Election 2008 Presidential Predictions

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

Date of Prediction: 2008-10-31 Version:5

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	218
Rep	320
Ind	0

Confidence States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	203
Rep	300
Ind	0
Tos	35

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV
Dem	+1	0	+5	-4	-2	-39	16	0	213	-34
Rep	+4	+2	+39	-1	0	-5	30	3	281	+34
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
56	39	15	2	0

Analysis

To hell with the polls. I'm going with my gut feeling that America is NOT a nation of socialists and cowards. Landslide for McCain-Palin.

Prediction History
Prediction Graph

Comments History - show

Version History

Member Comments

By: Minerva (D-MA) 2008-10-31 @ 17:13:21
Socialists and Cowards? Well, except for Sarah Palin, who boosted taxes on private sector oil companies in order to almost double the value of checks the state sends to all of its residents from about $1,700 to $3,269, and who is too afraid of our dopey-kitten media to even hold a press conference. But she's an outlier...

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 17:55:26
"To hell with the polls. I'm going with my gut feeling that America is NOT a nation of socialists and cowards. Landslide for McCain-Palin." What a serious method ! America a nation of socilaists ??? LOL Obama is a centrist and McCain is a far-rightist... Even Ralph Nader is not socialist...

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 18:20:33
McCain is a liberal Republican at best and probably should be classified as a Skip Jackson Democrat. Obama is a socialist. Hillary is very liberal. Nader is crazy.

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 18:38:05
When Goldwater ran against Johnson he was described as a radical conservative, and he lost by 23 points agaist a moderate like Johnson... Today, we have a democrat candidate who does not promises a welfare state system as Johnson did, against a republican candidate who is more conservative than Golwater. That's not normal that Obama will not be elected by a landslide... You are right, McCain is a liberal republican. The problem is that the republican party is so conservative that his left-wing is far-rightist. Conservative republicans ( Bush, Cheney, Rove... ) are really crazy. Last Edit: 2008-10-31 @ 18:40:33

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 18:42:45
Bush a conservative! LMAO....not even close...he's a moderate at best! More of a Nixonian Republican than a Reagan Republican.

By: pace (D-IL) 2008-10-31 @ 18:43:26
Well mj, at least you are honest about your method...

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 18:51:47
Nixon didn't attack Irak because he thought that God wanted it. Reagan said that URSS was the "empire of evil", Bush said the same thing about Irak, Iran, etc... Bush is a dangerous psychopat. Last Edit: 2008-10-31 @ 18:52:32

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-10-31 @ 18:59:54
Bush is a social conservative. Fiscally he's probably as liberal as Roosevelt and Johnson. He's very liberal, fiscally. McCain was a more moderate-liberal republican in 2000. To get his parties nomination he has shifted to the right, but I would still consider him more of a moderate, but fiscally conservative. Palin is a conservative- 100%. As far as the Dems go, I think Obama was more liberal, but has tried to shift after the primaries towards the center, though he is undoubtedly the most liberal president we will have. Bill and Hillary are more center-left, in my opinion, which was one of her downfalls in the primaries. She should have run more to the left. I don't think she is as liberal a Dem as many had originally thought, nor was she ever very liberal (aside from Healthcare). Last Edit: 2008-10-31 @ 19:00:28

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 19:15:12
"Fiscally he's probably as liberal as Roosevelt and Johnson." What ? He reduced taxes for more rich people and he is against health care ! He decided to be keynesian only to save Banks... Can you seriously say that a man who don't support AT LEAST health care is a "social conservative" ? About Obama, I agree with you. And that's just fantastic to see that Americans are ready to elect the first truely liberal president since Kennedy.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-10-31 @ 19:28:37
Social conservative means conservative on social issues (i.e. abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, school vouchers, etc.). However, Bush is also a fiscal conservative, though not as much as he is a social conservative. His infamous tax cuts for the wealthy are only one example of this. He is a trickle down economics believer, and that is at the core of the conservative philosophy. A liberal wouldn't think that way.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-10-31 @ 19:36:36
""Fiscally he's probably as liberal as Roosevelt and Johnson." What ? He reduced taxes for more rich people and he is against health care ! He decided to be keynesian only to save Banks... Can you seriously say that a man who don't support AT LEAST health care is a "social conservative" ?" Ummm...this isn't France...you don't have to support universal healthcare to be a liberal.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-10-31 @ 19:47:05
No I think the good man just didn't get it. "Social" here is soft for socialist. As in, "social liberal" (the equivalent of your "liberal", because "liberal" for us means "fiscal conservative for you). Or as in, social democrat, which means "odious center-lefty renouncing Marxism" to the far-left nuts. Oh, and socialist isn't an insult. It's the second major party. And here, universal health care is not an issue. It's a fact. We have a government-paid army, we have a government-paid (roughly two third) health care. Cultural and lexical difference... :-)

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-11-01 @ 04:47:09
Exactly ! :D But I'm very interested in american politics, so I'm trying to accept this difference to understand it better. Thanks Ed for the explanation. About "socialist", that's true, but the french Socialist Party is not actually socialist, at best social-democrat. In France we have the opposite problem that you have in USA : When an american politician wants to discredit someone, he says that he's socialists, he's "L word", etc... In France, a center-leftist says that he is socialist to be more popular. I think that americans haven't always been so conservatives. In fact, their mentality was changed first by Reagan, and now by Bush. And I hope that Obama is announcing a radical change as Roosevelt did : a return of progressism. Last Edit: 2008-11-01 @ 04:53:35

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-01 @ 06:00:45
ProgressiVIsm. I disagree, I think the French Socialist Party is actually the most socialist party in Europe. All other parties, be they social democrats (Germany, Austria), labour (Netherlands, UK), socialist (Spain, Switzerland) or former communist (Italy) have now moved on to center-left progressivism. Only the French PS is stuck with their old ideas in the post-1991 post-Marxist world where these ideas are just irrelevant. Oh, and L-word can mean anything from love to lesbian to liberal... so careful. :-) And while being a socialist might have been popular in France, now it's very much tied to the failures of the namesake party. Nobody apart from the socialists themselves, neither on their right -where I am- or on their left likes to be called socialist. They're either progressives or antiliberal or democrats but never socialist. What is true, however, is that here in France the word "liberal" is an insult for "fiscal/economic conservative". And America was always more conservative than Europe because of their core mentality of individualism, can-do spirit, classical liberal philosophy. Reagan strengthened that but the foundations were there.

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-11-01 @ 07:46:31
"ProgressiVIsm" Ok, my second error since I decided to register i an english site... :) So, the French PS is very socialist in words, and is left-wing remains inspirated by marxism. But after two years of disatrous radical-left policies, the party practices since 1983 a moderate policie ( generally social-democrat ). Well, not so moderate as United Kingdom or Germany, but certainly not socialist. "Nobody apart from the socialists themselves, neither on their right -where I am- or on their left likes to be called socialist." That's true, but the PS left-wing says that they are true socialist when they are in fact radical social-democrats. So, do you support Bayrou or are you a "sarkozyst" ? Yes, America has always been more conservative, but things are really changed in 40 years. In year 1964, Johnson ( who was more progressive than Gore or Kerry ) won by a 23 points margin against Goldwater ( who was less conservative than Bush ).

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-01 @ 09:47:24
Inspired. In power, the socialists are a bit more moderate, despite some truly socialistic policies like the 35 hour week. However, once they're out of power they somehow surge left and go into sterile opposition. I'm a centrist, I do like Bayrou and would've voted for him in 2007, but I think his position is just not workable. He won't achieve anything in that position and that's the main reason I will not openly support his party. And the 1964 election was odd. And Johnson was a Southerner, a progressive keynesian guy but still a Southern, pure American guy, unlike, say, the "French" Senator from Taxachusetts John Kerry. Perception is everything in American politics. In 1964 Johnson was the real American (not to mention an emotional vote after the Kennedy assassination) and Goldwater was the oddball. In 2004, it's was the other way round: Kerry isn't the kind of person the average guy identifies with. He's someone people like me, a liberal top student in political sciences identifies with. Liberal elite or at least upper middle-class kind of person. Not the kind of guy Americans like in office.

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-11-01 @ 14:44:03
"Inspired." So do I ! :) What is your definition of socialism ? The 35-hours week was a measure improving social welfare, but I don't think that it can be called socialism. Ok. I have a good opinion about Bayrou too, but I identify me more with the right- or center-wing of the PS ( Jospin, Rocard, Strauss-Khan ). You probably are right. I didn't see that with this point of view. However, I would like to add some comments : 1 - Johnson was a southerner, but he carried all the states excepted the deep south. That shows that choice was more ideological than territorial. 2 - So, I agree with you considering that Kerry lost because being a liberal pro-European intellectual, he was saw as an alien. But Bush, a son of a rich Texan dynasty, was not either the archetype of the "real American". 3 - In 2000, democrat candidate Al Gore was a southerner from Tennessee. Although he got more votes than Bush, he leaded by only 48,4% to 47,9%. So, I agree with you that there were some other factors that determined Johnson's landslide, but I remain convinced that mentalities have changed a lot. And if this election were been held in 1964, Obama would have won with 60% of the votes.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-01 @ 15:07:18
I like Strauss-Kahn and Rocard too. I'd be fine with a social democratic left-wing party. My definition of socialism is rather wide, I confess. Let's say I put the limit between socialism and social democracy where pure ideology stops and pragmatism begins. The 35 hour week was pure ideology, there was no sustainable economic argument to back it, especially in some crucial sectors like hospitals. Johnson had the image of a real American which his Southern Texan origin reinforced. The state he lost were lost because of the Civil Rights Act he passed. Johnson was progressive on civil rights and that alienated the Deep South but his progressivism rallied the North and his "Americanism" + the emotion after Kennedy died + the state of war which made a third President in a year unlikely + Goldwater's radicalism won the rest of the country for him. Bush is a blue-blood Northerner, granted, and his father had that image and is considered a moderate. Bush, however, changed that image by appearing to be just a regular guy, which nourished the myth that he is unintelligent. He's not, at least not as much as we generally think. Bush took the Texan accent, the Southern socially conservative values, the average guy personality and that made him popular. Yes, he's a New England aristocrat, but he comes across as a regular Texan. Which is why he won. As for Gore -who is one of my favorite American politicians- he didn't seem much of a Southerner. You see, he was a patrician as well, his father was a Senator before he was, and he didn't hide his upper class intelligentsia background. Moreover, he was Vice President, and represented the federal government (and NOT the South) against the man from core America, Texan GOVERNOR George Bush. It's all about perception. And if this election had been held in 1964, McCain would have won with 60-70% of the vote because noone would have voted for a black man. It's just couldn't have happened. Which shows you how America has moved in the direction of more progress and not more conservatism. Honestly, today's America is a much better place that forty years ago. Make no mistake about that.

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-11-01 @ 16:42:58
"I'd be fine with a social democratic left-wing party." Yes, so would I did with a pragmatic democrat center party who opposes ultraconservative ideology. I hope that PS and MoDem will manage to unite her forces against Sarkozy ! :P I'm not totally sure, but I think that 35 hours week was not an ideological measure, but has a double objective : 1- To give workers more free time 2-To reduce unemployment. And that worked. Yes, that's true. But I'm still convinced that the shock of ideologies was preeminent in these election. Maybe Jonhnson would have done "only" 55% the other factors didn't count... The proof is that since Dewey to Gerald Ford, all the republican candidates in this time were moderates, when they are all conservatives since Reagan ( Bush father and McCain where less conservatives, but still so ). Ok, I have a lot to learn... LOL But Bush policies show that he isn't intelligent. He said that I wanted to be usefull for interests of America ; he ruined America. But he believed sincerely that he was being usefull for interests of America. And finally he didn't be usefull even for himself. An intelligent man don't makes policies only because of his ideology. "Gore -who is one of my favorite American politicians-" Yes, Gore would have been a very good president. He SHOULD have been a very good president... Evidently, Gore wasn't seen as a southerner, exactly because he was progressive. Yes because he was an intellectual and incumbernt vice-president too. But he was in contradiction with southerner ideology, that Bush represented. Oh, yes, me stupid ! Obama is so "universal" that I forgot he was balck... LOL I reformulate : "If this election were been held in 1964, a white Obama would have won with 60% of the votes." Yes, America progressed. It progressed enormously about civil rights questions. But about economics and welfare state issues, Reagan destroyed all the Roosevelt's work and imposed his ideology to everyone. And today democrats have difficulties to promote even health care, that is a basic human right. About social issues, there is a terrible regression to traditional religios values. I know, America has always been a religious nation, but never ( a part, only a part ) of america, has been so conservative, so "Middle-ageous", than these years. So, yes, it's also due to 11-september, but this crazy national-religion-conservatism regression begun before 2001.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-01 @ 17:01:33
I'm among those who think the 35 hour week performed well because the economic circumstances permitted it. In a time of recession, it would have been a disaster. And it was extremely bad for our deficits. Actually, I hope the MoDem and the right wing of the PS get together and cut the left wing loose (Emmanuelli, Hamon, Mélenchon and all that kind of Robespierres). Then they might get my vote next time, though I could quite as well go with the Nouveau Centre on the left of Sarkozy's coalition. It will really depend on the candidate and on the program. A social democratic program with either Strauss-Kahn or Delanoe would be compelling. Any program with Aubry or Royal would be repelling. My personal favorite is Manuel Valls, but unfortunately he linked himself to Royal and I feel he might go down with her. Re American politics: Nixon was also a conservative to great extent, fiercely anti communist and very orthodox on American social and economic values. But he was ready to compromise and that's why he was a good President during the first term. Unfortunately the Watergate scandal and the Pinochet coup ruined his legacy. Oh, and this post's English mistake (among others): didn't be >> wasn't :-)

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-11-01 @ 17:36:59
So, I propose to close the debate about 35 hours where we can't help but supposing... I hope so : Delanoe for first-secretary. But don't give your vote to Nouveau centre ! It actually isn't a party, it's a clone of ultraconservative UMP, who blindly follows Sarkozy. So, every President since Truman was radically anti-communist ( generally having right, sometimes unfairly ). About economic policies, I believe that he mantained the Roosevelt-Johnson welfare system, didn't he ? Yes, Americans discovered that he was a liar and he was too much "pragmatic" in foreign policies. But sincerly I prefer to vote for a "Tricky dick" than for a crazy ultraconservative Reagan. "Oh, and this post's English mistake (among others): didn't be >> wasn't :-)" Thanks. :) I hesited a lot before registering on this site, because I was afraid to seem ridiculous, making too much English mistakes... Last Edit: 2008-11-01 @ 17:39:52

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-11-01 @ 17:58:24
"I hope so : Delanoe for first-secretary. But don't give your vote to Nouveau centre ! It actually isn't a party, it's a clone of ultraconservative UMP, who blindly follows Sarkozy." Actually, I know some of the base at Sciences-Po, it's more complicated than that, but I agree the party leadership is eating in Sarkozy's hands. But the party itself is pledged to independence. TO be honest, I long for the old UDF. I'm sad the center has split just when it seemed it was strengthening. I'll probably vote for the MoDem in the European election, and then we'll see who runs in the regional elections. Yes, I want Delanoe to be First Secretary. There is no suitable alternative. Any other person and I'm actually JOINING the Nouveau Centre. :-P Just kidding. As for English mistakes, most of them are not too bad and none actually hamper understanding. Just a bit French. Don't worry, you won't be blamed for this, almost noone here is bilingual. But for me and a German guy. >You don't have right in English, you ARE right. >You hesitate (inspire, hesitate, it depends, you can't just put -ate or -e and hope it works...) >he was too pragmatic (you only put "much" if and when you have a noun or an adverb, as in "he was too much of a pragmatist") You don't sound ridiculous at all. Some US posters are much worse. Some are just illiterate and write as they speak -and with their accent, the spelling is terrible. Re Truman: he continued Roosevelt's policies, calling it the Fair Deal, which helped transform the wartime economy into a peacetime economy; and he was fiercely anticommunist, got rid of Roosevelt's pro-Soviet staff and was advised by a more hawkish one. But he was always fair and took on McCarthyism.

By: AntonioV (D-CA) 2008-11-01 @ 19:35:49
Yes, the center has split in year 2007, but it wasn't in fact a split between two parties. It was the split between the rigthists leaders of the party and its really progressive militants. The ones had in fact the same ideas than UMP, and were always with it since the time when RPR and UDF were the two clone-parties of right. The others are people who is deceived by both PS's inconsistence and UMP's conservatism, who wanted a real progressive modern policy. Even if Bayou seems to be unable to recreate his 2007 presidential momentum, the MoDem remains a party with a true independent ideology. Thanks for your correction. :) I'm surprised to discover that I'm not so bad in English... and I'll try to make less mistakes ! Yes, Truman wasn't a crazy anticommunist as McCarthy was ( we can also say that McCain isn't a crazy anti-islamic as Bush was ). But I wanted to say that to show that anticommunism was not a Nixon particularity, it was normal for any American president, even for the more progressive ones.

By: Zarn (R-NJ) 2008-11-02 @ 08:51:22
I think NJ and certainly NM would go before all of Maine. Just my two cents.

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2012 President	45/56	25/56	70/112	62.5%	2	7	730	T	760
2008 President	41/56	15/56	56/112	50.0%	5	4	1413	T	1,505
2004 President	53/56	34/56	87/112	77.7%	4	2	474	T	1,994
Aggregate Predictions	139/168	74/168	213/336	63.4%

Links

Back to 2008 Presidential Prediction Home - Predictions Home