The upcoming election is becoming yet even MORE fascinating. A poll shows that undecided swing voters are vanishing and truly at a premium -- and a leading political expert uses historical trends to tell us who's now ahead.
The two developments:
(1)A USA Today poll finds that not only are most voters not changing their minds, but they are in effect emitting a giant "NO WAY" when asked about if their minds could be changed:
- Though the traditional Labor Day start of the campaign is still two months away, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Monday through Wednesday shows that swing voters already are scarce. Eight of 10 registered voters say there is "no chance whatsoever" that they will switch from their candidate to the other guy.
There are fewer voters who might be lured by TV ads or position papers than in previous elections, one more sign of a polarized electorate. About this time in 1992, 62% of registered voters said they were open to changing their minds. In 1996, that number dropped to 39%. In 2000, it was 28%.
Now, 18% of registered voters say they might be persuaded to change their minds, and 2% are undecided.
That shrinking pool accounts for the limited movement between President Bush and Democrat John Kerry. Despite relentless campaigning, they have stayed within 6 percentage points of each other among likely voters since early March. In this survey, President Bush has moved ahead, 48%-47%.
And, the poll found, (no surprise here) Bill Clinton still divides the nation:
- While 50% say they're "glad he has left," 46% say they "miss him now that he is gone." There's more consensus about his new book, My Life. One-third of those surveyed say they think the book is an attempt to "completely and truthfully" describe events in his life.
The more prevalent view: 61% call it an effort by Clinton to look better and settle scores.
(2)Political expert Larry Sabato on June 10 used the 1980 Reagan-Carter-Anderson race to analyze the upcoming 2004 Bush-Kerry-Nader race and he had some warnings for President Bush. And now he's analyzed some things again and he has come to some surprising conclusions, if you read what he wrote before (and you probably have because lots of analysts recently "borrowed" his previous work without attributing it to him, hoping you'd think it was their brilliant analysis. Sabato one-ups them and his previous anlaysis here...)
And, once again, I'll point out that any attempt to find parallels between 1980 and 2004 is absurd...parallels between 1984 and 2004, sure; between 1964 and 2004, ok; between 1948 and 2004, dandy...but the 1980 and 2004 are about as similar as a house cat and a bear.
This, by the way, explains why Al Gore has turned into such a vicious mudslinger who has no compunction against alienating and insulting nearly half the American electorate. The Dems have written off about 40% of the country and have decided that they can do a better job driving up their base by whipping up hatred and fear than any other means. So it's to be war to the knife.
Sad, but not unexpected.
I also suspect that there's another hidden reason: Democrats sense, rightly, that if they lose by a significant margin in this election, their party will need fundamental reform from the top down. Those in power in the party are frightened of that, for most of them will be fired.
But frnakly, most of them should be fired. THey've been incompetent, and they've led the party down stupid and destructive paths. The party needs a shakeup, a big one. A real teeth-rattler. Both they and the country will be better off if they get one.
Close race, not much shift, looks like it might just come down to who shows up. Any one got a farmer's almanac?
I'm glad Mark Noonan is happy about this election, anyway -- even enough to compare it to 1984, 1964, or 1948! To me, it's more a repetition of 1988.