Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2018, 10:13:04 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  Did you think in the early election night 2008 that the race would be tighter?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Did you think in the early election night 2008 that the race would be tighter?  (Read 695 times)
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,097


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 13, 2018, 05:36:04 pm »

Obama's national margin against McCain was 7.26%.

Did you think that this margin would be smaller when the first results were proceeded in the early election night?

Obama performed much better than Kerry in the west of the Mississippi River. But in many states in the east of the Mississippi River, the results of Bush-Kerry and McCain-Obama races were very similar. In some counties, Obama performed worse than Kerry.
The first results of the election night come from the east. The first state is Kentucky. In this state, the races of 2004 and 2008 were very similar.
In California, the last state, the D margin changed from 10% in 2004 to 24% in 2008.

Logged
TDAS04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,302
Nepal


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2018, 05:52:21 pm »

Nope, I thought the election would turnout much like it did.  The McCain campaign was crumbling.

As for the first states called, Kentucky was never going for Obama but the fact that Indiana was too close to call meant McCain was in for quite a defeat.
Logged

Economic:  -2.71
Social:  -5.74
Hydera
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,312


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2018, 06:17:01 pm »

I was only a high school freshman at the time, but looking back its kind of disappointing. Obama won big in post-1992 electoral terms, but it wasn't a electoral landslide that a 7.26% should had resulted.  yes the GOP vote was resilient, losing three million votes but still having the bulk of their 2004 vote. But its quite upsetting that even with a collapsing economy, Obama only got 7.26%
Logged
Annatar
Rookie
*
Posts: 36
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2018, 07:11:48 pm »

I was only a high school freshman at the time, but looking back its kind of disappointing. Obama won big in post-1992 electoral terms, but it wasn't a electoral landslide that a 7.26% should had resulted.  yes the GOP vote was resilient, losing three million votes but still having the bulk of their 2004 vote. But its quite upsetting that even with a collapsing economy, Obama only got 7.26%

I think the 2008 election was really the first election which showed the level of polarization which had set in to the electorate, despite Bush only having a 26% approval rating, McCain only got 2 million fewer votes then Bush and still got 46.3% of the 2 party vote, more then what Bob Dole managed in 1996 and Obama got fewer electoral votes then Clinton did in either 1992 or 1996.
Logged
TML
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 588


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2018, 01:19:29 pm »

In hindsight, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight had correctly predicted the winner of every state except Indiana. This means that the actual result was pretty much on target.
Logged
L.D. Smith, Aggie! It's Real Expenses Again
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,336
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2018, 01:25:11 pm »

Nah, I was idealist of sorts back then and figured Palin destroyed McCain entirely.  I expected a bigger blowout.
Logged

#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,075


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2018, 01:29:45 pm »

Not sure. All I know is that almost everyone at my elementary school (I was in elementary school at the time) was already describing Obama as the 44th president as soon as he won the nomination.
Logged

I never use toss ups

Current predictions
Current timelines

REMOVE STEVE KING FROM CONGRESS
#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,075


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2018, 10:31:42 pm »

How did people feel when Knott County reported and McCain surprisingly won where Kerry had over 60% of the vote.
Logged

I never use toss ups

Current predictions
Current timelines

REMOVE STEVE KING FROM CONGRESS
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,359
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2018, 02:50:20 pm »

Yes, I expected about a 51/47 PV breakdown and a 338-200 EV breakdown (with McCain winning IN, NE-2, NC). The "Bradley effect" turned out to be less than I expected, and certainly less than for Tom Bradley (after whom the effect is named) in '82 or Doug Wilder in '89.
Logged

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” -John Milton
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,097


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2018, 05:20:37 pm »

ABC election night 2008 coverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PiFjtMHHfY

1:11:28

When ~ 1/4 of the national popular vote was counted, the results were

Obama 16,843,658
McCain 16,606,832
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,744
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2018, 05:57:09 pm »

Yes, I expected about a 51/47 PV breakdown and a 338-200 EV breakdown (with McCain winning IN, NE-2, NC). The "Bradley effect" turned out to be less than I expected, and certainly less than for Tom Bradley (after whom the effect is named) in '82 or Doug Wilder in '89.
There was no Bradley effect at all in '08, Obama won by exactly the margin the polls predicted he would
(his lead in the polls stabilized at +6 to +8 and he won by 7.2).
Logged
Scarlet, a person who craves an apple
omegascarlet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,529


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2018, 12:33:39 pm »

ABC election night 2008 coverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PiFjtMHHfY

1:11:28

When ~ 1/4 of the national popular vote was counted, the results were

Obama 16,843,658
McCain 16,606,832

The first states to close are mostly red states.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,549


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2018, 10:33:02 pm »

Yes, I expected about a 51/47 PV breakdown and a 338-200 EV breakdown (with McCain winning IN, NE-2, NC). The "Bradley effect" turned out to be less than I expected, and certainly less than for Tom Bradley (after whom the effect is named) in '82 or Doug Wilder in '89.

The Wilder effect in 1989 was WAY overblown.  The only poll that had that race a blowout for Wilder was the Washington Post poll which almost always has a Dem bias.  Almost all other polls had the race very close, with Wilder below 50% and only up a couple of points.  I believe Marshall Coleman (Wilder's GOP opponent) actually led some polls earlier in October.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines