Here’s an interesting look at how a McCain-Obama matchup could affect the electoral map for November. Barack Obama is right that he potentially could redraw the presidential map and put red states such as Virginia and North Carolina in play for Democrats.
But John McCain has shake-up strengths, too, and a chance to steal several blue-leaning states such as Michigan and Wisconsin with his appeal to Reagan Democrats.
In the end, a close McCain-Obama election could come down to a handful of small states, such as Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada — all of them narrowly won by President Bush in 2004, all of them now considered toss-ups.
The electoral map is in flux, and no one knows for sure what the new map is going to look like.
17 Comments
We’ll we can all speculate what will happen election time. I just hope the dems will lose it all.
I question whether there is really that much uncertainty in the electoral map. Basically, if McCain wins the states Bush won against Kerry, he wins. So to pull ahead, Obama needs to pick up some of those states. A small state combination of Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico would do it, assuming he loses no Kerry states (but New Hampshire, always a McCain stronghold and weak for Obama in the primary, is a definite candidate for that).
I don’t think the other states Randy mentions - Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada - are going to switch sides in a close election. If any of those switch, the election is one-sided anyway. A better shot for Obama is Ohio, though he did not look very strong there against Hillary.
Watch Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado and New Hampshire to get A LOT of attention this campaign.
The challenge for Obama is that the electoral college math is stacked slightly against him. A very narrow popular vote win will likely not get him the presidency. The reason for that is that Democrats “waste” millions of extra popular votes in building margins in states like New York, California and Illinois, that aren’t close at all, while Republicans tend to win more total states, though by narrower margins. In a winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, this favors the Republican in a close election.
Republicans are maintaining a braggadocio attitude, blustering in their arrogance. All this simply comes off to me as desperate noisy confusion which doesn’t hide their vulnerability.
bushco has been the best ambassador the Democratic Party could have.
realclearpolitics is a right wing mouthpiece.
realclearpolitics also forecast the republicans would hold the house and senate in 2006.
george,
Yeah, ’cause Repukes have done such a great job running the country–into the ground, that is.
Strange article. While Virginia and North Carolina clearly ARE in play for Democrats, it is frankly preposterous to imagine that Michigan will go for McCain. And then it says that Minnesota MAYBE is in play, but then, no, really, it probably isn’t.
This will be an election that redraws the map. How and to what extent will depend on a lot on who the candidates select as their VP’s.
Linda, I am not so sure it is all braggadocios many take Mc Cain on face value and taking into account the divide between Obama and Hillary voters that is not seeming to close to being solved. The country is influx at this point, at time seemingly to be confused and trying to figure out which way to go. As I said a few weeks ago, in the beginning of this campaign I would not have thought there was a snowball’s chance in hell that any Republican could win. But a lot has happen since then and now it may not comes as that much of a surprise.
How cute!
Randy has decided who the Democratic candidate for President is. And all on his own!
I bet he tied his own shoes today too.
Sorry Randy. Senator Hillary Clinton is still in the race. And electorally, she is the best candidate for the Democratic party.
There are key states. Randy hasn’t named any of them. That’s because he would rather talk about Obama’s MAYBE strengths than his definite weaknesses.
Florida: (there is a movie tonight about how Florida decided the 2000 election. The cons used their power there to steal it. “Recount” tonight on HBO)
A recent poll shows Senator Clinton beating McCain in Florida by a comfortable margin.She also beat Obama in Florida’s not counted (yet) primary. Obama loses to McCain.
Ohio: (The cons played games there in 2004. The election was decided there.)
Senator Clinton ALSO beats McCain in Ohio by a comfortable margin. She also drubbed Obama there in the primary. Obama loses to McCain in this poll.
Pennsylvania: Here, the polls have Obama ahead of McCain. But not by a comfortable, fraud safe, margin. Senator Clinton beats McCain by a fraud free margin in Pennsylvania.
It’s fun to play “what if” with states we don’t normally think about. But this election is IMPORTANT. The Democrats need their BEST candidate to win the election. Senator Clinton continues to show that she should be that candidate.
Dog, I’m optimistic! I still don’t give the Republican candidate a snowball’s chance in hell of winning this fall. But if he does, you can rub my nose in MY arrogance. (giggle)
Linda how about just sharing a box of tissues….
over a beer? Deal! And, truly you can tell me I was wrong! I’m wrong often but I keep trying. I might get something right before I check out.
Did you see where YOU were accused of reading only what is already your opinion (on another thread) or words that had that meaning? That person knows NOTHING aobut you and that post proved it! If only a few more were as well informed. Course as you and I know being informed is depressing (waaaaay depressing!).
yes I read it, I suspect that OKo is someone I had conversation with on the message board. Maybe not as that person finally did admit that at least what I was saying is true.
No kidding, as selfish as it may sound at time I wish I could go back to 2003 and just once again be fat, ignorant and blissfully unaware of the world.
BlueJay,
Your 11:01 am post seems to suggest that we should throw away all Democratic primary voters, except those Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
The nomination is based on the number of delegates.
Obama is only 56 delegates short of securing the nomination.
Sure Clinton could quit as all the pundits want her to, but the awkward thing is she keeps winning primaries. What is she going to do, stand up and say, “Thank you West Virginia (Ohio, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky, Puerto Rico) for this big victory tonight and since the pundits demand it, I am now dropping out of the race”? Candidates drop out of races when they lose, not when they win. That isn’t to say she actually has a realistic chance of being nominated, but if the Florida and Michigan results were honored she would pass Obama in the popular vote and be a lot closer in pledged delegates. There are all sorts of reasons why that probably won’t happen, or why that wouldn’t matter anyway, but from her perspective, why not try?
RobertL posted May 25, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“Sure Clinton could quit as all the pundits want her to, but the awkward thing is she keeps winning primaries. What is she going to do, stand up and say, “Thank you West Virginia (Ohio, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky, Puerto Rico) for this big victory tonight and since the pundits demand it, I am now dropping out of the race”? ”
RobertL,
Clinton got 94 delegates in Texas.
Obama got 5 more delegates, 99.
If that’s your definition of a “big victory”, you might want to post it on the “Clinton’s fuzzy math…” thread.
Reagan Democrats? That would be democrats that vote for a pres. with Mad Cow.
Hey, I specifically and carefully said she won the Texas “primary.” That is the vote whose outcome was known that night and which she would be referring to in a speech that night. She did win that. It’s true that the Texas Democratic Party has an unusual two-step primary/caucus system for awarding delegates, and when the complete results of the process were known much later, Obama wound up with more delegates. And don’t get me wrong, I respect the fact that Obama’s team has worked harder and/or smarter to win delegates. Kansas was obviously a case in point.
8 Trackbacks
[...] Corrente | Boldly shrill … wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptHere’s an interesting look at how a McCain-Obama matchup could affect the electoral map for November. Barack Obama is right that he potentially… [...]
[...] that he potentially could redraw …The Combined Obama and Clinton map by: Chris Bowers Gather.comhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/a-new-electoral-map/Hawaiian Islands weather details & Aloha paragraphs May 25-26 2008 Air Temperatures ?? The [...]
[...] by President Bush in 2004, all of them now considered toss-ups. The electoral map is in flux, …http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/a-new-electoral-map/Poll Analysis: Obama Gains on McCain Obama McCain 37.1% probability of winning 62.0% probability of [...]
[...] Tribune:NEWS:Ames… - http://www.midiowanews.com/site/index.cfm?brd=2700…;|||A new electoral map?In the end, a close McCain-Obama election could come down to a handful of small states, such as [...]
[...] A new electoral map?In the end, a close McCain-Obama election could come down to a handful of small states, such as Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada — all of them narrowly won by President Bush in 2004, all of them now considered toss-ups. …WE Blog - http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog [...]
[...] A new electoral map?19 hours ago by Randy Scholfield In the end, a close McCain-Obama election could come down to a handful of small states, such as Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada — all of them narrowly won by President Bush in 2004, all of them now considered toss-ups. …WE Blog - http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog [...]
[...] by President Bush in 2004, all of them now considered toss-ups. The electoral map is in flux, …http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/a-new-electoral-map/Midsize farmers harvest savings from high-tech Seattle TimesWhen Martin Barbre got his first look [...]
Ellie…
Hello, I have a few websites of my own and I must say that your site is really top notch. Keep up the great work on a really high class resource Free Mp3 Download….