October 1, 2008
Electoral Map: The Collapse of McCain
This map uses the average of all public polls that were released in the last 13 days whenever possible.
Well, in exactly one week we see the catastrophic results of the horrible economic news coupled with a poor debate showing by McCain. One week ago, the race stood at a 269-269 tie. Now, Obama is winning by a landslide, 348-190. Here’s the map:
Last week I warned that unless McCain developed a serious economic policy, he would probably lose a couple red states in this week’s update. Well, it was worse than I thought. In one week’s time, McCain has lost New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Next to fall unless something drastically changes: Nevada and Missouri.
McCain now outperforms Bush in just 9 states (AL, AZ, AR, ID, LA, ME, MA, NH, VT) while Obama outperforms Kerry in the remaining 41.
Here’s the stark difference a week can make:
This election is quickly getting away from McCain, and time is running out for him to get it back.
http://race42008.com/2008/10/01/electoral-map-the-collapse-of-mccain/trackback/
October 1st, 2008 at 11:44 am
North Carolina? Really?
October 1st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Romney would haved crushed Obama in a debate about the economy (the same way he did to McCain in the primary). Oh well. At least
McCain was consistently pro life and belongs to a mainstream religion. That’s what really counts.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:50 am
#2, Are you serious? Romney would be behind 15 points right now. Go get some professional assistance. Your man-crush is scary.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:51 am
i think its legitimate to talk about the primaries. if this really is a GOP site first, we should be able to look back and see why we picked mccain/palin over romney or guliani.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:53 am
History is on McCain’s side.
The Bradley Effect is on McCain’s side.
Complacency is on Obama’s side (do we do have apathy on our side)…
We have the Democrats finger all over the collapse of Fannie/Freddie… The McCain campaign is playing it tame.
etc…
Of course if Palin fails, apathy will really set in…
October 1st, 2008 at 11:55 am
#3 You’re right Kristofet. The proven “turnaround artist” wouldn’t sell in this environment. What we need is a war hero and community
organizer to choose from. Brilliant analysis!
October 1st, 2008 at 11:55 am
Don’t forget, McCain has that 72% commander in chief approval or something.
Iraq is going great.
Once people stop getting so depressed and see past the empty suit, McCain will win hopefully.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
#2, 3, 4:
Absolutely. Rudy would be beating Obama right now. Romney would be beating Obama right now. Gingrich probably would be beating Obama right now. Hell, Huckabee would probably be beating Obama right now.
But even McCain could possibly be beating Obama right now if he’d run some semblance of an actual campaign.
But, we decided to go with the guy who’s getting hammered because he refuses to offer middle class tax cuts and repeatedly calls our economy strong.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am
#5: History? Like Reagan in ‘80 or Clinton in ‘92? When was the last time the incumbent party won when the economy was crapping out like it is now?
October 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
second graph is a nghtmare for McCain camp.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I can see it now, Rudy sitting down looking in the camera and talking about how to deal with crisis, laying out a clear plan, and nailing obama to the wall on all his issues. Here’s to wishing.
I stand with Mac but at times wonder why.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
#8 Matt C, please provide us the date when McCain last said the economy was strong? Are you on Obama’s talking points distribution list?
#6 Taylor, McCain is the only reason why the GOP is within a few points. The economic crisis would have doomed every candidate, but the good news is that it is not over yet.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
#12 Kristofer, McCain made his statement about the fundamentals of the economy being string on 9/15 (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/15/mccain_fundamentals_of_economy.html). That’s at least one documented date.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I don’t know why McCain is holding back on the advertising, both pro and attack. As John (#7) points out Obama is an empty suit. Problem is no one will notice unless McCain points that out! The MSM is certainly not going to .
October 1st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
He’ll pull the trigger after Palin’s hopefully decent performance and passage of the bailout.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The sole cause of McCain’s collapse in the polls is the Fannie/Freddie bailout has pushed economic fears to the top of voters concerned. McCain CAN win this but he MUST point out his personal record in pushing for reform when we had the chance and Biden and Obama’s inaction. I don’t know if he’s delaying making this point out of a desire to “put politics aside” in order to pass a bailout (ie: doing what Pelosi is too tacky to do) but this tactic is leaving him at the Dems mercy. As long as the bailout package is delayed, McCain holds his tongue to get a deal, and doesn’t get the facts out aggressively enough.
Its time McCain stopped playing into the Dems hands on this matter, pull out of negotiations on the bailout and go on the offensive. He should introduce the reform plan he introduced in 2005 — WORD for WORD — and remind voters that this was the exact plan he introduced three years ago and DARE Reid, et al. to oppose it again.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
#13 FF, he said, “Fundamentals of Economy are ‘Strong’ but ‘Threatened’”
October 1st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
#17 Depends on what the definition of “is” is…
October 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
#18 true, he has changed his message since last year, when he said the economy was “strong”. Ultimately, we had growth last qtr., so we are not in a recession, yet.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Matt C is just a romneybot shill who thinks that americans would turn to a mormon CEO worth 400 million. yea he really feels our pain.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
The economy isn’t the only reason McCain is falling. Palin is pulling him down as well. To be fair, she pulled him up initially, and then she lost her novelty and her effect wore off. In all, she hasn’t been a positive or a negative. Neither has Biden been a positive or negative for Obama thus far. However, I think Palin has rthe potential to drag McCain down if she comes off as an amateur in the debates.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
#20 yeah, ‘cos a millionaire septuagenarian is much better at feeling our pain.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Kristofer what McCain meant by “fundamental of the economy”?….And please put to rest the myth that McCain is the only republican who could win, we live in a time of blue states vs red states, there’s a cultural war. Any republican would range around 45%, McCain is barely in that point, he just lost Iowa, he is losing in Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and even in Florida.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
#23, we disagree then, McCain is barely holding red vr. blue states. Just about any other candidate would be trailing with indy’s, and polling early on showed this. Romney and Huckabee were barely polling 40% in h-to-h versus Obama or Clinton.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
#20 Mcain, Obama and Romney are all millionaires. One married into it, one sells books about himself, the other one
turned around failing companies and and made them and his company millions. So what is your point? You only like millionaires who
haven’t been “tainted” by working in the real world?
October 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
#25, you guy was already very rich.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
McCain is now down by 8 points in Florida, so I guess all that talk last year about ptivatizing Social Security isn’t going to be very helpful now.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
The ” I told you so” coming from supporters of other canidates, is a bit like someone who doesn’t think you should wear armor in the front line of battle, saying to a wounded fighter who wore armor – “see I told you so if you wouldn’t have worn armor you wouldn’t have been wounded.” The soldier was likely to get wounded anyway, the armor did not cause it. We were likely to lose anyway, and especially so in this economic crisis, it not logical to place the blame for something that was likely to happen anyway at the feet of McCain. We’re losing because the electoral conditions are extremely bad for Republicans not because we picked someone who was likely the most electable canidate.
I suppose it gives a great sense of self satisfaction to those so immature as to not be able to get over the loss of their canidates several months ago, to wax on about how their canidate was the one canidate who would have overcome the overwhelming circumstances favoring the Democrats. However, there is no way to prove their point, because we can on and on about what’s electable about their canidate and what is not. So ultimately such statements unprovable, unconstructive, and only useful as a means of self satisfaction.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
kristofer look at it from this perspective.
when the economy is the main problem on the table I dont want someone who can feel my pain I want someone who can STOP my pain.
Like it or not Romney knows business and economies. It was why I really felt Mccain should have picked him as the VP. He hurt only in the places where the GOP wins anyway, and he helps on the big self admitted weakness of McCain-the econmy.
Too bad the religious right couldnt stomach a good man who happens to be mormon.
I am still hoping for a big push in these battleground states, like mine of Colorado, but I have to be honest and say this thing seems to be slipping away right now.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
#29, romney would have had zero impact on this election, and you know it.
People want someone who they can relate to, have a beer with. That, is our average American voter. If voters thought like conservative political junkies, Lee Iacocca would be President.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
McCain is a good guy, but when we nominated him, I got a little bit depressed because we once again stamped the republican party as the war party. Bush was stamped a war president, McCain is popular because he is a war hero, good luck making the seperation there. In times of economic downturn, the last thing we need is a unidimentional candidate who would make a great commander and cheif but lacks the ability to bring about real change. McCain lacked a leg on the stool, and now look at the mess…oops! I liked Rudy and Romney as candidates, not because of their religion or personal life entirely, but because they were reformers who took a mess and actually did something with it. Rudy and Romney actually had plans that they were willing to inact in the presidency. Now, all I do is turn on a debate and hear rhetoric garbage with no plan and no intelligence at the level of the presidency. McCain knows how to be a commander in cheif, but America is looking for a lot more than that right now, so McCain is falling on his face. I just wish that Hilary would have won the nomination instead of Obama because if he wins, we’ll have the most liberal president in memory at the worst possible time and someone who is clueless about foriegn policy and can’t even tell anyone what programs he would cut. Americans voted for these guys, America will have to live with them, but I tell you, this has turned into one pathetic election that gives me little hope of any productive change.
McCain may make a wonderful president, but he’s gonna have a tough time selling America on the idea that a long-term 72 year old senater is all about change. I like McCain, but he is not what America needs right now, they need a miracle, and that is not McCain.
Romney 2012
October 1st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Romney 2012. So let it be written, I never liked McCain anyway.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
#31, #32, you are actually proud of Romney? He received 176 deleg. on Super Tuesday. LOL!
October 1st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The thing is not make an “I told you so” debate; McCain is the nominee and we are on his side. What has happen is that election has evolve from national security/war in Iraq to a single issue: the economy and the fact is that John McCain is not good on economics issues.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
John Malt nailed it. Look at the generic party preference numbers, they are at levels not seen in decades, if ever. If you want to picture how Romney would be doing right about now picture what the current maps would look like if Obama was pulling 50+ of the independants instead of trailing among them. Yes, he’s having trouble holding the “Bush” states, but let be candid here — that’s Bush’s fault, not McCain’s.
And one more thing: In a period of serious economic uncertainty and anxiety a “turnaround artist” is the LAST person you want to nominate as President. Why? Because part of Romney’s strategy was laying off workers in the companies he hired. I’m not saying he was wrong to do it and I’m not saying he may have ultimately saved more jobs than he terminated but all anyone would remember would be the 30 second ads of parades of hard luck stories of workers laid off by Bain Corporation while Mitt Romney made million dollar bonuses. Unfair? Sure,
but also devistatingly effective.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Why isn’t McCain making ads about ACORN and how Obama lobbied to get thousands of deadbeats mortgages they can’t pay? And what about Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Kwmame Kilpatrick et al? Where’s the fighting spirit?
October 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/86369
Why McCain should have picked Huckabee for VP. The article also shows why he should have been the nominee.
Huckabee 2012.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
You know what John and others, I am really getting tired of the people talking about the Bradley affect. You know why?
Its because what are we saying? We are hoping that McCain wins because of racisim. (The Bradley way is a nice way of saying that)
We are hoping and counting on him winning because racisist people will not vote for Obama.
Granted I do not like Obama or his politics, there are plenty of other reasons to vote for McCain and other issues to think about.
However, as was said on here before California the state where the Bradley affect happened 25 years ago, Does anyone think that McCain is going to win CA, or there is going to be a Bradley affect there? Since that is where it began right?
If McCain can’t win on the issues and put together a connecting Economic Message as the electoral site talks about then that is his fault and the campagins. If he does this he can still win, but the Bradley affect is why McCain is not down by more and Obama up by more. We are counting on Obamas supporters to be lying to the pollsters by 6-8%. When really McCain is not down by 10-12% is due to that affect.
I hope he can turn it around, he still can but turn it around because he has a better vission than Obama not because of a racist bradley affect.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
If McCain loses this election, which it looks like, we need to all admit we picked the wrong guy to run, and reevaluate how we came to McCain as our nominee.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Kristofer,
Don’t engage in these pointless primary debates. If you are going to engage in them you need to play fair with the facts. Diminishing Romney’s accomplishments by using the number of delegates he won on Super Tuesday without pointing out that the reason for that was because of the results from Florida. Polls clearly showed that the race was a toss-up and the winner of Florida was going to sweep Super Tuesday.
Florida came down to Crist’s endorsement. 2/3’s of Florida voters said Crist’s endorsement of McCain was either important or very important to them in their vote. McCain won Florida by 5%. Doesn’t it seem that if 66% of voters considered that endorsment important, at least 2.6% of them would have voted for Romney instead of McCain? If Romney had won FL he would have won most districts in CA, won MO, GA and possibly OK and TN. He also would have improved the margins in the proportional states.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Victor,
You obviosly don’t understand what the Bradley effect is. It is NOT racism. It is people who are afraid of being thought of as racists.
Also, we aren’t hoping for anything by pointing out the fact that this effect exists. We are merely stating that polling will overestimate Obama’s support and underestimate McCain’s.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I understand what the Bradley affect is, I know this because during that time 25 years ago, people said in the exit polling who said that they would not vote for Tom Bradley. Many said they felt uncomfortable with an African American canidate at that time. Thats true.
Overpolling is one thing, you can say that about any canidate that runs but the Bradley affect is a nice way of saying that I hope that affect will make him win.
No, that is what it is. If you look into and its history etc you will see what it is. Sorry, I don’t want McCain to win because of a Bradley affect but because his is better on the issues.
You may not personaly be hoping for a Bradley affect but others are hoping that this will play, if that was the case no one said Kerry would be affected by a Bradley affect or Gore or anyone else but it has not. Win on the issues not by a Bradley affect
October 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Last its hoping that he will win on the effect instead of the issues is what I am saying.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Actually people say that Obama should be ahead by 10-15 on this site the reason why he is not ahead by that much I can admit that may be to an affect but ahead by 6 we are hoping those people are lying. I hope McCain wins but not due to this
October 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
McCain was good in the debate. I thought so anyway, until MSM told me differently.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Victor,
You may understand what happened for the Bradley effect to get it’s name, but you don’t understand the significance of it in modern political polling.
It is NOT about racism or people being unwilling to vote for an AA candidate. It is about people who don’t want to be viewed as racists, and is purely a polling phenomenom that leads to overestimation of support for AA candidates. Again, it has nothing do to with actual racism.
A pollster calls and even though you are going to vote for McCain, you tell them you are going to vote for Obama because you don’t want the pollster to think you are racist. It doesn’t mean you are racist, it means you don’t want people to think you are racist.
Racism also exists, but it has nothing to do with the Bradley effect and is a much smaller issue. It also does nothing to distort polling which is what this discussion is about.
Pointing out that polls are overestimating Obama’s support is not hoping for racism to swing the election to McCain. They are not even remotely related. You don’t understand what the Bradley effect is so you are unable to understand people’s comments regarding the Bradley effect.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Hey, don’t forget we possibly saw the Bradley Effect in action in NH during the primaries. Remember how polls going into the primary had Obama 9 points up, but then Hillary won? That’s the Bradley Effect.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Let’s face it we should have picked Mitt as I said all along. I just hope McCain can keep the loss respectable (around 75 EC’s) to make it easier for Mitt to clean up in 2012. Go Mitt!
October 1st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Victor:
Also, you are making a logical fallacy in assuming that the voters who told exit pollsters that they were “uncomfortable” voting for a black person were the same ones who switched their votes. Look, I have no doubt that there are some white voters who will vote for McCain solely because of Obama’s race (just as some voters will vote for Obama because of his race). But those AREN’T the individuals who cause the Bradley effect because they weren’t the ones who said they were for Bradley when they were undecided or said they were undecided when they were for Deukmejian. THOSE voters — the ones who caused the Bradley effect, and the Wilder Effect in 1989 and the Obama effect in NH and other states — were easily guilted whites who didn’t want to look racist.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 am
John McCain would have been the right President in 2001 had George W. Bush not allowed Karl Rove to put out the “black baby” canard in South Carolina and defeated Al Gore. Or he would have been the right President to succeed a one-term Al Gore in 2005. We have had eight years of a President who has become wildly unpopular due to a war that liberals don’t understand and economic hardships that many people think unnecessary. President Bush was unable to expand the base that the GOP needed to maintain a good chance for Republicans to win in 2008. He had to convince many people that they would be better off with unqualified free enterprise, right-to-work laws, and greater respect for unborn life. He failed at that, and the youngest voters hate him.
John McCain had to distance himself from George W. Bush… and couldn’t quite do it. Barack Obama wins this time because he is the anti-Bush to an extent that John McCain can never be. When the incumbent President has a positive rating among only about a quarter of the public, anyone who can be associated with him will have a tough time continuing his heritage.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
John Mark:
…much as I don’t like disputing with one who chooses the reputed name of an Gospel author, I think the problem with the pubbie primaries is the winner take all format, which is going to pick the guy who wins the early tests and leaves the rest of the field at an extreme disadvantage going forward…dumb, because you don’t really get a good lokk at who you’ve got, vis a vis the others…remember, under the pub format, Hilary would have crushed Obama, but instead she was negligent in her understanding of the dem system, and failed to manipulate it. Candidate weaknesses should be exposed, not swept under the rug…I say, adopt proportional delegate seeding in our primaries, and for that matter, drop the winner take all format in the Electoral College as well…
October 8th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
You guys who are ranting about the other Republican candidates who would have done better than McCain are clearly political noobs. With years of discontent for both the left and middle with the current administration, R’s only chance to retain the white house was someone who could pull independent votes. This election was lost over two years ago. The only underdog who had even a slim CHANCE to turn that around was McCain. This election is about the middle. Everyone knows who the right wing and left wing is going to vote for. The real war is in the middle and if you guys think that anyone other than McCain could have done better in the middle, you are seriously mistaken.
The downfall, was when he chose Palin. Those of us in the middle went running into the Obama camp when she was selected. She is so far from having the competency she needs its not even funny. And the fear mongering in her attack speaches reminds me of Bush and Cheney. I cant totally blame McCain for this failure either, as I am not convinced that he wasn’t pressured into this selection by the right and/or by energy donors. She belongs nowhere near the presidential ticket… In fact I would go as far as saying that she belongs nowhere near politics at all.
The nomination of McCain was not the downfall of the R’s chances this year. The downfall occured both before, and after, his nomination. Bush/Palin, were McCain’s undoing. It is very unfortunate really because McCain is a good man, and would have been a great President. He just missed his window when he got backstabbed by Bush in 1999. That was possibly the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican party in my lifetime. It was a nation changer, that simultaneously hosed McCain, the Party, and the Nation.