Chance for McCain to win

[Varaj]

fivethirtyeight.com gives less than a 3% chance for McCain to win and pollyvote.com predicts 360 electoral votes for Obama. Anybody think McCain will pull a surprise win out of this?

[Name Lips]

No. But my judgement is tainted by a very strong hope that he doesn't win.

[Sobek]

I don't see it happening. I'm not sure whether I want to hold out hope or not. I'm pretty sure Obama's going to be a crappy President. I just can't say with any confidence that McCain won't be one as well.

I'm also kinda hoping that, if Obama is another Carter (which is probably a best-case), maybe we can get another Reagan out of the deal.

[Dr_Avalanche]

I think Pollyvote has it right. 360-370 electorial votes for Obama seems likely.

[Hatter]

My dad is saying he thinks that all the Diebold voting machines will tilt the election in McCain's favor and they'll blame it on the Bradley Effect. Kind of conspiracy theory for me though, I think McCain will lose.

[Singularity]

I'd like to think Palin will lose the election for McCain, but I'm not going to count my chickens before the eggs hatch. This country has made some stupid. stupid decisions in the past (2004), so I'm in a hope for the best but expect the worst sort of holding pattern until the results of the election are known. I've already voted, so it's just a matter of waiting for it to be over now.

[Random Encounter]

Do I think he still CAN win or do I think he WILL pull an upset and win?

I think that the election isn't over and while it looks highly unlikely for McCain to win at this point I've seen stranger things happen.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Do I think he still CAN win or do I think he WILL pull an upset and win?

I think that the election isn't over and while it looks highly unlikely for McCain to win at this point I've seen stranger things happen.

That's how I see it as well. The economy has pretty much pushed it over the top for Obama.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Zogby is announcing - get this - that John McCain polled ahead of Obama, 49% to 48%, on Friday.

Now, I could be a moronicer and believe that. But ... some things are more unbelievable than even 161st level characters, so ... I'll stick with Obama being about 5 to 10 points ahead.

[Hatter]

Zogby should know better than to believe outlier polls.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Zogby? Heck, I don't know what to say about him.

He's saying that if McCain scores a 49-48 today, then suddenly it will be a tie, and then maybe McCain will be ahead on Sunday, and it'd be an Electoral Earthquake, and ... you get the (sorry) picture.

Gah ... who is Zogby listening to?

[Dacke]

Zogby is announcing - get this - that John McCain polled ahead of Obama, 49% to 48%, on Friday.
Fivethirtyeight.com's comment on that:

------------
Matt Drudge is touting the results of a one-day sample in a Zogby poll, which apparently showed John McCain ahead by 1 point.

There are a couple of significant problems with this.

Firstly, there is a reason that pollsters include multiple days of interviewing in their tracking polls; a one-day sample is extremely volatile, and have very high margins for error.

Secondly, the Zogby polls have been particularly volatile, because he uses nonsensical party ID weightings (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/tracking-poll-primer.html), which mean that his weighting process involves making numbers doing naughty things that they usually don't like to do.

Thirdly, Zogby polls are generally a lagging rather than a leading indicator. This is because he splits his interviewing period over two days; most of the interviews that were conducted in this sample took place on Thursday night, with a few this afternoon. The reason this is significant is because lots of other pollsters were in the field on Thursday night, and most of them evidently showed good numbers for Obama, as he improved his standing in 6 of the 7 non-Zogby trackers.

Finally, there was no favorable news for McCain to drive these numbers. Polls don't move without a reason (or at least they don't move much).
------------

[Dr_Avalanche]

Um...Even Zogby isn't interpreting the numbers that way. It's Drudge reporting, as usual.

The polls today:

- AP (Obama +8)
- Battleground (Obama +4)
- Diageo (Obama +7)
- Gallup expanded (Obama +9)
- IBD (Obama +4)
- Marist (Obama +7)
- Rasmussen (Obama +4)
- Research 2000 (Obama +6)
- Washington Post/ABC (Obama +9)
- Zogby (Obama +5)

Averaging an Obama lead of about 6.3% which is what's been reported all week. Not much is changing.

[obryn]

My dad is saying he thinks that all the Diebold voting machines will tilt the election in McCain's favor and they'll blame it on the Bradley Effect. Kind of conspiracy theory for me though, I think McCain will lose.
Well, on the other side of the coin, the Republicans may (make that WILL) try and blame this on ACORN. Even though voter registration fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud. Unless it's a landslide, we're looking at a few months of lawsuits.

ACORN is Diebold for 2008.

-O

[Trainz]

Um...Even Zogby isn't interpreting the numbers that way. It's Drudge reporting, as usual.

The polls today:

- AP (Obama +8)
- Battleground (Obama +4)
- Diageo (Obama +7)
- Gallup expanded (Obama +9)
- IBD (Obama +4)
- Marist (Obama +7)
- Rasmussen (Obama +4)
- Research 2000 (Obama +6)
- Washington Post/ABC (Obama +9)
- Zogby (Obama +5)

Averaging an Obama lead of about 6.3% which is what's been reported all week. Not much is changing.

It kind of saddens me that it's ONLY 6.3%. This means that there's still a LOT of morons out there.

Almost half the country wants Palin in the White House? Really?

[The Winslow]

Almost half the country wants Palin in the White House? Really?

They want to be her intern.

[Dr_Avalanche]

It kind of saddens me that it's ONLY 6.3%. This means that there's still a LOT of morons out there.

Almost half the country wants Palin in the White House? Really?

Today:
In the national polls, Obama's average lead is now 7.8%, a bit more than yesterday, but not significantly more. Here are the numbers.
- CBS News (Obama +13)
- Diageo (Obama +7)
- Gallup expanded (Obama +10)
- IBD (Obama +5)
- Rasmussen (Obama +5)
- Research 2000 (Obama +7)
- Washington Post/ABC News (Obama +9)
- Zogby (Obama +6)

[Trainz]

Mmm... they removed Battleground and added CBS, of COURSE the numbers will be more towards Obama.

[Random Encounter]

Well, on the other side of the coin, the Republicans may (make that WILL) try and blame this on ACORN. Even though voter registration fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud. Unless it's a landslide, we're looking at a few months of lawsuits.

ACORN is Diebold for 2008.

-O

Which is really stupid. ACORN followed the letter, and spirit, of the law when they filed those registration forms and flagged them as suspicious.
Would the conservatives who are crying foul prefer that voter registration groups actually be allowed to decide which voter registrations get filed and which do not?

[The Winslow]

Would the conservatives who are crying foul prefer that voter registration groups actually be allowed to decide which voter registrations get filed and which do not?

Of course they would. Oh, how much they'd love that... Of course, they would be the ones in control of said registration groups so everything would be fine...

[Utrecht]

I suspect that the election will be closer than people think - not because of any sort of conspiracy or fraud - but simply because polls represent a fixed point in time - and they have been trending away from McCain for a while - However voting has been occuring the last 3 weeks or so.

That being said, this is Obama's to lose - the economy pretty much kicked McCain in the junk.

[Singularity]

I suspect that the election will be closer than people think - not because of any sort of conspiracy or fraud - but simply because polls represent a fixed point in time - and they have been trending away from McCain for a while - However voting has been occuring the last 3 weeks or so.

That being said, this is Obama's to lose - the economy pretty much kicked McCain in the junk.

Let's be realistic here. McCain kicked McCain in the junk as well. First there was the pick of Sarah Palin, who most people in the country feel is unqualified to become president if something should happen to McCain, and then there's the fact that he came out looking really unsure when the economic crash occurred. Had he stayed silent until he consulted with his advisors, as Obama did, then perhaps he wouldn't have come across as weak on the economy. Finally, a lot of people were turned off by the negative campaigning he did against Obama when the things he was going for were really long shots. I think McCain started at a disadvantage because of Bush's unpopularity, and then his campaign didn't do him any favors.

[Lmik]

Would the conservatives who are crying foul prefer that voter registration groups actually be allowed to decide which voter registrations get filed and which do not?

Actually the republicans would prefer that minority groups not vote at all.

Here is something from Fox News (OK its from AP but I found it on Fox).

In the hours before Election Day, as inevitable as winter, comes an onslaught of dirty tricks _ confusing e-mails, disturbing phone calls and insinuating fliers left on doorsteps during the night.

The intent, almost always, is to keep folks from voting or to confuse them, usually through intimidation or misinformation. But in this presidential race, in which a black man leads most polls, some of the deceit has a decidedly racist bent.

Complaints have surfaced in predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia where fliers have circulated, warning voters they could be arrested at the polls if they had unpaid parking tickets or if they had criminal convictions.

Over the weekend in Virginia, bogus fliers with an authentic-looking commonwealth seal said fears of high voter turnout had prompted election officials to hold two elections _ one on Tuesday for Republicans and another on Wednesday for Democrats.

In New Mexico, two Hispanic women filed a lawsuit last week claiming they were harassed by a private investigator working for a Republican lawyer who came to their homes and threatened to call immigration authorities, even though they are U.S. citizens.

"He was questioning her status, saying that he needed to see her papers and documents to show that she was a U.S. citizen and was a legitimate voter," said Guadalupe Bojorquez, speaking on behalf of her mother, Dora Escobedo, a 67-year-old Albuquerque resident who speaks only Spanish. "He totally, totally scared the heck out of her."

In Pennsylvania, e-mails appeared linking Democrat Barack Obama to the Holocaust. "Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, Nov. 4," said the electronic message, paid for by an entity calling itself the Republican Federal Committee. "Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake."

Laughlin McDonald, who leads the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said he has never seen "an election where there was more interest and more voter turnout, and more efforts to suppress registration and turnout. And that has a real impact on minorities."

The Obama campaign and civil rights advocacy groups have signed up millions of new voters for this presidential race. In Ohio alone, some 600,000 have submitted new voter registration cards.

Across the country, many of these first-time voters are young and strong Obama supporters. Many are also black and Hispanic.

Activist groups say it is this fresh crop of ballot-minded citizens that makes some Republicans very nervous. And they say they expect the dirty tricks to get dirtier in final hours before Tuesday.

"Oh, there's plenty of time for things to get ugly," said Zachary Stalberg, president of The Committee of Seventy, a Philadelphia-based government watchdog group that is nonpartisan.

Other reports of intimidation efforts in the hotly contested state of Pennsylvania include leaflets taped to picnic benches at Drexel University, warning students that police would be at the polls on Tuesday to arrest would-be voters with prior criminal offenses.

In his Jewish neighborhood, Stalberg said, fliers were recently left claiming Obama was more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israel, and showed a photograph of him speaking in Germany.

"It shows up between the screen door and the front door in the middle of the night," Stalberg said. "Why couldn't someone knock on the door and hand that to me in the middle of the day? In a sense, it's very smartly done. The message gets through. It's done carefully enough that people might read it."

Such tactics are common, and are often impossible to trace. Robo-calls, in which automated, bogus phone messages are sent over and over, are very hard to trace to their source, say voting advocates. E-mails fall into the same category.

In Nevada, for example, Latino voters said they had received calls from people describing themselves as Obama volunteers, urging them to cast their ballot over the phone.

The calls were reported to Election Protection, a nonprofit advocacy group that runs a hot line for election troubles. The organization does not know who orchestrated them.

"The Voting Rights Act makes it a crime to misled and intimidate voters," said McDonald. "If you can find out who's doing it, those people should be prosecuted. But sometimes it's just difficult to know who's doing what. Some of it's just anonymous."

Trying to mislead voters is nothing new.

"We see this every year," said Jonah Goldman of the advocacy group Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "It all happens around this time when there's too much other stuff going on in the campaigns, and it doesn't get investigated."

In 2006, automated phone calls in the final days leading to the federal election wrongly warned voters they would not be allowed to vote without a photo ID. In Colorado and Virginia, people reported receiving calls that told them their registrations had expired and they would be arrested if they showed up to vote.

The White House contest of 2004 was marked by similar deceptions. In Milwaukee, fliers went up advising people "if you've already voted in any election this year, you can't vote in the presidential election." In Pennsylvania, a letter bearing what appeared to be the McCandless Township seal falsely proclaimed that in order to cut long voting lines, Republicans would cast ballots on Nov. 2 and Democrats would vote on Nov. 3.

E-mail assaults have become increasingly popular this year, keeping pace with the proliferation of blogging and Obama's massive online campaign efforts, according to voting activists.

"It is newer and more furious than it ever has been before," Goldman said.

And Republicans are not exempt. "Part of it is that election campaigns are more online than ever before," said Goldman. "During the primaries, a lot of Web sites went up that seemed to be for (GOP candidate Rudy) Giuliani, but actually were attack sites."

New York City's former mayor and his high-profile colleagues Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney were also targeted in fake Internet sites that featured "quotes" from the candidates espousing support for extreme positions they never endorsed.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[The Winslow]

I think McCain's biggest mistake, though, was to drop the more-reasonable-and-more-to-the-center-than-Bush image he previously had in order to build himself the neocon image he has now. Seriously.

"Our party's popularity has plummetted these last few months. What should be my strategy to not lose the elections? I know! I'll be a total hardass in order to secure the votes of the people that were going to vote for me anyway, and in the process alienate the rest of the electorate! What could possibly go wrong?"

[Dacke]

Actually the republicans would prefer that minority groups not vote at all.
Reminds me of this article (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/republicans_urge_minorities_to_get) from the Onion, 2004.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

No, but it might be closer than people think.

[Atropine Mama]

No, but it might be closer than people think.

As my mother would say, "Close only counts in horseshoes".

I'd be surprised if there was ever again a major election in the US that wasn't very close. Huge population.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

As my mother would say, "Close only counts in horseshoes".

I'd be surprised if there was ever again a major election in the US that wasn't very close. Huge population.

In presidential politics, often being close does help out the party of the loser. Sometimes if a candidate does better than expected it can help out close House races. I believe this might have happened in 1996 with Dole. People thought it was going to be a joke and Dole made it somewhat respectable, and probably helped out a few seats of his party along the way.

If you're looking for a similar model to this year, that's the election to look at - 1996.

[Complaint Department]

No. McCain is still trying to win. Near the end Dole stopped campaigning to win and started campaigning in states and districts where Republican Senators and Representatives where in close races to help them keep or win their seat. McCain has made no appearances in attempt to help the party hold the line against the seat losses this time, and his party will hold it against him.

McCain has made more mistakes in the last 3 months than he has made previously his entire political career.

[Utrecht]

Let's be realistic here. McCain kicked McCain in the junk as well. First there was the pick of Sarah Palin, who most people in the country feel is unqualified to become president if something should happen to McCain, and then there's the fact that he came out looking really unsure when the economic crash occurred. Had he stayed silent until he consulted with his advisors, as Obama did, then perhaps he wouldn't have come across as weak on the economy. Finally, a lot of people were turned off by the negative campaigning he did against Obama when the things he was going for were really long shots. I think McCain started at a disadvantage because of Bush's unpopularity, and then his campaign didn't do him any favors.

I agree McCain ran a poor campaign - and given his inherent handicaps (Bush and the overwhelming money advantage Obama had - as you indicate) he needed to be on his A game (and there were glimpses of it durning the campaign)

While there is evidence that Palin did hurt McCain, there is also alot of evidence that she did quite a bit of good as well (energized the base) - and also help push forward some of the new Republican blood (whether it is good blood or not is a depate for another thread) - remember, he was the candidate his party really did not want - and it finally took Palin to get his party on board.

I agree on the negative campaigning - it is good if it was somethign worthwhile (such as the socialist statements - which is something that scares alot of Americans - whether you would like to admit it - and appears to have some traction based off of polls) as opposed to the stupid Ayers thing - especailly when Obama could have thrown Keating right back at him.

Finally, the press really did McCain no favors - I am not claiming bias since I have no facts to back it up - but as per the article that Stannis posted - there seemed a true reluctance to dig into who Obama is/was - not that I think it would have mattered that much - this was Obama's campaign to lose and he executed very well (in fact, I think his campaign will become a model going forward)

[Utrecht]

No. McCain is still trying to win. Near the end Dole stopped campaigning to win and started campaigning in states and districts where Republican Senators and Representatives where in close races to help them keep or win their seat. McCain has made no appearances in attempt to help the party hold the line against the seat losses this time, and his party will hold it against him.

McCain has made more mistakes in the last 3 months than he has made previously his entire political career.

Methinks that you are remembering an idealized McCain - Keating 5 almost killed him. Fiengold-McCain, while well meaning - was bad legislation. His 2000 run was pretty bad (even taking out Bush's smears)

McCain has always been one who governs from the hip - and it has become pretty obvious that while this style works in the Senate - Americans want a calmer, cooler attitude this election (amoungst other things)

[obryn]

As of this morning, fivethirtyeight.com puts him at a 3.7% win chance, after the weekend's 6.something% chance.

Some other interesting tidbits from there:

(1) Telephone polls which include cell phones list Obama at an average of +9.4%. Those which do not have him at +5.1%. I think in 2008 this is a much bigger deal than it was in 2004... The past 4 years have seen an increasingly large number of individuals get cell phones and disregard land lines... This trend was still in the early stages in 2004.

Also...

(2) there are some states that truly do appear to be "must-wins" for McCain. In each and every one of the 624 victory scenarios that the simulation found for him this afternoon, McCain won Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Indiana and Montana. He also picked up Ohio in 621 out of the 624 simulations, and North Carolina in 622 out of 624. If McCain drops any of those states, it's pretty much over.

McCain will likely win Indiana, Georgia, Montana, and Missouri. Florida is leaning Obama, but McCain's odds aren't horrible. North Carolina is a tossup, with maybe a slight Obama lean. Ohio, on the other hand, is almost definitely going Obama.

Additionally, Obama can lose both Ohio and Florida and still have an 80% chance of winning. If he loses Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, he will almost certainly lose. On the other hand, McCain basically has no chance if he loses any one of those three states, barring a complete left-field (right-field?) surprise. So those are pretty much the states to watch.

-O

[Limper]

Lucky for the country that all the young energetic folk who have worked so hard to get Obama elected will themselves sleep in tomorrow so they can be well rested for the victory party.

[Caliphis]

Lucky for the country that all the young energetic folk who have worked so hard to get Obama elected will themselves sleep in tomorrow so they can be well rested for the victory party.


And it will be a well deserved rest after sitting in those long lines for early voting like they did two weeks ago.

[Limper]

And it will be a well deserved rest after sitting in those long lines for early voting like they did two weeks ago.

Like they SAID they did.

Those long lines and the early voting are the Woodstock of this generation.

[obryn]

Well, not that I expected anything better, but here's the newest round of last-minute lies.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=32228&type=politics

-O

[obryn]

Also, something else I managed to forget...

link (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/2008_polls_versus_2004_polls.php)
Something funny happened in 2004 where a lot of progressives convinced themselves near the end that John Kerry was likely to win the election even though he was narrowly behind in the polls. Then a lot of people have gone and misremembered that as thinking that Kerry was likely to win because he was ahead in the polls, which he wasn’t. Thus, many are left unable to believe that Obama’s lead in the polls makes his victory likely.

And then there's a graph showing that the Democrats were, indeed, narrowly behind in 2000 and 2004.

EDIT: Also, this article is very informative...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167186

-O