With a month to go before Election Day, it seems as if October came early for the Obama campaign.

The financial crisis that was nowhere to be seen in August dominated September, with all of its debilitating political implications.  Now, McCain has beat a hasty retreat out of Michigan, all but ceding the state to the Democrats, as waves of promising polling data comes in from the battleground states. According to the RealClearPolitics.com composite average, Obama would win handily with 353 electoral votes to McCain’s 185 if the election were held today.

And there is a certain logic to this, isn’t there?

After all, everyone agreed that 2008 was going to be a Democratic year, what with an unpopular war, an even less popular President and an economy shaken by globalization and unexpected commodity competition. But for the Republicans unwittingly nominating their best general election candidate, and a few periods of uncertainty, the election has been almost flawlessly on script.

All that is left to do is stick a fork in the GOP and gather the electoral riches.

Or is it?

Has Obama really closed the deal with voters or is he simply riding a wave of electoral discontent with a still largely unexamined record and policies? In a year when the unexpected has become a cliché, John McCain’s fortunes ride on the answer.

Every election cycle showcases a voter type. After eight years of tumultuous events abroad and at home, the key to this year’s election may lie with the “sophist voter”. Traumatized by 9-11, dismayed with Iraq, shocked by Katrina, frustrated by government cronyism and corruption and disgusted with a political culture that no longer seems to solve problems, the sophist voters arrive at conclusions occasionally at variance with the evidence at hand, but hold their truths close.

For instance, the sophist voter generically rejects Republicans leadership and management over the economy in any and all circumstances. Over the past year and a half, no amount of empirical data could convince these voters that the economy wasn’t headed for recession if not depression, though economic growth inflation and interest rates remained below historical norms.

When financial turmoil in early September ultimately required immediate Congressional intervention by month’s end, these sophist voters first vented their frustration at the idea of a  financial bailout, and then at their elected leaders for failing to pass it.

Sophist voters were consistent only in blaming the Republicans for the bailout fiasco, when blame was as far reaching as it was deep. It was, after all, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd both heavy beneficiaries of Freddie/Fannie largesse who negotiated the bailout, and even their reluctant charge on the campaign trail has six figure Freddie/Fannie contributions. Still, on domestic policy, theirs is an “anybody but a Republican” approach to solutions in Washington.

But the sophist voter is more circumspect on matters of outside the US. While foreign policy discussions have focused tightly on the debates on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan during the campaign, with familiar, rhetorical battle lines, the Russian invasion of Georgia  in early August injected shock and uncertainty into the debate, where voters sought experience, leadership and sound judgment. This has generally favored Republicans.

So, is Obama the choice of the sophists  as the solution, or is he their abstract stand-in? A broader review of polling data since August indicates that Obama maybe more the default choice rather than an independent leader in his own right, based on data that shows Obama gains to be event-driven, leaving hope for McCain.

Consider the following correlation of events and polling:

Coming off  his World Tour in July, Obama entered August with a 6% lead 1. On August 8th, Russia invaded Georgia, making this the top story line through the middle of August. When Obama returned to the campaign on August 18th, his lead was  trimmed to 3.6%.2

During the week of the 18th, when attention was fully focused on Obama and his pending selection of a running mate, his lead continued to drop. Obama led by only 1.4%, when he announced Joe Biden on Friday the 22nd 3. Surprisingly, Obama received no bounce from the Biden selection and walked into Monday’s convention on the 25th about where he had been on Friday, without momentum.

Conventions can be pivotal events.  In 1992, a see-saw race between Bush-Clinton-Perot broke wide open for the Democrats after their convention, providing momentum that lasted through Election Day. In contrast, Obama’s movement at his convention was marginal at best. From Biden’s announcement until the morning after his acceptance speech, Obama gained a net of 2.5%.4 In 1992, Clinton gained 16 points.5

Obama’s next movement occurred not in response to his convention, but in response to Hurricane Gustav as it hit New Orleans. Polling on September 2nd, which digested the previous weekend’s reporting on the storm gave Obama a 6.4% lead on the second day of the Republican convention, a clear reaction to media reporting of another Katrina in the making.6 The sophists were defaulting to form.

As it became clear that the results of Gustav would not be a repeat of Katrina, and as the GOP had its own time in the spotlight, Obama’s lead shrank steadily and McCain took the lead on the 7th with a 1 point advantage.

From September 7-14th McCain maintained a lead of over 2 points. But from the end of his convention forward, McCain was facing a financial storm on the heels of Gustav.  Treasury first announced the takeover of Fannie and Freddie on September 8th. McCain’s support steadily dropped to 1.3% the day the AIG bailout was announced and Obama resumed his lead on September 18th after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

On the Friday the 19th, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced the need for a $700 billion financial package, Obama was leading by 1.9% 7.  Obama’s lead built steadily though the crisis negotiations on the package that dominated the media through a presidential bipartisan meeting and the first debate.

When the House vote on the bailout package failed on Monday the 29th, Obama was leading by 4.6%. In the ensuing days as blame and uncertainty fueled voter anger, Obama’s lead expanded to 5.7% on October 3rd when the House finally passed the bailout package and it became law.8

What is striking about this is how little Obama himself had to do with his spike in the polls. If anything, as a party standard-bearer, Obama  said little that was determinative, staying away from the capital unless required and harvesting the benefits of voter anger.

His leadership potential was in a virtual blind trust.

Two conclusions can be drawn from the polling in August and September as a result:

Polls in that period had Obama up +8 in Ohio, up +8 in Florida and up +6 in Virginia. Further, Obama was up +12 in Pennsylvania, up +10 in Michigan and +9 in Wisconsin.

The consistency of the bounce across a broad range of states is indicative more of a temporary voter reaction to events in Washington, than a sustained surge for Obama with the lack of anything discernable from the candidate.9

So, what does this all mean for McCain in the last 30 days?

Sophist voters, angered by events, have given Obama the benefit of the doubt not based on the superiority of his policy prescriptions, but as part of a pre-occupation with finding a “non-of-the-above” candidate.

McCain needs to drive a wedge between the default perceptions of Obama as “none of the above” and the reality of his program and impact of his proposals. If successful in making this contrast and raising doubt the candidate with no discernable record or experience will crater.

McCain is playing serious defense right now.

But even the Obama camp will cede those 30 days is a lifetime in politics. There are still two presidential debates left to inform and sway opinion. With a successful VP debate and the passage of legislation to deal with the financial crisis, McCain has a more even playing field to challenge Obama.