Posted on 07/25/2008 5:42:18 AM PDT by TADSLOS
"Too close to call." "Within the margin of error." "A statistical dead heat." If you've been following news coverage of the 2008 presidential election, you're probably familiar with these phrases. Media commentary on the presidential horserace, reflecting the results of a series of new national polls, has strained to make a case for a hotly contested election that is essentially up for grabs.
Signs of Barack Obama's weaknesses allegedly abound. The huge generic Democratic Party advantage is not reflected in the McCain-Obama pairings in national polls. Why, according to the constant refrain, hasn't Obama put this election away? A large number of Clinton supporters in the primaries refuse to commit to Obama. White working class and senior voters tilt decidedly to McCain. Racial resentment limits Obama's support among these two critical voting blocs. Enthusiasm among young voters and African-Americans, two groups strongly attracted to Obama, is waning. Blah, blah, blah.
While no election outcome is guaranteed and McCain's prospects could improve over the next three and a half months, virtually all of the evidence that we have reviewed--historical patterns, structural features of this election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months--point to a comfortable Obama/Democratic party victory in November. Trumpeting this race as a toss-up, almost certain to produce another nail-biter finish, distorts the evidence and does a disservice to readers and viewers who rely upon such punditry. Again, maybe conditions will change in McCain's favor, and if they do, they should also be accurately described by the media. But current data do not justify calling this election a toss-up.
Consider the following.
Except for a few days when the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls showed a tie, Barack Obama has led John McCain in every national poll in the past two months. Obama's average margin has consistently been in the 4-6 point range during this time. By contrast, the polls in 2000 and 2004 showed much more variation over time. State polling results have also consistently given Obama the advantage. According to realclearpolitics.com, Obama is currently leading in 26 states and the District of Columbia with a total of 322 electoral votes; McCain is currently leading in 24 states with a total of 216 electoral votes. Obama is leading in every state carried by John Kerry in 2004 along with six states carried by George Bush: Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana, Nevada and Colorado. A seventh Bush state, Virginia, is tied.
Obama is leading in 11 of the 12 swing states that were decided by a margin of five points or less in 2004 including five of the six that were carried by George Bush. And while Obama has a comfortable lead in every state that John Kerry won by a margin of more than five points in 2004, McCain is in a difficult battle in a number of states that Bush carried by a margin of more than five points including such solidly red states as Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, and North Carolina.
And remember these June and July polls may well understate Obama's eventual margin. Ronald Reagan did not capitalize on the huge structural advantage Republicans enjoyed in 1980 until after the party conventions and presidential debate. It took a while and a sufficient level of comfort with the challenger for anti-Carter votes to translate into support for Reagan. If Obama's performance over the last eighteen months is any guide, a similar pattern could unfold in 2008.
Aside from the horserace results, there is evidence of a growing Democratic party advantage in the electorate. A recent analysis by Rhodes Cook of voter registration data in 29 states and the District of Columbia that permit registration by party shows that since November of 2004, Democratic registration has increased by almost 700,000 while Republican registration has declined by almost one million.
Democrats now enjoy a substantial lead over Republicans in voter identification. According to the Gallup Poll, the two parties have gone from near parity four years ago to a 12 point Democratic advantage in the first half of 2008. And polling data continue to show that Democrats are more satisfied with their party's nominee than Republicans voters and more highly motivated to vote. While Republicans normally benefit from higher turnout among their supporters, that may not be the case this year.
In order to defeat Barack Obama, John McCain will have to convince a lot of currently disgruntled Republicans to turn out and vote for him. Yet mobilizing the Republican base, a strategy employed successfully by Karl Rove in 2002 and 2004, won't be enough for McCain to win in 2008. He'll also have to convince a majority of independents and a substantial number of Democrats to vote for him. That's a task that proved too difficult even for Rove in the 2006 midterm election and it may be still more difficult in 2008. That's because since 2006 the political environment has gone from bad to worse for Republicans.
It is no exaggeration to say that the political environment this year is one of the worst for a party in the White House in the past sixty years. You have to go all the way back to 1952 to find an election involving the combination of an unpopular president, an unpopular war, and an economy teetering on the brink of recession. 1952 was also the last time the party in power wasn't represented by either the incumbent president or the incumbent vice-president. But the fact that Democrat Harry Truman wasn't on the ballot didn't stop Republican Dwight Eisenhower from inflicting a crushing defeat on Truman's would-be successor, Adlai Stevenson.
Barack Obama is not a national hero like Dwight Eisenhower, and George Bush is no Harry Truman. But if history is any guide, and absent a dramatic change in election fundamentals or an utter collapse of the Obama candidacy, John McCain is likely to suffer the same fate as Adlai Stevenson.
In their dreams......
Allegedly?!? I stopped reading after that sentence.
what if they gave an election and nobody voted???
Larry J. Sabato is an asshat.
Comming soon.
Well, there you have it. I’m just going to take my ball and go home.
Barak Hussein Obama will do that for him.
Obama actually lost the popular vote for the Dem nomination to Hillary.
Obamas negatives: Inexperience
Unwillingness to be challenged and failure to respond properly when challenged.
Muslim youth
Muslim name
America's enemies major enemies have similar Muslim names.
Same Dem policies that have only elected one Dem by popular vote since LBJ.
..well he’ll have to do more than stand in front of cheese looking confused.
No doubt that this represents the conventional wisdom among the chattering class. But, I wonder if they are cherry-picking their historic examples. No mention here of Dukakis and his wide lead that mysteriously collapsed. Ditto Mondale and Carter, who nonetheless managed to eke out a win. I think that history tells us that far left candidates generate much more enthusiasm during the campaign than the are able to realize on election day.
On the other hand, McCain certainly looks alot like Bob Dole and we all now how that turned out. So, is Barack Obama another Bill Clinton, or is he a Michael Dukakis. Lately, he’s been acting more like a Dukakis.
In my opinion, that’s the most important question of this election. If Obama wins without a mandate, what does that say about the country as a whole? Or does it say more about the loss of a vibrant base of the Repub party? If Obama wins, many will get “change” they won’t like. Would it matter to Obama and his administration and his supporters in Congress that a low turnout might signal a significant falling away of support for the Government as an institution?
Maybe but maybe not. Do you vote for the guy that is confused by cheese or the guy who will cut your head off.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The Democrats have selected a candidate who is not only the most liberal Senator in America, but one who is vain, shallow, pompous, and inexperienced. The media may swoon over Elvis Obama's European Tour, but many Americans do not appreciate having a presumptuous neophyte apologize to foreigners for America's not being perfect.
It's time to take off the gloves, start kicking a$$ and taking names. Point to Queen Pelosi and Jester Reid and tell the American public they are blocking relief at the pump. Until I see some guts coming from the GOP, they'll not get a dime from me.
John McCain now leads Obama in Ohio by 6 points. This is a bit of a turn-around. People are seeing things in Obama now that they didn’t know about before.
As the word gets out, they stop supporting Obama.
If McCain wins Ohio, he will most likely win the election. If he wins Ohio and Michigan, he will certainly win the election.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
In every election that I can remember paying attention to,
the conservative presidential candidate was far behind in the months leading up to the election.
The actual results on election day were always more favorable to the conservative than the polls indicated.
Interesting examples... all from the "media age." It reinforces my perception of these early polls as a means to demoralize the enemy. When the election gets closer, they have to adjust closer to reality to maintain credibility.
The dems meet in Denver in a month. Will they drop Obama?
good gravy,
few people are as
self-effacing as
harry truman
was.
How long has it been since Ohio voted for the loser? A long time I think.
Right now Obama is killing himself. The more he talks the less people like him. He is showing his inexperience every day. The polls are showing him slipping constantly. He is a phony.
After the convention we will have 2 1/2 months to beat him up. McCain will crush him in debates and he will lose bigtime.
The media is working awfully hard so soon to make sure we don't look behind the curtain. I smell desperation in the media that people aren't buying it. aren't buy
Excellent questions. We’re about to find out.
With all the pitch forks comin' in to Glenn Beck, I figure we got a "histora'de'reparta'" of the French Revolution coming, viva la Fraunce!
Apparently, we don't appreciate his wisdom and genius as much as the Media do. But then, what do you expect from a bunch of angry typical white people clinging to their guns and God, when the real Saviour walks among us? /s
Ask President Dukakis about those early leads in the polls...
They can’t drop him.
UNLESS....there’s a legal problem with his candidacy or some great scandal that comes out.
“Ronald Reagan did not capitalize on the huge structural advantage Republicans enjoyed in 1980 until after the party conventions and presidential debate. It took a while and a sufficient level of comfort with the challenger for anti-Carter votes to translate into support for Reagan. If Obama’s performance over the last eighteen months is any guide, a similar pattern could unfold in 2008.”
Or it could go the other way because, unlike Reagan, the more they see of him the less they like him.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
1960.
Stupid tools! Try the “resistance is futile” crap on someone else.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Polls are a joke. If one tries to gleen anything at all from them, start your analysis AFTER adding 8 points to the republican.
When he loses, you KNOW they’ll scream RACISM!
“They wouldn’t vote for the black guy!”
Let's not discount the 'utter collapes of the Obama candidacy' possibility. There are several months left before the election and a lot can happen, especially to a candidate as inexperienced at national campaigns as Obama is. I'm still sticking to my prediction that whoever wins in November will do so with fewer than 300 electoral votes.
My own daughter-in-law, who just graduated from law school offered this argument when I complained about BO's inexperience: "Well, how much experience did Neil Armstrong have when he walked on the moon?" Jesus! That's a reasoned argument from someone with 4 years of college and 3 years of law school?! When I pointed out that he was a navy test pilot with 20 years of flight experience, plus another 7 years of astronaut training, and was as experienced as we could make him, her reply: "Oh. Well, he can learn on the job." Oh great...the office of the President of the United States is now an on-the-job training platform.
I am very afraid, but I've heard New Zealand's a pretty nice place to live...
Ohio did not go with JFK or with FDR in his final campaign.
In other words, they have gone with the winners since 1964.
What’s most significant to me in the numbers is that Obama has a 47% unfavorable rating (highly or somewhat) in Ohio.
Convincing and undecided is one thing. Convincing an unfavorable is entirely different.
The American people know only to vote for Oprah’s Obama to show their disgust with the GWB-Cheney administration. They are incapable of doing anything else.
Yep. Thanks. Sabato is not to be trusted. He is a university professor who works to sell himself as a bipartisan observer of the media and politics. The reality is that he is a smooth yet ardently partisan liberal professor.
I think that is a charitable description of Sabado.
It will be like pulling teeth to get hime to agree to debate McCain.
“historical patterns, structural features of this election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months—point to a comfortable Obama/Democratic party victory in November”
Undeniably true in a normal election year. This year, maybe or maybe not. The guest editorial writers start with the assumption it IS a normal election year. For that though you need a normal candidate.
Given all the above one would expect a commanding Obama lead now, beyond even the appearance that McCain was still in the race. Hillary would most likely be in that position by now, but for Obama that isn’t occurring.
Up to now Obama isn’t even matching Dukakis. Dukakis or Kerry or Gore were at least known quantities. A dem win relies on people gambling on a total unknown with no record at all. Perhaps they will, but the evidence so far is underwhelming.
Not whistling in the dark here, I fully understand the cycle of politics places this as a dem year. However I am unconvinced Obama is the man who can take best advantage of this. I simply think the editorialists are omitting some important factors, taking a shortcut to their conclusions.
The next time Sabado correctly calls a national election will the first.
This is why I think Obamalamadingdong is going to lose this fall. The media darling, even with all the lapdogs in his corner, is barely ahead of, dead even with, or trailing McCain in the polls. The media, with all its huff and puff just can't keep covering for Baracaca's complete ineptness, and the people are noticing.
I have had co-workers, who were excited that a BHO could be elected several months ago, now tell me they are absolutely disgusted with the lack of quality candidates we have this go-around. Things are turning.
Which is why the 1952 election is a poor analog for this year's race; Jesus Christ Himself could not have beaten Eisenhower in 1952, and Stevenson was an exceptionally weak candidate in favor only with the Left.
I do not imply that McCain will win, or that Obama is not a strong candidate, just that the jokers writing this article should know better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.