From Andrew Romano's The Stumper:
There's no doubt--either among Republicans, Democrats, Independents or Martians--that if the 2008 presidential election were held today, Barack Obama would defeat John McCain. According to the poll aggregators at RealClear Politics, Obama would amass 264 electoral votes in an Oct. 7 election solely from states that favor him by more than six percent. That's six EVs shy of the White House. Toss in one more state (only one) where Obama is currently winning by a smaller spread--either Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado or Missouri--and it's game, set, match. Obama's average national lead? Nearly 6 percent--more than double the size of George W. Bush's 2004 margin of victory.
Fortunately for the GOP, the election is still 28 days away. Which is why Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Martians--everyone except for former Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, who has boldly proclaimed that "the race is over"--agrees, at least publicly, that "it is uphill for McCain, but a victory is doable." Things could happen, they say. The numbers could change. But setting aside the obvious caveat--anything that hasn't happened yet could, by definition, still happen--does history give us any reason to believe that it will happen? (Assuming Obama doesn't spontaneously combust.) To answer that question, I compared battleground polling from the first week of Oct. 2004 to that election's eventual outcome--and the current contest. What I found is that a state's polling average on or around Oct. 10 is a pretty accurate predictor of who will win on Election Day--and by how much.
Here are implications for this year's McCain-Obama match-up:
McCain is almost guaranteed to lose at least two Bush states: Iowa and New Mexico. In early Oct. 2004, Bush led both states by slightly less than one percent on average; a month later, he ended up winning both states by the same margin. In contrast, McCain currently trails Obama by 9.5 percent in Iowa and 7.3 percent in New Mexico. If the 2004 pattern holds, Obama should do as well in Iowa and New Mexico as he's expected to do in non-battlegrounds like New Jersey, Washington and Oregon.
To compensate for Iowa and New Mexico, McCain hopes to win one or more of the following Kerry states: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota or New Hampshire. He probably won't. Simply put, Obama's current leads in these states are larger--much larger--than Kerry's were precisely four years ago. Let's compare. In Minnesota, Kerry was ahead by an average of 3.8 percent in early October; he went on to win by 3.5. In Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, Kerry held narrow October advantages--1.3 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively--that eventually expanded into slightly wider Election Day victories. Meanwhile, it was Bush who was ahead by 1.5 percent in Wisconsin at this stage of the game--even though Kerry went on to win by 0.4 percent. By comparison, Obama is currently clobbering McCain by 6.7 percent in Wisconsin; 10.5 percent in Minnesota; 10.7 percent in New Hampshire; and 11 percent in Pennsylvania. To win any of these states, McCain will not only have to defy history--he'll have to defy the laws of political gravity.
Right now, Obama is outperforming Kerry (and beating McCain) in six Bush-won battlegrounds--any one of which could put him over 270 electoral votes. At this point in 2004, Bush was ahead by 3.3 percent in Florida; Obama currently leads McCain by three points. In Ohio, Bush was ahead by 2.7 percent; Obama currently leads by 3.8. In Missouri, it was Bush by four percent; now it's Obama by 0.3. And in three states where Bush was averaging leads of five points or more on Oct. 10--Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina--Obama is now winning by notable margins (four percent, 4.8 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively). On Election Day 2004, Bush managed to maintain his lead in each and every one of these states. If Obama can keep just one of them in his column--say, Virginia--he'll be the next president of the United States.
Will Obama lose a point or two here or there because of the Bradley Effect (i.e. overstated support for black candidates)? Perhaps. But sizable gains in Democratic registration numbers in 11 key battleground states and expected turnout increases among young voters and African-Americans will likely offset any race-related losses. Again, anything could happen--like, say, a McCain comeback. But recent history, at least, gives us no reason to expect that it will.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment