An analysis of the voter turnout figures, the final polls and the exit polling shows that the Republican turnout was way below the norm allowing Obama-Biden to win the election.
As usual, the media has missed the huge story of this election. Their story is that Obama registered huge masses of new supporters and got them to the polls. At first, that was what I thought, but that is not the key factor. I was expecting the highest percentage turnout in 100 years amounting to 130,000,000 voters, but instead as of 5:00 PM EDT, 121,146,964 people voted for Obama or McCain. In 2004, 121,069,054 people voted for Bush or Kerry. Hence in a hotly contested election in which a fortune was spent on the race, there was no big surge in voter turnout. The population is bigger and the number of registered voters is larger than in 2004, yet just about the same number of people voted. What are we to make of this? We know that a higher than normal percentage of minorities and under 30 youths turned out pushing up the Democratic votes. We know that about 15% of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton voted for McCain-Palin (the PUMA voters). So how are we to explain the results? The conclusion is inescapable. The Republicans stayed home in droves. Obama did not win the election, the Republicans gave it to him by not getting out and voting.
For those of you who have been following my previous articles, you know I was predicting a McCain-Palin landslide in the electoral votes based on the P.U.M.A. Factor. Since these disgruntled Hillary supporters would normally vote Democrat, that should have been enough to tip the balance in the key states. I even allowed for a huge turnout because of Obama's vaunted ACORN express in my calculations so as not to underestimate the number of PUMA voters required. I have been doing this for 45 years and have never been wrong before. It goes without saying that when the results were widely different from what I predicted, I wanted to know how I could be so wrong. At first I thought it was because the PUMA voters did not turn out and vote for McCain-Palin but they clearly did. Then I thought that it was because Obama got millions of new voters to the polls and simply swamped the PUMA factor.
It was only when the turnout figures became available that I had to discard that theory. If the usual number of people voted yet more Democrats than normal turned out and there a sizable number of PUMA voters voting Republican, how could McCain-Palin have lost? When the results were staring me in the face, I was totally shocked. The smaller turnout meant that even fewer PUMA voters were required in the key states than I had calculated so McCain-Palin should have done even better than I predicted. Naturally my predictions were based on a normal Republican turnout. Who would have ever thought that the Republicans would fail to turn out in this election? While I am still busy trying to wipe the egg of my face, I am also extremely curious as to why so many Republicans stayed home. I imagine that I am not alone in wondering that at this point.
Did all the publicity about a Obama landslide and polls showing that Obama had it made in the shade cause the Republicans to stay home? Were too many Republicans so unhappy with President Bush that they felt that there was no point in voting? Were the Republicans that unhappy with McCain and Palin as the candidates? Were too many Republicans affected by white guilt about slavery and figured electing Obama would prove that America is not a racist country anymore? Yet the tracking polls only showed a 6% defection to Obama from Republicans. Whatever their reason was, it does not change the results.
Republicans Stay Home so Obama Wins
The Economist's: foolish Endorsement of Barack Obama
If you are looking for great entertainment you need the editorial of the Economist titled "It's Time"
The subtitle is already pretty good:
"America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world."
Hey risk it, it's only going to be 8 years. You didn't like the last eight years, well replace them with something unknown. What a wise outlook on life.
"For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead."
Sounds very encouraging.
" ...the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was."
Not as much I can tell. Europe has a history of not liking the US - even under Clinton. The terrorists don't seem to be any better of than 8 years ago - we haven't had a terror attack on US soil for 7 years (but I guess this is not an achievement)
Then the writer tells us about McCain's shortcomings:
"Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?)."
It's funny because I see many of these as a plus. Being instinctive is not wrong per se, quick to judge can help in decisions of national security and age can be equaled as experience (if I remember Reagan correctly).
And it goes from there to:
"Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies."
So first I said: What's the beef? Well the experience and the record are obviously not important to the Economist.
"If only the real John McCain had been running"
The Econimist believes that McCain subscribes to Conservatism on social issues, he was right on the Georgia issue, wrong on the Economy and wrong on the Palin pick.
I think without Palin McCain would not where he is right now.
And what about this one:
"Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them."
Another reason to not vote for JohnMcCain, right?
But not the true entertaining part starts: I call it the magic wand of Barack Obama
"Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein;"
Great line. SNL could have not put any better.
"So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left."
So he doesn't have the qualities, but he is still better?
And the climax of the article:
"But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right."
like the old proverb: "He who campaigns the best, will be the best president."
Is this really from on of the leading economy magazines. I just can't believe it.
"He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."
To summarize the Economist's outlook on life in the US:
Hey America, risky speculation has cost you Billions of Dollars in the stock market, you just smashed your face a month ago, so let's go out and vote based on our speculation, because risk is what America is all about. Just close your eyes and hope the best!
Bravo Economist. a 5th grader couldn't have said it any better!
The Alien Patriot
The Wurzelbacher Effect
As appeared on Politics and Critical Thinking.
CT
To say the polls and the economy have been anything less than bipolar is an understatement. Fear and concern about the future are driving this election more than in anytime since the 70's, the reasons for all this trepidation is obvious though. What is not, is why the American population’s perception of Obama and McCain is so erratic? Obama’s lead continues to ebb and flow like the tide.
If you believe the lesser than reputable polling sources or the MSM, Obama has the election in the bag. However, what I don’t trust about their information is the margin of victory they are declaring. Here are some numbers from IBD and Rasmussen from the last eighteen days. I chose these two because of their reputation for accurate polling results, techniques, and continuity.
On Rasmussen, from the 17th-26th, Obama did not have much to worry about, IBD has a similar situation from the 17th-21st. Then, things started changing with people’s acuity of the election, what was it? On or around the 15th of this month was when we met Joe Wurzelbacher. The gentleman who, so unexpectedly but graciously, accepted the mission of confronting Obama on his policies. This encounter revealed Obama's true nature concerning; taxes, wealth, and redistribution.
The effect was not immediate as you can see by the polls. But Joe opened the door for the GOP to be able to hammer Obama with vids, ads, and even on some MSM outlets about his platform on taxation and wealth redistribution. This is the only factor I can see that has some legitimacy where the erosion of Obama's lead is concerned.
While the Ayers controversy is important with the Conservative base and purists, it has not been a concern to most Moderates and Independents. Thus, it has been a somewhat ineffective campaign tactic. However, Obama’s proven wealth redistribution philosophy is the common denominator between the above mentioned groups. You might even be able to include some Blue Dog Democrats in that number also.
There is also a fear that Obama and his Progressive cronies are going to increase government spending and raise taxes. This is a legitimate apprehension, with the bail out and the upcoming proposal of ANOTHER stimulus package, the question arises, “Who is going to pay for all of this?” The average American is not ignorant; they may not understand complex macroeconomic derivatives or know what the GCI (Global Competitiveness Index) is. But, they do know that raising taxes and raucous spending during a recession, or otherwise, is tantamount to economic suicide.
Rasmussen now has some interesting poll results out, it seems that the American voter is changing their mind about McCain v. Obama on taxes, “After several weeks of John McCain’s campaign attacks on Barack Obama’s tax plan and idea of “spreading the wealth around”, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds voters trust McCain more than Obama on taxes, 47% to 45%.”
There is also a slight shift in opinion concerning who they trust more on economic issues, “McCain also has gained ground as the candidate to trust on economic issues. Forty-eight percent (48%) now trust the Republican hopeful more than the Democrat while 47% hold the opposite view.”
This has to be the explanation of why the polls are shifting, further closing the gap between McCain and Obama. Keep in mind, these are national polls, they represent voters on a national level, not regional. Internal state polling still has McCain at a severe disadvantage in key areas. Though, as a rule of thumb, when national polls tend to shift, in time the state polls usually follow. The question is, does enough time remain for McCain to recover the ground needed to be victorious?
Either way, win or lose, I am giving Joe Wurzelbacher credit for shedding some light on this issue. We have been so lost in the torrent of economic flooding I think people have forgotten how much taxation and spending actually effects the economy. This is why I am calling this phenomena “The Wurzelbacher Effect.”
-CT
"Happy Hunting!"
Palin: Political Rogue or Opportunist?
CT
Slate's John Dickerson, just put out an excellent article, Palin's Campaign vs. McCain's. He raises an interesting question, “Has Sarah Palin "gone rogue"? The way I see it the answer is a definitive and resounding, yes! There is no arguing about, she is totally off message with John McCain as noted in the Slate article, she disagrees with him publicly on leaving Michigan, the marriage amendment, she thinks they should have slammed Obama on Wright, and on removing North Korea from the terror list. These are just the issues listed in Slate. I am sure there are more and they run deeper.
One reason could be because their political theories are almost bipolar; McCain is a Moderate while Palin is an ardent Conservative. There are bound to be huge philosophical differences concerning policies as well as campaign style. Also, Palin suffers from Alaskan Independence Syndrome, meaning she does what she thinks is right. The lady went after corrupt leaders in her own party and knocked them off one-by-one. What makes McCain and company think that they can keep her on the short leash for very long?
Another possibility is that she can read the writing on the wall. With the McCain campaign desperately trying to defibrillate itself back from the dead and not being very successful, the round up for the firing squad is starting to form. I guarantee her name is the first one on the list, as pointed out in the Politico. "These people are going to try and shred her after the campaign to divert blame from themselves," a McCain insider said. This attitude may have forced her into a corner, one in which she sees her own political future at stake. To maintain viability on the national scene she is attempting to go “rogue” and keep her support from the base solidified for future political operations.
Then there is likelihood of disillusionment on her part, by the way she was being “handled" by McCain aides throughout the campaign. "Her strategy was to be trustworthy and a team player during the convention and thereafter, but she felt completely mismanaged and mishandled and ill advised," the person said. "Recently, she's gone from relying on McCain advisers who were assigned to her to relying on her own instincts."
There is some anecdotal evidence supporting this claim, “Palin's "instincts," on display in recent days, have had her opening up to the media, including a round of interviews on talk radio, cable and broadcast outlets, as well as chats with her traveling press and local reporters.”
In the Slate article there was mention of a prospect that I might have bought about a month ago. But there is so much obvious fracturing in the McCain camp that I find it hard to believe. Here is the theory from Slate, “The only exception is when campaign strategists carefully orchestrate a schism—and we know when these moments are coming because everyone in the press is invited to watch.”
Dickerson, does argue against it though and I am inclined to agree with some of his appraisal. “But Palin's disagreements don't appear to be a part of a larger strategy. So, political insiders have started asking whether Palin is simply undisciplined or is intentionally ignoring the playbook. And if it's intentional, the question becomes: Is she putting her own political self-interest ahead of her running mate's?”
Finally, this explanation of why she went Weather Underground on the McCain camp is the most plausible. "She was completely mishandled in the beginning. No one took the time to look at what her personal strengths and weaknesses are and developed a plan that made sense based on who she is as a candidate," the aide said. "But the aide said that Palin's inexperience led her to her own mistakes: "How she was handled allowed her weaknesses to hang out in full display."This takes into account her political inexperience on the national scene as well as highlights the McCain advisers not doing their jobs properly.
-CT
