Posted on 02/12/2011 1:12:28 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
As Sarah Palin ramps up her Presidential bid, and her nomination seems increasingly likely, look for the media narrative to shift to her unelectability. This is designed not so much to deny her the nomination as it is to dispirit and to demoralize her voters in the coming general election matchup with President Obama. Yet, for a number of reasons, principally the Democrats' dismal performance among white voters in the recent midterms, it is not Palin's supporters who should be demoralized, but Obama's.
Let's start with President Obama's performance among white voters in 2008. In 2008, Obama got the highest percentage of white votes--43%--of any Democrat candidate since Bill Clinton managed to get 44% in 1996. John Kerry (2004)and Al Gore (2000) managed just 41% and 42% respectively. Many pundits discounted Obama's lead in the polls in the runup to the 2008 election, because of the so-called Bradley effect, which holds that white voters, in order not to appear bigoted, will tell pollsters they intend to vote for a minority candidate and then proceed to vote against him. Not only did this so-called Bradley effect fail to materialize in 2008, in many states, such as Pennsylvania, Obama's over performance among white voters was the key to his victory.
Fast forward to the 2010 midterms. In the midterms, the Democrats registered their worst performance among the white vote in recorded history. Not only did the white share of the electorate rise from 75% to 77%, the GOP candidates crushed the Democrats among white voters 60%-37%, twice the margin by which the insipid John McCain had bested Obama in that demographic.
There is a belt of states stretching from the mid-Atlantic across the midwest (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa) in which the electorate, with exception of Illinois is approximately 85% white. Obama carried every one of them in 2008, in most cases overperforming among white voters compared to his national average of 43%. In 2010, the Democrats decisively lost the white vote, both college educated and non-college educated in every one of them, as the graphic linked below demonstrates!
In 2012, if the Democrats' 60-37 pasting in 2010, and the slight uptick in white share of the electorate from 75% to 77%, hold true, Obama is going to have to have to kick it up not one notch but several.
Pennsylvania is an example. A state without which he cannot be re-elected, Obama won Pennsylvania fairly comfortably by about 620,000 votes out of six million cast, a margin of about 10%. The white share of the electorate remained fairly stable between 2004 and 2008, at about 82%, with white voters casting about 4.8 million of 6 million total votes. Obama's 620,000 vote margin was directly traceable to the fact that he split the white vote down the middle with McCain, with each man notching approximately 50%. In so doing, Obama had to overperform his national white vote of 43% by only a net of about 6% in Pennsylvania to secure his 2008 victory there. But what if the national vote in 2012 mirrors that of 2010, with white voters casting ballots against him by 60-37? In that scenario, in order to maintain his 2008 margin, Obama would have to overperform his "national white vote" in Pennsylvania by a net of 12% in order to replicate his 2008 victory margin. If he overperforms among whites in Pennsylvania only as well as he did in 2008--that is, by about 6%--he would lose the white vote there by 55%-43%. His raw white vote would, by my calculations be reduced from approximately 2.4 million to 2.064 million, a loss of about 335,000 votes. Adding these 335,000 votes to the GOP candidate's total creates a net shift of 670,000 votes, enough to produce a 50,000 vote GOP margin, assuming Obama's share of the black and Hispanic votes stay the same. If Obama is in deep trouble in reliably blue Pennsylvania, he is in deeper trouble in less reliably blue states such as Iowa and Wisconsin and in usually reliable red ones like Ohio and Indiana.
Back to my original thesis, however. Why are the polls showing Obama far ahead of Palin? Let us put aside the well worn observations about the unreliability of early polls and the fact that many (such as PPP and NBC) are skewed, both of which are true to a great extent. I would suggest that there are at least two other factors that are depressing Governor Palin's showings in these polls. One of them, which I call the "Reverse Bradley Effect" has to do with President Obama. The other, which I refer to as the "Palin Effect", has to do with Governor Palin, principally the media's full bore assault on her.
First, the Reverse Bradley effect. The media and the pundits were wrong about the Bradley effect in 2008, as Obama garnered a higher share of the white vote than the two previous (white) Democrats. It is true that the white vote in 2008 was depressed because of the lackluster campaign run by McCain. But there was no Bradley effect at all and Obama got the highest percentage of the white vote of any non-incumbent Democrat nominee since Jimmy Carter in 1976. In 2012, however, I believe there will be a "reverse Bradley effect", that is: white voters who--when contacted by pollsters decline to state a preference or state that they prefer Obama when they do not, because of the stigma associated with voting to unseat the first black President. This effect will be intensified by the fear, whether rational or not, among some white voters of reprisals since Obama is now President and, as such, controls the levers of power.
Closely related to this reverse Bradley effect is the "Palin Effect", which holds that it is politically incorrect to state a preference for Sarah Palin for President and that only rubes and hicks will actually support her. Both these dynamics will, I predict continue to depress her performance in the polls, perhaps right up until the election. These dynamics cannot alter the salient facts of this election, all of which favor Palin's election, perhaps overwhelmingly: First, the white vote will be pivotal in this election as it was in the 2010 midterms. Second, with the GOP poised to nominate a candidate in Sarah Palin who will not bend to political correctness, as has every GOP candidate since Reagan, the GOP share of the white vote can again approach the levels it reached in the 1980s when it was 60-65%, numbers which Obama simply cannot overcome even in erstwhile strongholds like Pennsylvania.
Third, and finally, the battleground states in which the white vote will be pivotal (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa, to name only four) are all states located in the upper midwest. McCain lost them all of course but, of the four, George W. Bush only won Ohio twice and Iowa once. I attribute his lack of success in the region to his southern accent. Here Palin has a built in advantage. Palin's upper midwestern accent will play much better there among white voters than Bush's drawl and her accent will not be a liability in the south at all. In states like Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she will sound like a native, and this will enhance her chances in all of them.
The bottom line is to prepare for a flurry of polls which will tell us all that Palin can't win, and these polls will likely persist right up until the election, as they did in 1980. Just remember that the overriding dynamic is not the polls but the demographics of the electorate and turnout and Palin's impending nomination, all of which bode well for us based upon the 2010 results, especially in the battleground states. In these crucial respects, Sarah Palin is in the catbird's seat, while it is Obama's Presidency that is the fluttering canary in the coal mine.
bttt
Nice job.....
Palin included.
Re the racial thing: I think that the white voters who chose to vote for Obama because they were raised with racial equality as a holy truth (as was I and anyone growing up in the 70s) and thought, it’s TIME for a Black President, feel now that they gave him his chance. They will not feel the need to vote for Obama the second time out of the desire for racial equality. If they did not have fun in his 4 years (probably got laid off, taxes went up, etc.), they will NOT vote to re-elect him.
There was a biography done on Reagan by the History channel aired last weekend. Very well done!
As I watched the program, the parallels I noticed between Reagan and Palin were astounding. They were too numerous to list and won’t even try except to say this.
Prior to Reagan winning his first term we heard ALL the same chatter we are hearing now that he wasn’t electable and couldn’t win against the buffoon Carter.
Reagan won in a landslide!
Another 2 years of the current buffoon illegally occupying the WH and history is going to repeat itself and somebody else the MSM is saying can’t win will be left scratching their collective heads after Palin wins in a landslide.
I was talking to a 19-year-old about her, and he admitted that what he hated about her was her voice, her folksy accent, and agreed that it made her sound stupid.
While I think America can handle a President with ANY regional accent, maybe a little vocal coaching can modulate her accent and those high notes she gets into. Remember that Rush Limbaugh modulated his accent away -- listen to his brother speak for how he probably started -- and it hasn't hurt him any. She doesn't have to talk like a Los Angeles voice over artist, but she could modulate a tad.
“Thank you Brices Crossroads for your wonderful piece.”
Back atcha, Techno. And if I might be so presumptuous as to quote from your own incisive analysis of the crosstabs of the recent NBC-WSJ poll that had Obama beating Palin 55-33, you observed that 57% of the white voters in that poll stated they definitely planned to vote against Obama and only 27% definitely planned to vote for him. You wrote:
“But why you know the NBC/WSJ poll and other MSM polls that show Palin way down to Obama are bogus can be found in the category of WHITE voters. I confess I missed this the first time around but these numbers are the key to understand why Obama is very, very vulnerable in 2012. Only 27% of WHITE voters at this time would DEFINITELY PLAN TO VOTE to re-elect Obama while a whopping 57% of WHITE voters DEFINITELY PLAN NOT TO VOTE FOR THE MESSIAH IN 2012.
Now you my ask why this is the most critical numbers? Well folks, in the most simplistic terms 77% of the electorate in 2010 were WHITE voters. In 2012 I would venture to say it will stay in the 75%-77% range because of the intensity of animosity towards Obama. You take 75% and multiply that by 27 what do you get? 20.3%. And now let’s break down the what Obama could get in 2012 among non-white voters: 95% from African-Americans who represent 13% of the overall electorate; 67% of the Hispanic vote which represents 9% of the electorate, and 60% of the Asian vote which represents 2% of the electorate. Now let’s add that up:
WHITE VOTERS: 27% X 75= 20.3
A/A: 95% x 13= 12.4
Hispanic 67% x 9= 6.0
Asian 60% x 2= 1.2
Other 60% x 1= 0.6
Total 40.5%
Note that I have maximized Obama’s percentages with non-white voters. In actual fact in 2010 the Dems only got 89% of the Black vote and 60% of the Hispanic vote. But you then ask what if Obama gets the same 37% of the WHITE VOTE IN 2012 as the Dems got in 2010 and not 27% as is now reported by Marist how would that change the numbers. Well let’s take a look:
White voters: 37%x 75% 27.8
That would increase Obama’s percentage of the vote by 7.5% to a total of 48% overall. But what if Obama was only able to get percentages with non-white voters comparable to 2010 assuming he gets 37% of the white vote.
White voters: 37% x 75 27.8
A/A 89 x 13 11.6
Hispanic 60 x 9 5.4
Asian 60 x 2 1.2
Other 60 x 1 0.6
Total 46.6%
But what if white voters represent 77% of the 2012 vote as they did in 2010 and with accompanying declines in the non-white percentage of the vote given 2010 totals in each group:
White voters 37 x 77 28.5
A/A 89 x 12 10.7
Hispanic 60 x 8 4.8
Asian 60 x 2 1.2
Other 60 x 1 0.6
Total 45.8%”
You very concisely demonstrate the deep hole Obama is in with white voters and the fact that they are concentrated in battleground states like Ohio and PA that he absolutely must have. And his numbers with whites have really failed to rise out of the thirties. In my view, based upon a strictly demographic analysis, Obama must be considered an underdog for reelection UNLESS the GOP nominates a candidate who is soft on illegal immigration, affirmative actions and political correctness, which positions would drive down white turnout. Such a mistake would be compounded if the GOP nominated a candidate like Mitch Daniels who wants to deemphasize the social and cultural issues and cut adrift that huge chunk of votes (which are principally white evangelicals).
Sarah Palin is EXACTLY the right candidate to maximize white turnout, which is where the 2012 election will be won or lost. She alone among the GOP candidates is unafraid and completely uncowed by the PC police.
You will get endless battleship salvos against her from the SCUM on TV and ALL TV including Fox is s***.
The one thing about the midwest that came out in 2010 was a few states I think like Wisconsin where it was a GOP blowout. VA was another. There election was 2009?? I forget.
FL to some extent as well.
Pissant must hate you and your conservatives principles,
Keep up the Good Work!
Pretty soon it will be Palin vs Obama.
Obama can't win any GOP candidate!
Whoever wins the GOP Nomination wins the Presidency
“I was talking to a 19-year-old about her, and he admitted that what he hated about her was her voice, her folksy accent, and agreed that it made her sound stupid.
While I think America can handle a President with ANY regional accent, maybe a little vocal coaching can modulate her accent and those high notes she gets into. Remember that Rush Limbaugh modulated his accent away — listen to his brother speak for how he probably started — and it hasn’t hurt him any. She doesn’t have to talk like a Los Angeles voice over artist, but she could modulate a tad.”
*****************************************
I have heard the same thing occasionally as well. I am not sure how widespead it is. I wuold be willing to bet that any hostility to her accent is to be found principally on the Northeastern and West Coasts (where it won’t matter, becasue those states are voting for Obama anyway) and in the South (where it won’t matter because those states are not voting for Obama, accent or not). In the Midwest, I think her accent can be a net plus for her as opposed to George Bush’s drawl.
I think what is more significant is that we live in the television age. Everything is visual. Obama’s one advantage, if he has one, is that he has a good voice, a deep baritone (as he reads the teleprompter). When he gets away from the teleprompter, he tends to stutter and to mispronounce, but his voice is perhaps his only asset.
In 1960, those who listened to the Kennedy Nixon debates on the radio overwhelmingly thought Nixon, with his rich baritone voice won the debates over the much more highly pitched and heavily Massachusetts-accented Kennedy. Those who watched on television saw a cool customer in Kennedy whose looks of bemusement at Nixon and youthful good looks made whatever Nixon was saying seem silly. The more people heard of Kennedy’s accent the more it grew on them (although I believe I read he tried to deepen his voice as well). I think with familiarity with Palin’s accent, people will grow accustomed to it and even like it. Her serious tone at the Reagen Ranch shows she is able to modulate when the occasion call for it.
Palin has the same advantage over Obama. She is much quicker on her feet (Remember her lipstick on a pit bull improvisation when her teleprompter failed at the RNC convention) and she is a very adept performer before the camera. I would have to say the edge as a communicator goes to Palin based upon her adroitness in give and take and her edge in telegenics.
I could live with a Daniels-Palin ticket.
Sarah Palin is the one person that everyone knows would get energy prices lower by letting companies drill oil and gas, and building coal, nuclear, gas refineries plants!
I saw that. Very impressive.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2672490/posts?page=71#71
It would be easier to beat Hillary.
I think Obama loses Ohio and Florida. It will take a lot of fraud for him to hold PA but he is capable of that.
On the flip side - Obama will have at least a billion to spend on advertising and media. He OWNS all of TV including Prince Al Waleed’s Fox.
The people who vicerally hate Palin are anti-Christian. She will also have the Ivy League elites against her.
We have not had a non-Ivy League POTUS since Reagan.
Palin will be at the top of the ticket.
Daniels is a huge RINO, has rejected all social conservatives and is about as exciting as watching paint dry.
I agree 100%. This is the only ace in the whole to reboot America and recapitalize this country. Energy exploration and production creates huge wealth, jobs and tax revenues.
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.