The McCain convention's thesis is that higher taxes on high earners in a time of slow growth will squelch the economy (this was Herbert Hoover's policy, after all).

These assertions, too, are unfamiliar to voters. And, up to this point in the campaign, neither party has set out its programs clearly (or characterized the other side's fairly).

During the course of the year, two issues have unexpectedly turned in favor of the Republicans. One is Iraq: It is becoming plain that the surge has succeeded, and victory is in sight. McCain can argue he was right; Obama can argue it is safe to leave, as he has long urged. But the issue has lost much of its salience.

The other issue is energy. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has produced majorities for offshore drilling, which McCain now favors and Palin always has, and which Obama and Joe Biden still dismiss as insignificant. Despite the recent drop in gas prices, the Republican position looks more sustainable to me, likely to trump the Democrats' quasi-religious fervor for renewable energy sources. Al Gore's speech was well received in Denver, but voters are not prepared to accept the sharp economic sacrifices he demands.

This election cycle has been full of surprises and unpredicted turns. Both candidates' vice presidential choices tended to undercut, at least marginally, their basic themes of change and experience. The political fundamentals -- an unpopular president, a sluggish economy, an unpopular war -- still favor the Democrats. But my sense is that the Democratic meme is less sustainable than the Republican' appeal. Which leaves things roughly tied.