No Bailout Bill Is Game-Changing Event in the Presidential Race

I think some people have their blinders on. While there are some good reasons that the bailout plan should not have (and should not be) passed, there is one consequence that can't be avoided. No bailout bill means a huge economic collapse and a severe recession. For reasons that are unjust but inargurably there a huge economic disaster changes the landscape of the presidential election in Obama's favor in a huge, huge manner.

The public will not care the Pelosi has apparently encouraged Democrats not to vote for the bailout plan. She's shrewd enough to know that economic collapse equals President Obama and she's already shown she's willing to let the market take a 1.1 trillion dollar hit to reach that goal. She isn't going to stop there.

I read this post by Paul at Powerline. He looks at the race down the backstretch and concludes:

But there is one forseeable event that will benefit McCain. In every modern presidential race where a relatively inexperienced candidate entered the final weeks as a front-runner, there came a time late in the campaign when the electorate took a last, long, skeptical look at that front-runner. It happened most dramatically to Jimmy Carter in 1976, but also to Bill Clinton in 1992 and George Bush in 2000. Each of these front-runners suffered a noticeable downturn in the polls shortly before the election. Clinton was able to regain some of his lost lead; Carter and Bush had to hold on by the skin of their teeth.

Even Ronald Reagan's standing took a major turn for the worse late in the 1980 campaign. Shortly before the election, his double digit lead nearly vanished, as voters asked whether they really wanted to turn the government over to a "right-wing ideologue." In vew of the alternative, Reagan's lead was restored as quickly as he had lost it. But clearly there was a moment of doubt.

I expect such a moment this year with Obama. And that's why, before too long, McCain should go relentlessly negative. When the electorate takes that last, long, skeptical look at Obama, it should have as many facts available as possible.

Voters understand that to elect Obama is to take a flyer. But the candidate, aided immeasurably by the MSM, has obscured the extent of that flyer. It's not too late to lift the veil, but time is running out.

While he mentions the "economy" as a small point in the middle of his article, his conclusion doesn't weight economic matters as being that important.

I normally respect Paul's writings very much, but he isn't thinking clearly on this one. The news this last week is the opposite equivalent of a huge military strike against the U.S. occurring during a presidential campaign where a sitting president was running for a second term. People would rally around the President. It would be a time for stability. It would change the game.

This economic crisis has changed the game in an equally profound manner. I had a number of posts half-written, looking at individual battleground states. You could see evidence of biased polling and campaign decisions by the candidates that pointed to McCain having an advantage in many key states. I had essays on several scenarios in which McCain could upset Obama, even with the biased media coverage in Obama's favor.

Not any more. If the Congress passes something to stem the bleeding there is a (small) chance McCain could recover. But Pelosi knows there is no reason to hurry. Discussions don't even resume for 48-hours because of Jewish holidays. Glenn thinks that is a "sure loser". But for Obama, I think it is a sure winner. At the cost of trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy, but that is a small price to pay for power, is it not?