Every four years, cyber-pundits and talking heads appear and all act like analysts. And every four years, they are wrong. Critical thinking is the missing component. If you put garbage data into a model, you are only going to have a garbage result. Critical thinking acts as the anti-hype and keeps a person grounded in reality. Critical thinking would involve:
-Using history as a guide of elections in the past decades.
-Knowing that the Electoral Map is relatively stable.
-Realizing the internal polling of the campaigns is the most scientific data made.
-Movements of the candidates and where the money flows is the most accurate way to gauge how an election is turning.
-Realizing that the polls that emerge in newspapers are not science, they are products that are processed, labeled, and placed on a shelf like anything else.
It is foolish to invest emotions into… well… garbage data. When it doesn’t become true, the result is invested emotions not in sync with reality. As the two must go into sync, the result is what is referred to as a meltdown.
The ‘meltdown’ was really coined by Howard Dean after the Iowa Primary in 2004. Dean was ahead in all the polls and outspent all his rivals. He ended up in third place, with Kerry first, and Dean’s presidential bid pretty much died on the spot. Once getting the results, Dean had the most bizarre reaction. He made an extremely intense speech with a very odd ‘scream’ at the end.
I would not be surprised if election night ended up being like that video on a national scale.
But, of course, anyone can say anything on the Internet. So here are the reasons why the current Obama landslide hype will not materialize into reality.
Historical Data
In order for a landslide of such proportions would require Obama to be over 50% of the national vote. Historically, this has been rare. Only three Democrats have ever won the white house in a 2 way race with more than 50% of the vote in the entire 20th century.The first is Roosevelt in 1932 by 57% of the vote. This is also what is referred to as the great re-alignment of political parties. Is a re-alignment happening now? This is easy: no. Every four years, we hear politicians declare the economy is the worse since the Great Depression. Also, the stock market crash didn’t occur in 1932 before the election. It occurred in 1929.
Today, the economy is actually not that bad of shape. (Hell, Wii systems are still sold out). It is even debatable whether there is a recession. The 70s were actually bad. The point is that no one considers 2008 to be 1929, Obama to be FDR, or Bush/McCain to be Hoover. Anyone who thinks 2008 will be a re-alignment like 1932 is just dumber than a box of rocks.
The second Democrat candidate to get over 50% is LBJ in 1964 with 61% of the vote. The election was less than a year after Kennedy was shot. LBJ’s vice president was the very conservative Atwater which greatly helped in the election. There is also the factor of Goldwater as a fairly weak opponent.
Today, no president has been assassinated, Biden is certainly not conservative, and McCain is definitely no Goldwater. Obama is no LBJ.
The third Democrat candidate to get over 50% of the nation vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976 with 50.1% of the vote. This was right after the Watergate Scandal with a very moderate Republican opponent of Ford. This was also the time when media (this being the main networks and newspapers) influence was at their strongest who supported Carter. Interestingly, public polls had Carter be 30 points ahead of Ford.
Today, there is no Watergate Scandal scenario. The old media’s influence is also greatly weakened. However, the 1976 election could be most like 2008 due to a more moderate Republican running (McCain), and Obama, like Carter, being treated as a ‘fresh face’. A major difference is that Ford picked Rockefeller as the Vice President, who conservatives did not like, while McCain picked Palin, who conservatives love.
Even in 1996, Bill Clinton only got 49% of the vote for re-election against the dull and poorly ran Bob Dole campaign. Clinton was a hell of a campaigner (he literally didn’t know when to stop). While the comparison of Dole to McCain might stick, Obama is no Bill Clinton.
Perhaps the 20th century was just a bad time for Democrat candidates to crack 50%. Well, if you go through the entire 19th Century, only one election did the Democrat candidate crack 50%. This was in 1848.
But let’s flip it around. Let us say the Democrat era of change will mimic that of some Republican candidates over the previous decades.
In 1984, Reagan won 49 states against Mondale. Mondale was a very poor opponent. And Reagan was a hell of a politician. Reagan was running for re-election while Obama is a newcomer. If anyone believes 1984 results will be for 2008, this is another moment where you are dumber than a box of rocks. Newcomers aren’t going to win that much.
Let’s go to 1980 then between Reagan and Carter. The problem is that the economy was far worse in people’s day to day lives. Carter was an incumbent running for re-election. And Reagan was really good at campaigning. Does anyone believe Obama’s support is anywhere near that of Reagan’s or McCain’s as weak as Carter’s?
Since all three situations of a Democrat candidate breaking 50% in the twentieth century occurred under extenuating circumstances and there are none of those circumstances today, there are only two ways Obama breaks 50%.
1) Tons of new voters appear from nowhere, register, and/or many Republicans also vote all for Obama. The bizarre sampling in the polls is likely due to pollsters factoring in this element. However, it is well known that registrations never end up becoming actual voters. Every four years, we hear that all these new college kids will swing the election. They might register, but they historically don’t show up at the polls. Sure, there is a possibility that, all of a sudden, all these new registered voters are going to the polls, the history says the probability of that is extremely low. And besides, this is what McGovern swore would sweep him into the presidency. And you don’t want to be like McGovern.
2) The second, more plausible, possibility for Obama to get above 50% would be for Republican voters to stay home. This is what occurred in 2006. Republicans were not happy at Bush or Congress and many stayed home to ‘teach them a lesson’. In this depressed element, the Republican turnout ended up being 35 R to 39 D. Polls that show 33R to 39D or greater than four are just laughable and should be treated as garbage. 2006 was also an off-year election. Presidential elections is what brings people out. From what I have heard others say the internal Obama pollsters say, what stops this scenario is Palin. If Palin energizes the base and brings them to the polls, turn-out will not be at 2006 levels. Judging from the crowds at her rallies, the base does appear energized.
Obama will likely get around 47-48% of the national vote in a ‘perfect storm’. Bumping it more really puts the election at odds against the rest of history.
1980: Reagan 50.75%, Carter 41%, (+9.75 Reagan) Reagan won 45 states.
1984: Reagan 58.77%, Mondale 40.56% (+18.21 Regan) Reagan won 49 states.
1988: Bush 53.37%, Dukakis 45.65% (+7.72 Bush) Bush won 42 states.
1992: Clinton 43.01%, Bush 37.45%, Perot 18.91% (+5.66% Clinton) Clinton won 30 states.
1996: Clinton 49.23%, Dole 40.72%, Perot 8.40% (+8.49% Clinton) Clinton won 31 states.
2000: Bush 47.87%, Gore 48.38% (Gore +0.49%) Bush won 30 states.
2004: Bush 50.73%, Kerry 48.27% (Bush +2.46%) Bush won 31 states.
The Electoral Map is relatively stable
Populations and demographics cannot change that much in a state within a four year period of time. Texas is not suddenly going to go blue and California is not going to suddenly go red within a few years. Only a huge re-alignment would cause such an event to occur (the last one was in the 1994 election). If one candidate is extremely weak, and the other candidate is extremely strong, as in the case of McGovern v Nixon or Mondale v Reagan would such a huge electoral landside occur. Remember that electoral landslides can only occur when a candidate really break beyond the 50% national vote. For example, in 2004, if Bush (who did break the 50% barrier) performed 2% better in the average national vote, he would have gained 100 more electoral votes. Both Obama and McCain are neither extremely weak or extremely strong compared to one another so this will be a typical election.
In a typical election, the states that are switchers tend to be states that were close the previous election. Florida, an obviously very close state in 2000, was naturally a hotly contested state in 2004. However, in hindsight we realize that Florida in 2000 had extenuating circumstances (state was called early before the panhandle fully voted, state was hit by three hurricanes shortly before the election, etc). 2004, it went comfortably Bush.
However, there are many states that have been very close without any extenuating circumstances. Iowa has been extremely close but has slowly been drifting Democrat. McCain’s opposition to ethanol subsidies puts this state as a lock to Obama. If McCain is competitive here, Obama is toast. Michigan has been drifting more Democrat lately. So has Virginia but the percentage Bush won the state was around 5% and Bush increased his victory margin in Virginia in 2004. It likely won’t go blue until a couple more elections.
The point is to show that the electoral map is relatively stable and does not swing wildly to one candidate or another unless a candidate in the race is extremely inept like a McGovern or extenuating circumstances like a Depression and a World War, a Watergate, or an Assasination are in place. There are no such extenuating circumstances now. It is a typical anti-incumbent year which many are mistaking with an anti-GOP year.
On Pennslysvania
I told you to keep an eye on Pennslyvania in my election prediction post. Many people thought this was crazy, that “Polls there show Obama up by double digits! OMG!” Yet, McCain and Palin keep visiting the state. If McCain is down so much nationally, if his only chance to win is to defend red states, why does he keep going to Pennslyvania (or New Hampsire, or Iowa?). The answer is because the race is extremely close nationally. The answer is that the polls are info-tainment whose primary purpose is for lazy journalists to make a ‘story’ instead of actually doing real work.
Many, now, have noticed the possibility of Pennslyvania switching. Democrats in the state have become very nervous. Congressman Murth has (twice!) called the people of Pennslyvania ‘racists’. This is simply an excuse as to cover the inevitability of Pennslyvania switching. Governor Rendell has asked Obama to come back. A leak of Obama Campaign’s internal polling placed Pennslyvania at O +2 a week ago. That is likely gone by now. Many have wondered how Pennslyvania could be so close.
The truth is that Pennslyvania has always been close. Pennslyvania was a razor thin win for Gore (205k votes) and Kerry (140k votes). Democrats have slowly been losing their grasp over the state.
I am certain now that Obama will not carry the state. Here are the reasons why Obama won’t win Pennslyvania:
1) Obama isn’t reaching the base that Kerry got. Obama is running weaker than Kerry. While, no doubt, many will label this due to ‘racism’ (and calling people racists, like Murtha did, only further inflates the Bradley Effect), the real reason is that Pennslyvania is around 20% veterans. Most Americans view the Presidency as ‘Commander in Chief’. Military experience is, historically, the most pressing qualification. This is why Washington, not Benjaminin Franklin, became the first President. This is why Hillary Clinton, once getting to the Senate, placed herself in the committees concerning military and foreign policy and made comments about how she tried to join the military. Kerry was a Vietnam veteran. It is clear why he got the support. But Obama is a Harvard attorney going against a Vietnam Prisoner-of-War. I recieved word that Obama Campaign putting out pamphlets to mailboxes discussing the military service of his grandfather. This clearly shows the lack of military service is what is hurting him in a veteran heavy state.
2) McCain is attracting more than Bush did in 2004. Some of this is because of McCain’s POW history. But most of it is because the PA Democrats are mostly Reagan Democrats. PA isn’t a New England state. It is a mid-atlantic state. These Rust Belt Democrats are not connecting with Obama despite how much money he is pouring into the state. If he can’t close the deal within all these months, it is unlikely he will do so within a couple of weeks.
3) PA Machine Is Only Doing Token Support. Kerry had the famous PA Vote Machine for him. However, this time the machine is doing only token support. I hear most Unions are allowing people to vote who they want to this election as many do not want to vote for Obama. Governor Rendell is a Clinton supporter after all.
4) Democrats are voting against Obama. These aren’t the Reagan Democrats. These are the Hillary Clinton democrats who, in the primary, had PA vote overwhelming for Clinton. Many are voting against Obama by voting for McCain. With how razor close Pennslyvania has been in the last two presidential elections, Obama cannot lose these votes. Yet, he will.
5) Pennslyvania was a squeaker victory in 2000 and 2004. Gore won the state by 3.5% of the vote. Kerry won it by 2.5%. Due to the above four factors, it is unlikely that Obama is going to carry the state (the probability goes to McCain). However, the state will still remain close. Any poll that shows double digit leads for either candidate is just wrong.
This is why Pennslyvania is so important. Obama must win all the Kerry states plus gain 14 electoral votes. However, if he loses Pennslyvania, he loses 20 electoral votes and must gain 35 electoral votes to offset Pennslyvania (Obama would have to sweep NV, CO, VI, NM, IA, and hold on to the Kerry states, it would be easier to hold onto PA). McCain could lose a couple of states and still win the presidency if PA switches. PA, not Virginia, not Colorado, is the most vulnerable state to switch. Gore and Kerry both barely won it. Obama doesn’t have the support those two did in the Rust Belt. He won’t win PA folks.
Despite the obvious evidence staring people in the face, it is a wonder at the lengths people go at self-deception. The author in that piece refutes it simply by quoting the ‘polls’ there showing Obama up by double digits. When applying critical thinking, a historical context, the flow of money, or the constant McCain and Palin visits, the author twists himself into a pretzel to say that the ‘polls are right and the world is wrong’. Nevermind the fact that polls are never right in any presidential election, the fact that emotion has been invested has the author prefer the manufactured reality over the real world. Red flags should be raised, alone, at the fact that states tend to vote in groups and if OH is close, so will PA (as 2004 proved). OH cannot be close and PA cannot be double digits for Obama. The blind allegience to the polls is going to cause some major heartburn.
Flow of Money, Flow of Candidates
People began to notice that McCain and Palin kept visiting Pennslyvania. If they are on the defense, then why are they going to a Kerry state? Various possibilities came about, the most popular by people were…
1) McCain Campaign trying to achieve a ‘hail mary’ pass in Pennslyvania that would make up for other states lost.
2) McCain Campaign is in PA because the race is much closer than reported.
3) McCain Campaign is just dumb and likes to send candidates to places where it has no shot at winning.
Many people gravitated towards answer one with some saying answer three. No one has investigated answer two or is unwilling to. How can PA possibly flip to red if Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, North Dakota, and so on be said to be switching to blue? The only rational answer is answer 2.
Worse, McCain Campaign has been to New Hampshire, a blue state, and so has Obama. Before changing plans to go see grandma, why was Obama planned to visit Wisconsin, for example? Many people believe McCain Campaign pulled funds away from there (they didn’t). I see on the calendar that McCain is scheduled to travel to Iowa. He has no business being there. Iowa should be a lock for Obama at this stage. Or is it?
One constant thing in a presidential campaign is election day. What many people don’t realize is that campaigns do not go 100% at the beginning. They would run out of money, run out of what to say, so much of it is saved back and used as ‘triggers’. For example, the Powell Endorsement of Obama was a type of ‘trigger’. However, it got used one week earlier than it was intended. 10% or so of voters decide who to vote for in the last week before the election. It has been reported that McCain Campaign has a $160 warchest intended for that last week. I am not as sure what type of warchest Obama campaign has (but they have more than enough money, Obama Campaign has been outspending McCain Campaign around 4 to 1).
DailyKOS has a post of television advertising of the two campaigns in how it changed from a week ago. While one can read too much into it, it shows McCain, overall, increasing his advertising (as election day comes closer, more campaign money is used), and Obama decreasing it. What is most interesting is the money placed in individual states. Where a campaign increases TV advertising for a state while the other decreases doesn’t really tell us much. What is revealing is that when campaigns both, at the same time, decrease advertising money, it shows they are both moving their attention away from the state (i.e. the state’s election fight is generally settled), and when they both increase advertising money into a state, it shows they are increasing attention on it as that state becomes more competitive.
Based on this, the states that are becoming less competitive:
CO, FL, MO, NM, WI
States that are becoming more competitive:
IA, ME, NH
Those more competitive states are all blue states. If the Obama Campaign has the McCain Campaign on the ropes, this shouldn’t be happening. With the Obama Campaign slashing advertising almost across the board, it appears that the Obama Campaign, not the McCain Campaign, is in momentary retreat.
How did Maine show up to become competitive all of a sudden? Well, its demographics are all mostly white. So are New Hampshire’s. The real curious state, however, is Iowa which Obama should have locked up by now.
Now, the Daily Kos site naturally does not see three states becoming more competitive or Obama in a retreat.
Overall, Obama’s spending decreased slightly. Given his $150M fundraising month in September, it wasn’t from a lack of cash. Maybe the campaign is moving its investments into smarter plays.
Smarter plays like Iowa, New Hampshire, and MAINE? It is a smart play for McCain since those are blue states, and with the exception of perhaps New Hampshire, they should be states Obama has locked by now.
McCain is still pissing away about $2 million in Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin — states he’s not competitive in. Word yesterday was that McCain was reducing his ad spending in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, suggesting that he’s finally realized those states are a lost cause. Now McCain can’t pull out of them, lest his entire operation collapse form crushed morale (Michigan killed them), but he’s basically going to take next week’s spending and drag it out for the remainder of the campaign. I’m sure they wish they could take that $2-3 million they’re spending in those lost states and dump it into Pennsylvania, but it would sink their ship. They’ll have to eat those costs
Or perhaps the word yesterday, of rumors of McCain pulling out of states like Colorado, were wrong? After all, McCain is slated to visit Colorado later this week and Palin just made a couple trips there. It is more probable that McCain Campaign is decreasing advertising in red states such as Colorado and Florida, not because it is pulling out, but because it feels safe in the state remaining red. After all, Florida and Colorado did go to Bush in 2004 by 5%.
But this is a good example of how some people are more willing to believe a rumor (because they want it to be true) rather than the actual data.
And what I don’t understand is that if the McCain Campaign wanted to piss away money, why not do it in a state with much bigger stakes? I’d rather piss money away in California or New York instead of wimpy Maine or Iowa. The obvious answer is that the McCain Campaign thinks states like Maine and Iowa have become competitive. The Obama Campaign agrees as it is increasing its flow of money there as well.
Obama has adopted the ‘Inevitable Victory’ tactic
This is actually a good tactic, and the Obama Campaign has obviously picked it up from the Bush Campaign’s use of it in 2000 and 2004.
In 2000, Bush Campaign used it in an incredible way and had it backfiring on them. While Karl Rove said how they expected 300+ electoral votes, the Bush Campaign suddenly declared California was competitive and Bush flew in. The Gore Campaign went “WTF!?” and said, “California is *not* competitive!” However, with 55 electoral votes in California, the most of any state, the Gore Campaign thought the Bush Campaign knew something that they might have missed and couldn’t take a chance. So Gore flew to campaign in California.
With the Bush Campaign declaring how wonderful they were and questioning just how big their electoral vote landslide would be, (i.e. the ‘inevitable victory’ tactic), this enraged the Left and they surged to coalesce around Gore in the last few days of the 2000 election. How close the election was humbled both Bush and Gore.
In 2004, Bush Campaign did the same ‘inevitable victory’ tactic but not as pronounced. They remade the Lincoln Bedroom (or another room) for anticipation for victory. Bush didn’t go off into California again. However, he was running around campaigning in Pennslyvania (which ended up being very close in the end). This was likely as a feint to keep Kerry there and to not campaign as much in Ohio. In the end, 2004 ended up being about Ohio.
In many ways, the 2008 election will be like 2000 but in reverse (in tactics, not in sheer closeness of the race). Obama Campaign has adopted the ‘inevitable victory’ which has enraged the Right and they are coalescing around McCain (who is adopting a populist message like Gore did).
On October 24 (or 25, I’m confused about Hawaii time zones), Axelrod, the manager of the Obama Campaign, said this:
Major Garrett reports from Hawaii 10 minutes ago that David Axelrod the Campaign Manager for Barack Obama says as of this morning the campaign had a meeting in Chicago and according to internal numbers they have “a clear road to victory holding all Kerry states while picking up Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia with an excellent shot at Montana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Indiana”
They are saying they will get to 400 EV’s election night.
400 EVs!? Bahahaha, no. I played with an electoral map to get 400 EVs and, in order to do so, every state Obama Campaign spent a cent in had to turn blue including Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia.
This is a jump the shark moment. While it is possible for Obama to win, he is not going to win by 400 electoral votes. Anyone who believes that is extremely gullible.
So why is Axelrod saying this? Early voting is stunning pollsters due to the very heavy Republican turnout (the polls have been based on spreads of D + 7 or so). Even in states that are not battleground states, such as my Texas, all I have to do is go outside and see heavy turn-out. Axelrod is saying this in an attempt to depress R turn-out. But it isn’t going to work because it didn’t work for Bush in 2000 when he marched into California and declared he was winning by 300 EV points. All it did was piss off the other side.
Can the polls be wrong?
A better question is ‘can the polls be right?’ In the long history of presidential elections, have the polls ever been right? Historically, polls tend to be all over the place. Mondale was polled to be very competitive with Reagan, polls completely missed the 94 election, the Gore surge in 2000, and the infamous ‘exit polls’ for Kerry in 2004. The track record of most polling is measured only at the last polls right before the election. Prior to the last polls, the polls swing around even more. One can clearly see that in 2008 as the gap between the candidates is 10 points one day, 5 points the next day, then 12 points the day after.
The big problem with most of the polling is that they are beginning with turn-out assumptions of 2008 being like that of 2006 with a 3 to 4 point lead in Democrat turnout (Republican turnout was depressed in 2006) and adding on all these new voter registrations as new D voters (most of these voter registrations are filled out by low skilled workers to fulfill quotas by their supervisors in voter registration drives… which is why ‘Mickey Mouse’ resulted as a voter). Most of these pollsters, now with early voting going on, are realizing these assumptions, this weighting, is wrong and the poll numbers will tighten up more as as the election approaches.
One major difference in the past is that polls were supplements to news stories. Polls were never news stories themselves. Why? Polls aren’t news. They are data generated, manufactured, and sold. What is news is what the candidates are saying, what they are proposing, and what states they are visiting. One of the reasons for the Old Media’s rapid demise is their willingness of interest to stop reporting news and trying to generate it themselves. Polls are creations that are produced as any product. This is why they used to be delegated as a supplement to news stories.
The problem isn’t so much the polls; it is the blatant disregard of the data outside of the polling. It is the data of historical trends, of demographic data in states, of which way the campaign money is flowing and which states the candidates are going. Believe me, in campaigns all of this matters. If McCain suddenly began to visit California, Obama Campaign would likely question something and perhaps send Obama there himself (this occurred in 2000 with Gore following Bush into California). If one campaign advertises heavily, and visits heavily, a state, the other campaign has no choice but to respond. This is the nature of campaigns.
Another reason why it is necessary to absorb data outside of polls is because polling is the only information that can easily be manipulated. Presidential elections are the ‘Super Bowl’ of American politics and such tampering is not unknown. This isn’t to say the current polls have been manipulated, it is that they are the least reliable data we have available. The data of historical trends and the actions of the campaigns, themselves, cannot be manipulated. And when I mean manipulated, I do not mean ‘bias’ as I mean manipulated by assumptions that do not come true. For example, pollsters manipulated their data under the assumption that young voters will turn out in mass. Well, they aren’t turning out in mass. This assumption may have had good intentions based on what the pollster thought was going on, but good intentions are manipulations of the data just as bad intentions are.
So why isn’t data outside polling looked at? As this post is about, it would require more critical thought. Polling data, like instant meals, comes ready made. It tells you who is in the lead, who isn’t. It says which states are in play and which ones are not. Looking at the historical trends or where the money flows or where the candidates visit does not present such a ‘ready-to-digest’ information on who is leading and who isn’t. It is the ingredients that have to be ‘thought about’. But the result will be more accurate than the polling. A great example of this would be Pennslyvania. Polls say Obama leading by double digits in PA. But McCain Campaign keeps visiting there and investing much money in the state. It is far more likely public polls are off in such a matter as the McCain Campaign certainly has information that is contrary to such public polls. Professional pollsters for campaigns agree that the best way for people to measure a race is to see which states the campaign visits especially as election day approaches.
Another major problem with polls is that manipulation (intentions good or bad) could be made by the pollster but also by those who are polled. Pollsters will never EVER admit that the possibility that people can, and do, lie to pollsters. People lie for a variety of reasons but mostly because they don’t like pollsters. On the Hillary Clinton websites, where supporters intend to vote for McCain, the leaders have instructed them to lie to the pollster to say they are voting for Obama and to do the same in exit polls. Conservatives, who truly hold hatred for the Old Media and dislike pollsters, also tend to lie to them. Many conservatives, who enjoyed liberals’ emotional meltdown with Kerry’s exit polling saying he ‘won’ with the actual votes saying the opposite, desire the same to occur in 2008 and intend to lie to exit pollsters about saying how they voted Obama. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that everyone is 100% honest to pollsters.
This is why pollsters are doing pretzel explanations as to why the Bradley Effect doesn’t exist (because if they admitted the Bradley Effect does exist, they admit people lie to pollsters which would destroy their business). The article of the second link is written by Nate Silverman who is the one who makes the FiveThirtyEight Website. There, you will find polling data assorted and assembled in nice little graphs, pie charts, probabilities all outlined. But the problem is that it is only polling data which tends to be historically inaccurate. Nonsense on stilts makes it look more interesting but it is still nonsense. It reminds me of the ‘debate analysis’ networks used with getting people, giving them little gizmos and gadgets they turn one way or another based on what a candidate is saying, and throwing up charts and graphs of ‘debate analysis’. Nonsense. On. Stilts.
Polls should be used as a supplement to other information going on within the campaigns. However, polls are now treated as the ‘main course’ and, worse, the other information is thrown out. Good analysis means looking at *all* the data, not discarding information that are not polls because they can’t fit into little graphs or might upset the electoral map algorithm.
Dismiss polls that come from TV and print media organizations as they are info-tainment (ABC-WaPo, CBS-NYT, NBC-WSJ, CNN, Fox, Reuters-Zogby). Stay with national polls that are more reasonable (Rasmussen, IBD/TIPP, AP-GfK, F&M College, Battleground) and these polls have the same general range.
Another way to filter out bad polls is to look at the spread. Realistically, party affiliation is within the 0-2% spread and the maximum should be 4% spread. 6 or 7% spreads that Rasmussen has been running are never believable.
Look, in October 2004, Rasmussun had the spread of…
34.1 R 36.2 D 29.6 I
2004 Final Turn-Out was…
37 R 37 D 26 I
This year, Rasmussun is targeting…
33 R 39 D 28 I
It shows how Rasmussen’s targets (for example) have been grossly off this cycle.
McCain’s Campaign Strategy is Populism Possum
When a campaign person publicly stated that “McCain is down five points…”, I instantly knew that the McCain Campaign would be playing possum (i.e. playing dead). You see, anyone involved in a campaign knows you NEVER reveal you are down. EVER. Even local campaigners know this. Why would a national, presidential campaign make such a reckless mistake? The probable answer is that it wasn’t a mistake. It was intended to be said to generate the possum strategy.
There is other evidence McCain is doing this. McCain, himself, likes to think of himself as the ‘underdog’. Constantly, the McCain Campaign likes to feint with the media. When it came to the VP pick, McCain Aides (“insiders”) kept the media (and the Obama Campaign) guessing the VP pick would have been Romney, Pawlenty, Leiberman, or even Ridge. The Palin pick came as a complete shock to not just the old media but to the Obama Campaign as well (and was revealed right after the Democrat Convention). When asked about the campaign, the McCain Campaign says it is ‘really tough’ and ‘very close’ and that the campaign is even ‘down in the polls’. Most campaigns adopt the inevitable victory strategy. McCain adopting this strategy is… well… ‘mavericky’.
McCain Campaign is likely adopting this strategy because it didn’t work too well for Bush. Elections of 2004 and 2000 were rather close. I don’t recall the first Bush or Reagan using the ‘inevitable victory’ strategy either. “But Malstrom! Maybe the McCain Campaign is just losing and you are calling ‘losing’ a ‘strategy’.” But they aren’t losing. They have been spending money and moving candidates as if they are winning. Just by listening to what the candidates say, I hear Obama and Biden responding to McCain rather than the other way around (rather, Biden appears to be responding to himself). Sometimes things leak out. One was such a comment by a McCaign Campaign person who responded to their ‘uphill climb’ as… “What are you talking about? If anything, McCain has an easier electoral map than Obama.” This is actually true, and aside from these little comments, the McCain Campaign has gone to lengths to not show their own confidence. But you can see it when they keep attacking PA, NH, and likely IA. It is much easier to defend a state than to switch one.
McCain Campaign’s biggest problem is the lack of consistency of message. Obama Campaign, at least, is staying on message with the theme of ‘change’. McCain Campaign goes from theme to theme as if it can’t decide on one or wants to hit them all.
Electoral Maps
Below is the Real Clear Politics electoral map from October 21, 2008. The electoral map is based on all the polls that were out at the time. This is what appeared:
There are many laughable elements of this map. North Dakota as a toss-up? Pennslyvania as solid blue? Montana weak red? Georgia as a weak red? Indiana as a toss up? Virginia leaning blue and North Carolina as a toss up? Florida as a toss up? Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire as solid blue?
I can see why those whose horse in the race is Obama would be quite unquestioning of the above map: All the toss-up states are Bush states. None of Kerry’s states are toss-up in the above picture. Anyone who believes the above map is extremely gullible. PA is extremely close which is why McCain and Palin keep visiting the state and why Governor Rendell is asking Obama to come back. New Hampshire is the definition of toss-up. McCain not only recently visited there, so did Obama. McCain is spending money in MN, IA, and WI which means those states are competitive, nowhere near the solid blue the map says. McCain will be making a trip to IA soon. Obama was schedule to go through the Rust Belt states such as Madison, WI (but cancelled so Obama to go to Hawaii to visit his grandmother).
After the election, the above map will be fun to look on and laugh at how wild the polls were.
Based on where candidates have been traveling lately, and the states where the money is going, and from what I hear of internal polling of both sides, this is the map I get:
WA- Light Blue because of the Biden visit. It is most likely Biden is shoring up support for the governor candidate, but I have heard tepid Obama support from that state as well.
NV- Obvious toss-up. Bush won it by extremely narrow margins in 2004.
NM- Another obvious toss-up. It was also a Bush state in 2004 and Gore state in 2000 by the most narrow margins.
CO- It went 8% for Bush in 2000, 5% for Bush in 2004. While CO is becoming more Democrat, it likely won’t be enough for 2008. 2012 maybe.
MN- A longshot for McCain, but Obama support is fairly weak in this state.
WI- This is a toss-up due to how narrow it was won by Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. Obama also is not performing well in the Rust Belt makes this state some obvious concern.
IA- This is a most fascinating one. Obama has a good network since Obama Campaign practically lived here for a year setting up for the Iowa Primary. However, McCain skipped the Iowa primaries and he doesn’t support ethanol subsidies. If this state is competitive, Obama is in big trouble. This state has been very close in 2000 and 2004.
MO-While Obama has campaigned here and spent much money, curiously McCain has not and only did like one visit. It appears this state will likely trend red as the McCain Campaign doesn’t seem too interested in pouring resources into it.
MI- This is the only state McCain Campaign publicly acknowledged they were withdrawing. If McCain becomes competitive in this state again, Obama is toast.
IN- The idea of this state going blue is laughable.
NC- The same as for this state.
VI- Much has been said about northern suburbs from D.C. going for Obama to put this state in play. But don’t forget that Kerry said the exact same thing four years ago and also spent massive amount of money in Virginia. Bush not only carried the state in 2004, he increased his margins over 2000. VI will likely stay red.
PA- Which way this state goes will cause major heartburn for the other side. From my sources, it is practically seen as red. This state has drifting red more and more and only the Philly vote fraud machine kept it from turning red in 2004 and 2000. Now that the machine will not be used for Obama (Rendell is a Clinton supporter), and due to how weak Obama is performing in the Rust Belt, consider this a red state.
OH- After Joe the Plumber, Obama completely lost Ohio. Remember, all politics is local.
FL- Obama and McCain Campaigns have been spending much money on Florida. But ever since Obama has suddenly began talking about McCain taking away or decreasing medicare, I knew Obama was losing the fight over Florida.
NH- Obama lost majorly to Clinton in the primary here. Also, McCain won the NH primary twice in 2008 and 2000. Due to an almost all white demographic, and due to how familiar McCain is due to the primaries, I’d say this state leans McCain.
ME- This will be a fascinating one on election night. Maine is rarely discussed. Its electoral votes are not a ‘winner take all’. And, the state is no slam dunk for Obama. Its all white population could prove some issues.
McCain definately has an easier map than Obama. It all comes down to three states: PA, OH, and FL. Whoever wins two of the three wins the presidency.
Last Signals of an Obama Loss
Much of the ‘Bradley Effect’ will be found in the undecided voters. There is a very high amount of ‘undecided voters’, over 10%, and they are undecided because of an unwillingness to say they are not voting for Obama (one pollster pressed the issue and found most of them going McCain). It is historical that undecided voters break toward the more establishment candidate which would be McCain in this election.
The United States of America is a right-of-center country. This is why Democrat Presidents almost always had to come from the south and/or campaign as conservatives. Clinton came from Arkansas and campaigned as a ‘Third Way’ politician. Carter came from Georgia. LBJ came from Texas. Democrat candidates that lose almost always come from the north and are unable to carry southern states such as Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, are all examples. Gore is interesting because of Lieberman. Had Lieberman been the Democrat Candidate in 2004, he would have soundly won (instead, he was run out of the party).
When Kerry went back to Michigan in the last week, I knew he had lost as he should have had Michigan locked up by then. I’ve been trying to find a similiar signal for McCain or Obama. Is it the story of police being set up, at election night, to stop the predicted riots of people if Obama loses? (And what is with this idea of riots? Just because a presidential candidate loses doesn’t give anyone a license to go break into stores and steal some flat screen TVs or whatever else.) I don’t think that would be it. A colleague of mine says that Obama suddenly going to see his grandmother is a way to reset the news cycle. But I don’t believe that would be a signal of loss.
Then came news of Ayers new book, set to release in 2009, called….
Amazon.com: Race Course Against White Supremacy: William C. Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn: Books.”White supremacy and its troubling endurance in American life is debated in these personal essays by two veteran political activists. Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days—and that it is still very much with us—the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education. The book draws upon the authors’ own confrontations with authorities during the Vietnam era, reasserts their belief that racism and war are interwoven issues, and offers personal stories about their lives today as parents, teachers, and reformers.”
The key phrase there is ‘election processes’. A book about ‘white supremacy’, especially with the election process, would become laughable if there was a black President. The electoral reality was that Obama only had a squeaker chance of winning, but lately we have been seeing poll rises in the absurd margins due to unrealistic spreads. Some are suggesting that once the Obama Campaign knew it was internally getting beat, the ‘grand stage’ being built (outside in the park of course) to intentionally setting up grand expectations as they come to a crushing blow on election night for the expressed purpose of rioters and protestors (as various pundits have suggested such as Carville and others on CNN lately). The purpose of the book is to cash in on that heart-grief. Another person suggests it could be nothing more than hedging one’s bets that if Obama loses, Ayers still wins.
But those ideas tend to wander out on the field of conspiracy theories. But the book is definately a vote of ‘no-confidence’ in an Obama win. Should Obama lose, I expect never ending coverage of how ‘racist’ America is and how the electoral system needs to be overhauled. If McCain loses, news coverage won’t sound too much different as now. But it is always a mistake to write political obituaries before an election.
Anyway, you’ve been warned. Don’t buy into the pre-vote hype. Pop the champagne after the election, not now.
Malstrom's Articles News 