John McCain is surging in the polls. Huge numbers.

Out of context here, but what if Jon Stewart was the moderator for one of these debates?

That'd be epic.

Scarker

It'd be a pathetic display has he'd take every opportunity to grovel at the feet of Obama and snipe at McCain.

Out of context here, but what if Jon Stewart was the moderator for one of these debates?

That'd be epic.

Scarker

his shows covering the rnc were epic.

Since when are polls accurate?Pittfan666

Is 54% vs 44% "huge"? I guess it is looking good for McCain but those polls always seem to say so little about how the end result will look like.Hungry_bunny

[QUOTE="Scarker"]

Out of context here, but what if Jon Stewart was the moderator for one of these debates?

That'd be epic.

ElZilcho90

It'd be a pathetic display has he'd take every opportunity to grovel at the feet of Obama and snipe at McCain.

Not the comedian Jon Stewart; him actually moderating, because he could be quite the hardhitter (if you've read his notes on the MSM you would see it). Of course, he wouldn't even consider it unless both candidates rebut each other with questions that were serious, and issue-based [not open-ended statements]. Then again, when's the last time we actually had two politicians debate each other one-on-one without just answering questions. Meh, McCain wouldn't agree to that anyway.

yea, McCain got a slightly larger jump in the polls than Obama did after the Convention. Mostly because of Palin's epic speech.ferrari2001

A 10% margin really is huge. It's the largest margin either candidate has had since Obama officially wrapped up the Democratic nomination.famicommander

Or something else could happen that will give it another boost in some direction >_> but the numbers are still very hard to trust when it comes to predictions.

If he wins Im leaving this ******* country. I cant take 4 more years of Bush.msi276

I'll be holding you to it.

Like all those folks who said they'd leave America if Bush won in 04... yet are still hanging around. I'm looking at you, Robert Redford.

they are both bad and they should feel bad. Polls mean nothing. Americans have an attention span of a gold fish and I am basing this on your election of George Bush... twice, so stop feeling offended cause its true.

[QUOTE="Hungry_bunny"]Is 54% vs 44% "huge"? I guess it is looking good for McCain but those polls always seem to say so little about how the end result will look like.famicommander

[QUOTE="Hungry_bunny"]Is 54% vs 44% "huge"? I guess it is looking good for McCain but those polls always seem to say so little about how the end result will look like.famicommander

Of course, the caveat there is that that's likely voters, which always tends to be a bit dodgy as there is no real scientific way of determining what a likely voter is.

He's still up 4 among registered voters in the same poll, though.

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="Hungry_bunny"]Is 54% vs 44% "huge"? I guess it is looking good for McCain but those polls always seem to say so little about how the end result will look like.quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="Hungry_bunny"]Is 54% vs 44% "huge"? I guess it is looking good for McCain but those polls always seem to say so little about how the end result will look like.famicommander

actually if you don't count leaning states than Obama is winning by 1 state. If you count leaning states Obama, is winning by a couple of states. So it will be a VERY close election if youth actually show up and vote.

the lead in the polls doesn't necessarily mean anything. In 2000 when it was Bush VS Gore, Gore won the popular vote (what us citizens voted for) but Bush won over the majority of the electoral college votes, which overrides the popular vote. That's how we got the first four years of Bush.

As for the second 4 years... that was just caused by ignorance. So this election could really go either way. It's all up in the air right now

the lead in the polls doesn't necessarily mean anything. In 2000 when it was Bush VS Gore, Gore won the popular vote (what us citizens voted for) but Bush won over the majority of the electoral college votes, which overrides the popular vote. That's how we got the first four years of Bush.

As for the second 4 years... that was just caused by ignorance. So this election could really go either way. It's all up in the air right now

tokay411

Or maybe the last 4 Bush years was caused by people who don't buy into liberal ideals or their pandering.

If Obama isn't at least 8 points or so ahead going into November, he doesn't have a shot. I'll be voting fo sho.Trashface

It's almost like he got some sort of convention bounce!

MADNESS!

Jeez Americans are crazy...........

They should learn from us Canadians. In here Obama would be winning 6 to 1

It's almost like he got some sort of convention bounce!

MADNESS!

Please, stop embarassing yourself and read 538.Nickman71

Jeez Americans are crazy...........

They should learn from us Canadians. In here Obama would be winning 6 to 1

pspdseagle

Is it true that some states' votes are "worth" more that other states? i think ive heard that somewhere

they are both bad and they should feel bad. Polls mean nothing. Americans have an attention span of a gold fish and I am basing this on your election of George Bush... twice, so stop feeling offended cause its true.

SOTE

I didn't vote for him.... :P

the lead in the polls doesn't necessarily mean anything. In 2000 when it was Bush VS Gore, Gore won the popular vote (what us citizens voted for) but Bush won over the majority of the electoral college votes, which overrides the popular vote. That's how we got the first four years of Bush.

As for the second 4 years... that was just caused by ignorance. So this election could really go either way. It's all up in the air right now

tokay411

why the hell do we still have the electoral collage....

[QUOTE="Scarker"]

Out of context here, but what if Jon Stewart was the moderator for one of these debates?

That'd be epic.

ElZilcho90

It'd be a pathetic display has he'd take every opportunity to grovel at the feet of Obama and snipe at McCain.

It's on Comedy Central

com·e·dy

1.a play, movie, etc., of light and humorous character with a happy or cheerful ending; a dramatic work in which the central motif is the triumph over adverse circumstance, resulting in a successful or happy conclusion.

2.that branch of the drama which concerns itself with this form of composition.

3.the comic element of drama, of literature generally, or of life.

4.any literary composition dealing with a theme suitable for comedy, or employing the methods of comedy.

5.any comic or humorous incident or series of incidents.

Is it true that some states' votes are "worth" more that other states? i think ive heard that somewhere

shahchip

Since when are polls accurate?Pittfan666

i guess it only matters when obama is ahead?

[QUOTE="tokay411"]

the lead in the polls doesn't necessarily mean anything. In 2000 when it was Bush VS Gore, Gore won the popular vote (what us citizens voted for) but Bush won over the majority of the electoral college votes, which overrides the popular vote. That's how we got the first four years of Bush.

As for the second 4 years... that was just caused by ignorance. So this election could really go either way. It's all up in the air right now

legend26

why the hell do we still have the electoral collage....

[QUOTE="legend26"][QUOTE="tokay411"]

the lead in the polls doesn't necessarily mean anything. In 2000 when it was Bush VS Gore, Gore won the popular vote (what us citizens voted for) but Bush won over the majority of the electoral college votes, which overrides the popular vote. That's how we got the first four years of Bush.

As for the second 4 years... that was just caused by ignorance. So this election could really go either way. It's all up in the air right now

famicommander

why the hell do we still have the electoral collage....

Or we could vote as a country rather than individual states.

[QUOTE="shahchip"]

Is it true that some states' votes are "worth" more that other states? i think ive heard that somewhere

famicommander

Oh i heard something about Gore getting more votes than Bush but Bush won cause his votes were worth more.. but i dont really remember i just started paying attention to US elections

why the hell do we still have the electoral collage....

legend26

Well, I know some people who want to go back to the system where the voting population only elects members of the House. :P

[QUOTE="famicommander"]The states are awarded votes based on their populations.shahchip

Oh i heard something about Gore getting more votes than Bush but Bush won cause his votes were worth more.. but i dont really remember i just started paying attention to US elections

Basically, it goes like this. Each state is awarded a number of presidential electors proportional to their representation in the House and Senate. They get one elector for each such representative - that makes it a baseline of two since every state has two senators, plus one for every house representative that they have. In every state except for Maine and Nebraska* electors are appointed based on who wins the popular vote in that state. Then, the electors for each respective party's presidential/vice-presidential ticket are added up, and whoever has the most wins the election and is the next president and vice president.

*Maine and Nebraska are pretty similar, but not quite: they appoint two electors for whoever wins the statewide vote, and one additional elector for whomever wins the popular vote in each congressional district.

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="shahchip"]

Is it true that some states' votes are "worth" more that other states? i think ive heard that somewhere

shahchip

Oh i heard something about Gore getting more votes than Bush but Bush won cause his votes were worth more.. but i dont really remember i just started paying attention to US elections

Since when are polls accurate?Pittfan666

[QUOTE="shahchip"][QUOTE="famicommander"]The states are awarded votes based on their populations.GabuEx

Oh i heard something about Gore getting more votes than Bush but Bush won cause his votes were worth more.. but i dont really remember i just started paying attention to US elections

Basically, it goes like this. Each state is awarded a number of presidential electors proportional to their representation in the House and Senate. They get one elector for each such representative - that makes it a baseline of two since every state has two senators, plus one for every house representative that they have. In every state except for Maine and Nebraska* electors are appointed based on who wins the popular vote in that state. Then, the electors for each respective party's presidential/vice-presidential ticket are added up, and whoever has the most wins the election and is the next president and vice president.

*Maine and Nebraska are pretty similar, but not quite: they appoint two electors for whoever wins the statewide vote, and one additional elector for whomever wins the popular vote in each congressional district.

Thanks for explaining, i get it now but still have a question. So in the presidential elections they don't really count individual votes but instead they count the states? like if one state has the most votes for Obama, it counts as 1/50 states for Obama right?

Juggling between Canada, Pakistan and US's governments isnt too easy since they're all different so i usually end up confused

[QUOTE="Scarker"]

Out of context here, but what if Jon Stewart was the moderator for one of these debates?

That'd be epic.

ElZilcho90

It'd be a pathetic display has he'd take every opportunity to grovel at the feet of Obama and snipe at McCain.

Thanks for explaining, i get it now but still have a question. So in the presidential elections they don't really count individual votes but instead they count the states? like if one state has the most votes for Obama, it counts as 1/50 states for Obama right?

shahchip

It's correct to say that they count the state votes, not the popular vote, but states are not weighted equally, so it's not really correct to say that something counts as 1/50 states for Obama. They're weighted based on the number of electors they're apportioned. California, the largest state, has 55 electors; Wyoming, the smallest state, has only 3. There are always 538 electors in total. So, if Obama wins the popular vote in California, that's not really 1/50 states for Obama; that's 55/538 electors for Obama.