Election 2008 Presidential Predictions

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

Date of Prediction: 2008-10-19 Version:49

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	349
Rep	189
Ind	0

Confidence States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	286
Rep	158
Ind	0
Tos	94

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV
Dem	+8	0	+97	0	0	0	20	2	252	+97
Rep	0	0	0	-8	0	-97	23	3	189	-97
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
84	48	31	4	1

Analysis

This might be my final map, unless something major changes. I just want to get a guess down and go with it, but some states are so hard to call at this point such as North Carolina, Missouri, and even Ohio. They will all be close.

Prediction History
Prediction Graph

Comments History - hide

Version: 48

Obama's lead if the election were held today.

Reasons McCain is losing

1) The economy

2) Sarah Palin

3) McCain is coming off as desperate

4) Obama is coming off sane, cool, calm, disciplined and presidential

The polls could go more in Obama's direction by the election, could stay about the same, or could tighten up a bit. If they tighten I expect North Carolina to drop off, and maybe Missouri and *maybe* Ohio and Nevada.

Anyways, as I have been saying, the question seems to be now, no longer, who will win, but how much will Obama win by.

Version: 47

Greens are toss-ups, not called for either side. Greys are slight leans, light blue/red's are moderate wins while dark colors are solid wins.

Version: 46

This is my kick ass, level-headed, accurate map. Ok?

Version: 45

This is a "Bradley Effect" and Reverse Bradley Effect map. During the primaries, we might have seen both to a small degree. Certain states Obama under performed in the polls by a couple points, and a couple more he over performed by quite a bit. If this happens again in the election, I think the map should look something like what I laid out. That being Obama doing a bit better than expected in some states such as Virginia, Florida and North Carolina, and doing worse than expected in some states like Ohio and PN.

So here it is.

Version: 44

While it is definite that Sarah Palin is an extremist nut who is both too inexperienced and too foolish and in addition corrupt (all like GW Bush whom she is much like) it is clear she has united the Republican base (says a lot that all the people they unite around tend inexperienced, foolish and corrupt extremist who want to destroy the fabric of american democracy, science, civil liberties and the separation of church and state).

On the other hand Palin's favorability rating is dramatically dropping. She is now viewed, in the short span of less than a week, less favorable than an other the other candidates for president and VP. I venture to guess her likeability numbers will continue to drop. This will be because people in the center and democrats and those who don't pay much attention are starting to catch on, and which is one of the reasons (along with the economy) why Obama is beginning to shoot back up in the polls.

But, never the less, Palin has changed the dynamics of the race where red states such as IN which might have been in play before, probably are not, and certain blue states are closer, interesting enough, certain states haven't budged and of course some blue states are bluer. This is a new map reflecting how I think the race will end up in the end.

Version: 43

Obama is chances of winning the presidency have now dramatically increased. With his and Hillary's amazing speeches, the Democratic party is as united as it is ever going to be. The only people holding out on Obama will be about 5-8% of the party, the bitter Hillary vote, who will be voting against Hillary Clinton in this election, but he will have won over most of her voters.

But the big killer is McCain's VP choice, perhaps the worse choice in history. And just when we thought no one could be worse than Bush, we now see that if McCain would win, this lady is just a 72 year old man's heart beat away from running the leader of one this country.

Obama's chances of winning 75%
McCain's chances of winning 25%

Version: 42

This is my new map. This is a projected analysis based upon what I think the race will end up being. Toss up states could will be too close to call, but I will make a guess which way they swing.

After all the mess on my last map I would like only serious statements on this map. No rehasing the primaries either. And if your map is seriously out of touch with reality, such as having California and Washington as Republican (or the other way around and having TN and KS Democratic) please don't bother to post on here either. I am tired of all the hacks.

Version: 41

Grey's are toss up's. The Green Grey's are too close to call, and the final results will be within a couple points. Red or Blue Grey's are states which could be made in play, but which lean one direction or another and are being called for a candidate at this point. Lights are moderate wins and Darks are large wins.

Again, Obama would have this race in the bag if he were not black and if his name wasn't such. Since these two things appeal to base fears in many people, and the general public's ignorance. If this were any other year, Obama would lose simply because of this factor. This year, though, being a strongly Democratic year, which the generic ballot supports, Obama will probably pull off a win. I give him about a 60-70% chance of winning.

McCain's largest possible win, baring some sort of huge circumstances is all the states Bush one plus MI (and maybe NH). Obama's largest possible win is a sweep of IN, OH, IA, VA, MT, NC, FL, MO, CO, NV and NM. (and maybe GA)

Version: 40

Greys are states that will be possibly in play in the election. Greens are will be ones that will be to close to really nail down and predict, the closer of the states that are in play. Obama only needs one of these states to at least tie. Lights are moderate wins and darks are large wins.

Obama has, as of right now, at least a 66% chance of winning. If he wasn't a black guy, with the last name that he has, that ran against a super super popular person in the primaries, he would have a 95% chance of winning this election. If it were any other year, he would probably only have about a 33% chance or less of winning.

Version: 39

Greens are 100% toss ups, impossible to tell (Virginia Nevada). Toss ups are still easily in play, but can be called one direction or another and will be within 3 or 4 points or so (ie: Ohio, MO) Leaners are smaller wins, and Solids are larger wins.

By this map Obama will win the election, but the question is by how much.

Version: 38

Green States are complete toss up battle ground states. I predict they will be so close it will be difficult to predict before the election. Greys are leaners. They will be close, within a few points but can probably be called one way or another. Light blue/red are moderate wins, above 4 or 5 point wins or more, and the rest of the states are solid states with more than 9 or 10 point victories for the candidate.

Version: 37

Ok. This map is not a projection, its a prediction. Based upon projections partially, but also just a guess on what might and is quite possible to happen.

Obama 51%
McCain 46%
Barr 2%
Nader .5%
Other .5%

Version: 36

Ok. My new map. In this map, the green states (in this case just Virginia) are the states which are complete toss-ups. Virginia will be so close to call that an accurate prediction can not be made. The next level are the toss ups which lean one direction or another. These are states which can be in play, but I am projecting to go one way or another. The next level are the leaners, which in my map are pretty safe states for the candidate. The last are the solid states which will have no chance of being in play.

Version: 35

Obama/Webb(or Warner) 52%

Vs.

McCain/Romney 46.5%

This is a prediction, not a projection

Version: 34

Obama 51%

vs.

McCain 47%

Obama will *rock* out the vote. There will be a huge african american and youth turn out which will be what largely is the reason for Obama's win. This despite 8 - 10% of Democrats voting for McCain. Republican turn out will be rather small, especially compared to 04 turnout.

Version: 33

Since there is a lot of talk about Hillary being the VP and she herself said today that she is interested in such a thing, (Which confirms my theory that since Indianaish or before, she has been more running for the VP) I will make a map that shows what a ticket would produce. Basically I think its an almost guarantee win for the Democrats. It unites both halves, and forms such a history and revolutionary ticket, people will come out in droves to vote. There will be backlash from Republicans, of course, but the won't be able to stop it.

Obama/Hillary 53%

vs.

McCain/??? (Romney or Crist possibly) 45 %

If McCain pics Crist, FL will most likely go to McCain, if not, its a toss up. Picking Romney will make MI closer, but Dems will still pic that up.

Version: 32

Ok. Greens in this maps are 100% toss ups. So close the prediction can not be made either way. Grey's are lean one direction or another, but within a 2-3% points. Examples are PN for Democrats and MO for Republicans. Light colors are moderate wins and dark colors are solid w ins.

Version: 31

Obama/Webb 51%

vs.

McCain/Romney 47.5%

Version: 30

My last map was a current map based upon polls where the race was tied 269 to 269.

This is a prediction on what may happen with Ohio and New Hampshire moved over into Obama territory, Virginia and MO moved into toss ups and Colorado and New Mexico moved from toss ups to lean.

Obama 51 %

McCain 47 %

Nadar .5 %

Barr 1.5 %

Version: 29

I did this map based upon the polls that are out right now, the averages on RCP.

As you can see, its a tie between McCain and Obama.

I except Ohio to move over into the Obama column within a few weeks, when pollsters start to do polling on a regular basis in the battle ground states after Obama is offically the nominee.

Version: 28

Obama

Vs.

McCain

Version: 27

This is what would happen if it was a :

Obama/Hillary ticket.

According to polls, a large number of Hillary supporters want her as the VP. This would unify the party, lose some independents, but gain more voters overall.

Version: 26

Obama/??? (Ed Rendel, Wes Clark maybe)

McCain/??? (Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney maybe)

Obama: 51%
McCain: 48%

Most Clinton supporters move back into Obama's camp. Hillary campaigns pretty hard for Obama, and Obama picks a Clinton supporter as his VP. The race will be semi tight, but Obama will come out pretty comfortably. The Wright controversy will be brought up again, of course (like they could help themselves), and Obama at times will look like he will lose, at times will look like he will win quite handily and the polls will have their ups and downs, as usual. Hillary will be out of the race by June officially. Obama will win independents (maybe 55-45), and get about 5% of Republicans. McCain will get about 8% of democrats.

Version: 25

Obama 51%

McCain 47%

Other 2%

Version: 24

My prediction.

Hillary wins Pennsylvania by 4-9 points. Obama wins Indiana narrowly, and wins North Carolina by 10-20 points.

The race will be over sometime after the NC and Indiana primaries, Hillary will drop out.

Obama has about a 50-60% chance of winning the presidency, and if he doesn't it will most likely be directly because of Hillary supporters, who will be blamed for him losing.

If Obama wins, it will be around the results of the map I outlined, at the most picking up OH and *maybe* (but doubt it) Virginia too. If he loses, it will be narrowly, and because he doesn't pick up CO and or Pennsylvania.

Version: 23

Obama/??? (Webb or Clark possibly)

vs.

McCain/???

Version: 22

Obama/Webb

vs.

McCain/Romney

Version: 21

Obama 52-55%

VS.

McCain 43-46%

Obama gets 85ish % of Democrats, the majority of Independents, at least 65%, and even 10ish% of Republicans.

As the recent poll showed, Obamas Independent #'s and new voters more than make up for the loss of Democratic voters.

Version: 20

This map is for...

Obama/Hillary
vs.
McCain/ ???

Hillary has a 35% chance of winning the nomination. Obama has a 65% chance. Hillary has a 40% chance of catching up in the popular vote, and only a 10% chance of catching up in the pledged delegates. Obama has at least a 90% of Being on the ticket at in general, for he will probably be picked as a VP if she gets the nomination.

Hillary should win Penn, WV, Kentucky, Montana, and Puerto Rico. She should also win redos in FL and Mich.

Obama should win WY, Mississippi, NC< Indiana, Oregan, Montana, and SD.

If that all happens, Obama should still be up with the pledged delegates, and should also still be up in the popular vote, though by a super small margin percentage wise.

Version: 19

This is not a serious map. This is a map mocking Chica_of_Lights impulse driven analysis.

Hillary doesn't win the states Obama won, following her irrational logic.

McCain though, wins states the Republicans would have won anyways, too, following her silly logic.

McCain 56%
Hillary 42%

Version: 18

Obama/Webb

vs.

McCain/???

Version: 17

Ok, so I updated my map with more accurate "lean" states. Hopefully these satisfy people.

Obama/??? 52%

vs.

McCain/??? 46%

Other 2%

Version: 16

If Obama wins Wisconsin on Tuesday, I conclude he has about a 60-70% chance of winning the democratic nomination.

This is a rather high case scenario if he runs against McCain.

Obama 52%

McCain 46%

Other 2%

Version: 15

Hillary

vs.

McCain

Its becoming increasingly obvious that Hillary Clinton could actually lose to McCain. Though its a Democratic year, Hillary is a very unlikable candidate, with the highest unfavorable ratings out of any candidate who ran for president in 2008. Also, its becoming increasing obvious, unless she blows Obama out most of the states remaining (which is possible but unlikely) the only way she can win the nomination is by stealing it with superdelegates, which will turn off a great majority of democratic voters. In fact, if she did win by stealing the election, I am sure McCain would win almost every state, if not all of them. But this scenario is if she wins the nomination with more pledged delegates.

Hillary loses mainly because Republicans show up in huge huge huge numbers to vote against her, despite not liking McCain. Also, Hillary is just seen as a bad candidate, shrill and generally unlikable.

Version: 14

Obama/Webb 52%
vs.
McCain/Huckabee 46%

Other 2%

A much more likely scenario: Hillary Clinton loses the nomination barely. In the end she ends up with less pledged delegates, less states and less popular vote. Howard Dean asks her to step down. For the good of the party she does. Obama, out of respect, asks her to be the VP, but she turns it down, she wants a long and powerful career in the Senate. What she does do, however, is campaign vigerously for Obama, and calmnly asks her supporters to please cut out the divisively politics. She explains a win for McCain is a lose for the country. Most Hillary supporters get over her loss of the nomination, but of course a few never do. But with the high volume of Independents turning out for Obama and even some Republicans, and the low voter turn out for the Republicans, there is hardly a difference.

McCain runs a horrible campaign and Obama runs a decent one. He might even have run a worse campaign that Hillary would have, but since droves of Hillary haters didn't show up to the polls to vote against the devil, Obama still wins big. The polls the day before the election had Obama at "54%" And McCain at "45%" Which cause some people to cry the "Bradley Effect" People laugh at this.

Version: 13

Obama/Webb 52%

McCain/Huckabee 47%

Version: 12

Last night was a close one. The delegates, though I think they are still counting are for Obama very very very slightly. They are for Hillary if you count the Super Delegates (which of course can change). If you look at this Super Tuesday race from a long term prespective, I think Obama did amazing. Super Tuesday was supposed to be the nail in the coffin for Obama from Hillary. In fact it might be what continues this momentum for him to take the nomination. Obama is set up to do very well on the contests that are going to be held on Saturday, and if you look at the states, they are much more in line with the states Obama has done well in so far. Still, Clinton is a force to deal with for Obama.

I think in the end the party is going to come on Obamas side. There is much debate on who is more electable, Obama or Clinton. Whomever you think is more electable is probably more indicative of who you personally are supporting rather than the actual reality of it. As far as the people working behind the scenes, though, there is no doubt in my mind, especially with how well Obama is doing in these red states, that they know Obama is a much better pick to bring the Democratic party to a victory in Nov. Having said that I think that they will side with him when this goes to the convention which I think it will.

As a result of last night here are my new numbers for the chances on each side on each side

Democrats
Obama 55-60%
Hillary 40-45%

Repugnicans
McCain 90%
Huckabee 8%
Romney 2 %

Here is a map of
Obama/Webb
vs.
McCain/Huckabee

Version: 11

Democrats: Hillary/Obama 47%
Republicans: McCain/Huckabee 35%
FascistConservatives: Santorum/Ralph Reed 10%
PsuedoLibertarians: Paul/TuckerCarlson 6%
Independent: Nader/McKinney 2%

Despite the democats wanting to run against the awful candidate Mitt Romney, their finest dreams come true; McCain splits up the whiney cry baby Republican party up. Coulter and Limbaugh make a call for a third party of facsists. This 3rd party makes room for the PsuedoLIbertrarians and makes room for yet another Nader run. The results are a democratic blow-out. Hillary has two terms in office, then Obama gets two terms. The country is healthy(rising up to having the largest life span in the world) and more educated after these 16 years and the standard of living has greatly increased. The country is once again the most respected nation on earth and science and technology are at the forefront. In the end the Republican party is never the same, and they shun the far right for destroying their chances in 08. The the Fascist Conservatives plans for concentration camps for gays and atheists is met with harsh criticism, especially since Santrom is eventually outed as a gay homosexual after he is caught having sex with a gay homosexual hooker in an airport bathroom.

Version: 10

With the events of tonight I recalculate my analysis

Repugincian chances for nomination:
McCain 60%
Romney 35%
Huckabee 5%

Democratic chances for nomination:
Billary 55%
Obama 44%
Edwards 1%

McCain's chances have gone up since my last predictions and Hillarys have gone down because of Ted Kennedy's endorsement and Obamas momentum. Despite many thinking I am crazy for this, the chances of Obama being Hillarys VP are quite possible.

This would be a map is if:

Hillary/Obama

vs.

McCain/Huckabee

Version: 9

Obama

Vs.

Romney

Version: 8

Hillary/Obama

vs.

Romney/???

My last map was Hillary vs. McCain, if its Hillary vs. Romney, I predict an even wider win, especially if Obama is on the ticket.

Obama would be a good running mate for Hillary if she ran against Romney, not as good if she ran against McCain. Clark would be better with McCain.

But Pretty much Romney gets killed no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

Version: 7

Hillary

vs.

McCain

Version: 6

Hillary/Obama

vs.

Romney/Rice

The disillusioned and out of touch Republicans, who don't understand exactly how awful Bush was for this country, and who do not understand exactly how much he is hated, try to run a ticket with both a woman who was directly involved in the Bush administration, and who is both a woman and who is black.

Since a large portion of the Republican party is both Sexist and Racist, this doesn't seem to go over to well. Not to mention evangelicals hate mormons. This causes a much smaller turnout that expected, this despite HIllary Clinton being on the ticket.

Dems win big.

Version: 5

Ok, I did a bunch of goofy satirical maps, but here is a serious one again

This Map Represents the best case scenario for Hillary Clinton, and a Moderate scenario for Obama. Against McCain I think the odds look better for the Republicans and against another other Republican the odds look better for the democrats.

Version: 4

Hillary/Vilsak

Cheney/Rumsfeld

The clinton folx convince the democratic party that slowly poisoning the system with the same old stale candidates, who play the same old dirty games, for the same old dirty power, who are willing to swift boat even their own party members, and will do aboutanything to get elected, including taking plays from karl roves play book by strongly implying that if Obama gets elected we will be hit by a terror attack, convince the American people fo a short period of time that we have no choice but to accept the same old business, and get the nomination.

At the last minute Cheney joins the race, because since the Clintons have convinced the publican that experience is what matters rather than good ideas and desperate need of government reform. Since Cheney and Rumsfeld have mor experience than anyone, they win the election.

The democrats look at themselves and say, how did this happen again? Why do we think we can always win by playing *their* game? We lose again!

Cheney and Rumsfeld prove to the world yet again, that experience doesn't mean crap if you are over your head in corruption. For they themselves had experience, hitler had experience, stalin had experience. A lot of people have experience! But very few people have what it takes to be a good honest leader, regardless of experience, and very few people put the people over their own personal power and political gain.

America weeps yet again, and as the poison grows deeper, the country gets worse. Eventually our economy falls apart and China takes us over.

Version: 3

Obama/Webb

vs.

Huckabee/Ralph Reed

Version: 2

Obama/???

vs.

Huckabee/???

Version: 1

I didn't do any *leaning* states. Just toss ups. It's easier that way. Anyways. I think it will come down to this with an almost certain democratic win with as high of numbers as the democrats taking everything I selected plus Tenn., Vir, and Nevada. On the other end of the spectrum, the best hope for the Republicans I think in this 2008 democratic year would be to win with the same states as Bush did in 00 and 04 with a hair of a win, but I think that is unlikely.

Version History

Member Comments

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-10-21 @ 22:22:26
Geceres:FiveSenses...what did I tell you about talking to me when the adults are talking...take your Kool-Aide and go back to the sandbox. <--- funny this all you can say and all you ever can say. Well I say you are the one who drinks "Kool-Aide" and who plays in a sand box. And I have a challenge for you. Whoever has the map which reflects reality more on election day is the one who isn't drinking the "Kool-Aide". So come election day, if McCain wins Maine and New Hampshire, then you get to say I am drinking "Kool-Aide". But come election day when Obama wins, you have to admit that you are a brain-washed loser who is drinking Bill O'Reilly's "Kool-Aide"

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-10-22 @ 21:14:40
By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-22 @ 17:34:58 Predictions for surprises for Election Night as of today (I reserve the right to revise and extend these predictions LOL): 1. Virginia is 53 to 47 and not close. 2. New Mexico is super tight and goes McCain. 3. Colorado, 52 to 48 McCain. 4. Pennsylvania...no landslide here...really close...edge Obama...not called until late. 5. Indiana & Kentucky...first two states...both called immediately. 6. Florida...not decided on Election Night. 7. North Carolina...closer than Virginia. 8. Sleeper race...Washington State is closer than expected and not immediately called...Obama wins by a couple of points.

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-10-24 @ 00:19:03
Oooh, this challenge is good. I like this a lot.

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-10-24 @ 00:27:48
Virginia will be carried by Obama. New Mexico will be carried by Obama. Hell several McCain people have admitted this one is over. Ditto Colorado. Indiana won't be called immediately. Kentucky might, or might not. One of my predictions is the McCain will underperform Bush in every state, which means he won't win any state Bush did not win. Pennsylvania, here I agree withe Gceres, an Obama win. Not as close as he predicts though. Florida. Decide on election night. For Obama. Now on NC I agree with Gceres, NC will be close than Virginia. This is a real toss-up state for '08. One Bush won by 13 points. Washington, Obama wins by more than five points at least.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-10-24 @ 18:56:34
Yes, that is why I posted this on my map. I will late it on the fool after the election. It bugs me that people are so ignorant, stubborn and brainwashed that they convince themselves that people only think like they do, and they are so out of touch with reality, they will convince themselves of anything. I too want to see the excuses he comes up with after his predictions are proved so wrong. Will he say ACORN stole the election for Obama? Will he say that the votes were counted wrong? Will he drop off this site and never come back because he was so stupid?

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-10-28 @ 16:51:22
Joe "The Plumber" = the perfect metaphor and icon for the Republicans, which is why its so ironic McCain keeps on bringing him up. This "Joe The Plumber" is a perfect comparison because he is nothing but a lie, just like most Republican voters. The guys name isn't Joe, he isn't a plumber, he is lying about how much money he makes (he has the typical red-neck, wanna-be Republican delusion that he makes much more money than he actually does and that somehow he is in a much higher tax bracket that he actually is, therefore he is voting against his self interest to satisfy his masculine ego) and he owes money in taxes. The list go on. The man is an all-out psycho, and many many many Republicans I know act exactly the same way. It is a delusional way of thinking, a pathology that effects so many fools in this country. It should be studied by psychologists. (And I am sure it is)

By: satyrday (I-MI) 2008-10-28 @ 22:36:05
Perfect Joe the Dumbass Plumber analysis. A+ for that one.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-10-29 @ 22:51:44
It's almost impossible for McCain to win. There has not been a single poll recently to have McCain up in PA. In fact there has not been a single poll from PA to have McCain within even 5 points of Obama in PA. Add on top of that OH is now taken out of the toss up category and into lean Obama, along with VA and CO.

By: pace (D-IL) 2008-10-30 @ 01:17:49
Re Joe the plumber: Plus, he considers progressive taxes "socialist" and is running for congress as a Republican in 2010. Yup. Real regular guy allright! In other news: I've got a real feeling on NC going Obama... Last Edit: 2008-10-30 @ 01:18:24

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-30 @ 01:53:29
pace...(I do not respond to anything FiveSenses says): You don't fully understand then the difference between progressive taxation and Obama's "tax" socialist scheme. Progressive taxation is a liberal system of taxation whereby you pay a higher percentage of income taxation as your income grows (ie. 1st 10,000 is exempt...next 10,000 taxed at 10%...next 10,000 taxed at 11%...etc.) This is a system that most Democrats and liberals believe in and a few moderate/liberal Republicans. There are also some Democrats and a lot of Republicans that instead favor a flat tax system. The ideological backdrop is simply that as your income rises, you ought to pay a higher percentage of the "additional" income in taxes. There can be plenty to debate about whether this is a good idea or not and I would argue it is a horrible tax system. However, it isn't socialism because it's primary reason for existence is not income redistribution but so-called tax fairness. Obama's tax plan is a radical departure from even progressive taxation models. Obama would instead increase taxes on those making over $150,000 (it will wind up being MUCH lower btw) and confiscating this extra taxation and sending it in the form of a check to other income earners in the country including 40% who pay no taxes. In other words, his plan exists not for tax fairness but for income redistribution. The Obama tax plan is a socialistic plan and not progressive taxation. Last Edit: 2008-10-31 @ 08:49:58

By: pace (D-IL) 2008-10-30 @ 09:16:49
Okay...how is that different from the earned income tax credit? I supported that back when it was a "Republican" plan BTW - now it is "Socialist?". As for the flat tax...that just seems like a lot of ideological dreaming to me and is frankly not workable. This is just simple math: The U.S. has some mega rich people and they pay a lion's share of the nation's taxes - almost 90% (because they make the lion's share of the money). So... if you are going to balance the books the "flat tax" rate would need to be nearly equivalent to the highest marginal tax rate now. Since the highest marginal tax rate is 35% the flat tax would need to be over 30%. Most Americans could not afford to pay that much in taxes - could you? And before you say "yes, but we could cut down on needless tax bureaucracy to make up the difference", note that: 1) Even with a flat tax we would still need some kind of tax bureaucracy 2) The annual operating budget of the IRS is about 11 billion dollars - about half the size of Harvard's endowment, the operating expenses for a month of the Iraq war, less than 5% of the bailout, about what it costs to build 4 stealth bombers etc etc. In other words, cutting tax bureaucracy is a small drop in the bucket and will not save us that much proportionately.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-30 @ 10:42:28
No, most flat tax advocates readily acknowledge that the rate would need to be around 20%...some go as low as 17%. The reason is that you would eliminate all tax loopholes. It would be very simple. If you earned %50,000 a year, you would get a generous personal exemption of $35,000 leaving $15,000. You would then very simply take 20% of $15,000...$3,000....that's your tax burden...it will actually cut taxes at a significantly higher percent for lower and middle income earners than upper income earners because upper income earners currently have far more tax breaks, credits, etc. But the simplification of the tax code would unleash a bonanza of economic growth which would potentially expand the economy greatly. The result would be an increase in government revenue due to a significant increase in economic activity due to the lower taxation requirements (meaning more willingness to risk investment) more consumer dollars in the economic markets, and billions of taxpayer hours saved by individuals and businesses preparing taxes under the current system.

By: hotpprs (R-NY) 2008-10-30 @ 21:32:59
One of Obama's standard punch lines at his stump speeches, defending the Socialist accusation, goes something like this. "The next thing you know, John McCain will say I'm a Communist because I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwiches when I was in kindergarten". But that's a poor analogy. The fair analogy would be, that he took half of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich from one kid, and gave it to some other kid. Maybe McCain should incorporate that into his stump speeches, to show that Obama can't even get the facts straight on his jokes.

By: pace (D-IL) 2008-10-30 @ 22:56:33
Hum... well, adding a 35,000 exemption would be a different story, obviously. I could get behind that...tough on tax attorneys though.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-10-31 @ 11:07:16
Pasted from fivethirtyeight.com In the wee hours of this morning, Public Policy Polling released data from Colorado and New Mexico. The toplines are strong for Obama, giving him leads of 10 and 17 points, respectively in those states. What's worse for McCain, however, is that PPP estimates that nearly two-thirds of Coloradans have already cast their ballots, as have 55-60 percent of New Mexicans, with large majorities of those votes going to Barack Obama. This is backed up to some extent by Michael McDonald's turnout statistics. In Colorado, the state had already processed approximately 1.3 million ballots as of Thursday, around 60 percent of the total 2004 turnout. In Bernalillo County (Albuquerque), New Mexico (statewide figures are not available), 145,000 ballots had been cast as of Wednesday, equaling 55 percent of 2004's total.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-10-31 @ 11:11:44
The income level above which the Obama tax plan would raise taxes is $250,000, not $150,000. "Independent analyses of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama’s plans." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31taxes.html?ref=politics GC is talking about Obama's plan to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC was first implemented in 1975 under President Ford, expanded by Reagan in 1986, and again expanded by Bush on 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit#Impact McCain does not propose doing away with the EITC, and proposes an additional "refundable" tax credit (one that a taxpayer gets regardless of whether or not he/she owes taxes) for those who buy health insurance. If this makes Obama a socialist, then Ford, Reagan, Bush, and McCain were/are socialists, too. Last Edit: 2008-10-31 @ 11:22:51

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-10-31 @ 11:12:29
Yeah, look Five Senses...at this point, so close to the election, arguing about it is moot. The truth will be revealed soon enough. I myself am confident that I will have at least the same level of accuracy that I had in predicting the 2004 election. I think overall Gceres has been more reasonable than a lot of other people, and a lot of his analysis I think has been very good. Obviously, he's a Republican and he has a more optimistic view of his team. I obviously think McCain's campaign is not good and will lose. But time is running short, we're going to know who's right and wrong soon enough!

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 12:03:02
"The income level above which the Obama tax plan would raise taxes is $250,000, not $150,000. "Independent analyses of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama’s plans."" Ummm...his own infomercial states the number at $200,000. And his own VP candidate says it's $150,000.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-10-31 @ 13:45:41
$200,000 for single persons, $250,000 for families. Biden's statement in Canton: “Now look -- these are patriotic Americans, they’re not bad guys... But ladies and gentlemen, we want to take that $130 billion and give it to people making under $150,000 as families, people who are making 40 and 50 and 60 and 80 and 100 thousand dollars who are struggling just to keep their kid in college, struggling just to stay in their home, struggling just to pay the bills.” This is not inconsistent with the plan's provision for no increases for families earning under $250K and single people earning under $200K. All apples are fruit, but not all fruit is apples.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 14:28:53
No I have a video of Biden on my blog during a television interview saying that those individuals making less than $150,0000 a year will not have tax increases...they continue to lower the bar.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-10-31 @ 15:34:31
Ummm, if no one earning under $250K will have their taxes increase, it stands to reason that no one earning under $150K will have their taxes increase, either. If a campaign official weere to say that under the plan, someone making $100K a year would not see an increase, would you take that to mean the plan had changed?? Think a little, man. Last Edit: 2008-10-31 @ 15:35:55

By: hotpprs (R-NY) 2008-10-31 @ 16:20:38
The Clintons are masters of campaigning, and the pundits said her campaign was bad. Bush won 2 elections which he had no business even being close to winning. The GOP knows how to win elections, but they are saying McCain's campaign was bad too. I say both their campaign's were just fine. There is no way anyone could ever win with the media brainwashing people at the rate they have since the Primary season. I don't think it would have made a difference if the money situation was reversed. I think the media is much more important then the money. You guys can say what you want about the McCain campaign, but don't be too happy if Obama wins because of the media. Because that can strike both ways. It's a very dangerous precedent to have the President selected by the media. I don't think Obama will be that bad, as his personal history is somewhat like Clinton's. He came from a broken home, and like Clinton, that will make him the type of President that LOVES to be liked. By everyone, not just the left. Watch for Obama to surprise the liberals and be very moderate if he wins. But my main point, is that we really need to put some controls in place so this can't happen again. If someone is able to pay off the media through big business, we could really have a dangerous person in office some day. (I know...you can fill in the Bush jokes here....)

By: pace (D-IL) 2008-10-31 @ 16:27:22
Ahhh... Republican Excuse for impending landslide #541: Media Bias. No, joking aside, I actually agree with you. I'd be willing to give up a little Obama bias in return for a guarantee that the free media pass GW got between 2001-2004 could never happen again. The question is what can be done about it. I also agree that Obama will probably turn out to be a moderate, but then again Obama has never really claimed otherwise. Charges of "socialism" - for apparently returning taxes to pre-GW levels - have probably done as much to make democrats salivate as republicans fume!

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 16:57:28
"Ummm, if no one earning under $250K will have their taxes increase, it stands to reason that no one earning under $150K will have their taxes increase, either. If a campaign official weere to say that under the plan, someone making $100K a year would not see an increase, would you take that to mean the plan had changed?? Think a little, man" I would be willing to bet substantial amounts of money that IF Obama wins, and right now I just don't see how he could, that the limit will drop to around $30,000.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-10-31 @ 18:09:20
Bush Country, I respect your opinion of Gceres, but to me he has been nothing but a stubborn, far right fool, and he has made many racist remarks and quite frankly I find his inaccurate analysis, and his attitude condescending and immature. But you are right, there is no reason to argue about this anymore, because come election day, Gceres and the rest of these fools will be proven the fools in which they are.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-10-31 @ 19:41:21
"The Clintons are masters of campaigning, and the pundits said her campaign was bad. Bush won 2 elections which he had no business even being close to winning. The GOP knows how to win elections, but they are saying McCain's campaign was bad too. I say both their campaign's were just fine." Er... No. Yes, the Clintons are master at campaigning -but the advice they got was god-awful, the big primaries state strategy was not good given the proportional system, and they were a but slow in understanding what a challenge Obama really was. They were overconfident -and rightly so because the MEDIA had proclaimed Hillary the winner before the first caucus! The very same awful liberal evil Media you're now accusing of taking her into the ground. Yes, they were startled and laudative with Obama's primary performance -he was just great, successful, telegenic, charismatic, a dark horse (no pun there). As for McCain, his campaign is a failure, his advisers are turning against each other and against the VP candidate to whom McCain hardly speaks these days, the message changes every day or they just drive two or three messages at the same time for a week. This week was more Joe Worthless-backward/Obama is an evil Brezhnevlike socialist/Obama is a secret PLO terrorist (OK that's caricature but you get the idea). McCain's campaign is desintegrating in midair.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-10-31 @ 23:54:21
I don't want to make a new map, because I would like to keep this one up, to preserve all the insane comments Gceres has made so I can laugh at him after the election is over. But today I would change my prediction, and it would to be to change MO with NC. McCain wins MO and Obama wins NC.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-01 @ 06:25:55
I think that's right.

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-11-01 @ 14:47:43
I agree with that Five Senses, we need to see which of these predictions come true.

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-11-01 @ 14:58:55
Looking over it, the only prediction I see coming true is N.C. closer than Virginia.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-01 @ 19:09:06
My point is not to mock Gceres just because he is a Republican. The truth is no one knows for sure what is going to happen on election day. But my point is that he thinks that he magically knows because he has this ignorant, insulting, rude assumption that he is a "real" american and he magically knows what the other "real" americans are thinking , and that no matter what the evidence is, he will stubbornly hold onto this idea this idea that the only people who matter in this country are the people who vote for Republicans. Its ironic because this is all very elitist of him, and the many many many condescending jerks like him on the right. So therefore on election day he deserves to be called out for this, and he should answer for it. Though I predict he will chicken out, and come up with more excuses. Maybe he will say the election is stolen by "blacks", "community organizers" or "communists".

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-02 @ 14:34:28
Some more important points about Gceres "analysis" Gceres is either arguing A) No polls are correct (even non-partisan polls and republican leaning polls), and therefore there is no way to accurately asses this race other than to assume as he is doing that this country is just conservative, and for some mysterious reason the polls don't pick this up (perhaps he thinks there is a conspiracy and somehow, every single pollster out there has a liberal bias, who knew that those who want to grow up to be pollsters were all liberal? Fox News, Strategic Vision and Rasmussen?) But Gceres himself knows this, and can state with confidence that McCain will win because he knows voters. B) That there is a huge bradley effect out there, which would contradict his statements that Obama's race somehow helps him. So therefore if there is a Bradley effect out there, then in fact Obama's race hurt him, and this country is more racist than we can admit. Last Edit: 2008-11-02 @ 14:35:00

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-11-02 @ 14:56:03
The hilarious thing in all this is that when they aren't talking about the Bradley Effect, they're talking whites voting for Obama out of "white guilt." As a white person I must say, please give us more credit than that!

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-02 @ 15:35:42
No it is white guilt! Also whites wanting to get on the bandwagon of equality all while not truly looking at qualifications and preparedness. Particuliarly in the "democratic" primary. I also speak as a white male. Last Edit: 2008-11-02 @ 15:44:19

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-11-02 @ 15:55:24
Liberalrocks, welcome home!

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-02 @ 19:20:11
Hello Liberalrocks, the gay Republican. No too off from a Jewish Nazi, eh?

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-02 @ 19:22:24
Is there "white guilt"? Sure there is. Are there white people who want to deny the fact that black people were ever treated the way they were in this country and ignore the history of it? Sure. Are there intelligent white people who can get beyond that mess? Sure, definitely.

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-02 @ 21:31:39
Uh oh... "Jewish Nazi!" that's not going to go over well with the forum police... You should be more tolerant for an Obama supporter. Obama wouldn't appreciate those angry, partisan, divisive words in his Holy name. He's the uniter not the divider and his followers should take note that attacking the other party is NOT what Mr. Obama stands for. As Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden have said, you are going to have to put your partisanship aside because he plans on working with the very same Republicans you are attacking. You aren't off to a good start, Five! P.S. Black!

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-03 @ 00:51:06
White guilt... That's utterly stupid. First it is the Bradley effect that's somehow going to save you, and now even that's beyond reach you've decided to diminish Obama's probable victory with the "white guilt". Haven't you even envisaged that people might vote for him because they agree eight is enough and they want new policies in the White House? Do you really think given the economic mess your Freudian theories hold? And how come there was no "male guilt" for Hillary? Oh yeah, sexism... Playing the victims doesn't suit you well, guys...

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-11-03 @ 03:05:45
It's absolutely white liberal guilt...there is no substance to the man...many of my friends will readily admit that they are voting for him solely because they want to vote for a black man for President. So it 100% White Guilt. It may be more difficult to understand by French standards because France does not have the despicable history of slavery. There are many white liberals in this country (particularly upper middle class btw) that are conditioned to feel bad that they are where they are at and many African-Americans are not. Their vote for this man is based on assuaging part of that guilt. It is 100% a factor and the only factor for a good many.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-03 @ 09:45:49
And there are many Conservatives who are programed to be ethocentric and and look at the world in terms of black and white terms, such as Gceres. Some are out right racists, others like to pretend they aren't, but harbor much resentment, such as Gceres.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-11-04 @ 00:23:19
Did you get out of the playpen again!

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-11-04 @ 00:26:22
Have Joe the Plummer stick something in his mouth! --Im just sayin.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-04 @ 05:16:23
"It may be more difficult to understand by French standards because France does not have the despicable history of slavery." Slavery dates back to a long time, but we did have some strong debates over it, especially in the French overseas territories. But we don't have enough blacks on the motherland to make it an issue. What we have, however, is a long tradition of anti-Semitism (think Vichy France), and I can assure you nobody feels "goy guilt" over here. Actually, on another issue, Arab Muslims, only 57% of the French say they could vote for a Muslim. Just yesterday! So you see we do have our issues and some progress to be made (although not as much as the US -I can't even imagine a Muslim getting more than 20% of the vote for President even with a major party endorsement -people would think they vote for a terrorist. Americans are SO closed to Islam). Btw, the figures would be 80% for a black man (we don't have the same complex as in the USA, and therefore no need to get 95+ results in that kind of survey) and 72% for an Asian president. The 80% figure is undoubtedly a pro-Obama effect. And what if these people actually want Obama for President, not just a black man? And why "white LIBERAL guilt"? Because conservatives don't care about the history of slavery? Or is that just the ideological equivalent of racism?

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 17:58:17
By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-22 @ 17:34:58 Predictions for surprises for Election Night as of today (I reserve the right to revise and extend these predictions LOL): 1. Virginia is 53 to 47 and not close. 2. New Mexico is super tight and goes McCain. 3. Colorado, 52 to 48 McCain. 4. Pennsylvania...no landslide here...really close...edge Obama...not called until late. 5. Indiana & Kentucky...first two states...both called immediately. 6. Florida...not decided on Election Night. 7. North Carolina...closer than Virginia. 8. Sleeper race...Washington State is closer than expected and not immediately called...Obama wins by a couple of points. As we can see, Gceres is a loser, and was wrong on every single prediction. The biggest losers on this website? Chica of Light, Gceres and Conservative Republican. All of whom let their bitterness and distortion cloud their judgment. Chica was so bitter Hillary lost, she convinced herself Obama was going to be blown out of the water with a "Bradley Effect" which did not exist. Gceres and Conservative Republican ignored any bit of information they didn't want to hear, and convinced themselves that they were the real Americans, and that there was a conspiracy by the pollsters and the media to paint the world more liberal than it actually is. Their attitude and philosophy, and their refusal to adapt and reason is the reason why the Republicans lost, and they will continue to lose until they wise up.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-11-06 @ 18:03:42
Well Gceres appears to have been right about Virginia. I was a bit surprised that Virginia ended up as close as it was. edit: 53-47 Obama in VA win is assuming the CNN count rather than Dave's Last Edit: 2008-11-06 @ 18:15:53

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 18:10:40
No, he was dead wrong about Virginia. He said Obama would never win Virginia and it would go for McCain. He swore up and down all friggin year about how Virginia had no chance of ever going blue. Virginia went to Obama by 4 points. A bit tighter than the 6 or 7 points that the averages of the polls said, and the most off of all the newly blue states, but none-the-less, still an Obama win within the margin of error of most of the polls.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 18:23:15
Biggest losers of 08 #8 Joe Lieberman - Mr. Lieberman let his hatred of muslims and his religious partisan ship destroy his dignity and cost him memebership in the democratic party. #7 Elizabeth Dole - Her holier than thou art attitude cost her the election #6 John McCain - Sold his soul and ran a negative campaign full of lies. His choice to run to the right in the worst year to do so might have cost him the election. #5 PUMA and the bitter Hillary vote - So bitter that they lost the primary, they sold their souls to get revenge and it got them nowhere. These people showed their true colors and put their bitterness above their values. #4 Sarah Palin - The worst possible pick for VP. She made such a fool of herself with her ignorance and extremism she will forever be seen as a laughing stock. #3 The Bradley Effect - Absolutely no evidence of it existing #2 Out of Touch Republicans - Their refusal to listen to anything that contradicts their world view, they convinced themselves they would win the election and that they were the "real americans". They try to mask their extremism as "mainstream values" and it once again cost them the election. They will continue this trend for quite some time until the party changes idenity. #1 Baseless, fear based character attacks against liberals - These attacks finally lost out for the American public finally voted on the issues. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice shame on us and to sort of quote G W. Bush, Fool us the second time, we can't get fooled again.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 19:10:14
No Five, the biggest loser on here is you. Even in victory you are still a hateful and bitter person. Because I was optmistic, did my part and voted like a good citizen, and now resolve to pick myself up and move on makes me the real winner. But despite all our difference and harsh words back and forth, I still wish you good luck, good tiddings, and all the best. May your life be blessed as richly as anyone else's. Last Edit: 2008-11-06 @ 19:11:22

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-11-06 @ 19:22:32
Five Senses, you were right as I knew you would be. The Republicans and PUMA people were wrong as I knew they would be. I also, your losers, I again entirely agree. There is no question. We ended up having the same map. Again, I overestimated the Republicans, even this time! I should've known Obama was going to carry Indiana, his organization was impressive here.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 19:33:34
Conserivative, I am sticking it to you people because of your condescending, out-of-touch attitude that you Conservatives are the "real americans" and that you know it all. You maintain this attitude that "real" people couldn't possibly vote for some "liberal" and that you guys alone know the out come of the election, that there is some "liberal media" conspiracy in the polls, and thus you guys ignore all facts and information that contradicts your world view. You can't just sit here, make outrageously false predictions and not have someone point it out to you. Learn next time to live in reality, accept facts, and stop ignoring information that contradicts your world view, and maybe you won't look like such a fool. As far as the liberals go, and myself included! We must be careful to learn the lessons from the Republicans. Don't ignore facts that contradict your outlook and world view, and never lose touch with reality. Now what we don't know is how well Obama governs. Based upon his attitude, education, intelligence and willingness to listen and make good decisions, I think he will do a great job, but we will never know. Especially since he is handed this mess from the Republicans. But I can tell you this much, if 4 years from now the facts and stats say Obama is going to lose by 10 points, you better believe I won't be on some website claiming Obama will pull it off, and that I alone know how the electoral thinks because "real americans" like me know the answers.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 19:46:15
I'll hold you to that four years from now Five. And I don't think I looked like a fool because I choose to be optmistic about our chances. You are right that I did not factor in things that I should have. You where also right on the polling data. I admit my failures there. But go look at my senate and govenor maps. You'll see they are not that bad in there predictions nor was my Democratic primary map. All things in politics are possible and I always said that Obama could easily win. I was hoping for an upset and portade that as best I could. In all fairness things at the very end looked like they might be tightening up so I thought an upset was possible. Didn't work out. Now I know better. We learn by making mistakes. Its part of being human. I never claimed to be the sole keeper of how the electorate would vote. You can look that up if you like. Again I'm at peace with what has occured. High time this party had a house cleaning and got back to its roots and conservative values. And I again wish you all the best Five because to any less would not be right. Enjoy your victory. Last Edit: 2008-11-06 @ 19:48:36

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-06 @ 21:17:49
:-)

By: satyrday (I-MI) 2008-11-07 @ 12:42:02
FiveSenses is dead on. There are times for trying to get everyone together, to argue your point, and accept the results. But we're far past that point now. It's time to leave the 'kool-aid' drinkers behind, because the mess that THEY created is far too serious. We don't have time to get them all up to speed.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-07 @ 13:08:21
Well, satyrday, Obama is going to try to make a bi-partisan cabinet and work with moderate conservatives and I say good for him. I say we do make a reach out for the moderate conservatives, but you are right, the "kool-aide" drinkers will be left out, and rightly so. First of all you can't trust them, and second of all they are the same type of people who made Obama seem like a monster and they only want harm for this country and those they disagree with. Those who I am talking about are the Rush Limbaughs, the Tom DeLays and the Sean Hannity's.

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-11-07 @ 16:25:03
Hey Rove ended having a good map himself! I don't know why ConservaRep and Gceres wouldn't listen to one of their own when he had Obama winning easily.

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-11-07 @ 16:26:23
Gceres was right about one thing, North Carolina was closer than Virginia, something I knew he would be right about. Also he was right about Palin's clothes not belonging to her... a GOP lawyer is headed up to Alaska to reclaim them.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-07 @ 17:18:00
North Carolina was not closer than Virginia man. Obama barely won NC, by less than a percentage point and he won Virginia by 4 points. Turns out Gceres was the one drinking the kool-aide all along (big suprise) Last Edit: 2008-11-07 @ 17:18:54

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-07 @ 17:41:10
Omaha called for Obama: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-11-07 @ 18:53:42
The polls were vindicated as well, something I'd like to point out. Obama won by 6% nationally. Most of the states were accurate, with Alaska the one exception... I told you guys Alaska worried me.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-11-07 @ 18:56:43
Alaska - the Senate race - we'll see.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-07 @ 21:07:27
I never ever ever would have guess Stevens would have held on to his seat. I also never thought IN would go for Obama while MO stayed for McCain (though both were super close) Those were the two biggest surprises of the night. Though the polls are almost always right, there always seems to be a surprise or two somewhere.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-11-07 @ 21:18:54
Alaska was pretty stunning, the polls seemed to be turning against Stevens.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-11-08 @ 20:34:02
There seems to be a lot of people saying that there was some dirty business going on in Alaska. Who knows, but they will be checking into it. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be true.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-11-08 @ 22:49:06
A lot of it probably came down to the notion that Palin could appoint a Republican to the Senate after Stevens is gone. Even if he does win re-election, which he probably will, I'm guessing he will resign in pretty short order.

By: BushCountry (I-IN) 2008-11-09 @ 15:21:57
That's what I thought too. Haha, what if Palin appoints herself to the seat? Hahaha, that would be hilarious. But as the guys a fivethirtyeight.com said there may have been a "Bradley Effect" for convicted felons...people just didn't want to admit to pollster they were going to vote a guy like Stevens.

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-11-09 @ 16:26:24
@Bushcountry- Isn't that incredible in Alaska. What a sad commentary on Alaskans. They reelected a felon! lol... Alaskans definitely lied to pollsters about Stevens vs. Begich. I don't know whether to credit that win for Stevens to "loyalty" from Alaskans or Palins coattails? That has to be the most disturbing senate race out there. Im very curious as to what is happening in Minnesota right now with the Coleman lead down to about 200 before the recount. Are the absentees and provisionals counted in MN? I think Coleman is legitametly nervous if he's willing to sue to stop the counting of 32 ballots in Minneapolis. Apparently there are thousands of undervote ballots that have not been counted that will be hand counted to check for "intention." It helps to have a Dem SOS in MN! lol... I'm not a Franken fan, but if Coleman is so intent on not allowing all votes to be counted, then GO FRANKEN!!! That would be 58 seats. If dnul is out there I wish he would chime in. Last Edit: 2008-11-09 @ 16:27:22

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-09 @ 17:07:55
Alaska: Don't forget Young. He was supposed to lose big time to Berkowitz and still won assuming early results are correct. Young and Stevens were reelected against all odds thanks to a Bradley effect for felons and McCain's coattails (McCain was also underestimated in AK). Minnesota: ouch. I had predicted this would be the closest race but I hadn't anticipated it would be that close -it seems that prediction was ominous. When a race is so close, there is about 1 chance out of 2 that the winner is not the right guy. Think Gore and Bush.

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2008 President	52/56	32/56	84/112	75.0%	49	16	382	T	1,505
Aggregate Predictions	52/56	32/56	84/112	75.0%

Links

Back to 2008 Presidential Prediction Home - Predictions Home