Your Nov 4th predictions, Ladies and Germs.

banquo

Right. As far as I can work out, it'll be pretty hard for Obama to lose.

Even if McCain wins Florida and Ohio andNew Hampshire and Nevada and Colorado, Obama can still make 270 by taking Iowa(+8) and Virginia(+7) as long as he holds onto Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, which he will.

If Obama wins either Ohio or Florida - not much chance of either but bless them they're trying, almost $40m going into florida alone - then it's over for McCain.

If Obama wins Nevada or Colorado(+3) for Obama, not voting for a Dem since Johnson in '64) it's still over for McCain.

Funny thing though:

If Obama wins New Mexico, Nevada and New Hampshire, and Mccain wins Ohio Florida and Colorado, it could end up a 269-269 split, and so the house of Reps would have to get involved.

Seriously, it could happen. I'm not kidding.

Right, that's my 2 barrels of oil, someone else's turn now.

tolosenc

Pretty hard for McCain to lose, imo.

He'll keep all of the states President Bush won in 2004, and may well add WI or MN.

The Northern, mid-west states are the only ones where you're going to see any change on last time.

banquo

If McCain wins WI or MN, then Obama is screwed, no question. However, I'm not convinced that McCain will: they're traditionally democratic and Obama's ahead in the polls there [source=rasmussen]

Obama is 7& ahead in Virginia, 8% ahead in Iowa. if he takes those - on top of WI and MN - then it's very hard for McCain to recover. He would need New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, all of which would be fine except Obama's ahead by 6 in Colorado, ahead in New Mexico and tied in Ohio (though I think McCain will take Ohio)

McCain should be worried about Colorado and Iowa.

Black Swan

Although a very close race, Karl Rove campaign tactics will win the presidency in November for the Republicans, and John McCain will continue to warm the seat in the Oval Office warmed by George W. Bush for the past 8 years. The oil lobby will continue to exert extraordinary influence on the policies that affect the war in oil-rich Iraq, and push for a military conflict with oil-rich Iran. Palin scandals, as those now occurring in Alaska as Governor (TrooperGate, Bridge to Nowhere, etc.), will now occur at the national level with her as VP.

is_that_so

I'm with Bob Woodward on this, "I wouldn't put 50c on it". Although it does appear to be swinging Obama's way at the moment. The current crisis is definitely in his favour, even though the roots of market deregulation started way back in Reagan's time.

One thing that is unclear is if the Paulson-Bernanke plan will be successful. If it does as hoped/expected/prayed for then he may continue to reap the benefit. If however some other unforeseen problem emerges then they'll all be in trouble, having already supported two bailouts so far.

I don't think he will take Florida and probably not Ohio. NH is up for grabs and of the others, well a small swing brings them into that "statistically insignificant" 3% mark and therefore "in play". It also assumes that people are telling the truth about their preferences and more importantly what percentage of that vote actually gets out on election day. With the roller-coaster ride we've seen to date, we can expect more of the same over the next few weeks. Very, very tight and the tie is not an unrealistic possibility.

Pocono Joe

In the battleground state of Pennsylvania, and a area that historically votes Democrat, I’m noticing a big difference from the election of 2004. At this time last election, you couldn’t travel a block without seeing John Kerry political signs decorating yard after yard. This year I see the same amount of McCain signs as I did Bush back in 2004, but conspicuously missing are Obama political signs. They are almost non-existent.

Although not a scientific measurement, I do find it a telling sign of this election (pun intended).

And although my area has Obama up in the polls by 4 points, we are essentially a conservative region, as I believe is our nation as a whole. Although many here tout the Democrat line in the polls, when it comes time to pull that lever in the voting booth, Obama's liberal views and inexperience might be cause for potential voter’s remorse.

With the nation facing crisis and uncertainty, I think people will vote for the man with experience, and who still benefits in the memories of 2000 when he opposed Bush, for a nation looking for change. The old comfortable shoe will trump a candidate who people readably admit they know little about. Voter’s admiration for John McCain will put him into the Whitehouse.

2008 will be known as the year journalism and objectivity died, as evident by the media’s obvious preference, and lack of journalistic vetting, for Obama in this election. The media has essentially become scribes of the Obama campaign.

Unfortunately, I fear the media will decry racism as the only reason for an Obama loss. But this will be leveled at Democrats and Independents, because most Republicans will be voting for McCain. I fear this will do tremendous harm to the Democratic party and our nation, and will take years to reconcile.

banquo

I have to agree with Pocono Joe about the biased media. Sure Fox is ridiculous, but the sum of the favour for Obama amongst the other news stations equals it.

Yesterday I saw on CNN an splitscreen Obama/McCain image from the debates where Obama was smiling and McCain's face looked all screwed. When was the last time you saw Family Guy or any other nationally televised TV show be against gay marriage, abortion, school prayer or any other conservative issue?

alastair

I'm looking into my crystal ball...

Obama wins with 49.2% of the vote. I wouldn't make a call on Ohio, but I think he'll take Colorado and Iowa.

The Raven.

banquo wrote: »

I have to agree with Pocono Joe about the biased media. Sure Fox is ridiculous, but the sum of the favour for Obama amongst the other news stations equals it.

The Pat Kenny show is even worse. it's like an ad. for the Democrats, full of fabrications also. But what can you expect from a host who is so PC (when it suits him), that muslim clothes are merely a 'style' of dress.

I personally can't imagine what the final outcome will be. The polls are in a constant state of flux, like The Grand old Duke of York.

The Raven.

alastair wrote: »

I'm looking into my crystal ball...

Obama wins with 49.2% of the vote. I wouldn't make a call on Ohio, but I think he'll take Colorado and Iowa.

Alastair, you're not going to believe this! I was just about to mention my crystal ball. I do actually have one, which I bought many years ago solely as a prop for artwork. All it tells me when I look in it is that everything is upside down !!

PS. I hope it's not a 'signal of dire distress'. Please excuse the biased website.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/20/obama-wrap-me-in-an-upside-down-flag/

Begob

Pocono Joe wrote: »

In the battleground state of Pennsylvania, and a area that historically votes Democrat, I’m noticing a big difference from the election of 2004. At this time last election, you couldn’t travel a block without seeing John Kerry political signs decorating yard after yard. This year I see the same amount of McCain signs as I did Bush back in 2004, but conspicuously missing are Obama political signs. They are almost non-existent.

Although not a scientific measurement, I do find it a telling sign of this election (pun intended).

And although my area has Obama up in the polls by 4 points, we are essentially a conservative region, as I believe is our nation as a whole. Although many here tout the Democrat line in the polls, when it comes time to pull that lever in the voting booth, Obama's liberal views and inexperience might be cause for potential voter’s remorse.

With the nation facing crisis and uncertainty, I think people will vote for the man with experience, and who still benefits in the memories of 2000 when he opposed Bush, for a nation looking for change. The old comfortable shoe will trump a candidate who people readably admit they know little about. Voter’s admiration for John McCain will put him into the Whitehouse.

2008 will be known as the year journalism and objectivity died, as evident by the media’s obvious preference, and lack of journalistic vetting, for Obama in this election. The media has essentially become scribes of the Obama campaign.

Unfortunately, I fear the media will decry racism as the only reason for an Obama loss. But this will be leveled at Democrats and Independents, because most Republicans will be voting for McCain. I fear this will do tremendous harm to the Democratic party and our nation, and will take years to reconcile.

Thats a very good post.
This has been my thinking all along.

A lot of things have to go right for Obama to win and that ain't going to happen.Many people here just have blinkers on or just plain don't understand american voters.
I mean voters because like,if Obama could get enough of his kindred to vote in the swing states [no point looking at the dead cert states like california] who just won't bother ,he might have some chance.


It will be President McCain.

Sully

Id prefer Obama to win it, and while it "looks" good for him - on the day, I see McCain getting it. I think Americans will make the same mistake again, voting in another Bush rather then someone who could potentially bring about the right change.

Manic Moran

Although I would be rather pleased at a McCain win*, I think Obama will take it, narrowly. Of the three big toss-up States, PA, OH and FL, I'd more than likely say McCain will take all three, but it's not going to be enough to counter the various smaller States such as Nevada which I think Obama will take.

However, amongst the insufferable jubiliation I'm sure will result (I can handle an Obama presidency much better than I can bear many of his supporters!), I'll lay dollars to cents that the Democrat supporters will draw the wrong conclusions from the victory. The victory is going to be a lot narrower than it should have been. They should be steamrolling into power, but they're not. The Ds have royally screwed this up, and very nearly managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This will be completely ignored, and the closeness simply written off to 'dirty tricks', sexism (Women just voting for the woman VP) or racism. It's childish of me, but part of the reason I hope McCain wins is that I dislike the arrogance I've seen on the Democratic side that the White House is all but their God-Given right. I do not like being taken for granted.

I think much of it is the difference in selection policy by the two parties. In effect, the Democrats chose their favourite candidate to run for office, presumably on the assumption that they could nominate a monkey and he would get in against the Bush Party Candidate: After all, everyone hates Bush. The Republicans took a different tack: They selected the candidate they thought was most electable, even though he didn't actually appeal so much to the Republican voters. In other words, the Republicans from the beginning were trying to win the election, with an eye on independents like myself. The Democrats assumed that the election would be won as their default position, and only after they had selected their candidate did they really think about dealing with an opponent.

I think a partial result of this is that this is going to do nothing to end the polarisation of the American political system. Had a moderate Democrat gone up against a moderate Republican, there would be a lot more tolerance to the winner overall. Not support, but less active dislike. Not that Boards.ie is a particularly great barometer, but I've noticed it here as well: Most contributors favour Obama, but they generally don't think that McCain is the devil incarnate either. However, being further away from centre on the American political sphere than McCain is (Don't tell me that Obama is somewhat centre-right-ish, he may be by European standards but the US defaults to the right of Europe to begin with) I think there will be less tolerance of the Democrat win, and 2012 is going to be even more polarised than this one is, if you can imagine such a thing. I think this is further supported using Pocono's method of deduction: I travelled across the US last month in five days from KY through TN, AR, TX, NM, AZ, NV and CA. I cannot think of any place where I saw more McCain signs or bumper stickers than Obama ones, except Ft Knox and Ft Bliss which shouldn't be surprising. However, there were many places where I saw more "NObama" stickers than "Obama" ones. I've not seen a single anti-McCain sticker yet, even in the San Francisco area where one can't do the morning commute without seeing a few Obama stickers.

So assuming that Obama will win the election, and that Congress will remain Democratic (I think their lead will shrink a bit, but they'll maintain the majority), I think my main prediction for the 2008 elections will be that 2010 and 2012 will be upsets for the Democratic party. I believe the Democratic Party has taken the American Voter for granted in this election, and will proceed for the next couple of years with the triumvirate of White House, Senate and House in the belief they have a mandate of such an extent that I think will backfire upon them.

NTM

*When the season started, my first choice for President was a Democrat, I'm not aligned to any party. Same candidate as my wife, actually. Between McCain and Obama, when Richardson dropped out, I went one way, she went the other, which doesn't surprise me, she is a little to the left of me.

kenco

Its going to be mighty close. Despite the latest opinion polls I believe McCain will win Ohio, Florida and Virginia. On my count that would put him at around the 260 mark. In theory if any of the smaller states that are leaning to Obama flip the other way then there could be a narrow McCain victory. This scenario is entirely possible given that polls are polls and cast votes are cast votes. Dont forget the last Irish election result hinged on the fact that those who rejected FF in the polls hesitated and voted for them on the day (better the devil you know syndrome).

Gut feeling at this stage is a narrow victory for Obama (275 ~ 285). However I would not be at all surprised if it goes the other way.

On a side issue I cant help thinking that a Romney led GOP ticket would have this thing sewn up by now and that in its self is cause for thought...

Inquitus

It will be close, but I agree with Kenco - Obama (275 ~ 285)

Incidentally to those US Posters above, has Sarah Palin's high profile CBS demonstration that she is utterly unqualified to be VP, even more so given McCain is 72yo and actuaries estimate his chances of lasting a term are between 2/3 and 3/4, changed your opinion on who you would vote at all. Has it had any impact in the US? in Europe it's everywhere, and has really scared alot of people.

cooker3

I think Obama will take it but I hope it finishes 269-269 just cause I want to see the carnage it causes

Ludo

LOL...that wouod be funny and interesting to see alright. The media would love it.

But for the good of democracy I hope it does not happen. In a two person race (essentially) why on earth is it not a straight one-person one-vote first past the post kind of election. The electoral college is so outdated now it is beyond belief. But, that is what the constitution says so it MUST be right and NEVER be allowed to change and improve over time...sigh.

yaynay

Sully wrote: »

Id prefer Obama to win it, and while it "looks" good for him - on the day, I see McCain getting it. I think Americans will make the same mistake again, voting in another Bush rather then someone who could potentially bring about the right change.

Why do you consider McCain to be another Bush? I thought McCain has made it pretty clear that he will not be another Bush and has opposed the president on many issues.

Ludo

yaynay wrote: »

Why do you consider McCain to be another Bush? I thought McCain has made it pretty clear that he will not be another Bush and has opposed the president on many issues.

What exactly does he disagree with Bush on? Iraq? Taxes? The economy? ...
Please elaborate or provide a link to some information to illustrate the claim. Not trying to be argumentative here....I am genuinely curious.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Ludo wrote: »

LOL...that wouod be funny and interesting to see alright. The media would love it.

But for the good of democracy I hope it does not happen. In a two person race (essentially) why on earth is it not a straight one-person one-vote first past the post kind of election. The electoral college is so outdated now it is beyond belief. But, that is what the constitution says so it MUST be right and NEVER be allowed to change and improve over time...sigh.

well it's preferable to the alternative, the heavily populated urban centres will run roughshod over the rural voters. Might be great for the democrats and preferable for the europeans, but it's hardly fair.

Inquitus

Mordeth wrote: »

well it's preferable to the alternative, the heavily populated urban centres will run roughshod over the rural voters. Might be great for the democrats and preferable for the europeans, but it's hardly fair.

What's fair is that 'he who gets the most votes wins', thats one of the tenets of democracy. What is not fair is that in the US you can win the popular vote and yet not the Presidential Election.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yes, that is democracy in it's purer form.. mob rule. where 51% get to tell 49% what to do, how to do it and how they will be punished if they refuse. That's only a tiny, tiny bit beter than a monarchy or other form of totalitarian state.

yaynay

Ludo wrote: »

What exactly does he disagree with Bush on? Iraq? Taxes? The economy? ...
Please elaborate or provide a link to some information to illustrate the claim. Not trying to be argumentative here....I am genuinely curious.

Although, they have agreed on some issues, to say that that McCain is another Bush is unfair.

So people are saying that McCain is another Bush. If we consider that Obama agreed with McCain on a number of issues during the televised debate, does that make Obama another Bush, also?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/26/matthews-mad-obama-agreed-so-much-mccain


McCain voted against Bush's energy bill:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/400/

Climate change, federal spending, interrogation tactics, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/06/17/us/politics/20080617_POLICY_GRAPHIC.html

Ludo

Mordeth wrote: »

yes, that is democracy in it's purer form.. mob rule. where 51% get to tell 49% what to do, how to do it and how they will be punished if they refuse. That's only a tiny, tiny bit beter than a monarchy or other form of totalitarian state.

erm...so it is ok for the 49% to tell the 51% what to do , how to do it etc etc.
It is a rediculous system which puts someone who less people vote for in charge. That is NOT democracy.

Ludo

yaynay wrote: »

Although, they have agreed on some issues, to say that that McCain is another Bush is unfair.

So people are saying that McCain is another Bush. If we consider that Obama agreed with McCain on a number of issues during the televised debate, does that make Obama another Bush, also?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/26/matthews-mad-obama-agreed-so-much-mccain


McCain voted against Bush's energy bill:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/400/

Climate change, federal spending, interrogation tactics, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/06/17/us/politics/20080617_POLICY_GRAPHIC.html

Thanks...I'll read up on these. Although I do know off the bat that he has changed his mind on interrogation techinques. He did differ with Bush on it but is now with him. There are lots of policies I know he used to differ with Bush and republicans in general on which is why I liked him, but he seems to have gotten on board with the base in order to get the nom. Anyway...off to reads those links...thanks.

Benedict XVI

Ludo wrote: »

LOL...that wouod be funny and interesting to see alright. The media would love it.

But for the good of democracy I hope it does not happen. In a two person race (essentially) why on earth is it not a straight one-person one-vote first past the post kind of election. The electoral college is so outdated now it is beyond belief. But, that is what the constitution says so it MUST be right and NEVER be allowed to change and improve over time...sigh.

I have a strange feeling that many people around here would have no problem with the collegiate system if it was showing that Obama would win the election and McCain would win the popular vote

Otacon

Obama IS winning with the collegiate system at the moment, based on state and national polls.

banquo

(275 ~ 285) ... is not possible. There are are 538 electoral votes, half of which is 269. Ergo, 270+ to win.

Obama's winning atm alright, but Bush won Virginia by 8% in 2004. Not even close. Though the polls have him ahead there, I'm holding my breath.

Inquitus

banquo wrote: »

(275 ~ 285) ... is not possible. There are are 538 electoral votes, half of which is 269. Ergo, 270+ to win.

Obama's winning atm alright, but Bush won Virginia by 8% in 2004. Not even close. Though the polls have him ahead there, I'm holding my breath.

That means Obama to get between 275 and 285, not for that to be the Obama McCain split.

banquo

Ah. I see. Very good so.

It's also what I think will happen, narrow victory for Obama *if* he takes Virginia. If he doesn't then it's gonna be a lot harder.

But hey, he's got Iowa, so he's already beating Kerry. McCain was in Iowa this week, for reasons passing understanding...

Manic Moran

Mordeth wrote: »

yes, that is democracy in it's purer form.. mob rule. where 51% get to tell 49% what to do, how to do it and how they will be punished if they refuse. That's only a tiny, tiny bit beter than a monarchy or other form of totalitarian state.

Who was it that said that 'democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner'?

NTM

sink

Mordeth wrote: »

well it's preferable to the alternative, the heavily populated urban centres will run roughshod over the rural voters. Might be great for the democrats and preferable for the europeans, but it's hardly fair.

Inquitus wrote: »

What's fair is that 'he who gets the most votes wins', thats one of the tenets of democracy. What is not fair is that in the US you can win the popular vote and yet not the Presidential Election.

Ludo wrote: »

erm...so it is ok for the 49% to tell the 51% what to do , how to do it etc etc.
It is a rediculous system which puts someone who less people vote for in charge. That is NOT democracy.

I think your confusing elections with democracy. The sum of democracy is not elections and tyranny of the majority. The first democratic principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. In order to ensure this there must be a body of law and independent courts to protect minorities from the elected government of the majority.

Manic Moran

in Europe it's everywhere, and has really scared alot of people.

They must be really paranoid. Just what is 'scary' in Europe about a McCain/Palin presidency? What will happen should they get into charge which will threaten the entire way of life in Ireland? 'Scary' is being told that there's a 60% chance of a two-mile asteroid about to hit the planet. Bear in mind that the Democrats are most likely to hold both houses of Congress, and the President can only enact laws which have been sent to him from said Congress. Frankly, you should have less cause for concern with a McCain/Palin presidency than an Obama/Biden one: Things often get more turbulent when one party holds both houses and the white house than when the opposing parties control them, which tends to be a period of less activity, because if one party holds all three, there is nothing to moderate the effect for two years.

Inquitus wrote: »

What's fair is that 'he who gets the most votes wins', thats one of the tenets of democracy. What is not fair is that in the US you can win the popular vote and yet not the Presidential Election.

I'm not entirely sure how the US version of EC differs in equity from the election of the President of the European Commission. It will generally approximate the feelings of the voters at the pointy end, but not exactly.

I'm an urbanite in California, a direct vote would more than likely benefit my area, and I support EC. Both on the principle of the US being a Union of fifty equal States, and because of the dampening effect it has on politics. The urban/rural divide is very real, and very big in the US. The highly concentrated urban areas in the US lean to the left of the American political sphere, and the rural areas to the right. This is purely on the social issues. Economically it's even more of a disaster: You'd have all the urbanites voting for whoever gives the most emphasis on urban issues such as public transportation, and to hell with anything which farmers might need.

One of the arguments against EC is that places like California are ignored, and that instead the focus is on a small number of battleground States. This is a benefit! The reason that they are battleground states is that they are more or less a good balance of the competing priorities of the urban/rural split. Moderate politicians are the people who will win these States. Though they may not necessarily be 'ideal' for the plurality of voters, they are certainly acceptable enough' for the vast majority on both sides of the divide. Can you imagine what the elections would be like if there was no such emphasis on the middle ground?

NTM

coco0981

The Raven. wrote: »

The Pat Kenny show is even worse. it's like an ad. for the Democrats, full of fabrications also. But what can you expect from a host who is so PC (when it suits him), that muslim clothes are merely a 'style' of dress.

clothes are clothes raven, not neccessarily an expression of your religion or beliefs

molloyjh

Manic Moran wrote: »

They must be really paranoid. Just what is 'scary' in Europe about a McCain/Palin presidency?

What is scary is that Palin is next in line beside someone who (if he wins) will be the oldest person inaugerated as President in the US. He has a history of cancer (afaik anyway) and could potentially croak it while in office. This then would lead to Palin becoming President.

Her CBS interviews proved she is not ready to be in that position. She was caught out on matters such as foreign affairs and the economy. The impact that the US has with these two policy areas the world over is not to be underestimated. We are going through potentially one of the worst economic crises ever and the last thing we need is someone like Palin who can't even talk the talk the way Obama can, let alone do the job. It could be disasterous for everyone, not just Americans.

From an Irish perspective as well we rely quite heavily on foreign (predominantly American) investment. If things were to go well and truly belly up in the US this could cripple our economy, and therefore our country. American politics has ramifications the world over, more so than the politics in any other part of the world. Thats why we take such an interest and develop such strong opinions on the matter. Someone like Palin would be, in my view, downright dangerous in that position. More so than GWB.

Trojan

My main concerns are that

1) The GOP voter purge has removed vast amounts of Democrat voters
2) Diebold and friends are ready with their vote rigging machines (for the 3rd time in as many elections)
3) Obama is overconfident due to the huge lead in the polls.
4) Obama voters are overconfident and don't bother voting.

Otacon

Trojan wrote: »

1) The GOP voter purge has removed vast amounts of Democrat voters

I think a lot of the new registrations over the past weekend, especially in the swing states, favoured the Democrats URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100502524.html?hpid=topnews"]Source[/URL

Trojan wrote: »

2) Diebold and friends are ready with their vote rigging machines (for the 3rd time in as many elections)

Hopefully Americans are more awake to this than before. However, I honestly don't believe the election will be so close as to allow it happen, without it being blindingly obvious. It would have to affect a lot more votes than it had to before.

Trojan wrote: »

3) Obama is overconfident due to the huge lead in the polls.

From looking at the polls, though he is in front at this stage, it would be foolish to think this is all wrapped up. All Obama has to do for the next few weeks is continue to hammer McCain on the economy and the 'McBush' thing, and he should win.

Trojan wrote: »

4) Obama voters are overconfident and don't bother voting.

That is probably the only thing I can honestly say worries me too. The Obama camp have to make sure they push their support to the booths come election day.

Manic Moran

Someone like Palin would be, in my view, downright dangerous in that position. More so than GWB.

Which is fine as a sentiment, but have a look at what the practical effects are.

Firstly, she wouldn't kill the economy. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's already in the tank. By the time mid-January comes around, the damage is long done. Secondly, as has been oft-said, Congress, not the President, controls the purse strings. There is apparently some impression going around that the President is an autocrat with full sway over everything to do with the daily running of the country, whereas economic policy is really the purview of Congress: Just look at the last week, when the President really wanted something done, the House and Senate leaders of both sides wanted it done, and the average Congresscritter said 'no.' Cue world-wide financial markets plummeting.

A Republican president with a Democratic Congress is going to be fairly limited in his or her options, regardless of how 'scary' you may think it is.

NTM

molloyjh

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is fine as a sentiment, but have a look at what the practical effects are.

Firstly, she wouldn't kill the economy. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's already in the tank. By the time mid-January comes around, the damage is long done. Secondly, as has been oft-said, Congress, not the President, controls the purse strings. There is apparently some impression going around that the President is an autocrat with full sway over everything to do with the daily running of the country, whereas economic policy is really the purview of Congress: Just look at the last week, when the President really wanted something done, the House and Senate leaders of both sides wanted it done, and the average Congresscritter said 'no.' Cue world-wide financial markets plummeting.

A Republican president with a Democratic Congress is going to be fairly limited in his or her options, regardless of how 'scary' you may think it is.

NTM

Which is also well and good except that Congress behaved the way it did re the bail out because of the election. Do you think it would have been the same otherwise? Do the politicians in the States in general show any real concern for the people? Additionally just because the economy is in a heap now doesn't mean it can't get any worse. If that were the case there would be no real need for the bail out, which is there to try and ensure that things don't get any worse. And was introduced by, well, the President.

While the President may not be a dictator, whoever is in that position has a unique level of power over all of these aspects. And if what you're saying is in fact true then the Republican mantra at the moment re the economy (It was all Clintons fault) is also fundamentally flawed. The problem being that Clinton did introduce legislation that contributed to this problem. It does matter who sits in the Oval Office and it does impact American policy making.

metrovelvet

molloyjh wrote: »

Which is also well and good except that Congress behaved the way it did re the bail out because of the election.

What makes you say that?

molloy wrote:

Additionally just because the economy is in a heap now doesn't mean it can't get any worse. If that were the case there would be no real need for the bail out, which is there to try and ensure that things don't get any worse. And was introduced by, well, the President.

No of course not and chances are this is the tip of the iceberg and no one is confident the bailout will work. As an American this is a sure surprise to me. Hey - I didn't know were were communists.

molloy wrote:

While the President may not be a dictator, whoever is in that position has a unique level of power over all of these aspects. And if what you're saying is in fact true then the Republican mantra at the moment re the economy (It was all Clintons fault) is also fundamentally flawed. The problem being that Clinton did introduce legislation that contributed to this problem. It does matter who sits in the Oval Office and it does impact American policy making.

This goes back to FDR [who btw vetoed congress 635 times]and state owned and regulated mortgages which were then privatised but still had government backing under LBJ. When you have government backing you take risks that you wouldn't normally. This was then compounded by moves made by Carter and Clinton.

But MM is right, congress control the purse strings.

ghostdancer

seeing as this thread is supposed to be about predictions for Nov 4th:


Obama: Kerry States (-NH) + NM + IA + CO is prefectly do-able, and is 269 EVs, and, effectively, the presidency.


as things stand, i'd imagine he'll take one of: NH, VA, OH, FL, NV.

Indiana, NC, and Missouri are long shots too, but McCain should be a hell of a lot stronger in those states than he is.


i can't see McCain winning any of the Kerry states to be honest. his best options are MN, NH and PA but i can't see them turning as things stand.


overall though, almost certainly Obama to win, could be anywhere from a squeaker to an easy win, but a win nonetheless.

ghostdancer

obl wrote: »

Pretty hard for McCain to lose, imo.

He'll keep all of the states President Bush won in 2004, and may well add WI or MN.

The Northern, mid-west states are the only ones where you're going to see any change on last time.

not a hope.

he doesn't have a chance in Iowa, and NM is pretty much gone too.

Black Swan

The Dow loses 30 percent of its value during 2008, housing foreclosures hit historic highs, largest bank failures in US history, major brokerage house failures, unemployment reaches recessionary levels, and federal deficit hits historic high (at over $10 trillion, almost doubling during the 8 years of the Bush administration), and the two "won" wars rage on (Iraq and Afghanistan) adding to the federal deficit by billions per month. After the 4 November elections, the US financial meltdown is declared the worst since the Great Depression.

The financial meltdown impacts the party in the Oval Office, where not only the Commander in Chief sits, but also the nation's CEO (a second role which Bush subordinated to focus on his wars). The meltdown also benefits close senate and house races to the advantage of the Democrats, as election history suggests: "It's the economy stupid!"

Revised predictions:

• Dems increase their US House 2006 won majority in 2008
• Dems break the tie in US Senate and gain a majority by 5 senators in 2008
• Dems (Obama) win presidency by a very narrow margin in electoral college (but also win by a one-half million in popular vote as Gore did in 2000, although this does not count)

Cautionary observation: Just like when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, the lack of checks and balances in the American political system by one party rule results in abuses of power, increases in pork barrel legislation, and increased waste of financial resources. This represents a major flaw in the American two party system of government, suggesting that a multiparty parliamentary system would exhibit more checks and balances, as well as a greater representation of diverse political interests. Unfortunately, the US seems stuck with their two party system, with competing third parties only serving as spoilers in close elections.

banquo

ghostdancer wrote: »

seeing as this thread is supposed to be about predictions for Nov 4th:


Obama: Kerry States (-NH) + NM + IA + CO is prefectly do-able, and is 269 EVs, and, effectively, the presidency.


as things stand, i'd imagine he'll take one of: NH, VA, OH, FL, NV.

Indiana, NC, and Missouri are long shots too, but McCain should be a hell of a lot stronger in those states than he is.


i can't see McCain winning any of the Kerry states to be honest. his best options are MN, NH and PA but i can't see them turning as things stand.


overall though, almost certainly Obama to win, could be anywhere from a squeaker to an easy win, but a win nonetheless.

I choose 'C', 'Strongly agree'

Rasmussen has Obama with a 10+ lead in NH, 53% to McCain's 43% IIR.

Strong lead in IA, MOE (margin of error) lead in CO.

Denis Irwin

Obama to win for me but as has been said before, If Obama does win it'll either be a tight win something like 278-260 in favour of Obama or it could easily be a fairly comfortable win for Obama ie: 325-213.

Interesting to note though that the latest Daily Tracking Poll from Rasmussen gives Obama his highest level of support at 52% (McCain is at 44%) and that he has been comfortably ahead in the tracking polls (since around the time Lehaman Bros. went under.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

banquo

You can actually get an election special subscription from Rasmussen that just does election stuff and expires after the election. All polls are broken down into questions asked and all the different demographics, etc.

Might treat myself.

limklad

My Uncle live in the US have been a very Republican supporter and always voted Republican. He and I always debated the effect of both parties on the US and especially in World affairs. This Summer, He lobbed a "shock and awe" on me, when he told me he vote for Obama in the primaries and is voting for him in the Presidential Elections in November. This has been a huge U turn by him.

I haven't got a chance to talk to him about Palin. Do not underestimate her ability in getting votes and swing votes to other way in the next month, she has the media focus better now with her gaffs. Look at the Rating in the US for the First Presidential debate (52.4 Millions) and the rating on the Vice-Presidential debate (70 Millions viewers) quite the opposite to which is typically an non-event in US TV election viewings. It was the second more watched televises election debate in the US history.
The Vice-Presidential debate got a hell of more viewings than the First Presidential debate because of Palin. :eek:

Her ability to charm and say things in order to swing the less informed voters is a worry, despite her lack of knowledge in Obama and economy. Bush too in his elections made gaff about foreign affairs matters. Yes we can slag her for her views and gaffs, but she has that deadly weapon. Her ability to connect and to sweet charm with "the Hockey Mum's" & "Joe six pack" with eye contact with the Camera to give "a wink and attractive smile" and complement them (voters) and claims that she on their side. She is doing that by speaking to them on their level with their every day terms and quotes. When she talks, she does so with eye contact in great length to connect with the TV Viewers not directly at Joe Biden or interviewers. She lets people know who is more important to talk to (which is the Voters). She is connecting a hell of lot better to the voters than Biden is. She has that likeable quality and she makes a better impression which will stick. Who would you vote for? Some one you know the name or the one you don't, who never left an impression and forgotten what s/he stand for. In tight elections it makes a huge difference. With one Month to go polls can swing easily.

Just like Bush, she tells reporters and other groups, she say things like she a dedicate church going Christian and then go to NRA supports and claims she supports the right to have guns which is totally contradictory to Christians views with love, tolerance and forgiveness.

Her ability to connect better to the low income wage voters than Obama is a worry for us here in Ireland and for the World in General. After all the US voted in Bush to the office of President for two terms and this was a man who on September 11th 2001, was caught holding a book upside down in a school during an reading exercise.

Here in Ireland, We vote in Jackie Healy Rae for two terms in South Kerry (First term as protest, a Joke vote and with disillusionment with current parties). Luckily for South Kerry, It ended better for them as the roads got tarred with extra funding when O' Doughoue failed as Minister to get that done. If I had a choice between Bush and Jackie Healy Rae for US President, I would pick the one that will do less damage that would be Jackie Healy Rae. He would spend more time in tarring the Roads of the US than invasion plans.
This election is no longer McCain/Obama Presidential campaign, it is Palin/Obama Presidential campaign.
If you look at the news media, they want more Palin interviews because they know the people will want to listen and their ratings goes up.
So In this election the media wants to interview in this order of choice.
1/.Palin 2/.Obama 3/.McCain 4/.Biden
Just like Bush, Palin is a big Threat for us all (the worst wolf in sheep clothing that i have ever seen), and the more media attention she gets the more votes she will get, and will be the next President of the US, once McCain easily croaks.

Mr.Micro

If you look at the news media, they want more Palin interviews because they know the people will want to listen and their ratings goes up.
So In this election the media wants to interview in this order of choice.
1/.Palin 2/.Obama 3/.McCain 4/.Biden
Just like Bush, Palin is a big Threat for us all (the worst wolf in sheep clothing that i have ever seen), and the more media attention she gets the more votes she will get, and will be the next President of the US, once McCain easily croaks.

I tend to agree with you limklad, Palin is photogenic and appears glamourous to the media. I even read somewhere that there has been a huge demand for the type of spectacles that she wears. It is Palin now that one would be forgiven for thinking is the Presidential candidate and not McCain ( whose chips are cooked IMO) and she a relative newcomer upstaging all the work put in by the McCain team.

If the report is true that she tried to get an in law fired ( a state trooper) over some domestic issue then that could be trouble for the future if she gets power as such vindictiveness could be a major flaw in her personality. After all the damage that Bush has done financially and militarily its the last thing that the US needs,or the world for that matter now is another loose cannon.

limklad

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If the report is true that she tried to get an in law fired ( a state trooper) over some domestic issue then that could be trouble for the future if she gets power as such vindictiveness could be a major flaw in her personality. After all the damage that Bush has done financially and militarily its the last thing that the US needs,or the world for that matter now is another loose cannon.

She is doing a Bush on it and keep denying and claim that it smear campaign by Democrat's and keep smiling, kissing and charming the pants of voters. The more dirt that is plastered at her the better she will perform in the Polls for McCain (Remember the long years of smear campaign against Ahern from the opposition and media which boosted Ahern popularity) unless her smear campaign on Obama may backfire on her first. With a month to go and the smear campaign in full swing already is going to be one very dirty campaign. Let hope that Obama do not stoop down to the McCain/Palin level because he will not win that battle and for him to keep to the true facts that can be easily verified and not taken out of context like the McCain/Palin smearing campaign.

Manic Moran

limklad wrote: »

Just like Bush, she tells reporters and other groups, she say things like she a dedicate church going Christian and then go to NRA supports and claims she supports the right to have guns which is totally contradictory to Christians views with love, tolerance and forgiveness.

Not at all. There is nothing in Christian belief which says anything about not being able to hunt, not being able to conduct target practise, and certainly nothing about relinquishing the right to defend oneself. Not that the Bible is any huge authority or anything, but Exodos says there's nothing wrong with killing burglars who break in at night, and Jesus did chastise his disciples for going shopping without swords according to Luke. You will note that the Testaments tend to distinguish between protection and vengeance. The one is permitted. The other is not. Thomas Aquinus was certainly very clear on his opinion of the matter.

After all the US voted in Bush to the office of President for two terms and this was a man who on September 11th 2001, was caught holding a book upside down in a school during an reading exercise.

Would you care to substantiate this claim? Please reference your answer to the topic of 'people believing what they see on the Internet that they want to believe.'

NTM

Denis Irwin

Obama making major gains in 5 swing States

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Polls in five key battleground states in the race for the White House released Tuesday suggest that Sen. Barack Obama is making major gains.
The CNN/Time magazine/Opinion Research Corp. polls of likely voters in Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin reflect a significant nationwide shift toward the Democratic presidential nominee.
Obama has made significant strides in New Hampshire, the state credited with reviving Sen. John McCain's Republican primary campaign in both 2000 and 2008.
Fifty-three percent of New Hampshire's likely voters are backing Obama, while 45 percent are supporting McCain. Obama held a lead of 5 percentage points in the last CNN New Hampshire poll, taken in early September. Watch what the poll numbers mean »
Four years ago, Sen. John Kerry narrowly carried New Hampshire -- a one-time GOP stronghold. George W. Bush squeezed out a slender win by 1 percentage point in 2000. iReport.com: Are you in a battleground state? Share your story
In Indiana, 51 percent of likely voters say McCain is their choice for president, with 46 percent backing Obama, a Democratic senator from neighboring Illinois. Indiana went for Bush by 21 percentage points four years ago; Democrats have not carried Indiana since 1964. See the latest polling

In North Carolina, the two major party nominees are locked in a dead heat, with McCain and Obama each claiming the support of 49 percent of likely voters.
"Obama's strongest region is in the Raleigh/Durham area," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. "McCain does best in Charlotte and the surrounding counties."
The last Democrat to carry North Carolina was Jimmy Carter, a Southerner, in 1976. The state's 15 electoral votes are considered critical for any successful Republican presidential campaign.
McCain trails Obama in Ohio; 50 percent of likely voters favor Obama, while 47 percent support the senator from Arizona. No Republican has won the White House without carrying the state.
"McCain has a 6-point lead in the Cincinnati area," Holland said. "But a GOP candidate normally needs to do better than that in southwestern Ohio in order to win the state. And overall, Obama actually has a 2-point edge among suburban communities across the state."
In Wisconsin, which hasn't voted Republican since 1984, Obama is holding a 51 percent to 46 percent lead among likely voters.
"Obama continues to maintain a 'home field advantage' in the southern Wisconsin counties that border Illinois," Holland said. "He has nearly a 30-point lead in the city of Milwaukee, although he loses the Milwaukee suburbs by nearly as large a margin."
The new polls are behind several shifts in the CNN Electoral College map.
CNN is shifting North Carolina from leaning toward McCain to a tossup. CNN is moving Wisconsin and its 10 electoral votes, and New Hampshire and its four electoral votes, from tossup to leaning toward Obama.
Finally, CNN is switching Michigan and its 17 electoral votes from leaning toward Obama to safe for Obama. The McCain campaign announced last week that it was shifting its resources out of the once hotly contested industrial state, instead intensifying efforts in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
With these moves, CNN estimates that if the presidential election were held today, Obama would win states with 264 electoral votes and McCain would carry states with 174 electoral votes, with 100 electoral votes still up for grabs. To win the White House, 270 electoral votes are needed. See CNN's Electoral College map
Obama's lead has expanded by 29 electoral votes in comparison with his margin in CNN's last electoral map, which was released on October 1.
The CNN/Time/Opinion Research polls were conduced October 3-6, with 677 likely voters in Indiana, 813 likely voters in New Hampshire, 666 likely voters in North Carolina, 749 likely voters in Ohio and 859 likely voters in Wisconsin. Respondents were all questioned by telephone.
The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points in New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin, and plus or minus 4 percentage points in Indiana and North Carolina.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/battleground.poll/index.html

The results of these polls would seem to make uncomfortable reading for Republicans.