Souter's Replacements

If you haven't heard, Supreme Court Justice David Souter, appointed by Bush I but turning out to be quite the moderate-liberal, will be stepping down at the end of this term from the bench. 

And, of course, there's a lot of speculation as to who will replace him. 

The only reason I post this is because Electoral-Vote.com has a great list of potential replacements and why they would be the primo-pick. There seems to be some pressure on Pres. Obama to pick a woman to stand with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and there is no shortage of excellent women in the judicial field with other demographic qualifications, including open lesbian Kathleen Sullivan, an appellate lawyer and a professor of law at Stanford University. She would be the first openly LGBT person to serve on the Supreme Court. Sullivan has a long and successful career in the law... as do all of the other candidates mentioned in that article, as well as this list by the Daily Kos.

Do I think the President should pick one based on their minority status? Absolutely not. But it's nice to dream, yea?

Bunning May Retire

Thanks to TheHill.com, via Electoral-vote.com:

Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R) has formed an exploratory committee to run for Senate with the consent of his would-be primary opponent, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), sources tell The Hill.

Bunning, who has angrily pushed back against talk that he would retire in 2010 at the end of his second term, met with Grayson on Wednesday in Washington. The senator has not announced his 2010 intentions but he made clear to Grayson that he would not begrudge an exploratory committee, a move sources said will allow Bunning to appear as a kingmaker...

Grayson, an up-and-coming GOP star, will give Republicans a much better chance of retaining the seat than Bunning would have. A statewide elected official who survived what was otherwise a good year for Democrats in 2007, Grayson has been laying the groundwork for a Senate bid, though he made clear he would not run against Bunning.

"I have no plans to run against Sen. Bunning. This exploratory committee will allow me to travel the commonwealth, meet with potential supporters and lay the foundation for a campaign," Grayson said in a statement.

I have this thought Bunning is playing this out to run against McConnell in.. 2012? Or perhaps Governor... Remember, Bunning is a political smarty-pants, and he's mildly insane. Which makes him dangerous -- and exciting.

Grayson, meanwhile, looks like a Senator -- very old school, very... well, I thought he'd be better looking.

More on Bunning

I just love covering this man, and Electoral-vote.com keeps feeding me so I'm perfectly happy to report.

Electoral-vote.com's take on the latest news:

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), had a poll taken in February and has refused to release the results. Normally, politicians release their internal polls when they are favorable and hide them when they are not. When reporters asked about the poll, Bunning said "If you paid the 20 grand for the poll, you can get some information out of it." Actually, we do get some information from his statement: polls of this kind apparently cost $20,000. (Emphasis mine. -- QC) This incident puts another nail in Bunning's coffin. The Republicans will now probably do anything to get rid of him as they perceive him as very vulnerable.

HA! I wonder what the poll said. Can we get a pollster to run one and see what it says? PLEASE.

Of course, the site left out the best part of the quote, when Bunning told reporters that it was none of their "goddamn business." Signs the man may be in trouble? When he starts cussing at reporters. My uncle always said he won an argument when the other side started swearing.

What, Bunning? Oh, and Progressives from Ohio

So, thanks to Electoral-vote.com today, we see that Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning is fully expecting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to be dead in nine months or less due to her pancreatic cancer.

Real compassionate.

The same website also points out that the Republicans are trying to get Bunning to retire, desperately, for fear of a successful challenge from Kentucky State Senate President, David Williams. Hrm. I've all ready forgotten whom we've talked about on the Dem side in this race -- was it Mongiardo?

On the flip side, we have ratings out from the ProgressivePunch detailing the relative progressiveness of all the Senators and Representatives in the country. Local boys in the Senate (it's a little skewed -- Burris and Gillibrand are numbers 1 and 2, and they just started):

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) -- 8th most progressive with 97.45%

Sen. Evan Bayd (D-IN) -- 49th most progressive with 78.59%

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) -- 63rd with 16.91%

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) -- 65th with 14.06%

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) -- 90th with 3.19%

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) -- 92nd with 4.12%

And some local boys/girls in the House:

Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) -- 60th most progressive

Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) -- 65th

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) -- 71st

Rep. Timothy Ryan (D-OH) -- 90th

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) -- 119th

Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN) -- 141st

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) -- 149th

Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY) -- 167th

Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) -- 181st

Rep. Charles Wilson (D-OH) -- 195th

Rep. Zach Space (D-OH) -- 213th

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) -- 220th

Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) - 222nd

Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) -- 250th

Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) -- 269th

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) -- 278th

Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) -- 291st

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) -- 302nd

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) -- 307th

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) -- 317th

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) -- 334th

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) -- 336th

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) -- 344th

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) -- 347th

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) -- 348th

There's a long list of (assumedly) new hires that are not yet listed, including our own Steve Driehaus and Columbus newbie Mary Jo Kilroy. (If you can't find yours on the above list, they are probably unranked as of yet.) I think it's really interesting that the division is even among party lines. In fact, in the House, a very sharp division between R/D.

We'll see how that all plays out.

ELECTION 2008: New poll numbers

I'm happy to report that the McCain bounce is gone and it looks like we are bracing for a Barack Obama landslide!!!

Too bad the economy had to be run into the ground to make that happen.

Oh, and Charles Schumer, head of the DSCC and in charge of getting people elected to the Senate, is now openly talking about the possibility of 60 seats taken in the Senate for the Democrats. That's an unfilibusterable amount. The Republicans would be left with nothing to do but vote. This especially poignant locally since Bruce Lunsford seems to be coming up on Mitch McConnell over in Kentucky.

Let's look at some numbers, shall we? (The first "post-debate numbers" are starting to trickle in, so I thought I'd put this up before we saw the numbers come in.)

New Projections...
ElectionProjection.com (Conservative): 364 (BO), 174 (JM) -- One of the most pro-Republican sites ever and his words, that he got from Viking Pundit, was "Congratulations, President Obama." That's pretty significant. I just wish he hadn't gotten into the whole "pay to view" thing. Hey, some of us are poor and love the website. Sigh -- it means I haven't been following his excellent statistics as much. Most significant states that he's noting went blue: Missouri (few others are saying this at this point), North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. All of them are "leans Obama."

Electoral-vote.com (Democrat): 349 (BO), 174 (JM), 15 (ties) -- Not ready, apparently, to call North Carolina even a lean Obama state yet. Still has it open to be called. Ok, maybe I was wrong on the Missouri thing -- he calls it, too, which is weird because Obama is just now pulling ahead and it's only been two polls... (His other site, EVStrength.com, has an interesting data point: if all the Election Junkie (Conservative): We're cutting this one because I don't the guy is posting anymore. Last post? September 25th. Post before that? September 6th... for the RNC.

ColdHeartedTruth (Conservative): 338 (BO), 200 (JM) Still lists North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri as McCain states, which is a viable point. Although he's somehow under the unlikely assumption that Michigan only "leans Obama."

270towin.com (unbiased): 264 (BO), 164 (JM), 111 (tie) Something is strange about this website that I can't ever seem to find the information I'm looking for. It may be dropped next time. OH! There it goes. Swing states include: VA, NC, OH, MO, FL, NV, IN, and CO. Point to be made here: there are fewer and fewer swing states and the ones that are are big ones.

USElectionAtlas (unbiased): 329 (BO), 158 (JM), 51 (ties) We're going to start basing this number off their polling map, not their prediction map. Dave's prediction map, for some reason, mainly has the Kerry states for Obama and is the exact same number as last time.

DemConWatch (Democrat): 321 (BO), 217 (JM) They are listing the following as "tossup:" Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada.

FiveThirtyEight.com (Democrat): 347.6 (BO), 190.4 (JM) This actually has an interesting little bit that I'm going to be talking about on the new one... that I'm adding now...

Pollster.com (unbiased): 320 (BO), 158 (JM), 60 (tie) I wonder when this would happen. Both Pollster.com and FiveThirtyEight.com are listing West Virginia as a toss up. This is the first time, but it's been closer than they've been reporting all along. In short, no one thought it would close up and would, like Montana and the Dakotas early on, start becoming redder. Nope. It's becoming bluer.

Old Projections ...
ElectionProjection.com: 273 (BO), 265 (JM)
Electoral-vote.com: 273 (BO), 265 (JM)
Election Junkie: 298 (BO), 240 (JM)
ColdHeartedTruth: 273 (BO), 265 (JM)
USElectionAtlas: 273 (BO), 265 (JM)
FiveThirtyEight.com: 312 (BO), 226 (JM)

ELECTION 2008: Tie Scenarios

Ask and ye shall receive. I think the guy over at electoral-vote.com is reading (which, if you look today, show Barack ahead 282-236... with Ohio as a tie). I said I wanted a good review of what would happen if the Electoral-Vote is 269-269... And he posts his analysis:

The whole thing could make 2000 look like a clean-cut victory.

And then also posted a link to the 3Blue Dudes analysis (a great blog, as well):

So behold with fear the impending doom that a 269-269 scenario could bring on this country of ours. All the more reason for Obama to get to 270.  So if you live in NV or NH and can help swing those small states along with Colorado then do it.   Otherwise the longest election season in our country’s history will extend into the holidays and the next year and beyond. 

So there you go.

ELECTION 2008: Sad to report...

...it appears that one of my favorite election watching sites, Electoral-Vote.com, is now reporting, for the first time, that Barack Obama has fallen under the 270 EV mark in the polls.

As of today's polls on Electoral-Vote.com: 264 (BO) to 261 (JM). JM ahead in the following swing states: Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida. Virginia still a tie.

Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn.

Oh, and I am starting to believe Hillary is the VP candidate. Why??? He needs a bulldog. Everyone else mentioned ain't nobody compared to a Clinton to go after a Republican.

Besides, I bet all this build up of the Clintons is nothing more than to energize herbase.

I believe it will be Barack-illy 2008.

ELECTION 2008: Finally! An update!!!!

John Edwards, John Edwards, John Edwards. It makes me sad, but it happened. I don't think, however, it will play that well in the general election, but it certainly bars him from the Convention (I believe it has been confirmed that neither him nor his wife will be speaking -- anyone surprised???). However, we've seen this whole "stand by your man" routine before (speaking of E. Edwards); is Elizabeth Edwards thinking about politics in the future??? Well timed, too, btw, John Edwards... on the first day of the Olympics. And right before an invasion. Easily buried story.

There's a sad rhetoric that major female voices in American politics -- or at least the celebrity female voices -- are wives of male politicians. Ahem -- Liddy Dole and Hillary Clinton. I will say this right now: I would die to see a Dole-Clinton fight again, but this time with the wives. I really believe, in this one, Dole will win.

So Obama is slipping a little in all the polls. It's August. The election is boring right now, nothing is going on, though the Georgia-Russia situation is definitely an interesting test for both of them. Like most of the world -- and President Bush -- Obama called on Russia and Georgia to accept ceasefires, and supported Georgia and blasted Russia's militarism. McCain, meanwhile, supports Russia's decision. Interesting. Forecast of things to come??? Oh, and, apparently, McCain has said that it would be wise to expell Russia from the G8.... riiiiiight. Is there some giant plot on the part of the Republicans to make him seem as folksy as our current President???

The Convention is shaking up -- FINALLY!!! :-) And Hillary supporters seem to be planning some sort of march on the Convention??? That's silly. One thing to the PUMA (party unity my ass) voters: COME ON!!!! :-) Hillary, though not encouraging the situation, doesn't seem to be helping it either. Although I can't fault her for simply acknowledging that there are a lot of REALLY REALLY pro-Clinton supporters still out there, and that they want to be heard at the Convention. Simple solution: take it to a real floor vote, leave them both in the kitty, and have it ultimately said: BARACK WON. Period, end of story. She's a prime-time speaker, so the country will still hear her. But Tim sent me an interesting Op-Ed piece in the NYT about HRC:

While Obama was spending three hours watching “The Dark Knight” five time zones away, and going to a fund-raiser featuring “Aloha attire” and Hawaiian pupus, Hillary was busy planning her convention.

You can almost hear her mind whirring: She’s amazed at how easy it was to snatch Denver away from the Obama saps. Like taking candy from a baby, except Beanpole Guy doesn’t eat candy. In just a couple of weeks, Bill and Hill were able to drag No Drama Obama into a swamp of Clinton drama.

As for the VEEPSTAKES... I want to say this right now: I have four major people I'm rooting for. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas (she's a lot like Clinton, but less dirty), Evan Bayh of Indiana (it would solidify the midwest for Obama and he's really cool), Hillary Clinton (duh, but I don't think this will happen), and Bill Richardson (though I really doubt this will happen). In all likelihood, Obama will probably pick up Kaine from Virginia, though I think the far wiser decision is Bayh. Can we have two people with funny names on the ballot though (Obama-Bayh... Barack-Evan...), especially when McCain-Romney sounds so presidential???

Current Estimates...

ElectionProjection.com: 298 (BO), 240 (JM)
Missouri and Virginia are the big changes here back to McCain, and, like most sites, Montana, ND, and SD have all gone back to red -- not a big surprise.

Electoral-Vote.com: 289 (BO), 249 (JM)
The big switch here comes from Ohio and Virginia "leaning McCain" according to the polls. That's unfortunate. Probably the more disturbing thing that comes along is his new feature -- This Day in 2004 -- which confirms that Kerry was still ahead 307-231 around this time four years ago. The conservative pundits like to point this fact out, except they leave out one major issue: Barack is not John Kerry. Kerry was barely understandable when he spoke, and he had that whole Vietnam War thing going on that, in retrospect, actually hurt him quite a bit. Obama is different.

Election Junkie: 278 (BO), 260 (JM)
This site actually lists it as the closest of all the sites, though it's hard to tell why as there's no map involved. It was actually his update (yesterday) that spurred me to update the sites...

ColdHeartedTruth: 298 (BO), 240 (JM)
Are you noticing a trend here when it comes to the numbers???

270toWin.com: 231 (BO), 154 (BO), 153 (ties)
This one is fun to watch because of the ever growing number of ties they list. Currently: NM, NV, FL, NH, MO, MI, OH, MT, SD, ND, IA, VA, and NC. That's a lot to go after this early in the game.

USElectionAtlas: 293 (BO), 245 (JM)
No major changes... even from two weeks.

NEW SITE...
DemConWatch: 299 (BO), 239 (JM)
Finally! Found a biased site for the Democrats. We had ColdHeartedTruth for the Republicans... this one, I think, will balance it all out! :-) The other two sites which state their political affiliation -- ElectionProjection and Electoral-Vote -- are so mathematical in nature that I don't believe that they are biased. In this particular circumstance, DemConWatch is the biggest Obama win, while ColdHeartedTruth is his smallest win. Is anyone surprised????

Last Week's Estimates...

ElectionProjection.com: 325 (BO), 213 (JM)
Electoral Vote: 292 (BO), 219 (JM), 27 (ties)
Election Junkie: 309 (BO), 229 (JM)
Cold Hearted Truth: 293 (BO), 245 (JM)
270toWin.com: 247 (BO), 174 (JM), 117 (ties)
USElectionAtlas: 293 (BO), 245 (JM)

GAY STUFF: Same-sex... DIVORCE?

HA! Here's an issue that's starting to pop up around the country: same sex divorce!

From today's Electoral-Vote commentary:

While same-sex marriage is a hot-button issue and frequently put on the ballot by Republican-leaning groups as a way of increasing turnout of like-minded people, practically every state has already had a referendum on this already so there is no gold left to mine here. But a new issue is arising: same-sex divorce. Anyone who never considered this possibility is very naive. Only half of all opposite-sex couples manage to stay together. Why should the odds be better for same-sex couples? While a few states and countries allow (same-sex) couples to come in, get married, and scoot out, few of them allow quickie divorces by out-of-state couples. Will we soon see ballot initiatives banning same-sex divorce? The trouble is that people who rally around "family values" don't like either same-sex marriage or divorce. Is it better for a same-sex couple to stay married (bad) or get divorced (bad)? Maybe the best way to look at this issue is as a business opportunity for some enterprising state.

This is the linked LA Times article -- which is really very thorough and definitely worth a read -- listing off some of the problems same-sex couples are experiencing as they go through their divorce:

"They've given us no choice but to be married forever," said Ormiston. "Their worst nightmare."...

Because federal law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, the federal government doesn't extend many standard divorce benefits to same-sex couples. As a result, say lawyers familiar with the issues, even in states where gay couples are allowed to divorce, they face financial consequences that heterosexual couples don't. Among them:

* If a judge orders a heterosexual couple to divide a pension during a divorce, federal law allows the pension to be divided without triggering early-withdrawal penalties. Divorcing gay couples must pay the penalties.

* Court-ordered alimony payments can be deducted from federal income taxes in straight divorces, but not in same-sex divorces.

* In gay divorces, when a judge orders one party to give money or other assets to a spouse, those assets may be subject to gift or income taxes.

* When real property is transferred from joint ownership to one gay spouse by a court order, capital-gains taxes are often triggered.

Opponents of same-sex marriage say the issues were to be expected.

"These problems illustrate why it is a bad idea to redefine marriage in California in a way that is at odds with the rest of the country," said Andrew Pugno, legal advisor to protectmarriage.com, a coalition of churches, organizations and individuals supporting the California Marriage Protection Act on the November ballot.

Very very strange rhetoric going on around this one. It harkens back to a straight supporter once telling me: Of course I think you guys have the right to be married... you have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

ELECTION 2008: Electoral Vote Update

The biggest thing is that states seem to be dropping into play faster than we can write about them. NH and FL reenter the scene as swing states, while OH starts its pendulous back-and-forth, IN comes back into the Obama column (along with Nevada), MO is still unsure of what to do with its bellwether mandate, and South Dakota begins to teeter. Virginia and North Carolina still are up in the air -- VA especially. CQPolitics enlightens us to the swing, but they seem to be saying BO is going up, but a lot of places are showing him go down.

Seems John McCain has gone negative, posting the first negative ads of the election season. Be careful, the bump you get off of those are brief and often bite you in the ass.

There were some rumors that McCain would pick a VP this week, and it was looking like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who came out later and said PHBBBBTTT NO!

On the flip side, there was an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal that talks about the cultural significance of Barack Obama and the racial politics behind it, gracefully entitled Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama:

Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.

So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson...

But here lies his essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office. To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.

Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him? His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.

This Week's Estimates...

ElectionProjection.com: 325 (BO), 213 (JM)
Although there is only a net shift of +14BO, you'll notice that Florida has flipped into BO's column, while VA has flipped back to JM. I'm actually not sure what poll the Florida flip comes from, or why he made that call, seeing as how the most recent poll we have is JM +2...

Electoral Vote: 292 (BO), 219 (JM), 27 (ties)
That's BO-28, and JM +15. The page makes a couple of interesting switches: Missouri, North Dakota, and Virginia are now all listed as ties, whereas Ohio performs the first definitive flip this election season, going from BO to JM.

Election Junkie: 309 (BO), 229 (JM)
No idea what the switch is, but flips it BO+3. Likely it's Montana or North Dakota that got flipped in this projection.

Cold Hearted Truth: 293 (BO), 245 (JM)
Same. But I found the link to their justification to this number. He is listing Nevada, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia as red state holds, while IA, CO, OH, and NM go blue.

270toWin.com: 247 (BO), 174 (JM), 117 (ties)
Ohio flips to red. They list a lot of swing states, which makes this election so interesting. This is their list of swings: NV, NM, MT, SD, ND, MO, IN, MI, VA, NC, FL, NH. That's a lot of swinging to do. I have this small theory that a lot more states will become swing states this election.

USElectionAtlas: 293 (BO), 245 (JM)
Dave Leip has posted a projection page! Yea! Nothing surprising, in fact, same projection as Cold Hearted Truth.

Last Week's Estimates...

ElectionProjection.com: 311 (BO), 227 (JM)
Electoral Vote: 320 (BO), 204 (JM)
Election Junkie: 306 (BO), 232 (JM)
Cold Hearted Truth: 293 (BO), 245 (JM)
270toWin.com: 259 (BO), 151 (JM)
USElectionAtlas: 268 (BO), 172 (JM)

ELECTION 2008: Weekly Poll Estimates... 7-18-08

All things said, I think it's important to point out a great article here over at Election Geek. Here's a perfect quote before we get into the polls and the projections for this week:

Most Americans, those in the center and the suburbs and rural parts of this nation, don’t make their minds up until after the conventions, the debates and the bulk of the coverage is over. They decide in the final weeks and days and they do it with a gut feeling of whom they “like” more or which candidate shares their values or their vision for that time and place.

So in short not one bit of the polling matters. All we know is that the president is unpopular, the World is moving rapidly and everything we think we know will change.

This Week's Estimates...

ElectionProjection.com: 311 (BO), 227 (JM)
BO+5 due to Nevada switching for no clear reason, I can't seem to find the poll he made that call on.

Electoral Vote: 320 (BO), 204 (JM)
JM-14 due to Missouri (!!!!) and North Dakota now being listed as "ties." A recent poll shows BO has pulled ahead enough to throw off this sites laws of averages, and therefore call this one dead even in Missouri.

Election Junkie: 306 (BO), 232 (JM)
JM+14. I'm not quite sure why the numbers are changing here like they are, as I don't follow him as religiously as some of the other sites. However, he has a tendency to throw out outlier polls, unlike some other sites that treat them all equally. SO, his numbers may be a tad more reliable. His new prediction discussion is here, and I'm sure you've heard that John McCain is rising in the national polls which he discusses here.

Cold Hearted Truth: 293 (BO), 245 (JM)
No change.

270toWin.com: 259 (BO), 151 (JM)
Using the new link they emailed to me! I'm not listing any changes because I'm foolish and couldn't seem to get any of the numbers right! LOL! So, these stand alone but also list Missouri, Nevada, and North Dakota as ties. This one also lists South Dakota as a tie -- I mean, it, ND, and Montana are demographically similarly so it makes sense if those two are going, this one would too... And there was a poll that listed JM only ahead by 4 there on 7-9-08 by Ramussen, so we'll see if that was an outlier or a predictor of things to come...

USElectionAtlas: 268 (BO), 172 (JM)
JM-16, due to Missouri and Nevada listed as "ties" now. There's the poll I couldn't find on ElectionProjection (actually, I could, I just thought it was referring to something else). It was a Ramussen poll dated yesterday showing Obama ahead there by 2.

Last Week's Estimates...

ElectionProjection.com: 306 (BO), 232 (JM)
Electoral Vote: 320 (BO) 218 (JM)
Election Junkie: 306 (BO), 218 (JM)
Coldhearted Truth: 293 (BO), 245 (JM)
270toWin.com: 185 (BO), 174 (JM)
USElectionAtlas: 268 (BO), 188 (JM)