How do McCain or Obama get to 270?

[Findog]

Its not good news. I get what you're saying but its not good news.

States like North Carolina, Georgia and Montana have never been in play for Obama. They only seemed that way because nobody is paying attention to a presidential election several months out. Two things have happened: People are now finally paying attention and Palin is turning some of those pink states red. Whether she adds any appeal beyond that remains to be seen. She is a new political commodity, it will take time to determine what if any effect she has on this election besides helping McCain consolidate his base. He always had more room to grow his vote than Obama did.

As of right now, Obama's best chance to win I think is Kerry's states + Iowa + New Mexico + Colorado.

[MannyIsGod]

States like North Carolina, Georgia and Montana have never been in play for Obama. They only seemed that way because nobody is paying attention to a presidential election several months out. Two things have happened: People are now finally paying attention and Palin is turning some of those pink states red. Whether she adds any appeal beyond that remains to be seen. She is a new political commodity, it will take time to determine what if any effect she has on this election besides helping McCain consolidate his base. He always had more room to grow his vote than Obama did.

As of right now, Obama's best chance to win I think is Kerry's states + Iowa + New Mexico + Colorado.

Thats pretty much how I view the states he has the best shot in, but I think he did have outside chances in many other notable "red" states.

The polls the past 2 days have shown some McCain bounce but they've also shown a much smaller bounce in the battleground states. Right now those polls are really putting the pressure on but it is important to see if the bounce is sustained. Typically convention bounces are just that: A rise and then a fall.

I'll give this to the republicans, they campaign so much better than democrats. Its not even close. For as much as Obama said he wasn't going to let them swiftboat him he sure as didn't fight back.

Sometimes I wish someone would have the Democrats read Machiavelli. I think they could learn a thing or 2.

[01.20.09]

Not looking good at all for Obama.

[MannyIsGod]

Not looking good at all for Obama.

I wouldn't go that far. He's still got a good 250+ EVs in the bag. He's just going to have to win a couple of the hard ones too.

[Findog]

Given the state of the economy and the GOP is so unpopular, I don't see Obama giving back any Kerry states, not even Michigan or Pennsylvania. McCain's best chance to win might be to bleed Obama's resources and money into simply holding onto those states.

But the underlying structure favors Obama. Michigan and Pennsylvania are "weak" Obama states, the only two states McCain has a shot in, and it will be just as much of an uphill climb for him there as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina are for Obama. Iowa and New Mexico are already being called as having been flipped from red to blue. That leaves holding onto to MI and Penn and adding Colorado.

My guess is that on election night, Iowa, NM and Colorado go into Obama's camp, nothing else changes, and Obama wins.

[whottt]

I wouldn't go that far. He's still got a good 250+ EVs in the bag. He's just going to have to win a couple of the hard ones too.

It's a mistake to think this...it's a totally different ball game now.

[whottt]

Personally, I think she is a bit of a nutter, but time will tell.

Why do you think this?


Because of what you've heard?

Because of what you've seen?

Because of what you've read?




I would like to see specific examples and actions...because nearly every lefty is saying this but I have yet to see proof of this.



If it's because she's pro-life then you might as well say every Roman Catholic is nutty too...and then you have to prove she'd overturn ROE V Wade or not veto an anti-abortion bill...and there is nothing in her professional career to back that claim up...and there is evidence to the contrary.


And guess what, she was born Roman Catholic.

Which is probably where her Pro-Life views come from...

[Findog]

It's a mistake to think this...it's a totally different ball game now.

Obama has all of Kerry's states "in the bag" except for Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. He will likely retain those, as well as pick up Iowa and New Mexico. Whether he can pick up 6 EVs out of NEV, COL, FLA, OH or VA remains to be seen.

[cool hand]

eat a lot of twinkies.

[TheMadHatter]

I can't see Obama losing Michigan or Pennsylvania. The black vote in both those states should be enough to push him over the top. Also, CO hates McCain for the water fiasco and NM should also go to Obama as well. That right there should lockup the race for Obama.

What Palin did is make the red states even redder. The states where Obama really never had a chance to begin with.

[possessed]

Idiot Republicans are fun to watch. You do realize that Obama wins electorally at this point in the race right? McCain has significant ground to cover.

This is assuming Obama doesn't retake the momentum his way, which we all know will inevitably happen. How long have you all followed politics?

Have you been following it for at least the last four years. If so, jog your memory and ask yourself what the electoral map looked like 4 years ago today.




Kerry 2004! yeah!

[florige]

This is the map from the 3rd. Not sure how much it's changed since then.....


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...map/index.html

[Mr. Body]

Obama has all of Kerry's states "in the bag" except for Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. He will likely retain those, as well as pick up Iowa and New Mexico. Whether he can pick up 6 EVs out of NEV, COL, FLA, OH or VA remains to be seen.

It'd be stunning if he couldn't pick off one of those.

Michigan will be tested. Penns. probably isn't a concern.

NH is toying with Palin but they're not social conservatives there.

Ohio will be one to watch. It was so intensely close in 2004 with some voter irregularities.

I think Colorado puts Obama over the top.

[TheMadHatter]

CO and NM will seal the deal for Obama. This is still his race to lose.

[florige]

CO and NM will seal the deal for Obama. This is still his race to lose.

Thats what I think too. I don't care how much they want to play up the virtual tie/lead they think they have now. Let them gloat. This is the best news the Repub's have had in months.... Too bad (barring a total Obama meltdown) it's gonna be short lived.....

[Mr. Body]

Thats what I think too. I don't care how much they want to play up the virtual tie/lead they think they have now. Let them gloat. This is the best news the Repub's have had in months.... Too bad (barring a total Obama meltdown) it's gonna be short lived.....

I wonder. First, Obama is not going to meltdown. He's shown to be unflappable and utterly disciplined. The McCains are trying ever so hard to get him off his game, to distract and jump around to change the terms of the game, but Obama's not budging.

Second, McCains are burning a ton of energy with negative attacks and wailing about sexism and lipstick. There's a ton of urgency bordering on desperation. They can't keep this up. Rather, they can keep it up, but people will start tuning them out. Palin's still the new shiny toy, but people get tired of shiny new toys that don't do anything. Plus, there are 3 debates coming up to remind everybody that it's actually boring old John McCain who is running for president, not her. Her backers may decide to sit back and wait to run her in '12.

[florige]

I wonder. First, Obama is not going to meltdown. He's shown to be unflappable and utterly disciplined. The McCains are trying ever so hard to get him off his game, to distract and jump around to change the terms of the game, but Obama's not budging.

Second, McCains are burning a ton of energy with negative attacks and wailing about sexism and lipstick. There's a ton of urgency bordering on desperation. They can't keep this up. Rather, they can keep it up, but people will start tuning them out. Palin's still the new shiny toy, but people get tired of shiny new toys that don't do anything. Plus, there are 3 debates coming up to remind everybody that it's actually boring old John McCain who is running for president, not her. Her backers may decide to sit back and wait to run her in '12.

I agree. I shouldn't have said meltdown, scandal was probably a better word to use. While I wasn't expecting this much fuss over his VP pick, I was very much expecting McCain to pull even/ahead after their convention. I'm not sure why they are saying that it's the end of Obama when this was expected anyway..... 1 point, yeah stick a fork in Obama he's toast.....

[Findog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080910...svotepollemory

NEW YORK (AFP) - A pollster whose mathematical model has correctly predicted every winner of the White House popular vote since 1988 is banking on a decisive victory for Democrat Barack Obama in November.
ADVERTISEMENT

Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz said Wednesday that according to his "time for change" model, Obama would secure 54.3 percent of the popular vote against 45.7 percent for Republican John McCain.

That margin would virtually guarantee a crushing victory for the Democrat in the state-by-state electoral college that actually selects the next president, Abramowitz said.

He said unknown variables, such as the nation's bitter partisan divide and resistance to Obama's African-American race among some white voters, may result in a slightly smaller popular vote margin for the Democratic nominee.

But, "the combination of an unpopular Republican in bent in the White House, a weak economy and a second-term election make a Democratic victory in November all but certain," he writes in the October issue of the journal "PS: Political Science and Politics."

"The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, is a time-for-change election -- one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms," Abramowitz said.

His model evaluated Republican President George W. Bush's dismal approval ratings, the change in economic output in the second quarter of the election year, and above all an anti-in bency mood against the White House party.

"Regardless of the popularity of the president or the state of the economy, it is simply much more difficult for the president's party to retain its hold on the White House," the pollster said.

Abramowitz said his model had correctly forecast the popular vote winner within two percentage points or less in every presidential election since 1988.

That includes the 2000 election, when Democrat Al Gore carried the popular vote. But Bush came ahead in the electoral college after his Supreme Court-mandated win in Florida.

And the model faces a complication this year with the wild-card presence of two third-party candidates, independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, on the ballot for the November 4 election.

[Findog]

It'd be stunning if he couldn't pick off one of those.

Michigan will be tested. Penns. probably isn't a concern.

NH is toying with Palin but they're not social conservatives there.

Ohio will be one to watch. It was so intensely close in 2004 with some voter irregularities.

I think Colorado puts Obama over the top.

Obama is really putting boots on the ground in Colorado. I got this in my gmail inbox this morning:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/tx2co

I think I'm gonna do it, I have some vacation time earned up I can use in October.

[Findog]

I made this comment on another forum, so I'll just CTRL V it here:

My opinion is that Obama still looks likely to win the election, for the following reasons.


1. Obama still isn't behind in polls in a single state that Kerry won in 2004. That means that all he needs to win the election is either Ohio or Florida or a combination of two or three Rocky Mountain states.


A. He's liable to win Ohio because the Democrats are in charge of the election process this time instead of Republicans. That means there won't be eight hour lines in black neighborhoods in Cleveland, won't be 250,000 ballots of (mostly) Democrats that won't get counted, and won't be any Republican hackers manipulated electronic voting machines. He's also liable to win Ohio because the economy there has hit the skids hard. He's also liable to win Ohio for the same reasons that Democrats have taken over the state, namely that Republicans have become the party of Ohio corruption.


B. He's also liable to win several Rocky Mountain states, because John McCain isn't going to win anywhere near 40% of the Hispanic vote, like Bush the Younger did. Indeed, he'll be lucky to win 30%. That will cost him Colorado and Nevada, not just New Mexico. That will be enough for an Obama win even if he loses Ohio. Karl Rove himself has made the observation that McCain can't win the election without 40% of the Hispanic vote.


C. The same thing that could kill McCain in the Rocky Mountain West could kill him in Florida. While I grant that McCain will do better among Cubans than among the rest of the Hispanic community in the United States, the at ude of Republicans about immigration of Spanish-speaking people may harm him in Florida as well. Considering how close Florida has been in the last two elections, and how much of the Hispanic vote has to go to McCain to keep him compe ive, his problem in Florida is more serious than you seem to acknowledge.


2. National poll numbers are deceptive. With the choice of Palin, McCain has assured that the Bush base will vote for him. Thus, his numbers in states like Nebraska or Idaho, Georgia or Mississippi, have gone up substantially. If McCain's rise in the national polls is based on an improvement of his standing in such states, then it is entirely meaningless, since McCain would have had to win those states to be compe ive in any event. Whether he wins them by 55% to 45% or by 70% to 30% doesn't make any difference. In 2000, Bush the Younger won even though he lost the popular vote, and in 2004, Kerry would have won the presidency with 200,000 more votes in Ohio even as he lost the national popular vote by 3%. The size of a Republican victory in Texas, like the size of a Democratic victory in California, may affect national poll numbers but don't affect who wins the overall election.


3. John McCain is scheduled for three debates with Barack Obama before the election, only one of which will be conducted in a format that McCain is any good with. The debates killed Richard Nixon in 1960, killed Jimmy Carter in 1980, and will in all likelihood kill John McCain this year. If he could get through the debates just reminding people that he had been tortured, it would be one thing, but he can't.


4. Obama will still have tens of millions more to spend before the election than McCain will have, in all likelihood. If he spends a reasonable portion of it in Ohio and Florida and on Spanish television stations, McCain is screwed.


5, Obama hasn't been particularly concerned about the recent rise of McCain in national polls, and I think I know why. He has been running a professional campaign from the beginning, even as McCain has been running a half-assed campaign from the beginning. Just as Obama's Democratic victory was based on understanding what he had to do in caucus states while Hillary Clinton was out trying to win big-state primaries, Obama's victory in the general election will be based on understanding what he has to do to win the Kerry states plus either Ohio or states with large Hispanic populations (Florida or Rocky Mountains states). Obama is still in an extremely good position. If I had to bet who will win based on polls conducted in the last week, showing McCain ahead for the very first time, I would still be betting on Obama.


The Republicans have failed. They have failed in foreign affairs, they have failed in economic management, they have failed in routine maintenance of things like bridges and levees, they have failed in holding the American people together, and they have failed in addressing our dependence on foreign energy. No doubt they can count on rural and puritan religious voters to stand with them no matter how badly they fail, and no doubt that means they can always get 40% to 45% of the vote. But that doesn't guarantee them this election by any means.


All Obama has to do is hold onto Kerry's states and add Iowa/New Mexico/Colorado to his column. His operation in Iowa has been so impressive that Iowa is now considered a safe Obama state. New Mexico he has consistently led in the polls outside of the margin of error, and he and McCain are in a dead heat in Colorado. By contrast, Pennsylvania and Michigan are not likely to slip into McCain's column, nor have there been any polls showing him in the lead there.

[Supergirl]

Thought people would have fun with this site: http://www.270towin.com/

It allows you to visually see which states put Obama over the edge, and which states McSame would have to win to defeat him.

My most recent map has Obama winning 288-250, with him winning MI, PA, NH, CO, NM, MN, NC but losing FL, Virginia, Missouri, and Ohio

[Findog]

As much of a hassle as Palin has been to Obama so far, she is potentially just as big a hassle to McCain.

1. She threatens to completely overwhelm him. He can't get a crowd assembled without her on the scene. What will he do when he is expected to show up on a stage to debate Obama? He can't very well expect to get by referring to Palin while he is debating Obama, and he is unlikely to look good compared to Obama.

2. The investigation of her role in Troopergate is expected to culminate in a report in October, prior to the election. If the report suggests that she has abused her power, does that mean that she gets away with portraying herself as a victim, especially considering the Alaska Legislature is run by Republicans?

3. Once it becomes clear that she is a sop to the right, she may lose some of her allure, as she has already done with women (a majority of whom don't support her at this point).

4. Obama has a potential strategy open to him to deal with her: he can ignore her and let Biden and the Clintons deal with her. What strategy has McCain got besides trying to hide behind her skirt?

I'm not worried about Palin. She has a lot of negatives, not the least of which is that she kills the GOP's "experience" argument. Plus she has praised Obama's stance on energy matters prior to receiving the Republican nod, a sound bite that will almost certainly come back to bite her and McCain.

The McCain campaign is overly dependent on Palin, and Palin is even shorter on beef than McCain himself is. Let's see how things look a few weeks from now when the novelty has worn off.

[jman3000]

I made this comment on another forum, so I'll just CTRL V it here:

My opinion is that Obama still looks likely to win the election, for the following reasons.


1. Obama still isn't behind in polls in a single state that Kerry won in 2004. That means that all he needs to win the election is either Ohio or Florida or a combination of two or three Rocky Mountain states.


A. He's liable to win Ohio because the Democrats are in charge of the election process this time instead of Republicans. That means there won't be eight hour lines in black neighborhoods in Cleveland, won't be 250,000 ballots of (mostly) Democrats that won't get counted, and won't be any Republican hackers manipulated electronic voting machines. He's also liable to win Ohio because the economy there has hit the skids hard. He's also liable to win Ohio for the same reasons that Democrats have taken over the state, namely that Republicans have become the party of Ohio corruption.


B. He's also liable to win several Rocky Mountain states, because John McCain isn't going to win anywhere near 40% of the Hispanic vote, like Bush the Younger did. Indeed, he'll be lucky to win 30%. That will cost him Colorado and Nevada, not just New Mexico. That will be enough for an Obama win even if he loses Ohio. Karl Rove himself has made the observation that McCain can't win the election without 40% of the Hispanic vote.


C. The same thing that could kill McCain in the Rocky Mountain West could kill him in Florida. While I grant that McCain will do better among Cubans than among the rest of the Hispanic community in the United States, the at ude of Republicans about immigration of Spanish-speaking people may harm him in Florida as well. Considering how close Florida has been in the last two elections, and how much of the Hispanic vote has to go to McCain to keep him compe ive, his problem in Florida is more serious than you seem to acknowledge.


2. National poll numbers are deceptive. With the choice of Palin, McCain has assured that the Bush base will vote for him. Thus, his numbers in states like Nebraska or Idaho, Georgia or Mississippi, have gone up substantially. If McCain's rise in the national polls is based on an improvement of his standing in such states, then it is entirely meaningless, since McCain would have had to win those states to be compe ive in any event. Whether he wins them by 55% to 45% or by 70% to 30% doesn't make any difference. In 2000, Bush the Younger won even though he lost the popular vote, and in 2004, Kerry would have won the presidency with 200,000 more votes in Ohio even as he lost the national popular vote by 3%. The size of a Republican victory in Texas, like the size of a Democratic victory in California, may affect national poll numbers but don't affect who wins the overall election.


3. John McCain is scheduled for three debates with Barack Obama before the election, only one of which will be conducted in a format that McCain is any good with. The debates killed Richard Nixon in 1960, killed Jimmy Carter in 1980, and will in all likelihood kill John McCain this year. If he could get through the debates just reminding people that he had been tortured, it would be one thing, but he can't.


4. Obama will still have tens of millions more to spend before the election than McCain will have, in all likelihood. If he spends a reasonable portion of it in Ohio and Florida and on Spanish television stations, McCain is screwed.


5, Obama hasn't been particularly concerned about the recent rise of McCain in national polls, and I think I know why. He has been running a professional campaign from the beginning, even as McCain has been running a half-assed campaign from the beginning. Just as Obama's Democratic victory was based on understanding what he had to do in caucus states while Hillary Clinton was out trying to win big-state primaries, Obama's victory in the general election will be based on understanding what he has to do to win the Kerry states plus either Ohio or states with large Hispanic populations (Florida or Rocky Mountains states). Obama is still in an extremely good position. If I had to bet who will win based on polls conducted in the last week, showing McCain ahead for the very first time, I would still be betting on Obama.


The Republicans have failed. They have failed in foreign affairs, they have failed in economic management, they have failed in routine maintenance of things like bridges and levees, they have failed in holding the American people together, and they have failed in addressing our dependence on foreign energy. No doubt they can count on rural and puritan religious voters to stand with them no matter how badly they fail, and no doubt that means they can always get 40% to 45% of the vote. But that doesn't guarantee them this election by any means.


All Obama has to do is hold onto Kerry's states and add Iowa/New Mexico/Colorado to his column. His operation in Iowa has been so impressive that Iowa is now considered a safe Obama state. New Mexico he has consistently led in the polls outside of the margin of error, and he and McCain are in a dead heat in Colorado. By contrast, Pennsylvania and Michigan are not likely to slip into McCain's column, nor have there been any polls showing him in the lead there.

you made that comment here yesterday... not another forum.

[Findog]

you made that comment here yesterday... not another forum.

also made it here on another post, like you said. I think it's relevant. I don't want to have to type out the same comment since most of political arguing is just reiterating the same points and rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Probably should keep my thoughts shorter.

[whottt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080910...svotepollemory

NEW YORK (AFP) - A pollster whose mathematical model has correctly predicted every winner of the White House popular vote since 1988 is banking on a decisive victory for Democrat Barack Obama in November.
ADVERTISEMENT

Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz said Wednesday that according to his "time for change" model, Obama would secure 54.3 percent of the popular vote against 45.7 percent for Republican John McCain.

That margin would virtually guarantee a crushing victory for the Democrat in the state-by-state electoral college that actually selects the next president, Abramowitz said.

He said unknown variables, such as the nation's bitter partisan divide and resistance to Obama's African-American race among some white voters, may result in a slightly smaller popular vote margin for the Democratic nominee.

But, "the combination of an unpopular Republican in bent in the White House, a weak economy and a second-term election make a Democratic victory in November all but certain," he writes in the October issue of the journal "PS: Political Science and Politics."

"The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, is a time-for-change election -- one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms," Abramowitz said.

His model evaluated Republican President George W. Bush's dismal approval ratings, the change in economic output in the second quarter of the election year, and above all an anti-in bency mood against the White House party.

"Regardless of the popularity of the president or the state of the economy, it is simply much more difficult for the president's party to retain its hold on the White House," the pollster said.

Abramowitz said his model had correctly forecast the popular vote winner within two percentage points or less in every presidential election since 1988.

That includes the 2000 election, when Democrat Al Gore carried the popular vote. But Bush came ahead in the electoral college after his Supreme Court-mandated win in Florida.

And the model faces a complication this year with the wild-card presence of two third-party candidates, independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, on the ballot for the November 4 election.

I've called the winner of every election since 1980...Abramowitz and his formula are going to get owned in this election.

1. This election is unlike any other, ever, and especially since 1988.

2. He's still stuck in July.

3. Palin has Clinton or Reagan level charisma.



Right now more Americans have a favorable view of Palin than the other 3 candidates...


Someone go ask Al how many times the politician with the best favorability rating has lost the election...

It hasn't happened.


Edit: By election I mean popular vote.