Talk Elections

Excerpts:

1. All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.

[P]olling indicates a widespread lack of enthusiasm among Obama’s core demographic support due to high unemployment, disappointment with his policies and performance, and the lack of novelty in voting for a black candidate now that he has already served as president.

If you adjust virtually any of the published polls to reflect the 2004 vote, not the 2008 vote, they show the race either tied or Romney ahead, a view much closer to reality. [Own commentary: It appears Gallup may be doing this]

2. Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.

But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.

An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.

So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!

Source: http://www.dickmorris.com/why-the-polls-under-state-romney-vote/

Will you guys stop with this Reagan "Come From Behind" myth. The Gipper was ahead from May 1980 til Election Day. And there is no evidence that the undecided vote always breaks unanimously or anywhere close for the challenger. If that were true George W. Bush would not have won in 2004 and Bill Clinton wouldn't have won in 1996.

Dick Morris is an idiot.

He can't even get his own "polls" right, so he's complaining about others ?

Also, the enthusiasm gap has disapeared (and in many polls reversed) after the Democratic Convention.  It could revert back in the coming weeks, but unless/until that happens you aren't at all justified in saying that Republicans will have the enthusiasm advantage. 

Bush won in 2004 because he dramatically increased turnout among his base relative to 2000. Obama is not going to get better turnout than 2008. Only a delusional Democrat would suggest such nonsense.

Furthermore, Clinton won in 1996 by triangulating (e.g., welfare reform, school uniforms, "era of Big Government is over," etc.). In addition, the economy had about 5% unemployment and gasoline cost about $1.25/gallon.

Politico, what is your opinion of Nate Silver as a polling analyst? Just curious.

So is Politico...

...why are you guys feeding this troll?

He has a hidden agenda.

()


Arkansas solid blue? Enough said.

No one pays attention to tricky Dick anymore.

Yeah that. LOL. He should just shut up.

Dick Morris is a moron. Remember when the undecided vote broke heavily against Bush in 2004? Me neither, because it didn't. I still remember the last Gallup poll from that year: Bush 49 Kerry 48. The actual vote was Bush 51 Kerry 48. The increased polarization of today won't allow for the kind of ultra wild swings of the 80s (or earlier).

Besides that, several polls have now shown that a higher % of Democrats are enthusiastic about voting in this election than Republicans. You can try to pretend that isn't the case but it is what it is. Romney's campaign has been a borderline disaster so far and Obama is still liked by the vast majority of Democrats.

If you're clinging to Dick Morris, you may as well accept that it's over.

He's that bad.

Osama Bin Laden endorsed Bush's opponent just before the 2004 election. Had that not occured, Bush, probably, would have lost.

And Dick Morris doesn't?

LOL

You really haven't got a clue about politics, do you?

Had Bush not totally crashed during the first debate, his lead would have been virtually undisturbed.

The effect of the bin Laden tape and the 2000 DUI is overstated to excuse Bush under-performance. Bush was greatly assisted by the genuine last-minute undecideds, not Kerry.

Dick Morris has no credibility.

()

Dick Morris has an open agenda.

Dick Morris is almost as big a political buffoon as you, Politico...

Are you seriously trying to compare Bush's 2000 turnout with Obama's 2008 turnout? Furthermore, are you attempting to say that if Obama's 2012 turnout drops by any amount, that he will lose? If so, it absolutely makes no sense. Bush had to increase turnout because otherwise, he would have lost. Obama doesn't have to do that. Remember how one lost the PV and the other won it by seven points?

Dick Morris???

Dick Morris, the man himself...
()

and his cousin, The Penguin
()

face morph the two...
()

lastly...

()

How exactly does "that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida" constitutes endorsing Kerry?

But... but that's the real map. The actual results were an oultier. [/politico]

/thread

agree

It's pretty obvious that OBL preferred Bush in charge, since he knew that Bush wouldn't be able to kill him.  Sure enough...

2004 = the only time the Republicans have won the popular vote in a presidential election since 1988.
So adjusting the turnout to resemble 2004 isn't a question of a return to normal. It's saying that Republicans will match their best performance in nearly a quarter of a century.

Dick morris. Lol.

I love how has epic fail map above labels himself 'political analyst extraordinaire'.

EDIT: My offer still stands, Politico. Time to walk the walk....

You know things are getting bad when you start citing Dick Morris.

Dick Morris can and is amazingly wrong most of the time.  However, he is borrowing this line of thought from other people and thus he is correct.  There is absolutely no way that Obama is going to outperform his 2008 numbers and pollsters are using democratic sample sizes larger than 2008.  I also disagree with the myth of the Reagan polls.  Reagan did lead throughout much of the summer.  That has nothing to do with the belief that the polls are wrong in my view.

1st - The feeling isn't in the air.  I don't see the enthusiasm like I saw in 2008 where nearly every single person I knew outside of my family was voting for Obama.  I don't see signs, shirts and other campaign materials.  In 2008, all I saw was a sea of Obama signs.  This year I see much more enthusiasm for Romney and I know multitudes of people who voted for Obama that are either staying home or voting for Romney - and yes, this is post-convention.  I live in a heavily democratic city too.  In the recent primary, turnout was 48% on the republican side, 52% on the democratic side.  Make what you will.

2nd - If there is a groundswell it's deeply hidden as if democrats are embarrassed to reveal that they are voting for Obama.  I remember in 2008 seeing people proudly proclaim their allegiance.  It's not so this year.  I see dismay, dissappointment and anger by people who voted for him other than the most left wing.

3rd - Among conservatives, the anger at what Obama is doing is unbelievably deep and increases daily.  It's not even close to the anger that democrats had at Bush or republicans had of Clinton in the 90s.  Republicans truly feel that they will lose their country if the president wins another term.  Go watch the ending of 2016: Obama's America and that is exactly what republicans see in a second Obama term.  So put yourself in our shoes for a second, if that's what we see for the future, do you honestly believe that we're staying home?

So yes, its very logical to believe that the polls are using hilariously bad models. That's why I will take great pleasure in watching the false hope fade from democrats' eyes as the president gives his concession speech on election night.

You sir speak what I'm thinking about!

Romney isn't John McCain either. I know a number of people who voted for McCain who will not vote for Romney.

Dude I'm not going to open up some racist s**t on youtube - you know it tracks you right?

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

All the polls are wrong, only I know the actual state of the race.

Two things:
1. If Obama's policies are so horrible, why wouldn't the Republican party be able to overturn them after the landslide defeat for the Democrats, caused by his horrible policies?
2. You dismiss far too lightly democratic opposition against Bush in 2004. For example, I don't think that any major Republicans have threatened to leave the US if Obama (and yes, I know that was mostly in jest, but it was still indicative).

Manifestly obsolete. Lack of novelty? The President is running on his record, and incumbent pols who can run on their records almost invariably win. Dubya, a really-awful President, won on his and won.   


Well, at least you aren't using 2010 numbers.


...but almost always until recently ahead of Romney and that is what counts. The preponderance of polls suggest that President Obama is significantly ahead. For the election to go to Romney, about everything must go his way until Election Day -- one of those a calamity involving the President.   


The 'undecided' vote either fails to vote or drifts ineffectively toward the eventual loser -- except during a collapse by the eventual loser.




A 100% break of the undecided toward the challenger? No.

WIN

When you have to make up elaborate theories about why polls are all biased and wrong, it's all just rationalization.

Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing... ::)

1. First, we don't have control of the senate.  Second, his policies are creating a society dependent upon government for every need.  The Julia cartoon says it best.  Once you are dependent, you don't let it go.  Once Obamacare is implemented, it will never be gotten rid of.  Say for example, that it does what we think it will do - cause a shortage of doctors, increase wait times and decrease quality of care.  The people getting free care won't give it up, even if the old level of care was better because its "free".  Every day we don't cut spending brings us closer to the tipping point of economic collapse with our national debt.  That collapse will likely unable to be surmounted.  Also, watch the end of 2016: Obama's America.
2. Where would we go?  This country is it.  There isn't another country in the world that would ever allow the level of economic and personal freedoms allowed by conservatism.  All of the rest are dictatorships or social democracies.  Plus, we love this country.  Unlike democrats, there isn't another country that shares our views and values.  That's why it's easier for democrats to say they'll move to Canada.

So you think Canada is less free? I would be grateful if you could outline exactly why.

If the Obama is such a failure as you imagine him, it's not very likely that his control of the senate will extend beyond the next midterms.

Or maybe they will like being able to get adequate medical care which for many is very difficult today. 

The policies proposed by Romney will hardly help with the US national debt either.

There are quite a few Eastern European countries with a flat tax rate. Though strangely many of their citizens don't seem to appreciate the freedoms they have and want to move to the social democracies of Western Europe.

Wait, Obama's an incompetent, ineffective buffoon and a malicious anti-colonialist sleeper agent who's deliberately destroying America?

Dick Morris has NO agenda though, right!?

Wait, you're using Dick Morris to argue for something?

You have no clue about the anger people felt about Bush in 2004. Hell, I still get angry thinking about it. We were fighting for the morals of the nation! We were fighting for the good name of America, a country that doesn't go around invading people just because it can.

Boy, what a sad thread.

Look.  You have to be pretty damn delusional to see a poll with your candidate behind and then proclaim, "He's winning!"  As others have pointed out, Dick Morris isn't exactly the gold standard in polling analyses.  There are also simply not enough undecided voters that will break for Romney unless Obama completely throws the race away in the debates.  The chances of that happening are, I'd say, quite slim.

I second this. I, too, have personal ties to NH (various areas within the 2nd congressional district along with Manchester). I also have close ties to CA (Los Angeles/Orange County), NV (Clark County) and MA (Suffolk County). I am hearing the same thing with regards to NV, albeit to a lesser extent than in NH. Unfortunately, I am abroad right now for personal reasons.

Dick Morris has an open agenda, not a hidden one. At least I know where things stand with the former.

J. J.'s Third Rule of Elections:  Supposed indicators, crowd size, signs and bumper stickers, letters to the editor, are meaningless in terms of actual voter support, though might be an indicator of campaign organization.

I have seen more Obama signs left over from 2008 than I have for 2012, but I'm not in a hotly contested state.


The polling seems to be lower and if Obama is reelected, it will likely be with fewer EV's.  The polls indicate a tight race.



The conservative might be more fired up by events.  Obama is dead, but al Qaeda lives.  The handling of the Islamic world may inspire more Republicans than Democrats; Libya may turn into a net minus for Obama.  Operation Fast and Furious will inspire many on the right to vote against Obama, and may energize the base.

That anger isn't even close to the feeling that your country will be irrevocably lost and destroyed.  Also about invading people...you do realize that Obama invaded Libya right under the same reasons Bush invaded Iraq and for good measure announced it on the exact same day in March Bush did 8 years earlier with the exact same words Bush used nearly word for word.

If he spoke what you were thinking, he would be completely silent.

The Libyan intervention had more to do with Atlanticism than anything else, but I guess that it's all globalism to you, brother.

Not the biggest fan of the Libya operation but there is no way you can compare it to what Bush did.

Me?  No.  What bothers me is the changing story about Libya, the serial and the attacks on about 20 embassies since then.

I've generally given Obama high marks on foreign police, but he blew this latest crisis.

What could Obama have done that would have been better than having 30,000 Libyans storm the extremist's compound?

Its the same bullsh*t that I have heard from the right for nearly a year. America will inevitably vote for Romney because we don't like Obama and we love free markets and tax cuts. Attention right wingers: we have about 6 weeks till the election and the inevitable  Mitt Romney victory sure isn't showing up anywhere but Rasmussen and other garbage right wing blogs like pajamas media.

Exactly, stuff happens that can't be controlled. The degree to which sane Libyans tried to help those in the Embassy and the storming of the extremists compound is one of the strongest signs how what JJ is saying is rubbish.

What the polls are telling us, IMO, regardless of who puts them out is that Obama is the favorite, but that in reality no one, except God, knows what will happen in 6 1/2 weeks.  Remember, 44 days in politics is an eternity.  This election, in reality, is still anybody's game, but Romney is running out of time and running out of undecideds.

I was addressing nhmagic there, J.J. As for your concerns about Obama's handling of the embassy attacks, I'd turn your attention to the massive pro-democracy, pro-USA, anti-militia demonstrations (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292112314438851.html) taking place in Libya. It's hardly the xenophobic scare story the American right-wing would like to feed us.

somehow I knew his 'theory' would not be favorable to Obama

Well, not changed the story about who attacked the embassy in Libya.  Not apologized for the film (which may caused more trouble).  

I don't deny that, but the serial apologies for the film seem to have emboldened others.  Also, the change in stories regarding Libya, first a protest that became violent, then a "self evident" terrorist attack, created a problem.

You're right Nix.  I do see it as globalism and I don't like it.  I didn't like the Iraq war after I saw it for what it was and democrats (that weren't public office holders, that is) were 100% right.  

Also, Obama failed on the Libya response by covering up that the marines weren't at the embassy by telling people a You Tube video was responsible.  

This is the key cognitive dissonance with this issue. Saying that this movie was deeply, deeply offensive is not apologizing for it, no one did. The only purpose of the film was to garner that kind of response.

The healthcare program that requires you to be a customer of private insurance companies? That dependency scheme?

Moreover, what's so amazing about the American Right's approach to social and economic problems is that they never really attempt to solve problems, they just absolve the government of any responsibility. The solution to supposed "dependency" is not to remove social programs, that does nothing at all except further entrench people in bad circumstances into progressively worse circumstances and stifle social mobility, the solution is to focus on implementing policies that dramatically raise lower and middle class income levels. And no, tax cuts don't do that.

There is also good dependency and bad dependency. I am dependent on the government for roads, I am dependent on government to check the food I eat to make sure it's safe, I am dependent on government to regulate air quality. I'm pretty stoked with all of that. What the government can do cheaper, centrally, impartially, and safely, it should do.


LOL


Some of those social democracies you hate so much are happier and more socially mobile than the US. Not to mention we are regularly beat in one area or another in the Heritage Foundation created Index of Economic Freedom  (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking)and easily rivalled overall by some of those evil social democracies.


Is that so? What side of American politics so routinely insults all different areas of the country? Like Sarah Palin, you only like the "real" America; defined, of course, entirely by you.

You can say, "I personally disagree with the movie, but in US, we let people say what they wish.  And if you would like to make a movie showing the truth about the Prophet,^* many Americans will watch and it certainly will be permitted."  

^*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad,_Messenger_of_God

What I remember most about the bitterness among the Left from 2004 was the frustrated feeling that we (and I use that term generally, though I was young then) were operating on a completely different level than the rest of the country in how we thought of the election. The left was motivated by real problems we could solve with real solutions, while Bush ended up winning with a base motivated by anger over boys kissing.

I just want to chime in how disappointed I am with Obama's failure to stand strong with Israel. These turn of events have completely negated his foreign policy achievements from 2009-2011 IMHO. I worry about our foreign policy being as poor as our domestic policy if Obama gets four more years. In any case, we're in big trouble if Obama gets back in.

What a frustratingly ridiculous thing to say, Bibi has been very complementary of his interaction with Obama. What does 'standing strong with Israel' even mean?

What is your point? Do you think you're going to change minds with baseless talking points? The only support you have is right-wing paranoia about an Obama that doesn't exist. You're more than welcome to believe it, but if he's re-elected, I'll look forward to hearing which candidate you're going to inflict your support upon next.

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits on the domestic front, and sending signals that he will abandon Israel and bow to Russian demands if re-elected. That's the point. You're more than welcome to cling to 8% unemployment, $4/gallon gasoline, one trillion dollar deficits, abandoning our most important ally in the Middle East, and bowing to Russian demands, but most of the rest of America have had enough with this administration's incompetence as you will witness on Election Night.

Hang on... did you just basically copy and paste that from somewhere else? Do you have a stump post?

Considering how bad you are at reading 'tea leaves', I'd be deeply impressed if you could show how Israel has been abandoned?

The deficits will be there... no matter who wins. The GOP House is too dogmatic to do anything serious about it. The difference is, Romney needs to cow-tow to these people... or he'll have a hell problem in 2016. They'll expect him to fix it... but won't allow him to do anything that might work. I'm fully expecting him to lose, but if he does win, it'll be in spite of him being the nominee and he'll probably have a disappointing and anxiety-ridden term.

A brain-damaged baboon would make a better Romney surrogate.

The Democrats already have Biden.

As I said in another thread, I for one am actually beginning to get seriously ticked off by this bullsh**t. Stop it. Now.

Envy is such an ugly thing.

Eh, it was dumb of me to stoop to name-calling, despite my statement being true in its most technical sense.

In any case, I'm baffled by the constant disparagement Biden. Much of it is as superficial as the feigned outrage over Michelle Obama's vegetable garden. What's the deal, Biden-haters? Still upset over him torpedoing Bork?

There comes a time in every man's life when they should retire, and Biden is at that point. That's the problem with Biden The Buffoon. He'll just have to be forced into retirement, I guess...

It is not just about where we are, but where we are headed. Obama has sent strong signals of division with Israel, signalling the potential of us abandoning them in a future hour of need. On the domestic front, Obama has us headed off a fiscal cliff. We cannot run $1 trillion deficits for four more years, or we'll go bankrupt by the end of the decade (on the watch of Obama's successor, whomever it may be). This is the path that Obama has us set on. With Obama, there is no light in sight. The next four years will look like the past four years.

In contrast, Romney will right the ship and produce the right results.

So you haven't answered my question... a mix of your interpretations and talking points without a basis in fact.

You are aware what the Romney Budget plan, what little of we know would do to the deficit and debt? The Congress knows there would be a public revolt if they attempted to cuts service levels down to the point they would need to be to pay for $4 trillion more tax cuts. So all that does is add to both.

If you have an economic reform plan that doesn't include revenue raising to any degree, then you aren't serious about fixing an economy. You just want to cut taxes.

()

Ah, who is complaining about the garden.

Biden has had a sting of blunders, including some recently.  A joke on SNL last night was that Obama was doing well, and not hearing Biden's name in a month was an example.

We're aware that Biden isn't well-spoken. The thing is, he's not poorly-spoken in a way that indicates actual stupidity unless you're already invested in that being the case.

So whats your answer to the fiscal cliff (which we already have), cut taxes and increase spending to have the same problem in Europe, or keep the tax increase and spending cuts which could lead to a recession. The deficits are going to increase with Romney's tax cuts unless he cuts out all help for those who need it, and finally you offer no evidence of what you are saying, and wrap it all in subjective things such as "no light in sight" which sounds nice but means nothing

The central achievement of the Romney Administration will be tax reform. We'll downgrade all of the marginal rates by 20% and eliminate deductions that only benefit lawyers/accountants in order to ensure tax receipts do not fall too much in the short-run. Here is a good paper on the issue: http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wsj08282012.pdf

Spending that can be cut or transferred onto the states will be cut or transferred onto the states. Obviously it needs to be done in such a way that we do not cause a recession.

Hey guys, an adviser to the Romney campaign with magic numbers he made up himself in a two page paper says the plan will work!

If you want the next four years to look like the past four years, by all means vote to give Obama four more years. Otherwise, you may want to reconsider...

If the ONLY evidence you have to attest that Romney will do anything other than blow out the deficit and debt further, is a puff piece by a Romney Campaign adviser and disciple of trickle-down... then you've already lost the argument.

Unless one is some sort of reverse Dr Pangloss it is entirely reasonable to want that if the alternative looks to be worse or more nonsensical.

I imagine that discussing the last four years with Politico would be Rashomon-esque experience.

Thanks a lot, Dick.  Now I know Romney won't win.

You're clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. Go watch John Kerry's commercials from 2004. I would have called you nuts had you told me in 2004 that Democrats would be defending this economic environment in 2012.

Everybody knows that Obama inherited a bad situation, but so did Ronald Reagan in 1981. The difference between the two is that Reagan made things better whereas Obama has put the long-term future at risk without achieving promised gains in the short-term (i.e., Obama has sacrificed the future in order to reward special interest groups in the present). Like it or not, the last four years belong to Obama. If you want the next four years to look like the past four years, by all means vote to give Obama four more years...

I would hope his central achievement would be entitlement reform, if elected.  Romney's tax ideas in general make some sense, but the numbers don't add up, because he won't own up to doing away with all those big ticket but very popular Schedule A deductions - mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and most particularly, charitable deductions (how popular will that be with the LDS I wonder?). Nor has he even come up with a means testing finesse. So he won't be able to get the rates down as advertised. Mittens is going the all gain, no pain, supply side route. Would that it be so easy. Sadly it isn't. Even sadder, is that both candidates have a big courage gap. It's discouraging.

You have to have a stump speech with this mess that you repeat


"If you want the next four years to look like the past four years, by all means vote to give Obama four more years..."

also we started out in 2008 way worse than Reagan, also in !983, 30 states still had double digits unemployment, and the total unemployment rate was the same as when he came into office

HI NHMAGIC!

The offer below is now open to you as well. I've already got Politico in, so you can either add/share your choice of sig for me to display, or I'll brandish your choice for the 2 months (or however many exact days there are between election day and inauguration day) after the inauguration--your choice.

Still feeling confident? ;)

How about you, J.J.? You admittedly haven't been nearly as over the top unrealistic as Politico or NH Magic, but I still detect enough confidence in your posts to satisfy a betting man.

Consider the offer below open to you too.

Ask me next Tuesday. :)

There are some good signs.  Libya has damaged Obama (and so has the rest of the Islamic world).

The "right track wrong direction" numbers went up after the DNC, but the swung back up.  The R's are leading on generic congressional ballot, after dropping after the DNC.

The 47% comment was damaging, but the damage appears to be ephemeral; it appears was on Rasmussen.  I'm waiting to see in Gallup swings after the same 3-4 day period.  Obama was actually decreasing before that on Gallup.

I'm looking at enthusiasm and turnout.  So far, I'm not seeing too many outward signs for Obama in my area.  That is not a good measure (J. J.'s Third Rule).  I have not been in areas that were overtly GOP, so it could be the same across the board.

Registration in PA seems not to have been pushed.  I had to go down to the Registration Office to change my ID to comply with the new PA law.  I got there at 1:00 PM; I was the only person there (though three others came as I was being taken care of).

From what I can tell, NC is shifting to Romney in the actual voters.  I would expect Romney to run better in EV's than McCain.

I predicted the drop Romney would have this week on Gallup.  If it just a reaction to 47%, he should be tied or better by Monday on both Gallup and Rasmussen.  If that happens, I'll start from there.

Catch me Tuesday if I don't catch you first.

Or tell me when those "good signs" are enough to make you want to bet more than espuse maybes. :P

Well, I just did.  :P  Enthusiasm seems low.  There has been no effort to register the base.  (In PA, you have to vote every two years or your registration lapses.)  I think you only have until 10/6 to reregister. 

The absentee ballots in NC, so far, are showing a 10% African American makeup and they are trending older.  Youth vote (which wasn't a huge component) seems to be lower. 

Yes, I think voter turnout with key elements of the Democratic base will be lower, but I don't know how much lower.

I would not be too surprised to see Obama's percent of the popular vote fall, even if he wins.