Sabato’s Crystal Ball: THE MYTH OF A TOSS-UP ELECTION
07/24/2008
Alan Abramowitz, Thomas E. Mann, and Larry J. Sabato on THE MYTH OF A TOSS-UP ELECTION
“Too close to call.” “Within the margin of error.” “A statistical dead heat.” If you’ve been following news coverage of the 2008 presidential election, you’re probably familiar with these phrases. Media commentary on the presidential horserace, reflecting the results of a series of new national polls, has strained to make a case for a hotly contested election that is essentially up for grabs.
Signs of Barack Obama’s weaknesses allegedly abound. The huge generic Democratic Party advantage is not reflected in the McCain-Obama pairings in national polls. Why, according to the constant refrain, hasn’t Obama put this election away? A large number of Clinton supporters in the primaries refuse to commit to Obama. White working class and senior voters tilt decidedly to McCain. Racial resentment limits Obama’s support among these two critical voting blocs. Enthusiasm among young voters and African-Americans, two groups strongly attracted to Obama, is waning. Blah, blah, blah.
While no election outcome is guaranteed and McCain’s prospects could improve over the next three and a half months, virtually all of the evidence that we have reviewed–historical patterns, structural features of this election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months–point to a comfortable Obama/Democratic party victory in November. Trumpeting this race as a toss-up, almost certain to produce another nail-biter finish, distorts the evidence and does a disservice to readers and viewers who rely upon such punditry. Again, maybe conditions will change in McCain’s favor, and if they do, they should also be accurately described by the media. But current data do not justify calling this election a toss-up
12 Responses to “Sabato’s Crystal Ball: THE MYTH OF A TOSS-UP ELECTION”
I guess writing stories about close elections and how important the Hispanic vote is gives the media an excuse not to really think about what the Obama Administration is going to be like. They do not have to do stories about how the Obama Administraiton wants to make real wages go up (something the government cannot really do) while making energy prices go up.
“McCain Makes Significant Gains in Key Battleground States” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/st…
Yup, sure does sound like McCain is going to loose by a landslide. It's too early to tell and never underestimate the Democrats ability to snap defeat from the jaws of victory.
With regard to “historical patterns”, we can project and presume knowledge that might otherwise be safe, but for one detail, and that is race. We've never had any but “white” presidents before. It will be interesting to see if all the data, formulas, historical patterns, and seat of the pants common sense analysis hold up in the face of what has been called the “Archie Bunker factor”. It's hard to get a handle on just what influence that might have, since it doesn't lend itself well to polling.
Sabato is one person I respect to give a non biased report. And the whole horse race crap is so tiring. Everyday they dwell on, obsess and talk nothing but, polls. Polls mean zero before labor day and the press cherry picks them anyway.
I wish the press would spend time discussing important things like issues and McCains constant gaffes.
The man is losing it.
I think Sabato is exactly right.
Take those battleground polls that show McCain “closing the gap.” Forget for a moment the major sampling error in the Colorado poll (it has Republicans with 9 points more than Democratic self-identifier, when the reality is that Dems outnumber Republicans by 2 points). Why is Obama only slightly ahead of McCain? The answer: voters are concerned about the economy right now and Obama is not talking about the economy. Another reason is that McCain just spent a ton of money on TV advertising and Obama has spent banking his money on building turnout operations. It was a strategic decision to save money at this phase of the race.
This is a lot like 1980. Reagan sowed doubts in many voters too – he was just a fluffy actor, or he was an extremist war-mongerer just a few years after Vietnam. It was the debate that convinced the electorate that he was safe. He pulled away in the last few weeks.
Obama has a few barriers of his own. He has a light resume and he has an unusual background. Will voters go with somebody named Barack Hussein Obama and who is black? Will voters accept a guy with just 4 years in the US Senate and 8 in the Illinois Senate? Obama will have to close that sale. I'm confident he will.
But if the last week is any indication, one party is ready for primetime and the other looks like a JV squad. McCain is a decent guy. But he's running an atrocious campaign and, unless something crazy happens, he will get beaten handily in November.
Watching McCain today on a few different clips made me almost feel sorry for him. I was disappointed when he lost the R primary in 2000 (and I'll bet most republicans are too – in hindsight) but to see him running now? He's so clearly the wrong guy to meet the challenges of the day. I suppose the tendency is to think a slamdunk is in the offing, but any faith I might have had in the wisdom of the electorate was pretty well destroyed in 00 and 04, so I'm going to settle for guarded optimism at this point.
I too was backing McCain in 2000 and was sad he lost, I would have voted for him over Gore.
As incompetent as McCain appears to be at running campaigns, Gore would have won in a rout in 2000 is McCain would have been the nominee.
On WBAL Radio yesterday, the discussion was on how incompetent McCain's staffers are. The guest on the Ron Smith Show discussed how McCain staff was incapable of getting anything correct and were violating rules that everyone learns in campaign management 101.
McCain is just your typical fighter jocks, others magically make things appear and he just uses them.
McCain seemed more coherent and sensible back in 2000, Times have changed, I don't know, but he comes across now as SD said “a fighter jock” and I don't think he'd be the President we need. Before you jump on me, I'm not sure Obama would be either.
McCain's problem in 2000 was the hard-core (Authoritative) Republicans didn't, probably still don't, like McCain because he has been willing to stand his ground against their wishes. The GOP of the late '90s onward won't tolerate anyone who won't tow the party line 100%. Now he seems to be changing his positions more and more to appease that segment and loosing trust from some independents.
“This is a lot like 1980.”
False analogy, as I've already explained. But I've come to reconsider my earlier statement that it may be like 1994 and say I ought to wait to see if Obama _and Dem_ support is so high that it becomes something between the two. 1994 is the more accurate analogy (as I've also explained), but given my view of Obama vs. McCain plus disenchantment with the GOP, it may be too narrow an analogy.
“[O]ne party is ready for primetime and the other looks like a JV squad.”
_That_ is 100% accurate!
“a fighter jock”
Broad US support for the war, distrust of softie Dems on national security — these went away in 2006 and if anything Americans are even farther removed from these now. Plus if anything, negative views of the GOP are stronger now than in 2006.
Never mind the “close race” stuff. (Just don't get cocky yet, Dems; McCain did survive the primaries, after all, and you chose to lose at the very end in 2000, something I don't Obama will do, incidentally.) What's your impression of things _on the street_? Even accounting for if you're in a blue or red state? Even on right as well as left talk radio shows?
Choose to lose — something I *** doubt *** Obama will do. Purposeful all the way through the end game, I anticipate.