Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[BenNX74205]

Maybe the polls will be right. Personally, I have a hard time believing Obama will win by 200 EVs. We'll see tomorrow night. Obama is not Jed Bartlet. The real world is not "The West Wing." Democratic presidential candidates don't win this type of victory, and the ones that do have extenuating circumstances on their side, or run a campaign atypical of the "standard liberal democrat."

Bartlet's first term was a pretty tight race.

If Wikipedia is correct, Clinton won by this sort of margin twice. FWIW, 538 has Obama projected at 346 electoral votes and 52 to 46 in the popular vote.

The MS-laden Bartlet crushed whateverhisnamewas in his bid for re-election. As far as I remember, all the coverage of Bartlet's first election focused on his rapid ascent through the primaries to overtake the frontrunner, Hoynes.

As for Clinton, he was a southern democrat that allowed him to carve out a lot of the "flyover states" and turn them into democratic victories. The last two democrats to win the presidency with more than 50% of the popular vote were southern democrats: Carter and LBJ. Obama (Chicago) and Biden (Delaware) aren't going to flip the south, regardless of the African American vote; if they could, we wouldn't need majority-minority voting districts across the "South."

Care to make this interesting?

Hullo?

Gauntlet thrown with an audible clank, two snaps, and a flipped bird.

C'mon, true believers; someone pick it up.

I'm not a true believer. I'm voting for Obama tomorrow morning as soon as the polls open.

But I'll pick up the gauntlet. I'll go out on the scariest of all possible limbs and say McCain wins tomorrow with over 300 EVs. I sure as hell hope I'm wrong, but I'll be alone on an island on this one if I must.

[haltz]

Haltz is correct about Clinton. He delivered major ass whuppings to both HW and Dole.

370-168 in '92
379-159 in '96

I guess an argument is that Perot 'stole' votes, and maybe Ben filed that under extenuating circumstances. However I agree that we've got some extenuating circumstances now, and this seems to say that Perot did no such thing.

Going back before Carter, I'm just not sure how relevant that is to today's political climate.

[BenNX74205]

Democratic presidential candidates don't win this type of victory, and the ones that do have extenuating circumstances on their side, or run a campaign atypical of the "standard liberal democrat."

I'm not predicting a blowout necessarily, but don't you think we have those circumstances? A financial crisis first and foremost, along with an unpopular war and a Republican president with historically bad approval ratings. It seems like that would do.

The market seems to be stabilizing right now. Yeah, we've had a huuuuuge drop in the economy. We've been set back........calculating..............to where we were in 2003. I acknowledge a lot of people lost a lot of money. But, somehow, we're better off than we were 8 years ago. We're not in the Great Depression. And FDR came into office after three years of Great Depression. We're in, what, month 2? Not the same.

Unpopular war--you've got me there. We are in an unpopular war. That probably contributes to the historically bad approval ratings for Bush. But.......Bush isn't running for president. Not the same.

Bush and McCain are "republicans." But Palin is a "conservative," and it's pretty damn clear she has energized the republican party in a way McCain never could. We can laugh at her stupidity and her wacky beliefs, but she's resonating with the public. Her rallies are packed. And she's been all over Pennsylvania the last 2 weeks.

This is going to be 2000 redux tomorrow night. Only with the parties reversed. Watch Pennsylvania get called early for Obama. Then watch it go back to purple or gray or white or whatever color they are going to use for "undecided."

Dewey Defeats Truman. Berkman Player of the Game. To quote seemingly every character to ever appear in Star Wars, "I have a bad feeling about this."

[GatewaySnayke]

But Palin is a "conservative," and it's pretty damn clear she has energized the republican party in a way McCain never could. We can laugh at her stupidity and her wacky beliefs, but she's resonating with the public. Her rallies are packed. And she's been all over Pennsylvania the last 2 weeks.

Aye, but that base is pretty far isolated from America. Her latest favorable/unfavorable was at 35-59. I mean -24 for a VP candidate? That's bad.

[PujolJunkie]

A Hayes Research poll just came out giving McCain just a 3 point lead in Alaska. Definitely an outlier, but funny to look at none the less.

EDIT: by the way, the supposed Pennsylvania tightening? It tightened to a 6 or 7 point Obama lead. Moderate Republicans came home to roost for McCain and he gained independents. It's still bluer than the nation by 3 or 4%.

Obama will not win Pennsylvania by 6 points. Put it on the board.

I wouldn't be so positive of that.

It was 5% bluer than the rest of the Nation when Kerry won it. 6 isn't a stretch.

I don't know about "percentage bluer" or "bluer than the nation." I don't really know what that means, and I didn't know it counted in an election.

What I do know is that Gore won PA by 3.5% in 2000 and Kerry won PA by 2.5%. Pennsylvania is trending red, and the Democratic Voting Machine isn't geared up for this election.

What is so different between Ohio and Pennsylvania that OH is dead even and PA is a big Obama win? I'm telling you guys, these polls don't look like they're adding up to me. Yeah I could be wrong, and it's not like I'm pulling for McCain here. But I think a lot of people are going to be surprised how close this election is going to be.

I've already outlined the fact that Real Clear Politics' averages were completely, around 95%, spot on in 2004. It got 2 states wrong. One that was never polled, Hawaii, and Wisconsin. Two. Go look now. It's gonna end up that way or very close. Obama 300> EV and McCain will lose Pennsylvania. It's just not gonna happen.

If it was within the MoE%, you'd have a point. But PA is a 4 to 8 point win for Obama.

You can put your faith in polls generated by companies looking to earn a buck. Put your faith in polls with metrics having a 7-8 point lead in democrats just showing up at the polls, when history suggests that the spread has never been more than 4, and often ends up just about even for presidential elections. I'll look at more than the polls, considering the only one that matters is tomorrow.

Maybe the polls will be right. Personally, I have a hard time believing Obama will win by 200 EVs. We'll see tomorrow night. Obama is not Jed Bartlet. The real world is not "The West Wing." Democratic presidential candidates don't win this type of victory, and the ones that do have extenuating circumstances on their side, or run a campaign atypical of the "standard liberal democrat."

I've given my reasons why the polls may not be right this time around. Look at history. Look at where the candidates are gearing up right before the election. But all I hear in response is "you're wrong the polls are always right." I think the pollsters are polling the America they want to see this time around, and their results are reinforcing their own beliefs. What is Obama doing visiting Iowa? What is McCain doing in Maine? If you go by the polls, they're both campaigning in states that are long since won by Obama. That doesn't make any sense. What McCain and Obama are doing does not line up with the polling data. Either both campaigns are run by complete idiots, or the polling data is wrong.

I await another set of pretty graphs and charts.

Polling data isn't wrong. I guess they're idiots, then. They provide the demographic data. What do you think? They just call random people, ask if they're democrats and hang up if they're not? You can't just assume polls are just wrong because they're wrong. That's extremely short sighted.

Candidates don't just go to states that they're competitive in. McCain was in Tennessee. Obama was in California, Oregon, Washington. McCain was in West Virginia. What's wrong with shoring up the votes you already have or ensuring that you haven't forgotten about people? Know what happens when you give up on a state? Look at Michigan for McCain. Went from 3 - 7 points to 22 points overnight.

I'm telling you.

As for this comment:

Maybe the polls will be right. Personally, I have a hard time believing Obama will win by 200 EVs. We'll see tomorrow night. Obama is not Jed Bartlet. The real world is not "The West Wing." Democratic presidential candidates don't win this type of victory, and the ones that do have extenuating circumstances on their side, or run a campaign atypical of the "standard liberal democrat."

This year they do. Look at the past 8 years. Look at party ID. Look at registration gains. Have you even seen the party ID numbers? It's feasible. If these states were in the MoE%, I'd say you have a point. But they're not and you don't, really.

[haltz]

Thousands of crazy people showing up at her rallies means jack [expletive] in terms of the actual election. I'm pretty sure she's doing more harm than good.

[BenNX74205]

Haltz is correct about Clinton. He delivered major ass whuppings to both HW and Dole.

370-168 in '92
379-159 in '96

I guess an argument is that Perot 'stole' votes, and maybe Ben filed that under extenuating circumstances. However I agree that we've got some extenuating circumstances now, and this seems to say that Perot did no such thing.

Going back before Carter, I'm just not sure how relevant that is to today's political climate.

No, I filed Clinton's ability to win: Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia up to his being a southern democrat. Gore and Kerry couldn't win any of those states.

I don't think Perot stole votes. I believe Clinton was able to win states that Gore and Kerry could not, and that Obama can't. I also think that Obama is a much weaker candidate in the rust belt than Gore and Kerry, both of which were barely able to hold onto PA. But now we're looking at democrats increasing their margin of victory in that state, even though Clinton supporters are documented as fervently supporting McCain within Pennsylvania. All of that doesn't add up to a 6-point Obama win.

[PujolJunkie]

I'm not a true believer. I'm voting for Obama tomorrow morning as soon as the polls open.

But I'll pick up the gauntlet. I'll go out on the scariest of all possible limbs and say McCain wins tomorrow with over 300 EVs. I sure as hell hope I'm wrong, but I'll be alone on an island on this one if I must.

Odds of that happening are extremely, extremely, extremely remote. In that scenario, he'd have to win every single Bush state except New Mexico. 538, in a simulation of 10,000 elections, has that happening 0 out of 10000 times. It isn't. going. to happen.

if McCain wins, his maximum EV count is 286. No higher. Period.

You have to realize that you're suggesting that over 15 major national pollsters and that thousands of polls are completely wrong. It's just not gonna happen that way.

[planet planet]

Where you live definitely influences your amount of paranoia about tomorrow's election. I can imagine it would be hard to fathom a close race if you live in Seattle, WA, to a greater degree than I do in St. Louis. If you live in outstate MO, even harder. Ben, I still don't understand where you're coming from and why where McCain and Obama are campaigning have anything to do with it. Obama and Biden campaigned everywhere they needed to today and it was in swing states and mostly states that voted Bush in '04.

[haltz]

No, I filed Clinton's ability to win: Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia up to his being a southern democrat. Gore and Kerry couldn't win any of those states.

I don't think Perot stole votes. I believe Clinton was able to win states that Gore and Kerry could not, and that Obama can't. I also think that Obama is a much weaker candidate in the rust belt than Gore and Kerry, both of which were barely able to hold onto PA. But now we're looking at democrats increasing their margin of victory in that state, even though Clinton supporters are documented as fervently supporting McCain within Pennsylvania. All of that doesn't add up to a 6-point Obama win.

Fair enough on Perot; we agree. Here's Nate's projected map:



I guess I'm not really following. What's so important about those states. Obviously PA is a big swing, but not even necessary if it falls like this. I just don't see how McCain pulls off 300 EVs. Sounds like crazy talk at this point, but we're so close it's hardly worth discussing.