That’s my perspective as well.
People saw, for the first time in four years, that Obama isn’t as brilliant as they’ve been told.
The reason why there has been such a large movement in the polls is that this has come as a shock to a whole lot of people. Most people don’t like being lied to - and a bunch of people probably figured out that they’ve been sold a bill of goods in Obama, and that if they’d been told honestly what Obama’s capabilities were in 2008, they might have voted differently.
But for all that, here’s the added upside to this event:
I’ve talked to two people in the last week who could not believe the divergence between how Obama has been portrayed and how he was when out on his own with no safety net of the media to protect him. Both people thought this over for several days and came (independently) to the conclusion a) they’ve been lied to, and b) it was the media who did the lying.
The media is going to take a big hit coming out of this as well. They don’t realize that yet, but the media has sown the wind and now they’re going to reap the whirlwind for doing so.
When Obama loses, Democrats will be casting about for anyone or anything to blame but themselves and their flawed ideology.
A very convenient target of that blame will be the media. The charge will be that the media did not do their due diligence in vetting Obama pre-2008. If they had done their job, it would have been clear to all that Obama was not experienced enough to be president, and that he had past associations with very sketchy people. If all this was exposed to voters, Hillary would have won the primary and gone on to win the election.
Republicans should stress that it was the ideology, but give some lip service to the media malpractice angle.