To me it seems pretty silly that Obama thinks he can ACTUALLY get North Carolina

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I guess I don't think like that. I think they were perfectly reasonable predictions for May of this past year. Remember, this election was a referendum on what happened September 15th. Before then this race was lean McCain.

No it was not, nor was it ever lean McCain, other than maybe very very slightly lean McCain in late August. It was at best for him a tossup.

And >60% in WV for McCain was never reasonable, nor was it ever backed up by polling.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I guess I don't think like that. I think they were perfectly reasonable predictions for May of this past year. Remember, this election was a referendum on what happened September 15th. Before then this race was lean McCain.

that's taking it a bit far, IMO, but if there's one state Obama won purely because of the economic crisis, it was North Carolina.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I guess I don't think like that. I think they were perfectly reasonable predictions for May of this past year. Remember, this election was a referendum on what happened September 15th. Before then this race was lean McCain.

No it was not, nor was it ever lean McCain, other than maybe very very slightly lean McCain in late August. It was at best for him a tossup.

And >60% in WV for McCain was never reasonable, nor was it ever backed up by polling.

Actually, if McCain had won the race, WV would've been 60% in his favor if it followed the trends. He got 56% and lost the election by almost 8%. At this point of the race, it was still everyone's ballgame. It's not like you were some genius to predict WV wouldn't go 60% for McCain.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php?fips=54

Please point out the poll where McCain has over 60%. Something must be wrong with my eyesight because I can't see it anywhere.

[minionofmidas]

I guess I don't think like that. I think they were perfectly reasonable predictions for May of this past year. Remember, this election was a referendum on what happened September 15th. Before then this race was lean McCain.

Lol, no. There wasn't a point in time during the past four years when Republicans' chances of winning this were at or over 50%.


It did come sort of close at times, though.

[Holmes]

Was this election a realignment year... or was September 15th a realignment day!?

[Brittain33]

I guess I don't think like that. I think they were perfectly reasonable predictions for May of this past year. Remember, this election was a referendum on what happened September 15th. Before then this race was lean McCain.

The distinction lies between saying that the chance of something is very unlikely, or hard to foresee given past events and the current state of things, and "OMG WHAT AN EGO TRIP! GO AHEAD BLOW YOUR MONEY ON NORTH CAROLINA LOLZ!!!! 60% MCCAIN!!"

[Wiz in Wis]

Anything is possible with Him, my friends. North Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, Virginia ... there isn't a state that will refuse to fall to him!

Home Run, RBI, Swing and a Miss, Grand Slam... How much would that player make in Baseball?

[ChrisFromNJ]

It really worries me that Obama's advisors actually think that he can win North Carolina...

That is scary. Who are these incompetent people?

Better than Hillary's advisors, that's for sure.

At least Hillary's advisors realize that the swing states are Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and West Virginia, unlike Obama's advisors, who think that the swing states are Virginia and North Carolina.

DOH!

[Nym90]

I see that the myth that McCain would've won if not for the financial crisis is starting to take hold; ignoring all polls that were taken preconventions.

That's ok, though. In 2012 Republicans can say "if only the economy had stayed horribly awful, Obama would've lost" and use that to convince themselves we are still a "center right" country (whatever that means).

[Gustaf]

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php?fips=54

Please point out the poll where McCain has over 60%. Something must be wrong with my eyesight because I can't see it anywhere.

How is that the least bit relevant? All of those polls clearly under-estimated McCain since they showed a smaller margin than the actual one on election day. With 56% of the vote while losing by 7% (it isn't 8% now, is it?) it is at least very likely that he could have broken 60% in a close race. Certainly not ridiculous.

Nym, I'm not sure what you're saying here. While I agree that it is incorrect to say "McCain would've won if not for the financial crisis" I think it would have been pretty close if the financial crisis had not occurred. Obama would, most likely, still have been favoured but not by this kind of margin.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php?fips=54

Please point out the poll where McCain has over 60%. Something must be wrong with my eyesight because I can't see it anywhere.

How is that the least bit relevant? All of those polls clearly under-estimated McCain since they showed a smaller margin than the actual one on election day. With 56% of the vote while losing by 7% (it isn't 8% now, is it?) it is at least very likely that he could have broken 60% in a close race. Certainly not ridiculous.

I'm showing how ridiculous it is to say that McCain winning with 60% is the most likely scenario before the financial crisis. Also the second part of the post, along with the rest of Duke's post is based on the idea that any swings happen uniformly, which is even more ridiculous.

I bet Duke was one of the 16 morons who voted here

[Gustaf]

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php?fips=54

Please point out the poll where McCain has over 60%. Something must be wrong with my eyesight because I can't see it anywhere.

How is that the least bit relevant? All of those polls clearly under-estimated McCain since they showed a smaller margin than the actual one on election day. With 56% of the vote while losing by 7% (it isn't 8% now, is it?) it is at least very likely that he could have broken 60% in a close race. Certainly not ridiculous.

I'm showing how ridiculous it is to say that McCain winning with 60% is the most likely scenario before the financial crisis. Also the second part of the post, along with the rest of Duke's post is based on the idea that any swings happen uniformly, which is even more ridiculous.

I bet Duke was one of the 16 morons who voted here

I get your point, but the EXACT same argument applies to this thread, doesn't it?

[Matt Damon™]

I honestly thought the election was 50/50 with Obama if he won getting 270-290 votes.

[??????????]

I see that the myth that McCain would've won if not for the financial crisis is starting to take hold[snip a bunch of other drivel]

Myth? LoL. I think not.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I see that the myth that McCain would've won if not for the financial crisis is starting to take hold[snip a bunch of other drivel]

Myth? LoL. I think not.

Look at the polling data over time, the race was never any better than 50/50 for McCain.

[Хahar 🤔]

But it is worth noting that Howard Dean's 50-state strategy paid dividends in 2006.

Win!

[Stranger in a strange land]

I see that the myth that McCain would've won if not for the financial crisis is starting to take hold[snip a bunch of other drivel]

Myth? LoL. I think not.

Look at the polling data over time, the race was never any better than 50/50 for McCain.

for McCain to win, a lot of things had to go right, and ultimately none of them did. The economy was already teetering on the edge, it just fell off on when Fannie and Freddie filed for bankruptcy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I see that the myth that McCain would've won if not for the financial crisis is starting to take hold; ignoring all polls that were taken preconventions.

That's ok, though. In 2012 Republicans can say "if only the economy had stayed horribly awful, Obama would've lost" and use that to convince themselves we are still a "center right" country (whatever that means).

The economy was already crappy anyways. If Wall Street had waited a couple of months to blow up, it's probably the same map except that McCain wins all 5 NE electors, NC, and probably IN.  Anyone assuming that McCain would have won Iowa (Obama won by 9.53%) or any safer state for Obama is a total hack. Those states give Obama 269, where he wins in the House. Colorado (8.95% margin) avoids the House.

[Nym90]

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php?fips=54

Please point out the poll where McCain has over 60%. Something must be wrong with my eyesight because I can't see it anywhere.

How is that the least bit relevant? All of those polls clearly under-estimated McCain since they showed a smaller margin than the actual one on election day. With 56% of the vote while losing by 7% (it isn't 8% now, is it?) it is at least very likely that he could have broken 60% in a close race. Certainly not ridiculous.

Nym, I'm not sure what you're saying here. While I agree that it is incorrect to say "McCain would've won if not for the financial crisis" I think it would have been pretty close if the financial crisis had not occurred. Obama would, most likely, still have been favoured but not by this kind of margin.

Oh, sure, it definitely would've been closer. I'm saying that Obama would've still won; just by more of a Bush 2004 margin than by a Clinton 1992/1996 margin. Many Republicans seem to claim that McCain would've won if not for the crisis (as they seem to assume that his GOP convention bounce would never wear off before Election Day, surviving through the debates and such).