H/T: Donklephant

Blogs with 100,000 or more unique visitors a month earn an average of $75,000 annually--though that figure is skewed by the small percentage of blogs that make more than $200,000 a year. The estimates from a 2007 Business Week article are older but juicier: The LOLcat empire rakes in $5,600 per month; Overheard in New York gets $8,100 per month; and Perez Hilton, gossip king, scoops up $111,000 per month.

Not too shabby. All I have to do is figure out a way to decuple my traffic.

H/T: Andrew Sullivan

Just sayin...

But I don't make the rules, and that's why I don't know what to expect from tonight's VP debate. I think she will perform better than she has in her recent interviews, and that may be enough for her to be declared the winner. The pressure here is really on Biden. If he is aggressive, he'll be seen as picking on her. If he takes it easy, he'll be seen as patronizing. The pundits who hand down verdicts on debate winners and losers know that he knows the issues, so they'll judge every little detail. As James Fallows says, "Joe Biden will be judged on whether he gets anything wrong; Palin, on whether she gets anything right."

What I'm saying is, Obama supporters who are salivating at the coming train wreck may be surprised. I think she'll perform better than expected. And as I wrote over at TMV, the McCain camp already has an excuse prepared if she doesn't.

I believe this isn't a clip leftover from Couric's interview last week, but a completely new interview recorded on Monday. If that's the case, I wonder if Couric asked about those examples of McCain supporting regulation that Palin promised to bring her last week? That would make my week.

"What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this."

- Steve Schmidt, McCain's chief strategist, giving McCain preemptive credit for the passage of the bailout package that never passed.

And number two:

"Sen. McCain interrupted his campaign, suspended his campaign activity to come back to Washington to get Republicans around a table. Without Sen. McCain, House Republicans would not have appointed a negotiator, which would not have moved this bill forward. It's really Sen. McCain who got all parties around a table to hammer out a deal that hopefully is in the best interests of the American taxpayer."

- Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director, doing the same on Fox News today.

So I assume McCain is now willing to take similar credit for the bill's defeat? Not quite. He's blaming Obama and other Democrats for "putting politics ahead of country."

Obama's reaction: "It is important for the American public and for the markets to say calm because things are never smooth in congress and to understand that it will get done."

An interesting ad from the Obama camp.

Now, I initially dismissed this as paranoia and still don't think it is even close to the primary reason for McCain's actions. But the more I watch of the interview, the easier it is to believe that some McCain staffers heard her answers and sometime yesterday afternoon said, "My god, we have to do whatever we can to make sure this gets buried in the news."

It's that bad. And the thing is, McCain bears some of the responsibility. By shielding Palin for so long, he has put a lot of pressure on her to perform well. If McCain hadn't made a big announcement about going to Washington, the big news of today would have been Palin's interview, just like it was after her interview with Charlie Gibson aired. That's what happens when you limit access leave the public hungry for more information.

And now he wants to postpone the VP debates? Could it be that he doesn't think she's ready to face Biden? Or he'd prefer to have the debate after many early voters have already made a decision? As David Letterman says, something doesn't smell right.

But don't take my word for it. Watch the videos and ask yourself if she's ready to take over as president.

On foreign policy:

On the economy:

Watch CBS Videos Online

Unfortunately, I've hardly seen any mention of the plan in either the mainstream press or political blogs. Part of that is because of news about the financial crisis. But it is also because the speech was primarily about issues and plans, rather than an attack on McCain (although there was some of that). If Obama had taken the podium and called McCain a "grumpy old man," it would be on every front page in America. But talk about actual issues? Crickets.

Give it a watch:

This is hilarious but also sheds light on how ridiculous the whole situation is. We're basically rewarding very wealthy people for greed and incompetence simply because they are so powerful that the alternative is total financial collapse. Interesting times...

Not that he isn't ahead. McCain leads Obama 51%-41% in the survey of 13 swing states. But that isn't enough to win the election. While Obama isn't going to actually win rural voters, McCain needs to improve on his current numbers for a few reasons:

• Bush performed better in rural counties. In 2004 Bush won rural counties by nearly twice McCain's current margin. His dominance in rural America essentially won him the election: "Kerry won nearly 52 percent in urban areas, where 73 percent of the voters lived in 2004. The Democrat failed to crack 40 percent in rural and exurban counties, which had 27 percent of the vote."
  
• Bush was ahead by more in September 2004. Although, not by much. At this point in the election Bush was leading Kerry with rural voters by 13%. He expanded that lead significantly by election day, and the McCain camp is looking to do the same. A Republican strategies and "adviser for the poll" (let that serve as a grain of salt when looking at the results) claims McCain is on pace to reach that goal.
  
• The economy is rural voters' top concern. Fifty-one percent of rural voters cited the economy as their top concern, followed by energy prices (25%), and Iraq (21%). Conventional wisdom says that's bad news for McCain, but it's not as serious of a problem as it seems, as I'll explain in a moment. Moral values, by the way, was at the bottom of the list.

The bottom line is that McCain will lose the election unless he grows that 10-point lead (he may have to double it). Obama will likely win cities by bigger margins than Kerry or Gore, so McCain has his work cut out for him. But there are some things working in his favor:

• He has momentum. His overall margin hasn't increased by much—McCain lead Obama by nine points in a similar survey conducted in May. However, is favorability ratings have improved (primarily with Republicans and Independents), and voters' perceptions of him have improved on every single issue, even "most likely to bring change" and the economy, two categories Obama led in May.
• He has Sarah Palin. While she's losing her shine elsewhere, she still remains very popular in rural areas. Sixty-five percent of respondents said she represents the values of rural communities, and 54% said she's ready to be president.
• He can win on any issue. As I alluded to earlier, it's no longer a major problem that the economy is dominating the election. Rural voters now favor McCain 46-45 when it comes to dealing with economic issues. The fundamentals of his rural strategy are strong. If the focus turns to Iraq, taxes, or values, however, his advantage in rural areas grows significantly.

It could swing either way, but the rural-urban divide could very well determine the election. We know where both candidates will win, but the question is how much they will win by in those areas. Obama is already where he needs to be in urban areas, and his focus should be primarily on boosting turnout. McCain has to really run up the numbers, and Sarah Palin has helped with that (so far).

Also posted at TMV.

UPDATE: I missed a question that reveals a major hurdle to Obama's rural strategy: Voter's were asked if the "people in my community" are ready for a black president. Only half (53%) said yes, while 23% said their community wasn't ready for a black president, and 29% opted not to answer or said neither option was appropriate. This stat wasn't included in the press release and initial coverage of the survey, but those numbers are higher than national averages.

From ABC news:

In the study, released Thursday in the journal Science, Rice University professor of political science John Alford and his colleagues studied 46 subjects with strong political beliefs. They subjected these people to startling stimuli then compared responses with their stated viewpoints on key political issues.

Those subjects who were the most startled by the unexpected or disturbing stimuli were also the ones who were most likely to favor such issues as increased defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War.

The people who were less startled by the stimuli, which included such things as a spider crawling across the face of a terrified person or loud, unexpected noises, tended to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control.

To poke a few holes, the study was based on a very small sample of people who already held strong political beliefs, so it's tough to jump to any serious conclusions without more comprehensive research. But it does touch on an interesting notion—that our beliefs and perceptions of the world may be tied to biology. Past research suggests as much as 30%-40% of our beliefs may have biological roots, according to the political scientist who conducted the study.

But add to that another study about how misinformation changes people's perceptions of candidates, even after they hear refutations of the false information, and an ugly picture emerges. Here's how it works:

In experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University, volunteers were given various items of political misinformation from real life. One group of volunteers was shown a transcript of an ad created by NARAL Pro-Choice America that accused John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court at the time, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

A variety of psychological experiments have shown that political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people's preexisting views. People who did not like Roberts to begin with, then, ought to have been most receptive to the damaging allegation, and this is exactly what Bullock found. Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to disapprove of Roberts after hearing the allegation.

Bullock then showed volunteers a refutation of the ad by abortion-rights supporters. He also told the volunteers that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad. Although 56 percent of Democrats had originally disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation, 80 percent of Democrats disapproved of the Supreme Court nominee afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval of Roberts dropped only to 72 percent.

Republican disapproval of Roberts rose after hearing the misinformation but vanished upon hearing the correct information. The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place.

The effect may be more pronounced with conservatives, who upon hearing a refutation "might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation," according to the authors.

So we've basically learned something that politicians have known for decades: that scaring and lying to voters actually works (maybe more so for Republicans). Great.

Now, take a look at what Americans believe each candidate's tax proposal will do:

Although only 1% of Americans will see an actual tax increase under Obama's plan, 53% believe he will increase their taxes. I was a little curious why Republicans hammered Obama so hard on taxes during the convention when his policy actually benefits most Americans more than McCain's. I guess they just thought they wouldn't get called on it.

H/T to Hilzoy. Cross-posted at TMV.

Note to the nation's journalists: Notice the follow up questions? How they didn't let him get away with obvious talking points (for the most part)? The hosts of The View are doing your job better than you are. Let that sink in for a minute.

From the New York Times:

Congressional Democrats have scrapped plans for another vote on expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, thus sparing Republicans from a politically difficult vote just weeks before elections this fall.

Before the summer recess, Democrats had vowed repeatedly to force another vote on the popular program. But Democrats say they have shifted course, after concluding that President Bush would not sign their legislation and that they could not override his likely veto.

So why in the world would Democrats back down on the one battle that, politically, they're sure to win? As soon as the bill comes up for a vote, the entire focus of the campaign is going to shift to health care, which is good for Obama. McCain has barely articulated a health care policy, and voters seem ready for genuine change from the current system.

There are basically two possible outcomes. The political pressure may get so intense that a few Republicans cross the aisle to override Bush's veto. Fine, the bill passess and Democrats win the battle. But they also win if the bill fails. First, it puts Bush back in the headlines, and the more voters are reminded of the current administration, the more they're going to want something different. And it puts John McCain in a tight spot. Odds are, he would either vote against it or (more likely given his recent attendance record) not show up to vote.

And that's when Obama should go on the offensive. I'm not going to get into the actual merits of either side's argument about the policy, but it's politically tough to defend a vote against a health insurance program for children.

Rahm Emanuel has the right idea when he says, "Those who opposed this bill can face the voters and explain why they believe 10 million kids should not get health coverage." But that's not going to happen as long as the issue sits on the back burner.

And if the Democrats don't take control of this Senate session and steer the course of the debate, the Republicans will. Does anyone believe for a moment that they will back down on offshore drilling just because they think it won't pass? They will gladly shut down the government just to make energy the central election issue.

I usually don't like characterizations of Democrats as spineless because it implies compromise and nuance are undesirable in politics. But they surrendered this battle, one they could have won, before it even began. Sometimes, the shoe fits.

Cross-posted at TMV.