Think back to civics class

[Josh_Kablack]

Tie in presidential election possible and what could happen then.

[Cynic]

An Obama-Palin ticket. Oh fuck now we're screwed.

Well we'd be screwed if it was McCain-Biden as well.

What I actually anticipate would be a serious rewrite of laws if this happened.

This could be the first corporate election.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

The thing is, the Democrats are most likely to increase their majority in Congress, though this doesn't necessarily mean anything about the number of state delegations in which they have a majority. The one thing you can just about guarantee is that the Senate would elect Biden VP in relatively short order. After all, it's one vote per member in the Senate and most of these people don't have to run again for another 4 or 6 years.

The House will be more interesting because everybody in that body runs again in 2010, so they will have more immediate repercussions for their vote. Of course, as partisan as things are in Washington, I fully expect most members to simply vote the party line and their constituents be damned. I mean, in the recent bailout nonsense, it appears that most of the recalcitrant House Republicans were holding out for pork rather than their constituents or their convictions.

[Lago PARANOIA]

That's the thing that sucks about the House of Representatives is that with the way the electoral system is set up right now the incumency has just too much of an advantage.

I mean, most Congressmen get the lion's share of their money through their party, such as the DSCC or DNC. Unless your party is experiencing an embarrassment of riches (like the GOP in 2002 or the democratic party in 2006 and 2008), the money goes towards the incumbents. But except for 2008, most of the money in recent times came from special interests. As a rule of thumb, the party that spends more money wins.

So if you want that cold hard re-election money, you'd better vote with your party's line unless you're in a district hostile to your party or you have your own source of cash.

That's one of the exciting things about this election is that Obama is getting most of his money from small donors. I know it's not going to happen but I'd at least like to pretend that the party is going to not get on their knees in front of corporate PACs so much.

[Neeeek]

A tie will almost certainly go to Obama. The Dems hold a majority of state delegations and are likely to increase that number in the next election. A vote on this will be party line, at least for the Dems, because the repercussions for not voting party lines would be "You don't get anything. Ever. And you'll be primaried."

The only exception might be if the Dems know they have it won and let the Dems with the districts who went most heavily McCain vote their district. But that's a totally different thing.

As for the Senate, the Dems will gain between 2 and 12 seats this year, so that's a done deal, basically.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I should also mention that my analysis is based on the near certainty that Obama will win the popular vote.

[JonSetanta]

I should also mention that my analysis is based on the near certainty that Obama will win the popular vote.

NEVER discredit the power of Florida.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

NEVER discredit the power of Florida.

Also, never underestimate our ability to fubar the entire nation.

BTW, I think McCain is favored here in this election. I haven't seen the large minority voting drives that were a hallmark of the last election. Of course, I will always remember a quote from the school paper during the Bush-Kerry drive:
"With rising class sizes, if my chemistry class had voted for Gore, he would have won the election without recounts."

[Josh_Kablack]

I should also mention that my analysis is based on the near certainty that Obama will win the popular vote.

I already was worrying about the potential riots should Obama win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.

I hadn't thought of the ramifications of a tie before seeing this article.

A bit of paranoia and survivalism are probably healthy right now.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I should also mention that my analysis is based on the near certainty that Obama will win the popular vote.

NEVER discredit the power of Florida.

I was talking about the *popular* vote, not the electoral vote, since the subject of this thread is what happens if there's an electoral college tie.

It looks like it's time to start a thread on the 13 Keys and talk about this in detail.

[Josh_Kablack]

As to the electoral college, here's a site that tries to track the polls on a state-by-state basis:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

If this election ends up being like the 2004 presidential election or many of this year's primaries, I expect the entire margin of error and an additional 1 or 2 percent to shift towards McCain in most close races.

[Neeeek]

As to the electoral college, here's a site that tries to track the polls on a state-by-state basis:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

If this election ends up being like the 2004 presidential election or many of this year's primaries, I expect the entire margin of error and an additional 1 or 2 percent to shift towards McCain in most close races.

electoral-vote.com is a pretty bad standard. Pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com both give much more useful and predictive numbers.

And I'm pretty sure you are wrong on a shift toward McCain. Everything about this election suggests that Obama is under-performing his polling numbers, not over-performing them. His GOTV effort is much better, his canvasing is unheard of, he has far more money to spend. Further, more and more Obama has been seeming like the safe choice. McCain is erratic and doesn't deal with crisis well, and that's been hurting him. Plus, McCain has been essentially branded a liar by the media, because, you know, he is.

This is going to be an electoral blowout. I'd be shocked if Obama gets less than 330 EVs.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I agree. To make this close, McCain really needs to score a slamdunk, and he doesn't appear capable of doing that. In fact, he seems to have some sort of WTF thing going on every debate. Last time, it was ignoring Obama all night. This time, it was calling him "that one" and appearing to dis the moderator when he made his little joke about not appointing Tom Brokaw as Treasury Secretary (I'm talking about the tone of the remark and in no way suggesting that Tom Brokaw should get the job ). Really, he's not coming across as the guy who can keep his head in a crisis.

And as for the electoral college math, his concession of Michigan means he will probably most likely concede Wisconsin soon. That will leave Pennsylvania as this year's battleground, must-win state. If Obama wins all the states Kerry took in 2004, he only needs 20 additional electoral votes. It looks like New Hampshire is firming up for Obama, thus derailing the most likely possibility for a tie. Furthermore, Iowa has been becoming more solidly pro-Obama the last couple of weeks. That means that, if McCain doesn't win Pennsylvania, Obama's got several ways to pick up the other 13 additional votes, given how many '04 red states he's doing well in. Just off the top of my head, you've got Colorado + New Mexico, Colorado + Nevada, Missouri + New Mexico, Colorado, or Nevada. And if Obama wins either Florida or Ohio, forget about it.

And, as Neeek mentioned, the Republicans' surprise in 2004 was based on a couple of things that aren't present in this campaign. First, the electorate was largely polarized early in the year, with less than 5% undecided. This year, at least 10% of the electorate is undecided at this late point. In a non-polarized election, turning out the base doesn't automatically help you win. Furthermore, the Democrats have gained on the Republicans' legendary ground game in the last four years. By all accounts, Obama's operation on the ground is at least the equal of that legendary 2004 Karl Rove effort. Furthermore, it looks like the Obama campaign's doing a great job of using the Internet to increase the likelihood that their newly registered young voters turn out. I think he'll surpass all expectations on Election Day.

[Josh_Kablack]

And I'm pretty sure you are wrong on a shift toward McCain

Not a shift per say, I'm saying that there is likely a small but notable bias in those polls.

Here's my reasoning:

Kerry massively underperformed his poll numbers in several states in 2004.

Obama underperformed his poll numbers in the PA primary this year.

The demographic groups who tend to favor Obama are also the demographic groups who tend to be more willing to answer phone polls than the demographic groups who tend to favor McCain.

Many of the demographic groups who tend to favor Obama are also the demographic groups who are least likely to actually vote on election day. (Obama has had a heck of a lot of boots on the ground around here, but there are still real institutional barriers in the way of many youth and minority voters)

And at least in recent history the republicans have been much much better at "gaming" the election, while the democrats have displayed a startling naivety of the dirtier side of politics (Gore's early concession Al Gore, Kerry's random cold calls in the last week of October to find Ohio lawyers)

.....

Of course it is possible that I'm wrong and Obama will equal or exceed the current poll numbers - the lesson here is that Obama supporters should not get complacent based on current numbers.

[Neeeek]

Not a shift per say, I'm saying that there is likely a small but notable bias in those polls.

Here's my reasoning:

Kerry massively underperformed his poll numbers in several states in 2004.

Obama underperformed his poll numbers in the PA primary this year.

Obama generally overperformed his polls. Looking at one state and drawing a conclusion like that is not particularly convincing, nor does it make much sense. Kerry underperformed in a lot of places for a lot of reasons, some of which include stronger base turnout by the GOP and others include the GOP actively suppressing the Democrat vote on election day. Will the latter be a problem again? Maybe, but a ton of states have early voting now and the Obama campaign has been pushing hard to get people voted and done as early as they can. There won't be nearly as great a need for worry about people going to vote on election day. Ohio even had a week or so where you could register and vote at the same time.

The demographic groups who tend to favor Obama are also the demographic groups who tend to be more willing to answer phone polls than the demographic groups who tend to favor McCain.

That's not just false, it's completely backwards. Most pollsters do not call cell phones, and the "cell phone" only group favors Obama by a wide margin. To the point where the non-cell polls are about 2% below Obama's actual support. Beyond that, the only demographic that favors McCain at this point (over 65) is the one most likely to answer phone polls.

[Crissa]

Tho I will say, as dong phoning for Obama's campaign, McCain supporters don't even want to say they support him when asked. They just hang up.

-Crissa

[Lago PARANOIA]

Okay, let's face facts here.

Obama did actually overperform in the Democratic primary. This is very noticable in Virginia, the Carolinas, Texas, and of course Iowa.

However, this is the Democratic party. Obama hasn't gone up against the rest of the country yet. So the whole myth/validity of the Bradley effect hasn't been put to the test yet.

If Obama gets screwed by the Bradley effect, I think that we can say once and for all that the GOP is the party of racists.

[Crissa]

The points on the table:

Democratic registration is up.
Republican participation is down.
Likely voter weighted polls don't pay attention to that at all.
The Bradley effect never was proven to be real except in a few cases in the Appalachia east. Even so, Obama still did better in the primary there than pre-polled.

So...

-Crissa

[Josh_Kablack]

That's not just false, it's completely backwards. Most pollsters do not call cell phones

Rasmussen ≠ Most

Gallup Has since January

Pew Does, depending on the type of poll In fact they discuss the issues involved in great detail

CBS has since at least late August

Harris doesn't, but they don't use land lines either

Beyond that, the only demographic that favors McCain at this point (over 65) is the one most likely to answer phone polls.

In terms of age, you're absolutely right.

In terms of gender, education level, ethnicity and income I seriously doubt it.

[Draco_Argentum]

Looking at one state and drawing a conclusion like that is not particularly convincing, nor does it make much sense.

It makes perfect sense.

A) Holy crap, Obama is going to underperform the polls and loose!

B) Meh, Obama will easily overperform the poll numbers, its a sure thing.


Guess which is better for getting your lazy ass country into the poll booths.

[Neeeek]

That's not just false, it's completely backwards. Most pollsters do not call cell phones

Rasmussen ≠ Most

You act as if I don't know what I'm talking about.

There are exactly 8 pollsters who cover the national election who call cell phones. You mentioned 3 of them. The complete list is Pew, Gallup, USA Today/Gallup, CBS/NYT, Time/SRBI, NBC/WSJ, ABC/Washington Post and the AP/GfK. These pollsters average about 3 points higher for Obama than the other couple dozen polls.

Beyond that, the only demographic that favors McCain at this point (over 65) is the one most likely to answer phone polls.

In terms of age, you're absolutely right.

In terms of gender, education level, ethnicity and income I seriously doubt it.

None of which are more likely to respond to polls than anyone else, which was the point. Older people are. The rest of them? Not really a thing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I do think it's funny that even after the 2006 spanking and the widest sustained polling margin between the GOP/DEMONRAT candidates in recent times that the Democrats are still acting sullen and whipped.

The wussiness of the DNC has filtered down, it seems.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Well, the thing is that a lot of Democrats feel that they lost in what should have been "their year" in 2004. Of course, according to the keys system, it wasn't their year (Bush only had 3 keys against him: bad long-term economy, not charismatic or a national hero, and foreign policy failure for 9/11). Really, they did a great job in a bad year for them. After all, if Cuyahoga County had been given enough voting machines, John Kerry might have become president despite losing the popular vote.

Add to that the fact that 2000 was the Democrats' year, and George W. Bush squeaked into the presidency under shady circumstances despite losing the popular vote, and it's understandable that the Dems have this sense of dread. They're so used to having elections they think they should have won taken from them that they're just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[erik]

I'm just excited that Indiana for once has a chance of not going Republican. If you'd have told me that a few months ago I would have laughed at your crazy talk.

Against all rationality, we seem to always be a red state. It doesn't make much sense to me other than that Indiana is one of the worst educated states in the north, and the last of the northern states to have a lynching. We have our image to maintain as a republican stronghold.

[JonSetanta]

My mother, during dinner with family a few days ago, mentioned some peculiarly rapid outbreaks of Obama-hate in McCain rallies.
McCain of course disapproved because he's a rational being (unlike many fundamentalist Republican voters), but it was the nature of the constituent complaints that shocked me.

Obama shouldn't be president because he's an Arab (middle name) and a terrorist, and he's stealing your money through tax increases.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 9050.story
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoints ... _obama.php


Accurate Y/N? What have you heard about McCain's rapidly misguided fans?