Sunday, August 17, 2008
It Won't Be a Toss-Up
Today in the Sunday Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper (but not the web site, called Inrich.com), two columns appeared about whether the Obama-McCain election will be a toss-up. One column, authored by Alan Abramowitz, Thomas E. Mann, and Larry J. Sabato, says "No", that Obama will win it easily. The other, authored by Jim Campbell, says "Yes"; it isn't decided yet. So which is right?
In Abramowitz et. al.'s column, they say consider the following. Barack Obama has led John McCain in every national poll for the last two months. They also say that Obama is leading in 11 of the 12 closest states in 2004. However, polls don't mean that much. At this time in 2004, Kerry had a comfortable electoral lead in the polls with 327 electoral votes. At this time in 1988, Dukakis was leading by double digits. But both in November. I checked on the 12 closest Dukakis states. According to Electoral-Vote.com, out of these 12 states, McCain is currently leading in Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. That is 4 out of the 12 states, not just 1. It is possible the article was written when Obama was leading in these states, which he did sometime within the past two months.
They also refer to voter identification. But that doesn't matter that much. Remember the Reagan Democrats?
At the end, Abramowitz and the others hit upon some real reasons why Obama will win. There is an unpopular war going on. The economy is souring. The same thing happened in 1952, and Eisenhower easily defeated the party in power, the Democrats. So the same thing may happen this year. I would also like to note that this election is similar to 1960 as well: recession, several foreign policy mistakes, including Cuba and the U-2 incident, plus in addition the opposition was lead by a charismatic figure: John F. Kennedy. Obama appears to be charismatic, all the more reason why we can expect a win from him.
So Abramowitz is basically correct, but he can eliminate his entire article except the last two paragraphs. They are the ones that matter.
Another article was written by Jim Campbell. I wonder if he is the same Jim Campbell that has commented on Allan Lichtman's columns. He says that Bush's low approval ratings do not matter much in this election because it is an "open seat" election. According to Allan Lichtman, the record of the current President is the most important factor in determining who will win. An election is essentially a referendum on the current administration. Since Bush's record is so abysmal, any Republican is going to encounter serious difficulties in getting elected in 2008. He says that McCain votes liberal 26% of the time but Obama votes conservative only 5% of the time, meaning McCain is more centrist than Obama is. Mr. Campbell discounts the value of polls (probably true).
In the last paragraph, he hits upon a criterion which has not appeared at all before: race. Something like it appeared in 1960, with religion being the criterion. Despite huge factors favoring the Democrats, Kennedy eked out one of the closest elections in history. Since other factors favor this election being like 1960, that suggests that Obama's race could make this one close.
One indicator that I have found that is better than anything else I have seen is Allan Lichtman's 13 keys. These are statements about the situation at election time. If five or fewer are false, the incumbent party candidate wins, else the challenging party wins. Six of the keys involve candidate charisma, foreign policy, and the economy, and the others deal with nomination contest, third parties, social unrest, scandals, policy, and incumbency. Right now 9 keys are down, and pattern of keys is identical to 1960. This supports my conclusion that Obama should win, but his race may be an impediment to his victory, like religion for Kennedy. It is sad that this is the case, but it is. We got a ways to go yet on that long road to a racially-blind society.
In Abramowitz et. al.'s column, they say consider the following. Barack Obama has led John McCain in every national poll for the last two months. They also say that Obama is leading in 11 of the 12 closest states in 2004. However, polls don't mean that much. At this time in 2004, Kerry had a comfortable electoral lead in the polls with 327 electoral votes. At this time in 1988, Dukakis was leading by double digits. But both in November. I checked on the 12 closest Dukakis states. According to Electoral-Vote.com, out of these 12 states, McCain is currently leading in Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. That is 4 out of the 12 states, not just 1. It is possible the article was written when Obama was leading in these states, which he did sometime within the past two months.
They also refer to voter identification. But that doesn't matter that much. Remember the Reagan Democrats?
At the end, Abramowitz and the others hit upon some real reasons why Obama will win. There is an unpopular war going on. The economy is souring. The same thing happened in 1952, and Eisenhower easily defeated the party in power, the Democrats. So the same thing may happen this year. I would also like to note that this election is similar to 1960 as well: recession, several foreign policy mistakes, including Cuba and the U-2 incident, plus in addition the opposition was lead by a charismatic figure: John F. Kennedy. Obama appears to be charismatic, all the more reason why we can expect a win from him.
So Abramowitz is basically correct, but he can eliminate his entire article except the last two paragraphs. They are the ones that matter.
Another article was written by Jim Campbell. I wonder if he is the same Jim Campbell that has commented on Allan Lichtman's columns. He says that Bush's low approval ratings do not matter much in this election because it is an "open seat" election. According to Allan Lichtman, the record of the current President is the most important factor in determining who will win. An election is essentially a referendum on the current administration. Since Bush's record is so abysmal, any Republican is going to encounter serious difficulties in getting elected in 2008. He says that McCain votes liberal 26% of the time but Obama votes conservative only 5% of the time, meaning McCain is more centrist than Obama is. Mr. Campbell discounts the value of polls (probably true).
In the last paragraph, he hits upon a criterion which has not appeared at all before: race. Something like it appeared in 1960, with religion being the criterion. Despite huge factors favoring the Democrats, Kennedy eked out one of the closest elections in history. Since other factors favor this election being like 1960, that suggests that Obama's race could make this one close.
One indicator that I have found that is better than anything else I have seen is Allan Lichtman's 13 keys. These are statements about the situation at election time. If five or fewer are false, the incumbent party candidate wins, else the challenging party wins. Six of the keys involve candidate charisma, foreign policy, and the economy, and the others deal with nomination contest, third parties, social unrest, scandals, policy, and incumbency. Right now 9 keys are down, and pattern of keys is identical to 1960. This supports my conclusion that Obama should win, but his race may be an impediment to his victory, like religion for Kennedy. It is sad that this is the case, but it is. We got a ways to go yet on that long road to a racially-blind society.
