This is what the cigarette companies did, isn’t it? Funded research, with the proviso that it couldn’t be published unless it came out right?
These people are scum, aren’t they?
McCain has more of a chance of winning than I like. The key here will be Virginia. Polls close there early and an Obama loss there would hearten McCain backers in places where the polls are still open. OTOH, I can’t predict how an Obama win in Virginia would affect the race. He is expected to win it, and so people won’t be focusing on it. There are arguments that a democrat taking Virginia would depress republican turnout because it would be a realization that the polls may be right after all, but it could just as easily trigger complacency in those backing Obama and lead to a lower turn out that would work against Obama.
That would be my biggest fear… that enough people would either see really long lines at the polls and give up (or think that Obama is “safe” after watching the news) to effectively give the election to McCain. :eek:
Are you saying Democrats are fair-weather voters? 
Re: Ayers, textual analysis and the wingnut approach to evidence and transparency: traditional science and business oriented conservatives are ill-served by the Republican party and by conservative pundits. Conservatives with sensitive dispositions benefit.
Cell phone bias matters. Cell phone bias favors Obama. Cell phone bias may vary depending upon whether it’s a weekend or weekday poll. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/cellphone-effect-continued.html
Here’s one scenario for a McCain win, speculated by a Newsweek writer that I mentioned in a previous thread that went nowhere. Seems a good round-up of all the things that could go wrong for Obama. How likely are they? That’s what this thread is for.
Still, for McCain to win, either he has to make up some serious ground, or the polling will have to end up being completely wrong in many key areas (by whatever factor you care to name or have already mentioned).
That brings up a question for me, though: when was the last time that pre-election polling ended up being significantly wrong because it overestimated actual turnout? Does it happen a lot?
Thanks. County by county map of Kerry/Bush election. I see less rain in the bluer southern Nevada than in the redder northern Nevada.
Virginia and North Carolina have rain in most areas, aiding the red team (though parts of northern Virginia are clear). Showers in the blue tip of northern Minnesota dampen Democratic prospects.
I like early voting.
Right now it looks like McCain would have to carry ALL of the tossup states AND pull away at least one Obama-leaning state. That looks less and less likely. Heheheheh.
electoral-vote.com has a neat “This day in 2004” map based on the polling for that day (in this case, November 3 ) Pretty close to what actually happened. Obviously, big difference between how Kerry was polling and how Obama is doing currently.
The election was on Nov 2 in 2004, wasn’t it? In that case, here’s Nov 1. Not quite right, eh? Obama’s number are, obviously, a hell of a lot better, but it ain’t in the bag.
But, if you’re looking for some comfort, you can look at this graph.
:smack: Thanks for the correction. I had a suspicion the “polls” from that day were a little too close to the final result.
Updated national weather forecast: http://wm54.inbox.com/thumbs/7_130bb7_c75df1_oP.png.thumb
Rain and scattered showers across all of Virginia and North Carolina, potentially suppressing Democratic turnout.
Things cleared up a bit in Democratic northern Minnesota. Weather in Nevada: good for Obama.