Ah, my prediction? The GOP dirty tricks dept will pull it off for McCain, and it will be around McCain 272, just the smallest of victories.
But they wouldn’t support the candidate who is more likely to win, becuase they hate her. If it was a question raised, it didn’t move anyone over to support of the far more electable candidate. That makes it just noise.
No, it predicted a tiny Kerry victory and the GOP’s direty tricks dept won it for GWB.
Why did you link to a map from May instead of today’s map?
Obama 304, McCain 221, and 13 points in a VA tie.
Ah, much better. It’s one of those sites that doesn’t update if you bookmark it, apparently.
I have it bookmarked and it updates for me but I did have to try 2-3 times to get it to come up this morning. I think they’re having trouble and you pulled up a cached copy or something.
Oh crap. This article is making me mad about 2004 again. I thought I had put that behind me.
To my recollection, I ultimately decided the accusations of a stolen election were probably not true. But I can’t remember why. Does anyone have a respectable website giving a rebuttle to the kinds of points found in this RS article?
-FrL-
Touche. But my post has to do not so much with prediction as analysis. There is little on this earth that is as volatile as an electorate. If Iraq goes totally tits-up, McCain is screwed but good, he’s married to that issue. So, if it stays as quiet as its been, he has a chance. How likely is that? Haven’t the foggiest.
That would have been true in the last few elections, where candidates didn’t invest any money or effort in states that they were sure to lose. And very little in states they were sure to win. Candidates who run this sort of campaign tend to win states by single digit margins, and lose others by landslides.
If/when Obama runs a 50 state campaign, he will raise his popular vote beyond what we have become accustomed to. He will narrow the margins in states that end up red, and stage blowouts in blue states. This will create a much greater disarity between popular vote and electors.
Recall that Al Gore was able to WIN the popular vote, yet lose the electoral college…and this was a standard campaign that conceeded a number of states from the outset.
You can’t.
Obama’s only chance for victory is to have a HUGE lead, because two things will drag him down; cheating and racism. If he’s got a small lead going into the election, McCain is your next President.
Wrong. We supported the candidate who is more likely to win. We know this because he did win. He closed a 30 point nationwide lead, then pulled ahead to ultimately win in every measurable way.
He did this against a political “machine” that had decades of entrenchment in the Democratic party, who started with a more than 200 delegate lead due to those connections. Against a former First Lady and beloved two-term President. He did it because he has the better message, the better organization and the better plan for winning, not because his supporters “hate” his opponent.
He will carry that message, that organization and that plan into the general election and win against his new opponent in exactly the same way.
Let’s not leave Afghanistan out of this equation. One of the complaints about invading Iraq in the first place, was that it took our attention away from the real threat; Afghanistan.
As of today, that country has now gone to shit again. The Taliban staged a prison break last week, spilling more than 1,000 insurgents out into the streets. Those insurgents have now seized 10 villages with the intent to march into Kandahar city. And now NATO has had to step in and re-deploy troops there.
We have made a royal mess over there. And our troops are not where we need them to be, to best protect the region from the Taliban rising to power again. We’re completely screwed if we can’t get our troops out of Iraq. The only candidate who says he’ll do that is Barack Obama. That will play a big role.
And now, Brown is sending more troops.
That’s not true. During the primaries, we had a vigorous debate over whether John Kerry was electable.
In that debate, elucidator had this to say:
Well, the Ohio Secretary of State is a different person, from a different party than the incumbent in 2004. That should make it easier for a Democrat to win Ohio this time. (And the Dems won the election for governor in 2006 against that same Ken Blackwell who was the Ohio Secretary of State before, and won the Senate election too, against an incumbent Republican senator).
True. And in light of those obvious facts, it’s truly astonishing that some RWs have, or at least proclaim, such an inverted view of reality.
That’s reassuring. I’m more concerned about Florida, where we still have a Pub governor, Charlie Crist – who might be a more honest man than Jeb Bush, or at least has given us no reason yet (other than his closeted status) to believe otherwise, but, still . . .
(And Secretary of State is no longer a separately elected office in Florida, it is now a gubernatorial appointment. Our current SoS is Kurt S. Browning.)
Edit: Doc’s May25th thing. Ignore.
And the best of those lead by example.
Although statistically insignificant, Rasmussen today released poll results that have Obama leading in Virginia by 1 point for the first time in their polling. Combined with SurveyUSA’s +7 lead from a few weeks ago, Virginia may be shaping up quicker than some people expect.
Barring any state flips in the other direction, expect tomorrows Electoral-Vote tally to read 317 to 221.
There was a virtual tie in the popular vote. And, he won the nomination, not the General election. Two words- Goldwater, McGovern. 
He certainly can win, but it by no means is a sure thing. The GOP dirty tricks dept will pull at least one super-close state to McCain, if not two. :mad: Obama needs a tidy margin going in, if the Dems get overconfident, we’re toast. 