If the 2008 election wereheld today

KingRaw!

KingRaw!

I dare you to stop us GL
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Obama VS McCain

McCain- 268

Obama- 261

(Colorado is tied with McCain and Obama at 46%. This entire election depends on Colorado if it were held today. I should add that Texas is shockingly close with McCain winning by 1 point. Maybe this means my link is crap.)

Clinton VS McCain

McCain- 273

Clinton- 265

(Even when Hillary wins Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, she still loses to McCain. The big state argument is crap!)
 
http://www.electoral-vote.com/ is a pretty good site. They use the results of multiple surveys conducted by a variety of pollsters.

The predictions made right after primaries were done in 2004 were amazingly close to actual results. Then the predictions turned around for a while putting Kerry in front (but barely) and then had Bush out front just prior to election day.

The webmaster, an admitted liberal democrat was quite disgruntled with the 2004 election results. But throughout the election season he did, IMO, a damned good job of keeping track of things. I even contributed to keep his site going.
 
The results are preliminary. The mean shit. On a state-by-state basis they are also probably less accurately, because it takes 50 times the work to do 50 studies on 50 different groups than 1 study on one, even if one group is substantially larger.
 
Watermark said:
The results are preliminary. The mean shit. On a state-by-state basis they are also probably less accurately, because it takes 50 times the work to do 50 studies on 50 different groups than 1 study on one, even if one group is substantially larger.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's too early for results to have any substantial meaning.

But since electoral votes are determined on a state-by-state basis, then using state-by-state poll results are also the most accurate. As has been proven, a candidate can win the popular election and still not have the electoral votes to carry the presidency. Therefore a nationwide popularity poll is not an accurate indicator of presidential election results.

That is why this site is good. It uses popular poll results to determine probable electoral outcomes. It's the best predictor method I have seen.

Not to mention that past performance is a good indicator of future performance. Go look at the past election data. The predictions were closer to actual results than any other predictor for the 2004 election.

Of course those predictions were taken a lot closer to election day than the current poll results. Of these early results there are a lot of undecideds out there, as the totals for each state don't even come near 100% yet. Later, when the totals are in the high 90s is when the results will start to mean something.
 
Socrtease said:
But if NO one gets 270 the House of Reps decides and the dem wins
Click to expand...
With the current distribution of electoral votes, it would take a very unusual combination of states to result in a 269-269 tie.

And the only other way we could end up with no one getting 270 is if a state misses the deadline for declaring their college votes.

In short, that's not a big worry for republicans, nor anything to place hope on for democrats.
 
Good Luck said:
Yes, it's too early for results to have any substantial meaning.

But since electoral votes are determined on a state-by-state basis, then using state-by-state poll results are also the most accurate. As has been proven, a candidate can win the popular election and still not have the electoral votes to carry the presidency. Therefore a nationwide popularity poll is not an accurate indicator of presidential election results.

That is why this site is good. It uses popular poll results to determine probable electoral outcomes. It's the best predictor method I have seen.

Not to mention that past performance is a good indicator of future performance. Go look at the past election data. The predictions were closer to actual results than any other predictor for the 2004 election.

Of course those predictions were taken a lot closer to election day than the current poll results. Of these early results there are a lot of undecideds out there, as the totals for each state don't even come near 100% yet. Later, when the totals are in the high 90s is when the results will start to mean something.
Click to expand...

These predictions are absolutely meaningless and the results assume that statistics count more than the realities.

For instance, the results do not account for how an eroding situation in Iraq, and a further eroding economy affects outcome. In fact, nor does it factor an eroding Republican Party nor the tremendous disparities democrats will have in fundraising .. nor in fact does it factor the advantage democrats will have in numbers of voters excited enough to go to the polls.

Here's a prediction: Ed Shultz is right, McCain will be the easiest republican candidate that democrats have had since Goldwater.
 
blackascoal said:
These predictions are absolutely meaningless and the results assume that statistics count more than the realities.

For instance, the results do not account for how an eroding situation in Iraq, and a further eroding economy affects outcome. In fact, nor does it factor an eroding Republican Party nor the tremendous disparities democrats will have in fundraising .. nor in fact does it factor the advantage democrats will have in numbers of voters excited enough to go to the polls.

Here's a prediction: Ed Shultz is right, McCain will be the easiest republican candidate that democrats have had since Goldwater.
Click to expand...

McCain should be fairly easy to beat, but... you never know. I thought GWB would be the easy to beat.

The enthusasum is clearly on the Democrats side. I am sure Senator Clinton will stand behind Obama once the nomination is made.
 
Jarod said:
McCain should be fairly easy to beat, but... you never know. I thought GWB would be the easy to beat.

The enthusasum is clearly on the Democrats side. I am sure Senator Clinton will stand behind Obama once the nomination is made.
Click to expand...

Well, is she does, I hope the secret service are alerted.
 
Socrtease said:
But if NO one gets 270 the House of Reps decides and the dem wins
Click to expand...

No, the houses members would vote as a state, and their state together would vote as 1 for whoever the most house members voted for. It would be even less Democratic than the electoral college, and it would probably give the Republicans the lead, even though they don't have a majority of the house. And states like mine wouldn't even get a voice, because we have two Democrats and two Republicans, which would annul the vote.
 
Hey what they have done worked for them. Not for the country , but for them.
They will do something again to make us elect a republican out of fear ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top