It's not. I was right and you are wrong.

What we don't know is how well Obama voters are going to turn out. Young people are notoriously bad at turning out to vote. But the ones who have been with Obama are pretty well invested in the campaign.

We also don't know how many people say they are going to vote for Obama but actually won't because they don't want sound bigoted to poll-takers.

I hope that turnout is huge and that people who lie on polls are small. Florida and Ohio swinging Blue this year, puts an other 60 in Obama's camp. Even if nothing else swings, there is a good chance of those two going Blue this year.

The economy in both places stink: real estate in Fla and blue-collar workers in Oh.

I guess I missed the Constitutional amendment that handed Gallup the job of running the Presidential election.

And if NC really isn't in play, feel free to encourage the McCain campaign to stop advertising there. Why waste any resources?

What exactly is your point here?

American's aren't willing to change our minds?

American's are more concerned with static issues (Abortion, Drug Legalization, etc) than we are with issues that are affected by current events (Economy, War, etc)?

American's only talk to other American's who agree with themselves, and hence never actually change their minds?

American politicians only talk about issues relating to wavering voters in wavering states and so nothing new and interesting is ever discussed unless there's a viable 3rd party candidate (Perot)?

Real change is hard and *gasp* doesn't happen within 1 year?

What is the realtive angle of leaning in each leaning state?

Are some states leaning waaaayy towards one candidate or another? Are others just barely tipping to one side or the other? What if you (for fun) divided "leaning" states' electoral votes, as if it were a caucus? What would the map look like then?

The article links to polling data where NC is classified as a "toss-up." You fail for failing to read.

Two points:

1) That is the best you can come up with as a knock? He doesn't get North Carolina and he still wins. He even wins without Ohio and Florida.

2) If you had actually bothered to read that actual post, you would note that he said that all states are pushed into the category of who is ahead at this particular moment, even though many of them have not been polled at all since the Dem convention ended and the Palin sideshow started. Many of these states are so far in the margin of error as to be dead heats. Specifically, many of the McCain states in the map are dead heats- very few of the Obama states are.

So basically, even if McCain holds on in all of his clinging by a thread leads, something like seven states of around 80 electoral votes, which is incredibly unlikely, he still loses.

In that map, Obama loses Ohio and Florida and still wins the election.

We like landslides, but let's face it, the eat your vegitables and turnd down the airconditioner crowd is never going to win a landslide.

Even Clinton's victories were nothing compared to Regan's, and Clinton had the help of Ross Perot both times.

Now, between Bob Bar, and McCain's self inflicted wounds, and Obama's communications skills, who knows, a little more blue may be possible. Obama just might be as transformative figure as Regan or Roosevelt (D) in our national politics. But Regan didn't consolidate until after the debates, so we'll need to wait till then to really know where this election is going.

But we don't need more than 273 to win, and a w is a w no matter how you get it.

then look at this map.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5

that map to the one at Pollster.com which shows a slightly different balance.

Slate's map:

http://www.slate.com/id/2195956

Is a little more accurate in my opinion, because they are using five catagories (safe and lean for both candidates and toss ups) in this break down.

We see Obama beating McCain in both Safe and Lean States, and needing only 10 toss up electoral votes to reach the magic 270 number.

Given that Obama has been leading in Alaska, up until now, and we don't have polls from Alaska reflecting Palin's influence (or lack there of) Obama might pick up evenmore.

The bottom line is, that there is a trajectory that is coming online here that is looking very good for Obama.

We won't see a sea of blue in Novmeber. Those geographically large small population states will see to that.

But Obama getting to 270 is not as hard as McCain getting to 270. And like I said, a W is a W.

The people between between the ages of 42-52 have been very apathetic over the yeas in regard to voting and participating in volunteer activities except when they involved their own children. Those under 40 are more like us activists of the 60s. This year there has been a big difference in participation in voting and volunteer activities among this group. Among the Obama volunteers there is also large number of older people who were active in the 60s. Obama has fired up the progressive base. Young people have voted in greater number in the last 2 election cycles.

I have several nieces and nephews who fall into the 42-52 category. Most have been pretty apathetic when it comes to voting. This year they are fired up for Obama.

The Palin VP announcement fired up more people to come out and volunteer for Obama. I think Palin will push the undecided independents and moderate republican into the Obama's camp.

Besides Obama's strategy is focusedon swing states.

The choice of Palin without vetting shows McCain shoots from the hip and makes poor choices.

RCP lists it as one of the toss-ups right now. as are Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.) That's all Obama supporters were claiming in the fight with Hillary, and they were right.

(Admittedly, Clinton would have put some other states in play: WV and ARK come to mind.)