2008 Presidential Election Prediction - 12 Days Left

There are 12 days left until the election and at this point it is fair to say the question is whether Obama will blow McCain out in a landslide or whether it will be a nail biter with the election hanging in the balance by a state or two (most likely CO and VA).

Predicting an election outcome is really just fun and games, as people can change or make up their minds at anytime up until they pull the lever (or push the button if you live in 2008). However, there really is a science behind it and the three most important factors to consider include:

1. Polling Data: The problem with polls are they only show what would happen if the election was held on that particular day. And perhaps more significant, polling results are based on a pollster's prediction of what the demographic turnout will be on election day. That is particularly a problem this year as pollsters try to figure out the increase in turnout among African-Americans, women and young voters who tend to favor Obama. Pollsters are also faced with the task of predicting what the proportional turnout will be among Democrats, Republicans and Independents, considering the sizable increase in Democrat registration this spring and summer. The difference in Obama being up 10 in the polls versus 5 can be traced back to pollsters prorating the predicted turnout differently.
   
   
2. State-by-State Demographics: We know Obama enjoys more support from young voters, minorities and women, and McCain enjoys more support from older voters, rural voters and evangelicals. That makes a big difference in close states like NC and CO, which have totally different demographics.
   
   
3. The third important factor to consider is the campaigns' ground game organization, voter mobilization and base enthusiasm. The word from almost every reputable source is that Obama's community by community ground game is solid and impressive. This will make a big difference in the outcome of close states and can push the results a point or two beyond what the polls predicted. Not only does the voter mobilization make a big difference, but Obama's base is very motivated especially African-Americans and young voters.

The current outlook of the race indicates Obama has a lock on 239 electoral votes and McCain has a lock on 160. (see map below). Note: This map assumes Pennsylvania is in play. However, polling indicates Obama enjoys a 10 point lead, so that really is giving McCain some credit.

(sorry the map is cut off at the ends - My website technical ability is pretty limited)


This leaves 11 toss-up states. There is a great chance that Obama can win all 11 for a 378 electoral vote blow-out. However, the demographics in Montana, Missouri, and Indiana appear to create a ceiling for Obama. The most difficult state to predict at this time is Florida, which has a lot of demographics (older and military voters) that favor McCain. However, the state is hurt hard by the economy and has a large Hispanic population that has trended heavily Obama. The tie will go to Obama because of his ground game. The other state that is hard to predict is North Carolina, which has tons of conservative, rural, older voters. However, there are two factors that I believe will make NC go for Obama: a huge turnout among African Americans and young professionals in the Metro Areas of Charlotte and RTP.

Obama 353
McCain: 185

Official Ballot Selection: Mecklenburg County, NC

I've reviewed my Sample Ballot and here is who I will be voting for on Tuesday Nov. 4th at my Mecklenburg County Precinct:

National:
President: Barack Obama - D

State:
US Senate: Kay Hagan - D
US House of Rep: Harry Taylor - D
Governor: Bev Perdue - D
Lieutenant Gov: Walter Dalton - D
Attorney General: Roy Cooper - D
Auditor: Beth Wood - D
Comm of Agriculture: Steve Troxler - R
Comm of Insurance: Wayne Goodwin - D
Comm of Labor: Mary Fant Donnan - D
Sec of State: Elaine Marshall - D
Superintendent of Public Instruction: June St. Clair Atkinson - D
Treasure: Janet Cowell - D

County:
County Commissioner: Harold Cogdell, Dan Murrey, Jennifer Roberts
Register of Deeds: Judy Gibson - R

Non-Partisan Judges:
Supreme Court - Suzanne Reynolds
Court of Appeals - James A. Wynn
Court of Appeals - Kristin Ruth
Court of Appeals - Cheri Beasley
Court of Appeals - Linda Stephens
Court of Appeals - John Arrowood
District Court - Charlotte Brown-Williams
District Court - Donnie Hoover
District Court - John Trotten
District Court - Gary Henderson
District Court - Kimberly Best
District Court - Theo Nixon
District Court - Ben Thalheimer

Powell Endorses Obama, Challenges Anti-Muslim Sentiment.

Former Sec. of State Colin Powell, who served in both Bush Administrations, broke with his party and gave an eloquent and unequivocal endorsement of Sen. Obama, calling him "a transformational figure," "showing the steadiness, and intellectual vigor" to be "an Exceptional President." Powell criticized McCain's negative campaigning and the personal attacks made by the Republican Party questioning Obama's faith and trying to connect Obama to terrorist feelings. Powell even questioned McCain's judgment in his choice as Sarah Palin as his running mate, and stated that McCain "lacks complete grasp of economic problems" making somewhat erratic decision in his response to the economy.

My initial inclination is that endorsements mean very little in a Presidential Election. Endorsements help in local, low-information elections like Non-Partisan Judical Elections, Insurance Commissioner or Water & Sewer Commisioner. In a race like Obama-McCain you already have all the information you could ever want, and probably have established a fairly strong preference for yourself. However, Powell is one of the most respected military leaders and public servants in our country, and his endorsement gives national security and experience credibility to Obama. There are many undecideds who are looking at the many problems facing this nation and wondering if Obama can live up to the challenges. Powell may have helped ease some of those concerns.

Beyond the stirring endorsement and discussion about whether it will make any difference in the election, I found Powell's statements about American-Muslims to be the most significant and potentially transformative. Powell spoke passionately against the insinuations by some Republicans that Obama is a Muslim, but went further than just criticizing the incorrect labels: "Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian," he said. "But the right answer is, what if he is (a muslim)? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president one day? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

Powell was appealing to our better senses, suggesting that Americans and Christians need to stop labeling Islam and Muslims as terrorists, and suggesting that being a faithful follower of the Islamic Religion disqualifies a person for being a public leader in America, even President. Christianity was perverted and used as a basis for the horrible atrocities committed against minorities, women and unbelievers during the history of our own country. That fact does not suggest that Christianity is bad or a Christian can not lead our country. In the same way, a perverted, fundamental form of Islam is the basis of Al Qa'ida's hatred for America and the ideology behind the terrorist attacks. Powell's statements challenge us to reconsider our relationship with and bigotry towards American-Muslims. We are not fighting against the Islamic Religion, even in its fundamental form. We are fighting against a terrorist organization that wishes the destruction of free societies including our own.

Best Shows on TV:

Three for Three - Another Obama Win.

While watching the debate I thought McCain did a good job making an argument that Obama is too liberal for America, especially on the economy and taxes, and appeared to be controlling the tone and arguments. However, Obama maintained his Presidential demeanor and intellectual command of the issues, and excelled on the issues of health care, education and even abortion. Immediately after the debate the pundits were proclaiming the night a glorious victory for McCain for his use of Joe the Plumber and the line of the night: "I'm not Bush. If you wanted to run against him, you should have run 4 years ago." However, about 30 minutes after the pundits began their talking points the insta-polls began coming in and showed an overwhelming win for Obama. The key numbers are independents which Obama won by a 30 point margin (60-30%). Obama is also doing better with Dems than McCain did with Republicans. This caused the pundits to change their tone and concede that the debates have come and gone and McCain has not managed to turn the election in his favor. At this point it is fair to say that a McCain victory would be a comeback of historic proportions. We are approaching the dead girl / live boy / massive terrorist attack time.

I think the state polling data that will come in the rest of this week will be enough for me to post a final Presidential Prediction early next week.

Bailing Out Consumerism

I've been notably silent about the current economic crisis, mostly because I have an elementary understanding of the intricate workings of the American economy. I thought about pursuing a minor in Business while in College, but couldn't stay awake in Business 101, so I dropped that plan real quick. Topics we pursued in my Political Science classes such as death penalty, civil rights, immigration, poverity, crime, the environment, and war were all much more interesting. In reality my comprehension of our financial systems and the economy is pretty limited to depositing my paycheck into my bank account and paying my bills, and there's something called a 401k that I very occasionally send money to. Yeah, sure I understand we live in a free market capitalistic society driven by supply and demand, goods and services, but the influences on the market is well above my pay grade nor am I remotely interested to be honest.

However, after following the news and reading articles on the $700 billion bailout, I decided that I am in favor of some sort of governmental buy-in after realizing that the fates of Wall Street and Main Street are inextricably linked. Despite the political rhetoric we are all hearing this has nothing to do with pitting wall street against main street. We cannot watch one collapse and expect the other to stand strong. Yes, I am just as pissed off as everyone else that taxpayer money will be used to save the same financial institutions who exercised poor judgment and made reckless decisions all in the name of the bottom line profit. But to do nothing is to watch ordinary, hard working Americans suffer. This financial crisis is not only about the stock market crashing, its about middle class workers watching their retirement accounts disappear, struggling small businesses unable to get loans to meet payroll or purchase equipment, recent retirees who are watching their life's savings disappear, young couples unable to buy a home, and middle-aged parents trying to send their kids to college, just to name a few.

What I don't think people understand is that the bailout does not simply turn over 700 billion dollars to wall street and the failed financial institutions to use as they please. Instead it will transfer the troubled assets, mostly mortgage related, from the financial institutions to the federal government, which the government can hold until the housing market and economy turn around, returning the $700 billion investment back to the taxpayers. And even if the housing market does not recover, taxpayers should be protected by the Senate version of the bailout, which requires the financial industry to reimburse taxpayers for any net losses from the program after five years.

So in my untrained, very economically challenged opinion, I'm for passing a bailout and moving on to addressing the root cause of this crisis. I think if you traced this problem far enough back you will find that we have become a culture addicted to instant gratification and a fixation on the material, which has driven us to become an over consumeristic society financed on a mountain of debt. We are told that living in a bigger and better house means we are more successful and more comfortable--bling bling. We are told owning a faster more expensive car translates to a higher status--vroom vroom. Our financial institutions fed into that culture and when people apply for a loan for twice as much house as they could afford, the bank says yes. Over a million people have found themselves unable to make those mortgage payments and the banks find themselves overextended. And as home prices plummet the banks are no longer able to cut their losses by selling the asset, resulting in the massive wave of losses that has caused the damage we have seen thus far. Whew...I'm out of breath, and I understand I just oversimplified a complex problem.

But, I think there is a better way to live than working 60 hours a week, in order to buy a bunch of crap in the hopes of achieving a false sense of success and gratification, when an authentic, more fulfilling happiness can be achieved at no cost through our environment, and our family and friends. Believe me I write all this with a self-reflecting attitude, realizing I struggle to overcome a consumerist addiction (see Blackberry, name-brand clothes, Ipod and HD-LCD Flat Screen TV). I'm also struggling to balance the realization that American consumerism has created millions of jobs and in my opinion responsible for the explosion of the American middle class.

That's the dilemma we face, and if we really believe there is a better way to live then Everything Must Change. But I remain focused on supporting policies and worldviews that bring about equality (both socially and economically), reconciliation, ending exploitation and ushering in peace. Like many young progressives I have a worldview rooted in caring for “the least of these.” I don’t measure our nation’s greatness or world power by the richest individuals and corporations, or by it's military might, or what God we serve, or whether we got a gold metal in synchronized swimming or gymnastic trampolining (all though that was pretty sweet), but rather by how it cares for its most vulnerable people. When it comes to this election, I will not be asking myself which candidate will do the most for me and my nuclear family? I will extend my concern to my extended family, which includes people with special needs and disabilities, people with chronic illnesses and without health care, gay people, poor people, oppressed minorities, people with histories of addiction and crime and mental illness. How will they be treated in a McCain administration? How will they be treated in an Obama administration? Which president will be most concerned about them?