Do you think the election will be close in November? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

kate jack · 07-09-2008, 03:18 PM

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.

djtestudo · 07-09-2008, 08:33 PM

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.

Boo · 07-09-2008, 08:49 PM

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.

dirtyrascal7 · 07-10-2008, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

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.

dc_dux · 07-10-2008, 04:10 AM

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.

Poppinjay · 07-10-2008, 04:20 AM

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.

ratbastid · 07-10-2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

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.

seretogis · 07-10-2008, 07:31 AM

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

Poppinjay · 07-10-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

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.

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.

aceventura3 · 07-10-2008, 07:57 AM

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.

hiredgun · 07-10-2008, 08:03 AM

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

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

Quote:

Putting Your Money Where Your Model Is

By Justin Wolfers

There is nothing I like better than an academic wager. I fear that this time I’m over-matched: I’ve bet on politics against Columbia’s professor, Robert Erikson, and Bob is one of the leading political scientists in the U.S. But we had to bet, because his models of politics currently give a very different reading of 2008 than mine.

Let me start with some background data, drawing from my latest W.S.J. column:

A straightforward reading of recent polling data makes the presidential election look like a foregone conclusion … Polls from the past two weeks put Sen. Obama somewhere between 4 and 12 percentage points ahead of Republican John McCain. In the poll-of-polls aggregate on RealClearPolitics.com, Sen. Obama’s lead is a massive 5.7 percentage points — as large as it has ever been.

Senator Obama’s lead is larger than the stated margin of error …. Moreover, Sen. Obama is leading in all of the major battleground states, except Virginia and Florida which remain incredibly close.

How should we interpret polling data four months prior to an election?

Political scientists Robert Erikson (of Columbia) and Christopher Wlezien (of Temple) have recently mined daily polling reports from the last half-century of elections, mapping the relationship between early polling numbers and final election returns. At this point in the race, they find that around half of any lead should be discounted, as early advantages tend to dissipate. (You can read the full paper here, or an ungated version here.)

Profs. Erikson and Wlezien point to another reason to be wary of Sen. Obama’s early polling lead: On average, the voting public tends to be more strongly anti-incumbent three-and-a-half years into an administration than they are on Election Day. Based on patterns in previous cycles, the professors suggest that this exaggerated anti-incumbent feeling is boosting Sen. Obama’s lead by around three percentage points.

So if you first halve Obama’s six point lead, then subtract a three point anti-incumbency bias, you are left with a dead heat.

Bottom line:

A naïve reading of polls suggests an Obama landslide; a sophisticated reading points to a dead heat. Prediction markets are somewhere in the middle, suggesting a two-in-three probability that our next president will be a Democrat.

Yet it is the naïve reading of the polls … that dominates media headlines.

There’s a broader intellectual debate here, too. Erikson and Wlezien note that most comparisons of polls vs. prediction markets are comparisons of the naïve reading of the polls versus the prediction markets. That’s a pretty weak test, and so when they ran comparisons of their adjusted-polls versus markets, the markets no longer looked so good.

In fact, over the past four election cycles, the poll-adjusted forecasts did slightly better than the markets. Bob scores this as a victory for the polls over the markets, while I think that four election cycles are too few to overturn the fact that in nearly every domain I’ve seen, prediction markets yield the most accurate forecasts. (You can read more on our debate here and here.)

Given Bob’s model, he should be willing to accept an even money bet: say a bottle of wine for a bottle of wine. Given the markets, I should be willing to bet my two bottles against his one. And so we compromised: I’ve bet three bottles that Obama will win against his two bottles on McCain.

Bob tells me I’ve got the upper hand in this bet: in ongoing research he is finding that polls are slow to reflect economic conditions. Adding in a third adjustment to account for the effects of a weak economy, he concludes that Obama should be the betting favorite.

loquitur · 07-10-2008, 08:32 AM

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.

dirtyrascal7 · 07-10-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

roachboy · 07-10-2008, 02:27 PM

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.

dc_dux · 07-10-2008, 02:38 PM

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.

loquitur · 07-10-2008, 03:18 PM

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?

dksuddeth · 07-10-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

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

+ 100

aceventura3 · 07-11-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtyrascal7

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.

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.

jewels · 07-12-2008, 01:49 AM

Anyone can win. Anything can happen.

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

guyy · 07-12-2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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.

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.

fresnelly · 07-12-2008, 07:36 AM

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?

ipollux · 07-12-2008, 08:15 PM

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.

ratbastid · 07-13-2008, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ipollux

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.

loquitur · 07-13-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ipollux

How people can support McCain after 8 years of Bush is beyond me.

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.

ratbastid · 07-13-2008, 08:37 AM

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.

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.

"Babe... I got you, babe! I got you, Babe!"

Look out George!

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.

ipollux · 07-13-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

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.

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

xepherys · 07-13-2008, 03:50 PM

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...

ipollux · 07-13-2008, 04:43 PM

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.

host · 07-13-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

.....---
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.

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:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ats/index.html
Thursday July 10, 2008 08:25 EDT
Democrats' strategy: Strength through bowing

(updated below - Update II)

Historians writing about the Bush era were given a great gift yesterday -- an iconic headline that explains so much of what has happened in this country over the last seven years:

Their rationale for doing that is that it prevents the Republicans from depicting them as "weak," because nothing exudes strength like bowing. Here's more evidence of the brilliance of the Democratic strategy to show how "strong" and "tough" they are by bowing to Bush and all of his demands, from this morning's New York Times article by Eric Lichtblau:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss

UPDATE II:

On a separate note, there are some rather moving pictures from this afternoon's signing ceremony at the White House Rose Garden I wanted to share, where various Democrats and Republicans gathered to celebrate the signing of the new FISA law. Here is George Bush shaking Jay Rockefeller's hand while a grinning Dick Cheney, Orrin Hatch, and Joe Lieberman look on.

Here are proud members of Congress from both parties gathered behind the President as he signs the bill into law. Here is a close-up that beautifully captures the Joys of Washington Bipartisanship.

Tully Mars · 07-13-2008, 05:49 PM

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

host · 07-13-2008, 05:52 PM

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

Quote:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/mx.html
Unemployment rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
3.7% plus underemployment of perhaps 25% (2007 est.)
Population below poverty line:
Definition Field Listing
13.8% using food-based definition of poverty; asset based poverty amounted to more than 40% (2006)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
Definition Field Listing
lowest 10%: 1.2%
highest 10%: 37% (2006)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
Definition Field Listing
50.9 (2005)

United States:

Quote:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...s/us.html#Econ
Unemployment rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
4.6% (2007 est.)
Population below poverty line:
Definition Field Listing
12% (2004 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
Definition Field Listing
lowest 10%: 2%
highest 10%: 30% (2007 est.)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
Definition Field Listing
45 (2007)

France:

Quote:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...s/fr.html#Econ
Unemployment rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
8.3% (2007 est.)
Population below poverty line:
Definition Field Listing
6.2% (2004)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
Definition Field Listing
lowest 10%: 3%
highest 10%: 24.8% (2004)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
Definition Field Listing
28 (2005)

ottopilot · 07-14-2008, 06:20 AM

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.

loquitur · 07-14-2008, 06:29 AM

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.

Tully Mars · 07-14-2008, 06:34 AM

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.

shesus · 07-14-2008, 07:30 AM

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.

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.

Poppinjay · 07-14-2008, 07:57 AM

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.

DDDDave · 07-14-2008, 08:32 AM

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.

shesus · 07-14-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

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.

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?

robot_parade · 07-14-2008, 09:23 AM

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.

guyy · 07-14-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDDDave

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.)

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.

07-09-2008, 03:18 PM	#1 (permalink)
kate jack Tilted	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.

07-09-2008, 08:33 PM	#2 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	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. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

07-09-2008, 08:49 PM	#3 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	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. __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.

07-10-2008, 04:10 AM	#5 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-10-2008, 04:20 AM	#6 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	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. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

07-10-2008, 07:31 AM	#8 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Regardless of which of those two wins, we all lose. :P __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

07-10-2008, 07:57 AM	#10 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-10-2008, 08:32 AM	#12 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	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.

07-10-2008, 02:27 PM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-10-2008, 02:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-10-2008 at 02:45 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

07-10-2008, 03:18 PM	#16 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	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?

07-12-2008, 01:49 AM	#19 (permalink)
jewels Eponymous Location: Central Central Florida	Anyone can win. Anything can happen. Didn't the Democrats win the last two Presidential elections? __________________ We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess. Mark Twain

07-12-2008, 07:36 AM	#21 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	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? __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life Last edited by fresnelly; 07-12-2008 at 07:39 AM..

07-12-2008, 08:15 PM	#22 (permalink)
ipollux Crazy	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.

07-13-2008, 08:37 AM	#25 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	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. 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. "Babe... I got you, babe! I got you, Babe!" Look out George! 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. Last edited by ratbastid; 07-13-2008 at 08:50 AM..

07-13-2008, 03:50 PM	#27 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	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... __________________ The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible... -- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato My Homepage

07-13-2008, 04:43 PM	#28 (permalink)
ipollux Crazy	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.

07-13-2008, 05:49 PM	#30 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Seems pretty optimistic for Obama. I think it will be very close and yes i could see McCain winning. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

07-14-2008, 06:20 AM	#32 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	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. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

07-14-2008, 06:29 AM	#33 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	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.

07-14-2008, 06:34 AM	#34 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	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. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

07-14-2008, 07:30 AM	#35 (permalink)
shesus Fancy Location: Chicago	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. 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. __________________ Whatever did happen to your soul? I heard you sold it Choose Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company

07-14-2008, 07:57 AM	#36 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	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. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

07-14-2008, 08:32 AM	#37 (permalink)
DDDDave Addict Location: Sarasota	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. __________________ I am just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe... "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." - Thoreau "Nothing great was ever accomplished without enthusiasm" - Emerson

07-14-2008, 09:23 AM	#39 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	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.