letsgocards89 wrote:
ROFTLMAO now presidential ability is determined by their ability to run a campaign? Well, I guess that's really all you'd have to judge Obama on so I see why that would be the rationale.
I see your point, but look at it this way:
Running a campaign is a complex management task. You have to
make a million decisions, you have to have a nose for talented
staff, you have to know what and when to delegate, you have
to be able to facilitate, negotiate, and motivate.
All of those qualities would serve you well as president.
Now your point is that a campaign is nothing like being a senator
or governor of more than a few years experience. This is true
in itself. But running a campaign provides us with a peek at what
kind of tools a candidate has in his/her toolbox.
Now look again at how the two campaigns were run. Who had the
right tools? Of the tools they had in common, who wielded them
better?
Let's say that Obama was slightly better in running his campaign. We ignore everything else? Completely?
I guess this all reminds me of this bumper sticker.
Popeye_Card wrote:Keep in mind that this is an election following 8 years of one of the least popular presidents in history. 70% of this country disapprove of the current president. That itself will swing a lot of the independants to the other side.
There was a guy on CNN a few days ago who worked on one of the campaigns that's hailed as an example of the Bradley effect, and he explained that what's really at play is not that people say they're supporting the black candidate and then change their minds in the voting cubicle, it's that the "undecided" people are looking for reasons not to vote for the black candidate, and they either come up with one at the last second or they just go with their gut. The undecideds from that campaign eventually went overwhelmingly to the white candidate. If that shows up widespread in this election, that could turn this from an Obama blowout into a McCain victory.
BenNX74205 wrote:I can't see the electoral map undergoing such a rapid and massive realignment from 2004 to now. Things are moving blue across the nation, but I just can't believe a close loss for Dems the last two elections will turn into a 200-vote electoral landslide.
The electoral college amplifies small leads. An Obama victory does not require "massive realignment" from 2004. Here's the 2004 map:
And here's fivethirtyeight's current projection:
With the exception of Virginia and North Carlonia, the states likely to flip have been close in past elections. Virginia is undergoing demographic changes favorable to the Democrats. That's the reason for the nonsense about the "real Virginia" that's "pro-America".
BenNX74205 wrote:As for why I don't think this will be a blowout, yeah part of it is history. America is a "right of center" nation as a whole, and that is reflected in the paucity of electorally-dominant democrat victories in presidential elections. Obama is not LBJ the southern democrat a year after JFK was assassinated. Obama is not FDR, challenging an incumbent who had presided over the first THREE YEARS of the Great Depression. Put simply, I don't think where we are as a nation comes anywhere close to what was going on at those times.
I can't see the electoral map undergoing such a rapid and massive realignment from 2004 to now. Things are moving blue across the nation, but I just can't believe a close loss for Dems the last two elections will turn into a 200-vote electoral landslide.
As I've said before, I think it'll be close. We'll see where it all shakes out tomorrow, thankfully.
I think you may be underestimating the level of contempt in this country right now. It's unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime (I was too young to remember the late 60s). I may be wrong but I don't think there's any model that we can get this election to fit. And the polls have suggested blowout for months now.
I think there is a lot of pent-up anger in this country...
cpebbles wrote:There was a guy on CNN a few days ago who worked on one of the campaigns that's hailed as an example of the Bradley effect, and he explained that what's really at play is not that people say they're supporting the black candidate and then change their minds in the voting cubicle, it's that the "undecided" people are looking for reasons not to vote for the black candidate, and they either come up with one at the last second or they just go with their gut. The undecideds from that campaign eventually went overwhelmingly to the white candidate. If that shows up widespread in this election, that could turn this from an Obama blowout into a McCain victory.
I think it's typical in the Internet era to find those that are willing to roll the dice and go on record to pick the huge underdog before a big event. Then, if the upset occurs, they think they'll look like geniuses.
I personally don't think there's any reason to believe that McCain has done anything to change what's been happening in the polling for months now. I do think there's reason to believe that the polling doesn't quite encompass all of Obama's support, which could lead to even bigger wins than expected. I can say this, if McCain does win this election, I'll never look at another poll as long as I live (no offense, 538).
BW23 wrote:The image is the Obama accomplishment counter. It's at 0,000.
A virtually unknown black man disposing of the Democratic party (Hillary) and possibly the Republican party in the same election may be one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of this country.
