Do you think the election will be close in November?
 

I think it will be closer in the popular vote than in the electoral college vote. Obama will win this by a comfortable majority in the electoral college vote, because a lot of people who would otherwise stay home will be inspired to register and vote.

I think there's going to be a lot of disappointed people on both sides, as each candidate does much better then the other side believes they will.

It's going to be close in both votes.

McCain will win because the evangicals and others will see him as the one to further their values. They will understand that he is the most qualified and that he is not a Bush clone. People may want change, but not too fast or in the wrong direction.

Obama will lose because people will realize that while he is a very good speaker, he has no substance. He has too many skeletons in his closet.

I disagree because A)There are more registered Democrats than Republicans, B)Obama is seen as more moderate than McCain (at least at this point) among independents, C)McCain has just as many skeletons in his closet, and D)He can't even think for himself anymore, and when he tries to it's embarrassing.

I think if McCain wins (less than 50-50 chance), it will be by a narrow Electoral College vote...somewhere between two and eight electoral votes...and like Bush in 2000, he could very well lose the popular vote at the same time.

On the other hand, by nearly every measure and poll, there are far more red states in play this year than blue states...and Obama could win by as few as two electoral votes or he could win more than 300 electoral votes and win by more than 30-40.

But who in the hell knows at this point...we have four months until the election.

It's amazing how moral conservatives will overlook the failed marriages (McCain, Reagan), the questionable conduct with a female lobbyist, the outspoken dislike of evengelicals (until just recently).

Hopefully, evangelicals are not as large a bloc as they've been in the past.

There are definitely fewer conservative Republican evangelicals this time around. There are big Christian blocs who are tipping over to support Obama--and not as a "lesser of two evils", either. They actually see him as more consistent with Christian values than McCain is.

Regardless of which of those two wins, we all lose. :P

Evangelicals are conservative almost by definition. They're required to push their belief system and win converts. If a Christian is open to a candidate because they seem to share values, that's more ecumenical.

Obama will win by about 10 to 15 percentage points. Given, Obama's current lead, he will only speak in broad generalities. He will avoid going into details to avoid offending anyone, while offering something for everyone. His words will be chosen in a manner to give him options to take whatever action he needs to take without appearing to be in conflict with anything he has said. He will avoid debates as much as possible, and he will only do soft interviews in controlled settings with those predisposed to his candidacy. McCain has nothing to offer personality wise, leadership wise to get anyone excited about his candidacy. I am not knocking Obama, I think any wise politician would employ the strategy he is going to use in the upcoming months.

Justin Wolfers did a piece on this in the Freakonomics blog today, if anyone is interested.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...your-model-is/

I think if the Dems had nominated anyone but Obama they'd win in a walk. With Obama it's tighter because he's young and green, and (sad to say) because he's black. I still think he'll win, though. He's extraordinarily charismatic and very very shrewd.

I really hope that you're wrong about Obama's strategy, because if he does run his election that way, he definitely won't win by double-digits.

Obama has an advantage right now because the Democrats are enthusiastic about their candidate, while very few Republicans are thrilled with McCain. If Obama employs the "stay neutral to everything" strategy to avoid alienating any one group, his support will start to lose much of its energy and luster.

The strategy you described is called "playing not to lose", where basically you have a lead (however small) so you play defense, punt, and hope to run out the clock. Meanwhile, the other side gets more and more desperate and takes bigger risks. This is how upsets occur.

i don't see how anyone has any idea about this.

there was a second term for george w fucking bush.
pt barnum was right about americans in general.
the effect is that anything can happen.
besides, it's july. too early. too early.

yep....too too early.

But its still fun to play with the electoral map....I can see how Obama can win w/o either OH or FL...by winning three out of four states that barely went for Bush in '04 - CO, IA, MO, NM - and holding all the Dem states in 04.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...00001000000210

And if he can pick up OH (FL is less likely)....that puts him over 300....a significant win, if not a landslide.

But if he cant hold PA or MI...it might be alot closer.

In any case, its a game both campaigns are playing to determine how and where to allocate personal appearances and resources.

I gotta tell you........ I remember reading some European commentary during November and December 2000, and they were pretty much scratching their heads about how the system worked. To begin with, the electoral college system is pretty damn complicated. Plus, to your average European, the idea that the local yokel supervisor in Palm Beach county gets to decide a presidential election is batty beyond belief. Even having the Florida Supreme Court do it struck them as crazy.

Now to a large degree that's a reflection merely of their own provincial views and lack of understanding of American federalism. But step back a second and think: people like me are effectively ignored in the election because we live in a state where there is not a shadow of a doubt which way it will go (I live in NY, and Obama will win in a landslide here). So I have the luxury of voting for a third party candidate (as I did in 2000) because I know my vote makes no difference.

So when people ask whether it will be close....... well, close by what measure? The only one that matters is the electoral vote. The campaign is distorted because of the electoral college. I happen to think that's not necessarily a bad thing, but talking about a close campaign has a bit of an unreal air to it. We don't have one election for president - we have 51 elections for president, and they get aggregated. So which of the 51 will be close?

+ 100

Perhaps you are correct. The strategy he was using towards the end of the primary season was not working, he seemed have lost momentum. To me, it seems he is already taking more centrist positions on issues or in some cases he is pointing out the "fine print" in his original positions. For example, he said he was against the war, for ending the war, brining our troops home by a date certain, but he is going to listen to the generals on the ground and asses the situation. That language gives him the flexibility to do whatever he wants, while making everyone think he will do what they want. The risk of trying to offend no one is, the increased probability that you will please no one. I am not pleased with that position and I would imagine the anti-war people are not pleased either. Perhaps the only group o.k. with it are those who are for the war and against it at the same time.

But regardless, McCain is the worst possible nominee for the Republicans in my opinion. If I were to use one word that best describes McCain it would be - clueless. And, it seems that in just the past few months he has gotten much worse. I think he should be tested, and if elected , he should agree to be tested weekly and agree to step down if his mental capacity goes below a certain point. Republicans should start a movement to select someone else as the party nominee at the convention.

Anyone can win. Anything can happen.

Didn't the Democrats win the last two Presidential elections? ;)

It took a campaigner as poor as Kerry to blow Iowa in 2004. What a loser that guy was. Iowa is part of Obama's geographical base, and so is Missouri. I think Obama should do better than Kerry. Then again, that's not saying much.

As for Michigan, have you been there lately? It's even more depressed than ever. Outside of the Dutch Reform Coast/Rich Chicago People Resort Country, McCain will find it mighty tough sledding. He's going to have trouble motivating voters to come out and vote for staying the Bush course. On the other hand, i think people will be even more motivated to vote Dem. in Wayne Co., Flint, St-Joe/Benton Harbor... I can't see McCain doing any better than Bush did in '04.

The mainstream media certainly depends on a close race with an uncertain outcome for content, so that will be their angle right up until the end.

Even the final results are subject to perception. To me,a 5-10% win is close. Heck, even a 15% win tells me that the country is still neatly divided. Besides, you can always spin the voter turnout numbers and talk about the "silent majority". I wish voting turnout was 100% so we could have a truer picture.

Is it true that as the election approaches, party loyalty and voting history gains precedence over the actual candidates appeal?

How people can support McCain after 8 years of Bush is beyond me. Never underestimate the power of the evangelical vote. Religion is a sickness in America.

Evangelicals are sorely divided this year--for the first time since the question started being asked, less than 50% of evangelicals identify as Republican. Younger evangelicals, while MORE committed than the older generation to a pro-life agenda, are also taking more traditionally liberal (though, I would say, more Christian) views on social justice and world poverty. My expectation is that the evangelical vote will at least be very diluted, compared to the last few decades.

Um... because McCain isn't Bush?

Not that I care for either McCain or Obama, but I have to tell you, that sort of binary partisan thinking isn't good for the republic.

McCain has vocally supported some of Bush's most controversial positions. It's not just that he's a Republican, it's that he actually wants to keep doing the boneheaded things Bush has been doing.

http://chaosdigest.com/files/images/...ain-hug-72.jpg
Look how happy he is here! It's cute!


EDIT:

Hm... I posted that picture above, and then started to notice how many "John McCain Nuzzling George Bush" photos are in Google Images.

http://yesterdayssalad.files.wordpre..._bush_hug1.jpg

http://www.dialoginternational.com/d...sh_hug_300.jpg
"Babe... I got you, babe! I got you, Babe!"

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...d%2Bmccain.jpg
Look out George!

http://i.xanga.com/lionne/lennon.jpg
I'm sorry, I think this one is somebody else...


---
I'm being silly here, but there is a point. My point is, it's going to be HARD for McCain to distance himself from Bush, and his policies are only going to make it harder. The perception that he's Bush III is really not that far off base. He USED to be a maverick, but he slid right to capture an evaporating base, and it's going to hurt him in the end.

What do you consider to be some of the biggest differences between Bush and McCain?

I see the map landing as something like this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...00001000011010

But regardless, I think this is another "less of two evils" kind of year...

I would give him Mississippi and Georgia before Arkansas and Louisiana because of demographics and how the primaries shaped up. Make that change, and then give Iowa to McCain and Nevada to Obama, and you got how I think it will turn out. Obama still wins by quite a bit.

Tell me again....who are the ones siding with the people, and who are the ones offering up continuation of Bush policies...I'm having trouble telling them apart:

Seems pretty optimistic for Obama. I think it will be very close and yes i could see McCain winning.

Tully.,..is there anything that can happen that would make you suspect that there isn't enough difference between the stances of the democratic candidate for president, vs. the republican, to make any significant difference in what happens? Will the US spend less on military and intelligence operations, will one candidate declare that an enemy of Israel, may not, in all instances, be an enemy of the US, as well. Will there be any more equitable movement in the direction of the GINI coefficient in the US under the leadership of one of these two candidates? Will there be 193o's style anti-trust investigations under either administration, how about investigations like TNEC or like Sen. Gerald Nye's investigations of industrialist and of the elite in the US?


I've got extra pitchforks and molotov cocktails.....no rush....let me know when you are ready to pick them up and march into the street.....

Mexico
United States:
France:

You all have probably heard this by now, but according to the recent Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and Newsweek Polls, Obama and McCain are in a virtual dead heat.

Plenty of time for either candidate to make mistakes that will widen the margin. The Obama campaign has run so smoothly and raised record political funding, so is it all coming down to pacing rather than position? Has either candidate really hit their stride or possibly peaked prematurely? I seems that Democratics may be suffering a bit of a lag from the extended primary season. What issues should either candidate focus on to pull ahead? ...possibly for another thread.

I believe at this stage and later in the 1980 race the two candidates were tied, but it ended up as a blowout. Polls now mean nothing.

At this point polls are only are good for the people getting paid to do polls.

And yes it is early, it could easily swing either way.

Honestly with the GOP's brand name right now there's no reason Obama shouldn't be 15 points ahead.

It is too early to tell. Also, the polls are quite skewed depending on where you see them. Fox News has about a 2 point lead for Obama while MSNBC has about a 6 point lead.

There are many people discussing how the lead should be more, but again it's early. I think Obama has a lot against him that the conservative media is making into issues, even if they're non-issues (Muslim link, American flag pin, fist bumps, etc.). This is making republicans who don't like McCain stick with him anyway because they're scared of having Obama in office...I mean he is black, ya know. :expressionless:

I'm an Obama supporter. The thought of McCain winning makes me sad. This country needs a change and McCain is just going to bring more of the same. With Obama, we'll have some civil rights and hopefully get back on track with the constitutional rights. I'm not sure how people can't see that McCain is very similar to Bush. The only plus side of having McCain win is that the Bushism people would have job security for McCainisms.

My answer: The election will be close. I'm getting excited to watch it unfold after the conventions.

If somebody is the type to get worked up over a flag pin, a fist bump, or the muslim unfact really going to be the type to vote for Obama? I think they'd more likley go right past McCain and on to Bob Barr to place their vote.

To answer the original question - Yes.

IMHO, it is still way too early to make any kind of call. I predict the election will turn on a UFO. What?? Martians deciding the election? No. The UFO term coined by Tom Brokaw. The UnForseen Occurence. Something that, for now obviously, is unforeseen. Maybe a change in the states quo in Iraq. (A big surge by Al-Qaida would lend credence to McCain.) Maybe a health issue by either candidate. (Obama has been a smoker his entire life.) More likely a verbal gaffe at an inappropriate time. (Who can forget Howard Dean's meltdown.)

You can be sure that if either party has any serious dirt on the other you won't hear about it until the end. This is the ultimate high stakes poker game and everybody knows you play your cards close and don't play your hole card until the end.

I've voted in every election since 1976 and this should be the most interesting yet.

Not all of them, but there are people who just go in the voting booth and might as well just close their eyes and vote. They don't put effort into knowing anything past what is on the news snippets they catch or the headlines they see passing the newspaper stand.

If the media poses things using fear as their motivation (which they do), those are the voters that will be effected. I don't know if it's enough to make a difference, but it's a factor.

Another example was brought up in the previous post about Obama smoking. He quit smoking and besides that, it isn't an issue. It's the media's comeback to counteract the attack on McCain's age.

Hell, Hillary had some drinks when she was campaigning. If she were running, would they be claiming she could have liver failure because she drank?

These are all non-issues to distract from the main issue which ia: How do these candidates stand on the issues and policies?

I heard a story on NPR the other day about a 'Latinas for McCain' group. I was absolutely shocked about how much wrong information these women had about McCain. Even the NPR interviewer felt compelled to point out some of the blatant falsehoods they held (rather than stick with the standard 'take no sides' form of journalism). The Most blatant one I can recall is the woman who wouldn't support Obama because "First he was Muslim, then he was Christian, and now he's left his church."

*sigh*

I'd ask where the hell they hear this stuff, but it's pretty obvious. Thanks, Mainstream Media Man. You've done your work well.

You may be right about the effect of an Al-Qaida surge in Iraq on the election, but remember that it was the invasion of Iraq that created an Al-Qaida problem in Iraq. Despite the horseshit spewed by Cheney and distributed by major media outlets, there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. It would be quite perverse if an "Al Qaida surge" would somehow benefit Mr. 100 Years in Iraq.