The older you get, the worse the presidential candidates get. Anyway, I want to see if I can predict anything going on with the election. (I’ll either be very correct on this or very wrong.) The political realm is more of my real world background. And this type of stuff was like my ‘old work’. And since many people who view this site aren’t in the US, I figure they might like a perspective that isn’t coming from a cable news show or a newspaper (of which, those newspapers are dying).
America isn’t a parliamentary democracy, it is a democratic republic. People do not vote for the President. Rather, states vote for the President. The states’ vote is determined by that population in the state (for most of the states). There is a set number of electoral votes that are divided among the states based on population.
Candidates do not run their campaigns. The candidate is nothing more than a brand. For example, there is the Obama brand versus McCain brand. Someone writes the speeches the candidates say, managers set up which state the candidate travels, and political campaigns are pretty much managed brand competition.
Traditionally, governors almost always win the presidency. The other sure path is a Vice President. Senators never, ever win to become President. The last senator to become president was John F. Kennedy and that election was quite close (Nixon could have gone to courts about the vote fraud but floored it and ran again a later day). The next ‘most recent’ senator to become president was Harding which was in the early 1920s. Harding was so dumb that he refused to wear his coat and died of pnemonia a month or two after becoming president. Seeing that only two senators ever became elected president in the 20th century should show you that senators make very weak presidential candidates. The reason why governors and vice presidents tend to make it to the presidency is because they are both in the executive branch. Vice presidents are elected to continue the work of the previous term. Governors are always seen as outsiders, and America tends to have the habit of putting the outsider into the presidency than someone who resides in Washington (like a senator). Members of the executive branch have a tendency to delegate while senators tend to do things themselves. Winning a campaign means having to delegate. This election is odd since the two nominees are senators. We will likely not see this combination again in our lifetimes.
Based on my analysis, both candidates are very weak (i.e. both are senators). Contrary to conventional wisdom, everything I am seeing shows Obama to be on the defensive and McCain more on the offensive, or rather, McCain appears to be playing possum. This election has much difficulty in its predictions due to strange factors (such as both being senators) and other elements we haven’t seen on a national level such as the Bradley Effect.
Those of you who follow daily polls are wasting your time. Polls are a product, like any other, and they are sold to various media areas. The campaigns, themselves, use other internal polling that is never shared. The only way to discern the internal polling is to either have a leak or to see the states the campaign is spending the money or sending the candidate.
The way how (worthless) public polling works is that the pollster will weight a candidate based on events of the time. For example, after the Republican National Convention, the public polls were weighted with more Republican participants based on the assumption that the Republicans were fired up about their convention. There was never any real ‘increase’ so much as the weighing more Republican candidates based on what the pollster think is doing. When you rip through the internals of the (worthless) public polls, you find there is a very large weighing toward Democrats. This is likely due to the increase of Democrat registration. However, registered voters is rarely accurate. ‘Likey voters’ is what needs to be analyzed. (And Gall-up can’t even do that properly. That is why they are putting two ‘likely voter’ polls out!) Also, the spread of Democrat, Republican, and Independent numbers should be based on the 2004 election. For some reason, this is not being done.
For example, a recent Rasmussun poll has this: 50 O 45 M
When you put in the 2000 turnout numbers of 39D 35 R, you get 50 O and 47 M.
When you put in the 2004 turnout numbers of 37 D 37 R, you get 48 O and 49 M.
What is obvious is that the election depends on turnout, especially Republican turnout. If the Republicans turn out like in 2004, then it will be a fairly solid McCain win. National polls are also meaningless. States vote for the president. Only the state polls would be relevant anyway. And Obama’s performance fluctuates wildly depending on the geography.
There is also something called the ‘Bradley Effect’ which will be talked much very soon. The ‘Bradley Effect’ was named after Mayor Bradley who ran for governor of California in the early 1980s. Polls showed him up by 10 at the election. Election results had him losing narrowly to his white opponent. The Bradley Effect is people lying to pollsters, saying they will vote for the black guy, and then pulling the lever for the other candidate. Why would people lie to pollsters? No one wants to be considered a racist. The Bradley Effect is not about racism as it is about political correctness. The Bradley Effect was observed in the elections of Wilder, Dinkins, as well as Jindal. The Bradley Effect is well known by pollsters.
Pollsters will do their darnest to deny the Bradley Effect. Under no circumstances will a pollster let out that people can, and do, lie to pollsters. Even when a Bradley Effect occurs, the pollster will say that the cause is something else. Never, ever, will a pollster want it out that people do lie to pollsters. It would destroy their business. Who wants to pay for a poll if people will lie in it? The pollster has a self-interest to make sure everyone believes no one ever lies to the pollster.
The big question is whether Obama is suffering from a ‘Bradley Effect’. The answer is that, yes, he is in various states. In the primaries, Obama was up by ten points going into California. Clinton ended up winning the state by ten points. In Pennslyvania, Obama was up in the polls but got trounced by Clinton. Anyone who says that America has ‘grown out’ of the Bradley Effect is simply misstating what the Bradley Effect is. It is not about race as it is about the fear of being seen as racist.
Before we get to the states, I want to look at the more recent candidates for a second.
The 2000 election had a governor (Bush) who chose a VP candidate that apparently did nothing for the campaign (Cheney). Vice President (Gore) cleverly chose a more moderate VP candidate (Leibermann) that did much for him (rallying Jewish vote in areas like Florida, for example).
The 2004 election had a sitting President (Bush), still with a VP who apparently isn’t contributing anything to the campaign (Cheney). Kerry (a senator) chose an extremely weak running mate in Senator Edwards. Edwards couldn’t even carry his home state (or get re-elected).
In 2008, we have a young senator (Obama) choose Senator Biden as his running mate. I have not seen how Biden has helped the Obama ticket at all. McCain, an old senator, chooses young governor Palin as his running mate. To say that Palin has been helping the McCain ticket is an understatement. Palin has been bringing in insanely large crowds lately at the recent rallies of around 20,000 or so people. Even at his height of popularity, Obama wasn’t bringing in such a consistent stream of people. I can’t think of a VP candidate that has made more impact on a ticket in the last forty years than Palin.
There is also the known fact that presidents are those who have military service. Generals commonly become presidents. It is the office of George Washington after all. This is why Kerry’s military service became so critical in 2004. Bill Clinton had to do much tap dancing around his lack of military experience. Obama’s lack of military service is going to hurt him. People do not look at the presidency as a lawyer, an intellectual, or even an orator. President is primarily a commander-in-chief position, people look at the position to lead the military in conflicts.
Campaigns are not ‘risk board’ games. Despite all the talk of ‘battleground’ states, all 50 states are in play, and they are always are in elections. But for fun, let us look at some of these states.
Pennsylvania
In 2004, I was helping Jay Cost on Election Night follow through with all the data coming in. There were many of us helping, and I was doing Pennsylvania. In 2004, this was considered a ‘battleground’ state. I was tapped straight into the state government and was getting the data as soon as it came in. There was no way to get it any sooner. But at 3% of the vote in (which is nothing), the state was called for Kerry. Everyone remembers Florida being called wrong in 2000, but no one realizes this occurred with Pennslyvania. Kerry carried Pennsylvania by only 2.5 % of the vote (by 140k votes). Hell, Gore only carried Pennsylvania by 3.5% of the vote (by 205k votes). It was never reported how extremely close the vote was there.
This state will be the shock of 2008. Obama is in serious trouble, and this is a state that he absolutely must win. Kerry was a much stronger candidate, and he could barely hold the state. Obama is spending a massive amount of money in this state, plus he is sending in the Clintons. Obama has already made visits there this Saturday.
Meanwhile, McCain and Palin keep making appearances in this state (with quite large crowds). Palin was there yesterday and looking at McCain Campaign’s schedule, both are going to keep going there. This state looks like it will likely go to McCain.
Obama is not performing well within much of Pennslyvania. The Pittsburgh voting machine appears to have its allegience to the Clintons and isn’t coming for Obama. I’m hearing reports for unions letting people decide who they’re going to vote for (which they didn’t do before). The fact that both campaigns are spending so much money and personal visits in this state obviously show that it is in play and that it will be very close.
Pennsylvania was also a major ‘Bradley Effect’ state in the Democrat Primaries.
If Pennsylvania goes to McCain, the election is pretty much over. A forty point electoral gap would appear that Obama would have to go across, and Obama would have to pick off many Bush states in order to make the difference. And if Obama doesn’t win Pennsylvania, he is going to lose a state or two in the Rust Belt.
Having actually done in-depth analysis of Pennsylvania before, I am confident in saying that it will be extremely close. Seeing how it was very close for Gore, became less close for Kerry, I predict this state will swing toward McCain with around 2% of the vote.
Ohio
Due to how close Ohio was in 2004, much is being said about it in 2008. I do know, for a fact, that Obama is underperforming in Pennsylvania. He is likely not performing very well in the more right, and neighboring state, of Ohio. With McCain and Palin spending their time in Pennsylvania, as well as Ohio, makes me think that this state isn’t going to be as close as it was in 2004. If McCain wins Pennslyvania, Ohio will easily follow. I give this one to McCain.
Iowa
Iowa is an interesting state in 2008 for very different reasons. McCain is down in Iowa not so much because of love of Obama but because McCain opposes ethanol subsidies (it was mandated that ethanol be mixed in with the nation’s gasoline this year which has shot up the price of corn. A bag of corn chips of Fritos costs around $5 now). McCain didn’t even bother going to the Iowa primary due to his opposition to ethanol. A McCain Campaign person said Iowa is in play. However, since I haven’t seen McCain or Palin make any trips over there, I assume this is just talk.
I’ll predict this state for Obama.
Virginia
Much has been said about Virginia due to the new suburbs of people who work in Washington D.C. But this one seems extremely unlikely. After a couple initial trips, I haven’t seen McCain or Palin visit the state. The northern influence is being overstated.
This state will likely go to McCain.
Indiania
This state has been said to be in play due to it being a neighboring state to Illinois. What isn’t being said is that Indiania also has farmers that are not happy with McCain’s opposition to ethanol subsidies. But seeing how this is only a small part of Indiana, and that Bush won Indiana with 60% of the vote, I consider it unlikely the state will change from 2004.
North Carolina
This state isn’t going to change. The last time this state voted Democrat was in 1976 for Jimmy Carter.
Wisconsin
This state is a complete toss-up. Due to how razor close it was in 2004, and seeing how Obama is a weaker candidate than Kerry, I’ll give it to McCain.
Minessota
This state is also a complete toss-up. Seeing as it has the same electoral votes as Wisconsin, I’ll give it to Obama to cancel both out. Keep in mind that the governor is Republican and this is the state where the Republican Convention was held. This state, like Wisconsin, is very hard to say.
Missouri
There is nothing to indicate this state would go to Obama. It will stay where it was in 2004. Bush won this state in 2004 by 53% of the vote. Obama will not perform better than Kerry here.
New Mexico
This state has been very close in 2004 and 2000. While it is a neighboring state to McCain’s home state of Arizona, it was also a neighboring state to Bush’s home state of Texas. I’ll say it will go Obama.
Nevada
Another swing state in 2004. However, there has been increasing ‘Californication’ of this state as more and more people from California are entering the state. I expect it to go Obama.
Colorado
Here is an interesting one. I’m not that well informed about this state. Seeing how both campaigns made both trips to it, and that the Democrat Convention was held here, I will say Obama wins it.
Michigan
I knew Kerry would lose in 2004 when, in the last week of his campaign, he went back to Michigan which was a state he should have had locked up. With that, you’d think the state would be more in play. Obama was spending money there. However, McCain Campaign publicly saying they are ceding the state obviously gives it to Obama.
Florida
I have to laugh when I hear anything about Florida. This state never really has been a swing state. It is a southern state, and elected Bush’s brother as governor. In 2000, there was a high amount of anomalies that made the race tight in the state. For starters, Florida had three hurricane impacts right around the same time just prior to the election. The state was called early for Gore which led many panhandle voters not bother to vote. Also, Liebermann was on the ticket which scored big with the Jewish voters there. In 2004, the state overwhelmingly went for Bush. The anomalies weren’t present that time around.
In 2008, Liebermann is campaigning for McCain. No major hurricanes have wrecked the state lately. And I doubt Florida will be called for Obama early on due to the 2000 mishandle.
And there are tons of old people there!
Florida is going to be a safe McCain win.
New Hampshire
This will be an interesting one. Bush won it in 2000, and Kerry won it in 2004. There are strange voter registration laws in this state, as well as people moving in from Massachusetts and surrounding areas. This state could suffer a massive Bradley Effect. Obama was projected to win this state in the primary but lost it to Clinton.
Due to the Bradley Effect, I’ll give this small state to McCain.
Conclusion
Here is my final map.
But the biggest problem of Obama is that he does not know how to close the deal. He was practically tied with Hillary Clinton (who, under Republican Primary Rules, Clinton would have won the primary due to the winner-take-all rules). Obama couldn’t close the deal against Clinton. What pushed Obama over into the nominee slot were the superdelegates. Even with many news cycles going Obama’s way, he cannot close the deal against McCain.
McCain, it appears, is playing possum only to spring up during the third debate and resulting time, especially the last three days. The reason being is that this election will largely be decided by Republican turn-out. In 2006, Republicans didn’t turn out and the Democrats won the House and Senate. The ‘fired up’ McCain is really about an effort to mobilize Republican voters. As I see it, in order for McCain to lose now, the Republican turn-out has to be low. But seeing the vast size of the Palin rallies wherever she goes, it appears such turn-out will materialize.
Many people will be surprised that my take will be 180 degrees at the conventional wisdom. While I am not looking at this election in the detail that I did in 2000 or 2004, it is pretty clear to me that Obama is not performing as well as Kerry did especially in places Pennslyvania and throughout the Rust Belt. One must measure an election more on where the campaigns are sending money and the candidates. Where is most of the money and the candidates? In Pennslyvania.
I will never forget the CBS poll in 1984, a couple of weeks before the election, projected Mondale sqeaking by Reagan. The real electoral vote was Reagan winning 49 states, the very definition of landslide. Every election there appears young people who breathe in almost every information they can on the election. They don’t know how to decipher the info-tainment from the real information. The info-tainment will end very shortly, and pollsters have reputations staked on the last polls right before the election. Watch things ‘tighten up’ extremely fast as the election closes.
Trust me folks. Remember the ‘Bradley Effect’ as you are going to hear much about it. And keep your eyes pointed at Pennsylvania.