Yo mama's so stupid that she sold the car for gas money.According to RCP Obama needs 32 electoral votes from the battleground states and McCain needs 143. Given the margin of errors in statistical samples, a lead of less than 5 is considered to be a toss up, and in reality, should probably be given to McCain. There’s also the Bradley effect and the young-voter-apathy effect.
Makes me think that Obama’s shot will be from winning some combination of Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Mexico, and Colorado for him to reach the 270. I don’t include Nevada because from what I’ve been hearing about polling there, it’s typically more favorable to Democrats than in reality. McCain needs almost all of the battleground states but if he takes all the toss ups and West Virginia, all he needs is Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, or Ohio, Colorado and Virginia. Not impossible by any means.
| State (electoral votes) |
lead |
| Florida (27) |
Obama +3.5 |
| North Carolina (15) |
Obama +2.6 |
| Missouri (11) |
McCain +0.4 |
| Indiana (11) |
McCain +1.7 |
| Georgia (15) |
McCain +4.0 |
| Montana (3) |
McCain +3.8 |
| Arizona (10) |
McCain +4.4 |
| Ohio (20) |
Obama +5.8 |
| Colorado (9) |
Obama +6.6 |
| Nevada (5) |
Obama +7.0 |
| Virginia (13) |
Obama +6.5 |
| New Mexico (5) |
Obama +7.3 |
| West Virginia (5) |
McCain +8.0 |
| Pennsylvania (21) |
Obama +9.3 |
So here are some interesting clips from articles I’ve been reading.
On Spreading the wealth: That Wealth Spreader - TIME
We may disagree on how much to spread around and how to go about it. We all tend to think that it’s someone else’s wealth that needs to be spread around and that it ought to be spread in our direction. But the principle that the unequal distribution of wealth is a legitimate concern and government policies should mitigate it has been part of American democracy since at least the New Deal. In fact, it is a commonplace that the moderate wealth-spreading of the New Deal saved American democracy. Today collecting checks from people and issuing checks to other people–or the same people–is the government’s main domestic activity.
Although it was an off-the-cuff remark and one that Obama probably regrets, he actually put it well, avoiding the suggestion of envy or class war, which are the usual accusations about such talk. Spreading it around is “good for everybody,” he says. And who disagrees? Or would you like to live behind locked gates and hire guards to protect your family from kidnapping, as in places where they spread it around even less than here?
On the challenges for the next president: How They Would Lead — Printout — TIME
A sad fact of contemporary politics is that we’ve lost the ability to get through a campaign without transforming honorable alternatives into cartoons of good and evil. Disagreement is out; denunciation is in. The distinctive tune of our day is hysteria with a drumbeat of hyperbole, all set in the key of bad faith.
Underneath, however, Americans still long for the mystic chords of memory strummed by the better angels of our nature — a patriotic harmony that we like to think is the song of our nation at its best. This is why the two candidates who fared best in this election were the ones who spoke most convincingly about bringing us together. When the two are finally narrowed to one, his mandate will be change, his timetable short and his environment stormy with division. At a historic moment desperate for a successful President, everything will hinge on one man’s ability to navigate by the clouded star of common purpose.
On branding Rashid Khalidi a terrorist: The Anti-Semantic Joe Klein - Jeffrey Goldberg
he’s a fierce partisan of the Palestinian cause, of course, and in my conversations with him, and in his writing, I see that his sympathies frequently cause him to distort Middle East history. But an anti-Semite? I don’t think so. In fact, Rashid Khalidi is one of the rare Palestinian advocates who argues, as he has with me, that Arabs must study Jewish history, including and especially the history of Jew-hatred, in order to better understand Israel, and to reach a compromise with it.
On the trickle-down folly: RealClearPolitics - Articles - Referendum on Trickle-Down
McCain regularly charges that Obama wants to be the “redistributor in chief.” Speaking at the rally here at Shippensburg University, Palin was forced to say this about Obama’s support for a variety of tax credits aimed at helping the poor and middle class: “He says that he is for a tax credit, which is when government takes your money in order to give it away to someone else.”
That is, of course, a mighty peculiar definition of tax credits. It is also an odd argument from a ticket that itself is committed to a research-and-development tax credit for corporations.
It’s true that Obama favors “refundable” tax credits to help low-income workers, including some who may pay no income taxes but do pay many other taxes. McCain has argued that Obama’s refundable tax credits amount to “welfare.” That, too, is a strange claim, since McCain favors refundable credits as part of his health plan. But the whole idea is to persuade voters such as Emily Daywalt that Obama really is just out to help those “who don’t do anything.”
And that is why Obama’s 30-minute advertisement on Wednesday night was targeted directly to voters such as Daywalt, or at least to those like her who are still persuadable. It was Obama’s tribute to the country’s working people who seek nothing more than decent incomes, health care and a chance to see their children succeed. It was less a political ad than a documentary about the value of work and the responsibilities of family life.
For years, Republicans have argued that the way to help struggling working people is to give more money to the wealthy. Obama is saying that we should cut out the middleman and help working people directly. My hunch is that Obama’s argument will prevail, and that conservatives will then work overtime to try to deny the judgment the people have rendered.
On how McCain might win: Commentary » Blog Archive » 10 Reasons Why McCain Might Win
9) The fire lit under Obama’s young supporters in the winter was largely due to Iraq and his opposition to the war. The stunning decline in violence and the departure of Iraq from the front page has put out the fire, to the extent that, like the young woman who made a sexy video calling herself Obama Girl and then didn’t vote in the New York primary because she went to get a manicure, they might not want to stand on line on Tuesday.
and my favorite hypocrisy of the day: Washington Times - THOMAS: Obama’s smoking audio
Electing Barack Obama president of the United States would be a roll of loaded dice. We will live (and possibly die) to regret it. Republicans have made many mistakes and deserve the punishment they are now getting, but the one charge that cannot be laid at their doorstep is that they wanted to rewrite the Constitution and weaken the country.
Yes - because if there’s anyone we know has never rewritten the constitution it’s Republicans - especially this strain of Republicans. Just ask Palin what the powers of the VP are.
Popularity: 1% [?]
See the image to the right (and click for the full version): It’s a complicated chart, but it has a lot to say. On it are illustrated the popular vote and electoral vote victory margins of every Presidential election 1900-2008, assuming Obama gets North Carolina and McCain gets Missouri. This also only counts Republicans and Democrats, and third parties are ignored.
