Friday, June 6, 2008

Early Election Analysis: Sugar for your morning coffee!

Obama in a Blowout: The Presidential Election
Will Not Be Close

By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet. Posted
June 6, 2008.

Charisma, change and vision vs. a gaffe-prone spent force: Obama will beat McCain and win 300 to 350 electoral votes.

"The November presidential election is not going to be close. Barack Obama is going to beat John McCain by 8 to 10 points in the national popular vote and win 300 to 350 electoral votes. Obama is going to wipe out McCain mano a mano.


Even in fund-raising, a traditional Republican strength, the Republicans are at a disadvantage. At last reported count, Obama had $51 million in cash on hand; McCain had $11 million. In the combined cash of the national party committees, Republicans had $55.5 million; Democrats $87.1 million. The netroots has raised unprecedented amounts of money for Democrats, especially Obama; labor unions have gone deeper into their pockets and are raising more money for Democrats than in prior elections; and, even business PACs have given more money to Democrats! Business blows with the wind, and it knows which way the wind is blowing.

Simply put, this is the worst possible time for any Republican to be running for president. And this is not simply my opinion; it is an opinion that has many adherents in the Republican Party and among traditional Republican supporters. Representative Tom Davis, from Virginia, in an internal memo to Republicans, recently wrote, "The political atmosphere facing Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than the fall of 2006. The Republican brand is in the trash can. [I]f we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf.""

I'm not generally a fan of big, optimistic predictions. There is still a long way from November, and there is a TON of shit that could go wrong for the Obama campaign. A major terrorist attack or an attack on Iran would be huge game-changers, and there are others that many of us are afraid to even contemplate.

However, this is a pretty spot on analysis of the steeply uphill battle McCain and the GOoPers are facing this year. Unless there is a major political earthquake in this country, there is every reason to believe that Barack Obama will mop the floor with John McCain's stupid face. The bottom line is that Obama would have to do something to lose this election - McCain's not going to win it.

In a way I almost feel bad for the old coot - but not really. It's kind of the same way I feel about the Kansas City Royals, when the White Sox are sweeping them three games out of three. I pity them in a generic sense, but since the good guys are playing them right now, it's absolutely no mercy.

Once the GE is over, and Obama has won, perhaps I'll feel bad for the old-timer. But for now, he is representing all that's wrong with America, and he needs to be squelched.

That being said, I ain't sittin this one on the bench. I've signed up to give a little $15/month - just a little more than my trifling grad student salary will allow. You can do the same here.

Yes, we can.


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 votes—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).

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes 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 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, 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.



Downtown Dave said...

I totally agree that a national popular vote makes way more sense that our current, effed up "Electoral College." Hopefully sane minds can prevail over the next few years to do away with our antiquated and un-democratic system.

However, I will say that this does not necessarily bear directly on Obama's chances this year. Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia and possibly Missouri are swing states where Barack has an incredibly good chance.

Downtown Dave said...


Thanks for you comments.

National Geographic POD