Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Cam Week in Preview: The Fix Presidential Picks (Updated)

Now that just 43 days (!) separate us from the November election, we are going to use this space every Monday morning to update our "Pick a President" map with our latest and greatest take on where things stand in the presidential race.

(There's almost 5,000 entries in the competition so far; let's get that to 10,000 before election day. It's easy; go to "Pick a President", select how each state will vote and the enter. The best part? You can send your picks -- via a vanity url -- to your friends to amaze them with your foresight. Have a blog? And, who doesn't? You can embed your map in it to dazzle everyone who stops by.)

In our previous map -- on Sept. 8 -- we had Barack Obama at 289 electoral votes and John McCain at 249 electoral votes. Today we put Obama at 278 electoral votes and McCain at 260.

What changed?

Ohio (21 electoral votes): The more smart strategists we talk to in both parties, the more we come to believe that though the race will come down to the wire in the Buckeye State, McCain will win it. Several recent polls show the race to be a dead heat but southern Ohio is going to be tough sledding for Obama come election day. MOVE FROM OBAMA TO MCCAIN.

New Hampshire (5 electoral votes): Voters in the Granite State have repeatedly shown an affinity for McCain -- launching his presidential bid in 2000 and saving it in 2008. But, Obama's campaign is increasingly confident about their chances in New Hampshire, believing that the Illinois senator's "change in Washington" message will resonate strongly in a state with strong anti-government leanings. New Hampshire is also strongly opposed to the war in Iraq -- as evidenced by Democratic gains there in 2006 -- and that should accrue to Obama's benefit as well. MOVE FROM MCCAIN TO OBAMA.

Nevada (5 electoral votes): The Nevada caucuses way back in January gave Democrats a huge jump on voter registration and voter identification efforts. (The Republican side was barely contested with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney winning easily.) At the end of August, there were 458,877 registered Democrats in the state as compared to 397,172 registered Republicans. Compare that to November 2004 when there were 442,122 registered Republicans and 438,906 registered Democrats and you see that the trend line is moving in the wrong direction for the GOP. MOVE FROM MCCAIN TO OBAMA.

<p><strong>><a href='http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/pick-your-president/'>2008 Election Contest: Pick Your President</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the 2008 presidential election and enter to win a $500 prize.</p>

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 22, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: SNL Swipes at McCain (Again)
Next: Schmidt Hammers the New York Times

Comments

I cant believe there are still people that think mcshame can win this. What planet are they on? HAHA, if it wasnt so funny it would be sad, but its NOT, its FUNNY

Posted by: Kim | September 25, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Why does everyone keep putting Nebraska in the solidly red column when only 3 of its 5 electoral votes should be so assigned?

I'm sure you haven't forgotten about their "maverick" approach to dividing up their electoral votes by Congressional District. This approach could well cost McCain the presidency if an erstwhile tie vote gets tipped towards the Dems because Nebraska CD's 1 or 2 vote for Obama -- a distinct possibility that everyone seems to be ignoring on their projection maps.

Take a look at these brief articles on the Obama chances in these 2 districts:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/1/161450/2003 - which states that a SurveyUSA poll in May showed Obama in a near dead-heat with McCain in CD 1, and only 5 points back in CD 2. Do you know of any more recent polls that breaks it down by Congressional District?

http://www.ketv.com/newsarchive/16711170/detail.html - from KETV in Omaha which has a U-Nebraska professor stating that "a strong Democratic turnout in Lincoln or Omaha could mean a vote for Barack Obama".

While Maine also divies up its Electoral votes by CD, the likely results seem to strongly favor Obama anyhow.

Watch out America -- this election may be decided by Omaha voters. Somehow that seems poetic.

Posted by: goodgovtguy | September 24, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I AM NOT A CROOK!

Posted by: RICHARD NIXON (R) | September 23, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

What about Virginia? It's getting pretty close in Virginia, and I've seen some sites starting to entertain the possibility of Obama winning.

Posted by: Nick | September 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Kn5PGy Hello
I am Russo

Posted by: Russo | September 23, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

pt3Um4 Hello
I am Russo

Posted by: Russo | September 23, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

.

Voted One Of This Year's Best Political Blogs For the Election Of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!


.

.

Voted One Of This Year's Best Political Blogs For the Election Of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

mvU0Ej Hello
I am Russo

Posted by: Russo | September 23, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

OMG!!! A Hillbilly for Obama?...Yea, I am.
Posted by: O¿O IN THE CROWD | September 22, 2008 11:36 AM
"I've thought about this for a while now and think it is time to address the "hillbillies are for McCain" theory posited by the MSM. As someone from the hills of Southeastern Ohio I know a thing or three about us hillbillies. "I is one"

I am from the hills of Southern Ohio too. I see the same thing going on where I live, there might be a small few who might be racist, but there are some who are sexist too. I find that alot of christians here are turning to Obama's side. Where I am from there is a big healthcare issue, and alot of jobs that are leaving the area, and unemployment rate is very high here in lower southwestern Ohio, where there are the two most poorest counties in Ohio, and they are getting poorer everyday. I think both parties are forgetting about southern Ohio, and some people don't have a way of finding out about either candidate, and they feel forgotten. Southern Ohio I believe is where the state is won, and both candidates better start doing something, if they want to win. I don't belong to any party, I vote only based on issues, and sometimes it might Repub., sometimes Dem., and Indep. After I look at the issues, and I look at the person, and yes I have to like the person I vote for. I want to see if the person is genuine in wanting to help the people who will put him or her in office. This election I chose Obama, but I am voting for two Republicans in my county election. I believe everyone should vote by issues, and not by party. If you like what McCain is offering then fine it is your vote, and no one else's, vote for what is right for you, and hope other people is doing the same.

Posted by: nonaffilatedpartyvoter | September 23, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

TONY REZKO AND KARL ROVE WERE LOVERS.

Posted by: MOTEL 6 MANAGER | September 23, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Dear Congress,

I have found an acute ideal to revitalize our economy.

What me and my team of financiers are hoping for, is a small portion of the relief check your going to give to those wall street crooks.

Our proposal will only require 30% percent of the tax payers money your going to give before you go on vacation this Friday.

At a 20% interest and giving the fact we will get us out of this crisis in less than 1 year. We feel its a bargain considering the up hill battle we will be faced with.

At a 10% loan we will reduce the economic strain Wall Street has put us under in less than 7 months.

Not only will we make the American Public 3% ownership in our venture. They will be paid off in less than 4 months. Granted if we receive the funds by this Thursday before 4pm.

Send us the check at the address forwarded as we can get this project in motion. Time is of essence as the economy can't wait.

Posted by: Wall Street Security Guards | September 22, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris:

Your current Electoral Vote Count Map exactly matches mine and is likely the final count once Election Day plays itself out.

I mentioned to you and your loyal, faithful readers a month ago that Ohio likely goes to McCain and that New Hampshire definitely goes to Obama and that Nevada most likely goes to Obama.

As I see it, everything currently remains the same. I see the Senate ending up anywhere from 57-43 Democratic to 59-41 Democratic. Democrats will fall short of 60 Senators. The House likely will have 10-15 more Democrats than they have now.

Noam N. Kogen, New York, NY

Posted by: Noam N. Kogen | September 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I'll state this very simply; my map shows that the majority of Americans will be out in force to make an overwhelming statement. In conclusion, the result of that impact is a Dem right back in that darn White House.

There is NO W-A-Y this country should have been run down the way it was.

NO

WAY

Posted by: Obama2008 | September 22, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, According to the govt's own statistics, 10% of the DHS agencies programs were rated "effective" in the most recent performance and accountability audits, 21% were deemed "moderately effective", 17% "adequate", 13% "results not demonstrated".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/agency/024.html

As a brand-new start up agency, having just celebrated it's fifth year of existence, and with a massive breadth of responsibilities to undertake, these results are not all that bad. But, to overtake a system already in place, e.g. healthcare provision, on a national level with an overarching govt bureaucracy and controls, I think, would lead to much greater inefficiency and waste than we have seen even at DHS.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 22, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”


-------------------------------------
"Did we learn anything from the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Did we learn that taxpayer guarantees for business is a formula for failure?

Our most serious problem is a loss of focus on American principles of freedom and limited constitutional government."

from: Real crisis is loss of American principles
by Star Parker

http://townhall.com/Columnists/StarParker/2008/09/22/real_crisis_is_loss_of_american_principles?page=full&comments=true

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 22, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"In February, the OMB found that only four of the 33 homeland security programs it examined were "effective." "

Is that a symptom of government, or of Republican-run government? My question is: if 29 homeland security programs are not effective, what does Senator McCain propose to do about it? Do we just cut the programs? If so, does that leave us at risk - or are 80-odd percent of DHS programs redundant?

Really, proud, the statistic doesn't really mean anything, without knowing how these programs were related. Are they examples of little one-horse towns in Wyoming spending 6 figures on armored anti-terrorist vehicles? Or is it a result of incompetent political appointments? Or is it the result of bloated government? Wasteful pork/earmark spending?

Posted by: bsimon | September 22, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Uh...If Ohio goes for McSame they are insane.GOP(Get Out PLEASE party!) ruins the economy & Ohio can't vote for a non-white person?What the hay...
There will be an Obama victory & it could be a substantial electoral college Win.McSame could possibly win the popular vote tho I doubt it(if he does it just would go to show how stupid/ignorant & sheep-like the US is).

An ex-Independent turned Democrat sez:
McCain/Palin =
Bridge To Armegeddon/Nowhere...

Maybe she should let her pastor lay his hands on her again!It won't help...
Where is the media on this(Her church problem)??? Jeez 'Louise'...Ugh

Posted by: seabreeze | September 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Put them out of business = Contain costs, Provide better care,..."

mikeB, When has a federal program ever contained costs and done things "better" all at the same time! I fail to see the evidence that the govt can control costs at all most of the time, let alone do something better.

If what you want in your provision of healthcare is massive waste, inefficiency, poor service, ever-growing organizations, mindless rules, reams of useless forms, and more lazy, hostile, overpaid, imperious, and inflexible bureaucrats running the show, then , by all means, endorse Obama's plan!

Case in point: DHS. A brand spanking new govt program replete with bureaucratic waste and unfettered spending that is now a study in wasteful spending. And Senator Obama wants to create a new bloated government-run universal healthcare system in this economic climate?

In February, the OMB found that only four of the 33 homeland security programs it examined were "effective."

Scores of government reports, congressional testimony and interviews with dozens of government and business officials document rising costs and specific flaws in some of the major systems underway.

As one expert said about DHS "The biggest concern is that we're going to spend a whole lot of money without getting something useful out of it." 5 years from now, I don't want to be hearing that about Obama-care while I wait in line to see my govt approved provider.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 22, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

You forgot Pennsylvania Cris. There's no way Barack Obama will win Pa. While blacks and the liberals of academia within the state will vote for Obama, the rest of the white working class voters of Pa. hate Obama's guts. This might go for Michigan voters also. Bye, bye Obama.

Posted by: tic | September 22, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

My friends, repeat after Phil Gramm & me.

Financial deregulation is good for the economy.

Tax cuts grow the economy.

Americans are a bunch of whiners.

Posted by: McCainiac | September 22, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Helen | September 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Please don't bring up my fannie mae graft. Please don't bring up my fannie Mae graft.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Posted by: susan | September 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

CNN & MSNBC PLEASE EXPLAIN TO AMERICAN PUBLIC! WHY ITS RACIST WHEN WHITE VOTERS DO NOT AGREE OR SUPPORT THE INEXPERIENCED MEDIA MADE OBAMA, BUT IT’S NOT RACISM WHEN 90% PLUS BLACK VOTERS ARE ONLY SUPPORTING THE BLACK CANDIDATE? LIKE OPRAH ETC…"

Because it is clearly racism when you EXPECT black folks to vote for you just because you are white...for years they have been voting for white people in the absence of a valid black candidate...now they are voting for him you want to claim they are RACIST? Most white people voting for McCain are voting for his color, not HIM...thank GOD there are millions of GOOD decent white people who WILL vote for OBAMA..just like there are black people who will vote for McCain..hopefully not millions:)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza,

I've heard that despite what the polls say, a slight race factor will help McCain. This is anywhere from two to six percent, from various sources, that Obama is being polled higher than he will get in the election. What is your perspective on this and what correction would you give the polls to better reflect this?

Thank You

DC

Posted by: DC | September 22, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"I almost had to cancel when they wouldn't let me use my cherished teleprompter and they refused to provide the questions ahead of time."

It always amazes me how semi-literates find it amusing to defend McCains inability to use a teleprompter ( or a computer for that matter) by deriding Obama for using one with ease.

I can bet that when he was a lecturer he was using his head, and will do so at the debates. Pray and hope that McCain will have his Secret Service phone in his ear, so that his advisors can give him the answers BEFORE He blurts out his opinion and THEN has to take it back.

I guess we will hear more of following Bin Laden "to the Gates of Hell"

Only Obama will rejoin " gates of hell? Heck, you haven't even gone to his cave in Afghanistan yet, Hell NO!"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

First off, the surge has NOT worked. Things are worse now than before...there was a brief period of calm before all hell broke loose again.

Americans still think people in the rest of the world are afraid of them. You think you can send a million people over to anywhere, cram 'democracy' down the throats of whoever and they'll be running scared.

Well, Russia sure as heck ain't scared!

China, sure as heck ain't scared!

India, sure as heck ain't scared.

Heck, even the Pakistanis ain't scared.

Sending good American boys to die to satisfy some old blowhards who see America as the conqueror of the world is surely a sin!

Nor is Obama a blowhard like McCain...on again, off again McSame! He has real respect for other people's opinions unlike many others, so DOES Take some time to think instead of spouting HIS SOLUTION!

And where, pray would McCain get a solution from? In his own words, the economy is not his strong point! So suddenly, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis, we are expected to take HIS advice? BECAUSE he shouted first? No way....

Posted by: Faith | September 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - I'm getting a little sick of the distortions and outright lies you folk post about a national medical insurance. First off, we presently spend 19% of GNP on health care. No other country in the world even spends 5%. The difference between 5% and 19% is close to $1.5 trillion. Every dime of that money ends up in the hands of some investor or other business -- parasites, really, ghouls making money off the suffering of ordinary people. Worse, our health delivery system, the qualioty of our health care, doesn't even rank in the top 20 world wide. So, not only are we getting ripped off by the same cockraoches, vermin and assorted crooks that just brought up the stock market debacle, we are paying dearly for it!

As for it being "socialized"... Just about every worker, making more than minimum wage, has a monthly deduction out of their paycheck that pays for private medical insurace (and those golden parachutes, multi-million dollar bonus, and other excesses that we have come to expect from our current crop of mega corporatuions). Under ANY and EVERY proposal for national health insurance, you would still have money taken from your check to pay for medical insurance. The difference is, it would be A LOT LESS. The proposals run around 8% for individuals and another 8% for employers. But, since Medicare, Medicaid, the whole alphabet soup of other programs, malpractive insurance premiums and predatory lawsuits and ambulance chasers, and all of those businesses hocking over prices scooters and wheelchairs, marked up drugs, etc., not to mention private insurance payments, would be GONE, the saving the ordinary citizen would see would be enormous. As for requiring that coverage for everyone....I'm all for it! I certainly don't want to pay for emergency room coverage for some dimwit that decided to gamble and ended up on the public dime and I would be fairly certain you wouldn't either. A national health insurance program IS the future. It is the only way we cab guard against cost manipulation and other predatory practices by private parasites blathering about "free enterprise". Put them out of business = Contain costs, Provide better care, And put patients and this country first!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 22, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

It is my hope that my fellow citizens will look beyond partisanship. As a Republican, I am dismayed by the Republican campaign shenanigans.

Prior to the primaries, many Republicans were supporting Barack Obama. I hope they will think back — and re-ignite their keen observations (often cited back then) that his moderation would bring a new willingness on the part of both Democrats and Republicans to work together.

I recently watched an interview with New York’s Mayor Bloomberg. He talked about the importance of judgment. He said he had not yet made a decision or an endorsement, noting that on the economy, both campaigns had consulted with him.

Good judgment seems to come naturally to Sen. Obama. He sincerely looks at all sides of an issue, consults with others, and thinks through the consequences of action.

Sen. McCain, on the other hand, lauds his reputation as a maverick. He “shoots from the hip” so to speak, meaning that he speaks before he thinks.
Often he “thinks better” of his words and actions. The problem is that once a bridge is burned, it is costly in both time and resources to rebuild it.

Yes, it is important to be able to “think on one’s feet.” I’ve watched Obama do just that — for example during his Saddleback Church interview. McCain,
on the other hand, reacts.

With a military metaphor, McCain reacts like a combat soldier, decisive. Following his training. On the other hand, Obama thinks like a commander, considering all fronts, before leading an attack, defense, and/or retreat.

Who is better suited to be commander-in-chief? In my mind, between Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama, Barack Obama is the clear choice.

Posted by: ash | September 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

My friends, let me give it to you straight. I had a conference call with the media today to put out the message that the media is in the tank for my opponent. Now, lets get some change in the White House, so we can keep fighting the war in Iraq and make those irresponsible tax cuts permanent. My friends if you want change while everything stays the same, I'm your man.

Posted by: McCainiac | September 22, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-21-early-voting_N.htm#Close

Wonder why is there early voting this year in some states even before the debates?

Was there always early voting before in the same states?

Or is it new to make one candidate look better before the debates?

Is there any party who is responsible for the independent monitoring of these early voters' ballots?

Hmmmm......

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I HOPE, that for a CHANGE, I don't end up looking like a dolt without my beloved teleprompter.

But I understand if I get stuck, I can phone a friend.

do you think anyone will mind if I claim the anwers are above my pay grade? Or that the questions represent old politics reveling in angry, bitter and gun loving terminology?

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

My friends, I just got off the phone with my friend Phil Gramm. He said you should all quit your whining, we have a solution. 1) We're going to deregulate the financial markets. 2) We're going to give 10% of GDP back to Wall Street to spend as they see fit. 3) We're going to cut taxes to pay for it all.

Posted by: McCainiac | September 22, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Pretty substantial and goes a long way towards explaining why the election is so close in such a poor environment for Republicans.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 22, 2008 1:51 PM

Assuming it's not the extreme liberalism and defeatist attitude and Soviet style economics he's proposing and uttter lack of any experience and judgment. Yeah, except for all that, it probably is racism.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

And my opinion on the chickens from Fannie that have come home to roost, just because I took all that money to do nothing.

Well, I will continue to do nothing. My vote:

PRESENT.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Please don't expect much of me in the upcoming debate. I tend to stumble a lot and hem and haw when asked actual questions that don't have to do with my looks. So if it looks to you like I have no idea what I am doing, please just turn off the TV and come back later after MSDNC has a chance to edit out all my ums and uhs.

I almost had to cancel when they wouldn't let me use my cherished teleprompter and they refused to provide the questions ahead of time. How am I supposed to know they will ask about Iraq or Russia? I can't know everything even though I claim to.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"The only part of this overblown racist commotion that matters is how many voters in battleground states who voted for Gore and/or Kerry will vote for McCain because Obama is black. Until someone quantifies this with some scientific polling -- it hasn't been done yet -- my assumption is this is just more hot air from the pundits who need something to talk about.

I'm still waiting for some intelligent insight on the issue."

Well, if you're talking about the Bradley effect, there's no evidence that it exists today. Obama overperformed his polling numbers in the primaries as did Harold Ford Jr. It just hasn't shown to be a factor in the past several years.

But Bradley is just about covert racism. There's also non-covert racism. Stanford University published a study last week about people holding racist beliefs and voting based on them. Their conclusion was that these thoughts were costing Obama about 6% in the polls. Pretty substantial and goes a long way towards explaining why the election is so close in such a poor environment for Republicans.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 22, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"This is “change” that America cannot afford - - neither in terms of monetary, or human capital.
Posted by: robbing hood | September 22, 2008 12:57 PM"


Are you living in "opposite" land?

Look what is going on around you, the damage in monetary and human capital that been wrought by Republican policies.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"It succeeded as John McCain had intended it to and that is why he threw his support behind it when many ran from it.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 22, 2008 1:18 PM"
----
I think you should actually investigate the reasons why Iraq has calmed, the 3 major reasons are as follows:

1. Prior to the surge being announced there was the "Anbar Awakening" I suggest you google it.

2. Prior to the surge being announced Al Sadr lost control of his militia which devolved into criminality-every man for what he can take. He went into hiding to regroup his forces and weed out the bad.

3. Prior to the surge even being announced large areas populated with Sunni insurgents were being ethnically cleansed by Shiites, there simply was no one there by the time the surge was enacted.

I know it feels good to say "we won" because of the surge, and make no mistake, our military is the best. But the evidence shows that there are primary other reasons for the calming of Iraq.

According to Gen. Petreaus: "We've achieved a fragile and easily reversible peace"

All those years of war, lives and treasure, and that is what we've achieved? Is that success to you?

The stated purpose of the surge was to tamp down violence enough so the the Iraqis could bring political reconciliation.

That has not happened.

The "surge" is not a success because our partners in this deal failed to keep their end of it.

We did what we were supposed to do, the Iraqis did not.

Posted by: JR | September 22, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"On Iraq in particular, John McCain has shown that metal to lead, Obama has shown that he would have cut and run."

Obama has consistently proposed a timeline for withdrawal. Even when called "dangerously naive" by his detractors. Bush, Maliki, and yes McCain have all now adopted his plan.

Obama is a natural leader, McCain is running as the "adopter in chief"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Obama hasn't ever made an unpopular decision in his entire,"

and McCain can not make an unpopular decision standing up to W and stick with it, say: campaign finance reform, standing up to Falwell, immigration reform and opposition to the tax cuts on the top 2%. Senator Flip/Flop.

Palin/McCain 2008/ W on Steroids.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama is just not Commander in Chief material. Myabe if he had picked Hillary, the ticket would have more cojones. As it is, we have the ditherer in chief and the bloviator in veep. On Iraq in particular, John McCain has shown that metal to lead, Obama has shown that he would have cut and run.

Obama hasn't ever made an unpopular decision in his entire, and brief, career. Being President means that, as CIC of our Armed Forces , one must make sometimes unpopular decisions in order to win a war. You can't just vote present.

Barack Obama, under cross examination by Bill O’Reilly finally came close to admitting that the surge worked in Iraq. He said the surge “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”


“The surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama waffled. No Mr. Obama, the surge worked beyond YOUR defeatist mentality and dreams.

It succeeded as John McCain had intended it to and that is why he threw his support behind it when many ran from it.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 22, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

proud,

I consider you to be one of the more reasonable posters on this board. But, I have to say, it takes a considerable talent in mental gymnastics to lay the last two years of gridlock entirely at the feet of Congressional Dems.

I happen to think that neither Pelosi nor Reid are up to the task of leading Congress. Thankfully, I suspect one of the two will be replaced within the next two years (Reid won't be back in the chair by 2010 at the latest).

However, Republicans have been just as complicit in the lack of results from the 110th Congress. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has invoked the filibuster more times in the 110th than any Congress in history by a wide margin. And it's not about policy: this was pure politics.

McConnell's gameplan (with some help from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) was to convince the country that the Democratic Party is incapable of leading. Nobody really pays attention to procedure, so who cares how things have been disrupted? But the hope was that the Dems would be painted as "do-nothing", the media would latch on, and Republicans would be back in power (incl. a GOP White House) after the '08 elections.

But, a funny thing happened. People are just tired of the whole thing, and the GOP is being painted by the same brush. Republicans in Congress are just as unpopular as Democrats. It's a plague on both our houses.

On the other hand, there's nobody in politics today who thinks that the GOP is going to even cut into the size of the Dem majority. In fact, most experts believe that the Dems will pick up a few House seats, and 5-7 Senate seats. For that matter, the Dems have a 7-10% lead in the generic ballot.

To paraphrase Aaron Sorkin, "The problem isn't that the Republicans don't get it. The problem is that they can't sell it!"

Posted by: JamesCH | September 22, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Proud - now everybody owns a lot of homes. beginning to sound like the Soviet heaven Obama is promising.

thanks dodd and Obama. Wasn't really what I had intended to spend my money on this decade.

but don't expect any honesty from this fake. he still can't admit the surge was a success.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"zouk, It is hard to imagine a more inept body of legislators than the currnet Dem Congress. Since they failed in their primary objective to 'end the war' once in the majority"

You guys are hillarious. Ever hear about a little procedure that that Senators McConnell and Coburn, 2 Ds right, wanted to nuke, called the filibuster, and who now have become masters at using.

R Senators were for the nuclear option before they were against it.

At least I was consistent. When Sen. McConnell was screaming every day to the press "up or down vote" and end the filibuster I was posting bring it on, let's see how thatey will respond when they want to use it, like currently. I asked you about the nuclear option here back in May and you conveniently posted that you had never heard of it.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 22, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

From Wisconsin: I believe that Obama is going to take Wisconsin easily. We have some distinct different voting patterns here. Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha all vote traditionally democratic. The middle of the state is a mixed bag. The northern part of the state is pretty much Republican. However, this year is different. The southern part of the state is going to be hugely democratic, the middle part of the part is going to be marginally more democratic, and the north part is going to vote Republican. Unfortunately for the Republicans, there aren't too many people in the northern part of the state so the numbers are going to skew to Obama. And as to the cell phone only situation, it is not only kids who are dumping land lines. My 72 year old parents just dumped their land line and now each have a cell phone only.

Posted by: Merry | September 22, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Now, Obama and Biden have constructed a campaign that promises to simply take things away from people who have achieved them, and give things to people who have not achieved them. This is “change” that America cannot afford - - neither in terms of monetary, or human capital.

Posted by: robbing hood | September 22, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

zouk, It is hard to imagine a more inept body of legislators than the currnet Dem Congress. Since they failed in their primary objective to 'end the war' once in the majority, one would think that they could've at least moved the country forward with an energy policy, or helped prevent the currnet chaos on Wall St by cracking down on the egregious fraud at Fannie and Freddie thanks to some horrible liberal notion that "everybody's entitled to own a home". Has thinking gone out of style in the Dem Congress, along with legislating?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 22, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

DyingLikeFlies, thanx for your reply.

MikeB you cannot be serious! These are still the UNITED States of America.

Scrivener, thanx for a smile -

"The day the music died was the day it was announced that Sarah Palin is to meet with Bono."

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 22, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

From the "we can never spend enough" congress.

Posted by: Libs prefer the SPLURGE

1. 12 billion/mo for Iraq
2. Tom DeLay keeps $450 billion Prescription drug bill open until 3 a.m.
3. Bush bails out Bear Sterns $250/billion
4. Palin's Road To No Where $26 million
5. Minnesota Bridge $100 to fix R Governor spends $240 million to replace.
6. AIG bailout $100 billion on 9-10-08 $250 billion 7 days later

And exactly who are the big spenders?

Posted by: Leichtman | September 22, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Gotcha K, honest mistake then.

Obama wins a partisan tie-break in the House set out by the 12th Amendment, and I'm supporting him so I'll take it if I have to. But I really, really don't want it to come to that.

Posted by: Eric | September 22, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

TOP IDIOTS OF THE WEEK AWARDS:

1. The top idiot of the week award goes, hands down, to Dem VP contender Joe Biden, who stated with a straight face that being patriotic means paying higher taxes. No doubt, some will fall for this bunk, which further explains the need for an expanded IDIOT'S list. So many idiots, so little time.

4. Rep. Charlie Rangel, who, after being caught cheating on his taxes, penned an open letter to New Yorkers saying he is the target of a GOP "guerilla war." This, after he managed to keep his leadership post on our nation's tax-writing committee even after evidence of his tax fraud came to light.

6. Billionaire George Soros has made this week's list. His hedge fund lost at least $120 million bucks for his investors on the funds' Lehman Brothers holdings. Welcome, George. Hope to see you back here real soon.

8. Last, but not least, we must acknowledge those zany Democrat leaders who, as the world teetered on the brink of financial ruin last week, suggested issuing gas stamps to help Americans cope with high gas prices.

Posted by: dim dems | September 22, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The only site worth looking at. The most comprehensive analysis or political polling anywhere.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The wrong optics for McCain: "Senator John McCain's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations," David D. Kirkpatrick and Charles Duhigg report. "Several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain's campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000."


Posted here: "But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years."

No what is mind boggling is that McCain's campaign mgr raked in $30,000 month from Fannie and Freddie, the bill you refer to was written by McCain' chief economic advisor Texas R ex Senator Phil Gramm, that Rs in the Senate voted overwhelmingly for the bill and you have the chutzpah to blame it on Ds.

Typical rewriting of history by the Bush on steroid Palin/McCain apologists.

And to think that McCain is now pushing seniors to put their Social Security money into stocks. They have lost their marbles. Perhaps seniors should have bought stocks for their Social Security accounts in Merrill Lynch, AIG, or Bear Sterns with their money left over from Enron positions.


Posted by: Leichtman | September 22, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Think about this, if McCain wins it will ultimately bring about a total collapse of the Republican party. The sad truth is that no one who gets into office will be able to fix all the problems that the Bush administration has created. As average citizens we only get to see the tip of the iceberg. Four more years under the same tax programs as the Bush administration? Four more years with more wars which McCain will start? Four more years of spend and borrow? Is there any country that we can even borrow more from at this point? Wall St. is being propped up by foreign countries and money that hasn't even been tapped from the U.S. citizens yet.
"Drill, baby, drill." Does anyone honestly believe that gas prices will drop? We have 2% of the world's reserve and use 25%. Do the math.
Yes, McCain becoming president will destroy the Republican party, but will our country survive a McCain presidency.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

you call, that spending. Just wait till I get my hands in the till.

Obamanomics Obama Laments Debt But Promises UN Billions Obama, who lamented Friday that "we have not managed our federal budget with any kind of discipline," is nonetheless promising to spend $50 billion on a United Nations anti-poverty program

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The polls have been going back and forth - like a volley ball match.

People like McCain when it comes to foreign policy and national security but trust Obama more and think the Democrats will do better with the econony.

Well, if it's national security that wins out then we're headed for more economic doom and gloom because we'll be stuck in Iran and maybe even in Iraq for years to come and that will place an insumountable financial burden on America.

The Republicans preach the tactic of fear of our enemies before shoring up the American economy. Without a strong economic infrastructure, we will not be able to sustain prolonged conflicts abroad.

It is the Republican party that we need to be afraid of. They have driven America to the brink of an economic meltdown with their deregulation. They have lied about the reasons to invade Iraq and started a war that generations of Americans will have to pay for. If we let them continue to lead then, America will never recover from the the past eight years. McCain is no different from Bush, and he tells more lies than Bush. He says Obama will raise our taxes, when it's proven that Obama's plan will not. McCain has flip flopped on many of the issues. The only issue he has remained constant about is staying in Iraq until the war is won because if we don't win it will mean devastation. Who will be devastated - will it be Haliburton, the American people or the Iraqi people?

It's time for an administration that will focus on taking care of it's citizens first and who will use more diplomacy in foreign affairs and who will repair and restore America's status among it's allies.

Posted by: nevadaandy | September 22, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Congress May Try To Add Stimulus To Market Bailout The U.S. Congress is likely to raise the cost of a $700 billion rescue deal for U.S. markets by adding a new economic stimulus plan to benefit taxpayers.

From the "we can never spend enough" congress.

Posted by: Libs prefer the SPLURGE | September 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Above The Law Dems Shoot Down GOP Attempt To Punish Rangel Democrats shot down a second GOP attempt in as many months to punish Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) for a series of alleged ethics violations.

Posted by: culture of corruption | September 22, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

quire right Eric. that would be a tie. CC's 5 EV in his article threw me off. Imagine a tie.

Welcome back Proud. the IQ on this blog just went up 15 points on average.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Please ignore my fingerprints all over the Fannie Mae mess. do not follow the money and inspect my votes. for once, I have an accomplishment, I just prefer to ignore this one.

Posted by: snObama | September 22, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

the prediction looks pretty good except for NH and NV. they will end up in McCain's column resulting in a one point victory for McCain.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2008 12:29 PM

...someone can't add. That'd leave McCain 1 EV shy of a win. (5 EVs for NV + 4 for NH + the other 260 EVs Chris projected for McCain = 269).

Posted by: Eric | September 22, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

MOVE OVER, BUDDY HOLLY

The day the music died was the day it was announced that Sarah Palin is to meet with Bono.

*********************************

FINANCIAL TERRORISM A ROOT CAUSE
OF WALL STREET MONEY MELTDOWN?

Once again, Congress is being asked to rush through emergency legislation, this time a law which will place effective control of the economy in the hands of the federal government, and socialize market risk.

Some might call it "national socialism."

Officials continue to blame lax lending policies on the part of the mortgage industry for spawning this crisis. But is that entirely true?

Is there a hidden agenda at work?

Could government targeting of U.S. citizens be a root cause of the crisis?

Consider this:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis

OR
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener


Posted by: scrivener | September 22, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"Any state that votes against Obama should be left out [of] any recovery program. Let them and their people wither and die on the vine."


mikeB - OK, but under your plan, the blue states' companies and employers will end up paying higher taxes and the citizens of the blue states will be footing the bill for Obama's bloated social programs and govt run healthcare heaped on top of a failed economy. Where do you suppose all those companies and citizens will move to once they realize that his handouts and promises aren't free after all?

If Obama was serious, he'd admit that he can't do what he has promised to do in this economic environemtn, becuase it would devastate the economy further. He is a big old phony for continuing to suggest that he'll give "95% of Americans a tax break" and provide universal healthcare on top of it. He's a phony and a liar. And I thought you knew that after his comments in San Francisco?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

the prediction looks pretty good except for NH and NV. they will end up in McCain's column resulting in a one point victory for McCain.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"Mr. McCain also stuck by his support for allowing workers to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in stocks and bonds,"


"The clutch of Bush veterans helping to coach Palin reflects a larger reality about Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign: Far from being a group of outsiders to the Republican Party power structure, it is now run largely by skilled operatives who learned their crafts in successive Bush campaigns and various jobs across the Bush government over the past eight years," Anne Kornblut and Juliet Eilperin report in The Washington Post."

"They continue: "One Republican with long-standing ties to the Bush administration described the situation as a paradox in which Palin is especially vulnerable." As for Mark McKinnon's pledge: "Bush confidant Mark McKinnon stopped formally advising McCain once Obama became the Democratic nominee -- but he, too, is continuing to advise the group and crafted Cindy McCain's convention speech."

"Said one "Republican strategist": "It's insane to me that at the same time that it's running saying it's not going to be the Bush administration, this campaign looks like the Bush campaign on steroids."

Posted by: Leichtman | September 22, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

In an August 23 article on Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as his vice-presidential running mate, the Los Angeles Times reported that "when he ran for president in 1988, Biden was accused of plagiarism when he did not credit Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labor Party, for much of his stump speech." Similarly, in an August 23 article, The New York Times reported that Biden "was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock," and in an August 23 article, the Associated Press reported that Biden's 1988 run for president "ended badly" after he "was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/joe_bidens_plagiarism_problem.html

Bidens kids...right Obama, lobbyist are bad ?

son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate's son Hunter, 38, and brother James, 59, assert instead that their former partner defrauded them by misrepresenting his experience in the hedge fund industry and recommending that they hire a lawyer with felony convictions.

The legal actions have been playing out in New York State Supreme Court since 2007, and they focus on Hunter and James Biden's involvement in Paradigm Companies LLC, a hedge fund group. Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist, briefly served as president of the firm.

A lawsuit filed by their former partner Anthony Lotito Jr. asserts in court papers that the deal was crafted to get Hunter Biden out of lobbying because his father was concerned about the impact it would have on his bid for the White House. Biden was running for the Democratic nomination at the time the suit was filed.


so let's talk about 'judgment' libs. He threw Hillary over the cliff for this guy ?


let's see how long the dems and libs keep telling us how honest mr obama is as this gets ready to launch

http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/why_obama_is_mum.htm

what lifted Obama from obscurity to national prominence in such a short time you may wonder ?

why not ask Percy Sutton, the most powerful civil right activist in New York

We know enough about Obama’s Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.

As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principal adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama’s behalf.

An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi


billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.

Posted by: deport_the_libs | September 22, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''


But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

Want more? vote D

Posted by: the Pelois/Reid legacy | September 22, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm serious when I write this. Any state that votes against Obama should be left out pof any recovery program. Let them and their people wither and die on the vine. Anyone so stupid, so bigotted, as to vote for a free trade Republican that openly proposes to outsource even more jobs, toss even more money at Wall Street brokers and not do one thing for them, and these blithering idiots still insist on voting Republican, are obviously bent on suicide. I suggest, I strongly suggest, we help them in their wish.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 22, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Re: the racist effect

1) If there are millions of racists in red states with electoral votes already wrapped up for McCain, who cares?

2) If there are racists in battleground states who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, again, who cares? They wouldn't vote for Obama if he was a white progressive either.

The only part of this overblown racist commotion that matters is how many voters in battleground states who voted for Gore and/or Kerry will vote for McCain because Obama is black. Until someone quantifies this with some scientific polling -- it hasn't been done yet -- my assumption is this is just more hot air from the pundits who need something to talk about.

I'm still waiting for some intelligent insight on the issue.

Posted by: Optimyst | September 22, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Re: the racist effect

1) If there are millions of racists in red states with electoral votes already wrapped up for McCain, who cares?

2) If there are racists in battleground states who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, again, who cares? They wouldn't vote for Obama if he was a white progressive either.

The only part of this overblown racist commotion that matters is how many voters in battleground states who voted for Gore and/or Kerry will vote for McCain because Obama is black. Until someone quantifies this with some scientific polling -- it hasn't been done yet -- my assumption is this is just more hot air from the pundits who need something to talk about.

I'm still waiting for some intelligent insight on the issue.

Posted by: Optimyst | September 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

This exersize is meaningless at this point. There are a number of states that truly are toss-ups and won't be decide until much closer to election day (New Mexico, Nevada, Colarado, Virginia, Flrida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvannia, New Hampshire). These states will break one way of the other depending on the debates, the current state of the economy, and which candidate seems to be responding best to the "economic crisis".

Posted by: NM Moderate | September 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

This exercise is meaningless at this point. There are a number of states that truly are toss-ups and won't be decide until much closer to election day (New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire). These states will break one way of the other depending on the debates, the current state of the economy, and which candidate seems to be responding best to the "economic crisis".

Posted by: NM Moderate | September 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The polls do call cell phones. However, I think a bigger barrier to accurate poll data lies in the younger generation's resistance to any form of time-consuming telemarketing. If I were to get a polling call, I would most likely decline to participate in the survey, not because I lack political convictions, but because I have so many other things to do.

Posted by: Brian | September 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The polls do call cell phones. However, I think a bigger barrier to accurate poll data lies in the younger generation's resistance to any form of time-consuming telemarketing. If I were to get a polling call, I would most likely decline to participate in the survey, not because I lack political convictions, but because I have so many other things to do.

Posted by: Brian | September 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Two questions:

With Ohio, I thought I heard the state had thousands of new registered voters. Wouldn't that help Obama? And the last poll I saw, McCain only had 2 point lead and that's not good. Doesn't this mean Obama does have a chance?

Second question is with Virginia, Jim Webb won the Senate probably because of the Northern Suburbs. Won't that help Obama win Virginia? He won the primaries and I have him winning Virginia. I still stand by it, but I'm curious as to why you guys don't think he'll win it. I still think it will be very close.

Posted by: Josh Christensen | September 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Two questions:

With Ohio, I thought I heard the state had thousands of new registered voters. Wouldn't that help Obama? And the last poll I saw, McCain only had 2 point lead and that's not good. Doesn't this mean Obama does have a chance?

Second question is with Virginia, Jim Webb won the Senate probably because of the Northern Suburbs. Won't that help Obama win Virginia? He won the primaries and I have him winning Virginia. I still stand by it, but I'm curious as to why you guys don't think he'll win it. I still think it will be very close.

Posted by: Josh Christensen | September 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

My 76 year old mother is phone banking for Obama/ Biden in Reno. She is a HUGE joe Biden fan. Her complex has three to one Obama to McCain signs, compared to 2004 when Bush had a clear majority. It is interesting driving around Northern Nevada, you don't see the number of McCain stickers and signs you saw for Bush.

I don't think Obama will win Reno but he will do well enough to win the State.

Posted by: NVNative | September 22, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

First posted a www.tmcpac.com/forum


OMG!!! A Hillbilly for Obama?...Yea, I am.


I've thought about this for a while now and think it is time to address the "hillbillies are for McCain" theory posited by the MSM. As someone from the hills of Southeastern Ohio I know a thing or three about us hillbillies. "I is one"

First, I admit that there is a very small group of racists that are indeed hillbillies and would never consider voting for a black man, even if their life depended on it. But among these same people there is a subgroup that have more of a problem with a woman in power.

Here's the thing the media misses, there is no more racism here as a percentage of population than there is anywhere else in the country and compared some other areas there is less.

There are those in my "geodemographic" that are 1 issue voters and their one issue boils down to religion. But these voters are far from being a majority. While most of the people in my area attend church on a regular basis, they are NOT 1 issue voters as they are described regularly by the MSM. Those that are 1 issue voters have begun to adopt poverty, as their 1 issue. Leading to comments like "Republicans are for the rich" or more often "Republicans don't care about the Middle Class or the Poor." I have actually begun to hear some on the Religious Right say things like "Democratic policies are better for the poor."

So as the MSM continues to talk of the problem Obama is having in Appalachia, I see it rather different. I see a growing shift of those in my area to a more neutral position and actually see those "1 issue voters" looking at all the issues as they decide how to cast their votes. They feel burnt by the 6 years of total GOP control and see that while the Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate, Senate Republicans have blocked Democrats from really accomplishing anything.

I don't yet think that Obama can win IN THIS COUNTY, but I do believe he will indeed make it closer. If he does make it close in Appalachia we just might see a national landslide on election night for Obama.

I really hope the MSM starts to get the idea that most of us
in Appalachia are actually much more in the middle than what they currently think.

Obama is going to be the next President and if things break the way they appear to be in my area it is going to be a ROUT.

Hope this makes ya'll feel a little better about all us "hillbillies!"

Posted by: O¿O IN THE CROWD | September 22, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/estimating-cellphone-effect-22-points.html

One take on the lack of cellphones in polls. The conclusion is that the lack of cell phone users is driving down Obama's numbers about 2-3%

Posted by: DDAWD | September 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

First posted a www.tmcpac.com/forum


OMG!!! A Hillbilly for Obama?...Yea, I am.


I've thought about this for a while now and think it is time to address the "hillbillies are for McCain" theory posited by the MSM. As someone from the hills of Southeastern Ohio I know a thing or three about us hillbillies. "I is one"

First, I admit that there is a very small group of racists that are indeed hillbillies and would never consider voting for a black man, even if their life depended on it. But among these same people there is a subgroup that have more of a problem with a woman in power.

Here's the thing the media misses, there is no more racism here as a percentage of population than there is anywhere else in the country and compared some other areas there is less.

There are those in my "geodemographic" that are 1 issue voters and their one issue boils down to religion. But these voters are far from being a majority. While most of the people in my area attend church on a regular basis, they are NOT 1 issue voters as they are described regularly by the MSM. Those that are 1 issue voters have begun to adopt poverty, as their 1 issue. Leading to comments like "Republicans are for the rich" or more often "Republicans don't care about the Middle Class or the Poor." I have actually begun to hear some on the Religious Right say things like "Democratic policies are better for the poor."

So as the MSM continues to talk of the problem Obama is having in Appalachia, I see it rather different. I see a growing shift of those in my area to a more neutral position and actually see those "1 issue voters" looking at all the issues as they decide how to cast their votes. They feel burnt by the 6 years of total GOP control and see that while the Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate, Senate Republicans have blocked Democrats from really accomplishing anything.

I don't yet think that Obama can win IN THIS COUNTY, but I do believe he will indeed make it closer. If he does make it close in Appalachia we just might see a national landslide on election night for Obama.

I really hope the MSM starts to get the idea that most of us
in Appalachia are actually much more in the middle than what they currently think.

Obama is going to be the next President and if things break the way they appear to be in my area it is going to be a ROUT.

Hope this makes ya'll feel a little better about all us "hillbillies!"

Posted by: O¿O IN THE CROWD | September 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

The other X factor in this election is that the Gen X and Millenial generation voters are overwhelmingly post-racial in the social attitudes (upwards of 95%), and numerous polls have demonstrated that the effect of these attitudes will more than negate any voters who would be motivated to support McCain because they are racist.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I am working Florida and I can tell you, forget any polls you see. If the young vote and the black vote turn out Obama wins it. We have registered so many thousands of new voters it is astounding. We will drive then to the polls if we have to on election day. I have 300 I have registered myself and I stay in contact with them. They will all be there come election day and I am registering more everyday. As far as I can tell, Mccain does not have anyone on the ground here in Florida. He is just gambling he will win it. We are trying to make it happen. In November we will all see what happens but I think some will be surprised.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Based on trends and voter enthusiasm, Obama has a better shot at turning Virginia blue than Navada. In the dem primaries, Obama had a huge win in VA against Clinton due to an extraoridinary African-American turnout and more liberal voters in the northern half of the state. I agree that Ohio is probably going to stay red and I am a little concerned about PA (even more so than Michigan), where Obama is underperforming. He is also underperforming in FL, but has a very good shot in CO and NM will turn blue. I'd be pouring a lot of resources into PA, VA and CO if I were the campaign manager for Obama.

Posted by: BillBolducinMaine | September 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/estimating-cellphone-effect-22-points.html

One take on the lack of cellphones in polls. The conclusion is that the lack of cell phone users is driving down Obama's numbers about 2-3%

Posted by: DDAWD | September 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin, my Pa. analysis is based on the fact that the so-called "undecided" situation is pretty much mirroring the one before the Obama/Clinton primary, where in the secrecy of the voting booth, for reasons we can guess at but can never be sure of, and may not agree with, the undecideds went for Clinton 3 to 1 even though Obama outspent Clinton in Pa. 4 to 1. Pa. is a place where Obama needs to get very close to or over the 50% line or he can't win. On the current numbers, if history repeats itself, he's losing.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | September 22, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

We already elected an under-educated, spoiled rich brat and look what we got. I hope to heck you don't do it again.

Posted by: jime | September 22, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I would argue that anyone who graduated from High School after 1994 would fit my demographic below. There is an enormous, unaccounted mass of younger voters who are determined to vote for Obama, but are not showing up in the numbers. Most sources indicate this is a 15-20% swing in favor or Obama.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Chris - your picks are wildly conservative, and still give Obama the edge. My map is roughly the same, except that based on what I'm hearing from VA & FL, I predict they will find their ways into the Obama column.

The Rout is on!

Posted by: bondjedi | September 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

I think the flood of new voters, as well as the prevalence of cell-phone only households for people below 30 is going to be the hindsight storyline after the election. Traveling around the country I have encountered very few under 30 voters who plan to vote for McCain. Rather, I am seeing unprecedented support for Obama, combined with a strong intention to vote. However, these voters aren't included in most polls because they are effectively off the grid. This is going to be a blow out victory for Obama, but the polls will only show us a tight horse race right down to the wire.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 22, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Oh Homer Simpson 10:45 post... I wonder if you are with the McCain campaign or not- duh. Lets try to not so subtly prey on prejudices with made up lies about Obama and Fox News inspired Muslim Militant connections that everyone knows are non existent. Your attempts are despicable. Obama is a Christian. Obama is anything but a black militant (hmm, Jesse Jackson was caught on a hot mike grumbling about as much). Obama and Michele had to take out loans to go through school, working hard on the American Dream, and were still paying them off a few years ago. Who is the elitist- John McCain. McCain doesn’t know how many houses he owns or how many tens of cars he owns (Obama owns one), McCain is the one who has surrounded himself with lobbyists (and yes, his advisors are the ones that have been in bed with Fannie Mae, taking millions, not Obama as McCain would like you to believe even more lies). Wake Up.

Posted by: arthurW from VA | September 22, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

From this headline I thought this article was about "fixed" presidential picks. Now that would have been a useful article about now!!

Posted by: gaypastor | September 22, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone analyzed the effect on polls of the switch to cell phone only households? It may be mostly the young and the tech savy; but, it surely is significant. The poll's don't call cell phone numbers. What are they doing, if anything, to take this into account?

Posted by: Stewart | September 22, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Folks are lying. If Obama is not ahead by 15 by mid-Oct, he's toast. In the privacy of the voting booth this black liberal will lose.

Posted by: vracer | September 22, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama will lose because his campaign is based on a false premise: that collectively, the American people are smart!

Posted by: Bob | September 22, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Oh my god, you all need a life.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are sound. He is going to get creamed in November. He is senile and doesn't know what's going on.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 22, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

I tell everyone I will vote for
obama, but really, he was raised by a muslim step father, went to school in a muslim school. He seems to have a militant black side ' my grandmother was a typical white person '
so I poll obama, will vote mccain.

Posted by: homer simpson | September 22, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

true compassion can not come from a position of superiority.
Buddhists For McCain!

Posted by: lama | September 22, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

It appears that The Fix is doing more poll-watching, picking based on the latest trends, rather than sitting back and actually trying to predict what will happen over the next 43 days.

If we review record here, at The Fix, we have seen commentators predicting - for more than a year - that the theme this year would be "Its the economy, stupid." Even while Senator McCain's primary campaign benefitted extraordinarily from the timing of the surge in Iraq, it was clear, to some, that by election time the important issue would be the economy, not foreign policy.

This is still Obama's race to lose - the McCain strategy seems to be aimed at undermining Obama's credentials, rather than proposing any actual policy initiatives or direction for the country from McCain. So the real question, over the next 43 days, will be: do voters want to vote for the guy that's talking about the issues & proposing solutions to the problems we face, or do they want to vote for the guy that's just attacking the opposition?

I still think voters will go for the new guy, not the old guy. I think The Fix needs to put down the polls & sit back, perhaps with an adult beverage, and think about what the electorate is really looking for.

When he's finished with that task, we'll see something more interesting than "its going to be close in Ohio." Give me a break.

Posted by: bsimon | September 22, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I see several holes in your map...
wisconsin has voted democrat by
8,000 votes in 04, and only
5,000 in 00'
it is polling within the margin
of error, and the whole northern
half of the state is crazy gun toting
conservatives.
This state is made for Palin,
as she put it " it's nice to be visiting
a state where they know about good hunting
and good fishing, and good football "
I see the same thing happening in ohio
and possibly in Penn. which has over
a million deer hunters.
and michigan is a huge gun sports state!!!
I know this is news to liberals from the
coasts, but some people still harvest
their meat with a gun.

Posted by: usa3 | September 22, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Why would we REWARD complete Republican failure ?

We wont.

Posted by: PulSamsara | September 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

boru, you are correct: NH has five EV, and Ohio has only 20, not 21. The Fix of all people should know which states have how many electoral votes: no fuzzy math! :)

Posted by: danevt | September 22, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I think it's a little premature to give Ohio to McCain. As the economy becomes front and center in the coming weeks, I think we will see a major shift there, as in Michigan. If McCain didn't scare you last week with his flip-flopping and lack of temperament, I'm sure he'll do so in the debates, especially the second one which will be about the economy.

Posted by: Mark | September 22, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

i think obama is underpolling in ohio. yeah it's gonna be a difficult slog, but with his many paid staffers and staffed offices there, i think he might pull it out. it'll be a squeaker for sure, but i think it'll go blue.

indiana is also worth keeping on eye on, believe it or not. some polling shows mccain with a 3 point advantage, some show obama with 2. both are within the margin of error. indiana is typically red, but obama is investing a lot of energy into it. every weekend busloads of volunteers from chicago head down to the hoosier state to make the sale, and they're greeted with interest and curiosity. all of this, along with their respect for the Bayh dynasty and Lee Hamilton, suggests that the state may be purple with a blue tinge! The rest of the rustbelt--Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania--will all be solidly blue on election day.

Montana could go blue because Bob Barr and Ron Paul are both on the ballot, which could siphon off enough McCain votes to allow Obama to sneak by and win the 3 EVs there. He's helped by the popular governor Schweitzer and the two Democratic Senators. He'll probably never outpoll McCain here, but he might win nonetheless by snafu.

North Carolina is also worth watching. Obama has a bunch of ground operations there, a huge voter registration drive, and a get out the vote effort. obviously the black vote is important here, as is the number one import in north carolina--northern liberal transplants. most important of all for obama, however, might be the bottom of the ticket, kay hagan for Senator. She has very effectively been hammering away at Mrs. Dole, and many polls show her lead over Mrs. Dole growing. If Obama were to hold a few joint events with her in the state, it could spell victory for both of them.

virginia falls under the same logic. heavy liberal presence in the north, traditional value republican types in the south, and a wildly popular ex-governor seeking the vacant senate seat. it's going to be close, but i think VA is about as likely to go blue, if not more so, than NC.

finally, florida. again, obama is underpolling there, and that's due in large part to traditional democrats who were largely clintonites being a bit disaffected (still). it's going to be very very close in florida, maybe even recount close.

in the final analysis, i think obama will break 300 EVs. if on election night when polls close on the east coast we see all of the northeast go blue, plus either virginia or north carolina or ohio--any of those three--then obama will have one the night. he's got 77 votes on the west coast, between 13 and 21 in the mountain states, which means he needs about 180 votes on the eastern side of the Mississippi.

if Russert were still here he'd be having an orgasm.


Posted by: the phenomenologist | September 22, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

McCain by the Numbers:

7 - Number of houses
6 - Number of guest houses at his 7 houses
13 - Number of cars
72 - Current age
76 - Age he would be at the end of his first term
10 - Percent chance that, at his age, he will die in his first term
4 - Number of times he has had cancer
3 - Hours reporters were allowed to look at his medical records without taking notes
1700 - Number of pages in his medical records
9.5 - Pages per minute reporters had to read to go through his medical records in 3 hours
0 - Number of times he or Governor Palin has released their family tax returns.
55 - Years he has been on the federal government payroll.

Posted by: Pragmatist | September 22, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The more we hear the word recession, as in long protracted recession, the more Obama pulls away

Posted by: nclwtk | September 22, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The more controversy in Congress over the financial crisis (over what to do about the general public) the bigger the gains for Obama will be. Expecially listen for the number of times recession, especially long drawn out recession, passes the lips of our revered politicos. Here is the argument, the Republicans are the folks who dug us into this great big hole, dont you see that they have no plan for digging us out (just for helping Wall Street)

Posted by: nclwtk | September 22, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Wow!

http://www.FactCheckCenter.org

I discovered a GREAT Web site that itemizes --> point by point <-- the errors in Sarah Palin's campaign statements:

Click on this link: http://www.FactCheckCenter.org

This is an amazing resource!

Help keep our politicians honest. Let your friends know about the Web site at the above link!


Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing how even in states that in the past have been GOP landslides there is a considerable rising of Democratic voters. If nothing else, it will make the GOP wake up and say "Wait a minute, how are we almost losing in our freebie states?"

Posted by: Xander | September 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

You could be right about FL, vwcat. Over 150,000 more people have registered as Democrats than Republicans SINCE the Jan. 29 FL Primary. For the first time ever, there are now more Hispanics in FL that are registered Democrats than there are Hispanic Republicans.

The number of new voter registrations in many of the battleground states tilt even further toward the Democratic Party. I don't necessarily expect a popular vote landslide, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Obama come out with 300+ EVs.

Posted by: JamesCH | September 22, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I am working Florida and I can tell you, forget any polls you see. If the young vote and the black vote turn out Obama wins it. We have registered so many thousands of new voters it is astounding. We will drive then to the polls if we have to on election day. I have 300 I have registered myself and I stay in contact with them. They will all be there come election day and I am registering more everyday. As far as I can tell, Mccain does not have anyone on the ground here in Florida. He is just gambling he will win it. We are trying to make it happen. In November we will all see what happens but I think some will be surprised.

=========
Florida,Florida,Florida!
Chris I disagree with yhou sticking Florida under a solid McCain right now. I think Florida is going to be the first of many surprises on November 4th! Florida with it's high hispanic vote going 4 to 1 for Obama along with the organization Obama has in the state, I believe he is polling 5-6 points lower than what his actual numbers are. I really think we are going to find the polling is going to be wrong in both directions when all is said and done.

Posted by: kayT | September 22, 2008 9:30 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

At this point I think Florida may surprise many pundits.
It has a huge younger population and it keeps growing all the time with younger people moving there.
It will be the beginning of the southern states moving to democrat over the next decade as culture wars begin to recede with the baby boomers aging and falling out of the spotlight.
The culture wars are a boomer thing and those who are end boomers and younger find them stupid, counterproductive and immature.
As a result we will be seeing more of a shift.
The republicans will be losing their influence, even now, and the party will split between the discredited and dying conservative movement and the growing libertarian movement in that party.
At the same time you have the democrats going back to their populist roots and becoming more unified and leaving behind the failed identity politics that dogged them from the 1980s and weakened the party.
Because of these shifts in the parties, you will see, starting this election, a shifting in the electoral map and states moving from their traditional status of the past 2 or 3 decades.
Minn. Co. Ind. Virg. Fla, NM, Iowa, Oreg. Nev., Vrmt, Penn, Mich, will go Obama for sure.

Posted by: vwcat | September 22, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

The alleged Sarah Palin 'hacker', a self-described Obamacrat, read more in my bog:

http://www.mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

There is something fundamentaly wrong when bad news for the United States (troop deaths, wall street, oil) is consistently good news for the Democrat party. The Democrats wallow in misery and perch like vultures in a tree over the electorate, waiting to swoop in and take our basic freedoms in exchange for money and illusory "government benefits". I wonder if you dumb Democrats have stopped to think about just what the headlines of last week really show? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , although "private" corporations, were creations of the (Democrat) party that demanded loose mortgage underwriting in order to "help the poor". Freddie and Fanie donated millions in campaign contributions to crooks like Obama and Chris Dodd (the 2 top recipients of Fannie and Freddie money) , while sleazy sub-prime mortgage lenders like Pritzer (Obama's finance director) and Johnson (Obama's VP selection committtee chairman) infiltrated the Obama campaign and the Democrat party. Toss in Rezko,Soros, and some execs from Countrywide Mortgage (all working for Obama) and the stench rises to a new level. Meanwhile, McCain demanded oversight over Fannie and Freddie two years ago (when the Dems took control of Congress) and Obama/Dodd killed the legislation in committee.
This is what happens when you have corporate socialism combined with ambitious little politicians and a stupid electorate. Dump the Democrats!!.

Posted by: mark | September 22, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Florida,Florida,Florida!
Chris I disagree with yhou sticking Florida under a solid McCain right now. I think Florida is going to be the first of many surprises on November 4th! Florida with it's high hispanic vote going 4 to 1 for Obama along with the organization Obama has in the state, I believe he is polling 5-6 points lower than what his actual numbers are. I really think we are going to find the polling is going to be wrong in both directions when all is said and done.

Posted by: kayT | September 22, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

I will be voting for McCain.

I want more war.
I want more deregulation so our dollar is worthless.
I want Palin running the country when McCain kicks.
I want the world to continue to hate the U.S.
I want our jobs to continue to go overseas.
I want pro life so women have no choice even with rape.
I want larger tax cuts for the rich and for big oil.
I do not want any accountability for anything.
I want to privatize social security so Wall Street can prosper.
I want to keep on borrowing from China. It"s only money.
I want our education system to continue as is so we can take advantage of how dumb our country is.
I want to ammend the constitution banning gay rights.

Only a Republican like McCain/Palin can bring me these things.

Now that conservatives have brought us the socialism that we so much dreaded, we need to bring back these good ole boys to try and make it right.


Posted by: Dave | September 22, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

If you want to know what is going on look at this site. It is the only one worth reading.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

MOST WILL BE SHOCKED WHEN SENATOR OBAMA WINS BY A LANDSLIDE... BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BELEIVING THE POLLS...BUT THE POLLS ARE NOT FACTORING IN THE NEWLY REGISTERD DEMOCRATIC VOTERS OR THE YOUNG OR OLD OR THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT VOTED IN YEARS... OBAMA WILL WIN BY A LANDSLIDE..!! TO THE SURPRISE OF MANY...I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE TALKING HEADS TRY TO GET AND UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ON ELECTION NIGHT!

Posted by: JOYCE | September 22, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Anon, you don't need to scream at us with your obnoxious lettering.There are people who publically admitted that race was a factor in their vote.Of course this cuts both ways and will neutralize the issue.

Posted by: joseph marcucilli | September 22, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I am hoping Virginia will flip after all, despite the historic pattern of voting GOP.

Posted by: DB | September 22, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

McCain is feeble and Palin is a ditz, they can't compete. Don't listen to the spin, it's Obama in a ROUT.
By the way- Chuck Todd sucks.

Posted by: BLUTO | September 22, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

I can't really disagree with the map. There are some states (like Indiana, NC and ND) that are polling very closely that could flip (or give the Republicans a strong run). I think Obama will hold the states you show

Posted by: RickJ | September 22, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

"Unless Obama is polling over 48% there with less than 5-6% undecided by election day, he's a goner."

Normally, yes, but these polls don't reflect the surge of newly registered, mostly young, and overwhelmingly Democratic voters. If only half of these people vote, it will be a landslide.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

DyingLikeFlies, are you in PA? What part of the state? If you sense BHO is weak in PA after last week, what possible new bombshell in the financial or economic world could be a game changer? Why do you assume that late breaking voters will vote R?

Just curious. I am in TX and my relatives in PA are all in the Philly suburbs - counting their adult children who are registered in either a Philly suburb or in Bucks Cty they split 4-2 for BHO. So my personal sampling is real limited.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 22, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

The sad fact is that even Racists have the vote.
The question is whether more black racists vote for Obama, or more white voters (Whos mantra is (I will NEVER vote for a black person)) vote.
also, the younger generations, who dont remember the evil of seperate, but equal, seem to be less racist. I believe the republicans are so confident of racists that they feel free to be crazy crazy crazy. How else explains why this race is still close?????

Posted by: choctaws | September 22, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Here's the problem for Obama: Pa. will, under the current numbers, flip to McCain. The undecideds will go 60-40 for McCain, at the least, absent another economic bombshell. Unless Obama is polling over 48% there with less than 5-6% undecided by election day, he's a goner.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | September 22, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Looks like the Palin bounce has finally run out of steam, that or the countless scandals surrounding her have finally caught up with the voter. http://www.veeppeek.com

Or maybe people are just tired of the same old red necks running the country.
http://www.hotpres.com

Posted by: The Palin Bounce Gone? | September 22, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Anon - "CNN & MSNBC PLEASE EXPLAIN TO AMERICAN PUBLIC! WHY ITS RACIST WHEN WHITE VOTERS DO NOT AGREE OR SUPPORT THE INEXPERIENCED MEDIA MADE OBAMA, BUT IT’S NOT RACISM WHEN 90% PLUS BLACK VOTERS ARE ONLY SUPPORTING THE BLACK CANDIDATE? LIKE OPRAH ETC…"
---------------------------
Hmm... Obama is just getting a bit more support from blacks than any other Democratic candidate since the Dixiecrats became Republicans in late 60s and early 70s. Mid 90s instead of low 90% range. Wow, big difference there. The media has just made more of it.

For once there is an open dialog about race in this country. And amazingly people still have issues about it.

The bigger deal is that alot of Dems have issues voting for a black man for president. And I think that is surprising some people.

Obama really should be up by 5-6% in this cycle, but isn't. It is just the facts and is the hand he has been dealt. He isn't going to be able to change that before the election but is going to have to work around it to win.

Posted by: Smarterthanyou | September 22, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't NH have 4, and not 5, electoral votes?

Posted by: boru | September 22, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't NH have 4, and not 5, electoral votes?

Posted by: boru | September 22, 2008 7:13 AM | Report abuse

CNN & MSNBC PLEASE EXPLAIN TO AMERICAN PUBLIC! WHY ITS RACIST WHEN WHITE VOTERS DO NOT AGREE OR SUPPORT THE INEXPERIENCED MEDIA MADE OBAMA, BUT IT’S NOT RACISM WHEN 90% PLUS BLACK VOTERS ARE ONLY SUPPORTING THE BLACK CANDIDATE? LIKE OPRAH ETC…
Barack Obama privately tried to persuade Iraqi political leaders to stall an agreement on scaling back American troops in Iraq while publicly campaigning for a speedy withdrawal, Obama’s campaign is not a train wreck; it’s Chernobyl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqHFk-3yQM
One of CNN's leading Obama sychophants, Candy Crowley, let the cat out of the Obama bag, when she told viewers that the Obama campaign had wanted horrific Wall Street headlines to help their campaign. Crowley, and fellow Obama sychophant David Gergen, were extolling the virtues of bad economic news for the Obama campaign. Of course, no one would expect CNN to actually deal with the issue of who or what party is responsible for the economy. No, their template is the economy is horrible, we are going to blame Bush and McCain and Obama will benefit. The Drudge Report had this story on its site this morning, but realized how bad this is for the Obama campaign. It's beyond audacious that we have one candidate for President who is full of hope. Hope that the economy is so bad, that he can win an election because of it. The conservative internet has its work cut out.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/media-alert-palin-meeting-diversion.html

Sunday, September 21, 2008
Ignore the Shiny, Everything Has Changed: Palin Meeting Diversion

Washington Post:

"The list of foreign leaders GOP vice president Sarah Palin will meet this week in New York just keeps getting longer.

In addition to having private sessions with Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Colombian president Alvaro Uribe scheduled for Tuesday, the Alaska governor now has a more elaborate list of heads of state lined up for Wednesday.

According to the campaign, she will meet Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili; Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko; Iraqi President Jalal Talabani; Pakistani President Asif Ali Zadari; and Indian Prime Minister Manhoman Singh in a single day.

And Wednesday offers Palin a tete-a-tete with another category of globe trotter: she'll also be meeting with U2 frontman Bono, whose work with the ONE Campaign has earned frequent plaudits from GOP presidential nominee John McCain on the campaign trail."


This is clearly an attempt by the McCain campaign to change the subject from the economy (which, for the party in executive power, is a sure loser when the economy is bad) back to Palin.

The hope here is that, before the debate on Friday, media will be irresistibly drawn to the lure of an absurd number of meetings on one day--including the most irresistible media lure, Bono. Even if there is conflict about the meetings, they wager, the subject is changed back to whether Palin is/is not qualified, rather than a powerful build, right up to the debate, to what is now the most important, relevant, and most salient topic: the economy.

On which they lose.

Ignore that shiny bauble. As they say, everything has changed.

Be smart.

Don't fall for it.

Stay with the economy.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/media-alert-palin-meeting-diversion.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

Did you factor McCain's claim that "deregulation has been a good thing for the economy" into your decision about Ohio?

I think as people begin to understand how Phil Graham has been instrumental to both McCain's stubborn economic policies and deregulation (including such favorites as the "Enron Loophole"), they will be much less likely to vote for more of the same.

We literally cannot afford these people running the country.

Posted by: Tomas | September 22, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

Don't forget to cover the humor of Sarah Palin meeting w/ world leaders, in NYC, this week!!!!

Posted by: Timothy | September 22, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company