In the discussion thread: Larry Sabato: "most people who claim to be independent really are not" [View all]
Response to DCBob (Original post)
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 04:35 AM
Drunken Irishman (27,870 posts)
17. I agree that most aren't - but I disagree with Abramowitz's claim.
For starters, the '96 election was not close. Clinton nearly won by ten-points and soundly beat Dole in the electoral college. Yes, the polls indicated a much larger victory for Clinton, but I think a lot of that was due to apathy in that race. It had one of the lowest turnouts in modern electoral history. Americans just weren't interested and Dole was a boring candidate, so, of course it's possible Clinton's margin was less than his overall support - but because only 49% of the public turned out (compared to 55% in '92 55% in '04 and 56% in '08). Going all the way back to 1960, no turnout was less than what we saw in '96.
So, that explains that.
As for '04, the economy was hit & miss throughout much of '04 and Bush also had a very unpopular war to deal with. The election was close, but we knew it would be close leading up to it because Americans were evenly divided on almost every issue.
Does that mean this election won't be close? Of course not. But Obama also has the benefit of a broader electoral map than Bush. Bush in '04 had to win both Florida & Ohio to win. Obama can lose either and still win. So, it comes down to what we classify as achingly close contest. If Obama wins the popular vote by 1 or 2 points, but wins the electoral college by 68 electoral votes - carrying 303 electoral votes - is it really all that close?
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Wounded Bear||Jul 2012||#10|
|rufus dog||Jul 2012||#12|
I agree that most aren't - but I disagree with Abramowitz's claim.
|Drunken Irishman||Jul 2012||#17|
|Drunken Irishman||Jul 2012||#24|
Please login to view edit histories.