But this is the dead zone in the general election, after the primaries but before the conventions, when news organizations are forced to report on things that don't really matter all that much. So we're beat over the head with daily tracking polls and speculation over who's going to be who's running mate. The polling I can take, but if someone actually uses the word "veepstakes" to my face, I might wind up in jail. Name one candidate in history who's ever won the presidency because of their running mate. And no one's ever lost because of a bad choice, either. If a bad choice were death to a campaign, we wouldn't even know who George W. Bush was, since choosing that half-wit Dan Quayle would've killed his dad's chances. It's a choice that should be more important than it is to voters -- fourteen vice presidents have become president. With only forty-four VPs, that works out to better than a quarter. Those are better odds than anyone else has. Still, it doesn't seem to influence anyone's vote.
But I brought up polls, so here ya go:
Politico:
In the two months since Barack Obama captured the Democratic nomination, he has hit a ceiling in public opinion polling, proving unable to make significant gains with any segment of the national electorate.
While Obama still leads in most matchups with John McCain, the Illinois senator’s apparent stall in the polls is a sobering reminder to Democrats intoxicated with his campaign’s promises to expand the electoral map beyond the boundaries that have constrained other recent party nominees.
Why, oh why, oh why isn't Obama winning better? That seems to be the big, stupid question that the media asks when they aren't beating us brainless with the "veepstakes."...
[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]
