There are seven serious, historic, demographic and other wise culturally compelling reasons Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin will win the election on November 4, 2008 – a date of defeat that will sear itself into the Democratic Party’s collective consciousness.
I kid you not, this writer is serious. Just for fun, let's go through this reason by reason. First, because the media is reporting that Obama is ahead and a good speaker and that John McCain is behind and Sarah Palin is, uh, underqualified, there will be a massive voter backlash against the media.
Essentially, the media have been frolicking in the streets in an orgy of Obama adulation and McCain bashing. Now, they will wonder why anyone would be disgusted by their behavior, or want to knock them back in their place?
So they won't be voting for McCain but they will be voting against the media, according to this theory. For this to work many Obama supporters would have to vote against Obama in order to teach the media a lesson for reporting things that sometimes put Obama in a better light than McCain.
Reason number 2, and this one's a classic:
The Gallup poll after Labor Day has historically been a predictor of the winner of the Presidential election. The person leading in that poll wins the Presidency. The Republican convention, pushed onto Labor Day by the Summer Olympics muddied the waters on this historic fact, but the Gallup poll a week later showed McCain ahead of Obama, predicting the McCain victory.
Riiiiiight. The Gallup poll for Sept. 7 to 9, just about McCain's best poll of the whole year (McCain 48, Obama 43), is more relevant than, say, the Gallup poll of October 25-27 showing Obama up 7? Apparently the closer a poll is to election day the more unreliable it gets.
There are six states that since 1972 have voted for the winning Presidential candidate. These are predictor states. They pick winners every time. McCain will win every one of the following six states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee.
Data dredging. Amazing what you can do if you comb the data looking for something, anything, to support your theory. The timeframe here is key. There have been only 2 Democratic Presidents in this period, both from the South and yes, they did pick off a bunch of southern states such as Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky and Tennessee. Only Ohio and Missouri are classic swing states and current polling has Obama ahead in both. But since we're in fantasy land let's just give those to McCain with these other 4. Guess what, McCain still loses badly.
Reason number 4: Obama is "hemorrhaging" support among Jews and therefore (?) the elderly in general.
Just saying something doesn't make it so. Gallup, cited earlier as the poll that matters (but only in early Sept.) says Obama leads among Jewish voters by a little bit: Obama 74 percent, McCain 22 percent.
Reason 5: Women are fickle. Remember how they all of the sudden rose up as a block to give Hillary a massive win in New Hampshire (by 3%)? Well the polls are wrong again and Obama is in for it.
In truth, Obama is way ahead of McCain among women voters and unless a substantial number are lying to pollsters in a massive secret pact with Hillary Clinton to screw Obama, then the polling data is about right. Sarah Palin has repelled more women than she's attracted.
Reason 6 and I'm not kidding:
a mid-west hairdresser with no party affiliation told me the country has very serious problems, and that is why she is voting for the strongest leader (McCain).
Repeat, I did not make that up. He is arguing that in times of uncertainty people gravitate toward leaders like McCain. You know, leaders who have bad tempers and make impulsive decisions. I'm not even going to waste time refuting this.
Finally, reason number 7, the Bradley Effect:
Asians, Whites and Hispanics have and will lie to pollsters about their intention to vote for Senator Obama. According to the Associated Press, this will cost Obama six points at the polls.
I believe that AP story said that up to 6 percent of voters admitted to voting against Obama because of race. But that is not a Bradley effect. A Bradley effect involves telling a Pollster you are voting for Obama out of some sort of political correctness only to vote the other way in the voting booth. More here. Most of what I've heard this year is that this effect has largely disappeared. In the primaries, polling of the of Clinton-Obama race was pretty good except on many occasions when Obama outperformed the poll and one occasion (NH) when Clinton significantly outperformed the polls. No surprise this author clings to the NH result and ignores the possible reverse Bradley effect evident in the other primary results.
