Hand on the lever…
By Johnny Roosh
A post-convention wrap-up:
The RNC convention bump has McCain up +1.0. Time will tell if that will stick. The USA Today poll, Obama’s favorite isn’t good news for him. McCain +10.
Of late, polls of polls have shown Senators Obama and McCain deadlocked. But McCain clearly has the momentum right now…voters by the thousands in attendance to see McCain/Palin.
56 days to go.
Can America really be split exactly down the middle?
How accurate are polls at predicting the outcome of the election to come?
Is the liberal media behind the design of most of them? If so, do we assume McCain is doing better than he is?
When Americans step into the booth, hand on the lever, are they ready to vote for an African American President for the first time in history?
Conservatives – if the GOP candidate were Colin Powell, would race be even more a factor?
Personally, I hope race is no longer a factor but am I naive?
Is McCain, the more historically conventional candidate, the default if voters enter the booth undecided?
…or will they stay home?
Speaking of staying home, will Obama once and for all be the candidate that gets young, first-time voters to vote? If so, will they all vote for him?
If the polls continue to reflect a shift in momentum to McCain/Palin, should Obama dump Biden, in an unprecedented admission of a poor choice of VP, and select Hillary?
Is that what lunch with Bill is about? Change?
Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Undecided…all are welcome: Discuss. Pick any (or all) question(s) you’d like.
What do you think?
September 8th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Until recently I thought more conservatives would stay home instead of voting for McCain vs. liberals staying home rather than vote for Obama – that seems to have been turned upside down after Palin/Biden. Also, I believe some white democrats will have a hard time pulling lever for Obama once they are behind the curtain – and they will more than offset the “new” youth Obama voters.
PS I am fairly hard-right conservative and could easily pull lever for JC Watts or Michael Steele for president – it’s much more about the ideology than color for me.
PPS Colin Powell?? Are we sure he’d be on the GOP ticket? If so, I’d gladly vote for him rather than anyone I can imagine on Dem’s ticket at this time.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I’d describe myself as a center Right Libertarian , Socially Liberal and fiscally and foreign policy conservative and I’ve already made a financial and will make a time commitment to the McCain/ Palin Ticket that would not have been made had Palin not been slotted for Veep
And as to the other side of the political aisle? My ex wife , who probably is a liberal left as they come , when positively apoplectic at the choice.
So it’s a beautiful day all around
September 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I think it’s probably too late for Obama to admit that bypassing Hillary was an error, anyway; and he’s not exactly strong on admitting errors.
I’ll give you a guess at what lunch with Bill is all about: Obama’s trying to get the Clintons to go after Palin, while maintaining credible deniability. Both Clintons have, after all, publicly committed to doing all that they can to get Obama elected, and giving them the attack dog roles would be in line with Obama’s history; it’d be a smart move.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I’d agree Joel, except for a couple of points. First, they’re smart and assuming the attack dog role against someone that popular is a dangerous maneuver if you’re the point man which is one of the reasons Obama doesn’t want to do it. Second, who’s the presumptive nominee if Obama loses? Third, what leverage does Obama have at this point with them? Bill or Hillary in the cabinet? Not hardly.
Look for the Clintons to attack, but only on a limited basis.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
50/50 split? Possible, but improbable.
Polls accurate? Media polls, assumptions? Polls are usually junk.
For me, race is a non-factor. Others? *shrug* Not God.
Obama talks much but communicates little (hope, change), doubles down on losing bets (tire pressure), and spits upon our culture (God, guns).
No love for McCain here, but as an “evil” he is much the lesser, by orders of magnitude.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
To quote a really awful 80’s song, most ‘pubs are “fooling yourselves”.
The demo turnout will be the highest in (recent) history.
As it gets closer, they will actually USE the polling for certain states (KY, WVa., Alabama, etc…) to pump up the base and get ’em out.
As it stands right now, with all the new voters, I am betting an actual demo lead of somewhere around 10 pts.
Unless things change radically (like really, man…), Obamaniacs will win big, unless all you listen to is Faux “News” — something that bothers me, until I remember that McCrazy is almost a democrat, whether or not you don’t believe it….
September 8th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
“The demo turnout will be the highest in (recent) history.”
The highest the Dems has managed in the last 30 years was 27% of eligible voters – in 2004, and they still lost.
The highest the GOP has managed in the last 30 years was 30.1% of eligible voters – for Reagan in 1984.
Gore and Kerry ran up to the Dems high-water mark, achieving turnouts that exceeded anything the Dems had ever managed before. Bush barely scratched the surface of potential GOP turnout. Half the Reagan voters stayed home.
If Palin can bring the Reagan voters out to the polls, Obama will be lucky to carry ten states.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:30 am
My contention is that the only hope ‘pubs have is that the Dems do not get their voters to the polls…. see the last paragraph I posted, and then check out this for the whole article. Of course, as it is Pew, you can to the normal thing and discount the messenger, but if the research is right, then there has been a -10 and +4 shift in swing states.
Apart from this, the race card will play a big part in the Independents, but I think it will generate more turnout in both rural and urban areas, with urban winning the number battle.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans
“… The decline in the number of self-identified Republicans is evident in all parts of the country, but is perhaps most significant in the politically important “swing” states that were closely contested in the 2004 presidential election (see “How the States are Analyzed” below).
Four years ago there were about as many Democrats (35%) as Republicans (33%) in the 12 states where the voting was closest in 2004, and the balance was similar in the 2000 election cycle. But so far in 2008, Democrats hold a substantial 38% to 27% identification advantage in these states.
In the “blue” states — those where John Kerry won by at least five percentage points in 2004 — the Democratic Party’s advantage has nearly doubled from 10 points to 18 points since the last presidential election. As is the case nationwide, the number of Democrats in these states has remained relatively stable, while Republican identification is down seven percentage points over the past four years. Currently, 39% of registered voters in the 13 states Kerry won by more than five points identify themselves as Democrats, compared with 21% who identify as Republicans.
The balance of party identification in “red” states — where George Bush won by more than five points in 2004 — has been more stable. Throughout the last three election cycles, there have been roughly as many Democrats as Republicans in these 24 states collectively. Currently, 33% of voters in these states call themselves Republicans, 33% call themselves Democrats, and 34% choose neither party.
Inside Key Swing States
The growing Democratic identification advantage in swing states generally holds true when several of the largest swing states are analyzed individually. In Ohio, 37% of voters identify with the Democratic Party, while just 25% identify with the Republican Party, based on surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008.1
This is a 10-point drop in Republican ID since 2004, and a four-point gain for Democrats. The pattern is similar in Pennsylvania and Michigan, where a rough balance in the number of Democrats and Republicans in the last two election cycles has shifted to a substantial Democratic advantage.”….
September 9th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Voter ID is important – but the Reagan Republicans (at whom Mac is clearly aiming) were not largely IDed as Republicans.
At any rate – given the Hillary defections and Mac’s obvious (and career-long) play toward the middle, Voter ID may not be quite as dispositive as you are making it out to be.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:10 am
One of my points is that Demos will use the perceived (and in some cases obviously real — see Dem voters in KY and WVa who will never vote for a black man and either stay home or cross over – more likely staying home) racial bias in some areas to pump up the vote in their strongholds and the swing states.
I think that the current polls are inaccurate, and the reality is that Dems lead by a fairly large margin in the popular vote that will result in a smaller but almost insurmountable edge in the E.C. and swing states.
Whether it is “swift-boating” or real fact-finding, ‘pubs need something big to swing this.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I think that the current polls are inaccurate
Perhaps, but historically they’re inaccurate in favor of Democrats.
And while that’s possible, hope is not a strategy.
Here’s the thing; the left is suffering from Kael Syndrome. Obama is very strong in state capitols and college towns, as well as among the black community; he was really fairly weak elsewhere during the primaries. Of course, that’s where the media is (hence the Kael Syndrome).
September 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“…. pubs need something big to swing this.”
Hmmmmm – maybe a VP pick of a conservative female governor that absolutely electrifies the base and brings over many female swing voters ..
Nah – too obvious!
September 9th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I’ll toot my own horn here: First, they’re smart and assuming the attack dog role against someone that popular is a dangerous maneuver if you’re the point man which is one of the reasons Obama doesn’t want to do it.
And now Obama’s had to go and do it since he couldn’t get the Clintons to do the dirty work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg. And he’s done it in about as heavy handed and inelegant way as you can do it. Plausible deniability went out the window with the audience reaction, the “old fish” line, and the lipstick attack of Biden today. Even if it wasn’t planned, it sure stinks that way, and only the most devoted Acolytes of The One will not know what Obama meant.
The only thing that surprises me is how tone deaf he is in his handling of Palin and McCain. He was reputed to be a masterful politician, but other than fund raising (which seems to be faltering) and organizing caucus states he’s not had any masterstrokes.