Polls are at 50/50 for Election 2008

[Yar-El]

Article - Candidates running nearly even

 

WASHINGTON - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

 

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as Republican-leaning voters drifted home to their party.

Powell's embrace of Obama didn't do much to hurt McCain. I'm going to leave my Election 2008 debating with this thread. November 4th is arriving very fast. Several of us were tuned into the evenflow of things. Election 2008 will be a very, very, very close race. Associated Press finally caught up with what everyone has been saying. We are back to the 2000 election.

 

Holy Henna! It has been a blast. I think this Election will be a close tie.

 

Did anyone think we would be at 50/50 eight years after the 2000 election?

[Web Rider]

yes, because people are stupid and indecisive. 2000 was close, 2004 was close, we haven't had a landslide victory for some time. I mean, the article even mentions that the people backing McCain that supposdly are accounting for this jump are whites with no college education. I'm all for power to the people, but at some point we really need to start questioning our anti-intellectual tendancies.

 

What has McCain done to gain this? To tear Obama down, oh that's great, he's popular because he can be a jerk. Anyone can tear somebody down, it's not difficult, it's coming up with solutions to our problems, and not saying Obama does this or not, but do we really want to elect people on their ability to tear others down? That's not exactly a great leadership ability, not in a democracy anyway.

[ET Warrior]

That's all well and good if you pick that single poll, but every other poll that was released today has Obama's victory by a much more substantial margin. In fact, if we want to cherry pick our personal favorite Imma go with Research 2000 that puts Obama ahead by 12%.

 

Or we could look at averages and statistics and say that Obama is between 7 and 8 percent ahead of McCain in the polls. Hardly a tie.

[Litofsky]

I'd like to point out that polls depend entirely on the people polled. This poll (or any other, for that matter) could have polled ten McCain supporters and nine Obama supporters, or vice versa. Polls give us a slight idea as to how people will vote, but only the final results will tell the truth. Every other (poll/information) can be skewed and twisted into plausible information.

[Arcesious]

the article even mentions that the people backing McCain ... with no college education. I'm all for power to the people, but at some point we really need to start questioning our anti-intellectual tendancies.

 

Incorrect... There are smart people that I know who support him. I would bet that there's a few college-education level people who support him too.

 

As for anti-intellectual tendencies, I have to agree with you there. But a lot of smart people are wierd like that too. Some people like to be living, breathing, oxymorons...

 

Anyone can tear somebody down, it's not difficult, it's coming up with solutions to our problems, and not saying Obama does this or not, but do we really want to elect people on their ability to tear others down? That's not exactly a great leadership ability, not in a democracy anyway.

 

Agreed, but I have to admit that Obama seems to have some pretty odd associations, and besides the weak attacks about Bill Ayers and Acorn.

It's his sticking with Rev. Wright for 20 years makes me question his ability to make good decisions.

 

I prefer Obama because of his policies, but I do not think he has very good character.

[mimartin]

ET Warrior hit the nail on the head.

 

I believe this is good news for the Obama campaign. News like this will not allow those that are going to vote for him to become complacent thinking the have the election won. This means they will go to the polls and cast their votes.

 

We need to remember it is the Electoral College that decides the election. How fitting would it be for Obama to lose the popular vote, but win the Electoral College? It could only happen in my wildest dreams.

[Corinthian]

Why would that be something you want to happen?

[Samuel Dravis]

It would be interesting to see if the Reps cried foul over it, that's why.

[mimartin]

Why would that be something you want to happen?

It would be interesting to see if the Reps cried foul over it, that's why.

Exactly.

 

It happen in 2000 and we did not fix the system. I wonder if it would be fixed if it happened to the other side too.

[Jae Onasi]

I would love if it was a decisive victory and we didn't have to worry about all the voter fraud allegations that will come out if it's close.

 

When looking at polls, double check all of them and see who they've polled and what party they're affiliated with. I've seen some polls that polled more Dems than GOP voters, and naturally the numbers were higher for Obama, and some that polled more GOP than Dem, and no surprise McCain did better. The ideal poll will have a large sample size, a mix of gender, races, and other socioeconomic factors that match the overall US makeup, and equal numbers of likely voters from both parties. If the poll doesn't do that, then I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions. If the poll has 45% GOP and 35% Dem and the rest undecided, and it shows McCain up by 10%, then it could easily be explained by the difference in political affiliations in that particular sample rather than actual voting numbers.

[Tommycat]

I resent the remarks that because the person doesn't have a degree that they are not intellectuals, or are somehow anti-intellectual. I know quite a few people that don't have degrees, but are very intelligent. A degree is not a guarantee of intellectual capacity.

 

I agree with Jae on this one. I don't care if McCain or Obama win anymore. I just want it to be a decisive victory.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that if polls are showing 50/50 or slightly in favor of the Democrat, it usually ends up breaking more to the Republican. Polls showed Gore beating Bush and Kerry beating Bush. Reality was different.

 

As for the inevitable get rid of the electoral college arguments:

Absolutely not. Even if McCain loses the electoral and gains the popular, I would never recommend getting rid of the electoral college. It is kept because it prevents campaigning in pure population centers. New York City alone had a far greater difference in votes than the remainder of the nation in 2000. In theory, you could have all of New York and all of LA voting for one candidate and the remainder of the country is virtually non-existant. How about one vote per state? Lets do that.

[Samuel Dravis]

Tommycat makes a good point. Most of the low-population states vote Republican. If you make the individual votes from the larger population states count for the same as those with lower populations, Republicans lose. So we cannot allow that to happen.

[Tommycat]

Tommycat makes a good point. Most of the low-population states vote Republican. If you make the individual votes from the larger population states count for the same as those with lower populations, Republicans lose. So we cannot allow that to happen.

Are you sure you want to go from a 2 party system to a one party system? You've also forgotten about the tyrany of the majority.

 

It's more than that. Ok lets do one vote per county. Even in states that normally go to Democrats there are more counties that go to the Republican. If you look at it you could easily deduce that the greater the population density the greater the likelihood that they'll vote for the Democrat.

 

This is the United STATES of America. Technically if we have popular vote only, then the needs of the lower population states will pretty much be ignored. You don't see how that could become a problem?

 

Let me explain it. If you have a large group of states that feel that their needs are not being met by their government, those states after being ignored long enough will wonder why they are even a part of the US. We get calls for secession again.

 

I'm just pointing out the arguments used for the Democratic Republic.

[Samuel Dravis]

I'm aware of those arguments, but what I said still is true regardless of whether you think that federalism is a good idea or not. Those people in the smaller population states will vote for their interests, not necessarily what is best or most approved by the country's population as a whole. If you eliminate the electoral college you eliminate disproportionate representation of individual votes on the federal level, which directly harms Republican interests. I'm sick of Bush, I'm sick of people like Bush, I'm sick of people who like people who like war, I'm sick of people taking away liberties in the interests of "safety" when in fact it does not improve safety significantly, I'm sick of the entire last eight years. I wouldn't mind something so small as a change of label, honestly. If that's all I can get, I will take it.

 

One party system? I thought we already had that. We just let one half of it take the blame for the previous 4-8 years, while we can feel happy about all the improvements the other half will no doubt enact. Well, I'm waiting.

 

Personally I'd rather have an instant runoff voting system where more than two parties are actual options (and by options, I mean you won't in effect throw away your vote by voting for someone other than a Democrat or Republican). Additionally, I'd like to see an end to "winner takes all" systems for the electoral college (currently 48 states have this active). You say that people aren't represented properly if they don't get disproportionate representation in the electoral college? Here in Texas I get absolutely zero representation in the electoral college. Neither do Democrats, or Libertarians, or the Greens, or anyone other than Republicans. Tough luck, I guess. Perhaps I should secede. Of course, any such reform as I suggest would take away votes from the main party (R's or D's) so I guess it won't happen. Forgive me if I seem bitter, but I think it would be hilariously funny to see one of the major parties' reaction to a taste of their own poison. And even if - EVEN IF! - the electoral college were eliminated, a single person (no matter what affiliation) would still would have more representation in the presidential race than I do now. If you expect me to feel any sympathy for the horrible plight of those people who would not be disproportionately represented - well, I'm not feeling any sympathy for them.

[Tommycat]

I present to you how campaigning will go in a system where majority of votes wins the election.

 

Campaigns will ONLY focus on New York and LA. Promises will be made to those two population centers. If you can get a vast majority from those two and the rest of the country splits roughly equal, or even better breaks to the other guy, You don't think they might get a bit upset?

 

And in 04 the popular and electoral vote went to Bush, so It isn't that Republicans wouldn't win. It just means that even more weight will be placed on campaigning in the heavy population centers.

[EnderWiggin]

That's all well and good if you pick that single poll, but every other poll that was released today has Obama's victory by a much more substantial margin. In fact, if we want to cherry pick our personal favorite Imma go with Research 2000 that puts Obama ahead by 12%.

 

Or we could look at averages and statistics and say that Obama is between 7 and 8 percent ahead of McCain in the polls. Hardly a tie.

 

QFE.

 

_EW_

[Samuel Dravis]

I present to you how campaigning will go in a system where majority of votes wins the election.

 

Campaigns will ONLY focus on New York and LA. Promises will be made to those two population centers. If you can get a vast majority from those two and the rest of the country splits roughly equal, or even better breaks to the other guy, You don't think they might get a bit upset?

 

And in 04 the popular and electoral vote went to Bush, so It isn't that Republicans wouldn't win. It just means that even more weight will be placed on campaigning in the heavy population centers.

Technically, it's the party which gets the plurality that gets all the electoral votes here (they don't even have to get a majority). Another thing is that I'd actually have more representation with a majority vote for president, New York et all included, than I do now. Some is better than none.

 

I'll agree with the theory of the electoral college, Tommycat. But in practice it is broken, and does me no good at all. It is in my interests right now to either fix it or eliminate it (neither of which will happen). The worst thing about the electoral college is that it seems to be reasonable on the state level but state laws trash its entire purpose on an individual level. If the electoral college was removed, it would make your point outrageously clear and perhaps more people would care about reforming it.

[mimartin]

It just means that even more weight will be placed on campaigning in the heavy population centers.

As opposed to now, where the candidates only campaign in a few swing states?

 

I’m not advocating getting rid of the Electoral College. I’m for fixing the system so that everyone’s vote matters. Perhaps awarding electors based on the popular vote percentage instead of winner takes all. That would make candidates campaign in states like California, Texas and New York. That would also mean every vote would count and not just the swing states.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

As opposed to now, where the candidates only campaign in a few swing states?

 

I’m not advocating getting rid of the Electoral College. I’m for fixing the system so that everyone’s vote matters. Perhaps awarding electors based on the popular vote percentage instead of winner takes all. That would make candidates campaign in states like California, Texas and New York. That would also mean every vote would count and not just the swing states.

****in socialist get out of are country

[mimartin]

 

jmac, I believe you are using this dictionary to define socialist and socialism.

You may want to find a less bias source.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

you mean a leftist source

[EnderWiggin]

you mean a leftist source

 

Jaymack forgot this:

 

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

As opposed to now, where the candidates only campaign in a few swing states?

 

I’m not advocating getting rid of the Electoral College. I’m for fixing the system so that everyone’s vote matters. Perhaps awarding electors based on the popular vote percentage instead of winner takes all. That would make candidates campaign in states like California, Texas and New York. That would also mean every vote would count and not just the swing states.

 

It would also render a state like mine, which does not have the population that CA, NY, or TX has, even more of a flyover state than we already are. The candidates would completely ignore low population states and concentrate on high population states. It would mean that pretty much the entire Midwest would get ignored (except maybe Chicago), and the specific interests of those of us in the Midwest (such as agriculture) would be all but left behind. This is what the framers of the constitution understood when they set up the electoral college, and why it was set up this way--so that small/low population states would have some say in the process as well.

[mimartin]

It would also render a state like mine, which does not have the population that CA, NY, or TX has, even more of a flyover state than we already are. The candidates would completely ignore low population states and concentrate on high population states. It would mean that pretty much the entire Midwest would get ignored (except maybe Chicago), and the specific interests of those of us in the Midwest (such as agriculture) would be all but left behind. This is what the framers of the constitution understood when they set up the electoral college, and why it was set up this way--so that small/low population states would have some say in the process as well.

I don't see how. If you kept the Electoral College, but changed it from a winner takes all contest, then every state would be important. No longer would McCain be guaranteed 34 from Texas and Obama would not be guaranteed 55 from California. They would have to work hard to keep their numbers up in those states, plus they would have to make up for those losses in smaller states. It would make every state and every vote important instead of just the swing states.

 

The framers were extremely intelligent men. They deigned a system that allows for changes as the need arises. Without allowing for the ability to change the Constitution, women would not be allowed to vote and an African America would never be allowed to run for President.

 

Just so we are clear:

 

I’m saying if Obama won 35% of the popular vote in Texas and McCain won 65% of the popular vote, then Obama would get 11.9 of the Electoral College vote while McCain would get 22.1 Electoral College Vote from Texas.

 

Right now, if McCain get 50.00000000001% of the popular vote he gets 100% of the Electoral College vote.

 

The Electoral College would not change. Every state would still have the same amount of Electoral College votes base on population.

 

The draw back is it would slow down the networks declaring a winner for a few days or even weeks.

[ET Warrior]

Some new polling info