
Special Classifieds Feature
Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more






12:45 p.m. ET: Lots of attention on the Old Dominion, as Barack Obama rallies in Roanoke today, John McCain heads to Woodbridge tomorrow (will he stop at Potomac Mills?) and pundits ponder whether the rapidly transforming southern state is moving into the Blue column.
While he's in Prince William, McCain should a) consider buying a foreclosed house; and b) note this Politico/Insider Advantage poll of key counties across the land, which found Obama leading McCain in the P.W. by 8 points, even though Republicans have carried the county in White House races for close to three decades.
Statewide, Democrats have won the last two gubernatorial races, and Mark Warner is likely to win a massive victory over Jim Gilmore in the Senate race. Recent polling has shown Warner leading by about 30 points (sure, Warner was a popular governor, but 30 points?!). Gerry Connolly is favored to take over the NoVa House seat of the retiring Tom Davis, and the GOP might even manage to lose another House seat. Republican Thelma Drake is fighting to hold on against Democrat Glenn Nye down in Virginia Beach. Nye is getting help from some big Dem names, and the district is roughly 20 percent black. Obama may not have a "lonely victory" in the state on Nov. 4.
8 a.m. ET: 'Tis the season for turnout stories. Why? Well, because just about everything else has been covered, and turnout remains the last great unknown variable in a race whose basic storyline -- Barack Obama's going to win, unless something crazy happens -- appears to have hardened into the media's consciousness.
As the WSJ helpfully points out this morning, we don't ACTUALLY know who's going to win yet, nor do we really know who's winning at this moment (or at least, the size of Obama's lead). Just in the last week, we've seen surveys showing John McCain trailing by 9 and 14 points, and others suggesting he's only down 2 or 3 points. Every pollster out there is using a slightly different model for figuring out how many Democrats and Republicans to include. How many of those newly registered voters will actually show up? Will the "Bradley effect" hurt Obama? Or are the Democrats' numbers actually artificially low because of the growth of "cell-phone-only" households?
Those questions, of course, are why we play the whole game instead of just giving up in the 7th inning. (Yes, that's a reference to the ridiculous comeback by the Red Sox last night. Note that the last time the Sox improbably rallied in the ALCS, the Republicans won the presidential race. Just sayin'.)
Perhaps that's why Obama warned his supporters against overconfidence yesterday, citing the New Hampshire Democratic primary as evidence that he could always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Of course, Sarah Palin made a similar example of the Granite State the day before, pointing out that McCain had been losing in the state's primary before rallying to win. Is this a conspiracy by New Hampshirites to get the entire press corps to move back there?
McCain may be able to stage a comeback, but the storyline for Republicans in the Senate looks a lot more clear: They're going to lose a lot of seats, the only question is how many. Democratic candidates are definitely winning in the money race, but will that turn enough races for the party to actually reach 60 seats? It's too hard to say for sure yet -- turnout will be key.
By
Ben Pershing
|
October 17, 2008; 8:00 AM ET
Go to full archive for The Rundown »
Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 9:20 AM
The post cards might get you more subscribers. We have people in the legal community up to their elbows in forged acorns trying to grow fraud trees.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 9:32 AM
That 1936 Literary Digest poll was also conducted by telephone, which at the time meant that much of the bottom half of the country was excluded. Little wonder that the Literary Digest went out of business shortly afterwards.
And Pershing is right. This election is so completely in unchartered waters that the only thing that's going to matter is which side can get its own voters to show up at the polls. Gallup and Rasmussen get but one vote apiece, just like you and me.
Posted by: Andy | October 17, 2008 10:42 AM
Fortunately for Obama, his people always expected this election to come down to turnout, and have been working on building strong local roots for over a year. McCain, not so much.
It looks like the Republicans are getting ready to stage ugly confrontations at local polling places across America (though the effectiveness of that tactic might be diluted by early voting.) If this "works" for them, however, they may find it a sour victory: if their "win" is seen as the result of denying America its real choice, the country may have a hard time accepting it. This could take the form of anything from a total rout in 2010 - with the result that McCain becomes a virtual hostage to Congress for the last two years of his term - to demands that both McCain and Palin step down, making Nancy Pelosi our first female president.
Posted by: DJ333 | October 17, 2008 11:05 AM
McCain should not buy a foreclosed house. He has an heiress and she's set with more house than I have apple trees here. McCain should call Jimmy and the habitat for humanity people and get them to stop building more houses. With all these empty houses, they can find houses for people who need houses. They can do this without hammering more nails. I'm sick of my house and I'm looking to move. If I can find an heiress, somebody can have this damn old house. If I can find a beer heiress, unlike McCain I might spend the rest of my life plastered. For now I'm looking at a nice waitress and she's turning the tables. People have to eat and the dopes keep trying to ruin that for the regular old Joes. Have a cup of coffee. It's chilly here this morning.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2008 9:38 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.


Play up the polls and send out post cards.
The 1936 presidential election proved a decisive battle, not only in shaping the nation’s political future but for the future of opinion polling. The Literary Digest, the venerable magazine founded in 1890, had correctly predicted the outcomes of the 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, and 1932 elections by conducting polls. These polls were a lucrative venture for the magazine: readers liked them; newspapers played them up; and each “ballot” included a subscription blank. The 1936 postal card poll claimed to have asked one forth of the nation’s voters which candidate they intended to vote for. In Literary Digest's October 31 issue, based on more than 2,000,000 returned post cards, it issued its prediction: Republican presidential candidate Alfred Landon would win 57 percent of the popular vote and 370 electoral votes.
Back to the Bail Out. It looks to be making things worse, so the trick isn't doing the treat thing. Some people are changing their minds about it and others will have their minds changed as a result of losses. The game doesn't change.
They like to believe in change. We're looking at chilly numbers later today. The number go up or down. The polls can and do mislead and always have. Same old thing soldiers.