Your Nov 4th predictions, Ladies and Germs.

banquo

Right. As far as I can work out, it'll be pretty hard for Obama to lose.

Even if McCain wins Florida and Ohio andNew Hampshire and Nevada and Colorado, Obama can still make 270 by taking Iowa(+8) and Virginia(+7) as long as he holds onto Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, which he will.

If Obama wins either Ohio or Florida - not much chance of either but bless them they're trying, almost $40m going into florida alone - then it's over for McCain.

If Obama wins Nevada or Colorado(+3) for Obama, not voting for a Dem since Johnson in '64) it's still over for McCain.

Funny thing though:

If Obama wins New Mexico, Nevada and New Hampshire, and Mccain wins Ohio Florida and Colorado, it could end up a 269-269 split, and so the house of Reps would have to get involved.

Seriously, it could happen. I'm not kidding.

Right, that's my 2 barrels of oil, someone else's turn now.

tolosenc

Pretty hard for McCain to lose, imo.

He'll keep all of the states President Bush won in 2004, and may well add WI or MN.

The Northern, mid-west states are the only ones where you're going to see any change on last time.

banquo

If McCain wins WI or MN, then Obama is screwed, no question. However, I'm not convinced that McCain will: they're traditionally democratic and Obama's ahead in the polls there [source=rasmussen]

Obama is 7& ahead in Virginia, 8% ahead in Iowa. if he takes those - on top of WI and MN - then it's very hard for McCain to recover. He would need New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, all of which would be fine except Obama's ahead by 6 in Colorado, ahead in New Mexico and tied in Ohio (though I think McCain will take Ohio)

McCain should be worried about Colorado and Iowa.

Black Swan

Although a very close race, Karl Rove campaign tactics will win the presidency in November for the Republicans, and John McCain will continue to warm the seat in the Oval Office warmed by George W. Bush for the past 8 years. The oil lobby will continue to exert extraordinary influence on the policies that affect the war in oil-rich Iraq, and push for a military conflict with oil-rich Iran. Palin scandals, as those now occurring in Alaska as Governor (TrooperGate, Bridge to Nowhere, etc.), will now occur at the national level with her as VP.

is_that_so

I'm with Bob Woodward on this, "I wouldn't put 50c on it". Although it does appear to be swinging Obama's way at the moment. The current crisis is definitely in his favour, even though the roots of market deregulation started way back in Reagan's time.

One thing that is unclear is if the Paulson-Bernanke plan will be successful. If it does as hoped/expected/prayed for then he may continue to reap the benefit. If however some other unforeseen problem emerges then they'll all be in trouble, having already supported two bailouts so far.

I don't think he will take Florida and probably not Ohio. NH is up for grabs and of the others, well a small swing brings them into that "statistically insignificant" 3% mark and therefore "in play". It also assumes that people are telling the truth about their preferences and more importantly what percentage of that vote actually gets out on election day. With the roller-coaster ride we've seen to date, we can expect more of the same over the next few weeks. Very, very tight and the tie is not an unrealistic possibility.

Pocono Joe

In the battleground state of Pennsylvania, and a area that historically votes Democrat, I’m noticing a big difference from the election of 2004. At this time last election, you couldn’t travel a block without seeing John Kerry political signs decorating yard after yard. This year I see the same amount of McCain signs as I did Bush back in 2004, but conspicuously missing are Obama political signs. They are almost non-existent.

Although not a scientific measurement, I do find it a telling sign of this election (pun intended).

And although my area has Obama up in the polls by 4 points, we are essentially a conservative region, as I believe is our nation as a whole. Although many here tout the Democrat line in the polls, when it comes time to pull that lever in the voting booth, Obama's liberal views and inexperience might be cause for potential voter’s remorse.

With the nation facing crisis and uncertainty, I think people will vote for the man with experience, and who still benefits in the memories of 2000 when he opposed Bush, for a nation looking for change. The old comfortable shoe will trump a candidate who people readably admit they know little about. Voter’s admiration for John McCain will put him into the Whitehouse.

2008 will be known as the year journalism and objectivity died, as evident by the media’s obvious preference, and lack of journalistic vetting, for Obama in this election. The media has essentially become scribes of the Obama campaign.

Unfortunately, I fear the media will decry racism as the only reason for an Obama loss. But this will be leveled at Democrats and Independents, because most Republicans will be voting for McCain. I fear this will do tremendous harm to the Democratic party and our nation, and will take years to reconcile.

banquo

I have to agree with Pocono Joe about the biased media. Sure Fox is ridiculous, but the sum of the favour for Obama amongst the other news stations equals it.

Yesterday I saw on CNN an splitscreen Obama/McCain image from the debates where Obama was smiling and McCain's face looked all screwed. When was the last time you saw Family Guy or any other nationally televised TV show be against gay marriage, abortion, school prayer or any other conservative issue?

alastair

I'm looking into my crystal ball...

Obama wins with 49.2% of the vote. I wouldn't make a call on Ohio, but I think he'll take Colorado and Iowa.

The Raven.

banquo wrote: »

I have to agree with Pocono Joe about the biased media. Sure Fox is ridiculous, but the sum of the favour for Obama amongst the other news stations equals it.

The Pat Kenny show is even worse. it's like an ad. for the Democrats, full of fabrications also. But what can you expect from a host who is so PC (when it suits him), that muslim clothes are merely a 'style' of dress.

I personally can't imagine what the final outcome will be. The polls are in a constant state of flux, like The Grand old Duke of York.

The Raven.

alastair wrote: »

I'm looking into my crystal ball...

Obama wins with 49.2% of the vote. I wouldn't make a call on Ohio, but I think he'll take Colorado and Iowa.

Alastair, you're not going to believe this! I was just about to mention my crystal ball. I do actually have one, which I bought many years ago solely as a prop for artwork. All it tells me when I look in it is that everything is upside down !!

PS. I hope it's not a 'signal of dire distress'. Please excuse the biased website.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/20/obama-wrap-me-in-an-upside-down-flag/

Begob

Pocono Joe wrote: »

In the battleground state of Pennsylvania, and a area that historically votes Democrat, I’m noticing a big difference from the election of 2004. At this time last election, you couldn’t travel a block without seeing John Kerry political signs decorating yard after yard. This year I see the same amount of McCain signs as I did Bush back in 2004, but conspicuously missing are Obama political signs. They are almost non-existent.

Although not a scientific measurement, I do find it a telling sign of this election (pun intended).

And although my area has Obama up in the polls by 4 points, we are essentially a conservative region, as I believe is our nation as a whole. Although many here tout the Democrat line in the polls, when it comes time to pull that lever in the voting booth, Obama's liberal views and inexperience might be cause for potential voter’s remorse.

With the nation facing crisis and uncertainty, I think people will vote for the man with experience, and who still benefits in the memories of 2000 when he opposed Bush, for a nation looking for change. The old comfortable shoe will trump a candidate who people readably admit they know little about. Voter’s admiration for John McCain will put him into the Whitehouse.

2008 will be known as the year journalism and objectivity died, as evident by the media’s obvious preference, and lack of journalistic vetting, for Obama in this election. The media has essentially become scribes of the Obama campaign.

Unfortunately, I fear the media will decry racism as the only reason for an Obama loss. But this will be leveled at Democrats and Independents, because most Republicans will be voting for McCain. I fear this will do tremendous harm to the Democratic party and our nation, and will take years to reconcile.

Thats a very good post.
This has been my thinking all along.

A lot of things have to go right for Obama to win and that ain't going to happen.Many people here just have blinkers on or just plain don't understand american voters.
I mean voters because like,if Obama could get enough of his kindred to vote in the swing states [no point looking at the dead cert states like california] who just won't bother ,he might have some chance.


It will be President McCain.

Sully

Id prefer Obama to win it, and while it "looks" good for him - on the day, I see McCain getting it. I think Americans will make the same mistake again, voting in another Bush rather then someone who could potentially bring about the right change.

Manic Moran

Although I would be rather pleased at a McCain win*, I think Obama will take it, narrowly. Of the three big toss-up States, PA, OH and FL, I'd more than likely say McCain will take all three, but it's not going to be enough to counter the various smaller States such as Nevada which I think Obama will take.

However, amongst the insufferable jubiliation I'm sure will result (I can handle an Obama presidency much better than I can bear many of his supporters!), I'll lay dollars to cents that the Democrat supporters will draw the wrong conclusions from the victory. The victory is going to be a lot narrower than it should have been. They should be steamrolling into power, but they're not. The Ds have royally screwed this up, and very nearly managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This will be completely ignored, and the closeness simply written off to 'dirty tricks', sexism (Women just voting for the woman VP) or racism. It's childish of me, but part of the reason I hope McCain wins is that I dislike the arrogance I've seen on the Democratic side that the White House is all but their God-Given right. I do not like being taken for granted.

I think much of it is the difference in selection policy by the two parties. In effect, the Democrats chose their favourite candidate to run for office, presumably on the assumption that they could nominate a monkey and he would get in against the Bush Party Candidate: After all, everyone hates Bush. The Republicans took a different tack: They selected the candidate they thought was most electable, even though he didn't actually appeal so much to the Republican voters. In other words, the Republicans from the beginning were trying to win the election, with an eye on independents like myself. The Democrats assumed that the election would be won as their default position, and only after they had selected their candidate did they really think about dealing with an opponent.

I think a partial result of this is that this is going to do nothing to end the polarisation of the American political system. Had a moderate Democrat gone up against a moderate Republican, there would be a lot more tolerance to the winner overall. Not support, but less active dislike. Not that Boards.ie is a particularly great barometer, but I've noticed it here as well: Most contributors favour Obama, but they generally don't think that McCain is the devil incarnate either. However, being further away from centre on the American political sphere than McCain is (Don't tell me that Obama is somewhat centre-right-ish, he may be by European standards but the US defaults to the right of Europe to begin with) I think there will be less tolerance of the Democrat win, and 2012 is going to be even more polarised than this one is, if you can imagine such a thing. I think this is further supported using Pocono's method of deduction: I travelled across the US last month in five days from KY through TN, AR, TX, NM, AZ, NV and CA. I cannot think of any place where I saw more McCain signs or bumper stickers than Obama ones, except Ft Knox and Ft Bliss which shouldn't be surprising. However, there were many places where I saw more "NObama" stickers than "Obama" ones. I've not seen a single anti-McCain sticker yet, even in the San Francisco area where one can't do the morning commute without seeing a few Obama stickers.

So assuming that Obama will win the election, and that Congress will remain Democratic (I think their lead will shrink a bit, but they'll maintain the majority), I think my main prediction for the 2008 elections will be that 2010 and 2012 will be upsets for the Democratic party. I believe the Democratic Party has taken the American Voter for granted in this election, and will proceed for the next couple of years with the triumvirate of White House, Senate and House in the belief they have a mandate of such an extent that I think will backfire upon them.

NTM

*When the season started, my first choice for President was a Democrat, I'm not aligned to any party. Same candidate as my wife, actually. Between McCain and Obama, when Richardson dropped out, I went one way, she went the other, which doesn't surprise me, she is a little to the left of me.

kenco

Its going to be mighty close. Despite the latest opinion polls I believe McCain will win Ohio, Florida and Virginia. On my count that would put him at around the 260 mark. In theory if any of the smaller states that are leaning to Obama flip the other way then there could be a narrow McCain victory. This scenario is entirely possible given that polls are polls and cast votes are cast votes. Dont forget the last Irish election result hinged on the fact that those who rejected FF in the polls hesitated and voted for them on the day (better the devil you know syndrome).

Gut feeling at this stage is a narrow victory for Obama (275 ~ 285). However I would not be at all surprised if it goes the other way.

On a side issue I cant help thinking that a Romney led GOP ticket would have this thing sewn up by now and that in its self is cause for thought...

Inquitus

It will be close, but I agree with Kenco - Obama (275 ~ 285)

Incidentally to those US Posters above, has Sarah Palin's high profile CBS demonstration that she is utterly unqualified to be VP, even more so given McCain is 72yo and actuaries estimate his chances of lasting a term are between 2/3 and 3/4, changed your opinion on who you would vote at all. Has it had any impact in the US? in Europe it's everywhere, and has really scared alot of people.

cooker3

I think Obama will take it but I hope it finishes 269-269 just cause I want to see the carnage it causes

Ludo

LOL...that wouod be funny and interesting to see alright. The media would love it.

But for the good of democracy I hope it does not happen. In a two person race (essentially) why on earth is it not a straight one-person one-vote first past the post kind of election. The electoral college is so outdated now it is beyond belief. But, that is what the constitution says so it MUST be right and NEVER be allowed to change and improve over time...sigh.

yaynay

Sully wrote: »

Id prefer Obama to win it, and while it "looks" good for him - on the day, I see McCain getting it. I think Americans will make the same mistake again, voting in another Bush rather then someone who could potentially bring about the right change.

Why do you consider McCain to be another Bush? I thought McCain has made it pretty clear that he will not be another Bush and has opposed the president on many issues.

Ludo

yaynay wrote: »

Why do you consider McCain to be another Bush? I thought McCain has made it pretty clear that he will not be another Bush and has opposed the president on many issues.

What exactly does he disagree with Bush on? Iraq? Taxes? The economy? ...
Please elaborate or provide a link to some information to illustrate the claim. Not trying to be argumentative here....I am genuinely curious.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Ludo wrote: »

LOL...that wouod be funny and interesting to see alright. The media would love it.

But for the good of democracy I hope it does not happen. In a two person race (essentially) why on earth is it not a straight one-person one-vote first past the post kind of election. The electoral college is so outdated now it is beyond belief. But, that is what the constitution says so it MUST be right and NEVER be allowed to change and improve over time...sigh.

well it's preferable to the alternative, the heavily populated urban centres will run roughshod over the rural voters. Might be great for the democrats and preferable for the europeans, but it's hardly fair.

Inquitus

Mordeth wrote: »

well it's preferable to the alternative, the heavily populated urban centres will run roughshod over the rural voters. Might be great for the democrats and preferable for the europeans, but it's hardly fair.

What's fair is that 'he who gets the most votes wins', thats one of the tenets of democracy. What is not fair is that in the US you can win the popular vote and yet not the Presidential Election.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yes, that is democracy in it's purer form.. mob rule. where 51% get to tell 49% what to do, how to do it and how they will be punished if they refuse. That's only a tiny, tiny bit beter than a monarchy or other form of totalitarian state.

yaynay

Ludo wrote: »

What exactly does he disagree with Bush on? Iraq? Taxes? The economy? ...
Please elaborate or provide a link to some information to illustrate the claim. Not trying to be argumentative here....I am genuinely curious.

Although, they have agreed on some issues, to say that that McCain is another Bush is unfair.

So people are saying that McCain is another Bush. If we consider that Obama agreed with McCain on a number of issues during the televised debate, does that make Obama another Bush, also?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/26/matthews-mad-obama-agreed-so-much-mccain


McCain voted against Bush's energy bill:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/400/

Climate change, federal spending, interrogation tactics, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/06/17/us/politics/20080617_POLICY_GRAPHIC.html

Ludo

Mordeth wrote: »

yes, that is democracy in it's purer form.. mob rule. where 51% get to tell 49% what to do, how to do it and how they will be punished if they refuse. That's only a tiny, tiny bit beter than a monarchy or other form of totalitarian state.

erm...so it is ok for the 49% to tell the 51% what to do , how to do it etc etc.
It is a rediculous system which puts someone who less people vote for in charge. That is NOT democracy.

Ludo

yaynay wrote: »

Although, they have agreed on some issues, to say that that McCain is another Bush is unfair.

So people are saying that McCain is another Bush. If we consider that Obama agreed with McCain on a number of issues during the televised debate, does that make Obama another Bush, also?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/26/matthews-mad-obama-agreed-so-much-mccain


McCain voted against Bush's energy bill:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/400/

Climate change, federal spending, interrogation tactics, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/06/17/us/politics/20080617_POLICY_GRAPHIC.html

Thanks...I'll read up on these. Although I do know off the bat that he has changed his mind on interrogation techinques. He did differ with Bush on it but is now with him. There are lots of policies I know he used to differ with Bush and republicans in general on which is why I liked him, but he seems to have gotten on board with the base in order to get the nom. Anyway...off to reads those links...thanks.

Benedict XVI

Ludo wrote: »

LOL...that wouod be funny and interesting to see alright. The media would love it.

But for the good of democracy I hope it does not happen. In a two person race (essentially) why on earth is it not a straight one-person one-vote first past the post kind of election. The electoral college is so outdated now it is beyond belief. But, that is what the constitution says so it MUST be right and NEVER be allowed to change and improve over time...sigh.

I have a strange feeling that many people around here would have no problem with the collegiate system if it was showing that Obama would win the election and McCain would win the popular vote

Otacon

Obama IS winning with the collegiate system at the moment, based on state and national polls.

banquo

(275 ~ 285) ... is not possible. There are are 538 electoral votes, half of which is 269. Ergo, 270+ to win.

Obama's winning atm alright, but Bush won Virginia by 8% in 2004. Not even close. Though the polls have him ahead there, I'm holding my breath.

Inquitus

banquo wrote: »

(275 ~ 285) ... is not possible. There are are 538 electoral votes, half of which is 269. Ergo, 270+ to win.

Obama's winning atm alright, but Bush won Virginia by 8% in 2004. Not even close. Though the polls have him ahead there, I'm holding my breath.

That means Obama to get between 275 and 285, not for that to be the Obama McCain split.

banquo

Ah. I see. Very good so.

It's also what I think will happen, narrow victory for Obama *if* he takes Virginia. If he doesn't then it's gonna be a lot harder.

But hey, he's got Iowa, so he's already beating Kerry. McCain was in Iowa this week, for reasons passing understanding...

Manic Moran

Mordeth wrote: »

yes, that is democracy in it's purer form.. mob rule. where 51% get to tell 49% what to do, how to do it and how they will be punished if they refuse. That's only a tiny, tiny bit beter than a monarchy or other form of totalitarian state.

Who was it that said that 'democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner'?

NTM