Election 2008 Presidential Predictions

Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Date of Prediction: 2008-09-18 Version:1

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	95
Rep	443
Ind	0

Confidence States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	91
Rep	355
Ind	0
Tos	92

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV
Dem	0	0	0	-10	0	-157	10	2	95	-157
Rep	+10	0	+157	0	0	0	31	3	286	+157
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
53	32	16	4	1

Analysis
No Analysis Entered

Member Comments

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-09-22 @ 03:16:40
Well I've never seen her like that so I find those comments interesting & perhaps partisan. But I'll have to read some more as I'm not on the ground there as you are. She's only the Speaker & I don't think you can hold her accountable for all the Congress' wrongs.

By: Cyril Washbrook (I-AUS) 2008-09-22 @ 08:40:18
Just something I wanted to comment on with regard to your remarks on Sen Obama's tax policy. I'm a non-partisan who is devoted to facts, and I've got this to say: Obama. Will. Cut. Taxes. Sen McCain will cut taxes by more, but look at where he's cutting them. He's giving the biggest tax cut to the top 0.1% of the population (household income of $2.87 million or more), and a tiny tax cut to the bottom 60%. On the other hand, Sen Obama's biggest cuts are to the majority of taxpayers. By my calculations, about 75% of Americans will be better off, tax-wise, under Sen Obama's tax plan. Right, now that we've got that out of the way, feel free to continue the rest of the debate you're all having.

By: weidem (R-PA) 2008-09-22 @ 10:33:35
The facts are: Obama has promised to repeal the Tax CUTS. That is a real tax increase to the middle class. His promised tax cuts do not overreach the increase. So the net will be an increase. That's mathematics, not semantics.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-09-22 @ 23:15:52
Oh God enough is enough with the big bad evil Republicans demboy. The way you put that party up on a pedistal is laughible, no offense of course. I'm a loyal Republican but even I admit my party has problems. We're are far from perfect. But I'll take the good old GOP any day over the big government Democrats. San Francisco and any other liberal bastion is welcome to leave far as I'm concerned, again no offense. And let's get real about voting records. McCain voted like most of the Congress, which generally voted with the President on a number of small and day to day matters. He's had key disagreements. Biden voted with Bush 52% of the time. McCain has been rated by several groups as voting 24% more liberal than most Republicans and conservative of most Democrats. That includes figures from the Democratic group Citizens for Democratic Action. Obama convesy has voted with the Democrats 97% of the time. He claims to be about change but all I see is another party man.

By: Cyril Washbrook (I-AUS) 2008-09-23 @ 00:36:50
Sorry to take this back to taxation, but: @weidem: he's not repealing anything. He's letting the Bush tax cuts expire. And that's what SHOULD happen, because the Bush tax cuts are meant to be a STIMULUS package - i.e. a short-term boost to the economy. It's economic nonsense to allow them to continue into the long-term, because they're specifically designed to supply a short-term stimulus rather than provide a sustainable strategy for economic growth. Consequently, it makes sense to replace them with something different. It doesn't have to be the Obama plan: but it should be replaced with SOMETHING, not just continued indefinitely. It's time for everyone to get it out of their heads that Obama is raising taxes for working Americans.

By: rzepiela (D-PA) 2008-09-23 @ 14:22:57
Sorry to double team - but this is more semantics. It ends up increasing taxes (expiry or repeal). "O" also talks about increasing the capital gains tax by 10% to 25%, which does not just affect the rich like he claims. Further equity capital is taxed twice: 1st when the company makes a profit and then again when it is distributed as dividens or capital gains. Eventually customers and not companies or their owners pay taxes (when a good in priced, the tax rate is figured in). And my favorite: Windfall profits - there is no windfall, it is ordinary earnings and we will end up paying higher prices for domestic companies - foreign concerns are not subject - so it ends up hurting the US economy and not the intended target.

By: weidem (R-PA) 2008-09-23 @ 15:36:12
From http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/09/19/obamas-tax-policy/ {Obama’s “Tax Policy” Presidential candidate Barack Obama introduced his tax plan in a speech yesterday. Unfortunately, it overflowed with bad ideas. First, Obama’s plan to increase dividend and capital gains taxes is out of step with global tax realities. Virtually all of the 30 major industrial nations provide relief for capital gains and dividend taxes. Indeed, a dozen major nations have capital gains tax rates of zero percent. And if the current dividend tax cut expires, the United States would have the highest dividend tax rate among major nations. Second, Obama hasn’t got his math right. He claims that there is “$1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code.” That is ridiculous. The entire corporate income tax collected only $372 billion in 2007. Third, Obama proposed special tax breaks for seniors, which would take 7 million more elderly completely off the tax rolls. But that would inject a very unfair element of age discrimination into the tax code. Old folks are already taking young folks to the cleaners in terms of federal fiscal policy. Obama would make the injustice worse, yet he had the chutzpah to claim in his tax speech: “It’s time to stand up to the special interest carve outs.” Fourth, Obama proposed a new payroll tax credit, but the tax code already has a huge program designed to offset the payroll tax—the Earned Income Tax Credit. Adding a new low-income tax “cut” on top would result in millions of people who already don’t pay any income tax getting an added $500 check from the government. That’s not tax policy, that’s simply looting from the people who do pay the federal tax bill. I’m amazed Obama found two former Treasury officials who signed on to his plan because this isn’t tax policy in the sense of following any rational economic principles. It’s just crass political pandering using the tax code to bait votes.} I read his fiscal policy statement, too. It is wordy and says nothing in 3 pages. Change he reuses to define.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-09-23 @ 23:57:16
So now he's cutting too many taxes??? Correction re: Obama on cap gains: --- Families with incomes below $250,000 would pay current capital gains rates (a maximum tax of 15% on gains on assets held more than one year). Those earning more than $250,000 would face an increase -- a top rate of 20%. --- The top dividend tax rate would remain the current 15% for those earning less than $250,000, but would rise to 20% for those earning above that threshold. --- For single people, the tax increases above would apply to those earning more than $200,000. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/08/what-would-pres.html So Obama does not advocate raising any rate on cap gains to more than 20%, and the increase only applies to familes with incomes over 250K, and individuals over 200K. None of these rates are as high as people paid under Ronald Reagan.

By: Cyril Washbrook (I-AUS) 2008-09-23 @ 23:58:16
Of course, if you want real objective analysis of Obama's tax plan, you probably shouldn't go to a twelve-month-old article from one of the leading libertarian, anti-state institutes of the country. Try for something more recent and which deals with the current economic situation. And while it's hard to find truly unbiased analyses of the candidates' tax plans, there are sites - which I have used - that will give you even-handed assessments.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-09-24 @ 00:04:18
I appreciate people who post sources, but didn't notice it was a year old!!! Cyril, could you provide a site recomendation? I like the WashPost chart for an overall comparion of income tax plans.

By: Cyril Washbrook (I-AUS) 2008-09-24 @ 02:17:28
Sure thing, wingindy. In relation to the Washington Post graph: keep in mind of course that different sources will use different measures etc., resulting in different figures, but that you are right - that graph gives a pretty good indication of the overall state of play. As far as analyses go, here are a couple of places that you might consider: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/presidential_candidates.cfm (A really detailed site but one well worth reading - the Tax Policy Center is non-partisan and is devoted to making information about taxation accessible rather than presenting a slanted point of view. It's got some great side-by-side comparisons and in-depth studies of the effects of the tax proposals on the economy and on particular groups in society. Even better, it's been updated several times to take into account developments over the last few weeks and months.) http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html (a balanced historical analysis of Democratic and Republican presidents' economic success, cutting through the silly spin from both sides of the ideological divide - you know, the old "when [party XYZ] get into power, they destroy the economy" - it's complimentary to both sides when the statistics warrant it.) Last Edit: 2008-09-24 @ 02:19:43

By: weidem (R-PA) 2008-09-24 @ 10:18:37
I will read these - I'm not close minded. Before that I will say that the PAYGO policies Obama's site refers to in combo with his proposed spending are in conflict with the cutting taxes stories. Something has to give and raising taxes on the highest incomes may backfire when small business owners are hit and hiring decreases.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-09-24 @ 14:32:22
The Wall Street bailout was sustained by President Bush's Administration, and more particularly by Sec. Paulson. Hardly a liberal. I'm not an expert but bailouts are not free gifts to banks and companies which lose money, their main use is to prevent the crisis from getting worse, which could in the end be worse as well for the deficit (less money made, less taxes paid).

By: brye44 (I-WA) 2008-09-24 @ 14:57:18
Your observances, which are supported by little fact, are the perfect blend of conservative nonsense. Conservatives have controlled the legislative agenda for well over thirty years and we can see where that brought us. Failure on every front! The successes of the liberal agenda from 1932 to 1970 are unparalleled in American history. Our history moves back and forth between conservative failure and liberal success. I am sorry, but facts speak louder than your empty rhetoric. But, then conservatives never seem interested in the facts. But, you are passionate! I’ll give you that! Best of luck to you!

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-09-24 @ 20:22:20
Conservatives have controlled the agenda? LMAO Really, that would be news to most conservatives. We had a brief period from 1994 to 1998 and then the "moderates" (aka Liberal Republicans) have dominated the party.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-09-24 @ 20:28:23
"The Wall Street bailout was sustained by President Bush's Administration, and more particularly by Sec. Paulson. Hardly a liberal." No offense but only a liberal could think that someone that wants to bailout corporations with $700 billion of taxpayer money is anything but a liberal! LOL

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-09-24 @ 20:48:29
"Something has to give and raising taxes on the highest incomes may backfire when small business owners are hit and hiring decreases." Yup...you want to ensure a depression...raise taxes on the "rich" right now.

By: Cyril Washbrook (I-AUS) 2008-09-24 @ 22:30:39
@weidem: actually, neither candidate's tax plan is bad for small businesses. I won't go into Sen McCain's plan into detail, because it's not contentious in that regard. But in terms of Sen Obama's business tax policy: one of the big things that seems to have irked the small business owners I've spoken to online is his plan to increase payroll tax for small businesses. But the two things to take into account are: (1) that will only affect the 1.4% of small businesses that earn more than $250,000 per year, and (2) it's not coming into effect until 2019. More broadly, Sen Obama's plan does take into account the needs of businesses. It's not as cushy as Sen McCain's deal, but it's certainly not the disaster that many partisan supporters of the GOP would like to argue. @Gceres: raising taxes on the highest income earners does not cause a depression. Making such assertions doesn't help anyone on either side of the ideological or partisan divide.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-09-24 @ 22:38:01
"@Gceres: raising taxes on the highest income earners does not cause a depression. Making such assertions doesn't help anyone on either side of the ideological or partisan divide." 250,000 a year is a small business...small businesses are the vehicle of economic growth and job growth...yes, raising taxes on "the rich" will cause a depression. Not to mention that the rich corporations do not really pay taxes...any increase in taxes on corporations simply means increased prices for consumers...in other words the middle class and the poor. It's Economics 101

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-09-24 @ 23:53:32
that's it Geceres, stand by your trickle down theories. There a reason Hoover lost in a landslide.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-09-25 @ 00:03:35
Faye: yes I work full time as an attorney. FYI Bush proposed the bailout. John McCain announced he's suspending his campiagn to make sure the bailout passes. Are these the 'liberals in Washington' you refer to??

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-09-25 @ 07:10:49
Well Faye Honey just tell me how Christian John McCain is then? Does he even go to church? Not very often from what I hear. Which is fine by me but obviously if you want to start talking about Christianity & the fact Obama does not have a Christian bone in his body then?

By: Cyril Washbrook (I-AUS) 2008-09-25 @ 08:50:26
Gceres: I suggest that you check your facts once more to find out exactly what a depression is.

By: weidem (R-PA) 2008-09-25 @ 11:00:47
Cyril: I've had time to read and digest the two tax sites. (It felt like homework. which I haven't had to do in years.) The one using administrations is interesting, but has some flaws - the site recognizes some of them in that it mentions tendencies at the beginnings and ending of the different partys' administrations: #1 when a president is elected, it takes time to pass laws to change policies and pass laws to implement new policies. Then more time for those policies to affect GDP, etc. Companies make spending decisions years ahead, not days ahead. And tax rates are never changed in the first year of an administration, at least for that particular year. #2 No attention is made to the party affiliation of the congress with which the administration has to work. As for Obama's tax policies: They do appear better than I had thought - although I could not find the site's 1) methodology 2) it's economic model for what sector/business tax increases would mean (I would thus have to think they assume no impact - flawing the analysis) and 3) I could not find (please point out where if it is there) the spending costs associated with proposed new spending which offsets the tax changes). I stand by my earlier assertion, however on Small Business, Capital Gains, and now include the Estate tax. This will harm the economy. McCain still has some open holes in his economic polic statements - he has not been specific, depending upon appointing or listening to future bipartisan advisors. I can only hope that is not a copout - but a continuation of his past reaching across the aisle which both delights and frustrates me. Brye-nice trye- Your rhetoric is nothing but talking points. I give facts and you give nonsense. The GOP controlled congress for 12 years of the last 48. The conservatives lost the GOP when Newt left congress. After the conservative leader left, the GOP was more interested in maintaining power than in governing. I think that is where we are with the Dems now. We need a little intellectual honesty here. - I miss you J.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-09-26 @ 07:07:16
Fair enough. You can call me Stephen too if you want as that's my name. x See people will start talking about us next! :)

By: rzepiela (D-PA) 2008-09-26 @ 09:48:34
As I've been told in the past on this site - "Get a room." just kidding.

By: weidem (R-PA) 2008-09-26 @ 14:03:13
I think I told you or perhaps lami that. But he wasn't your type either. He did keep me honest and had really savant points, not the political hogwash I'm seeing this cycle from both extremes.

By: Lamrock (D-WA) 2008-10-02 @ 21:19:47
I bet Faye2 is actually a Democrat on here for a laugh. Nonetheless, hilarious character.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-10-04 @ 09:03:42
This map my dear is not very likely now. Do you love the shade of pink Nevada's now showing on the polling map on this site - I do!

By: Dick Cheney (R-VA) 2008-10-04 @ 10:20:21
Faye, Keep up the good work! We can still save America from the godless, atheist, communist, America hating Democrats. Together we can continue our program of massive deficits and crony capitalism. God bless you. And God bless America and our great President George W. Bush. History will recognize him as the greatest president since George Washington. Vote early and vote often. Oh, and God bless Diebold.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-10-04 @ 21:18:23
Insightful words Dick. Massive Deficits & Crony Capitalism. I like it. What happened to the fiscally responsible Republicans??? I'd like to know that one. They certainly are not the party for economic responsibility anymore & I have been reading this week long time Republicans have been leaving them in droves. Interesting.

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2008 President	36/56	17/56	53/112	47.3%	1	47	1453	T	1,505
Aggregate Predictions	36/56	17/56	53/112	47.3%

Links

Back to 2008 Presidential Prediction Home - Predictions Home