Premature Triumphalism

Riding a wave of good poll numbers and staring at an increasingly blue-tinted electoral map, a lot of liberals and Democrats are starting to talk as if the presidential race is over.  The terrain certainly looks favorable right now and there's not all that much time left, so I understand why people are optimistic.  They should be.  The odds certainly favor Obama at this point.

But I fear that many people--both Democrats and Republicans--are overstating the strength of Obama's lead.  McCain's inept campaigning of late has invoked comparisons to Bob Dole's ill-fated 1996 campaign.  But in 1996 Clinton was consistently running 15-20 points ahead of Bob Dole at this point in the campaign.  On Oct. 18, 1996, Clinton was 23 points up in the Gallup tracking poll.  He only ended up winning by eight. 

Moreover, historical comparisons are by themselves misleading.  When talking about past elections, we're dealing with a very small data set.  When people say things like "no one who has been leading by X points in October has ever lost," it really doesn't mean all that much.  If you only watch six or seven basketball games, it may well be true that no team that has been ahead by 7 points or more with 5 minutes left has lost a game.  But clearly that doesn't mean that it's impossible or even particularly daunting for a team to pull a game out in that situation.  

Moreover, the number of elections that have taken place in the current media environment--with the internet, the 24 hour news cycle, blogs, etc.--is exceedingly small.  Really the only comparison is 2004.  And that was a very different race involving an incumbent president.  

The reality is that everything about this race is sui generis.   We've never had anything like it.  On one side we have a charismatic African-American candidate, the first ever nominated by a major party, a man with a Muslim-sounding name in a post-9/11 era.  On the other side we have a former POW who made a name for himself running against our sitting President--a man who is now epically unpopular.  His running mate is a female Alaskan Governor.  And all of this is taking place amidst the most volatile economic environment the country has seen in over 70 years.  

Anyone who thinks that 21 days isn't a long time, take a look back at what's happened in the last 21.  

Any number of developments--some predictable, some not so much--could make the race closer.  For instance, both the press and the McCain campaign--each for their own reasons--are eager to shift the narrative to talk of a McCain comeback.   The McCain camp tried to kickstart that narrative today, a move which, for various reasons, didn't seem to work.  But at some point in the next 21 days, there'll will be a day or two where most of the major tracking polls show movement toward McCain.  Statistically, that's just bound to happen.  And when it does, Drudge will hype McCain's "comeback" and various GOP surrogates will attribute the rise to some external event (a "gaffe" by Obama or a new argument by McCain, etc.) and the press will run with it--if for no other reason than they are tired of the Obama running away with the election narrative.   And voters can be sensitive to this kind of coverage, especially undecided voters and those with weak preferences.  The sense of "momentum" can actually generate real momentum.  

I'm not saying any of this will necessarily happen, but my point is that it could happen.  Obama's lead in the polls ranges anywhere from 2-12 points.  If his actual lead is toward the middle to lower end of that spectrum, it wouldn't take all that much for it to disappear entirely. 

Obama is clearly in a stronger position right now, but 21 days is an eternity in the modern media era.  There are still a number of hurdles left to clear.  It's far too early to celebrate.