninterested young urban population actually learning of this in time to register, which is another piece of the puzzle).

Second, I’ve been thinking a lot about your idea about the press playing for time, wanting to “keep it interesting”.

The idea seems at odds with the media outlets’ various degrees of affiliation with either party. But I can’t find any other reason for there being so much focus on the one big aggregated poll number (e.g. is candidate X up by 51–49 or down by 48–52). Everybody knows the presidential election isn’t decided by one popular vote but rather by the Electoral College system (which in my opinion isn’t so much obscure and convoluted as it is stiffling and insane).

At CNN.com you have to dig a little to find their coverage of the electoral college here. Which has Obama ahead at 233 delegates from “safe” and “leaning” states; McCain at 189 (ditto); and 116 delegates in real play (“tossup”).

A friend also told me that the current polling numbers all come from landline phone interviews. Is that right? That would skew the results away from young voters, urban voters, etc. Right?

I said George H.W. Bush was no bumbling fool who was given everything. From what I’ve since read (in articles contrasting him with his son), GHWB was an accomplished man (beyond his privileged background) who got things done his whole life. And yet I was sold the opposite story by “the good guys”.

Bush I also appointed Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court. You probably remember Thomas’s stormy confirmation hearings.

It’s worth noting that it was Clarence Thomas’s vote in 2001 that put George W. Bush into office, by halting the recount in Florida. He usually favours the police over individuals in cases of unreasonable searches and seizures, and was one of the few members of the Court that believed that that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay didn’t violate Geneva Convention.

If ever there was a Supreme Court appointment worth going back in time to stop, I’d say it was Thomas. He’s proof that the Supreme Court nominations of a President in the past (in this case, the early 90’s) can have a far-reaching effect on future events.