Caught this interesting post (from the lunatics at No Quarter no less) off of Memorandum, which actually references an interesting article on how an astrophysicist used proven modeling theory to calculate that Barrack Obama – as it stands nows – would lose the election this fall:

According to an astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, if the election were held today Hillary beats McCain and Obama loses to McCain. Period.

…

Essentially the method is taking into account the median results of the polls a few weeks before an election. Using this method, Gott and Colley were able to pick the correct result in 49 of 50 states in 2004.

…

If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.

OK, the person at No Quarter is exaggerating the situation because the essence of the methodology is to use polls close to the actual election.  But at least the methodology has a better track record than the analysis done for Global Warming, which have not predicted anything accurately – even when their models are used on historic data the GW crowd can’t produce the historic results.

So, if you believe in the Church of Al Gore and Global Warming, Barrack Obama is in trouble.  I think there is a bit of buyer’s remorse hitting the left today as they finally sit down and ask “what have we done?”  For example, read what Ron Brownstein wrote today:

It’s difficult to overstate Barack Obama’s achievement in wresting the Democratic presidential nomination from Hillary Rodham Clinton—or the magnitude of the gamble he represents for his party.

Obama is the first true insurgent to win either major party’s nod since Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976. In the modern primary era, the only other insurgents to capture nominations were Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Democrat George McGovern in 1972. And none of those three defeated a front-runner as formidable as Clinton. Obama’s campaign will likely be remembered as the most successful primary insurgency ever.

That itself defines some of the Democratic gamble. An insurgent campaign inherently upsets existing arrangements and assumptions. It trades the comfort of the familiar for the exhilaration and unpredictability of the new. Obama’s campaign is no exception. He offers Democrats new electoral opportunities with the enormous passion and activism he inspires. But his hold on some voting blocs and states that the party traditionally targets looks shakier than Clinton’s might have been. Obama almost certainly presents Democrats with a better chance to redraw the electoral map and expand their coalition if all goes well. But, in a year so tilted toward Democrats, Clinton might have represented a safer bet to accumulate the bare minimum of 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. Compared with Clinton, “Obama has a much bigger upside,” says Robert Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future. “And a much bigger risk.”

Obama is a huge risk.  I for one think he will re-write the electoral map, whether he wins or loses.  The thing is, right now he looks to lose because most Dems are much farther ahead at this point, and John McCain is not a hard right winger. With Hannity and company leaving the GOP in disgust over McCain, it will be the far left liberal against Main Street McCain.  All those bible thumping, gun toting, frustrated Americans which Clinton clobbered Obama with in the large primaries states still pack a punch in the voting booth.