Thanks for reading my mind and managing to be condescending all atr the same time. That is quite a talented trick. Four months from the election with so many of the states being within the statistical margin of error, making that kind of statement is just conjecture. Those states that are within the statistical margin of error could go either way on election night. That includes all of the battleground states that you like to speak of. All of these are within the margin of error, and McCain enjoys a lead in Florida (the largest of the 3). It takes living in a "fantasy world" to suggest that these states could swing either way? If you say so.... I really wouldn't start making early morning plans for the day after the election. I believe it is going to be a long night.
I'm sorry if you felt I was being condescending. I didn't mean to condescend to you. But it is frustrating to continually post the thinking behind my position and have other people post back to say I'm nuts without ever saying why. Your last post came close, but it didn't give a reason why it WOULD be close, only why it was POSSIBLE it could be close. And your facts were a little off. Neither PA nor OH is within the margin of error. They both favor Obama outside the margin. In MI, Obama leads within the margin; in FL McCain leads within the margin. So in those four states cumulatively, Obama enjoys a significant advantage. And McCain NEEDS a more than significant advantage to have even a chance at victory. And when I said a path for McCain would "begin" with 3/4 of the top prizes I truly meant it would begin there. If he doesn't get all 4 there are about 50 ways Obama can win and only a handful that McCain could (all of which involve running the table). You are right that it's still possible for McCain to win. You are wrong that it will probably be close. All evidence points to an easy win for Obama in the electoral college. I've posted a lot of that evidence. I have yet to see anyone post evidence that it's likely to be close.
To follow up on that, since Refman cited polls being within the margins of error... If you give each state that is currently polling in favor of one candidate or the other, outside the margin of error, to the candidate it favors, the electoral vote currently looks like this: Obama - 260 (10 to win) McCain - 180 (90 to win) Maybe that will help to explain why I predict an easy victory for Obama. Anything could happen, of course. But, while national polls show a close race, the electoral map doesn't show it as close at ALL. If you run these numbers on 270towin.com, it gives mathematical chances of victory and must-win states. In the above scenario, where candidates are only credited with states in which they poll ahead outside the margin of error, McCain has a 1% chance at victory. And the following are his MUST-WIN states: FL, MI, VA, MO. If you give Obama NM, where he's favored, McCain's must-wins are FL, MI, VA, MO, IA, NV, NH.
Ew... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=150247 Someone already pointed out the stupidity of focusing on polls this early in the third post. Besides, I posted all the polls Obama is ahead in and said they didn't matter. What other side of the coin? He's "winning..." I'm not saying this when he's losing in every poll. Try not to take things so personally, guy. It's a message board. Your opinion isn't above criticism here. Bugger off? Really? Ew...
Batman, seems like you've changed your definition of "landslide" a couple of times to be more realistic. The reason some of us predict a close race is because it's close right now and there are any number of things that can happen before November to tip the scales. I didn't think there was any way Kerry could lose to Bush until things started getting rough. It could happen again. I know you will reply by saying Obama has learned from Kerry's mistakes, etc, etc. But the GOP mud machine has learned things also and there are probably new tricks up their sleeves. McCain's campaign has been awful so far and it doesn't look promising for him. But instead of being significantly behind, he is still within striking distance. That, by itself, speaks. If the current status quo holds until after the conventions, I might agree with your (over)confidence. But it's just July and the GOP isn't even trying hard, yet. Wait until they take 5 or 6 very hard swings at Obama to see if something lands and knocks him woozy. IMO, something will rock Obama before it's all over and we'll see his recuperative powers tested again. This will NOT be a clean election. Vicious attacks, innuendo and false accusations against both Barack and Michelle Obama will eventually change the face of the election. Be patient.
Eh...don't mind me, I'm a little b****y these days anyway. New job and all. It just seems to me that this country is so divided, for a number of reasons, that the polls (particularly after the conventions) will be vastly different than they are now. I very well may be wrong. I believe that we have yet to see the best of John McCain. I believe that he will close the gap. The Newsweek poll I posted showed that he closed a huge amount of the gap since the last Newsweek poll. Again, I could be wrong. It's just my hunch. As Obama compromises on issues (See FISA) to try to appeal to the masses, I believe that he will do more harm to himself than good. I believe that his compromise on issues in order to reach consensus is a good idea. Many more people, sadly, may start to view Obama as a charlatan. I do not support Obama's candidacy, but I believe this will be a very unfair characterization of him. However, I quote Dan Ackroyd from Tommy Boy "what the American public does not know is what makes them the American public." How much real evidence can there be before the conventions have even happened yet and all we are dealing with are presumptive nominees who have yet to fully articulate their platform? Articulation of a candidate's platform often happens in the fanfare of the convention.
I am getting too old for this ****... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eJJgM23gLh8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eJJgM23gLh8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The only reason Hillary lost was gender discrimination. Sound reasonable? Nah, and neither does the constant race crying about everything. It comes down to political sides, and people who have one mindset are usually not going to simply cross over. Are white democrats flocking to vote for McCain? Some, maybe, but enough to make a substantial difference? Believe it or not, some people just can't vote for an extreme liberal. Blame race all you want, nobody cares. It's a good thing white Hillary is a woman, and white Edwards wants to be one, or your man would never have gotten the nomination.
Yeah, actually, it does sound reasonable, and your grossly sexist post proves it. If Hillary was a man, and especially if she voted against authorizing the Iraq War, she would be the nominee, and the next president. There's a reason why McCain beats Obama amongst white voters in all polls by 15-20 points. Hint: it's not because he's an "extreme liberal."
I am not sure the Republicans could have picked a more unattractive candidate, and I don't mean "physically." McCain is hardly "Mr. Republican," the conservatives can't stand him. His positions on social issues are virtually the same his Democratic opponent. To many conservatives, he is a Democrat. BUT, don't underestimate the Republican campaign machine's ability to demonize Obama before November. They may not like their own candidate, but they like Obama less. It is likely to be a close election by November. Frankly, whoever comes up with the best energy plan and economic policy proposals wins. Guarantee two dollar gas and prove you can do it, done deal.
The problem with theory is that reality says otherwise. The exit polls tell us that people who felt gender was important to the race voted FOR Hillary more than voted against her. They also tell us that people who thought race was important voted AGAINST Obama more than for him. So your theory doesn't fit with the facts. 20% of voters in the Ohio primary said race was important to them, and they voted for Clinton by a wider-margin than everyone else. You don't think 20% of voters is significant in a state that was won by 1% last election?
Since you have apologized for being condecending and have stated above that "it is frustrating to continually post the thinking behind my position and have other people post back to say I'm nuts without ever saying why" (I found that a bit condecending, but whatever), then why not give us your opinion on Barack Obama and FISA? If you have already done that, I apologize, but I must have missed it. I was out of town over the weekend. I think the reason Obama has fallen in the polls has a lot to do with FISA. And, in my opinion, it will hurt him in fundraising. Many of his most ardent supporters were the very people that would be the most angered about Obama tossing aside, IMO, the Constitution for, IMO, misguided political expediency. I think his vote on FISA, which was not supported by most prominent Democrats, except for him, made the bill's approval possible. All he had to do was come out and announce that he didn't support it and, IMO, it would have failed. Had Obama announced that he didn't support it, it would have firmed up his base, which is also the basis for his incredible fundraising. Instead, he weakened that base, and I would be willing to bet that his fundraising has been hurt by it. Not a smart move at all on his part. Obama weakened his base of support and his base for his outstanding fundraising by weakening the Constitution and opening himself up to legitimate charges of flip-flopping on the issues, and this was a damned important issue. A big mistake. The first really big mistake I've seen Obama make. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
D: What funny timing. I think I must have been posting my response on FISA at the same time you were typing this post. Honestly, I haven't spent enough time with the issue to be totally articulate about it. The story broke when I was in New Braunfels floating down the Comal with my girlfriend and I completely missed it the first time around. But I know enough about the issue to know I was badly bothered by his vote. Anyway, I doubt you'll find my post satisfying, but it was posted in the FISA thread a little while before you posted this here.
The portion of your post that I highlighted is patently untrue, with all due respect. McCain and Obama part company on a host of social issues important to millions of Americans... issues like the political philosophy of lifetime Federal judges, issues like choice, national health care, and Iraq, which is very much an American social issue, as well as a foreign policy one. That sucking sound you hear is the sound of hundreds of billions of dollars going to a war which should never (IMO) been entered into and those hundreds of billions of dollars could be doing a host of beneficial things for American society. Supporting everything from education, health care, new bridges across the country that are wearing out, dams that are in danger of failing, and levees that need repair. Countless things that I don't feel like typing here, being a two fingered typist, but that any thinking person, I would imagine, could easily come up with. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
It's amazing they are locked in a dead heat right now, given all of the advantages Obama has had up until this point. This election year overwhelmingly favors the democrats. Generic Dem versus Republican polls show mammoth leads for the Dem. Yet Barack is tied with McCain. Media coverage has been overwhelmingly in favor of Obama.... money flow has been in favor of Obama... He's had every advantage so far... yet they are in a polling dead heat. Really all he has to do to score points is complain about Bush. That's a huge advantage that McCain does not have. Yet they are still in a dead heat. Why is that? Did the Dems nominate a Dud of epic proportions? Looks that way so far. John Doe Democrat would lead McCain by 10-15 points right now. Obama is tied. Wow. But I guess that's what happens when you lurch towards the center as fast as Obama did, thereby impugning his character and exposing him as a fraud... flip-flopping on a dime on issues like NAFTA, Iraq, FISA, and campaign finance. If his campaign is about words, and he doesn't live up to his words, then what really are you left with? Ouch.
Man, I wish I'd been floating on the Comal, instead of visiting Houston for a family gathering. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Trader_Jorge - it is interesting to see you in this thread. YOu have said many times that McCain will be an easy victor in the election. I have tried many times to make you commit to this statement by means of a friendly wager. YOu have yet to honor this commitment. Do you plan on honoring it? Or were you just full of sh-t earlier? Guessing the latter?
