It was September 1980 and both Carter and Reagan were tied at 39% in a
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9609/15/index.shtml">Time Magazine National poll. It shouldn't have been like that, as Jimmy Carter had poor approval ratings, the economy was tanking and concern at home grew to its highest point in a decade. So how could a popular, articulate and charismatic governor only be tied with a candidate like Carter? Shouldn't he have been way up in the polls?
This narrative is much like the one we hear today about Barack Obama. Too many in the media look at the numbers and ask themselves why the race could be so close. Yet they don't consider past elections, where comparable political climate really didn't lead to blowout victories for a non-incumbent president. 1980 most mirrors this election, except Reagan had the benefit of running against an unpopular president, Obama isn't in that position. Whether you believe it or not, McCain is not Bush and the fact he isn't Bush -- no matter how similar their positions -- helps. Yet Obama has a pretty decent lead on McCain and is pushing 50%, whereas in September of 1980, neither Carter or Reagan could crack 40% nationally.
Of course, I wonder how the media back then treated Reagan's horse race with a president most Americans did not like. If they were smart, they would look at the numbers and see an incumbent candidate failing to crack 40%, which is a huge red flag and one that predicted Carter's final poor showing in the 1980 election. Much like these results, McCain often finds himself stuck in the low 40s and in some polls he's even in the high 30s. This is a huge red flag and should be said as such, because it shows his support is just not that strong. So while MSNBC's poll has Obama up only 6, he's only 3-points to 50%, while McCain is only 2-points away from dropping into the 30s. If the election were held today, because of that poll alone, Obama probably would win this race by 7-9 points and would easily clear 50%. McCain, though, still has to find a way to not only get enough votes to get within striking distance of Obama, but to get enough votes to get closer to 50% than 9 points, which won't cut it on election day.
Moreover, like Reagan, Obama's support has room to grow, whereas McCain, like Carter, probably will have a harder time expanding his support. This is because most people know McCain and know his policies, like they did Carter in 1980. Obama is still an unknown, as was Reagan. Obama has started this race with about 47% support nationally, McCain, though, is only 40-43% nationally. Now either can drop or raise their support, but I would bet a dollar (yes I am cheap) Obama's lead, on average, does not drop below 47% for a prolonged period and if it does, it'll only be by a point or 2. Right now,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/">RealClearPolitics's average of all the national polls has Obama leading McCain 46-42. Again, a tight race, but McCain is closer to the 30s than he is to 45% and that's the number the media should be focusing on, because even after running in 2000, even after having an earlier general campaign start than Obama, he still can't get above 42% nationally. Not even Bush in 2004 averaged that low of a number for more than a few days, yet it's consistently been where McCain sits nationally. That has to worry the McCain camp, as Obama probably has a far easier task of building his support than McCain and if McCain can't get beyond 40-43% nationally, he's toast.
Finally, the 1980 campaign ended with Reagan winning the popular vote by 10% (well technically, 9.7%), even though in September he was at 38% nationally. The reason Reagan won was because his support grew and Carter's essentially tapped out at nearly 38% (though Carter managed to win 41% nationally). McCain is in the role of the incumbent here since it's HIS party Obama is going up against. Because of this, McCain's numbers will probably not get much better unless Obama blows it. So when the media says this is Obama's election to lose, they are right. Just as 1980 was Reagan's to lose and even 1992 was Clinton's to lose as well. However, that would require a major blunder and I think Obama is smart enough to realize this, so he will be extremely careful.
In the end, Obama probably won't get a Reagan-type victory, but that's because McCain will do just enough to distance himself from Pres. Bush. If it were Obama-Bush, I think the outcome would more mirror Hoover-FDR than say Clinton-Bush, but it is a different name and McCain is perceived to be better than Bush, which will help. Fortunately, it won't be enough and Obama most likely will win this thing by 5-7 points nationally and easily clear 300 electoral votes.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
