Post by: MicroBalrog on July 25, 2008, 04:53:19 AM
A Commentary By Alan Abramowitz, Thomas E. Mann, and Larry J. Sabato
Friday, July 25, 2008
"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.
Dr. Alan Abramowitz is the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University, and the author of Voice of the People: Elections and Voting Behavior in the United States.
Larry J. Sabato is the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
homas Mann is a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on July 25, 2008, 05:10:34 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 25, 2008, 05:16:08 AM
Keep fighting, or he WILL win. Keep fighting, dammit! Do you have McCain stuff out? Are you talking to people in facts about what Obama would do, what he has said? Are you helping poke holes in the rockstar-addled fog people have about him, to make them think?
If not, WHY NOT?
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 25, 2008, 05:20:15 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 25, 2008, 05:21:58 AM
If they keep blocking drilling and whining about wind and solar for a few more months, I think people will be at the "pitchforks and torches" stage.
Also? Obama's lead actually went DOWN after the hyperbole in Berlin. I think more and more people were actually frightened by the level of "take over the world" ambition he demonstrated before a foreign crowd of hundreds of thousands in a foreign country. I think that really hurt him in the midwest and deep south. Sure hurt him among people I know here.
Some analysts have said that his speech in Berlin might literally have cost him Ohio permanently. And I agree.
Post by: alex_trebek on July 25, 2008, 05:36:07 AM
Quote
Some analysts have said that his speech in Berlin might literally have cost him Ohio permanently. And I agree.
Maybe, hopefully this is true. People have a very short memory, and you can bet on the MSM never commenting on this again (or any of his other gaffes, for that matter).
Also don't count McCain out yet, he has his fair share of stupid comments as well and more to come. You can also bet that the MSM will repeat them over and over again.
Quote
Even the secretaries that were for Hillary can be overheard talking about him in negative terms, "taxes" and "I just don't trust him, there's something I don't like".
Just out of curiousity, what is so different between the two? I have heard other Hillary supporters say they won't vote for Obama. There really is very little difference between the two, even policy-wise.
Post by: FTA84 on July 25, 2008, 05:46:33 AM
Quote
Some analysts have said that his speech in Berlin might literally have cost him Ohio permanently. And I agree.
.... just when I wasn't going to go through the trouble of an absentee ballot because it had already been called a solid blue and not a swing state.
Post by: longeyes on July 25, 2008, 06:42:11 AM
Post by: RevDisk on July 25, 2008, 07:34:28 PM
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.
RCP isn't exactly noted for accuracy, unbiased nature, or "refraining from being a paid shrill".
That said, I completely agree with most of the other posters. I'm a registered Democrat, and the guy scares the ever livin' hell out of me. I never liked the guy to behind with, but the brownshirt remarks combined with the quasi religious nature of his campaign.... Any time a politician starts thinking they're a messiah, run for the hills.
Voting for McCain is like chewing glass. But Obama would be swallowing the glass. Either way, you're screwed. Just a question of how much.
Post by: Ryan in Maine on July 26, 2008, 07:01:40 AM
Personally, I got pretty freaked out when one of the headlines I read on Yahoo.com was quoting Obama saying he promises to change the world.
Post by: longeyes on July 26, 2008, 07:26:19 AM
Obama is running for President of Everywhere BUT the U.S.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 26, 2008, 07:46:58 AM
Kerry was ahead by a good margin until the swift boat stuff came out. There is still a LOT of time between now and November.
Post by: Tallpine on July 26, 2008, 08:55:55 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on July 26, 2008, 10:09:51 AM
Post by: Tallpine on July 26, 2008, 12:13:58 PM
some white folks lack the integrity to admit to a poll that they won't vote for obama
Well, I was going to vote for him until I figured out that he wasn't really Irish
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 26, 2008, 12:38:37 PM
some white folks lack the integrity to admit to a poll that they won't vote for obama
Well, I was going to vote for him until I figured out that he wasn't really Irish
Post by: agricola on July 26, 2008, 12:45:00 PM
If they want someone telling everyone else how to live, Obama is their man. I think if he does win, he will be constantly looking for that historic legacy issue he can jump onto. Not a good think for a President IMO.
Kerry was ahead by a good margin until the swift boat stuff came out. There is still a LOT of time between now and November.
Kerry was ahead by a good margin until the swift boat stuff came out. There is still a LOT of time between now and November.
The problem is now that Kerry and Bush were just politicians - Obama is a story, and the media loves those. I do not know if any of you have heard of the British journalist Peter Oborne, but he has written several books about how the "political class" and its allies in the media over here in the UK have generated an entirely false politics (principally via "New Labour"), full of "meaning" rather than actual substance, and replete with lies, corruption and dishonesty.
Obama and his followers (which in itself is deeply concerning - a campaign which seeks to portray its candidate on the one hand using Soviet-style imagery, and on the other religious-style) share many of the same traits with New Labour - endless repetitive mantra over change, weekly position-changes, support from Rupert Murdoch, dodgy political funding etc. I just hope your electorate is smarter than ours was in 1997.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 26, 2008, 12:49:36 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 26, 2008, 01:18:40 PM
There is a mountain of hard evidence to back Abramowitz's point-much of it cited in the article.
I know a gas station attendant and I met a secretary who don't like Obama too. But then again I meet even more people who support Ron Paul-recalling the people you meet is not a good way of judging the outcome of an election.
Anyone who thinks Obama is scaring most democrats or that the population of America is mostly afraid of his fascism is living in a fantasy world. Obama is no more fascist than George Bush or John McCain or Bill Clinton...all three have already enjoyed incredibly successful political careers, and that monumental shift away from fascist government is not going to come this election. Might be nice if it did, but that is a fantasy, not reality.
Conservative media have done an excellent job of portraying the results of this election as in question, but the facts are going to be different come November.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 26, 2008, 01:29:05 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 26, 2008, 04:19:13 PM
Obama is no more fascist than George Bush or John McCain or Bill Clinton...all three have already enjoyed incredibly successful political careers, and that monumental shift away from fascist government is not going to come this election. Might be nice if it did, but that is a fantasy, not reality.
Obama is an empty suit, a blank speech-reader whose misguided leftist idealism is the ultimate in ENABLING fascism. He's Jimmeh Carter X100. He would have us be ASHAMED to be American, and try to guide us into being another bland Eurozone.
I'm well aware you're likely to vote for him, as I strongly suspect that suits you and your political leanings. But it is not reality. And I will fight to prevent it by informing as many people as I can.
Because I consider him an enemy of the state, someone who stands against everything, everything I value that makes America what it was, what it is, and what the founding fathers intended it to be. His ideals make a mockery of hard work, they discount the sacrifices of the armed forces, and they utterly undermine the very principles of the "American Dream"...Work hard, and someday you may be wealthy. His version is "Why work hard? The government will take from the rich and give to you." And he WILL work tirelessly with Pelosi and company to bring about gun registration, a national ban on CCW, and the rest of that horrific garbage.
Anyone who concedes, who folds their cards and walks away from the table now, you might as well just vote for him, too, Because that's what you'll be doing.
Post by: De Selby on July 26, 2008, 04:25:11 PM
Obama is no more fascist than George Bush or John McCain or Bill Clinton...all three have already enjoyed incredibly successful political careers, and that monumental shift away from fascist government is not going to come this election. Might be nice if it did, but that is a fantasy, not reality.
Obama is an empty suit, a blank speech-reader whose misguided leftist idealism is the ultimate in ENABLING fascism. He's Jimmeh Carter X100. He would have us be ASHAMED to be American, and try to guide us into being another bland Eurozone.
I'm well aware you're likely to vote for him, as I strongly suspect that suits you and your political leanings. But it is not reality. And I will fight to prevent it by informing as many people as I can.
1. I don't think your characterization of Obama, at least relative to the other candidates, is even remotely accurate. Of course, I don't think accuracy is your aim-I think you're more interested in saying whatever needs to be said to defeat Obama, which in the end is a disastrous political strategy.
2. I'm not likely to vote for Obama, and my political leanings incline me to recognize that voting for Obama or McCain is essentially voting for either of two identical evils, not the lesser of any.
3. You can only inform people if you try hard to give an honest evaluation, and to give facts. Whenever you are challenged on support for McCain or criticism for Obama, your only answer is "But DO YOU WANT OBAMA TO WIN?"-when the sole purpose and shaping influence of your statements is to achieve a political result, it's called "propganda", not "information."
And whether it be propaganda or information-hyperbole like "he's an enemy of the state! He's the baby from the Omen grown past 6 feet in height!" only serves to discredit the message even further. Conspiracy theories about Obama and calling him the political anti-Christ actually helps Obama because people rightly recognize that hyperbole usually accompanies a serious deficit in realistically persuasive facts or arguments.
Post by: Waitone on July 26, 2008, 05:51:20 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 26, 2008, 06:44:13 PM
I find it more than interesting the question of O'bama's birth certificate will periodically bubble to the surface then sink for a while.
This is the sort of thing that no one whose vote is in play would ever consider, nor is there any room for a reasonable disagreement, so I can understand why the media and the candidates only periodically address it.
Post by: Waitone on July 26, 2008, 10:12:43 PM
The birth certificate flap goes directly to the heart of his eligibility to be president. Why would questioning voters not question the assertion or why would there not be room for reasonable disagreement? I don't see the need to shut down discussion of an honest question in a reasonable manner.
Post by: De Selby on July 26, 2008, 10:38:02 PM
Help me out here.
The birth certificate flap goes directly to the heart of his eligibility to be president. Why would questioning voters not question the assertion or why would there not be room for reasonable disagreement? I don't see the need to shut down discussion of an honest question in a reasonable manner.
The birth certificate flap goes directly to the heart of his eligibility to be president. Why would questioning voters not question the assertion or why would there not be room for reasonable disagreement? I don't see the need to shut down discussion of an honest question in a reasonable manner.
There is no birth certificate flap-the state of Hawaii already provided the evidence. Continuing to believe that there's some legitimate dispute as to Obama's place of birth (and citizenship) is simply rumor-milling and conspiracy theorism that operates on certain, rather than ambiguous, facts.
It's not an honest question, that's why nobody is discussing it except for the folks who were never going to vote for Obama anyway.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 26, 2008, 11:12:18 PM
Here's why:
1. At some point, a some election, there's going to be two, three percent of the Repub base that'll just say "hey, we heard this spiel a thousand times, we're not buying it anymore", and simply not buy it anymore, on an emotional level. It doesn't matter if it'll be true.
2. By not trying to be BETTER than the Democrats, and competing on this level, you are encouraging the GOP leadership to rally behind blandly-moderate candidates because "Hey, what, are you going to vote for THEM now? We OWN your vote."
3. By not trying to point out the issues on which McCain is better than Obama, you are forgoing the struggle over the issues, which is the entire point of the election.
McCain, is, in fact, significantly better than Obama on the following issues:
1. Vouchers. Vouchers are originally a creation of the libertarian movement, a way for us to kill public education. We kill public education, and the Welfare State will crawl into a corner and slowly die. I'd rather kill it fast, but apparently most conservatives don't have what it takes to push the button.
2. McCain will make the Bush Tax Cuts[tm] permanent. Most of those are merely quantitative achievements, but killing the Death Tax is a moral victory for the Administration. It must be preserved.
3. McCain is slightly more likely to appoint better judges.
4. The border. McCain seems to have gotten the point. He will secure it.
Why are we not arguing on that basis?
Post by: longeyes on July 27, 2008, 08:09:12 AM
But can McCain get his message across?
Will the media let him get it across?
Are there enough good Americans left to elect him on those advantages?
This is what will determine the outcome of the election.
Post by: FTA84 on July 27, 2008, 09:07:40 AM
Obama is an empty suit, he sounds exciting and says things in a way that they should sound meaninful (though they are just blubber much of the time). On the other hand, everytime I watch McCain, his energy level tells me he is not talking about politics, but he must be mumbling to himself about which peanut butter to buy in the grocery store.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 27, 2008, 09:08:09 AM
I have long stated that basing the political narrative of the Right on "the Democrats are worse! The Democrats are worse!" will end up biting us all in the rear-end.
No one is "basing the political narrative of the Right on 'the Democrats are worse! The Democrats are worse!'" That seems to be commonly chosen to encourage people to vote against Obama, in this particular election, but that does not rise to the level of basing our "political narrative" on an anti-Obama footing.
And secondly, we are already bitten in the rear end, by McCain's presumptive nomination, and by Bush before him. The "vote against the Democrats" talk is a reaction to that, not a cause. We heard plenty of "vote for this candidate" talk in the past year. But it's too late for that now; the game has shifted. We no longer have much chance of a conservative candidate we can vote for.
Thirdly, thricely, and tertiarily, voting against the other guy worked to re-elect Bush four years ago. It might work to fend off Obama this time. We will have to see.
Post by: roo_ster on July 27, 2008, 09:53:35 AM
Any time a politician starts thinking they're a messiah, run for the hills.
Voting for McCain is like chewing glass. But Obama would be swallowing the glass. Either way, you're screwed. Just a question of how much.
Voting for McCain is like chewing glass. But Obama would be swallowing the glass. Either way, you're screwed. Just a question of how much.
That first sentence is key. Whatever his policies, BHO is a little too "cult of personality" for me.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 27, 2008, 10:37:24 AM
Quote
hat seems to be commonly chosen to encourage people to vote against Obama, in this particular election, but that does not rise to the level of basing our "political narrative" on an anti-Obama footing.
Read the prominent conservative blogs, like Michelle Malkin or Kim Du Toit. Go back to the 2006 congressional election, or 2004. You'll see countless articles, not about how "the Republicans are better", but about how "the Democrats are worse."
Look, I am in agreement with you, the Republicans ARE better (nevermind here McCain is not the best candidate the Republicans could have fielded).
The problem is, I think, too much of what is being done is based on negative emotions - fear of the Democrats and fear of the zOMG ISLAMIC THREAT.
I think more should be done talking about the positive stuff about conservatism. You know, stuff like prosperity and freedom and tradition.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 27, 2008, 02:50:22 PM
Post by: longeyes on July 27, 2008, 04:04:33 PM
McCain is no kind of answer. He just buys us time to re-group and resist. We might be able to find a way out of the cultural mess we're in short of gnawing on each other's necks. Might.
Obama means a precipitous forcing of the issues, ignited by self-righteous hubris. No good at all can come of that.