News What are the Key Factors for Victory in the 2008 Presidential Election?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the electoral significance of Hispanic and Black voters in the upcoming Obama-McCain election, highlighting that New Mexico's 5 electoral votes may not be pivotal despite its Hispanic population. Eligible Hispanic voters total approximately 17 million, while Black voters are around 24 million, compared to 151 million White voters, indicating a demographic imbalance. Concerns are raised about the potential impact of a Hispanic vice-presidential candidate for Obama, with opinions divided on whether it would significantly sway Hispanic votes. The conversation also touches on the importance of the vice-presidential picks for both candidates, especially considering McCain's age and the historical context of racial tensions surrounding Obama. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for informed discussions about voter demographics and electoral strategies as the election approaches.

Who will win the General Election?

  • Obama by over 15 Electoral Votes

    Votes: 16 50.0%
  • Obama by under 15 Electoral Votes

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • McCain by over 15 Electoral Votes

    Votes: 4 12.5%
  • McCain by under 15 Electoral Votes

    Votes: 6 18.8%

  • Total voters
    32
  • #151
BobG said:
A hurricane on opening night of the Republican Convention!

Funny thing is that it actually could be a positive for Republicans - provided it doesn't turn into a repeat of the Katrina disaster. Leave Bush and Cheney on the schedule for Monday night while the entire nation watches news of Gustav. If either has to cancel to respond to the hurricane, even better. Move Laura Bush to Tuesday night - she's actually popular.

Of course, if Gustav reaches a Cat 3 and the rebuilt levees in New Orleans fail, then oh,boy ... Obama can start picking his cabinet early.

Oh, my. Forget Cat 3. Now Gustav is becoming powerful enough to be worth its own thread. A Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans again could be a flat out disaster. Upgrades to the levees won't be finished until 2011.

Hurricane tracker
Leaky New Orleans Levee

Gustav is already forcing some changes to the RNC: Hurricane Gustav Forces Some Changes in GOP Convention

Who in the world did the scheduing for this convention, anyway? McCain's acceptance speech is scheduled immediately after the first game of the NFL season between the Giants and Redskins. What happens if the game goes into overtime?

The stage seems to be set for a total disaster for the GOP.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
I can't find any reason at all to like McCain. He
- slacked off in college (was ranked 894th out of 899th in his college graduating class)
- doesn't know how to use a computer...
- cheated on his first wife (the only reason he married her was because she was a swimsuit model, and when he returned from the war and found out she had become ugly, he decided to cheat on her, and then married someone 17 years younger than him - easy to tell what he looks for in a woman)
- supports a war that about 5% of Americans support
- chooses the most inexperienced VP after criticizing Obama of his inexperience

-- I'm surprised people like him are even allowed to run for president...
 
  • #153
Quincy said:
I can't find any reason at all to like McCain. He
- slacked off in college (was ranked 894th out of 899th in his college graduating class)
- doesn't know how to use a computer...
- cheated on his first wife (the only reason he married her was because she was a swimsuit model, and when he returned from the war and found out she had become ugly, he decided to cheat on her, and then married someone 17 years younger than him - easy to tell what he looks for in a woman)
- supports a war that about 5% of Americans support
- chooses the most inexperienced VP after criticizing Obama of his inexperience

-- I'm surprised people like him are even allowed to run for president...
All except the first statement are your own personal opinions, be aware that your post violates the forum guidelines on stating opinion as fact.
 
  • #154
well color me gullible, because those statements sounded plausible to me.
 
  • #155
Evo said:
All except the first statement are your own personal opinions, be aware that your post violates the forum guidelines on stating opinion as fact.

The amount of support for the war in Iraq is a fact. It's not 5%, but might as well be.

Palin being very inexperienced is also a fact, as is McCain bashing Obama for being inexperienced.

So it's only #2 and #3 that are opinion, although #3 could be verified easily.
 
  • #156
Evo said:
All except the first statement are your own personal opinions, be aware that your post violates the forum guidelines on stating opinion as fact.
Unless McCain has learned to use a computer over the last couple months, the second claim is true (McCain himself admitted to being computer illiterate during the Primary)

Here:
_R9wnMVZE_Q[/youtube] So - doesn't...resident... that [i]is[/i] stated as opinion.
 
  • #157
My wife said we're leaving the country if McCain wins, and I said we're leaving if Obama wins. So last week of course, we were out of the country. While we were gone, a lot happened. First though, some background.

Originally I was in the campaign just for Hillary. I bought into the new feminist position that instead of waiting for a woman with true qualifications to appear, something that may never happen, we had better elect the helpmate of a successful man. What's more, i thought it was ungentlemanly of Obama not to step aside and hold the door open for her. So I decided that if she lost, I wouldn't vote for him. But when she started losing and saying that the rules of the game should be changed after the ball was in play, I lost respect for her and started to think about voting for him after all. When she gave that "What does Hillary want?" speech, that was the last straw and I decided to vote for Obama.

But at the convention she really redeemed herself. She asked "Were you in this campaign just for me?" which as I said, I was. So I have reversed myself and respect her again and of course that means that I can't vote for Obama who stole the nomination from her. Now I realize that I am in it for for that poor woman in Alaska trying to raise 5 children on a Governor's salary while her husband goes fishing all day. That means I will vote for McCain.

I can't predict a winner just now. I see the contest as evenly balanced. On both sides you've got an older steady hand, ready to lead, paired with an inexperienced greenhorn who needs to learn a thing or two before becoming President.
 
  • #158
Anybody seen any polls conducted since Palin was announced as the VP candidate?

Just before the announcement I saw a poll of polls showing Obama with an 8 point lead (49-41)* but I haven't seen any poll since. It would be interesting to see the initial reaction to her appointment to see if it helped or hindered Mc Cain

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360265.stm
 
  • #159
Assuming that you actually had a point, and that this was it:

jimmysnyder said:
On both sides you've got an older steady hand, ready to lead, paired with an inexperienced greenhorn who needs to learn a thing or two before becoming President.

Why would an old steady hand select a greenhorn who is not ready to lead? It must be the case that his hand is not so steady, because she clearly is a greenhorn who is not ready to lead. So it seems that both you and McCain have made a terrible mistake.
 
  • #160
jimmysnyder said:
My wife said we're leaving the country if McCain wins, and I said we're leaving if Obama wins. So last week of course, we were out of the country. While we were gone, a lot happened. First though, some background.

Originally I was in the campaign just for Hillary. I bought into the new feminist position that instead of waiting for a woman with true qualifications to appear, something that may never happen, we had better elect the helpmate of a successful man. What's more, i thought it was ungentlemanly of Obama not to step aside and hold the door open for her. So I decided that if she lost, I wouldn't vote for him. But when she started losing and saying that the rules of the game should be changed after the ball was in play, I lost respect for her and started to think about voting for him after all. When she gave that "What does Hillary want?" speech, that was the last straw and I decided to vote for Obama.

But at the convention she really redeemed herself. She asked "Were you in this campaign just for me?" which as I said, I was. So I have reversed myself and respect her again and of course that means that I can't vote for Obama who stole the nomination from her. Now I realize that I am in it for for that poor woman in Alaska trying to raise 5 children on a Governor's salary while her husband goes fishing all day. That means I will vote for McCain.

I can't predict a winner just now. I see the contest as evenly balanced. On both sides you've got an older steady hand, ready to lead, paired with an inexperienced greenhorn who needs to learn a thing or two before becoming President.

Shouldn't we as a nation be voting on issues rather than personal feelings about the candidates? I think in a perfect world we would, and the US political system is far from that. As a former Hillary supporter I think that it's a mistake to vote for McCain in order to get Palin into the White House. Palin, as a social conservative, is against many things that the womens' rights movement has been fighting a long time for.

Now, even though I supported Hillary, I am glad that Obama got the nomination. I don't want to sound too much like his stump speech, but I think that he is the best candidate for change in the election. Although I think McCain would be better than Bush, I think that Obama has the analytical abilities to thoughtfully solve big problems that we are facing as a nation. McCain himself has said, in his autobiography, that he is quick to make a decision and sticks with it, regardless of some of the consequences.

I believe we need a leader in the White House who weighs every possibility and is a multi-step thinker, and to me, Barack Obama would be better than John McCain. Also, his policies fall more in line with my personal beliefs.This is unrelated to the above...but seeing that McCain will be above the average life expectancy for a male by the time his term is up, I don't like the idea of somebody with very little political experience being in charge of perhaps the most powerful nation in the world.
 
Last edited:
  • #161
Wooohooo! Iowa is still going heavily for Obama, and more than before. From the latest CNN poll, taken after the Dem convention and the Palin announcement:

Obama, 55 percent

McCain, 40 percent

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-poll2008-iowa,0,2619088.story

The first black President will have a bunch of Iowa whities to thank. Iowa is the whitest state in the Union!

How far we have come. Thank you Iowa.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #162
Here's an interesting observation by Paul Krugman.
The Resentment Strategy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html
Paul Krugman said:
Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts — the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business — really keep a straight face while denouncing “Eastern elites”?

Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, “marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu” — that was between his second and third marriages — really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn’t think small towns are sufficiently “cosmopolitan”?

Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself — until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans — really portray herself as running against the “Washington elite”?

. . . .

What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of resentment; you’re supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite that thinks it’s better than you. Or to put it another way, the G.O.P. is still the party of Nixon.

One of the key insights in “Nixonland,” the new book by the historian Rick Perlstein, is that Nixon’s political strategy throughout his career was inspired by his college experience, in which he got himself elected student body president by exploiting his classmates’ resentment against the Franklins, the school’s elite social club. There’s a direct line from that student election to Spiro Agnew’s attacks on the “nattering nabobs of negativism” as “an effete corps of impudent snobs,” and from there to the peculiar cult of personality that not long ago surrounded George W. Bush — a cult that celebrated his anti-intellectualism and made much of the supposed fact that the “misunderestimated” C-average student had proved himself smarter than all the fancy-pants experts.

And when Mr. Bush turned out not to be that smart after all, and his presidency crashed and burned, the angry right — the raging rajas of resentment? :smile: — became, if anything, even angrier. Humiliation will do that.

. . . .
It seems the GOP is bifurcated, that is John McCain's rhetoric seems less resentful that his peers, or maybe McCain himself has a split personality. Reading some of McCain's acceptance speech, it seems like two people wrote the speech. At times he is positive, and really sounds like a true reformer, and at other times, he spouts the same old tired negative rhetoric I'd expect from Bush or Cheney, or Tom DeLay.
 
  • #163
Palin's speech has yet to have an affect on the Gallup Daily tracking poll numbers. Obama is still up 49%-42%:

http://gallup.com/home.aspx

Obama got a boost in the numbers after his convention. The same should happen to McCain, but no sight of the boost yet.
 
  • #164
Here is the Presidential Debate schedule.

The debates are all scheduled to air at 9 p.m. Eastern and will last 90 minutes:

First debate
Sept. 26 at University of Mississippi
Topic: Foreign policy and national security
Moderator: Jim Lehrer of PBS
Staging: Podiums
Format: Broken into nine 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment, then facilitate a discussion for the remaining 5 minutes.

Second debate
Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville.
Moderator: Tom Brokaw of NBC
Staging: Town hall
Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the Internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute.

Third debate
Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.
Topic: Domestic and economic policy
Moderator:Bob Schieffer of CBS
Staging: Seated at a table
Format: Same as first presidential debate, plus each candidate will get a 90-second closing statement.
 
  • #165
There will be a Vice-Presidential Debate held at Washington University in St louis On Oct 2nd, 2008 at 8pm.

http://debate.wustl.edu/media.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #166
Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts — the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business — really keep a straight face while denouncing “Eastern elites”?

Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, “marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu” — that was between his second and third marriages — really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn’t think small towns are sufficiently “cosmopolitan”?

Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself — until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans — really portray herself as running against the “Washington elite”?
Working with a deadline must be tough. That's a very amateurishly written article.

The first paragraph is right on the mark. Krugman knows Romney well.

The second paragraph evokes nothing more than, "Huh? How are these related?" Unless Krugman is under the impression that Giuliani would be chased out of most small towns by pitchfork wielding crowds, along with all the other gays and divorcees.

The third paragraph evokes another "Huh?" You're talking about a state where seceding from the lower 48 isn't as far from mainstream thought as many might think (I was kind of surprised to find Palin never officially belonged to the AIP). Alaska governor is about as far from the Republican establishment or the Washington elite as you can get.

The article gives the impression that the further Krugman ventures from his own home turf, the less he knows about the world.

Krugman has some valid points about Republicans villifying the East Coast press, but he also manages to illustrate why it's so easy for non-Easterners to believe the Republican's charges.
 
  • #167
What I'd like to see is a candidate stand up with the US budget and talk about each item.

I would like he or she to say - "Hey, nobody likes to pay taxes, but . . . ." Then go down the list as discuss where and what to cut.

I'd like someone to propose a fairer and simpler tax system.


How about using a ratio based on total income and/or total wealth? If someone's wealth is 1% of the sum of all the wealth, then they pay 1% of the federal budget.

If someone's income is 0.0001% of the total wealth, they pay 0.0001% of the federal budget.

I'd like to see a schedule on capital gains that decreases the tax rate the longer the investment is held. This would help encourage long term investment. I'd like to see higher rates on speculative investing so as to discourage gambling and reduce volatility in the market.


I'd like to see a balanced budget and a reduction in the accumulated debt.

I'd like to see an energy policy that encourage efficiency, reduces waste, promotes innovation and development of renewable energy sources. Government subsidies should be treated more like venture capital, and the government should be able to recover its (actually the peoples') investment. The government doesn't need to subsitizing millionaires or billionaires.
 
  • #168
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history" The post convention bounce is beginning to become apparent in the Rasmussen polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/" has the race tightening with Obama now leading McCain by preconvention (both) levels. CBS has the race at a tie and CNN has Obama by a point. Gallup Daily still has Obama by 7, which is probably a bit off, and Hotline FD has Obama by a whopping 9 points.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #169
Astronuc said:
What I'd like to see is a candidate stand up with the US budget and talk about each item.

I would like he or she to say - "Hey, nobody likes to pay taxes, but . . . ." Then go down the list as discuss where and what to cut.

I'd like someone to propose a fairer and simpler tax system.


How about using a ratio based on total income and/or total wealth? If someone's wealth is 1% of the sum of all the wealth, then they pay 1% of the federal budget.

If someone's income is 0.0001% of the total wealth, they pay 0.0001% of the federal budget.

I'd like to see a schedule on capital gains that decreases the tax rate the longer the investment is held. This would help encourage long term investment. I'd like to see higher rates on speculative investing so as to discourage gambling and reduce volatility in the market.
It sounds almost like a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income until you get to investments. Then I think your plan runs into problems where two people with the same amount of wealth pay different tax rates.
 
  • #171
Gore won Iowa.
 
  • #172
Gokul43201 said:
Gore won Iowa.

REALLY?? I was traveling a lot back then and apparently missed that one. I wonder if the demographics of Iowa has changed? I know there is a high-tech culture, but I think it is still mostly rural and farming, isn't it?
 
  • #173
I think quite a few reporters and other observers noted the lack of diversity in the Republican delegates at the convention. There were a couple other interesting developments by Republican delegates.

The primaries and caucuses don't actually select the nominees. They select delegates that are committed to a certain candidate and those delegates can be counted on to vote for a particular candidate at the convention (or at least counted on until the losing candidate frees up his delegates in order to provide an appearance of unanimity for the winning candidate.) The delegates committed to a certain candidate usually share similar political ideals.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/ny-usconvene0902,0,1110476.story . Delegates, selected by which candidate won primaries and caucuses, went with a much stronger pro-life position than McCain promotes (no exceptions vs exceptions for mother's health, incest, rape, etc). Delegates also went with a much stronger anti-immigrant policy than McCain.

The differences show some of the side effects of having a "maverick" candidate with a weak ground game win the nomination. McCain had some problems generating enough delegates to 'win' in the caucuses and primaries. Mike DeWine generated the cluster of folks to be http://www.daytondailynews.com/story/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/09/01/ddn090108dewineposseweb.html?cxntlid=inform_artr . Talk about lack of diversity; they all looked like DeWines!

The problem coming up with delegates had a different impact in states where no one stepped up. Regardless of the conservative base's opinion of McCain, they were happy to fill up delegate slots for him. Even if they didn't get the candidate they wanted, they still had delegates to draft up the party's platform.

Since the party platform is non-binding and the candidate has no obligation to adhere to the party platform if he's elected, it probably isn't a major issue, but it is an oddity that the party has a platform quite a bit different than their candidate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #174
The folksy tale of how Gov. Sarah Palin saved Alaska millions by unloading the state jet on eBay is fast becoming a campaign fish-that-got-away tale.

Sen. John McCain not only repeated that story on the stump Friday to tout his Republican running mate, but added, "She made a profit, too."

The truth is that Palin couldn't find a buyer last year when she tried to peddle to plane on eBay - and lost the state money when she did sell it. [continued]
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/09/05/2008-09-05_story_that_sarah_palin_sold_alaska_state.html

It seems that "folksy" supercedes "factual" where McCain is concerned.
 
Last edited:
  • #175
Gokul43201 said:
Gore won Iowa.

...of course, just to nitpick that point a bit, Gore did win the popular vote. And arguably election fraud made the difference in the electoral count. Maybe Iowa was right all along. :biggrin:
 
  • #176
Nope, they didn't support Bush I either. I am either out of date or confusing my political anecdotes.
 
  • #177
Ah yes, Iowa is a bellwether state, but it was the other Iowa, Ohio, where McCain is barely holding his own, if that.

No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio, a fact of which Democrats and Republicans are both highly aware -- putting the state firmly in the top tier of this year's presidential "battlegrounds."
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2004/08/26/news-1303055.html?fta=y
 
  • #178


First update after the end of both Conventions.

Electoral maps (Obama/McCain):
Code:
                     AGGREGATES OF CURRENT POLLS                 |     PROJECTIONS
                                                                 |
Date      RCP1     RCP2     CNN   Elec-Vote  USAtlas-A  Pollster | Elec-Proj  USAtlas-P   
                                                                      
06/21   238/163  289/249  211/194  317/194    271/191            |  349/189    298/240
06/26   238/163  317/221  211/194  317/194    288/180            |  338/200    298/240 
07/01   238/163  304/234  231/194  317/221    268/180            |  338/200    293/245 
07/06   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/218    268/177            |  338/200    293/245
07/11   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/215    268/188            |  306/232    293/245
07/16   255/163  304/234  231/194  320/204    268/177            |  311/227    293/245
07/21   255/163  322/216  231/194  312/199    268/172   293/214  |  298/240    293/245
07/26   238/163  322/216  221/189  292/195    264/175   284/147  |  338/200    298/240
08/11   238/163  322/216  221/189  289/236    264/202   284/157  |  298/240    293/245
08/21   228/174  264/274  221/189  264/261    264/210   260/191  |  264/274    293/245
08/26   228/174  273/265  221/189  273/252    259/210   260/176  |  273/265    293/245
09/06   238/174  273/265  243/189  301/224    259/194   260/179  |  278/260    293/245
 
  • #179
Latest USA Today/Gallup poll puts McCain up by 10 points!
In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm
 
  • #180
The more vocal (or shall I say "shrill"?) the left is in attacking Palin the faster McCain's numbers will outdistance Obama's.

So too will more of Obama's statements like, "The surge didn't work, and by "didn't work" I mean to say, as I have always said, that the surge has worked beyond the wildest expectations of everyone who supported it but what I want to say is that it didn't work because of the underlying problem of what we've done - we've reduced the violence but the Iraqis haven't taken responsibility."

Obama shines again! Get the man away from the teleprompter and keep him talking!
 
  • #181
Obama may lose the election, but unlike his clueless and crackpotty opponents, he occasionally makes some sense.

Guess Einstein wasn't terribly off about stupidity being infinite.
 
  • #182
A close friend of mine from Finland has an old Finnish saying in his Sig: "Stupidity gets denser in the crowd." His English is excellent, so I'm pretty sure his translation is spot-on.
 
  • #183
Gokul43201 said:
Latest USA Today/Gallup poll puts McCain up by 10 points!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

I just checked Gallup.com and the poll has McCain up by 5: 49%-44%, not up by 10.

Is the Gallup poll different than the USA Today Gallup Poll?

Anyway, we have to remember that these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. They are showing a boost from the convention and not necessarily what people will think when the convention wears off. For instance Obama was up by 8 points after his convention if I remember.
 
  • #184
G01 said:
I just checked Gallup.com and the poll has McCain up by 5: 49%-44%, not up by 10.

Is the Gallup poll different than the USA Today Gallup Poll?

Anyway, we have to remember that these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. They are showing a boost from the convention and not necessarily what people will think when the convention wears off. For instance Obama was up by 8 points after his convention if I remember.
I wouldn't be too excited about any recent polls. When an outfit calls 1000-2000 "likely voters" they can swing the poll numbers any way they want to. The media loves a horse-race (even if the reality isn't such) and the pollsters will deliver it on demand. Are the pollsters weighing these numbers with the overwhelming advantage that the Dems have in registering new voters, and are they able to factor in younger people with no land-lines?
 
  • #185
G01 said:
I just checked Gallup.com and the poll has McCain up by 5: 49%-44%, not up by 10.

Is the Gallup poll different than the USA Today Gallup Poll?
Yes, they are different.

Anyway, we have to remember that these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. They are showing a boost from the convention and not necessarily what people will think when the convention wears off. For instance Obama was up by 8 points after his convention if I remember.
More importantly, single polls have very little scientific value. The error bars spec'ed by the poll is only the intrinsic error that arises from sample size (the standard deviation of the distribution). There are a lot of systematic errors that creep in all the time, and the only way to minimize these is to look at a collection of polling data from different groups (and hope the systematic errors tend to cancel off).
 
  • #186
The more important bounce has occurred in the state polls. Sep 7 polls in Washington, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all shifted McCain's way while Florida has shifted Obama's way. Of those, PA is probably the only significant change - it's gone from leaning towards Obama to practically a dead heat. OH, VA, and FL were dead heats before and are still dead heats. The other battleground state with a recent poll was Colorado, but there was virtually no change either way.

Electoral Vote

The battle of the polls may not be as important as the battle over ballots and election laws.

My projection right now would be 265-240 for Obama with CO, OH, & NH up for grabs - McCain would need to sweep all three to win (Democratic Congress so ties go to Obama).

Realistically, FL, NV and VA probably should probably be tossed in the mix, as well, but a small change in momentum could flip CO, OH, & NH together making them the real key states. I just find it doubtful that Obama would win FL or VA without taking the 3 key states along the way and I find it doubtful that McCain could take NV or PA without taking the 3 key states as well.
 
Last edited:
  • #187
USA Today uses Gallup polls, but you really have to look closely at what they are saying. You guys are just looking at different parts of multiple, overlapping polls. Note the subtle differences: there are two sets of data cited in the USA Today article, one with registered voters and one with likely voters. The poll of likely voters shows the bigger margin. Note also, they are running averages over three days - thurs-sat vs fri-sun.
 
Last edited:
  • #188
A better place to look than the polls (particularly the polls that are selectively cited in the mass media) are the prediction markets. Currently, Intrade is selling Obama futures for $53.5, and McCain futures for $47.3. So, the people who are willing to put their money where their mouths are have Obama with a comfortable lead, although McCain has shown some improvement in recent weeks.

http://www.intrade.com/
 
  • #189
Doesn't the "enthusiasm gap" (now closing) imply that "people who put their money where their mouths are" would be more inclined to bet for Obama than is reasonable?

I don't see how a betting market is a better predictor than asking people who are actually going to vote.
 
  • #190
Are Gallup and Rasmussen considered to be the most reliable and the least biased? Do some polls have a reputation of being bias?

With Obama down by 10 points according to USAToday/Gallup Likely Voters Poll… doesn’t it seem like it would take an extreme circumstance to turn this around at this point?
 
  • #191
syano said:
Are Gallup and Rasmussen considered to be the most reliable and the least biased? Do some polls have a reputation of being bias?

With Obama down by 10 points according to USAToday/Gallup Likely Voters Poll… doesn’t it seem like it would take an extreme circumstance to turn this around at this point?
Personally, being for Obama, I would like to see him as the underdog in the polls as this will make more voters turn out for him. If he is ahead in the polls, voters will become complacent and figure that their vote is not needed. Being behind in the polls, people will be more likely to vote for him if they believe in what he stands for.

I personally don't care if Palin is "capable" of being President. It is her views that scare the hell out of me. Lots of people can be in the Oval Office, not all of them should be. This really isn't about being able to handle the decision making as much as it is about what those decisions will be.
 
  • #192
Electoral Vote.com has McCain up 270-268 based on state polls. That's the first time he's held the lead since the primaries were decided.

Realistically, Obama still has a slight lead in the states most likely to hold. The toss-up states that can swing either way based on yesterday's headlines are tilting McCain's way right now.

It just goes to show, though, that until a candidate locks up 270 solid electoral votes, anything can happen very quickly.
 
  • #193
From your link

Dirty Tricks Starting Already in Ohio

The Cincinnati Enquirer has a story about dirty tricks in Ohio intended to influence the election there. The McCain campaign printed a form on which a voter can request an absentee ballot and sent out about 1 million of them. The form included an unnecessary box asking if the voter was eligible to vote. If the voter didn't notice the box and didn't check it, he or she is in fact admitting that he or she is not eligible and the application has to be rejected by law. Secretary of state Jennifer Brunner is hopping mad about this stunt but she is required by law to reject invalid applications.
Wow.
 
  • #194
When McCain was running in the GOP primary, he claimed that his legislative experience in foreign policy qualified him for the office of the presidency, and that being a mayor (Giuliani) or a governor (Romney) did not qualify anyone to hold that high office. Hmm... Wasilla as a few fewer people than NYC, and Alaska has a few fewer residents than Mass, and no budgetary concerns to speak of (except how to dole out the oil revenues). So why is she qualified?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #195
In the 2004 presidential race, Democrats cried foul when Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell initially ordered that voter-registration cards be rejected if the paper used wasn't thick enough.

Now, Republican John McCain's campaign is complaining that Blackwell's successor, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, has decided that certain absentee-ballot applications should be rejected if a box on the form isn't checked.

McCain's camp is worried that potentially thousands of requests for absentee ballots will be rejected and voters forced to reapply -- if they get notice that their application wasn't accepted, said Jon Seaton, McCain's regional campaign manager.

At issue is a mailing that McCain sent last week to more than 1 million Ohioans urging them to vote early by requesting an absentee ballot. The form included space for voters to provide the required personal information.

But Brunner ordered last week that if voters do not check a box next to a statement that says, "I am a qualified elector and would like to receive an absentee ballot," the application should be rejected and the voter notified that his or her request is deficient.

Brunner, who said county elections officials had asked about the issue, argued that by not checking the box, voters would not meet a legal requirement that every request contain a statement that the person is a qualified elector.

She noted that on the state's application form, there is a statement directly above a signature line that says the applicant attests to being a qualified voter. McCain's form has that statement next to the box to be checked.

"Failure to check the box leaves both the applicant and the board of elections without verification that the applicant is a 'qualified elector,' " Brunner wrote, recommending that those voters be sent a letter with the state's form.

But Seaton, who did not suggest that partisan motives were at play, argued that the forms mailed by the campaign should be accepted as long as all other required information is provided.
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/09/09/copy/absentee_fight.ART_ART_09-09-08_A1_HPB99C2.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Wow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #196
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #197
Two Part report by Kieth Olberman on McCain being in bed with lobbyists.
McCain has had lobbyists developing his positions, yet this is the man that claims to be an agent of change?
Seems to me the only change he has introduced to date is to see if he could select someone for Vice President even less capable than Dan Quayle. The search was difficult, but by Jove I think he jolly well pulled that much of it off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKH6YOMKrfg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftvL4EAuJ2Y

This was before Phil Graham shot himself in the foot with his whiners remarks.

Phil Graham - a Nation of Whiners:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NVjq2py7BA
 
  • #198
BobG said:
Electoral Vote.com has McCain up 270-268 based on state polls. That's the first time he's held the lead since the primaries were decided.
Realistically, those 270 EVs are very likely all that McCain can reasonably expect to win. In that map, there are 5 states with a margin of 2% or less, and McCain is currently in the lead in all 5 (OH, VA, IN, NV, NM, IN). If even one of those 5 states goes to Obama, it's essentially over for McCain. He almost absolutely needs to hold all 5 of them if he is to have a reasonable chance of winning. What do you think are the odds on that? To really improve his chances beyond that slim possibility, McCain will need to show some ability to win MI.
 
  • #199
Evo said:

You have to wonder if his campaign took the cue from that women voters org. If she does what she is supposed to do the campaign can make it look like she is attempting to disenfranchise voters on a technicality. Had she not done what she ought to have the campaign could have waited until after voting and claimed these people's votes were invalid if things didn't go their way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #200
Food for thought.

Blizzard of Lies, Paul Krugman, NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html

. . . .

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

. . . .
 

Similar threads

Back
Top