Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    November 2008
    S M T W T F S
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    30  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Archive for November 10th, 2008

Who cost McCain the election?

Posted by Richard on November 10, 2008

While catching up on Big Lizards, I learned some other interesting things about the election. The first post debunked the myth of a big surge in registrations and new voters. It seems that, for the umpteenth time, media pundits were wrong about this being the year when young people would finally flock to the polls.

According to Dafydd, most of the new registrations (8.7 million out of 10 million) are explained by the population increase since 2004. Of the 1.3 million "extra" registrations, only about 300,000 showed up to vote — 0.2% of the vote (emphasis in original):

Bottom line: New voters, felons, and bums did not impact the vote in any significant way. ACORN failed; Obama won the election not by bringing "new blood" to the voting booth but by doing a better job than McCain at wooing the traditional voter, the guys and gals who always vote.

So if McCain didn't lose because of a surge of new voters, which traditional voters cost him the election? According to Dafydd, it was conservatives. He quoted the Associated Press (which I won't do, since they don't recognize fair use and have threatened those who don't pay them for quotes): according to exit polls, they said, the percentage of voters calling themselves conservative was the same as four years ago.

Dafydd then argued (emphasis in original): 

Let's hop aboard my Syllogismobile and go for a ride…

  1. 34% of voters called themselves "conservatives."

  2. Of that 34%, 20% voted for Barack H. Obama; that means 6.8% of the electorate both called themselves conservatives and also voted for Obama. (Would that include Christopher Buckley and his ilk?)

  3. Contrariwise, only 10% of self-dubbed liberals voted for John S. McCain. Conservatives defected at twice the rate of liberals.

  4. Suppose, just for a giggle, conservatives had only voted for Obama at the same percentage that liberals voted for McCain… in other words, that conservatives were no more likely to defect than liberals. In that case, half of the conservative defectors would have remained loyal, and 3.4% of votes would shift from Obama to McCain.

  5. According to the most recent quasi-official unofficial tally, the popular tallies for the two nominees were 52.6% for Obama and 46.1% for McCain.

  6. Switching 3.4% from left to right yields 49.2% for Obama and 49.5% for McCain. (Note McCain number higher than Obama number.)

  7. Conclusion: Had conservatives defected at the same rate as liberals, instead of twice the rate, then John McCain would have won this election.

Thanks, guys!

That's a bit of over-simplification. It looks only at the popular vote, not the Electoral College — which would make the analysis much more complicated. But as a rough approximation, it sounds about right. It's very likely that Christopher Buckley and those like him elected Obama. 

Bill Buckley is spinning so fast in his grave that it may warp the space-time continuum.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

What the next Republican candidate must do

Posted by Richard on November 10, 2008

Dafydd at Big Lizards:

It's a serious question: If a candidate like John S. McCain can be beaten by an empty suit with no experience spouting policies that "seem vague but are in fact meaningless," then what the heck are we supposed to do in order to win next time?

Surprisingly enough, I'll tell you what we should do. So there.

It's a long, thoughtful, and comprehensive post, covering both general strategic principles and tactical specifics. There's no way to summarize it or condense it into a few excerpts. You really need to read the whole thing. Especially if you have any influence (local or national) in the Republican Party.

I think he's spot on.

 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bob Barr pleased

Posted by Richard on November 10, 2008

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr got half a million votes. It's not the million-plus his supporters had hoped for, or the 922,000 that Ed Clark got in 1980 (the Libertarian high-water mark). But it's the second-best Libertarian showing, besting Harry Browne's 485,000 in 1996 and Ron Paul's 431,000 in 1988.

According to Newsmax, Barr is pleased with his showing. And it looks like he cost McCain North Carolina:

When The Associated Press declared Obama the winner in the state, he had a 13,693-vote edge over McCain. By then Barr had already tallied more than 25,200 votes in North Carolina, according to the Boston Globe.

Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, is thought to have siphoned far more votes from McCain than from Obama.

No Democratic presidential candidate had won North Carolina since Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976.

For a time, Barr was also the difference in Indiana. With almost all precincts reporting, he had 1.1 percent of the vote while Obama had 49.9 percent and McCain had 49 percent. In the end, however, Obama totaled 50 percent, McCain 49 percent, and Barr 1 percent.

“This is just the beginning of the new Libertarian Party,” Barr said in a statement.

“In these next four years, there will be an even greater need for a political party fully dedicated to lower taxes, smaller government, and more individual freedom — a voice for liberty.”

I certainly agree with that! If only the Libertarians didn't have their heads in the sand regarding the Islamofascist enemies of Western Civilization.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »