I
watched earlier this morning how a banker became interested in
explaining the sudden end of the Mayan civilization, to sneers from the
archeologist lobby. He persisted, and solved the mystery,
Drought. Yes, drought in the rain forest, go figure. Given
that example of schmuck versus professional, I am prepared to take on
the polling digerati. Here's the dour news from my poll guy this
morning.
|
“
|
In this difficult season for the party in the White House, I
think it is interesting to point out a pertinent fact. George W. Bush
won the popular vote in 2004 by about 2.5% over John Kerry. Right now,
a reasonable average of national polls gives Barack Obama something
close to a 7.5% lead over John McCain. Though that seems like a major
shift in the electorate, it actually represents only a five percent
switch. To put it in more understandable terms, all it takes for
Bush's 2.5% victory in 2004 to turn into a landslide 7.5% McCain defeat
in 2008 is for just one Bush voter in 20 to change his or her vote.Election Projection
|
” |
I can do that ...
}In
2004 12.5% of all voters, or 15.725 million, were Black, and went
roughly 75% for Kerry, good for roughly 11.8 million
votes. This year I concede to Obama 100% of that vote, an
increase of 4 million votes.
}In 2004, women accounted for 67.3 million votes cast. Excluding the 9.1M Black women
leaves 58.18 M women unaccounted for. Kerry took roughly
60% or 34.9M. This year roughly 8% of those women, or 2.8
million, have stated they will go for McCain, which
leaves Obama a net pickup of 1.2 million votes so far.
}The Bradley effect, if it's real, and I suspect it is, costs Obama roughly 6% of the remaining non-Black 2004 democrat vote of 43.6M or 2.6 mil. which leaves Obama with a negative 1.4 mil. or 1.1% of the 04 vote, which accrue to McCain.
}Not
accounted for is the additional support Sarah Palin may pick up from
Kerry voters (I don't think she loses any from Bush 04 numbers). And,
the crackdown on ACORN, which is responsible for maybe 75% of organized
democrat voter fraud (the NAACP is probably 2nd), means Obama
will lose counted-on numbers from critical states, like Ohio.
}Even
with his 100% Black vote, Obama is, at this point, looking at a
3.6% defeat as opposed to Kerry's 2.5% loss. If every other Kerry
democrat (not already accounted for by Bradley) votes for Obama,
will 2.4 million Bush voters switch to a radical Barack
Obama?
I'm one of those "mad at Bush" voters (spending, immigration) but
there's not a chance in hell I vote for a Marxist radical. If
Republicans turn out in the same relative numbers as 2004, Obama
loses. And by the way, in 2004 Republicans were 50% of all
voters, so how is it that pollsters are still weight their polls 53-47
Democrat?
|
|