Swing Baby Swing...but....

According to Politico.com, every single potential "swing state" with the exception of Indiana (damn Hoosiers) is now polling for Obama, giving him 364 electoral votes if the election were held today. Take a look.

On the other hand, I have a friend who swears that pollsters are being misled because they don't want to tell a caller they won't vote for a "brother." This actually has been studied extensively, it's called the Bradley effect. I have a hard time believing this problem is implicating every single major national poll, but the fact that it had to be studied is a problem in and of itself. Maybe we haven't come all that far...but if the polls are off by one or two percent, it may mean Obama will only get 273 electoral votes. Oh, right, you need 270 to win.

Bouncy Bouncy (is some of it corn related?)

Politico.com has made it's first changes to its electoral map since I started this blog. Take a look. The map know shows that if the election were held today Obama would have 286 EV's, and McCain, a mere 252 EV's. Last week, McCain was still within 8 electoral votes, or the state of Colorado. He's losing more ground than has been reported, dear readers.

I'm going to take this as significant because in reviewing a number of sites that have posted electoral vote predictions, I find the Politico site to be a fairly realistic assessment of the election and based on pretty significant polling information. It still could be wrong, of course, but I'm taking the move on the Politico map seriously.

Major difference, Politico has moved Virginia into Obama's column. That race is still within a couple of percentage points, though, so I'm not saying he should stop campaigning.

One other issue I haven't heard discussed, Obama has opened up a 10 point lead in Iowa. Last week, arguably, Iowa was still in play. What happened? Hmmm....could it be that McCain, who came out strongly against ethanol subsidies at the debate, shot himself in the cornbelt with that throw away line??

Ironically, I agree with McCain on this. Study after study has shown that ethanol production is not only energy neutral, it may actually be an energy negative (meaning the energy cost used in producing ethanol based fuels either balances out any energy saved by the use of ethanol, or, actually uses more energy than the energy saved). Ethanol is a boondoggle that has existed for years. The government spends millions, if not billions, on subsidies propping up farmers in the Midwest for little alternative energy savings. Why? Well, this is why. Obama didn't mention them at the debate, and his numbers in Iowa jumped. Perhaps more importantly, Obama has moved within the margin of error for some polls in Indiana. McCain loses Indiana over ethanol, and he's cooked, "my friend."

All the lies he's told in the campaign so far, and McCain may lose because he told the truth about ethanol.

It's beginning to look a lot like...2000...zoinks

http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html

If there's one thing we don't need it is a repeat of the divisive and surreal 2000 election (esp. since my guy lost). That being said, this electoral vote map at Politico.com has me a wee bit concerned. I think it's pretty thorough. You'll notice right away they have Obama willing by eight electoral votes, 273 to 265. Then gander at Colorado. Our Rocky Mountain brethren hold 9 electoral votes, and the polling margin giving the state to the Dems is 0.4 percent. That's right---0.4 percent. Ponder that for awhile while I go get a stiff drink, no ice.