Electoral Math

[Jaltus]

Well, it is time again for another edition of Electoral Math. Right now the lines are drawn, so let us take a look at what we have:

Solid Dem:
Washington 11
Oregon 7
Illinois 21
New York 31
Washington DC 3
Vermont 3
Hawaii 4
Rhode Island 4

TOTAL: 84

Leaning Dem:
California 55
Colorado 9
Delaware 3
Maryland 10
Maine 4
Massachusetts 12
New Jersey 15
Connecticut 7

TOTAL: 115 + 84 = 199


Solid Rep:
Utah 5
Wyoming 3
Kansas 6
Arkansas 6
Oklahoma 7
Mississippi 6
Alabama 9
Georgia 15
Tennessee 11
Kentucky 8
West Virgina 5
Virginia 13
Arizona 10
Texas 34
North Dakota 3
New Mexico 5
South Carolina 8

TOTAL: 154

Leaning Rep:

Alaska 3
Idaho 4
Montana 3
Indiana 11
Nevada 5
Nebraska 5
South Dakota 3
Louisiana 9
North Carolina 15

TOTAL: 58 + 154 = 212


UNDECIDED STATES:

Minnesota 10
Iowa 7
Wisconsin 10
Missouri 11
Michigan 17
Ohio 20
Florida 27
Pennsylvania 21
New Hampshire 4

UNDECIDED : 127


ETA: It might be right now. I moved some states based on more polls.

[JonLanceBarker]

I hate living in NY and knowing my vote doesn't count....:no:

[Shadow Phoenix]

Well, it is time again for another edition of Electoral Math. Right now the lines are drawn, so let us take a look at what we have:

Solid Dem:
Washington 11
Oregon 7
Illinois 21
New York 31
Washington DC 3
Vermont 3
Hawaii 4

TOTAL: 80

Leaning Dem:
California 55
Colorado 9
Delaware 3
Maryland 10
Maine 4
Massachusetts 12

TOTAL: 93 + 76 = 169


Solid Rep:
Utah 5
Wyoming 3
Kansas 6
Arkansas 6
Oklahoma 7
Mississippi 6
Alabama 9
Georgia 15
Tennessee 11
Kentucky 8
West Virgina 5
Virginia 13
Arizona 10

TOTAL: 104

Leaning Rep:

Alaska 3
Idaho 4
Montana 5
Indiana 11
Nevada 5
Nebraska 3
South Dakota 5
Louisiana 9

TOTAL: 45 + 104 = 149


UNDECIDED STATES:

North Dakota 3
Minnesota 10
Iowa 7
Wisconsin 10
Missouri 11
Michigan 17
Texas 34
New Mexico 5
Ohio 20
Florida 27
North Carolina 15
South Carolina 8
New Jersey 15
Connecticut 7
Rhode Island 4
New Hampshire 4

UNDECIDED : 197

I know I am missing some states, but don't have the time to figure out which ones.

Check your math. I count that you have 50 here. The only area left out is D.C.

[Meta Knight]

AFAIK, Alaska's pretty solidly Rep., and NY State is pretty Rep-leaning, so it's not necessarily a Dem win, though it is still a likely one.

[Jaltus]

Check your math. I count that you have 50 here. The only area left out is D.C.

DC is listed in the Dems sure wins.

[historic salve]

I hate living in NY and knowing my vote doesn't count....:no:
I was pleasantly surprised to find out that my vote DID count, since McCain won NJ by large margins. :yes:

[Jaltus]

Oh, I am using some current polls to come up with my results. They will change over time.

[JonLanceBarker]

Oh, I am using some current polls to come up with my results. They will change over time.

:no: Not in New York. :sigh:

[Meta Knight]

I was pleasantly surprised to find out that my vote DID count, since McCain won NJ by large margins. :yes:
You live in Jersey? Whereabouts?

[lao tzu]

I hate living in NY and knowing my vote doesn't count....:no:

Tell me about it. I'm living in Florida.

*rimshot*

If it's that important to you, vote for Obama.

*exits hastily, ducking pies*

[Shadow Phoenix]

I've just done the checking at your list as I was never getting 538 and being a lover of Math, I wanted to know why.

The first column adds up to 80.

Montana and South Dakota have 3 votes each. Nebraska has 5.

Pennsylvania is actually the only state not listed and it has 21.

Add it up that way and it comes out to 538.

[decoski]

I hate living in NY and knowing my vote doesn't count....:no:

I hear ya. I live in California. I wish we had a popular vote or at least a combination of the two, so that I would know that I wasn't wasting my vote.

[Jaltus]

I've just done the checking at your list as I was never getting 538 and being a lover of Math, I wanted to know why.

The first column adds up to 80.

Montana and South Dakota have 3 votes each. Nebraska has 5.

Pennsylvania is actually the only state not listed and it has 21.

Add it up that way and it comes out to 538.

Thanks. I was in the middle of typing this when I spilled a drink. After cleaning that up, I went back to putting in numbers, then my son vomited all over his crib. I knew I was missing at least one state and that I had some numbers wrong, but I was not sure where.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Thanks. I was in the middle of typing this when I spilled a drink. After cleaning that up, I went back to putting in numbers, then my son vomited all over his crib. I knew I was missing at least one state and that I had some numbers wrong, but I was not sure where.

No problem. I love Math.

[Texatru]

A lot of this will change after VP picks...



UNDECIDED STATES:
...
Texas 34

Texas, undecided? Not sure how you arrive at that, it really should be leaning Rep or solidly Rep. (I would have put it solidly Rep)

[JonLanceBarker]

A lot of this will change after VP picks...



Texas, undecided? Not sure how you arrive at that, it really should be leaning Rep or solidly Rep. (I would have put it solidly Rep)

Except in Austin, I hear...:teeth:

[Texatru]

Except in Austin, I hear...:teeth:

Yeah, that's true, Austin is a liberal bastion, not entirely, but its kind of like the the Berkeley of Texas.

[JonLanceBarker]

I forget the name, but don't they have a holiday where most of the city just smokes weed for a day?

[lao tzu]

Vote by Numbers / Neil deGrasse Tyson / NYTimes OpEd (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?th&emc=th)

IT appears that Hillary Clinton is going to suspend her presidential campaign this weekend, at the urging of Democratic Party leaders and superdelegates. Before that happens, Mrs. Clinton and the superdelegates might want to know this: if the general election were held today, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain, while Mr. McCain would lose to Mrs. Clinton.

This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.

A little bit more grist for the mill, Jaltus.

[Texatru]

I forget the name, but don't they have a holiday where most of the city just smokes weed for a day?
LOLZ... I nearly lost it reading your post :-) You shouldn't write stuff like that when there's a good chance someone will see that early in the morning :-)

But, ha, you're probably right about the whole city smoking spleef on April 20th :-) Is that what you're thinking about 420 ?

[joel]

I was pleasantly surprised to find out that my vote DID count, since McCain won NJ by large margins. :yes:
Your vote only counts if it would have been a tie without your vote. Otherwise your vote has no effect. :smile:

[Jaltus]

Your vote only counts if it would have been a tie without your vote. Otherwise your vote has no effect. :smile:

Not true, as your vote offsets someone else's.

[Augustine2004]

Not true, as your vote offsets someone else's.Explain, please. Say there are three voters, Amy, Bob, and Chris. Amy votes for 1, Bob votes for 2. We could say that Amy and Bob 'cancels' each other out. Chris votes for 1. Are you going to say that Chris' vote offsets Bob's?

[Texatru]

Explain, please. Say there are three voters, Amy, Bob, and Chris. Amy votes for 1, Bob votes for 2. We could say that Amy and Bob 'cancels' each other out. Chris votes for 1. Are you going to say that Chris' vote offsets Bob's?
And, what if there are 4 choices, and not 2? i.e. Chris *could* vote for 3, or vote for 4.

[nachtmusick]

This is why I deplore "get out the vote" hype. In an ideal election, I am the only one who shows up at the poll. Amy, Bob, and Chris stay home. The math becomes quite simple - I get to choose who leads.



The statement above sounds like a joke, but I just went to vote on June 3, 2008. The poll workers were thrilled to see me, as only 20 people had showed up all day.

When I got the ballot, I understood. Due to gerrymandering, all state and federal candidates were running unnoposed.

The joke was on me.

[Jaltus]

A lot of this will change after VP picks...



Texas, undecided? Not sure how you arrive at that, it really should be leaning Rep or solidly Rep. (I would have put it solidly Rep)

Sorry, I forgot to say that there had been no poll on Obama vs. McCain, only on McCain vs. Hillary in Texas.

[Jaltus]

Updated.

[Jaltus]

Solid Dem:
Washington 11
Oregon 7
Illinois 21
New York 31
Washington DC 3
Vermont 3
Hawaii 4
Rhode Island 4

TOTAL: 84

Leaning Dem:
California 55
Delaware 3
Maryland 10
Maine 4
Massachusetts 12
New Jersey 15
Connecticut 7
Minnesota 10
Iowa 7
Wisconsin 10
Missouri 11
Michigan 17
TOTAL: 84 + 167 = 241


Solid Rep:
Utah 5
Wyoming 3
Kansas 6
Arkansas 6
Oklahoma 7
Mississippi 6
Alabama 9
Georgia 15
Tennessee 11
Kentucky 8
West Virgina 5
Arizona 10
Texas 34
North Dakota 3
South Carolina 8
Alaska 3

TOTAL: 144
Leaning Rep:


Idaho 4
Montana 3
Indiana 11
Nevada 5
Nebraska 5
South Dakota 3
Louisiana 9
Pennsylvania 21
North Carolina 15
Ohio 20
Florida 27

TOTAL: 105 + 139 = 245


UNDECIDED STATES:

Virginia 13
New Mexico 5
Colorado 9
New Hampshire 4

UNDECIDED: 31


Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire were all tied when averaging polls together. New Mexico was about .5% for Obama.

It looks like Colorado and Virginia will be the deciding states.

(I did the math really fast, so I could be off somewhere, but it is really close).

[CarpeDeum]

McCain's bounce is largely faded. National and state polls are more or less back to where they were before the conventions. Three electoral college tallies:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
http://www.electionprojection.com/president08.shtml
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Kerry states MI, NH, and PA are moving back out of McCain's reach. Obama continues to hold a signfiicant lead in Bush states IA and NM. And battlegrounds CO, VA, OH, and NV have gone back to being literally neck-and-neck. Keep your eye on those four. They're all a dead heat, and if Obama wins any one of them, he's the next president. McCain needs to run the table.

Meanwhile, IN and NC, which shouldn't even be on the radar, have both become statistical ties, according to several polls in the last few days.

Regardless of who you support, things don't look good for John McCain. He needs a knockout performance in the debates, a major blunder by Obama, or a devastating revelation about him. Or at least some new tactics.

None of those look promising. Obama is considered an excellent debater, and for good reason. He routinely fended off tag-team attacks from Hillary and Edwards, and made it look easy. McCain, OTOH, is not regarded as the strongest debater. He has some funny one-liners, but fumbles a lot and gets flustered too easily. A campaign blunder by Obama is possible, but more likely to come from McCain. By most accounts, Obama has run a solid campaign up to this point, and McCain has not. And if there were any more skeletons in Obama's closet, the Clintons would probably have found them and aired them out by now.

That leaves new tactics. It's always possible McCain's people will come up with something new and effective, but they've had several months to ponder and experiment, and they haven't found anything.

It doesn't look good for McCain.

[Darth Executor]

. Obama is considered an excellent debater, and for good reason. He routinely fended off tag-team attacks from Hillary and Edwards, and made it look easy. McCain, OTOH, is not regarded as the strongest debater. He has some funny one-liners, but fumbles a lot and gets flustered too easily. A campaign blunder by Obama is possible, but more likely to come from McCain. By most accounts, Obama has run a solid campaign up to this point, and McCain has not. And if there were any more skeletons in Obama's closet, the Clintons would probably have found them and aired them out by now.


I think this is a horrible analysis. First, you're the first person I've ever heard say Obama's a good debater. He's good with pre-written (by someone else) speeches. When he's left to his own devices he sounds more like GWB than The Great Orator. He's also a really, really sore loser. If McCain starts gaining the upper hand in the debates, Obama is quite likely to snowball himself into a ditch. I also disagree that Obama has run a solid campaign. He's run an ok campaign, but now, near the end of the campaign season with elections right around the corner where McCain has been outmaneuvering him at every step (though McCain did make a couple of blunders too that, IMO, killed his convention bounce). I'm guessing that if it wasn't for GWB McCain would be leading Obama in the polls by over 10 points.
I also think the VP debate will be a lot more important this time (mostly because of palin). She can pick up a couple of points there thanks to how gaffe-prone Biden is.

What I think each candidates can do to strengthen their position:

Obama:
1) Keep ramming the Bush 2.0. It is, more or less accurate. Of course, I don't think Bush is solely to blame for everything, but a lot of people do.
2) Lay off Palin. Especially about inexperience. People don't think Obama's any more experienced than she is and reminding them is just plain stupid. Plus, his opponent's McCain, not Palin. Ramming Palin just makes him look weak and insecure

McCain:
1)Born Alive Infant Protection Act. OMABA KILLED BABIES! Actual born babies (killing unborn ones is socially acceptable nowadays). Seriously, it's like political Nirvana! You couldn't ask for your opponent to do any better! Instead, McCain squanders it by whining about Obama calling Palin a pig. Sheesh.
2) Ram Obama is Congress 2.0 and remind people of their approval rating and utter failure to achieve anything. Remind people that Obama is even closer to the dem congress's policies than McCain is to bush's policies.

[CarpeDeum]

I think this is a horrible analysis. First, you're the first person I've ever heard say Obama's a good debater. He's good with pre-written (by someone else) speeches. When he's left to his own devices he sounds more like GWB than The Great Orator. He's also a really, really sore loser. If McCain starts gaining the upper hand in the debates, Obama is quite likely to snowball himself into a ditch. I also disagree that Obama has run a solid campaign. He's run an ok campaign, but now, near the end of the campaign season with elections right around the corner where McCain has been outmaneuvering him at every step (though McCain did make a couple of blunders too that, IMO, killed his convention bounce). I'm guessing that if it wasn't for GWB McCain would be leading Obama in the polls by over 10 points.
I also think the VP debate will be a lot more important this time (mostly because of palin). She can pick up a couple of points there thanks to how gaffe-prone Biden is.
Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about with any of this. And I'm not saying that to be argumentative. So I hope it doesn't touch off a knee-jerk irritated response

Not sure when Obama has ever done badly in a debate. Give the SC primary debate another look if you want to see a really impressive example.

As to being a sore loser, can you give me an example? Aside from the NH primary, I can't think of anything significant he's lost, and he handled that one pretty well. You must be confusing him with Hildebeest, the sorest loser of all time. ...who stayed in the race for months after it was clear she could not win. ...who cried on TV after losing Iowa. ...who tried to game the system on MI and FL. ...who tried to bribe and strongarm the superdelegates into overturning Obama's elected delegate lead.

And as to Caribou Barbie. You should be aware that the campaigns have negotiated and agreed to shorten the response times, and limit direct dialogue....at the McCain campaign's request. The McCain people are apparently more worried about her, than they are hopeful for a Biden blunder. Probably why they limit her interviews too.

What I think each candidates can do to strengthen their position:

Obama:
1) Keep ramming the Bush 2.0. It is, more or less accurate. Of course, I don't think Bush is solely to blame for everything, but a lot of people do.
2) Lay off Palin. Especially about inexperience. People don't think Obama's any more experienced than she is and reminding them is just plain stupid. Plus, his opponent's McCain, not Palin. Ramming Palin just makes him look weak and insecure

McCain:
1)Born Alive Infant Protection Act. OMABA KILLED BABIES! Actual born babies (killing unborn ones is socially acceptable nowadays). Seriously, it's like political Nirvana! You couldn't ask for your opponent to do any better! Instead, McCain squanders it by whining about Obama calling Palin a pig. Sheesh.
2) Ram Obama is Congress 2.0 and remind people of their approval rating and utter failure to achieve anything. Remind people that Obama is even closer to the dem congress's policies than McCain is to bush's policies.
One thing. Obama has been largely ignoring Palin since shortly after the convention. He and Biden have been hammering McCain nonstop. It was a week ago Friday (David Plouffe's "first day of the rest of the campaign") that the Obama people changed the subject from Palin, back to McCain. Look at the ads he's currently running.

[Darth Executor]

Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about with any of this. And I'm not saying that to be argumentative. So I hope it doesn't touch off a knee-jerk irritated response

Not sure when Obama has ever done badly in a debate. Give the SC primary debate another look if you want to see a really impressive example.

I haven't watched any of the debates. I was thinking of him speaking to the public without a prepared speech. And the presidential debates won't be the lame softball fests that the primaries were (at least I hope not).

As to being a sore loser, can you give me an example?

Maybe sore loser was the wrong choice of words. Spiteful would fit better. For example, McCain congratulated him on his Biden pic and Obama's first reaction to Palin was to slam her. It made him look like a jackass. He also played "addicted to love" after clinton did his best to pull the party together at the convention. What the hell was the point of that? It's hilarious now because he's in a position where he has to beg the clintons for help because they don't seem particularly predisposed to help him on their own.

Aside from the NH primary, I can't think of anything significant he's lost, and he handled that one pretty well. You must be confusing him with Hildebeest, the sorest loser of all time. ...who stayed in the race for months after it was clear she could not win. ...who cried on TV after losing Iowa. ...who tried to game the system on MI and FL. ...who tried to bribe and strongarm the superdelegates into overturning Obama's elected delegate lead.

It was never clear she could not win, that's just garbage peddled by the news media who is trying to elect Obama. Neither of them had enough votes to ensure a win by the end of the Dem primary (superdelegates can change their mind whenever they please). Hillary may have been a sore loser, but she had a pretty good reason for it since she was treated unfairly.

And as to Caribou Barbie. You should be aware that the campaigns have negotiated and agreed to shorten the response times, and limit direct dialogue....at the McCain campaign's request.

And the Obama campaign agreed.

The McCain people are apparently more worried about her, than they are hopeful for a Biden blunder.

And the Obama people are apparently more worried about biden, than they are hopeful for a Palin blunder. :ahem:

Probably why they limit her interviews too.

They limit her interviews because the media (who is trying to elect Obama) would try to make her look stupid. Gibson's creative editing of their interview is a prime example of this.

One thing. Obama has been largely ignoring Palin since shortly after the convention. He and Biden have been hammering McCain nonstop. It was a week ago Friday (David Plouffe's "first day of the rest of the campaign") that the Obama people changed the subject from Palin, back to McCain. Look at the ads he's currently running.

No, he's been having his media surrogates doing the dirty work for him. I can't remember even one Obama ad TBH. He's been doing his best not to stand out much for the past month or so.

[CarpeDeum]

Maybe sore loser was the wrong choice of words. Spiteful would fit better. For example, McCain congratulated him on his Biden pic and Obama's first reaction to Palin was to slam her. It made him look like a jackass. He also played "addicted to love" after clinton did his best to pull the party together at the convention. What the hell was the point of that? It's hilarious now because he's in a position where he has to beg the clintons for help because they don't seem particularly predisposed to help him on their own.
Even if it's true that they played that song right after Bill's speech, and that someone meant it as a slap at him, it's pretty unlikely that it was Obama's idea. He's known all along that winning over Hillary's supporters could mean the difference between winning and losing the general election. He's been bending over backwards to kiss their butts. To seize on the fact that whoever was in the audio booth played that song after BIll's speech, assume it was deliberate, and interpret it as a prank by Obama himself, is a pretty strange piece of reasoning. What made you think that?
It was never clear she could not win, that's just garbage peddled by the news media who is trying to elect Obama. Neither of them had enough votes to ensure a win by the end of the Dem primary (superdelegates can change their mind whenever they please). Hillary may have been a sore loser, but she had a pretty good reason for it since she was treated unfairly.No, it was not garbage, it was simple mathematics. I watched the numbers very closely on this, and you can look into them again if you want. Wiki rundown on the Dem primary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008) Granted that is Wikipedia, but you can do a quick fact check if you doubt any of the numbers.

At the end of February, Obama led in pledged delegates by more than 150, and only trailed in superdelegates by 50. Most of the primaries and caucuses were done at that point. and over 2600 of the 4233 delegates up for grabs (almost 2/3) had been decided... Two of the three biggest remaining contests came on March 4th, in the Ohio primary, and the Texas primary and caucus (they have both). Hillary did win the two primaries, but lost the Texas caucus. And when the dust had settled, she had gained only 2 delegates more than Obama from those two states, barely putting a scratch in his 100 delegate lead. More importantly, 390 more delegates had then been decided, so it was a huge opportunity lost.

By mid-March, only 1000 of the 4200 delegates were left to be decided, and due to wins in VT and WY, Obama then led by more than 100. Due to the fact that delegate allocation rules are insensitive to small victories, she would have needed massive and improbably large victories in the remaining states in order to overtake him. She would have needed an average victory margin of about 15%, something she had not come close to doing in a single state up until then. Around the same time, the Democratic leadership said no to her request to reverse the rules on FL and MI, and the remaining superdelegates were saying they would vote for whoever won the elected delegates.... Her campaign was mathematically toast, and her people knew it. That's why in the days immediately before OH and TX, James Carville said they'd need big wins to continue, and BIll Clinton said it might be his last week ever campaigning. They probably both got slapped for that. Shortly after those contests, major Clinton supporter Bill Richardsen endorsed Obama and said it was time for Hillary to quit.

She was toast in mid-March, and yet she continued for three more months. Whoever told you this was "garbage peddled by the news media" was lying. It's just math. Go through the numbers if you don't believe me.

After that, the two traded victories by typical margins. And with each state that passed, a large number of uncommitted delegates was off the table. Because of that, the chances of a HIllary comeback, already pretty small, got even smaller with each state. And the voices calling on her to quit, many from her own supporters, got louder. Eventually, a compromise was reached on FL and MI, but that only cut into Obama's lead by 24. He still led by 137 at that point. A few days before the last primaries, she said she was going to take the fight "all the way to the convention!" And she was told immediately by Pelosi, Dean, and half the Democrats in Congress, "No, you're not."

[Darth Executor]

Even if it's true that they played that song right after Bill's speech, and that someone meant it as a slap at him, it's pretty unlikely that it was Obama's idea.

It's his campaign. Even if it wasn't his idea, or doesn't even know about it, it still doesn't speak well of his competence.

He's known all along that winning over Hillary's supporters could mean the difference between winning and losing the general election. He's been bending over backwards to kiss their butts.

No he hasn't. He couldn't have cared less until McCain picked Palin.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5215668

"Get over it" isn't the way one speaks to people one panders to.

To seize on the fact that whoever was in the audio booth played that song after BIll's speech, assume it was deliberate, and interpret it as a prank by Obama himself, is a pretty strange piece of reasoning. What made you think that?

Because Obama has shown an incredible amount of arrogance through his campaign. And he really hasn't been reaching out to Bill much at all. I remember reading an interview with Clinton where Clinton said he'd do more to help but Obama simply hadn't asked him.

No, it was not garbage, it was simple mathematics. I watched the numbers very closely on this, and you can look into them again if you want. Wiki rundown on the Dem primary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008) Granted that is Wikipedia, but you can do a quick fact check if you doubt any of the numbers.

At the end of February, Obama led in pledged delegates by more than 150, and only trailed in superdelegates by 50.

See, that's the problem: superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Obama didn't have anywhere near enough votes to ensure a victory. Clinton could have, at the last second, convinced enough Obama superdelegates to throw their votes to her instead (and it was obvious this was her plan all along). Instead, the Democratic party and their minions in the media stabbed her in the back and tried to unfairly bully her out of the race. That's why I'm calling it garbage. You're assuming the superdelegates that said they'd vote for obama have to keep their word when they can just do as they please in reality.

[CarpeDeum]

It's his campaign. Even if it wasn't his idea, or doesn't even know about it, it still doesn't speak well of his competence.
Actually, the candidate doesn't run the convention. The party does. So it's not like this happened under his management.

Again, it's totally bizarre how much mental gymanstics you're going through to try and pin this on Obama. First you assume it was deliberate, which is arguable at best. But then you attribute to Obama himself, to the exclusion of many other people who could have done it, and had less to lose. And now, even if that's wrong, it still must somehow reflect poorly on him. Nevermind the facts.

See, that's the problem: superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Obama didn't have anywhere near enough votes to ensure a victory. Clinton could have, at the last second, convinced enough Obama superdelegates to throw their votes to her instead (and it was obvious this was her plan all along). Instead, the Democratic party and their minions in the media stabbed her in the back and tried to unfairly bully her out of the race. That's why I'm calling it garbage. You're assuming the superdelegates that said they'd vote for obama have to keep their word when they can just do as they please in reality.
It's true that she could have won on superdelegates, by swaying undecideds and ones who'd endorsed Obama. I get that. However, after mid-March, that was the only way she could have won. Her chances of overtaking Obama in elected delegates alone were even less than her odds of doing it in total delegates. Now there's a near-consensus outside of the Hillary camp, even among Republicans, that for the supers to overturn the elected delegate winner, would have been pretty bad for the Democrats in November. Would've torn the party in two, and made them look corrupt and undemocratic to general election voters. (And in fact most of the superdelegates were saying they would not vote to overturn the elected delegate winner for that very reason.)

So there we were. Ever since mid-March, even if you don't agree that her chances of winning were remote, it was known that she almost certainly could not win without significantly hurting the party. That's why she was bullied out of the race by Obama's people, MSNBC, CBS, the WP, and a few others. ABC, CNN and the NYT maintained a neutral or distinctly pro-Hillary posture until she quit. The Democratic party leadership and most of the superdelegates were very careful to let her quit on her own terms, even after they believed she was finished.

[Darth Executor]

Actually, the candidate doesn't run the convention. The party does. So it's not like this happened under his management.

Obama's camp has significant input since they're THE WINNER. He's the one who switched where his speech would take place to pacify his egomania, for example. Furthermore, I already listed the Democratic party as accomplices to Obama's hillary bullying.

Again, it's totally bizarre how much mental gymanstics you're going through to try and pin this on Obama. First you assume it was deliberate, which is arguable at best.

You're right. I suppose whoever put up the song was an utter imbecile. Sorry, but it's completely unreasonable to assume it wasn't deliberate. It's FREAKING BILL CLINTON!

But then you attribute to Obama himself, to the exclusion of many other people who could have done it, and had less to lose. And now, even if that's wrong, it still must somehow reflect poorly on him. Nevermind the facts.

I already conceded it could've been one of his minions already so I don't know where you got "to the exclusion of many other people who could've done it" from. And it DOES reflect poorly on him because it's his show and his party. To say that what his party does doesn't reflect poorly on him is absurd.


So there we were. Ever since mid-March, even if you don't agree that her chances of winning were remote, it was known that she almost certainly could not win without significantly hurting the party.

This is hilarious. Last I checked, the bullying of Hillary Clinton out of the election is what really hurt the party. It pissed off her supporters to such an extent that a significant number of theom are gonna vote McCain. How in the world you can complain about her hurting the party when Obama and the rest of the Dems have done their best to rig the game is beyond my understanding. The truth is that Hillary staying to the end would have done nothing to hurt the party. Hillary and her supporters just wanted to play until the end and the Democrat elite said "no". That's what really hurt the party.

[CarpeDeum]

Your comments about this read like a Twlight Zone script. You're still bending over backwards with this strange, contrived attempt to make the playing of 'addicted to love' after Bill Clinton's speech sound like it must somehow be something Obama's accountable for, if not his own idea.

Obama's camp has significant input since they're THE WINNER. He's the one who switched where his speech would take place to pacify his egomania, for example. Furthermore, I already listed the Democratic party as accomplices to Obama's hillary bullying.

You're right. I suppose whoever put up the song was an utter imbecile. Sorry, but it's completely unreasonable to assume it wasn't deliberate. It's FREAKING BILL CLINTON!

I already conceded it could've been one of his minions already so I don't know where you got "to the exclusion of many other people who could've done it" from. And it DOES reflect poorly on him because it's his show and his party. To say that what his party does doesn't reflect poorly on him is absurd.
What's absurd is suggesting that is does reflect badly on him, when you already know that he wasn't running the show, and therefore that it doesn't reflect badly on him. Yes, he was the winner. But he wasn't running the convention. The DNC ran the convention. They managed it, they staffed it, and it was very likely their people in the sound booth. To say that Obama or one of his "minions" must have done it is a ridiculous assumption. To suggest that he is accountable for what the booth plays is just as ridiculous, considering that he wasn't running the convention. The DNC was. Not Obama. Not his campaign. The DNC. I realize this is a subtle point, so take your time and re-read it if you have to. It was the DNC who was running the convention. The DNC is not Barack Obama. The DNC is not Barack Obama's campaign. Barack Obama does not run the DNC. Just as he was not running the convention. The convention that was being run by the DNC, that is... As these tricky points sink in, hopefully you can begin to see how ridiculous it is to assume that Obama must have been responsible for that song getting played, either directly or indirectly, or even in the sense of it happening on his watch. It wasn't on his watch. It was on the DNC's watch. Can we guess why? That's right. Because Obama wasn't running the convention. The DNC was.

And before we get into a debate over whether you assumed it was somehow on his watch, or just argued that, let's review your posts.
He also played "addicted to love" after clinton did his best to pull the party together at the convention. What the hell was the point of that?
Yep, you're assuming it there...
It's his campaign. Even if it wasn't his idea, or doesn't even know about it, it still doesn't speak well of his competence.

...and there. And of course you did it in your most recent post, as quoted above.
It's true that she could have won on superdelegates, by swaying undecideds and ones who'd endorsed Obama. I get that. However, after mid-March, that was the only way she could have won. Her chances of overtaking Obama in elected delegates alone were even less than her odds of doing it in total delegates. Now there's a near-consensus outside of the Hillary camp, even among Republicans, that for the supers to overturn the elected delegate winner, would have been pretty bad for the Democrats in November. Would've torn the party in two, and made them look corrupt and undemocratic to general election voters. (And in fact most of the superdelegates were saying they would not vote to overturn the elected delegate winner for that very reason.)

So there we were. Ever since mid-March, even if you don't agree that her chances of winning were remote, it was known that she almost certainly could not win without significantly hurting the party. That's why she was bullied out of the race by Obama's people, MSNBC, CBS, the WP, and a few others. ABC, CNN and the NYT maintained a neutral or distinctly pro-Hillary posture until she quit. The Democratic party leadership and most of the superdelegates were very careful to let her quit on her own terms, even after they believed she was finished. This is hilarious. Last I checked, the bullying of Hillary Clinton out of the election is what really hurt the party. It pissed off her supporters to such an extent that a significant number of theom are gonna vote McCain. How in the world you can complain about her hurting the party when Obama and the rest of the Dems have done their best to rig the game is beyond my understanding. The truth is that Hillary staying to the end would have done nothing to hurt the party. Hillary and her supporters just wanted to play until the end and the Democrat elite said "no". That's what really hurt the party.
It sounds like you just kinda ignored what I wrote because you didn't like it. Do you deny that when she decided to stay in the race in mid-March, she knew she could not win without hurting the party?

[CarpeDeum]

Sorry, had a rough day yesterday. Please forgive the attitude.

[Darth Executor]

Your comments about this read like a Twlight Zone script. You're still bending over backwards with this strange, contrived attempt to make the playing of 'addicted to love' after Bill Clinton's speech sound like it must somehow be something Obama's accountable for, if not his own idea.

You're right, it wasn't his idea and he had nothing to do with it. The DNC is a different entitiy completely unrelated to their presidential candidate and Obama is just some dude who happened to be giving a speech there.

It sounds like you just kinda ignored what I wrote because you didn't like it. Do you deny that when she decided to stay in the race in mid-March, she knew she could not win without hurting the party?

I ignored it because it was completely irrelevant. Yes, I deny that she knew she could not win without hurting the party. I deny that her staying and letting the race finish would have hurt the party. The only thing that hurt the party was Obama and most of the other democrats strong-arming her out of the race. Now a good chunk of Hillary supporters are going to be voting for McCain, and for what? So Obama can have a few extra weeks to parade around the world wearing a toga and laurel leafs in his hair?

[Darth Executor]

Sorry, had a rough day yesterday. Please forgive the attitude.

:hrm:

Didn't notice any attitude.

[CarpeDeum]

You're right, it wasn't his idea and he had nothing to do with it. The DNC is a different entitiy completely unrelated to their presidential candidate and Obama is just some dude who happened to be giving a speech there.
Of course the show was about him. But to say it reflects badly on him that the someone was able to get away with the prank, suggests and requires that he or his campaign were managing the convention. They weren't.
I ignored it because it was completely irrelevant. Yes, I deny that she knew she could not win without hurting the party. I deny that her staying and letting the race finish would have hurt the party. The only thing that hurt the party was Obama and most of the other democrats strong-arming her out of the race. Now a good chunk of Hillary supporters are going to be voting for McCain, and for what? So Obama can have a few extra weeks to parade around the world wearing a toga and laurel leafs in his hair?
Let's see... Nope, it was relevant. You were whining on Hillary's behalf that she was unfairly bullied out of the race. My counter was that she was pressured into quitting, because she could not win without hurting the party. Whether you agree with that is one question, but the comment is clearly relevant.

Now you seem agree with me that she planned on winning by swaying superdelegates. Do you see that it would have been extremely difficult and highly unlikely for her to capture the majority of elected delegates after mid-March? And if so, do you disagree that it would hurt the party for the superdelegates to overrule the elected delegates?

It may well be the case that pressuring HIllary out of the race hurt the party. But that doesn't contradict the statement that HIllary also hurt the party by staying in as long as she did.

In any case, you suggest that pressuring Hillary out of the race has cost Obama the election. The polls suggest otherwise (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html).

[JonLanceBarker]

I have a feeling that Darth doesn't really care that much about Hillary not "making it." :hrm:

[Darth Executor]

Of course the show was about him. But to say it reflects badly on him that the someone was able to get away with the prank, suggests and requires that he or his campaign were managing the convention. They weren't.

No, it requires that they be involved in managing the convention, which they were.

Let's see... Nope, it was relevant. You were whining on Hillary's behalf that she was unfairly bullied out of the race. My counter was that she was pressured into quitting, because she could not win without hurting the party. Whether you agree with that is one question, but the comment is clearly relevant.

And I said I don't buy it. She was pressured into quitting because the media and democrat elite wanted to elect Obama.

Now you seem agree with me that she planned on winning by swaying superdelegates. Do you see that it would have been extremely difficult and highly unlikely for her to capture the majority of elected delegates after mid-March?

No. Obama barely crawled over the finish line. Clinton lost because she screwed up the beginning of her campaign and Obama rode that momentum. If Clinton had slammed him like she did through the latter part of her campaing Obama would've lost.

And if so, do you disagree that it would hurt the party for the superdelegates to overrule the elected delegates?

No. They're there to make sure an idiot doesn't take over the party and ruin their chances. Since liberals seem to be screeching that they want an "elite" to be president, they shouldn't mind having the elites make the choice for them. At the very least, it wouldn't hurt anymore than bullying hillary out of the race would.

It may well be the case that pressuring HIllary out of the race hurt the party. But that doesn't contradict the statement that HIllary also hurt the party by staying in as long as she did.


No, but concluding that staying as long as she did hurt the party is completely baseless for reasons I already outlined.

In any case, you suggest that pressuring Hillary out of the race has cost Obama the election.

I suggested no such thing. I said it hurt the party, which it did. Honestly, to be barely ahead McCain considering how low public opinion is of Bush and republicans in general is absolutely pathetic. Obama should be bodysurfing through this election. He isn't.

[Darth Executor]

I have a feeling that Darth doesn't really care that much about Hillary not "making it." :hrm:

Yo're wrong. I abhor Obama way, way more than I dislike the Clintons. Apart from abortion and a bunch of minor issues, I actually thought Billy was a decent president.

[CarpeDeum]

No, it requires that they be involved in managing the convention, which they were.
Well, whatever. You originally acted like it was his personal idea to play the song, and your point was something along the lines of "Man, what a jerk!" You've since admitted that it wasn't necessarily his idea, so I'm satisfied.
Now you seem agree with me that she planned on winning by swaying superdelegates. Do you see that it would have been extremely difficult and highly unlikely for her to capture the majority of elected delegates after mid-March?
No. Obama barely crawled over the finish line. Clinton lost because she screwed up the beginning of her campaign and Obama rode that momentum. If Clinton had slammed him like she did through the latter part of her campaing Obama would've lost.
That's not what I asked.

And let's look at the grass before you go disputing whether it's green. The point is that it was very unlikely she could have overtaken him specifically in the elected delegate category after mid-March. In elected delegates specifically, he led by over 150 at that point, and only 566 were left to be decided. Again, this is elected delegates only, that we're talking about, not the total delegates that I explained before. In order to beat him in this category, she would have needed to split the remaining ones with Obama 358-208, which would have taken massive victories in the remaining states, by typical margins on the order of 20% or more, considering that delegate allocation is insensitive to small wins. She hadn't come close to a margin like that in any state up until then.
No. They're there to make sure an idiot doesn't take over the party and ruin their chances. Since liberals seem to be screeching that they want an "elite" to be president, they shouldn't mind having the elites make the choice for them. At the very least, it wouldn't hurt anymore than bullying hillary out of the race would.
Whether you think liberals should have accepted the superdelegates overruling them is beside the point. They didn't.

And do you think the 'idiot' who took over has ruined their chances (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)?
No, but concluding that staying as long as she did hurt the party is completely baseless for reasons I already outlined.
Wow.
In any case, you suggest that pressuring Hillary out of the race has cost Obama the election.
I suggested no such thing...
Oh you didn't? Let's see:

Now a good chunk of Hillary supporters are going to be voting for McCain, and for what? So Obama can have a few extra weeks to parade around the world wearing a toga and laurel leafs in his hair?
What did you mean by that, if you weren't suggesting that pressuring Hillary out of the race has cost Obama the election?

Anyway...
...I said it hurt the party, which it did. Honestly, to be barely ahead McCain considering how low public opinion is of Bush and republicans in general is absolutely pathetic. Obama should be bodysurfing through this election. He isn't.
For most of the general election cycle, Obama has been leading McCain by 5-10% nationally (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html), and 50-100 electoral votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html). That is bodysurfing through the election. It's only during the convention/Palin introduction bounce that McCain has cut into and overtaken that lead. But that bounce has mostly faded now, and the numbers are all headed back to where they were before: with Obama leading McCain, not "barely," but solidly.

[CarpeDeum]

I have a feeling that Darth doesn't really care that much about Hillary not "making it." :hrm:
It amazes me how some conservatives, who hated the Clintons so much, for so long, are suddenly, during this election cycle, worried that the Dems are treating Hillary unfairly or hurting Bill's feelings.

[Darth Executor]

It amazes me how some conservatives, who hated the Clintons so much, for so long, are suddenly, during this election cycle, worried that the Dems are treating Hillary unfairly or hurting Bill's feelings.

I never "hated" the Clintons so I have no idea why you're grouping me with "some conservatives".

[Darth Executor]

That's not what I asked.

The answer to your question was no. Then I elaborated. What do you want?

And let's look at the grass before you go disputing whether it's green. The point is that it was very unlikely she could have overtaken him specifically in the elected delegate category after mid-March.In elected delegates specifically, he led by over 150 at that point, and only 566 were left to be decided. Again, this is elected delegates only, that we're talking about, not the total delegates that I explained before. In order to beat him in this category, she would have needed to split the remaining ones with Obama 358-208, which would have taken massive victories in the remaining states, by typical margins on the order of 20% or more, considering that delegate allocation is insensitive to small wins. She hadn't come close to a margin like that in any state up until then.

For the I don't even remember which time, I don't care only about elected delegates. If she could swing enough superdelegates (and I think she had a reasonable chance since Obama was taking a beating towards the end of the primary) she would win. Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with whether it hurt the party to stay.

Whether you think liberals should have accepted the superdelegates overruling them is beside the point. They didn't.

How do you know? It never actually happened.

And do you think the 'idiot' who took over has ruined their chances (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)?

I don't know. If it wasn't for Bush I think McCain would've steamrolled over it. As it stands, we'll see. I certainly think the dems had a better chance with Hillary at the helm.

Wow.

Informative.

Oh you didn't? Let's see:


What did you mean by that, if you weren't suggesting that pressuring Hillary out of the race has cost Obama the election?

It means it lowered the dems' chances of winning. It's actually pretty easy to figure out what I meant. I certainly did not say, mean or imply that she cost Obama the election.

Anyway...

For most of the general election cycle, Obama has been leading McCain by 5-10% nationally (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html), and 50-100 electoral votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html). That is bodysurfing through the election. It's only during the convention/Palin introduction bounce that McCain has cut into and overtaken that lead. But that bounce has mostly faded now, and the numbers are all headed back to where they were before: with Obama leading McCain, not "barely," but solidly.

I'm not talking about most of the general election cycle, Im talking about right now, when most of the candidates are pretty well known by everybody. Obama has a very small lead right now and it seems to be waving back and forth. He got a boost from the economic crisis but odds are it'll be mostly out of the ADD voters' minds by november if nothing significant happens. Obama isn't bodysurfing, he's floating around in one of these. (http://www.debnars.com/duck_Pool.gif)

This is bodysurfing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980#Results)

[Meta Knight]

This is bodysurfing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980#Results)
'84 was even less close.

[CarpeDeum]

Now you seem agree with me that she planned on winning by swaying superdelegates. Do you see that it would have been extremely difficult and highly unlikely for her to capture the majority of elected delegates after mid-March? No. Obama barely crawled over the finish line. Clinton lost because she screwed up the beginning of her campaign and Obama rode that momentum. If Clinton had slammed him like she did through the latter part of her campaing Obama would've lost. That's not what I asked.The answer to your question was no. Then I elaborated. What do you want?You elaborated with irrelevant comments that show you hadn't read the question. Go back and read it. Then try again.
For the I don't even remember which time, I don't care only about elected delegates. If she could swing enough superdelegates (and I think she had a reasonable chance since Obama was taking a beating towards the end of the primary) she would win. Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with whether it hurt the party to stay.
If you don't care, then you shouldn't have said 'no' to the question. But you don't realize that because you never read it.

The reason we're looking at the elected delegate comparison is, again, because it would have been exceedingly bad for the party for the superdelegates to overrule the elected ones. And we went through the elected delegate math to verify that in fact the odds were against her making a comeback in that category.
Whether you think liberals should have accepted the superdelegates overruling them is beside the point. They didn't. How do you know? It never actually happened.Apart from the absurdly obvious point that no person on the planet would want to have their own vote overturned, the answer is that they said so (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9063.html). This really isn't rocket science. Think before you type and stop embarassing yourself like this.And do you think the 'idiot' who took over has ruined their chances?
I don't know. If it wasn't for Bush I think McCain would've steamrolled over it. As it stands, we'll see. I certainly think the dems had a better chance with Hillary at the helm.
So at best, we don't know whether your original comment about picking an idiot who ruins their chances, is what's going on here. And considering what a lightening rod Hillary had always been, you're probably alone in thinking the Dems would be better off with her at the helm.
In any case, you suggest that pressuring Hillary out of the race has cost Obama the election.
I suggested no such thing... Oh you didn't? Let's see:

Now a good chunk of Hillary supporters are going to be voting for McCain, and for what? So Obama can have a few extra weeks to parade around the world wearing a toga and laurel leafs in his hair?
What did you mean by that, if you weren't suggesting that pressuring Hillary out of the race has cost Obama the election?
It means it lowered the dems' chances of winning. It's actually pretty easy to figure out what I meant. I certainly did not say, mean or imply that she cost Obama the election.
It's pretty easy to see that that is exactly what you meant. Stop trying to play it off.
I'm not talking about most of the general election cycle, Im talking about right now, when most of the candidates are pretty well known by everybody. Obama has a very small lead right now and it seems to be waving back and forth. He got a boost from the economic crisis but odds are it'll be mostly out of the ADD voters' minds by november if nothing significant happens. Obama isn't bodysurfing, he's floating around in one of these. (http://www.debnars.com/duck_Pool.gif)
Don't read the polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html) much, do you? McCain's convention/Palin introduction bounce has faded, and Obama's back in the lead, currently by 4.2% in RCP's rolling average. It is not "waving back and forth."

We all get that you don't like Obama. The problem is that you've declared war on reality itself, and you're flailing around out of control, claiming things that are demonstrably false.

This is bodysurfing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980#Results)
Yes, that's a good example of a blowout.

But let's look at something. Reagan got 50.7% of the popular vote, Carter got 41%, and 3rd party candidate John Anderson got 6.6%. Now, although Anderson was generally a member of the GOP, he was a liberal, running on a liberal platform, and took far more votes away from Carter than Reagan. Of those 6.6%, probably 4 to 6 would have gone in Carter's column, and the rest in Reagan's. That gives Reagan a popular vote margin of victory between 4 and 8%. Obama is currently leading by 4.2% and is trending upward in the polls.

If you consider Reagan's victory in 1980 to be bodysurfing, then you have to consider Obama's current position to be bodysurfing as well. Sorry. I know how much you hate facts, so I fully expect you to bite my head off for this.

Curiously, Anderson has endorsed Obama this year.

[Sheepdog]

my, i never thought i'd live to see the day that Michigan could very possibly go red.

Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm is the best present to McCain and the GOP that the Democrats could ever give. I even heard one pundit suggest Michigan could be this year's Ohio. Of course, Ohio could be this years Ohio too.

Edit: D'oh! i was looking at the old electoral math post.

[Sheepdog]

Don't read the polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html) much, do you? McCain's convention/Palin introduction bounce has faded, and Obama's back in the lead, currently by 4.2% in RCP's rolling average. It is not "waving back and forth."

except if you look at the individual polls, some of them are tied, a few have McCain in the lead, one even having him at 10 points ahead. so not to put words in Darthy's mouth, but the answer is it depends on which poll(s) he's following.

the reason i'm butting in here is, IMHO it's relatively useless to look at polls. even exit polls, if Florida in 2000 is an indicator.* IIRC Gore was ahead right up near the election. Wasn't even Kerry ahead at this time in '04? I've heard that usually the Democrats lead the polls and then as it gets closer to the election the margin narrows.

* (and don't bother citing the stolen election conspiracy bull crap. even many on the left have debunked those myths.)


Yes, that's a good example of a blowout.

But let's look at something. Reagan got 50.7% of the popular vote, Carter got 41%, and 3rd party candidate John Anderson got 6.6%. Now, although Anderson was generally a member of the GOP, he was a liberal, running on a liberal platform, and took far more votes away from Carter than Reagan. Of those 6.6%, probably 4 to 6 would have gone in Carter's column, and the rest in Reagan's. That gives Reagan a popular vote margin of victory between 4 and 8%. Obama is currently leading by 4.2% and is trending upward in the polls.

If you consider Reagan's victory in 1980 to be bodysurfing, then you have to consider Obama's current position to be bodysurfing as well. Sorry. I know how much you hate facts, so I fully expect you to bite my head off for this.

dunno. seems like too much speculation too me :shrug:

[Jaltus]

Actually, Bush took the lead for good after the third debate against Kerry.

Michigan is starting to go more toward a tossup as is WI. Obama had a 9 point lead in WI 2 weeks ago, it is down to under 5.

[CarpeDeum]

except if you look at the individual polls, some of them are tied, a few have McCain in the lead, one even having him at 10 points ahead. so not to put words in Darthy's mouth, but the answer is it depends on which poll(s) he's following.

the reason i'm butting in here is, IMHO it's relatively useless to look at polls. even exit polls, if Florida in 2000 is an indicator.* IIRC Gore was ahead right up near the election. Wasn't even Kerry ahead at this time in '04? I've heard that usually the Democrats lead the polls and then as it gets closer to the election the margin narrows.

* (and don't bother citing the stolen election conspiracy bull crap. even many on the left have debunked those myths.)
No, the polls are extremely useful. You just have to bear in mind the margin of error when reading them. When a poll says Obama's at 48, and McCain's at 43, with a margin of error of 3 points, what that's really saying is Obama's somewhere in the range 45-51, and McCain's somewhere between in the range 40-46.

And, contrary to popular belief on the left, the final results in both 2000 and 2004 were within the margin of error of the polls right before the election, as well as the exit polls. This is true both nationally and on a state-by-state basis. It was even true in FL and OH.

Now, you talk about some individual polls showing McCain tied or ahead. That's true. However, most of them show a substantial lead for Obama. It's dangerous to look at poll results individually because of the margin of error on each. However, if you average them, the error bar in that result wil be lower than for an individual one.

IOW, if one poll shows an Obama lead of 5 points, don't put too much stock in it. But if all four polls released today (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/27/tracking_poll_update.html) show Obama leading by 5 or 6, it's a good bet Obama really is winning by something close to 5 or 6 points. Almost certainly something in the range of 4-7.
dunno. seems like too much speculation too me :shrug:
It was speculation, but I thought it was good speculation. ;) Anderson took 6.6%, and he mostly stole votes from Carter. It seems reasonable to say Reagan's margin of victory over Carter (9.7%) would have been a few points lower without Anderson in the race.

Well, move it a few points lower, and it becomes comparable to Obama's current lead.

[Sheepdog]

No, the polls are extremely useful. You just have to bear in mind the margin of error when reading them. When a poll says Obama's at 48, and McCain's at 43, with a margin of error of 3 points, what that's really saying is Obama's somewhere in the range 45-51, and McCain's somewhere between in the range 40-46.

And, contrary to popular belief on the left, the final results in both 2000 and 2004 were within the margin of error of the polls right before the election, as well as the exit polls. This is true both nationally and on a state-by-state basis. It was even true in FL and OH.

Now, you talk about some individual polls showing McCain tied or ahead. That's true. However, most of them show a substantial lead for Obama. It's dangerous to look at poll results individually because of the margin of error on each. However, if you average them, the error bar in that result wil be lower than for an individual one.

see, this seems faulty to me, given my admittedly cursory background in statistics. that we are dealing with an average of multiple polls where the results are significantly different, there is more noise, resulting in a higher margin of error.

if anything, it'd be more compelling to focus on a smaller handful of key polls, like Gallup and Rasmussen. and to be fair, those two do give Obama a slight but definite lead.

i could have sworn the polls gave Kerry a lead above the margin of error before the 04 election. :huh:

[CarpeDeum]

see, this seems faulty to me, given my admittedly cursory background in statistics. that we are dealing with an average of multiple polls where the results are significantly different, there is more noise, resulting in a higher margin of error.

if anything, it'd be more compelling to focus on a smaller handful of key polls, like Gallup and Rasmussen. and to be fair, those two do give Obama a slight but definite lead.

i could have sworn the polls gave Kerry a lead above the margin of error before the 04 election. :huh:
Actually, averaging mutliple polls brings the error down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_error). You're increasing the sample size. Now, the methodologies of the pollsters are different, so it's a little frowned upon. But the problem there is just that you can't compute exactly what the new error margin is. It's certain that it's smaller, however.

As to 2004, the last polls before the election (http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm) showed a statistical dead heat, leaning toward Bush. All that noise about supposed discrepancies between the polls and the results was just noise, being made by frustrated Kerry supporters (or Bush haters) who couldn't accept that they'd lost and felt like the election had to have been stolen. They were wrong. The polls were right.

Back to 2008, of the 7 national polls conducted in the last week (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html), McCain leads in one by 2 points, and Obama leads in the others by 5,6,5,5,6, and now 8, in the new Gallup poll this morning.

[CarpeDeum]

...and there's also a research 2000 poll out this morning that has Obama up by 7, nationally, but RCP hasn't included it in their tally, yet.

[Augustine2004]

Wowbama. Frankly, Obadman.

[FormerFundy]

Polls have been notoriously unreliable recently and I think will be even more so this year for 2 reasons:

1. The Bradley effect--some who say they will vote for a Black man won't once they get inside the booth.

2. Many young people and those without landlines are often not included in the polls.

[Augustine2004]

Moderator I now regret making that off-topic post. You may remove it. If not, let me balance things: McCeaselessWar. Of course if you remove that post, remove this also.

[JonLanceBarker]

How about McSurge? McWin? McPOW? McPwner? McSmarter? :teeth:

[Cyrus Johnson]

Actually, Bush took the lead for good after the third debate against Kerry.

Michigan is starting to go more toward a tossup as is WI. Obama had a 9 point lead in WI 2 weeks ago, it is down to under 5.

According to Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_pulling_out_of_Michigan.html), McCain is abandoning Michigan as a lost cause. McCain is in a very tough way now. He has to win in pretty much all the contested states to win in November...states where Obama has leads or is at least even (e.g. Virginia or North Carolina). Even Florida and Indiana look like maybes for Obama, and if he wins Florida, it's game over for the Reps. Same goes for Ohio, which is more likely to turn than Florida. Even a small state like Nevada if it goes blue can destroy McCain in some scenarios.

Obviously things can change quickly, but if the election were held today I think Obama wins smoothly. Maybe not a landslide, but a clear victory. Recall also if its a tie, it goes to the Dem controlled House, where presumably they'd go with Obama.

McCain is really getting behind the 8-Ball. Expect him to go strongly negetive in his adds if he agrees.

[Augustine2004]

Note to JLB. Would you vote for someone who could be suffering from PTSD? I perhaps should have said, probably.

[CarpeDeum]

According to Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_pulling_out_of_Michigan.html), McCain is abandoning Michigan as a lost cause. McCain is in a very tough way now. He has to win in pretty much all the contested states to win in November...states where Obama has leads or is at least even (e.g. Virginia or North Carolina). Even Florida and Indiana look like maybes for Obama, and if he wins Florida, it's game over for the Reps. Same goes for Ohio, which is more likely to turn than Florida. Even a small state like Nevada if it goes blue can destroy McCain in some scenarios.

Obviously things can change quickly, but if the election were held today I think Obama wins smoothly. Maybe not a landslide, but a clear victory. Recall also if its a tie, it goes to the Dem controlled House, where presumably they'd go with Obama.

McCain is really getting behind the 8-Ball. Expect him to go strongly negetive in his adds if he agrees.
CJ -

You're right on all counts. Whether you go by individual poll results, or averages of all recent ones, Obama is now leading in all the swing states. All of them. Plus NC. And IN and MO are close. It sounds ridiculous, but it's true. If he wins all the states where he's currently leading, he wins the electoral college big time, something like 350-180. Or look at it another way. On average, national polls show him leading by 6% now. It's extremely unlikely that he would win the popular vote by that margin and lose the electoral college.

Sure enough (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/mccain-campaign-ad-spendi_n_131720.html), almost 100% of the ads McCain is running are now negative. Good prediction there. And he's focusing on 4 states. That's a gamble, because there are more than 4 swing states that he needs, but where Obama is leading. Taking the pressure off the others now might let essential states fade out of reach.

[joel]

I don't like how most states have a winner-takes-all approach to their electoral votes.

[Jaltus]

Joel,

We are a republic and not a democracy. If we were a democracy, popular vote would win the whole thing anyway.

[FormerFundy]

I don't like how most states have a winner-takes-all approach to their electoral votes.

Then you don't understand the constitution nor how this nation was founded. Its the United States of America. The individual states are important.

[Augustine2004]

The individual states are important.Ever less with time.

[joel]

Then you don't understand the constitution nor how this nation was founded. Its the United States of America. The individual states are important.
:huh: I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. Same goes for Jaltus' comment. Yes we are a republic. Yes, the individual states are important.

Are you guys saying that Maine and Nebraska, which do not have a winner takes-all method, are somehow un-republican or contrary to the constitution? Rather, the constitution (Article 2, section 1) has each state choose its own method for appointing Electors.

All I was saying is that I think Main and Nebraska have the better method (appointing the two Electors corresponding to the senate seats by popular vote, and each congressional district appointing the Elector corresponding to its Representative), and that other states should follow their lead.

[Sheepdog]

According to Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_pulling_out_of_Michigan.html), McCain is abandoning Michigan as a lost cause. McCain is in a very tough way now. He has to win in pretty much all the contested states to win in November...states where Obama has leads or is at least even (e.g. Virginia or North Carolina). Even Florida and Indiana look like maybes for Obama, and if he wins Florida, it's game over for the Reps. Same goes for Ohio, which is more likely to turn than Florida. Even a small state like Nevada if it goes blue can destroy McCain in some scenarios.

Obviously things can change quickly, but if the election were held today I think Obama wins smoothly. Maybe not a landslide, but a clear victory. Recall also if its a tie, it goes to the Dem controlled House, where presumably they'd go with Obama.

McCain is really getting behind the 8-Ball. Expect him to go strongly negetive in his adds if he agrees.

I don't think MI is really a lost cause. Michigan has been suffering under a pro-tax Democrat governor in a formerly one-state recession. By all rights MI should go Red, but I dunno. We have a lot of stupid union sheeple.

Both campaigns have pulled out of states.

[Sheepdog]

:huh: I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. Same goes for Jaltus' comment. Yes we are a republic. Yes, the individual states are important.

Are you guys saying that Maine and Nebraska, which do not have a winner takes-all method, are somehow un-republican or contrary to the constitution? Rather, the constitution (Article 2, section 1) has each state choose its own method for appointing Electors.

All I was saying is that I think Main and Nebraska have the better method (appointing the two Electors corresponding to the senate seats by popular vote, and each congressional district appointing the Elector corresponding to its Representative), and that other states should follow their lead.

California definitely should at least.

[$cirisme]

I don't like how most states have a winner-takes-all approach to their electoral votes.

It's suicidal for individual states to switch to splitting their votes because it means that at most, that state would only give 1 or 2 votes in one direction or another. Not worth the time of the candidates, so the state's important issues won't be discussed.

But there is (was?) an interstate compact agreement going around that said that once x number of states sign on to it (it may have been all 50, maybe a majority, I don't remember), all of the signatory states agree to split their electoral votes based on the popular vote.

You might do some Googling and see if your state is involved, and if not, maybe push it to your state reps. The last time I heard from it was a few years ago, dunno how much has changed since then.

[$cirisme]

Then you don't understand the constitution nor how this nation was founded. Its the United States of America. The individual states are important.

Yes, which is why the Constitution does not prescribe how electors should be chosen. There is no (Federal) Constitutional requirement that electoral votes are winner-takes-all in each state.

[Sheepdog]

the biggest problem would be that the President would be elected by a direct democracy. once we get to that point, a candidate just has to promise tidings to 51% of the people at the expense of the other 49%, which is what we call the tyranny of the majority. some would say we are already there

originally, senators were appointed by the states. you didn't elect them directly. of course, that was back when state sovereignty actually meant something, the 10th amendment was actually in force, and you didn't have the all powerful Uncle Sam.

[$cirisme]

the biggest problem would be that the President would be elected by a direct democracy. once we get to that point, a candidate just has to promise tidings to 51% of the people at the expense of the other 49%, which is what we call the tyranny of the majority. some would say we are already there

The electoral college has nothing to do with direct democracy or majority tyranny.

It was simply a way to handle a large election, with its potential unexpected events, in a time when communication was both slow and expensive. I think it's served its purpose well. Changing how the electors are chosen doesn't change its benefits.

originally, senators were appointed by the states. you didn't elect them directly. of course, that was back when state sovereignty actually meant something, the 10th amendment was actually in force, and you didn't have the all powerful Uncle Sam.

I agree, states rights have been trampled on for far too long. Most things should be left up to the states.

[Augustine2004]

No, leave things to the public itself.

[joel]

the biggest problem would be that the President would be elected by a direct democracy. once we get to that point, a candidate just has to promise tidings to 51% of the people at the expense of the other 49%, which is what we call the tyranny of the majority. some would say we are already there

Obama is explicitly promising tidings to 95% of the people at the expense of the other 5%.


originally, senators were appointed by the states.
Also most states' legislatures used to choose the presidential Electors, instead of having the people vote.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I don't think MI is really a lost cause. Michigan has been suffering under a pro-tax Democrat governor in a formerly one-state recession. By all rights MI should go Red, but I dunno. We have a lot of stupid union sheeple.

Obama has a huge 13 point lead in the last poll I saw in Michigan. That could turn, but it looks unlikely at this point, especially with the economy currently overshadowing national security. Michigan is a big prize. Giving up there means he really has to focus laser like on the remaining contended states. Going back could be more trouble than it's worth for McCain.

Both campaigns have pulled out of states.

Little point in campaigning in a state you can't possibly win...and by the same token little compelling reason to campaign in a state when it's already in the bag. The candidates naturally will want to focus all their remaining energies on those states where they think will do them the most good, meaning states still a toss-up and they see as winnable. They'll probably from now on be in the same states, sometimes at about the same time.

[CarpeDeum]

The Kerry states as well as Bush states IA and NM are all out of reach for McCain now. And Obama currently has a small or medium lead in CO, VA, OH, FL, NV, and even MO. NC is tied and IN leans McCain by an amount within the margin for error. If Obama carries only one of those 8 states, he wins. If the election were held today, the odds that McCain would pull out all 8 of them would be extremely remote, less than 1%.

That's just based on the assumption that he has a less than 50-50 shot of winning a state where he's down in the polls. Tied is 50-50, and I didn't bother to guess the odds for a state he's winning only slightly, but they're less than 100%. So the calculation is: (1/2)^7 = 1/128 < 1%

The only good news for McCain is that he has a month until the election, and a lot can happen. It could be that Obama's just seeing a bounce right now, that will fade. Also, McCain's negative ad blitz could pay off. Negative advertizing works, and Dems are often too nice or too slow in responding to it.

[$cirisme]

Unfortunately for McCain, Obama's already been through a pretty contentious campaign against Hillary. And if anybody could turn the search for skeletons in the closet into a colonoscopy, it would be the Clintons. Though that doesn't stop anybody from just making crap up.

[CarpeDeum]

My thoughts exactly on the Clintons and any dirty secrets Obama might have. Just the facts that Obama's a young guy with very little time in DC make it less likely he's hiding anything devastating. And I agree about making crap up, and would add that the less time we have until election day, the less time there is for the truth to catch up, so bogus smears become a more attractive tactic.

[Sheepdog]

The electoral college has nothing to do with direct democracy or majority tyranny.

i never suggested such. i only suggest it would lead effectively to both results if all states dumped the winner take all policy.

[Sheepdog]

.

Obama has a huge 13 point lead in the last poll I saw in Michigan. That could turn, but it looks unlikely at this point, especially with the economy currently overshadowing national security.

except that Michiganders know what a Democrat executive can do to an economy. We've been feeling it first hand. I understand that Oh-Bah-Ma has a lead there, but McCain could drive a stake through his heart here if he tried. It's a shame that he isn't.

[Cyrus Johnson]

except that Michiganders know what a Democrat executive can do to an economy. We've been feeling it first hand. I understand that Oh-Bah-Ma has a lead there, but McCain could drive a stake through his heart here if he tried. It's a shame that he isn't.

Apparently McCain does not agree. And based on the polls, it doesn't look as if dismay at the gubernatorial executive transfers to the Presidential executive.

But hey...its 4 more weeks, and who knows what might happen?