Analysis
FINAL MAP
I've been busy the last several weeks, but since Obama has won every single one of them, you've hardly missed anything. Let me explain how I arrived at the final prediction I submit.
I have Barack Obama winning a narrow Electoral College win along the lines of Jimmy Carter in 1976. This is almost fitting in light of the fact that Obama's campaign may well have been the modern version of Carter's 1976 run. Think about it: a charismatic, pretty new personality with a thin resume' enters a race knowing that the winner has already been decided (Teddy Kennedy in Carter's case, Hillary in Obama's). By sheer hard work and determination, he disposes of multiple foes and enters the general election campaign against a rather old-looking 'unelected incumbent' (McCain may as well have been since he tied himself so tightly to Bush in one fell swoop). The Republican picks a VP pick designed to woo conservatives that ultimately results in a steady diet of Maalox out of fear of what that VP pick might say to cause heartburn. Along the way, the Republican makes a colossal gaffe - 'Eastern Europe,' meet 'fundamentals of the economy' - that costs him enough time that he is incapable of taking advantage of the buyer's remorse evident among the voters.
Folks, too much crap goes on in predictions in these elections. Remember the absurd suggestion weeks ago that Obama was going to win Montana? Geez, pay attention, people! Dukakis led Bush in both Montana and Indiana in the summer of 1988. He didn't even come close to winning either one. That's just like those 2004 September polls showing Bush leading Kerry in both Delaware and Connecticut - fuggedaboutit!!
OK. So we are about to elect an asterisk with no proven ability to lead anything President of the United States....but let's consider a few of the states.
Here is my basic rule: deduct three points from the poll numbers of the Democratic candidate and assume a 50/50 split of the undecided vote unless the candidate is also the incumbent - in which case you assume a 3-1 split in favor of the challenger. Thus, a state Obama is leading McCain, 47-46, sees a 3-pooint deduction of Obama's total, making it 46-44 and an assumed split that makes McCain a winner, 51-49.
That is the GENERAL RULE I follow, and it works almost every time. Yes, there ARE exceptions, but it tends to work. For example, Gore led Bush by 3 in the last election polls in Florida in 2000; it ended in a tie. Granted, the Nader factor and the butterfly ballot were unseen variables, but the rule still applied.
Nationally, I expect a four-point Obama win. But let me explain the one state I did NOT apply this formula to, Virginia. I debated it, and I really wanted to do it. But there are some problems.
1) It is a SIMPLE FACT that Democratic Presidential candidates have trouble carrying 50%-plus of the vote. That is an undeniable fact. Carter barely touched it. In fact, NO DEMOCRAT since 1964 has carried a minimum of 51% of the vote - and LBJ was the ONLY DEMOCRAT since the infamous FDR to do it. It will not surprise me to see Obama poll as low as 49% although I'm predicting a four-point win. McCain's vote is heavily concentrated in the South and West, and Obama - if polls are to be believed - has the votes situated correctly in the Electoral College to win.
2) Barack Obama is the 'un-Reagan.' Ronald Reagan was a guy who always ran BETTER than he polled. Barack, otoh, is a guy who polls better than he runs - and therein lies McCain's thin reed of hope. Face it: if the Democrats played by the same rules as the GOP, Barack would be in the Senate while Hillary cut McCain to shreds. Go back and look at how 'close' we were told a lot of those races were going to be that weren't - like PA a three-point deficit and pumping millions in only to lose by ten. For all of the people who show up at his rallies, Obama has NOT run off with a 15-point lead.
3) The Bradley effect, however, is a myth. If Obama DOES lose, it won't be because of racism - it will be because voters lied to pollsters. Keep in mind that lying to a pollster that you will vote for a black man does NOT make you a racist; it makes you a person who is AFRAID TO BE ACCUSED of being a racist. What makes one a racist is actually being a racist - not lying to a pollster (thought that would make one a liar).
But the Bradley effect is based upon the myth that polls are accurate. Let me give two examples from a prominent Democrat, Bill Clinton. In 1992, Clinton was shown with and 8-12 point lead in most surveys and won by 5. In 1996, he was consistently shown with a 15-point lead in all polling - and he won by about half that.
So consider: a 7-point WRONG SWING each time with a WHTE candidate. Theoretically, since AP and Gallup recently had two-point Obama leads, if McCain beat Obama by five points nationally it wouldn't mean there was a Bradley effect - it would mean the SAME FLAWS IN METHODOLOGY by the pollsters as in 1996 and 1992.
Make no mistake: I know there are racists out there on both sides. (One question nobody seems to want to ask is: "Why is it when the white person votes for the white guy SOLELY because he's the white guy, he's a racist; but when the black person votes for the black guy SOLELY because he's the black guy, it's OK?"). But you CANNOT QUANTIFY racism. You cannot say, "X percent of people are racist" and come to any solid conclusion.
So I chose Virginia as an exception for a couple of reasons. Make no mistake: Va is going to flip sometime in a Prez election in the next 20 years. Dems like to think it will be now, but face it: even when electing Republicans as President every year since 1968, the Lovers State has continually sent DEMOCRATS to the governor's chair, partly because a Virginia Democrat is usually several degrees to the right of a Connecticut Republican. So there's too much read into that.
That said - I simply don't believe the polling for Virginia. Just a hunch, and I may be as wrong as wrong can be.
That said, I see a narrow Obama win and the Democrats DO NOT get sixty seats; face it: Ronnie Musgrove is NOT going to beat Roger Wicker in the MS Senate race.
Back w/commentary after the actual vote.
2008 President
2006 U.S. Senate
2004 President