How will the election end?

[Kaylore]

Vote!

[Hogan11]

Electorial college landslide for the O Man.

[ak1971]

hopefully with Amendment 50 passing also.

[BroncoBuff]

32 states, 391 electoral votes for Obama

58-42 Democratic majority in Senate (incl. Lieberman and Sanders as D)

262 -173 Democratic majority in House

[Kaylore]

32 states, 391 electoral votes for Obama

58-42 Democratic majority in Senate (incl. Lieberman and Sanders as D)

262 -173 Democratic majority in House

That's possible. It's also going to suck. When our economy slowly has the life drained out of it I predict Democrats everywhere will insist it was "all Bush's mess ups that take a long time to fix and we need more taxing to fix it" and it will die some more.

[ak1971]

That's possible. It's also going to suck. When our economy slowly has the life drained out of it I predict Democrats everywhere will insist it was "all Bush's mess ups that take a long time to fix and we need more taxing to fix it" and it will die some more.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk298/AK7745/untitled-2.jpg

[Old Dude]

In terms of the popular vote, looking at all the polls, I think that Obama is up by about 50-43. 1 point is going to go to third party candidates. The other six points will split. So make it 53/46/1. Except for two things. First, all the polling models I've seen have African Americans voting at "traditional levels." I think they are going to turn out in extraordinarily high numbers. I also think that this is the first election in modern memory where youth voters make an impact. Not as much as some people hope or think, but enough to skew the final by two more points.

So, make the final popular vote Obama:54, MCCain:45; Other: 1.

The electoral vote is a lot harder to call. Previously, I guessed Obama at 317. I'm going to guess that he takes all the Kerry states, plus Iowa and New Mexico. I can also see him taking Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Georgia.

(I think Georgia is going to be the big surprise, due to the underestimated African American and youth factors.)

I think he's also going to take North Dakota (since he's kicking butt in Minnesota) and I think he'll steal one of the Nebraska districts.

It's very hard to visualize him taking Indiana or Missouri. But if the kids turn out in significant numbers, he will probably pull those off as well. That would give him the election: 394: 131

[Mr.Meanie]

It's very hard to visualize him taking Indiana or Missouri. But if the kids turn out in significant numbers, out, he will pull thiose off as well. That would give him the election: 394: 131

That would be insane.

Hopefully that would get the GOP to take a good look at who's hijacked the party, and maybe it can return to the low-government, low taxes version it used to be.

[manchambo]

I'm voting Obama landslide. CNN has a pretty cool calculator where you can give the states to the candidates and look at the electoral total. Play with that thing for 15 minutes and try to figure out how McCain could possibly win.

He needs to work real hard to make it respectable.

[theAPAOps5]

That's possible. It's also going to suck. When our economy slowly has the life drained out of it I predict Democrats everywhere will insist it was "all Bush's mess ups that take a long time to fix and we need more taxing to fix it" and it will die some more.

What happened to the economy and better yet the deficit the last time a democrat was president?

Its a rhetorical question. But the Republicans had 8 years and it got us to the brink of a depression of which we are still teetering. So lets see what the Dems do.

[Bronco Bob]

That's possible. It's also going to suck. When our economy slowly has the life drained out of it I predict Democrats everywhere will insist it was "all Bush's mess ups that take a long time to fix and we need more taxing to fix it" and it will die some more.

Except for Carter the economy has always gotten better with a Democrat as
president. So I don't know where you get the idea that high taxes are bad
for the economy.

[TexanBob]

So I don't know where you get the idea that high taxes are bad
for the economy.

New Jersey once decided they would punish the rich by placing a stiff tax on purchasing yachts. The end result? The rich simply went elsewhere to purchase their yachts and the yacht-building businesses in New Jersey went belly-up.

Rich people, in general, are not idiots. If you set things up to soak the rich, they will find ways around it, even if they have to move elsewhere. Most aren't going to just sit there with a bullseye on their backs. But the people that will be hurt are the ones who depend on the rich for jobs or sales or investment capital. Ask yourself how many billionaires or British descent are now Americans instead of staying in Britain and having their riches plundered by socialists.

[Bronco Bob]

Still doesn't explain why the economy generally does better with a Democrat as president.

[gunns]

I'm sticking by what I predicted on 7/27:

Originally Posted by gunns

I predict a landslide for Obama....yes even after the debates and the VP's are announced. THAT is the immense damage Bush and his admin have done to their party. Here in Utah I'm seeing bumper stickers that say Republican for Obama. It's widespread.

Go ahead and mark it down, show it to me when the election is over. I'm predicting a landslide.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When our economy slowly has the life drained out of it....

Hilarious!

"When" our economy slowly has the life drained out of it?

What planet have you been living on for the last eight years?

[gunns]

That's possible. It's also going to suck. When our economy slowly has the life drained out of it I predict Democrats everywhere will insist it was "all Bush's mess ups that take a long time to fix and we need more taxing to fix it" and it will die some more.

I think many underestimate and stereotype Obama. The economy has very little life left and if any more is drained it will still be Bush's fault and more than Dem's will insist that. The tax thing is getting really really old.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

hings up to soak the rich, they will find ways around it, even if they have to move elsewhere.

You call raising the top tax rate by 3% "soaking" the rich?

Damn - you really are nothing but a corporate special interests mouthpiece, aren't you?

[Rohirrim]

What I'd like to know is why the possibility that Obama will be the next president is driving many on the Right stark raving mad.

[gunns]

What I'd like to know is why the possibility that Obama will be the next president is driving many on the Right stark raving mad.

They operate under the same assumption as the party they support, that the White House is theirs to own. They're very frustrated they can't find any sexual wrong doing with this candidate and feel the power they've abused slipping away.

[BroncoBuff]

That's possible. It's also going to suck. When our economy slowly has the life drained out of it I predict Democrats everywhere will insist it was "all Bush's mess ups that take a long time to fix and we need more taxing to fix it" and it will die some more.
Lots of assumptions there. I have three questions:

1. Don't you mean "IF" our economy slowly has the life drained out of it?

2. Isn't it already on life support in the intensive care ward?

3. Wasn't it an all-GOP Congress and WH that turned the huge Clinton budget surplus into the largest budget deficit in history ... in just 5 years?! Budget deficits historically have a huge effect on the stock market, so isn't it short-sighted to assume the current economic meltdown has "nothing whatsoever to do" with the runaway-train Republican budget-busters? Not a Democrat in sight to blame for that.

[Miss I.]

What I'd like to know is why the possibility that Obama will be the next president is driving many on the Right stark raving mad.

Probably not. I mean if you have already arrived at a destination, you really can't drive any further.

Seriously though, I have this theory that the Extreme right (and I don't think this applies to all Republicans, just the extreme) is okay with this turnout. McCain, for all his flaws, is not nearly as right wing as the extremists would probably like. I would imagine they would've preferred a more extreme candidate. The thing this does for the party is satisfy whatever deal they made with McCain to finally run him as their candidate. In 2000 if they had run him, I think he would've been a real challenge to Gore and they wouldn't have necessarily seen the election turn into what it did. Now with Obama most likely winning this, if in 4 years the economy has not made significant improvement they can place the blame on him and run a candidate more consistent with their more conservative politics. But again, just an opinion and I know what those are really worth.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Now with Obama most likely winning this, if in 4 years the economy has not made significant improvement they can place the blame on him and run a candidate more consistent with their more conservative politics. But again, just an opinion and I know what those are really worth.

Ding ding ding! :yep:

The rethugs know we haven't seen the worst of this "downturn" yet, and their plan is to cut and run/dump the whole mess they created in the Dems' collective lap.

[spdirty]

hopefully with Amendment 50 passing also.

Amendment 46 as well. That one probably has the biggest financial impact on my life than any other vote in this election.

[Kaylore]

Lots of assumptions there. I have three questions:

1. Don't you mean "IF" our economy slowly has the life drained out of it?

2. Isn't it already on life support in the intensive care ward?

3. Wasn't it an all-GOP Congress and WH that turned the huge Clinton budget surplus into the largest budget deficit in history ... in just 5 years?! Budget deficits historically have a huge effect on the stock market, so isn't it short-sighted to assume the current economic meltdown has "nothing whatsoever to do" with the runaway-train Republican budget-busters? Not a Democrat in sight to blame for that.
When it comes the Bush's domestic policy, I am the first to criticize. That said, you're a leftist guy, right? You should love what Bush did. He nationalized all the airport security workers creating an enormous, under-motivated work group and big payroll to the national government. They're unionized too. He also spent more on Education than anyone has leading up to him. He's grown government more than Clinton did. Shouldn't you love that? Isn't that what you wanted?

In a way, I hope you're right. Maybe through some weird form of reciprocity Obama and the all Democrat congress will vote to cut spending and taxes. Obama is saying the right things, but we all know leftists love "programs" to "help people". Well at worst it won't be any different than it was under Bush.

[Paladin]

That's possible. It's also going to suck. When our economy slowly has the life drained out of it I predict Democrats everywhere will insist it was "all Bush's mess ups that take a long time to fix and we need more taxing to fix it" and it will die some more.

Will you come back in a year and review this with us?


What will you do if you are wrong?

[baja]

Hilarious!

"When" our economy slowly has the life drained out of it?

What planet have you been living on for the last eight years?

No the last 8 years were was a systematic plunder.

[Meck77]

No the last 8 years were was a systematic plunder.

Supported and stamped by the "man of change".

[baja]

Probably not. I mean if you have already arrived at a destination, you really can't drive any further.

Seriously though, I have this theory that the Extreme right (and I don't think this applies to all Republicans, just the extreme) is okay with this turnout. McCain, for all his flaws, is not nearly as right wing as the extremists would probably like. I would imagine they would've preferred a more extreme candidate. The thing this does for the party is satisfy whatever deal they made with McCain to finally run him as their candidate. In 2000 if they had run him, I think he would've been a real challenge to Gore and they wouldn't have necessarily seen the election turn into what it did. Now with Obama most likely winning this, if in 4 years the economy has not made significant improvement they can place the blame on him and run a candidate more consistent with their more conservative politics. But again, just an opinion and I know what those are really worth.

This is what I've been thinking since McMystery won the nomination, he is the sacrificial lamb in a lost cause election year for the repugs.

[baja]

Ding ding ding! :yep:

The rethugs know we haven't seen the worst of this "downturn" yet, and their plan is to cut and run/dump the whole mess they created in the Dems' collective lap.

LOL they were paniced when even McBlame was neck and neck with Obama so they ran out and dug up Palin as VP to insure the loss.

[Drek]

When it comes the Bush's domestic policy, I am the first to criticize. That said, you're a leftist guy, right? You should love what Bush did. He nationalized all the airport security workers creating an enormous, under-motivated work group and big payroll to the national government. They're unionized too. He also spent more on Education than anyone has leading up to him. He's grown government more than Clinton did. Shouldn't you love that? Isn't that what you wanted?

In a way, I hope you're right. Maybe through some weird form of reciprocity Obama and the all Democrat congress will vote to cut spending and taxes. Obama is saying the right things, but we all know leftists love "programs" to "help people". Well at worst it won't be any different than it was under Bush.
Are you trying to live the stereotype of everything that people hate republicans for?

Most people on the "left" as you put it are not socialists who want all things federalized.

I'm not even really "left", I'm more like the blue dog democrats and I can see that only the 1-2% of the extreme far left think like that.

The democratic party espouses expanding government to provide things like health care, better education, funding renewable energies development, and infrastructure.

The republican party claims to support fiscal conservatism and reduction of government but has not actually followed those practices in over 30 years (hence the biggest deficit spenders in history being Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43).

Fiscal conservatism doesn't just mean lowering taxes despite whatever new programs or needs of the country may arise. It means using tax dollars with honesty and integrity, towards a betterment of the nation. No bid contracts, spending FIFTY TIMES the next largest military in the world annually on "defense" (when it is really just shock troops for the empire), and creating a massive new branch of government that spends more time spying on citizens and inspiring hysteria and bigotry than actually protecting us isn't exactly doing that.

An excellent microcosm of this is the GOP party platform this year. Railing against gay marriage and abortion but where is the outrage as it applies to reduction of the deficit and pay as you go spending? The fiscal conservatives don't hold any sway in that party, if there are even any left.

The democratic party will have an interesting situation on its hands though because many of the states they're picking up senate and congressional seats are electing what I previously mentioned, blue dog democrats. Fiscally conservative and very much about civil liberties while wanting to see our government put its muscle to use providing the basic care we need for every citizen to be a productive and healthy member of society.

Those blue dogs aren't going to hand a rubber stamp to anyone, so in order to see a true majority the democrats will need to let them have a hefty seat at the table. Not like it was really a choice though as we're about to elect someone very much like the blue dogs to be POTUS (Obama, though the pre-2000 McCain would've fit well as a blue dog as well).

[Traveler]

My gut says landslide but the pessimistic side can't let me get setup like that. Voted Obama wins but it's close.

[Garcia Bronco]

That's possible. It's also going to suck. When our economy slowly has the life drained out of it I predict Democrats everywhere will insist it was "all Bush's mess ups that take a long time to fix and we need more taxing to fix it" and it will die some more.

I agree.

[Traveler]

Tomorrow
Monday 03 November 2008

by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


A thing is about to happen which has not happened since the Elder Days.
- J.R.R. Tolkien


It has been a long and terrible time since tomorrow mattered as much as it does today.

It began with that first terrible election, the media manipulations, the stolen and uncounted votes, the menacing mobs, and a decision by the highest court which sealed our doom. A man who was not chosen came to possess an office he was unworthy of, and everything that since has come to pass now seems almost preordained, fated, inevitable.

We have seen tax cuts which looted our Treasury and further enriched the wealthy, we have seen presidential vetoes of legislation designed to heal the sick and feed the children, and we have seen executive orders designed to shatter the Constitution and erase our rights. We have seen annihilation by fire and water visited upon our cities and ourselves. We have seen wars and rumors of wars. We have seen fear visited upon the populace by design. We have seen terrorists, and all too often, they have been us.

We have known death, and disgrace, and failure, and greed, and theft, and shame, and utter lawlessness. We have lost hope, and been afraid, and fallen to exhaustion and despair. We have seen torture and murder stamped with the seal of highest approval, and we have become what we despise.

But tomorrow is a different matter.

Tomorrow is a place of definitions, where change may come and be welcome even in the smallest degree. Tomorrow will see millions upon millions from every national nook and cranny pour forth in celebration of their own lone and lonesome voices.

Tomorrow, we will know.

It has been a long, strange and entirely preposterous course that has brought us today to the edge of our next tomorrow. Millions of new voters rewrote an old, calcified map. Fifty states one and all had their say, and their say mattered to the last of it. Money mattered less than organization, less than passion, less than hope, less than tomorrow.

There are many eyes upon us today as we prepare to step into tomorrow. The eyes of those lost in fire and smoke of a bright September morning watch us, the eyes of those lost in needless battle watch us, the eyes of those subsumed by an invading sea watch us, the eyes of those lost to disease and poverty and greed watch us, the eyes of all those lost who should not be so are upon us, they remember what we did yesterday, and they will see us tomorrow.

What they call change is nothing more than choice. Tomorrow is another choosing, perhaps the greatest of our lives. Something will happen, and afterward, we will know.

Tomorrow has come at last.

http://www.truthout.org/110308J

[ak1971]

it will end tomorrow night...thank God

[theAPAOps5]

McCain is getting desperate. He now has radio ads with Joe the Plummer. Of course lets not forget he isn't a licensed plumber and he doesn't own a company nor plans to in the near future.

But in his ad he says Obama wants to punish him for his success by taking him and other small businesses. I really am surprised they are running that ad with what he himself acknowledged.

[Traveler]

McCain is getting desperate. He now has radio ads with Joe the Plummer. Of course lets not forget he isn't a licensed plumber and he doesn't own a company nor plans to in the near future.

But in his ad he says Obama wants to punish him for his success by taking him and other small businesses. I really am surprised they are running that ad with what he himself acknowledged.

They don't care. Especially now that Joe is no longer a plumber but would-be country singer.:spit:

[Crushaholic]

I'm still crossing my fingers for a McCain victory. The reality, however, is probably that we are going to get the candidate who wants to give everything away...courtesy of the friendly neighborhood federal government.

[Rohirrim]

Joe better move fast. His fifteen minutes are quickly running out. I'm guessing by next year he's on the novelty wrasslin' circuit with Mini-Me and one of the Baldwin brothers.

[Traveler]

The McCain camp must pay well for him to be missing so many days from work.:wiggle:

[Garcia Bronco]

There was no surplus. Quit perpetuating this myth. The "surplus" was based on projections, NOT CASH ON HAND, from spending and tax cuts never-ever realized.

[Arkie]

Obama - 364
McCain - 174


battleground states:

Missouri - Obama
Ohio - Obama
North Carolina - Obama
Florida - Obama

Indiana - McCain

[Paladin]

There was no surplus. Quit perpetuating this myth. The "surplus" was based on projections, NOT CASH ON HAND, from spending and tax cuts never-ever realized.

Really? Clinton did buy back all 30 year bonds. The economy was going great, there was a budget surplus, the National debt was in decline.

Bush is the worst president ever in the History of the US. And McNasty voted with hi 90% of the time by his own admission.....

[Paladin]

Obama - 364
McCain - 174


battleground states:

Missouri - Obama
Ohio - Obama
North Carolina - Obama
Florida - Obama

Indiana - McCain

You giving Penn to McNasty? Obama leads by 8 or 9 there..... Or are you concedeing Penn to Obama?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There was no surplus. Quit perpetuating this myth. The "surplus" was based on projections, NOT CASH ON HAND, from spending and tax cuts never-ever realized.

The last Clinton budgets:

'98 1.722 Trillion in, 1.653 out. Surplus=69 Billion

'99 1.828 Trillion in, 1.701 out. Surplus=127 Billion

'00 2.025 Trillion in, 1.788 out. Surplus=237 Billion

'01 1.991 Trillion in, 1.864 out. Surplus=127 Billion

The first Bush Budget:

'02 1,853 Trillion in, 2,011 out. Deficit=158 Billion

Source: Congressional Budget Office

[Rohirrim]

How will this election end?



With me popping a bottle of Dom. ;D

[Arkie]

You giving Penn to McNasty? Obama leads by 8 or 9 there..... Or are you concedeing Penn to Obama?

I'm giving Penn to Obama.

[orinjkrush]

with nearly 50% of the population pissed off.

[uplink]

Close election, McCain takes most of the close states but Obama wins by holding on for close finishes in PA and CO. If McCain pulls off CO then it could be a tie.

[theAPAOps5]

Close election, McCain takes most of the close states but Obama wins by holding on for close finishes in PA and CO. If McCain pulls off CO then it could be a tie.

No way, and why are you considering McCain taking CO. Its one of the toss ups he is trailing the furthest in.

My theory is voter turn out is huge. The youth, black vote, and undecided swing Obama and he carries almost every close state except for a few states like Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, etc.

But I think Obama has CO. This state is quickly becoming a blue state. Nothing that I can pinpoint as evidence its just the feeling I get here.

[24champ]

Close election, McCain takes most of the close states but Obama wins by holding on for close finishes in PA and CO. If McCain pulls off CO then it could be a tie.

If McCain loses Virginia, its over. It's a tough hill for McCain to climb, it's doable but a lot of the chips have to fall right for McCain...and I don't see it happening.

[uplink]

No way, and why are you considering McCain taking CO. Its one of the toss ups he is trailing the furthest in.

My theory is voter turn out is huge. The youth, black vote, and undecided swing Obama and he carries almost every close state except for a few states like Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, etc.

But I think Obama has CO. This state is quickly becoming a blue state. Nothing that I can pinpoint as evidence its just the feeling I get here.

Thinking McCain could run the table on these close states that have gone republican of late including: FL, AZ, VA, NC, OH, IN, MO, ND, MT.
I think the last minute push by McCain will be more effective than expected.
He has been so uninspiring, but the the last minute push will perk up republicans.

1) McCain wins if he takes PA and runs the table on the above states.

2) Obama wins if the takes PA and one of the above states.

2) Obama wins in the end if he takes PA while losing all the above states.

a) outright win if Obama takes either NV or CO.

b) The house picks Obama in a tie if he loses both NV and CO.
I still think NV and CO could go either way (Obama by only %7 in
latest CO CNN poll).

[Drek]

b) The house picks Obama in a tie if he loses both NV and CO.
I still think NV and CO could go either way (Obama by only %7 in
latest CO CNN poll).

Obama is probably a lock for CO because that 7% lead is based heavily on CO having a huge early voter turnout that was strongly Obama. It's estimated that ~2/3rds of the entire Colorado electorate has already voted.

[enjolras]

Polling at 7% ahead is a virtual lock. There would have to be something HUGELY wrong with the polling. A 7% lead is is fundamentally insurmountable. If McCain is your horse, you better hope that the pollsters have done a very poor job this cycle.

[uplink]

Polling at 7% ahead is a virtual lock. There would have to be something HUGELY wrong with the polling. A 7% lead is is fundamentally insurmountable. If McCain is your horse, you better hope that the pollsters have done a very poor job this cycle.

I'm not for McCain, but I think the error in the polls is about 5% isn't it?

[SJ Bronco]

The repugs are dense. They didn't get the message when they lost congress, now they look to lose all the power. I hope it is a landslide. Maybe they will get the message that the American public ain't as dumb as they would like to think!

[Paladin]

I think the EC will be in the 330-350 range, and the popular vote will be about 53% for Obama.

Of course I was thinking the Broncos would win a few games, too , so what the h3ll do I know?

[Miss I.]

I think the EC will be in the 330-350 range, and the popular vote will be about 53% for Obama.

Of course I was thinking the Broncos would win a few games, too , so what the h3ll do I know?

Hey, I would only question you if you said you thought Brodie Croyle would win an NFL game this year.:D

[enjolras]

I'm not for McCain, but I think the error in the polls is about 5% isn't it?

In most polls its going to be around 3%, I'm not entirely sure what poll we're talking about so I can't look it up.

I do feel compelled to point out:

The margin of error is actually a distribution. When someone tells you that it's "within the margin of error and therefore tied" that's not at all true. As you approach the lower and upper bound of the margin of error the liklehood of achieving that result approaches zero.

So following the example:

At 7% with a 3% margin of error the pollster is saying that the most likely result is a 7% win. As you move three points in either direction the probability of that result happening approaches zero. If Obama wins by less than 4% the pollsters model was fundamentally flawed in some regard.

So a 8% win is somewhat likely (as is a 6% win)... but a 4% win is extremely unlikely (as is a 10% win).

So if your up 2.5% with a 3% margin of error the pollster is still VERY confident that your going to win, as the chance of a loss is still quite remote.

The big issue is with the polling model itself. Are you asking the right people, are they being honest, and are you even asking the right questions. If your a McCain supporters, with these numbers, you better hope that the model itself is bad. Which does happen, but when you have multiple pollsters running polls coming up with consistently similar results that is fairly unlikely.

This is why I really do like http://fiverthirtyeight.com . Nate Silver understands the math and has come up with a pretty good model to aggregate the polls based on historical performance (particularly in the primaries) while tracking trends within the polls themselves. Essentially teasing out the margin of errors to come up with the statistically most likely result.

According to his numbers a McCain win depends on the pollsters models across the board being very bad. Even though a great many of been historically very good. There is some hope in this regard as the pollsters may be heavily overweighting the young voter turnout. It really likely comes down to that.

**NOTE: There is a big handwave here around the statistical method being used, which can affect the distribution of the margin of error over the result. I'm assuming a fairly evenly distributed model which is most likely for these polls.

[Taco John]

If McCain were to somehow win this thing tomorrow, it would convince me that the whole thing is rigged and I'd probably never vote again for the rest of my life.

[gunns]

If McCain were to somehow win this thing tomorrow, it would convince me that the whole thing is rigged and I'd probably never vote again for the rest of my life.

This is exactly my thoughts.

[Bronco Yoda]

with nearly 50% of the population pissed off.

bingo! we have a winner!

[Miss I.]

Well, here's my concern, I know at least in Colorado they have gone to electronic voting which you would think would make it better, but I think it opens things up to error and tampering. I mean I didn't think 8 years ago I would have thought "hanging chad" would be in our vocab. Now it will be computer viruses or something. But here's to keeping hope alive that things will be fair.

[enjolras]

Well, here's my concern, I know at least in Colorado they have gone to electronic voting which you would think would make it better, but I think it opens things up to error and tampering. I mean I didn't think 8 years ago I would have thought "hanging chad" would be in our vocab. Now it will be computer viruses or something. But here's to keeping hope alive that things will be fair.

I thought Colorado was totally paper this year? My vote was paper for sure (the weird connect the arrow one). My biggest issue is that I voted in pencil, which seems very changeable to me.

[Miss I.]

I thought Colorado was totally paper this year? My vote was paper for sure (the weird connect the arrow one). My biggest issue is that I voted in pencil, which seems very changeable to me.

When I went to early voting we did a touch screen thing and then it saved my voting stuff onto a digital card that I turned in to the voting personnel.

[enjolras]

I guess the paper thing Ritter was spouting off about died.

[OrangeRising]

If McCain were to somehow win this thing tomorrow, it would convince me that the whole thing is rigged and I'd probably never vote again for the rest of my life.


As much as I want McCain to win, I still have to agree with this. There just isn't any realistic way. The thing that hurts more than anything else is that if McCain had chosen a reasonable running mate, this thing probably would be a toss up, with an obvious advantage to Obama because of the 'W' factor.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If McCain is your horse, you better hope that the pollsters have done a very poor job this cycle.

Either that or you better hope that Diebold and the rest of the GOP election theft apparatus have done a very good job.