www.411mania.com
| Search
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// The 411 Top 5: Top Stand-Up Comedians
MUSIC
// Tila Tequila And A Snake
WRESTLING
// Dark Pegasus Video Review: Ring of Honor — Return Engagment
POLITICS
// Republicans Concerned Over McCain's Attacks Against Obama
MMA
// 411’s MMA Roundtable Preview: UFC 86 – Jackson vs. Griffin
SPORTS
// MLB Fastball: Shopping Burnett For Shortstop
GAMES
// Top 10 Games That Don't Need Sequels


  MY 411
User name
Password
Register now! | Forgot your password?
 MUST READ
//  Bush Shows... Regret?
//  5.5% Unemployment – the Minimum Wage Factor
//  Top 13 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Lost
//  Obama Crushing McCain Among Hispanics
//  The Impact of Bill Clinton & Howard Dean
//  Obama Plans To Stretch McCain Across The Country
//  Obama Isn't Conceding Iraq To McCain
//  Reid, Dean, & Pelosi Promise That Nomination Battle Won't Go To Convention
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds
 





 
 411mania » Politics » Blog Entry
Ben Stein’s Ridiculous Foray Into Creationist Propaganda
Posted by Enrique on 04.17.2008





Although the Church of Scientology appears to be gaining market share in Hollywood, there's one other religion that has always been the driving force behind Tinseltown. No, not Judaism, and shame on you for even thinking that. Of course, I mean Christianity. As you may be aware, some of Hollywood's biggest-drawing actors are Christians, including Mel Gibson. Only slightly less regarded than Gibson is erstwhile game show host and current eye-drop pitchman Ben Stein. We all came to enjoy Stein's dry wit during his "Win Ben Stein's Money" run, but we also hated him immensely for his part in spawning the career of Jimmy Kimmel.

This week, Ben Stein presents a new movie that's sure to take America by storm. "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" promises to be a lighthearted but informative documentary about the merits of teaching "Intelligent Design" theory in government schools. Join Ben Stein as he debates Richard Dawkins on the improbability of an all-powerful creator, as well as the limitations in Darwinist theory, while trying to find common ground on a controversial topic with serious implications for public education policy. Not a date movie.

The story so far…

According to its official web site, "Expelled" will open in over 1000 theaters tomorrow, making it the widest-released documentary in U.S. history. The "Expelled" web site also features the official movie trailer, a blog, and some nifty artwork.



Notably, the "Expelled" web site doesn't feature one single review written by a movie critic. Even though this film is going to enjoy a massive theatrical release, it hasn't been screened for journalists. Typically, movies that aren't screened for critics are, shall we say, craptacular. For example, low-brow spoof comedies starring Larry the Cable Guy, or blood-and-gore slasher flicks are usually not screened for critics, because they're aimed at teenage audiences who don't read reviews. However, it wouldn't be accurate to say "Expelled" wasn't prescreened at all. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:

I contacted the public relations firm handling the movie, and was told there were no screenings for critics for "Expelled." Critics in other cities were told the same thing.

There have been screenings around the country, but not for critics. The film's producers arranged preview screenings for selected "grass-roots" audiences, mainly church groups, to stimulate good word-of-mouth.
In addition to grass-roots audiences, the movie was also prescreened for certain VIPs. According to the man himself, Ben Stein personally visited Rush Limbaugh last month to show him the movie. Good word-of-mouth, indeed – El Rushbo heartily endorsed "Expelled" on his popular radio show, saying "It is powerful. It is fabulous."

Unfortunately, the producers of "Expelled" haven't been so friendly to all interested parties. There was an inconvenient incident on March 21 at Minnesota's Mall of America, one of the private "Expelled" prescreening sites. In a brilliant coincidence, that weekend Minneapolis also played host to the annual American Atheists conference. Scientists PZ Meyers and Richard Dawkins went to the Mall of America intending to watch "Expelled," and perhaps participate in the Q&A with producers afterwards. According to Meyers, while waiting in line, a policeman picked him out and escorted him from the premises. Apparently, the producers of "Expelled" had specifically prohibited Myers from the prescreening. Dawkins, on the other hand, wasn't spotted by the authorities, and saw the movie. It may not surprise you to know that Dawkins had a more nuanced view of "Expelled" than Rush:

In the course of this film, ["Expelled" producer Mark] Mathis tricked a number of scientists, including PZ Myers and me, into taking prominent parts in the film, and both of us are handsomely thanked in the closing credits…

The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whining paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.

Now, to the film itself. What a shoddy, second-rate piece of work…
Oh, I say! It seems a little odd that the producers would wish to exclude from the audience interested parties who had actually appeared in the fucking movie. According to Dawkins, he and Myers (among others) were duped into believing they were participating in a documentary called "Crossroads" that would examine the debate between Darwinism and "Intelligent Design" – they were not told it would be one-sided creationist propaganda. Well, perhaps "creationist propaganda" might be a bit harsh considering I've never seen the movie. But thanks to the lack of prescreenings, I have to form an opinion based on the few biased persons who have seen it.

Speaking of biased persons, Dawkins goes on to say that "Expelled" makes a melodramatic effort to tie Darwin's theory of natural selection to – wait for it – Nazi Germany. I just LOVE it when people play the Hitler card, it's always the sign of a sound, well-reasoned argument. Apparently the film contains a sequence where Ben Stein visits Dachau, and plants his face in his hands in anguish over the sheer human cost of the Holocaust. I suppose there's no accounting for taste, but to imply that people who doubt creationism are akin to fascists is, shall we say, menstrual.

But like I said, I haven't even seen the movie. I've only seen the trailer on the official web site, from which I took two main points. First, Stein emphasizes that Darwin's theory of natural selection doesn't explain the origins of life. That's true, and in the creationist mind, that means it's perfectly logical to assume the existence of an all-powerful, intelligent creator. In fact (the argument goes), public school biology classes should teach "Intelligent Design" alongside Darwinian theory as if both have equal scientific weight. Personally, I'm not blessed with children, but if I were a parent, I wouldn't be too keen on my kids being taught in a science class to ignore evidence. Even though natural selection doesn't adequately explain the origins of life, it does not mean that government schools should be teaching children "Intelligent Design." Public schools should take the lack of evidence of a Designer's existence at face value, and leave religion to individual families.

As an aside – If you don't want to have to explain to your children the incongruity of believing in God with the fact that humans don't apply "faith" to any other area of life, then maybe you should ask yourself why you're teaching them to believe in an invisible being who can read their thoughts and is constantly judging them. Aside concluded.

Secondly, the "Expelled" trailer appears to say that scientists and academics who hold creationist beliefs have faced persecution, and have even been terminated from their jobs. Reason magazine throws cold water on some of the specific allegations, but I'll be frank – if a biologist thinks the Bible is literal, he/she is manifestly unqualified to be employed by an institution of higher learning. I'm sure plenty of scientists can be practicing creationists in other lines of work – the chemist working on the formula for New Coke can probably do his/her job regardless of religious belief. But not biology. If you are a fundamentalist Christian scientist and you want to be a positive influence on mankind, work for a pharmaceutical company. Don't blame Darwin for your unreasonable superstitions.

Of course, I shouldn't be so quick to judge – I've never seen the movie. It opens tomorrow, so feel free post a review if you'd like. But if you do see "Expelled," don't be judgmental like me – watch it through Clear Eyes®. (Wooooow.)


Post Comment (25)  |  Email Enrique  |  View Enrique's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (25)

 
Thanks for another entertaining column Enrique. Ben Stein has really gone off the deep end.

Ironic note: Stein had a recurring role as a biology teacher on The Wonder Years.


Posted By: Jason (Guest)  on April 17, 2008 at 01:46 PM

 
 
This article fails to "rationalize" the atheist and liberal beliefs that the universe didn't need a creator and that it was either created out of nothing by nothing or that it was eternal. Funny how one is more plausible than another by you kinds of people.

Posted By: Michael (Guest)  on April 17, 2008 at 03:07 PM

 
 
Not sure why anyone gets so upset because of an opposing view point. Let people who don't have a stance hear both.

Posted By: Denver (Guest)  on April 17, 2008 at 03:38 PM

 
 
Nobody cares that people hold an opposing view point. This film, by all accounts is not only poorly made but highly manipulative, deceitful and exploitative. The fact that they threw out a man who was actually in the movie should be rather telling. It makes it even funnier that the film is about creationists being "expelled" and then they go and do the exact thing the movie is preaching against and "expel" someone because of his opinion. I haven't seen the film, but I do plan to eventually, but either by sneaking into it after buying a ticket to something else, or by downloading. I will not give people like this one penny.

Oh, and Michael, just because scientists don't have every answer yet doesn't mean God did it. There was a time when the sun was thought to be a God, but science figured that one out. The universe is full of mysteries and science doesn't have all the answers, but "God did it" is not an explanation. It's a cop out.


Posted By: Jim (Guest)  on April 17, 2008 at 05:49 PM

 
 
One view point out of thousands that does not follow the Liberal religious doctrine? If anyone can state that evolution does not require a great leap of faith...you have no thought..

Posted By: Farkel (Guest)  on April 17, 2008 at 06:24 PM

 
 
evolution is fact. there is no argument in the scientific community about that. the only question at this point is the "how" and that's what's explained by the theory of evolution.
similarly, gravity IS. the theory of gravity explains the "how" and the "why". theories may change but there is not doubt that gravity and evolution are fact.


Posted By: emily (Guest)  on April 17, 2008 at 06:50 PM

 
 
This article precisely expresses the WHY. WHY did critics not get to pre-screen the movie? This article precisely expresses that reason. Good thinking, Ben Stein! Now, would please exclude these sorts of beanheads from their daily rants, as well?

Posted By: Terryeo (Guest)  on April 17, 2008 at 06:54 PM

 
 
Yeah, this movie has plenty of plot holes according to liberal atheists. YET, the garbage Michael Moore puts out is absolute gold to them. And liberals wonder why they are hated.

Posted By: Michael (Guest)  on April 17, 2008 at 08:02 PM

 
 
Part of the article says:
"But like I said, I haven't even seen the movie. I've only seen the trailer on the official web site,"

For more info about the movie
3 "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
movie trailers
and
a Bill O'Reilly interview can be viewed
at:
http://www.ExpelledTheMovie.com/video.php

The article also says:
"if I were a parent, I wouldn't be too keen on my kids being taught in a science class to ignore evidence."

As a parent, I have been very concerned about what is taught in science classes.
Appended is a partial quote that affirms that science refutes evolution and
is in accord with the creation:

"What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?

- Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes.

-Amino acids do not randomly interact to form living cells through undirected natural processes.

- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.

-The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.

-All organisms are irreducibly complex. Therefore, in order for any kind of organism to exist, all of the essential parts of that organism must be fully functioning from the beginning of its existence."

Quoted from:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm


Posted By: JoeU (Guest)  on April 17, 2008 at 10:48 PM

 
 
@ JoeU

Your information is dated...by almost 50 years. I suggest you brush up on your chemistry, biology, and evolutionary genetics before making such claims.


Posted By: Scooter (Guest)  on April 18, 2008 at 12:24 AM

 
 
As a biologist, I know this film will only make me angry. ID is not science for a single simple reason: one cannot make valid naturalistic hypotheses, nor design tests for these hypotheses, when one insists on including the supernatural. Therefore, ID provides no testable claims through which the idea can be scientifically validated or disproven. It's creationism. Whether creationism can be taught in public schools is a settled question in modern America.

Michael, acceptance of the value of evolutionary theory does not necessitate "atheist" nor "liberal" beliefs. As a biologist, I know many examples that certainly would not be accurately described by one or both of these terms. Rather, acceptance of evolutionary theory is on par with acceptance of any other exceptionally well-supported scientific framework (i.e., quantum theory, gravitation, relativity, plate tectonics, EM radiation, germ theory of disease, etc.). There are fantastic resources out there--particularly on the web--for those that wish to learn about the profound scientific success of modern evolutionary synthesis (which might well be unrecognizable to a re-animated Mr. Darwin). If one is genuinely interested in reading scientifically valid responses to common creationist claims about evolution, talkorigins.org is a great place to start.

Furthermore, to conflate evolutionary theory with tragedies on the scale of the Holocaust is a highly offensive premise, with no academic validity. Yes, the Nazi had a eugenics program, but eugenics is effectively the *opposite* of natural selection: it's a decidedly unnatural selection process fueled by racism.

And, on the off chance that someone thinks that racism (and anti-Semitism in particular) did not exist, or the associated attempted genocides of various ethnic groups, did not exist before Darwin published The Origin of Species (1859), please look up the word "Pogrom", or Martin Luther's treatise On the Jews and Their Lies, or the Old Testament genocides of the Amalekites and Midianites, or Australia's Black War, or the Third Punic War, etc.

In conclusion, Stein's work on a propagandist film that used underhanded methods and intellectually bankrupt means to demonize a scientific theory and those that accept its utility is wildly disappointing to those of us that found him to be, at one time, a intelligent and interesting B-list celebrity.


Posted By: Tom (Guest)  on April 18, 2008 at 03:18 PM

 
 
If you have done little or no reading on this issue then your viewpoint is one from ignorance. Google "Intelligent Design" and spend an hour finding answers on your own. If you wish to discuss this issue further come over to the 'Evolution and Origins' forum at http://www.talkrational.org/

Posted By: Black5 (Guest)  on April 19, 2008 at 11:10 AM

 
 
Michael posted, “This article fails to "rationalize" the atheist and liberal beliefs that the universe didn't need a creator and that it was either created out of nothing by nothing or that it was eternal. Funny how one is more plausible than another by you kinds of people.”

Michael,

Wherever it “came from”, the existence of matter is incontrovertible; it is here, you can touch it, it has verifiable existence. The existence of a creator is unsupported by any similar evidence, your personal beliefs notwithstanding.

If you were to ask a scientist, “Where did matter come from?”, she would not say, “It has always been here.” She would say, “We don’t know. As far as we know, it has always been here in some form.” You will notice, your assertion to the contrary, that there is no claim that scientists theorize matter was created “out of nothing by nothing or that it was eternal.” They don’t know, and they say so.

If you ask an apologist, “Where did matter come from?”, she will say, “God made everything.” If you ask her, “Then where did God come from?”, she will say, “God has always been here. He has no beginning, and no end,” or words to that effect.

So, the answer is that we “kinds of people” find a degree of informed uncertainty more plausible than uninformed certainty.


Posted By: GalapagosPete (Guest)  on April 19, 2008 at 04:41 PM

 
 
Farkel posted, “One view point out of thousands that does not follow the Liberal religious doctrine? If anyone can state that evolution does not require a great leap of faith...you have no thought..

Farkel,

I keep reading creationist claims that believing in evolution requires a leap of faith. This is wrong on at least two levels.

While creationists insist on using the word “belief” or some variation in reference to science they don’t like because it threatens their world view, this is wrong; belief is emotional, not scientific. I accept evolution because it is consistent with the evidence that I have seen. I don’t “believe in” it. In this context, a belief is a position taken in the absence of evidence, or often even in the face of strong contradictory evidence. (It’s also, in my opinion and experience, ridiculous to believe that tens of thousands of scientists working in multiple disciplines for the last 150 years are all either massively incompetent or have all agreed to tell a monstrous lie for some unknown reason. It is barely statistically possible that they’re just misinterpreting the evidence, but even that becomes progressively more unlikely as time passes.)

Also, creationists make strange assumptions about what is considered faith.

For example, if by “a great leap of faith”, you mean that scientists assume that what we humans see and touch is real, that we can accept our experience that what we measure is relatively accurate, that the speed of light through a vacuum and the rate of radioactive decay are consistent and do not speed up or slow down according to someone’s subjective religious belief...I suppose that accepting all that and other scientific principles could be described as “a great leap of faith.”

But not by me, or anyone else who accepts that what our senses tell us about reality is accurate, despite what our personal preferences or fears might be


Posted By: GalapagosPete (Guest)  on April 19, 2008 at 05:32 PM

 
 
Terryeo posted, “This article precisely expresses the WHY. WHY did critics not get to pre-screen the movie? This article precisely expresses that reason. Good thinking, Ben Stein! Now, would please exclude these sorts of beanheads from their daily rants, as well?”

Terryeo,

Actually, real movie critics would only be competent to judge the production quality and perhaps the effectiveness of the delivery of the message, and that would form the basis of their reviews, not whether the message is valid. While they might very well have an opinion about the subject matter, they should keep it to themselves and leave it to others to shred the message in this pathetic effort at propaganda.

So Ben and his friends should have had no fear of having critics see it...unless, of course, they have something to hide. But if that were the case, they’d probably do something like having the friendly audiences they’ve been showing this to sign nondisclosure agreements.

But they wouldn’t do that, because that would be a violation of the audience members’ free spee…

Oh. Oh, my…

Never mind.


Posted By: GalapagosPete (Guest)  on April 19, 2008 at 05:45 PM

 
 
Michael posted, “Yeah, this movie has plenty of plot holes according to liberal atheists. YET, the garbage Michael Moore puts out is absolute gold to them. And liberals wonder why they are hated.”

Michael,

So you hate people who disagree with you? Typical religious fundamentalist, I’m afraid. I disagree with lots of people; I don’t hate any of them for that reason.

Based on his output, Moore is a jerk, but I don’t hate him. I just find him to be a small-minded individual. Anyone influenced by him, or by Ben Stein and his cohorts, deserves only pity.

And this movie has no “plot,” so it can’t be filled with “plot holes.” Plot holes are something you find in fiction. This is being presented as fact, so what it’s “filled with” is something else entirely.

Inaccuracies and distortions.


Posted By: GalapagosPete (Guest)  on April 19, 2008 at 05:56 PM

 
 
I went to see this show today and it was sold out. They turned away about 30 people after me (5min period of time) and this was 40min before the show.

Posted By: JD (Guest)  on April 19, 2008 at 07:23 PM

 
 
JoeU,

Better you and everyone else should go to http://www.expelledexposed.com. There’s much more useful information there, useful because it’s correct, unlike the strawman items from The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective) you posted above.

A strawman argument is one that is deliberately misstated in such a way that it is made easy to refute, or is presented in a way that falsely implies that it is your opponent’s position. For example, you state that chemicals do not react randomly to form amino acids through natural processes, the implication being that evolutionary biologists take the opposite position, which is that chemicals do react randomly. First, what chemicals do is not relevant to evolution; this is an issue relating to abiogenesis, which is another branch of science. Second, it is simply incorrect to imply that any scientists suggest that chemicals react randomly. Chemicals react the way they do because of their properties. Since the first part of the statement is incorrect, the rest is to be ignored.

The same is true of the others. Scientists make none of these assertions: they do not claim that amino acids react randomly; the Law of Biogenesis is not what you said it is, it merely states that fully formed organisms cannot spontaneously appear from non-living (dirt) or dissimilar organic matter (maggots from rotting meat); genetic information changes all the time. This has been observed: a change in appearance/function is a change in genetic information, nor is the change “spontaneous”, it follows natural laws; accumulate enough small changes and you will eventually have a different animal; organisms are not “irreducibly complex”, this is a nonsense term. Many people and animals are born with missing parts but still manage to survive, even thrive.

Based on your post, your primary concern is not that your child learns good science; it is, rather, that she be taught “tame” science, science that does not threaten your religious worldview. The science of the dark Ages, subordinate to the church. “Proper” science. Sorry, science is only interested in figuring out how the world works and accurately teaching what they find, not propping up ancient superstitions that make some people feel more secure in their lives. And because we live in a secular society, not a Christian nation, this is what science teachers worth the title will do.


Posted By: GalapagosPete (Guest)  on April 19, 2008 at 08:47 PM

 
 
Black 5 posted, “If you have done little or no reading on this issue then your viewpoint is one from ignorance. Google "Intelligent Design" and spend an hour finding answers on your own. If you wish to discuss this issue further come over to the 'Evolution and Origins' forum at http://www.talkrational.org/”
Black5,

And Sylvia Browne is likewise upset that I think she’s a nut just because she’s almost never right in her “predictions” and therefore haven’t done much reading about clairvoyance. There are some subjects that simply have no subject matter. ID is one of them.

The bottom line is that ID is creationism that refuses to admit they mean god. Their “evidence” amounts only to assertions that a billion years of evolution just can’t create complex organisms. They can’t back that up, although they assure us they will any day now, but in the meantime here are some made-up statistics that show evolution couldn’t happen, so if Darwinism can’t be true than Jesu-I mean, ID, wins by default, and Darwinists are all deluded, except the ones who are in the conspiracy to keep the truth – excuse me, that’s “TRUTH” – from the world.

Go to http://www.talkorigins.org. They do address both sides, although they are pro-science. (Real science, not creationist claptrap.)


Posted By: GalapagosPete (Guest)  on April 19, 2008 at 09:00 PM

 
 
My wife and I saw the movie. Expected to be one of about 30 people attending. There was not a seat left in the house. It is too bad there is a wall that has been put us so the issue cannot be discussed and debated.

Posted By: Jim (Guest)  on April 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM

 
 
Jim posted, "My wife and I saw the movie. Expected to be one of about 30 people attending.
There was not a seat left in the house. It is too bad there is a wall that has
been put us so the issue cannot be discussed and debated."

Was it a 30-seat house? ;^)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? "The issue" is being discussed and debated all over the internet!


Posted By: GalapagosPete (Guest)  on April 20, 2008 at 12:13 AM

 
 
Ben Stein is one of the most intelligent men in this country. I do not believe he would result in Michael Moore-like tactics.
Michael Moore lies and then edits his movies to back up his lies. He did it with Columbine, Farenheight and Sicko.
I can see Stein being biased, which should be kept out of a documentary but hell Moore won an Oscar with his lies and deceptions.


Posted By: The Angry American (Guest)  on April 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM

 
 
Angry, You know, when you bring up Michael Moore what you're really saying is, "Moore is a liar, so it's OK for us to lie." Not what I'd call taking the moral high ground.

Michael Moore distorting the truth doesn’t make it OK for Ben Stein to do the same. You're supposed to be better than your opponents, or why would you oppose them? Unless it's for immoral reasons, such as to get something they have - like respect. And you can't get respect by lying, not for real, and not for long.

At least that’s how my parents raised me, and how I raised my son. I assume you were raised the same way.


Posted By: GalapagosPete (Guest)  on April 21, 2008 at 02:10 PM

 
 
JD wrote: I went to see this show today and it was sold out. They turned away about 30
people after me (5min period of time) and this was 40min before the show.

And that necessarily indicates that the film's subject matter is worthwhile or that its presentation is respectable? I don't think so. In logical reasoning, this is known as an "appeal to popularity," or "argumentum ad populum" if you want to get fancy and use the Latin.


Posted By: Django (Guest)  on May 19, 2008 at 02:16 AM

 
 
And can one of you give proof of which I have reason to believe that evolution is true/scientifically proven to be correct?
You all are very good at giving an oral argument, now can someone please back it up?


Posted By: a guest... (Guest)  on May 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM

 
STAY CURRENT
Latest Major National Poll
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.26-06.29 CNN 50 45
Ashish's Latest Electoral College Preview
Date Obama McCain
06.20.08 306 232

Advertisement

Battleground States: Latest Polls
New Hampshire (04)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.18-06.18 Rasmussen 50 39
Pennsylvania (21)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.22-06.22 Rasmussen 46 42
Ohio (20)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.20-06.22 SurveyUSA 48 46
Michigan (17)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.17-06.24 Quinnipac 48 42
Indiana (11)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.21-06.23 SurveyUSA 48 47
Wisconsin (10)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.17-06.24 Quinnipac 52 39
Minnesota (10)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.17-06.24 Quinnipac 54 37
Iowa (07)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.13-06.16 SurveyUSA 49 45
Missouri (11)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.20-06.22 SurveyUSA 43 50
Virginia (13)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.20-06.22 SurveyUSA 49 47
North Carolina (15)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.10-06.10 Rasmussen 43 45
Georgia (15)
Date Poll Obama McCain
07.02-07.02 InsiderAdv 44 46
Florida (27)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.26-06.26 Rasmussen 41 48
New Mexico (05)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.18-06.18 Rasmussen 47 39
Colorado (09)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.17-06.24 Quinnipac 46 42
Nevada (05)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.18-06.18 Rasmussen 42 45
Alaska (03)
Date Poll Obama McCain
06.16-06.16 Rasmussen 41 45


Safe States (for now)
Obama McCain
CA (55) AL (09)
CT (07) AR (06)
DC (03) AZ (10)
DE (03) ID (04)
HI (04) KS (06)
IL (21) KY (08)
MA (12) LA (09)
MD (10) NE (05)
ME (04) OK (07)
NJ (15) MS (06)
NY (31) MT (03)
OR (07) ND (03)
RI (04) SC (08)
VT (03) SD (03)
WA (11) TN (11)
TX (34)
UT (05)
WV (05)
WY (03)
TOTAL: 190 EV TOTAL: 145 EV
270 needed to win


Other Blogs Worth Reading
The Field 538
RealClearPolitics Ben Smith
Mark Ambinder The Stump
First Read The Page


www.41mania.com
Copyright © 2005 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.