But who leads among the Electoral College, since they're the ones that count?

All this means, if it holds true, is that Obama will get California's 52 Electoral College votes without having to spend a dime. In all likelihood, the Electoral College map this November will look similar to 2000 or 2004, with Obama getting the "blue" states won by Gore and Kerry and McCain winning most of the "red" states won by Bush --- with either Ohio or Florida making the difference for Obama.

At this point, Democrats are doing well in both those states. In Florida, for example, voter registration is 10 to one in favor of Dems. In Ohio, the GOP is in tatters after years of scandals and abuse.

Even with that said, the election is still McCain's to lose. As bad a candidate as McCain is, it's instructive for Obama supporters to remember that George Bush --- the worst president of the modern era --- beat both John Kerry and Al Gore. If the Republican machine can lie, cheat and steal to put a candidate as weak as Bush over the top, McCain should be a relative punt.

The Dems are not awake for this election either.
Do they really think the elections are on the up and up?.
They need to be at least 10+ POINTS AHEAD JUST TO BREAK EVEN

I can't believe there's anyone left in this state who would vote for McWarmonger, and 24 points sounds low to me.

I guess I object to your terminology, Jon, at #2. * didn't beat either of those guys. He never won a presidential election. The Democrats did well in both those states in both those elections. The elections there were stolen.

Agent - I'm going to stand by my statement that they won the election by lying, cheating and stealing. I think we're saying the same thing, but the reality is, in our system, the guy who gets inaugurated "wins."

Personally, I'm for ditching the US Constitution and adopting a more modern parliamentary system with no Executive Branch. But that's just me.

There is an executive branch under the parlimentary system --- the prime minister is just elected by the majority party rather than by popular vote. Parliamentary systems can be just as undemocratic. Take Japan, for example, where the same party has been in power since the end of Occupation in 1951.

Not really. The prime minister can be recalled by his or her party in a vote of no confidence at any time, and, to stay in power, prime ministers, along with all cabinet members, have to be reelected by their local constituencies, which gives the voters more control. (Imagine if, in 2006, Prime Minister Bush had lost his seat in Crawford and Foreign Secretary Condi had lost hers in Palo Alto!)

A parliamentary system would allow for multiple parties, too, rather than the just the current two. And the campaign season can be restricted to just six weeks.

No system is perfect and there is corruption everywhere, and has been since the beginning of government, but ours is a lot less perfect than most. One bit of evidence of this is that, since 1789, only a handful of new democracies have copied our system --- in fact, the only one I can think of is the Philippines. The rest have opted for parliaments.

What does a parliamentary system do to thwart lobbyists and PACs? From undue influence on legislators? I realize the Constitution would have to be scrapped to do this, and that upsets me, even though I know the Achilles heel is that officials must act in good faith for it to work. I think the same is true with a parliament.

I don't think your idea is good enough to put the rewriting of our founding documents in the hands of people used to being bought by lobbyists.

I wish you'd go back to the drawing board.

Sorry if I gave the impression I think this could ever happen. I don't. And I didn't say it would solve every problem. PACs have only been around since the 1970s and could be outlawed with the stroke of a pen. Lobbyists have been around a lot longer, and exist in just about every system.

Switching to parliamentary system would get rid of the nationally elected president, the vice president altogether, the Electoral College, appointed cabinet members and the Senate, for starters. The cabinets in the former executive branch would be headed by a staff civil service administrator who reports to the MP named as minister by the PM. The Judiciary would essentially stay the same.

Oh, well, you probably didn't. I just look at everything through that lens. Some might call it obsessive, but I just never stop looking at everything in terms of fixing what ails the world.

So, well, I'll shut up now.

Well, Clinton won 52% of the vote in the primary, and the bulk of that was from the most committed Democrats. Obama's appeal is and has been far broader - and derived less from the "traditional left" than from the "disenchanted center and center-right."

To me, all this shows is that opinions have not changed much among California Democrats since February. Not all that interesting, IMO.

Under normal circumstances there wouldn't even be an issue, of course, under normal circumstances, this blog wouldn't be necessary. Take nothing for granted. I hope Obama is more aware of the rigged machine situation, more so than Kerry was.

Obama is campaigning with Rebub Sen. Chuck Hagel, the guy who bought ES&S and then was elected to the Senate using ES&S machines, despite being behind in the polls.
I've always thought, worst case, Dems will have to get in on the theft just to compete.
So why will we spend all this stupid amounts of time and energy and money on an election which will be decided by our hackers vs. your hackers???
And, if the Dems are in on the theft - which in some cases looks like that's possible - is there any hope for our nation?
New Constitution indeed...

shw

Hillary is still in so watch what we do.Dever~roll cal will be made. I don't trust the polls why?They lies to make people think different.Look waht happen to Hillary he polls lies all the way upo almost to primary in states and Hillay creamed Obama and it's saying even she is ahead of McCain lol that's great and she is out saying blah blah for Obama but in the long run we her supporters knows that she has to do that.As reported on Pundits blogs that someone didn't hide very well. Go Hillary! And we supporter why should we think or want Hillary as a ticket,no we don't she is president nothing more.And to think we will vote for that as a ticket, that's so funny.I would evn vote Obama for nothing. It's Hillary or McCain.

2008 Election Model
A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation

http://www.geocities.com...el/2008ElectionModel.htm

TruthIsAll

Updated: July 18

There is a famous street card game scam called Three-Card Monte in which the victim, or mark, is tricked into betting a sum of money if he can find the money card among three face-down cards. Our elections are the equivalent of Three-Card Monte. What you see is not what you get. In this democracy game the voter is the mark. The Election Model is doomed to fail in a Three-Card Monte election.
Based on the latest state polls, projections and win probabilities, the 5000-election trial Monte Carlo simulation indicates that Obama will win 53.73% of the two-party vote and 370 electoral votes - if the election is fraud-free and held today. Assuming the base case scenario that he will win 60% of the undecided votes (UVA), he will have 54.68% with 404 electoral votes. The national average 5-poll projection is that he will win 53.60% (60% UVA).
Since Obama won all 5000 Monte Carlo (MC) simulation election trials, his electoral vote win probability is 100%. The win probability is calculated for both the electoral and popular vote –and they match which confirms the methods and makes sense intuitively. The calculations are based on a Monte Carlo simulation (electoral vote) and normal distribution (popular vote). “What are you smoking? Nothing is 100%”. Well, based on the results of 5000 MC simulation trials, the win probability is 100%. The methods are described here.