« Cantor's VP Ramble | Main | Landrieu Keeping Some Distance From Obama »

In Search Of A Landslide

06 Aug 2008 12:11 pm

Asking  why Barack Obama seems to have stalled and isn't beating John McCain by a lot assumes that there are good reasons to believe that Obama should be leading RIGHT NOW by a healthier margin than roughly 3.3%.  And certainly, it assumes that the trend should favor an expanded margin, not narrower one. Maybe, maybe not. So what's going on? A few theories, some of them contradictory, others not so mutually exclusive. Which ones are more persuasive? Are there theories I'm missing?  Recent history suggests that the electorate swings late, not early, as undecided voters slowly, carefully, and fairly rationally begin to make up their minds. When low-information voters -- a subset of swing voters -- are pushed in polls to support candidates, I assume that the news of the day will be what pushes them one direction or another, a very distinct way of thinking that is totally unlike the cognitive calculus they'll do before they actually fill in the bubble.

He IS leading. Over the course of two months and literally dozens of surveys, I can recall only two national polls -- one Rasmussen IVR poll and one Newsweek poll of likely voters -- showing John McCain in the leadEverywhere, all the time, Obama's leading in the polls. The unknown guy is leading over the known guy. Obama's currently building enormous Senate-style campaigns in 18 states and has several major states -- Iowa and Wisconsin -- in the bag already. Chill.

Partisanship. The electorate's jitterbugging is all confined to a fairly narrow circle, where Democratic zigs are evenly matched by partisan zags. Even when one party hits a dry patch, the other party's fertility is constrained. If we, in 2000, were a 50.5% Democratic country, in 2002 a 51.% Republican country in terms of the two-party congressional vote, and in 2004, a 50.7% Republican country, and in 2006, a 52% Democratic country in terms of the two-party congressional vote, we would not -- should not -- expect 2008 to be a year where Democrats capture 54% of the presidential vote.  Indeed, given the past few cycles, if Obama recieved roughly 51.5% of the vote to McCain's 47 or 48%, it would be a post-dated blow-out.  Maybe Democrats expect too much.

White, generational racism. Maybe racism accounts for Obama's difficulties with older white voters and white men, in particular. But with one exception -- older white women -- his fall-offs among these demographics roughly track the norm for Democraitc presidential candidates.

Otherness. There is a thin version, as expostulated by David Brooks, is that Obama, a "sojournor," and "voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded."  Basically: the Peter Hart problem. The thinker version: whether it's his name, his binational background, his biracial identity, his urbanity, his inexperience -- people don't really trust him.  

Bambiness.  Obama doesn't counterpunch effectively, and to the extent that baseline opinions about character are being formed now, bruises that were just about to fully heal from the primaries are blushing again. Put it another way, just as the McCain campaign is offended by the rank inexperience and presumptuous of the Obama campaign and aren't bottling up their feelings, the Obama campaign is offended by the rank immaturity and stupidity of the McCain campaign and aren't bottling up their feelings.

Gas prices and the Iraq war. McCain strategists credit McCain's "Dr. No" campaign and the success of the surge as reasons for weakly partisan Republicans starting to get more excited about the McCain campaign.

Information.  Right now, the type of voter who's paying attention is primed to support John McCain. After the conventions, when younger voters typically tune in -- and by younger here, I mean, under 55 or so -- then Obama's margins will widen because these folks are his folks.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Search Of A Landslide:

» Big Tent Democrat Makes It Clear: Obama Should Not Pick Clinton from Liberal Values
Clinton supporters continue to push Hillary for VP, and have an unrealistic view of her impact on the ticket. Still, even if we follow their assumptions, at least as presented in this post, we have a strong case for not choosing Clinton. Big Tent Democ... [Read More]

Comments (37)

I think that Barack Obama isn't blowing this out for a simple reason: he's young, he's got a foreign name, and he's been on the national stage for a minute.

Jack Kennedy barely made it into the White House. Abe Lincoln barely made it into the White House.

Change is hard. The best thing Obama has going for him right now is George W. Bush. The second thing is the economy. And the third is his GOTV operation.

At the end of the day I think this will be a 4 point race and Obama will get about 300 EVs. I think that the McCain camp has done what it needed to do to get back in the conversation and while they're cribbing from Hillary's playbook they have a major problem: they don't have HRCs policies. Obama's actually closer to her on that score.

As for older female voters: I honestly think that Sellibus is going to be the VP. He needs to rally the female vote and a female VP will do that; it doesn't have to be Clinton because apart from her hardcore donors I think at the end of the day a lot of women would be happy for a woman to make the grade. It'll make it hard with team Clinton; but given the way things stand what are they going to do?

That's my take.

Good analysis overall. I think the points about timing are really the most key. History doesn't show us many examples of wild polling movement during the summer before a presidential election. It shows fluctuations within a stable equilibrium. That's what we're seeing here, and the summer equilibrium is favorable to Obama.

That, by itself, wouldn't make him much of a favorite to win in November because, as you say, a lot of voters don't start tuning in until the fall. But in this particular election, I think Obama is favored to win anyway, primarily because we historically see the incumbent party get punished for a sluggish economy, and because McCain's foreign policy stance has become largely incoherent after Maliki pulled the rug out from under his Iraq policy. Despite the fact that McCain's ad team is currently doing a very deft job of defining Obama, I don't think it can overcome the very anti-McCain fundamentals of this election.

One additional point to make is that despite past history, because of the way electoral votes are split up the Republican is more likely to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote (just think about how Kerry could have one electorally while losing the popular vote by close to 4%). Combine that fact with the difference in ground games, McCain needs to open up a comfortable popular lead to beat Obama.

Let me also add that the polls for 2000 and 2004 were laughably wrong. The 2004 end result was way outside the confidence interval and 2000 end result wasn't much better.

Obama doesn't counterpunch effectively

What are you talking about?

Marc, Marc, Marc. Did you really just use the word "Bambiness"? That's just plain sad.

As for the contention that "Obama doesn't counterpunch effectively", have you seen him the last few days? I know you've been out of the loop a bit, but he's done a heck of a job fighting back against McCain's "Celeb" and "tire gauge" attacks.

That said, I think your last reason is probably the closest to the truth - a lot of voters simply aren't paying close attention to the race right now. Also, as others have already stated, don't discount the value of Obama's GotV operation come Election Day.

I can only respond with what I've been thinking the last few weeks - it's August. There's a long way to go, and the only poll that really matters will be taking place in November.

Many of these reasons are valid I'll add another. The Press has really embraced and tongue kissed McCain for his 'celebrity'/presumptuous angle. Ambinder said "Being tough works" I would say being stupid, petty, and deceitful works if the media is complicit in the stupid, petty, deceit. The same thing happened to Al Gore and the media is incapable of learning its lesson it would seem. If something is a lie or a cheap-shot, you don't compliment it as being a good lie or an effective low blow. You grow up and act like a responsible adult and don't assume that everyone on earth knows fact from fiction.

Your assumptions are fueled by partisan factors, its obvious. You fail to notice that the love affair with Obama is ebbing out, the novelty factor is fading. The public is beginning to notice that behind the rhetoric is an ordinary politician. The McCain campaign will not empty its guns at this stage of the process because it knows that will create only a minor but brief surge in favor of McCain only to be eclipsed by the surge in Obama's favor immediately after the Democratic convention. Rather, if they are smart, they will wait until after their convention is over. Its late September on that they will begin dismantling the cloak under which the Obama folks would by then have wrapped their candidate. If you conduct an objective assessment of the Democratic party (for a George Bush you have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) and Obama there is already so much to unleash and expose that anything else Obama and his party provide as fodder will just be that much more destructive. All the constituencies you find safe in Obama's corner are suspect except the traditional ones. And, by the way, you suspect racism as the reason behind certain whites not supporting Obama but you conveniently overlook the racism behind overwhelming numbers of blacks supporting Obama.

Your prejudice is quite revealing. Try objective analyses-it will do wonders for your conscience.

I think the other thing to consider is that the macroeconomic situation just isn't bad enough to suggest a landslide. It's not 1980, it's not 1982, it's not 1992. It's bad, but it's the sort of bad that predicts a modest lead.

Excellent analysis. My only wish is that you had included the canard of "but the generic ballot is so much better for the Dem!", if only to knock it down explicitly. Yes, his otherness is an issue for many (and for the love of God, I don't just mean his race.) There's also the residual good feelings many low-information types have toward McCain - many remember him primarily as one of Bush's opponents, others know him for being famously bipartisan in the past, and yet other know him from his numerous appearances on SNL, Wedding Crashers, and the late night talk show circuit.

One other bit:

...as the McCain campaign is offended by the rank inexperience and presumptuous of the Obama campaign and aren't bottling up their feelings, the Obama campaign is offended by the rank immaturity and stupidity of the McCain campaign and aren't bottling up their feelings.

I would argue that Obama's weakest counterpunches of the primary and general seasons have been when the campaign doesn't blanch at an offense, and simply tries to play the high-minded type. A good example: Obama's campaign response to the celebrity ads vs. the tire gauge dust-up. The celebrity ads were a punch the campaign took standing - their response, an attempt to talk about issues and run the "more of the same" attack was more or less ineffectual, simply a non-engagement with the narrative McCain laid out. I would say the attack probably could have been even more damaging, had Paris Hilton's video response not laid out the patent absurdity it all.

His response on the tire gauge thing, on the other hand, was satisfactory enough to make it a win. He was openly contempuous of the McCain campaign's attack, offering, essentially, "they take such pride in their ignorance, they must think we're going to reward them for it." It got McCain to back up off his charge, and was frankly the best counterpunch I've seen from the Obama campaign in a bit.

Thanks for opening comments on this post.

I think this is all melodrama. McCain hit Obama with a couple of low blows, the traditional press is working hard to prop up the ancient one.
But Obama is working the body, to continue the metaphor. And what no one wants to talk about is if McCain doesn't knock him out now, the ground game of Obama, to which McCain has NO answer grinds him into dust. There will be a landslide.

Most of your reasons are pretty valid. But I don't think it's that Obama can't counterpunch, it's that he feels he has to be careful lest he look like he's beating up on the old white guy. That's why it's so good to let Paris Hilton do it. Kind of like he had to pull punches with Hillary, or her supporters owuld cry foul.

And speaking of supporters, you can't discount the effect of overt institutionalized media support for McCain, like AP, Fox, CNN etc, plus WaPo editorial page. And the pundits who are so slow to realize that they weren't in on the con after all, McCain is an opportunist who played them even better than Bush did. I think that may be changing as people actually watch preformances like McCain's incoherence and tawdriness at the biker convention and watch his College Republican media team feed his ego and destroy his carefully cultivated brand. If so, it would be good.

But this is 1980 with a young, black guy and the debates will be crucial at drawing the contrast Obama wants. Mr Magoo vs (a darker) JFK.

> Indeed, given the past few cycles, if Obama
> recieved roughly 51.5% of the vote to McCain's 47
> or 48%, it would be a post-dated blow-out. Maybe
> Democrats expect too much.

So you are blaming it on Democrat's high expectations! Are you kidding me? It is the main stream media who is talking about 'why Obama can't open a large lead' meme. The so-called TV pundits and anchors who are brainless most of the time keep on talking about it all the time. Democrats know that presidential elections are usually won with a margin of 2 to 4 percent.

How can you tell what kind of president the country statistically prefers? People make a living doing this kind of analysis, and I'd like to hear from them, but the thought experiment that is very revealing to me is that if Obama, rather than entering the Senate from a background of Hyde Park and TUCC had been, say, Colonel Obama in the 82nd Airborne, where would he be polling? I think he'd be at 65-75%. He simply lacks credibility on the "love of country" issue with many Americans. His ads aren't fixing that leak. All that stuff about Kansas just doesn't look authentic. McCain's Britney/Paris/Obama ad hits another point, albeit without the wit required to be effective: He's really calling Obama a girly-man, while McCain is hanging out with the Harley owners in Sturgis. What a weird demographic to go after, but there is a logic to establishing the contrast.

One other point, aren't state polls the only important polls?

Obama leads in most of the swing states which indicates a Obama landslide if the polls hold.

Here is average of all the polls in each of the swing states:

State: Obama to McCain
-----------------------
Indiana: 48 to 47
Missouri: 48 to 43
Montana: 47 to 47
North Dakota: 46 to 47
New Mexico: 49 to 43
NewHampshire: 49 to 45
Nevada: 47 to 45
Ohio: 46 to 44
Florida: 46 to 44
South Dakota: 43 to 47
Virginia: 46 to 44

It is crystal clear that Obama is very strong in all these states. Why is media not talking about the state polls?

Oh, and Marc, in your "Oil Politics Puts Candidates In Barrels" post, you neglected to mention that Obama has indicated that he would in fact support the "Gang of 10" compromise. I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part, and that you'll set the record straight shortly.

It is crystal clear that Obama is very strong in all these states. Why is media not talking about the state polls?

1. Because those state-by-state polls add up to too many horse races. We need just ONE horse race, Matthew. Just one.

2. Because once it gets out that Obama is going to win ~300 electoral votes even if the popular vote is pretty close, people won't watch the TV as much and advertising revenue will fall. Gotta maintain the illusion that McCain actually has a shot. The Republicans could have nominated Reagan's corpse and the media would still be doing its best to make it seem like Obama isn't winning by a wide enough margin. (Actually, Reagan's corpse would probably fare better than McCain.) Meanwhile, the actual Republican candidate says such brilliant things as "We're gonna win the right way——by winning!" and can't admit that Obama's mild suggestion about tire pressure is actually good advice, albeit not as manly as "drilling right here and right now."

Mrs. Florian, people can believe whatever they want but that does not change the facts. For republicans it is a routine to ignore facts and act ignorant or stupid.

>> He simply lacks credibility on the "love of
>> country" issue with many Americans. His ads
>> aren't fixing that leak. All that stuff about
>> Kansas just doesn't look authentic.

Sending young Americans to die in a fraudulent war does not indicate "love of country" instead it shows "greed for power" and "war mongering".

While Obama was still paying off student loans till couple of years back McCain was living a super rich luxarious life with 9 mansions, private jets, private lake, etc.

>> McCain's Britney/Paris/Obama ad hits another
>> point, albeit without the wit required to be
>> effective: He's really calling Obama a
>> girly-man, while McCain is hanging out with the
>> Harley owners in Sturgis.

So McCain pimping his wife is like calling Obama a girly-man?

McCain volunteered his wife Cindy for topless and occasionally bottomless beauty contest at that Sturgis bike rally.

When McCain made his way through motorcycle enthusiasts, accompanied by his wife Cindy, he was surrounded by scores of beer drinking men and scantily clad women. McCain felt so comfortable at the event that he even volunteered his wife for the rally’s traditional beauty pageant, an infamously debauched event that’s well known to feature topless and bottomless women.

“I encouraged Cindy to compete,” McCain said to cheers. “I told her with a little luck she could be the only woman ever to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip.”

Wow, here we have a 'wrinkly old white haired man' who is once known to have called his wife 'a c@nt' trying to pimp his wife to win over some votes and that is American?

Americans prefer a president who is not like Bush, Cheney, Rove.

You left one off -- the way the media is propping McCain up. I haven't seen anything like this since Weekend at Bernie's.

1. There's still a small fraction of Hillary supporters (PUMA) that aren't behind Obama. I suspect they'll finally bit the bullet after the convention, when all fantasies of Clinton getting the nomination are finally dashed. And I just can't believe they won't pull the lever for Obama over McCain on election day.

2. This has been the most inaccurately polled election cycle in my memory. Pollsters didn't predict Iowa. The screwed up NH. They missed by an even bigger margin for SC. They got Super Tuesday laughably wrong. Obama beat their margins throughout February. They were outside the margin of error for PA and IN, and were way off for NC. Why anyone would think they're getting it right now is beyond me.

To elaborate on this point - the Democrats have registered a net million voters over the Republicans (so far) and there's still a huge enthusiasm gap. If pollsters are relying on past elections to create their likely voter screens, they're going to miss a huge swath of voters that are going to be out there for Obama on election day.

3. The conventions and debates haven't happened yet. Besides advertising, those are the things that the non-politics-junkies usually pay attention to and use to make up their minds, and I personally expect them to be very favorable towards Obama.

4. As others noted, Obama has a vastly superior ground game in place for election day. McCain needs a solid lead in the polls just to break even with that.

I, too, think things will dramatically change in Obama's favor after the convention. His organization in the states is slowly and methodically building his support. McCain seems to be outspending Obama on ads at this point but McCain has to spend his money preconvention because he'll be limited by campaign finance law after he receives the nomination. Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system means that he'll be able to spend more than McCain in the general. That coupled with Obama's superior organization will likely seal the deal.

Mozart,

it's objectively obvious you aren't looking for debate, since you've reposted your message well over an hour apart, and I expect you will repost again shortly.

And given virtually everyone (including myself), thinks Marc is far too biased towards McCain, you've picked the wrong comment board to do cut and paste attacks on.

But nice try anyway.

Have a biscuit.

Ah ok - so now comments are deleted on here as well?

Perhaps should you point that out, if you have any respect for commenters at all - and delete both of these, since it looks inane now Mozart's dupes have gone.

Keith Hood

Exactly. Pennsylvania for instance. McCain spent millions here already, visits weekly, and yet not a blip in the polls. Why? because there is neighborhood structure in every town with a traffic light for Obama. And nothing for McCain, nothing.

I agree that a lot of people aren't paying attention. I also think a lot of people are just burned out after two years of election/primary coverage. But I think there's something else as well--I really believe the media is drastically underestimating the effect and scope of the lies and rumors out there about Obama. I'm a liberal, and yet I get constant emails about how Obama's secretly a muslim manchurian candidate who doesn't support the troops and isn't even a real American. And they are forwarded from people you would never think could fall for this crap. I think this swiftboating/rumor campaign is far more wide spread than the media realizes.

I agree with CJ that the most important reason is because American people is really worry that Obama may be a muslim manchurian candidate. Let's see whether he get elected and if he does to see whether he will be a muslim manchurian candidate. My guess is that he will. Please call back Hillary!

Not a good counterpuncher? Am I the only one who thinks this tire-gauge thing has McCain on his heels--with Obama landing one deft punch after another on his rapidly retreating opponent? The metaphor could be continued--McCain needs to be saved by the bell, desperate to make it to the end of the round, etc.--but you get my point. Truth is, Obama took awhile to get back into gear after an exhausting trip, now, the guy is on top of his game again. As a supporter, really nice to see. As a political partisan , nice to see the republicans try to make him into Gray Davis--and see him hit them back, harder. But as someone who likes poltics as sport, lovely to watch someone very, very good go a few rounds, and not break a sweat.
As for the way is he not blowing McCain away, this race has been set in amber for awhile now, with Obama ahead by 3-6 points, depending on what poll you look at. One question for me--and it really is a question--is whether the polls don't underestimate his support, since they're mainly focusing onRegistered and Likely voters at this point, and the latter screen in particular skews towards McCain's base. Obama wants to change the shape of the electorate; it's a really interesting question as to whether he will be able to do so. At any event. this needs to be factored into anyone's thinking about the question of what the nature of his support is.
One more thought: if you were a candidate, would you rather be 3-6 points ahead in the national polling or 3-6 points behind right now? In other words, why aren't there more: why can't John McCain get out of the low-40s if he's such a magisterial figure (war hero, maverick, blah blah? A generic republican can and should be doing about that....

When the Corpse Formerly Known As John McCain gets barbecued in November along with 2-3 dozen Repiglicans in the House and Senate there shall be pulled pork for everyone!

Who wants hot sauce?

MT,
Just a minor quibble, but the folks at Sturgis aren't really "motorcycle enthusiasts." They're actually just rednecks with bikes, and many have little to no skill when it actually comes to riding their "hogs" - which BTW are overpriced nostalgia pieces.

McCain made a wise decision in going there. The knuckledraggers at Sturgis are in the bag for him already, and are a perfect match for the GOP - ignorant, old, almost uniformly white, and open in their embrace of racism and homophobia. They're basically the big-SUV driving mouth breathers of the broader motorcycling demo, and are reviled and looked down on by those who are actually into the sport, as opposed to those who just like to wear leather chaps and look like goofy biker bad-asses. Wherever you find a gaggle of old low-info rednecks on Harleys - with flags flying high - you're bound to find a group of actual motorcyclists and even cars stuck behind them, waiting for their loud, slow, and stupid selves to get out of the way and let everyone else pass.

Sturgis is actually the PERFECT setting for a McCain event.

MT,

Blogger, Please! What is wrong with you? I'm trying to understand an interesting dynamic in our political ecosystem, and offered a small piece of conversation on the subject, so you respond with name-calling, refusing to acknowledge that somebody else has another perspective. If, for example, all you can say about "love of country" is that for McCain supporters it means "Sending young Americans to die in a fraudulent war," you're not even trying to understand them. You're just keeping yourself excited.

Mozart@1:30

Assessment of George Bush: War criminal, Liar, Narcissistic Personality, Addictive Personality, Sociopath, worst president ever.

Pelosi and Reid; reasonably well adjusted politicians, self-centered, functioning moral compass, weak leaders but well meaning.

There's your assessment, bub. You won't like McCain's at all.

Thanks for the balanced assessment. I think the press's inclination to keep making everything about the horse race -- who's up and down in polls? why isn't Obama out in front by 20 points? will the VP decision make or break one or another of the candidates? -- reminds us all that the only thing that matter is 'news!!' bereft of balance, obvious analysis and driven by 'gotcha' "wieners" who try to pass themselves off as serious journalists. The Republican smear machine is so much more effective than the Dems at crying "unfair!", "biased", "press as Obama lovers!" for which the press roll over, not wanting to appear like they are doing their job -- covering the news ... I mean, it is news that Obama took a trip to the middle east and Europe and 200,000 turned out for a speech... isn't it?

John McCain should be happy with the coverage he's getting ... town hall meetings with 75-100 people .. Sturgis South Dakota and nominating his wife for Ms. Buffalo Chip. Now that's news!

Taken as a whole the election looks close ... but how balanced is the polling in terms of numbers of likely voters from each state??? This is what we don't know!! When they do calling and take opinions from say, 1000 'likely voters', is that 20 from each state? Or is it weighted by state population size? by electoral votes? Is it simply trying to give an equal status to registered Repubs, Dems, Independents?? Thus... is the total 40% Rep. 40% Dem, 20% Indep.?? (Assuming that is an accurate reflection of the full electorate) When you look at the electoral college map -- which I guarantee you the two opposing camps are looking at entirely ... it is a way, waY, wAY, WAY! different story. Look at McCain's base? He might lose Montana? North Carolina? Indiana? unheard of ... it's possible it could be close ... but then again it could be a blowout!

How about some assessment of larger trends? And is it true that people who only have cell phones never get asked the question "If the election were held today who would you vote for?"?? Do you think that number adds up to many people? I sure do!

Mrs. Florian, when was the last time a president got 65%-75% of the vote? That's an impossibly high bar. FDR in 1932 got 57%, LBJ 61%, Reagan 59% in 1984.

McCain does still have an advantage on the C-in-C test, which is pretty remarkable in year 6 of the Iraq debacle. Part of it probably is the otherness thing. I wish Obama, the former con law prof, would try to counter that in part by talking about the Constitution, what it means to him, how much admiration and awe he has for the men who created it. He could make it an implicit or explicit expression of his love of country, and also a way of contrasting himself with the criminal racket in the White House.

But he's also up against a media that continue to assume Republican superiority on national security, so much so that almost any hypothetical will be seen as working in their favor. No recent attacks in the U.S.? Thanks to the Republicans! A new attack? Be afraid! Better get the Republicans to protect us!

The media have also bought into the success of the surge with way too little skepticism, but that's a whole 'nother subject, aside from the fact that it helps McCain.

With all the coverage of Europeans excited about Obama, why no coverage of the hordes of Manchurians excited about him? It's all part of the Manchurian-candidate plot! The media are in on it!

Did you know Obama made a secret visit to Manchuria before heading to Afghanistan?

If he wins, I hear he'll grow a Fu Manchu between Election Day and the inauguration.

And that second language he'll force your kids to learn? That's right -- not Spanish, but Manchurian!

One issue that hasn't been raised yet - the polls have almost always been asking about a two-person race. With Bob Barr and quite possibly Ron Paul poised to siphon off several percentage points off of McCain's base, what looks like close numbers now may very well turn out to be a much greater gap.

Marc, you're spot on regarding the solidification of partisan leanings within narrow ranges. A 53 percent win by either McCain or Obama would be a blowout by recent historical standards. Given the trend toward polarization since 1994 - and especially since 2000 - it appears that there are fewer true swing voters at the presidential level. (Is 10 percent too generous an estimate?)

So enough of these comparisons with 1988 or 1980. We're in a different political universe now.

This year, we've seen a lot of polls confounded by outcomes in the primaries, especially on the Democratic side. I'm convinced that standard polling methods undersample or missample some of the core Obama constituencies - newly registered young, minority and single voters who are less likely to have landline phones and to have lived at the same address for two years or more. Do these new registrants make it into "likely voter" samples?

That may be counterbalanced by elders, evangelicals and Bradley/Wilder effect racial voters who don't respond to or mislead pollsters.

My guess is that turnout will be about 15 percent higher than in 2004, and that many (most?) of these first-time voters' preferences/leanings aren't being accurately reflected in poll samples. If there's any departure from margins within the 52-48 range this year, it will be because of these new voters.