I'm less worried about the Bradley effect than the Diebold effect.

I thought this had been thoroughly disproved in the primaries; so I don't know why you are repeating it. There is no systematic Bradley effect with Obama.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect.html

Obama outperformed pre-election polls on average in the primaries.

Obama's pulling away.

That web site is my new War Room. The analysis is much more insightful.

... this is more concern trolling for Obama. There are other sites that give Obama a much greater lead in the electoral colloege. Why did you choose Electoral-Vote to write your post? Do you think you would have chosen different words had you used FiveThirtyEight.com or RealClearPolitics.com?

Why does Salon continue to write stories about alleged problems with Obama's chances to win?

you might consider doing the due dilligence...and actually check the state polls before you get into your orgasmic nightmare.

Tell me you don't actually have tenure at an accredited university.

If the only change to the electoral map from 2004 is a flip to blue for Colorada, it's a tie. Wouldn't that be exciting.

Now there's an effect you have to REALLY worry about.

I'll watch the polling over on Daily Kos. All the polling and none of the doom-and-gloom so apparently beloved of Salon's War Room scribblers.

If I wanted only worst-case-- albeit totally specious-- scenarios, I'd just watch CNN.

Maybe we should call it the Diebold/Blackwell/Harris effect.

Obama's Ohio numbers are his national numbers minus about 3. Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa are all ahead of Obama's national numbers -- he could lose the popular vote (by a couple of percentage points) and still win those states. If he were to win New Hampshire (where Obama's numbers have been very, very close to his national numbers) he'd have 273 electoral college votes, assuming he lost Virginia (where Obama is running ahead of his Ohio numbers, but behind his national numbers.) If he lost New Hampshire but won the states where he runs better than his national numbers, he'd end up with exactly 269 electoral college votes (to McCain's 269!). Assuming no faithless electors, the presidency would wind up being awarded by the House (each state's representatives would choose how their state would vote and each state would get one vote. Whoever wins the most states wins. Assuming no major shakeup in the House and assuming that Representatives vote for their party's candidate, Obama would win a landslide.)

That is to say, you were wrong last week when you said Ohio was more indicative than Colorado. McCain will probably win Ohio, Obama will probably win Colorado, and Obama will probably win the election. I'd say that's likely even if Obama loses the popular vote by a percentage point or so.

"Obama outperformed pre-election polls on average in the primaries."

You're talking about democrats-only and an opponent who probably suffered from a sexist version of the Bradley Effect.

As a California resident who witnessed the gov. races that the so-called myth is named for, I'm not as quick to dismiss a likely deficit for Obama between election-eve polling and actual results. I hope you're right, but there's just no way anyone can predict something similar isn't going to happen based on primary results.

Even if Obama goes into the evening with a double-digit lead I'm still holding my breath until it's all over.

Have been for months now for the exact reason you mention.

Ohio would be nice to win, since that's hard to overcome by anyone but it's not completely necessary if he takes CO and NM. Add VA to the mix and everything is fine.

The states I'll be watching on Nov 4th are VA and OH. Either one of them goes, McCain is done.

You might want to keep up...

Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State

is a Democrat.

Is all of the anger being directed at Salon and it's editors because they aren't seen as sufficiently enthusiastic towards Senator Obama?

Starting with the primaries Alex Koppelman got constantly pounded in the letters when he posted anything campaign related, mostly if it was something that wasn't pro-Obama or anti-Clinton. The only positive feedback was for guest editors who, probably wisely, stayed completely clear of the Democratic side of the primary.

It seems that the problem isn't the editors posting "worst case" scenarios; it's that they aren't sufficiently best case, Pollyanna, Everything's Coming Up Roses for Obama.

If you disagree with what was written then at least say why in some sort of rational way. Of course if you just want to "punish" Salon and that's the only reason you're here then you really are just "Concern Trolls".

Actually, according to real clear politics this morning, the break down on the electoral map is 301 to 237 (favor Obama) with the recent addition of North Carolina and Virginia to the mix.

That being said, Obama has been pulling 273 in the electoral college against McCain since this race started, and even if New Hampshire get's split close enough to give McCain an edge Obama still walks away with 269, which (given the Democratic House of Representatives) gives Obama the White House.

The trend right now is very clearly against McCain, and one can imagine that this Thursday's debate won't help.

It's o.k. to be worried (in fact, just to make sure new voters turn out, I think reminding people of how tricky electoral politics can be isn't a bad idea) but let's be honest with our analysis as well.

Depending on what you call the battle grounds, McCain likely does have an advantage, in that the larger battle grounds are leaning torwards him (Ohio & Florida) While the smaller Battle Grounds (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, etc.) are leaning to Obama. However Obama, comes in with such a lead in the North East and West Coast (where a large portion of our electoral college votes are concentrated)that McCain's battle ground wins won't be enough to carry the day.

I don't give a damn if Obama wins by 3 electoral votes or 50, just so long as he wins. It's disturbing to me that Michigan is still so much in play, a reality I attribute to nothing other than racism in the white suburbs. Obama loses Michigan, he loses the election -- period.

On the other side of things, it's heartening to see Florida and Ohio so tight. Either one of those goes Blue and Obama wins easily.