The electoral map looks better than the national popular vote polls, but while Obama is ahead or slightly ahead in more states he is not leading in enough states to get him to 270.

And since Obama seems to agree with McCain on more and more issues I don't see that the fundamentals are really helping him. The fact that this is even a close race should worry people. IMO, the reason it is close is that the GOP put up their strongest candidate and we put up our weakest.

And you have to remember that McCain is running as an independent not as a Republican. I don't think any of his ads have Republican on them. The yard signs I have seen don't have it either.

Democrats are the REAL party of populism. Once September rolls around, the GOP takes the mantle of populism and convinces the American public that they are the true party of populism. It happens almost every time and every time it happens the Republicans win. It's happening now.  

For example, look at what is happening on the campaign trail right now: McCain and Palin are undermining Obama's claim to being a "change" agent by, among other things, stressing that he has asked for "almost a billion dollars in earmarks." It's a dramatic, attention getting point because that's a LOT of taxpayer dollars. But more important -- that assertion defines "change" on McCain's terms, terms that work for him because he has a consistent history of both railing against earmarks and of not requesting them for his own state.

So, while McCain and Palin are making both an argument against earmarks and a dramatic attack on Obama's use of them, what is Obama doing?

He's REACTING to the personal attack rather than to the political argument. He is telling voters that McCain and Palin's earmark arguments indicate they "think you're stupid" because Palin has a record of seeking hefty earmarks for her state.

The difference here is dramatic; McCain is arguing, first and foremost, that voters are being harmed by a corruption and abuse, as defined by him. And he is providing a dramatic example of how his opponent is participating in that abuse. He is saying; 1) "Vote for me because I will stop the corruption and abuse of your tax dollars. 2) My opponent won't stop the corruption because he is, in fact, corrupt."

Obama, on the other hand, by criticizing Palin for requesting earmarks, is accepting McCain's definition of corruption. He is ignoring the important political argument, about the use of tax payer dollars, and weakly responding to the personal charge that he is corrupt by arguing that his opponent's running mate is corrupt too  While McCain is asking people to vote for him because he will end "corruption," Obama is asking voters to vote for him because doing otherwise means they're "stupid."

McCain is NOT just making a "character attack." He is making an appeal to the voters' self interest (he'll make sure their tax dollars aren't wasted on earmarks).

Obama IS just making a character attack; he is arguing for votes on the basis of his opponents' hypocrisy, rather than making a clear point about how he will serve the voters' interest.

2004-  Bush had a narrow lead and kept it, neither gaining nor losing much.
2000-  Bush had a narrow lead and lost it, but not quite by enough to lose the Electoral College.
1996-  Clinton lost several points of his lead, but not enough to alter the outcome.
1992-  I'm not sure this is really comparable due to the Perot factor, but Clinton lost most of his lead in October only to get it back in the final week.
1988-  As you noted, Bush blew much of his lead against Dukakis, but not enough to change the result.
1984-  Reagan's lead actually increased against Mondale, nearly producing the ultimate humiliation for the Minnesotan.
1980-  Reagan surged from a near-tie to win 43 states.
1976-  Carter blew nearly all of a double-digit lead.

There is still every reason to be optimistic.  There is no realistic prospect, in my mind, that McCain wins any of the states that went for Kerry in '04, except perhaps NH, and that's highly doubtful.  Iowa and NM are solidly Obama's.  McCain has to "run the table" -- he can't afford to lose a single significant state, whether OH, VA, FL, CO.  Obama has a reasonable path to victory without winning OH or FL; Mccain has none.

Speaking of closing, I'm old enough to remember 1968 (I was 15) when Democrats, notwithstanding being horribly divided after a primary season that made this last one seem serene and pleasant and a war that split the country in two, in the end came home (mostly) -- and Nixon just squeaked through.

That being said, it's always tough to predict what will happen when a significant portion of the country's electorate is credulous enough to believe stuff like a decorated war hero being in fact some kind of coward who didn't earn the medals he was rewarded -- so we'll just have to see.

I think in general what we are talking about this year is the effect of why elections are cyclical combined with Kaus's 'faster thesis'.  

Usually the party that is winning starts thinking that they can get away with anything and start taking unpopular positions to please their base. They think they can go with a dream candidate or the insider who deserves it. They can afford to hold purges and dream of sectarian dreams (like defunding the the Department of Education)

The party that has been losing eventually says "we've got to stop squabbling and pick one guy and get behind only him". Eventually they win and become over confident and the cycle repeats.  

This year the Democrats from some reason assumed that they were the winning party based on the mid-terms and cocooning web sites and skipped the phase where they actually win first. The Republicans sort of assumed the out of power role and have been solidifying, even though none of them actually like McCain (think about Coulter, National Review and Limbaugh's attitude to him).