Prediction Map

Prediction States Won

		270 |	538 |
Dem	273
Rep	265
Ind	0

Confidence States Won

		270 |	538 |
Dem	273
Rep	265
Ind	0
Tos	0

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV
Dem	+3	0	+21	0	0	0	20	2	252	+21
Rep	0	0	0	-3	0	-21	28	3	265	-21
Ind	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Prediction Score (max Score = 112)

Score	State Wins	State Percentages	CD Wins	CD Percentages
93	45	41	4	3

Analysis

My goal in creating this map was simply to remove any states from the "toss up" category. I may make one last alteration tomorrow, although, to be honest, I am not sure I will. This may be my final position. The only two states that I am on the fence on are New Hampshire and Virginia. I am sure that there will be those who think that I am greatly underestimating Obama's win. If I am wrong, I am wrong and will have no problem admitting it. It is my opinion though that while Obama will win the popular vote by 5-7 percentage points, he will win the electoral college vote only narrowly. The large gap in popular vote will be made possible by many traditionally Republican states becoming closer, in some cases extremely close. Some examples would be Montana, Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina which were won by Bush in 2004 by almost 20 points. They will be very close, but I believe McCain will hang on to all of them except for New Mexico, Colorado and Iowa. After taking a closer look at Pennsylvania polls, although I do think that McCain made a valiant attempt, I believe he will fall short in the end. I won't discuss my feelings on an Obama win. They really aren't relevant to a prediction. Needless to say though, ConsRep...I think you are being extremely positive in your reaction to Obama winning (which I admire, I wish I felt the same way). I think we are in for some rough times ahead...

Prediction History

Comments History - show

Version History

16: 2008-11-02 @ 17:33:15 15: 2008-10-31 @ 13:34:40 14: 2008-10-25 @ 16:31:57 13: 2008-10-13 @ 20:34:34 12: 2008-10-02 @ 18:34:42 11: 2008-09-29 @ 17:13:27 10: 2008-09-04 @ 15:39:17 9: 2008-08-29 @ 19:15:34 8: 2008-08-19 @ 15:33:01 7: 2008-07-15 @ 19:24:33 6: 2008-07-04 @ 12:22:08 5: 2008-06-25 @ 19:54:56 4: 2008-06-11 @ 18:58:53 3: 2008-06-08 @ 14:08:10 2: 2007-07-05 @ 18:31:54 1: 2007-06-30 @ 00:00:13 View Version

Member Comments

By: colin (I-ON) 2008-11-03 @ 12:23:27
I have actually reconsidered, and have added Nevada to the states which I am on the fence on. It does not, however, change my prediction at this time.

---

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-03 @ 17:11:20
It's not how I see this election but it's consistent and obviously well thought out. However, I think Obama's margin will be, at best, 3% if such a map were to come true.

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2008-11-04 @ 18:11:40
well, I appreciate your views FrenchEd...your map is actually fairly reasonable...probably my worst case scenario. As I said, I am on the fence on Virginia, Nevada and New Hampshire. Ohio and Florida going for Obama are definitely plausible, but my gut tells me no. North Carolina or Indiana going would mean my nightmare situation is occurring...

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2008-11-06 @ 10:05:50
I was wrong. I think though, that this was a lot closer than what people are saying. a swing of 2-2.5% in the battlegrounds would have given the election to McCain. So, I thought that Ohio, Florida, Indiana and North Carolina were going to go the other way. Indiana and North Carolina are both surprising and very disappointing. Nevada and Virginia don't necessarily surprise me though (I did say that I was on the fence with those two states). I want to congratulate those for whom their candidate won. Obama ran an excellent campaign.

---

By: CR (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 19:19:06
You know Colin we did lose on Tuesday. I underestimated just how much the unpopular Bush and the economy was going to hurt us. And of course John McCain was just another Bob Dole. We can't win with moderates and all this bipartisan nonsense. Democrats are Democrats. High time Republicans started acting like Republicans and not moderates or quasi-Democrats. Its time now to rebuild, regroup, and return to our conservative principles that once made this party great. And they will again. Time to rally around Palin, Jindal, Sanford, Hoeven, DeMint, Inohufe, Sessions, Thune, Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Cantor, Steele, Blackburn, Pence, and Ryan. Time to get this party back in shape and work hard for better days in 2010 and 2012. Never surrender, Palin/Jindal 2012!!!!

---

By: Liberallover (-NY) 2008-11-07 @ 00:14:08
Yeah. Pretty wrong. Double digits in NH, PA, NV, NM. Almost took Missouri and Montana too. Wow.

---

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-07 @ 02:59:25
Nope I'd say the biggest problem with the Republicans is they are too conservative, or right wing or whatever you want to call it. They need to come back to the Centre but unfortunately that has now been taken from them by the Democrats. They will be back, as all things are cyclical, however I don't think it will be for a long time probably. But the Republicans biggest problem is the new generation are now die hard Democrats, & their base is dying off. Add to that changing demographics where the white population will continue to shrink to the point where they become the minority & it's bleak times for the Republicans ahead.

---

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-11-07 @ 02:59:48
The Republicans now have no House seat in New England! Last Edit: 2008-11-07 @ 03:00:07

---

By: CR (--MO) 2008-11-07 @ 08:41:36
Careful demboy, we thought you Democrats would not be back for a long time either after 2004. Now Democrats have to govern. The Republicans problem is that we where not conservative enough otherwise people like Shays, Smith, and other big centrist moderates would not have lost. Mostly, it was conservatives that won and that is what we have to get back to. And its not bleak times. As other groups grow larger in America they become more integrated into everyday American life. We have a lot of work ahead, no doubt, but that's politics. Last Edit: 2008-11-07 @ 08:43:12

---

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-07 @ 10:49:33
"The Republicans problem is that we where not conservative enough otherwise people like Shays, Smith, and other big centrist moderates would not have lost." Wrong. Centrist Republicans lost because they run in liberal states. Conservative Republicans are elected in swing to conservative states and are therefore less likely to lose their reelection campaigns. Right observation, wrong analysis. Had he been a conservative, Shays would never have been elected a congressman in the first place. The problem is that the conservative Republican base is not mainstream anymore. The mainstream is a kind of populist moderate nebula. The Republicans needs to expand its base because relying on gun owners, evangelicals and conservatives is not enough, if only becaus they often are the same people. To expand their base to independents and moderates, they have to find a compromise with their ideas the way Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did. Remember, the only time a Republican won the popular vote in 20 years was right in the middle of a wartime presidency -which is particularly favorable to the incumbent and to conservative ideology. That doesn't sound good. But then you'll be back by 2010. It's called the ebb and flow. But to make it long-term, you'll need a new leader. And that ISN'T Sarah Palin.

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2008-11-09 @ 09:00:35
Liberalallover... Actually, it was single digits in NH...9 points, but still a single digit margin. I had said that I was on the fence with NV (although I am a bit shocked at the margin. NM doesn't shock me in the least...I said from the beginning that there was no way McCain was going to take NM or Iowa (I am actually surprised at how close Iowa was, relatively speaking). PA I said in the end was going to Obama...and that isn't a big double digit win...11 points. I knew Montana and Missouri were going to be close, but I was fairly confident McCain would take them, and I was right (at least I wasn't batting .000). Try building up instead of tearing down...

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2008-11-09 @ 09:08:20
Demboy...I too, thought that having a moderate Republican would work in our favour. Maybe there is some merit then to what CR is saying. Give the people a real choice, a real decision to make. The fact of the matter is that the US is still a centre-right nation, even if this election does not indicate that. I can say this coming from a centre-left country. Trust me, I don't think the US realizes how conservative it really is. I agree, it was very disappointing to see that there are now no Republicans in New England. Although, there were some close races. ME 1 (or was it ME 2?) was fairly close considering it is Portland's district. Shays barely lost in CT. The NH districts (especially Shea-Porter's) were still reasonably close. Let's face the facts...the Republicans are not going to win seats in MA or RI, and the open VT seat in 2006 was as close as they will get in VT. So not winning seats in New England doesn't really disturb me. Having lost majorities in PA, MI, OH, VA, NC, IL and IN (to name a few) is what bothers me.

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2008-11-09 @ 09:13:10
I will say one thing though...I am absolutely DISGUSTED with the way that Sarah Palin's character was put through the wringer by the liberal media and the Democrats. What was done to her was heartbreaking. My heart goes out to her and her family. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats played good "politics" with it, but this character assassination has to stop. Not ONE thing was said about Biden, not ONE, throughout the entire campaign. The whole Palin situation leads me to say, DON'T TELL ME THE MEDIA DOESN'T CONTROL OUR SOCIETY. We have become a bunch of mindless, opinionless robots. It's sick.

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2008-11-09 @ 09:15:03
Oh Demboy...don't forget the 3 Republican senators from New England though...3.5 if you want to count Lieberman lol

---

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-11 @ 16:33:30
LOL! ConserivativeRepublican thought Dems wouldn't be back for a while after 2004. LOL. After 2004 was when Dems were quite *sure* the Republicans were in for it. It was obvious that after 4 more years of Bush the country would be sweep the Rethugicans out of power, which they did, and put the Democrats in.

---

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-11 @ 17:18:30
Colin... If you're counting halves I think Collins and Snowe are little more than half Republican. They have the name but not the ideas! And as far as I'm concerned they can remain in the Senate forever. I love moderates! The point is, in the House, where you really feel the immediate mood of the people, there are no Republicans left. Not one. Republicans are being rooted out of New England like fleas by pesticide. Chafee, Healey, Sununu, not to mention the switch of Jeffords. Only Rell, Douglas, Collins, Snowe and Gregg remain in important positions. Of these, only Gregg is only marginally a mainstream Republican. Other are liberal/moderate GOPers. The Republican Party is becoming a regional party of the South and part of the West.

---

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-11 @ 17:27:38
Thank you FrenchED!!! Collins and Snowe have half a brain to realize that they aren't going to win in Maine by pandering to the far right, in the manner other GOP senators do. They are both excellent, moderate Senators with a long history of working with Dems. Snowe was one of the first Republicans to call for a change in the Iraq war strategy. I hope they will be around a while. I do think that Judd Gregg is in some trouble in NH in 2010 if Governor Lynch decides to give it a run. The problem is that far right of the GOP, which has a lock on the party right now, refuses to adapt its message to fit the region as the Dems have had to do in the South to win. Whatever moderates that are still clinging to life in the Northeast face is a climate where their constituents equate them with the far right social cons in the South, therefore they face uphill battles and often lose. Unless the party adapts its message it will be relegated to the South and the Heartland.

---

By: hotpprs (R-NY) 2008-11-11 @ 18:37:35
doniki80. It looks like you have a good observation of the landscape. There is a real struggle in the GOP to get back to it's conservative roots, as CR is saying. Colin thinks they should be more moderate. I think it's some mix of the two. I think socially, conservatism will play well. When times are tough, crime goes up and social morals decay. There are a lot of family minded voters with the growing hispanic population. But with the loss of factory jobs, and higher paying middle class service jobs disappearing, there will be severe economic problems for years to come. Middle class families in the 50-60K income range are going to be relying on government help, especially in the health care arena. The GOP has to come up with a new thought process on health care. I don't even like the GOP's health care ideology. The McCain plan was really the kiss of death if you look at a lot of polls. So I think the GOP needs to stay in the middle of the road economically, but go right socially. It's not going to be an easy task with the party so divided, and no real leader. I also read your post on another map about the Dems being hungry for power. It's amazing how power and money corrupts these parties, and probably, a lot of people who got into politics with good intentions. Are the Dems going to blow it like the GOP did when they took control of the whole government? I'd be shocked if they didn't. It's really all up to Obama now to keep the party in line, and in power for 8 years. He does have veto power, but how many Presidents use it on their own party, for their own good? We'll see. Last Edit: 2008-11-11 @ 18:38:20

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2008-11-13 @ 09:46:04
hotpprs... I appreciate your opinion. I tend to disagree though. I think that the Republicans need to moderate *somewhat* socially and become conservative fiscally once again. That tends to be the general mindset of the overall population. Although I tend to be somewhat more socially conservative myself, I recognize the need for the party to become somewhat more mainstream in their policies to be relevant once more.

---

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-14 @ 17:47:50
I don't think economic conservatism is as popular as it once was. Laissez faire is quickly in disgrace when the economy falls on hard times. However, fiscal conservatism, that is focusing only on the tax issue, can still play well, but probably not as well as it once did. I would tend to agree more with hotpprs here: I think social conservatism can be a safe and popular ground for the GOP, especially in the South and the Midwest, two areas which can be key. However, they need to be less laissez faire and less free tradist in the Midwest otherwise they'll go on losing time and again. Michigan is perfectly winnable for the GOP on a socially conservative, economically populist plank. So are states like Iowa, Pennsylvania and of course Ohio. However, in key Democratic areas like New England, the GOP needs to be ideologically supple to match the local trends. Collins and Snowe have done this exceedingly well in Maine, which shows they are both bipartisan moderates (I hate the word maverick) and very smart politicians. The New England political landscape is socially liberal and economically liberal to moderate, IMO. The GOP needs to compete there with pro choice, or even anti death penalty candidates like Chafee to win, just like the Democrats run pro-lifers in the South and in the West. The analysis is unescapable: only one state with more than one House seat has an all-GOP House delegation, Nebraska. On the Democratic side, there are SEVEN: Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Hawaii. 7 out of 44 such states is a lot. That's proof the GOP might degenerate into a regional party. The North East and the Pacific Coast are almost entirely blue. That does make a lot of people, and a lot of seats...

---

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-15 @ 00:40:49
Agreed. Id be a republican if only there were more Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe's in the party to balance out the rhetoric of the social conservatives and far far right. I was sad to see Mr Chafee lose in Rhode Island back in 2006. Likewise I dont like the trends im seeing in Obamas new party. Guess its gotta be indirocks for me now.

---

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-15 @ 06:44:13
Well actually, if his loss had not been necessary to have a Democratic majority, I think I'd be quite sad about it too. I mean, a brand is just a brand, and the ideological courage that man had to stand up to his party even when it was obvious it wouldn't help him any in his state unless he switched allegiances, is I think commendable. Honestly it'd be good if the GOP moved on but I'm afraid the base are just not getting around to realize that this defeat is also their defeat and that maybe conservatism just doesn't sell as well as it used to. And I think they're just not going to let go of these social issues like abortion and gay marriage and their level of indoctrination on those issues is so high it will take at least two or three generations to wash it out. Liberalrocks, when you say trends to you mean ideological trends or behavioral trends (if the latter please don't detail I know what you're angry about already...).

---

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-15 @ 12:17:18
What i had meant about the democratic party is that it has been taken over by elite liberals aka latte liberals with big money from blue states that dont represent the ideas of the rest of the country. Obama won because of the economy and people took a risk with him. Do I think the core of the democratic party represents these people in indiana ohio pennsylvania north carolina florida NO. Nancy Pelosi is an elitest clown who doesnt know the first thing about living pay check to pay check. I will sort of echo your point about the GOP. Im afraid with the Mc Cain defeat along with Sununu and other moderate republicans of the past like Chafee, the party will likely move farther right. The Gop senators left in the senate are conservative with the exception of my Maine girls! The right wing will claim "we need to get back to our conservative values" They wont get the fact that they didnt connect with bread and butter issues or that these social issues are not driving people like they did in 2004. Both parties SUCK.

---

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-15 @ 12:53:11
um, uh, um, uh. "liberal"rocks. You sound just like a Republican. The "liberal elites" are just a figment of your imagination. What you really mean by "liberal elites" is just "the people smart enough and wise enough to know how to solve problems" and the party who doesn't give a crap about those who live pay check to pay check is the REPUBLICAN PARTY. You seem like a really bitter person, "liberalrocks"

---

By: Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-15 @ 13:14:23
Changed the name is that better for you five? People like you in the democratic party the "base" are really what im referring to as well. You may not be an elitest but the fact that your a complete know it all ass is the same sentiment I get from the party as a whole.

---

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-15 @ 14:42:34
The Republican Party has been saying for years, time and again, that Democrats were unpatriotic, socialistic, whining, immoral, impotent, soft-on-terror, radically left-wing, and we can't even say they're idiotic bigots? If Saxby Chambliss had the right to imply Max Cleland was unpatriotic, if the Soft Boat guys had the right to do the same to John Kerry, then we have every right to say the GOP is what it is: a party of past-centered, intolerant bigots full of class-conscious contempt for the poor. Call that an exaggeration, a generalization, it is, but that is true of a great number of Republicans while the above is untrue of the vast majority of Democrats. Know-it-all is still better than honest-than-thou because there might be an inkling of truth and good faith into it. As for the "elitist" Democrats... What nonsense. Yes political leaders of all parties are upper-class. So what? The Democrats are a party comprised of liberal elites, true, because education and progressivism tend to be more or less proportional, with exceptions I acknowledge; but the biggest part of the base is mainly poor people, either blue collars or minorities. People who can't speak for themselves in politics and who need to be represented. And if only awful San Francisco or Boston elitists with their nose up in the air want to do that, so be it. At least they're helping.

---

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-15 @ 15:29:42
OMG. lol... indirocks. Nice one Liberal! You better change it back cause I'm not reprogramming my phone just for you! :) You really are bitter! You need to get yourself a gun and head on up to Wasilla and hunt some moose. I hear you can store it in the freezer all winter and it will feed your entire family! Moose patties, Moose steaks, Moose ribs, Moose ka-bobs, and of course Moose Chili! Hey maybe you can hook up with caribou barbie, and you can meet Todd and the kids! Self-righteous, right wing, whack job, moose hunters are funny! :)

---

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-15 @ 16:31:13
LOL, Sarah 2012!!!!! You Betcha.

---

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-15 @ 16:47:02
I make a heckuva good moose stew too! I just go in the freezer, get a hunk of meat. Then I cut it up real fine and put it in the pan and Todd and the kids love it. Then I take whats left to the church and we pray that the gays can change and they don't put those books out about the earth gettin warmer. God loves moose stew. He told me! By the way, Maverick! Last Edit: 2008-11-15 @ 16:47:48

---

By: Indi-rocks (R-CA) 2008-11-15 @ 19:20:33
OH GOD ! LOL

---

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-15 @ 21:54:49
"Elitist" is just an empty code word intended to be derogatory to those who have an education, and look at the world through science and understanding. The Indie rock scene is full of a bunch of those liberals, indi-rocks, looks like you are out numbered.

---

Links

• View Most Recent Entries
• View Entries with Most Recent Member Comments
• Go to Presidential Prediction Home
• Update My 2008 Presidential Prediction Map