Like a lot of progressives, I’ve been enjoying the recent leaks out of conservoworld with different factions pointing fingers and accusing each other. These are some decent precriminations, and if things go the way the polls indicate, they’ll lead to some fantastic recriminations in November and December.

It’s worth saying, though, that there isn’t really much cause for it. The fact of the matter is that the unpopularity of George W. Bush and the Republican Party made for an unpromising situation, then along came an opponent who’d raised a ton of money and as summer turned to fall the economy started skidding downward. Under the circumstances, it’s just intrinsically difficult for a conservative candidate to win. McCain and his team have engaged in a lot of embarrassing flailing around over the past few months, and they’d do themselves a favor to avoid a lot of embarrassing post-election flailing. Doubt it’ll happen, though.

As far as this issue goes, I think urbanists ought to wholeheartedly embrace “big box” chain stores. When there’s a problem with an urban-situated big box store, which there often is, it’s because (like the Home Depot near the Rhode Island Avenue Metro station) the site has been laid out in a way that’s inappropriate for an urban environment. But such inappropriate structures are hardly unique to big box retailers (the CVS at 7th and Florida has a strongly suburbanist design quality) or to national chains. What’s more, these problems are often caused by misguided regulations (which of course should be fixed, but are not the fault of the big box chains) or else relate to a general lack of experience financing and constructing stores in an urban environment.

But you can make a physical structure, like DC USA in Columbia Heights, that works in an urban environment. And it would work even better if it didn’t have so much shopping.

But the bottom line is that successful chains are successful because they’re good at bringing to market products that people want to buy at the offered price. If you want people to live and shop in cities, you need to open the cities to the firms that are good at bringing to market products that people want to buy at the offered price. It’s probably in the nature of things that big box stores can never be as successful in a big, crowded city as they are in the suburbs and that will be especially true if you insist that they house themselves in urban-appropriate structures. At the same time, the density of well-designed urban neighborhoods naturally supports a much larger array of niche retailers, where the economics point to independent ownership. Both of those things are all to the good.

But trying to keep large retailers out, as such, is a silly goal. It’s just not the case that the alternative to major chains being in the city is for people to do all their shopping at high-cost, low-selection local independent retailers. Instead, people drive to the suburbs. Better to bring some of that commerce into the city, where people can get to it on transit or on foot as well as by car, and where it becomes part of the urban economy.

I don’t have video yet, but suffice it to say that John McCain’s answer to Tom Brokaw’s question about whether Colin Powell’s endorsement was all about race was . . . unimpressive. McCain couldn’t even remember which former Secretaries of State support him and didn’t even attempt to answer the question.

UPDATE: Here’s the video:

That’s courtesy of Ali Frick who also reminds us that McCain hasn’t snagged the Condoleezza Rice endorsement.

For your consideration: “Building an Economic Recovery Package: Creating and Preserving Jobs in America”, Testimony of Jared Bernstein, Senior Economist, Economic Policy Institute, before the House Committee on Education and Labor on Friday, October 24, 2008.

John McCain tries out a new campaign theme:

Republican presidential nominee John McCain on Saturday raised the prospect of a complete Democratic takeover of Washington as a reason to elect him over Democrat Barack Obama in 10 days. [...] McCain said having Democrats in control of the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives under Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the Senate under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, would give Democrats unfettered power. [...] “But that is exactly what’s going to happen if the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can’t let that happen. Are you ready for Obama, Pelosi and Reid?” the Arizona senator said.

I’m going to agree with Chris Bowers that there’s something paradoxical about this. Presumably, the reason Democrats are forecast to make gains in the House and the Senate and Obama is leading in the polls is that, yes, most voters want Democrats to take over. This sounds more like a fundraising pitch than a general election argument. Voters prefer a Democratic congress and they seem to prefer Obama as well. To the 41 percent of people who have an unfavorable view of Pelosi, this is maybe a persuasive argument, but to the 59 percent who either like her or are indifferent it’s hard to see this moving the dial. Meanwhile, I doubt anyone even knows who Harry Reid is.