Analysis of polls usually doesn't give voters very much credit.  Perhaps there is a recent poll in Ohio has Obama up two points, 48 to 46.  Let's assume that that is a poll of likely voters and that it is accurate.  Polls are usually conducted with 95% certainty -- that means we can be 95% certain that public opinion falls within the margin of error -- so, Obama could be ahead 51 to 43, if the margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points, or he could be losing 49 to 45.  Most political reporters see the margin of error as something added to the overall poll, that you can only add or subtract up to three points from one number, or that you can only add or subtract three points from the total.  Rather, you can add or subtract up to three points on both numbers, but anything you add to one you subtract from the other because you can't really have more than 100% of one thing.

For example: most political reporters would say that Obama could be winning 51 to 46, but actually he could be winning 51 to 43.

Back to our example.  A conclusion political reporters, even opinion-making elites working at publications such as The Atlantic, will often make is that Obama has not experienced a post-Eurotrip bounce in Ohio, and that it shows the trip was ineffective.  That's all kinds of dumb.  6% of likely Ohio voters have not made up their mind in our hypothetical (that's a number also subject to the margin of error but to go into all the possibilities that implies would take too much time).  The assumption might be that the trip didn't work, but actually it might worked quite well with these voters.  Perhaps a lot of the undecideds now have a more positive opinion about Obama but also have a positive opinion about McCain, or vice/versa.

Also, the fact that this has been a close race has caused political reporters to suggest that the Obama hype is overrated.  Overrated among who?  Again, voters aren't given enough credit.  A lot of voters could have a very positive opinion about Obama but simply agree more with John McCain on the issues or believe that John McCain better reflects their interests.

This also demonstrates how the media sets the agenda regarding expectations. Because Obama has such high expectations, even if he wins a close election he'll lose.

Of course, as far as the media are concerned, John McCain never loses.

(Both links via Matthew Yglesias.)

The effect a nominee's running mate has on the election is uncertain - LBJ clearly helped Kennedy in the south, but in truth, the running mate probably has little impact.

Nevertheless, who a nominee chooses is important for various reasons.  It shows a nominee's judgment, both political and substantive.  A future VP is, by the nature of the office, a potential future president.  Furthermore, a nominee's choice in VP potentially shows the direction the nominee wants to take his or her party.

Not always.  Joe Lieberman was a purely political choice by Al Gore that might have paid off if it weren't for those confounded butterfly matters.  Dick Cheney was an establishment choice with no ambition.  Al Gore, on the other hand, did symbolize the kind of Democrat Bill Clinton wanted to see running for high office.

Barack Obama doesn't have to cultivate, say, an "Obama Democrat" who will conform to the desires and leadership of the top of the ticket.  Obama already is the future of the party.  He'd be better off selecting a less visible and more managerially competent running mate with sharp political instincts.  I have long supported Chris Dodd in this regard.

McCain, on the other hand, has a vested interest in influencing the party's future.  Who he chooses as his running mate could determine the future direction of the GOP.  He is probably being pressured to choose a base-pleaser such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty or, yikes, Mike Huckabee.  Mitt Romney could fulfill this role and any other role possible if the winds dictate.

In my view, Romney would have been an ideal choice had he stuck to his moderate principles, but he didn't.  If McCain really wnats to moderate the GOP's image and ensure the party's future viability, he needs to annoint someone who appeals beyond the base.

The ideal candidate, in my view, is Michigan Congressman Fred Upton.  Unlike the Norquistians - who currently have a Vulcan death grip on Republican tax policy - Upton has a broader view of government, generally favoring limited government but conceding the crucial point that government can accomplish positive good.  Bush's "compassionate conservatism," believe it or not, did politically succeed, only to fail as he tried to paradoxically export it via military force.  That kind of conservatism, of course, was largely a creature of the right.  Upton's brand is a product of the center.

If McCain wants to win, he needs to play to his strengths and go for the political center.  Besides, reaching for Michigan's 17 electoral points probably has lower risk and obviously has greater potential reward than trying to win other northern midwestern states like Minnesota or Wisconsin.

Sadly, McCain probably won't move the Republican Party to the center, and he has already betrayed his moderate principles in favor of George W. Bush's approach wholesale.  The upside is that this makes the future political success of the Democratic Party all the more likely. 

Like Obama, I'm currently overseas.  McCain, on the other hand, is in my homestate of Ohio.  He's eating lunch at one of my favorite restaurants, Schmidt's Restaurant and Sausage Haus, in the Columbus neighborhood German Village.  They have, without a doubt, the best sausage in Ohio, and they also brew three incredible homemade beers.  McCain is in for a treat.

Schmidt's is, of course, a German restaurant, and McCain is trying to play off of Obama's trip to Germany by showing how he cares about the concerns of people over here while Obama's sucking up to Europeans, or something.  The record indicates otherwise, obviously.  Be that as it may, Obama's attempt to show strength on foreign policy might be misguided during an election year in which voters are primarily concerned with economic issues.  Obama would probably have been wise to play on his strengths rather than go to Europe.

Which isn't to say Obama shouldn't have gone to the Middle East.  By answering McCain's challenge to go to Iraq, Obama became fortune's son: Maliki endorsed Obama's plan for withdrawal.  The largest foreign policy concern Americans have is getting out of Iraq, and Obama is the candidate with the most credibility on that issue.

He already has credibility with the Europeans.  What he needs to do is go to Schmidt's and listen to the people of Columbus, Ohio -- after all, because of our outdated electoral system, we Ohioans essentially have the power to make him president. 

Hi, my name's Matthew Struhar, and I'm an undergraduate student at Ohio State, majoring in history, political science, and pre-law.  Lately, I've been working on a paper regarding the Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller at the University of Oxford.  It's been an exciting experience.  I've been blogging for a while, mainly using blogspot and facebook (the posted items feature), but I am really excited about expressing my ideas to fellow progressives here at Campus Progress.  I think this is a wonderful service provided by the Center for American Progress -- it will certainly sharpen the skills and expand the ideas of today's young progressives in what the late conservative William F. Buckley perhaps inappropriately described as "the war of ideas."

Rock on.