Good-bye Wolverines, good-bye $8 million in mad ad money, good-bye 17 electoral votes, and, probably, so long, farewell to that object number of such intense, contemporary love and desire: 270.
Yes, once again hiding behind Sarah Palin's skirt, John McCain & Co. meekly announced during the obsessive run-up to the vice-presidential debate Thursday that the maverick in chief was packing his mess kit -- what an aptly named metaphor -- and headin' out of Dodge.
Well, Detroit, actually, as well as every other hamlet within the boundaries of Michigan.
Dodge, McCain will never have to worry about, of course, because no amount of rationality can shake its determination to forever live up to Tom Frank's diagnosis. But apparently in the vast, northern expanse of Michigan the multitudes read the papers and watch the news and consequently are apoplectically contemptuous of Bushian McCainism.
After all, they've plenty of time on their hands, since the genius of supply-side economics has so many of them engaged these days in leisure activities rather than a job. Imagine that -- a bold new economic theory sketched out on a cocktail napkin and in contravention to what had worked for decades not wearing so well.
At any rate, under the cover of night, so to speak, Sen. McCain and his unhappiest of warriors started fanning out to redder pastures. The Politico called this "a stunning move," since not that long ago "Republicans had been bullish on Michigan," but now, with only four weeks to go, it "indicates the difficulty Republicans are having in finding blue states to put in play."
Look at it this way. You-know-who won the 2004 race with 286 electoral votes. Iowa's seven were part of that 16-point winning margin. This year, they're gone, solidly blue (even though Mr. McCain mysteriously keeps showing up there, to every Republican strategist's infuriated consternation).
That leaves a possible 279. Hence take away from McCain's column just one more sizable swing state or any combination of two smaller ones within Bush's 2004 category and the former winds up as toast. His map is a shrinking Battle of the Bulge, leaving him with extraordinarily little maneuverability.
McCain, admits a campaign insider, "now must win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Minnesota in order to get enough electoral votes to win the presidency." Bush, by the way, lost all three, both times.
And just where do things stand today in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota? The best measure is an averaging of competent state polls, rather than any individual study, such as Quinnipiac's exceptionally dubious finding of a 15-point Pennsylvania lead for Obama.
And here, we see why Obama looks so damn calm on the campaign trail -- with blue averages of +7.9 in Pennsylvania, +5 in Wisconsin, +5.7 in Minnesota.
Ah, but you say, there's always Ohio and Florida, just to keep McCain competitive. Right? Well, there could be, but at the moment both are trending Obama, with respective, averaged advantages of +2 and +3. And "trending," remember, means even those positive numbers will likely inflate.
But here's the nut of it, McCain's last-and-only-ditch firewall: His campaign perhaps quixotically figures that if it can just pick up Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Minnesota (in arithmetical fact, it must pick up one of those), and of course retains all those What's the Matter with Those Idiots? states, he's only a blessed 10 votes short of the triumphant 270.
And said a campaign official of Panglossian bent: "We can dig up an additional 10 electoral votes in Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire." But that might have to be done from their vital statistics departments, death certificate divisions, since in those states, too, Obama is trending just outside the margin of error, except in Nevada (with a statistically insignificant lead, but a lead nevertheless).
Indeed, add up all the averaged probabilities and safe states and trends and positive toss-ups and Obama currently stands at a whopping 353 electoral votes to McCain's 185. That is a whole lot of electoral territory for McCain to recoup, and his every retraction, such as in Michigan, only means more Obama resources poured into shoring up other probabilities and toss-ups.
Now, it should go without saying that four weeks in any presidential campaign is a stretch of hellish eternity and no one can know what will happen. Yet I'll say it -- again -- since that disclaimer seems necessary to foreclose the likelihood of some moron writing me to skewer the worth of political predictions.
So here, you're right, whoever you might be, my official disclaimer: Four weeks in any presidential campaign is a hellish eternity, and no one really knows how things will turn out. Happy?
Other than that, I am. And Obama sure looks that way on the campaign trail, too.


What we need to do now . . .
The National Popular Vote bill
Understanding Election Theft
Thanks...
When?
and down goes mccain...
The 10/04 Election Model projects Obama to win 354 EV
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionModel.htm
The TRUE Math
Assume that current state polls reflect the will of the electorate and a fraud-free election is held today. The 2008 Election Model indicates that given the following undecided voter allocations (UVA), Obama’s projected 2-party vote share and expected (mean) electoral vote are the following:
UVA Vote Evote EV Wins (in a Monte Carlo simulation of 5000 election trials)
52.1% 52.1% 345 4998 (current vote share)
60% 52.6% 354 5000 (base case scenario)
75% 53.4% 368 5000
Obama is projected to win 54.6% of the two-party vote based on the most recent 5 national polls.
But what if the election is not fraud-free?
Assuming 3% of votes cast are uncounted (75% are traditionally Democratic) and 6% of Obama’s votes are switched electronically to McCain, Obama would lose by 283-255 EV with 48.7% of the two-party vote (see the election fraud sensitivity table below).
The expected electoral vote is calculated by the formula:
EV = sum [P (i) * EV (i)], where i= 1, 51.
P (i) is the probability of winning state (i) with EV (i) electoral votes.
The probability P (i) of winning state (i) is based on the projected state vote share V (i).
The projected vote share is equal to the latest poll plus the undecided voter allocation.
V (i) = Poll (i) + UVA (i).
The state win probability is calculated using the Normal distribution function assuming a 4.0% state poll margin of error.
In Excel, the formula is: P (i) = NORMDIST (V (i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true).
The electoral votes, current poll numbers, projected vote shares and win probabilities for all the states are given in the table below.
Duuuude.....
Presidential recall?
Is it possible - if Obama does not deliver all the goods he promised? California recalled a governor, didn't they? Does anybody know if it is even doable to recall a president?
I was thinking about Italy, their government changing every 6 months or so. If they can do it - can we?
Or at least vote OUT the bastards who sold us out.
Yes, I am still considering voting for Kucinich (even though he supports Obama). However I am afraid that the greater evil may prevail again, and this is the last thing I want.
Hammer into anvil
Job Loss In Michigan..... JOHN MCCAIN SAGGING IN THE POLL
FOR MCCAIN TO WIN---> ---> -->
I Wish This Assessment Made Me Feel Good
For McCain not to win would be a good thing, but I'm still not convinced that an Obama victory is as good as it sounds. I still have problems with his disdain for the Constitution as displayed by his FISA vote. I don't know how much more clear "NO EX POST FACTO LAWS" can be, yet he voted (as would have McCain had he showed up) for just such a law absolving the telecos of abetting the government in violating the Fourth Amendment.
If Obama is willing to ignore this violation of the Constitution, what else will he tolerate in the name of expediency?
That is not "ex post facto"
I Don't Blame You For Feeling That Way, Cody - But....
As for the outliers who push for Nader or McKinney (or even Barr or Paul) - there's no way they can take the White House with the Electoral College system as it currently is, even if enough people were so fed up with the current two-party system that one of them was polling with a majority or even plurality of likely voters. I would like to see that change, which is why I support movements like FairVote - though I'm more extreme than they are, wanting a Constitutional Amendment eradicating the Electoral College altogether. Right now, even as popular a third-party candidate as H. Ross Perot was in 1992 couldn't get a single Electoral Vote despite having won 19% of the Popular Vote - and as the 2000 Election demonstrated, it's the Electoral Vote that ultimately counts, or we'd we talking about President Gore's successor here now!
At this point, the best a third-party candidate like Perot or Nader can do is act as a spoiler, denying the White House to one of the Big Two candidates by siphoning enough votes away from them that the other candidate slides in under him or her. Since the only real effect they have is negative (ensuring the other party's candidate gets in!), whoever is in power feels no need to pay any attention to why people voted for Ralph Nader over Al Gore, say - or Ross Perot over George I. I didn't see Bill Clinton asking Perot for any advice or giving him a job in his Administration, any more than I saw The Traitor Bush do those things for Nader.
If you feel so fed up with the system as it stands that you can't bring yourself to vote for either but feel it's your duty as a US citizen to vote (and bravo if you do), then by all means vote for a third-party candidate who most closely reflects your views. Just understand that the most you're accomplishing is denying Obama your personal sanction. That's the choice I made myself in 1996, when I voted for Nader over Bill Clinton to protest Clinton's rightward shifts.
To be or not to be
Maybe the only really important question about this Presidential Election is since Republicans clearly have the ability to steal yet another election, do they really want to hold that office now?
If so, doing that might be a bit too blatant this time around given the national mood, so perhaps they'll just call it off somehow ......... and trust their packed SCOTUS to legitimize the end of American democracy.
They Can Only Steal Low-Hanging Fruit
Rove's no evil genius able to Completely Warp the Fabric of Reality. He's more like a Hollywood Accountant using "creative accounting practices" to make an obvious blockbuster hit look like a money-loser on the books, so as to avoid paying taxes or "points" (net percentages given to the cast and crew as incentives) on it.
That's the big reason I keep urging people sick of Republicans to vote for Obama anyway, even if none of us approve of his campaign's move to the Right - er, "Center" (like the FISA vote, which I don't even bother to defend!) - because if he and Progressives win in a landslide, there's not a thing Rove can do about it. If it's close - then yeah, Rove can massage the numbers and cook the books, and it'll be 2000 or 2004 all over again. And even if you didn't think much of Gore or Kerry at the time (I certainly didn't), can you deny now that even they'd have been infinitely Better than Four Years of Bush - or McBush and Dominionist Barbie?
This election, I intend to vote for Obama as President - and vote for Progressives only on the lower races. Even if most of them lose, a few of them stand a good chance of winning - and the fewer DLC Blue Dog "Republicans in all but name" Democrats President Obama has to deal with (and the more genuine Progressives to keep him honest!), the better.
Obama won't be the next President
Gore & Kerry won their elections by MILLIONS OF VOTES! It was not close in reality, but only in what the GOPers allowed to be somewhat counted. Democrats still are impotent to stop them, and Republicans are not foolish enough to concede a game they still can win easily.
The odds that the GOPhascists will find a way to cancel or steal this election are now probably better than even ......... and I'd bet the farm on January seeing either Dubya's third term, Palin's first, or the beginning of another long American Revolutionary War.
Your memory is faulty
Are you claiming that Gore and Kerry both won by millions of votes that weren't ever counted? I don't know where you got your numbers from, or what sort of evidence you have that no one else has uncovered, but your assertions are way off base here. The official numbers were much closer, and Kerry didn't even win the popular vote.
Here are the popular vote totals
Bush Votes Bush % Dem Votes Dem %
50,456,002 47.87% 50,999,897 48.38%
62,028,285 50.70% 59,028,109 48.3
Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, not millions. Kerry didn't even win the popular vote. He lost by 3 million. Again, the electoral votes are what matter anyway, not popular vote. In Gore's case he lost 271 to 266. It was the Florida fiasco that doomed Gore. The final vote tally in Florida was Bush 2,912,790; Gore 2,912,253. If that isn't close, I don't know what the hell you call close. 600 votes out of a total of nearly 6,000,000 can easily be shaved. If Florida went the other way it would have been Gore 291 to Bush 246. A matter of less than 1000 votes would have changed history, not the millions you claim.
So once again, I question your assertion that Rove somehow managed to shave millions of votes from both Gore and Kerry. Your claim that both Gore and Kerry actually somehow won by millions of votes that were somehow disappeared is way off base. Florida was under intense scrutiny over a few thousand votes. Hard to swallow that no one would have noticed millions of votes disappearing elsewhere and say nothing about it.
"the electoral votes are what matter anyway, not popular vote"