OT: McCain Victory No Longer Unikely

[Eugene]

[quote]Obama has better than 5:1 chance to carry each state carried by Kerry in 2004 (252 votes), Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico), and Virginia (34 votes).

Obama has the lead in Florida (27), Missouri (11), Nevada (5), North Carolina (15), Ohio (20).

McCain has the lead in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota.

McCain has better than 5:1 chance to carry all the remaining red states.

The likely outcome is 364 electoral votes for Obama to 174 for McCain.[/quote]

Intrade was right on the money. McCain takes Missouri and Obama takes Indiana, final outcome is 367:171.

[larrylujack]

[quote=partypup][quote=partypup][quote=afx114]538.com is now giving McCain a 1.9% chance to win.

Home

McCain’s chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or “Shy Tory” Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters. Our model recognizes that the actual margins of error in polling are much larger than the purported ones, and that when polls are wrong, they are often wrong in the same direction.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama’s support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say:

“Even if McCain only gets 10% of these bitter folks, that’s 504,000 votes. In a contest that could come down to a few hundred thousand votes in each battleground state, those defections could be critical. Remember: Obama’s electoral lead is premised on leads within the margin of error in almost all battleground states.”

I had that number at 1.8 million in my earlier post, but 1.8 million would be 10% of Hilary’s entire voting population, as opposed to 10% of the 28% who stubbornly refuse to support Obama.

[/quote]
[/quote]
maybe it wil sink in with this thumping and definite defeat that the repubs are truly the party that is out of touch, no? time to rethink the shed I suppose.

[larrylujack]

[quote=partypup][quote=partypup][quote=afx114]538.com is now giving McCain a 1.9% chance to win.

Home

McCain’s chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or “Shy Tory” Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters. Our model recognizes that the actual margins of error in polling are much larger than the purported ones, and that when polls are wrong, they are often wrong in the same direction.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama’s support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say:

“Even if McCain only gets 10% of these bitter folks, that’s 504,000 votes. In a contest that could come down to a few hundred thousand votes in each battleground state, those defections could be critical. Remember: Obama’s electoral lead is premised on leads within the margin of error in almost all battleground states.”

I had that number at 1.8 million in my earlier post, but 1.8 million would be 10% of Hilary’s entire voting population, as opposed to 10% of the 28% who stubbornly refuse to support Obama.

[/quote]
[/quote]
maybe it wil sink in with this thumping and definite defeat that the repubs are truly the party that is out of touch, no? time to rethink the shed I suppose.

[larrylujack]

[quote=partypup][quote=partypup][quote=afx114]538.com is now giving McCain a 1.9% chance to win.

Home

McCain’s chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or “Shy Tory” Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters. Our model recognizes that the actual margins of error in polling are much larger than the purported ones, and that when polls are wrong, they are often wrong in the same direction.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama’s support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say:

“Even if McCain only gets 10% of these bitter folks, that’s 504,000 votes. In a contest that could come down to a few hundred thousand votes in each battleground state, those defections could be critical. Remember: Obama’s electoral lead is premised on leads within the margin of error in almost all battleground states.”

I had that number at 1.8 million in my earlier post, but 1.8 million would be 10% of Hilary’s entire voting population, as opposed to 10% of the 28% who stubbornly refuse to support Obama.

[/quote]
[/quote]
maybe it wil sink in with this thumping and definite defeat that the repubs are truly the party that is out of touch, no? time to rethink the shed I suppose.

[larrylujack]

[quote=partypup][quote=partypup][quote=afx114]538.com is now giving McCain a 1.9% chance to win.

Home

McCain’s chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or “Shy Tory” Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters. Our model recognizes that the actual margins of error in polling are much larger than the purported ones, and that when polls are wrong, they are often wrong in the same direction.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama’s support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say:

“Even if McCain only gets 10% of these bitter folks, that’s 504,000 votes. In a contest that could come down to a few hundred thousand votes in each battleground state, those defections could be critical. Remember: Obama’s electoral lead is premised on leads within the margin of error in almost all battleground states.”

I had that number at 1.8 million in my earlier post, but 1.8 million would be 10% of Hilary’s entire voting population, as opposed to 10% of the 28% who stubbornly refuse to support Obama.

[/quote]
[/quote]
maybe it wil sink in with this thumping and definite defeat that the repubs are truly the party that is out of touch, no? time to rethink the shed I suppose.

[larrylujack]

[quote=partypup][quote=partypup][quote=afx114]538.com is now giving McCain a 1.9% chance to win.

Home

McCain’s chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or “Shy Tory” Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters. Our model recognizes that the actual margins of error in polling are much larger than the purported ones, and that when polls are wrong, they are often wrong in the same direction.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama’s support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say:

“Even if McCain only gets 10% of these bitter folks, that’s 504,000 votes. In a contest that could come down to a few hundred thousand votes in each battleground state, those defections could be critical. Remember: Obama’s electoral lead is premised on leads within the margin of error in almost all battleground states.”

I had that number at 1.8 million in my earlier post, but 1.8 million would be 10% of Hilary’s entire voting population, as opposed to 10% of the 28% who stubbornly refuse to support Obama.

[/quote]
[/quote]
maybe it wil sink in with this thumping and definite defeat that the repubs are truly the party that is out of touch, no? time to rethink the shed I suppose.

[CardiffBaseball]

Why does everyone assume it’s the bible thumpers are what’s messed up with the GOP?

Is there zero consideration that many of us feel Bush is just another warmed over liberal who decided to fight some wars? The Neo-Con legacy seems to be one of cutting taxes and spending as if they were Tip O’Neill democrats.

Back when the GOP went on the warpath in 94, it was quite common to hear people like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc. articulate a vision that sold well. I know Newt turned out to be a slime, but he was very difficult for the 90’s style liberal to debate. The message was clear and able to be sold. Bush couldn’t articulate a good bowel movement. When the chips were down and they had both houses, they spent like drunken sailors. They went against their base on immigration. They went against the base on bailouts. The Dubai port issue….

This site is obsessed with the religious of the GOP ruining it, but I’d say it’s the utter inability to act like champions of small government.

I really think the crash of the markets and McCain’s inability to oppose the Bush Administration’s bailouts really hurt.

[CardiffBaseball]

Why does everyone assume it’s the bible thumpers are what’s messed up with the GOP?

Is there zero consideration that many of us feel Bush is just another warmed over liberal who decided to fight some wars? The Neo-Con legacy seems to be one of cutting taxes and spending as if they were Tip O’Neill democrats.

Back when the GOP went on the warpath in 94, it was quite common to hear people like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc. articulate a vision that sold well. I know Newt turned out to be a slime, but he was very difficult for the 90’s style liberal to debate. The message was clear and able to be sold. Bush couldn’t articulate a good bowel movement. When the chips were down and they had both houses, they spent like drunken sailors. They went against their base on immigration. They went against the base on bailouts. The Dubai port issue….

This site is obsessed with the religious of the GOP ruining it, but I’d say it’s the utter inability to act like champions of small government.

I really think the crash of the markets and McCain’s inability to oppose the Bush Administration’s bailouts really hurt.

[CardiffBaseball]

Why does everyone assume it’s the bible thumpers are what’s messed up with the GOP?

Is there zero consideration that many of us feel Bush is just another warmed over liberal who decided to fight some wars? The Neo-Con legacy seems to be one of cutting taxes and spending as if they were Tip O’Neill democrats.

Back when the GOP went on the warpath in 94, it was quite common to hear people like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc. articulate a vision that sold well. I know Newt turned out to be a slime, but he was very difficult for the 90’s style liberal to debate. The message was clear and able to be sold. Bush couldn’t articulate a good bowel movement. When the chips were down and they had both houses, they spent like drunken sailors. They went against their base on immigration. They went against the base on bailouts. The Dubai port issue….

This site is obsessed with the religious of the GOP ruining it, but I’d say it’s the utter inability to act like champions of small government.

I really think the crash of the markets and McCain’s inability to oppose the Bush Administration’s bailouts really hurt.

[CardiffBaseball]

Why does everyone assume it’s the bible thumpers are what’s messed up with the GOP?

Is there zero consideration that many of us feel Bush is just another warmed over liberal who decided to fight some wars? The Neo-Con legacy seems to be one of cutting taxes and spending as if they were Tip O’Neill democrats.

Back when the GOP went on the warpath in 94, it was quite common to hear people like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc. articulate a vision that sold well. I know Newt turned out to be a slime, but he was very difficult for the 90’s style liberal to debate. The message was clear and able to be sold. Bush couldn’t articulate a good bowel movement. When the chips were down and they had both houses, they spent like drunken sailors. They went against their base on immigration. They went against the base on bailouts. The Dubai port issue….

This site is obsessed with the religious of the GOP ruining it, but I’d say it’s the utter inability to act like champions of small government.

I really think the crash of the markets and McCain’s inability to oppose the Bush Administration’s bailouts really hurt.

[CardiffBaseball]

Why does everyone assume it’s the bible thumpers are what’s messed up with the GOP?

Is there zero consideration that many of us feel Bush is just another warmed over liberal who decided to fight some wars? The Neo-Con legacy seems to be one of cutting taxes and spending as if they were Tip O’Neill democrats.

Back when the GOP went on the warpath in 94, it was quite common to hear people like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc. articulate a vision that sold well. I know Newt turned out to be a slime, but he was very difficult for the 90’s style liberal to debate. The message was clear and able to be sold. Bush couldn’t articulate a good bowel movement. When the chips were down and they had both houses, they spent like drunken sailors. They went against their base on immigration. They went against the base on bailouts. The Dubai port issue….

This site is obsessed with the religious of the GOP ruining it, but I’d say it’s the utter inability to act like champions of small government.

I really think the crash of the markets and McCain’s inability to oppose the Bush Administration’s bailouts really hurt.

[CardiffBaseball]

Oh by the way humble pie here, I thought this thing would be tighter. Ohio, VA, and PA sealed the deal.

[CardiffBaseball]

Oh by the way humble pie here, I thought this thing would be tighter. Ohio, VA, and PA sealed the deal.

[CardiffBaseball]

Oh by the way humble pie here, I thought this thing would be tighter. Ohio, VA, and PA sealed the deal.

[CardiffBaseball]

Oh by the way humble pie here, I thought this thing would be tighter. Ohio, VA, and PA sealed the deal.

[Author]

Posts