So what do the polls say now? A little less hacker this week and a little more poll talk, things seem to be not so up in the air anymore. I thought that today's political cartoon, though old, was quite fitting. This cartoon is just a portrayal of the polling process and what it does to the candidates. So now let the cartoon be the introduction to the following, almost, report.
With four months to go until Election Day, the outcome is set in stone, barring some sort of miracle, some experts say.
That's the view of the overwhelming majority of social scientists who make it their business to peer into the future.
The poor state of the economy, the casualties in Iraq, the unpopularity of George W. Bush, the current polling, and Obama's own political skills all point to the election of the Illinois Democrat in November, according to several political scientists, historians and economists who've had a pretty good track record in predicting past elections.
According to their models, it won't be close. Most of them are projecting a 52% to 48% victory for Obama, and that's with assumptions about the economy that are very kind to McCain.
Political scientists noted long ago that presidential elections are fairly predictable because they usually turn on several big issues: How's the economy doing? Is there an unpopular war? Has one party outlived its welcome at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Is one of the candidates a once-in-a-generation leader? Has the current administration done anything outstanding, or scandalous?
Of course, all these models assume that this year's campaign will be pretty much like those in the past. A major gaffe or stumble by Obama, or superb campaign by McCain could change the dynamics. So could outside events that alter the election landscape.
There's a whole cottage industry of experts who develop statistical models based on past elections and crunch the numbers to try to predict November's vote now. Almost all of the models say Obama will win.
The granddaddy of the prediction models is American University historian Allan Lichtman's 13 keys to the White House, which include factors such as the economy, foreign policy, scandals, social unrest and even the charisma of the candidates. No one's been elected president since 1860 without holding most of the keys to victory.
Economist Douglas Hibbs expanded on Fair's idea by including a war variable, which hurts the incumbent party if there are significant casualties in an undeclared war. Hibbs' "Bread and Peace" model explains Eisenhower's victory in 1952 and Nixon's win in 1968. The unpopular war could also be a factor in 2008, but the weak economy is a much bigger reason why the Republicans are likely to get just 48% of the votes this year.
"Support for the two major parties has solidified as the parties and their supporters have become increasingly divided along ideological lines," Abramowitz said. "Growing polarization may weaken the effects of short-term forces such as the economy and presidential approval." The approval rating of the president is one of three variables in Abramowitz's model.
Political scientist Alan Abramowitz of Emory University says his "Time for a Change" model is forecasting a Democratic landslide of about 54% to 46%. But Abramowitz doesn't think it'll be that much of a blowout because there are fewer true independents these days.