Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Obama's Lead Over McCain

The Los Angeles Times reported today that Barack Obama is 12 points ahead of John McCain in the presidential race.

Buoyed by enthusiasm among Democrats and public concern over the economy, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has captured a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the opening of the general election campaign for president, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found.

In a two-man race between the major party candidates, registered voters chose Obama over McCain by 49% to 37% in the national poll conducted last weekend.

Obama's advantage, bigger in this poll than in most other national surveys, appears to stem in large part from his positions on domestic issues. Both Democrats and independent voters say Obama would do a better job than McCain at handling the nation's economic problems, the public's top concern.

Anybody who thinks Obama can handle our economic problems has already checked his or her brain at the door. I'm sure they'll get their brains back when they realize that Obama's decision to ban oil development (can you say $10 gas?) at the same time he pours billions into developing an engine powered by dilithium crystals, on top of raising taxes of all kinds, has sent our country into an economic tailspin. The difference between Bush's economic problems and Obama's disastrous economy should be obvious to all but those whose heads are firmly buried in the sand.

One commenter, PHP87, had this to say about the accuracy of the polling:

According to Gallup, the makeup of Registered Voters looks like this: 37% Dems 34% Indys 28% GOP So Dems have a 9% advantage over Republicans. But the LA Times and Newsweek, which both have Obama ahead by 12-15%, are over sampling Dems and under sampling Republicans. LA TImes: 39% Dems 27% Indys 22% GOP Newsweek: 38% Dems 35% Indys 23% GOP Any wonder they're coming up with double-digit leads of Obama? Because their polls have a built-in, near double-digit bias for Obama. Take out the bias, and Obama has a 3-4 pt. lead, which is in line with legit polls like Gallup and Rasmussen.


Of course, none of this really matters, since the Electoral College is what determines the winner. You have to go state-by-state and add up the electoral votes.

Here's a state map with the "safe" states already filled in (My vote in California won't count). You can play with possible results and see who wins. I tried it by setting the swing states to the party that won in 2004, with Wisconsin (an apparent tie) thrown to the Democrats, and McCain pulls off a big win.


Tsofah said...


I don't really prefer either candidate....but the "lesser of two evils" appears to be McCain.

I'm hoping for a really good VP candidate out of him, ya know?

Either way...Obama concerns me.

Anonymous said...

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 19 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

SkyePuppy said...


I am opposed to a national popular vote for the presidency. The debate among the Founding Fathers concluded with the Electoral College to protect the influence of the small states on national elections.

The question of winner-take-all is NOT a function of the national election, but is determined by the states. A couple states (ME, NB) assign their delegates to the Electoral College proportional to the number of votes each candidate received. All the other states do winner-take-all. Your efforts would be better directed to pressuring each state into changing the allocation of Electors to a proportional system.

Malott said...


Democrats cheat. Dead people vote for Democrats. Illegals vote for Democrats.

The Electoral College keeps the cheaters somewhat in check.