Either due to the market meltdown, the debate or both, much has changed in Gallup tracking poll land since our last thrilling instalment.
We also have this entertaining survey on Australian attitudes to the presidential race from UMR Research, showing 66 per cent of respondents preferring Barack Obama against 13 per cent for John McCain. Sarah Palin and (especially) George W. Bush also appear to be none too popular in our part of the world.
1,274 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 26 » Show All
I don’t understand how American governments work. How come parties don’t vote as whole following a party platform? ie if the party is in favour of the bail out then all follow.
This is obviously not how it works in the states.
It is glaringly obvious to me that their were plenty of spare votes on both sides to put the bail out package over the line. However there is the general view and it is reinforced by the defensiveness of the Republicans that the failure is their fault.
I mean why did they (Republicans) make an issue of 12 changing sides because of Pelosi’s comments if they didn’t accept that it was their fault the bail out didn’t go through? You think they would have pointed immediately to the number of Democrats who voted in the negative.
All very confusing.
We all knowthat the US presidential system is not democratic and contrary to popular opinion the president of the US is not directly elected. The US college system has a number of serious inbuilt flaws in the system. Whilst each of the states has some form of resemblance of proportionality between each of the states the electoral system used”First past the post” does not reflect the popular vote. The highest polling party secures 100% of the state delegates that intrum will elect the president That party can win the state representation by as little as 34% -40%of the vote.
Third party candidates, such as Ralph Nader run the risk of being a spoiler. Taking votes away from a party that otherwise would be won by the democrats or the republican party.
I am not sure where I read it but there was also a suggestion that the electoral college could find itself in a tied situation with each of the two main parties holding the same number of votes. It all boils down to the swinging seats, as with Australia’s lower house electorates. But the problem is magnified in that the winning candidate can be elected on a minority of votes. Coulod we see a repeat of the 2000 US Presidential elections in 2008?
Given that only 40% of the US population participate in presidential elections the US president could be determined by 16% of US citizens. This is not0t what I call a democratic state.
TP: a) Because the government doesn’t stand and fall on party discipline in the legislature; b) Because the legislators don’t depend on the party machine for their preselection.
It’s usually over 60% of the voting age population that vote
juliem @ 150: I gave a figure for the EV’s but not for what state takes him over the line.
As I’m only guessing, and the sheep station is not on the line, I’d say that he won’t win Missouri, and the state that takes him over the line will be Colorado
Given that the Presidential election will be decided on a handful of swing states and that the highest polling candidates wins 100% of the delegates to what extent can we rely on a poll of all voters? Very little I would say. You really need to look at each of the swinging states and then determine the out come based on the breakdown of the poll. In more or less the way they did the break down of the pre-selection (primary) ballot for the democrates.
After Palin's dramatic dive in the polls over these last few weeks, McCain staffers are lamenting their decision to not proceed with their first VP choice, Big Bird.
"Big Bird was our number one pick for quite some time," a McCain advisor admitted yesterday, while shaking his head in regret. ]
http://www.236.com/blog/w/colin_nissan/mccain_camp_regrets_not_going_9203.php
156, thanks, Sondeo
Dario when I looked at the 2000 Vote only 40% of the population votes. Maybe 60% is the number that have enrolled to vote. Unlike in Australia voting is not compulsory in the US. Also with First past the post many candidates are elected with less then 50% of the vote. At a cost of billions of dollars to mount a campaign one has to wonder of the US presidential system is worth keeping. Give me a Parliamentary system any day.
160, I am with you all the way. Parliamentary system is a good one and even moreso, mandatory voting ….. But that having been said, I shudder to think how much uglier the WH could get than GB if the US had mandatory voting. Can you imagine the pain and damage of millions and millions of donkey votes? It is a shocker given the mentality of some of the people in parts of the USA [not highly educated, very easily led by a shifty Republican operating machine, etc.]. Could be really really bad and make GB look like a picnic. No, now that I’ve had a taste of compulsory voting in Australia, I think that the world should be glad that the US does NOT have it
European Presidential system have a constitutional requirement that 50% of those entitled vote MUST vote and the winning candidate MUST also receive 50% or more votes. i9f lessthen 50% ofvopters particpate then the elction fails. If no candidate has 50% or more there is a run-off electionn between the two highest polling candidates. (Two round voting system). A total waste of money of course when a preferential ‘Instant Run-off” ballot can produce the same outcome with one round of voting at half the cost of the two round system. As to the US College system that is a joke. Made worst by the fact that less then 51% of voters can elect 100% of the delegates.
Or what about a hybrid system where we vote for the head of government by popular election, and then they pick their ministers from either in or outside of the legislature.
If you have proportional representation then it would be easy for people in the legislature to resign and become ministers without having to hold by-elections (you just pick the next person on the party ticket to fill the vacancy)
Of course this means the head of government could pick people from business, unions, academy etc who DON’T come from the legislature.
I think the system we have where the legislature and executive are combined is silly. It means you get hack politicians who just vote the party line instead of thinking about issues for themselves. Whereas hack politicians in the U.S. only last for a short period if they can’t explain why they PERSONALLY accomplished during their term.
161… and to think they rule the world. I am begining to hope that god does exist and that s/he will intervene to stop those that use his name under false intentions. It is scared to think what the outcome might be. If you want to know more about the US electorate just google Chaser Why Americans are so stupid on your tube.
The turnout was 51% in 2000, and 57% in 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election
I think it is best when members of the cabinet are appointed from the parliamentary representations. Westminster style.
Why so? I think you could find better people if everyone in the whole country is a potential minister.
dario 51 % of what? Entitled to enroll or enrolled. What was the state breakdown/lowest wining vote %… How often does the end result not reflect the popular vote. Its a hit and miss system
Voting Age Population, i.e. Entitled to enroll
About 3 times in over 50 elections.
But anyway, compulsory voting (or really, compulsory attendance) is absurd. The State shouldn’t be able to force people to go and vote if they don’t want to. Again, I think the U.S. system is better. It would be even better if they had a national electoral commission that organised voting and redistributions!
Represntative mandate. and more importantly why should a minster have to resign his representaive mandate to full their ministerial role. WestMinster is one of the best things the British gave Australia/Candida/New Zealand/India
Realistically we don’t have compulsary voting as such, only compulsary attendance on polling day. You can rock up to a polling booth, get your name marked off and hand your blank voting slips to an official to be put in the ballot box.
shows on: Do You support the wearing of seat belts? A voter can always opt to cast an infomal vote. The reason behind the compuslory voting was to ensuire that voters were not intimidated to not vote as was the case in Florida USA. It is an obligation in the same way we are forced/obliged to pay taxes.
Why is this an issue? If someone decides not to go and vote than they have given up their right to be represented. If they go and vote, then they are passing on that to their the person they want to represent them.
To take on a different representative role, that of executive government
We don’t have a full Westminster system, because we have a Senate. Our system is a hybrid of the U.K. and U.S. systems, that inherently promotes some hack politicians – to make up the numbers – at the expensive of more talented politicians.
It also means we have a compulsory preferential system to ensure stable government which makes the House less representative of the nation as a whole (no Greens in the current parliament), when the lower house would be more representative if it was elected by proportional representation, but you could only do that and ensure stable government if you removed the executive from the legislature.
I think cricket was a more important thing that the British gave us.
This isn’t a good analogy because voting has nothing to do with personal safety.
I pointed this out myself – we have compulsory ATTENDANCE – but people think it means compulsory VOTING. My point was that the State shouldn’t be able to compel anyone to vote if that person doesn’t want to. The reason wearing a seat belt is law is because it aids road safety, but what does compulsory voting aid? My guess is it saves them money because they don’t have to spend money simply motivating people to vote. But that is for the benefit of political parties, which they should have to do themselves.
So instead they are intimated by teh State to vote? Why should voting be an issue based around state intimidation?
We pay taxes because that is the cot of building a fair society. But how can you say the same of forcing people to go and vote? What benefit does this have that letting people choose doesn’t?
One down side of compulsory attendance is that it means elections are often decided by people that don’t really care much about who they vote for, and by people who don’t pay much attention to the issues. It seems to me that that is a very heavy burden on all the people who DO pay attention and who are motivated to vote.
A thought from out of left field regarding the election process here in Australia and I realise that this particular site is probably not the correct one to bring it up as we are talking about the US Pesidential elections. Any thoughts on doing away with the pre-selection process for each party and allowing us the people select the person we want to represent the party at a general election. Let any number of people (or perhaps restrict it to say four for each party) stand for election. Still have compulsory and preferential voting. Using this, candidates like say Christopher Pyne or Belinda Neal who are not exactly loved by their electorate would find it very hard to get themselves elected. One of the drawbacks is that it would probably take a fortnight or so before the result of an election was known particulary in the case of a close election. At least this way we get to say who we want to represent us and not the person chosen by the factions of the parties.
Spot on.
Glen – remember our discussions last year about perceptions equaling reality in politics?
This is another clear example of a situation where (in factual terms) both sides are to blame for the failure of the bailout/rescue bill to pass. However, the perception has already formed in the US (see the ABC poll that has been previously referred to) that it was the Republicans to blame for its failure to pass.
The clear consequence of this (and it is already happening) is that the Republicans’ economic credibility (and this includes McCain) will continue to fall, while the Democrats are increasingly being seen as the party of economic responsibility (or Wall St, depending on which commentator you prefer). The upshot of this is that the longer the economy dominates the headlines, the worse McCain fares against Obama…
P.S. Good to see you back on the US thread
Colorado won’t take Obama over the line. If it did, that would mean he would have to end up with over 350 electoral votes, since he’s going to get 77 EVs out of Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and California simultaneously when those states close polling 4 hours after first results start coming through and 2 hours after Colorado closes. Those last four states will take him over the threshold at the same time, in particular California.
For the record, my prediction is that Obama will win with 311 EVs to 238, will win Ohio and Virginia, but lose Missouri, Florida, Indiana and North Carolina. Probaby win by 4 points, 50-46, with Barr and Nader grabbing the other 4%.
Vanishing voters – voter purges
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4490786n
Al,
Thanks for that
…. have it written down here. For the record, Hawaii is 2 hours behind California, Alaska is one hour behind California. So those 2 states stretch the time zones to 4 (CONUS {Continental United States}) + 1 (Alaska) + 1 (Hawaii).
Do you have a guess as to which state will put Obama on top? So far, I’ve had Colorado and North Carolina as the guesses.
TP: @ 179. Thats really scary.
Funny that McCain released two ads one attacking Obama for the passage of bail out and another for the failure of passage of the bail out.
FINNS
“Amigo Ronnie, this new mob of Obamabots sounds and starting to behave exactly like the other mob that has been banished to the G island. Except the older mob had more personality and fun to tangle”
A distinction Amigo between “worser” and “even worser” Yes Obamarotic elitist & messiahic in Obama traits identical although Gilligans trashed tuth & fact whereas this has now been extended to actualy post mistruth as truth
Although Bailout Bill blame on this site mostly all Republicans ar to blame therefore is old style messiahic ignorance of actual HoR votes cast
Mathematics make there ALL Republican blame childish at best By example IF another 11 Republicans had voted YES , then Bill loses by a single one vote….with 216 Cngressmen saying YES and 217 Congressmen saying NO….and of th 217 NO’s there ar 95 Democrats and 122 Republicans Now which of those 217 ar th naughty one whose solitary vote IN FACT then would hav made a YES vote…objective naswer is any of those 217 …meaning either Party …meaning either Party is to blame
‘Spin’ number one here : th obamabots having easily lost there flawed argument that Republics were only to blame on reality maths didn’t admit that , but instead changed th “narrative” , Obamabots narrative then changed to ..oh its what polls say who is to blame , but does mean we can not expose th fact th polls ar a product of both flawed perception & misinformation via Media etc and that in fact both Partys REELY ar to blame , of course not but “narrative” is self denial Obama/Democrats share blame (notice a minescule % of Obama supporters here actualy do see its joint responsibility
Spin number two here : its was “Paulsons” plan and it was flawed Nonsense , it was a 3 page Plan stating obvious problem of Bailout needed AND an opening gambit of authority…no details , no ioversite, no criteria , no ‘parachute severage pay protections , no taxpayer issues , no house price stabilisation matters etc etc IT COULD NOT BE , it was Democrat controlled Congress responsibilty to enact th Legisaltion with these matters WITH compromise/negotiations with minority Republicans if Democrats chose to or they could av paased there own Democrat only Bill Obviously both politics & commonsense for Nations good dictated th former Therefore Paulsons not to blame…just th 433 Republicans & Democrats in Hor then Democrat controlled Senate were and ar responsible
Spin number three : cause of financial crisis is all Republicans Nonsense constitutionally th HoR & Senate COULD hav enacted there own Legisaltion at ANY time in last 8 years for example…on better ‘regulation’ , standards , reporting auditing , disclosure & financial products like sub prime True th POTUS has some responsibility & obviously has an influence & must share some blame (& thats dim wit Bush a Republican) but constitutionally Congress holds th purse strings & legislation powers to enact AND DID NOT DO SO for at least last 8 years when bubble gum started
Who were in control of HoR & Senate , well Democrats (last 2 years WHEN problems were more clearly arising & warning alerts were given) vs Republicans (preceding 6 years , so Republcians had 75% of time of last 8 years BUT that is diminished objectively by less warnings/alerts of sub prime etc then
How do you weiht that ? Well its not 75% Republican to 25% Democrat…its either 60/40 to 50/50 but not under 50/50 and either way it supports my view USA 433 HoR & 100 Senate (total 533) of Republcians & Democrats ar either eqaully rsponsible for Wall Street ruins or if not 50/50 close enough that to point blame one way is pedantic
My shared responsibilty ‘blame’ assessment is non ‘oz’ centric but US-centric and my shared asesment is also supported by & consistent by th nature of US politcs th Congress …pork barrelling by all , Lobbyists by all , “networking” by all , “interest groups” by all vs unlike ‘oz’ there politcan do not get electd just because they hav a Labor or Liberal bdge on , above ar often just as powerful & often more so
We’ve got 7 people so far giving their predictions for the EV vote in the election. If anyone else wants in on this, just post your guesses and I’ll add them into my spreadsheet. Ditto anyone who wants to change guesses. I’ll keep collecting them and will accept changes up until 10pm Tuesday November 4th. No official prizes or anything other than bragging rights. Remember tie breaker questions – 1. State that puts Obama over the top (270) based upon CNN’s Election Returns (program I will watch) and 2. Will Obama win Missouri?
I’ve got a map in which I can zero out each state for EV votes and then add them in one at a time. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-votemap,0,2338623.htmlstory Zero out all of the states and then add them back in one at a time. If you give Obama the following from east to west across the first two time zones (eastern and central) – Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Mass., Rhode Island, Conn., New Jersey, Deleware, Maryland, D.C, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri that gives Obama 268. The next lot of states to close will be those in the mountain time zone. Out of the Mountain time zone, the only ones he is expected to get will be Colorado and New Mexico I believe. Thus, the guesses of Colorado aren’t that bad
….. unless you think, as does one of us, that North Carolina will come in later than expected because of a close count 
. If you add the expected ones on the West coast of California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii and toss in Nevada for good measure, that is 364 with Colorado or New Mexico probably putting him over the top.
Juliem,
Check out polling closing times at the Green Papers for 4 November. Not everything closes at the same local time. For example, Colorado closes at 7 MST, while New York closes at 9 EST, so they’ll both close at the same time.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G08/closing.phtml?format=c
California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii all close at the same time (0400 UTC, or 11pm Eastern in America). I reckon all four of those will be called as soon as voting finishes based on exit polling, and their simultaneous calling will take Obama over the top. Alaska’s 3 EVs, which closes an hour later, won’t matter. By that stage, the election will be over, although if McCain does dump Palin they may fall into Obama’s column because of a favourite daughter backlash.
The closing time of a poll doesn’t mean so much if the vote is close in a state. For example, California could be ‘called’ for Obama after less 20% of the vote is counted, while Colorado could go down to the wire and be called much, much later.
Thanks, Al, you are one up on me
…. thats what happens when I assume …. thanks 
I know, Dario, well and truely understand that. That was why I asked people for their best guess
…….. (and that is all it is is a guess, this is just something fun)
Al @ 186,
Thanks so VERY much for that cool link, I’ve bookmarked it
……
Of course Swing Lowe, i agree and there is nothing the Republicans can do about the perception of them failing the economy. Still i think they arent the only people to blame, the Democrats must also take some of the blame too. They’re all at fault here.
By the way, is anybody taking a look at the Congressional, Senate and Governorship elections in 2008??? Any chance of the Democrats gaining the Senate by a comfortable margin??? Or will the Republicans hold tough?
There is more than just the Presidential poll to discuss here folks
I take it you mean getting a veto-busting majority, as they already hold the senate…
Of course Republicans aren’t just to blame, but the person who is going to get more blame on election day will be John McCain.
He couldn’t even name a time that he tightened a regulation! Which helps Obama build the argument that he is simply a deregulator, irrespective of the benefits of the regulation. McCain’s argument is still “Government is the problem”, even though we are in a period when we need the government to fix a critical problem. McCain’s argument just doesn’t fit with the time.
Democrats are likely to get about 56 or 57 in the Senate with an outside chance of 60. If they get 60 then they can block filibusters, which would mean the U.S. would get a universal health care plan of some description.
Intriguing – Eastern Indiana and Kentucky are the first “states” to close (at 1800 EST)
Unfortunately, no calls will be made until after the voters in the western parts of those states finish voting at 1900 EST, in order to avoid a Florida 2000-mess again.
From the order, the first states to get called will almost certainly be Vermont (D), South Carolina (R), Kentucky (R) and (probably) Georgia (R), all of which close at 1900 EST. The others (VA, FL and IN) are likely to be toss-ups…
I take it conservative posters here “worried” about Obamas single term in the Senate compared to McCain must prefer Rudd to Turnbull, given Turnbull’s lack of experience?? On the McCain experience analogy, I suppose they would like Wilson Tuckey as leader of the Opposition? He’s a straight shooter….
Dario no they dont they rely on Liberman
Isn’t there system completely nuts in this way! They actually run all these different state elections that add up to a federal election, rather than actually running a federal election from a federal agency that sets voting standards (i.e. ONE type of ballot for the entire country).
Exactly Dario. For the “safe” states though, most of the networks will call based on exit polling. If they are a little bit unsure of their exit polling, they will wait till a few percent are counted, and if it is showing the same trends as their exit polling, then they will call it. For this very reason, expect McCain to open up an early lead (40-60 EVs) as most of the early “safe” states are Republican.
Glen… I reckon Dems will control the Senate, but not reach a filibuster proof majority. Probably about 55-56. At least they can then tell Lieberman to stick it. Obama’s ground-game strategy may reap bigger dividends than that for the Dems though, creating a down-ticket effect by getting people who don’t normally vote to the booths.
House-wise, the Dems will still have a comfortable margin.
Are you sure? I thought the Democrats currently have 51 Senators if you include Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, who are actually both independents.
Democrats are currently on 51 Senate seats (including Liebermann and Sanders). Gains are expected in VA, NM, CO and NH (although NH has tightened recently). Dems are also polling well in AK and NC. There are toss-up races in MN and OR, whilst Republicans are favoured but still vulnerable in KY, MS (Wicker) and (if you believe the poll below) GA.
No Democrat incumbent is in a toss-up race, although both the LA and NJ races aren’t locks yet.
Georgia Senate poll:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b1b8098c-b5fc-4f44-8be3-0d54f3e03476
Newish Presidential polls out by Survey USA:
Ohio: McCain +1 (49-48)
Indiana: McCain +3 (48-45)
New Jersey: Obama +10 (52-42)
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 26 » Show All