You're forgetting RNC spending which draws the money comp much closer. Also, 538 is really good at reviewing the respective ground games. Obama built a powerful organization during the primaries (he had to) and they've kept on building. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama ahead of his polls by three or four points in the final counts.
On the "should be" line, let's just reflect for a minute that America, after 8 years of a ranch farmhand, is about to elect a black technocrat with a Muslim name as POTUS. There's no "should be" for that scenario. It's utterly amazing.
"On the "should be" line, let's just reflect for a minute that America, after 8 years of a ranch farmhand, is about to elect a black technocrat with a Muslim name as POTUS. There's no "should be" for that scenario. It's utterly amazing."
I'm a little more cynical than that. I think once you realize the president is just some idiot that we use for a single-point-of-decision-making and scape goat for stuff, and that just about any idiot can and has done it, the particulars of the idiot in question are not that interesting.
But my opinion is post-partisan. I can completely understand folks getting excited about their guy and angry about the other guy -- that's the way the system is supposed to work.
It's not a popular thing to say, but I imagine we're going to see a lot of reverse-racism in this election: folks voting for the black guy because it makes them feel good. Sort of to help settle the civil rights score. I don't say that in any way to disparage Obama, simply to profile the voters. It will be interesting, if he wins, to see how he does once he has been president for four years and is no longer unique or can run as an outsider.
the president is just some idiot that we use for a single-point-of-decision-making and scape goat
Call me naive, but I like to think that this is the degenerate state of the office in question. It can be so much more, and not in the "opaque unitary executive" sense for which it has been abused lately.
Look at it this way -- the founders set the system up assuming everybody would try to game it. The system is built on the fact that the president will overreach, the congress will be fractious, etc. It is built assuming checks and balances are needed, not that only great people will serve.
Perhaps putting it that way is a little better for you? In my mind, the president is first and foremost an average citizen who is called upon to do some work for the country for a few years. I think if we forget the "average" part of that equation, we start expecting more and more of the office and crossing the line into hero worship. If the president becomes a hero or in any way messianic, we've lost the true meaning of the office. The point is that we're all qualified. It's a democracy.
Can we have presidents that we think did great jobs? Sure. But that immediately gets into opinion, which is politics by any other name. My great president is the night watchman, making sure the nation is safe but staying aloof. Perhaps yours is the architect, designing our society of tomorrow, etc. (Substitute various opinions of "good" and "bad" here) I'm not going to accept your position, nor your mine. So we vote on those poor schmucks that are big-headed enough to think they can do the job better than the rest of us.
If you think about it, it's a great system. It allows lots of conflict without violence, it allows one person to stand for all the ills of the nation, it promotes competitiveness among the parties to solve problems. It even gives those who require it heroes to worship.
Having to accumulate over 80-100 million votes waters down the candidates and their policies. But the closest alternative would be a prime minister and right now that slot would get filled by Pelosi or Reid. That's far worse, especially since before that would have been DeLay or Hastert.
The masses seem to do a pretty decent job in that light.
Despite Obama's clear understanding of technology, I'm not sure a lawyer/career politician can qualify as a technocrat. Hu Jintao is a technocrat. Barack Obama just has good technology policy. But yeah, it's pretty amazing. It might be enough to restore the rest of the world's faith in America.
I know I wouldn't be surprised to see Hughes running the "Google for Government" initiative. That proposal is a huge step forward in transparency and accountability that any technocrat could love. The proposed technology czar is also really cool. How about Woz as a cabinet member?
On the "should be" line, let's just reflect for a minute that America, after 8 years of a ranch farmhand, is about to elect a black technocrat with a Muslim name as POTUS. There's no "should be" for that scenario. It's utterly amazing.