Why I Don’t Think It’s Over For McCain, Even Absent A Game-Changer

27 Responses to “Why I Don’t Think It’s Over For McCain, Even Absent A Game-Changer”

1. mike Says:
   October 12th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

   If McCain is within about 3.5% in the average of the polls just before the election – he may just win this thing.

2. Jonathan Says:
   October 12th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

   Thanks for the number crunching Sean. You are given those of us who are irrational optimists about this election some numbers to prove our point.

3. John Says:
   October 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

   I think the vote against Obama is underestimated.

4. DaveG Says:
   October 12th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

   Now I’m going to have to go and read up on what a “shy tory” effect is, only because it sounds cool.

   Even though I hate governance from the gut, most of my predictions, when there are several ways a race can go, are ultimately made from the gut, and my track record is pretty good so far (let’s all forget about that whole “Rudy ‘08″ thing for a minute

   Anyway, that’s a long-winded way of saying that, if I had to choose between the scenarios that Sean lays out, I would guess that this is more like 1980 than 1996 or 2000, when undecideds made the call at the last minute that the new, interesting change agent was an acceptable option. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see a blue West Virginia or Georgia on Election Night.

   Also, I agree that D+13 is as ridiculous as it sounds, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see, oh, a D+6 margin or so. There are just too many people that I know right here in central Virginia who say to me things like, “I’ve always voted Republican/voted for Bush/voted pro-life/etc, BUT this year, I’m voting for Obama.” I remember reading about the 1980 primaries and how the Republican old guard knew something was going on when all of these new voters in the south and midwest showed up on primary day and asked for a Republican ballot — those were the Reagan Democrats who voted Republican for the first time that year and came back in November to do so again. The point is, if enough regular middle class people who used to vote Republican are as pissed off at the party as I think they are, Obama may become acceptable to lots of people who no one ever thought would vote for a liberal Democrat.

5. Doug Forrester Says:
   October 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

   If McCain wins this election you know the Democrats are going to scream racism.

   Obama would never even have a chance unless the Republican brand was toxic. Democrats decided to nominate a divisive candidate with a troubling history.

   They could have nominated a candidate that would easily win (Mark Warner, Bill Richardson). Instead they decided to try to get a smooth talking Chairman Mao narrowly elected.

   Democrats deserve to lose for offering up a candidate from the radical wing of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine.

6. Evil Conservative Says:
   October 12th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

   Personally I think the economy looks like a Hostel film… or a NY Mets Do-or-Die game the last 3 years.

   Looking at those numbers it is so crucial to get Obama lower than 49% and get Mac to 44% to launch from.

   How much did calling Florida early for Gore affect the final result?
   I think it probably reduced turnout in the Republican-heavy panhandle of that state – let alone the rest of the country. Kavon has stated that we probably lost a Senate seat that night. All because of some CBS News head anchor: 4 years later he had some fake National Guard scandal or something. I forget his name as its already been relegated to the dust bin of irrelevant media trivia.

   And sorry for going against the assumption of the post, but I think there’s an October Surprise coming for Obama. Maybe even McCain too, but Obama will be affected worse because he’s less known.
   Now I chickity checked myself before I wrecked myself to make sure it’s not something I hope happens as opposed to what I objectively think will happen; but isn’t Obama’s fast rise and questionable known associations make him a candidate RIPE for an October Surprise?

7. Sean Oxendine Says:
   October 12th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

   “I’ve always voted Republican/voted for Bush/voted pro-life/etc, BUT this year, I’m voting for Obama.”

   Remember in 2004 how the Dems were going to win because you heard all the time about Bush 2000 voters who were switching to Kerry, but you never, ever heard anyone who voted for Gore say they were switching to vote for Bush?

8. Evil Conservative Says:
   October 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

   “but you never, ever heard anyone who voted for Gore say they were switching to vote for Bush”

   Sounds like those voters were “shy”

   “They could have nominated a candidate that would easily win (Mark Warner, Bill Richardson). Instead they decided to try to get a smooth talking Chairman Mao narrowly elected.”

   Warner? Richardson?
   I mostly agree they’re better candidates, but how about Hillary?

   And the Chairman Mao reference just reignited my frustration with McCain on economics in these debates and on the stump. And this frustration is shared by many. It’s one thing to not have an in-depth economic plan, it’s entirely different to not tell voters over and over again how disasterous Obama’s plans are and that it is blatant socialism. If the rebuttal is McCain supported that Bailout, who cares?! just make the argument! It’s a high school-level economic argument.

   Look, Hillary gets an “I Told You So” to the Dems if Obama loses, but that Republicans can have an even bigger one. The Republicans can get an “I Told You that Obama’s policies are the exact things that make the economic crisis worse” to the entire country in 2010 and 2012, but ONLY IF we state how bad Obama’s policies are right now.

9. MetroIndependent Says:
   October 12th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

   Drudge has a link up saying Zogby will show a tightening tomorrow, as Gallup did today. But Republicans aren’t supposed to poll well on the weekend.

   My gut tells me McCain got the message I’ve been harping on, from the crowds at his rallies, that he MUST expose Obama’s economic plans as quasi-socialism and an economy-killer. I think he will finally saw so on Wednesday.

   Sadly, I doubt it will be one of his on-fire moments, and he will say it blankly, regretfully, in a way that will convince no one because it will say he is not feeling it himself.

10. Matthew E. Miller Says:
    October 12th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

    Sean,

    And oddly enough, according to the exit polls, Bush got 10% of Gore voters, while Kerry got just 9% of Bush2000 voters. And Bush turned out the 2000 Bush voters better then Kerry turned out the 2000 Gore voters.

11. MarkG Says:
    October 12th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    There was a WSJ book review in recent weeks of a volume by a polling firm “insider.” The reviewer, also a pollster, said that the worst effect on polling as a trend was the decline in telephone poll participation. The reviewer said that participation rates had fallen from 80 to 20 percent, although I can’t remember the time period referenced.

    I know that from my experience, since the widespread popularity of caller ID services, many are probably not entirely unlike me and prefer not to answer calls from unknown callers. Even when caller ID shows a polling firm that I know, it’s usually at a time when I don’t want to spend 20 minutes interacting with a questionnaire read out loud. If you’re on a cell phone plan that costs money to respond to, you might not want to see your free minutes dwindle.

    Phone surveys are becoming lengthier to make them more accurate, but from the perspective of the potential respondent, they’re similar to e-mail spam. And I wonder how many people are getting used to responding to spam by ignoring it, and applying this approach by analogy to “spam” (unsolicited) phone calls.

    I read Sean’s criticism of the cell phone effect here, and found his refutation quite convincing. But I nonetheless wonder about the effects of technological change and the delayed effects of user adaptation to that change. Could polling this year be particularly unreliable?

12. Doug Forrester Says:
    October 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    That’s a good point MarkG. If polling is increasingly missing unenthusiastic voters than we may be in for a big surprise not just for McCain but for Congress.

13. MarkG Says:
    October 12th, 2008 at 9:42 pm

    In appreciation of Sean’s points, and I’d add some factors that I see as particularly hard to estimate this time around.

    For Obama:

    - In polling: activist “astroturfing” — I wonder if there are die-hard BamBoosters eager to pose as Republicans who “regretfully” have to get behind the Dem: I’ve seen an awful lot of obvious trolls in web discussions who claim the same implausible nonsense.

    - In voting: The African American community will turn out in numbers that have never been seen before.

    For McCain:

    - I’ve heard a cousin say he’s not all that into the political arguments, but the idea of pressing the button for an odd name like “Barack Obama” for President of the United States seems, er, odd: somewhat too frivolously exotic for that post.

    - The ACORN registration drives may actually turn out not to produce the votes. Many of the Bam activists, I sense, are doing such a hard sell that they get individual voters to say they’ll go along just to get the nagging activists off their backs, but these voters may prefer not to be hounded into doing what they aren’t interesting in doing: voting or voting for Bam.

    - Many GOPers in particular may be so lukewarm towards McCain that they’re refusing to respond to polling phone calls, even if they intend to vote against Bam.

    - All the MSM chattering that opposition to Bam is evidence of racism may convince Bam opponents not to answer polling calls and to vote against Bam just to prove the media gurus that they won’t be shunned into voting for Bam. In other words, the exuberant MSM Bam cheerleading may backfire.

    - I think the Palin boost may be larger than anticipated. People like me, at least, would be too disgusted with the MSM assault on the Governor to want to engage with the media.

    - McCain will supposedly trot out an economic recovery agenda this week to answer his GOP critics.

    - The stock markets may be calmed to learn that the present Treasury rescue plan may follow the successful Swedish rescue model — EU members apparently plan to apply it, and the IMF has signaled endorsement.

14. Dave Says:
    October 12th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    There are 2 major forces in this election, and one of them is the public’s desire to punish our party for contemporary reality. This factor was exacerbated by the economic crisis, and it’s puzzling why Obama didn’t get more mileage out of it.

    The factor in our favor is the electorate’s intrinsic distrust of Obama. This factor will intensify as we get closer to the election. The only question is whether it will be enough, but the effort to link Obama with Rezko, Ayers, ACORN, and Wright should pay off. This distrust, combined with points on the economy is ALL that we should be talking about.

15. Onat Says:
    October 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    “Then, the 65+, uneducated, white independent voters who make up the bulk of the undecideds might hold the balance of the election in their hands. Not certain that’s great news for Obama.”

    I bet it will be great news for Obama. Assuming he spends the last couple of weeks pounding home the message of how McCain wanted to, and still wants to, put Social Security money on Wall Street.

    The “third rail” is hyper charged by now, and Obama would be a fool not to lock MCCains hand on it.

16. Sean Oxendine Says:
    October 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Oh Tano. Have you bothered to look to see how Obama has performed to date among these voters? It’s not terrible, but it ain’t exactly his wheelhouse either.

    Regardless, I don’t doubt that Obama will continue to spread the Democratic lie that Republicans want to throw retirees’ social security money into the stock market. Fearmongering isn’t confined to the Republican party, unfortunately.

17. just lookin Says:
    October 12th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

    My country had a 2007 national election. I was phoned & refused to tell somebody from some call centre my intentions. It is too easy to track phone numbers & voter preference . Why give anyone that info -what had I to gain?

    I think many people think that. The refusa rates are not indicated -they must be quite numerous .

18. Onat Says:
    October 12th, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    Sean,

    Yeah, thats my point. Obama is significantly underperforming amongst older white voters. And I think there is great potential there if he focuses on SS, which he has not done at all till now.

    And please excuse me, but where exactly was that percentage of our own money (!!) that would be taken out of SS and put in private accounts – where exactly would that money go?

19. James Shultz Says:
    October 13th, 2008 at 1:11 am

    I think alot of talk has been made about the Bradley Affect too…..Ramussen on its site put an article on there about it. Here is a portion of it why McCain can not count on it and needs to make sure he has a clear message, remember this race is won by the electoral vote:

    “You could not watch cable news last week without hearing about “the Bradley effect” — a term spawned after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley lost the California gubernatorial election to state Attorney General George Deukmejian in 1982 by one point, despite pre-election polls that showed Bradley, who was black, had a seven-point lead.

    But “the Bradley effect” was not the election-turning factor that some people saw. As Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll explained, a number of factors, including a higher-than-expected turnout of gun owners, led to the discrepancy in that 1982 race. DiCamillo believes that some white voters said they were undecided even though they had decided to vote for Deukmejian, and those undecided white voters were key in the undecided pool because most black voters had made up their minds to vote for Bradley.

    Also, the pre-election polls were off because black turnout was lower than expected. If DiCamillo had to put a number on white voters who said they were coy about voting for the white Deukmejian, it would be “two to three points at the most.” And that was 26 years ago”

20. Jeff Says:
    October 13th, 2008 at 5:19 am

    I think that the PUMA effect is going to be mis-classified as bradley. From the research I have done, I suspect that between 5-8%+ of Obama’s ’support’ is actually PUMA who will not be voting for him, but rather McCain, or Hillary write-ins.

21. Casey Says:
    October 13th, 2008 at 7:36 am

    Many people switched to Bush in 2004 because they “don’t like switching mid-stream”, especially because of Iraq. I know many that voted for Gore that turned around and voted for Bush.

22. Sean Oxendine Says:
    October 13th, 2008 at 8:56 am

    18. Tano,

    I don’t know if you know many 65+ high school educated white folk, but I think what you’re seeing here is a group of people who, though normally inclined toward the Democratic party, aren’t probably going to be the people most comfortable with voting for the black guy. But who knows. Neither of us is a mind reader (I don’t think?)

    As for S/S, there was no guarantee that the money would have to go into the stock market — as I understood the plan there were a variety of places people could invest their money, just like with my 401K I can invest in the US stock market, overseas stock markets, bond markets, or any variety of investments.

    More importantly, there is a world of difference between Bush’s plan as presented by Democrats (eg taking (1) all voters regardless of age and (2) forcing them to invest (3) all of their social security money (4) in the stock market — which is something no sane person would support — and the way it really was, which is allowing (1) younger (voters who can afford to ride out the ups and downs of the market) to (2) choose to invest (3) a relatively small portion of their social security money (4) in a variety of investment options — which is something that there’s no rational reason to oppose. It’s politics, so I understand why Dems successfully changed the focus of what the plan was, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were appealing to peoples’ irrational fears (especially since when presented with Bush’s actual plan respondents supported it by about 3:2)

23. Onat Says:
    October 13th, 2008 at 11:45 am

    Sean,

    Yes the money can go into other investments than just stocks, but they all have their ups and downs too. The point of SS is that it doesnt have ups and downs, it is a guaranteed floor under which you can build the rest of your retirement security. A safety net.
    The privatization schemes were so horrendus not because they entailed investments per se – I fully support expanding retirement investment opportunites, like IRAs and 401s etc. The problem is that it was an attempt to put the safety net money into investments. And the driving reason, of course, was the Wall street boys who were salivating over the tens of billions of dollars they would get to play with, and earn fees off of.

    And it is not irrational to fear severe market turndowns. If you are near retirement age today, you are seeing your retirement savings take very severe hits. Fortunatly, your SS is not being hit too, as it would be if private accounts had been in place all along. Being young and riding ups and downs in the market doesnt help you if the down comes right before retirement, and its a big one.

    The privatization scheme was an effort to take the first steps in dismantling SS – a program that the hard right has never liked. Fortunatly the schemes collapsed spectacularly, even though the GOP had complete political power. Those schemes will never return.

24. Sean Oxendine Says:
    October 13th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Tano,

    Of course, that’s where the whole “choice” thing comes from. No one has to put a dime of their s/s money (and could never put anywhere near all of it) into the stock market. But I understand the Left doesn’t understand the utility of people having choices that don’t somehow relate to sexual freedoms, even if it may end up being to their detriment (which this almost certainly wouldn’t be), and I understand that this is triply true when it comes to money, so it probably isn’t worth pursuing this point.

    It isn’t irrational to fear market turndowns, but it absolutely is irrational, with over 200 years of experience to back it up, to expect a turndown that lasts longer than a decade (and that happened once). If it does, your s/s money ain’t safe either, because we’re all going down the tubes together.

    Your retirement account is of course taking a hit in the near-term right now, but if you are nearing retirement age and started investing that money in the 1970s, you are still very much ahead today, and very much ahead of where your social security “return” is (which is why the account was only going to be an option for younger voters). And if you’re nearing retirement age and are still heavily invested in the stock market (ie haven’t converted to bonds), you’ve got no one but yourself to blame.

    As for the “this is the first step in privatizing social security,” I put that right up there with the “if we ban cop killing bullets, the next step is to come and take away all our guns” argument. Like I said, both sides are more than happy to fearmonger, and its more effective if there are some people out there who actually support the extreme position that is posited as being the next step (and of course the only way Social Security ever gets 100% privatized is if the first step is wildly successful, which of course is what the Left really fears).

    As for these “schemes” returning, whatever. I thought unrepentant liberalism was safely confined to the ash heap of history where it belongs, but it appears not. As more and more workers have and benefit from 21st century retirement plans like 401k’s and IRA’s, the absurdity of our current 1930s-style pension system will become more and more apparent. Eventually, reason will conquer fear here.

25. Onat Says:
    October 13th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Heh, I am all for choice. No one is preventing anyone from choosing to put as much of their take-home pay as they want in to stocks, bonds, gold, shoes, baseball cards – whatever you want.

    You cant choose, however, to put some portion of your federal income tax into some retirement account – that money is going to fund the government. Nor can you, or should you, choose to put some of your SS money in your retiremnt account – that money is going to fund current retirees (yeah- thats the other reason the privatizaiton scheme was such a fraud – massive defunding of current obligations).

    I love this “no one to blame but yourself”. You sound like such a Republican. Hey, right wingedness is a great philosophy if society was only made up of smart young healthy and lucky people in the prime of their life. THats why the heart and sould of right-wingedeness are smart, young healthy, lucky people who lack any awareness or concern, or sense of responsibility for all the other memebers of society who might not be as smart, or well-educated or who are older or abit run down.

    In my world, the strong and capable have a responsibility to help out the weaker and less capable. I guess that makes me into some [expletive deleted], but there ya go…

    As for dismantling SS – are you telling me that there are no righties that advocate that? Heck even you spend your last paragraph predicting / hoping that SS will go extinct. Why is it fear mongering for me to mention that that is the goal being pursued by people like you?

26. Sean Oxendine Says:
    October 13th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Well now we’re arguing semantics. I don’t think you are putting your federal income tax (actually, payroll tax) into private accounts. Your take-home pay is expanded if you choose to invest it in a retirement account.

    The transition cost is probably the only reasonable argument against this, but only in the short-run. In the long run you make the cost up because people who are supporting themselves with their retirement accounts would have benefits reduced, making payouts smaller in the long-run and offsetting the reduced income.

    And left wingedness is a great philosophy if you really believe that the best and the brightest will protect the weak and the powerless. A brief detour through the history of the 20th Century should dispel that notion, and show that, by gum, the people are pretty much capable of taking care of themselves. But this is really what opposition to the plan is about — an ideological preference for paternalistic oversight of every day Americans by the self-appointed “strong and capable.”

    Of course, even THAT argument is weakened substantially by the fact that under the actual plan under discussion, you’re only allowed to put a portion of your savings into the market. And, of course, even if you do leave everything in the market until you’re old, given the passage of time you’re almost certainly going to be a heckuva lot better able to take care of your retirement than you would be if your social security benefits were paid for by the government.

    As for dismantling s/s, of course there are people who support that. It also isn’t too difficult to find people who want to substantially reduce the availability of firearms past just banning cop-killing bullets. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t fearmongering to stand up and say “next thing you know, they’re taking your hunting rifle.” It’s the same tactic as “you know, GOP stands for Get Old People, and if we let young people voluntarily put a portion of their earnings that were going into social security into a private investment, next thing you know your grandmother is going to be sleeping on the street.”

    And its especially fearmongering when you’re suggesting intentionally targeting a group (present retirees) with a straw man of a social security plan that absolutely no one has proposed.

27. Onat Says:
    October 13th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    Whoa – who is putting out any strawmen to seniors? I am not advocating telling them that a McCain in the WH will have them sleeping in the streets. Just tell them the truth – McCain supports privatization schemes, of the type Bush proposed. Seniors knwo full well that SS is a great program, and they care very much about their children and grandchildren, and they want SS to be there for them. Thats the only appeal O needs to make.

    I guess we just have a philosophical difference. To be a liberal it is not necessary to believe that the best and the brightest WILL protect the weak, rather the contrary. I believe that the best and the brightest will tend NOT to protect the weak – given than greed, irresponsibility and self-centerdness are common human traits. Thats why we need to legislate that the best and brightest must contribute to the society as a whole, whether they want to or not.

    You have a strange take on history. In the industrial age, where the vast majority of people do not work the land there have been tens of millions of people who were not able to take care of themselves when personal tragedy struck or widespread economic downturns occurred. But once again, I guess Republicans are trained to only see the bright and prosperous ones.

    Being “strong and capable” is not a issue of self-declaration, nor do I think it should give one power over the poor and unfortunate. I repeat – I am not a rightwinger! The strong and capable must share the the fruits of their labor, to some extent, with the community. It has been so since the cavemen shared the meat with those who were lame or young or otherwise occupied back in the cave.

    I am sure there was plenty of group selection events taking place – those caveholds or communities where such shared responsibility did not take place, tended not to survive. Thats probably why these themes have found a prominent place in the teachings of all great religions – the wisdom of the ages.

    Its impressive how the libertarians and the religious parts of your coalition have avoided these contradictions for so long.