Current projections from 538.com:
Electoral College: Obama 344.3 - 193.7
Win percentage: Obama 93.5% - 6.5%
Popular Vote: Obama 51.8% - 46.8%
Swing states or party switchers from 2004:
Colorado: Obama +5.3 (Obama 90% to win)
Florida: Obama +2.4 (Obama 74%)
Indiana: McCain +1.6 (McCain 65%)
Iowa: Obama +12.4 (Obama 100%)
Missouri: Obama +1.1 (Obama 63%)
Nevada: Obama +1.9 (Obama 68%)
New Mexico: Obama +6.2 (Obama 92%)
North Carolina: Obama +1.3 (Obama 63%)
Ohio: Obama +2.1 (Obama 71%)
Pennsylvania: Obama +9.7 (Obama 98%)
Virigina: Obama +6.2 (Obama 93%)
Originally posted by Strangelove
Current projections from 538.com:Electoral College: Obama 344.3 - 193.7
Win percentage: Obama 93.5% - 6.5%
Popular Vote: Obama 51.8% - 46.8%
Swing states or party switchers from 2004:
Colorado: Obama +5.3 (Obama 90% to win)
Florida: Obama +2.4 (Obama 74%)
Indiana: McCain +1.6 (McCain 65%)
Iowa: Obama +12.4 (Obama 100%)
Missouri: Obama +1.1 (Obama 63%)
Nevada: Obama +1.9 (Obama 68%)
New Mexico: Obama +6.2 (Obama 92%)
North Carolina: Obama +1.3 (Obama 63%)
Ohio: Obama +2.1 (Obama 71%)
Pennsylvania: Obama +9.7 (Obama 98%)
Virigina: Obama +6.2 (Obama 93%)
You would know this way more than I would, so:
I saw Tom Brokaw on the Daily Show last night (I don't know if it was a repeat, I only caught the interview) and they were talking about the Kerry/Bush race in 04.
Comming up to the election, he said Kerry made a remark where he claimed he felt that he had it in the bag (saying something like "no incumbant who has been trailing by this much, this late in the election has ever won"😉. Later, Brokaw met with Rove and other Republican strategists, who showed him how they had broken down different parts of crucial ridings in swing states etc. Brokaw said he left with the impression that "They just might pull it off".
From everything I see, it really looks like Obama has it, but like, that could totally just be the way the media plays it here (and most sources I use are left leaning). However, how over do you think this is? Obviously its not finished, but what kind of chances do the Republicans have at this point? Would it require another domestic terrorist attack to get the people back, or is it way closer than some politically interested outlets want it to seem?
Change Big Donors Can Believe In
By Amy Goodman - Oct 22 2008
Truthdig
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081022_change_big_donors_can_believe_in/
The campaigns are not dealing in small change, though. Their coffers, particularly the Democrats’, are swelling with larger and larger bundles of cash, ensuring that politicians will remain beholden to special interests and wealthy donors. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the extended television discussions of this, because it’s the broadcasters who profit the most.Barack Obama broke records with recently announced September fundraising levels that exceeded all predictions, bringing in $150 million. Since Obama opted out of the public financing system, he can spend freely from his war chest right up to the election. John McCain accepted public financing and has limits imposed on his campaign...
... [Obama] Ads have been inserted into video games like “Guitar Hero.” The campaign has bought a full 30 minutes of prime-time airtime on NBC, CBS and Fox, six days before the election. Fox moved the start time of the World Series to accommodate the ad buy...
... only a quarter of this vast number of [Obama] donors fall into the “small” category (under $200), which is a smaller percentage than that achieved by George Bush in his 2004 run.
...While donations to candidates are supposed to be limited to $2,300 for the general election (an additional $2,300 is allowed for the primary season, per candidate), huge loopholes exist. Most notable are the “joint fundraising committees,” in which the presidential candidate partners with his party to form a fundraising organization. McCain and the Republican National Committee’s is called McCain Victory 2008 and can receive donations as high as $70,000, which then get distributed to the presidential campaign, the national party and to key state parties. Obama and the Democratic National Committee created the Obama Victory Fund, to which donors could give $28,500. As The Washington Post just reported, the Democrats found that sum too limiting, so they created the Committee for Change, which allows donors to give up to $65,500. That’s a helluva lot of change.
Bill Buzenberg, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, told me, “What is wrong with this is, after this election, the people have bundled and put together big pots of money are going to come back to whoever is elected, and they will be looking for access and influence.”
...
Is public financing of campaigns dead? A year ago, Sen. Obama said, “I have been a longtime advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.” Regardless of who the winner is, the next president will enter the White House with a long list of major donors to thank.
excuse my cynicism, but imho it really doesn't look like Obama offers a whole lot of change from a traditional politician.
There are similar issues with who he has as foreign policy advisors, as they largely come from the typical stalk of Washington insiders who got America into its current foreign debacle.
EDIT: in the spirit of full disclosure:
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America. She has been awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and will receive the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.
I think they are confidential?
or, at the very least, not the first thing that pops up on google
McCain is supposed to have a searchable database for his under $200 donors, but it requires fairly specific search criteria (for instance, searching for a range of donations from 1-200, 100-200, 199-200 all come back with "please narrow your search parameters", also happens if one searches the last name Smith or first name John) so it might as well be private.
Best I could find is this site: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
but even it needs some looking. Also, given they are private donations, the name of the individual who donated does not necessarily indicate what, if any, special interest the candidate may be indebted to
EDIT: this may also work - http://www.followthemoney.org/
it doesn't on the computer I'm using
interesting, a new meme for the McCain campaign is that, since the RNC has made all of their under 200 dollar donations open to the public, they now get to accuse Barak of hiding who has donated to him. I have seen (on a msg board) the accusation that this is emblematic of voter fraud supported by Obama or that Al Qaeda may have had 600 members each donate 200.
EDIT 2: lol, that last point being even funnier considering in internal communications (on the internet, as internal as you want to call that) Al Qaeda members said they support McCain because he seems more likely to do what they want him to, namely attack another muslim country to destroy the American economy, much like the mujahideen think they did to the USSR
Oddly, the numbers being reported by the verified funds being raised seem to indicate those funds are coming largely from American citizens. Something like 600, 000 new donors this past month, alone. Sounds to me like he's being publically funded. Average donation coming out to something like 86 dollars. With most giving less and a lot giving more.
Seems all those "Country First" people aren't willing to donate a few bucks to keep a terrorist out of their Oval Office.
Obama’s ‘Good Will’ Hunting
Micheal Isikoff - Oct 4 2008
Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403
Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name."Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign has no idea who the individuals are and has returned all the donations, using the credit-card numbers they gave to the campaign. (In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not.
whether the campaign plans to return all such "anonymous" donations, or only the ones which the media chides them for, remains to be seen.
Originally posted by Devil King
Seems all those "Country First" people aren't willing to donate a few bucks to keep a terrorist out of their Oval Office.
McCain accepted official public fundung, which, unless I'm mistaken, prevents him from raising money in the way Obama is.
I could be wrong though. surprisingly, American presidential campaign donation law is not something I have memorized
Originally posted by KidRock
Obama preaching about closing tax and corporate loopholes all while exploiting his own loopholes to raise more money for himself...nice.
hey, its only wrong when other people do it.
Obama is the good guy, its excuseable, 😛
Originally posted by inimalist
McCain accepted official public fundung, which, unless I'm mistaken, prevents him from raising money in the way Obama is.I could be wrong though. surprisingly, American presidential campaign donation law is not something I have memorized
He can accept the money that a taxpayer agreed to give when they became voluntary contributors to public campaigns.
He is also allowed to accept contributions from people, just like Obama, he simply must limit it to the amounts matched by the public funds.
However, in the link you posted, both have Vistory funds, in which Mr. Obama is being given vastly more money than McCain, and it's coming from the public.
This is why I disagree with the article you posted. They're both getting money, Obama is simply being given more than McCain and he's getting most of it from everyday citizens.
Originally posted by Devil King
He can accept the money that a taxpayer agreed to give when they became voluntary contributors to public campaigns.
lol, fair enough
it does surprise me that Obama is recieving more donations than McCain...
like, wouldn't the religious right be able to command huge sums of cash for McCain? or is that all he is getting, lol
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, fair enoughit does surprise me that Obama is recieving more donations than McCain...
like, wouldn't the religious right be able to command huge sums of cash for McCain? or is that all he is getting, lol
The Religious-Right isn't in the bag for McCain like they were for George "God's Warrior" Bush, they're voting for McCain because he isn't Obama. John gets their vote; not their money, for the most part.
Edit: When I said "God", I meant the Christian God, of course.
Originally posted by Robtard
The Religious-Right isn't in the bag for McCain like they were for George "God's Warrior" Bush, they're voting for McCain because he isn't Obama. John gets their vote; not their money, for the most part.
weird. Personally, I largely thought Palin was brought in not for women voters, but for fundamentalist voters who were turned off of McCain...
Do you think that has helped at all? Like, is the religious right more fired up now that she is there? Do you think she can motivate them to raise money?
(****, I mean look at the rallies. I don't want to say that the people claiming Obama has the terrorist bloodline are christians, but...)
Originally posted by Robtard
Edit: When I said "God", I meant the Christian God, of course.
lol, of course
else I assume you would have said "False terrorist idol"
Considering she still pulls a bigger crowd than McCain at rallies, I'd wager that she has helped raise a considerable sum of money; some being from the RR. Then again, people could just be flocking because she makes them pitch-a-tent, still.
Overall though, McCain doesn't have the RR blind-backing that Bush thrived on during '00 and especially '04, not even close. It's simply, "hey, he's not Obama, Jesus saves!"
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering she still pulls a bigger crowd than McCain at rallies, I'd wager that she has helped raise a considerable sum of money; some being from the RR. Then again, people could just be flocking because she makes them pitch-a-tent.
wow, I should pay attention to the news, lol
haha, do you think there is a large group of "pitch a tent" voters?
I remember when she was picked, and everyone was all on about how she was the hottest governor. I thought, "no way the GOP is that cynical, no way they think people will vote for the MILF"...
now, I don't know... That National Review article where the guy talks about getting wood when she winks...
Originally posted by Robtard
Overall though, McCain doesn't have the RR blind-backing that Bush thrived on during '00 and especially '04, not even close. It's simply, "hey, he's not Obama, Jesus saves!"
lol, so McCain is the Kerry of 08?
I'll give you enough time to edit before I respond this time 🙂
Originally posted by inimalist
wow, I should pay attention to the news, lolhaha, do you think there is a large group of "pitch a tent" voters?
I remember when she was picked, and everyone was all on about how she was the hottest governor. I thought, "no way the GOP is that cynical, no way they think people will vote for the MILF"...
now, I don't know... That National Review article where the guy talks about getting wood when she winks...
lol, so McCain is the Kerry of 08?
I'll give you enough time to edit before I respond this time 🙂
Don't know, possible I guess. If the majority of black-people (yes, even Powell is lumped here now by the Right) are voting for Obama simply because he shares a similar skin tone, then it's possible a sizable percentage of men who vote Right are voting from the penis.
Yeah, in regards to the Holy-Than-Though crowd, that's a spot-on analogy.
I do that, I hit reply; then realize I had some other thoughts to post,it's just what I do, can't explain it.