pith…

As polls across the country increasingly show Obama leading McCain and solidifying the electoral map, especially in key battleground states, I am skeptical, highly skeptical. As such, I have some observations which may hearten the few Cons who might read this and either discourage my fellow Obama backers or encourage them to GET TO WORK.

First off, one should not ignore the polls that include Ralph Nader and Bob Barr: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_vs_mccain_with_barr_nader-957.html.
When Nader and Barr are added to the polls as named choices, Obama’s support falls by almost 2% while McCain’s support remains unchanged: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html Nader, as you know, was a big factor in 2000. Many democrats still blame him for handing the 2000 election to Bush. (He DID get 97,488 votes in Florida, 22,198 in New Hampshire - much more than Bush’s margin of victory in both states.) In a close election — especially in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin– the Nader factor should not be discounted.

Second, the number of undecided and barely leaning voters is historically high — as high as 18%! The more undecideds, the better the odds are for McCain. In a recent discussion of the election between Republican and Democratic pollsters on NPR, the Republican pollster said “Obama’s poll numbers are more likely to be a what-you-see-is-what-you-get number than McCain’s.” He confidently stated that a greater number of uncommitted voters would swing to McCain on or before election day, adding that the longer a person takes to decide, the more likely s/he is to select the more known political entity. The democratic pollster did not dispute this statement. Other seeds of doubt may be found at http://www.thenextright.com/sean-oxendine/on-allocating-undecided-voters. Think about it, as lousy as things are — from the “war” in Iraq to plunging economic prospects to people’s generally dim view of the direction the country has taken? Anyone who honestly wants to shake things up would surely have committed by now, don’t you think? McCain and Palin’s nastiest attacks have barely begun, so 18% of voters in the “up for grabs” category should be dead worrisome for any Obama supporter.

Third, the quadrennial unknown: 18-29 year-old voters. According to Gallup, Obama has a commanding 2-1 edge over McCain with under-30 voters and something that bodes well for Obama and the Democratic party in future elections. Obama optimists say this group is not adequately captured in the national polls because they are off the pollsters’ radars. I don’t buy it myself and have read (Sorry, no source for my reading right now.) that pollsters are correcting their numbers accordingly. I believe this group is mostly accounted for in pre-election polls and Pew Research Center,while identifying” the possibility of a small bias in landline surveys,” concludes that the slight bias will only be “consequential… if significant numbers of young people turn out to vote.” So, yet again, a Democratic candidate depends on high turnout in the 18-29 group. (That didn’t work too well for George McGovern, the last time young voters so widely favored of the Democrat.) An increase of under-30 voters in the 2004 and 2006 elections indicates they may show up in larger numbers than usual, but they still can’t touch the over-65 crowd and the geezers are backing one of their own in full force. (I’m happy to report that my own 76-year-old father is voting for Obama and says “I’m not about to vote for somebody that old. My mind’s not what it used to be. His isn’t either.” I’m also proud to say that my 74-year-old, Indiana-raised mother-in-law is an Obama supporter who, after watching the first debate, was appalled by McCain’s barely-contained anger and disdainful behavior toward his opponent, failing to look at Obama even while shaking hands.)

Fourth, the purging of voter rolls and voter suppression tactics. These are already in the news and may, again, determine the actual number of people who vote AND have their votes counted. Nobody knows whether they have been purged from a state or municipality’s voter rolls until they show up at the poll. At that point, they may be sent to another precinct, asked to vote with a provisional ballot or simply turned away. Every election year, Republicans, good patriots that they are warn of massive voter fraud. Efforts to stop “voter fraud” in 2008 include wounded veterans (Those bastards!), Alabama inmates (What! Who lets THEM vote?!), Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin (again), Pennsylvania and, that hotbed of ballot-stuffing: Montana. (Of course, one man’s voter suppression is another man’s voter fraud. I’ll tackle that eye-of-the-beholder issue with less bias & more research in a future article.)

Last, but hardly least, there’s the “Bradley effect, a frequently observed discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.” “Experts” differ on the weight of this effect, but it’s reasonable to say that, if it exists, it exists most strongly among rural/small-town white folks, like those in the Northern (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Minnesota & Michigan) and Southern (Missouri, southern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania) Cracker Belts, where the largest concentration of battleground states are found. (The Cracker Belts differ from the Deep South, known simply as Bubba Country in my electoral map parlance. More on my electoral map of America in a later article.) This year, more than ever, watch out for the undecided, changeable white folks. “The Midwest is home to more of these up-for-grabs voters. That’s not surprising given that seven large states in the region are among the most hotly contested battlegrounds — Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Among these undecided voters, Democrats are much less intensely behind Obama than Republicans are behind McCain. Obama appears to have more people on the bubble, and many of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s former backers haven’t fully committed, while McCain’s backers are hard-core Republicans and enthused by his running mate selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.” [http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-the-persuadables] And beware: Undecided voters are not so undecided after all.

In sum, remember what the Republican pollster said: “What you see is what you get.” To my mind, if Obama doesn’t have a solid 51-52% in a final state poll before election day, he is unlikely to win that state and, by extension, the presidency. (Outside the respective Cracker Belts, Virginia and North Carolina, Obama may still win the state with 49-50% in the pre-election polls.) The only thing that will cancel this out is a historically high turnout. If turnout reaches 60-65% Obama will win no matter what the pre-election day polls show. But that require the highest turnout since 1968 (60.8%) — a 6-11% increase over the shameful 54% average turnout in American presidential election years since 1960.

I could be wrong. I want to be wrong. I hope I’m wrong. But, trust me, I wasn’t born this way. A pessimist is just an idealist who’s been disappointed one too many times.

So, get out the vote, dammit. If you support Obama, volunteer now and every hour you can spare until election day. And, above all, TAKE ELECTION DAY OFF. Go door-to-door, take people to the polls, serve as a poll watcher or video the vote in an urban or heavily democratic precinct. Whatever you do, don’t EVEN THINK this is in the bag.

If you’re voting for McCain, well, say it ain’t so, Joe. Doggone it, why don’t you jist sit your maverick self down, sit a spell and drill, baby, drill.