Watching these things is like pulling teeth – and I should know, as I just recently had my wisdom teeth pulled (note to the kids: don’t wait til your 40 to have that done, if you can avoid it). I watched the big show on CNN today, and its true that its hard not to watch that silly ongoing tracking chart scrolling at the bottom. It sucks you in.

Anyway – this was clearly McCain’s strongest debate. He controlled much of the conversation in the beginning – but he did in the first debate too, and it wasn’t enough in and of itself.

I think the negatives we saw on display in regards to McCain – the anger, the stiffness, the meanness and a degree of pandering – were still on display, but all muted. Obama, I guess, needs to stand up at these things, as he was meandering more than he has in any debate since the primary, although he was sharpening up in the last half an hour or so.

So McCain had his best debate, Obama had his worst, and I’ll still bet that the any-second-now-snap-polls will give it to Obama, just by a smaller margin. We’ll have to see. The pundits, given the low expectations for McCain following all the recent, prematurely written political epitaphs we keep seeing, will probably give the advantage as far as “winning” goes to McCain, but I think the public feedback will force them to dial that back.

UPDATE: Well, color me surprised – the snap polls are bigger for Obama than ever. CBS reports their poll of uncommitted voters gave it overwhelmingly to Obama (53%), with McCain – at 22% – coming in behind “it was a draw” at 24%.

The truth behind these big numbers may be (and hopefully is) that the narratives of these two (Obama as winner, more presidential, McCain as loser, more erratic and scary) have settled into the undecideds’ psyches and impacting their perceptions, which would explain the increasing margin for Obama in these snap polls, even though McCain debated better than he has.

Cool.

UPDATE 2: And the CNN snap polls are even better. Independents gave it 57-31 for Obama, which was close to the overall average. And on every individual metric – leadership, likability – Obama just trashes McCain (no link yet on their website).

• Boys on the Side: This from Hallenbeck at vtbuzz:
  

  Independent gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina is taking the Rasmussen poll and running with it.

  He is trying to get Gov. Jim Douglas to agree to a debate, town-meeting-style, between just the two of them. No Gaye Symington.

• Web woops. The VDP’s website at vtdemocrats.org (first domain name I ever reserved…) was down most of the day, replaced by one of those generic catch-all sites on display instead. A quick whois search suggests (not confirmed) that they forgot to renew, but have made a hasty payment today and its likely the change back hasn’t propagated yet. What makes it bad timing is that its been discovered as folks click on the links from an email from Leahy’s leadership PAC encouraging folks to RSVP to the Election Eve Party, which comes up as nuthin.’ D’oh!
• So why have so many big name Dems been AWOL in regards to Lite Guv candidate Tom Costello? BP took Senator Shumlin to task for his less-than-ringing-endorsement a few diaries down, but Shumlin’s not the only one. Where is everybody?

  According to the scuttlebutt, its because all the various Dems who might be considering a run for the Governor’s office in 2010 (especially if a Leahy retirement creates a game of musical chairs) aren’t all that enthusiastic about the prospects of a Costello win and how that might impact their positioning.

  In a word: yuck.

From a minister delivering the opening remarks at a McCain rally in Davenport, Iowa:

“There are millions of people around this world praying to their god-whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah-that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens,” said Arnold Conrad, the former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Davenport.

That’s right, god. If McCain loses, don’t bother showing your face around this planet anymore. All the other gods will be snickering behind your back, and all your followers will know you’re a wimp.

These people are just bizarre sometimes.

Brent Curtis pens a front page piece in the Times Argus/Rutland Herald today on the rise in infant homicides in Vermont. The first few brief paragraphs present his thesis, after which he goes into examples. If you turn to the rest of the article on the back page, you get a fair amount of details, including the opinions of “experts” on the reason for the grim phenomenon. For example, conditioning:

“I think to some extent that in general girls are brought up playing with dolls and being taught to nurture,” she said. “Dads don’t always know how to do that.”

Stupidity:

“I think that in a number of instances, these parents come to the belief that ‘Gosh, that’s a successful strategy’ without fully realizing the damage they’re doing,” Dale said.

Stress, despair and poverty:

Dr. Stephen Sarfaty, a forensic neuropsychologist in Connecticut, said the two most common elements in child abuse cases are a lack of resources for the parent, combined with a feeling of helplessness.

Curtis himself adds, on the back page, that there “is no typical profile” of the abusers.

Why, then, on the front page and in the first few columns, which present Curtis’s thesis for the piece, does he make this statement?

Experts say young fathers are more likely to abuse their babies because they don’t have the emotional strength to nurture crying infants.

With all his research and quotations, and in the face of a serious problem, what does Curtis present as a front page thesis? That young men simply can’t handle parenting. Absolutely outrageous.

Firstly, his own article offers a variety of reasons, from a variety of “experts,” but the repeated theme seems to be economic – lack of resources, eductaion, etc. The common theme, as Curtis says, is being “pushed past the breaking point.”

But again, despite all this background, the conclusion he offers casual readers looking at the front page is:

Experts say young fathers are more likely to abuse their babies because they don’t have the emotional strength to nurture crying infants.

Clear. Unambiguous. Young men can’t parent babies.

This kind of essentializing nonsense is toxic. It’s needlessly insulting to all men, but in the long run it’s societal poison to women.

Why? Because essentializing an entire gender into neat little boxes like this doesn’t ever just work one way. You mess with the balance on one side, it affects the other. If men are told they aren’t emotionally as capable of handling parenthood, they simply will give up faster, as they’ll feel they’re at a hardwired disadvantage. If women are told that men aren’t emotionally capable of handling parenthood, they will be inclined to assume more and more of the parenting themselves.

And where does this take us?

1950, anyone?

Women’s place is in the home, men’s place is in the workplace. Period.

What’s particularly infuriating is the obvious linear connection to this attitude – which is still all too prevalent – and the very crisis discussed in the piece. Men still feel the pressure to be the breadwinner/provider, and still at some level question themselves and their identity if they can’t fullfil that archaic expectation. Common sense tells us that this is often going to be part of why, in situations where poverty is an issue and a family is in play, you see more men lose it and act out, often violently. Shaken baby syndrome is just one psychic rivet that could pop. You also see greater spousal abuse, substance abuse and suicide from men as you head down into the pressure cooker of poverty, where mental illness rates increase across the board. As you come out of poverty, gender differences that remain become less easily understood, but are still difficult to cleanly cast as nature over nurture in an effort to promote biological determinism.

So Curtis would spout a simplistic line to his audience that nakedly fuels gross gender stereotyping. And he does so even though it’s contradicted by reality, and the rest of his own article.

And at a time when a major economic downturn makes it all the more important that we get these things right.

With this thesis, Curtis adds whatever small amount of weight he has towards pushing us backwards, even though the real solution is precisely the opposite – men need to be encouraged and supported in sharing the burdens of economics, both in terms of their identity as men, as well as in terms of day to day living – and they need that support from their families and communities, just as women need comparable, mutual support from families and communities to move beyond their traditional gender/power pigeonholes.

Nothing is more crucial to our collective future than gender equity. In the 50s and 60s, that meant redefining duties and responsibilities. Despite much progress made on these fronts throughout the 70s and 80s, we still have a ways to go on. The only way to make that final progress is to start redefining the gender identities that still bind us to that past, and that keep pulling us back into the same pathologies and bad paradigms. And that means an end to obsessing over which gender has the monopoly on leadership, nurturing, aggression, compassion, courage or what have you.

Reporter Brent Curtis just did his part to work against that goal, and in an exceptionally crude and non-subtle manner.

The meaning of the poll numbers is going to be bounced around for a while. I don’t see how any professional polling firm can represent itself as competent by presenting its results as “you might expect Pollina to end up between 4% and 25% while Symington ends up between 20% and 39%.” I mean, seriously – these polling professionals are offering a 20 point range of where they think the election will likely be? Somebody tell me why they get the big bucks, again? Can you imagine if they pulled this with the Presidential numbers? Clearly these folks have no concept of how to approach elections with more than two candidates.

So however you want to interpret this – that the 25-20 Pollina to Symington split is how people will actually vote or not – there is one stark, undeniable tone from the left’s response:

A lot of people on the left are underwhelmed by Symington. Honestly, I see Pollina as picking up little beyond 8-10% on his own merits, and if he truly does perform beyond that level in November, it will be a statement of disappointment in Symington and the Democratic leadership, rather than an embracing of Pollina. And before folks jump up and down and yell at me about Pollina’s “ideas” – the fact is that this mirrors the the traditional pitch of Pollina and the Progressives. On the stump and in debates, the P/P pitch is still as it has been – overwhelmingly negative. Most time is spent talking about the failure of Democrats as well as Republicans. Often, it seems Progressives assume that voters will simply infer their stances on issues (“pro-labor” and “pro-environment” – whatever those mean in the context of any particular policy, even though they can be at odds). In fact, single-payer health care and increasing the tax burden on the wealthy are probably the only specifics that jump to mind. This is what makes their approach by definition negative. It says those guys suck, so give it to me by default and offers few details. It’s reactionary, in the textbook sense of the term.

And the fact is, it resonates. With a lot of people. Many of us on the left have been screaming until we’re hoarse that the concerns of the base need to be respected, but Symington as a Speaker was mired in a constant state of political calculating, sprinkled with the fear that the liberals in her party would jump into policy discussions like bulls in a china shop and break down any potential progress. As such, she kept many of us at arm’s length. And people don’t like that.

If Pollina had been Speaker of the House, would we have Single-Payer Health Care now? Of course not. Could Pollina even have seen through the passage of the first house health care bill – the truly revolutionary one, supported enthusiastically by Progressives and activist leaders like Deb Richter? The one that got watered down into oblivion in the Senate before ultimately limping into its new manifestation as the Catamount Health Bill? Of course not, because the fundamental reason that Pollina will never get elected to statewide office is that he is not a leader – he’s a bridge burner. For every one person he inspires, he alienates another three.

But here’s a different example: one thing Pollina would not have done is squandered the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that was the impeachment movement. This was grassroots energy like none we’ve seen – a gift to a Democratic majority that could have been harnessed to accomplish multiple policy goals. All they needed to do was to deal with the activists respectfully and honorably. Activists needed to see leadership from the Leadership. We needed to come together as a team.

Instead, Symington used every excuse imaginable to push them off and marginalize them, such that she had to be forced into action. And by the time she was, the relationship had been poisoned, leaving the door open for usual Dem-bashing suspects like Jimmy Leas to dive in, try to co-opt what had been a non-partisan groundswell that had its origins in the Democratic Party grassroots infrastructure and make it into some sort of pathological anti-Peter Welch club, and the whole thing fell to pieces almost overnight.

It was an opportunity for leadership, healing and grassroots engagement, the likes of which I don’t expect to see again in this state. All squandered. All for fear of letting the bulls into the china shop.

And the result of all this and other comparable examples? I think the most likely conclusion from the Rasmussen “poll” (and I use that term liberally) is twofold:

1. A sizable chunk of the electorate, in the interest of defeating Jim Douglas, will vote for Gaye Symington in November, leaving Pollina in the 10 point range… but that chunk is not going to feel very good about it.

2. The left in this state is seriously screwed up and dysfunctional.

UPDATE: Shay has some good thoughts on this mess, and I can *almost* confirm his assumptions about internal poll numbers based on some sorta-non-sorta-telling answers from someone close to the campaign. /UPDATE 

So which is it? Are the results of the Rasmussen poll this:

…or this:

Vermont Governor – Douglas 45%, Pollina 25%, Symington 20% 

…and how does the R2K poll for WCAX fit in from a few weeks ago, which was this:

DOUGLAS      SYMINGTON    POLLINA   UNDECIDED

 

        48%                 33%                       7%                 12%

Rasmussen seems to have gone out of their way to pass on their data in a way that both maximizes confusion, and would seem to have the potential to seriously effect the dynamics of the race. Whatever you may think of them or which results you prefer, there's no question that this was a highly unprofessional rollout. After my conversation with a Rasmussen staffer today, I could almost believe it was done on purpose.

In any case, this is one seriously abgefuckt piece of polling.

Here's how it went. At about 4:00, Rasmussen announces the first, shocking results. More results seem to be available to subscribers, but I'm not one – nor could I find one (and it seems the folks in the media didn't get the numbers underneath either). About 2 hours later they release a narrative article containing the rest of the results.

There are many odd things about the poll. Most obvious is the definition of what they mean by a “leaner.” Usually, leaners are undecideds who are pushed a bit. But Pollina's numbers go down by 20 points when you factor in leaners, so its hard to gleam what they're talking about, and the narrative gives little guidance:

Normally, the support for the candidates would end up somewhere between the extremes of their polling range. In other words, you might expect Pollina to end up between 4% and 25% while Symington ends up between 20% and 39%. Under normal circumstances, the Democratic candidate would end up closer to the high end of that range while the Independent candidate would end up near the lower end.

One thing is certain: numbers dont change that much in a matter of weeks. Another certainty is that its problematic to too directly compare polls from different pollsters, and although I haven't seen the crosstabs, from the Presidential numbers, its likely that liberals were a bit oversampled.

The reality? Well, we need another poll – and a better poll. For the statistically inclined, it would be easier to assume that the second result released (the “leaner” numbers in the graphic) is more accurate as a “master” metric – or what we might call the shorthand results – because they are easier to reconcile with the R2K poll, as well as many conventional wisdom assumptions made about the overall race. But for the enthusiastic Pollina supporters, this is obviously the biggest shot in the arm imaginable, and they'll go with the first numbers released – the one liner with no other info. How could they not? Both campaigns are latching onto the respective “good news” iterations – as well they should. They have jobs to do. But for the rest of us this “poll” and the mysteries behind it does little but confuse the race even further.

Had a conversation with a dour fellow at Rasmussen today who informed me that the reason for the delay in getting these poll results up was somehow… me. Yes that’s right, it was the fellow I’d talked to a couple weeks back after I noticed via their email that the Vermont polls had not come out as announced. This was the guy who immediately volunteered that they had left out Pollina as the reason for the re-do, but who steadfastly refused (understandably) to give me any details. He must have gotten in trouble with his boss or something, as he informed me that he had, in fact, passed me secret information, and that had I betrayed him and everyone else by leaking, presumably leading to further delays and the suffering of all concerned. Gimme a break.

Ahem… onto the results… and they bear little resemblance to the R2K results from a few weeks back:

Douglas 45%, Pollina 25%, Symington 20%

No crosstabs available yet. Details/analysis when possible. At least now we may be able to get Pollina to flip again about the idea of the Legislature backing the second place finisher, eh? Ah, self-interest is an amazing thing…

Obviously this is seismic, and the disparity between the two polls is so big as to be almost irreconcilable. They also reported Obama over McCain by about 64% to 32%, but that’s from memory, as those results were off the front page moments after they were posted. If that returns to the front page, it’s a bigger spread by far that Research 2000’s results as well, possibly suggesting significant demographic sampling differences. Clearly we’re going to have to have another poll to have any hopes of figuring out which of the two is screwy. That much movement in that little time is awfully hard to believe.

In any event, Governor-wise, it seems we’re Legislature bound, and it looks today that “Governor Pollina” might be at least as likely a phrase we might hear as “Governor Symington.” But will Legislators be willing to take such a plunge if neither candidate gets close?

UPDATE: greenvtster has some details in the comments, and they are truly, truly bizarre:

Vermont Survey of 500 Likely Voters

Conducted October 7, 2008

             Without Leaners     With Leaners

Douglas               45%             53%

Not sure               9%              4%

At face value, there’s going to be some question about the questions asked. How can Pollina drop down to almost nothing when you factor in leaners? That makes no sense.

My hunch is that the question was phrased in such a way that more people essentially indicated Pollina as their first choice, but when pushed, they indicated they’d be more likely to go Symington. No the very fact of these results may make Pollina seem more viable to many more people, and those leanings may look different after it settles in, as there may have been a degree of fatalism among those not satisfied with Symington.

In sum: I think there are about 20% of those polled whose hearts are with Pollina, but whose heads are with Symington. And that gives both campaigns their spinning orders to the base.

But, the fact is that two sets of numbers say two contradictory things, and both Pollina AND Symington will be able to spin it their way… but its clearly going to send absolute truckloads of morale to Team Pollina, and likely drive votes and money his way as well.

A little late for April Fools, so I guess he means it (emphasis added):

(Kinzel) Several years ago, President Bush unveiled a plan to allow workers to divert some of their Social Security tax payments to a private investment fund. Governor Jim Douglas says he liked the proposal then and he likes it now.

Douglas says many people view Social Security as part of their comprehensive retirement package and he says individuals should be allowed to decide how to invest some of their tax payments.

(Douglas) “I think the American people are a lot smarter than some give them credit for. So, I think that some kind of combination is reasonable. A voluntary option for the American people to have what’s called a defined contribution plan for a portion of their retirement funds is a reasonable one. I’ve been encouraging that at the state level, as well.”

Yeah, that would’ve worked out well if we’d gone that route. And the people who would’ve lost their social security in the current meltdown – exactly how would the Governor be handling them, now?

On the other hand, such a program may cause enough fatal heart attacks that it could ultimately limit the amount of benefits that have to be paid out.

Putting aside the policy no-brainer, this statement draws a direct line between the current incarnation of Jim Douglas – a supposedly moderate Rupublican – and the hard right politician we saw while he was in the Legislature so long ago. It should be a reminder that he’s every bit the right winger that he was then, and that he’s enough of an ideologue to refuse to question his hard-right doctrine, even in the face of the stone cold reality of what a terrible policy that would have been before, and would be in the future.

The whole point of Social Security is the “security”, after all.

This debate is like a train wreck I can’t look away from. Now I think Obama is doing fine, its just that this whole process is beginning to make me feel like reaching into my brain and pulling my head inside out. That and the neon red carpet is making me wince.

So if, like me, you need something else to think about, here’s something a co-worker brought to my attention. Sarah Silverman promoting “The Great Schlep,” described by the LA Times as:

The Jewish Council for Education and Research — a new pro-Obama political action committee — is organizing “The Great Schlep,” in which hundreds of Jews will make the Southern exodus on Columbus Day weekend, Oct. 10-13. They will travel to the Fort Lauderdale area, where they will visit their grandparents, organize political salons in their condos and eat incredibly bad food…

…Barack Obama’s trouble winning over older Jewish voters has been difficult for pollsters to explain, so I came here this week to visit my grandmother, Mama Ann, and find out what the hang-up is.

Now, I was raised a Catholic boy in Kentucky, so I ain’t the target audience, but this hit my co-worker right where he lives (or rather, where his grandparents do, I guess…)

That’s all that’s left. Four little weeks from today, we decide all this stuff, one way or the other. After that, they’ll be a time of considering what worked, what didn’t, what we need to change for next time and what strategies we nailed. Then we start looking forward to the next time our lawmakers meet and what we’d like to see them accomplish.

For better or worse, the campaigns are largely what they are. There will be no major changes of strategy from here on out, and whatever campaign handicaps we have now are unlikely to be ironed out. We’ll have to to make the best of it.

So find your candidates, contact their campaigns, sign up, contribute, talk to your neighbors, and vote – but make your time and effort count. For myself, you’re not gonna hear a lot of recriminations or critiques directed at my own candidates (unless I just can’t stand it) until afterwards, because at this point, it just isn’t gonna do any good – even if they are listening. The earful will come on November 5th or later.

Let’s get to work.