Posted on 10/26/2008 7:58:38 PM PDT by lonestar67
Six Reasons Why McCain will win the Election 2008
Near universal agreement exists among pundits that Senator Barack Obama will defeat Senator John McCain for the presidential race of 2008. A variety of polls suggest that Obama will win by roughly six points. Trading polls online give John McCain less than a 15% of winning. Electoral projection hold Obama at near 250 solid votes. So why should anyone believe that John McCain is going to win the election. There are several reasons:
1. Operation Chaos and polling assumptions: Almost all polls providing a lead for Obama work upon a shared assumption. Democrats should be polled at a 5-10% higher level than Republicans. The adaptation for this election has lead Gallup to adopt new models for presenting its data. Pollsters ignore that at no time in recent history have Democrats held such a high party identification. The recent landslide for Democrats in 2006 had a differential of just three points. Pollsters base their assumptions upon voter behavior from spring 2008 showing higher democratic party registrations. Presumably, Barack Obama has done an extraordinary job of bringing in new voters to the democratic party. For this reason, there are now 5-10% more Democrats in the United States than Republicans. That is indeed possible. A more probable explanation is that between 3 and 10 percent of Republicans crossed over in major primaries such as Texas and Ohio and voted in the Democratic primary. The consequence of this is that Republicans have inflated the rolls of Democrats in many states. No media reports have attempted to account for this inflation and how pollsters should adapt their assumptions. Based on this factor alone, it is more reasonable to place the democratic differential between 0 and 3 percent. With such an assumption, it is easy to find polls where John McCain is in the lead.
In 18 of the 20 exit polls for the Democratic primary, Obama's lead was inflated on average 7 percent. Does that number sound familiar? Clinton was also polled to lose Indiana which she also won in late spring. An interesting summary of the polling errors is provided in an internet narrative offered by an Obama supporter, sure that Diebold is behind this phenomena:
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/Primaries_2008_Managed_Manipulation
This narrative offers the following eerie insight to 2008 polling near the end of the essay:
"By way of corroboration of this phenomenon, in public dialogue with a major-party polling consultant the following shocking admission was made: if the Democratic candidate is not leading by 10% going into the election in their internal polling, they expect the race to be a toss-up. This internal candidate polling is—unlike polls published for public consumption—intended to paint a ruthlessly accurate picture of contest dynamics to help the party prioritize expensive get-out-the-vote drives and last-minute media blitzes. The fact that even major-party pollsters must adjust their own results to account for the “mystery swing” to the right is a strong indication that much the same distorting protocol is already being employed in public pre-election polling."
Considering how this essay was created on May 21, 2008 it is remarkable that this understanding correlates to the current polling position of Obama.
2. PUMA problems: Senator Obama won an incredibly divisive primary process. Senator Clinton won many major and key states such as Ohio, Pennsylvannia, and New Hampshire. The media and pollsters continue to suggest that a 100% harmonious conclusion has been reached between the two warring sides. Despite this media cover, Hillary Clinton supporters are going to at some percentage sit out the election because their candidate did not win. In point of fact, Hillary Clinton supporters are going to vote for John McCain. Surveys have suggested that as many as 20-30% of Democrats may vote for McCain based on the rejection of Hillary. If even fractions of these claims are true, Obama would be hard pressed to win the election-- especially in key states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
It is useful to review the states won by each democratic rival:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html
The NYT election website suggests that the following states had heavy turnout for Hillary Clinton and a higher risk for turning the tables on Obama this fall:
West Virginia 67-26 Clinton Rhode Island 58-40 Clinton Ohio 54-44 Clinton Pennsylvannia 55-45 Clinton
Florida 50-33 Clinton Nevada 51-45 Clinton New Hampshire 39-36 Clinton
It is important to remember that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan. Three of these states are important battleground states in the current election.
Obama's weakest wins were in states such as:
Missouri 49-48 Obama Conneticut 51-47 Obama Wisconsin 58-41 Obama North Carolina 56-42
In total, there are 11 states where no less than 1/3 of the Democratic primary voters voted against Barack Obama. The refusal to consider how many of these voters in these 11 states-- most of them mission critical to the electoral college-- is a serious deficiency in current projections. Pennsylvania remains one of the most alluring possibilities because 55% of voters their rejected Barack Obama on April 22. That was quite a recent and substantial defeat and this state more than any other holds to key to unlocking the McCain upset this fall. A win in Pennsylvania would unburden the McCain camp from any number of western states he may seem vulnerable in such as Colorado.
For serious political hacks. The following website allows you to view county by county who won these primaries.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&off=0&elect=1&f=0
3. Undecideds: The election has accumulated a record number of undecideds [8-12%]. That may be the most unusual feature of this election. Such statistics usually point to pundit comments such as "failed to make the sale." What might happen with these voters? Will they simply sit the election out?-- vote for Obama? vote for McCain? The media and pundits will likely spin how undecideds break against the incumbent-- a theory proven effective with the election of President John Kerry in 2004. It is however more likely that the over bearing full court press inviting the public to give up their various infatuations with racism and peaceably vote for Obama, has now created a stubborn silent backlash. The public frustration of media propaganda for Obama combined with incindierary accusations about why people might not vote for Obama could play out in an ugly way against Obama in the privacy of the polling booth. Pundit abuse is likely stirring up a recipe for silent backlash in this undecided electorate.
4. Palin power: The strongest basis for an Obama election was the lethargic relationship between conservatives and John McCain. The selection of Sarah Palin has mobilized the conservative and Republican base to record levels of excitement. The large rallies across the nation surpassing the Bush rallies of 2004 put in play additional voters that give the McCain campaign important closing momentum. Obama has drawn mega crowds at urban centers but has not seen the massive daily turnouts generated by Governor Palin. Moreover, the misogynist treatment of Palin by the media elite has provided additional elements to the coming silent backlash-- especially among women.
5. New Hampshire: New Hampshire provides the useful metaphor for the current sense of the election. In a race anticipated as a good indication of Obama's strength over Clinton, pollsters gave Obama a seven or more point advantage over Hillary Clinton in that state. The next day, Hillary would go on to win by almost the same margin-- a near 12 point error in polling predictions. New Hampshire is the kind of political bellweather that resists the Obama magic that was regularly over hyped through many primaries. Obama continues to be overhyped and that will also factor into his defeat on election day.
6. Pennsylvania: Candidate focus on Pennsylvania-- a state twice won by Democrats in the past two presidential elections-- suggests that the election is much weaker for Obama than being publicly stated. Should this reliable state fall to Republicans, it would be almost impossible to recover from electorally for Obama. Pennsylvannia has proven a microcosm of the 'you're a racist' gambit being used to intimidate voters. In the western parts of the state recently scandalized by democratic attacks on the population, close to 70% of voters in April voted for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Its hard to imagine that this community of democrats is eager to vote for Barack Obama. Polls already indicate that incumbent Murtha is in trouble. Almost nowhere in Pennsylvania, did Obama turn in over 60% of the vote. The backlash has jeopardized John Murtha's re-election and signals how this Hillary state could break for McCain and send the election night quickly into a depressing panic for Keith Olbermann and brother Matthews.
All of these reasons should give assurance to Republicans that their candidate has a strong chance for winning on election night 2008. Pundits have made a habit of predicting Democratic wins in every election cycle. There is little doubt that this gambit has been part of a larger effort to suppress voting by conservatives and McCain supporters. Republicans live in this land of lost regularly in most election cycles. It is unlikely they will be deterred by this in November.
Look I am so tired of us all in denial. Unless McCain unloads this week we will lose. The polls aren’t all off..Not some grand conspiracy..It may indeed be closer and things can change as about 10 percent of people minimum can be persuaded..but if McPain doesn’t want to fire any weapons “metaphor” we will lose. It is that simple.
Excellent article...like water to a man in the desert...With all the megativism in the MSM about McCain/Palin, it makes you wonder just how seriously wrong the MSM are...
The MSM should be there to report the news, not so shape it, and definitely not to twist the facts to make it seem inevitable that a particular Party will win..
This is grossly unfair and Americans should take it out of the media’s hide for it’s deviousness...
On one point we agree:
People are in denial.
With Republicans not participating with exit pollsters, the MSM will want to call this thing very early. We may be able to watch Zero’s presidency evaporate as the votes honestly tally.
Now we can make money from the inaccuracies in the polls.
Intrade has Contracts for Beating the Spread on Polling Numbers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2115426/posts
I’m going with the AOL straw poll. You have to register to vote and only one vote per week and they register your vote by state... 203,000 votes last week 52/42 McCain won... and states that were blue on prior weeks have been turning red by the week. The latest poll started Friday, McCain is winning.
Look I want McCain to win badly..but we all should be pressing McCain to push something that will work such as run good ads of Barack Obama in his own words. His sales pitch has sucked so far and that is only reason he is behind. If he could complete sentences and make good Republican arguements combined with all of Obamas weakness he would win..he has 1 week to run add with Obama no hand over heart in national anthem or Obama saying cut defense etc...
(3rd Early Voting Indicator) National Polls May Be Way Off - What the pollsters are doing!!!
particularly post #3 and #10.
Good analysis, well done.
So true — just about everyone has discussed tax issues entirely on Obamessiah’s turf — such as assuming his “tax cuts for 95%” is remotely accurate.
In reality, as you note, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to “expire” Obama will effectively impose a tax hike on far more than 5% of the population.
I would also argue that Obama’s current “tax plan” cannot possibly be regarded as credible — it is merely the Axelrod plan formulated for viability at the polls. Once in office, Obama’s wish list of nearly $1 trillion in new programs, plus all the other things that every socialist wants to do, will require far higher taxes for virtually all taxpayers.
There was an election in the UK in 1992, when the Conservatives beat the Labour Party. Labour was widely expected to win, but they lost - in spite of an unpopular Conservative government. One reason the pollsters got it wrong was the ‘Shy Tory Factor’. Basically, it was uncool to admit that you were going to vote Tory - particularly amongst young people.
There were two reasons why Labour lost. Most importantly, people didn’t trust their tax policies. Secondly, Labour had a swagger, they believed they were going to win.
I believe there are strong parallels between your election in 2008 and the 1992 UK election. I would guess that in America, in certain areas, it’s very uncool to say you’re going to vote for McCain - particularly if you’re young. Yet in the privacy of the polling booth your peer group disappears, and you don’t even have to worry about how a pollster might judge you.
Also, I really concur with the article’s PUMA point. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PUMAS!? Did they meekly fall in line behind their vanquished leader, and will they now do tribute to the all-conquering Obama? Surely not? There was major resentment here, it’s not going to go away, is it?
And most PUMAs, if they’re dyed-in-the-wall democrats, are surely not going to admit that they’re going to vote for McCain? They might even not admit they’re going to abstain.
There’s also the question of hubris and nemesis, of the kind Sarah Palin talked about in Tampa. The Democrats are behaving like a losing party. You don’t take your victory for granted if you’re really going to win, do you? On a psychological level, those who crow about their future victory are often aware, unconsciously, that they’re going to lose.
Anyway, if there’s any election that’s going to be a major upset, it’s going to be this one.
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.