Posted on 11/01/2008 4:44:51 PM PDT by LS
These are words that are, actually, somewhat difficult for me to say. John McCain wasn't my favorite candidate in the primaries. For the better part of eight years, he's been on the wrong side of many crucial issues. So I am not making this prediction based on any love of my former Arizona senator. (And forgive me for a slightly windy post, but I want to provide evidence for my congratulatory note.)
A week ago ("Don't Look Now . . . But There Won't Be an Obama Swag-Bag"), I warned that the numbers in the early voting were not sufficient for the Messiah to win---not in Colorado, not in Florida, and at the time, barely enough to carry California. Since then, the numbers in CO have improved for Obama, but in my view not nearly enough. The numbers in Florida remain daunting for him, and California still is stunningly close in terms of Democrat/Republican splits. Based on that, and some other factors, I predicted there would be no Obama victory, and no Obama "Swag-Bag." (Did anyone see the Obama voter who said the Messiah would pay off her mortgage and pay for her gas!?)
The developments in the past week have, if anything, strengthened my conviction that McCain will be inaugurated next January.
High numbers of undecideds remain in the major national polls. According to Dick Morris, "An undecided has already decided not to vote for Obama." While his claim that undecideds---based on a FOX poll---would go for McCain at a clip of 7:1 is, I think, exaggerated, our own Freeper kesg has made a similar argument. It's all about what he calls the 'death line' of 48% for Obama. In only a couple of polls, with drastic manipulations involving oversampling of Democrats, has Obama crossed that line.
Even National Review's anonymous sage "Obi Wan" doesn't seem to fully appreciate the significance of Obama's inability to "close the deal" at that number.
Then there is the completely un-discussed (save for conservative sites) phenomenon of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos." This was real, it registered thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of temporary Democrat voters who are "coming home." Then there are the disaffected Hillary voters---call them PUMAs, if you will---but they do constitute some percentage of the Democrat electorate that the media has been entirely unwilling to acknowledge. Sources tell me that while MI will still land firmly in Obama's column, his lead there has been cut by shocking levels due almost entirely to a scorched earth policy by the PUMAs and the 527s.
Taken together, however, these two groups of "Democrats" (one faux, one real but angry) are tiny compared to the number of white Democrats who think their party has been hijacked by a terrorist. Again, to the drive-by media, such people don't exist. To admit they were real---let alone in numbers---would destroy the entire mythos of the "surge in voter registrations." I'll say more of this in a moment, but for now, I predict---out on a limb here---that Obama will barely come close to Kerry's 2004 Democrat support number.
What does all this mean for the states? With indies breaking at a far higher rate for McCain than Obama, and with large segments of the Democrats voting Republican, you are likely to see both a very high level of Republican support for McCain (probably in the 90s), combined with a significant level of Dem support and late breaking independents. That breaks down to:
*CO will be Republican by about 2 points.
*NV will be a 2 point or better final for McCain.
*MO will be a 4 or 5 point McCain win.
*NM will end up a 2-point McCain loss.
*We will bring in OH at 2 or 3 points---better than Bush did in 04.
*FL will be a double digit McCain lead. GA and NC won't be that close.
*Here's the clincher: the southern part of VA, combined with the west, will give McCain a 1- to 2-point win in the Old Dominion.
*I won't predict NH, IA, or PA. These are very, very close. If I had to guess, I'd say McCain wins NH, loses PA by razor thin margins---but there's that darned "Bradley Effect," and it is real, and it may well bring PA along.
There are other dynamics at work that could, in fact, blow this open a tad for McCain (i.e., bring in IA, PA, NM, and even WI). First, GOPTrust is running $7 million---that's right, $7 million---in devastatingly effective Jeremiah Wright ads this weekend. McCain's support with the oldsters has been somewhat soft due to claims he'll "cut" Social Security, but these ads will scare the bejeezus out of them, and with good reason.
Second, Zogby's overnight not only had it a 1-point McCain lead, but noted that a very good Obama night was dropping off the rolling three-night average. Now, I know, it's the Zogs special sauce. Isn't IDB or Battleground supposed to be better? Well, it actually depends. I think Zogs has been so volatile because his poll has been extremely sensitive to rapid changes. The others have not been as, well, "emotional." Hence, they've stabilized (Battleground at under 4, IBD Tipp at 4 to 5). However, the McCain team said their polling showed that Obama lost ground with the infomercial. The polls didn't pick it up Friday because of the Halloween effect---families (otherwise known as Republican voters) were out with their kids. I think Zogs picked up that post-infomercial shift. Hello, Dickie Morris.
Battleground's "Battleground State" poll, in a little-reported item, noted that all the battleground states were within a point. It then did not define what these states were (hence, I think FL is excluded) but did include NM and IA. New Mexico? I thought Obama had this locked up in 2006!
Finally, the clincher in all this, as it has always been, is the white Democrat vote. And it was "early voting"---contrary to all conventional wisdom---where Obama lost the election. The drive-bys are obsessed with black turnout early (some indicators STILL don't convince me that it will equal Algore's 2000 level turnout, but I could be wrong on this, and it still won't matter).
The critical element of the "early" black vote that all pundits have missed is reflected in the Morris "7:1" comment. In normal elections, cameras go to polling places and show lines. High turnout, low turnout, but the crowds are almost always mixed. This year, "early" voting, combined with the emphasis on Obama's race (and he has run the most racist campaign since Bull Conner), the images have overwhelmingly been of . . . crowds of black voters.
By itself, this would disturb no one, until Obama begins to talk about "spreading the wealth around," and anyone making over (pick a number) $200,000 will see a "patriotic" tax increase and (feel a chill yet?) saying this will be a "transformational" election.
When the camera shots of the lines of black voters is combined with the rhetoric about "he's going to pay my mortgage and pay for my gas," working-class whites (indeed, everyone) starts to get a little antsy. No doubt, more than a few Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Missouri voters suddenly conjured up the Reconstruction images of "Birth of a Nation." "Do people on welfare really think after November 4 they will be moving into my house?" they ask. The House's hearings on nationalizing 401(k)s has percolated into the electorate, including the oldsters.
If I am proven right on November 5, and John McCain is elected president, it will be due to the incredibly stupid, wasteful ad spending by Obama for four months that was forgotten in the last 72 hours; it will be due the early voting that reinforced in the minds of the middle-class and white voters of all economic backgrounds that when Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth around," he really is coming for MY house.
And above all---let's give credit where credit is due---it will be because of a relentless performance by Sarah Palin, a brilliantly choreographed campaign by McCain's managers, and to the gritty, plodding but oh-so-successful turtle from Arizona.
I think John Fund deserves some vigilante justice.
[the McCain team said their polling showed that Obama lost ground with the infomercial.]
“That’s my sense of it. “
When you stop to think about that propaganda piece, it was downright Hitlerian in content. The adulating crowds, the slowly soaring speech reaching a mindbending crescendo. I expected Richstag salutes to thunderous chants of O-Bama! O-Bama!
Thanks for the ping!
[A civilian police force is something I would never agree to]
That ought to scare the bejeebers out of most people. Imagine if Bush had said such a thing!
Thank you. I agree entirely. The byrd comment made me pmsl!!! : )
We Vote We Win.
Vote McCain/Palin.
That's an average of 700 for each of the 50 states. Just an average of 700 more Republican votes per state could have kept the Senate in Republican hands. That's what anger got us in 2006.
LS, you’ve outdone yourself this time!
I love reading your posts.
I’ve read them for more than one election. ;o)
Thank you, nutmeg!
This makes me very happy!
Here's the thing: those have been temporarily stopped by Obama thugs. Not sure what the legal basis is (First Amendment, anyone?). Censorship has played a bigger role in this election than any in my lifetime.
Actually, re-reading it, it appears that two networks voluntarily censored this (hmmm, wonder why?) GOPTrust is working on it in the legal arena.
These people are either using bad methodology or lying out their butts. Either way, the polls are a steaming pile of crap and I will stand by that statement even if Obama wins.
That's an average of 700 for each of the 50 states. Just an average of 700 more Republican votes per state could have kept the Senate in Republican hands. That's what anger got us in 2006.,
Once again, the canard that just won't die gets trotted-out. This anger "excuse" has been analyzed and debunked repeatedly here - it simply isn't true. Conservatives were indeed angry, but they still showed up and voted. What cost us in 2006 was the loss of the independent and swing voters. It seems some here need the comfort of their scapegoats rather than studying the hard analyses.
.
CLARITY =
McCAIN ‘Teddy Roosevelt’ Bears coming = Respect for the Man
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2122023/posts
.
Not true in OH. We’ve run the numbers. We had local candidates pulling far higher proportionally than the state offices, indicating that Rs came out, but voted D.
If I’m wrong this time, it probably won’t matter. A little humiliation will be irrelevant compared to the horrors this country is about to endure.
You are absolutely right: in OH, we had local candidates-—proportionally, because many times people don’t vote down ballots-—doing far better than senator and governor. They were angry at DeWine and angry at Taft (and took it out on Blackwell). With Blackewell, however, there was an astonishing 10% (!!!) Bradley Effect difference in the final poll to the final numbers.
Terrific on the ground report. One of your fellow Virginians, however, weighed in with observations about the western part, which he says gets completely ignored in all these samples. He claimed it was overwhelmingly McCain, and just wasn’t being factored in anywhere.
See Kabar’s post in this thread. What is your take on western VA? We had someone from western VA post a few days ago that it is solidly McCain, yet no one seems to be factoring it in. True, it’s not as heavily populated as either the north or the south, but in a close election, it would be important.
......What is your take on western VA?.....
I am reporting from East Tennessee, Our TV stations broadcast to the SW Va markets
Beginning last night, there is a heavy flood of McCain TV ads. They are from McCain, NRA and many of the one that was banned by two networks. This morning they are on the Fox networl locally. McCain is coming here to campaign on Monday with heavy promotion in South West Virginia.
I can’t tell if this is good or bad.
Does Obama think he has it in the bag or has he given up and spending his money elsewhere.
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.