Okay we need one of these as a good way to keep track of what the polls are saying because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about it in the other threads.

I'm going to try and make wendersfan jealous and include charts of this sort of stuff.

Here is my "methodology". I'm taking 3 websites (electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com/), www.fivethirtyeight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/), and realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10)) getting their current electoral vote/polling numbers and then averaging the three sites electoral vote counts. I'd like to use pollster.com but they have too many "toss-up" states to provide any meaningful data. The other sites all assign electoral votes unless there is a statistical tie.

Here is the chart:
http://www.culturecartel.com/baseball/images/dvdtalk/EVs.GIF
http://www.culturecartel.com/baseball/images/dvdtalk/Polls.GIF

I'll be periodically updating the chart here in the first post so we can watch as the polls change. I also figured starting today was a good starting point since both conventions have happened and (at least some) polls have come out reflecting those developments.

I'm not really concerned about national polling numbers because they don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things but feel free to post information about them.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/evmap.png
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Icons/ev.png

If you guys have other EV websites that don't throw tons of states into the toss-up category I'd be more than willing to add them in at any point. Just let me know.

Can you put a line up for the "needed to win" value?

Actually there should probably be two. One for how much Obama needs to win and another for McCain. Or has affirmative action been officially abolished?

Great thread, Mordred, and thanks for volunteering to do the PITA work of keeping that graph reasonably up-to-date. By the way, your graph is missing the orange line at 270.

There are also electoral maps at 270 to Win (http://www.270towin.com/) and Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/). Neither one meets your criteria of not having a lot of toss-up states, but I thought others might be interested in the links.

How does 538 give partial electoral votes?


Also, if some of the sites use the same polls, doesn't that give those polls unfair weight? I think the idea of just avging the three sites together may not be so good. We need our own DVDTalk Politics Forum Electoral Vote Projection Committee

I'm going to try and make Wendersfan jealous and include charts of this sort of stuff.It's all lowercase!!!!

:brickwl2: :brickwl2: :brickwl2:

You could use the RCP site. But isn't the issue that you're aggregating polling sites that are aggregating polls, leading to a significant overlap of voters between sites? That seems like it would bias your results.

edit: Venusian beat me to it.

How are the methodologies of these sites different?

270 to win was a weird site that I looked at. You can alter the map by clicking on stuff. I couldn't tell exactly how it worked so I threw it out.

I just found out that RCP does have a view where they get rid of the toss up states. I've swapped that one in for Election Projection which I became a little less sure of after looking at their site a bit more. Image has been updated to reflect this change.

Can you put a line up for the "needed to win" value?

Actually there should probably be two. One for how much Obama needs to win and another for McCain. Or has affirmative action been officially abolished?There actually is a line (you can see it in the legend), but you won't see it until tomorrow because I took out the markers.

Another approach that might work well would be to have multiple red and blue lines, a pair for each site. That would prevent overlap.

Thanks for doing this.

Question on Nevada. Is it really that purple? Many suggested that Romney as VP would make it red, are people thinking there are Mormons there that won't be voting for McCain that would have if Romney as on the ticket? Aren't Mormons fairly Republican?

You could use the RCP site. But isn't the issue that you're aggregating polling sites that are aggregating polls, leading to a significant overlap of voters between sites? That seems like it would bias your results.

edit: Venusian beat me to it.

How are the methodologies of these sites different?I am now. Some of the sites, aggregate, some don't. They all have differing methodologies. I'm averaging them in the hopes that will smooth out some of the noise and possibly give a more accurate picture. Plus it gets rid of people saying that RCP is pro-McCain or EV is pro-Obama or whatever.

If you've got a better idea, I'd love to hear it. I'm not an expert in statistical analysis (and others obviously know more) so I'm open to suggestions. For now though, this is how I'm doing my chart.

Question on Nevada. Is it really that purple? Many suggested that Romney as VP would make it red, are people thinking there are Mormons there that won't be voting for McCain that would have if Romney as on the ticket? Aren't Mormons fairly Republican?Bush never got more than 52% of the vote in '04 or '08.

Another approach that might work well would be to have multiple red and blue lines, a pair for each site. That would prevent overlap.That was how I was originally going to do it, but I was afraid it would clutter the chart way too much. I'll try it out and see what it looks like.

Question on Nevada. Is it really that purple? Many suggested that Romney as VP would make it red, are people thinking there are Mormons there that won't be voting for McCain that would have if Romney as on the ticket? Aren't Mormons fairly Republican?

I don't particularly like Obama's chances in NV. Nor do I like his chances in OH. I think McCain is the favorite in VA. I think Obama holds all Kerry states except maybe NH.

If he wins, I think it will be because he picks up IA, CO, and NM. That would be a gain of 22 which would make losing NH moot - (he'd either be at 270 or 274). Iowa is a lock IMO. I like his chances in NM. I really think it all might come down to CO.

It's all lowercase!!!!

:brickwl2: :brickwl2: :brickwl2:Sorry wEndersfan!

I don't particularly like Obama's chances in NV. Nor do I like his chances in OH. I think McCain is the favorite in VA. I think Obama holds all Kerry states except maybe NH.

If he wins, I think it will be because he picks up IA, CO, and NM. That would be a gain of 22 which would make losing NH moot - (he'd either be at 270 or 274). Iowa is a lock IMO. I like his chances in NM. I really think it all might come down to CO.

I agree with you, except that I see Obama picking up VA.

I agree with you, except that I see Obama picking up VA.

Yeah but I know VA a lot better than you do. :)

I think Obama will pick up Ohio before Virginia. If he wins Virginia it's game over, man.

I think Obama will pick up Ohio before Virginia. If he wins Virginia it's game over, man.

Probably.

I really think it all might come down to CO.

I'm playing around with the map on 270towin.com...I can see it coming down to CO as well.

If he wins two out of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, I think Obama's got it in the bag.

This is eerily reminiscent of 2000 and 2004.


As for NV, no one really knows what's going on out there. The last poll I see was between conventions, when Obama was way up in all the polls. Someone needs to get out there and take a more accurate poll. With Rasmussen's automated system, I'm really surprised they're not polling every state every week. As long as they sign up for Vonage, it's free long distance.

I'm playing around with the map on 270towin.com...I can see it coming down to CO as well.

I can see that. If McCain carries FL and OH, and Obama carries PA, then it comes down to NH and CO from what I've seen. If McCain carries either, he can start taking measurements in the Oval Office.

That was how I was originally going to do it, but I was afraid it would clutter the chart way too much. I'll try it out and see what it looks like.It looks like this (with bogus data for tomorrow):

http://www.culturecartel.com/baseball/images/dvdtalk/Polls.GIF
Let me know what you think.

Ideally you'd want the same shape for the same site

I can see that. If McCain carries FL and OH, and Obama carries PA, then it comes down to NH and CO from what I've seen. If McCain carries either, he can start taking measurements in the Oval Office.

Unless McCain takes FL, OH, and NH while Obama takes PA, NM, and CO. Then we are really in trouble :)

Ideally you'd want the same shape for the same siteBetter now?

Unless McCain takes FL, OH, and NH while Obama takes PA, NM, and CO. Then we are really in trouble :)

Do we have a breakdown of the state delegations by party in the House?

And is it the outgoing house or the incoming house that votes? I'd assume it's the outgoing house since they'll want a winner before the swearing in of the new freshman, but that doesn't seem all that fair.

Wiki has them 27-21 in favor of the Dems in the House, and 17-16 in favor of the Dems in the Senate (with the rest split). When you factor in Lieberman, It's 16-16 with the rest split.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_of_Representatives

If that occurs, it's entirely conceivable that we could have an Obama - Palin presidency (if the split states in the Senate go Dem because the House does, Biden gets in, if the split states go with how their population voted, then Palin gets it).

There was an article talking about Obama working on getting Omaha's electoral vote in case it does break down a long the lines above. then he'd still win 270 - 268

There was an article talking about Obama working on getting Omaha's electoral vote in case it does break down a long the lines above. then he'd still win 270 - 268


I was wondering about a NE Congressional district too - such as one centered around Omaha or Lincoln (where the Univ. of Nebraska is).

McCain takes Utah. You heard it here first.

Ok, I double checked. The Senators each vote for vice president individually. So it's 49-49 with 2 independents now. Lieberman might go with Biden over Palin, especially in the event of a tie.

And it is the current congress that votes, not the new congress.

So Obama wins and Biden probably wins in a tie. But, man, that would be messy. And you thought that the FL vote tally pissed people off -- the House making the call would really piss people off.

Ok, I double checked. The Senators each vote for vice president individually. So it's 49-49 with 2 independents now. Lieberman might go with Biden over Palin, especially in the event of a tie.

And it is the current congress that votes, not the new congress.

So Obama wins and Biden probably wins in a tie. But, man, that would be messy. And you thought that the FL vote tally pissed people off -- the House making the call would really piss people off.Matta could get his dream ticket of Obama/Palin!

This is the scenario I'm now rooting for :)

People would be pissed, but it still wouldn't be as bad as other elections like 1876

Polls updated. McCain is gaining more ground.

I don't particularly like Obama's chances in NV. Nor do I like his chances in OH. I think McCain is the favorite in VA. I think Obama holds all Kerry states except maybe NH.

If he wins, I think it will be because he picks up IA, CO, and NM. That would be a gain of 22 which would make losing NH moot - (he'd either be at 270 or 274). Iowa is a lock IMO. I like his chances in NM. I really think it all might come down to CO.


Made a slight miscalculation. I thought CO was worth 10 when I wrote this, but it is worth 9. Therefore, holding NH would be a must for Obama because were he to lose it under the pick-up IA/CO/NM scenario, it would be a 269-269 tie.

btw, RCP has a fantasy election contract trading thing going on: http://fantasy08.realclearpolitics.com/aav2/menu.jsp

In a bit of good news for Senator Obama, he leads in the latest New Hampshire poll including amongst white women, one of the only, if not the only, battleground states where that is true.

Question on Nevada. Is it really that purple? Many suggested that Romney as VP would make it red, are people thinking there are Mormons there that won't be voting for McCain that would have if Romney as on the ticket? Aren't Mormons fairly Republican?

Mormons may be fairly Republican, but Democrats now outnumber Republicans here and McCain has 2 Nevada issues to overcome: First is the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump (which he supports as long as none of the radioactive waste goes through Arizona) and his opposition to College sports betting is the second. (He led a crusade 8 years ago that would have banned it as if the Nevada Gaming industry should be regulated from Washington).

In a bit of good news for Senator Obama, he leads in the latest New Hampshire poll including amongst white women, one of the only, if not the only, battleground states where that is true.

I've been surprised at how well he's been trending there given Hillary beat him there and McCain's previous primary successes there.

And it is the current congress that votes, not the new congress.Are you sure about this?

Electoral-vote.com has a good write up about the situation and they say the new congress would vote. The current projection they have is 26-24 Obama over McCain but then he throws in this bit:
However, all this assumes that all representatives vote the party line. But consider Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) and Earl Pomeroy (D-ND). The Republicans carried both states by over 20 points in 2004 and 2000 and probably will again. What will they do? Pomeroy is 56 and his been in Congress for 8 terms, so he qualifies as a senior guy who won't be pushed around easily. Herseth Sandlin is only 37 and this is only her second term. Furthermore, she knows very well that she got her job because many voters fondly remember that her grandfather was once governor. There will be immense pressure on the poor woman to vote the way her state did. If both of them vote for McCain, he becomes President. If they split and it becomes 25-25, then the House will unable to elect a President. In that case the Vice President elected by the Senate (with each state having two votes, one per senator) acts as President. The Democrats are likely to hold a minimum of 55 seats in the new Senate, so in that case Joe Biden would become acting President. This scenario would also mean that if Pomeroy votes for McCain, then Herseth Sandlin could make McCain President or Biden President depending on her vote. Ditto Pomeroy if Herseth Sandlin votes for McCain. And by the way, Rep. Mike Castle (R) is the sole representative from heavily Democratic Delaware, a fact Joe Biden will surely bring up if it gets this far. The whole thing could make 2000 look like a clean-cut victory.

Wikipedia has this tidbit:
Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session "immediately" to vote for President if no candidate for President receives a majority (270 votes) of the 538 possible electoral votes.Which sounds like it's referring to the current House, but I suppose could be the newly elected House.

12 amend:

and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

Wikipedia has this tidbit:
Which sounds like it's referring to the current House, but I suppose could be the newly elected House.


It's the new House - which starts January 6.

Looks like its the current.

The 45th congress met from 4 March 1877 to 3 March 1879

It was the 44th congress that pass the election commission to determine the winner of the 1876 election

I just saw on CNBC that the 'stock market' predictions on the election have McCain at 51.5% on a win, and Obama at 48%.

I don't think it was Intrade. It could have been but I don't think so.

Maybe one of you will go find the chart, they had charts and shit. I can't find anything on the CNBC site.

Looks like its the current.

The 45th congress met from 4 March 1877 to 3 March 1879

It was the 44th congress that pass the election commission to determine the winner of the 1876 electionYes, but that was an electoral commission due to special circumstances and not the House actually choosing the president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876#Electoral_disputes

Looks like its the current.

The 45th congress met from 4 March 1877 to 3 March 1879

It was the 44th congress that pass the election commission to determine the winner of the 1876 election

It's not the current.

The dates have changed. Back then, the new President took office in March. They moved things up (inauguration day and the opening Congressional sessions) in the 20th Century to January.

Red Dog is correct. It is Federal Law.

The dates have changed. Back then, the new President took office in March. They moved things up (inauguration day and the opening Congressional sessions) in the 20th Century to January.
that's why i assumed the law was passed by the previous congress (in january)

But mordred is right, it wasn't actually breaking a tie.

I definitely defer to you lawyers on this.

However, all this assumes that all representatives vote the party line. But consider Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) and Earl Pomeroy (D-ND). The Republicans carried both states by over 20 points in 2004 and 2000 and probably will again. What will they do? Pomeroy is 56 and his been in Congress for 8 terms, so he qualifies as a senior guy who won't be pushed around easily. Herseth Sandlin is only 37 and this is only her second term. Furthermore, she knows very well that she got her job because many voters fondly remember that her grandfather was once governor. There will be immense pressure on the poor woman to vote the way her state did. If both of them vote for McCain, he becomes President. If they split and it becomes 25-25, then the House will unable to elect a President. In that case the Vice President elected by the Senate (with each state having two votes, one per senator) acts as President. The Democrats are likely to hold a minimum of 55 seats in the new Senate, so in that case Joe Biden would become acting President. This scenario would also mean that if Pomeroy votes for McCain, then Herseth Sandlin could make McCain President or Biden President depending on her vote. Ditto Pomeroy if Herseth Sandlin votes for McCain. And by the way, Rep. Mike Castle (R) is the sole representative from heavily Democratic Delaware, a fact Joe Biden will surely bring up if it gets this far. The whole thing could make 2000 look like a clean-cut victory.

Whoa, wait a second. There's a chance Palin could be president? That would be the greatest thing ever. All we need is for each candidate to get exactly 269 votes, then the state delegations to vote 25-25, then the Senate to vote to elect the VP from the other party.

Can the Senate tie as well? From what Wikipedia says, it sounds like they're locked in the Senate chamber until someone gets a majority as VP.

Whoa, wait a second. There's a chance Palin could be president? That would be the greatest thing ever. All we need is for each candidate to get exactly 269 votes, then the state delegations to vote 25-25, then the Senate to vote to elect the VP from the other party.

Can the Senate tie as well? From what Wikipedia says, it sounds like they're locked in the Senate chamber until someone gets a majority as VP.


That won't happen. The Dems will control the Senate, thus Biden would win that for sure.

Whoa, wait a second. There's a chance Palin could be president? That would be the greatest thing ever. All we need is for each candidate to get exactly 269 votes, then the state delegations to vote 25-25, then the Senate to vote to elect the VP from the other party.

Can the Senate tie as well? From what Wikipedia says, it sounds like they're locked in the Senate chamber until someone gets a majority as VP.

If by some bizarre chance the Senate tied on the vote for the Vice President, Vice President Cheney would cast the tie-breaker to determine his successor.

For the first time since I've been following them, the future market shows McCain over 50.

If by some bizarre chance the Senate tied on the vote for the Vice President, Vice President Cheney would cast the tie-breaker to determine his successor.I was under the impression that if the Senate tied, the Speaker of the House becomes acting President. This would last until the qualifications for President were met which I understand to mean as they keep voting until someone has a majority, or I guess new elections were held. With Pelosi as president I'm guessing a tie would be broken fairly quickly. :lol:

I don't particularly like Obama's chances in NV. Nor do I like his chances in OH. I think McCain is the favorite in VA. I think Obama holds all Kerry states except maybe NH.

If he wins, I think it will be because he picks up IA, CO, and NM. That would be a gain of 22 which would make losing NH moot - (he'd either be at 270 or 274). Iowa is a lock IMO. I like his chances in NM. I really think it all might come down to CO.

The results of some poll on MSNBC today had McCain way up in FL and Obama way up in Ohio. I was pleasantly surprised that Ohioans might finally be getting on board and voting their interests.

So Obama wins and Biden probably wins in a tie. But, man, that would be messy. And you thought that the FL vote tally pissed people off -- the House making the call would really piss people off.

Why? I'd rather have the representatives of the people elect the President than the appointees on the Supreme Court.

Why? I'd rather have the representatives of the people elect the President than the appointees on the Supreme Court.

I would as well. Luckily, there's never been a presidential election determined by the Supreme Court appointees.

CRM will never forget. :lol:

Why? I'd rather have the representatives of the people elect the President than the appointees on the Supreme Court.


The appointnees go through a confirmation process. The representatives of the people confirm those appointees.

I would as well. Luckily, there's never been a presidential election determined by the Supreme Court appointees.

The forum thanks you.

CRM will never forget. :lol:

This is what made 2000 so special. A whole generation of libs still feel bad that the USSC stopped the FL SC from letting Gore steal the election.

This is what made 2000 so special. A whole generation of libs still feel bad that the USSC stopped the FL SC from letting Gore steal the election.

Yup. And he would have had to steal it considering the recounts favored Bush totals. But that's old news...

The latest Presidential line from The (WP) Fix:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/defining_the_playing_field.html#more

Friday Line: Defining the Playing Field

As the campaign enters its final stretch, a look at where the two presidential candidates are spending their time and money suggests a playing field with sharp similarities to that of the last two national elections.

According to media buy information obtained by The Fix, the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain are currently on the air in 14 of the same states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Obama has the airwaves to himself in three states: Indiana, Montana and North Dakota. Of the 18 states his campaign initially advertised in at the start of the general election campaign, Obama remains on television in all but two: Georgia, whose rock-ribbed Republicanism always made it a long shot and Alaska where the selection of immensely popular Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate has solidified the Last Frontier for the GOP.

Obama's willingness to fund ads and run full campaigns in a slightly broader palette of states gives him a few more paths to the nomination although, as we've noted, the fall election seems likely to come down to a handful of states -- Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida -- that decided the 2000 and 2004 races as well.

Here's our take on the ten states most likely to switch their 2004 presidential preference. As always, the number one ranked state is the most likely to switch sides in the fall election. Agree with our picks? Disagree? The comments section welcomes all views.

Line Highlights
Moving Up: Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico
Moving Down: Virginia, Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada
Last State Cut (aka #11): Wisconsin
To the Line!

10. Virginia (Bush, 54 percent): Democrats' irrational exuberance about their prospects in the Commonwealth have worn off of late. Obama passed on putting Gov. Tim Kaine on the ticket, and the state's largely conservative nature (with the obvious exception of northern Virginia) appears to be reasserting itself. The state is still a major target -- both Obama and McCain campaigned there earlier this week -- but the most recent independent survey suggests McCain holds an edge. (Previous ranking: 8)

9. Florida (Bush, 52 percent): Polling continues to suggest that McCain is maintaining a solid lead despite being massively outspent on television by Obama. McCain is now up on television in the state, which suggests some level of concern among his team. Still, the Sunshine state is McCain's to lose. (Previous ranking: 10)

8. Ohio (Bush, 51 percent): Yes, we know the polling out of the Buckeye State shows Obama as the slight favorite. And, it's clear that Democrats are in a very different -- and better -- place in the state than they were in 2004, thanks is no small part to the election of Gov. Ted Strickland (D) in 2006. And yet, most strategists on both sides are skeptical about Obama's ability to carry the state -- pointing to his struggles with rural white voters during the Democratic primaries and the appeal of Palin to that same crucial voting bloc. (Previous ranking: 7)

7. Pennsylvania (Kerry, 51 percent): No state provokes as much disagreement between Democratic and Republican strategists as this one. Democrats point to the massive gains they have made in voter registration (375,000 more Democrats on the rolls than after the 2006 election) as evidence that the math is determinative in their favor. Republicans note that polling continues to show the contest close, and that the Democratic nominee hasn't taken more than 51 percent of the vote in the Keystone State in the last four national elections. (Previous ranking: 8)

6. New Hampshire (Kerry, 51 percent): Obama, McCain and vice presidential nominee Joe Biden either have or will make campaign stops in the Granite State this week and weekend, a sign of the state's importance to both campaigns' electoral vote calculus. McCain's success in the state during the 2000 and 2008 primary seasons keep the state at number six on the Line for now but recent polling suggests the Obama campaign's optimism about their chances here is well founded. (Previous ranking: 4)

5. Michigan (Kerry, 51 percent): The Fix generally avoids bold predictions but here's one we can't resist: Michigan in 2008 will be the Ohio of 2004 or the Florida of 2000. That is, the Wolverine State will be the central battleground in the fight for the White House this fall. Why? First and foremost because the economy is, far and away, the biggest issue in this election and nowhere are those hard times felt more than in Michigan. Second, both Obama and McCain believe they have a reasonable path to 50 percent plus one in the state on Nov. 4. It is going to be an absolute war for the next 54 days. (Previous ranking: 5)

4. Colorado (Bush, 52 percent): Democratic and Republican operatives seem to agree that the Rocky Mountain State is a golden (pun intended) opportunity for Obama. Democrats have scored across-the-board gains (two House seats, a Senate seat and the governor's mansion) over the last few elections and staging the Democratic National Convention in Denver is sure to further fire up the party's base for the fall. (Previous ranking: 7)

3. Nevada (Bush, 50 percent): The high profile Democratic caucus in the state earlier this year did wonders for party registration numbers; as of August, there were nearly 458,000 registered Democrats in Nevada as compared to 397,000 registered Republicans. Still, Nevada's voters tend to be more conservative on social issues like guns and abortion and the Western appeal of the McCain/Palin ticket should not be overlooked. (Previous ranking: 2)

2. New Mexico (Bush, 50 percent): The coming fall election looks like a slam dunk for Democrats in the Land of Enchantment. Senate Republicans have given up on the open seat race to replace Pete Domenici, and House Democrats are optimistic about their chances in taking over two open seats. With a Democratic wave seemingly building, Obama's campaign feels very good about his chances here. (Previous ranking: 3)

1. Iowa (Bush, 50 percent): McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said recently that he felt better about their chances in Iowa. Hard to see why. Obama retains a quasi native son appeal in the Hawkeye State and the most recent poll we've seen gave him a 15 point edge. (Previous ranking: 1



This is why I keep mentioning CO because just IA/NM/NV won't do it - it creates a tie (although Obama pulls out a victory if it goes to the House). Plus it forces a NH hold by Obama.

My latest chart shows a 269-269 tie.

http://www.culturecartel.com/baseball/images/dvdtalk/EVs.GIF

McCain moves over 270 in two of the poll sites as well.

My latest chart shows a 269-269 tie. :gah:

My latest chart shows a 269-269 tie.

http://www.culturecartel.com/baseball/images/dvdtalk/EVs.GIF

McCain moves over 270 in two of the poll sites as well.


Curious, have you looked into how Maine and Nebraska play into the tie scenarios?

My latest chart shows a 269-269 tie.

http://www.culturecartel.com/baseball/images/dvdtalk/EVs.GIF

McCain moves over 270 in two of the poll sites as well.

:hscratch: The chart you posted shows Senator Obama winning 272-258.

:hscratch: The chart you posted shows Senator Obama winning 272-258.Try refreshing. If you don't see today's date on the x-axis you're looking at a cached image.

Curious, have you looked into how Maine and Nebraska play into the tie scenarios?I'm not sure what you're referring too. All the information I have about tie scenarios comes from here (scroll down about half way):
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Sep11.html

BTW, it appears that at least in Ohio the election will go off without a hitch this time! Oh wait... (http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080911/NEWS0108/309110032/)

I'm not sure what you're referring too. All the information I have about tie scenarios comes from here (scroll down about half way):
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Sep11.html


He means that do any of these sites base their projections taking into account the Maine and Nebraska Congressional District Method of alloting their EVs? In other words, has there been any Presidential polling based on congressional district in those 2 states in addition to the state-wide polling?

For example, Obama is going after the 2nd district (Omaha) Electoral Vote in NE. Were he to win that district, he'd get 1 EV from Neb. and McCain would win 4 instead of 5. Since a 269-269 tie (or a McCain 270-268 win) is otherwise a distinct possibility, that 1 EV could make a huge difference.

BTW, it appears that at least in Ohio the election will go off without a hitch this time! Oh wait... (http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080911/NEWS0108/309110032/)Maybe I should just put that "Gah!" smiley in my signature and be done with it. FWIW, there was another fascinating Ohio election story a few weeks ago that I don't think got mentioned here. Basically, Sec'y of State Brunner decided that polling machines in Ohio couldn't have "sleepovers" anymore. Previously, poll workers could take "their" polling machines home with them the night before an election, to save time by not having them pick them up early in the morning on election day:

<a href = "http://www.ohio.com/news/ap?articleID=676059&c=y">Ohio says no to voting machine 'sleepovers'</a>

Oh, and

<a href = "http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/22/136215&from=rss">Diebold Admits Ohio Machines May Lose Votes</a>

Try refreshing. If you don't see today's date on the x-axis you're looking at a cached image.

That fixed it. Thanks!

Thanks Red Dog.

He means that do any of these sites base their projections taking into account the Maine and Nebraska Congressional District Method of alloting their EVs? In other words, has there been any Presidential polling based on congressional district in those 2 states in addition to the state-wide polling?

For example, Obama is going after the 2nd district (Omaha) Electoral Vote in NE. Were he to win that district, he'd get 1 EV from Neb. and McCain would win 4 instead of 5. Since a 269-269 tie (or a McCain 270-268 win) is otherwise a distinct possibility, that 1 EV could make a huge difference.Forgot that's how they did things in ME and NE. I haven't seen any polling by district. Once we get closer I'm sure we will though.

Huge changes on 538 today. I'm beginning to wonder how often RCP changes their "no toss up" map. It's stayed 273-265 Obama for the past week while all the other sites have shifted considerably.

Chuck Todd very briefly mentioned the Omaha congressional district in his electoral math segment on Morning Joe this morning and said that McCain is ahead by single digits in polling there.

I saw a OK presidential poll yesterday.

I was shocked. McCain is only up 30 points. The race must be tightening. ;)

538 just called a huge jump up for Obama. It has him winning 284-253, it was almost the opposite this morning.

yea, most polls are showing it's kinda back to "normal"

Today:
National Gallup Tracking Obama 48, McCain 44 Obama +4
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 48, McCain 48 Tie
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 46, McCain 42 Obama +4
National Quinnipiac Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4
National Battleground Tracking* Obama 45, McCain 47 McCain +2
National Pew Research Obama 46, McCain 46 Tie

The goings on in the financial world got people thinking about the economy & not Palin.

So what does Biden do today? He talks about raising taxes.

That allowed McCain to make the old Repub argument - 'the Democrats want to raise your taxes.' It doesn't matter whether it's true or not - it's the public's perception, and we now that perception is the realty.

If I were running the Obama campaign I would insist that Obama & Biden never talk about taxes. Stick to talking about how sad shape the economy is in.

btw: The 'patriotic' remark by Biden was politically stupid.

The goings on in the financial world got people thinking about the economy & not Palin.

So what does Biden do today? He talks about raising taxes.

That allowed McCain to make the old Repub argument - 'the Democrats want to raise your taxes.' It doesn't matter whether it's true or not - it's the public's perception, and we now that perception is the realty.

If I were running the Obama campaign I would insist that Obama & Biden never talk about taxes. Stick to talking about how sad shape the economy is in.

btw: The 'patriotic' remark by Biden was politically stupid.

:lol: Fortunately, nobody is paying any attention to Joe Biden.

Whoops, I hadn't updated the polls in a few days. I'm thinking about replacing RCP in my charts. Their no-toss up map hasn't changed since 8/24 which I'm thinking isn't exactly correct.

Here's the new charts:
http://www.culturecartel.com/baseball/images/dvdtalk/EVs.GIF
http://www.culturecartel.com/baseball/images/dvdtalk/Polls.GIF

btw: The 'patriotic' remark by Biden was politically stupid.

I heard about that too. What a dumbass. :lol:

The goings on in the financial world got people thinking about the economy & not Palin.I'm thinking that if Obama hammers McCain's "The Fundamentals of the Economy are strong" gaffe he could find real traction.

I'm thinking that if Obama hammers McCain's "The Fundamentals of the Economy are strong" gaffe he could find real traction.
I think it would be so hard to speak when anything you say could be taken out of context.

I think it would be so hard to speak when anything you say could be taken out of context.

True but he said it over 20 times. I don't believe it was taken out of context. The only reason this time is special is because the statement was made when the AIG thing went down making him look stupid. Now he is pretending to be all for regulation when he said the exact opposite days ago.

If you tune in to the liberal talking heads they are getting a kick out of playing sound bites of each time McCain has stated this. Maybe if McCain would play less The One ads and more ads on what he thinks on the economy maybe I would have a different opinion. I doubt it since I think he isn't very good on economic issues.

:lol: Fortunately, nobody is paying any attention to Joe Biden.

But, if elected, he will be "only a heartbeat away from the Presidency"!

Realty: The President can't raise the taxes that Biden was talking about without the approval of congress.

So what does Biden do today? He talks about raising taxes.


Biden was clearly talking about the wealthy (over $250,000 income) paying more taxes and it being a "patriotic" gesture. He wasn't talking about raising taxes on anyone but the well-off. Of course, that part never makes it into the sound bites.

Biden was clearly talking about the wealthy (over $250,000 income) paying more taxes and it being a "patriotic" gesture. He wasn't talking about raising taxes on anyone but the well-off. Of course, that part never makes it into the sound bites.


It was on the sound bite on MSNBC showed this morning. :shrug:

The fact is that you don't start talking tax hikes (no matter what income level) in election season unless you want to lose. That goes double for when you are in a recession or perceived recession.

Biden was clearly talking about the wealthy (over $250,000 income) paying more taxes and it being a "patriotic" gesture. He wasn't talking about raising taxes on anyone but the well-off. Of course, that part never makes it into the sound bites.

It makes no difference what he really was talking about.

It's what the public's perception is. What is the public's perception of Democrats: 'they want to raise my taxes.'

It was a politically stupid remark that detracted from the main issue that favors the Democrats - the economy.

What will Biden say next - 'we favor cutting defense spending?' That will add to the public's perception that the Democrats are weak on national defense.

I said when Obama chose him that the problem with Biden is that he's a loose cannon. He has a tendency of saying things that he shouldn't be saying.

btw: When was the last time a Democratic president lowered taxes?

It's never a good idea to question/insult people's patriotism.

Poll: Obama tops McCain as football-watching buddy

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - People would rather watch a football game with Barack Obama than with John McCain — but by barely the length of a football.

Obama was the pick over McCain by a narrow 50 percent to 47 percent, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released Friday that generally mirrored each presidential candidate's strengths and weaknesses with voters. Women, minorities, younger and unmarried people were likelier to prefer catching a game with Obama while men, whites, older and married people would rather watch with McCain.
__________

That's the clincher for Obama.

It's never a good idea to question/insult people's patriotism.

:shrug: It seemed to work pretty well for Republicans in 2002 and 2004.

I know I couldn't watch a football game with McCain. Certainly not a college football game. He's pretty anti-gambling.

There should have been a Red Dog option on this AP-Yahoo News poll. :grumble:

:shrug: It seemed to work pretty well for Republicans in 2002 and 2004.
Nice try. I don't recall the Pres or VP questioning anybody's patriotism. I could be wrong but I think it was a lot of Republican Carbon Blobs™ that were doing it, but not the P or VP as is the case with Biden. Patriotic was a horrible choice of word for him. Can we agree on that?

Nice try. I don't recall the Pres or VP questioning anybody's patriotism. I could be wrong but I think it was a lot of Republican Carbon Blobs™ that were doing it, but not the P or VP as is the case with Biden. Patriotic was a horrible choice of word for him. Can we agree on that?


You kidding me right?

Nice try. I don't recall the Pres or VP questioning anybody's patriotism. I could be wrong but I think it was a lot of Republican Carbon Blobs™ that were doing it, but not the P or VP as is the case with Biden. Patriotic was a horrible choice of word for him. Can we agree on that?

What the hell are you talking about? When did Biden attack anyone's patriotism.

Also I would say McCain telling people Obama wants us to fail in Iraq is a direct attack on his patriotism.

Whatever, guys. If you love Biden and Obama, go ahead and believe what you want. I'm just telling you how I and many others percieved Biden's comment.

Nice try. I don't recall the Pres or VP questioning anybody's patriotism. I could be wrong but I think it was a lot of Republican Carbon Blobs™ that were doing it, but not the P or VP as is the case with Biden. Patriotic was a horrible choice of word for him. Can we agree on that?

You don't remember the Republican Party questioning John Kerry's patriotism? Walking around with purple band-aids on their cheeks in an attempt to belittle his service? Or the way they tied Max Cleland -- a man who gave three of his limbs in service to this country -- to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

It makes no difference what he really was talking about.

It's what the public's perception is. What is the public's perception of Democrats: 'they want to raise my taxes.'

It was a politically stupid remark that detracted from the main issue that favors the Democrats - the economy.

What will Biden say next - 'we favor cutting defense spending?' That will add to the public's perception that the Democrats are weak on national defense.

I said when Obama chose him that the problem with Biden is that he's a loose cannon. He has a tendency of saying things that he shouldn't be saying.

btw: When was the last time a Democratic president lowered taxes?
Which ones?

You don't remember the Republican Party questioning John Kerry's patriotism? Walking around with purple band-aids on their cheeks in an attempt to belittle his service? Or the way they tied Max Cleland -- a man who gave three of his limbs in service to this country -- to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

Yes, and that was wrong. But again, was that the President or the Vice President?

What the hell are you talking about? When did Biden attack anyone's patriotism.

Also I would say McCain telling people Obama wants us to fail in Iraq is a direct attack on his patriotism.

So if McCain or Palin came out and said "We have to finish the job in Iraq. We need Americans to support this war. It's time to be patriotic." Would you not say that is questioning people's patriotism for those who disagree with the Iraq war? Well, Biden says he wants to raise taxes on the rich, it's time to be patriotic. For those people who disagree that raising taxes is part of the solution for the country that seems to call their patriotism into question. That's the perception many people get from Biden's statement. That's all I'm saying.

So if McCain or Palin came out and said "We have to finish the job in Iraq. We need Americans to support this war. It's time to be patriotic." Would you not say that is questioning people's patriotism for those who disagree with the Iraq war? Well, Biden says he wants to raise taxes on the rich, it's time to be patriotic. For those people who disagree that raising taxes is part of the solution for the country that seems to call their patriotism into question. That's the perception many people get from Biden's statement. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not following your logic at all. Saying something is patriotic is not the same as saying not doing that something is not patriotic. Flying flags on your car is patriotic. Not flying flags on your car doesn't mean you are not patriotic. Why would you even think this?

McCain and Bush have repeatedly stated that leaving Iraq would be the same as wanting America to fail. That is a direct attack on patriotism. Biden never said that not wanting to pay more taxes makes you a America hater.

After 9/11 Bush told people to show their patriotism by buying stuff. Does that mean everyone that decided to save are unpatriotic?

Yes, and that was wrong. But again, was that the President or the Vice President?

1. The President sits at the head of the party. The buck stops with him.

2. You're the one who brought the President into the discussion. I said that smearing peoples' patriotism worked for Republicans in 2002 and 2004. I said nothing about the President and Vice President.

I'm not following your logic at all. Saying something is patriotic is not the same as saying not doing that something is not patriotic. Flying flags on your car is patriotic. Not flying flags on your car doesn't mean you are not patriotic. Why would you even think this?

McCain and Bush have repeatedly stated that leaving Iraq would be the same as wanting America to fail. That is a direct attack on patriotism. Biden never said that not wanting to pay more taxes makes you a America hater.

After 9/11 Bush told people to show their patriotism by buying stuff. Does that mean everyone that decided to save are unpatriotic?

Like I said, believe what you want. I'm telling you there are lots of folks who agree with me and it reflects negatively on Obama/Biden.

Edit: what about my question? If McCain or Palin came out and said "We have to finish the job in Iraq. We need Americans to support this war. It's time to be patriotic." Would many Democrats not be outraged by that???

I'm not following your logic at all. Saying something is patriotic is not the same as saying not doing that something is not patriotic. Flying flags on your car is patriotic. Not flying flags on your car doesn't mean you are not patriotic. Why would you even think this?





I think it can be implied. :shrug:

1. The President sits at the head of the party. The buck stops with him.

2. You're the one who brought the President into the discussion. I said that smearing peoples' patriotism worked for Republicans in 2002 and 2004. I said nothing about the President and Vice President.

1. So the President or candidate is responsible for denouncing every action of his supporters that he/she disagrees with?

2. The discussion we are having is ABOUT the candidates for Pres/VP. I didn't bring it into the discussion.

Which ones?


Federal Income Tax

Edit: what about my question? If McCain or Palin came out and said "We have to finish the job in Iraq. We need Americans to support this war. It's time to be patriotic." Would many Democrats not be outraged by that???

Only the ones that want to pretend to be offended and I'm sure some would but they would but just as silly as the republicans upset by Biden.

Poll: Obama tops McCain as football-watching buddy

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - People would rather watch a football game with Barack Obama than with John McCain — but by barely the length of a football.

Obama was the pick over McCain by a narrow 50 percent to 47 percent, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released Friday that generally mirrored each presidential candidate's strengths and weaknesses with voters. Women, minorities, younger and unmarried people were likelier to prefer catching a game with Obama while men, whites, older and married people would rather watch with McCain.
__________

That's the clincher for Obama.
But wait! There's more!

Poll: People prefer Obama over McCain as teacher (http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-teacher)

You can wrap this baby up folks. It's over. :D

And you wonder why our school system is in such sad shape. :)

You don't remember the Republican Party questioning John Kerry's patriotism? Walking around with purple band-aids on their cheeks...

This is the first I have ever heard of it.

What the hell are you talking about? When did Biden attack anyone's patriotism.


He didn't attack anyone's patriotism. He just made a stupid political blunder by his suggestion of a tax increase.

This is the first I have ever heard of it.

Delegates mock Kerry with 'purple heart' bandages
Democrats: GOP 'mocking our troops'
Wednesday, September 1, 2004 Posted: 12:43 PM EDT (1643 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Delegates to the Republican National Convention found a new way to take a jab at Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam service record: by sporting adhesive bandages with small purple hearts on them.

Morton Blackwell, a prominent Virginia delegate, has been handing out the heart-covered bandages to delegates, who've worn them on their chins, cheeks, the backs of their hands and other places.

Blackwell is president of the Leadership Institute, an educational foundation he founded in 1979. According to its Web site, the institute prepares conservatives for success in politics, government and the news media.

Kerry was a decorated Navy officer in Vietnam who became a prominent antiwar activist upon his return home. A group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has accused Kerry of lying to win combat decorations in Vietnam, including the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.

And last week, former Sen. Bob Dole, the party's 1996 presidential nominee, brought more attention to the allegations when he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "With three Purple Hearts, he never bled that I know of. And they're all superficial wounds."

Dole apologized for the remark the next day after a personal call from Kerry, saying that before taping the interview, "maybe I should have stayed longer for brunch somewhere."

Donna Cain, an Oregon delegate, wore a purple heart bandage on her wrist.

"Probably a lot of people are handing them out because they are very symbolic," she said. Kerry, she said, "has made the war that he served in far more important than his recent records of the last 18 to 20 years."

Kerry's campaign has denounced the allegations as a smear.

Other veterans and military records from the time have contradicted the swift boat group's allegations.

Kerry's campaign quickly responded to the purple heart bandages, saying the Republicans are "mocking our troops."

"The smear continues on the floor of Madison Square Garden," a Kerry campaign statement trumpeted.

But Cain said she didn't see the bandage as a jab at U.S. troops who have been wounded in combat -- more than 6,000 of them so far in the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

"It is not in any way defaming of them, because I know people who have received Purple Hearts and I know that they're not boasting about their war record. They're proud of their serving their country. And, I mean, I just met a woman who lost her husband yesterday in Iraq. And there's a whole entirely different mood."

Pat Peel, the delegate singled out in the Democratic response, promised that there would be many more purple heart bandages on the floor Tuesday.

Dole was sharply criticized by Kerry backers when he questioned whether Kerry's wounds were severe enough to merit a Purple Heart. He said Monday night that "you can't control delegates."

"I'm certain there's no possible connection" between the Bush campaign or Republican leaders and the bandages sported Monday night, he said.

"The last thing President Bush or anybody in the campaign wants to do is stir this up."

The military makes no distinction about the severity of a wound when setting the standards for a Purple Heart.

Although he was grievously wounded in a later battle, Dole wrote in a 1988 biography that the first of his two Purple Hearts was the kind of wound the Army treated "with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."

Kerry has called on President Bush to denounce the swift boat veterans' ads. Bush has responded by calling for an end to all attack ads by independent groups but has not specifically criticized the anti-Kerry commercials.

Kerry accuses the group -- funded largely by Republican donors from Bush's home state of Texas -- of being a front group for the president's re-election campaign.

Republicans say Bush has been unfairly attacked by Kerry allies who have questioned whether Bush completed his Vietnam-era service in the Air National Guard. Kerry's spokesmen say their candidate has disavowed those ads.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/gop.purple.hearts/

Obviously I heard about it once you mentioned it. :lol:

But wait! There's more!

Poll: People prefer Obama over McCain as teacher (http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-teacher)

You can wrap this baby up folks. It's over. :D

I find it hard to believe that McCain watches football anyway.

He didn't attack anyone's patriotism. He just made a stupid political blunder by his suggestion of a tax increase.

This is the problem with this country. Facing reality is a "blunder." How in the hell are we supposed to pay for this half a trillion dollar bailout not to mention the debt incurred during our elective war?

I suppose the Repubs believe the magic fairy will come and alleviate all of our woes. (Wait, I think some of them actually do believe in magic fairies.)

I now believe that if Obama-Biden don't make any really more stupid mistakes and keep talking about the economy, the economy, & the economy, & gracefully side-step any other questions, we'll see Obama sworn in on 1/20/09.

Obviously I heard about it once you mentioned it. :lol:So you actually heard about it before you didn't hear about it?

I now believe that if Obama-Biden don't make any really more stupid mistakes and keep talking about the economy, the economy, & the economy, & gracefully side-step any other questions, we'll see Obama sworn in on 1/20/09.

Much to your chagrin?

I still believe that some centrist Democrat would have been a better choice than Obama.

One reason - McCain wouldn't have picked Palin who changed the dynamics.

The polls wouldn't be as close as they are now.

I still believe that some centrist Democrat would have been a better choice than Obama.

One reason - McCain wouldn't have picked Palin who changed the dynamics.

The polls wouldn't be as close as they are now.

Which Democrat do you think should have been the nominee? Not Hypothetical Southern Centrist Democrat -- an actual candidate. Who do you think would be polling better against Senator McCain?

His pick was Richardson, wasn't it?

Pat Buchanan believes the only real weapon that McCain has left is an effort to scare the American people with what Obama in the White House would mean.

Richardson was my pick. :shrug:

He would have been great on the illegal immigration issue, and he was a governor. I'd vote for him over McCain in a heartbeat.

I thought Bill Richardson was the most qualified of the group. I still believe he is.

In addition I think Richardson would have been beneficial in getting the Hispanic vote to turn out and vote for the Democrat.

Mark Warner was a stronger choice than Obama IMO.

Governor Richardson is a very smart guy, a capable diplomat and executive. He's also as dull as dishwater and a lousy politician. During his presidential run, every time he came on TV, I watched to see how he would trip over his own tongue.

So while I think he'd make a pretty good president, I think any Republican this side of Ron Paul would have wiped the floor with him in a general election.

Governor Richardson is a very smart guy, a capable diplomat and executive. He's also as dull as dishwater and a lousy politician. During his presidential run, every time he came on TV, I watched to see how he would trip over his own tongue.

So while I think he'd make a pretty good president, I think any Republican this side of Ron Paul would have wiped the floor with him in a general election.

But you believe any Republican would have mopped the floor with any other Democrat other than Obama, don't you? Now tell the truth.

I think he would've been a great VP pick for Obama or Clinton.

I think he would've been a great VP pick for Obama or Clinton.

I think he would be fine, but I don't think you would get a Senator going out and picking a governor as a vp pick.

I thought Bill Richardson was the most qualified of the group. I still believe he is.

In addition I think Richardson would have been beneficial in getting the Hispanic vote to turn out and vote for the Democrat.

Mark Warner was a stronger choice than Obama IMO.

Absolutely on both counts. If anything, an Obama loss would be good in that it propels Warner for 2012. While I really don't want to see Warner in the Senate because I believe he'll become corrupted and be a run-of-the-mill Democrat (I'd rather see him run for Gov in 2009), if it helps his presidential prospects in 2012, that's good enough for me.

But you believe any Republican would have mopped the floor with any other Democrat other than Obama, don't you? Now tell the truth.

Of the ones who ran this cycle? I don't know. All of the candidates (including Senator Obama) have negatives.

I continue to believe Senator Clinton's negatives are too high, that she would have galvanized the Republican base, and that she would have lost. Every time I think I might be wrong about this, I remember the "how do we beat the bitch" woman and re-convince myself that I'm right.

Senator Edwards? We know what happened to him this summer. Can you imagine if he were the candidate?

Senator Dodd or Senator Biden could have done OK if their campaigns caught fire. But their primary runs did not inspire, and if you don't inspire the base, you lose.

Rep. Kucinich? Please.

Sen. Gravel? Not a chance.

Gov. Richardson I already covered. And I'll amend what I said earlier to put him in the same category as Senators Dodd and Biden.

The fundamentals of the election strongly favor the Democrats, so I won't say none of these guys (or gal) could win. But I do think Senator Obama is the strongest campaigner with the most cross-over appeal.

So while I think he'd make a pretty good president, I think any Republican this side of Ron Paul would have wiped the floor with him in a general election.

You've got to be kidding. What would he lose that Kerry won? Nothing. Then put IA and NM in the bag. So at the very least, that's 264. Wiped the floor, indeed. -rolleyes-

Had Clinton been the nominee, Ohio would be blue, so would Iowa, and she wouldn't have lost any Kerry states except maybe NH. Game over.

I think he would be fine, but I don't think you would get a Senator going out and picking a governor as a vp pick.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Images/HP3/hp3_lo_logo.jpg

How many times has the McCain campaign changed their slogan? I lost count after 'Change you Deserve' back in May.

They probably had to start including 'Prosperity' after Palin used the word a few thousand times during her Sean Hannity interview.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Images/HP3/hp3_lo_logo.jpg

:lol: Good point. I'll amend that to say he wouldn't pick an experienced governor than anyone knew.

How many times has the McCain campaign changed their slogan? I lost count after 'Change you Deserve' back in May.

They probably had to start including 'Prosperity' after Palin used the word a few thousand times during her Sean Hannity interview.


And that is why I can't, in good conscious, vote for them.

I continue to believe Senator Clinton's negatives are too high, that she would have galvanized the Republican base, and that she would have lost. Every time I think I might be wrong about this, I remember the "how do we beat the bitch" woman and re-convince myself that I'm right.


I think that on occasion as well, but then think that the electorate has never been as galvanized as the "Anyone But Bush" deal 4 years ago, and he still won.

I think in the general election Hillary would have been tough to beat. I recently heard about some organized push to get people to vote for Obama to keep Hillary off the ticket as the primaries were running down. I don't think that was because they thought Hillary was less electable than Obama.

And I will say that I think Hillary would do less damage than Obama, and most conservatives tend to disagree. At least they use to before their attention was deflected. :lol:

I tend to agree with Red Dog about Hillary - despite all of her baggage.

I agree that Obama was one of the two strongest candidate in the primary. I still believe Hillary would have won had she concentrated more on the Democratic Primary and built her campaign around that instead of running a general election campaign.

If the economy wasn't in the shape it is in - I think McCain would be the next president of the United States. I don't believe that would be very good for the country.

Good point on Hillary. The Democrats (and Republicans) always run hard to the base then move to the center in the general. Hillary moved to the center very early when she thought she had it wrapped up.

The polls are all somewhat meaningless now. Wait until the debates. That's when they start to matter. The key for McCain will be to hold his own and to come up with some way to defuse the economy issue. The key for Obama will be to outdebate McCain WITHOUT coming off superior. That's what did in Gore in 2000. Granted, Gore was intellectually superior to Bush in every way. But for some reason I never did quite understand, that was held as a strike against him by Joe Six Pack.

For now, the polls are just for fun. ;)

The polls are all somewhat meaningless now. Wait until the debates. That's when they start to matter. The key for McCain will be to hold his own and to come up with some way to defuse the economy issue. The key for Obama will be to outdebate McCain WITHOUT coming off superior. That's what did in Gore in 2000. Granted, Gore was intellectually superior to Bush in every way. But for some reason I never did quite understand, that was held as a strike against him by Joe Six Pack.

For now, the polls are just for fun. ;)

There is only one poll that matters; it will be taken on November 4.

It's laughable that people here think Richardson had a better chance in the general than Obama. Richardson couldn't generate enough charisma to make a dent in his own party. His demeanor is bumbling and sloppy. He had no chance for P or VP.

And Mark Warner? :lol: No one knows who he is and it'd be hard to believe the American people would be inspired by someone as incredibly dorky as him. Perhaps he could woo millions with his cell phone story.

HC may have won but that would be ONLY because the Repubs nominated someone so vulnerable and lame. Someone get McCain a Bob Dole pen.

Says the guy who said Bush had no chance in either of the last two elections. :lol:


Psssst - you may not be a good judge of candidates that could win. -wink-

Well, Bush lost in 2000, first of all. 2004 just showed the American people are pretty dumb. Look at the incredible mess those brainiacs gave us. :lol:

Someone get McCain a Bob Dole pen.

For someone who was so concerned about making fun of war heroes: You do know why Bob Dole carries a pen in that hand, yes?

When is the last time that the debates mattered - the first ones - 1960. The actual debate didn't matter. It was their physical appearance on television.

It's laughable that people here think Richardson had a better chance in the general than Obama. Richardson couldn't generate enough charisma to make a dent in his own party. His demeanor is bumbling and sloppy. He had no chance for P or VP.

Once again - the primary elelction is not the general election.

Left win radicals, like yourself, dominate the primary elections. Your voice is not that strong in the general election. It's the more centrist folks that decide the general election.

For someone who was so concerned about making fun of war heroes: You do know why Bob Dole carries a pen in that hand, yes?

I've noticed that.

What is the response from CRM114?

Well, Bush lost in 2000,

Yet another post to demonstrate your lack of any crediiblity.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.
________________

for your information

It's laughable that people here think Richardson had a better chance in the general than Obama. Richardson couldn't generate enough charisma to make a dent in his own party. His demeanor is bumbling and sloppy. He had no chance for P or VP.

And Mark Warner? :lol: No one knows who he is and it'd be hard to believe the American people would be inspired by someone as incredibly dorky as him. Perhaps he could woo millions with his cell phone story.

HC may have won but that would be ONLY because the Repubs nominated someone so vulnerable and lame. Someone get McCain a Bob Dole pen.


If Richardson or Warner were from PA, you'd be slobbering all over them. :lol:

The Democrats didn't need an inspirational candidate to win this election, and it's certainly not a prerequisite for the WH. Based on the last 8 years, the election has been handed to them on a silver platter. But instead, they are trying to win the hard way.

And nobody knew who Bill Clinton was going into 1992 either, yet that didn't seem to hurt him. He didn't have a story to woo people with. He was a popular effective governor with the ability to carry states that the Democrats otherwise had no shot at. Exactly the same thing as Warner.


Says the guy who said Bush had no chance in either of the last two elections.

He doesn't even remember what he said on the matter in 2004. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama


I thought you were one of the people arguing that being black helped Senator Obama.

I thought you were one of the people arguing that being black helped Senator Obama.


In the primary.

I thought you were one of the people arguing that being black helped Senator Obama.

You've totally lost it.

Retire gracefully from the forum.

:lol:

For someone who was so concerned about making fun of war heroes: You do know why Bob Dole carries a pen in that hand, yes?

Calling Kerry a traitor and a scumbag is "making fun?" Uh, ok. Let me know when I ridicule Dole's service or call him a scumbag.

Once again - the primary elelction is not the general election.

Left win radicals, like yourself, dominate the primary elections. Your voice is not that strong in the general election. It's the more centrist folks that decide the general election.

To you, I'm a left wing radical. You are not a typical American. You live in Oklahoma, not a typical state. :lol:

What's a typical state? :hscratch: Let me guess - the ones that are blue. :lol:

And nobody knew who Bill Clinton was going into 1992 either, yet that didn't seem to hurt him. He didn't have a story to woo people with. He was a popular effective governor with the ability to carry states that the Democrats otherwise had no shot at. Exactly the same thing as Warner.

Clinton had mounds of charisma. Let's not revise history yet again.

Yet another post to demonstrate your lack of any crediiblity.

This coming from the person who claims to support the Democratic ticket yet relentlessly attacks it day in and day out. Your "centrist" position allows you to never take a position on anything of substance and then play whatever way suits you based on the current climate. It's only slightly more credible than an "undecided" voter. :lol:

I've noticed that.

What is the response from CRM114?

Yeah, duh. I'm a complete moron who has no idea about anything.

I thought you were one of the people arguing that being black helped Senator Obama.

You have to forgive classicman2. His positions change on a daily basis.

What's a typical state? :hscratch: Let me guess - the ones that are blue. :lol:

One that is not overwhelmingly one-sided politically. For example, California and Oklahoma are not typical. I know you could have figured that out by yourself without resorting to ridicule.

To you, I'm a left wing radical. You are not a typical American. You live in Oklahoma, not a typical state. :lol:

I don't care where I live - you're a left-wing radical - if your posts are to be believed.

Ridicule. :lol:

CRM might want to research what party the OK governor is a member of.

You have to forgive classicman2. His positions change on a daily basis.

Are you able to distinguish between the primary election & the general election?

Apparently not.

Ridicule. :lol:

CRM might want to research what party the OK governor is a member of.

and the Lt. Governor, & the Attorney General - even a Congressman

He might also want check party registration.

Ridicule. :lol:

CRM might want to research what party the OK governor is a member of.

What does the governor have to do with it? Perhaps Red Dog may want to research the party of all elected officials in OK say over the past several decades and compare and contrast. :lol:

I don't care where I live - you're a left-wing radical - if your posts are to be believed.

In these parts, I'm a conservative gray hair.

It's to the point - everyone doesn't have to be a left-wing, radical Democrat such as yourself.

Is that so difficult to fathom?

and the Lt. Governor, & the Attorney General - even a Congressman

He might also want check party registration.

Let's stick with federal elections, shall we?

It's to the point - everyone doesn't have to be a left-wing, radical Democrat such as yourself.

Is that so difficult to fathom?

It IS difficult to fathom how wrong people can at times, yes.

You're wrong enough of the time to be able to recognize it.

In these parts, I'm a conservative gray hair.

Then you must change drastically when you come on this forum.

In these parts, I'm a conservative gray hair.

You live in Allentown. With your views, you're hardly a conservative in Allentown.

I see we now have caveats when it comes to the 'typical' state calculation. Only certain state-wide elections count. How convenient.

You live in Allentown. With your views, you're hardly a conservative in Allentown.

I live in Easton. :lol: Yes, we are SOO conservative.

I see we now have caveats when it comes to the 'typical' state calculation. Only certain state-wide elections count. How convenient.

What the hell do I care about local politics? The only caveats are those you create with your buddy classicman2 to be argumentative.

The ABE area is a traditional fulcrum politically in PA - there's a decent split of political thought. Let's just say given your view on guns and religion (not to mention other things), you are automatically eliminated from claiming that you are on the conservative side of things in that PA area. :lol:

What the hell do I care about local politics? The only caveats are those you create with your buddy classicman2 to be argumentative.

I don't know what you care about besides the Eagles, Phillies, PSU football, and defending liberal thought. It's pretty clear what you fail to be aware of.

The ABE area is a traditional fulcrum politically in PA - there's a decent split of political thought. Let's just say given your view on guns and religion (not to mention other things), you are automatically eliminated from claiming that you are on the conservative side of things in that PA area. :lol:

That must explain why dozens of Catholic churches were closed a few months ago. Your apparent knowledge of the area is dated.

What are my views on guns? I have no issue with guns. I have issues with gun zealots not guns.

I don't know what you care about besides the Eagles, Phillies, PSU football, and defending liberal thought. It's pretty clear what you fail to be aware of.

And all you care about is unrealistic libertarian thought. What's your point? I don't even know of any sports teams you care about let alone anything else. I actually exist in the real world with a mortgage and a family. You?

That must explain why dozens of Catholic churches were closed a few months ago.


Link?

And all you care about is unrealistic libertarian thought. What's your point? I don't even know of any sports teams you care about let alone anything else. I actually exist in the real world with a mortgage and a family. You?

Now who is ridiculing. :lol:

Link?

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/stor