[kesg]

Let me put the point even more bluntly: in actual Presidential elections, Democratic candidates rarely get even to 50%, much less 55%. The last one to do it — at 50.1% — was Jimmy Carter back in 1976. No Democratic candidate in US history ever got more votes than John Kerry, but that was good enough only for barely more than 48% of the national vote.

Gallup is esssentially saying that Barack Obama will get 8.5 million more votes for President than John Kerry did. Where are those new votes going to come from? I doubt that many of them are going to come from people who voted for Bush four years ago. Even if you increase voter turnout 5% from 2004 levels, that’s only about 6.1 million votes.

Even if you jack up turnout all the way to Gallup’s 64% — which would be the highest turnout since at least before 1960, that’s an additional 11 million votes, of which Obama would have to win at least 88.6% to net 8.5 million votes.

Does this seem plausible to anyone?

[goldstategop]

Its just not plausible. No candidate will ever win 88% of all the new votes. No Democrat does that even in non competitive states like California, Illinois and New York. No GOP candidate has done it either in Florida and Texas. Obama is not going to be able to net 8.5 million new votes, if you go with the Gallup figures. Even the most popular President in American history, Ronald Reagan won just 51% on his first try in 1980. Obama is not going to do better than Reagan on his first try for the White House. As you mentioned, John Kerry got more votes than Al Gore and he still got only 48%. Obama appears to be getting a lower percentage of the overall popular vote than Kerry did in 2004. We'll see what the voter increase is over the 2004 figure but we can definitely say its not going to be 64% under the Gallup model.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[floridagopvoter]

Seriously, you don’t think Obama will outperform Kerry in this election? KERRY?

No offense, but that does not seem plausible. Obama is not a sure candidate, he has many flaws, but poll after poll (including those from Republican polling firms) are showing a higher level of base support and also more support from Independents than Kerry got. If you add the inherent difficulties we are having in this particular year, and, going back to 2004, the general reluctance amongst many to send an incumbent president home, especially in the midst of a major war, I just can’t see how Obama does not outperform Kerry and how McCain outperforms a president Bush who at the time enjoyed higher popularity with the American people than Kerry.

[word_warrior_bob]

Gallup’s final estimate to be off by by a good 15%. That will bring the clients in.

Wasn’t it Gallup who got Obama/Clinton in California wrong by 26%?

[Chet 99]

Does this seem plausible to anyone?

No... but then again, I never thought it plausible that a radical Chicago politician with a tissue thin resume would be this close to winning the presidency either...

[Evan3457]

To put it succinctly: no.