[Alter Kaker]

6. Pennsylvania: Candidate focus on Pennsylvania-- a state twice won by Democrats in the past two presidential elections-- suggests that the election is much weaker for Obama than being publicly stated. Should this reliable state fall to Republicans, it would be almost impossible to recover from electorally for Obama. Pennsylvannia has proven a microcosm of the 'you're a racist' gambit being used to intimidate voters.

That's a strange argument.

1. Obama can win without Pennsylvania. Winning New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia and Colorado would do it. Polls have him leading in all of those. So would winning any one of North Carolina or Florida or Indiana or Missouri or Ohio.

2. Obama can certainly win without Pennsylvania, although it wouldn't be particularly easy. However I don't see how McCain can possibly win without Pennsylvania, at this point, absent a major development.

[lonestar67]

I don’t think Obama is going to win Nevada or Virginia. I also think he will not win NC, OH, MO, or IN. I think Obama may win New Mexico and Colorado.

Its difficult to evaluate because of how faulty the polls are as noted throughout most of my analysis. Keep in mind, we have good empirical evidence for my projections because of the spring primaries that Obama and Clinton fought over. We also have an unusually large pool of undecideds that is two to three times larger than previous elections.

I am not sure any of your assumptions are reliable. My point is that Pennsylvannia is probably one of the most vulnerable of all the states. The fact that a kerry state of this size is in question makes it difficult to assume that Obama is winning as polls suggest. The candidate behavior again confirms my thesis over yours.

[John Valentine]

Winning New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia and Colorado would do it.

Obama might take Iowa and New Mexico, but that's it. Sorry, your scenario is bogus.