Obama's support has been eroding since his bitter-voter comments a few days ago, and it seems to have dropped another notch or two in response to his debate performance last night. The bettors now give him about a 46% chance of winning it all.
Although many say that McCain was the big winner in last night's debate, the bettors do not appear to be swarming to him. Instead, his chances of becoming president have ticked up only slightly to about 40% (it looks like a big jump, but that's because the scale only ranges from 38.8 to 40.6):
The fact that Obama is still ahead of McCain in the betting even after all that has happened lately is surprising to me. National polls generally show the two of them to be in a dead heat, unless you restrict your attention to polls of "likely voters," in which case McCain is clearly in the lead.
On top of that, one has to consider the effect of Obama's 20-year association with Jeremiah Wright and his analysis of bitter and bigoted religious gun nuts on the very group of voters he needs to win over by November. I found this analysis somewhat relevant here:
Of course, Obama did not analyze just any group of voters. He analyzed the ones Democrats need: whites who don't make a lot of money. In 1992, Bill Clinton and Herbert Walker essentially split the white vote. Clinton got 39%, Herbert Walker got 40%. This is all Democrats need. They don't need to win white voters outright. They just need to split them. Flash forward to 2004. Bush beat Kerry among white voters, 58% to 41%, and won a solid victory.
You can tell the same story again and again. When Democrats break even with white voters, they win, as in '60, '64, '76, '92, and '96. When Republicans win them decisively, Democrats lose. This happened in '52, '56, '80, '84, '88, '00, and '04.
So, what Obama really did last week was analyze the group that will swing this election.
Add to that the fact that McCain's favorability ratings consistently exceed Obama's, and I just don't know what is making the bettors predict an Obama victory. It just seems to me that Obama is on the McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry path right now. Then again, I don't want to see Obama elected (because his plan to immediately surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq bothers me), and that may be clouding my views. It's easy to predict what you want to be true, and that may be why a McCain victory in November seems more likely to me than an Obama victory (contrary to what the bettors predict). Perhaps the voters want out of Iraq so badly that they'll vote for Obama no matter what. That may be the thinking behind the betting that seems so surprising to me.
10 comments:
Obama represents something voters want to see very much. He is a black man who has not used anti-white demagogery to get ahead. I think that's why he has so much support.
However, it is coming out that many of the people around him have used anti-white demagogery. And that's the biggest reason why he's in trouble.
Intrade bettors are likely to generally be young and internet-savvy. This is a pro-Obama demographic. So the betting may be reflecting that.
Also, the bettors at intrade are not always rational. For example, the current bid prices for Obama, Clinton, and Gore give them a combined 101.4% chance of being the nominee. Of course, the ask prices are even higher . . .
Yeah, I think William has it right. These supposedly savvy bettors don't know anything about politics at all. Jay Cost and Michael Barone would make much better oddsmakers.
My own feeling is that since Obama just ruined his chances in Pennsylvania (not just in the primary but the general, too) that his electoral map looks terrible. He would need to win Ohio (see neighboring Pennsylvania) or Florida and also win Missouri and either Virginia or Iowa.
He may not even carry Michigan since Detroit and its fraudulent voters have dwindled. His strategic positions are poorly established and not well consolidated with one another.
On the other hand, McCain, having reined in the right wing from mutiny, is consolidating the center right and is well-positioned to peel off a chunk of Hillary's "Dunkin Donuts" supporters from the middle. This is part of his "14 states" strategy. I think he forces Obama to defend turf that would normally be Democratic, like Michigan, Minnesota and New Jersey. Obama can only do the same in places where a VP gambit is involved (Iowa/Virginia/New Mexico). And he can only do it in one state.
Watch the McCain strategy unfold this summer and you will see how Obama gets more spread out and takes more incongruent policy positions. He will be a microcosm of the whole Democrat philosophy: all things to all people.
--Fresh Air
I hesitate to comment even though I read your blog regularly. I hesitate simply because I am not a political scholar, and the level of dialogue in your comments section is often beyond me. I wish my Dad were still alive and I could pass your blog along to him. He would have loved it and could have added mightily to the discussion (He was very active in politics in Washington State. He was Senator Slade Gorton's campaign manager during one of his runs for the Senate- unfortunately, the one he lost).
But, I have to say I appreciate your ability to analyze the data while still keeping your own perspective and biases in mind. I think that not only can your own perspective influence your ideas as to what will or will not happen in the election, but also the environment in which you live. I live in the very liberal city of Seattle and I can tell you that a McCain victory feels nearly impossible to me. However, I know that view is colored by the constant barrage of Obama mania I see and hear all around me. Here in Seattle you wouldn't dare display a McCain bumper sticker or sign in your yard, unless you really want to have your car keyed and your house egged. That might be a slight exaggeration, but only slightly.
Great analysis, as always.
Great comments, William, FA, and Lori...
IMHO...
In 2000, Democrats felt cheated out of the presidency, correctly or incorrectly. In 2004, they initiated a huge get out the vote campaign, getting larger support than they had in 2000. Unfortunately for them, an even larger increase in support for GWB occurred, which surprised them. In 2006, internal disgust with the Republicans and disapproval of Bush, perhaps, among many other issues led to a power transfer in bother chambers of Congress.
I think there is a strong feeling that the Democrats are still riding on the wave that swept them to power in 2006. For some inexplicable reason, many leading Democrats seem to interpret the low approval rating of Congress as support for them and their positions. I know I have low approval for both sides of both chambers.
And then there is a great untapped source of voters who will rise to the Democrat clarion call with either Obama or Clinton. The number of people claiming party membership with the Republicans is declining. Democrat fundraising and spending is impressive. So Democrats think they are due in 2008. They might be correct.
/****************************/
That McCain is polling well amongst independent voters should scare more Democrats. But probably not as much as having the two candidates they currently have.
Last night was interesting. Leftist bloggers appear to be outraged by the questions at the debate for not focusing more on "issues". Both candidates firmed up their committments to pulling out of Iraq, an issue of some importance to this blog.
At least Hillary finally admitted that she lied about Tuzla. And maybe Obama will research the impact of the capital gains tax and what it means if revenue went up when the tax rate declined.
Between now and November it's only going to become clearer how strange and radical a candidate Obama is. American voters didn't elect McGovern in 1972 because he was so far to the left--even in the face of re-electing Richard Nixon, a dark and unlikeable man. I don't think voters will elect Barack Obama in 2008.
The only real wild card is the economy. Who do voters blame and who will they turn to if the economy tanks badly this year?
Entropy--
Yeah, I think Pelosi & Co. are delusional and simply don't know how to analyze data and draw sound conclusions from it.
I wouldn't read much into the fundraising business. I haven't given any money yet because I didn't want it wasted during the primary season. Also, the 527s have proven (with the sole exception of the SwiftVets) to be spectacular failures at swaying public opinion. They don't really speak for anyone, and they don't do good ads. It will come down to the little-guy donors ultimately.
This may be the first election in which the Internet, with Youtube ads and campaign blogs, affects voting more than television. Any self-reflection by voters that this causes will inevitably cause them to arrive at less emotion-laden conclusions. In short, the more substantive candidate will benefit.
--Fresh Air
FA, I was not stating my concern about it, but that it was possibly why intrade bettors are still leaning away from McCain.
While it is possible that a Democrat will win in 2008, it has more to do with the miserable job the Republicans are doing than that the Democrats have meaningful ideas or even understand the world they are leading.
Some are good, but fiscal responsiblity has been abandoned by Republican lawmakers, on the whole. Corruption is widespread and few want to crack down on its causes. McCain, the Republican standard-bearer, abandoned the First Amendment with his campaign bill, showing his misunderstanding of the problem and his lack of respect for our constitution.
I will support him, but with reservations.
We need a political sea change, and I am pessimistic it will happen anytime soon. Nor can I come up with a road forward, so my criticism is hardly constructive. I agree that typical left and right ideas can create the best solutions, but they have become so radicalized as to render most dialogue a waste of words.
Your lead-off post claimed that Obama had not used anti-white demogogery. Yet.
In fact, he dissed (and alienated) 80% of the white population of PA with his "bitterness" remarks.
You know ,I have some priston tale Gold,and my friend also
has some priston tale Money,do you kouw they have the same
meaning,I just want to buy priston tale Gold,because there
are many cheap priston tale Gold
Post a Comment