# How much will Obama win by?



## Thonex (Oct 20, 2008)

Ok pundits... if you think Obama will win, do you think it will be close? Not so close? A landslide victory for Obama?


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 20, 2008)

a major landslide that buries republicans across a reclaimed nation.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 20, 2008)

No chance it will be more than 20%. I voted 5-10%. Don't underestimate the south.


----------



## midphase (Oct 20, 2008)

Isn't this exactly the type of cockiness that Obama warned us about?


----------



## synthetic (Oct 20, 2008)

40% of the country is going to vote Republican and 40% Democratic no matter who is on the ticket. It's only the remaining 20% that's ever in play. 

Besides, if it's too much of a blowout then Dems will stay home in CA, and we need them to vote against crap like Prop 8 (banning gay marriage).


----------



## billval3 (Oct 20, 2008)

synthetic @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> 40% of the country is going to vote Republican and 40% Democratic no matter who is on the ticket. It's only the remaining 20% that's ever in play.



I agree for the most part, although people DO change. I, for one, have been converted away from Republicanism (starting with voting for Kerry).


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 20, 2008)

midphase @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> Isn't this exactly the type of cockiness that Obama warned us about?



absolutely, but it felt great to post it. 

Truth be told- I believe he's going to win this.


----------



## SvK (Oct 20, 2008)

Ummm

this poll makes no sense...

The Presidency is won by gaining 270 electoral votes.....
The total number of available electoral votes is 538....


The bigger a state, the more electoral votes it is worth.......

SvK


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 20, 2008)

isn't this for the popular vote?

This just in
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jUUZ7NJlIM4Azi7MafXRythJutNgD93UF9VG0 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jUUZ ... gD93UF9VG0)


----------



## Thonex (Oct 20, 2008)

SvK @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> Ummm
> 
> this poll makes no sense...
> 
> ...



SVK,

I'm talking popular vote. 

@ midphase

Notice I did put the option "Are you kidding... McCain is gonna win!!"

No cockiness... just having fun with predictions and want to see how/if this poll lines up with the election.


----------



## SvK (Oct 20, 2008)

Thonex

my bad......

I'm in a bad mood...sorry  

SvK


----------



## SvK (Oct 20, 2008)

but just so you know........

Winning the POP vote by 5%, is considered a land_Slide....it never happens..

Look at all past elections.

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2008)

"It's only the remaining 20% that's ever in play."

You know when CNN stages their boxing match coverage of the debates and they have a focus group of these undecided voters? You know, they attach electrodes to their genitals to generate squiggly lines that go up when Obama says the word "change" and down when McCain says the word "maverick?"

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but how on earth can anyone still be undecided?! I can't help thinking that these people must be complete dopes, that their collective IQ can't be higher than 80.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 20, 2008)

SvK @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> but just so you know........
> 
> Winning the POP vote by 5%, is considered a land_Slide....it never happens..
> 
> ...



whoa... I didn't know that! o 

ok.. so this poll is also showing that a majority of the responders think Obama will win by a % "that has never happened before" :D


----------



## SvK (Oct 20, 2008)

hehehe

yup....

Go here:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/20/electi ... e_map.html

left-click twice on a state to make it blue or red..........270+ wins


now go here to see the averages of the polls for EACH state. Click on the state to see the average of the polls for it....
http://www.pollster.com/

have fun ( make another poll.....obama wins by 270-290 option1, Obama wins by 290-310 option 2 , Obama wins by 310-350 option 4, Obama landslide 350++, McCain wins. AND Tie 269 to 269...

SvK


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 20, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> Maybe there's something I'm missing, but how on earth can anyone still be undecided?! I



It's obvious. Bcause they CAN get electrodes attached to their......


----------



## Thonex (Oct 20, 2008)

SvK @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> Go here:
> http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/20/electi ... e_map.html
> 
> left-click twice on a state to make it blue or red..........270+ wins



Wow... even if McCain wins all the "toss-up" states... he still loses.

I think he's toast. I mean... barring something politically cataclysmic, Obama has this.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 20, 2008)

If the supreme high bitch keeps opening her mouth...it will be a landslide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_el_pr/palin_gay_marriage (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_ ... y_marriage)


----------



## SvK (Oct 20, 2008)

Thonex, yes......


SvK


----------



## SvK (Oct 20, 2008)

Thonex, go here:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

The 2nd Pie Chart from the top on the left...."Win Percentage".....

Nate Silver who runs this site, has his computer run 10.000 random races a day in which he takes ALL the current polls, and increases their respective margins of error...AND today 92.5% of those 10.000 races were won by Obama....

Nate Silver who started this site is famous now....you may have seen him on Colbert, Daily Show, Olberman........

This whole siite is based on his fame in predicting Baseball games / series..........Nate Silver predicted EVERY Senate race in the last election CORRECTLY.

SvK


----------



## tobyond (Oct 20, 2008)

I love to look back at past elections to see how much some states have changed here:
http://www.270towin.com/


----------



## SvK (Oct 20, 2008)

tobyond......

nice site!

thanx 

SvK


----------



## david robinson (Oct 20, 2008)

hi guys,
a viewed from afar, Obama will win.
don't let that fool you, as it will take more than his time in office to fix all the problems that Bush and his ilk have caused.
also, Obama, or whom ever, doesn't run the country.
he's just the figurehead.
the organizations behind governments are much more sinister.
DR9.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2008)

The organizations behind governments in this country are corporations that make large campaign contributions aka bribes and hire expensive lobbyists. There are also lots of political groups with their own agendas, such as the ones reportedly calling people up and telling people that Obama is a terrorist (reportedly - I don't know that as a fact).

Actually, after the executive branch's power grab over the past eight years, I'd say you may have chosen the wrong time to say that Obama is just a figurehead. Our presidents really do make decisions, but the less capable ones (Reagan, Bush II) are at the whim of the people around them with different agendas.

So I agree with you that much of the damage of the past eight years will take a generation to undo, but I don't agree that our presidents are just figureheads. I mean, think about Clinton, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, or Truman in recent history. Those men were certainly not just figureheads!

The LA Times endorsement of Obama sums up how I feel:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 6124.story


----------



## david robinson (Oct 20, 2008)

nick,
certainly hope you are right, for the worlds sake.
but i still maintain my view.
DR9.


----------



## Ed (Oct 21, 2008)

Obama should win by a landslide I think. But with elections so easy to fix it will probably be a LOT closer than you think, especially as they won twice now because of those frauds.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 21, 2008)

If polls stay as they are now, and Obama looses... I'm not sure the US will recover in a loooooong time. I think things will get ugly.


----------



## jsaras (Oct 21, 2008)

Ed @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Obama should win by a landslide I think. But with elections so easy to fix it will probably be a LOT closer than you think, especially as they won twice now because of those frauds.



Uhh, are you referring to B.O hiring ACORN to steal the election for him via massive voter fraud?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 21, 2008)

jsaras @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Ed @ Tue Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama should win by a landslide I think. But with elections so easy to fix it will probably be a LOT closer than you think, especially as they won twice now because of those frauds.
> ...



No, he is refering to this: http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10613

Secondly, I was under the impression that ACORN can't steal anything. That regardless of how many times people register, they can only vote once right? So what am I missing (the whoel Acorn thing was not widely reported here).


----------



## José Herring (Oct 21, 2008)

jsaras @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Ed @ Tue Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama should win by a landslide I think. But with elections so easy to fix it will probably be a LOT closer than you think, especially as they won twice now because of those frauds.
> ...



This is such a stupid statement. The only one arrested for voter fraud this election is working for the GOP.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/103690/california_republican_arrested_for_voter_fraud/ (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/1036 ... ter_fraud/)

Don't listen to that Republican crap about ACORN. It's just a smoke screen for the real crimes they commit.

Jose


----------



## Ed (Oct 21, 2008)

josejherring @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Don't listen to that Republican crap about ACORN. It's just a smoke screen for the real crimes they commit.
> 
> Jose



Yea, pretty ironic really considering it was them that were involved in rigging it twice. 

Ed


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Oct 21, 2008)

Talking about fraud, Thonex should also have included a choice stating:
the GPO will rig the democratic process the way they have done in 2000 and 2004, and despite Obama winning by a large margin, the popular vote will go to McCain...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 21, 2008)

Not going to happen, Patrick, because the foxes are guarding the hen coop. The two parties that legislate would both lose lots of power if we went to a multi-party system, which is what would happen if we switched to popular vote rather than winner take all.

It also doesn't help that most voters are uninformed. This came up for vote in the last 60s, and it was roundly defeated.


----------



## jsaras (Oct 21, 2008)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> I still think the electoral vote is the biggest rip-off ever.
> It may have made sense a few centuries ago but nowadays?!
> People's vote should be the only thing that matters. Period



The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. It's there in the constitution, not that anybody bothers to teach it in schools these days.


----------



## jsaras (Oct 21, 2008)

Ed @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't listen to that Republican crap about ACORN. It's just a smoke screen for the real crimes they commit.
> ...



Oh those eeevil, wascally Republicans. Are you tired of the old "Democrat good, Republican evil" mantra? And the liberals acuse conservatives of seeing things only in terms of black and white. Sheesh.

You may recall that B.O.'s crowd was involved in voter fraud even in the primaries. It fits his pattern.

And yes, Mickey Mouse can only vote once ...per address, per county, per state. You're assuming that the nearly-dead poll workers are astute enough to figure these things out.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Oct 21, 2008)

jsaras @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. It's there in the constitution, not that anybody bothers to teach it in schools these days.



Jee whiz, thanks for the enlightment!
Do you know how often I've heard that line?
Whether it's a republic or a democracy, it is supposed to be run by "the people", right?
So now that this is clear, what's your point? :roll:


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Oct 21, 2008)

jsaras @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Ed @ Tue Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Tue Oct 21 said:
> ...



If I were a Republican, I would have a very hard time blaming Democrats for voters fraud without my nose streching out by a mile.
Be serious now... (o)


----------



## jsaras (Oct 21, 2008)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> jsaras @ Tue Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Jee whiz, thanks for the enlightment!
> ...



It's not just a "line", it's the rule of law of our country. The "point" is that the U.S. is governed by the Constitution. Remember that document created by racist, bigoted, homophobic, capitalists ? There is a procedure to amend the Constitution if you don't like what's in it. Unfortunately, the leftists prefer the use of judicial fò–ü   ‰c–ü   ‰d–ü   ‰e–ü   ‰f–ü   ‰g–ü   ‰h–ü   ‰i–ü   ‰j–ü   ‰k


----------



## rgames (Oct 21, 2008)

jsaras @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> I'm not a Republican. I'm registered as an independent.


I'm with you. But it's all relative - around here, central thinking is far right . Welcome to VI Control!

Regarding the electoral college: the constitution simply dictates how many electoral votes each state gets. How they're divided up is governed by state law. A couple of states do use the popular vote to distribute the electoral votes.



Patrick de Caumette said:


> Whether it's a republic or a democracy, it is supposed to be run by "the people", right?


Yes - with provisions to protect against the "tyranny of the majority" as the founding fathers stated it.

SUMMARY: if you want to change the way the electoral college works, talk to your state government!



Nick Batzdorf said:


> that make large campaign contributions aka bribes


And which candidate was it who reversed his position on public campaign financing? And which candidate is beating the pants off the other in terms of campaign spending? Is that not an example of willingness to accept the relation between money and influence in politics?

If I understand correctly, you have a problem with the manner in which some politicians bow to money rather than principle. And I thought you were an Obama supporter! 

Don't get me wrong, though, I understand that's how most politicians work. We shouldn't expect Obama to be any different. (Change, anyone?)

rgames


----------



## Evan Gamble (Oct 22, 2008)

rgames @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Nick Batzdorf said:
> 
> 
> > that make large campaign contributions aka bribes
> ...



"The question Obama was asked last November: If you were nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forego private funding in the general election campaigning, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

McCain hadn‘t agreed to forego private funding, had been running his general election campaign on private funding since the day Mike Huckabee dropped out. Only this evening did McCain declare he would sign up for public financing, but, of course, Republican 527 groups can still spend money attacking his opponent for him."

There was no reversal on the issue, I'm sick of this story coming up again and again. 

Just like Obama's apparent unwillingness to admit that the surge worked. When he in fact does (militarily). But this was never the issue; it was diplomacy that still has not worked, thus defeating the purpose of the surge.

Keep hearing the same misunderstandings being beaten to death.

Now weather money should (or is inevitably) part of politics, that is a relevant question.


----------



## navidson (Oct 22, 2008)

> I'm with you. But it's all relative - around here, central thinking is far right . Welcome to VI Control!



Just remember that from a global perspective, what you percieve to be 'central thinking' really _is_ skewed the right quite impressivly. Nevermind VI Control, welcome to the general conscientious of western civilisation 

The optimist in me would like to see Obama win by a landslide, just to restore some faith in the world that America really doesn't want to spiral in to right-wing nutjob oblivion any more. The pessimist in me thinks there's going to be 2000 style ties and endless recounts and we're all going to spend November on a knife edge.

I'm not pessimistic enough to think McCain will win though, not after such a shambolic campaign of bottom of the barrel smears and character assasination tactics... that thankfully seem to be pushing voters away from the Republican ticket.


----------



## jsaras (Oct 22, 2008)

Evan Gamble @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> rgames @ Wed Oct 22 said:
> 
> 
> > If I understand correctly, you have a problem with the manner in which some politicians bow to money rather than principle.



To be a politician one must rise above principle to do the right thing.


----------



## jsaras (Oct 22, 2008)

rgames @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> jsaras @ Tue Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > ....around here, central thinking is far right .



McCain can hardly be accused of being a far-right ideologue. Neither candidate is of sterling character and both have strong associations with folks who received loads of money from Fannie and Freddy, but for me the election comes down to this; one candidate shot bombs at the enemy, the other shot staples onto a telephone pole. That's all.


----------



## Ed (Oct 22, 2008)

jsaras @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> And yes, Mickey Mouse can only vote once ...per address, per county, per state. You're assuming that the nearly-dead poll workers are astute enough to figure these things out.



And you're assuming those perpetrating the fraud arent smart enough to figure out how to hack the system where noone would ever know. You should check out my thread on Election Fraud and find out.

What you have unfortunately appear to have assumed is that because I do not support one particular group of morons that I must support another set of morons. 

I would vote for Obama because McCain is simply one of the worst choice anyone could ever make.

Ed


----------



## jsaras (Oct 22, 2008)

navidson @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> > The optimist in me would like to see Obama win by a landslide, just to restore some faith in the world that America really doesn't want to spiral in to right-wing nutjob oblivion any more.



Taking the Iraq war and the paranoid fears that GWB is listening-in on your phone-sex calls off the table for the moment, in what way is GWB a 'right-winger'? When it came to spending, I don't think that ever vetoed a single spending bill. I agree with the premise that the debt is outta control and that spending cuts (and not punishing the achievers in our society) is the answer. As a moral principle, individuals and governments should live within their means. When it came to protecting our borders from the illegal alien invasion, GWB opted to become the vice-president of Mexico.

My fear as an independent voter is that the far-left (Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, B.O.) will have complete, super-majority control of all branches of government, something that GWB never had. I prefer grid-lock in Washington. It keeps things from swinging too far in any direction.


----------



## navidson (Oct 22, 2008)

~o)


----------



## synthetic (Oct 22, 2008)

jsaras @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> My fear as an independent voter is that the far-left (Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, B.O.) will have complete, super-majority control of all branches of government, something that GWB never had.



Huh? He had this in 2000 with Newt Gingrich in charge of the house, then brought in his own chief justice. Then he filed away the 'quaint' constitution and got to work.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2008)

"I'm with you. But it's all relative - around here, central thinking is far right . Welcome to VI Control!"

I agree that we have a very intelligent crowd here, but if you think you're centrist you're deluded, Richard. Your posts are consistently very conservative.

Come to think of it, you're deluded anyway. 

"SUMMARY: if you want to change the way the electoral college works, talk to your state government!"

Again: neither of the two parties with the power wants to dilute it by opening the door to more parties. That's why the electoral college isn't going to change.

As I said, it came up for vote in the late 60s, and the public were too stupid to vote to change it - the other reason it won't change.


Nick Batzdorf wrote:
that make large campaign contributions aka bribes

"And which candidate was it who reversed his position on public campaign financing? And which candidate is beating the pants off the other in terms of campaign spending? Is that not an example of willingness to accept the relation between money and influence in politics?"

Both candidates are very willing to accept contributions, since that's how the game is played, and both candidates know that the game is corrupting. McCain has been outspoken about campaign finance reform too - that's one of the things I've liked about him in the past - but he hasn't said anything about it in this election.

Okay he accepted public financing. BFD. The system needs to be completely reworked.


"If I understand correctly, you have a problem with the manner in which some politicians bow to money rather than principle."

All politicians, not just some, but especially Congressmen who are only in for two years and therefore start campaigning for re-election as soon as they're in. This is the biggest corrupting problem with our system of government right now. It costs way too much money to run a campaign.


"And I thought you were an Obama supporter!"

I am indeed, and proud of it. "Supporter" is the right word - I think he's going to be a terrific leader, not just the lesser of two evils.

"Don't get me wrong, though, I understand that's how most politicians work. We shouldn't expect Obama to be any different. (Change, anyone?)"

You're disingenuous, Richard.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2008)

"Taking the Iraq war and the paranoid fears that GWB is listening-in on your phone-sex calls off the table for the moment, in what way is GWB a 'right-winger'?"

Yo.

Haven't you heard of the Bush Doctrine? Or the PNAC, where this perversion of formerly liberal thought was refined (if one can use that word for such a crude and simplistic ideology)?

And have you considered what the money was spent on? Wars! Liberals like to spend money on social programs!

"McCain can hardly be accused of being a far-right ideologue."

He absolutely isn't, but Palin is - not that she knows what she's talking about. That's why he wimped out and allowed his handlers to try and saddle the world with her. However, McCain is pretty far right when it comes to foreign policy, and he wants to appoint more right-wing freaks to the Supreme Court.


----------



## jsaras (Oct 22, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> "
> Haven't you heard of the Bush Doctrine?



If you Google "Bush Doctrine" you will find at least a four different definitions of it. Wikipedia has at least four definitions of it as well.

If you are referring to the idea that we have the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America, I call that simple common sense. There is a famous Talmudic saying, "If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him first." There is a related saying, "Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful."


----------



## jsaras (Oct 22, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> And have you considered what the money was spent on? Wars



That is a valid point. Wars, whether they were just or not, have bankrupted many countries in the past. Why is it that the Iraquis aren't repaying us for the costs with their oil revenue? What gets my goat is that Iraq is part of the oil cartel that wants to raise oil prices on us. So much for the "war for oil".


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2008)

"If you are referring to the idea that we have the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America, I call that simple common sense."

What country was planning an attack on America? Even the neo-cons never said that.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 22, 2008)

jsaras @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 22 said:
> 
> 
> > And have you considered what the money was spent on? Wars
> ...



The oil cartel doesn't want to raise oil prices, that's myth. Like any other business, they
prefer stability. And the war in Iraq is not really about oil. That's an other myth right there. I'm not saying it's not about oil at all but if you follow the paper trail you will see it's about something else.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 22, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> The oil cartel doesn't want to raise oil prices, that's myth.



Um, OPEC just had an emergency session to raise oil prices again. They artificially control the price of oil. 



> And the war in Iraq is not really about oil. That's an other myth right there. I'm not saying it's not about oil at all but if you follow the paper trail you will see it's about something else.



Oil. Why would the USA give a rats ass about the Middle East if not for oil? What was the movie with Matt Damon a few years ago, "We think you were living in tents 100 years ago and that you'll be back there in another 100." We certainly wouldn't be spending billions a week if we didn't have a strong financial interest there. 

I actually think that oil is a great reason to go to war! The country would grind to a halt without it, people would freeze in their homes, shipping and trade would stop, etc. But that's never the reason they give us. Maybe they can't because the Saudis, etc. need to save face.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Oct 22, 2008)

rgames @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Patrick de Caumette said:
> 
> 
> > Whether it's a republic or a democracy, it is supposed to be run by "the people", right?
> ...



I'll take the tyranny of the majority any day, rather than the tyranny of the ruling minority, the way things have gone in this country for much too long.
The electoral vote is a joke. Please don't pretend that it contributes to a fair representation.
The founding fathers' vison and intentions have been hacked.
See the GW government of 2000-2006, controlling all branches of power after massive deceipt, thanks to your buddy Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and their rich groupies.
A great bunch of people you seem to admire so much....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2008)

"Why would the USA give a rats ass about the Middle East if not for oil?"

Exactly. It's not a simple oil grab, but saying it isn't about oil - as Rumsfeld did - is a joke.

(Not that Fernando is literally saying it isn't.)

By the way, Richard, I came off a little harsher than I intended above. Sorry about that.


----------



## jsaras (Oct 22, 2008)

Goldman Sachs has already won.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 22, 2008)

wrong post


----------



## rgames (Oct 23, 2008)

Patrick de Caumette @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> I'll take the tyranny of the majority any day, rather than the tyranny of the ruling minority, the way things have gone in this country for much too long.
> The electoral vote is a joke. Please don't pretend that it contributes to a fair representation.



I'm not saying it does or it doesn't. I'm simply saying that it's a state issue, not a federal issue.



> See the GW government of 2000-2006, controlling all branches of power after massive deceipt, thanks to your buddy Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and their rich groupies.
> A great bunch of people you seem to admire so much....



You're compartmentalizing there - because I'm not an Obama drum beater, I must be a Bush lover, right? I've said a number of times on this forum that I'm not a fan of Bush or his administration. Colin Powell is an exception.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 23, 2008)

It's a state issue in state elections and a federal issue in federal elections.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 23, 2008)

rgames @ Thu Oct 23 said:


> Colin Powell is an exception.
> 
> rgames



Powell is now in the Obama camp. So now the only Republican I've ever loved is gonna work for Obama!

C'mon rgames. Start beating the drum.

Even Alan Greenspan is starting to lose faith in the trickle down bullshit.

Jose


----------



## Thonex (Nov 12, 2008)

Well.... 31% of our polls voters got it right... Obama won by about 7% of the popular vote:

Obama: 53%
McCain: 46%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

It's the first time a Democrat has got more than 50% of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976.


----------



## madbulk (Nov 12, 2008)

Thrilled that I got it wrong. I was discounting by about 4-5% for that ... were they calling it the bradley effect? ... where essentially folks would be inclined to tell a pollster they were voting for Obama and yet due to various levels of racism would in the end not. I found this easy enough to accept. Yay. I don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2008)

So is it considered a landslide or not? To me it was still too close, elated as I am. If we don't see the bottom of this economic collapse by next election we could easily see a return to the Dark Side.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2008)

And by the way that's the scariest part of this impending doom: nations go to war over resources when they don't have them. I hope we can get through this keeping the relative peace we have now.


----------

