As I was explaining to coworker earlier, I think the punditry, and so-called “educated voters” to a certain extent, tend to sell “low information voters” short. The media generally thinks that those who don’t religiously follow politics are incapable of perceiving the legitimacy gap between Biden’s informed and mostly direct answers and Palin’s evasive platitudes. But as the short term polling shows, they can, and Biden staying out of Palin’s way helped.

I’ll add though that when Palin was at her most effective (and I use the term loosely) bloviating about change without actually showing daylight between McCain and Bush, she was essentially echoing Democratic talking points and strengths. So long as McCain and Palin can’t legitimately distance themselves from the Bush Administration without sounding like watered-down Democracts, the politics of the campaign will continue to favor Obama. Coupled with the environment of the campaign — the economy — it will be quite a difficult, but not impossible, path to a McCain victory.

At the end of the day, it wasn’t about expectations. Palin surpassed hers. Shattered them, in fact. The stumbling, tongue-tied, intellectually uncertain novice who withered before Katie Couric’s steady questioning was absent this evening. Palin was confident, on-message, and at times, sharp. But it didn’t matter. The polls were clear: CNN showed 51 percent for Biden, 36 percent for Palin. CBS, restricting their sample to undecided voters, showed 46 percent for Biden, 21 percent for Palin. Like McCain before her, Palin performed at the top of her game, and it wasn’t enough.

I saw Chuck Todd talking on Morning Joe sort of incredulously remarking that the public might feel that legitimate events in the world (the banking meltdown, War in Iraq, etc.) call for legitimate leaders, not a trained monkey who can recite talking points. Go figure.

On the other hand, Joe Biden seemed largely defensive (though mostly correct) and totally inable to land a “knock out punch.” There was no way for Biden to differentiate himself positively. Either he exhaled loudly through the microphone, or explained competently issues of foreign policy, probably leaving most Americans as lost as Alice. Furthering this problem, Gwen Ifill utterly refused to push for legitimate or specific answers, and in this sense completely failed to offer opportunities for legitimate differentiation.

But here’s the bottom line: Sarah Palin was not able to gain ground. She defended her own credibility in the most shallow and insubstantial way, and in this sense managed to not lose ground. She was not able to legitimately claim difference between Bush and McCain and was not able to substantively show why McCain’s plans would better serve America. But so long as Bush’s policies continue to drag us to the depths, this marked similarity between McCain-Palin and Biden-Obama will continue to serve the Democratic ticket well. A draw will not benefit a losing ticket.

Surveys conducted by the National Election Study team in each presidential year since 1980 have asked prospective voters to rate the presidential candidates on a variety of specific traits. In 2000, for example, survey respondents were asked how well the phrases “moral,” “really cares about people like you,” “knowledgeable,” and “provides strong leadership” described Bush and Al Gore. The biggest difference in perceptions of the two candidates was that people saw Bush as considerably less “knowledgeable” than Gore — by 11 points on a 100-point scale. (They also saw Bush as less empathetic, but most considered him a stronger leader.) 

How much did that matter? My analysis suggests that an undecided voter who saw Bush as 11 points less “knowledgeable” than Gore was only about 1.3% less likely to vote for Bush as a result. Comparable differences on the other trait dimensions were three to five times as consequential. Clearly, voters in 2000 were much more concerned about electing someone who was strong, empathetic, and moral, with “knowledgeable” a distant fourth. And they weren’t just giving the genial anti-intellectual Bush a pass — much the same pattern has held in other recent elections.

…But the people who matter — the voters whose minds are still not made up — will mostly not care whether Palin can rattle off the names of Supreme Court cases or world leaders. If she comes across as strong and empathetic, that may be enough.

I think this is wrong for a few reasons. 

First, the political climate of the 2000 election was vastly different. Our budget was running a surplus, recent foreign policy forays had been succesful, 9/11 hadn’t happened, and our economy was still quite strong (though showing signs of weakness). The point is, there really weren’t a terrible number of issues on which “knowledge” would have made a tremendous difference. Conversly, we’re mired in a host of problems from a misguided (and expensive) foreign policy to a faltering economy to cocaine-fueled sex parties in the Department of the Interior. Times like these require competence. 

Secondly, Sarah Palin isn’t merely unknowlegable, she’s embarassingly and quite obviously in over her head. Perhaps many voters can’t name foreign dignitaries, but most people can tell you what newspapers they read or name more than one court decision (or at least an issue like the “gun ban”). As I’ve argued before, Sarah Palin’s qualifaction problem isn’t just that she’s unqualified, it’s that she’s so obviously unqualified. 

Finally, any criticism of Sarah Palin is ultimately a criticism of John McCain. People who see Sarah Palin embarass herself and her party really see the shallow cynicism and lack of seriousness with which John McCain has run his campaign. Her performance reflects on John McCain’s judgment — one his claimed strengths — not merely on her fitness for office alone.

• Ezra Klein makes the case that McCain’s problem wasn’t his delivery (though the contempt doesn’t help), it’s simply that he’s in the undesirable position of defending policies that over the past 8 years have been largely exposed as terrible. Ezra also makes a point that liberals underestimate the power of Obama simply “holding his own” in the foreign policy debate, because liberals consider McCain’s foreign policy stupid to begin with while most people consider him some sort of wise sage.
• Snap polls show an Obama victory,  especially among undecideds, but Amy Sullivan warns not to read too much into this: it doesn’t mean they made up their minds.
• Nate Silver gets into the nitty gritty and in particular shows how Obama’s win was greater when you look at how voters weigh the issues.
• Matt Yglesias notes that one plus to picking a legitimate running mate is that they can go on the teevees and hammer your points home. Sarah Palin meanwhile, nowhere to be seen.

Like I said, I’ll be back later with some of my own thoughts, but for now, here’s a video of Biden’s post-debate pwnage.

Why Vetting is Important

The above is a chart showing changes in favorable/unfavorable differences on the respective tickets. A value above zero means a greater percentage of people view you favorably than unfavorably. If, on the other hand, you have a score of -4 like Sarah Palin, it means more people view you unfavorably than view you favorably.

In recent days, we’ve once again seen the consequences of this neglect with Russia’s challenge to the free and democratic country of Georgia. Barack Obama and I will end this neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we’ll help the people of Georgia rebuild.

What exactly is he proposing here, invading Russia? There seems to be this recent tendency to imbue Russia with intentions remeniscent of the Cold War, but this seems really more to be a little back yard enforcement in a manner consistent with history in the Caucuses. Russia will prove a vital ally in stemming Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and senselessly pissing them off with arguably the worst bluff in history — agreeing to a missile defense deal with Poland to ostensibly protect the U.S. and Europe from Iran (I mean, seriously, does anyone believe that?) probably isn’t the best way to build cooperation.  This sounds too much like McCain’s saber rattling, so I’d be interested to hear what Biden thinks in greater detail. Oh well, at least he didn’t threaten to kick Russia out of the G8 or boycott the 2014 Olympics.

On the Big Dog front, Bill was not only genuinely exciting, but more importnantly, he was genuinely persuasive in his support for Obama. I won’t be the only one to say it, but such strong language carries immense credibility when coming from a popular and succesful former president.