I know many Democrats are out measuring the drapes and getting ready to take power. Yet, as invariably happens, as the election nears and people begin really thinking seriously about the candidates for the first time, the race tightens. The latest Associated Press-GfK poll has Obama nad McCain in a dead heat.

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.

The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day.

"I trust McCain more, and I do feel that he has more experience in government than Obama. I don't think Obama has been around long enough," said Angela Decker, 44, of La Porte, Ind. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93VM4PO0&show_article=1
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=THOMASSON-10-20-08

The amazing thing is that McCain is even close. Obama ads outnumber McCain ads by a ratio of at least 8 to 1! This is due to McCain, long a supporter of campaign finance reform, accepted public financing and Obama (previously a supporter of public financing) did not. McCain, due to his acceptance of public financing is limited to spending a total of $84 million. Obama, on the other hand, raised $150 million in September alone.

If Obama wins, among all the other horrible things it will portend, it will be the death nell for public financing of presidential elections.

Sen. John McCain, one of the most vocal proponents of campaign finance reform, is being hoisted by his own petard by choosing to accept federal funding for his general election campaign. Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama, the choice of the Democratic Party — the very party that cried out for finance reform in the wake of the Watergate scandal — has chosen to bypass public funds and, as a result, is pummeling McCain in the fundraising arena.

Obama's fundraising prowess "makes the argument for public financing pretty damn weak," says Craig Shirley, a conservative strategist and author of an upcoming book about the 1980 election, Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America.

McCain, speaking to Fox News, warns that Obama's accumulation of such massive amounts of money can lead to fundraising abuses. Obama is "completely breaking whatever idea we had after Watergate to keep the costs and spending on campaigns under control," McCain says.

Gary L. Bauer, president of the conservative group American Values, says: "I agree with McCain: Obama is buying the presidency and has increased the chance of future corruption."

Obama's huge cash advantage has allowed him to overwhelm the McCain campaign with a flood of advertising. Obama is able to promote his campaign not only in old-school venues such as television and Web sites but in innovative spaces such as video games. Obama has purchased a 30-minute time slot on several networks to show an infomercial. He can meet McCain's negative ads one for one, and run positive advertising as well.

While McCain is pulling out of states such as Michigan that he sees as unwinnable, Obama's money allows him to wade into states such as Utah and West Virginia that Democrats heretofore had considered to be lost causes. At the same time, Obama is bolstering his organization in traditionally Republican strongholds where the race has narrowed this year, such as Missouri, Virginia and North Carolina. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95957148
Again, that the election could still be this close despite Obama burying McCain with a mountain of money is amazing. I know I see countless Obama ads every day and never see any McCain ads! IStill, I can imagine the hue and cry if Obama loses despite spending damned near enough to pay off the national debt!

Do you even know what his campaign finance reform bill did? I bet you my next paycheck that you have no idea.

"I know many Democrats are out measuring the drapes and getting ready to take power."

I am not, I am an independent I lean to fiscal conservative democrats and republicans that are social moderates. Yes there are not that many of either. But I don't expect Obama to win easy. My biggest concern is even though republicans and John McCain have no business winning this time, there is still an unknown of racism that could be a factor.

"The amazing thing is that McCain is even close"

No, there are so many on each side that will just vote for the party that it is always somewhat close. I truly hope Obama wins. If anything to show the republicans that the direction they are going is very dangerous. Sarah Palin is all I need to say.

That is what did it for me with John McCain. That was basically irresponsible especially considering his age.

Don't forget Republican's trying to suppress voter turnout. That'll tighten it up, maybe even win it for McCain like it did for Bush.

Close election? what are you smoking?
According the poll of polls obama is killing mccain right now
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Now could something happen in the next 12 days, of course, or could the polls be missing something big like Bradley effect and cellphone users, surely. I made bets on mccain winning and I intend to stay by those bets no matter how bad things look now for mccain.

Also it takes logarithmically increasing amounts of money to increase ones poll results, so the amount of money to achieve a 2 point advantage is many fold less than say 8 points, add the fact obama is black and the years of sympathy by the American people for mccain and I would think obama's lead is right on the money.

If you look at most presidential polls, there is a slump right before the election for the guys that are ahead and massive gain for the guys below, I think this is because independents automatically break for the underdog so mccain is likely to catch up alot of points in the coming days, questions is will he catch up enough?

It seems that the "Dead Heat" scenario relies on national numbers from a single poll. National totals, as we all know very well, have no bearing on the outcome of the election. Projections drawn from averages of multiple polls presently show Obama with enough electoral votes to win. If the election was held today, RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10) calculates, based on these averages, a 364-174 win for Obama/Biden. McCain continues to bleed votes even in red states; Georgia, once the weakest of his "solid" states by the RCP average, at 15%, has slipped to a "leaning" state, with the Republican advantage at 6.8%. The AP/GfK poll and a George Washington University poll of battleground states are Obama's weakest numbers in the RCP National Average for 10/15-10.21; Obama trails in no polls, peaks at 14% in a Pew Research poll overlapping the period of the AP/GFK poll, breaks +10% according Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby, ABC News/Washington Post, and NBC News/Wall Street Journal. FOX News scores Obama at +9%. The RCP National Average shows Obama +7%.

Polls are not necessarily the most reliable statistics, but as long as conservatives grasping after windlestraws want to celebrate that their candidate is only trailing by a point in a certain poll, we might as well consider what that poll means in the broader context.

To the other, Obama's numbers range between 44% (AP/GfK) and 54% (ABC/WaPo), with the RCP Natl. Avg. at 49.9% to McCain's 42.9%. For his part, McCain is running between 39% (Pew) and 47% (GWU), clocking a 42.9% average.

The general trend for the averages—


http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/416/rcpobamamccainoct21kv3.png

—is against McCain. McCain crashed after his post-convention bounce to 48.3%, and needs a very strong push to break away from where he's hovering at 42-44%.

(Note on Edit: Ah, I see ElectricFetus has presented the RCP map. Apologies for the overlap.)
____________________

Notes:

Real Clear Politics. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Close election? what are you smoking?
According the poll of polls obama is killing mccain right now
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Exactly!

Dead Heat, my ass!
Dead heat is not rose colored glasses - it's LSD induced.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/




Election 2008 Obama McCain Spread
RCP National Average 49.9 42.9 Obama +7.0
Favorable Ratings +20.3 +7.3 Obama +13.0
Intrade Market Odds 86.7 12.9 -

Electoral College Obama McCain Spread
RCP Electoral Count 286 160 Obama +126
No Toss Up States 364 174 Obama +190

Battleground States Obama McCain Spread
Colorado 50.4 45.0 Obama +5.4
Ohio 48.3 45.8 Obama +2.5
Florida 48.0 46.5 Obama +1.5
Nevada 49.3 46.0 Obama +3.3
Missouri 48.0 45.3 Obama +2.7
North Carolina 49.2 47.2 Obama +2.0
Virginia 51.5 44.5 Obama +7.0


By the way - Obama Supporters (not just Democrats) are not measuring the drapes, we are measuring the roof to replace the solar panels Jimmy Carter put up when he was in office and Reagan ripped down as soon as he got into the White House.

Election a Dead Heat

Errr, I wouldn't use the word "dead" in such a statement.

Another poll shows the race tightening:

IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll: Day Ten

Posted: Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Contrary to other polls, some of which show Obama ahead by double digits, the IBD/TIPP Poll shows a sudden tightening of Obama's lead to 3.7 from 6.0. McCain has picked up 3 points in the West and with independents, married women and those with some college. He's also gaining momentum in the suburbs, where he's gone from dead even a week ago to a 20-point lead. Obama padded gains in urban areas and with lower-class households, but he slipped 4 points with parents.

View Results From Prior Days

About IBD/TIPP: An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed IBD's polling partner, TIPP, was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season. Learn more at www.TIPPonline.com. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309546869309178

Keep holding onto that hope, audacious madanthonywayne.

madanthonywayne,

let me explain one of the failings of statistics: lets say you have 20 poll, of which 17 says above and 3 say below, do you conclude the below polls must be true? NO! All polls have a margin of error in which we would expect 95-90% chance the true value is within a certain margin depending on sample size, this thus means that by random chance your going to get polls with results outside of the margin or error, how to fix this? Take the mean of all the polls together! So stop looking at what ever poll that is likely erroneous and start looking at the combined polls! Do as I do and expect the opposing party will win, it will make you feel much better when it happens.

ElectricFetus

It's not that I disagree about the nature of polls. In fact, I think you're on target. But We also need to look to One Raven's point:



Keep holding onto that hope, audacious madanthonywayne.

Conservatives have every right to cling to whatever tattered shreds of hope remain. Indeed, the odd poll here and there showing McCain isn't losing quite as badly as the rest of the numbers suggest is pretty much all they've got to hang onto.

ElectricFetus

It's not that I disagree about the nature of polls. In fact, I think you're on target. But We also need to look to One Raven's point:



Conservatives have every right to cling to whatever tattered shreds of hope remain. Indeed, the odd poll here and there showing McCain isn't losing quite as badly as the rest of the numbers suggest is pretty much all they've got to hang onto.

I have the belief that a lot is going to change in the next 12 days, mark my words: MCCAIN IS GOING TO WIN! or I'm not going to have money to eat for the next month.

I have the belief that a lot is going to change in the next 12 days, mark my words: MCCAIN IS GOING TO WIN! or I'm not going to have money to eat for the next month.

It's not impossible, just highly improbable.

I think mre Republicans should read The Audacity of Hope.
They should take a cue from our friend, madanthonywayne.
Seriously.
I honestly always like to focus on what is possible, rather than what is probable.
I was holding onto hope against hope that Bush was going to lose in '04 until the last possible moment.

The polls are indeed close. But in the electoral college, there is no competition. The big states - California, New York, Illinois, etc - are all going democratic despite having number of Republicans in them. So huge numbers of McCain supporters go unrepesented in the elctoral college... its kinda like gerrymandering, except on a national scale. So no matter who wins the popular vote, Obama will win because he will take the electoral college.

It's nothing at all like gerrymandering!
Care to support that absurd accusition?

It's nothing at all like gerrymandering!
Care to support that absurd accusition?

Yes, I do.

See, there are a huge number of Republicans in California - but not as many as there are democrats. So since the majority of the state will go Democratic, every single one of the state's electoral votes goes to Obama, depite the fact that there are a lot of Republicans. So all of the Californians that cast votes for McCain in the state will go unrepresented in the electoral college simply because they are a bit outnumbered. Of course, its not reall gerrymandering, because the state's borders are not being chnged, but it is similar in the sense that a large body of Republicans is stuck in one state where they are outnumbered so they cant win.

Yes, I do.

See, there are a huge number of Republicans in California - but not as many as there are democrats. So since the majority of the state will go Democratic, every single one of the state's electoral votes goes to Obama, depite the fact that there are a lot of Republicans. So all of the Californians that cast votes for McCain in the state will go unrepresented in the electoral college simply because they are a bit outnumbered. Of course, its not reall gerrymandering, because the state's borders are not being chnged, but it is similar in the sense that a large body of Republicans is stuck in one state where they are outnumbered so they cant win.

Thank you for clarifying.
I agree that the Electoral College system needs to be revamped.

Thank you for clarifying.
I agree that the Electoral College system needs to be revamped.

Revamped is an understatement, it it was not for that fucking system we would have had Gore for the last 4-8 years! But because its in the constitution its going to be really hard to get rid of, but there is a work around underdevelopment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

I don't think we should get rid of it.
I just think it needs to be more reflective of the will of the people.
I am a string proponent of state's rights, and I think it is valid to have each state get an equal say on issues that will affect them all equally.

In another thread I suggested giving each state an equal number of votes (let's say 10) and instituting a system of run-off voting.

I don't think we should get rid of it.
I just think it needs to be more reflective of the will of the people.
I am a string proponent of state's rights, and I think it is valid to have each state get an equal say on issues that will affect them all equally.

In another thread I suggested giving each state an equal number of votes (let's say 10) and instituting a system of run-off voting.

The electoral college does not do that, for example North Dakota does not have an equal say in the presidential results as Florida does. With the electoral college the only states that get a "say" at all of getting a president to address their needs are so called "swing" states.

If you going to implement run-off voting why not go the whole why with Instant-runoff voting?

Dead Heat?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/15/tz.ecmap.10.15.gif

Obama 277
McCain 174

cnn.com

Dead Heat?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/15/tz.ecmap.10.15.gif

Obama 277
McCain 174

cnn.com

Projections two weeks out, and the polls are closing, it's crunch time, the choice, a no time newbie with no experience, or the the old pro, who has the gravitass.

Lets see what your map looks like on election night, this don't have any validity, and you know it.

The electoral college does not do that, for example North Dakota does not have an equal say in the presidential results as Florida does. With the electoral college the only states that get a "say" at all of getting a president to address their needs are so called "swing" states.

If you going to implement run-off voting why not go the whole why with Instant-runoff voting?
Of course it does not do that now, which is why I think it needs to be revamped so it does.
As I said, I think each state should have an equal say in issues that affect them all equally.
Direct election runoff voting does not do that either.

What would would be a system like the one I proposed.


Projections two weeks out, and the polls are closing, it's crunch time, the choice, a no time newbie with no experience, or the the old pro, who has the gravitass.

Lets see what your map looks like on election night, this don't have any validity, and you know it.

Regardless of whether polls have any meaning or can predict the futire is beside the point.
Of course anything can happen between then and now.
The point is, madanthonywayne started this thread claiming that the race is a dead-heat and that is simply not true.

Dead Heat?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/15/tz.ecmap.10.15.gif

Obama 277
McCain 174

cnn.com

Yes, even Obamas internals show something going wrong.



Steve Corbett, a radio talk show host in Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, accidentally received a copy of an internal email sent by Grant Olin who heads the Wilkes-Barre headquarters of the Obama campaign. The email went to 627 Obama campaign volunteers in the Wilkes-Barre Scranton region, saying that Obama Headquarters reported an internal poll which shows that Obama is only 2 points up in Pennsylvania.

Sean Smith, who is heading Obama’s Pennsylvania campaign, was interviewed by Steve Corbett via phone at 5:35 today to discuss this. He said that Grant "went rogue", and aknowledged that Grant was "reprimanded" for this.

Regardless of whether polls have any meaning or can predict the futire is beside the point.
Of course anything can happen between then and now.
The point is, madanthonywayne started this thread claiming that the race is a dead-heat and that is simply not true.

Really? then why are you and the rest of the liberals dancing on a grave that hasn't been filled yet?

Really? then why are you and the rest of the liberals dancing on a grave that hasn't been filled yet?

I can only speak for myself.
I wouldn't presume all liberals are the same even if I was one (unlike some people I know).
Because he is winning.
That doesn't mean he has won.
If you are watching sports and your team is winning, don't you cheer?
I'm not the type to leave a stadium before it is done, even if there is a huge lead and defeat seems imminent.
However, I will cheer if my team is ahead.

Dead Heat?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/15/tz.ecmap.10.15.gif

Obama 277
McCain 174

cnn.com
The electoral college tends to exagerate the difference between the candidates. That's one of it's "benefits", it makes it appear that a candidate has more of a mandate than would be the case with a straight popular vote. Winning 40 states is much more impressive than, say, winning with 55% of the vote.

But this makes, IMHO, electoral college tallies damned near meaningless prior to the election as a shift of a few points can completely change that map.

I can only speak for myself.
I wouldn't presume all liberals are the same even if I was one (unlike some people I know).
Because he is winning.
That doesn't mean he has won.
If you are watching sports and your team is winning, don't you cheer?
I'm not the type to leave a stadium before it is done, even if there is a huge lead and defeat seems imminent.
However, I will cheer if my team is ahead.

But that is what it seems you expected of us, (to leave a stadium) and as you say the election isn't over, and I wonder about the perceived lead.

Most of the polls are story driven, they run a poll to make a story, and the internals of the polls are shit, so they have these double digit leads that melt like a snowball in hell as the election nears.

I love to cheer when I know there is good reason to cheer, but the polls up to now, are spurious at best, with agendas to make a good biased story for Obama's certain victory, and McCain's defeat.

But that is what it seems you expected of us, (to leave a stadium)
Is that really what it seems I am expecting?



Seriously.
I honestly always like to focus on what is possible, rather than what is probable.
I was holding onto hope against hope that Bush was going to lose in '04 until the last possible moment.
Again, I don't pretend or even attempt to speak for all Obama supporters.
Perhaps you should start treating people as individuals as well.
I know you are capable.


I love to cheer when I know there is good reason to cheer, but the polls up to now, are spurious at best, with agendas to make a good biased story for Obama's certain victory, and McCain's defeat.
You really think so.
You think it's a vast conspiracy, across nearly 100% of the polls across the nation?
Come on.
Really?

Is that really what it seems I am expecting?


Again, I don't pretend or even attempt to speak for all Obama supporters.
Perhaps you should start treating people as individuals as well.
I know you are capable.


You really think so.
You think it's a vast conspiracy, across nearly 100% of the polls across the nation?
Come on.
Really?

Again, how many of those polls are agenda driven, and what are the internal's of those polls, you can make a poll sit up and bark like a dog doing tricks.

But in every election for the last 30 years, the polls were in favor of the Democrats by double digits, right up to the election, the last double digit winner was Ronald Reagan who received 58.8% to Mondale's 40.6%.

Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote, and 56.6 percent of the Voters rejected Clinton, the only reson that he won was the split in vote to Ross Perot.

Even is the 1996 election Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote, and the polls showed a double digit lead, for Clinton on Nov. 5,


Polls Give President Big Lead (Clinton leads Dole by 16% in final pre-election poll)
IHT ^ | November 5, 1996

A New York Times/CBS News Poll issued Monday showed Mr. Clinton holding a lead of 16 percentage points over Mr. Dole, nearly the same as a year ago.

Clinton won by 8%, in what should have been a walk away election.

In 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore the election was a 47.9% 48.4% a .05%difference.

But October started out with Gore with a 11% lead, and this dropped to margine of error at election time.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/05/tracking.poll/index.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SP8DKSFbxII/AAAAAAAAWjA/DGVzWDhOsYY/s400/goracle+bush.JPG

From News Week Oct. 2004:

News Week:

1. Independents favor Kerry/Edwards by 11 points, 51-40.

2. First-time voters favor Kerry/Edwards by 21, 57-36.

3. Early voters favor Kerry/Edwards by 9, 52-43.

4. Young voters (18-29) favor Kerry/Edwards by 9, 50-40, and seniors (65+) favor Kerry/Edwards by 15, 54-39.

5. Men favor K/E by 50-46 and women favor Bush-Cheney by 49-43.

It seems the main stream media love double digits leads for Democrats, but the leads don't ever seem to hold up under the light of day, and the Light is Election day.

Here comes a bit of rabid paranoia.

Even FOX channel thinks McCain might be a dead horse.

Of course it does not do that now, which is why I think it needs to be revamped so it does.
As I said, I think each state should have an equal say in issues that affect them all equally.
Direct election runoff voting does not do that either.

What would would be a system like the one I proposed.


I disagree with you valuing states rights over people rights in the presidential election. States get their say when they elect state government and US senators, if you want to increase state power over federal I don't think changing how the president is elected is going to do anything. Rather you should limit what the US Congress and President can do to a state.

Here comes a bit of rabid paranoia.

Even FOX channel thinks McCain might be a dead horse.

Yeah, I agree. You know it is bad for the Republicans when Faux News is throwing in the towel. But you Republican Die Hards, keep it up. We want to make sure all the Obama supporters come out and vote on election day.

Again, how many of those polls are agenda driven, and what are the internal's of those polls, you can make a poll sit up and bark like a dog doing tricks.

I wonder if it's a better strategy to make your candidate look like he's winning so that the other candidate's voters get discouraged and undecided voters "jump on the band wagon," or if it's better to portray your candidate as falling behind so that your supporters get motivated and your opponent's supporters get complacent? I could see either strategy working.

I voted early. There was a long line. I was told from exit polls that the numbers are 57 to 40 in Obama's favor yesterday. But in our area there are too many young people that could skew the results. Old white people may vote for McCain. The whole thing could be decided by Ohio, Florida and may be Pennsylvania....

As much as I respect one_raven's intelligence and opinion, I don't like the idea of each state having equal votes in the electoral system. If that were the case, you could theoretically have a landslide electoral victory for the candidate that lost the popular vote by a landslide. It's bad enough that a couple of President have won despite losing narrow popular vote counts, but you could really have a bad result by giving everyone the same amount of votes.


If you want to revamp it, just get rid of it.

The electoral college tends to exagerate the difference between the candidates. That's one of it's "benefits", it makes it appear that a candidate has more of a mandate than would be the case with a straight popular vote. Winning 40 states is much more impressive than, say, winning with 55% of the vote.

But this makes, IMHO, electoral college tallies damned near meaningless prior to the election as a shift of a few points can completely change that map.

not to be a dick but you can win 40 states and lose the election.

Economist Global poll for the US President

http://www.economist.com/vote2008/?a=true&cid=169&v=true

You can see each area. Most Europeans overwhelmingly support Obama-Biden

not to be a dick but you can win 40 states and lose the election.

No, PJdude, your off by one, you have to win the election with 11 states, to reach 271.

California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15),

No, PJdude, your off by one, you have to win the election with 11 states, to reach 271.

California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15),

Damn it I knew after 8 years I should have redone the math. and holy shit california is still gaining people.

If you want to revamp it, just get rid of it.
A solution that would be much easier to implement (because you don't have to amend the constitution to do it) would be to simply split the electoral votes in each state according to the popular vote in that state. So, for example, if your state has 20 votes and 40% of the population votes republican while 60% votes democrat, that generates 8 republican electoral votes and 12 democrat votes. That would make it more-or-less impossible for someone to win the popular vote but lose the election, and the 12 million or so republicans in California and 8 million democrats in Texas would get to have their votes actually matter.

As for all those that think that Obama will win. Please, I urge you to remain vigilant,

The american people have screwed up before, and may do so again. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they may just vote in the party that led the country down.

A solution that would be much easier to implement (because you don't have to amend the constitution to do it) would be to simply split the electoral votes in each state according to the popular vote in that state. So, for example, if your state has 20 votes and 40% of the population votes republican while 6% votes democrat, that generates 8 republican electoral votes and 12 democrat votes. That would make it more-or-less impossible for someone to win the popular vote but lose the election, and the 12 million or so republicans in California and 8 million democrats in Texas would get to have their votes actually matter.

That's not a bad idea. I guess if amending the Constitution is out of the question, then that's just as good. Or almost as good.

Old white people may vote for McCain. ...
Actually, the young(18-24) are McCain's strongest demographic:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2008/10/McCainObamaPoll228-thumb-320x319.jpg

A solution that would be much easier to implement (because you don't have to amend the constitution to do it) would be to simply split the electoral votes in each state according to the popular vote in that state. So, for example, if your state has 20 votes and 40% of the population votes republican while 60% votes democrat, that generates 8 republican electoral votes and 12 democrat votes. That would make it more-or-less impossible for someone to win the popular vote but lose the election, and the 12 million or so republicans in California and 8 million democrats in Texas would get to have their votes actually matter.

Agreed. I like the electoral college. It gives the smaller states a slightly better voice in the election. That's federalism at work. I just think it should be proportional.

~String

Actually, the young(18-24) are McCain's strongest demographic:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2008/10/McCainObamaPoll228-thumb-320x319.jpg

In age subgroups, McCain's strongest support (47%) is among those 65 or older, while Obama's strongest support (59%) is among those under 30.

http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/fun-with-demographics.html

New poll has McCain/Obama within one point of each other:

McCain has cut into Obama's lead for a second day and is now just 1.1 points behind. The spread was 3.7 Wednesday and 6.0 Tuesday. The Republican is making headway with middle- and working- class voters, and has surged 10 points in two days among those earning between $30,000 and $75,000. He has also gone from an 11-point deficit to a 9-point lead among Catholics.

View Results From Prior Days

About IBD/TIPP: An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed IBD's polling partner, TIPP, was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season. Learn more at www.TIPPonline.com. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309635713550536

it isn't over tell it is over:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24mccain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Among the federal employees and the contractors....as of today...it would be Obama...

it isn't over tell it is over:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24mccain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

It is an up-hill battle for McCain. He has to win ALL the "tossup" states + a big "Obama leaning" state like PA or VA.

~String

There should be no question that McCain can still win. Polls aren't always accurate, so we don't know if Obama really has a 10-point lead like the one says, or if he's even behind by a point, in reality, because we just don't know how the swing and new voters are going to play out. And we don't know how many Republicans are really going to vote Obama, or vice-versa.

I think Obama will win by a comfortable margin, but I would not be totally shocked if McCain squeeked it out.