I trade precious metals for a large bank; one thing I’ve learned about fundamentals is that they are right...until they are wrong and then you’re sol if you are on the wrong side.
The Democratic base will no doubt rally around an Obama candidacy but there aren’t enough of them to overcome the many, many more who will be put off by the lack of experience and the lack of taste in relationships. I’m no idealist but I just don’t see how the (very convincing) fundamentals can overcome the tactical difficulties of a general election.
More succinctly, if Obama wins I will definitely buy you a beer next time I’m in Bethesda. I’ll need something to cry into.
Those fundamentals are interesting, but didn’t the election of 2004 refute them? Unpopular war, unpopular prez, the economy I can’t remember but I’m sure the Dems had everyone convinced it was awful.
I think the factors missing in your assessment about Obama’s chances in the general election are; 1]. He’s never actually had to defend many of his proposed policies, in detail, against a truly adversarial opponent (Hillary’s policies are not that different), and, 2]. I think he’s going to have a real uphill battle winning any significant portion of some pretty sizable voting blocs [i.e.; Reagan Democrats, Hispanics, older voters]. John McCain has not yet really begun to target Obama’s policies, and I’m pretty sure his campaign advisers already have a plan in mind.
I think Hillary’s already exposed his demographic weaknesses, and I doubt whether there’s much he can do between now and November to mitigate that. If anything, I see the demographic spread growing even larger…
I think Hillary’s already exposed his demographic weaknesses, and I doubt whether there’s much he can do between now and November to mitigate that. If anything, I see the demographic spread growing even larger…
I don’t like the term ‘race’, because it’s an insidious cultural construct, but that’s what this election has become, and no euphemisms like ‘demographic spread’ can mask it.
What percentage of people who do not identify themselves as ‘black’ are going to vote for the candidate of Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, and Jeremiah Wright (not to mention the Weathermen)?
Not more than 30% is my guess.
John McCain may only have to remain standing through November in order to win.
Some interesting trends for Obama. In the earlier primaries, he was garnering about 80% of the black vote. In the most recent primaries, he has been over 90%. In a State like NC, that is a sizable chunk of the vote.
I read where 38% of Democratic voters in NC are black. So, right off the bat, Obama enjoyed 36% of the primary vote from one single block. In the remaining primaries, he is not likely to find that kind of advantage. In fact, the recent trends show that he is losing support to Clinton among other groups that supported him in the early contests. Which means, Hillary can narrow the gap before the convention, and continue her message that a lock on the black vote is no guarantee of victory in a general election.
While the Jeremiah Wright association appears to have had a negative impact on white voters, it looks like it has actually had a positive impact with black voters.
Might be because I live in Michigan, things are very tough here; my sense is that folks will vote for “change”. Even the ill defined change offered by Barry.
The costs of food and fuel (not measured in the CPI) are crazy; people are having to choose between gasoline, food, and their mortgage payment.
Lots of homes here being foreclosed. People who have nice $250,000 homes and have to move, are accepting tens of thousands less.
What’s McCain going to say? Obama is going to promise an end to this spiral...McCain?
Look, I’m not saying Barry makes sense, not even for Michigan, but people are very susceptible now.
McCain will prove to be a cranky old f-er stuck in the past who supports policies that keep us enmeshed in the Middle East. Nine months from now everyone who posts on PL will be wondering how we could have have supported this Bush dolt for so long.
Might be because I live in Michigan, things are very tough here; my sense is that folks will vote for “change”. Even the ill defined change offered by Barry. . . .
Do you think that if Mitt Romney were on the ticket, he could bring in Michigan for McCain?
I don’t like the term ‘race’, because it’s an insidious cultural construct, but that’s what this election has become, and no euphemisms like ‘demographic spread’ can mask it.
What percentage of people who do not identify themselves as ‘black’ are going to vote for the candidate of Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, and Jeremiah Wright (not to mention the Weathermen)?
Not more than 30% is my guess.
John McCain may only have to remain standing through November in order to win.
/Mr Lynn
Interesting post, Mr Lynn. I wonder if a point will come in the general election when everyone admits that this race is about race and we start that “dialogue” Obama was calling for. I’m in. I have my remarks on affirmative action, Black liberation theology, and who’s owed what all prepared.
"One can usually predict the outcome of the general election, and come pretty close on the margin, by considering just a few variables: how the economy is doing, whether we’re at war and how popular the war is, which party holds the White House and how long it has held it, and how popular the president is. This year, these “fundamentals” point to a Democratic victory of at least 10 percentage points.”
There is a problem with your model. In the post-WWII period, there have only been 5 presidential elections with margins of 10 percentage points or better - Reagan in 84, Nixon in 72, LBJ in 64, and both of Eisenhower’s wins. None of those contests match your “fundamentals.” At least three of those five were 2nd term wins (Eisenhower 56, Nixon 72, Reagan 84) which validated incumbents, plus LBJ’s win in 1964 was an incumbency of a truncated first term (and, perhaps in many voters’ minds, a vote for a 2nd JFK term). The 10+ pt. win that comes closest to your model is Ike’s 1952 victory. The nation was at war, but the economy was strong.
Now, look at the elections in the post-WWII period that have been held in the midst of an ongoing war: 1952 during Korea, 1968 and 1972 during Vietnam, and 2004 during Iraq - in every case, the candidate seen stronger on the war was the victor, while the dovish candidate in each case was defeated (notwithstanding Nixon’s 1968 “secret plan to end the war” dodge).
I agree that Obama is the favorite right now, but not for your reasons. Electoral geography is on his side - and would have been on the side of any Democratic nominee. But, McCain is a very strong candidate to hold states the Dems looked sure to capture this time around (New Hampshire, Ohio) and, with the right running mate (Tim Pawlenty), could add some of the Great Lakes states that were relatively close in 2004 and which are blue collar strongholds that are not Obama’s natural constituency.
McCain can be very competitive in this race, so long as he does not foolishly try to run a 50 state race. He is going to be vastly outspent by Obama, and he can’t afford to throw away scarce campaign dollars in states like California and New York where he has no chance of winning. He’s got to hold the states that voted for Bush, and try to expand into the other Great Lakes states where the ground is fertile and the campaigning is relatively cheap.
Well, Powerline predicted both that Bush would accept the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and Petraeus’s troop surge wouldn’t be successful.
Oops.
The problem with all the analysis going on today is that it’s predicated on McCain having no input. The race is described as if Obama will run against a silent opponent.
The Republicans will do everything in their power to define Obama as a high-taxing, inexperienced defeatist. If they’re successful, Obama won’t win.
Obama is trying to define McCain as identical to Bush, which no rational voter will buy.
The fundamentals are the DNC will be a wreck by the time they leave Denver and will be spending all of September just trying to get the tent back up much less people under it. The fundamentals presume Hillary graciously exits and donates her delegates to Obama. Ain’t no way that happens. This is Hillary’s only shot at becoming the first woman President and she is not going to give it up, it will have to be ripped from her and in the process the DNC will be ripped as well. Inside the convention hall in Denver in 2008 will look like outside the convention hall in Chicago in 1968--riotous.
