Forget the whole national after-the-convention polling. Just look at the states. Obama is leading big time.

It's really easy to get caught up in the daily horse race of the national polls, but this election is not about national votes; it's about state-by-state voting. And if the polling done by Electoral-Vote.com is any indication, then Obama is about to win big time on November 4th.

http://www.electoral-vote.com

That site has a map of the USA and the number of electoral votes each state has with respect to the Presidential election. The states in red are polls showing John McCain leading while the states in blue show Barack Obama leading. The number of votes needed to win the election are 270. For those of you unfamiliar with American presidential politics or from outside of the USA, the total number of electoral votes are 538, which is the total number of Congresspeople in the House of Representatives (435) and Senators in the Senate (100) plus 3 electoral votes for the people living in Washington, DC. BTW, when you move the cursor over each state, it will list the current polling for each candidate plus the results from the last four Presidential elections.

The polling is quite telling. Five states that were double-digit blowouts in favor of George W. Bush in 2004 are currently tossups at the moment. In North Dakota, Barack Obama currently leads the polls by 3% over John NcCain, but George W. Bush won this state by 27 points in 2004 and 28 points in 2000. It is not supposed to be a statistical tie; it's supposed to be a rout for any Republican.

Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana are each essentially tied as well. Each of these states favored Bush by at least 20%, with the exception of North Carolina which Bush won by 12%. Then there are other "formerly" red states in play like Virginia. This state has been a virtual tie for months, yet Bush won there by 9% in '04. Bush won Nevada by 5% in 2004, but Obama is leading McCain by 3%. New Mexico was a toss-up in both 2000 (barely for Al Gore) and 2004 (barely for Bush) but Obama's lead here is approaching double digits.

So barring some embarrassing or humiliating revelation on Obama's part or some event or October surprise that will help John McCain (like the capture of Osama Bin Laden), the GOP is in real trouble. Worse yet, they are seriously trailing in many of the congressional races, and both the House and Senate are likely to become more Democratic.

Far out!

I've been trying to point this out for the last few weeks. Unfortunately, my posts on the subject seem to end the discussion in a hurry and the threads sink into the Org abyss.

But since you brought it back up...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

728huey said:

It's really easy to get caught up in the daily horse race of the national polls, but this election is not about national votes; it's about state-by-state voting. And if the polling done by Electoral-Vote.com is any indication, then Obama is about to win big time on November 4th.

http://www.electoral-vote.com

That site has a map of the USA and the number of electoral votes each state has with respect to the Presidential election. The states in red are polls showing John McCain leading while the states in blue show Barack Obama leading. The number of votes needed to win the election are 270. For those of you unfamiliar with American presidential politics or from outside of the USA, the total number of electoral votes are 538, which is the total number of Congresspeople in the House of Representatives (435) and Senators in the Senate (100) plus 3 electoral votes for the people living in Washington, DC. BTW, when you move the cursor over each state, it will list the current polling for each candidate plus the results from the last four Presidential elections.

The polling is quite telling. Five states that were double-digit blowouts in favor of George W. Bush in 2004 are currently tossups at the moment. In North Dakota, Barack Obama currently leads the polls by 3% over John NcCain, but George W. Bush won this state by 27 points in 2004 and 28 points in 2000. It is not supposed to be a statistical tie; it's supposed to be a rout for any Republican.

Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana are each essentially tied as well. Each of these states favored Bush by at least 20%, with the exception of North Carolina which Bush won by 12%. Then there are other "formerly" red states in play like Virginia. This state has been a virtual tie for months, yet Bush won there by 9% in '04. Bush won Nevada by 5% in 2004, but Obama is leading McCain by 3%. New Mexico was a toss-up in both 2000 (barely for Al Gore) and 2004 (barely for Bush) but Obama's lead here is approaching double digits.

So barring some embarrassing or humiliating revelation on Obama's part or some event or October surprise that will help John McCain (like the capture of Osama Bin Laden), the GOP is in real trouble. Worse yet, they are seriously trailing in many of the congressional races, and both the House and Senate are likely to become more Democratic.

If you look into a mirror and read the polls five times they will come true

RCP currently has it at 273-265 in Obama's favour ( http://www.realclearpolit...in/?map=10 ), so it really depends on how the pollsters are picked and weighted, and how the numbers are interpreted (should only the latest poll count? or should it be an average of the last three? or more? etc). Electoral Vote is a great site, but in terms of numbers it tends to be among the most (over)optimistic ones from a Democratic perspective. Still, it is clear that Obama has the edge right now, even after the RNC, which is somewhat reassuring.

it definitely looks like it leans left

Remember guys, this is before the debates. They have about 3 weeks to campaign until first debate, where you would think Obama would smoke McCain. Obama will get about a six point bump. Sarah Palin will look weak in her debate with Biden--another bump for Obama. This before the last two debates and November 4th. If all goes well Obama should win in a landslide.

[Incendiary remark with racial slur snipped. --Matt]
[Edited 9/13/08 14:03pm]

Wave your wildsigns high!!

2freaky4church1 said:

What do you think the Southern Strategy was? Wake up.

Wave your wildsigns high!!

2freaky4church1 said:

White's control the race card.

Wave your wildsigns high!!

as musch as I really want to see Obama in office. I want it, I do.

THe gov't, I feel will lack balance. We can poo poo all day, but with no balance, things go out of control.

I'm still voting for Obama though. Just principle.

Accujack said:

2freaky4church1 said:

[Incendiary remark with racial slur snipped. --Matt]

RACE CARD ALERT

There are tons of racists in the red states. You are deficient in wordly wisdom if you don't think there are tons of racists in the blue states.
I have talked to people who I had always thought of as racist who are voting for Obama.

Will Obama lose votes because of racism? Of course he will.
Will Obama gain votes because of racism? Of course he will.

To imply that these states are chock full of racists because they haven't turned blue is nonsense.

They were red four years ago. John Kerry is white.
They were red eight years ago. Al Gore is white.

2freaky4church1 said:

we really need to abolish the electoral college. Can this be done by legislation or is this something that is enshrined in the constitution or something?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

ehuffnsd said:

matt said:

ehuffnsd said:

there has to be an admendment.

There's an attempt in progress to effectively abolish the electoral college without amending the Constitution, via an agreement among the states. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Int...te Compact. Basically, if enough states join to create a block of 270+ electoral votes, those states would then award their electoral votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote, thereby guaranteeing an electoral college victory for that candidate. Under that system, Al Gore unquestionably would have been inaugurated as President in 2001. It's a clever idea, but so far only four states have agreed to adopt it, and there's an issue as to whether Congress would have to approve such an interstate compact.

A simpler approach, IMHO, would be for each state to make an independent decision to allocate its electors in proportion to the popular vote in that state. Nothing in the Constitution requires states to follow the "winner-take-all" approach used in 48 states and D.C. In fact, Maine and Nebraska are already using an alternative system based on congressional districts that, in theory, allows those states to split their electoral votes (although it's never actually happened).

Mach said:

• Maryland (10 electoral votes)
  
• New Jersey (15 EV)
  
• Illinois (21 EV)
  
• Hawaii (4 EV)
  

matt said:

matt said:

ehuffnsd said:

there has to be an admendment.

There's an attempt in progress to effectively abolish the electoral college without amending the Constitution, via an agreement among the states. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Int...te Compact. Basically, if enough states join to create a block of 270+ electoral votes, those states would then award their electoral votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote, thereby guaranteeing an electoral college victory for that candidate. Under that system, Al Gore unquestionably would have been inaugurated as President in 2001. It's a clever idea, but so far only four states have agreed to adopt it, and there's an issue as to whether Congress would have to approve such an interstate compact.

A simpler approach, IMHO, would be for each state to make an independent decision to allocate its electors in proportion to the popular vote in that state. Nothing in the Constitution requires states to follow the "winner-take-all" approach used in 48 states and D.C. In fact, Maine and Nebraska are already using an alternative system based on congressional districts that, in theory, allows those states to split their electoral votes (although it's never actually happened).

Accujack said:

2freaky4church1 said:

[Incendiary remark with racial slur snipped. --Matt]

RACE CARD ALERT

There are tons of racists in the red states. You are deficient in wordly wisdom if you don't think there are tons of racists in the blue states.
I have talked to people who I had always thought of as racist who are voting for Obama.

Will Obama lose votes because of racism? Of course he will.
Will Obama gain votes because of racism? Of course he will.

To imply that these states are chock full of racists because they haven't turned blue is nonsense.

They were red four years ago. John Kerry is white.
They were red eight years ago. Al Gore is white.
[Edited 9/13/08 14:08pm]