(1) McCain will MOST LIKELY win at least 253 electoral votes, which includes the following list of states and Electoral College votes: TX (34), AZ(10), ID(4), AK(3), MT(3), UT(5), WY(3), OK(7), KS(6), NE(5), SD(3), ND(3), LA(9), AR(6), IN(11), OH(20), KY(8), TN(11), MS(6), AL(9), GA(15), FL(27), SC(8), NC(15), WV(5), NH(4), VA(13).
(2) Yes, McCain will most likely win Virginia, Florida and Ohio. If he does not...then...Ouch! He will definitely win the "battleground" states of Arizona and Indiana. Really, those two are not toss-ups.
(3) McCain needs 269 electoral votes to win the Presidency, so now it becomes tricky. (Do not fret, I will explain further down in the piece why he only needs 269 and not the simple majority of 270...maybe you can make an educated guess). Missouri with its 11 electoral votes will probably go for McCain, which would give him a 264-vote total. Now, he would have to win any one of the following: Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), or Pennsylvania (21).
(4) If he wins Colorado or Pennsylvania, then the game is over because that would net him 273 or 285 electoral votes respectively. But, I am not that confident that he will win Colorado. However, after the "coal industry" comments made by Obama, I believe Pennsylvania is now in play. Historically PA is usually Democratic but in 2004 Kerry only carried the popular vote there by 2%. If the Republicans fervently exploited the "coal" comments over the past two days, then McCain has a chance.
(5) I think it is more likely that McCain will win either Nevada or New Mexico, or both. If he wins both then the game is finished because he would receive 274 electoral votes. However, if he only wins one of those states, then the fun really starts because it would give him a total of 269 electorals which would result in a tie with Obama. Check this out: when a tie occurs in the electoral count then the decision over determining the next president is sent to the US House of Representatives where they choose between the top three vote-getters. Obviously, the third place finisher (maybe Barr) will play no role in the final outcome. By rule, each state receives only one vote for president, so the House members of each state must vote internally before declaring their state's allegiance. The winning candidate must receive a simply majority of the votes from the various states to win the presidency, which means a minimum of 26 states. It is most likely without a doubt that a state's US House of Representatives delegation will NOT go against their state's popular vote decision in the election because it would be the equivalent of political suicide in their next reelection bids. Congressional members are certainly self-interested, so NONE of them will "take one for the team" and violate the state's overall preference. Therefore, if you count up the total number of states won by my prediction you will find out that McCain will win 28 states, which would correspond to a victory in the House in the case of an electoral tie.
There you have it. Please leave a query, speculation, guess, refutation, etc. in the comments section. And above all...GO VOTE...for whomever.
18 comments:
Your prediction has so many speculative "what if" holes that your huge melon could fit through.
Every one of those situations have to be spot on for McCain to have a chance tonight.
Obama will most likely clear 300 electoral votes tonight and the Dems should gain complete control of Congress.
Like it or not, thats not for me to decide, but the world will not end either way the vote turns out.
We actually don't know if the world will end or not if Obama is elected; but what we DO know will end will be the financial freedom and self motivating factors towards a more properous life. Not to mention the world will not even be introduced to millions of more babies not given their constitutional and God given right to life.
Haha, yeah - the amount of uncertain qualifiers in that post is staggering.
Every poll (including the blindly-conservative variety) puts Obama ahead in VA, and most give him Florida. I'm going to go ahead and call Ohio for Obama as well, as recent polling gives him a fairly comfortable lead.
The GOP's attack on Obama over coal is completely unfounded - just another in a long line of underhanded attempts by McCain's campaign to target easily impressionable voters. See evidence here: http://www.umwa.org/index.php?q=news/mccain-campaign%E2%80%99s-last-minute-distortion-obama%E2%80%99s-coal-record-act-desperation
Additionally, McCain has about as much chance of winning New Mexico as I do of spontaneously sprouting wings, and since I'm still earthbound, I'm gonna go ahead and call Nevada a safe democratic haven as well.
I apologize if the above reality check comes as a shock.
Truth hurts.
:)
Just to clarify - I make no qualitative judgments about the candidates themselves, just about their respective polling numbers and campaign strategies.
Those are ALL very interesting points of view. Yes, according to the polls (you know the same ones that ALL said Al Gore would win by a SUBSTANTIAL/several percentage points in 2000, and the same ones that said Obama was up by 10 points in the New Hampshire primary race with Clinton) McCain needs the close states to fall his way. Yes, if a mix of two or more large, closely contested states (Florida, PA, Ohio, VA) go to the way of Obama, then it will turn ugly in a hurry for McCain. However, a very prescient and wise man once said, "But that is why we play the game."
"just another in a long line of underhanded attempts by McCain's campaign to target easily impressionable voters"-ruspolitik?
Hilarious, what a most "laugh out loud" statement that is...McCain would actually be quite late in getting to the uneducated, easily impressionable voters being that you are describing the Obama target "base." (and I don't mean to imply that there aren't very educated, intelligent people aboard his campaign, I'm just going on who he targets) I'm sure the McCain campaign, if they ventured there might run into some ACORN workers! Too funny, thanks for the belly laugh!
Haha, I never called them uneducated - just impressionable. And for the record, let's review:
In the course of the race, the McCain campaign has labeled Obama as:
(a) Socialist/Marxist
(b) Unpatriotic
(c) Terrorist
while some of the intelligent, educated, and worldly attendees of McCain's rallies have called him even worse.
Which of these attacks do you suppose are aimed at persuading the intelligent, educated adults with even a moderate awareness of the world around them?
Even if Obama does have the support of, as you label them, uneducated, impressionable voters, he certainly didn't win them over by attacking McCain.
Maybe if McCain spent less time bashing Obama, and more time discussing how his policies, he wouldn't be in the position he is today.
Interesting...can you please sight where McCain called Obama a terrorist? And when you talk about "spreading the wealth," there is not much more you can say to advocated socialism. Not to mention universal health care a trillion in new spending to go along the path to socialism. Can you also sight reference where he called Obama a socialist/marxist? Don't sight where he refers to his policies, but actual name calling. And I have heard the "unpatriotic" comment from both sides. Any other claims you have that the good ol' media have dished together for you?
I'll give you credit that Obama killed it in the election, but that's where credit ends in regards to the other claims.
With pleasure. Though please note that I referred to the "McCain Campaign," not just McCain.
That said, it seems to me that the difference between calling someone's policies socialist and calling them a socialist is merely an issue of semantics. Just because he doesn't say it outright doesn't mean he doesn't want the viewer to make the logical leap. That is, in fact, exactly what he was going for. It was, like many other maneuvers, aimed at fracturing Obama's moderate base of support. Essentially, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" - except it was "If Obama's policies are Socialist...". Just because he feared the backlash of actually calling him Socialist doesn't mean he didn't want his audience to make that leap on their own.
Okay, onward to terrorism. This is where the caveat of "McCain Campaign" is important. What do you suppose the accusation of "palling around with terrorists" mean for the average American voter? Granted, he did associate with Bill Ayers, but since when did Americans ever know the difference between association and sympathy? Joe McCarthy can speak volumes about this. To the average American, this means that Obama associates with terrorists. Guilty by association, as it were. If it walks like duck, and it talks like duck, well, surely it must be a Socialist Terrorist!!!
As for the good ol' media, while their role in the formation of my opinions isn't as impressive as you may think, I will give you that they do tend to publish and say what they like. I'd even go so far as to say that the majority reveal a faintly-veiled liberal leaning, if not agenda. That said, there's a right-wing wacko on the air for every left-wing wacko, and the left just appears to have more airtime because Americans are a lot more comfortable with socialism than they are with fascism. I hear there's money involved as well. But there's a Bill O'Reilly for every Keith Olbermann.
Now, your turn. Care to cite where Obama (or someone high up in his campaign) called McCain unpatriotic?
P.S. This is eerily reminiscent of the arguments I used to have with Mr. G, if you're reading.
"Palling around WITH terrorists" was not calling him a terrorist, you call it semantics, and I go by factual statements. Stick to facts or get lost in lingo. This factual statement of Obama was to call into question his judgment of friends/associates, etc. Not to call him a terrorist. Kind of when Obama calls McCain the next George Bush, most intelligent people understand that Obama thinks McCain would govern like Bush, not that he would actually morph into him. Once again, the expectation of intelligence levels of that who Obama targets in his base is just that, questionable. If it is so offensive that the McCain campaign state fact about those who Obama socializes, works and associates with; maybe its offensive be we find ourselves repulsed by the idea of being in the same room as some of these scumbags. Would you ever endorse a book written by Bill Ayers? Would you let him host, at his house, a "coming out" party into the political arena? I just can't even put my arms around it. What it called into question was Obama's integrity and judgment. Let me emphasize, as a Christian, that it would be one thing it Ayers had actually apologized for his actions and had acknowledged the wrongness of his actions, but we all know what he has said about that. Combine this with 20 years with a racist preacher, along with getting some favorable land agreements from a convicted felon...and it just makes for a very important case against Obama and McCain's only mistake was not exposing more of it earlier and drilling Obama in the debates about it. Having said that, many Americans just don't care. All they care about is themselves. Who is going to do the most for ME? Look at all the idiots in the Senate and House that got reelected who are criminals. From the idiot in Alaska to William Jefferson in Louisiana. Both Rep and Dem. Americans are so self focused it's disgusting. And the dems are leading the charge. What happened to "Ask not what my country can do for me, but what I can do for my country?" It is long gone and people showed that by electing the person who promised them the most when there is not a dime left in the bank. NOT a dime. Ridiculous!
In regards to the "unpatriotic" card, both sides have called certain policies of the other campaign unpatriotic or words spoken, "unpatriotic." Once again, no one has specifically called the other directly unpatriotic. Though, Joe Biden alluded to the fact that everyone in America who doesn't want their taxes raised is unpatriotic. How else would you deduce the opposition to the statement that it's our "patriotic" duty to pay more taxes?
In regards to the media, you contradict yourself in the same breath. "I'd even go so far as to say that the MAJORITY reveal a faintly-veiled liberal leaning, if not agenda. That said, there's a right-wing wacko on the air for EVERY left-wing wacko"-ruspolitik
Majority doesn't seem to collaborate with one for each one...
Reality is, Jounalism has always leaned left, but it went to the edge of the cliff in the primaries and then took a running jump during the general election. It's gone, bye-bye. And the second part of your statement is SO factually wrong that it's not worth arguing over.
In regards to socialism.
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. - hmmm, sounds like the words of someone I know, with the exception of using the word socialism...so what was it that Obama said again?? Oh, you can put lipstick on a what? But it's still a What?? I just don't see why he's offended at the socialism remarks when it's simply a product of his own policies. And to be honest we know he's not truly offended, he just wanted to appear that way so as to not cast doubt over his moderate support.
All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly...hmmm, didn't Obama say something about spreading someone's wealth around??
I would say, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it surely is a duck; even if it claims it's a wolf.
While I fundamentally disagree that accusing someone of "palling around with terrorists" is NOT a means of associating them with the terrorist agenda (especially since you go on to affirm that one is judged by the company one keeps), I'm gonna let that go, and make one concluding point. Is it not mildly hypocritical to call into question Obama's judgment of friends/associates when McCain "pals around" with the likes of G. Gordon Liddy, and has the endorsement of one Rev. John Hagee?
Regarding American self-interest, I could not agree more. But this is not a new phenomenon - Americans, and people in general, have always cared primarily about themselves; if this were not the case, then I dare say Socialism would bear revisiting. If people were truly capable of sacrificing self-interest for the good of the society at large, don't you think that an equal distribution of wealth would be the best of all possible worlds? Utopian Socialism is a noble ideal - we're just not a noble people.
As for "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," the answer appears to follow from your subsequent point about patriotism. Real patriots would put their country first, no? Would it not be unpatriotic to place one's own capitalist ambitions above the stability of one's government if people truly subscribed to the notions of society's greater good? How is the pursuit and amassment of personal wealth not just another element of self-interest? Maybe if you're planning on spreading that wealth around...
As far as the media is concerned, I should clarify. There are as many left-leaning morons as there are right-leaning morons. That said, the left-leaning morons get a lot more airtime. Why? You decide. I'm not going to waste your time explaining why I think this is, since I suspect you will not be a big fan of my reasoning.
Socialism. Let me assure you, you have nothing to worry about. The segment of society in which power and wealth is concentrated would never allow such a thing.
Obama's "socialist" policies, including his conspiracy to "spread the wealth" is a far cry from ACTUAL socialism. He wants to tax the wealthy in order to pay for programs for the poor. If you still consider that socialism, this reassurance may ease your fears:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/30/mccain-larry-king-wealth/
I'll summarize: McCain does not believe the graduated income tax (which taxes the rich more than the poor to pay for government programs like welfare - which help the poor) constitutes "spreading the wealth." It's "dramatically different."
Fortunatly, Obama's so-called "socialist" policies involve nothing more than an alteration to the income tax brackets under the graduate income tax system, something that is ROUTINELY done with changing administrations. IN fact, Obama's "socialist" policies will change the tax rates to almost exactly what they were under Clinton, another prominent Socialist.
Grig,
I just hope you are committing the same amount of time and effort to your studies.
Mr.G
You believe in socialism as a noble cause. And I believe that capitalism is the only noble cause. To say that capitalist are not noble or self serving, greedy, etc. is quite a bold, broad and arrogant statement. People are self serving in all income brackets. The idea that socialism is a noble idea but it doesn't work because of us, is kind of like saying, "Hey, dogs should walk on two legs; imagine how much better life could be for them. Oh, it just won't work, but it would be better if they could do it." Socialism isn't noble; it robs us of the fundamental belief that one can be the best they can be through hard work and determination. Just like dogs are at their best running through a field on all fours. Humans thrive off the carrot in front of their nose in everything. Take a baby learning to walk, the mother sits two feet in front of her with her arms out, and low and behold the baby comes (or at least tries.) It is practically instinctual. People that achieve success are not always selfish or self serving. We are all born with talents and if we don't capitalize on our own talents we are letting not only society down, but God, who gave us the talent to begin with. What we do when we achieve those talents is our own test. How can we possibly know the good in people if people are never given the opportunity to choose right/wrong, good/better, etc? If we become robots in a society that tries to create economic equality we no longer have uniqueness or the desire to do better for ourselves and each other. The rich provide jobs, period. The top income bracket in this country is paying the highest percentage of total tax in years, possibly history. Under GW, the % of the total tax paid by the top increased. Why? Because of the tax cuts, more people entered the bracket and the ones in it, made more money which then got taxed. Everyone says, look at the last 8 years, well, I say, "Where the heck would we be if we hadn't had those tax cuts?" There HAVE been millions of jobs created and while it didn't stop the inevitable recession (which by the way, is a trend of capitalistic economies) it might have held it off somewhat until the banking crisis.
Everyone is in agreement that raising taxes during hard economic times hurts the economy. Obama even backed off some during the financial crisis; however he used the tax cut part of it to entice voters. If he raises taxes (income, payroll, capital gains, etc) he will destroy this economy. The rich will not be affected; they will simply cut back which ultimately will destroy the middle class. I have a guy that mows my yard; he's the first to go if I start taking home less money. And here is the biggest fallacy in your closing. Obama is not raising taxes to create programs for the poor...what a joke statement that was! He is raising taxes to then directly disburse them, i.e. cut a check for everyone else, even those that don't pay taxes. He is going to write checks to individuals, these are his own words. "And if you don't pay taxes, you will receive a check." I love, though, how you libs like to twist and change this fact to sound more "noble."
Clinton, along with his Republican Congress didn't have a trillion in new spending with an economic crisis on their hands.
Look, you're a socialist, I'm a capitalist, we're not going to agree. Obama won, so we'll see what he ends up actually doing now that the rhetoric's over. Clinton ran a way more conservative government than what he "ran" on. My hope is Obama breaks all his promises too.
"Look, you're a socialist, I'm a capitalist, we're not going to agree." Close, except the actual term is open-minded. I'm willing to admit that just because I believe something does not make it an absolute - other views not only exist, but are occasionally superior to my own.
"I believe that capitalism is the only noble cause." Say what?! I've read the old testament fairly thoroughly, and I fail to recall the part where God said he gave us talents to pursue the noble cause of capitalism. Charity, mercy, and kindness sound fairly familiar though.
Ordinarily, it would bring me nothing but pleasure to pick apart the argument you make in the first paragraph (regarding the nobility of socialism), however, after looking over your comments, I doubt there is anything I can really say to change your mind. Obama has been elected, and according to you, this means the "end [of] financial freedom and self motivating factors towards a more properous [sic] life", and if he raises taxes, the destruction of the economy and the disappearance of the middle class. Since none of those things will happen, I'm content to just sit back and watch as time makes my argument for me.
I for one, refuse to waste any more of your time with my joke statements, factual errors, and Socialist propaganda.
As for your economic-crisis fall-back plan of firing the guy who mows your lawn, unless you make over 250,000, your taxes WILL NOT increase. If you do, and you're planning on firing a guy who probably gets ~100 bucks a month for mowing your lawn, then I truly have nothing left to say.
Oh, and Mr. G:
Work has lately been seeing the bulk of my time commitment, though studies are a close third, after arguing with people on message boards. :)
P.S. Particularly ironic (Mrs. G may need to correct my usage of the word ironic here) is the fact that all the Google AdSense ads are Pro-Obama.
Scratch that - one of them is about Obama buying the election. Heh.
Oh, to be young and open minded. Believe it or not, I once was much more "open minded." But funny thing is, once you actually have to work full time and raise a family comprised of two adults and 3 children, you tend to narrow your focus on what it is that truly makes people (all people) successful. And people tend to take much greater care in things they earn, rather things that were given to them. You know the old story of the 16 year old given a car and what happens to the car; as opposed to when they get older and actually buy their first car. That is a philosophy I take in life. It doesn't mean that we don't help each other, but once again help is much more received and given when it is your own idea as opposed to someone else dictating it to you. If I did make over $250K and I was living, oh, let's say in good ol' southern California and we owned our own house, have three children in private school and two cars. We are saving for each of our three children's colleges (we wouldn't want to assume that Obama would pay for our kids' colleges) and our own retirement, so that once again we don't have to rely on a government. Do you really think $250K is a lot of money then? I know it's impossible for YOU to know because of your age and lack of experience, but let me tell you, it's not quite as much as Obama and the rest of the dems like to make it out to be. Regardless, when the taxes are raised, cuts will have to be made. Hmmm, do I put less in college savings, do I put my kids in public school, do I put less in retirement - or, I know! I mow the lawn myself and I clean the house myself saving over $320 a month, equaling $3,840/year. Hmm, not enough, guess I won't get my car washed, I can do it myself. Guess I won't go the dry cleaners as much; I can wash and iron my own clothes. Funny, all of sudden the lawn guy suffers, the cleaning ladies suffer and dry cleaners suffer and we've just scratched the surface. These are small businesses I support; you don't even want to go into higher and higher income brackets, which support the REST. Put off remodels, put off home improvements, put off plumbing upgrades, etc. The rich will NOT suffer; the middle and lower classes will who are provided the JOBS by the rich. It's just simple economics. Like it, love it, hate it; it is what it is. Interesting you reference the Bible. Does the Bible refer to the government mandating people to be generous, or do you think God wants to see what we decide to do on our own. You have NO idea how generous we are/aren't. Just because I think we know how to "give" our own money better than Obama, doesn't mean that we aren't generous. Since your "into" referring to the Bible, can you point out where it thinks women should be given the power of God when it comes to deciding who gets to be brought into this world? Jeremiah 1:5 "Before you were in the womb, I knew you..." Boy, the dems sure have this one right, not just morally, but constitutionally as well. "Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Good luck with your studies!
One of my dem friends begrudgingly gave me a shirt for my bday years ago; it says "If you're too open minded your brain will fall out."
Sorry, misquote!
"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you..." - Jeremiah 1:5
Post a Comment