Electoral Map Swing State Update

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:21:04 PM EST
Tags: electoral map (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

William Arnone, long-time Democratic party activist and the author of the key state series I've quoted many times, has just prepared an update to his preliminary electoral vote preview and again graciously agreed to let me publish it.

His new electoral map analysis of who would win if the election were held today is here. Key findings are below:

The updated assessment shows that the Republican ticket of McCain-Palin would win 29 states with 282 electoral votes and the Democratic ticket of Obama-Biden would win 22 states including the District of Columbia) with 256 electoral votes.

This updated assessment represents a shift of one state (Colorado) and 9 electoral votes from the Republican ticket to the Democratic ticket since the August assessment. A detailed analysis of the shift in Colorado is included in the assessment.

In addition to Colorado shifting from McCain-Palin to Obama-Biden, eight states have shifted in the possibility of the result changing between now and November. Of these states, five (Alaska, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, and South Carolina) have shifted in the possibility of changing from McCain-Palin to Obama-Biden from “Moderate” to “Low.” One state (Minnesota) has shifted in the possibility of changing from Obama-Biden to McCain-Palin from “Moderate” to “High.” One state (Washington) has shifted in the possibility of changing from Obama-Biden to McCain-Palin from “Low” to “Moderate.” One state (Florida) has shifted in the possibility of changing from McCain-Palin to Obama-Biden from “Moderate” to “High.”

Of the total of nine states whose assessments have shifted since August, seven (Alaska, Georgia, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Washington) have shifted in the direction of the Republican ticket, while two (Colorado and Florida) have shifted in the direction of the Democratic ticket.

Of those states with “High” possibilities of changing between now and November, three (Colorado, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, with a total of 40 electoral votes) might move to McCain-Palin, while four (Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and Ohio, with a total of 69 electoral votes) might move to Obama-Biden. If all of these states do shift, then the result would be 285 electoral votes for Obama-Biden and 253 electoral votes for McCain-Palin.

Starting on page 16, the report has updates on key swing voter groups the Democrats need to win: Older voters (particularly women), Hispanic/Latino voters and Catholic voters.

< The Polls - 9/30 | Palin's Next Couric Gaffe May Be on Ignorance of Supreme Court Cases >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Electoral Map Swing State Update | 91 comments (91 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, I read the whole thing, and I think (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by tigercourse on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:34:38 PM EST

several of his findings are off the mark. It does seem like this was prepared some time ago.

TL: Thanks for the big bucket of cold water (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:41:37 PM EST

right across all the faces of the Dem blogosphere!

WE needed that! And WE needed this report!

The one point we can take away from this report is, despite a climate in which Obama/Biden should win easily, this is a close, nasty, hard-fought race which will not be decided until all the votes are counted.

A lot of the "swingable" states show predictions which are subject to turnout of targeted demographics.

The Catholic vote is one.
The older, white and womens' votes are another.
The AA Vote and Hispanic vote are another.

Turn them out for Obama - and he wins. Fail to turn any of them out - or, as to the Catholic vote, to turn a decent number to the Dems - and Obama has a good chance of losing.

The irrational wack-job behavior McCain has shown us over the last week and the budding theocrat named Palin lying in wait for him to croak should cause us to redouble our efforts to win.

And winning means turning people out to vote.

Amen! (none / 0) (#20)
by barryluda on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:42:24 PM EST

It's going to be close alright (none / 0) (#21)
by TheRealFrank on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:46:04 PM EST

And turnout will be key.

Still, this report is saying that the race right now looks better for McCain than for Obama. I find that very hard to believe.


I'd say "believe it and work (none / 0) (#27)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:54:56 PM EST

for the Dems assuming it's true."

There are few things worse than to lose an election knowing you could have worked a bit harder and won.

Said another way - you can sleep on the day after the election. Work now, to be able to sleep well.


If this is correct, my friends (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST

headed for NV are wasting their time.


Nothing is correct until all the votes (none / 0) (#34)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:59:02 PM EST

are cast and counted.

Work like you are behind and with a chance to catch up.

Remember this - McCain's pulled a lot of stunts this year, but the biggest one is that Lazarus act he gave us last December-January, when he was out of money, traveling commercial and coach, and his staff forewent paychecks and worked as volunteers.

Everyone counted him out as dead then, and somehow he came back.

He should only get to pull that stunt once. And, the way to make sure it only works once, is to redouble the efforts to elect Obama/Biden.


Is McCain in Des Moines, Iowa, (none / 0) (#43)
by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM EST

today because he thinks he has a chance in Iowa?


Is he really in Iowa? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:09:10 PM EST

Waste of time. Bad move by his campaign.


Maybe he'll berate them for accepting (none / 0) (#52)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:10:29 PM EST

price supports.


Yes, (none / 0) (#60)
by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:19:50 PM EST

USA Today


If Obama thinks he can win Colorado (none / 0) (#68)
by stefystef on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 03:17:38 PM EST

I don't see why McCain can't say something in Iowa. Huckabee won Iowa so Republicans there will go with McCain in the General Election, especially the religious right.

Don't give Iowa to Obama yet.


: Huckabee won Iowa (none / 0) (#69)
by CST on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST

So how does that help McCain? It was a republican primary, it's not like Huckabee beat Obama...
Do you expect states Romney won to not go to McCain? I am not following your logic. Some republican had to win the primary in every state.
Now, I don't think McCain should quit contesting the state right now, so I don't disagree with that. Just confused about the Huckabee comment.

Beats me. (none / 0) (#47)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:09:02 PM EST

It's not my job to keep tabs on what (if anything) he's thinking, what he's doing, or why.

Maybe he always wanted to visit a pig farm. I dunno.

Is the Iowa State Fair on? Get lunch on a stick?


Iowa broadcast media markets... (none / 0) (#73)
by Dawn Davenport on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 03:55:58 PM EST

...reach MO, WI, and MN--all of which are close in the race at the moment.


You got that right! (none / 0) (#67)
by stefystef on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 03:10:47 PM EST

Sometimes, Obama followers are too confident and post too many pro-Obama polls and articles.

You gotta know what the other side thinks.


Say WHAT? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST

it's been up five seconds (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM EST

you can't possibly have read it yet. Why don't you read it and then comment.


or at least the last two pararaphs of the (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST

long quote above.


I read (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST

McCain 282, Obama 25 .

To call that a credible assessment TODAY is not credible to me.

It would defy all precedent and all history.

Today, Obama would win the national vote by 5 or 6 and lose the election.

The chances of that happening are basically well, zero.


Approach the race like it is true. (none / 0) (#30)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:56:10 PM EST

Work like he*l to win.

Work like you're behind.

B/c McCain and the Rethugs surely are working that way.


Oh please (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:57:50 PM EST

I do not need a pep rally.

I am talking about the analysis.


Nor did you need to read the analysis (none / 0) (#35)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:00:00 PM EST

before telling us it was all wet.


NO I did not (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:08:13 PM EST

You know why? Because I know the national poling has Obama up by at least 6.

Arnone is predicting, if this is a current analysis, Obama winning the national popular vite by 6 (and to give you an idea what that would mean - assume a 139 million vote turnout, Obama will win the popular vote by 8 million votes) and will still lose the election.

Something like thatha s never happened in the history of politics in this country.

I'll put it this way - that would certainly end the electoral college forever and their would be violence on the streets of the nation and I would be among them.


And Diebold is run by.... (none / 0) (#50)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:09:57 PM EST

Republicans.


Ahhhhh (none / 0) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM EST

Diebold.

Did Arnone mention Diebold in his report?


: He considered (none / 0) (#59)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST

"historical voting patterns", which would include the manipulations of 2004 and 2000, at a minimum.
Implicit, not explicit.

Here's the RCP map (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST

Link, and RCP is Republican leaning.


he said it was post-convention and pre-debate (none / 0) (#70)
by laila on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 03:36:07 PM EST

I think he wrote this when McCain was up in the polls this is an old article. Where is the date? Sounds like bull to me.


: It is a bunch (none / 0) (#83)
by onemanrules on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:41:53 PM EST

of bunk, if you click on BTD's link to real clear politics and then click on no swing states, which gives each canidate the states they currently lead in, Obama would have 301 electoral votes. They include NC, Virginia for Obama.

Ridiculous (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:25:29 PM EST

Was the written the week after the Republican convention?

again you haven't read it either (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:26:43 PM EST

Please don't comment on the conclusions until you've read the report.


FYI: Your final link didn't work for me. (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:27:42 PM EST

: try again (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST

here

The toplines are out of synch with the reality (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:28:32 PM EST

I understand.

If I saw a poll today that had McCain at 51%--which is not far from giving him 280+ EVs, I'd have the same reaction.


You two are absolutely merciless. (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:26:50 PM EST

Insulting is a better word (none / 0) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST

and any more comments mocking the post by people who haven't read it will be deleted.


Let's look at one detail in particular: (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:34:07 PM EST

I can't copy from the PDF for some reason, but Arnone claims that "A strong Democratic Senate campaign may provide an uplift to the Democratic Presidential ticket [in Colorado]."

Um, how?


Well (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:05:08 PM EST

GOTV I suppose.

But it really works both ways it seems to me.


: Since Obama is certainly doing (none / 0) (#45)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:07:44 PM EST

massive GOTV in Colorado, I don't see what difference it makes.
I'd actually be surprised if Udall didn't leave much of the GOTV to Obama and put his money into TV. It's what Bob Casey did in PA in 2006 (GOTV was left to Ed Rendell).

Thanks Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#74)
by rennies on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:00:23 PM EST

for posting this analysis. This shows your absolute integrity, which is I why I value TL so much, even though as a Nobama voter (Cynthia McKinney for me), I disagree with a lot here. But certainly TL is the most sane, balanced and civil discussion I read.


I thibk this is a useful reminder (none / 0) (#75)
by Cream City on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:12:04 PM EST

that we don't pick our presidents in national elections. National polls act as if we do.

It's all about the Electoral College. So the national will not pick the president. Only the battleground states will do so.

But the rest you, go to the polls and participate in democracy, anyway.:-)


: Also, many pollsters still are using (none / 0) (#78)
by Cream City on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:20:35 PM EST

registered voters instead of likely voters.
This analysis, by building in historical patterns, is weighting more toward likely voters, I think.

In particular, what about Virginia? (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:27:07 PM EST

lol. (none / 0) (#8)
by Faust on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST

I thought it interesting that he finds (none / 0) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST

Ohio, Michigan and Florida may go to Obama, giving Obama/Biden the win.

Of those states with "High" possibilities of changing between now and November, three (Colorado, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, with a total of 40 electoral votes) might move to McCain-Palin, while four (Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and Ohio, with a total of 69 electoral votes) might move to Obama-Biden. If all of these states do shift, then the result would be 285 electoral votes for Obama-Biden and 253 electoral votes for McCain-Palin.

That kind of coordinates with (none / 0) (#38)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:03:16 PM EST

what the guy on MSNBC (Chuck Todd?) was doing last night during Tweety's show. He was showing how different combinations of states could go different ways and how the map had changed.

His hypothesis (or one of them) was that age had a lot more to do with this election than it has in anything during the recent past. And "aging" states were the key to winning.


That was the point made in January (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by Cream City on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:15:29 PM EST

in an essay on pollster.com that I've noted here before -- a post-New Hampshire analysis that said it's not about gender (or race in other states), it's about age. Yet the media still spend so much time on gender and race, ignoring the realities.

The reality is that boomers still rule.:-)


: For now :) (none / 0) (#79)
by CST on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:29:59 PM EST

But we're coming!
This election is definitely about age. Especially the primary where party ID didn't factor. Although I will note that in that case boomers did not rule.

Jeralyn (none / 0) (#14)
by call me Ishmael on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST

It is unclear when this tabulation was actually done. He says post-convention pre-debate. But do you know when the data actually was put together? It runs against all the other polling

it's not just based on polling (none / 0) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:39:02 PM EST

polling is one component, the voter groups are another, along with historical data on how they've voted and other experts' current assessments of how they are likely to vote.

I received the report this past Friday and assume it was completed right before the debate using the most current numbers then available.

The author is a financial expert in real life.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it. I just ask that people read it before looking at the first paragraph (which is counterbalanced by the last two paragraphs) and jumping to conclusions.


This is what I object to. (none / 0) (#22)
by Faust on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:46:56 PM EST

Weighting on past voting patterns? I would need an extensive defense of this methodology. No one, not RCP, not Pollster.com, not Silver, no one is comming up with this analysis. And it's completely out of sync with the national trends. It makes no sense.


I realize (none / 0) (#23)
by call me Ishmael on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:48:23 PM EST

that it is not just based on polling (although it is difficult to know how he can really weigh things like democratic activists perspectives), it is just difficult to know what to make of this without a better time sense. After all 2 weeks ago Gallup had McCain up. But I agree that it shows that this thing is really up in the air.


In other words, he's doing what many people do, (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:50:15 PM EST

except that his topline conclusion is just strange.

I wonder if today he's sticking to McCain winning in the Electoral College.

My predictions would have looked like this three weeks ago, but nowhere close today. Election predictions are time-sensitive this time of year.


Look at the Demographic points ... (none / 0) (#51)
by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:10:21 PM EST

made in the report. They are valuable even if you disagree with the assessment.

Remember, one can also make a mistake to place too much emphasis on bouncy-bouncy polls. And looking at traditional voting patterns and demographics helps avoid that.

I personally don't believe that voters really change their minds as much as polls suggest. All things being equal, people vote as they have in the past.


You mean like between 1996 and 2000? (none / 0) (#54)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:11:31 PM EST

National swings almost always produce local swings. THe change in polling numbers is coming from somewhere.


I thought he said he was basing this on polls? (none / 0) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM EST

: Read the report! (none / 0) (#62)
by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:30:34 PM EST

It says:

The methodology also gives weight to: each state's historical voting patterns in Presidential and other state-wide elections; key demographic groups (age, ethnicity, religion); 2008 primary/caucus results; and other political developments (e.g. other state-wide races for Senator and Governor, voter registration and party ID trends).

Since this was done post-convention / pre-debate (none / 0) (#17)
by barryluda on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST

it's not that surprising, since that period will turn out to be the absolute pinnacle of McCain's support. Hopefully, this analysis will help us Democrats not get too overconfident as, since then, everything has gone Obama's way. Other than that, I don't have much use for it.

I dunno (none / 0) (#26)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:52:59 PM EST

It's definitely interesting to read an analysis that looks more at fundamentals than at the vagaries of day-to-day polling, but it's still kind of hard to process.

I may jump off a bridge if Michigan votes Republican. By the way, did anyone notice that Obama FINALLY had the Mayor of Detroit appear at a rally?

I'd worry more about PA, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:00:25 PM EST

and I'm less and less worried about PA.


PA is a lock (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:03:36 PM EST

For crissakes, Kerry won PA.

What is going on here?


That's another way of saying (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:06:05 PM EST

exactly what I said. With these national numbers, Obama is a lock in the electoral college.


If Arnone is right (none / 0) (#53)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST

this will be the end of the electoral college and this country will be rendered asunder in a way never seen.

The national popular vote winner by 8 MILLION VOTES would be denied the Presidency.

It is unthinkable.


Indeed (none / 0) (#57)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM EST

Preparing for that remote possibility, it strikes me that Democrats will likely be in a position to throw out the results of the Electoral College and elect Obama in the House.


Only if it ties 269-269 (none / 0) (#85)
by Cream City on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST

or how were you, law school student and all, planning to abolish the Electoral College in the next month? Do tell! :-)


They can move to throw out electoral votes (none / 0) (#87)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:19:19 PM EST

Whose votes? (none / 0) (#88)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST

They would have to refuse to seat the electoral votes of some specific state that voted for McCain, on the grounds that the national popular vote was for Obama and so he ought to win somehow. Hard to see that happening.

I hope I'm not reopening anything too contentious by noting that it would be doubly ironic for Obama to make some sort of popular vote argument after all we heard in the primary about how the popular vote is completely irrelevant because of the RULZ.


Presumably Texas, Ohio, and Florida (none / 0) (#89)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:00:12 PM EST

It would be pretty much unprecedented, but could be done by brute force.


"Brute force?" No thanks. (none / 0) (#90)
by Cream City on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:29:49 PM EST

Like BTD's "violence in the streets"?

But at least, he isn't calling for it. Aren't you studying law?


: It would be done in the Joint Session (none / 0) (#91)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:31:21 PM EST

It would not be violent at all. Think of it as a "nuclear option."

Well (none / 0) (#41)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST

You can worry about PA. I'm from MI, so I worry about MI.


I was worried about PA (none / 0) (#44)
by CST on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:07:03 PM EST

But now I am starting to get the feeling PA will be like 2004 all over again. Everyone worries, but in the end it comes home, and it's really the state just to the west that counts.

I switched my registration last time to vote in PA (from MA) since I was so worried. I should've driven 30 min. west...


: Virginia's where it's at this year (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:09:23 PM EST

Also Colorado.

Obama is not losing Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM EST

For crissakes, Kerry won Michigan.

The only real Kerry state in doubt in my view is New Hampshire.

The election will be decided in Colorado, NM, Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Nevada.

Se I am not one who think Obama is gonna win NC or even Florida for that matter.

I think he can definitely lose Florida.

But he has Kerry's 252 plus Iowa pretty much locked. That makes it 259.

If you believe the LATEST state polls, as is stated, then you give Obama Virginia (iffy imo), Colorado (looking pretty solid now for Obama imo) and NM (solid Obama also.)

A pessimistic Obama map imo TODAY, has Obama 273 - McCain 265.

A McCain 282- Obama 256 map TODAY just is impossible to believe.


I think the report is valuable for ... (none / 0) (#58)
by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:15:24 PM EST

the demographic and voting pattern analysis.

You can disagree with the top line without disagreeing with some of the points made in the report.

It's just grist for the mill.

I don't agree with the EC numbers in this report. But I also don't think Obama will win this election by 10% as some recent polls suggest.


Well (none / 0) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:26:28 PM EST

I chose to disagree with the topline analysis.

With the election 30 days away, that is what matters it seems to me.

Look, if the point is me and a whole bunch of people were wrong on electability in THIS election - point taken. Clinton would have Ohio and Florida locked by now and the election would be absolutely over.

But who knew this economic meltdown would happen? I did not.


: I plan to savor this nugget. (none / 0) (#63)
by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:31:06 PM EST

: Because of the meltdown ... (none / 0) (#64)
by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:36:45 PM EST

I think Obama is favored.
But this race is going to be closer than polls suggest. And some of the reasons for that are contained in this report.
It's just data. You don't need to get emotional about it.

: And if Clinton was the nominee, (none / 0) (#66)
by scribe on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 03:09:56 PM EST

McCain never would have chosen Palin - remember, she was originally sold as appealing to the womens' votes HRC would have garnered - but more likely would have had the much more business-savvy Romney as his running mate.
And, then, the economic crater would likely have been a net plus for the proven executive Romney to address. (Notwithstanding that business practices like his - offshoring, loading up on debt to get profits out now, etc. - are largely responsible for the mess we're in.)
No, the race would not have been locked up by now.

Glad you're now looking at NH. (none / 0) (#84)
by robrecht on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 05:55:14 PM EST

steve m, I thought you'd (none / 0) (#29)
by oculus on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:56:04 PM EST

ask what the author's position is on the bail out?


Obama is currently averaging a 6.6 lead (none / 0) (#33)
by tigercourse on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM EST

in Michigan.


The early voting/ same day voting in OH (none / 0) (#65)
by samtaylor2 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:37:51 PM EST

Through I believe October 6th is huge for Obama. Hopefully he is just bussing people to the registration place and the voting booth at the same time.

They release those numbers? (none / 0) (#82)
by kenosharick on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:33:41 PM EST

I would have thought those votes would not be counted and the totals released until election day.


: The numbers will not be released (none / 0) (#86)
by samtaylor2 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:07:48 PM EST

Until election day. I am just assuming it will be good for dems, given the fact that Republicans tried to block it in the courts.

I think the analysis is very helpful (none / 0) (#71)
by befuddledvoter on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 03:41:00 PM EST

in that it makes suggestions that are concrete and focused. Over and over you see, "If Obama can win over the older voters." How many states is that stated? I had no idea that was such an issue. Has anyone else even looked at that?? I say hit the senior citizens centers. Jeez!!

And, by the way.... (none / 0) (#72)
by befuddledvoter on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 03:42:55 PM EST

I have spoken to many senior citizens who simply think McCain is too old to be POTUS. they are not worried about him dying in office; they focus on the rigors of the office and how they, themselves, have slowed down. No one better than a senior citizen knows this.

Catholic voters (none / 0) (#77)
by wasabi on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:19:20 PM EST

I thought his analysis of Catholic voters was interesting.

"The top reason by white Catholics on why Kerry lost the 2004 election was "not clear on what he stood for". Nearly one-in-two Catholic voters selected this reason as one of the top two reasons Kerry lost, and this was twice as many as selected "permissive views on issues like abortion and gay marriage" as one of the reasons".

He goes on to say that Obama's chance of maiking major gains among this segment are slim, especially if Republicans succeed in characterizing him as a "flip-flopper".

I don't think the flip-flopper charge will stick this time around. If anything, it'll stick to McCain.

: Biden is supposed to bring Catholic votes (none / 0) (#81)
by Cream City on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST

but I bet he would be seen as about like Kerry. That's the sense I get from my very Catholic relatives, who are in the far West, and from a couple of priests I know. There seems to be a considerable gap in Catholic "values" in different regions, especially between East Coast Catholics and West Coast Catholics -- the latter being more what I call "catechism Catholics," by-the-book sorts. Except that now, especially in the West, we have the fascinating factor of the growing number of Hispanic Catholics who come from more of the more liberal good ol' social justice Catholic culture, while more of the native Catholics have gone much more conservative in recent decades.
What I still can't quite get a handle on is where Midwestern Catholics land on the spectrum. There need to be much more up-to-date studies on this, as a political scientist-pollster type I know agrees that too much today still is based on circa-1960s studies about the JFK election. In the same year that JFK was elected, the Pill was put on the market (if for married women only, but that didn't matter in terms of Catholic impact).
The Pill split the Catholic church in this country so much that 1960 studies, still amid the social justice movement, simply don't apply now. So if those are the basis for many analyses even now, they're flawed at their very core.

A bit of reality in how close (none / 0) (#80)
by kenosharick on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:31:18 PM EST

this election will really be is welcome. A shift in 1 or 2 states might swing this thing and those who call the election over every few days (in favor of Obama) may be in for a letdown. I am hoping mccain loses myself, but I am looking for it to come down to the wire.