Karl Rove predicts Obama landslide

[SP33Demon]

Text

(CNN) ? John McCain and his aides are still banking on a come-from-behind victory Tuesday, but the GOP's most famous political strategist has already called the race for Barack Obama.

Karl Rove, the man widely credited with engineering President Bush's two successful White House bids, is predicting the Illinois senator will take the White House in an Electoral College landslide, winning 338 votes to John McCain's 200. That would be the largest Electoral College victory since 1996, when Bill Clinton defeated Bob Dole in a 379-159 rout.

In an Electoral Map posted on Rove's Web site, the Republican mastermind predicts Obama victories in several key battlegrounds, including virtually all of the states where polls suggest he currently enjoys a slim advantage. In fact, Rove believes Missouri is the only crucial battleground state McCain will carry, while Obama scores victories in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Iowa. Rove also thinks Obama will win traditionally-Republican Virginia.

You know it's bad when Rove is predicting your demise (for McCain). What happened to Rove's stupid predictions that they were still in it 3 weeks ago?

 

[mshan]

I don't know if that was his prediction, or just his summation of publicly available polls: http://www.rove.com/uploads/00...bama_11_3_08_FINAL.pdf

Rove's September 8th Analysis for Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/156495

 

[RightIsWrong]

A lot can change in 3 weeks of political campaigning. Unfortunately for McCain, everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. I strongly believe that it started steamrolling downhill after the glamor of the RNC convention and people actually got a look inside Palin's image and then the economy faltered and McCain seemed to change his position every few hours.

 

[Craig234]

The only thing notable is that it's 'even Karl Rove', not that Rove is good.

As This Glenn Greenwald column notes, Rove got it arrogantly wrong in 2006.

He predicted a Republican Majority in the House... instead of the historic shift to the Democrats.

But he wrote a recent article how 'polls are unreliable' not mentioning his history.

In mocking poll-dependent errors, Rove forgot to mention one of the most notorious episodes, from late October, 2006, which occurred during an interview Rove gave to NPR correspondent Robert Siegel, when Rove vigorously disputed that "public polls and analysis [are] predicting a Republican loss in November":

SIEGEL: We are in the home stretch though and many would consider you on the optimistic end of realism about...

ROVE: Not that you would be exhibiting a bias or anything like that, you're just making a comment, right?

SIEGEL: I'm looking at all the same polls that you are looking at.

ROVE: No, you are not, no you're not, no you're not, you're not. . . . Like the poll today that showing Corker's ahead in Tennessee or the poll showing Allen is pulling away in the Virginia Senate race. . . .

I'm looking at all of these Robert and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I'm entitled to THE math.

SIEGEL: I don't know if we're entitled to a different math but your...

ROVE: I said THE math.

In that election, the Republicans suffered one of the most crushing losses in the last 60 years. I wonder why Rove forgot to include that in his column, losing the Senate and (by a large margin) the House. And note how Rove accused Siegel of being "biased" -- all because Siegel pointed to polls overwhelmingly predicting a Republican loss. As so many things do, that exchange bolsters Stephen Colbert's observation that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

 

[Genx87]

I predicted Obama in the 330s a month ago. I think it may actually be worse if these polling numbers hold up.

 

[GoPackGo]

I predict McCain in a landslide.

That way if I am wrong, I am wrong, but if I am right I can tout how I predicted a McCain Landslide!!!!

YAY FOR ME!

 

[Jschmuck2]

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[Lemon law]

Right now Karl Rove does not really have a dog in this fight and Karl Rove is trying to revisionist history polish his own image. Which is the case of Rove, at least IMHO, goes far beyond lipstick on a pig, and trends towards lip stick on a turd.

In the final analysis, if the GOP wants to find out why they lost the election of 2008, the GOP need to start looking at Karl Rove and the moral bankruptcy he brought to the white house as the one and only main root cause. GWB is simply a symptom of the rats infestation that inevitably follows the Karl Rove pied piper.

Had McCain prevailed against GWB in the 2000 republican primary, I think history would have been far different and far better. And we might or might not now have a retiring President McCain out campaigning for a GOP candidate for President who stood a chance in 2008. As it is, the R label is so bad, its poisonous.

 

[seemingly random]

Rove almost always lies. He could very well be lying now - trying to influence things somehow.

 

[jpeyton]

Rove was 2 for 2 in the last two.

 

[abaez]

Does dmcowen still have McCain winning?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: abaez
Does dmcowen still have McCain winning?

Yes.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Rove almost always lies. He could very well be lying now - trying to influence things somehow.

This.

If McCain has any chance people voting for Obama have to stay home. It's the same ol' Atwater tactic of energizing the base (with all the recent negative advertising) and suppress the turnout of your opponent ....

 

[sonambulo]

Last ditch attempt at reverse psychology.

'You've got this in the bag, Dems! Stay home!'

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Rove almost always lies. He could very well be lying now - trying to influence things somehow.

This.

If McCain has any chance people voting for Obama have to stay home. It's the same ol' Atwater tactic of energizing the base (with all the recent negative advertising) and suppress the turnout of your opponent ....

I suspect he's just trying to improve his record after 2006 by being able to say he was right this time.

As far as his FUD, that was his WSJ article - see my link above - that talked about polls being unreliable, even while he's also predicting the same basic polls predict this time.