Over at the Washington Monthly's Political Animal blog, Hilzoy had a great comment on news that John McCain may soon propose "economic measures aimed directly at the middle class" such as "tax cuts -- perhaps temporary -- for capital gains and dividends":

Because what everyone is really worried about right now is how they'll manage to pay the taxes on their massive capital gains.

The biggest surprise for me this year is how poor a campaign McCain has run since locking up the Republican nomination.

This is an open thread on the dumbest policy idea or campaign tactic McCain has come up with in recent months.

Dave in MA threw out some ideas in this diary earlier today.

Although McCain had no great VP options, in my opinion, I still think choosing Sarah Palin was among his biggest mistakes.

UPDATE: The New York Times reports,

Despite signals that Senator John McCain would have new prescriptions for the economic crisis after a weekend of meetings, his campaign said Sunday that Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, would not have any more proposals this week unless developments call for some.

There's a winning message! Everyone who doesn't think that current developments call for some economic policy proposals, please raise your hands.

Yesterday at Open Left, Chris Bowers had this advice for the opposition in his very upbeat presidential forecast:

When it comes to offering concern troll advice to McCain and Republicans, I would recommend shutting down all paid media, and firing all campaign staff. McCain should take his remaining money, and distribute it to the RNC, NRCC and NRSC. Target a few close House and Senate seats to try and limit the damage, but otherwise save money for 2010 and 2012. When you are beaten, it is probably better to  withdraw, save what troops and resources you can, but live to fight another day.

Crooked Timber reported today on the latest from the rumor mill:

So I hear (via a prominent member of the sane Republican faction) that the word on the right side of the street is that the Republican National Committee is about to pull the plug on its joint ads with the McCain campaign, and devote its resources instead to trying to save a couple of the senators who are at serious risk of losing their seats.

On one level, this strategy makes the most sense for the RNC. McCain is looking more and more unlikely to win 270 electoral votes, so helping him is probably not the best use of resources.

On the other hand, it would be devastating to Republican morale for the media to start reporting that the RNC had given up on McCain. I suspect that would depress GOP turnout in a lot of states, perhaps putting more House seats in play even as the RNC blankets the airwaves in behalf of a few vulnerable senators.

Use this as a thread to discuss anything related to campaign advertising by candidates or outside groups.

Here in Iowa, Republican incumbent Tom Latham is running lots of tv and radio ads in the fourth district (D+0), while 10 worst list honoree Steve King is not up on tv or radio and is barely campaigning in the fifth district (R+8). We could pick up both of these seats if expectations of an Obama landslide depress Republican turnout. (Today SUSA released yet another Iowa poll showing Obama above 50 percent and leading McCain by more than 10 points.)

In August I compared Barack Obama's field operations in several states to what John McCain's campaign was putting together and concluded that Obama's small-town outreach would crush McCain's.

Keeping Republican margins down in small towns and rural areas has the potential to put many more states in the blue column. This diary by ManfromMiddletown shows why with lots of maps.

I am happy to report that with less than a month to go, the Obama campaign is deploying its army of staff and volunteers to get out the vote in scores of cities and towns where the McCain campaign is nowhere to be seen except on television.

Iowa isn't much of a swing state, with five recent polls putting Obama over 50 percent and beating McCain by at least 10 points. Nevertheless, the Obama campaign is taking no chances here. They've got more than 40 field offices. They've been canvassing in dozens of communities, large and small, every weekend since July. During the week, surrogates for Obama are regularly holding "rural roundtables" and other campaign events.

It's easy for volunteers in larger communities to sign up to help in small towns. One of my friends showed me the Obama 08 application on his iPhone yesterday. Among other things, it shows you volunteer opportunities in your area. For instance, he saw that they need people to hand out Obama-Biden stickers in the Covered Bridges parade this weekend in Winterset (25 miles from his home in the Des Moines suburbs). Contact information for the relevant Obama office and field organizer was right there, along with a link he could click if he needed directions.

When early voting began in Iowa the last week of September, Obama's campaign organized 21 phone banks and 17 supporter gatherings around the state within a 24-hour period.

Today the Obama campaign in Iowa launched an early voting RV tour. Click the link for a list of stops this RV will make just in the first two days of the tour. There is a particular focus on small college campuses and high schools in small cities and towns.

This pattern is being repeated around the country. While McCain and the Republican National Committee are scrambling to move staff into states like Indiana and Virginia, Obama has had field offices up and running for months.

The level of activity in Obama offices is very high. To cite just one example, Obama has more than 40 field offices in Missouri. McCain has 15 Missouri offices, up from six in August. But as Sean Quinn noted in this post about his road trip to Missouri, hardly anything is happening in the typical McCain field office:

Let's be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there's a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain's state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.

Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we've now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maître Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I'll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.[...]

You could take every McCain volunteer we've seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama's single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.

A ground game can't win an election by itself, but it should help Obama squeeze many more votes out of a favorable political climate.

I was a precinct captain for John Kerry in 2004, and Obama's ground game is several orders of magnitude better. Kerry's GOTV mostly focused on cities and suburbs, and in particular on heavily Democratic precincts. In many cases, MoveOn or America Coming Together volunteers were duplicating our efforts by knocking on the same doors and calling the same people.

Obama is getting the vote out in cities and suburbs, but I suspect his investment in small towns will give him the decisive edge in enough red states to put him over 270 electoral votes. It's been a while since Republican presidential candidates had to work hard for votes in those areas, and McCain's campaign doesn't seem up to the task.

Barack Obama's campaign is already running two television ads that make the case against John McCain on health care.

Today the Obama campaign will send volunteers out knocking on doors in ten Iowa cities to "talk about the differences between the Obama plan to make health care affordable and the McCain plan to tax employees' health benefits." I assume canvassers will be doing the same thing in other states.

I think it's smart for Obama to push this point about McCain wanting to tax health care benefits, but don't imagine that this is the only thing wrong with McCain's health care plan.

Elizabeth Edwards made a strong case against other aspects of McCain's plan this spring. (See also this article about her speech to the annual meeting of the Association of Health Care Journalists.) One of the biggest problems is that insurers could continue to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, including cancer survivors like McCain and Elizabeth Edwards.

Whether or not you canvass today, you may want to bring up these points as well as the tax issue if you talk with undecided voters about the difference between Obama and McCain on health care reform.

Growing up liberal during the Reagan years taught me to go into elections expecting to be disappointed. Watching high-ranking Democrats in Congress fail to challenge the premise behind the dreadful and unnecessary proposed bailout of Wall Street, I share thereisnospoon's concern that Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

But looking at the polling trends in the presidential race and in key Senate races, even a pessimist like me has to admit that a big Democratic wave seems quite possible.

Currently Democrats seem poised to pick up 12 to 18 seats in the House and five to six Senate seats. If we are on the verge of a wave, Democrats could win more than that, including seats that are on few people's radar now.

Waves can drag down well-funded incumbents with tremendous clout. Democratic losers in 1994 included House Speaker Tom Foley and my own 18-term Congressman Neal Smith.

This is a thread for discussing House districts and Senate seats that may seem likely Republican holds today, but which could shock us on November 4.

I'll get the ball rolling by telling you about Iowa's two House districts currently held by Republicans.

In the fourth district (D+0), Becky Greenwald faces Tom Latham, who has remarkably little to show for his seven terms in Congress. I went over many reasons I think Greenwald can win this race here.

Latham understands that it will be a big Democratic year in Iowa, judging from his first television commercial (which glosses over his lockstep Republican voting record). David Kowalski noticed that Latham's campaign website avoids mentioning that he is a Republican (see, for instance, this bio page). Aside from the odd newspaper clipping on his site that refers to him as R-Iowa, you would never be able to tell which party he belongs to.

IA-04 shows up as "likely Republican" on House rankings, in part because Latham sits on the House Appropriations Committee and in part because he has been re-elected by double-digit margins in the past. However, 2002 was the only time Latham faced a well-funded challenger, and that was a bad year to be a Democrat running for Congress. Greenwald had raised more by June 30 than our 2006 candidate against Latham raised during his whole campaign, and she's fundraised aggressively since then. She is already up on television and recently got the endorsement of EMILY's list.

Whatever pork Latham has brought back to his district is nothing compared to what Neal Smith brought to central Iowa during his 36 years in Congress, and that didn't stop voters from giving Smith the boot in 1994.

Now let's look at Iowa's fifth district (R+8), where Rob Hubler is running against one of the most atrocious House Republicans, Steve King. I laid out my case for why Hubler can win this race at Bleeding Heartland, but here are the highlights.

Hubler is the first Democrat to run a real campaign against King, who does not have a big war chest and has not been campaigning actively. Although Republicans maintain a voter registration edge in IA-05, Democrats have made big gains since 2006, putting Hubler in position for an upset if he wins independents by a significant margin. King's extreme views and tendency to make bigoted, embarrassing statements are a turn-off to moderates.

Also, an internal poll of the district for Hubler's campaign showed the generic ballot for Congress virtually tied at 36 percent for the Democrat and 38 percent for the Republican.

Nearly three months ago, the editor of the Storm Lake Times newspaper wrote:

Republican despondence also may be a threat to incumbent Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron. Scoff if you will, but again recall that Harkin defeated incumbent Bill Scherle and Bedell knocked off incumbent Wiley Mayne in the post-Watergate landslide. The atmospherics may be similar this year.

Like I said at the top, upsets happen in wave elections. After winning in 1974, Tom Harkin represented most of the southwest counties now in IA-05 for five terms, until his election to the U.S. Senate in 1984. Berkley Bedell represented most of the northwest Iowa counties now in IA-05 for six terms, until he retired because of health problems caused by Lyme's disease.

Despite Sarah Palin's presence on the ballot, I do not believe Republicans in western Iowa are going to be fired up to turn out this November. During the past month five separate polls have shown Barack Obama above 50 percent in Iowa and leading John McCain by double digits. McCain has never campaigned much in Iowa, skipping the caucuses in 2000 as well as 2008. He's against ethanol subsidies, which causes him to underperform in rural Iowa. Certainly McCain lacks the appeal George Bush had to conservatives here in the last two elections.

Harkin is cruising against a little-known Republican challenger for the U.S. Senate, and King is not giving his supporters any reason to believe he's concerned about Hubler. Why should the western Iowa wingnuts put a lot of effort into getting their voters out?

Meanwhile, Obama's campaign has at least half a dozen field offices in both IA-04 and IA-05 to drive up turnout among Democrats and other Democratic-leaning voters.

Clearly, Greenwald and Hubler go into the home stretch as underdogs. But who thought Dave Loebsack was going to beat Iowa Congressman Jim Leach two years ago? Democrats put tons of money and effort behind a strong challenger to Leach in 2002 and came up short. As a result, Loebsack got no help from the DCCC or outside interest groups in 2006, and just about everyone viewed IA-02 as "likely Republican."

Carol Shea-Porter's amazing victory in New Hampshire's first district seemed just as improbable two years ago. She was massively outspent by the Republican incumbent and got no help from the DCCC. By the way, NH-01 is D+0 and mostly white, as is IA-04.

The partisan lean and demographic profile of IA-05 (mostly white and largely rural) is similar to KS-02 (R+7), where Nancy Boyda came from behind to beat a Republican incumbent in 2006. The DCCC did get involved in that race, but it didn't appear to be a very likely pickup before the election.

Two weeks ago Stuart Rothenberg mocked the DCCC for putting "absurd races" (including the Hubler-King matchup) on its list of "Races to Watch" and putting long shots on the "Red to Blue" and "Emerging Races" list. James L. already took down Rothenberg in this great post for Swing State Project, so I won't pile on.

I will say, however, that I have put my money where my mouth is by giving as much as I can afford to Hubler and Greenwald.

Somewhere, somehow, some unheralded challengers will give House or Senate Republicans the surprise of their lives on November 4. So, MyDD readers, who's it gonna be?

In July I wrote about five reasons to get involved in state legislative races. My reasoning was:

 1.  The 2010 census looms, to be followed by redrawing Congressional districts in most states.

  2. Many policy matters are determined at the state level.

  3. Getting progressive Democrats elected to state legislatures will build our bench for future House, Senate or gubernatorial races.

  4. You probably can find a competitive statehouse race near you, no matter where you live.

  5. Your individual actions are more likely to make a difference in a statehouse race.

In addition to donating directly to good state legislators and legislative candidates, I give to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which supports statehouse candidates across the country.

I was pleased to learn on Friday that the DLCC is accepting nominations for candidates to be included in its "40 essential races" program.

Dear [firstname]:
It is no easy task to pinpoint a handful of essential candidates among the thousands of competitive legislative races this year, but that is exactly is what we at the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee intend to do over the next three weeks.
Using the information and resources we've gathered so far this cycle, we will identify 40 candidates in top races all across the country who need help in this election. For our part, we will provide these candidates with strategic support and promote their races among our partners and allies.
We also know that there are plenty of strong Democrats throughout the country with the potential to win important districts whose races are just emerging -- so we are asking for your help to find them.
While we reveal the list of our targets, we will also accept nominations for an additional 10 candidates to go on our essential races list. Please submit a name:
http://www.dlcc.org/action/2008Races
And while you're on our site, will you also take a minute to make a contribution of $25 or more?
Every dollar that you give will go directly into taking the fight to the Republicans who want to control our state houses. With your help, we will elect leaders who won't let the GOP pass their radical policy agendas or redraw districts to create a permanent conservative majority. Can you support us today?
http://www.dlcc.org/action/contribute
The DLCC is committed to electing Democratic majorities all across the country, but in order to win in competitive states, we need support from friends like you.
Thank you for all that you do,
Michael Sargeant
Executive Director
Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

I asked someone at the DLCC whether these "essential races" will mostly feature challengers or incumbents. I was told that most of the targeted races involve Democratic challengers trying to take Republican-held seats. However, some will be incumbents, and some will be challengers trying to hold Democratic seats.

I encourage progressives to get informed about the key races in your state, then go to the DLCC site and nominate the candidate of your choice for this program.

For example, strong Democratic challengers seeking Republican-held seats in Iowa include Jerry Sullivan in Iowa House district 59 and Swati Dandekar in Senate district 18 (both seats are open because of Republican retirements).

A good candidate trying to hold the open Iowa House district 29 is Nate Willems, a former regional director for Howard Dean and occasional contributor to MyDD.

Incumbents being targeted this year in Iowa include Eric Palmer in House district 75, Elesha Gayman in House district 84,  and Tom Rielly in Senate district 38.

Please let the good candidates in your state or region know about the DLCC program.

You can also set up your own ActBlue page to raise money for your favorite candidates, whether or not they are named an "essential race" by the DLCC. Century of the Common Iowan blogger noneed4thneed created this page to support Tim Hoy in House district 44, Sharon Steckman in House district 13, Gayman, Palmer, and Sullivan.

Vox Populi provides information about three good Indiana House candidates on this ActBlue page.

Remember, even if your state is not competitive in the presidential campaign and your representatives in Congress are safe incumbents, you can probably find a swing statehouse district not far from where you live.

We can't afford to neglect those down-ticket races. Donate, volunteer, and spread the word.

Maybe someone out there who knows the inner workings of EMILY's List can explain to me why this group has not put money behind Becky Greenwald, the Democrat challenging loyal Republican foot-soldier Tom Latham in Iowa's fourth Congressional district.

I have been going over the list of Democratic women running for Congress whom EMILY's List is supporting, with a particular focus on the six challengers most recently added to this group in early August. I do not mean to denigrate any of those candidates, and I recognize that every race has its own dynamic.

However, after comparing Greenwald's race to those of other candidates, I remain puzzled that EMILY's list is not more involved in IA-04.

Follow me after the jump for more.

I continue to be impressed by the Obama campaign's ability to engage volunteers. I got an e-mail from the campaign last night announcing an "Iowa Call Challenge":

Help us grow this movement for change by taking the Iowa Call Challenge and talking to undecided voters across the state. The top five people who complete the most calls between Saturday, September 13th, and Saturday, September 20th, will have the opportunity to meet Barack or Joe [on his next trip to Iowa].

This is a clever way to induce Democrats to make time for those phone calls right away.

It sounds as if similar contests are being held in other swing states on the upcoming itinerary for Barack Obama or Joe Biden. According to sisterfish, the volunteers in Colorado who do the most canvassing this weekend will be invited to see Obama or get a picture with him when he's in that state early next week. Adam Terando said the campaign did something similar to motivate volunteers before Obama's last visit to North Carolina in August.

Although it's the weekend, I am trying to find out what kind of voters are being targeted in these "Neighbor to Neighbor" phone calls--newly registered voters, unreliable voters, independents, Democrats? I will update this post if and when I hear back from the Obama campaign in Iowa.

Anyone else out there hear about contests for volunteers in other targeted states?