kierthos: (Default)
kierthos ([personal profile] kierthos) wrote2008-10-10 12:26 pm
Entry tags:

This would mean something, but....

Winning Missouri means winning the Presidency?

Okay, the theory goes something like this. Since 1904, whichever candidate has won the state of Missouri has won the Presidency, except for one time. (They backed Adlai Stevenson in '56, and Eisenhower won a second term.) So, whoever wins Missouri should win the Presidency, going by the correlation=causation fallacy.

Except, by current polls, it shouldn't matter. Missouri could, out of fucking nowhere, back Zog the Martian for President, and it wouldn't change the fact that Obama is predicted to win by over 100 electoral votes.

Yes, yes, polls can be wrong. But right now, they would have to be wrong in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin (just to give one set of possibilities) to give McCain the slimmest margin of electoral votes on his opponent (plus, he'd have to win Missouri). And Missouri's polls show a incredibly close race. So it is up in the air who will win that state.

But saying that it's going to decide the Presidency is going a little far.

Post a comment in response:

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting