Aug 13, 2008
Polls Show Landslide Scenario Unlikely
Politico: Most Popular Vote Presidential Landslides Were Clearly Visible By End Of Summer
-
Photo
(CBS/iStockphoto)
-
In-Depth
VP Hot Sheet: Obama
CBSNews.com ranks the top contenders to be Obama's running mate.
-
In-Depth
VP Hot Sheet: McCain
CBSNews.com ranks the top contenders to be McCain's running mate.
From the fever swamps of the blogosphere to the halls of academia, there is a chorus of voices who have come to the same conclusion about the presidential election: Barack Obama is going to win in November, by something resembling a landslide.
Yet for all the breathless analysis and number-crunching that has convinced observers Obama is en route to an epic victory, there is one key historic fact that is often overlooked-most popular vote landslides were clearly visible by the end of summer. And by that indicator, 2008 doesn’t measure up.
In five of the six post-war landslides (defined as a victory of 10 percentage points or more) the eventual winner was ahead by at least 10 percentage points in the polls at the close of August, according to a Politico analysis of historical Gallup polls. Over the past week, however, Gallup’s daily tracking poll pegs Obama ahead of John McCain by a margin of 2 to 5 percentage points.
The one exception to the August rule was 1980. Ronald Reagan was trailing slightly in the August polls before surging forward to win by roughly a 10-point margin.
By comparison, the biggest post-war landslides-1964, 1972 and 1984-were signaled by a large, double-digit advantage held by the eventual winner at the close of August.
Lyndon Johnson was trouncing Barry Goldwater in one late August 1964 Gallup poll, 67 percent to 26 percent, taken on the opening day of the Democratic convention. A July poll showed Johnson also winning by a two to one ratio. Johnson went on to win the race 61 percent to 38 percent.
While Richard Nixon in the summer of 1972 was not faring as well as Johnson in late summer 1964, it was nevertheless clear in Gallup’s polling that the incumbent was on his way to a rout that would have been hardly imaginable just four years before.
In mid-July, Nixon was only ahead by about 10 percentage points. But by early August Gallup tracked that his lead had grown to twice that. He went on to win by 23 percentage points, nearly his exact margin in August.
Reagan, in his 1984 re-election campaign, also was ahead by a modest 10 points in August. But he won in the fall by nearly twice that margin.
In the past two months, Obama’s polling has held steady, remaining in a narrow single-digit band.
“There certainly was a definite cockiness that Democrats felt once they regained control of Congress, and I’ve also felt it was a misplaced cockiness,” pollster John Zogby said.
Still, he acknowledged why there was such optimism. “You’ve got a lot of conditions that are similar to 1932 and similar to 1980, a very unpopular president and the party brand badly hurt.”
Only two post-war popular vote landslides have occurred without an incumbent finishing on top-1952 and 1980. They offer conflicting lessons.
In the case of Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, two late August Gallup polls showed him with at least 53 percent of the vote and ahead by at least 15 percentage points. But the race narrowed in polling to a dead heat before Eisenhower pulled off his 11-point win. In his 1956 rematch with Adlai Stevenson, he expanded his margin to a 15-point blowout.
By contrast, in July 1980 Reagan was tied with President Jimmy Carter. One July 22 Gallup poll had Reagan ahead by 2 points. But by late summer Gallup repeatedly reported a tight race. Carter was often leading by several percentage points before Reagan pulled ahead at the end.
For political analyst Charlie Cook, 1980 is the most “relevant race” to look at when assessing the 2008 contest.
“There is a possibility of a blowout [this year],” Cook said. “But we won’t know if it’s going to happen until late.
“I don’t think you see leads in presidential races over 5 points in this day and age. He’s averaged leads of 3 points since spring. The key is that Obama hasn’t closed the sale,” Cook coninued. “It wasn’t until Reagan reached the threshold that he was able to close the sale.”
“The question is,” Cook added, “does Obama ever close the sale?”
Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford University political scientist, notes that several political forecasting models today predict the Democratic candidate winning a clear majority of the vote, a threshold that has thus far escaped Obama in polling. But he adds that those predictions are for a generic Democrat under “normal circumstances” in a year where the Republican Party is in dire straits.
“The real question is why is Obama then underperforming?” Iyengar added. “There is something about Obama that is causing something of drag.” Iyengar believes that something is Obama’s race.
Several pollsters agreed that race is a significant factor in this election, though they count others of roughly equal influence.
“This may sound kind of harsh, but if the Democratic nominee were a white male from a red or purple state, the theory would be dead on that this would be set up, there would be a very, very high probability for a Democratic landslide,” said Brad Coker, the managing partner of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.
Coker said that, in his view, two factors along with race are anchoring down Obama. He cites Obama’s political inexperience and that “you’ve never had a young guy win by such a large margin, post-war.” Coker added that Obama’s ideology and geography were also factors, though of lesser importance in his view.
But even if Obama built a big lead, it would also not necessarily presage a big win. In 1976, Carter led Gerald Ford in the summer by about 20 percentage points in some polls. Ford closed in by Election Day. Carter barely pulled out a victory.
If nothing else, the contours of the 2008 political environment suggest there is still hope for Democrats who expect nothing less than a resounding victory.
“The conditions are ripe for either a near-landslide, maybe 53 percent, or a landslide,” said the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato, though he notes the race looks to be significantly closer.
By David Paul Kuhn
Copyright 2008 POLITICO





- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 135 CommentsObama 08!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWX5u69hmzY
And four years of Pelosi/Reid would be good?
You obviously don''t understand how poor the choices on both sides are. That''s why there will be no landslide, it''s the devil or the deep blue sea.
www.electoral-vote.com
The way I read it Mr. Obama is ahead by 10 EVs (assuming IN goes Red which is HIGHLY likely, 5 if NV goes Red which is very likely).
-SM
No one is working harder to help Obama win than the inept McCain. Despite that, I am waiting to see what the average working class male democrat does on election day. We might be surprised to find that Joe Sixpack never was going to vote for Obama or Clinton. Or maybe we won''t be surprised.
What we also have is Obama leading by comfortable margins in states with 273 electoral votes(enough to win) and another 82 electoral votes up for grabs in states where there is no clear leader.
That translates to the fact that a landslide is not in the cards for McCian but is still a possibility for Obama. It''s more than likely they will effectively split these votes and it ill end up something like 313-235 Obama.
The polls don''t matter because the elections aren''t a national popularity contest. They''re a state-by-state referendum. If you look at the electoral map, Obama is ahead by over 100 delegates. He''s outmaneuvered McCain completely.
This election is not like the others that came before it for many reasons. The pundits have been wrong about almost everything in this race, and they''re going to be wrong here. McCain is going to lose, and lose hard.
And no, rumors, misstatements and lies are NOT character flaws, they''re rumors, misstatements and lies.
Jeez, did the third grade let out early or something.
Wow, the logic of this is mind boggling, white is black, and black is white I guess. Of Course you also called obama the anti-christ, so smart your are not.
McCain is a neo-con that votes republican 95% of the time and he wants to keep Bush policies in place.
Obama is a liberal that votes 95% democrat party line and wants to end Bush policies.
But YOU think Obama is Bush, you are an idiot.
Posted by usais11
--------------------------------------------
I find it hard to beleive in that fairy tale.
******* non-news articles and analyses
but I agree.
Do we really want another slimy neo con man like McSame in their. I know the corporations like Exxon and Chevron who run the government and media want another senile puppet in. But do we?
Daughtry is of the same school as Wright, according to the profile the Old Gray *** ran of her on July 20, 2008. As daughter to Herbert Daughtry, Wright''s fellow traveler, Leah Daughtry has preached in her father''s church with its "simple wooden cross hung on a brick wall in the vaulted and sizable sanctuary,... [and b]elow the sanctuary, in the fellowship hall, a banner for slavery reparations proclaimed, "They Owe Us."
What is "false hope"? How can hope be "true" or "false"?...When has Obama ever "promised world peace"?...And how do you explain the fact that when the Book of Revelations was written (which is supposedly where this pathetic chain email derives its "prophecy"), the Islamic religion (and therefore, Muslims) didn''t even exist?
Before you go spreading false information contained in chain emails, it might behoove you to read and research them carefully -- but then again, you probably believe every urban myth that reaches your inbox.
Posted by mr2258
WRONG ARTICLE!!!!!!!! The fascist American corporations want McSame. He hates America even more than McBush. But McSame will win because the fascists want a senile, war-monger that they can puppet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Element51 at 01:38 PM : Aug 13, 2008
How about the fact that we listened and believed the democrats screeching for five years about those 935 lies...then we gave them a small majority in Congress to do the job of getting rid of him...
How about the fact that IMMEDIATELY they got to Congress they buried INVESTIGATION AND IMPEACHMENT in the Judicial Committee, not to be seen or brought out and examined in THE WHOLE TWO YEARS!
To me this speaks of complicity, or just flat out propaganda and LIES!
Republican deregulation brought about fraud in mortgage lending and dangerous financial instruments which have collapsed the housing market, leaving a million or more homeowners facing foreclosure. The financial system is in disarray and might collapse from insolvency.
The trade and budget deficits have exploded. The US trade deficit is larger than the combined trade deficits of every deficit country in the world.
The US can no longer finance its wars or its own government and relies on foreign loans to function day to day. To pay for its consumption, the US sells its existing assets--companies, real estate, toll roads, whatever it can offer--to foreigners.
Republicans have run roughshod over the US Constitution, Congress, the courts and civil liberties. Republicans have made it perfectly clear that they believe that our civil liberties make us unsafe--precisely the opposite view of our Founding Fathers. Yet, Republicans regard themselves as the Patriotic Party.
The Republicans have violated the Nuremberg prohibitions against war crimes, and they have violated the Geneva Conventions against torture and abuse of prisoners. Republican disregard for human rights ranks with that of history''s great tyrants.
The Republicans have put in place the foundation for a police state, which they have no problem using against fellow citizens!
We must get the Republicans totally out of power, or we will have no country left for any of us.
Lets not forget that even though he doesn''t like admitting it, he is still a REPUBLICAN.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 135 Comments