Posted on 10/18/2010 6:14:44 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Around the dexterosphere, the question about the coming election seems to be whether it will be more like 1994 or 1894. Amidst the confident babble, Instapundit has made a trademark out of the whisper, “Don’t get cocky, kid.” It’s not just that cockiness enrages the gods and lacks social grace. This year, in particular, there are solid reasons to doubt that November 2nd will be nearly as happy a day as we hope:
1. It’s not enough to win; you have to win by more than the margin of fraud. That concern ought to be obvious in states like Illinois and Nevada, where a Republican has to run about five percentage points ahead to be sure that he’ll be declared the winner, but it also exists in places like Washington State. There almost all voting is by mail, which means that ballot secrecy is optional and verification of voters’ identity hit-and-miss.
As John Fund has documented in Stealing Elections, electoral crime has never been easier. Which party benefits? Look at which one denies that there’s a problem and relentlessly opposes even such minimal security measures as the presentation of identification at the polls.
2. An unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one. The “enthusiasm gap” matters only if the unenthusiastic Democrats don’t cast ballots. They may not, but shepherding them to the polls (or fraudulently subbing for them) is going to be a high and well-financed Democratic priority. It’s true that the “GOTV machine” didn’t work for Republicans in 2006 or 2008, but that’s because a high Republican voter turnout depends crucially on informal networks. When a large proportion of GOP activists stopped urging their friends and neighbors to vote, the “machine” faltered. The Democratic Party relies far more on paid efforts, which can go forward even if morale is low.
3. Money still talks, and Dem money talks louder and smarter. “Democratic Funding Fades” was an encouraging Wall Street Journal headline – and, alas, a misleading one. In the last paragraph, we learn, “The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics said the Democratic Party and candidates had raised a total of $1.25 billion so far for the election. The comparable GOP figure is $1.1 billion.” The Democrats are moaning that their funding margin isn’t as vast as in the last two elections, but a $150 million advantage ain’t peanuts.
What’s more, the Democrats’ money is likely to be more astutely deployed. Most of it comes from labor unions or rich socialists, or is funneled through umbrella organizations. It can be easily directed to the races where it is most needed. The more chaotic, small-donor-based Republican fund raising is inherently inefficient. Money tends to flow to candidates who catch the rank-and-file’s fancy. To take a couple of examples, Christine O’Donnell, whose chances of winning are near to nil, and Michele Bachman, a Minnesota congressman whose chances of losing aren’t much greater, have raised vast sums that could have been better used to, say, bolster Dino Rossi’s close race in Washington State or turn the Oregon Senate race into a contest. So far as I can tell, there are many underfunded Republican candidates in winnable districts this year, while no Democrat who has a chance is going to lose because of lack of cash.
4. If lying didn’t work, nobody would do it. Dishonest Democratic ads have proliferated as the election draws near. The claim that Republican campaigns are being financed from abroad is only the most prominent. On the Right, we tend to see this trend as a sign of desperation, and our hopes rise correspondingly. Bear in mind, though, that most citizens have better things to do than follow politics closely and that ignorance makes them risk-averse. One reason why incumbents usually win is that the fact of incumbency lends them a patina of safety. At least, nothing disastrous has happened on their watch. If there is even a small chance that a challenger will be dramatically worse, e. g., is financially beholden to shadowy foreign benefactors, caution dictates voting against him.
5. The pollsters are skating on stilts. The key to accurate polling is gauging who will and won’t vote. Mid-term elections are notoriously harder to poll than Presidential years, and mistakes in turnout models are more likely this year than in most, because the electorate in 2008 was so atypical. Poll takers seem to be assuming that turnout among the last election’s first-time Obama voters will fall off sharply. That sounds plausible, but it may be that the decline will be almost entirely among those who are now disillusioned and might be inclined to vote Republican in remorse. Those who approve of the One’s performance, for whatever irrational reasons, could be more strongly motivated than the typical voter, old or new. In any event, if the polls are going to be badly wrong, this is the year for them to fail.
Finally, we must keep in mind that even a tremendous victory on November 2nd will not necessarily translate into better government over the next two years. The President has declared that he is looking ahead to “hand-to-hand combat”, the Vice President to “playing hell” (by which I presume he doesn’t mean the card game).
Barack Obama has said that he would not mind being a one-term President. If he is sincere (and no President with a dram of political sense would make such a statement, with its potential of turning him into a self-crippled lame duck, unless he meant it), that was an unmistakable signal that he won’t compromise or triangulate, that he is in fact willing to paralyze the government rather than surrender progressive principles. The President, so long as he doesn’t care about his political standing and retains the backing of one-third plus one of either House of Congress, holds a nuclear weapon: He can threaten to put the United States out of business. No President has ever yet escalated toward Defcon One, but perhaps the inevitable hour has found its man. I have my doubts about whether the rather unimaginative and timid Republican Congressional leadership can devise a deterrent.
“1. It’s not enough to win; you have to win by more than the margin of fraud.”
Of the reasons listed - the one that scares me the most!
Evil never sleeps. Collectivism is ultimately pragmatic, willing to do whatever it takes to get what it wants. In this case, what they want is not to lose.
The fraud margin is about 2 to 3 %. I doubt they can generate more than that. A 4% spread should beat them every time. They are not prepared in a lot of areas to create the 3% fraud needed. Some races will be close enough for the fraud to work but not that many.
If they get close through fraud, they often continue to win by fraud. Witness: Al Franken US senator.
“A 4% spread should beat them every time.”
On an average basis, you are correct. But there are key contests where the results are likely to be razor thin (Ohio for example).
The idea of having to overcome 4% fraud voting REALLY ticks me off.
#2 is the one that scares me the most. I fear waking up on Wednesday morning to the realization that the Democrats worked harder than I did.
I’m working my butt off to punch out Scott Murphy in NY20 and get Chris Gibson elected. I think about it going to bed at night, I wake up thinking about, and I spend my waking hours working on it. Am I obsessed? HECK YEAH!!
Will it be enough? I fear waking up Wednesday morning regretting that I didn’t do more...
What about y’all? If you live in a “Safe D” or “Safe R” how ‘bout helping us out in the trenches? If you live in Denver can ya help Ryan Frazier? If you live in South Florida can ya help Allen West? If you live in western Massachusetts can ya help us in NY20 - we have the entire western boarder of Massachusetts... Springfield? Williamstown? Pittsfield? Lenox? Egremont? Are there ANY Republicans in Berkshire County at all?
Knock on doors, hand out lit, man the phone banks, do a sign-wave... it’s up to us - We The People - to do it!
Yep. You’re always losing ‘til you win.
Military ballots are already getting screwed with, and with repubs having a slim margin as it is, a few thousand votes could and will make the difference.
This is why both Whitman and Florina are toast in Mexifornia. Both are trailing, or even. That's not enough to overcome the margin of fraud.
I agree with your.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.