I know November 4th is a long way away

[franktangredi]

If Obama does win, I think the economy will really suffer. That will lead to a Republican take over of both houses of Congress in the 2010 elections. I honestly don't see him winning re-election after four years of his Socialist policies...

My question -- and it's really a question for the most extreme advocates on both sides -- is this:

If the person you oppose wins, will you give them a chance, or will you be HOPING they fail?

Every time the person I oppose wins -- which has happened to me far more than the reverse -- I always pray that I will be proven wrong. Because I'd rather have things go well and cheerfully admit I was wrong, then have things to go badly and smugly say "I told you so."

I hope we ALL feel that way.

[danielh41]

If Obama does win, I think the economy will really suffer. That will lead to a Republican take over of both houses of Congress in the 2010 elections. I honestly don't see him winning re-election after four years of his Socialist policies...

My question -- and it's really a question for the most extreme advocates on both sides -- is this:

If the person you oppose wins, will you give them a chance, or will you be HOPING they fail?

Every time the person I oppose wins -- which has happened to me far more than the reverse -- I always pray that I will be proven wrong. Because I'd rather have things go well and cheerfully admit I was wrong, then have things to go badly and smugly say "I told you so."

I hope we ALL feel that way.

I would never wish for anything that would be bad for our country. If Obama wins, I hope that things do improve. But knowing what he stands for, I just honestly don't forsee that.

[eyégor]

I completely agree with Cal. I have McCain/Pailin getting 198 electoral votes, and I think I'm being generous. Four weeks is still a long time, but I don't see any scenario that will turn this election around enough to give McCain a chance. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Since the last time I listed my prognostications here, the bottom line for Obama hasn't changed. I still have him currently at 264. McCain, meanwhile, drops to 163. Where the big changes are-

Obama has significantly tightened his control of the 264 EVs he currently controls

McCain lost his marginal states to the tossup column, already having good control of his base.

If you remove the tossups other than any flat out ties, Where Obama had a 273-269 lead the last time, he now has a significant bulge of 338-200. While the only tossup in Obama's side of the ledger had been Colorado, that state is now joined by Florida, Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio, in that order. Also, North Carolina is exceedingly close to becoming a true tossup.

Finally, on the sites I monitor that project electoral votes, one has the Nebraska 2nd as a tossup, while another shows both the 2nd and the 1st as leaning for McCain. This site gives Obama a better chance in the 1st than it does McCain in the Maine 2nd, which a third site lists as an Obama lean. While two of these sites lean to the left, the one with the tossup is, if anything, slightly right leaning.

[Weyoun]

And for the cynical out there, I am not attempting to lull anyone into a false sense of security and complacency.

I really think the election is out of reach for McCain.

But for the economic meltdown, I would have held out hope, but it appears to me that it's all over but the shouting.

It is unfortunate.

I am not sure what seal Sen. Obama made with the devil, but I hope he read the fine print carefully.

Of course, Wolfson is wrong that "deregulation" is to blame, so maybe he is wrong about this.

[NellyLunatic1980]

I completely agree with Cal. I have McCain/Pailin getting 198 electoral votes, and I think I'm being generous. Four weeks is still a long time, but I don't see any scenario that will turn this election around enough to give McCain a chance. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

I can't remember how many EVs I gave both Obama and McCain a couple of weeks ago when I posted my final predictions, but I think that out of all of the people who predicted Obama will win, I gave Obama the most conservative number of EVs. It looks like I'm on track to be both right and the most wrong. Story of my life.

[Sir_Galahad]

If Obama does win, I think the economy will really suffer. That will lead to a Republican take over of both houses of Congress in the 2010 elections. I honestly don't see him winning re-election after four years of his Socialist policies...

My question -- and it's really a question for the most extreme advocates on both sides -- is this:

If the person you oppose wins, will you give them a chance, or will you be HOPING they fail?

Every time the person I oppose wins -- which has happened to me far more than the reverse -- I always pray that I will be proven wrong. Because I'd rather have things go well and cheerfully admit I was wrong, then have things to go badly and smugly say "I told you so."

I hope we ALL feel that way.

I would never wish for anything that would be bad for our country. If Obama wins, I hope that things do improve. But knowing what he stands for, I just honestly don't forsee that.

My perspective exactly.

I look at the election as which one will do the least amount of future damage. And, I see that as McCain.

If Obama wins, I will bite my tongue for four years and watch and see what happens. I can only hope that all I have read and heard is not true.

[nitrah55]

As I have said in elections past, I always feel that my choice is between the schmuck I tend to agree with versus the schmuck I tend not to agree with.

Acting like my guy's perfect and the other guy is utterly depraved really doesn't get me anywhere.

I sincerely believe that if either Obama or McCain listen to the angels of their better nature, the country will be basically in good shape, or on its way there, through the course of 4 or 8 years. There have been elections when I did not think that of the candidates.

[ne1410s]

Frankdude:

If the person you oppose wins, will you give them a chance, or will you be HOPING they fail?

Sean Hannity and Keith Olberman, depending on who wins of course, will not give them a chance. Their paychecks depend on trashing the other side. Without dramatic tension you have just a news program--the horror, the horror! Preachers, pastors, rabbis, etc., are in the same boat: without the devil they would have nothing to rail against. IMO

[franktangredi]

As I have said in elections past, I always feel that my choice is between the schmuck I tend to agree with versus the schmuck I tend not to agree with.

Acting like my guy's perfect and the other guy is utterly depraved really doesn't get me anywhere.

I sincerely believe that if either Obama or McCain listen to the angels of their better nature, the country will be basically in good shape, or on its way there, through the course of 4 or 8 years. There have been elections when I did not think that of the candidates.

Plus there's always the possibility that someone will rise to the occasion when they become president. Chester Alan Arthur was a machine politician who became a reformer. Truman was considered a hack. Nixon went to China. You just never know.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I agree with much of what's been said here.

I agree that, now, it would take some kind of catastrophe (or whatever the opposite of "miracle" is) for McCain to win.

I also agree that whoever becomes President is going to have a hard time with the economy. Things are going to be tough.

But some people here seem to be saying that ONLY the economy, and specifically only the recent even-worse news in the economy, is responsible for Obama being the favorite, that otherwise McCain would have been the likely winner. That's just not true.

The only reason McCain was ahead at all in the polls before the bottom fell out of the economy was he was still enjoying his convention bounce.

What happened on Wall Street definitely changed the game. But it changed the game from a race where the equilibrium was a 2-3 point Obama lead to one that's looking increasingly like an Obama landslide.

And McCain knew it, or he would have picked a different running-mate. Reasonable people can disagree on whether Palin's a joke or not. But the reason he made such an unexpected pick is because he knew he was losing and needed to shake things up.

I'm not saying McCain COULDN'T have won the election if the recent, severe downturn hadn't happened. But he wouldn't have been the LIKELY winner either way.

[Sir_Galahad]

I agree with much of what's been said here.

I agree that, now, it would take some kind of catastrophe (or whatever the opposite of "miracle" is) for McCain to win.

Maybe, maybe not. Both Zogby and Rasmussen polls show McCain has closed to within 3 points. Not so much in the state polls, though. But I have a tough time swallowing any of the polling data as they use such a small sampling.

But some people here seem to be saying that ONLY the economy, and specifically only the recent even-worse news in the economy, is responsible for Obama being the favorite, that otherwise McCain would have been the likely winner. That's just not true.

It certainly didn't help in any. Inasmuch as he himself said that he was weak on the economy, he kinda stuck his foot in it by himself.

And McCain knew it, or he would have picked a different running-mate. Reasonable people can disagree on whether Palin's a joke or not. But the reason he made such an unexpected pick is because he knew he was losing and needed to shake things up.

I do not understand why anybody would consider her selection as a joke. Personally, I feel her experience as a mayor and governor give her more credibility as a candidate than a junior senator with no such experience. Would you (or anyone) have said the same thing had he selected Charlie Crist or Tim Pawlenty as his running mate? Or is it just because she is a woman? It's not as though he just picked her off the bus.

The ironic thing I see is that if he would have selected Romney as his running mate, he would have had someone on his team with mucho experience with the economy. But, at least Palin does have experience with an economy of a state.

I'm not saying McCain COULDN'T have won the election if the recent, severe downturn hadn't happened. But he wouldn't have been the LIKELY winner either way.

What makes you say that?

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I'm not saying McCain COULDN'T have won the election if the recent, severe downturn hadn't happened. But he wouldn't have been the LIKELY winner either way.

What makes you say that?

The equilibrium of the race at the time was a 2- to 3-point Obama lead. Obama was better-positioned in state polls, electoral-college-wise, than he was in the national polls. He has a better ground game and is in better position to take advantage of early voting. The reason McCain was ahead in the polls was his convention bounce, which was already fading and would have faded further.

Again, I'm not saying Obama had an insurmountable advantage. But, at that point, he was still the favorite.

[Bob78164]

I do not understand why anybody would consider her selection as a joke. Personally, I feel her experience as a mayor and governor give her more credibility as a candidate than a junior senator with no such experience. Would you (or anyone) have said the same thing had he selected Charlie Crist or Tim Pawlenty as his running mate? Or is it just because she is a woman?

In my case, it's because I've heard her attempt to address the issues. She comes across as clueless, mouthing whatever talking points she happened to memorize that morning, and demonstrating no ability whatsover to adjust to facts on the ground. We've been through eight years of that already. --Bob

[Sir_Galahad]

I'm not saying McCain COULDN'T have won the election if the recent, severe downturn hadn't happened. But he wouldn't have been the LIKELY winner either way.

What makes you say that?

The equilibrium of the race at the time was a 2- to 3-point Obama lead. Obama was better-positioned in state polls, electoral-college-wise, than he was in the national polls. He has a better ground game and is in better position to take advantage of early voting. The reason McCain was ahead in the polls was his convention bounce, which was already fading and would have faded further.

Again, I'm not saying Obama had an insurmountable advantage. But, at that point, he was still the favorite.

Hmmm... I will have to disagree. At the time, the state polls were trending towards McCain, if that really means anything. Again, the only poll I am interested in is the one we will see on Nov 5th.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

What makes you say that?

The equilibrium of the race at the time was a 2- to 3-point Obama lead. Obama was better-positioned in state polls, electoral-college-wise, than he was in the national polls. He has a better ground game and is in better position to take advantage of early voting. The reason McCain was ahead in the polls was his convention bounce, which was already fading and would have faded further.

Again, I'm not saying Obama had an insurmountable advantage. But, at that point, he was still the favorite.

Hmmm... I will have to disagree. At the time, the state polls were trending towards McCain, if that really means anything. Again, the only poll I am interested in is the one we will see on Nov 5th.

That poll is, of course, being taken right now. And based on the way things are going, there's an increasing chance we'll see enough to know who won before the 4th is over.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I agree with much of what's been said here.

I agree that, now, it would take some kind of catastrophe (or whatever the opposite of "miracle" is) for McCain to win.

Maybe, maybe not. Both Zogby and Rasmussen polls show McCain has closed to within 3 points. Not so much in the state polls, though. But I have a tough time swallowing any of the polling data as they use such a small sampling.

By the way, Rasmussen has McCain down 8 today.

[wbtravis007]

I really think the election is out of reach for McCain.

But for the economic meltdown, I would have held out hope, but it appears to me that it's all over but the shouting.

McCain can't win by recycling the old charges about Ayers, Wright, and Rezko, because the public has been willing to give a pass to Obama on them so far.

I've always thought that the Republicans have had more stuff about Obama that they haven't brought out yet. The change in McCain's and Palin's tactics the last couple of days bears this out. They've been hitting Obama hard on character and that's likely to continue during the debate tomorrow. This will get the public thinking at least on some level about Obama's character and background. I expect to see and hear something new shortly after that.

Ive wondered why you've seemed so sure that something big was going to come out, and whether that might be true. I'm now convinced that there's no reason to worry.

Wolfson, as Hillary's communications guy, was one of the main purveyors of that. I view this piece as a dog whistle for the rats on the SSS Hillary 2012 to signal that it's okay to jump off the ship and get on the Obama bandwagon now. (Save yourselves before it's too late!)

I mean, goodness gracious, he even praises Obama as a great candidate!

I expect to see a big difference in the level of the Clintons' participation in the campaign from now on.

[Bob Juch]

Of course it's over. If you want change, why the hell would you vote for the party in power?

[danielh41]

Of course it's over. If you want change, why the hell would you vote for the party in power?

Because Bush, in his second term, has abandoned many conservative ideals. But I predict that a few months into an Obama Presidency, we'll all be wishing for the "good old days" under Bush...

[Jeemie]

If Obama does win, I think the economy will really suffer. That will lead to a Republican take over of both houses of Congress in the 2010 elections. I honestly don't see him winning re-election after four years of his Socialist policies...

I can't see anything more Socialist than the government bailing out -- ie, owning -- this country's financial institutions.

I agree. I think there were much better alternatives than this bailout.

Don't ask McCain.

He supports completeing the socialization of the housing bubble by having the government buy up bad mortgages to let the homeowners negotiate for better terms on price and interest rate.

Even going so far as to striking from the proposal as it was first released the provision that the financial institutions would have to bear the losses when he re-released it the day after the debate (a McCain official said that line had been included in the originally released draft of the proposal as "a simple mistake").

Leaving that out means the government will buy these bad mortgages up at full value as opposed to the steep discount they should be bought up at.

What is that but more socialization of the losses?

[danielh41]

I can't see anything more Socialist than the government bailing out -- ie, owning -- this country's financial institutions.

I agree. I think there were much better alternatives than this bailout.

Don't ask McCain.

He supports completeing the socialization of the housing bubble by having the government buy up bad mortgages to let the homeowners negotiate for better terms on price and interest rate.

Even going so far as to striking from the proposal as it was first released the provision that the financial institutions would have to bear the losses when he re-released it the day after the debate (a McCain official said that line had been included in the originally released draft of the proposal as "a simple mistake").

Leaving that out means the government will buy these bad mortgages up at full value as opposed to the steep discount they should be bought up at.

What is that but more socialization of the losses?

It is what it is, and I disagree strongly with McCain's support of this bailout plan. I've said before that I'm not crazy about McCain. I didn't really get into this whole political thing until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

But I look at it this way: An Obama presidency would be a disaster economically, socially, and morally, and the defense spending cuts that would undoubtedly come would leave us extremely vulnerable to a devastating attack. Why is it that liberals want to increase spending everywhere in government except the one area in which government is responsible (defense)?

A McCain presidency might not be successful, and it might not even be that great. But it would be far better than the alternative.

[Jeemie]

And for the cynical out there, I am not attempting to lull anyone into a false sense of security and complacency.

I really think the election is out of reach for McCain.

But for the economic meltdown, I would have held out hope, but it appears to me that it's all over but the shouting.

It is unfortunate.

I am not sure what seal Sen. Obama made with the devil, but I hope he read the fine print carefully.

Of course, Wolfson is wrong that "deregulation" is to blame, so maybe he is wrong about this.

Deregulation is most certainly a big part of this mess.

Not the whole part, but a big part.

But for deregulation/lax oversight, the problems with CDOs and MDSs would have been spotted FAR earlier.

[Jeemie]

I agree. I think there were much better alternatives than this bailout.

Don't ask McCain.

He supports completeing the socialization of the housing bubble by having the government buy up bad mortgages to let the homeowners negotiate for better terms on price and interest rate.

Even going so far as to striking from the proposal as it was first released the provision that the financial institutions would have to bear the losses when he re-released it the day after the debate (a McCain official said that line had been included in the originally released draft of the proposal as "a simple mistake").

Leaving that out means the government will buy these bad mortgages up at full value as opposed to the steep discount they should be bought up at.

What is that but more socialization of the losses?

It is what it is, and I disagree strongly with McCain's support of this bailout plan. I've said before that I'm not crazy about McCain. I didn't really get into this whole political thing until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

But I look at it this way: An Obama presidency would be a disaster economically, socially, and morally, and the defense spending cuts that would undoubtedly come would leave us extremely vulnerable to a devastating attack. Why is it that liberals want to increase spending everywhere in government except the one area in which government is responsible (defense)?

A McCain presidency might not be successful, and it might not even be that great. But it would be far better than the alternative.

I do not agree- the difference between a McCain and an Obama Administration would be insignificant.

Especially since events are moving that make the odds of what promises/plans they have made actually occuring almost nil.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Of course it's over. If you want change, why the hell would you vote for the party in power?

It ain't over until the Diebold voting machine sings... or until George W. Bush declares martial law, cancels the election, and declares himself king.

[danielh41]

Of course it's over. If you want change, why the hell would you vote for the party in power?

It ain't over until the Diebold voting machine sings... or until George W. Bush declares martial law, cancels the election, and declares himself king.

That would be better than an Obama presidency. But seriously, I think Bush is probably tired of being President by now. When you think about it, it is like a prison. You can't go anywhere without a contingent of Secret Service men; the press watches your every move; your agenda is jam packed each day with meetings, etc. because you are in such demand. In fact, why would anyone want to be President?