 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
July 09, 2008 The State of the RaceBy Richard BaehrPart One In the month since the end of the Democratic nominating contest, the Presidential race has settled into a fairly narrow band in Obama-McCain polling results. The two daily tracking polls, Gallup and Rasmussen, have consistently shown an Obama lead. The Rasmussen results have been more stable , with the Obama bounce moving as high as a 7 point lead after the last primary and Hillary Clinton's departure from the race, and never less than 3. Gallup has shown a lead for Obama of as much as 7, and a few days when the race was tied. On Tuesday, Rasmussen had Obama with a 6 point lead, and Gallup showed a 2 point Obama edge (within the margin of error of the survey). The three most recent national polling results (CNN, Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling outfit, and Time) all showed 4 or 5 point Obama leads. The average of the two daily tracking polls and the 3 latest national polls gives Obama a 4.2% lead. In essence, there is a lot of confirmation of a stable, reasonably close race; Obama with a lead in the 4-5% range. Nate Silver on his fivehtiryeight.com site (538 is the number of Electoral College votes) is in the same ballpark, believing Obama may have as much as a six point lead at the moment, though he suggests this overstates things a bit, since in most recent Presidential races the trailing candidate closed a bit near the end. Three possible outcomes The various betting sites suggest that Obama is given about a two thirds chance of winning, McCain about one third. This seems about right to me, since I think the three possible outcomes are a close McCain win (perhaps without a popular vote plurality), a close Obama win, and a blowout Obama win, all about equal possibilities. The good news for John McCain is that he is not behind by 15-18 points, as Bob Dole was in 1996 against Bill Clinton at this stage of the race. Given the current political environment, he should be. President Bush has a 30% job approval rating. Over 80% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. Barack Obama skipped out of the federal funding system for the general election, and will likely raise two to three times the $84 million provided to John McCain. On the left, unions, pro choice and environmental groups, MoveOn.org, and 527 groups funded by the likes of George Soros, Peter Lewis and the Sandlers, will far outspend similar groups on the right (when Obama said he needed to opt out of the federal financing system to level the playing field against the spending of right wing 527s, he was lying). Obama will have a huge money advantage across the board. The RNC currently has more cash on hand than the DNC, but this may soon change as well, as the Obama campaign is conducting many joint Obama/DNC fundraising events. The Obama campaign has been very systematic and organized in registering new voters, and in its campaign messaging. The McCain campaign has been unfocused as far as its message, largely wasting the three months after wrapping up the nomination, and is going through another change in the campaign management team and structure. Another big Obama advantage (as the candidate with the "change" agenda) is the state of the economy, with high gas and food prices, rising unemployment, the housing industry collapse, and a very weak stock market. Overseas, two wars continue in Iraq and Afghanistan (Iraq markedly improving for our side, Afghanistan stable at best) and there is the possibility of a new conflict with Iran over its nearly completed nuclear weapons program. The closeness of the race suggests that many Americans are not yet sold on Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator had his worst weeks of the campaign when the Reverend Wright videos surfaced and then again after the Reverend went off at the National Press Club. Throw in Obama's remarks in San Francisco about rural/small town and working class voters clinging to guns and God , and it is likely that some doubts about Obama which developed during this period have lingered on. Three key states So too, while Obama has improved his standing in the polls since the end of the nominating race, his numbers remain weak in three important battleground states, Ohio, Michigan and Florida, with 58 Electoral College votes among them. In 2004, Bush won Florida by 5%, Ohio by 2%, and lost Michigan by just over 3%, while winning nationally by 2.4%. If one looks at the state vote versus the national vote, Florida was a slightly stronger than average Republican state, Ohio just about average, and Michigan a much stronger Democratic state than the national average. If Obama is ahead by 4% at the moment nationally, then in Michigan he is running a bit weaker than his national number (whereas Kerry ran 6% better), in Florida he is running as much as 9-10% weaker than his national number (Kerry 2% weaker), and in Ohio, about the same as his national lead. Pollsters and their samples Scott Rasmussen has noted that there has been much greater volatility in his poll numbers this year than occurred in the Bush Kerry race in 2004. The total swing from the biggest daily McCain lead to the biggest daily Obama lead has been 17%. With no incumbent President or Vice President running for the first time in 80 years*, voters perceptions on the two candidates, and in particular the less well known Obama, have moved up and down. Polling is also more difficult this year for a number of reasons. In the primaries, Barack Obama tended to over-poll in primaries -- his actual results were not as strong for him as final polls in various states (when this occurs with African American candidates, it is often called the Bradley effect, for the former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley who was defeated in his race for Governor of California, though he had led in all the polls.). There were exceptions, especially Indiana and North Carolina, where Obama did better than the final polls in these states, but there appears to be some evidence this year of voters telling the pollsters what they think they want to hear, or put another way, providing the more politically correct response ("I am for Obama, and therefore I am not a racist"). Given the weakness of the Republican Party this cycle, pollsters need to gauge the right mix of Republicans, Democrats, and independents in their sample, either nationally or in a state, or miss badly. Independents tend to be closer to 50-50 in their profile, but both Democrats and Republicans tend to be very supportive of their Party's nominee (as much as 85-15 splits). If Republicans are under-sampled by 10%, and Democrats over-sampled by 10% in the same survey, it could produce a 14% swing in the overall poll result. The recent national poll results that seem to have missed the mark by a wide margin: Newsweek, and the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey, both had a very heavy mix of self identified Democrats and many fewer self-identified Republicans. Of course, Newsweek has been wrong so often and by so much that new explanations are needed with virtually every one of their surveys. Rasmussen has had a very stable mix of about 9-10% more Democrats than Republicans all year. So the changes in his results over time reflect how those identified with each party have changed their preferences over time. After Clinton dropped out of the race, some Democrats "came home", and party loyalty numbers increased. Finally, there may be many new voters this year, as there were in 2004, when turnout grew by over 20 million compared to 2000.Many of the new voters this year are likely to be under age 30 or African American. Both groups favor Obama by large margins, and in each case, it will be difficult to estimate turnout. With the under age 30 group, many of whom do not have land line phones, survey results may be inaccurate. It is hard to know whether the possible "over-polling" by Obama (the Bradley effect) will be matched or overwhelmed by the possible underestimation and under-sampling of new Obama voters turning out. Again, Rasmussen, has tried to gauge the shift by increasing the share of African Americans in his surveys in many states, 36% for instance in Mississippi. How McCain could win With all this by way of introduction, how does the underdog McCain pull off an upset? If one starts with the 31 states won by George Bush in 2004, totaling 286 Electoral College votes, three of these red states, totaling 21 Electoral College votes, seem to be leaning toward Obama at the moment. From strongest to weakest of the three for Obama, they are Iowa (7), New Mexico (5) and Colorado (9). In each state, Obama is ahead in every recent survey, though Colorado is very close in the most recent survey (2% Obama lead). If no other state shifted , these three would be enough to elect Obama. Obama is ahead in most surveys in Ohio (21) and Virginia (13), and in one recent poll in Indiana (11), and Montana (3). The Virginia results and the Indiana survey are only 1-2 point leads for Obama, in reality a tie. In Ohio, Rasmussen shows McCain ahead by 1, while other surveys give Obama a larger lead. Ohio was one of the states , Pennsylvania another, where Obama badly underperformed the final poll results in the Democratic primary, losing each state by 10% ,when the final poll average was only a 5% Clinton victory. Rasmussen has Obama up 5 in a recent Montana poll, perhaps explaining the Obama visit to the traditionally Republican state (at least in Presidential elections) on July 4th. The Obama team is also targeting other red states: Missouri (11), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), Florida (27), North Dakota (3), Alaska (3), and Nevada (5). So far, McCain leads in all of these states that have had recent polls, though several are close. McCain for his part is targeting 4 Kerry (blue) states: Pennsylvania (21), Michigan (17), New Hampshire (4),and Wisconsin (10). Michigan seems the best prospect of the group, then Pennsylvania. It is unclear whether any major effort will be made in New Jersey (15), Minnesota (10), or Oregon (7). If McCain were to win any of these three states, they will be gravy on top of a solid national win (north of 300 Electoral College votes) . Similarly, Obama does not need to win Georgia or Indiana or North Carolina to win, and if he wins these states, it probably means he will win big (325-400 Electoral College votes). Put another way, if McCain can win in Michigan, then he starts at 303 Electoral College votes, before deducting for states Obama will win. If McCain can win Michigan and hold Ohio, Virginia and Indiana, that is likely his best shot at victory. Then he could withstand the loss of New Mexico, Colorado, and Iowa. He could lose another few small states (Nevada, Montana) and still win. If McCain wins Virginia, he will likely also win North Carolina and the rest of the South. If he wins Indiana, he will likely also win Missouri. If he wins Ohio, Florida is safe. In essence, all of this is based on rank ordering the states from most favorable for McCain to least favorable (Nate Silver has a quantitative model for a tipping point methodology, a similar concept). Many paths to victory for Obama The reason Obama is the favorite is that he has many more paths to victory, since he is targeting many more red states, than McCain has blue states to target. A national lead of 4-5% for Obama moves the playing field about 7% overall from where it was in 2004 when Bush won by 2.4%. If the playing field moved 7% the other way, McCain would be ahead by nearly 10% nationally, and he would be targeting many more blue states and Obama would have far fewer targets among the red states. Put simply, no candidate who loses the popular vote by 10% will even come close in the Electoral College. It is also highly unlikely that a candidate who loses by 5% in the national popular vote can win an Electoral College majority. But a smaller deficit -- 3% or less -- could leave the door open to a repeat of the 2000 result. Had 60,000 voters shifted from Bush to Kerry in Ohio, Kerry would have won the Electoral College in 2004 and lost the popular vote by 3 million (over 2% margin). My own view is that such a split result is far more likely to favor McCain than Obama this year. Obama will have lots of states with big margin wins (wasted votes in other words) -- New England, New York, Maryland, DC, California, Illinois -- and will suffer narrower losses in many Southern states than was the case for John Kerry, due to heavy turnout of African American voters. If McCain can win enough of the tossup states, most likely by a small margin, he can win. However, he will have to close the national popular vote gap from the current 4-5% level to have a chance, or alternatively, the national poll numbers would need to overstate Obama's lead by a few points. Both of these are possible, but no national campaign can count on the latter being the case. Tomorrow, I will explore what McCain can do on his part to win, and where Obama may be vulnerable. *Thanks to John Zimmerman, who pointed out that in 1952, Harry Truman stuck around for a while as possible Democratic candidate (this was before 22nd amendment) , before dropping out. So 1952 was last time neither party had a President or VP on general election ticket, but 1928 was last time neither President nor VP made any effort to even run.. Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker. |
Recent Articles
Blog Posts |
|
||
Comments
First of all, Clinton "suspended", not left the race, just like Ron Paul did. Although it would take a miracle in August.
Second, many Clinton supporters will never go on the Obama bandwagon. Just say N-O-B-A-M-A. If you want to explore McCain's chances, check out lots of videos such as "Nobama Girl" on YouTube.
He's far too left for us, and we're not buying this move to the center.
Posted by: PUMA | July 9, 2008 01:24 AM
Good stuff.
Any analytical take on BO's ability to get out the vote? How would that play into this? Would Ohio youth/groupies turn out as much as LA youth/groupies (wasted votes)?
Posted by: Tom | July 9, 2008 02:04 AM
Brilliantly stated. I think Obama has got the best of the situation & McCain has the worst.
In any other year, Obama & McCain wouldn't even be here.
Because of the overall situation: economic - subprime crisis, food prices, oil etc; national issues - Bush's low popularity ratings, Iraq war, healthcare policy, social security; low international opinion of US - US voters are looking to someone exactly opposite of Bush - hence they settled on McCain & Obama.
Why Obama? Bush is seen as an unintelligent man, as a cowboy, honest but ineffective leader - Obama POTRAYS to be exactly opposite - charismatic, plays with words, smart and always on top of situation.
why McCain? military experience, compensation for neocon policies.
In any other year, it would have been Hillary from Democrats fighting Mike Huckabee / Dick Cheney of the Republicans
Outside 2008 scenario, i find it difficult to see any situation in the past where Obama could have won.
Posted by: Kalyan | July 9, 2008 02:25 AM
Polls are irrelevant. Fundraising is one side of the coin, the other is how much do the candidates spend. As I've already told the NRO, Obama has spent disproportionately more of his cash than McCain - and Obama will also be forced to pay Clinton's debts.
Obama will lose for many other reasons, incl. the reason that most women will not vote for him. Obama opposed equal salaries for women, has called a reporter 'sweetie', and was condemned by a certain female AT columnist many times (and by other female columnists, too). Just because Katie Couric fell in love with Obama, the IL senator ought not to assume that every American woman has. To win, Obama would need to receive, at the very least, 55% of female votes.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | July 9, 2008 04:26 AM
Perhaps we should start thinking about what is likely to go under Obama's bus next and call attention to the promises he will not be able to keep. Corn subsidies come to mind in light of the new G8 and UN positions on biofuels. I would not use these types of issues to attack BO's integrity, but to point out that he does not have the experience to put individual issues in a larger framework.
Posted by: vb | July 9, 2008 05:50 AM
Another website pointed out that in the past 9 close elections, the guy leading in July won 3 times.
Algore was up 8 points in Sep 2000 and down 8 points Oct 2000.
The first polls a week after the GOP convention will be the first real insight into the race.
It maybe hard to believe but not everyone in the country hangs on every little political tidbit in July.
Posted by: American Thinker Fan | July 9, 2008 08:30 AM
I see more from the glass half full perspective than the glass half empty.
The polls are even or close in spite of John McCain's running a stealth campaign. He seems to be the forgotten candidate based on the coverage he gets in the media. Part of that is well deserved, though, because he isn't running a very well organized campaign on the one hand. On the other, he still hasn't made some of his positions clear enough to inspire confidence in alot of conservative voters.
He is also not getting any support from the GOP, who are too busy protecting themselves.
Obama is an empty suit who makes wonderfully programmed speeches that contain enough promises for everyone and the media loves him, in part because they are tired of the Clinton's. That love affair is showing some cracks though, after more flip flops than John Kerry ever dreamed possible. Who knows what will happen in the next 30 days? The Daley Machine works well, but can it fool a country the way it does a city?
Posted by: Joe Dantone | July 9, 2008 09:44 AM
What about the AOL straw poll? No one ever mentions it because it shows a blowout for McCain. I think Obama will get smoked in an upset because people will come to realize they are voting for socialism and nanny statism when they vote for him.
Posted by: Thor | July 9, 2008 10:36 AM
the polls on Bush are very misleading.
i do not approve of a lot of what he has done, but i would NEVER vote for a traitor deomcrat.
Posted by: wargammer2005 | July 9, 2008 10:43 AM
Oh yeah, Mr Baehr, as if polls mattered! Dewey defeats Truman!
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | July 9, 2008 11:37 AM
With all of BHO's flip-flops and revelations of his unsavory company comming to light, McCain should be far ahead in any poll. Unfortunately the GOP is a toothless tiger,er, I mean mouse. I am a lifelong Republican (I am 66) and I have never seen such a gutless Republican party as we have today. McCain and his inept campaign just don't seem to be engaged in any substantial way to defeat the Manchurian candidate manufactured by Soros and other America haters. It is truly a very sorry state of affairs for the country.
Posted by: BobF | July 9, 2008 11:57 AM
By the time November rolls around the American people will know what a naive charlatan Obama really is. These things just take awhile. I expect McCain will win pretty easily and the big mystery to the chattering class will be how Obama could have lost, and lost so badly. One reason will be that people are lying to pollsters saying they'll vote for Obama but then they will not. It'll be interesting to see if I'm correct or not.
Posted by: EyeDoc | July 9, 2008 02:21 PM
To the press, this pontificating, condescending, disdainful radical liberal from Chicago's Hyde Park can do no wrong. I can't believe that the voting public will be so heedless as to suspend all critical judgment about this guy.
I am still counting on the voters to get in touch with their gut feelings and elect the lesser evil.
Posted by: Malcolm | July 9, 2008 03:18 PM
No, EyeDoc, you are spot-on. I should hand my moniker to you. McCain is shaking up his staff and the new players are telling him what a wus he has been. If McCain runs this campaign to win, he cannot lose. Obama would scare any sensible American.
Posted by: Oracle | July 9, 2008 03:50 PM
Well, I hope somebody's watching Obama's other path to victory: ACORN. And their fraudulent voters.
Posted by: Lulu | July 9, 2008 05:00 PM
They are both losers. I am tired to vote for the least of available evil. Perhaps it a time to vote a real change - Libertarian.
Posted by: Gregory Y | July 9, 2008 05:58 PM
There is no way I'm voting for the old man. Obama, you're our guy!!!!!!
Posted by: Veterans4Obama | July 9, 2008 06:34 PM
I remember arguing with a co-worker about a fine point of logical programming for a sophisticated and complex system. "You may be right.", he said, "But if you are, then everything I know (about control logic) is wrong." I feel the same way about your predicting B.O. winning...You may be right, but,...
Posted by: bc | July 9, 2008 07:22 PM
Being a New Hampshire resident, I will be free to vote my conscience for president this fall (the Constitution Party). NH will overwhelmingly vote for Osama so my vote will not matter in a McCain loss. My main concern this election are the two horrific US Congressmen we have and dispatching them as quickly as possible, as well as keeping Queen Shaheen out of the US Senate, and hopefully capturing back one if not both NH branches of Congress.
Posted by: Fatcat | July 9, 2008 07:57 PM
All these comments and not one mention of race. Well, I'm here to tell you that scores of millions of Americans will never vote for a black President. The voting booth is private. It's the one place left, the last place left where they can express themselves. And they will. Doesn't matter what all bien pensants think of them in that booth. The voting booth is where they'll be free to vote their very legitimate fears of what a black President and his heavily weighted black administration would do to them if elected. And they will vote those fears. Count on it.
Posted by: ricpic | July 9, 2008 09:03 PM
Mr. Baehr, As usual you have written an excellent piece. I appreciate you ability and willingness to put pen to paper, reveal information and a perspective that is founded on reality and not what readers may or may not want to hear.
I am a disaffected Democrat who will never vote for Obama for the myriad reasons stated in countless pieces on the AT web site over these past few months. McCain is our only option and it is frustrating that 1) history seems to have things poised such that Obama's chances of winning are great (for many of the reasons you site), and 2) McCain just seems to have lost his fight. Not sure what's going on with his campaign. Called the GNC recently and they claimed that Obama had a "head start" and they're just getting started re: McCain's campaing. I thought, "a head start"? McCain was the presumptive nominee long before Obama was.
Please folks, let's all find ways each day to support John McCain for President.
I look forward to your next article that might illuminate the way there.
Posted by: Rose | July 9, 2008 11:06 PM
I've been thinking the same as what EyeDoc said for the past month. Obama has peaked, and is making rookie mistakes. He can't wag the dog for four more months. It won't even be close.
Posted by: John | July 10, 2008 12:52 AM
If McCain is to win the WH, he must win Florida first. This is a must.
Since 1960, when JFK lost in Florida but nevertheless became a President, no candidate won the WH unless he won Florida first. The sole exception to this rule was Clinton, who dodged the trend in 1992.
The longer version of history is also favourable for Florida: in the last 84 years, only two presidents won the Oval Office even though they did not win in Florida - Clinton and Kennedy. In the 100 years after 1908, only four elections were won by a guy who did not win in Florida. They were in 1920, 1924, 1960 and 1992.
Florida is the most important swing state. McCain must present a plan to conquer the Outer Space or choose Charles Crist as his veep if he is to win Florida (Florida's economy relies on NASA).
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | July 10, 2008 06:14 AM
McCain, Obama offer different visions on taxes
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=254180#254180
Posted by: SM | July 10, 2008 08:09 AM