Thadius
Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius Those small bouncers, because I am not sure if you are looking at actual lead after the convention, were also the latter conventions. You should also look at the '96 election. Clinton was down by 7 going into his later convention, and wound up with a lead that he never surrendered after. If this is deadlocked going into Oct. I would dare say that Obama is going back to the senate. There is far too much ammo yet to be fired, and each time his leads disipate, the folks get become more immune to his charm as they wonder why he isn't walking away with the election. So, if I understand right, he's winning............... but not by enough................. and when voters see he is not winning by enough they will abandon him and he will lose. Interesting theory. No, my theory is based on: 1. A convention bounce is traditionally around the 10 point mark. Both campaigns will get a bounce from their campaigns. Obama's was 6-8 points (depending on the poll one looks at). 2. Obama is polling considerably lower than Dems nationally, therefore one must wonder what is causing this. 3. History shows that Dem numbers are inflated in polls compared to actual turn out in Nov, and that Reps poll lower than actual turnout. 4. The Bradley effect suggests that when whites are polled about a black candidate, they lie. (which is a sad statement about society). 5. Even some of the most popular Dem Presidents have seen this deflation, Clinton was leading by 20 points at this point, and only realized a 7 point win. 6. Everytime Obama loses a lead, folks ask themselves what is going on, and then it is harder to inspire them to actually turn out. (I am referring to the middle of the road folks here, not the die hard Dems). Just my opinions, based on historical data.
_____________________________
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb
|