Thursday, July 31, 2008 Return to top
One thing I have always tried to do at A Newt One is maintain my objectivity when analyzing polling data. Even the (very few) times that I have missed, it was based on solid assumptions.
It is getting very difficult to do that this year because the polls are so schizophrenic.
Many have observed that this is the first time in decades that the incumbent President or Vice-President isn't running and that is the reason. Well, it is part of the reason- but only part.
When Adlai Stevenson ran to succeed his party's very unpopular President-Harry Truman, He ran against decorated hero Dwight Eisenhower. It wasn't really hard to figure out which way that one was going to go.
This year is something different. In strictly generic terms, it is considered almost a can't miss year for the Democrats. Conventional wisdom was that the Democrats could nominate a complete moronic imbecile and still win the White House. The Democrats have apparently set out to test that hypothesis. In a year when they desperately want to win the White House, they have decided to nominate the one person least likely to accomplish that goal.
On the other hand, the GOP-from strictly the standpoint of winning- are about to nominate the guy that gives them the best chance. It is, as Dick Morris put it, a guy who can't win on the team that can't lose vs the guy who can't lose on the team that can't win.
As a result, the polls are all over the map. The Gallup poll, for instance, has gone everywhere from an Obama 9 point lead to a 4 point lead for McCain just in July. As I have tried to tell you what the polls are saying, I fear that I have begun to sound like I have MPD. It's not me, it's the polls. One minute they show McCain leading in all 4 big battlegrounds-Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida. The next minute he has lost all those leads and is also losing in Montana, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico and fighting for his life in The Dakotas.
The polls are sending not just mixed signals but contradictory ones. All because of the paradoxical, once in a lifetime election scenario. The Jockey who can't win riding the horse that can't lose vs The Jockey who can't lose riding the horse who can't win.
What makes this so maddening is that the assumption that that means a nail biter is just plain wrong. On the one hand, if this election is really about the two guys running, then the Democrats are in trouble. The star-power persona the media is trying to gin up just plain is not selling on Main street. Obama is in deep trouble among all sorts of Demographics- Whites, Over 40, Married people, Church goers..... If the election is McCain vs Obama, Obama loses and loses big.
If however, the election is between McCain's message of experience vs Obama's message of change, the Republicans are in trouble. Which is it going to be? I don't think anyone has the foggiest idea.....and the polls are showing it. Sometimes, the same polls!
Case in point is Rasmussen.
Right now, Rasmussen shows only 7 states as safe for John McCain-
Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Rasmussen State polling has recently shown all of the following 2004 Bush Red States as states that McCain is statistically tied or behind in, in the RR poll, include Montana, both Dakotas, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and Florida. If McCain is truly struggling in all those states, you can just flat-out stick a fork in him because he is done. That is really all there is to it.
Yet, when you look at those polls, it is fair to make some objective assumptions and use those assumptions to make predictions. Most of those states are Base Red States. Logic would dictate that if the Republican is doing poorly in the Red States, he must be doing really poorly in the Purple (Battleground ) States and must, logically, be getting just massacred in the Blue states.
As a result of doing so badly, in so many places, his national numbers would just be horrendous.
In short, if McCain is struggling in Montana and the Dakotas, his campaign has entered a state of serious meltdown that should be reflected in his national numbers. Not only the numbers, themselves, but in the internal numbers, among all sorts of demographic groups.
Obama, on the other hand, would be expected to show almost universal strength across all demographics and have-to say the least- a double digit national lead with a horse race number in the range of 55% minimum.
The problem is, folks, that the numbers-right now- just flat out do not show that.
Not only do the horse race numbers show a very competitive 48%-46% match up, McCain's favorable numbers have exceeded 55% almost all year.
Where things get really bizarre is that it appears to be Obama- not McCain who is having all the
Demographic problems. We have recounted many of them here.
Obama's favorablity among Whites is about 40% and he lags by 8 points among men. McCain is doing considerably better among Republicans (86%) than Obama is doing among Democrats (78%). Further, McCain is doing better among Democrats than Obama is doing among Republicans. Among committed unaffiliated voters, the two candidates are even.
Among the 14% of uncommitted voters, 33% are Democrats while only 19% are Republicans. Among those uncommitteds, 26% are leaning towards McCain while only 19% prefer Obama, even though, in Congressional races, that same group prefers Democrats 37-22.
That last point deserves to be re-emphasized. Among the 14% of the populous, that considers themselves uncommitted, is a preference for congressional democrats by 15 points but-at the same time- a preference for John McCain by 7 points.
I had to read it 3 times myself.
So, let's review. McCain is getting almost 90% support from Republicans while Obama is getting less than 80% support from Democrats. Among Committed Unaffiliateds, they are even and among all uncommitted voters, there is a small but discernible trend towards McCain.......
....and by the way, McCain is in trouble in Montana, North and South Dakota, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, North Carolina and Virginia.
Huh?
That doesn't even make sense.
Ahh, but that was just with what I had read through Yesterday. Now, check this out- from Dick Morris;
If soccer moms determined the outcome of the 1996 presidential race and security moms tipped the balance in 2004, it is beginning to look as if older moms are the key to the 2008 contest. Obama has a problem among women over 40 and a big problem among women over 50. These groups, normally the staunchest of Democratic supporters, are showing a propensity to back McCain.
According to the latest Fox News survey, Obama is winning among women under 40 by 13 points, but McCain is winning among women aged 41-45 by four points. Among women 50 and over, McCain is three points ahead. Obama's 48-35 lead among women under 40 is normal for a Democrat, but to trail among women in their 40s by 45-41 and by women over 50 by 38-35 is extraordinary.
The problem is that older women don't like Obama as much as younger women do. While 70 percent of women under 40 have a favorable opinion of the Democratic candidate, only 58 percent of women in their 40s feel the same way, and only 52 percent of those over 50 view him favorably.
For a Democrat to be losing among women over 40 is without precedent in the past 20 years.
and this from Today's Rasmussen;
Thirty percent (30%) of conservative Democrats say they're voting for John McCain. Rasmussen Reports data also shows the Republican hopeful picking up support from 19% of White Democrats and 15% of Democrats over the age of 50......................
While Obama is losing some Democratic voters, he begins with a significant advantage over McCain by virtue of the fact that there are far more Democrats in the country than Republicans.
So, the conclusion is being made that although Obama's percentage of support among core constituencies is significantly weaker- across the board, it matters not because the total numbers of voters offset that.
A very dangerous assumption indeed. For if Obama has (in the words of Morris) unprecedented weakness among certain core groups, isn't it a bit disingenous to just assume that those groups will show up in record numbers and vote overwhelmingly for Obama?
If, as expected, Democrats do indeed produce countless multitudes of exactly the right kinds of voters- young, black, women,singles, atheists, traitors, gays, anarchists.... Obama can win this comfortably. If however, they do not dwarf the number of Conservative, military, white, family voters, religious, married, seniors, catholics, evangelicals....
I don't mean beat them, I mean dwarf them, Obama is in deep trouble.
I said in June that if McCain truly is losing in Montana and Virginia He is toast. I stand by that statement. but is he? I'm having serious doubts. Again, Scott Rasmussen says that although Obama is losing support among Democrats, there are far more Democrats in number.
We have heard that before.
In 2004, we were told that millions of new Democrat registrations would mean they would smother Republicans in turnout. Um, didn't happen. They are predicting it again this year. Will this be the year of the young voter? Apparently, Rasmussen thinks so. Remember that increased voter registration rolls mean nothing if those voters don't show up. We don't know if they will or won't. All that we do know is that McCain needs a running mate that maximizes the ticket's appeal.
Let's remember that it was in the late Democratic primaries where Obama got drilled in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Will the same older, married, White voters who soundly rejected him then, embrace him now?
McCain needs a running mate that can give Conservative Democrats, disgruntled Hillary supporters, supporters of drilling, reformers, young people, white women, troop supporters, religious, family values voters and unaffiliated voters longing for change to get excited about.
Scott Rasmussen was right. There is only one person McCain can choose if he wants to win this race. Sarah Palin. With the added energy and Demographic pluses, Sarah Palin could turn this race upside down. All of the data shows that.
~Sonlit
|
Stumble It!