15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Election

[Kulindahr]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

I'm not sure what the purpose of signage is in a Presidential campaign anyway. I can see how, in a local race, say State Rep. or County Commissioner, the name recognition generated by yard signs alone might prove decisive, but for the big races I don't get it.

Name recognition is still important in a presidential campaign (not that there's anything presidential about them), and so is the opinion of a neighbor. If it's important for the State Treasurer, it's important for a president's campaign just as much.

It's because the primaries are way too different from the general election. In the general election, there's a winner-takes-all system for every state except two small ones (Maine and Nebraska). In the primary season, every state has a number of delegates not equal (or even proportional!) to the number of electors of that state, and there are lots of delegates that do not even represent a state (Democrats Abroad, Puerto Rico and Guam, the apparatchiks known as superdelegates...).

I think it would make sense to have a primary season with a winner-takes-all system, like the Republicans have, and only in the 50 states and DC. And perhaps the swing states could be put earlier on the calendar?

ICO7 a while back posted a nice scheme that would rotate states' positions on a shorter primary calendar; someone else proposed drawing states' names out of a hat and sticking them on dates already set.
Either scheme would be an improvement. And if any state passed a law setting "its" primary on such-and-such a date, there would be wonderful grounds for a lawsuit, since primaries do not, truly, belong to the states: they belong to the parties, and are private functions of those parties (it's too bad the Democrats of Florida didn't sue their respective state legislatures for messing with their primaries).

 

[naked gent]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

However, the bigger problem more typical with the Dem primaries is that the left hijacks the party.

I'm not sure you're response matches your premise for the left to hijack the party during the primaries doesn't there need to be a less liberal candidate whom they reject?

And if thats the case which candidate in 2000 or 2004 were more conservative than the eventual nominee? Was Bradley to the right of Gore and were Edwards or Dean to the right of Kerry? Had the left not hijacked the primaries who would the nominee have been?

Lets not forget both parties primary voters force their candidates to the right or left as the case may be and then during the general they do the Obama.

LOL....I'm laughing because I pretty much disagree with your entire post, except the 1988 part.

See above.

In 2000, Gore (whom I love) inexplicably forget his entire Tennessee senate and VP days and ran as an old time liberal. Had he kept with the Clinton record and his own biography, he would have won states like NH, TN and WV and consequently the election. Gore moved to the far left out of pressure from...yep, those primary liberals who can't simmer down and be glad for a win.

Well he did receive more votes so I do think this is a bad example to illustrate your point but above you seem to be saying he didn't run to the center during the general and then you blame it on the lefty primary voters.

If Gore gave in to pressure from primary voters after he won the nomination....well like you say it is inexplicable. Evidently Obama is not making the same mistake.

In 2004, honestly!!! That's your worst argument. Bush should have never been in the game. Close, as in 2.5%, doesn't count. He was another Yankee liberal that only "sells" in the northeast.

He came awful close to winning for a guy who only "sells" in the northeast but even so what liberal issue which the left forced Kerry into taking caused him to loose the election.

Neither Gore or Kerry were particularly good candidates but that was not because of the dem primary voters or their liberal politics.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

Zogby has released a veritable potpourri of state wide polling data. Some of these states are eye-opening. All of the polling was done through June 30. They use a new polling format that was unveiled in 2006 where they forecasted 17/18 US Senate races accurately....losing only Missouri where McCaskil edged Jim Talent...however, they were still within the margin of error.

They note that Libertarian Barr is having a big impact on certain races, particularly in Colorado, Arizona, New Hampshire, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia. Here are some interesting states from Zogby:

OREGON -- Obama +16

ARIZONA -- Obama +3 -- Barr is doing tremendously well with self declared "very conservative" voters in AZ. Don't expect this to hold up in the Copper state.

NEW MEXICO -- Obama +16 -- Obama has opened up a huge lead in the Land of Enchantment.

NEVADA -- Tied --The Silver state is in a dead heat.

COLORADO -- Obama +2 -- Every poll has the Centennial state close.

MISSOURI -- Obama +2 -- For the record, in the swinging Show Me state, my money is on McCain.

IOWA -- Obama +4 -- The Hawkye state put him on the map, and appear to be sticking with him.

MINNESOTA -- Obama +16

OKLAHOMA -- McCain +5 -- when is the last time the Sooner state had a presidential poll this close?

TEXAS -- McCain +3

WISCONSIN -- Obama +10

INDIANA -- McCain +1 -- Consistently, we keep finding the Hoosier state presidential race more compelling than a Notre Dame football game. Could Evan Bayh as Veep put Obama over the top here?

MICHIGAN -- Obama +14 -- this poll from the Wolverine state seems inconsistent with the closeness of other Michigan polls. Among its highlights: Obama +4 with white voters; tied among male voters; McCain lead by only 7% among over age 65 voters (a small lead among seniors compared to other states); McCain's only income lead was with those making over $250K.

OHIO -- Obama +5

PENNSYLVANIA -- Obama +10 --Keystone state lead keeps growing.

NEW HAMSPHIRE -- Obama +3

ARKANSAS-- Obama +2 -- Could Hillary & Bill help him close the deal in the Natural state or will Huckabee help McCain correct this?

LOUISIANA -- McCain +7

TENNESSEE -- McCain +5 -- McCain struggles some in TN; early polls had Hillary sometimes winning here. Will Gov Bredesen, congressman Harold Ford, Al Gore, and the popular Clintons help Obama tighten this race?

KENTUCKY -- McCain +5 -- Closer than expected in the Bluegrass state.

ALABAMA -- McCain +11 -- The Yellowhammer state is out of the Dems reach.

GEORGIA -- McCain +6

FLORIDA -- McCain +4

SOUTH CAROLINA -- Obama +1 -- The Palmetto state potentially breaking from the solid south? Don't tell Lindsey Graham, he might bitch slap the closest Democrat.

NORTH CAROLINA -- Obama +9 -- This Tarheel state poll seems out of synch with others.

VIRGINIA -- Obama +5 -- might Obama win the state for lovers without the help of an Old Dominion as Veep?

http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1524

I've lost track: Who—John McCain or Barack Obama—are you predicting will win the 2008 U.S. presidential election?

I believe it will be Obama, given the history over the last 75 years in which this country—facing economic devastation and/or unpopular war—having made a party switch. It's happened five times in a 60-year period—1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, and 1992—and I bet it'll happen in 2008.

So that brings me to the three states I highlighted in purple: I believe [they] all [will] be won by the president elect. It's usually the case. And Missouri just appears not to be leading the way—either way—thus far, that is, but will, I predict, back the winner once again, as it has since 1904. Now the exception between 1904 and 2008 is with 1956, so maybe we could talk about a [potential] 52-year increment broken pattern being far more compelling in Mo. than its century-old, bellwether pattern.

 

[Sammie13]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

I'm not sure you're response matches your premise for the left to hijack the party during the primaries doesn't there need to be a less liberal candidate whom they reject?

And if thats the case which candidate in 2000 or 2004 were more conservative than the eventual nominee? Was Bradley to the right of Gore and were Edwards or Dean to the right of Kerry? Had the left not hijacked the primaries who would the nominee have been?

Oh, dear gent, you may fail to wear your clothes but, alas, you never seem to fail to wear your liberal ideology. When I say "hijack", I'm going well beyond the specific candidate, it's the whole pre- and nomination process. The voters, esp the big donors...the activist...the immense liberal pressure they apply to the candidates and particulary the party platform. You find the candidates desperately trying to out left each other early on in the process. Heck, in '07, Hillary was trying to run as a Queen and above the liberal antics early on, and was getting out-liberaled by everyone -- you knew it would stick with someone, which happened to be the great orator, Obama; Edwards was disavowing every vote in his life to try to out-liberal them both.

In '04, Edwards in what seems now like a lifetime ago was running as a southern moderate. He was even in the DLC with other conservative Dems. He re-invented himself in '08. Gore re-invented himself, too, in 2000. What was inexplicable is that he threw away an entire moderate biography because his utterly non-sensical campaign was scared of lefty Bill Bradley gaining some momentum in those few early primary states. Once Gore went to the unnecessarily went to the left, he was never able to steer back right. People in moderate states like Tenn, W. Va, NH and even OH and MO who would have been inclined to him saw him as a fraud and voted for the compassionate conservative. In 2000, the liberals hijacked Gore (still, it was his fault/miscalculation for letting that happen); Edwards was the moderate in '04 and Gephardt to a lesser degree.

Lets not forget both parties primary voters force their candidates to the right or left as the case may be and then during the general they do the Obama

.

I concur. However, you forget that the Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 elections. And the only two Dems to win were moderates. And those are my strongest statistics....really, the elections speak for themselves...that when middle America (the non lefties and righties, who comprise the majority, albeit with less passion than the lefties and righties) is forced to pick between a liberal and a conservative, they go with the more conservative candidate. That's a fact. The last liberal to win was JFK. It's when the Dems veer to the middle that they are able to grab victory; just think how moderate Gore might have done if he just stayed true to his own past legislative record.

Evidently Obama is not making the same mistake

.

If Obama can resist the pressure from the left. If you read much lately, you've noticed the left is throwing some tantrums. They just can't contain themselves. They think the electorate sees the world as they do.

He came awful close to winning for a guy who only "sells" in the northeast but even so what liberal issue which the left forced Kerry into taking caused him to loose the election.

I can't recall if Kerry was forced left on any one single issue. I think he was a liberal naturally. His inability to translate his military resume into an asset hurt him the most. In regards to Kerry's (or most liberals) marketability, yeah, he came close, but consider...ah, more staggering statistics....wait for it.....If you toss out the 11 northeastern states, Kerry only carried 8 of the remaining 39 states.

Neither Gore or Kerry were particularly good candidates but that was not because of the dem primary voters or their liberal politics

.

I agree that they weren't great candidates, but it is imperative that the party pick with marketability and winnability as a top consideration. Gore should have been great....that truly surprised me and his nomination was really pre-ordained so I can't blame the party for his nomination. But, Kerry, c'mon now....did anyone ever in MA even find him exciting and presidential?

And I'm not hating on liberals or even the ideology. I'm just saying that it isn't very electable because there are fewer people on the left versus on the right and in the middle. And let's be frank, if it wasn't for minorities, the Dems would be in far deeper trouble. Whites skew far, far away from the left.

 

[Sammie13]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

I've lost track: Who—John McCain or Barack Obama—are you predicting will win the 2008 U.S. presidential election?


So that brings me to the three states I highlighted in purple:

Actually, CoolBlue, I don't think I'm on the officical record as having predicted. However, I have stated several times, the most recent being in early May that I tend to think McCain will win. I really don't know. I think it will be razor close. When I play the electoral map game, the most any one candidate ever gets is 292 electoral votes.

But I even hedge my bets on the closeness of the race. Yep, looks close today but these 2 candidates are on shaky ground. McCain is old and associated with the failed Bush years...he doesn't have loyalty among the GOP base; Obama is young, naive, and someone that is unfamilar to many voters; he's inexperienced and people aren't comfortable with him sometimes--maybe due to experience, his name, his skin color. Hence, I think the fall is pivitol. If one of these guys makes a big enough mistake, the independents will migrate in herds to the other guy. That could set this race in the direction of a blowout.

Key states in my opinion. If it's close, there will probably be another OH or FL. One never knows where that state may be. It could be a small, western state this time...maybe CO or NV. If a "big" state is a battleground, it will be Ohio again. If Obama wins Ohio (which Bush took twice), then McCain is in deep trouble. McCain's only option would be to replace Ohio with another state...Michigan? Maybe MI with Romney? Then again, if Obama chooses Evan Bayh as VP, then McCain would lose Indiana. I think this neck of the woods will be the true battle for '08, and both veeps might potentially come from there.

 

[naked gent]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

Oh, dear gent, you may fail to wear your clothes but, alas, you never seem to fail to wear your liberal ideology.

I'm not as liberal as you might think. If the republican party was not attached at the hip to the religious right they might get my vote from time to time.

I concur. However, you forget that the Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 elections. And the only two Dems to win were moderates. And those are my strongest statistics....really, the elections speak for themselves.

I don't dispute the facts my point is that I think you make a mistake when you lump Gore and Kerry in with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. The first three were slaughtered and the last two lost close elections. Given the results your point resonates much better with the first three than the last two. If they are all equally liberal then can't I say given the closer results the country has been moving to the left the last 10 yrs?

The last liberal to win was JFK.

Hmmm..... LBJ was no piker.

And I'm not hating on liberals or even the ideology. I'm just saying that it isn't very electable because there are fewer people on the left versus on the right and in the middle.

I guess this is the common analysis that I disagree with most. I don't doubt that the republicans are far better at marketing themselves than the dems are but to conclude from that that this is essentially a conservative country one needs to deny reality.

First off I don't think its a stretch to say that Bill Clinton was a more conservative president than the current Bush has been. Between his Wilsonian foreign policy, his expansion of Medicare and his having the federal government intrude into public education were he to be judged by his actions instead of his words the dreaded L word comes to mind.

The only policy area Bush has over Clinton conservatively speaking is taxes, Bush cut them and Clinton raised them. (mind you if we consider spending Clinton comes out on top) I would argue that this issue, and this issue alone, explains much of the republican success over the last 28 yrs.

Yes we americans don't like paying taxes and wish them reduced. If we were really conservative we would expect more of ourselves and demand less government spending but we don't.

In fact every time something goes wrong americans look to Washington to help solve the problem. Today whether its high gas prices, falling housing values healthcare or globalization most americans look to D.C. for protection and solutions.

But yeah we're a conservative country. We profess to love free markets but hate foreign competition. We like our government to be active but hate to pay for it. I've always thought that what Reagan showed us was that americans are quite happy to get 100% of their government at 80% of the cost.


If we were a conservative country republicans could cut the government as well as taxes. The fact that they don't even try to, and even expand its role, seems to bely the claim.

Rant over:

 

[Sammie13]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

New polling data:

WASHINGTON -- Obama +16 -- SurveyUSA -- Obama's lead continues to surge in the Evergreen state.

KANSAS -- McCain +23 -- Rasmussen -- There's no place like home...well, unless you're from the Sunflower state.

ARKANSAS -- McCain +10 -- Rasmussen -- This result is very close to Ras.'s June poll in the Natural state....a far cry from Zogby, which had Obama +2.

NEVADA -- Obama +2 -- Rasmussen -- Grab you a chair at the poker table, it's gonna be a long election in the silver state.

NORTH CAROLINA -- McCain +3 -- Rasmussen -- From the Indian reservations in Cherokee to the ocean side sets of One Tree Hill and Dawson's Creek in Wilmington, Tobacco Road is settling in for high drama to see if Obama can pull off an upset.

One other poll in North Carolina by PPP showed that 72% of its citizens support a provision to specifically protect children from bullying based on their sexual orientation. Amongst the survey data, you will find that 58% of Republicans supported the provision.

 

[Sammie13]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

A couple of more state polls:

NEW JERSEY -- Obama +9 -- Strategic Vision -- McCain has this one on his battleground list.

VIRGINIA -- McCain +1 -- Rasmussen -- Old Dominion is tied 44-44 without leaners. Virginia is starting to see som small shifts back to McCain. Consider: the SurveyUSA poll in June compared to July saw Obama's +7 move to +2; Rasmussen's in one month went from Obama +1 to McCAin +1. Small but detectable shift in 30 days from two polls.

 

[Sammie13]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

Polls from two places that get really COLD in the winter:


MAINE -- Obama +8 -- Rasmussen -- Another slight drop in a lead for Obama...this time in the Pine Tree state.

ALASKA -- McCain +10 -- Research2000 -- The Last Frontier has shown signs of being a battleground state; however, Research 2000 shows McCain's lead as growing by 3 points since their last poll in mid-May.

 

[Zingerific]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

You're right, toffer, JFK was pretty hawkish (even Bobby Kennedy was a hawk back in the early sixties). Just to add to your list, Kennedy ran on tax cuts too.

Also worth noting is that later on Nixon didn't turn out to be much of a conservative, both in foreign policy and domestic. I'm trying to find it, but someone wrote a piece a few years ago about how Nixon was the last liberal president.

 

[snapcat]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

Also worth noting is that later on Nixon didn't turn out to be much of a conservative, both in foreign policy and domestic. I'm trying to find it, but someone wrote a piece a few years ago about how Nixon was the last liberal president.

That may have been me, in my more prolific days when I had more time to actually write and debate.

From the late, lamented SnapBlog, Nixon's Prograssive Legacy ... those were the days .....

 

[Sammie13]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

Perhaps I jumped the gun on JFK campaigning as a liberal..easy to do since the Kennedy name is now so synonomous with liberalism. Then again, most liberals seem to deny that any politician is a liberal because their not liberal enough!! So, who do you guys consider our last unabashed liberal president....besides the aforementioned Republican Nixon?

Liberalism seems to always evolve. Until Clinton, conservatives were the deficit crusaders...after Clinton, they seemed to decide deficits didn't matter. Pre-Clinton, conservatives also always got the high marks for being trusted with the economy, now that belongs to Dems. Dems still get hung with the high taxation label I suppose. On foreign affairs/military, back in JFK's day, that wasn't really a core conservative value; in fact, after FDR and Truman, the Dems were respected most for foreign affairs. I think the Carter debacles and Vietnam helped pave the way for Repubs to own this issue and label liberals as weak on defense.

But I suppose for many people, liberal/conservative is not about taxes, the economy, or foreign affairs, it's about social/moral issues. And Kennedy, in my mind, was perhaps the last liberal on these issues....maybe LBJ. What think you?

 

[Zingerific]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

after FDR and Truman, the Dems were respected most for foreign affairs.

Very true. Until around '68 or so, there was an influential isolationist element in the Republican party, and the Democrats were the big internationalists. That changed with Vietnam, and especially with McGovern. After that, the hawkish, cold-warrior Democrats moved to the right and morphed into the neocons of today (say what you will about the neocons, but old-school limited government conservatives they are not).

IOWA -- Obama +4 -- The Hawkye state put him on the map, and appear to be sticking with him.

From a few days ago, but anyway... it seems to me that Iowa is a good Bush 2004 state to pick off (Gore won it in 2000). Anyone know offhand what McCain is saying about ethenol these days? If I recall, it was that issue that torpedoed him in Iowa in both 2000 and 2008. As far as Iowa goes, McCain is probably the worst Republican possible.

 

[naked gent]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

Very true. Until around '68 or so, there was an influential isolationist element in the Republican party, and the Democrats were the big internationalists.

I'd say that pretty accurate. Wilson was the beginning of the dems internationalist days and back then the republicans were isolationists. That element of the party continued to dominate until the end of WW2 when we became more entangled in the outside world.

Put another way when republican business interests were investing mostly in this country during the first half of the last century they were protectionist but as their money and investments began to flow overseas they became internationalists.

Its a follow the money story.

 

[Sammie13]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

Democratic Chairman Howard Dean is working the Southeast in the coming weeks, touring in Obama's voter regisration bus. He starts in Bush's hometown of Crawford, TX...just a coincidence I'm sure. This is clearly a welcome part of Dean's 50-state strategy (well, as long as he doesn't do the infamous scream).

Dean said the voter registration drive is focused on boosting Obama's standing in the states, but local candidates will join the tour when it comes their way and he hopes it can help them, too.


Dean's travel plans include:
- A drive from Crawford to Austin on Thursday.
- Stops Friday in New Orleans and the Mississippi cities of Hattiesburg and Jackson.
- Visits to the Louisiana cities of Shreveport and Baton Rouge on Saturday.

- On July 25, three stops are planned in North Carolina - Raleigh, Greensboro and Charlotte.
- July 26 takes him to Georgia for visits to Savannah, Macon and Atlanta.
- In August, the bus is scheduled to make stops in Midwest swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana before it heads to Denver for the Democrat National Convention, which opens Aug. 25

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080715/D91U8A8G5.html

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

Democratic Chairman Howard Dean is working the Southeast in the coming weeks, touring in Obama's voter regisration bus. He starts in Bush's hometown of Crawford, TX...just a coincidence I'm sure. This is clearly a welcome part of Dean's 50-state strategy (well, as long as he doesn't do the infamous scream).


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080715/D91U8A8G5.html

Just as a point for clarity, the only way it could be told that Dean did a scream was to get the feed only from his mike. If you listen to a recording from a mike in the crowd, he couldn't really be heard at all. He was just trying to be heard!
But the media decided on a version that would sell, and that's what will go down in the history books. <sigh>


I love the symbolism of starting in Crawford!

 

[Sammie13]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

New polls from some key states:

OHIO -- Obama +8 -- Public Policy Polling -- Obama is starting to show more strength in the Buckeye state. This has to be a nauseating poll for Team JohnnyMac.

GEORGIA -- McCain +11 -- Rasmussen -- Perhaps the Peach state isn't going to be swinging after all. McCain is starting to show a little more strength in peanut country.

ALASKA-- McCain +5 -- Rasmussen -- Never have I seen so much polling from the Last Frontier.

NORTH CAROLINA -- McCain +3 -- Civitas -- Polling from the Tarheel state is been rather consistent....smallish leads for the Hero.

NEW HAMPSHIRE -- Obama +3 -- Univ of NH -- The one true New England battleground state is very tight.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

New polls from some key states:

OHIO -- Obama +8 -- Public Policy Polling -- Obama is starting to show more strength in the Buckeye state. This has to be a nauseating poll for Team JohnnyMac.

GEORGIA -- McCain +11 -- Rasmussen -- Perhaps the Peach state isn't going to be swinging after all. McCain is starting to show a little more strength in peanut country.

ALASKA-- McCain +5 -- Rasmussen -- Never have I seen so much polling from the Last Frontier.

NORTH CAROLINA -- McCain +3 -- Civitas -- Polling from the Tarheel state is been rather consistent....smallish leads for the Hero.

NEW HAMPSHIRE -- Obama +3 -- Univ of NH -- The one true New England battleground state is very tight.

We don't talk about it much, but U.S. Senate races are really exciting in 2008.

Rasmussen Reports just released an update on the Alaska race between incumbent Ted Stevens (the Senate's longest serving Republican, who'll turn 85 in November), and 46-year-old Anchorage Mayor/Businessman Mark Begich (D).

For awhile, it was a race that was thisclose. Then Stevens was barely ahead. Then Begich moved barely ahead. July 21 Rasmussen states that Stevens has opened up nearly a 10-point lead (link, below). I suspect this one may indeed emerge as a Democratic pickup in November.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_..._elections/alaska/election_2008_alaska_senate

 

[Sammie13]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

One other poll from today:

MICHIGAN -- Obama +2 -- EPIC/MRA -- Their last poll had McCain up by 4,so this is an improvement, but still a tight race.



CoolBlue, have you ever seen a statistic on what is the average # of incumbent senators that lose each election cycle? I would be curious. It can't be more than 2. Those guys really get locked in and are probably the most secure politicians in America....although, sitting governors don't lose often either, but they are bound to term limits. Collins in Maine and Dole in N.C. were supposed to be hot contests, but last I saw they had both pulled ahead by double digits.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Re: 15 States to Watch in the US Presidential Elec

One other poll from today:

MICHIGAN -- Obama +2 -- EPIC/MRA -- Their last poll had McCain up by 4,so this is an improvement, but still a tight race.



CoolBlue, have you ever seen a statistic on what is the average # of incumbent senators that lose each election cycle? I would be curious. It can't be more than 2. Those guys really get locked in and are probably the most secure politicians in America....although, sitting governors don't lose often either, but they are bound to term limits. Collins in Maine and Dole in N.C. were supposed to be hot contests, but last I saw they had both pulled ahead by double digits.

…I don't know the answer about the senate seats' historical patterns. From what little I understand: Usually, pickups are at a modest number. In the house, the numbers would be greater—but not great. More of a cycular thing. During a midterm election, incumbent president's party routinely loses to the opposition an insignificant number—house and/or senate—that doesn't turn over control. We've gone thru two consecutive presidents (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) who had same party control in Congress when they became elected and subsequently entered the White House—only to lose it to the opposition (and that is unusual).

By the way, don't write off Susan Collins's and Elizabeth Dole's senate opponents just yet. Dole has more the comfy lead. Collins is just under 10. (Check out electoral-vote.com. Link is provided, below.)




Michigan has been polling at other sources for five or more points for Obama. (Rasmussen Reports July 10 the state is 8 points for Obama.) McCain was in the Mich. during May (perhaps April as well), when the Democratic primaries were still brewing—and the Wolverine State was in the midst of the delegates controversy.

In presidential elections, Michigan has a voting record over the last ten elections (1968-2004) mirroring two states from New England: Connecticut and Maine. They each voted Republican in the 1970s and 1980s, and have been Democratic since the 1990s.

Obama's home state Illinois mirrors California, New Jersey, and another New Englander—Vermont—with a record just the same as the above three specifically from 1972-2004.

What stood out differently is the 1968 election: Mich., Conn., and Me backed loser Hubert Humphrey. Ill., Calif., N.J., and Vt. went with winner Richard Nixon.

By the way: New Mexico is identical to Ill., Calif., N.J., Vt. with exception of 2004—in which N.M. was one of two states (the other was Iowa) going from 2000 Democratic Al Gore to 2004 re-elected GOP George W. Bush.

My prediction is that Mich.—which is my home state—will be in agreement with these cluster of states (despite John McCain's efforts to pick it off—with or without Mitt Romney as his v.p.!). The state will remain in the Dem camp. Mich., for six decades running, has stayed the course with a given party in a given decade: Republicans won the state in the 1950s (Dwight Eisenhower), 1970s (Nixon, native son Gerald Ford), and 1980s (Ronald Reagan, George Bush); Democrats won the state in the 1960s (John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Humphrey), 1990s (Bill Clinton)…and thus far in the 2000s (Al Gore, John Kerry).

Obama will win Mich. in November.



http://electoral-vote.com/



More links…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2008