by Election, Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:08:14 AM EDT
Jerome loves to rush to the front page and post polls numbers that are bad for Obama, particularly with that now fiercely debunked Gallup poll that gave McCain a 3-point lead among "likely voters". I don't think it is too unreasonable to assume we'll have to deal with this until Obama wins in November, and maybe not even then (Clinton would have won by more!!!1111oneoneone).
Unfortunately for the PUMA crowd that is desperately looking for Obama to collapse, Quinnipiac shows that Obama is strong in the swing states and is making a surprisingly play for others.
by Election, Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:59:33 AM EDT
If there is one thing that we have learned from an ever-consolidated corporate media, it is that, once a narrative gets established, it is very hard to get people to walk away from it. Unfortunately, most of the time, these narratives are incredibly destructive for our national dialog. One of the most destructive of these is the assumption that with Reagan's "landslide" election in 1980 represented a massive realignment of voters toward the Republican Party, that there was a "revolution". This assumption is based primarily on the fact that Reagan was able to capture about a quarter of people who affiliated themselves with the Democratic Party at exit polls, diminishing Carter's Democratic support from 77% in 1976 to 66% in 1980. But even the most cursory look at the 1980 election and elections afterward completely dispel any notion that Reagan ushered in generations of conservative rule. What did happen was that the media's obsession with the "Reagan Revolution" turned our national debate on its head and gave away the terms and framing to the Republicans.
In 2006, Democrats split the national electorate 53-47 -- not a huge margin -- but picked up the biggest House shift in 12 years and the biggest Senate shift in 26 years. By the end of the Reagan Administration, the 10-15% of Democrats that had defected from Carter and Mondale went to Dukakis, not Bush Sr., and although he won the electoral college 426-111, Bush Sr. only beat Dukakis 53%-46%, nearly identical to the Democrats 2006 win. The electoral system in the United States is set up for "landslide" elections, where even the slightest shift in the electorate can have significant consequences. By 1992, the so-called "Reagan Revolution" had fractured significantly -- It was the first time that any political party since the foundation of modern politics had received less total votes than they had in the previous election cycle. If that is what we are calling a "revolution" in politics today, then 2006 was a liberal revolution.
We are likely to see huge demographic shifts in the 2008 elections. Kerry won 41% of the white vote in 2004, and I expect that Obama won't get much higher than that but certainly won't get lower. But Bush captured 11% of the black vote in 2004... Obama will get 92%+. Kerry won the hispanic demographic only 53%-44% over Bush in 2004... polls are showing Obama starting off with a 62-35 lead over McCain among hispanics, and that is right after the end of a very polarizing primary campaign where hispanics found their home with Clinton. Obama is also likely to improve the national share of protestants, those making above $75,000 a year, college graduates, non-union households and -- most devestatingly for hte GOP -- the Midwest and West. We're not likely to see a Reagan-like electoral college landslide for Obama, but I think it is safe to predict he'll come in above 340. Democrats will likely blow the GOP out in the congressional electorate. Will Republicans admit there has been an Obama Revolution following hte 08 elections? I don't think so.