… in a world-wide Electoral College, according to The Economist.  Senator Obama managed to win every country except for Algeria, Sudan, the Congo, Namibia, and Iraq.  Cuba and Macedonia remain tied.  Afghanistan is strongly pro-Obama at 85%.  Iraq is strongly pro-McCain, voting for the Republican 60% of the time.  McCain’s strongest support comes from Iraq; Obama recorded 100% of votes from Cambodia, Cameroon, Haiti, Montenegro, Kyrgyzstan, and Maldives.  Obama received 81% of the vote in the United States.  Obama won 19 of the 20 largest countries (by Electoral vote allocation), losing only in the Congo.

According to this blog, The Economist is set to officially endorse Obama tomorrow.  They endorsed Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

Additionally, over at Pollster.com, it is quite easy to see the long slow decline of McCain in North Carolina.  McCain could still easily win the state since the differential is less than 2%, but the very fact that he has to work for North Carolina is a bad sign for any possibility of success there.

Edit: The Economist has officially endorsed Senator Obama, saying

the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

Of McCain, The Economist said

[O]n the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers.

They noted that had the John McCain of 2000 been running, he would have received their endorsement.