Is New York in Play?

HotAir points out a recent poll stating that Obama has dropped 18 points off his early lead in New York among likely voters.

Seven weeks until Election Day, the race for President has tightened in New York, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) leading Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 46-41 percent among likely voters, according to a new Siena (College) Research Institute poll released today. Obama’s five point lead is down from eight points in August, 13 points in July and 18 points in June, when he led 51-33 percent.

Okay, let’s take a quick shot from the jug of reality here. That is still a five point lead, seven weeks out from one of the bluest states anywhere. And actually the RCP average is Obama +15 so there is no way that New York is in play. Right?

But then after a few moments of thought on this, something occurred to me; and I bet it has occurred to the folks in camp Obama.

Obama won the Democrat nomination based in large part because of his big wins in caucuses. Personally, I think caucuses are about as relevant as Joe Biden. The system is fraught with corruption and intimidation but it greatly favored Obama.

I always felt that being forced to make an open declaration of support in a liberal caucus would always favor the politically correct victim because that is how liberals think.

Then I ran across this from Dr. Lynnette Long:

On March 4, 2008, Texas held its Democratic Primary, affectionately called the Texas-Two Step. After the polls closed at 7 pm, primary voters could participate in a caucus. Sixty-five percent of the pledged delegates were awarded based on the primary results and the other 35% based on the caucus results. According to CNN, 2,867,454 votes were cast in the primary: 51% (1,458,814) for Senator Hillary Clinton and 47% (1,358,785) for Senator Barack Obama, and a smattering of votes (49,855) for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd combined. In the Texas caucus 42,538 votes were reported on CNN but only 41% of the votes were tallied. Estimates are that 100 people participated in each of the approximately 8,000 caucuses for a total of 800,000 people. The election officials in the state of Texas were completely overwhelmed by the number of voters. Obama was allocated 56% of the caucus votes and Clinton was allocated 44% of the votes. Caucus voters were required to have voted in their precinct. Consequently, caucus voters were a statistical subset of primary voters, but they did not vote the same way. In terms of pledged delegates received in the Texas Two Step, Clinton garnered 94 pledged delegates and Obama got 99 pledged delegates. Obama came out of Texas five delegates ahead of Clinton in a primary she won. Astounding!

It was even better in the Democrat Caucus in Washington State:

On February 9, Washington State caucused to determine the distribution of the pledged delegates. Obama won 21,629 to 9,992 votes or 68% to 31% and received 53 of the 78 pledged delegates. Ten days later Washington State had a primary election in which no delegates were awarded, yet 669,856 people chose to vote in this beauty contest. Obama won this contest by 51% (354,112 votes) to 46% (315,744 votes). How could Obama win by 37 points in a caucus and only 5 points in the primary, a 32-point difference? The caucus factor is at work again. Which method accurately reflects the will of the voters? More than twenty times the number of people participated in primary, should we trust the masses or the sanctioned election?

There is a reason for this phenomenon beyond just Democrat Party internal skullduggery.

In 1989 David Dinkins became the 1st African American mayor of New York City and there was great joy in the boroughs of Gotham. In that election Dinkins defeated Republican Rudy Giuliani by 2 points. The thing is Dinkins was ahead 14 points in the latest polls!

This is of course an illustration of the famed “Bradley Effect” so named after Tom Bradley who was polling up 8 points in the 1982 California Governors race but ultimately lost by 2 points.

Also, keep in mind that this is not an unusual anomaly, it is a considered factor for internal campaign strategists.

In 1990 Harvey Gantt led Jesse Helms in the North Carolina senate race by 6 points but lost by 6 points.

In 1992 Carol Moseley Braun led by 20 points but only won by 10 points.

These examples show an average of an 11 point swing at the ballot box over the polls. That is not the kind of swing that campaign strategists ignore.

The general election is not a caucus and you can bet that Obama’s folks are more than aware of it.

Is the “Bradley Effect” as strong today? Probably not but what if it is still say, eight percent?

Category: Politics