The 2008 Election Prediction Thread

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Two sites I particularly enjoy:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

The former more than the latter, to be sure.

At this moment, they predict Obama wins, 301 electoral votes to McCain's 224.

That said, on this day in 2004 Kerry was predicted to have 264 electoral votes to Bush's 222.
And we know how that turned out - Bush 286, Kerry 252.

Now the difference, today, is that in 2004, 52 electoral votes were considered "exactly tied." To be fair, I'd include the "barely Bush" and "barely Kerry" states in there, since they were inside the margin of error. Totalled, that was 134 electoral votes up for grabs. Bush got most of those, clearly, since Kerry lost 12 votes from the 9/8/2004's prediction by the time the actual vote got around.

Kerry's combined "sure thing" state tallies (those which he's guaranteed to win) totaled 211 (and keep in mind he won 206 of those, with New Mexico being the only state as "weak Kerry" that he didn't win, and Iowa being the only state as "weak Kerry" that he didn't win (those two states account for the 12 lost electoral votes between the prediction of 9/8/04 and election day 2004)).

So Kerry had 211 electoral votes listed as "Strong" or "Weak," with strong showing polling way outside the margin of error in favor of that candidate, and weak showing polling *just* outside the margin of error (and thus relatively volatile).

Compare to today. Obama's combined "Strong" and "Weak" electoral vote tally is 260. That's 10 shy of winning the presidency, and doesn't include his "Barely" states. Already, he's up (in the prediction game, to be sure) 49 electoral votes on Kerry.

The barely make up another 41 votes, giving Obama his predicted 301 total electoral votes. So, again, keep in mind that national polls are useful indicators, but as we know very well from 2000, the popular vote doesn't jive with the electoral vote.

Obama's on much stronger ground right now than Kerry was, and isn't the candidate Kerry was in 2004.

McCain, on the other hand, has a combined 165 "Strong" and "Weak" electoral votes, a full 95 votes short of Obama in the same categories. He also has 59 "Barely" votes, for a total of 224 - now, that's 2 more than Bush (the winner, mind you) had in 2004. However, what separates the two elections is the deprivation of "exactly tied" states. In 2004, it was Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, and Florida (52 total). This year, it's Virginia (13). In 2004, Bush won all 52 tied states; McCain may do the same, but it won't be enough.

So, despite the news showing McCain pulling ahead (in a statistical tie, mind you - margin of error means a lot), Obama has a great deal to be comfortable about.

Now, of course, it's your turn to offer your predictions and thoughts on how the electoral vote will turn out.
 
I'm really expecting Obama to win the presidency, considering how unpopular the Bush years were for the country, and Republican scandals throughout that time. I think Obama's message of change is really resonating with those who felt disenfranchised by their government, in the form of a poor economy, high unemployment rates, unpopular war, living in fear, poor healthcare system, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, and the list goes on and on...

I think that's why Obama will win...
 
I followed electoral-vote.com in 2004 and it betrayed me with hope. Obama does seem to be doing quite a bit better than Kerry did. He should be though, I mean...jesus. But anyway, I predict that Obama will get it, and I'm hoping he actually gets VA. Then I'll feel like I was able to affect something.
 
What really kills me is that, considering the last 8 years, you'd think the democrats would have an easy win. You'd think people would be so sick of the GOP that they couldn't wait to switch sides. Yet i wouldn't say that there's a sure thing for either side at the moment.

How badly does a party have to fuck up to lose an election?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']What really kills me is that, considering the last 8 years, you'd think the democrats would have an easy win. You'd think people would be so sick of the GOP that they couldn't wait to switch sides. Yet i wouldn't say that there's a sure thing for either side at the moment.

How badly does a party have to fuck up to lose an election?[/QUOTE]

I know, :cry:
I really am scared if McCain wins. It's not so much him, it's her..:shock:
 
I think that's what people want to know the answer to.

How fucked up must things be in order for a party to be thrown out of power?

What must a party do to lose favor among their loyalists?

The answer to the latter appears to be "nothing," I feel. The few folks on here who defend the right seem to argue this naive viewpoint like "there's not been a real conservative since Goldwater, but this is as close as it'll get."

Which, given the movements of the Republican party in the last 8 years in terms of expanding the power of one person/post in the government, allowing for torture, growing the ENTIRE national debt by over 150%, denying science, putting unqualified people in positions of power and importance as political favor, lying to the voters' faces about one's fiscal accountability/acceptance of federal funds, lying to voter's faces about what your economic policies will do - what CAN you do to turn voters off?

These few McCain voters are like those people who buy a 360 thinking "oh, it won't break." And they repeat that each and every time they buy/get a replacement. "Oh, this one's a Jasper! It'll work!" "Oh, a Falcon!" "Oh, the Zephyr!"

McCain = Bush's new chipset.

EDIT:

[quote name='JolietJake']And hey, i didn't know that Clinton won TN in both elections, not by much, but i'm still surprised.[/QUOTE]

Clinton/GORE.

Gore (D - TN).
 
Question.

If McCain dies pre-election..does that automatically make Palin the presidential candidate and she then has to go scrounge up a VP?
 
But Gore lost TN in 2000. Couldn't even carry his own state. Tsk tsk tsk

EDIT: If McCain died pre-election, his name would still be in the President category.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Question.

If McCain dies pre-election..does that automatically make Palin the presidential candidate and she then has to go scrounge up a VP?[/QUOTE]

I think the RNC gets to choose - of course, politically speaking, they'd expose themselves if they nominated someone other than Palin, so it may be a wash.

Nominating someone other than Palin = "Oh, hey, look - she's not the ideal candidate after all!"

EDIT: Broly, a lil' dicksuckin' goes a long way in hurting your chances at election. Clinton got off, and Gore suffered as a result. That, and George Bush's bribe ("$300 checks for everyone!!!") didn't hurt matters either.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think that's what people want to know the answer to.

How fucked up must things be in order for a party to be thrown out of power?

What must a party do to lose favor among their loyalists?

The answer to the latter appears to be "nothing," I feel. The few folks on here who defend the right seem to argue this naive viewpoint like "there's not been a real conservative since Goldwater, but this is as close as it'll get."

Which, given the movements of the Republican party in the last 8 years in terms of expanding the power of one person/post in the government, allowing for torture, growing the ENTIRE national debt by over 150%, denying science, putting unqualified people in positions of power and importance as political favor, lying to the voters' faces about one's fiscal accountability/acceptance of federal funds, lying to voter's faces about what your economic policies will do - what CAN you do to turn voters off?

These few McCain voters are like those people who buy a 360 thinking "oh, it won't break." And they repeat that each and every time they buy/get a replacement. "Oh, this one's a Jasper! It'll work!" "Oh, a Falcon!" "Oh, the Zephyr!"

McCain = Bush's new chipset.

EDIT:



Clinton/GORE.

Gore (D - TN).[/quote]I still can't believe he lost TN against Bush. I understand that Gore and Clinton had a falling out after Clinton's last term.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think that's what people want to know the answer to.

How fucked up must things be in order for a party to be thrown out of power?

What must a party do to lose favor among their loyalists?

The answer to the latter appears to be "nothing," I feel. The few folks on here who defend the right seem to argue this naive viewpoint like "there's not been a real conservative since Goldwater, but this is as close as it'll get."

Which, given the movements of the Republican party in the last 8 years in terms of expanding the power of one person/post in the government, allowing for torture, growing the ENTIRE national debt by over 150%, denying science, putting unqualified people in positions of power and importance as political favor, lying to the voters' faces about one's fiscal accountability/acceptance of federal funds, lying to voter's faces about what your economic policies will do - what CAN you do to turn voters off?

These few McCain voters are like those people who buy a 360 thinking "oh, it won't break." And they repeat that each and every time they buy/get a replacement. "Oh, this one's a Jasper! It'll work!" "Oh, a Falcon!" "Oh, the Zephyr!"

McCain = Bush's new chipset.

EDIT:



Clinton/GORE.

Gore (D - TN).[/quote]

It's interesting - you'd think giving the people the chance to choose their political leaders would at least result in political leadership that seems to act in their interest.

I just think deep down both parties like Fleetwood Mac.

Dems are singing along to "Don't stop thinking about tommorrow..." and Republicans keep asking for more "Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies..."
 
Liberal minority government. Actually, my election will be done much before yours.

Obama will win. The math I haven't figured out, but I'll say he will have at least 300 electoral votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top