An Essential Site For Following This Year's US Elections:

[remicks]

*****


Fellow political junkies and casual election observers as well :

I'd like to recommend the following site as an exhilarating "unbiased" method for following the upcoming election. Right now the site is tabulating the delegates for each party as the primaries progress. Once the candidates for each party are chosen, it will begin recording the projected winners for each of the 50 states on a map of the US based solely by combining the very latest results from all possible polls.

Four years ago this site was very exciting as the states split so evenly between red and blue that the lead would jump back and forth constantly . One literally needed to check in at least daily to see which states had changed and which way the electoral total was leaning.

Along the way, it also includes lots of tidbits about the hows and whys of it all from "The Votemaster", as well as follows the individual elections for seats in both Houses of Congress.

You can already go to the Senate map and see where the action there will be in states that are "vulnerable" to either a current Republican or Democratic standing. There are also reviews of the "Hot" House races to watch.

Don't know if this race will ultimately be anything near as exciting ....but even at this stage its proving to be most hair raising and here's a great place to watch it all unfold...

MAPPING THE ELECTION






WARNING:

THIS SITE CAN BE MORE ADDICTIVE THAN XTUBE !!!



*****

[remicks]

******


January 21st :

First projection map up (Hillary vs. McCain) ......my.... its so ............. RED !

Mapping the Election



*****

[paul]

I've heard McCain can beat both Hillary and Obama. He would definitely beat my Green Party candidaate whomever it is

[remicks]

****


About running for president .....
What we've learned so far from each candidate , according to the Votemaster :

This election has been very informative. We have learned things from many candidates, as follows.

Republicans


From John McCain: Actually having principles and sticking by them even when some people in your party don't like them is a good thing. Voters like candidates they believe are telling the truth, even when they don't like everything they are saying. Authenticity counts for more than policy papers. McCain may be "older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein" (his own words), but What You See Is What You Get. People like that.

From Rudy Giuliani: You can't skip Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina and expect to be teleported into the White House. These early contests are no fun. You have to slog through the snow (well, maybe not in South Carolina) and meet all the voters personally. They take their roles seriously. Also, if you have opposed your party's core principles all your life, probably you have no chance no matter how many pairs of snow boots you wear out.

From Mitt Romney: The White House is not for sale. Just because you can can afford to spend $35 million of you own money and can hire excellent advisors who can make a great business plan starting with wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, it doesn't mean the voters will go for you.

From Fred Thompson: You don't have to spend $35 million of your own money, but you do have to want the job. If you can't make up your mind whether you want to run or not, and having decided you probably want to run, you don't make much of an effort, people are going to notice. Makes a poor impression.

From Mike Huckabee: If you are in tune with the voters in your party and are a friendly, folksy kind of guy, you have a chance, even without $100 million. Friendly definitely beats mean and angry. You need a bit of luck (like Brownback not catching fire), but you might do well.

From Ron Paul: Having a fanatical, but tiny base is not enough, even if they donate vast amounts of money. You have to strike a chord with a fair number of people. And try to avoid kooky ideas (like abolishing the income tax) if possible.

From Duncan Hunter: If you have nothing to sell, nobody is going to buy it.


Democrats


From Al Gore: You can't become President if you don't run. Well, there is a 0.001% chance that a deadlocked convention will draft you in desperation, but don't count on it. Doesn't work most of the time.

From Hillary Clinton: No matter how much you think you have a right to the job, you have to earn it. Even if you are smart, knowledgeable, and very hardworking, you have to compete right along with everyone else. Telling everyone you are inevitable and other candidates should kindly go away turns off the voters.

From Barack Obama: Being black is not a fatal handicap any more. If you are charismatic and have a couple of Ivy League degrees and stand for something, people will listen to you. You might not win, but being black is not a showstopper any more.

From John Edwards: Politics isn't always fair. You can work your heart out to help the disadvantaged, but the disadvantaged don't always recognize your efforts. Only in America can a homeless person living in a cardboard box oppose raising taxes on millionaires because he hopes to be a millionaire some day.

From Bill Richardson: Resume is not destiny. You can have filled every job in government in a highly competent way and be fluent in two languages, but if you are equally boring in both of them, people won't vote for your resume.

From Joe Biden: While not having any ambition (see Fred Thompson) is fatal, having lots and lots of ambition is not enough. You have to be able to connect with real people. Addressing them in Senate-speak ("I oppose the motion to reconsider tabling the first motion") might work in a Senate committee, but with real voters you have to be able to explain in English what you will do to improve their lives.

From Chris Dodd: Nothing we didn't learn from Biden.

from:
Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily

******

[remicks]

******

It ain't over .......

from : Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily

News from the Votemaster

Hillary's back from the dead. She won Ohio handily and appears to be headed to a razor-thin victory in the Texas primary based on the preliminary results. In the Texas caucus, with 36% of the precincts reporting, Obama is leading 52% to 48% so it is hard to determine what the final delegate count will be. Obama won Vermont and Clinton won Rhode Island as expected. Here are the NY Times vote totals as of 10 a.m. EST, but these may change later in the day.

State - Clinton -Obama - McCain - Huckabee - Paul

Texas - 51% 47% 51% 38% 5%
Ohio- 54% 44% 60% 31% 5%
Vermont - 38% 60% 72% 14% 7%
Rhode Island - 58% 40% 65% 22% 7%

Now let us look at Texas and Ohio a bit more closely. Here is a map (from the NY Times) of who carried which county. It is quite surprising. Basically Clinton won all the rural counties and Obama won the cities. If this were the general election it is precisely what we would expect. One candidate (the Republican) wins all the rural areas and another candidate (the Democrat) wins all the cities. In this case Clinton is the Republican and Obama is the Democrat.




Here are some preliminary delegate totals. These will change as the day goes on. In particular, the Texas caucus results are not known yet.


Delegates :

Source Clinton Obama

Washington Post - 1376 1466
NY Times - 1211 1312
AP - 1391 1477
CNN - 1365 1451
ABC - 1449 1555
CBS - 1423 1512
MSNBC - 1263 1324

Needed to win: Democrats 2025

[remicks]

The Votemaster:

Quite a few people have asked what would have happened if the Democrats had used a statewide winner-take-all rule. In other words, suppose the statewide winner got all the delegates. Where would be be now? Here is the answer. The calculation assumes Clinton won Nevada and Texas. She got more votes in Nevada but fewer delegates (by 1). She also won the popular vote in the Texas primary. The caucus results are still not in but preliminary tallies suggest Obama may end up with more delegates. If you want to award Texas to Obama, the arithmetic is pretty simple.


State Delegates Winner Clinton Obama

Alabama 60 Obama 60
Alaska 18 Obama 18
American Samoa 9 Clinton 9
Arizona 67 Clinton 67
Arkansas 47 Clinton 47
California 440 Clinton 440
Colorado 71 Obama 71
Connecticut 60 Obama 60
D.C. 38 Obama 38
Delaware 23 Obama 23
Democrats Abroad 11 Obama 11
Florida 0
Georgia 103 Obama 103
Hawaii 29 Obama 29
Idaho 23 Obama 23
Illinois 185 Obama 185
Iowa 57 Obama 57
Kansas 41 Obama 41
Louisiana 66 Obama 66
Maine 34 Obama 34
Maryland 99 Obama 99
Massachusetts 121 Clinton 121
Michigan 0
Minnesota 88 Obama 88
Missouri 88 Obama 88
Nebraska 31 Obama 31
Nevada 33 Clinton 33
New Hampshire 30 Clinton 30
New Jersey 127 Clinton 127
New Mexico 38 Clinton 38
New York 281 Clinton 281
North Dakota 21 Obama 21
Ohio 161 Clinton 161
Oklahoma 47 Clinton 47
Rhode Island 32 Clinton 32
South Carolina 54 Obama 54
Tennessee 85 Clinton 85
Texas 228 Clinton 228
Utah 29 Obama 29
Vermont 23 Obama 23
Virgin Islands 9 Obama 9
Virginia 101 Obama 101
Washington 97 Obama 97
Wisconsin 92 Obama 92
Wyoming 18 Obama 18

Total 1746 1569


Hillary Clinton would have 1746 delegates to Barack Obama's 1569.


The reason the Democrats don't have a winner-take-all rule is because they are Democrats. They don't consider it fair that the birthday boy or girl gets to eat the whole cake. You have to share it with your friends.

Republicans have a different world model. You either win or you lose. If you win you get to take all the marbles home. If you lose, you get no marbles. Try harder next time.

(Well, mostly, some GOP primaries are winner-take-all by congressional district or something else.) If the Democrats had employed winner take all but for only 80% of the delegates leaving 20% for the PLEOs, the score now would be Clinton 1397, Obama 1255. If you want the data in .csv format, here it is. Please DON'T ask what would happen if the Republicans did proportional representation by state senate district everywhere. If you want the popular vote data, it is on the NY Times Website.



Alan Abramowitz, a professor of politican science at Emory University has an interesting posting over at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. Abramowitz analyzed the 2006 exit polls and concluded that the defection of moderate to liberal Republicans cost the GOP their Senate and House majorities. These were voters who normally vote Republican but who were fed up with George Bush. Another ominous sign is the large number of Republicans who voted in the Democratic primaries this year (25% in Wisconsin), largely for Barack Obama and the tiny number of Democrats (2-3%) who voted in the Republican primaries. The message here is that Obama will pull Republicans away from McCain but McCain won't pull Democrats away from Obama. With Clinton, party loyalty becomes stronger.

from
Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily


*****

[remicks]

*****





The Vote Master offers this concerning who McCain will pick as his running mate :

Enough for the Democrats. Let's give the Republicans a bit of attention.


The main subject, of course, is who will be John McCain's Veep. This is an area in which the ritual lying is as bad as it gets. Every presidential candidate always says "I chose the person best able to lead the country should the need arise." This statement can best be compared to the stuff you often find on the ground near the rear end of a bull. Does anyone really believe that Spiro Agnew (Nixon's Veep) or Dan Quayle (Bush 41's Veep) were the best qualified Republicans in the country? The true statement is: "I picked this person because I thought he or she would maximize my chances of winning the election." Why can't they just say it? Nobody would think it an odd thing to do or say.
That said, what do candidates want in a Veep? Traditionally, they want balance. The Veep should appeal to some geographic or demographic group the presidential candidate does not appeal to. But there are exceptions to this strategy (notably Bill Clinton picking Al Gore, another Southerner in 1992).


Another principle is when a party is fractured, as the Republicans are now, the #1 guy often looks for a #2 who will help unify the party by pacifying the voters who opposed him in the first place.


Still another principle is that it is better if the presidential candidate likes the Veep candidate. It gives more synergy to the ticket. Clinton liked Gore; that's probably why he picked him. On the other hand, Jack Kennedy considered Lyndon Johnson a crude, boorish, oaf, but he felt that Johnson could bring in Texas so he put up with him. John Kerry didn't seem to like John Edwards much and kept him hidden throughout the 2004 campaign, despite Edwards being a moving stump speaker. Nevertheless, all things being equal, you pick somebody you like.
How are these general principles going to work for John McCain? He is weak with the conservatives in his own party, but popular with independents. This puts him in a quandry. He could move to the right and pick a true-blue conservative to pacify the base, but doing so would alienate independents and Democrats. Or he could move to the center and pick a moderate, thus picking up independents tired of 8 years of bitter partisanship. But this approach would just confirm to the base what they already suspect-- that he is some kind of crypto-moderate (despite a very conservative voting record in the Senate).
Fortunately, he is in no hurry and can wait until the Democrats have a nominee to guide him. Against Hillary Clinton he can move sharply to the center and count on the irrational Hillary-hatred of the base to make them hold their noses and vote for him. After all, they would have no where else to go. Against Obama, he has a real problem since he can't count on the base reflexively rejecting Obama. He's a blank slate to many of them and they might be willing to give him a chance. On the other hand, against Obama, he also has to worry about the independents, who thus far have warmed to Obama. At the very least, a Clinton nomination makes his life easier.
Given his age (72 in August) and health (three bouts with a particularly nasty form of cancer) he certainly wants a young Veep, but one who seems presidential as his Veep will get a LOT of scrutiny.


So, who might be possibles?

Condi Rice
would be a brilliant stroke, pulling in both blacks and women. Furthermore, the case that she actually was the best person to be President in an emergency would actually have a ring of truth in it. Nobody doubts that she is very smart and has more foreign policy experience than just about everybody else in Washington. But that is also her downside. The Democrats would deride McCain/Rice as Bush III. Besides, she has said she doesn't want the job.

Former Pennsylvania governor
Tom Ridge
is sometimes mentioned. He is a moderate from a state that might be in play if he were on the ticket. His downside is that the far right would howl at the moon if it were McCain/Ridge. This would confirm their worst suspicions that deep down inside McCain is a not a crazy. But Ridge would help bring in independents. And without Pennsylvania, the Democrats would be in deep trouble.


What about one of the 2008 losers, like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee?

Giuliani couldn't even bring in New York and the Base would react even worse than it would to Ridge.

Romney?
McCain clearly doesn't like him and he is open to charges of flip-flopping. There are some people in the party who want him as Veep and may try to force McCain to take him though. If some of the party elders hold a gun to McCain's head he might take Romney but it won't be out of love and four years from now Romney will be quoting John Nance Garner like a real pro.

Huckabee?
It would definitely shore up McCain's support with the evangelicals who would all go around with buttons reading: McCain '08/Huckabee '16. Privately, it is likely that McCain regards Huckabee as a lightweight nutcase, but he brings votes and charisma, so Huckabee can't be ruled out, like Kennedy/Johnson in 1960.

Thompson?
Well, he might take the job. It pays $208,000 a year and you don't have to do anything. But McCain doesn't need an lazy old guy with incurable cancer.

Ron Paul?
Too old and not a team player.

This year, for only the third time in American history, will a sitting senator be elected President. Part of the reason is that senators have long voting records that can come back to haunt them. For that reason, it is unlikely that McCain will look for another senator. Besides, although McCain knows a lot about foreign policy, he is weak in domestic policy, so a governor looks like a better bet. Only two senators might have a chance.

One is Joe Lieberman (D-CT),
who supports McCain 100% on his signature issue, Iraq. Oddly enough, even though Lieberman is an orthodox Jew, the Base liked him a lot in 2000 because he is so overtly religious (something McCain is not). Picking a former Democrat as Veep would enhance McCain standing with independents and probably wouldn't antagonize the Base. However, it is not clear what states Lieberman brings in. Certainly not Connecticut.

The other senator is Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).
Picking her would be an overt appeal to women. But she may not want the job as she is planning to run for governor of Texas.

So what about a sitting Republican governor? There is a large field to choose from. Here is the list of the governors with comments about their suitability.
State Governor Notes Alabama Bob Riley A solid conservafive with much experience but doesn't add any states Alaska Sarah Palin A young woman would get a lot of attention, but is she presidential? California Arnold Schwarzenegger Not a natural-born citizen, thus ineligible Connecticut Jodi Rell Much too liberal for the national ticket Florida Charlie Crist Maybe. Not much experience but from a crucial swing state Georgia Sonny Perdue Very conservative but McCain can carry Georgia on his own Hawaii Linda Lingle A twice-divorced childless Jewish woman from a very blue and small state Idaho Butch Otter A little-known but solid conservative from a state McCain can carry on his own Indiana Mitch Daniels Mostly conservative but he has repeatedly tried (and failed) to raise taxes Louisina Bobby Jindal An Indian-American would help with minorities, but he was just elected Minnesota Tim Pawlenty Serious. Young, conservative, and might be able to carry Minnesota Mississippi Haley Barbour An old party war horse, but may be too conservative for the country as a whole Missouri Matt Blunt A one-term governor not running for reelection because he might lose Nebraska Dave Heineman A solid conservative but from a state McCain will win easily without him Nevada Jim Gibbons Sex, business, nanny and other scandals make him a very bad choice North Dakota John Hoeven The nation's most senior and most popular governor but unknown outside ND Rhode Island Donald Carcieri With 14 grandchildren, he doesn't exude the youth McCain needs South Carolina Mark Sanford Maybe. His is conservative enough for the base, moderate enough for the country South Dakota Mike Rounds He signed a law banning abortions but seemed indecisive about even a Senate race Texas Rick Perry He would remind people of another (quite unpopular) Texas governor Utah Jon Huntsman A relatively unknown Mormon from a state McCain will win easily Vermont Jim Douglas He signed a bill banning discrimination against gays. The Base won't like him.

Of the governors, Crist, Pawlenty, and Sanford look the most promising. Crist is from the mother of all swing states, which is a huge plus. He was also married for 1 year 28 years ago and not remarried. For the family values crowd, this could become an issue. Pawlenty is young enough to offset McCain's age problem and from a state that he might be able to carry but would otherwise be lost. Sanford is conservative enough to energize some of the McCain haters and bring them back to the fold, but his state is a given no matter what.

But McCain is a maverick and could yet do something very unconventional, like choosing a businessman, mayor, or congressman. Mike Bloomberg, any one? But Bloomberg knows what fluid the Vice Presidency is not worth a pitcher of.

Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily

******

[paul]

The rethugs as expected are starting to turn up the heat on Obama. This will be his first big test.
One thing I'll give to republicans, they are poor at governing but they do know how to win elections.

[remicks]

Originally Posted by paul

The rethugs as expected are starting to turn up the heat on Obama. This will be his first big test.
One thing I'll give to republicans, they are poor at governing but they do know how to win elections.

Yes Paul the corporate media spokesholes (like Hannity) are endlessy trying to portray Barrack as the Black Muslim boogieman ...that is one of their main strategies . Another , since they've stuck themselves with a crappy candidate ....they now seem hell bent on making sure that happens to the Democrats as well . That's their best chance at winning in November . Who do they think they can beat? Hillary:

Vote Master : Talk-show Republican Rush Limbaugh has been strongly urging his listeners, most of whom are Republicans, to register Democratic and vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries because he sees her as a weak general election candidate. Since there is no race on the Republican side any more, many of them are doing exactly this. See this story for details.

Here's the first part of that link :

JedReport

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:15:58 AM PDT

Now that John McCain has won the GOP nomination, Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary in increasing numbers, hoping to pick their opponent for the November election, or at least cause more turmoil in our already divisive nomination battle.
Their choice? Hillary Clinton.
Yesterday, in the Mississippi primary, 24% of Hillary Clinton's support came from Republicans. Unlike the Republican support generated by Barack Obama, according to exit polling data, Clinton's Republican support appears to be part of the explicit plan promoted by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc upon the Democratic Party by voting for Hillary Clinton.

• JedReport's diary :: ::

::
Let's first take a look at the bigger picture.
In January and February, while the Republican nomination contest was still being waged, just 3.9% of Democratic primary voters were self-described Republicans. On March 4, the day that John McCain won enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination, Republican participation in Democratic primaries more than doubled.
As you might remember, a day earlier, Rush Limbaugh had appeared as a guest on several radio shows to encourage Republicans in Ohio and Texas to cross party lines and vote for Clinton as way of sabotaguing the Democratic primary promise. On election day, Bill Clinton gave an interview to the guest host of Rush Limbaugh's show.
Yesterday, 12% of Democratic primary voters in Mississippi were Republicans -- triple the numbers from January and February.

from : Daily Kos: The GOP is now gaming our primary for Clinton. It's time to end it.

I think this story is going to become very big and be very ugly.



*****

[remicks]

*****

An incredible 81% of the population thinks the country is heading in the wrong direction. This is an ominous sign for the Republicans and may be a hint to John McCain to put on his maverick hat and start telling everyone what he dislikes most about George Bush.

from The Votemaster

at Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily

*****

[remicks]

*****

Latest map (April 10) :

General Election Polls: Who Does Better Against McCain State by State?

Both beat McCain ≥ 5%
McCain beats both ≥ 5%
Obama > Clinton by ≥ 5%

Obama > Clinton by < 5%
Clinton > Obama by < 5%
Clinton > Obama by ≥ 5%

Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily


******

[paul]

Originally Posted by remicks

*****




from The Votemaster

at Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily

*****

I still remain a little cynical remicks. I didn't think Bush was that popular in 2004 but we got a 2nd term of this jackass!

[remicks]

******

The map has changed quite a bit in 10 days : APRIL 20th:

General Election Polls: Who Does Better Against McCain State by State?

Both beat McCain ≥ 5%
McCain beats both ≥ 5%
Obama > Clinton by ≥ 5%
Obama > Clinton by < 5%
Clinton > Obama by < 5%
Clinton > Obama by ≥ 5%

THE VOTEMASTER :

John McCain has released his 2007 tax return. His adjusted gross income was $405,409. He paid $17,700 alimony to his first wife, and gave $105,467 to charity. He earned $112 in interest and dividends, which either means he is close to broke (unlikely), has investments that don't pay interest or dividends, or has everything in his wife's name. McCain and his wife file separate returns. Cindy McCain is estimated to be worth at least $100 million, money she inherited from her father, an Arizona beer distributor. She has refused to make her tax returns public.

Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily

******

[remicks]

*****


Big day in Pennsylvania today where Hillary will likely win . ( notice her support posters now all say "HILLARY " not "CLINTON" ..They must have found she fairs better without the association ....)

Obama's hope for Pennsylvania is the Missouri model, where he won 5 of Missouri's 114 counties and lost all the rest--but he won the counties with most of the people. In Pennsylvania he needs a huge turnout in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas to compensate for his certain loss in the middle of the state. James Carville once said Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama sandwiched in between. There is a lot of truth in that actually, as the center of the state is rural and conservative.

The Votemaster

Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily


*****

[paul]

remicks,
what is your take on this whole thing with hillary and barack?