"Remember 1980 and 1996" is the new Conservatives mantra

[question everything]

These were two elections where the final results were very different from polls conducted two weeks earlier.

While history sometimes can teach us, not in this case. We cannot draw any conclusion from any elections prior to 2004. The reason? The Internet, cell phones, text messages and YouTube. The way information moves back and forth and instant reactions make any activity that is information driven - like elections - prior to 2004 incomparable to current events.

But, hey, let them dream. I really do not mind that the media and pundits talk about "still too close to call" or "things can change." This, of course, keep them in business but also continue to motivate many voters to vote. Remember 1980? The networks declared Reagan victory and Carter conceded when the California (and, no doubt, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii) polling places were still open, and many voters just skipped it.

[jobycom]

1. In both those elections, the mood of the nation was behind one candidate

and even though the polls showed close races, most people figured that Reagan and Clinton would be the winners.

The real election parallel I worry about is 48. Dewey was considered a shoe-in, and Truman was seen about like McCain, or even Palin. Yet during the election, the South voted as a solid block, as it usually does, and gave the win to Truman. In the end, it was closer than expected because the polls were measuring the excitement for change more than the voting inertia of the majority.

That's my concern (yeah, the word is still a good one). That racial bias and anti-liberal conditioning will take over in the polling stations, and McCain will win the South as a block and capture a couple of other states we don't foresee, and squeak into the White House. Polling is prone to several weaknesses. Some of these favor Obama--cell phones and such--but some favor McCain--hidden racism, voting inertia in rural, religious regions, for instance. Polls tend to measure enthusiasm for a candidate, but many people who aren't enthusiastic for McCain will still turn out to vote for him based on their fears and biases, even if they are telling pollsters they aren't decided or don't even plan to vote.

Not saying that's what will happen. I don't believe it will happen. I certainly hope it won't happen. But if there is one thing I'm afraid of, it's that.

[question everything]

4. I can understand your concerns

Still, Truman was the sitting President who just pulled us out of WWII.

And I don't know about the South still voting as a solid block. No doubt, that block that voted for Truman in 1948 was consisted of whites only and who have not voted for Democrats since the 60s, when Nixon ran on "law and order."

This year, I think that most of the votes in the Southern states will be African Americans who will proudly vote for the candidate who brings hopes of change.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. What the heck are you talking about 1996?

Clinton led Dole in every poll by wide margins after the conventions.

[question everything]

3. Right. After the convention Clinton led Dole by 17 points

however, he ended up beating Dole by 8 points.

And it is not me pointing to these two years but the Republicans. Yes, they are grasping at straws, trying to show that margins can shrink.