What margin will the Electoral count be in the 2008 Presidential election?

Here is a good link for past results. http://uselectionatlas.org/

A quick history lesson is the difference in amount of delegates between winning and losing.
2004 - 35
2000 - 5
1996 - 220
1992 - 202
1988 - 315
1984 - 512
1980 - 440
1976 - 57
1972 - 503
1968 - 110
1964 - 434
1960 - 84
1956 - 384
1952 - 333

yep! and i think this one will follow the last 2, plus '76, considering the contenders, the polls at this point(neck and neck, regardless of candidates), and the paralells (spelling) with the 1960 election.... that's why i placed the odss, and the choices, the way i did.... this far out, the odds will sort themselves...

Yeah I agree. I feel it will be close. While I don't expect it to occur, I wonder what is going to happen if it was a tie. And Congress had to get involved, now that would be thrilling.

Remember the good old days,
when the President nominated Supreme Court Justices
not the other way around.

Well, the difference between them seems to be: 2 months of intense questioning for a lifetime job, or 2.5 years of questioning and pandering for a crappy 4 year job... wish those guys ran for their office...

on that note, i will retire to my alcoholism... good luck, and godspeed! Hubdub is on its way!!! just don't sell us out to microsoft, google,or aol...

Well I don't think the Supreme Court would be an effective body if their appointments were not for life. The should not be having to think about get reelected when determining a ruling. Having the ability to be accountable only to their peers is what has helped our judicial system continue to thrive. Did anyone see the movie Recount on HBO, it is all about the 2000 election.

Here is the Karl Rove Electoral Map discussed earlier. http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/McCainClintonObama051608.pdf

Here's my favorite:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

1984 was my favorite - no way to question those results! If only we had a true conservative running again... there is very little material difference between the canidates, thus the close electorial counts...

There is one _HUGE_difference between the candidates, who they will nominate for up to 5 positions on SCOTUS. I'm no fan of McCain, but I'd much rather he was doing the nominating that either Obama or Clinton. Obama makes a big deal out of having been a Constitutional Law professor, but he's got some novel ideas about the role of the Supremes:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-kind-of-justice-would-president-obama-mete-out/

@anaverageamerican
That is true, but McCain is known for the "Gang of 14", that obstructed due process in "advise and consent" (the _only_ role congress has in the appointment process).

He is also known for the "campaign finance reform" bill that is blatently unconstitutional. If he were to appoint justices that interpret the law instead of making stuff up, they would be apt to strike down his pet legislation.

Then the way he enjoys making "nuanced" decisions, I really don't believe we can count on him to appoint justices that uphold the constitution... this is unfortunate, but it is my honest opinion

I really believe it is a stretch to think that 5 of the SCOTUS seats will retire in next 4 years. Breyer is 70, Ginsburg is 75, Souter is 69, Stevens is 88 (and most likely to retire), Kennedy is 72 and others are much younger. The key is that even if McCain wins the election, the senate will be majority democrats (maybe enough to override filibuster). So he will not get the conservative judge the right would want anyway, and will be more likely to get a middle of road justice like Kennedy.
The interesting part of the SCOTUS is to read some of thier recent opinions and see who is siding with whom, there have been some odd majorities in the last view opinions. Who would have thought that Alito and Roberts be on different side of an issue. Or Thomas and Scalia.

because they read the words the way the are defined, not define the words when they read

obama biden 08

I find it quite interesting that this market is predicting that a Republican will win, while another market currently lists Obama as having a 68% chance of taking the White House. Hmm..

No one *VOTE MCCAIN* can seem *VOTE MCCAIN* to agree*VOTE MCCAIN* on who*VOTE MCCAIN* will win.
This message was brought to you by Subliminal*SEND US MONEY* messages inc. Paid for by the Right Wing Conspiracy of Tomorrow!

@pixelpaws - Interesting observation. I noticed the same thing going on between the "Palin win VP" and "McCain win Prez" markets where one almost certainly begets the other. This does not make much sense. I think there is one major factor at play in most of these cases and that is that the questions that get the most initial traffic also get the most latent traffic as people revisit their open wagers and change them.

In the case of this particular question, however, I suspect it is drawing a greater percentage of people who are taking the time to look into the minutiae of the polling in the individual states to project the state (and ultimately total) electoral counts. Assuming that, I would expect this market to be more likely to accurately predict the final outcome.

How will this question settle if no candidate wins an absolute majority of electoral votes? In that event, the new president will be chosen by the newly elected House of Representatives, as has happened twice before in US history (Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams).

To refine my previous question: How will this question settle if the candidates' electoral votes are tied? (I now understand that even lacking an absolute majority of electoral votes, the actual electoral votes decide the question-- except for the tie case which is not addressed by the options, unless the Supreme Court makes a ruling.) So-- my question now has less likelihood of being relevant than I thought.

No, you must have an absolute majority -- in the event where there is no majority but still a 'winner', congress still choses.

@ yonemoto - That's correct. If, somehow, a third-party candidate wins any electoral votes and can prevent anyone from reaching 270, it's up to the House to decide. And if it comes to that, I'd then start to wonder what happens if we haven't decided on a President by January 20, 2009...

i think the speaker of the house would fill-in till it got worked out. thats just a guess.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/is_the_electoral_dam_breaking_for_obama

The current predictions are a little.... optimistic about the election.