How big will Obama's victory be? (2nd Edition)

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Darius871
Just from knowing what Perot was "about" I find that extremely hard to believe, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

Well, the Washington Post had an article about the poll on Nov. 12, 1992, and USA Today had an article about the same poll on Nov. 4, 1992. The poll was conducted by Voter Research and Surveys, a group effort of the major tv networks.

Here is a link, I think, to a description of the poll, though not the results. Though maybe the results are there, and I just can't figure it out.

Granted, it is just one poll, and for all I know it's flawed or something.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The Wiki article on the '92 election, which I'm too lazy to link to, also mentions it. Apparently, Perot supports were almost evenly divided between voters who would have voted for Clinton otherwise, voters who would have voted for Bush otherwise, and voters who wouldn't have voted otherwise. So if Perot didn't matter, maybe 1992 is the best analogy.

I've read the wiki too but there's conveniently no polling data there. The fact is Bush would have only needed to beat Clinton by 15% within Perot's constituency to tie the popular vote, and I don't see how that mere 15% margin is such a stretch when Perot's key issue was fiscal conservatism and low taxes. Even if more than 35% of Perot voters told a pollster that they would have voted for Clinton had Perot not run (which I won't buy until I see it in black and white), that still assumes they would have been enthused enough to vote at all as opposed to staying home.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not even saying Bush would have won, and I'm glad he didn't for that matter; it was just so anomalous/unique that any analogy would have to teeter atop a very tenuous counterfactual scenario. I'm always wary of that sort of house of cards.

Then again I don't like election analogies altogether, considering how many anomalous/unique dynamics are running wild in 2008. It's always going to be apples and oranges IMO.

[Kidlicious]

Since Democrats have lost most of the presidential elections since Reagan first one I'm with Darius on this one.

[Donegeal]

Well, it's a virtual tie here in Wisconsin. It's driving me crazy. Every other comercial is a ****ing political ad.

I think I'll vote for whoever leaves me alone the most.

[Darius871]

How the hell is Wisconsin in contention this time around? Like I said, unique.

[Imran Siddiqui]

when Perot's key issue was fiscal conservatism and low taxes

And don't forget protectionist economics ("the giant sucking sound, etc"). Lots of union folk who didn't like the free trading Clinton would have seen Perot as a good option.

[Donegeal]

Wisconsin is usually considered a battleground state. It has been in every election I have been old enough to vote in. The thing about Wisconsin, is there are two centers of Dems: Madison and Milwaukee. The rest of the state is mostly Republicans. Every election is one way or another by only a few % points.

[Ramo]

Virtual tie?

[Donegeal]

What ever. Yes, it's a virtual tie. Obama leads, but its close enough (undecided and margin of error) is almost 7-9%. Far more than the difference between the two candidates.

In any case, it's still considered a battleground state.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

when Perot's key issue was fiscal conservatism and low taxes

And don't forget protectionist economics ("the giant sucking sound, etc"). Lots of union folk who didn't like the free trading Clinton would have seen Perot as a good option.

On the other hand, he didn't have anywhere near as much of a free-trade reputation until after events in his first term, and we're not talking about '96. Nobody in their right mind would argue Perot was a spoiler in '96, but arguing '92 isn't that far out of line.

[Guynemer]

Wisconsin is one of the states receiving the resources McCain pulled out of Michigan, along with Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Maine.

That doesn't seem to be a wise move to me. All he needs to due is play defense in the states the GOP won in 2004; even giving up Iowa and New Mexico for lost, he'd still win the EC.

[Naked Gents Rut]

You'd have to think that McCain's money would've been better spent in Michigan. It can't be that expensive to run ads showing Obama praising Kwame Kilpartick.

[EPW]

hmmm, the banana option should have been 538, sorry about that.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Seriously, just run this video in Michigan from now until November...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZNvC_-RW2Q

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Darius871
On the other hand, he didn't have anywhere near as much of a free-trade reputation until after events in his first term, and we're not talking about '96. Nobody in their right mind would argue Perot was a spoiler in '96, but arguing '92 isn't that far out of line.

That is not true. Clinton ran on the issue of pushing through NAFTA. That was part of the "New Democrat" agenda that Clinton was running on. And he tackled it during his first year in office.