Start with the assumption that a million people are smart--smarter than one
NOFX, "The Decline"

For as long as I can remember, the Republican Party has tried to establish itself as the party of "regular people." By and large, the GOP does this not by extolling its own virtues, but rather by tarring Democrats.

The problem Democrats have is that they have long dismissed these attacks as "stupid." Gotcha! The folks who at least listen to these sorts of innuendoes hear that Democrats (or, at least, Democratic candidates) think that they, themselves are stupid.

Game over.

Barack Obama will probably get at least 90 percent of the vote from my neighborhood on Election Day. And I've heard all sorts of paranoid ramblings from my friends. These thoughts tend to go something like this: "If people can be stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004, they'll be stupid enough to vote for McCain this year."

As much as I love my friends, this is simply stupidity compounding stupidity.

A vote for Bush was not necessarily an ignorant vote. The Republican Party stands for a lot of things--and pre-emptive war isn't a core value. There were lots of reasons to vote against Al Gore and John Kerry. One of the best is that both ran bad campaigns and often appeared out of touch.

In short, George W. Bush winning two terms doesn't necessarily mean that the American people are stupid. And I would argue that Democrats have lost precisely because they lost faith in the innate intelligence of the electorate.

People freaked out after McCain's choice of Sarah Palin provided a spark for his campaign. The polls tightened (or even turned slightly in McCain's favor). The nervous Dems demanded that Obama get tougher or meaner or, well, anything. Obama did toughen his line, but he did it within his distinguished demeanor. Indeed, I think the main reason that Obama has been surging is not just because people tend to trust Democrats when the economy tanks. More important than that generic party association is that Obama stood up as a calming voice. He urged passage of the bailout, but he didn't go Joaquin like John McCain.

(That last reference is to Cardinals' pitcher Joaquin Andujar, who argued both of the pitches he threw in Game 7 of the 1985 World Series. He was thrown out--along with manager Whitey Herzog--as the Royals completed an 11-0 thrashing in winning the title. In layman's terms, to go Joaquin is to go apeshit in a tense situation. Kevin Brewer, a friend of mine, coined this phrase a few years ago, and it ought to be a staple of common parlance.)

McCain probably destroyed his campaign when he went Joaquin with the whole "campaign suspension" stunt. Ditching Letterman while keeping up the rest of his schedule led to one of the more remarkable denouncements of a presidential candidate that has ever graced television (watch the now-classic nine minutes of bile here).

When a network television host feels free to savage a presidential nominee--and the crowd joins in gleefully--that candidate is in trouble. Given that no outcry came, and that Letterman gave an even more blistering performance the next night, it's safe to say that public opinion is solidly with Dave. Which is very bad for McCain.

More instructive, however, is the public's reaction to Sarah Palin. While professional pundits of all political persuasions see Palin as a lightweight who can't even be trusted to use the bathroom by herself, the general public seems to view her as a tough broad who's probably a bit too inexperienced for the job. When she gave a competent, if awfully vague, performance at the Vice Presidential debate, those same pundits fell all over themselves because (gasp!!) a sitting governor was able to get through ninety minutes of live television without imploding. The general public, though, assumed Palin could stand and talk at the same time, and so it (correctly) credited Biden with the better performance. Before the debate, Obama led McCain 49-42 in the daily Gallup tracking poll. In the two days since, Obama's lead remained the same at 50-43.

In other words, Palin isn't the issue. John McCain and Barack Obama are the candidates, and the election will turn on what the American people see in them. Obama is an inspiring figure whose policies are more in line with current opinion. McCain is an experienced politician who knows how to get in the dirt and win.

Going hard negative can help a candidate. It can also make a candidate seem desperate, and McCain is desperate. Desperate enough to have his veep pick wander around accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists." That sort of attack reeks of desperation

The American People aren't stupid. Indeed, the collective wisdom of the people is usually sound. We're human. We make mistakes. But when faced with an obvious choice, we usually do the smart thing. Unlike many of my Democratic friends, I have full confidence that come November 5, Sarah Palin will be just another small-state governor. And the American People will be ready to get started on the hard work ahead.

Jon Worley is kinda smart--and kinda stupid.