Feed on
Posts
Comments

The State of Play

I believe that Obama will retain all the Kerry states, including New Hampshire. I also believe he will win Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. Read on to discover how Barack Obama will capture 310 electorial votes against 228 for John McCain.

With the current state of the polls and people’s interpretations of what the polls say is going to happen in 8 weeks varying by a large amount, I thought I would state just what is required to win in November, and what I personally believe will happen.

The Numbers

The results in 2004 were Kerry 251, Bush 286. The states that Obama can possibly take from McCain according to the polls are Colorado (9), Florida (27), Indiana (11), Iowa (7), Missouri (11), Montana (3), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Nevada (5), Ohio (20), South Dakota (3) and Virginia (13). The states McCain can possibly take are Michigan (17), New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10).

This gives Obama and McCain absolute maximums of 383 and 338 respectively.

Now to be more realistic about the candidate’s chances, the only state that McCain can reasonably believe he can take is New Hampshire. Obama on the other hand is almost guaranteed Iowa, while Colorado, Florida, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia are all very much in play.

This means that Obama’s likely maximum is 333 while McCain’s is 290.

Barack Obama needs 19 electoral votes more than Kerry to win, or 23 if McCain takes New Hampshire.

Oletko pystynyt nauttimaan reissuista samalla lailla kuin ennenkin tai onko pitänyt jättää jokin reissu tekemättä. Yhdessä nämä haittavaikutukset useimmiten eivät vaikeuta työtä, joten luultavasti tulee olemaan paikka, verkkosivusto johon ensin huomaat ne. Ei ole mun juttu vetää kloorin hajuista kemikaalia.”.

542 Responses to “The State of Play”

  1. 501
    Ferny Grover says:

    Catrina @ 500….is the pig an option?

  2. 502
  3. 503
    Andrew says:

    Gotta love that MSM. Palin gives an interview where she doesnt know the Bush doctrine, refers to Georgia as part of NATO, says that being able to see the Russian coast from Alaska gives her foreign policy experience, and says her security credentials are about energy. ABC news goes with “Palin refused to rule out war on Russia” and cnn “Palin’s tough stance on Russia”.

    These guys could win with all this MSM support. Oh my God.

  4. 504
    Ferny Grover says:

    Well…..y’know….they tell me pigs have intelligence … which would put it ahead of the field

  5. 505
    Catrina says:

    Andrew at 503

    Her take on what Georgia inside NATO would actually mean and the political reality of NATO itself and that just sticking Georgia inside NATO is talked about as something that should happen as if the USA can control this – is gob smacking ignorance. But who cares – it sounds good.

  6. 506
    Catrina says:

    Ferny Grover at 504
    They can fly too!

  7. 507
    Catrina says:

    Video of Palin/Gibson interview (Full Pt. 1)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaMJ-xTcGxI

  8. 508
    Ferny Grover says:

    Oh sh*t! I just realised. She’s not channeling a pig at all. She’s channeling the Chimp in Chief. It’s Moose Murdering Moses-Matthew-&-Mark Mumbling Monkey Mum!

  9. 509
    HusseinWorm says:

    It seems Possum and William are going MSM. Well they’ve nailed the over hype, under deliver bit, at least. :P

  10. 510
    Catrina says:

    The NYT have a couple of articles up summarising the Palin interview.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12watch.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12palin.html

    Also, up on the Caucus …
    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/palin-interview-she-didnt-blink-when-asked-to-run/

    BTW, the several hundred comments make interesting reading.

  11. 511
    Noocat says:

    #491
    [… you seem to have the impression that Americans are interested in real issues when they are showing every indication of being a nation in complete denial.]

    You’ve hit the nail on the head. I think most Americans have trouble facing reality. The worse things get, the more they want to escape.

    The Republicans know this, so they gave the people Sarah Palin as the ultimate distraction. Now Americans don’t have to confront the hard stuff anymore in this election. They can talk about whether Palin was the right pick for VP. They can dream about the small-town hockey Mum suddenly making the big time. They can debate whether Bristol Palin should have kept her baby or not and what led her to a teen pregnancy. They can wonder whether Palin would be someone they could have a coffee or beer with.

    Sure, there are plenty of people hurting in a declining economy, but for those who aren’t, they now have Palin to occupy them rather than having to be concerned for their fellow citizens or the overall decline in their country’s international standing.

    This is a country that has lost its way under the Republican leadership as people were continually frightened into voting for the Republicans. Now that the Republicans have made the world seem so scary, they are exploiting American’s desires for escaping that world… no more big issues, no more things to worry about, just a fascination with Sarah Palin. The MSM have complied. The alternative media has complied. And now we are two weeks into this great scam and Americans are still chugging along besotted in some way with Palin, either loving or hating her.

    The Republicans will be trying to make the most of this. She has now had one major interview. Expect them to hide her a way for a little, then bring her back out for another, anything to stretch it out until election day, drip feeding the country with bits and pieces of Sarah Palin.

    The only way Obama can turn this around is to stir Americans in an emotional way, a DEEP emotional way. If he simply bangs on about the issues, people will keep resorting to the Palin distraction. He needs to reignite his message of hope and change so people can shift from escapism to a future dream. It is still about avoiding the here and now, which many Americans are inclined to do, but at least Obama can take them to a place that can inspire something better in them and in future generations rather than seeking solace in a temporary distraction.

    So it is now a question of which is the most alluring escape: Sarah Palin or the Future?

    Obama will do best if he ignores Palin and restrengthens his core messages around believing in a brighter can-do future while painting McCain as embedded in the problems everyone wishes to escape from.

  12. 512
    David Gould says:

    Great comments, Noocat. Maybe we should make this site a ______ ______ free zone?

  13. 513
    Catrina says:

    Noocat at 511

    I could have made a new post out of that !!

  14. 514
    Chris B says:

    493 David Gould

    In other words, if I am unemployed in Ohio, but I passionately oppose abortion, I am still more likely to vote for Obama rather than Palin.

    Spot on, hip pocket nerve wins 99 times out of 100.

  15. 515
    Chris B says:

    503 Andrew I missed that Andrew well spotted. She called Georgia one of our NATO allies. She also mentioned we don’t need any foreign policy experts. We got a live one here boys.

  16. 516
    Noocat says:

    [Great comments, Noocat. Maybe we should make this site a ______ ______ free zone?]

    Now that sounds like a brilliant idea…

  17. 517
    Chris B says:

    David just the 11million plus new voters will win it in a landslide for the Democrats. Its probably closer to 20 million with the states included that don’t provide that sort of information.

  18. 518
    Catrina says:

    Q: What’s the difference between Bush and Palin?
    A: Lipstick

  19. 519
    Noocat says:

    [Noocat at 511
    I could have made a new post out of that !!]

    Feel free…

  20. 520
    Catrina says:

    Noocat at 519
    Register yourself and I’ll do it.
    Post is already prepared – just need to assign you as author.

  21. 521
    Chris B says:

    518 Catrina Sorry Catrina, Bush looks like a moderate, and intelligent compared to her. :twisted:

  22. 522
    Chris B says:

    She probably believes in the flat earth, because of the bible.

  23. 523
    David Gould says:

    Chris B at 517,

    Again: the 11 million new voters are already being counted in the polling.

    There is no landslide; there will be no landslide.

    The reason? Signing on new voters in Georgia, North Carolina, Mississipi, Arkansas, Texas, California, New York and so on changes the EV situation not one bit. New voters can only make a difference in states that are relatively close – around the five per cent mark.

    Again: the 11 million new voters are already being counted in the polling.

    Again: the 11 million new voters are already being counted in the polling.

    Again: the 11 million new voters are already being counted in the polling.

    Again: the 11 million new voters are already being counted in the polling.

    Again: the 11 million new voters are already being counted in the polling.

    (I thought I might try to emphasise this point, as I do suspect that you did not read my posts on Rasmussen and the other polling agencies …)

    Again: the 11 million new voters are already being counted in the polling.

    Again: the 11 million new voters are already being counted in the polling.

  24. 524
    Chris B says:

    You know it was written by a bunch of old men that thought the earth was flat.

  25. 525
    Chris B says:

    523 David Gould Yeah right.

  26. 526
    Kirribilli Removals says:

    The overwhelming number of blog entries on the NYTimes are highly critical of Palin’s interview performance:

    http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/12/us/politics/12palin.html

    …isn’t it good to know there are some intelligent Americans left?

  27. 527
    HusseinWorm says:

    I just don’t think that Obama has the luxury of pretending Palin doesn’t exist, she is the most favourably viewed candidate in the whole contest. The Hope message barely convinced half of the Democrats, it will not work on the electorate at large.

  28. 528
    David Gould says:

    Chris B,

    What specific critique do you have of Rasmussen’s method?

  29. 529
    Catrina says:

    KR at 526

    So the rumours of you demise have been exaggerated?

    :-)

  30. 530
    David Gould says:

    Chris B,

    What specific critique do you have of random sampling and statistical methodology?

  31. 531
    Chris B says:

    Poll Madness: McCain Takes Lead Even As Democrats Out-Register Republicans?
    This week’s mainstream coverage of the presidential horse-race has been dominated by a series of polls showing the McCain-Palin ticket with its first stable lead over Obama and Biden. Gallup’s tracking poll, USA Today and CBS News all show the Republicans with some kind of lead over the Democratic ticket. But, interestingly, all three polls were also conducted using a higher sampling of Republican voters than in July, raising a question of methodology.

    In a year in which Democrats have a lead of 11 million registered voters over Republicans, and have been adding to that advantage through a robust field operation, are pollsters over-sampling Republicans?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html

  32. 532
    Kirribilli Removals says:

    529
    Catrina

    Only just thanks ! LOL

  33. 533
    David Gould says:

    Chris B at 531,

    And over time and on average these fluctuations even out. I prefer Rasmussen because they correct for party ID, but the method of simply polling and releasing the numbers as given is also valid because of the statistical nature of polling.

    Over many polls – and we have seen a huge number in the last few months – the gap between McCain and Obama has been very narrow.

    This polling has been done mainly through random sampling of the population. The population contains those 11 million extra Democrats. Therefore, sufficient random sampling will capture them. And we have sufficient random sampling.

    Thus, the RCP average is a very good reflection of the state of the race. (Although I would ignore the USA Today one that has McCain 10 points in front – outliers should be discarded, imo, until we have more confirming data.)

  34. 534
    David Gould says:

    I would also point out that there seems to be a conditioned reflex on the left – if we are behind, it cannot be because people do not like us; it must be through some devious trickery on the behalf of our enemies, the MSM and the Right. It always makes me wonder whether I am on the correct side, when they have all the devious trickery and we simply have complaints …

  35. 535
    Chris B says:

    533 – 4 Ok, but I gave you what you wanted.

  36. 536
    Chris B says:

    I am still confident of 400 seats in the lower and 60+ in the senate. Nothing has happened to change that. In spite of the polls.

  37. 537
    Catrina says:

    Noocat – I’ve bumped you to Contributor and I’ve assigned a draft of the article to you so you can check it first. After any changes – just mark up the Publication Status as “Pending Review” and I’ll take it from there.

  38. 538
    Noocat says:

    Looks OK to me…

  39. 539
    David Gould says:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/110215/GOP-Increase-Party-After-Convention-Unusual.aspx

    Here is gallup’s take on party identification. They also have the category of leaning party identification. +8 is high, but has happened previously after a party conference, and +7 happened twice.

    “But are those increases temporary, or do they have some staying power? In general, it appears that the increases are short-lived and fade as the enthusiasm from the convention subsides.

    Since 1996, the percentage of Americans who identify with or lean to a party has dropped in the poll after that year’s post-convention poll for each party. So to the extent history is a guide, Gallup’s next survey would likely show a slight drop in the percentage of Americans identifying with or leaning to the Republican Party.”

  40. 540
    David Gould says:

    Chris B at 535,

    No, you did not. You gave me criticism of three specific polls. You have not provided criticism of Rasmussen’s method or random sampling and statistical methodology.

  41. 541
    Ferny Grover says:

    KR
    Good to see you up and about ol’ chum.

  42. 542