US Elections 2008

[Autumn Demon]

I was talking about the primaries, not the general election... But the primaries are over, so I'll talk about the general election now.

These are my predictions for the general election. The number next to each state and candidate indicate electoral college votes; 270 are needed to win.

McCain: (274 total)
Texas (34)
Florida (27)
Ohio (20)
Georgia (15)
North Carolina (15)
Virginia (13)
Indiana (11)
Tennessee (11)
Missouri (11)
Arizona (10)
Colorado (9)
Alabama (9)
Louisiana (9)
South Carolina (8)
Kentucky (8)
Oklahoma (7)
Mississippi (6)
Arkansas (6)
Kansas (6)
Utah (5)
Nevada (5)
West Virginia (5)
Nebraska (5)
Idaho (4)
Montana (3)
South Dakota (3)
Alaska (3)
North Dakota (3)
Wyoming (3)

Obama: (264 total)
California (55)
New York (31)
Illinois (21)
Pennsylvania (21)
Michigan (17)
New Jersey (15)
Massachusetts (12)
Washington (11)
Maryland (10)
Wisconsin (10)
Minnesota (10)
Oregon (7)
Connecticut (7)
Iowa (7)
New Mexico (5)
Maine (4)
New Hampshire (4)
Hawaii (4)
Rhode Island (4)
Delaware (3)
Vermont (3)
Washingotn, D.C. (3)


And I predict this outcome as someone who hopes Obama will win. : (

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

I was talking about the primaries, not the general election... But the primaries are over, so I'll talk about the general election now.

These are my predictions for the general election. The number next to each state and candidate indicate electoral college votes; 270 are needed to win.

McCain: (274 total)
Ohio (20)
North Carolina (15)
Virginia (13)
Indiana (11)
Missouri (11)
Colorado (9)
Louisiana (9)
Nevada (5)
Obama: (264 total)
Pennsylvania (21)
Michigan (17)
New Hampshire (4)

Above are the very key potential switches on your list. I can't find the site link I want which shows which states are real tossups and what not. I will link to http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ instead which if you look slightly down on the right, has leanings. (They have lots and lots of pretty charts for those mathematically inclined or chart inclined.) The key thing to note really is that if any of those states switch from McCains column, Obama can win. However Obama also has to press hard in some major states to keep them. The pundits are running Colorado as they deciding state this year.

Also, New Hampshire will very likely go to McCain. No ifs/ands/buts about it.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The majority of those states are going to be non-factors.

1. small electoral votes
2. they are firmly Red States. Obama may win those states in primary but he won't win them in the General Election.
3. Name a big state that Obama won?

1. How did Obama win the primary? Winning lots of small states.
2. If you look at the charts, not all red states stay red for Obama. He has a good chance of flipping a few.

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

I'm surprised that the Democratic primaries have even been getting so much attention for the last two months. Anyone decent at math should have been able to figure out that Clinton had practically no chance of winning after Obama won 11 straight primaries and caucuses after Super Tuesday. Those wins were bigger than anything Clinton has been pulled off, with wins of 20-30% margins in many states, including Virginia which will be important in the general election.

Clinton was still very much mathematically in it and could have possibly won back then... if she had kept her mouth shut. The problem is during that time after super Tuesday and before the next "large" state, Clinton's people said many, many things that were potentially damaging to her and I would bet helped Obama.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Clinton was still very much mathematically in it and could have possibly won back then... if she had kept her mouth shut. The problem is during that time after super Tuesday and before the next "large" state, Clinton's people said many, many things that were potentially damaging to her and I would bet helped Obama.

Obama is just the next Kennedy, he's so charming that things bounce off of him. I'm still surprised that he managed to live this Reverend Wright controversy. Plus all the African Americans are going to vote for him, which boosts his votes in states like North Carolina drastically. He also wins all caucuses because that is primarily made up of vote from party goers, and Clinton happens to have much less that him in this case. There really wasn't anything Clinton could do since this primary is a battle of personalities and not politics. She lost on Super Tuesday.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Obama is just the next Kennedy, he's so charming that things bounce off of him. I'm still surprised that he managed to live this Reverend Wright controversy.

Aw, come on If we were holding things like that against people then I'd say that I'm surprised that Hillary Clinton survived Bill Clinton's "sex scandal." I mean, Reverand Wright won't even be in the White House; we can't afford to have a First Man in the White House who has admitted to infidelity, now, can we?! (/sarcasm) And Bill Clinton was nearly impeached, now isn't that horrific? As much as George Bush deserves it (and Bill Clinton didn't, unless we want to be super-purists), has he fielded an impeachment? Impeachment is big stuff. Personally, I'm amazed that people made such a big issue over Wright, they seem to have forgotten Bill Clinton (both the good and bad aspects - I liked Bill Clinton, personally), and nobody is outraged over George Bush. Those priorities are really screwed.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

McCain: (274 total)
Texas (34)
Florida (27)
Ohio (20)
Georgia (15)
North Carolina (15)
Virginia (13)
Indiana (11)
Tennessee (11)
Missouri (11)
Arizona (10)
Colorado (9)
Alabama (9)
Louisiana (9)
South Carolina (8)
Kentucky (8)
Oklahoma (7)
Mississippi (6)
Arkansas (6)
Kansas (6)
Utah (5)
Nevada (5)
West Virginia (5)
Nebraska (5)
Idaho (4)
Montana (3)
South Dakota (3)
Alaska (3)
North Dakota (3)
Wyoming (3)

Obama: (264 total)
California (55)
New York (31)
Illinois (21)
Pennsylvania (21)
Michigan (17)
New Jersey (15)
Massachusetts (12)
Washington (11)
Maryland (10)
Wisconsin (10)
Minnesota (10)
Oregon (7)
Connecticut (7)
Iowa (7)
New Mexico (5)
Maine (4)
New Hampshire (4)
Hawaii (4)
Rhode Island (4)
Delaware (3)
Vermont (3)
Washingotn, D.C. (3)

I highlighted the states i think will be in play. People look at national polls and forget that in the US the presidential election isn't about 1 election it is about 50 different elections. The system was setup so that you don't havw to be the most popular guy to win it all.

Originally Posted by bayoab

1. How did Obama win the primary? Winning lots of small states.

Obama is on'y winning becuase of the way the democrates setup thier primary. If it was a Winner takes contest then Clinton would have won it.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Aw, come on If we were holding things like that against people then I'd say that I'm surprised that Hillary Clinton survived Bill Clinton's "sex scandal." I mean, Reverand Wright won't even be in the White House; we can't afford to have a First Man in the White House who has admitted to infidelity, now, can we?! (/sarcasm) And Bill Clinton was nearly impeached, now isn't that horrific? As much as George Bush deserves it (and Bill Clinton didn't, unless we want to be super-purists), has he fielded an impeachment? Impeachment is big stuff. Personally, I'm amazed that people made such a big issue over Wright, they seem to have forgotten Bill Clinton (both the good and bad aspects - I liked Bill Clinton, personally), and nobody is outraged over George Bush. Those priorities are really screwed.

The difference between Bil and Wright is that Bil cheated on Hillary and She forgave him. it is a personal issue between husband and wife.

Obama and Wright on the other hand is whole different animal altogether. Obama stay in that church and every sunday listen to wright preach. You can't tell me that over 20 years Obama isn't aware of wrights views. So it becomes this.

If Obama did not agree with Wright why did he stay? if he did agree with it then he needs his head examine.

If Obama was ok with what Wright has been preaching for 20 years why did Obama cut his ties with Wright now and not earlier? Is he cutting ties because he suddenly discover he didn't agree with Wright or becuase it becuase political non-convenient. if that is the case did Obama stay in Wright church for 29 years because it was political convenient. If that is the reason what makes Obama different form another political other then he is black?

[SeedFreedom]

Its easy, the media have nothing else to talk about on Obama. Its easy to forget everything with Bill Clinton, because it happen so long ago. Even if he was nearly impeached, the scandal was a personal matter. As for focusing on Bush, I expect to see a lot more on that when the pressure is on HRC to drop out and start pushing Obama as the candidate. Right now, there isn't much to talk about the republican side, and a lot of time after for it. Now is the time of the frenzy for the democrats so all the attention is on there, but it will shift soon enough.

True question is, how much damage does Clinton want to do before she finally wakes up and smells the s**t shes swimming in? She so worked up on labeling Obama as inexperienced and unelectable, shes making him unelectable. She so worked up on saying how she won two states that won't count. Period. They won't revote in time, and they won't let Clinton take the delegates when Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Even former presidential candidate and clinton supporter Magovern has jumped ship. If she drops out, lets Obama take the spot light, and tells her supporters that a Democrat in the white house is more important than individual victories, i think Obama will be a likely choice as the next president. Because she obviously no long has any chance, unless she wins 68% of the remaining votes, which wont happen.

[Vexx]

@Ledgem: Yes... we're surrounded by people who.... are "people who have lived on their land for generations... they have unchanging values... the salt of the earth.


You know. ... Morons. "

(extra point given for reference)

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Its easy, the media have nothing else to talk about on Obama. Its easy to forget everything with Bill Clinton, because it happen so long ago. Even if he was nearly impeached, the scandal was a personal matter. As for focusing on Bush, I expect to see a lot more on that when the pressure is on HRC to drop out and start pushing Obama as the candidate. Right now, there isn't much to talk about the republican side, and a lot of time after for it. Now is the time of the frenzy for the democrats so all the attention is on there, but it will shift soon enough.

True question is, how much damage does Clinton want to do before she finally wakes up and smells the s**t shes swimming in? She so worked up on labeling Obama as inexperienced and unelectable, shes making him unelectable. She so worked up on saying how she won two states that won't count. Period. They won't revote in time, and they won't let Clinton take the delegates when Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Even former presidential candidate and clinton supporter Magovern has jumped ship. If she drops out, lets Obama take the spot light, and tells her supporters that a Democrat in the white house is more important than individual victories, i think Obama will be a likely choice as the next president. Because she obviously no long has any chance, unless she wins 68% of the remaining votes, which wont happen.

Obama is running for the President of the Untied States of America not your high school class president. If he can't take the crap Clinton is throwing at him then he should be running for president. The Republican's will be throwing even more crap at him. Obama should consider this the toughen up process.

And I fine it quite funny that Obama supporter already have reason why if Obama lose to McCain they will just blame Clinton. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that if Obama loses it is becuase McCain run a better campign ot Obama is flaw candidate. It is All Clinton's fault.

[SeedFreedom]

Its different when you take criticism from an opposition. When HRC is so determined to be in the race even when she has realistically no chance left, she would rather wear down in a long and pointless races that it will end with a much better chance for four more years of Bush with Bush jr. there then to admit defeat.

I don't believe in the galvanization argument at all. You don't turn away democrats over to Macain to toughen him up. The states that Obama needs more support in are the ones that Clinton holds. She throws some support Obama's way and hes clear right to the white house. Shes using lies and deceit and just about every other underhanded technique to make her look much better off than she is. Even if she somehow does win the primaries and the nomination, where the hell is she going to fund it? She not only got nothing left, but is now paying for it out of her own pocket.

If Obama's campaign is flawed, then Clinton's is a swiss cheese raft. He beating her in every category that counts. Delegates, Popular votes, money raised, and states won. Her only strong point was super delegates, which he is catching up. How is she ever going to beat Macain if Obama isn't good enough, and is kicking her ass?

Even if i don't agree with Clinton's political position, i would respect her for staying to the end of a tight race. The only problem is shes not anywhere near close with no time to make it up.

[Vexx]

I'd have actually voted for either one in the fall election but Obama isn't winning so much as Clinton is losing the race with gaffe after faux pas after inept foul-mouthed aide.

The primaries could easily have been hers to win but dual wielding pistols each carefully aimed at her own feet seems to have been their strategy at times.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Its different when you take criticism from an opposition. When HRC is so determined to be in the race even when she has realistically no chance left, she would rather wear down in a long and pointless races that it will end with a much better chance for four more years of Bush with Bush jr. there then to admit defeat.

Up until the the Ind and NC election i thought Clinton had a realistic chance to beat Obama. Not a great chance but a decent one.

I don't believe in the galvanization argument at all. You don't turn away democrats over to Macain to toughen him up. The states that Obama needs more support in are the ones that Clinton holds. She throws some support Obama's way and hes clear right to the white house. Shes using lies and deceit and just about every other underhanded technique to make her look much better off than she is. Even if she somehow does win the primaries and the nomination, where the hell is she going to fund it? She not only got nothing left, but is now paying for it out of her own pocket.

which is my point, Clinton are winning the swing states that democrates need to win the White House. Obama are winning states are no use in the general election.

[SeedFreedom]

She may have won them in the primaries, but with no money and no support from superdelegates and other democrats, she wont win them come November.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The difference between Bil and Wright is that Bil cheated on Hillary and She forgave him. it is a personal issue between husband and wife.

Obama and Wright on the other hand is whole different animal altogether. Obama stay in that church and every sunday listen to wright preach. You can't tell me that over 20 years Obama isn't aware of wrights views. So it becomes this.

If Obama did not agree with Wright why did he stay? if he did agree with it then he needs his head examine.

If Obama was ok with what Wright has been preaching for 20 years why did Obama cut his ties with Wright now and not earlier? Is he cutting ties because he suddenly discover he didn't agree with Wright or becuase it becuase political non-convenient. if that is the case did Obama stay in Wright church for 29 years because it was political convenient. If that is the reason what makes Obama different form another political other then he is black?

Sorry, but I won't let this one go so easily. People blew the Wright deal way out of proportion, and now you're telling me that Bill's infidelity can be waved away as a personal thing? Why can't Obama's relationship with Wright be waved away as a personal thing? If you disagree with someone over something do you immediately launch them out of your life? If I attend a church where almost everyone is homophobic and anti gay-marriage, does that meant that I must agree with them just because I didn't storm out of the church? Come on, let's be realistic here. Wright said some things that set people off in some of his sermons, but he wasn't saying the same thing over and over, week after week. He wasn't organizing rallies or terrorist acts that his congregation (or more specifically, Obama) were participating in over those words. If you're making a big deal out of it, you're just looking to make a big deal over something.

As a disclaimer, I don't personally give a damn about this next part that I'm about to write, but let me show you why it would theoretically matter a lot more than Reverand Wright. Because even if Obama is elected, Reverand Wright isn't going to be in the White House. But if Clinton is elected, her husband is going to be with her. While the First Man/First Lady position isn't recognized as being a position of major power, Bill Clinton is a former president which means that he'll probably have more influence than any other First Man/First Lady. Bill Clinton was not faithful to his wife and gave in to sexual lust. Come on, if you're out there claiming that Wright hates America and Obama's a terrorist, then surely you're security-minded enough that the idea of Bill Clinton being manipulated through sex must bother you, or that it could be used as a means of affecting Hillary Clinton? And what about their relationship - are the Clintons a stable family unit, or are there grudges and weaknesses? What happens if there's some sort of a divorce, that'll massively ruin Hillary's leadership abilites and may create a conflict of interest that could be a threat to national security! How horrific!

Don't argue against any of that, because even if it were true I don't personally care or buy into it. It was made to show a point, and that is that people are being very selective about what matters to them (the media seems to be directing people's priorities). Does the fact that Obama broke ties with Wright now mean anything, or make him guilty? Not at all! I think he was forced to, as a political move, but otherwise he probably wouldn't have. And to be honest, unless Obama were repeating Wright's words and views, I don't think it would - or even should - matter. Tell me why it matters. Do you practice what you preach in this regard? You cut off any friends or disown your parents when they have a view that you don't disagree with? I highly doubt it. Yet somehow there are expectations for a presidential candidate to be some sort of saint (if you could even call that saintly). The president isn't a divine ruler, get that straight. The president is a person just like you and I are; the only difference is that they should ideally be a bit more upstanding in terms of morals and integrity than the average person. It's really a shame that politicians are accepted as being vile and somewhat corrupt... and then we see these unrealistic expectations for how they should be handling personal affairs.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

She so worked up on saying how she won two states that won't count. Period. They won't revote in time, and they won't let Clinton take the delegates when Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Actually, if things play out the way they seem to be going, they will be seating both Florida and Michigan at the convention as the voting went. The reason is because Obama will have a true majority among pledged delegates and it won't matter anymore as long as they split Michigan 65/35 or better.

The reason for the above is multifold.
1) Clinton will use the "nuclear option" and thus keep her promise.
2) It will not affect the results, therefore it will not harm the will of the people.
3) Obama will not do anything about it because he realizes they need to be seated somehow and at this point it won't matter.

Because she obviously no long has any chance, unless she wins 68% of the remaining votes, which wont happen.

She needs one of: 80% of the vote in all of the remaining primaries, 68% of the total remaining number of delegates (pledged+super), the super delegates to do something crazy, or FL/MI being seated in some absurd proportion.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Personally, I'm amazed that people made such a big issue over Wright, they seem to have forgotten Bill Clinton (both the good and bad aspects - I liked Bill Clinton, personally), and nobody is outraged over George Bush. Those priorities are really screwed.

Main stream media does a very good job of directing people's attention to various places and warping their reality. People made an issue over Wright because MSM told them it was a big issue. It isn't like the MSM doesn't have their own secret agenda. CNN is called the Clinton News Network for a reason. The Wright story is an issue, but nowhere was big as the media made it out to be. It should have been on the news for a day or two.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

which is my point, Clinton are winning the swing states that democrates need to win the White House. Obama are winning states are no use in the general election.

Interesting facts:
Current polls is swing states:
State (->Primary winner for D): Current head to head results
Michigan (->Clinton) : Obama > McCain > Clinton
Florida: (->Clinton): McCain > Clinton > Obama
Penn: (->Clinton): Clinton > Obama > McCain
Ohio: (->Clinton): Clinton > McCain > Obama
Colorado: (-> Obama): Obama > McCain > Clinton
Iowa: (-> Obama): Obama > McCain > Clinton
New Mexico (-> Clinton): McCain > Clinton / Obama (Different sites disagree who does better against McCain)
Texas (->Clinton): McCain > Obama > Clinton
Missouri (->Obama): McCain > Clinton > Obama
Virginia (->Obama): McCain > Obama > Clinton
Nevada (->Clinton): Obama > McCain > Clinton
Wisconsin (->Obama): Obama > McCain > Clinton
Indiana (->Clinton): McCain > Obama > Clinton
New Hampshire (->Clinton): McCain > Clinton > Obama
Washington (->Obama): Obama > McCain > Clinton

I have flagged a few patterns among the key swing states. Obama has a chance to hold some of the swing states he won and Clinton is also losing some of the swing states she won. Any argument along the lines of "Obama won in a red state and can't hold it in an election" is as false as "Clinton won in a red state and can hold it in an election".

(Source on all of these is pollster.)

Edit: Found the site I wanted earlier: http://www.270towin.com/ (Note: Their head to head charts are a little off in some places. )

Edit 2: Michigan has come up with a way to split the delegates.

[Kyuusai]

I've been pondering for quite some time just how much all this election talk means considering just what the president is responsible for.

Well, today one of the finer blogs on the internet asks the same question. I think it's a good read for any one who actually cares about government.

[Ledgem]

That's a rather interesting article. I don't know how presidential races used to be, but I'd imagine that they didn't always expect that the president would have to act as an all-knowing entity. It's actually frightening when you come to realize the amount that people come to expect from the president compared to other arms of government. Is the government really attempting to gain more power for itself, or is it just conforming to the expectations of the people?

It's interesting to know a president's view on these matters, of course, because they have veto power. If a president wants abortion to be illegal then you can bet that they're going to try to veto any pro-choice bills that come out of the Congress, for example. Somewhere along the way the people get wrapped up in what the presidents say and seem to think that the president will be the one to write laws and put them into action. At that point, the president might as well be the monarch. The issues that the presidential candidates discuss and go over would really be better-suited to congressional candidates.

[Kang Seung Jae]

I'm starting to hate the Democracts system of spliting the delegates.


Why can't they just use "winner takes all"?

[SeedFreedom]

Because that would mean that Hilary's near victory is just as good as Barack's overwhelming 14 point victory, which doesn't represent the will of the people well. (i know that those two states probably have different amount of delegates, but my general idea stands)

I never liked the idea of winner takes all because all that means is that a certain candidate is like more in more areas than the other. What they don't show is how one could be overwhelmingly supported while the other barley scratched out a win. Happened in Ontario where one party won with a popular vote of 30%. Ended up being a disaster.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

I never liked the idea of winner takes all because all that means is that a certain candidate is like more in more areas than the other. What they don't show is how one could be overwhelmingly supported while the other barley scratched out a win. Happened in Ontario where one party won with a popular vote of 30%. Ended up being a disaster.

"Winner takes all" is a necessary part of American politics because of how the powers of the state and the federal government are split up.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

It's interesting to know a president's view on these matters, of course, because they have veto power. If a president wants abortion to be illegal then you can bet that they're going to try to veto any pro-choice bills that come out of the Congress, for example. Somewhere along the way the people get wrapped up in what the presidents say and seem to think that the president will be the one to write laws and put them into action. At that point, the president might as well be the monarch. The issues that the presidential candidates discuss and go over would really be better-suited to congressional candidates.

You hit on one of the primary reasons the candidates opinions on other things matter: the veto. Also important is that between the powers to convene and adjourn congress and the political ties that are inevitable in elections, the president "sets the tone" for the legislative branch. And, perhaps far more importantly, we want to know what the president thinks so we know what sort of people he will appoint.

The view of a president as a near-monarch built for a long time when the president was really the face of government before media made information far more available, but the trend continued. It reached a new height lately after the Clintons had so much President-and-First-Lady-crafted-or-backed legislation (not that there's anything wrong with that) and has continued so that now it seems that anything that happens is a result of the "Bush Administration", whether or not it really is.

I hate to point fingers between parties, but the Democrats as a whole are far worse on this than the Republicans (don't worry about partisanship from me--I think the Republicans have their own problems). From blaming Reagan for rising government spending when it was caused by the Democrat-controlled congress's spending-spree bills (which he protested and vetoed some of) to John Kerry actually having the gall to blame Bush for congressional decisions in the 2004 debates--things Kerry, himself, had voted for (And I don't mean Iraq. My opinion of Bush was lowered by the fact that he didn't call Kerry on these points.) And now these "pie in the sky" promises. They're coming from the Republican camp, too, but mostly in a reactionary fashion.

I think the entirety of the US government needs a high school civics course.