Talk:2008 U.S. presidential election

	This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes MERGED ARTICLE This article has content that was merged from 2008 Presidential Election.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Nom nom nominee

McCain and Obama are not technically the "nominees" until the conventions actually "nominate" them. Right now they are the "presumptive" nominees, or some such phrase. No big deal, but in the interest of accuracy... ħuman 15:21, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Pet peeve: I have never understood why the term "presumptive" is used here. I assume it is derived to some extent from "heir presumptive", but that doesn't make any sense in context. An "heir presumptive" will only inherit presuming no one more qualified - an "heir apparent" - comes along and displaces him. But obviously, no one is going to displace either Obama or McCain, so if anything, they should be called "apparent nominees" or something.

That is all. Carry on. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 17:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

That's why I said "or some such phrase" - presumptive carries weird baggage. "Certain winner of the nomination" is even fine with me. Oh well, the conventions are soon, right, and they'll end these linguistic contortions! ħuman 17:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

If they knew then what they know now...

...do you think that the Republicans would have picked someone other than McCain? The relatively obvious answer is yes since McCain looks to have put himself into a no-win scenario. The real question is: who else would they have picked? My guess is Romney. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 09:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Romney probably would have been the other choice, or, to a lesser degree, Huckabee. The outcome probably would have been the same, in my opinion. Speakerface ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 09:40, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Offered without comment Pseudomonas 13:50, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Romney or Huckabee, either one, would have been trounced. Badly. Huckabee is too socially conservative, Romney is too fake. McCain was the best chance they had; sucks for them that 1) he sucks 2) the economy sucks and 3) Obama is unflappable. Researcher 10:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Face it, they wanted to nominate Reagan... ħuman 17:46, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Result timing

Could anyone explain to this poor European when we should expect to get a result? Or results, I guess they come in over time?--Bob^{bing up} 15:03, 2 November 2008 (EST)

This link gives you poll closing times adjusted to ET. Media will be wary about calling states based on exit polling, very gun shy after 2000/2004. That means unless a state is very obvious who wins it will be declared "too close to call." If PA and VA both goto Obama early election is over, if OH, FL goto Obama it is over, if GA, NC, MO goto Obama it is a land slide. If VA, OH, FL, GA, NC, MO all go McCain but he doesn't flip PA we have to wait for IA, NM, CO, NV. If PA doesn't flip it is probably over. Basically, we could know as early as 7:30 pm EST even if the media is not calling it, or we could be waiting till 10 pm EST or later to know for sure. Confusing enough? tmtoulouse 15:11, 2 November 2008 (EST)

According to a programme guide her (UK) we should be getting first exit poll results c.0100 GMT. Fretfulporpentine 15:16, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Blast. Doing some calculations it's all going to be happening in the wee small hours for me. :-( --Bob^{bing up} 15:53, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I won't be staying up to see if Obama can take Missouri (staying up to see Neil Hamilton get kicked out was enough for me) but I'll be waiting for the East Coast results, coffee on standby.

So they won't wait for West Coast poll closing before start giving exit polls/partial results for East Coast? There goes my sleep. Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 08:55, 3 November 2008 (EST)

This election is killing me

It has to end now, so close...I have been immersed in an endless stream of data for weeks now:

1. Wake up when Rasmussen and Daily Kos come out
2. Goto the lab when Hotline/Diago comes out
3. Pretend to do work till GWU comes out
4. Lunch time when Gallup comes out
5. Break time when IBD/TIPP comes out
6. Time to go home when ABC/WAPO comes out
7. Dinner when Rasmussen state polls come out
8. Bedtime when Zogby comes out

Those are just the 3-day tracking polls, you have 2-4 one shot polls such as AP, CNN, CBS, WSJ that can come out throughout the week and of course the 40-50 state polls, Mason-Dixion, Stratigic Vision, Survey USA, ARG, Pew, PPP. A good 70+ polls a day to obsess over. Then you have registered voters versus likely voters, or Gallup's "expanded likely" versus "traditional likely." And don't forget the constantly updating stream of early voting results. Has Georgia maintained its earth shattering 35 percent African American turnout? Is Washoe county in NV trending democrat still even though its a republican strong hold? There is 37 states with early voting, some release demographics, some just party id, other just numbers. You have polling aggregate sites like RCP that just use an average, or linear regression models like pollster or 538. Speaking of 538 they have the whole election simulated 10,000 times a night.

Then there is the predictive markets like intrade, the national number, the state numbers, also bets on how much and what direction the final vote spread might be different from the RCP average. Weekly data on how much each candidate is spending in each television market, plus the RNC and DNC, also where are they campaigning? Where are their surrogates campaigning? How are the favorable/unfavorables? Is Palin a drag on the ticket or motivating the base? What are the crowds like? How many news cycles are left? What are they talking about in each news cycle? How are independents braking? Where the hell is the "youth" vote?

Then there are the court cases and purging of registrations, Ohio, Colorado, Georgia, half a dozen or more cases in front of the various courts with their own schedule.

And the weather! Can't forget about the weather...it effects turn out, what places are having worse weather than normal? Who has early voting advantage in these places?

I am going crazy....completely crazy.

Two more days...

Two more days...

Two more days...

tmtoulouse 17:18, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I thought weather was shown not to effect turnout? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:23, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Bad weather dampens turn out it cuts into those that are sorta likely to vote such as the youth vote. But its more complicated this year since early voting is different and more prevalent than usual. In places with really high dem turn out bad weather would favor dems. So a snowfall in Georgia means a win for dems. tmtoulouse 17:30, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Yup, snow or nasty rain can really knowck out the less-committed voters. Luckily, no snow predicted here in NH and temps should be "typical" and at least decently above freezing. Trent, it ain't gonna snow in Georgia, but they could get a heat wave ;) ħuman 18:28, 2 November 2008 (EST)

That's a really impressive level of obsession TM. What is going to happen to your life when it's all over?--Bob^{bing up} 17:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Probably 48-72 hours of hardcore withdrawl symptoms, a week or so of productivity, and then a new obsession. Maybe dems will pick up 59 seats and Georgia will be sent to a run off for the 60th seat, that would turn into a major national campaign. tmtoulouse 17:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I want CNN to replace Headline News with "CNN Classic," like ESPN Classic, so I can watch old campaigns after this one is over. Or maybe 538 can post fake polls and analysis for a few days to taper my dosage before cutting it off. It'll be like the nicotine patch. Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 17:58, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Looking at 538, isn't this thing over for all intents and purposes. Maybe you should look at our (NZ) election where the combinations and permutations of proportional representation and coalitions and threshholds would keep you enthralled for hoursDamo^Hi 18:02, 2 November 2008 (EST)

New Zealand has elections? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:03, 2 November 2008 (EST)

It's a pretty fascinating one this year because it looks like one party might get 48% of the vote but be in opposition to a stitched together coalition of 5 parties that don't like each other very much.Damo^Hi 18:06, 2 November 2008 (EST)

You should move to Belgium, Trent. They've been in a more or less permanent post-election crisis for the last year and a half or so. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Missouri Georgia

What's the deal with Missouri and Georgia?--Bob^{bing up} 13:33, 5 November 2008 (EST)

What about them? tmtoulouse 13:38, 5 November 2008 (EST)

North Carolina has a few "provisional" votes outstanding, and they outnumber the difference between the candidates. It'll take a few days to sort it. news thing here about it It's probably the same in Missouri. Totnesmartin 13:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)

OK, I'm just wondering why those two had specific problems. Can't seem to find much on it.--Bob^{bing up} 13:54, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm guesing there's not much on it because it's not an issue any more, unlike Florida in 2000 when the election depended on some hanging chads and dubious overseas votes. Totnesmartin 14:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)