Democrats, be very afraid!

[Tom Storer]

Liberals, progressives, secular humanists, Democratic voters of all stripes, to frighten yourselves, go to the Electoral Vote Predictor site and click the links to the Obama-McCain general election map and the Clinton-McCain general election map.

These are maps that show the degree of support per candidate according to the most recent polls, then calculate the number of electoral votes each candidate would get if the vote corresponded to the polls. Currently they're using polls from February and March. Are you ready?

McCain-Obama:

McCain 324
Obama 205

McCain-Clinton:

McCain 278
Clinton 229

Yes, over the past couple of months, Americans have demonstrated a sufficient preference for the Republican candidate to allow him to win. This despite the unpopularity of the administration and the Iraq war and the anxiety generated by the crisis of the economy.

I know it's early days yet and polls are only snapshots, but still. I'm biting my nails.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Damn!

I guess there's no point in me voting in November.

[Uli]

It scares the heck out of me, frankly!

To me it's like 4 more years of Bush.

[RBS]

With all due respect to one of my oldest and dearest friends -- Tom -- I think Michael Dukakis was leading in the polls by something like 17% in the summer of 1988.

It's way too early.

[tippy]

That's it! I'm moving to Paris. Tom, can I stay with you until I find a place?

[Tom Storer]

Darryl: on the contrary.

Uli: me, too.

RBS: still.

Tippy: of course!

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by tippy

That's it! I'm moving to Paris. Tom, can I stay with you until I find a place?

Tippy, when did you become a Sarkozy fan?

[tippy]

Gordon, that was my way of punishing Tom for this thread. Even better though: He said OKAY!

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Liberals, progressives, secular humanists, Democratic voters of all stripes, to frighten yourselves, go to the Electoral Vote Predictor site and click the links to the Obama-McCain general election map and the Clinton-McCain general election map.

These are maps that show the degree of support per candidate according to the most recent polls, then calculate the number of electoral votes each candidate would get if the vote corresponded to the polls. Currently they're using polls from February and March. Are you ready?

McCain-Obama:

McCain 324
Obama 205

McCain-Clinton:

McCain 278
Clinton 229

Yes, over the past couple of months, Americans have demonstrated a sufficient preference for the Republican candidate to allow him to win. This despite the unpopularity of the administration and the Iraq war and the anxiety generated by the crisis of the economy.

I know it's early days yet and polls are only snapshots, but still. I'm biting my nails.

Tom, what are you going to give more credence to, the futures markets which make the Dems a 3:2 favorite to win in November or an untested metric like the one you came up with above?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by tippy

Gordon, that was my way of punishing Tom for this thread. Even better though: He said OKAY!

If it was just a ploy to move in with Tom, I say ok as long as Mrs. Storer approves. It would be very French, no?

[tippy]

No no no - I am not that kind of person. I am much worse. I was going to be like the Storers' second child - I mean just until I got a job (you don't need to speak French to get a job in France I hope) and a place of my own.

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by RBS

With all due respect to one of my oldest and dearest friends -- Tom -- I think Michael Dukakis was leading in the polls by something like 17% in the summer of 1988.

It's way too early.

way too early.

fortunately, they have no way of polling the countless numbers of African Americans who have not even registered to vote yet...

[patricia]

Originally Posted by hornplayer

way too early.

fortunately, they have no way of polling the countless numbers of African Americans who have not even registered to vote yet...

hp, is there a box for race on the voter registration form?
If there isn't, how can you tell what race a voter is?
In a society where everyone is supposed to be equal, why would it matter?
A vote is a vote.
Right??

[Al in NYC]

Republican state governments all over the country - with the backing of the national party - are going to do everything in their power to stop or slow voter registration. And to try to stop African-Americans from actually voting. They're already doing plenty, but now that it looks like Obama is going to be the Dem candidate watch the machinery really spring into action.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by hornplayer

way too early.

fortunately, they have no way of polling the countless numbers of African Americans who have not even registered to vote yet...

Are you sure that there are "countless numbers" of voters of any demographic that would be new to the election process? Remember, 2004 broke records for new voter registration. It was the "most important election of our lifetime," after all. New voters generally mean young voters and not teeming masses of previously disenfranchised groups predisposed to be excited by a candidate with an attractive complexion. And young voters, here's a poorly kept secret, suck. Kerry got the youth vote and the hyphen-American vote and still lost. Haha! I don't believe you guys ran that tosspot.

I haven't looked at Tom's proffered website, but from his description of it it looks like a site that examines the upcoming contest in unblinkered terms: as fifty state races, not one national race. This is saying nothing new, but popularity in national polls is beside the point. They haven't abolished the Electoral College yet, so this is a territorial war conducted across every crinkle of the fruited plain.

[Al in NYC]

Looking at the Obama - McCain map that Tom referred to (took me a while to find it, direct links are here for Obama and here for Clinton) it jumps out at me immediately that in the end I would expect Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Jersey to all go Democratic. That (with Colorado - 9 votes - declared a "tie" for the moment) moves 42 electoral votes from McCain's column to Obama's and brings it down to a 35 vote difference. Which means that either Pennsylvania or Florida, where the numbers are very close, would swing the election.

Since polls still notoriously undercount African-American voters I wonder if these states, and some other states, particularly in the south, aren't a bit closer than the polls show. In any event, looking at the numbers I think it's quite likely we could end up in a Bush-Gore situation again, in fact I think it's possible that Obama could win big in the popular vote and lose in the electoral college.

[Tom Storer]

Al, I have no idea which states to expect to go which way, and there's no denying that polls are not oracles and will change over time. But I get the sense that lots of Democratic voters are kind of assuming a landslide for the Dems because that seems like a logical outcome of the nationwide pro-Democrat trend. But as Monte points out, the battle is fought per state, not nationwide. I worry about just what you mentioned, that a majority of the popular vote might not translate into winning the election. But hey, I'm a nervous Nellie. Tippy and I will be watching the polls with a mixture of trepidation and the thrill of a possible new future for her in Paris!

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

But I get the sense that lots of Democratic voters are kind of assuming a landslide for the Dems because that seems like a logical outcome of the nationwide pro-Democrat trend.

There is a nationwide pro-Democratic trend but Presidential elections are as much person vs. person as party vs. party. McCain could win while the Democrats pile up seat gains.

Like Vince, I'd like to see divided government so if the Dems are near-certain to control both houses, I'll probably root for McCain. I'd rather have a Democratic President and Republican Congress but that's not possible this time around.

The flip side is that I think there's at least a 20% chance the economy sinks into depression. If that were to happen, it would be a calamity for the party in power. The country's economic policies would move so far left they'd be to Al in NYC's liking and my hating if we were to experience a depression during McCain's only term in office.

Maybe I should root for Obama over McCain to prevent a worst-case result.

[patricia]

Speaking of economic considerations, I find it interesting that the granting of "earmarks" has come under such fire.
The reason is that I was watching an interview with somebody in PA who was saying that she was going to vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama because Clinton had told them that a new courthouse that they feel they need was something that Clinton had given them hope that she would see was considered, if she were to win the nomination.
As so many say, all politics are local. Everybody says they are against excessive spending by the government.........................except if it is on their pet project.
How do candidates reconcile this contradiction??
If voters decide on which candidate they will support by whether some government funded project goes ahead, it's almost impossible to limit government spending to, no other term for it, buy votes.
"What's in it for me?" is still alive and well, IMO.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, that's what campaigns are for. What's strange to me is that people can believe on the one hand, with ample evidence, that pols will do nothing they say they're going to do during a campaign and, on the other, ask them what they'll do if elected.

It's one of the mysteries of the universe.

And another reason a lot of people gauge person instead of party in pres races.

There are of course people with litmus test issues (abortion, for example) but those who really vote that way and hold a sharp line about it are relatively few compared to those who don't.

[patricia]

It just baffles me that so many potential voters are like the little kids of businessmen back from a trip asking "What did you bring me?"
From what I gather, the cupboard is not just bare, the cupboards themselves are being carried out the door.
Where do voters think the money for all these goodies is going to come from?
It almost forces somebody who wants to get elected to make commitments that they don't have a hope in hell of honouring.
You and I know that if you don't have any extra money, you can't buy any extra stuff, without plunging yourself into unmanageable debt. Do you think that people believe that government money is different from regular money?
Don't they realize that if, at the same time you want the government to spend billions on something, that the money to do it is tax money, or more likely loans from foreign sources?
From what I gather, the country is already in debt by billions and billions of dollars [NINE zeros].
What is likely to happen that will make it even possible that that will change even in our lifetimes?

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, but millions don't know that, Pat. The US has a negative savings rate, meaning they hold more in debt than they are financially worth. The Economist also reports that, in real dollar terms, the Fed's interest rate is sub-zero. The federal government is in the hole trillions but no one can say how much in fact because there have been so many bogus bookkeeping changes instituted (some of which would be illegal, felonies, for citizens or private business_ that, according to the GAO several years ago, no one knows where zero really is, so even the best estimates are guesses, more or less educated, depending.

This has been a bipartisan scam all the way, incidentally. The Clinton admin produced its "surpluses" through sleight of hand bookkeeping. In the real world, there were never budget surpluses during his reign.

The media repeats what they've already reported to be not-so, anyway. Go figure. It's like editors don't have memories.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gary,

I don't know if it's ignorance or just a disconnect. You'd have a hard time showing a person how our budget deficit is adversely affecting his life.

Macroeconomics is tough. Basic economics is tough. I was trying to explain (the best I could) the sub-prime mortgage issue and how it's affecting our economy. Eyes glazed over.

It's human nature. We put off trying to correct potential problems until we're stuck smack dab in the middle of the problems.

[Gary Sisco]

There are always a large numbers of nitwits, D.

As I've said recently, I've developed serious reservations about universal suffrage by birth right alone. I just don't have a better idea and even if I did, it wouldn't matter, because it's here to stay.

It's far from the case that people in government understand it, either. Never mind the dipshits who've created the various bubbles and crunches. Shit doesn't just happen. People make shit just happen. Many in capital circles have been producing profits through various sleights of hand for years, when any economy to be sound has to be based on making things, not just making money. Capitalism is a system of *production.*

So, now they -- and us -- have to deal with the consequences of the shit that they made happen.

Make things that people need (as opposed to want) and they'll buy them.

Just my luck to be caught in the storm when trying to sell our place and get the hell out of Dodge.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

It's interesting what you've written. There's talk that there should be increased regulation on Wall Street. Wall Street answers that government doesn't have the "smarts" to regulate the economy. Some in the government answers back "if you guys are so smart, then why are we in the mess we're in now?"

It comes down to this, we used to be a society that produced "things" that other people wanted. Now our society's evolved into one where the manipulation of money is the product.

I'm very ambivalent about Wall Street. On the one hand, my rapidly approaching retirement will be based on a large part on how well it does. But on the other hand, it's shown to be very corrupt and plays a big part in the transfer of wealth from folks like me and you to the 1% of this country who's really sucking up the booty.

[Gary Sisco]

Thing is, the only way capitalism can correct itself is if it's allowed to correct itself.

If I were going to intervene from governmental level, it would be verbally, by telling them to live with consequences of their decisions, like they expect everyone else to. You fucked up, and you cost yourself and many other people a lot of money. A *lot* of money.

No one forced anything on them. They thought they were clever finding ways to make money without doing much of anything, never mind without making anything. So, I'd just tell them to sleep in the bed they made.

Believe it, if they have to face the real consequences of their decisions, we'll all be better off in the long run.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Thing is, the only way capitalism can correct itself is if it's allowed to correct itself.

If I were going to intervene from governmental level, it would be verbally, by telling them to live with consequences of their decisions, like they expect everyone else to. You fucked up, and you cost yourself and many other people a lot of money. A *lot* of money.

No one forced anything on them. They thought they were clever finding ways to make money without doing much of anything, never mind without making anything. So, I'd just tell them to sleep in the bed they made.

Believe it, if they have to face the real consequences of their decisions, we'll all be better off in the long run.

This could be the first post of yours that makes any sense.

Bravo Gary!

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

It's interesting what you've written. There's talk that there should be increased regulation on Wall Street. Wall Street answers that government doesn't have the "smarts" to regulate the economy. Some in the government answers back "if you guys are so smart, then why are we in the mess we're in now?"

I don't think it's a matter of increasing regulation as much as reinstituting regulations that have been removed. They were put in place for good reason, as we're now finding out.

[RBS]

According to the electoral vote website, both Clinton and Obama are within 10-15 electoral votes of McCain.

[Gary Sisco]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

I don't think it's a matter of increasing regulation as much as reinstituting regulations that have been removed. They were put in place for good reason, as we're now finding out.

You're right. These issues are huge but were treated as just more boring stuff at the time. When this process began, there was this one lonely guy in VT sounding an alarm against interstate banking, which had been until then illegal, as it was one of the barriers erected to prevent another bank run such as had happened during the Depression. The interstate barrier prevented one bank's being in trouble creating problems for other banks or elsewhere in the economy where such failure could become endemic.

Almost everyone ignored the guy altogether.