I was part of a group email exchange recently in which some Obama fans noted their unshakable pessimism, the idea that McCain will somehow win irrespective of the current conditions. This is the nagging feeling that Democrats have earned from decades of being the Washington Generals of American politics. Nothing can ever go right. They will always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I would like to share that pessimism, especially after 2004. Try as I might, I just cannot make the math work for McCain. There are only two ways to conjure up a McCain victory at this point: electoral fraud, which I do not endorse, or the assumption that literally hundreds of polls conducted by independent, Democratic, and Republican organizations are wrong, with which I can't agree.
To win, McCain will need to prevail in every single swing state and two or more states (depending on which ones) in which he currently trails by a statistically significant margin. I do not have the words for how unlikely or implausible that appears at the moment. The polls will narrow over the next two weeks as undecideds finally extract heads from asses, but there are only two ways to get around the data showing Obama in the lead. First, assume that the polls are just wrong. All of them. Significantly wrong. In a dozen states and nationwide. That sounds more like a childish denial of reality than a logical argument. Second is to believe, absent any empirical evidence, that he's about to mount an overwhelming and rapid comeback. Good luck with that.
Money-wise, Obama's recent figures stagger me. Regardless of my preferences, I find the amount of money required in these elections to be sickening. Obama raised more than $5 million per day in September – that means that his campaign raised $58 per second for an entire month. McCain isn't exactly hurting, raising tens of millions as well, but the fund raising by Obama has dwarfed anything conceivable even a few years ago. Obama can literally piss money away on any half-cocked idea that crosses the campaign's mind. Campaign hard in North Dakota? Why not! Thirty minutes of network TV time? Buy it! Six million dollars worth of advertising during each NFL game? Do it! It is like an episode of Supermarket Sweep at this point, sprinting down the aisles, arms outstretched, pushing anything in reach into the cart.
What's he doing with that cash? He's straining McCain to the mental and financial breaking point. Unlike Kerry, who unwisely devoted all of his attention to just a few states, Obama is running hard and running hard everywhere. McCain can't just focus on "swing states." He has to waste precious time and money making sure he holds Indiana. That is not good.
I expect very little to change in twelve days. Barring some world-shattering event (the Russians invade, the stock market plummets to zero, etc) I feel like the dynamics of this race will not substantively change in such a short time. Minds are largely made up and the contest becomes a battle of who will show up on Election Day. McCain should spend less time throwing the kitchen sink of "hot button" issues at the media to turn undecided voters against Obama. Instead, he should do everything in his power to keep his existing supporters motivated. If they say "fuck it" and give up, he has no chance. If they stay fired up, he has some chance. Hoping that his base outnumbers Obama's support might not make great odds, but they're better odds than throwing inane smears around and hoping they work.
Obama's plan shouldn't change: stay calm, talk about the economy. That's it. As long as everyone's focus remains on our pitiful economic climate, the odds of voters flocking to McCain's "message", whatever the hell it is, are slender.
Shane says:
While your arguments are sound, I too still cannot stop the persistent and nagging worry that we will some how find a way to lose this election. I am curious about the direction of the causal arrow in this relationship. Are we pessimistic and plagued by self doubt because we are Democrats, or Democrats because we are pessimistic and plagued by self doubt, because clearly Republicans have confidence that they will win even when all signs point to the contrary. There is certainly a viable research question in here somewhere.
mike says:
Gambling time.
Provided nothing big changes, What's the 50/50 on Obama's Electoral Votes total? What's the 5% high and the 95% low?
Ed says:
I am 150% certain that if McCain wins it is going to be by a nose. I do not believe that is a controversial statement.
The 95% confidence interval would have to bottom out at 260 and peak at 375. The variance is in Florida and Ohio. Obama still wins if he loses both of them, but with a small margin (~280). With them, he can go from a narrow win to a landslide.
dbsmall says:
If you want statistical evaluations of the polling, you can get it from here.
I think there's a hidden assumption in your statement that the "polls are wrong". Or, at least, your skepticism that they could all be wrong seems to reflect your belief that they can't all lack the diligence. Unfortunately, there are too many factors that can make the polling differ from the voting here:
– Bradley effect (private racism, public tolerance "with all their hearts")
– Ageism (private fears that he'll croak)
– Electoral fraud
– Sampling error (the same public samples that have historically been represenative may not be representative in an election with a black man, an old man, a single man, and a vapid woman)
– People who want to be seen as "party-loyal" might, you know, pretend that Sarah Palin isn't an embarrassment, but actually vote against her.
I guess I am willing to believe that the polls are pretty wrong.
I mean, something sure smells fishy about calling ND a tossup, calling VA blue, calling OHblue, …
on the other hand, the outcome is most probably binary state. Barring something like Obama taking UT, or McCain taking NY or CA, I guess I can believe almost anything.
If the last presidency has taught me anything, it's that the electorate doesn't behave the way I'd want or even expect. A McCain win couldn't possibly be as jarring to me as the Bush/Cheney '04 mandate.
Ed says:
Ah, the "Bradley effect". Straight from Rove's mouth to America's ears.
My take on said effect: bullshit. Unadulterated bullshit. That particular phenomenon has almost no empirical support, and even fewer people repeating it who understand it.
The "Bradley Effect" relative to Sen. Bradley was a statistically significant group of people who reported themselves *undecided* but had no intention of choosing Bradley. It was NOT a phenomenon of people claiming they would vote for Bradley and then failing to do so.
So, given the margin of Obama's leads relative to the shrinking undecideds, unless 90-100% of the current undecideds are secret McCain voters that's not a game changer. The more likely outcome, historically, is that people who remain undecided at this point aren't going to vote.
I don't put a lot of stock in these psychological theories of why people lie to pollsters. When people lie to pollsters it is because they want to fuck with their data. There are too many outs for the closet racist – why not just say "I'm a Republican and I'm picking McCain"? – for me to believe that there are two or three million voters out there who are outwardly wild about Obama but secretly hate the negroes. We'll find out soon, I suppose, but that seems patently ridiculous to me.
Jeff says:
What's amazing about Obama's campaign is that the "piss money away" strategy is working. Who the hell would have seriously thought North friggin Dakota would actually be a toss-up?
I guess this goes to show that some areas of the country are more receptive to the Democrats than had always been assumed (provided Democrats actually bothered to try in those places… and the economy fell apart during a Republican presidency).
kulkuri says:
Ed; the Bradley Effect was named for Mayor Bradley out in La-La Land. Bill Bradley the basketball player that became a Sen. was a white guy!!
Ed says:
I am suitably mortified by my error.
I am well aware of Bill Bradley's undeniable whiteness – in haste I referred to the mayor as the senator.
dbsmall says:
"I don’t put a lot of stock in these psychological theories of why people lie to pollsters. When people lie to pollsters it is because they want to fuck with their data."
—>I'd be delighted to believe this. Unfortunately, I don't agree. The average person isn't savvy or malicious enough to fuck with polling data.
"There are too many outs for the closet racist – why not just say “I’m a Republican and I’m picking McCain”?"
—>The closet racist? Probably not bright enough for this sort of subterfuge. The subconscious racist? Answers the way they really do intend to vote, but then goes into the polling booth and can't bring themselves to vote for a black guy.
My point is that there are tons of biases affecting this election (again, you have ageism, Bushism, party loyalty, racism, sexism, religous bigotry, and our good ol' pal "ignorance"). Any of these can lead to a discrepancy between what is answered to a pollster in October, and what is voted in November.
The discrepancy can be conscious ("closet bias"), it can be unconscious, or it can be temporary. (People who are ill-informed, and suddenly find that one of the candidates has a deal-breaker for them.)