Of Floors and Ceilings

[Wiz in Wis]

This is not going to be a scientific analysis, because it is late and I have little energy to crunch historical numbers, but an interesting fact has recently entered my thinking. In 1992, at this point in the election, Bill Clinton was clearly trailing George H W Bush in most polls, and in some, he was trailing both Perot and Bush. This stemmed from both lack of ID and recent scandal. We all know how that race turned out.

So, how does this compare to the 2008 election. Clearly McCain does not have the ID nor culpability that Bush had for the direction of America in 1992, but his recent statements on the economy, tied with George W Bush's approval ratings no doubt should give his campaign and supporters pause. Yet the media trump his tie with the Dems as evidence of his strength as a candidate. Personally, I think it makes him look exceedingly weak. Here's why:

1) No opposition: Assuming Obama gets the nomination (which appears the more likely scenario), Obama has yet to train his rhetorical gun at McCain, aside from a few mentions per speech. His opponent clearly remains Clinton. He is not touring swing states, nor airing ads in states to make them competitive. Once Obama locks up the nomination (June perhaps) then the media and both campaigns will pivot. At the same time, low information voters will begin to examine McCain v Obama, rather than Obama v Clinton. As the economy and health care become clear issues for McCain to address, will his numbers realistically rise?

2) Money. Obama raised 40M in March, most of it in small online donations. McCain raised 15M, most of it in large fundraisers. Assuming that a good share of Clinton's donors will give to Obama in the general, he can expect to see at least 40M for a few months. McCain on the otherhand, has no excuse not to be raising the big bucks. Obama appears poised to leave public financing, McCain appears to need it. Now Obama has the issues and the money to inform the public about their differences.

3) Demographics: fivethirtyeight.com has a wonderful analysis of the recent gallup poll comparing Obama's strengths among education demos to Clinton and McCains. He finds, and I agree with the interpretation, that Obama's strength with those who have some college or are college grads, compared with other candidates, implies a great structural advantage. Remember, high education means more likely to vote, give money, volunteer, etc. Further, high information/education voters are the least likely to change their minds, and the least likely to be convinced by convention speeches or TV ads. Again, the problem for McCain deepens. This also doesn't take into account increasing Dem margins in registration, which is highly correlated to turnout.

4) Clinton defectors: Clinton's defectors appear to be Obama's achilles heal, but are they? They tend to be older voters, women, and blue collar dem leaners. Several key issues could bring these people back to Obama: Privitizing Social Security, Abortion, and Health Care. Reminding voters of McCains position on these issues will disarm them, and several months of time will mello most of the upset Clintonistas. Most will come home, those that don't are more likely to sit on their hands than punish. Increased turnout among youth, AAs, and independents more than makes up for them. (likewise for Clinton, Obama defectors would come home too, if they were hurt in June rather than late August.)

5) Electoral College: Obama v McCain doesn't appear to create a map like 2000 or 2004. Several swing states appear to go solid for one candidate or another. Unfortunately for McCain, most swing to Obama. He locks down Maine, Washington St. and Oregon. He has a big lead in IA, MN, and WI. He makes NH, CO, NM, VA and NV competitive where Clinton doesn't. Both dems appear weak in OH and MI, and Clinton looks better in AR, PA and FL. Therefore, Obama, assuming big money margins, can spread the field, buttressing his leads with modest buys and appearances in the Pacific NW and Great Lakes, and making plays for VA and the Mountain states. He can also drop some coin in ND, SD, AK, and MT in a gambit to make McCain spend money and time there defending himself. With scant resources, McCain will be weak somewhere, if not everywhere.

So, I humbly suggest that we are seeing a race between McCains ceiling and Obama's floor, barring some unforseen ( and likely ) event, this is where the race is headed. I really want to be criticized, because I don't want to be too optimistic, but if you could point out where you think my faults lie, please provide some mathematical or historical data to support your arguements. Thanks in Advance!

[MasterJedi]

I've seriously been doing too much economics in school, when I read the title I immediatly thought of price floors and ceilings.

[Gustaf]

I'm sorry but a lot of this sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else to me.

1. Obama is on the news all the time. If we assume he benefits from exposure that's a positive for him. You just stipulate that the more we see of the race the better it will be for Obama but I suspect that stems from bias on your behalf.

2. Firstly, money is overrated, imo. McCain didn't need it to sweep the primary while Obama, despite an enormous money advantage, has not yet locked up his nomination. Secondly, Obama v Clinton is getting all the attention. Not so strange that McCain is not getting much money at this stage.

3. This kind of analysis is bogus in 99% of all cases. Sure, then why does McCain do better against Obama when likely voters are polled? Do you have any actual data to back up your contention that Obama voters will have higher turnout? In fact, how much data do you have to back up the assumption that Obama will do that much better among the highly educated? The one recent poll on the issue that I saw showed a gap but not an enormous one (the difference was more between Obama and Clinton than between McCain and Obama).

4. See 3. WIthout any data to back it up it's just wishful thinking.

5. Again, see 3. The idea that the map will just play out in a way that benefits Obama heavily seems unfounded. If anything, the opposite seems true. Obama does well primarily in safe Democrati states and safe Republican states in the West and Northeast. It is historically very unusual for a map to heavily favour one candidate in a structural sense.

Overall, most of this could be argued the opposite way if you were a McCain hack. Because most of your analysis really boils down to saying "Obama is so much better than McCain that in the end everyone will vote for him" And I can't say that I'm convinced by that.