Shrinking White male support for Obama? The numbers say yes.

The Collins Report ^ | Oct. 22, 2008 | Kevin “Coach” Collins

[Maverick68]

The “common factor” is the shedding of any appearance of objectivity in the media. The media/pollsters are in the tank for this rotten piece of human garbage like no other candidate in history. The unusual thing happening this year is the attempt at force-feeding us a candidate who opposes life and opposes the things that make America great.

[SMARTY]

“...then again it might be that respondents backing Obama are the only ones willing to answer the pollster’s questions.”

I work at a survey research center. The above statement is truer than anyone wants to admit, or is willing to factor into the final numbers.

[queenkathy]

OMG how I remember that day when Sean Hannity sounded so depressed around mid afternoon. I tuned into him and he was talking about how it looked like (from the exit polls) that Kerry won.

Man I almost got sick. And then look what happened. I don’t believe these polls for one minute. Not after the last election or two.

[Red Badger]

I remember that. That’s why I hardly ever listen to him anymore.................

[andy58-in-nh]

If you were McCain, and you saw REAL danger in losing VA, NC, OH, MO and FL, wouldn't you be spending ALL your time & money there since it's a proven strategy (see 2000 and 2004) for electoral victory??

Yes, and that's a good point since McCain and Palin are clearly expanding beyond those states, and in the process forcing Obama to defend territory (PA, WI, MN, NH) that he ought to have locked up. In fact, if the DNC believed all the polls showing His Most Perfect Excellency up by over 10%, then he would not still be campaigning in those places. And yet - he is. That's why I argue (see my post #39) that something odd may be occurring this year, and if so, it is a globalized phenomenon.

[hobson]

I remember watching Bernard Shaw and Judy Woodruff in 1994 when the Republicans took over. They had NO news crews with the winning Republican candidates and Bernard actually said they were not prepared for a Republican victory. Judy was pasty white and very very sad. The very angry red headed woman, can't remember her name, actually threw her papers off the desk as they were going to a commercial break. It was GREAT!!

[Fishrrman]

“PA is not necessary for McCain. But it is necessary for the Obamessiah. “

Disagree.

PA will be for McCain in 2008, what Ohio was to Bush in 2004 (and what Florida was in 2000).

Literally, “the keystone” this time around...

- John

[impeachedrapist]

PA will be for McCain in 2008,

And you base that on what? McCain doesn't need PA to win. Are you presuming McCain will lose OH and/or FL but win PA? Are you implying that VA, CO, IA and NM are already in Obama's column? (laughable)

[impeachedrapist]

they [polls] all agree this year

Do they? We have a batch saying Obama leads by 8, 10 or even 15 points. That's laughable on its face, and completely unsupported by historical baselines and what we're witnessing in state-by-state campaigning. Then we have a group of polls showing a margin of error race. Which is what we have had for months and months, and what we're witnessing right now.

[andy58-in-nh]

Not a single poll shows McCain leading and that's my point. I think we can safely ignore polls like NYT/CBS whose internal numbers are laughable. But TIPP and Mason-Dixon are highly reputable and they still show McCain behind by 3-5 points.

Just by way of explanation for my interest in the subject: aside from the existential fear of a radical socialist like Obama coming to power, I have a degree in Political Science from Colgate University and wrote my thesis on the efficacy of polling methodologies across diverse populations.

[impeachedrapist]

I think the polls showing a margin of error race (all in Obama's favor) are pretty realistic. And no real cause for concern on my part, since it's an electoral battle.

I'm not a poli sci major, but I've done some light graduate work on surveys and random sampling. (Plus a ton of reading on the topic in my later years.) You undoubtedly realize that every poll (or survey in general) starts with a set of assumptions. Almost every pollster I've read or heard readily admits they expect huge Democratic numbers this year. I think this assumption is skewing their results. Between false ACORN registrations and, to a lesser extent, Operation Chaos, and just overestimating the impact of unreliable young voters (nothing new), I think they're expecting an unprecedented (in recent Presidential elections) Dem advantage of +5 to +8. Some polls even higher than that!

They expected a strong Dem turnout in 2004, and they were right. John Kerry got the second most number of votes EVER for a Presidential candidate.

What they completely missed was the powerful amount of anger built up by conservatives, anger that resulted in an unprecedented turnout. (final turnout percentages acc to exit polls were 37% GOP, 37% Dems) They were angry at the media for completely ignoring Kerry's many flaws and anti-Americanism, while still pretty supportive of the President.

I'm seeing the same thing in play this year. Even more anger, perhaps, given the complete fawning over a lightweight Socialist with significant ties to terrorists and racists (including his wife). While the support for McCain is not as strong IMHO, I think the Palin selection meets or exceeds the Bush enthusiasm levels. (based on anecdotal evidence rather than real data) Only time will tell if I'm right.

I personally thought the polls were fairly accurate back in 2004. This year their differential numbers are unprecedented (judging by recent history), and therefore (to me) quite unrealistic. Not impossible. Obama could win big. I just really don't think so. I expect turnout percentage to be within a point (+1) either way. And if that's the case, McCain's gonna win rather comfortably in my view.

[wardaddy]

how my peckerwood brethren vote will determine this race

especially our womenfolk....

[AU72]

At this stage the key is the undecideds and how that shrinks and changes the results. The conventional wisdom is that a fairly significant percentage of voters lock-in within 72 hours of an election. I see the undecideds breaking 2/3 for McCain.

[wardaddy]

hey andy.

FR is in a shoot the messenger mood...which is historically not a good sign around here.

we are a fickle peoples, if the polls are down they all suck and are run by Move On.org

if they are up then they are good as gold.

you are right that some of them are crap and some are not

the final polls will tell the story but that can be overturned by high GOP turnout

what worries me more is how much more money Obama has to spend on TV in key states right now than we do.

wish some GOP billionaires would step up like Obama’s have....

by the way...Campaign Finance Reform was supported by many here....they won’t admit it now....they were so sure that if Bush signed it for publicity sake that SCOTUS would nuke it.

they were wrong and the GOP never gets shite credit for any reach across the aisle legislation...ever.

[impeachedrapist]

I see the undecideds breaking 2/3 for McCain.

I haven't really tried to assign numbers, but I think your assessment is pretty realistic for two reasons. 1) There are a lot of white voters/Catholics in the undecided column. It's a decent bet that a good chunk of them pulled the lever for Bush. KESG has been playing with the numbers and can perhaps go into detail. 2) The Obamamedia has made this election a referendum on Obama. All Obama, all the time. Plus an unprecedented amount of advertising sparked by HUGE fundraising. So in essence he's become the "incumbent" in this open race. Unless the Dems have a really good surprise (a la the 2000 DUI news) up their sleeves, I don't see him getting a majority of undecideds.

[andy58-in-nh]

The more I look at the methods employed by polling organizations this year (those that publish such data), the more I see they are all making the same flawed assumption about turnout. They are acting as though Republicans will replicate their turnout not in 2004, but in 2006, when they were unenthusiastic, demoralized and beaten down. At the same time, they assume that young 1st-time voters are going to flock to the polls, Obama banners in tow.

I do not see this happening at all. If it were true, Obama would not been defending Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida at this point. Moreover, internal polling in OH and PA belie the big media polls.

Bottom line: we need to keep people encouraged and positive. Ignore the psychological operations (PSYOPS) nonsense being tossed out by Chuck Schumer, et al. and get our people out to vote.

[Arrowhead1952]

And so with Obama, I’m suppose to assume he gained more white males, females, and Mexican males.... LOL!!

I'm in the military and work with a number of males - black, Hispanic and white. I personally know one Hispanic backing the O. I know several hundred white and Hispanic males, and know of probably ten that may vote for the O.

[andy58-in-nh]

You’re right - the “Undecided” vote is huge by historical standards for this late date, and the way that vote breaks will make all the difference. I have a theory that a lot of these “undecideds” really have decided for McCain, but are holding back when polled due to the influence of social pressure.

[Henchster]

"It is all Baghdad Bob stuff."

"Obamessiah media troops are goose-stepping towards a landslide victory. The McCain campaign is committing suicide in their think tanks."

[impeachedrapist]

They are acting as though Republicans will replicate their turnout not in 2004, but in 2006, when they were unenthusiastic, demoralized and beaten down.

Exactly! And it should be pointed out that even during that rather miserable GOP year of 2006, the differential was only a +3 for the Democrats. So that +3 should realistically be the high differential turnout mark for pollsters, but in most polls it doesn't even seem to reach the lowest threshold. Rasmussen (who, to his credit, is very open about his intentional weighting process) is polling over 6 points higher for Dems than Pubbies. What on Earth could his justification be, other than inflated registration numbers and media-generated excitement over the Obamessiah?

I think the differential was +4 for the Dems in 2000. KESG, do you have that Wash Post resource bookmarked, the one showing differential for each national election cycle? I'm curious as to when the last election was where we had a +6 Dem differential. 1996, maybe, with a Dem incumbent?

Here's a very interesting stat that I just stumbled upon:

[2004] Turnout in the red states was 5.7 percentage points higher than 2000, while in the blue states, it was only 1.3 percentage points higher.Source

Talk about showing the difference in voter enthusiasm/anger!