Obama will lose...

[TheMason]

...the popular vote by .5% to 2% BUT will win the Electoral College.

Real Clear Politics
This one of two sites I regularly watch. I like it because the polls are, well, all over the place. RCP takes these polls and averages them out. Today (9/15/08) it has McCain leading Obama 1.6 points (46.3% to 44.7%) in the national polls. However, it also shows that when applied to an electoral map Obama receives 273 electoral votes...or three more than is necessary to win the presidency.

Electoral-vote.com
Where I detect a right bias with RCP, EV.com is obviously left-leaning. However, it is my favorite electoral map site to visit. It uses a slightly different system to tabulate and it has been showing an Obama victory as well, it and RCP are usually pretty close in its numbers. However, (despite it often being in concert with RCP) today it is showing McCain with 270 electoral votes...a presidential victory.

Mason's take
I have read it on RCP and today EV.com was talking about it: Obama will have to raise money in the final stretch whereas McCain will not. Why? Obama did not opt for federal matching funds so he does not get an $84 Million check from the American people...whereas McCain does. Now the astute NG reader is probably thinking: "Well Mason he raised $66 Million in August alone, which trumps the $42 Million a month McCain will get in September and October...so it is not that big of an obstacle."

This thought is short-sighted on two levels:
1) McCain does not have to stop campaigning where Obama does. Advantage McCain.
2) Obama can count on less from the Democratic party than McCain can count on from the Republican party. This neutralizes any advantage he has in terms of fund-raising. Advantage neither.

What this means for the race? McCain can spend as much as Obama...but spend more time campaigning.

Then, regardless of partisan cries of protest, Palin is the Republican's rock star and has energized the campaign. The Republicans are uniting around her...and Republican unity is always a bad thing for the Democrats.

On the Democratic side, I am not convinced that Obama has been able to unify the Democratic party. See my friends, the Democratic party has been badly divided since at least the sixties when it became a mish-mash of various movements. Obama and Hillary represent the two coalitions within the Democratic party: the elite sophisticates (Obama) and the blue-collar proletariate (Hillary). They both tore the party in two.

So I've been watching the polls and the electoral maps. It is going to be a nail-biter election, and one where every vote in key states will matter (sorry California and Texas...but a vote in Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Florida and one or two other states are more important than yours). My gut is seriously grumbling about McCain winning the popular vote and Obama winning the electoral vote.

One positive about that outcome: people will finally stop bitching about 2000. (Yeah, right.)

[Shaggytheclown17]

Obama will win, Mcbush will lose, period, bitch.

[TheMason]

I meant to post links in the above topic. Sorry!

RCP
EV.com

[TheMason]

At 9/16/08 12:17 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Obama will win, Mcbush will lose, period, bitch.

You know Shaggy...you are to be commended for being such as speed reader!

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 9/16/08 12:17 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Obama will win, Mcbush will lose, period, bitch.

In addition I'll say this, Obama and Biden are more qualified than mccain n the.... poor woman that just happened to be dragged in as a scape goat in attempt to patronize Hillary's supporters.

If anything Mccain should drop out of the race, it'll only be more painful to the evil Bush death group if he loses in a fair election.

Mccain doesn't want to end the war hm? What happends if we go to war with Iran, we're fucked, the war will end for the good of the people and the downfall of corporations banking off it.

The people will speak, they will not be fooled again, and if they are you obviously know the people are more than capable of correcting mistakes....(sarcasm) --> Bush not being impeached= too many dickhead republican supporters.

[BrianEtrius]

Okay, there are some parts I don't necessary agree with, but for the some parts you are right.

For a fact there is still a rift in the Democratic party. It's been completely obvious since Obama won. McCain's pick of Palin and Obama's pick of Biden shows this. Both VP picks are going after women (Palin) or blue-collar (Biden). (Side note, if I find it, there was a poll taken before VP Picks. It said that if Obama had Hilary then he would go up 10%)

Also it is most likely that Obama will win the electoral collage. This also is a no brainer. And, as usual, the key states are the mid-west. No surprise here.

Now for the budget. Yes Obama didn't take the government money. Why? Because he raised it. HE RAISED IT, THE MAJORITY FROM INDIVIDUALS. Now don't tell me that he will lose the popular vote it he got
$374,333,800 from individuals. That fact that McCain couldn't raise and had to take the government funds shows that he can't organize a group of people to contribute to a cause. This shows weakness in his character, if he can't do this how the hell is the U. N. going to see us? Very badly.

I'm still waiting for Colin Powell to come out for somebody though.....

[Dante-Son-Of-Sparda]

uhh shaggy you should have stayed in school you might actually have learned something.

[SynicalSatire]

I just have the crap scared out of me that, if Osoma (not a typo)wins the election, I'll have my rights as an american snatched out from under my feet and we'll wind up as a communist country.

Seriously, Don't you want to earn a living? a robin hood isn't necesary, only a serious want for a better life will earn anyone in the united states a good life.

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/16/08 12:37 AM, SynicalSatire wrote: I just have the crap scared out of me that, if Osoma (not a typo)wins the election, I'll have my rights as an american snatched out from under my feet and we'll wind up as a communist country.

Seriously, Don't you want to earn a living? a robin hood isn't necesary, only a serious want for a better life will earn anyone in the united states a good life.

Three things. One, why do the name thing? That's so immature and not relevant to the conversation. Two, where are you getting the ideas that your rights are going to be taken away and the U. S. will become a communistic country? Three, would you like to continue trying to make a living despite the huge amount of taxes you are paying?

[Grubby]

Go Obama, steadfast.

[gumOnShoe]

Actually, there's the possibility that we tie it out this year. I didn't think it was possible, but apparently it is. I noticed it when I was flipping states based on the latest pole numbers and then looked it up. Its possible that the race could be decided by the House of Representatives: http://theelectoralmap.com/2008/06/05/om aha-could-break-the-269-269-tie/

Wouldn't that be interesting.

[TheMason]

At 9/16/08 12:37 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: Also it is most likely that Obama will win the electoral collage. This also is a no brainer. And, as usual, the key states are the mid-west. No surprise here.

I wouldn't say it's a no-brainer...Obama is not where a Democratic candidate should be in the polls in an economy like this that is also war-weary. Furthermore, some of the states in question are changing back and forth between the two.

Now for the budget. Yes Obama didn't take the government money. Why? Because he raised it. HE RAISED IT, THE MAJORITY FROM INDIVIDUALS. Now don't tell me that he will lose the popular vote it he got
$374,333,800 from individuals. That fact that McCain couldn't raise and had to take the government funds shows that he can't organize a group of people to contribute to a cause. This shows weakness in his character, if he can't do this how the hell is the U. N. going to see us? Very badly.

1) McCain elected to receive federal funds which limits his ability to fundraise at the beginning of his primary campaign. This decision was made because the law he's operating under bears his name McCain-Feingold. It has nothing to do with, nor does it speak to, his ability to organize. So your argument here is erroneous, the argument about the UN's perception...even more problematic logic.

2) The fact that Obama's funds have been raised by individuals is not all that impressive (or really relevent to this discussion). The site you linked to doesn't give a full picture. You need to dig deeper and ask qualitative questions beyond the quantitative answer of 92% of his funds coming from individuals. While on the surface it appears that John and Sally Doe are funding Obama through $25 donations...where is his money really coming from?

First: How many people have contributed $5,000 to the maximum?
Second: What percentage of his total funds is made up of these high-dollar contributions?
Third: Who are these people and what are their individual interests?

Remember, the CEOs of McDonalds and the Oil companies are individuals. I've already shown this in another thread, that while Obama is receiving money from individuals the big money is still coming from powerful people with interests who are seeking political influence.

It is politics as usual...you're just buying into a shell game. (Sorry)

3) Where his contributions come from is in all actuality irrelevent to my argument and does prove or disprove anything I have said. I am looking at total dollars available to spend. When you add in RNC & DNC contributions...there is rough parity with Obama bringing in slightly more. However, that slight advantage comes with a cost: time away from campaigning to fund raise. A cost McCain does not have to pay. In this final stretch, money will be key.

Now you may say that since these are individual contributions he (Obama) does not need to spend much time fundraising. Well...that would be false when you answer the questions I outlined above. He will still have to court big money since he's not really getting all that much (as a % of the total) from John & Sally Doe.

4) My gut feeling that Obama is going to lose the popular vote is based upon watching the polls. Obama has lost the lead, but maintaining an electoral lead. What explains this? The money issue, Palin (like her or not) has given him a boost as well as the general electorate historical hesitency/disdain for making a political left turns.

[TheMason]

At 9/16/08 12:41 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: Three, would you like to continue trying to make a living despite the huge amount of taxes you are paying?

Who exactly is paying a "huge amount" of taxes in this country? Please explain.

[MetalShadowOverlord]

Wow, there's actuall someone here with some brains! McCain and Palin 08 - Rockin Da House! Da White House that is.

[Ravariel]

Irony: Michigan loses it's primary vote (which, if held when it should have been would probably have catapulted Hillary into the lead, possibly leading to her victory), and is now poised, along with Wisconsin (and, to a lesser extent, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, et al) to be the focal point of the election.

Tragedy (sad irony): The Bubba vote is HUGE here. Absolutely enormous. If you're not in Detroit, Ann Arbor, Traverse City or Marquette, you will vote McCain, period. Michigan is currently about as undecided as you can get... running 50/50 of decideds for each candidate. Though we went Dem in the last 2 elections, I see this state being a huge battle for Obama to win.

As little as I want to see this election decided by inbred ignorant bigoted douches, I think it just might be.

[AapoJoki]

At 9/16/08 12:37 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: uhh shaggy you should have stayed in school you might actually have learned something.

Who the fuck are you going to vote for, anyway? It's my impression that you're conservative, but I don't see how an atheist like you could ever vote for someone who's running with that horrible fundamentalist woman. McCain I could digest, but Palin??

[animehater]

At 9/16/08 05:14 PM, Ravariel wrote: inbred ignorant bigoted douches

That's not very nice.

[aninjaman]

At 9/16/08 05:14 PM, Ravariel wrote: Irony: Michigan loses it's primary vote (which, if held when it should have been would probably have catapulted Hillary into the lead, possibly leading to her victory), and is now poised, along with Wisconsin (and, to a lesser extent, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, et al) to be the focal point of the election.

Acuall if you counted the Michigan primaries that would have been complety unfair. All the candidates agreed not to campaign in Michigan, even Hill, but Hillary broke that and campaigned in Michigan so obviously she won. Also Michigan deserved having its delegates stripped by breaking DNC rules.

Tragedy (sad irony): The Bubba vote is HUGE here. Absolutely enormous. If you're not in Detroit, Ann Arbor, Traverse City or Marquette, you will vote McCain, period. Michigan is currently about as undecided as you can get... running 50/50 of decideds for each candidate. Though we went Dem in the last 2 elections, I see this state being a huge battle for Obama to win.

I will say that poorer people from cities and black people tend to go Democratic but the "Bubba" vote.....

As little as I want to see this election decided by inbred ignorant bigoted douches, I think it just might be.

You have never even been to Michigan have you? Thats a pretty mean unecesay comment. Be mature on the politics forum.

[Ravariel]

At 9/16/08 05:52 PM, aninjaman wrote: Acuall if you counted the Michigan primaries that would have been complety unfair.

"When it should have been" means "the date it was before we tried to move it". Which would have been right after Super Tuesday, and given Hill a HUGE boost.

I will say that poorer people from cities and black people tend to go Democratic but the "Bubba" vote.....

...my point exactly.

As little as I want to see this election decided by inbred ignorant bigoted douches, I think it just might be.

You have never even been to Michigan have you? Thats a pretty mean unecesay comment. Be mature on the politics forum.

Hi, you must be new here. Might want to check my profile. Also, grew up between Petoskey and Mackinaw City (one home o' Bubba voters).

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/16/08 11:57 AM, TheMason wrote: I wouldn't say it's a no-brainer...Obama is not where a Democratic candidate should be in the polls in an economy like this that is also war-weary. Furthermore, some of the states in question are changing back and forth between the two.

Which whether you support McCain or not (personally I don't) you have to respect the fact that he and Palin have indeed been able to put forth the idea to people that even though they are Republicans, the party that's been in power for most of the last decade and helped these issues happen, they are the mavericks and the only ones that can SAVE us. They are actually convincing people that they will save America FROM THEIR OWN POLITICAL PARTY!!!

They shouldn't be able to do it, and yet they are. This I think speaks to two things:

1. The power of their charisma and rhetoric

2. The utter stupidity of the general public.

[Chavic]

I wouldn't put too much faith in polls, they are easy to manipulate to say what you want and unless you survey a massive and balanced population they are only CLOSE to accurate.

[uhnoesanoob]

Wow, it will be something right of the west wing.....

[TheMason]

At 9/16/08 08:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: ... the party that's been in power for most of the last decade and helped these issues happen, they are the mavericks and the only ones that can SAVE us. They are actually convincing people that they will save America FROM THEIR OWN POLITICAL PARTY!!!

Here's one problem with your logic: what alternative does the Democrats present? I heard talk of doing away with the economy that allows "bubbles" to happen. Well guess whose watch it was on that created the first bubble: Clinton. When the .com bubble burst, that was what drained the surplus and turned it into a deficit. Then you have the spate of scandals such as Enron (the fraud happened under Clinton's watch) that further reduced consumer confidence and shook the business world.

What did Bush do in responsee? He greatly expanded the federal government...and I'm not just talking defense. He created a $1 Trillion perscription drug benefit (over the next decade). He sent money to Africa for AIDS relief. In terms of spending...he spends like a Democrat. Unfortunately, he cuts taxes like a Republican. The result is we've been spending like a drunken Paris Hilton...not realizing the trustfund is about to dry up.

So why is it that Obama is blowing what should be an easy Democratic victory? Because I think we're actually seeing the politically independent portion of population that is waking up and realizing that we don't really have a choice. Either Obama or McCain 1 will be Bush 3 (or Clinton 5). The sad truth is both parties have put us in this situation, and neither have a way out.

[TheMason]

As an update; today (Wednesday 17 September) the race is tightening. The RCP average is 45.9% McCain and 45.3% Obama.

As for the electoral map; EV.com is showin 257 for McCain and 247 for Obama. Pennsylvannia and Virginia are exactly tied.

RCP does things a little different. Where EV.com shows a state as a "toss-up" when the polls are exactly tied, RCP lists a state as a "toss-up" when the average poll for that state is within like one or two points. Today RCP is listing the electoral vote as 227 for McCain and 190 for Obama. However with no toss-up states RCP gives Obama 273 to McCain's 265.

So what is going on? It has been said that Obama just needs to win one more state than Kerry did in 2004. And that would be correct. I'm starting to think that Virginia will be that state. Yes Pennsylvannia is close (and if McCain can steal that state he could afford to lose Virginia, Ohio or Missouri), but given its history I just don't see that happening.

I've been watching Virginia for sometime and it is a razor's edge there. Three times, this Southern state has voted against Southern Democrats (Clinton and Gore) and then voted against the Dems again in 2004. Then there is the race question. Why are the polls so close? In the past pollster have noted that, in state-wide elections, when a black politician runs against a white one...respondants often show support for the black candidate because of a need (whether knowingly or subconsciously) to show they are race-blind. This is a factor more in the South given the stereotype that Southerners are racists. Therefore, while it appears the race is tied...McCain could be leading 2-5%.

Another state that could prove key is New Mexico. Three out of four times in the last four presidential elections, this state has gone Democrat (2004 the exception). If Pennsylvannia goes Democrat and Virginia goes Republican, NM's five electoral votes (it's leaning McCain) could be decisive.

In the end, this race is getting exceptionally tight. We'll see if the Republicans stumble over the banking news...and if the Democrats will be able to capitalize on any Republican stumbling.

[Lucifer-morningstar]

You make a great point if you completely forget the fact that those pools are mostly bullshit based off a small amount of random calls in a district and are often wrong.

[SynicalSatire]

At 9/16/08 12:41 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 9/16/08 12:37 AM, SynicalSatire wrote: I just have the crap scared out of me that, if Osoma (not a typo)wins the election, I'll have my rights as an american snatched out from under my feet and we'll wind up as a communist country.

Seriously, Don't you want to earn a living? a robin hood isn't necesary, only a serious want for a better life will earn anyone in the united states a good life.

Three things. One, why do the name thing?

It's like the Mcbush thing thats being done

:Two, where are you getting the ideas that your rights are going to be taken away and the U. S. will become a communistic country?

Obama wants to get rid of gun ownership, and wants to initiate national healthcare. There goes my rights and my self dependancy.

:Three, would you like to continue trying to make a living despite the huge amount of taxes you are paying?

Huge amount? My friend, with the U.S.A. and there position in the world, calling the current taxes huge is just stupid. And frankly, I would rather live in this country with my rights then a couple hundred dollars more to put in my savings.

oh yeah, sorry about how long it took me to get this post out.

[SynicalSatire]

messed up with the quoting thing. when a paragraph starts with "two" or "three" it is the other guy

[BrianEtrius]

While I prefer CNN because of it's more unbiased, their polls show otherwise. In their popular polls, McCain and Obama are tied, and state by state Obama's leading in electoral votes.

[BrianEtrius]

At 9/17/08 06:23 PM, SynicalSatire wrote:

Three things. One, why do the name thing?

It's like the Mcbush thing thats being done

No, it's totally different. McBush is a comparison. What you are doing is pure racism.

Two, where are you getting the ideas that your rights are going to be taken away and the U. S. will become a communistic country?

Obama wants to get rid of gun ownership,

No. He wants weapons off the streets and out of children's hands. That's different than not having gun ownership.

and wants to initiate national healthcare. There goes my rights and my self dependancy.

Explain to me how this takes away self dependency.

Three, would you like to continue trying to make a living despite the huge amount of taxes you are paying?

Huge amount? My friend, with the U.S.A. and there position in the world, calling the current taxes huge is just stupid. And frankly, I would rather live in this country with my rights then a couple hundred dollars more to put in my savings.

You are, so why not have a some more money in the bank.

[TheMason]

At 9/17/08 06:58 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: While I prefer CNN because of it's more unbiased, their polls show otherwise. In their popular polls, McCain and Obama are tied, and state by state Obama's leading in electoral votes.

Well RCP deals with this issue because it reports all of the major polls...and then averages them together. At this point the polls are showing some very different things...which is why I prefer an average. I think it gives a much better picture of what's going on rather than just looking at CNN, ABC, Gallup, etc. Then I compare EV.com and RCP to come up with my analysis. I also find that RCP is easier to navigate in that it provides links to pertinent news articles from a plethora of sources.