Comments History
-
hideVersion: 30
If current trends continue...
Version: 29
AS YOU KNOW, MY LAST MAP HAD OBAMA GOING DOWN IN SMOKE - BUT GIVEN THAT McC's BIPARTISAN EFFORT WENT UP IN SMOKE TOO...
THE DEBATE CHANGED LITTLE AS WELL
Last night was very boring. I found that extremely surprising. In fact, I would rather have watched Bush-Kerry's first debate.
I think the thing was that Kerry changed the dynamics of the race at the first debate - he made it much closer.
This race is close - and I think we were hoping for a big break - unfortunately it remains status quo.
Some comments:
1. McCain, I felt, was bad tempered and quite arrogant. He wasn't scowling like Bush - but his smile was insincere. I think he preserved his lead in foreign affairs. But given that this issue is his strongest, I felt he should have defeated Obama soundly.
2. Obama looked presidential, and I think he improved his standing on foreign affairs - but even so, McCain still shines on this issue. There were times that I was pointing at the screen saying that Obama should say this and that.
eg. the GOP claim that the surge is a success - and that by condemning it the Dems are unpatriotic. But let us be clear - there were several surges before 'the surge', and they didn't work. Obama really should have picked up on that - and I think he got away with this issue on 'preconditions' - only just.
The impression I get it that the Mc is more tactical ie. focusing on Iraq, Obama was more strategic - looking at the big picture.
Given that the race remains close, I think this puts far more pressure on Biden and Palin.
Version: 28
Imagine...the first debate is postponed...McCain goes back to Washington...people like Mc's show of bipartisanship...GOP goads Obama...shift in the polls...Democratic Party pannics...implodes...MCCAIN WINS
Version: 27
The Palin bounce shows Obama weakening in VA. Palin doesn't seem to have helped much in NH - and Obama seems to be holding on to CO - just.
This map destroys the rule that for a Republican to win the White House, they must win OH.
I think there is a chance (given that the race is so close) that the electoral vote may distort the popular vote.
Version: 26
Finally, we know in full:
Obama-Biden
McCain-Palin
Version: 25
Another close scenario
Obama-Biden
v
McCain-Romney
Version: 24
Obama - Bayh
v
McCain - Romney
Also Nader, Barr.
Version: 23
This is Obama's best case scenario. Imagine it like 1980 - close until polling day. Then the levees break against the GOP. People are fed up with Bush, Iraq, economy, etc, etc. Bob Barr draws the vote of traditional libertarian Republicans.
I'm saying this will happen. But it is possible.
Version: 22
The McCain camp just isn't producing the goods - for the time being. He's languishing, and not going anywhere.
STILL - we thought his candidacy was dead last year - and it all turned around. That's why I think he can make some form of comeback. But it probably won't be enough.
I am now more confident that Obama can win (save us from ourselves)!
Version: 21
2008 is proving to ber historic. This outcome would put the icing on the cake...
Version: 20
Obama - McCain - makes no allowance for VP.
Version: 19
2012 - Warner-Bayh v any Republican.
Version: 18
Obama - McCain
Version: 17
Clinton-McCain (I haven't factored in VPs).
Version: 16
I still think the Clintons will pull off the nomination. Hillary will benefit from the mistakes made by Obama's pastor - and the Clinton's may be favoured more on economics. But I still think Clinton will need superdelegates in order to win. This will create a stink in the Democratic Party - and handicap her in November.
You will also note that this is my first prediction NOT as a Democrat. I felt this was a bit off, since I'm not a US citizen. I'd describe myself as Other ('New' Labour in the UK). I like some traditional Democratic calls: better health, educational provision, sometimes higher taxes to pay for it. But I also think the GOP are stronger on national security.
Version: 12
Initially I had a fit when I heard McCain was winning. Thus, I gave him a good victory. But I've calmed down since then, and I know that Hillary will fight back.
ME: independents, I think, outnumber Dems & GOP. But it is a Dem leaning state. Odds are McCain may pick up one CD.
NH: GOP voters outnumber Dems - the winner must rely upon independents. So McCain wins here.
CT: will be closely fought. But I think Lieberman will help sway it for the Mc.
NJ: leans Dem these days - and the closeness of Hillary's state will help keep it in the Dem column. Economics help her too.
PA: The Democrats are trusted more on the economy - that's why she wins here - plus benefits from Black turnout in Philly.
WV: should be a Dem victory - but veterans help McC.
OH: economy an issue - but GOP leanings help the Mc.
MI: Romney is off the ballot, McCain less strong on the economy - goes Dem.
MN: could be a problem for Hillary - should be shoe in. But GOP not without success in this state, and holds the Convention. Anti-War and Mondale endorsement keeps it Dem. Just.
WI / OR / IO / MO: The Clinton name does go down well here, but independents sway it for McCain - just.
FL: Vets get the Mc in.
AR: A fight to the death here - but assuming Huck is Mc's VP. He is a native here, unlike Hillary. She is an adopted native.
NM: Latinos help Hillary - but military vote keeps Mc in.
NV: Latinos help again - but is conservative state. Helps Mc.
AZ: McCain did not do overwhelmingly good in the GOP primary here, considering he is a native son. That's why he doesn't get 60% of the vote here.
CO: she lost miserably to Obama in the Dem primary. Not a good sign.
Generally, I think it will be reasonable close in % terms:
McCain 52% (could have gone higher - but lacks conservative votes). Hillary 48%.
Version: 11
McCain - Clinton
The former does well in terms of national security, not loathed like Bush, and therefore wins over independents. This enables him to win narrow victories in Dem states, such as WA, MN, etc. Has probelms with the GOP base - but nominates Huckabee to reassure them, and Hillary's candidacy forces the GOP to back the lesser of two evils.
Hillary can't rally independents & has an image problem. Has annoyed the black vote by demolishing Obama. Not as strong on national security as well. She gets a VP of poor quality - all the good ones don't want it because they know Bill will be the real VP.
It may look like a GOP sweep, but it is closer than you think -53% McCain, 47% Clinton. McCain wins relatively narrowly in the battlegrounds.
Dems, meanwhile, consolidate grip in the Senate and sustain minimal losses in the House. They also retain key governorships. Overall, business as usual - divided government.
Version: 10
Clinton-Romney
Version: 9
OK - I'm being more imaginative than I usaully am, and taking JamesPol's reminder to me that US elections see larger swings than UK elections do.
This is an outside bet:
Biden-Obama v any Republicans.
Biden to errode the GOP's lead on Iraq and national security, law and order. Because of his alleged 'insensitive' remarks about race, Biden chooses Obama - this shores up the 'black' vote. A young ideolistic VP enahnances the Dems chances of offering something new - but tempered by 30 years of experience....
Enough to sink any Republican.
If Biden beats Richardson in Iowa, who knows, this may be possible....
PLEASE BEAR IN MIND - I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS WILL HAPPEN. MY PREVIOUS PREDICTION IS STILL WHAT I BELIEVE WILL HAPPEN IE. DEM VICTORY OF ONLY ONE OR TWO ELECTORAL VOTES.
Version: 8
Clinton-Richardson v Giuliani-Romney
This is based largely on some polls I've seen [courtesy of Wiki].
OR: Hillary 42% Giuliani 41%.
MI: Hillary 49% Giuliani 40%.
MN: Hillary 50% Giuliani 41%.
PA: Hillary 46% Giuliani 44%.
WI: Hillary 47% Giuliani 46%.
The relative closeness in these states [and fairly high number of undecideds] indicates that the GOP isn't out of it yet, and that Clinton may be somewhat polarising. Hence the Dems have to do work here. But the Dems will probably carry them at the end of the day - the nostalga for economic goodtimes of the Clinton '90s will help, and the George W. Bush legacy, too.
Some surprises:
AR: Hillary 55% Giuliani 37%. The GOP front runner lags behind, quite far too. Hillary has 60%+ approval rating. Seems a foregone conclusion.
WV: Hillary 42% Giuliani 36%. There is a lot of undecided voters here, clearly. I think they will break for the Right, in this newly GOP-Presidential state.
The Real Battleground States:
CO: Hillary 40% Giuliani 50%. I don't think the Democrat convention will help matters much...Udall better watch out.
FL: Hillary 49% Giuliani 44%. This is surprisingly high for Clinton - but celebrity & name does count a lot here. Also, the Bush personal vote will not be out. So good news for Hillary - except electoral history. Florida has only gone Democratic in years with clear Democratic winds ['96] and GOP misfortune ['76]. It is still too early to say what sort of year 08 will be. I still say the Republicans will carry this one.
IO: Clinton 47% Giuliani 41%. You would think that America's mayor should be doing a little better. I think Iowa will swing back to the Dems.
MO: Clinton 46% Giuliani 43% - like WV, a lot of undecideds - but this is a GOP-leaning state at the presidnetial level. Giuliani will probably take most of these.
NV: Clinton 38% Giuliani 46%. Clinton has high name recognition - but clearly isn't pulling in the votes here. A sure dissapointment for the Democrats.
NH: Clinton 44% Giuliani 40%. Always close in this state - more so since Giuliani comes from NY too. But NH gave the GOP a blow in 2006, and is somewhat anti-war. Plus, Sununu may be about to fall top a former Democratic governor. Dems come out tops.
NM: Clinton 50% Giuliani 44%. A good result for Clinton, in a state that tends to give the winner less than 50% of the vote. If Richardson is the VP, her victory should be a sure thing.
OH: Clinton 43% Giuliani 44%. Close, but the Dems swept Ohio in 2006. Perhaps after giving the GOP a bloody nose, voters will return to the fold, in this mildly conservative state.
I agree, this is a close map - and it is time for a make or break election. But frankly, Clinton will help bring out both Dem / GOP voters, and the GOP is not enamoured with its candidates. So, it looks like 2008 will be another close one.
Version: 7
Romney v Hillary
Her candidacy helps bring out GOP - anti-Hillary sentiment ensures the GOP get 60%+ in some states - probably those Bill did not carry.
Version: 6
Hillary - Richardson v F. Thompson - Giuliani.
The Clinton political machine is formidable. That is why she should get the nomination, and make it a close election. Having Bill Richardson will help, slightly [Although he hasn't been especially noteworthy during the debates, he still comes across clearly and communicates calmly. His CV should also help].
But at the same time, voters in swing states like FL, OH, NV, CO will still not trust Hillary, therefore denying her the presidency.
Her candidacy will help increase GOP turnout. Fred Thompson's record as a good conservative will help, as well as Giuliani's popular myth on 9/11.
Like 1988 - an election that the Dems should win, but ultimately blow it.
Version: 5
Biden-Richardson v F. Thompson-Giuliani.
Version: 4
This is based upon Romney [and unspecified GOP candidate for VEEP], v Clinton-Richardson. Romney will not have the same support as some other GOP contendors because of his religious beliefs. This could make the Dems more competitive in FL, OH, NV, CO, AR
Version: 3
I have tried to stop predicting the candidates on both sides -it is way too early. So, this result is based upon recent results. '08 should have Democratic breeze - which means they
should pick up some states they shouldn't have lost in '04: NM, IO.
may retain some states they narrowly held / took: NH, WI
I put OH, CO in the Dem column because of their gains in those states in '06 - they are foundations on which to build. If the Dems do this right, then they should carry them - just.
I am weary to call Nevada for the Dems - I feel they should have retained it in '00 - and possibly regained in '04 - but to no avail.
I think the Dems are dead in the old South - Missouri, TN leans GOP. Florida has only gone Democratic twice in recent times - '76, '96. Only Arkansas & WV are remotely promising at the presidential level.
I'd like to think that if the Dems ran a good campaign, Montana might not be out of their reach.
Version: 2
This is based upon Edwards v Romney. The results offer what ammount to, near enough, the best case scenario for John Edwards. Indeed, it remains to be seen even if he could carry his home state. I doubt Romney would carry Massachusetts. I even doubt that the GOP will get 60% of the vote in western states, as the Christian Right will not take to a Mormon.
States that could most likley change hands to Romney: Arkansas, Wisconsin & Nevada.
This prediction does not take into account the choice of VP. If Richardson ran with Edwards, then NM would probably go into the Democratic column.
Cooment invited.
Version: 1
Probably too early to make accurate predictions. It depends largely on the candidates. Would VP Evan Bayh bring Indiana into play? What would Gore do in TN, AR? What would Giuliani bring to NY, NJ, CT? How safe would Bill Richardson make NM?
We'll know more in a few months time.
2012 President
2012 Senate
2011 Governor
2010 Senate
2010 Governor
2008 President
2008 Senate
2008 Governor
2008 Dem Primary
2006 U.S. Senate
2006 Governor