Pollster predicts race to wire (Gallup)

Brush up on hanging chads! The scramble for the Oval Office is “tightening” to 2 percentage points, with recent presidential history of photo finishes poised to repeat itself, a noted pollster says.

Barring a serious slip-up or riveting news event, it appears that Barack Obama and John McCain will be up late on Nov. 4 while the votes are counted.

“The race is tightening,” said Frank Newport, editor of polling powerhouse Gallup. “That’s what makes it so fascinating.”

Newport told the Herald yesterday Obama is up by 2 percentage points when “traditional” voters are surveyed. Those voters, he says, “have a history of voting.” This loyal block - stocked with Republicans - is polling at 49-47 percent for Obama.

The wild card, he said, are younger and minority voters. If they get out and vote, Obama’s poll numbers leap to 51-45.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen,” said Newport, who added that a major gaffe, Wall Street turnaround or big event could still sway voters in the days to come.

Thanks for troubling to reply to my post in this thread. The operative part of my mention of defections from the Democratic ranks was the part that is highlighted in boldface italics below:

"no prominent centrist Democrats have openly defected from Democratic ranks on the basis the 'Obama threat.'"

In the historical precedents I cited, and in connection with any attempt to find a basis for the differential defection rate, it was/will be necessary to inquire of voters if the Goldwater, McGovern, Nixon, Palin or Obama 'threat' was the specific reason for their defection. In the case of the Republican defectors I named, the cause of the defection was specifically cited as Palin. I cannot recall that Lieberman ever indicated that the basis for his defection was Obama, i.e. he would have defected whether the nominee was Obama, Hillary or any other of the Democratic primary contenders. Have any of the other Democratic defectors you have named specifically attributed their defections to the fact that Obama, rather than any other Democratic primary nominee, was chosen for the Presidential contest? For purely PR reasons, it would seem unlikely that they would have done so because to have done so would have put them on the spot with respect to a charge of racism -- however many other reasons (e.g., his liberal-left politics) they might have cited.

In the first instance I cited, it was widely believed that Stevenson's candidacy was seriously weakened by the public's association of Stevenson with public jesting. Stevenson was a genuinely witty individual who knew how to deliver a humorous line regardless of who wrote it. The arguments given in support of the perception that this was a handicap for Stevenson generally focused on the notion that the issues of the day were too grave to allow for public jesting. It will be interesting to observe whether or not this same perspective re-surfaces in connection with Palin's appearance on SNL. Democrats are nothing if not foxy: it was Nixon's ability to finesse them at their own game that led to his occupying a unique place in their hall of infamy.

Thanks for your reply to my second post in this thread. I admit to complete ignorance about this and thank you for your information. Is PUMA an acronym? My understanding is that they are largely motivated by their feminist leanings and would ONLY have found Hillary to be an acceptable Democratic nominee.

By many, Stevenson was viewed as the Oscar Wilde candidate, an image that was encouraged when Nixon described Stevenson as Sidesaddle Adlai, adding that "like all sidesaddle riders his feet hang well out to the left." However, the overwhelming reason Stevenson lost in 1952 and 1956 was Ike's enormous popularity. I cannot recall that Stevenson was seen as a Dukakis-type policy wonk. Unlike Dukakis, Stevenson was, in my reading of history, most widely remembered as the wittiest man who ran for the U.S. Presidency in the last half of the 20th century. He was, on the occasion I mentioned, when he held out the prospect of Ike's dying during his second term (and Nixon succeeding him), thought to have been altogether too serious. As Ambrose noted in this connection, "What most people found distasteful, however, was what Stevenson said, and the way he said it."

My Googling of PUMA indicates that it IS an acronym and has the following meaning:"

".... websites have sprung up to denounce Democrats for picking Obama. One - called PUMA, an acronym for the sentiment "Party Unity My A**" - features postings by Clinton supporters saying they will never vote for Obama, even if it means electing McCain."

There is no suggestion they will vote for McCain. They should certainly be included in the data analysis that prompted my first post in this thread, BUT if, as seems to follow from the above quotation, they simply will not vote at all, I guess they will not be included in 'exit polls' and will not register in the "expanded" likely voters group I pinpointed in my first post.

Granting that they might vote for McCain, they should certainly be included in the sort of analysis I mentioned in my first post. They constitute a 'sore loser' group and it will be of interest to know if such a group could have significant influence. For example, if McGovern had not been nominated in 1972, the 'sore losers' would still have voted against Nixon in all likelihood. It will be of interest to know what proportion of the 'sore loser' group that supported Hillary would vote against Obama, in which case, if the Dems lose, they might, in a close election, be accused of scuttling a Democratic victory (cf. Nader) and Hillary would likely be toast in 2012.

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.