Presidential Election: Does Obama Have it in the Bag?

According to some political pundits, it's all over for John McCain. In an opinion blog for US News & World Report on October 9, Robert Schlesinger implies that McCain may as well put up the white flag now and surrender. The Gallup poll has Obama ahead by a full eleven points nationally, and Rasmussen's poll lead for Obama, while smaller, is still six points ahead. (Source: US News & World Report)

Why is Obama ahead?

Remember 1992? Bill Clinton beat single-term incumbent President Bush Sr. with one simple slogan: "It's the economy, stupid." While Obama's more esoteric "Change we can believe in" may not explicitly point out "stupid" policies, implicitly he draws a distinction between himself as a fresh face in Washington, and a president and an administration that hardly anyone believes in anymore.

There's the unpopular war, which it turns out we got into over stupid intelligence (yes, that's an intentional oxymoron!). Then there's America's position of respect in the geopolitical arena, which between stupid "I looked into Vladmir's eyes and saw a good man" mistakes and "Axis of Evil" polarization, has led to an undeniable regression of America's clout over the past six or eight years. Don't forget about Hurricane Katrina, when we found out that the very trusted FEMA director Mike "Brownie" turned out to have stupidly little experience managing real crises. And then... well, there's the economy, stupid.

Whose fault are all these problems? Perhaps the blame lies squarely upon President George W. Bush, but more realistically, there is plenty of blame to go around. But it is a fact of politics that most voters tend to blame whoever is currently in office for their woes, and maintain a very limited sense of the history that led up to the problems. So John McCain, in the same way that Al Gore suffered as a result of Clinton's ethical problems near the end of his presidency, finds his campaign to be a victim of the real or perceived faults of our current president and administration. Understanding this political truth, Obama has done an excellent job capitalizing upon Wall Street's lack of capital, and linking this to Bush, the Republican Party in general, and John McCain in particular. While certainly Obama would be running a close race anyway, his large lead at this point is inextricably tied to the stock market: the more Wall Street falls, the higher his lead will rise.

Will the "Bradley effect" make a difference?

On October 14, 2008, National Public Radio wondered aloud if Obama's poll numbers are inflated due to the Bradley effect. The "Bradley effect" is named for Tom Bradley, an African American candidate for mayor of Los Angeles in 1982. Although he led in the polls by double-digits, he eventually lost the race to a white candidate by a narrow margin. Pollsters were puzzled. They found a similar phenomenon in other races where a black candidate led a white candidate in the polls running up to the election, but eventually lost. They dubbed it the "Bradley effect" - citizens say that they will vote for the black candidate, but when push comes to shove, they can't bring themselves to push that button or pull that lever. (Source: National Public Radio)

But it seems that the Bradley effect might be starting to wear off. A lot has changed in race and politics, after all, since 1982. All over the country we see an increase of minority congresspersons, mayors, and governors. Women, too, find their political star rising, with recent congressional races dubbed "Year of the Woman", Hillary Clinton very nearly becoming the first female Democratic nominee for president, and Nancy Pelosi becoming the first female Speaker of the House. And in 2002 and 2006, a few black candidates in southern states lost their races, but got exactly the percentage of votes that the polls said they would. It seems, then, that the Bradley effect is unlikely to severely impact Barack Obama's final voting numbers.

Can the mavericky "Comeback Kid" pull off one last comeback?

So is it really all over for John McCain? Is it definite that he will lose the race, and Barack Obama will soon be our next president? Brian Schaffner of Pollster.com suggests that if McCain is to make a comeback, he has to do two things: First, he has to win over people who haven't decided who they're voting for yet. Second, he has to change the minds of some people who have decided to vote for Obama.

Regarding the first point, Schaffner says the poll numbers show that even if McCain wins over every undecided voter, it won't be enough for him to win. At this late stage in the game, there are not many voters who still claim that they are undecided. Most people already know who they are voting for, and the number of undecided voters still left simply isn't enough to tip the scales in McCain's favor. Besides - is it really that likely that ALL undecided voters will eventually vote for McCain? This scenario seems unlikely.

Regarding the second point, that McCain has to change the minds of people who have decided to vote for Obama, Schaffner analyzes data from the 2004 and 2000 elections and comes to the conclusion that the number of people who actually change their minds at the last moment is a miniscule percent - less than 3% of those who preferred Kerry in September 2004 switched teams and voted for Bush in November. (Source: Pollster.com)

Obama supporters, don't pop those Champaign bottles quite yet

After the hotly contested elections in 2000, in which the person who won the race lost the presidency, we should all know that anything can still happen. A few key states - especially Missouri and Ohio - remain a toss-up. And it turns out, as we learned from watching Florida and its hanging chads in 2000, that one state can make all the difference in the world. So while an Obama win at this point seems to be the most likely outcome of November's presidential election, the media and American voters would be wise not to count any chickens until they hatch.