McCain in very good shape

[franksolich]

I was asked by someone here to bring this over.

It's a "vanity" post (i.e., written wholly by the original poster) on freerepublic.

I happen to agree with the points made.

-----

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2091883/posts

-----

McCain in very good shape electorally(History vs. Polls)
09/27/2008 | Vanity

Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 1:11:34 PM by Brices Crossroads

I wrote the following post in response to some handwringing by people who think that the polls, particularly the sate polls, are portending an Obama presidency. I think it is good to have a little historical perspective. Unfortunately, we Americans have short attention spans, and this extends to our knowledge of recent electoral history, which is a far better predictor of electoral behavior than even election day polls (Didn't 2004 teach us anything?!) As the Gipper would say, let me take all the nervous nellies on a little walk down memory lane:

In response to those who feel the election is lost because some of the recent polls show, especially the state polls in Virginia, Colorado Pennsylvania and several other states show Obama currently ahead, Are you suggesting the state polls 40 days before an election are better, especially when the sometimes have a turnout spread that favors the Dems by 10-14%. Let me tell you something about polls. More reliable than polls are the historic voting patterns of these states. The dems have nominated their most left wing candidate at least since McGovern. He is also the most inexperienced major candidate for President at least in modern history. He is the only candidate ever nominated who is potentially subject to the “Bradley effect”, which makes every poll on this election, national or state, next to useless.

I refer you to historical trends:

Virginia has not voted Democratic in 42 years since the LBJ landlside. In 1992 and 1996, against 2 of the weakest candidates in GOP history, a and aided by a strong third party challenge that siphoned off GOP votes, the strongest Democratic candidate in a generation (and the only Democrat since FDR to win a second term) could not muster a majority. The military retirees in the southeast and the rural voters in the rest of Virginia are not going to turn to Obama when they would not turn to Clinton. The polls that show Virginia a tossup are fishwrap. Ditto North Carolina. Ditto Florida.

Colorado has voted Dem only once since 1964 and that was in 1992 when Clinton, again aided by a strong third party challenge from Perot won. It reverted to the GOP in 1996 (in spite of Perot and Dole’s weakness) and has remained in GOP hands since then. Since then, George Bush took it very comfortably by 150,000 and 100,000 votes respectively. How plausible do you find it that Clinton could not even win it during an easy electoral victory in 1996 against Dole and yet Obama is going to win it against 2 westerners like McCain and Palin. Especially with the NRA in overdrive in a big 2nd Amendment state. Note that the polls in Colorado always showed Sen. Wayne Allard losing and he won comfortably by 5% both times against a relatively centrist Democrat and strong candidate Tom Strickland both in 1996 and 2002.

Pennsylvania....among the oldest states in the union with a very high percentage of vets. the margin has shrunk from 400K votes in 1996 to 200K votes in 2000 to 140K votes in 2004, in spite of the fact that in 2000 and 2004, you had a qualified veteran at the top of the Dem ticket and a non veteran southerner at the top of the GOP ticket. Obama was clobbered in the Dem primary and lost particularly badly among older white and union voters, the same ones that are purportedly undecided this time. For the past 2 election cycles these voters have been increasingly turning away from qualified Dem candidates, who are veterans, toward Bush, a non vet and a Southerner. There is no reason not to expect a flood of these voters to McCain. Vote fraud in Philly can get you only so far, especially with Palin drawing huge crowds and interest not to mention votes. The same applies a fortiori to Ohio. And to Michigan.

The GOP prospects are not nearly as grim as you suggest. In fact they are actually brighter than they were in 2000 and 2004. The polls don’t reflect that, but remind me. How were those polls on election day in 2004?

In other words, they have their polls, unreliable as we all know they are. We have historical trends (far more reliable) and analysis. Be of good cheer. Work hard. Get your friends and neighbors to the polls and this is going to come out just fine.

One postscript: Only three Democratic Presidents since 1860 (that is: When Abe Lincoln ran the first time) have gotten an absolute majority of the popular vote: FDR, LBJ and Carter, the latter 2 being southerners and therefore at least being perceived as more conservative(and therefore safer). This is a one on one election (Nader and Barr are nonfactors) With all his baggage, can you really look yourself in the eye and say, contrary to all historical evidence, Obama will be the fourth.. .? In 150 years? After limping through the Dem primaries? In the first real contested race he has ever run? Well, if you think so, I have a bridge for you. And it is not to nowhere. It is to the funny farm.

[Rick]

Why, thank you Frank. That is of good cheer.

[franksolich]

Why, thank you Frank. That is of good cheer.

There's a reason I've always called him "Barry 'Six States' Obama," among other things.

[BlueStateSaint]

And they never saw it coming . . .

US elections: Barack Obama's team believes he can win by a landslide

Barack Obama's senior aides believe he is on course for a landslide election victory over John McCain and will comfortably exceed most current predictions in the race for the White House.

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 8:18PM BST 27 Sep 2008

Their optimism, which is said to be shared by the Democratic candidate himself, is based on information from private polling and on faith in the powerful political organisation he has built in the key swing states.

Insiders say that Mr Obama's apparent calm through an unusually turbulent election season is because he believes that his strength among first time voters in several key states has been underestimated, both by the media and by the Republican Party.

Mr Obama has come under fire from within Democratic ranks over his message and his tactics. Critics say he has failed to connect with the blue-collar workers seen as crucial to winning the election, and too reluctant to make direct attacks on Mr McCain.

But his aides are convinced that he has a strong chance of winning no fewer than nine states won by George W.Bush in the closely contested 2000 election, including former Republican strongholds like North Carolina, Virginia and even Indiana, which have not voted Democrat for a generation.

The rest is here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3089433/Barack-Obamas-top-team-believes-he-can-win-White-House-by-a-landslide.html

I hope you're right, Coach.

[Kasha]

US elections: Barack Obama's team believes he can win by a landslide

I assume this article was only put out in response to this Zogby prediction:

"Essentially the election is at equilibrium," said John Zogby, president of Zogby International. "This election will stay close until the end."

Zogby said he thinks the race will turn in the last weekend before Election Day and though the popular vote will be tight, the successful candidate will win in a landslide.
He likened this year's election to the contest in 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated President Jimmy Carter.

"This may be and probably is the most important election in our lifetime," Zogby said. "I don't say that lightly."

Despite two books by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, Americans still don't know enough about him. And if they don't think they know him well enough by the time they vote, they'll go with the "comfortable old shoe," Republican Sen. John McCain, Zogby said.

[BlueStateSaint]

US elections: Barack Obama's team believes he can win by a landslide

I assume this article was only put out in response to this Zogby prediction:

"Essentially the election is at equilibrium," said John Zogby, president of Zogby International. "This election will stay close until the end."

Zogby said he thinks the race will turn in the last weekend before Election Day and though the popular vote will be tight, the successful candidate will win in a landslide.
He likened this year's election to the contest in 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated President Jimmy Carter.

"This may be and probably is the most important election in our lifetime," Zogby said. "I don't say that lightly."

Despite two books by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, Americans still don't know enough about him. And if they don't think they know him well enough by the time they vote, they'll go with the "comfortable old shoe," Republican Sen. John McCain, Zogby said.

That's my guess, too.  I think that Zogby might be a heluva lot closer to the truth, though (at least I hope he is!).

[Wretched Excess]

as the resident pessimist, I would only point out that at the moment, momentum seems to be moving in The BarackStar!'s favor.  history is a wonderful thing, and all, but everything that has ever happened, including VA going democrat in a presidential election (just for example), happened for the first time at some point.

[SaintLouieWoman]

Why, thank you Frank. That is of good cheer.

There's a reason I've always called him "Barry 'Six States' Obama," among other things.

Thanks, Frank, needed to see that. I've got the link from the McCain website that allows one to make calls from home for them. I'm going to start doing it as soon as my darned cold eases a bit. Right now I sound terrible and can hardly breathe.

[Tnafbrat]

I admit to being a bit fearful.  Not nearly as much as I was before Palin, but some.  Historically, yes I feel very comfortable but a couple of things linger over my head causing a bit of fret.  When depending on the "Black" or "Women's" vote, though these two groups could make a tremendous impact, in reality, they haven't for a simple reason .... turn out.  If history were to hang true it would be a good thing.

While there will be some women who will not vote McCain, some because they are very entrenched in following the "Women's Lib" movement faction that will toss Palin under the bus (like they did Hillary) in favor of the "minority black man", I still think the the majority of average, middle of the road women and those of the "upper" class will go for McCain.  Some in part simply because of the implied stability, his history and "patriotism" and many because of Palin.  The question here, will those women actually take the break in the day and go to the booths and vote.  Those virulent "cause" fighting liberal women will, as will strongly far right conservative women, but it's the middle ground women who will hold the "women's vote" in their hands.

Similarly, the "black" vote has a question of voter turnout.  Black republicans are historically strong in turnout with black democrats more sporatic, sometimes depending on the candidate, such as Kennedy.  Here lies another large question ... what would reverse a historically weak voter turnout in the "black community".  Will the fact that there is a black (or partially black) candidate cause a surge in not only black voter turnout, but votes for black candidate?

Another group with strong opinions will be the Military, but will they all be able to get their votes in,  especially those overseas or in combat.  They could make a large difference if all those votes are in.

There's the hispanic community, a toss up, and voter turnout here is anybody's guess.

Then there's the unspoken forgotten "other" ethnic immigrant and minority groups.  It's a shame they remain unmentioned and forgotten.  If I were making guesses, I would say that the religiously militant muslim (arabic, black, indian, & asian, etc) community would probably vote Obama while the more economically focused muslim (arabic, black, indian & asian etc) would be more inclined to go McCain.  I feel very safe with the idea that the Jewish population will go McCain.
   
Having a large cross section of many different nationalities here where I work and live (believe it or not),  looking into other immigrant backgrounds, just basing on talking to various "immigrant nationalities" I know personally, largely those of slavic backgrounds such as those from Russia, Kosivo, Romania, etc seem to be strongly McCain because of his stance with the military.  Those in the arabic community are back and forth depending on their homeland family histories.  Those who immigrated to "escape" seem to be strongly McCain while many who came for "education", when they will say, imply they are backing Obama.  Those of the Asian communities that I know are falling into 2 groups.  Strong catholics backing McCain and those who when asked, just ask me questions about the candidates and who I prefer and never quite say.  The hispanics around here have not been verbal when discussing politics so, I'm not sure what that says.