I'm not conceding an Obama win just yet. There are 2 distinct sets of polls out there: The more traditional polls, such as Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby, etc., and the media hackjob polls, such as ABC, Politico, etc. The traditionals are fairly close, while the media polls are much more slanted. Of the 2 groups, I know where my confidence lies. Some very accurate polls from 2004, such as IDPP, etc., show this as being a very close race. Even Gallup's "traditional method" of determining likely voters shows it as being only a 2-pt. race. One outlier is Pew. Pew was pretty accurate in '04, and has Obama +15. IF there is a consensus among the trusted traditionals going into next Monday-Tuesday of Obama only being up around 3 points, then the door is very much open for McCain.
The problem is that national polls are very unreliable; state-by-state polls tell a better story, and the state-by-state polls show a very grim picture for Republicans. If McCain cannot swing either Pennsylvania, or the combo of Virginia and Colorado, Obama wins. And right now, all 3 states look to be safely in the blue column.
So, given that it's more likely than not that Obama wins, let's look back at what got us to this point.
I have thought all along that the Democrats were a sure bet in this election unless they chose the wrong candidate. They chose Obama, and I felt that was the wrong candidate. For all the talk from the media, Obama is a very polarizing candidate. Of course, just about any major-party candidate will be in today's political climate, but Obama is particularly so. The fact that he has had one of the best-managed campaigns in history (I'd dare say THE best-managed campaign in history) and hasn't run away with this election in a year when the sentiment of the nation can almost be described as anti-Republican proves (to me, at least) that the Democrats were vulnerable with Obama at their helm.
With that said, I warned you Republicans back in January that if you nominated McCain, you were in trouble (I realize it wasn't you guys who were voting for McCain in the primaries, but the point I'm making here is in general). One of our resident McCain supporters has argued adamently throughout the year that the days of winning with social conservatives and gunowners is over for the GOP. His argument, and the argument of others, has been that the Republicans needed someone who could pull in independent voters.
I've argued all along that this idea is too shallow. Social conservatives and gunowners won the GOP the White House in '00 and '04. The electorate doesn't shift to the middle in such a short period of time. Every election is ultimately decided by independents, of course; if that weren't the case, we could predict ahead of time who would win simply because of which party has the most registered voters. But you can never rely on independents breaking your way by large margins. You have to stick to your base. Your base will carry you through, while the independents will give you a little push across the finish line.
Here's what we're seeing: Contrary to what was argued, McCain is NOT getting the independent vote that he needs. Poll after poll shows independent voters breaking to Obama by what the Democrats can consider a comfortable margin. This election has, indeed, come down to which candidate could rally his base. Polls after poll shows that Obama is pulling better than 90% of the voters who identify themselves as liberal, while McCain is pulling only around 80% to 85% of the voters who identify themselves as conservative. Obama rallied his base. McCain didn't. Sure, it can be argued that if more independents were in McCain's corner, the polls we're seeing 7 days before the election would be reversed. But it's always going to be easier to sell your ideas to people who are inclined to vote for you anyway than to the people who are sitting on the fence. If McCain was getting the level of conservative vote that Obama is getting of liberal vote, this race would be a dead heat, or even a McCain lead.
If Obama does pull this one off, the Republican Party will be asking itself a lot of questions over the next couple of years. Chief among them will be why they couldn't solidify the conservative base. Was it because fiscal conservatives weren't sold on McCain's economic message? Because evangelicals weren't sold on McCain's record on key social issues? Because gunowners weren't sold on McCain's 2nd Amendment background? I think it's all of the above.
McCain was a weak candidate. I believed that on Super Tuesday, and I believe it now. He's run one of the worst campaigns of my lifetime. Boysda said the other day that it was the worst campaign since Dukakis, and I agree with that. It was a very ineffective campaign. McCain never tried to rally his base; he never really made a convincing pitch at independents. I said in February that the Democrats were as excited and energized as they had been in my lifetime, and if the Republicans didn't nominate someone who could excite and energize their base, the result would be defeat. Did anyone ever get excited about McCain? Can you say that your support for McCain is because you are energized about the direction he'll take the country, or because you despise the idea of where Obama will take the country? Did you see any single McCain stance on any single issue that made you say "Yes! Let's do that!" The only thing McCain has going for him is foreign policy, and that's a dead horse right now. The polls show this; Americans believe McCain is the better candidate to manage the war in Iraq and to protect America from terrorism by a 2-to-1 margin, or better. And yet he's still behind.
Now let's imagine that the nominee had been Fred Thompson. The Republican field this year had a lot of faults. Mike Huckabee excited social conservatives but few others. Mitt Romney excited fiscal conservatives but few others. Rudy Giuliani excited foreign policy hawks but few others. Thompson was the all-around candidate. His fault was 2-fold: He waited around until there was too much momentum built against him, and his reputation for laziness caught up with him. But he was a candidate who could excite conservatives, as we witnessed with his speech at the Republican convention. I can't imagine that we'd be sitting here talking about the GOP needing an upset in a state that is in the blue column by 10 points and hasn't voted Republican in a generation if Thompson had been on the top of the ticket.
I'll wait for the exit polls next Tuesday night, but I have a feeling that I'm going to feel vindicated.
If Republicans are smart, they'll let this election be a lesson for them.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
Was it because fiscal conservatives weren't sold on McCain's economic message? Because evangelicals weren't sold on McCain's record on key social issues? Because gunowners weren't sold on McCain's 2nd Amendment background? I think it's all of the above.
Good post.
McCain may have beenfatally injured during the primary when Coulter, Limbaugh and other far out radio talk show pundits trashed him. A couple of these folks even promised to vote for Hillary if McCain were nominated. Lots of Republicans get all their "news" from Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly.
The Republican party needs to take a good look at itself over the next few years. It should be obvious to the most casual of observers that percolator economics is a failure. Since 1981 Republican presidents have added about 8 trillion dollars to the national debt with theirversion of "economics." The only thing that perked was the red ink. There is something fundamentallyand morallywrong with a party that leaves this legacy of indebtedness for our kids, our grand-kids and great-grand-kids.
TheRepublican party as it exists today is not fiscally conservative. Ratheritmean minded,hateful and stingy. The same Republicans in congress and the white house whopee and moan about welfare for moms with kids fell all over themselves passing the farm welfare bill. 70% of farm welfare money goes to 10 percent of "farmers." The "last" Republican congresscut troop brain injury researchwhile our fine troopswereengaged in two wars.
If the national Republican party does not get its act together it is going to be a long dry spell. If the next house has250 or more Democrats it will take at least four yearsto get them out of the control,unless they do something really stupid. The Republican "values agenda" of outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage,outlawingflagburning, allowing open Christian prayers in school,and cutting taxes is just not going to get it done. Me thinks that the Republican party "base" has shrunk drastically since the mid 90s.The party left them.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I will still ask you why the conservative base will be the ones that will possibly lose it for McCain? So if they are not solidified behind McCain what are they exactly going to do this election? Not vote? Vote for Obama or a third party candidate instead? If they do any of these things they should not be blaming McCain, but blaming themselves for giving the election to Obama. You could have Thompson or any other stauch conservative up there lighting up the base, but they would NOT win if they didn't attract a good many independents and even democrats. By conservatives not standing behind McCain they will give it to Obama. I honestly don't want to hear their complaining in the next four or more years if they were indeed the ones who gave the election away just because McCain doesn't see eye to eye with them on every single issue. To me it shows that they are too narrow minded for their own good.
Lots of formerly staunch Republicansi know are going to sit this one out. Some will vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr. The attempt by Kennedy and McCain to ram the illegal alien amnesty thing down our throats did it for them. This Republican will vote for Palin.
So if they are not solidified behind McCain what are they exactly going to do this election? Not vote? Vote for Obama or a third party candidate instead?
I suspect there will be some who will sit out the election. I certainly considered it. But these polls that record the preference of likely voters aren't measuring that aspect of it. The polls I'm looking at are showing conservatives who are voting for a candidate other than McCain, to the tune of around 15%. We won't know for sure whether this is true until we see exit polls, but it's a good indication that McCain did not unite his base.
Again, you continue to talk about the need to get independent voters. But McCain was the Republican candidate most likely to draw the support of the independents (I think we all agreed on that before the general election began). Yet, the independents are STILL breaking comfortably for Obama, and McCain is STILL behind in the polls in the final week before the election.
Going after the independent vote clearly did not work. My message is for the Republican Party: This election isn't over by any means, but IF you lose this election, it'll be because you couldn't solidify your base like Obama solidified his base. And you couldn't solidify your base because ignored your base.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
But McCain was the Republican candidate most likely to draw the support of the independents (I think we all agreed on that before the general election began). Yet, the independents are STILL breaking comfortably for Obama, and McCain is STILL behind in the polls in the final week before the election.
Do you think having Sarah Palin on the ticket could have something to do with this? Some polls suggest this, and I wouldn't doubt it. She seems to electrify the base, yet seems to turn off independents. So if a VP candidate can turn off so many independents, what do you think would happen if you had a more conservative person on top of the ticket? Obama would be leading by an even bigger margin in my opinion. It all boils down to Bush. People associate him with conservatives and for this election at least, the independents want NO part of it.
Do you think having Sarah Palin on the ticket could have something to do with this?
Not really. The polls were showing similar numbers before Palin was added to the ticket; before the character assassination of the Democrats and mainstream media that has made her a polarizing candidate.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
I myself tried hard to like Palin, but I honestly think McCain would have done better with Romney or Ridge or even Lieberman. These three surely would have had the independents who weren't exactly enamored by Obama give McCain a second look. Yeah, they might not have thrilled the "base", but you know what? If the "base" only wants to vote on the abortion issue they will have a hard time backing ANY candidate in the years to come, so they might as well start getting used to an Obama presidency if they can't even back a guy like McCain.
My feeling (re: Palin) is if McCain had chosen Romney, Pawlenty or Ridge this race would be over. Palin has been a huge draw and thrown some energy into an otherwise boring, drab McCain ticket. IMO, Mac hit a home run with Sarah Palin.
__________________
If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.
One week left . . . let's review
