Replies

Newport did not mention that the "expanded" likely voters in this election will also include those who wouldn't ordinarily vote except in the rare instance when there is a broad national concern that one of the tickets contains a nominee whose possible election to office is so frightening that it must be blocked. This sort of situation has occurred twice in the past 50 years: in the case of Goldwater in 1964, when the Democrats convinced large numbers of voters that Goldwater was too dangerous to be President and might use 'the bomb' (the famous 'daisy ad'); and in 1972, when McGovern was seen by the public, including centrist Democrats, as too radically leftwing to hold the office of the Presidency. Both LBJ and Nixon won in 1964 and 1972, respectively, by the largest pluralities that one of the major parties ever held over the other major party at the time each election took place. The same factor had been put in play by Adlai Stevenson on the eve of the 1956 Presidential election when he reminded the public that "a Republican victory tomorrow would mean that Richard M. Nixon would be President of this country within the next four years." This was a not-so-cryptic suggestion that, if elected, Ike, who had suffered a serious coronary in his first term, would die before his second term expired, and Nixon would succeed to the Presidency, a consequence that Stevenson seemed to think would chill the blood of the U.S. public as much as it would chill the blood of the murderers' row in the Kremlin. In this case, the threat of a Nixon Presidency fizzled and Dick & Ike sailed to a landslide victory. This time around, in 2008, the threat of an Obama Presidency is pitted against the threat of a Palin vice-presidency leading to a Palin Presidency. So far, judging by the polls, the former is not as threatening to the public as the latter, and if the gap begins to narrow, the question is: Which threat will bring out more of the "expanded" likely voters who respond to 'armageddon-type' threats. The only clue we have is that so many prominent Republicans (e.g., Christopher Buckley, Noonan, Brooks, Will) have 'felt the chill' and have openly defected from Republican ranks on the basis of the Palin candidacy, whereas no prominent centrist Democrats have openly defected from Democratic ranks on the basis the 'Obama threat.' Only careful analysis of the Nov. 4 electorate, based on asking the right questions, will give us the answer.

Not true. A number of high profile, centrist Democrats have, indeed, abandoned Obama. Remember millionaire funraiser, Ms. Rothschild? Remember the head of NOW in Los Angeles? There’s always Joe Liberman, too. And what about all those Hillary supporters?

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

Oh really? Ever heard of Joe Lieberman? The scores of Pumas?