Slate editor Jacob Weisberg is the latest journalist to suggest that Barack Obama should be winning by a large margin (via Andrew Sullivan):
What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?
"What gives" is that the fundamentals actually predict a close race. Leading political science models forecast that Obama will receive 51-53% of the two-party vote and he's at 51% in the Pollster.com estimate. Weisberg is right to suggest that racism may play a role in the eventual outcome (I've made the same prediction), but Obama's performance so far is not out of line with what we would expect from any Democrat. Unfortunately, as I've argued before, journalists tend to create dramatized narratives of campaigns and ignore quantitative analysis. The result in this year's election is anxiety bordering on panic among Democrats. Race may yet cost Obama this election, but he's doing fine so far.
Bendan, I'm confused. This explanation doesn't explain WHY the political science models predict what they predict. Common sense WOULD seem to suggest that with so much in Obama's favor, he would, in fact, be leading, and by a larger margin than the polls are showing.
Posted by: Raleighite | August 28, 2008 at 10:11 AM