Years ago AU Political Scientist Allan Lichtman (Disclaimer: He ran for US Senate in MD as Democrat in 2006, but lost the primary to the eventual winner, Senator Ben Cardin) created The Keys to the Presidency. Based on complicated statistical research, Lichtman uses these keys to predict the winners of presidential elections. He claims that it has worked for every election since 1861.

(One key point: It predicts popular vote winners, not electoral college winners. So while it "worked" in 1876, 1888, and 2000, the electoral college said otherwise.)

More beneath the fold.

I am a progressive. Bayh is not. I like compelling figures like Schweitzer and Sebelius. No one sure ever called Bayh compelling. I like military men like Clark and Webb. Bayh? Not a soldier. I like attack dogs like Biden and Dean. Bayh ain't one of those either.

But I want Bayh.

Why?

Because more than anything, I want to win.

I have a very important point to make that I believe gets lost in the day-to-day quibbling about celebrity ads and the VP speculation.

Senator Obama is doing very, very well.

For Obama to win, he needs to win the electoral college. The fact of the matter is that Obama is in a much better position to win 269 electoral votes than McCain is. Consider the following:

I've seen this story posted a lot on other blogs, but I wanted to draw some attention to it here. I still believe the users of this site are among the most active in the grassroots, online world. McCain has recently faught to a virtual tie, according to, well, everyone ... What the hell happened?  

Here is the map for August 12th. Notes are below (click map for bigger version):

Methodology

I am sick and tired of hearing the media whip themselves into a frenzy about how Obama should be "much further ahead" and asking why he's basically not 20 points ahead of McCain at this point in the game. It esp. makes me want to vom when I see comments on articles (not at DKos, more at places like CNN or Politico or other random places around the web) crowing about Obama's "lack of lead" and that's why either 1. Hillary should have won or 2. McCain will win.

With the way Obama has expanded the number of states in play, it's natural to wonder--which normally red states would have to be close or even turn blue for this to be an Obama blowout?  In looking at what's been happening of late, the answer to that question is becoming more and more obvious--Georgia and Indiana.  How's that, you say?  Well, both states would normally be an uphill battle for a Democrat in most years.  If Hillary were on the ticket, as much as I hate to say it, these two states would be completely out of play.  But based on the encouraging numbers out of Georgia and Indiana, as well as demographics, it's more and more obvious--if these states are at all close, we will drown McCain in November.

Once again with upcoming Presidential election the thorny issue of the Electoral College rears its ugly head. Obviously we're stuck with it this fall, and for the forseeable future, barring something like the National Popular Vote compact takes place. In the meantime, I decided to crank the numbers, to see how much the disproportionate allocation of electoral votes due to each state receiving 2 votes regardless of populations, affects the political balance of power between the two parties. Some interesting results follow...

For months now, we've been hearing about the Obama campaign's wishes to redraw the playing field and mix up the red state-blue state divide of the last few election cycles. At first I was skeptical that much terrain outside of the usual litany of "battleground states" would ultimately be in play, but I've seen enough state polls to where I'm convinced that we are indeed looking at an entirely different political map in 2008. As someone who has been obsessed with political demography since I was 11 years old, that premise has me fascinated with checking out the elections results map on the morning of November 5, so much so that I was actually dreaming last night about studying said maps. Nonetheless, I can't help but expect the county-by-county results maps are gonna look far more different from 2000 and 2004 than will the state-by-state maps.

Here is the map for August 5th. Notes are below (click map for bigger version):

Methodology

To read many of the diaries and comments here on DKos over the past four days, you'd think John McCain had turned the tables on Barack Obama and was now favored, or that McCain had at least drawn even.  There's a good reason for that mis-impression:  Kossacks spend too much time listening to (and complaining about) pundits, and not enough time looking at the underlying mathematics of the race.

Follow me over the fold for an explanation of why Obama is losing the pundit race (and he is) ... and winning the election (and he is)....

Note: All of the math in this post is taken directly from Nate Silver's excellent site, fivethirtyeight.com.  And I'll come right out and ask Mr. Silver(poblano) to correct any shortcomings in my descriptions of his methods.

Well, I figured now's as good a time as any to do an updated electoral college outlook.  How much things change in a month ... and none of the changes are good for McCain.  By my rather unscientific analysis, McCain now has to fight for several more states that should already be in the bag for a Republican at this point.

"I live in _______ so no matter what _____ will win, so why bother"

Picture this Sicily 1936, a young peasant girl, a goat, a mule, and two Mafia...err...sorry, wrong diary. (Sorry, I just had to put in a memorial in one of my diaries to Estelle Getty).

But if I may ask a favor for this diary, put yourself not in the shoes of who YOU are, but of someone else... that's why I use the opening quote I did. This is true across party lines. It can be said of all voters, be they Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc.

Do I believe my vote, or any other vote does not count? No... of course not. But do I know that people have that perception, and for them that perception is their reality, and for them, then, they will not vote? Of course.

<More after the break>

Most people who defend the Electoral College do so on the basis that it puts states with a smaller population on an equal footing with states with a larger population.    That sounds like a very sound and equitable proposition on the surface, but there are some obvious flaws in the argument that never seem to get much of a hearing.

First, does it really do anything for small states that are not also "swing states"?  I mean, are presidential candidates ever likely to make stopovers in Wyoming or Rhode Island or Utah or Alabama in the course of the general campaign?  Not bloody likely.  So the Electoral College works for only some small states, certainly not all.  

I truly believe this race boils down to those numbers.  Of the current "toss-up" states listed on the RCP page, McCain needs to win electoral votes totaling 106 from them and Obama needs to win electoral votes totaling 31 of them.  

Here is the map for July 29th. Notes are below (click map for bigger version):

Methodology

While this neither takes into account the latest  Quinnipac Poll showing McCain gaining ground in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota or Wisconsin, it also doesn't show the 4% Foreign Tour bounce that Gallup is reporting (see above).

What does that mean?  A short sweet diary below.  Hey, a steampunk's gotta work ;)

Just a note to the Kossacks: I've actually been doing this on my own blog since the first week of June, but since I've broken my posting embargo here, I've decided to start cross-posting these here.

Here is the map for July 22nd. Notes are below (click map for bigger version):

Methodology