I agree. But based upon your numbers and assumptions, Indiana could go 100 percent McCain and Obama still wins by a landslide.You could more easily say “If Obama wins California, the show is over…”

Indiana’s very important because Obama, with the help of the national media, will try to call Indiana early. Whether the call is legit or not, the goal will be to have an impact on voter turnout across the nation. The media did it in 2000 when they called Florida for Gore before Floridians were done voting. They did it in 2004, when the exit polling indicated Kerry would win by a landslide. Without the media as a willing accomplice in the Obama sham, your boy would be nowhere.

No 2004 exit polling indicated a Kerry Landslide, Rico.

Please stop taking your talking points from Sean. He’s dumber than a post.

Also, it has been the network policy for twenty years not to call races before the polls close in that state.

I don’t watch Hannity, Thin Again. Unlike you, I think for myself and analyze what I see and hear. Every exit poll from everywhere in the country gave the election to Kerry. What is the quote you stole about opinions and facts?
Florida was, indeed, called for Gore while folks in the panhandle were still voting. The history revision here comes as no surprise to me.

Rico–YOU indicated the polls called for a Kerry landslide. Not me. No poll did such.

For someone who doesn’t take cues from Hannity, your talking points remarkably coincide. Regularly.

I recall watching CNN in 2004 after the polls closed. They calle dit, retracted, and called it again. It all came down to Ohio, really. It was really kinda comical.

And we all know what happened in Ohio.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109053/#Post1
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/May_28_2004.html

Every poll the national media (except FOX) pointed to indicated a Kerry victory. Please forgive the assumption that their intent was to portray a landslide.
Incidentally, FOX news, who Obama blames for the tight race, gave John McCain a tougher interview today than Obama has endured his entire political career from anyone. The only national media outlet even close to being objective is a threat to Barack Obama–once again, quite revealing.

It will be McCain by about 3% of the votes, despite Sara Failin.

I think Sean Hannity is arrogant, condescending, and rude. I can barely stand to even listen to him, let alone watch him. And O’Reilly is a tool–one whom I rarely watch. I am a passionate person, and one who is intellectually honest. I drink no Koolaid and base my political alliances on what I think is best for the future of this great nation. Once again, Think Again, you have prejudged and misjudged me.

Rico – she does that with any conservative. BTW, Obama is now going to change the world!
-
There was a carnival atmosphere among the crowd of some 4,000, who almost drowned Mr Obama out as he reached his crescendo and said: “I promise you. We won’t just win New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we’re going to change the country and change the world.”

Interesting how a California proposition could move this one way or another. Proposition 8 is a gay marriage ban. Right now the ‘yes’ votes lead the ‘no’ votes by a slim margin (about 3%). If you consider this falls along typical ideological lines, McCain might pull the Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes out of the hat.

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes– 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Susan – the national popular vote ignores the fact that we’re a republic comprised of autonomous states. In reality, the national vote should be a vote within each state for a President. The state should then cast it’s result in a State run-off rather than a popular vote.
.
Besides, a popular vote sounds too much like a democracy. And we all know why that failed premise was rejected when the founding fathers decided on a Representative Republic. Let’s stick with wisdom that works rather than with the enticements of those who wish to dominate us.