Not Over Yet
While I continue to be optimistic about Obama's chances, I think that the emerging consensus that McCain has no plausible path to victory is mistaken.
First, I don't think the early voting numbers are nearly as favorable to Obama as various stories have made them out to be. The most comprehensive data on early voting that I've seen comes from the Obama campaign itself. If you look through the numbers, Democrats appear to be voting at a higher rate than they did in 2004 in North Carolina, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, but not by ridiculous margins. We're talking 5-10 percentage points. Given that Bush won Colorado by 5 and North Carolina by 12, that may not be enough. And in Florida (where Bush won by 5 in 2004) the ratio of Democrat to Republican early voting is unchanged from 2004 levels. Moreover, the increased Democratic numbers could just be the result of increased emphasis on banking votes, i.e., the Obama campaign using its resources to convince its strongest supporters to vote early.
So while there are some potentially encouraging signs on the early voting front, the data is somewhat ambiguous and not uniformly in Obama's favor.
Secondly, while the blue states are looking increasingly safe, the overall electoral map is starting to look a lot like it did in 2000. Obama has a solid lead in most national polls and has leads at or above his national lead in nearly every blue state (except New Hampshire, which has closed a little lately). He also looks likely to bring Iowa and New Mexico (states which Gore won but Kerry lost) back into the Democratic fold.
But that's not enough. In addition to those states, Obama has to win one of the following states: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, or Indiana. These are his victory states, the ones that will put him over the edge. Obama is either leading or competitive in all of these states (which is fantastic), but it's important to remember that these are all traditionally red states and that Obama is polling at less than his national average in all of them.
What that means is that if the national numbers tip just a few points in McCain's favor over the next week, it's not inconceivable that he could run the table and win all of these states. Obama could end up winning the national popular vote but still losing the electoral college vote, in the very same way Gore did.
Remember, in both of the last two presidential elections, external events happened in the last week of the election that may well have swung the national numbers by a few points. In 2000, news of Bush's decades old DUI arrest leaked just days before the election and may well have shaved a few points off of his national numbers. In 2004, Osama bin Laden released a video just days before the election, and many people in the Kerry campaign are adamant that the tape cost Kerry a few points nationally. This stuff happens. It would not take a seismic event to trigger a modest tightening of the national polls, and such a shift might well threaten Obama's chances in all of the so-called victory states.
Don't misunderstand, I think Obama has run an excellent campaign and now has a much better than even chance of becoming the next president. But I think McCain has a victory scenario that is much more plausible than pundits are making it out to be. This isn't 1996. McCain does not need a miracle. He just needs a good week.
First, I don't think the early voting numbers are nearly as favorable to Obama as various stories have made them out to be. The most comprehensive data on early voting that I've seen comes from the Obama campaign itself. If you look through the numbers, Democrats appear to be voting at a higher rate than they did in 2004 in North Carolina, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, but not by ridiculous margins. We're talking 5-10 percentage points. Given that Bush won Colorado by 5 and North Carolina by 12, that may not be enough. And in Florida (where Bush won by 5 in 2004) the ratio of Democrat to Republican early voting is unchanged from 2004 levels. Moreover, the increased Democratic numbers could just be the result of increased emphasis on banking votes, i.e., the Obama campaign using its resources to convince its strongest supporters to vote early.
So while there are some potentially encouraging signs on the early voting front, the data is somewhat ambiguous and not uniformly in Obama's favor.
Secondly, while the blue states are looking increasingly safe, the overall electoral map is starting to look a lot like it did in 2000. Obama has a solid lead in most national polls and has leads at or above his national lead in nearly every blue state (except New Hampshire, which has closed a little lately). He also looks likely to bring Iowa and New Mexico (states which Gore won but Kerry lost) back into the Democratic fold.
But that's not enough. In addition to those states, Obama has to win one of the following states: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, or Indiana. These are his victory states, the ones that will put him over the edge. Obama is either leading or competitive in all of these states (which is fantastic), but it's important to remember that these are all traditionally red states and that Obama is polling at less than his national average in all of them.
What that means is that if the national numbers tip just a few points in McCain's favor over the next week, it's not inconceivable that he could run the table and win all of these states. Obama could end up winning the national popular vote but still losing the electoral college vote, in the very same way Gore did.
Remember, in both of the last two presidential elections, external events happened in the last week of the election that may well have swung the national numbers by a few points. In 2000, news of Bush's decades old DUI arrest leaked just days before the election and may well have shaved a few points off of his national numbers. In 2004, Osama bin Laden released a video just days before the election, and many people in the Kerry campaign are adamant that the tape cost Kerry a few points nationally. This stuff happens. It would not take a seismic event to trigger a modest tightening of the national polls, and such a shift might well threaten Obama's chances in all of the so-called victory states.
Don't misunderstand, I think Obama has run an excellent campaign and now has a much better than even chance of becoming the next president. But I think McCain has a victory scenario that is much more plausible than pundits are making it out to be. This isn't 1996. McCain does not need a miracle. He just needs a good week.
posted by A.L. at 7:53 PM
13 Comments:
I wish more of us were taking this cautiously optimistic approach. I'm not pleased with the overconfidence I'm seeing across the web. And I can only assume the web is only an indicator. Turnout is everything. We can't forget to vote...and get others to vote.
Must. Win.
You Democrats do this all the time. Every time some numbers come out or a few extra people register you get all excited and assume you've won. It's not over yet. As my candidate doesn't stand a change, I am wholeheartedly rooting fork you's
Bush's DUI did not
shave his numbers.
That's actually a myth
that Karl Rove started - somewhat counter-intuitively.
Lots of MSM types like David Gregory regurgitate it.
But the factual evidence tells a different story.
I'll explain more later.
AL -- couldn't agree with you more. I'm amazed at how many pundits I respect (Sullivan, Begala, etc.) are now turning their attention to the reasons for the "inevitable" GOP loss/impending Republican blame-game, as if that's the only story left.
The Democrats are like Charlie Brown and that #$# football Lucy always cock-teased him with. They think that they've got it in the bag every time around this time, and then two weeks later they're sitting there wondering what the hell just happened.
No doubt about it, McCain has a shot at Ohio and Florida. It's not over until it's over. Sorry, a "real American" would say: it ain't over 'till it's over.
I don't disagree with you, at all, about the possibility of this thing going hugely wrong in the last week.
But, I put together a very thorough analysis of Nevada's early voting data today, and I think you'll agree that there is reason to be more than a little optimistic there.
Under even a worst case scenario in the allocation of the votes so far, McCain already has huge deficits to make up.
No, it's over.
Either the election is over or the country is.
I understand your caution, but today when I was cleaning out my mother's garage I found a Chicago Tribune dated Wednesday, November 4, 1994 with the headline "Clinton elected president". The article that follows the headline is interesting. Poppy Bush was quite popular with voters until the economy cratered. Sound familiar? And that crater was pretty small compared to what we are facing today. According to the Tribune, Clinton's overwhelming victory was a mandate for change. The voters were fed up after 12 years of Republican governance. It is something worth reading if you can find it in the Tribune archives. The electoral map of states that went for Clinton is really quite amazing.
Although its important to be cautious, McCain really does an incredible up hill climb to do it. And the game changer is really out of his hands. Whereas Obama has to pull out a win in a few toss-up states, McCain has to get a win in almost all of them. And even then it would still be a close shave.
It is over? No. But reality is that McCain should be sweating. It would take a perfect storm of flawed polling across the country and some sort of gaffe-of-a-lifetime by Obama to change McCain's poor chances.
Um, what? Dems aren't cautious? They are to a vastly annoying degree. Some of you would rather discuss all the ways Obama can lose, rather than all the ways he can win. It's rather pathetic to some degree. Be cautious. Get out and vote. Don't take anything for granted, great advice. But some of you wallow in your supposed helplessness, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. No wonder dems lose so much. What would we talk about? Winning?
I think you are right to be cautious. My main concern is voter suppression, which is still a problem in states like Ohio and elsewhere. Still, Obama's numbers are looking better than either Gore's or Kerry's were at this point in time in 2000 or 2004, and if he loses, I hope he won't take it lying down. A McCain/Palin administration would be a disaster.
Racists always fall back on sex scare-stories of the "White men! Defend your women from black rapists" variety.
It was used in Tennessee against Harold Ford a few years ago ... just a subtle implication that Ford lusted after your (white) wife, sweetheart or daughter.
I'm expecting the sex ad any day now.
The current system does not reliably reflect the nationwide popular vote. The statewide winner-take-all rules makes it possible for a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
Nationwide popular election of the President is the only system that makes all states competitive, guarantees that the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide wins the Presidency, and makes every vote equal.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home