When the television talking heads are constantly repeating Republican talking points and you are feeling down, there is no one better than the nation's foremost political analyst to set things straight. Tonight--on this evening of Schwarzenegger and the Bush ladies, when the media was so overcome by the all of the Republican "moderates" who dominate the party--tonight is the best time to read a little bit of Charlie Cook to get some real prospective on things.

In today's column for The National Journal, Cook explains that although there has been some movement in the polls away from Kerry (perhaps 2 or 3 points) towards the President (a point or two), the race has not shifted as dramatically as some would have you think. (You might remember that a few weeks ago Cook was equally skeptical that the brief post-convention shift to Kerry would hold--and he was right then).

As Cook explains it, the major cause of this small movement in the campaign is the focus on the Swiftboat controversy. Though this is certainly not something that is good for Kerry, the real reason why this hurts him is that every week the nation is focused on something other than "economy and jobs, or on Iraq and casualties, the management of the war, and weapons of mass destruction" is a bad week for the him. To me, this bodes well because the focus of the electorate will inevitably shift back to Iraq and the economy (because there's no way the American people are going to still be paying attention to Vietnam in October).

Summing up the entire race, Cook writes thusly:

The point is that in the absence of some major external event or a monumental screw up by Bush or Kerry in this fall's presidential debates, neither candidate is likely to build a significant, sustainable lead. One can look at all the relevant factors in the race and shade it in one direction or the other.

For example, I put great weight in the enormous levels of pessimism among undecided voters and their apparently low opinion of Bush. I think the president's climb is still a bit uphill. My experience tells me that undecided voters invariably break against well-known, well-defined incumbents.

Bush strategists acknowledge that the undecided voters are a tough nut to crack. But they argue that the campaign can offset the undecided voters who will break for Kerry by turning out a pool of conservative and Republican-leaning infrequent voters. Given the experience of 2002, when Republicans were able to elevate voter turnout far above normal in their strong areas, this is a plausible tactic, although it's obviously harder to do in a presidential election when turnout is going to be higher anyway.

The bottom line is that this election wasn't over three weeks ago when
Kerry was ahead, albeit narrowly, and it isn't over now that President Bush is ahead by a comparable margin.

I think that says it all.