Posted on 11/15/2008 9:33:40 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
The race between Barack Obama and John McCain was supposed to be about winning the middle. Both candidates embraced the theme of moving from partisan gridlock to seeking bipartisan consensus. Obama's speeches evoked a country that was "not blue states and red states, but more United States." McCain focused on his record of working on both sides of Senate aisle. In contrast to the 2004 election, in which both parties sought to motivate their bases, this campaign was set on the battlefield of undecided voters.
The election results, however, record the exact opposite happening. Most undecided voters swung to McCain, but he was buried by Obama's ability to spur enormous turnout among the Democratic base while McCain, in turn, was unable to bring out the Republican base.
The swing among undecided voters continued a trend that had occurred during the Democratic primaries. I had posited a "Social Effect"--a variation of what some call the "Bradley Effect"--where voters who say they are undecided are in fact highly unlikely to vote for the leading, better funded or more widely supported candidate.
Obama's strength on Election Day, winning 53-46 in the popular vote, has led almost all polling analysts to conclude that there was nothing resembling a "Bradley Effect" this year, and that the undecideds basically split.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
“The election results, however, record the exact opposite happening. Most undecided voters swung to McCain, but he was buried by Obama’s ability to spur enormous turnout among the Democratic base while McCain, in turn, was unable to bring out the Republican base.”
See tagline.
The author is overthinking it. The straightforward explanation is that most of the people who still called themselves “undecided” in the final week were GOP voters who had serious reservations about the McCain/Palin ticket but finally decided to hold their nose and vote for it.
The editor Dunba** Kristel thought it was. LOL
Kind of like they are doing in Burma just now (65 year jail sentences for opposition to the Government)??
McCain did a good job of driving Obama’s negatives but democrats had the negatives and positives (Hope) in their favor. McCain was the Bob Dole of 2008, outmatched by a young sweet talker. But more-so, McCain really stood for nothing consistent,
Our first job is to continue working on Obama’s negatives, inch by inch. To the (political) resistance!
Maybe compared to other campaigns, but not compared to what he could have done with collegues by simply declaring all the documented truth of Barack Obama's history.
Who were these undecided voters that the author bases this piece on? According to Rasmussen, there were hardly any.
Although necessary, there is something even more important, namely communicating to the people in concrete terms why electing principled conservative Republicans will be good for them.
I agree that is why we lost 100%, but bringing Obama’s followers down to earth is easier and our first order of business. Back to your point, if we dont do what YOU say, we lose again and both take a new republican party.
SORRY. TRY:
I agree that is why we lost 100%, but bringing Obama’s followers down to earth is easier and our first order of business. Back to your point, if we dont do what YOU say, we lose again, and both objectives take a new republican party.
I would add this: in regards to the bringing down the current majority-of-2008-voters view of Obama part, awesome, but it should be done directly.
Some keep hammering on Ayers. That did not work during the campaign and it does not work now.
Obama has to be taken on directly, with illustrations of how his worldview contradicts that of decent people. His advocacy of killing babies, his antipathy towards the Constitution, his plan to institute slavery / mandatory civil service, his war on free speech, his supplanting of Christian theology with liberation theology, his racism and more are all very worth spotlighting.
All of the “Obama has rotten associates, so instead of talking about why Obama is a problem, the nature of his associates will be talked about instead” is a miserable failure.
The only association that could have imperiled Obama was Wright, and that it because the link between Wright’s ideology and Obama’s ideology can be clearly made. Even that wasn’t done much at all though. People would say “Obama is bad because he hangs out with Wright” and then go on and on about Wright, barely mentioning Obama.
The focus on what is wrong with Barack Obama needs to be on what is wrong with Barack Obama directly.
bttt
When Republicans start deciding to stop attacking conservatives, they will start winning.
I still believe that when conservatives joined in on the Bush bashing in about 2005, that was the beginning of the end.
2006 and 2008 were indications of the base being belittled.
Perhaps the author is thinking of Pew Research. 7 days before the election, Pew had Obama winning 53-38. 3 days before the election did one final poll showing Obama leading 52-46. As a result, Pew is bragging about being the most accurate pollster in 2008.
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.