Posted on 10/12/2008 8:34:47 AM PDT by bcatwilly
Okay, everyone likes to talk about polls so much. Well, how about we look at some 2004 exit poll data and apply some common sense from what we are actually seeing on the ground too.
There was 37% Democratic turnout (same as Republican makeup) on Election Day, which means there were about 44.77 million Democratic voters that day. Per the exit polls Kerry received 89% of Democrats (same as Gore did), which means that he received about 39.85 million Democratic votes.
For sake of argument, let us assume a similar total voter turnout of 121 million, yet give the Democrats 39% as Rasmussen is targeting his weighting too. This would be about 47.19 million Democratic voters on Election Day, which should more than accommodate the new ACORN voters and such. Obviously if Obama gets a similar 89% of Democrats then that is not good.
However IMO between the MANY on the ground reports (myself included) of Democrats who will NEVER cast a vote for Obama, any lingering Hillary PUMA impact and of course the possible "Bradley Effect", it is very reasonable IMO to consider the possibility that Obama only receives say 83% of Democrats. Well that would mean that he only receives 39.17 million Democratic votes, LESS than Kerry received.
That fact alone should encourage us considering that many of those who would not vote for Obama would almost certainly be in key states that matter. However, looking at the remaining breakdown IF you assume the Rasmussen turnout of only 33% Republicans (we were 37% of the turnout in 2004) then we would almost certainly lose unless McCain does much better than the approx. 50-50 split among Independents that was evidenced in both the 2000 and 2004 exit poll data. I do think that for the same reason that many of us can get annoyed with McCain there is some reason to think that he could outperform Bush among Independents. In fact one of the "hidden" things in the Gallup polling from just last week is that McCain still was showing a 9% advantage among the group that they labeled "pure Independents". However, this is not to be trusted as the path to victory.
However, if you simply assume even a 35% Republican makeup of voters on Election Day (still a 4% advantage to the Democrats) as compared to the 33% in the Rasmussen weighting, then there would be 42.35 million Republican voters on Election Day. Per the exit polls Bush received 93% of Republicans, and frankly given the radical associations and agenda of Obama I find it hard to believe that McCain can't match that number. So this would mean McCain gets 39.39 million Republican votes, which is MORE Republican votes than Obama receives Democratic votes even with a 4% Democratic turnout advantage.
So in this scenario if McCain can even fight to parity among Independents then he probably squeaks by like 2000, winning the key battleground states due to Obama not gaining quite enough of his own party as described.
Now obviously if there is a "silent majority" waiting to turnout on Election Day that makes it much closer to even in terms of party identification, then McCain wins fairly easily.
Really until someone can provide me SOLID evidence that refutes what I see and hear with my own eyes regarding Democratic support of Obama (far fewer Obama signs in rural PA and OH areas than I recall for Kerry and Gore, first hand accounts of Democrats saying they won't vote for Obama etc.) then I think the dirty little secret of this election could be the defection of Democratic voters that either makes this a total nail biter or a mildly comfortable McCain victory.
Where is the effect of the PUMA vote?
Okay, if this happens, care to guess how many talking heads will committ seppuku? Perhaps James Carville will be the first?
True, I did make brief reference to it. I just am sick of even some of us not trying to use our own eyes and ears to adjust reality a little. Other than the most rabid among us saying that Clinton was a sleaze and such, I don't recall seeing much of anything on the ground that led me to believe Dole was headed toward anything but a Clinton big victory. But I have definitely seen some on the ground things with Obama, particularly Democratic lack of the same level of Democratic support, that does not make me feel the same.
McCain knows this, which is why he is not attacking - to try to appeal to Reagan Democrats in Pennsylvania and Ohio and mush-minded soccer moms in suburban Colorado. They are the only types of voters that count right now - not the angry conservatives who are already on board, and not the Obamabots who are unreachable, anyway.
I tend to agree with you. The polls are over-sampling Democrats, as they do every time until we get close to the election. If McCain can put the “Risky” label solidly on Obama, he can easily win.
Carville is the only guy I ever saw commit sepuku with a garbage can!
They will be too gleeful explaining how 0bama’s electoral defeat proves that Americans are racist.
I think the PUMAs make up a larger percentage than the poster is estimating.
Racist and once again Republicans will have “stolen” the election.
Only this time it will be like Detroit after the Pistons win a championship.
what about the “BARNEY FRANK effect”?? The “CHRIS DODD effect” ??
A Special Prosecutor should be appointer immediately with great fanfare.
What is a yellow dog democrat?
Starting over a hundred years ago and continuing up to recent years a “Yellow Dog Democrat” referred to a voter that would vote for a yellow dog before he would vote for a Republican. In the beginning I’m sure it was someone that hadn’t forgotten the War Between The States but later it was the grandchild of that original voter.
They are getting more difficult to find among white Southern voters in this day and age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.