Prediction time (with maps)

[KingYaba]

It's June and we have a few months. I thought it would be fun to look back in November and see if any of us are right. ABC has a cool interactive map that allows you to see the past four presidential elections and then predict the 2008 election by clicking on states.Fill in those blue and red states and share.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/

[miloblithe]

I'll take Obama 363, McCain 175.

Obama will win: HI, CA, OR, WA, CO, NM, MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH, PA, NY, VT, NH, ME, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC, VA, SC, and FL.

McCain: AK, NV, AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, KY, WV, and NC.

McCain has a shot at FL, SC, VA, and IN, which is not enough for him to win anyway.

Obama's got a shot at TX, NC, LA, MS, ND, MT, and NV.

Should be a blow out of Bill Clinton proportions.

[yg17]

I'll take Obama 363, McCain 175.

Obama will win: HI, CA, OR, WA, CO, NM, MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH, PA, NY, VT, NH, ME, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC, VA, SC, and FL.

McCain: AK, NV, AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, KY, WV, and NC.

McCain has a shot at FL, SC, VA, and IN, which is not enough for him to win anyway.

Obama's got a shot at TX, NC, LA, MS, ND, MT, and NV.

Should be a blow out of Bill Clinton proportions.

I sure do hope you're right.

I'm not going to predict anything for 2 reasons:
1. I don't know enough about every state's demographics to make even a half-assed guess
2. I'll fudge the numbers any way I can to give Obama a landslide :D

[KingYaba]

Obama's got
Too much text. I want to see some colors. ;) Here is what yours looks like.

[solvs]

I suspect I will either be disappointed once more, or shockingly surprised, nothing in the middle.

That is to say, I think it'll be a landslide either way.

[it5five]

I won't be doing this (yet) for the same reason as yg17, but I would like to add that McCain isn't even doing as well in his home state as expected. Recent polls showed him with only an 11 point lead against Obama, and this was before Hillary had dropped, so it may be even closer now. Those that did the polling and even those in McCains campaign expected a much larger lead. I don't know if Obama will be able to actually close the gap here in Arizona, but I think it shows how awful McCain will be doing this November if he can't even do as well in his own state as expected.

I'd also expect to see this lead further dwindle if Obama picks our governor, Janet Napolitano, as his running mate (pretty unlikely, but I've heard her name here and there in regards to the VP spot, and she had endorsed Obama pretty early on in the race).

[swiftaw]

If you add up the electoral college votes for all the states that have voted the same way for the past 4 elections you get Obama 248 McCain 135. Thus, Obama needs only to find 22 electoral college votes from the 'swing states'.

Three (potentially) obvious ones are:
New Hampshire (voted Democrat except for 2000): 4
Iowa (voted Democrat except for 2004): 7
New Mexico (voted Democrat except for 2004): 5

That's another 16 electoral college votes, meaning he needs to find 6 more from the following states:

Nevada (democrat 1992,1996; republican 2000,2004): 5
Arizona (democrat 1996; republican 1992, 2000,2004): 10
Montana (democrat 1992; republican 1996, 2000,2004): 3
Colorado (democrat 1992; republican 1996, 2000,2004): 9
Missouri (democrat 1992,1996; republican 2000,2004): 11
Arkansas (democrat 1992,1996; republican 2000,2004): 6
Louisiana (democrat 1992,1996; republican 2000,2004): 9
Ohio (democrat 1992,1996; republican 2000,2004): 20
Kentucky (democrat 1992,1996; republican 2000,2004): 8
Tennessee (democrat 1992,1996; republican 2000,2004): 11
Georgia (democrat 1992; republican 1996, 2000,2004): 15
Florida (democrat 1996; republican 1992, 2000,2004): 27

[Don't panic]

here is a current list of polls, state by state.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/all.html

it's pretty much up for grabs at this point.

...however, this is how it will end:

[Chundles]

I tried a few times to make a picture where Florida looked a bit rude but couldn't figure it out.

So a smiley face was the best I could come up with.

[pooky]

it's pretty much up for grabs at this point.

Utah? Really? Seems unlikely. Isn't illegal there to vote for a democrat?

[yg17]

Utah? Really? Seems unlikely. Isn't illegal there to vote for a democrat?

Only illegal if you get caught :D

I think a lot of Utahians are angry at McCain and other repubs for the attacks on Romney, and will either vote for Obama, or won't vote for all. Unless Romney is his running mate, then Utah is his. Mormons :rolleyes:

[atszyman]

Here's what the map looks like with any state that went 3 or more of the previous four elections to the same party. The grey split 2 and 2.

If the 1 out of four is a fluke for those years then we're looking at a pretty solid win for Obama. Since he already wins and will most likely pick up 1 or more of the split states as well.

If I guess at the rest of the states, the second map is kind of how I see it falling out.

Edit:
Sorry, had NC in Obama's camp doesn't fit by my criteria.

first map is my full take, second map is the 75% or more of previous elections as the indicator.

[Don't panic]

Utah? Really? Seems unlikely. Isn't illegal there to vote for a democrat?

haha you're probably right. I actually meant Nevada, but now that i made the bold prediction i'm sticking to it :p
in any way, Obama is only 40+ points behind in Utah, so it can only get better :).

[KingYaba]

here is a current list of polls, state by state.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/all.html

it's pretty much up for grabs at this point.

...however, this is how it will end:

You think Texas will vote for Obama? :confused: The poll you posted says McCain will take the state.

[stevento]

if you go to CNNPolitics.com then you'll see the poll of polls only has Obama up by 4 points. as we all know, a 4 point lead is not a lead so we need to stop acting like Obama has already won the presidency. The democratic party loves him but that doesnt mean the entire country will embrace him that way. Especially not lunch bucket workers and hispanics, don't think he already has those wrapped up.


NH, OH and PA, FL, MI are states Obama needs to worry about
TX, NV, AL FL and MI are states McCain needs to worry about.
especially Michigan because John McCain is running ads here and I haven't seen any Obama ads here. our economy is in awful shape, in addition to the nations economic situation, and we've got a democratic governor, so Obama needs to watch out

[themadchemist]

if you go to CNNPolitics.com then you'll see the poll of polls only has Obama up by 4 points. as we all know, a 4 point lead is not a lead so we need to stop acting like Obama has already won the presidency. The democratic party loves him but that doesnt mean the entire country will embrace him that way. Especially not lunch bucket workers and hispanics, don't think he already has those wrapped up.

For someone who agreed to support the Democratic candidate, you sure are grumbling a lot.

[KingYaba]

TX

I must be missing something. :confused:

[stevento]

yes Texas. in 2000 Al Gore thought OH would go his way for sure. the reason TX was locked in 00 and 04 is because that's Bush's home

i'm not joining this histeria bandwagon that thinks Obama is heaven sent. I want a democratic president in 2008. that means he has to win in november, and thats not going to come easy

edit: i just read an article saying McCain is spending $500,000 /week on ads here and i haven't seen any ads from Obama

[Mike Teezie]

A few of you have Louisiana going for Barack.

I hate to tell you, but that will never happen.

[atszyman]

A few of you have Louisiana going for Barack.

I hate to tell you, but that will never happen.

Really? After Katrina it still has no chance of going Dem? They went Dem in '92 and '96 so it's not historically unprecedented. Admittedly the polls aren't in his favor at the moment but I think a lot of states that were previously unreachable might be up for grabs this fall after the two of them meet face to face on TV.

[themadchemist]

Really? After Katrina it still has no chance of going Dem? They went Dem in '92 and '96 so it's not historically unprecedented. Admittedly the polls aren't in his favor at the moment but I think a lot of states that were previously unreachable might be up for grabs this fall after the two of them meet face to face on TV.

The problem is a large percentage of the most-affected populations post-Katrina has been flung far and wide...Those folks aren't in New Orleans anymore and if they are, they are being rapidly gentrified out. So I'm not sure, it's possible, but unlikely.

[Mike Teezie]

Really? After Katrina it still has no chance of going Dem? They went Dem in '92 and '96 so it's not historically unprecedented. Admittedly the polls aren't in his favor at the moment but I think a lot of states that were previously unreachable might be up for grabs this fall after the two of them meet face to face on TV.

You know those 28 percenters you hear about? They all live here.

I say all this slightly tongue in cheek, but it would really be one of the shocks of my life if Obama carried this state.

People say things like, "can you believe a n****r is running for president?"

In public.

:(:mad:

[atszyman]

You know those 28 percenters you hear about? They all live here.

I say all this slightly tongue in cheek, but it would really be one of the shocks of my life if Obama carried this state.

People say things like, "can you believe a n****r is running for president?"

In public.

:(:mad:

I live in Texas and we have our fair share of the 28%, and I think my father-in-law has probably said that exact quote (hey I married his daughter, not him). While I would be surprised if TX went Dem I won't call it impossible, yet.

I actually had a dream about the election the other night and there were only about 5-10 states that went to McCain, and TX wasn't one of them... maybe, for once, my visions will come true.

[CalBoy]

I think it's a bit premature to try to predict the electoral map at this stage of the game.

However, I think that we will see the four big determiners of the election (Obama's message of hope, McCain's message of "stay the course," McCain's age, and the economy) decided long before November.

If McCain slips up ever so slightly because of his age (falls asleep while someone is giving a speech for example, or suffers from any situation which exemplifies his age), it will most likely drive the electorate against him. The later it happens in the election season (ie October or after), the more doomed the McCain campaign will be.

And I think that for the first time, Texas is very much in play. The Texan electorate has been shifting as more minorities fill into the state. The Republicans still control Texas's legislature and governorship, but as the population becomes more diverse, and the economy falters, the electorate will be more willing to take out its rage on the Republican party at the Federal level. McCain will probably win Texas, but it's going to cost him a pretty penny to do so.

[Macky-Mac]

it's way too early of course.....but fun anyway

this map looks like what I suspect will happen

[geese]

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/39758/1213313503/uselectsgoetc.jpg

[stevento]

A few of you have Louisiana going for Barack.

I hate to tell you, but that will never happen.

i think the large black population in the new orleans area might make it happen. under the republican plan, new orleans will be back to normal in 20 years or so. under Obama's plan, it'll be back to better than normal much faster than that. the rest of LA is rural, low population.

[themadchemist]

And I think that for the first time, Texas is very much in play. The Texan electorate has been shifting as more minorities fill into the state.


According to the US Census, this isn't true. In 2000, Texas was 71% white (US Census (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&geo_id=04000US48)). In 2006, Texas was 83% white (US Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html)).


The Republicans still control Texas's legislature and governorship, but as the population becomes more diverse, and the economy falters, the electorate will be more willing to take out its rage on the Republican party at the Federal level.


It's possible they'll take their rage out on Republicans at the federal level, but it's also possible they'll just take their rage out on the state level, voting for conservative Democrats down ticket and sticking with McCain on top.


McCain will probably win Texas, but it's going to cost him a pretty penny to do so.

He'll almost certainly win Texas, and I don't know that it's really as competitive as people are claiming. The one boost to Obama was large turnout in the primaries there, but I'm not even sure what the effect of that has been.

A little analysis, for the number junkies amongst us...

A Rasmussen poll from June 6 has McCain at 52% and Obama at 39% (RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_mccain_vs_obama-628.html)). This means, ignoring the margin of error for now, that McCain's got a larger lead than the entire undecided segment. Anything can change, but McCain's definitely got momentum.

For comparison, let's look at how John Kerry was doing around this in 2004. A Rasmussen poll 6/1-6/30/2004 has Bush at 55% and Kerry at 37% (margin of error: 3%) (RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/tx_polls.html)). This, to my mind, is not significantly different to the McCain vs. Obama polling. And indeed, the two sets of data have no statistically significant difference.

Now, one might argue that because Kerry had had the nomination for quite some time when this poll was done, while Obama has just gotten the nomination, this puts Kerry at an advantage. Unfortunately, I can't find any polling data on that.

Perhaps some of McCain's advantage is with the Hillary Clinton voters who are right now "rebelling" but would come around by November. I think this is unlikely. If we look at how McCain does against Hillary Clinton, as of 5/27, a Baselice and Associates poll puts her at 36% against McCain's 51% (Presidential Election Polls (http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/matchups-by-state/texas.html)). Some polling from earlier in the month from Rasmussen had her fairing better: 43% against McCain's 49% (Presidential Election Polls (http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/matchups-by-state/texas.html)). Assume with me here that means that she and Obama are probably within the margin of error of each other against McCain. This means that if Clinton supports are defecting to McCain, then Obama must be picking up the difference elsewhere. There are only three significant places from which these voters could come: 1) Undecided, 2) McCain, 3) Otherwise unlikely voters.

Considering that the undecided pool is the same whether you put McCain against Clinton or Obama, it doesn't seem that the undecideds break for Obama any more than they break for Clinton.

In fact, because McCain's lead doesn't grow against Obama's, these supposed "new" Obama votes have to come either from McCain or an expanded voting pool. I am sure there are some people who would take Obama over McCain and McCain over Clinton. But how many? This, given the polling data I've seen, is tough to tease out. I don't think, in Texas at least that it would be a huge percentage of the vote.

As for these "new voters," perhaps they exist. We can't tell from the polling data, though, because the likely voter models are probably going to pick up mostly the same people in a McCain vs. Obama match up as they pick up in a McCain vs. Clinton matchup. Would there be enough of these new voters to win the election?

Let's play out one possible scenario. First, let's assume we don't know anything about the magical new voters. Then, let's say that 5 points of Obama's polling (that would be approximately 5/40 or 12.5% of his support in Texas) is contributed by those who prefer McCain over Clinton, but not over Obama. That means about 5 points worth of people like McCain over Obama, but not over Clinton. In other words, 12.5% of Clinton supporters defect. Let's say that 75% of these folks eventually make their way back to Obama. That means that Obama will eventually get a 3.75 point bump, and McCain will lose 3.75, which will certainly make the race much closer (more like 43 to 48). Let's just assume they split the undecideds evenly (already unfair to McCain given Texas's demographics). That now puts us at around 47 to 52. Now, if the rest of Obama's election winning support comes from new voters, he would need to increase his support by 5 points, right? Assuming that all "new voters" go to Obama, then he would actually need to increase the electorate by 6%. That means, based on the 7.4 million people who voted in Texas in 2004 (Texas Secretary of State (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml)), he'd need to get 440,000 extra people out. In this scenario, each of the things described is possible, but I think all of them together are highly unlikely.

So I think it'll be next to impossible for Obama to win Texas. But if Obama does win Texas, Texas will not have mattered, because it'll have been a landslide nationally.

[Mike Teezie]

i think the large black population in the new orleans area might make it happen. under the republican plan, new orleans will be back to normal in 20 years or so. under Obama's plan, it'll be back to better than normal much faster than that. the rest of LA is rural, low population.

There was a larger population in New Orleans for the '04 Bush/Kerry election, and Bush carried this state pretty easily.

Post-Katrina, it's obviously a different story with regards to population.

I live in Louisiana, unfortunately. Like I said earlier, it will be one of the shocks of my life if Obama carries this state.

[atszyman]

...

The biggest thing to remember about polls now is that there have been no debates at this point. I doubt the debates will do a lot for boosting McCain, of course I could be wrong.

[CalBoy]

According to the US Census, this isn't true. In 2000, Texas was 71% white (US Census (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&geo_id=04000US48)). In 2006, Texas was 83% white (US Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html)).

The problem with them cherries is that the Census Bureau didn't separate white from "non-hispanic white;" a very clear problem when we're talking about a state like Texas.

The figures for 2006 from the Fact Sheet for Texas (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=04000US48&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US48&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US48&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=040&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=) indicate that the total hispanic population-no matter from what national origin- represent 35.7% of Texas's population.


It's possible they'll take their rage out on Republicans at the federal level, but it's also possible they'll just take their rage out on the state level, voting for conservative Democrats down ticket and sticking with McCain on top.

That simply doesn't happen very often; people are more forgiving to their local state leaders and much more harsh with their national leaders. In the case of Texas in particular, the state voted for Democrats at the governor's level in 1982 and 1990, despite the fact that the state had been voting Republican for a decade in Presidential elections.

Even "true blue" states like California are much more willing to allow the opposing party to have the governorship while voting against the same party during Presidential elections (ie, Pete Wilson's reign as governor despite California's strong vote for Clinton in both 1992 and 1996).


A little analysis, for the number junkies amongst us...


I would be weary of comparing Bush's position in Texas in 2004 to McCain's position in Texas today. We have to be honest with ourselves and realize that Bush won by the margins he did because he's from Texas. McCain is not going to have the same sympathy vote, and his job is going to be a great deal more difficult because he's dealing with a very unpopular incumbent and a faltering economy to boot.

The reelection of Texas's current governor in 2006 demonstrated the potential weaknesses of the Republican party. The incumbent governor won with barely more than 39% of the popular vote; hardly as secure as one would imagine.

If Obama can find out why the voters retaliated against Rick Perry as they did in 2006, he'll likely be able to tap into that and close the gap quite a lot. Like I said, I doubt he'll Texas this year, but as Texas becomes more and more diverse, the Democrats will be able to retake the state. I'd bet that in 2012, Texas becomes a battle ground state the likes of which we now attribute to Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

[stevento]

what bothers me is that Obama has said he will compete for votes in all 50 states... which sucks because some states are republican locks and winner take all when it comes to electoral votes.

[themadchemist]

The problem with them cherries is that the Census Bureau didn't separate white from "non-hispanic white;" a very clear problem when we're talking about a state like Texas.

The figures for 2006 from the Fact Sheet for Texas (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=04000US48&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US48&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US48&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=040&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=) indicate that the total hispanic population-no matter from what national origin- represent 35.7% of Texas's population.


Interesting. Didn't know this, and it could make a difference. The interesting figure is the 10% increase in the size of the Hispanic population in Texas. We'll have to see what turnout is like.


That simply doesn't happen very often; people are more forgiving to their local state leaders and much more harsh with their national leaders. In the case of Texas in particular, the state voted for Democrats at the governor's level in 1982 and 1990, despite the fact that the state had been voting Republican for a decade in Presidential elections.

Even "true blue" states like California are much more willing to allow the opposing party to have the governorship while voting against the same party during Presidential elections (ie, Pete Wilson's reign as governor despite California's strong vote for Clinton in both 1992 and 1996).


Well, you can read that the opposite way and reach my conclusions. Locally, these folks are willing to break for either party, because 1) the big battleground ideological issues don't matter quite as much on the state level and 2) the parties tend to be closer together ideologically in any given state. On the other hand, people's votes on the national level are kind of frozen by party, because the differences between the parties on hot button issues make or break people's support. Therefore, it's more likely that Texans will say, eh, the Republicans suck, I can go for a Democrat, on the state level, while they'll say, on the national level, eh, the Republicans suck, but you know, the Democrats kill babies.


I would be weary of comparing Bush's position in Texas in 2004 to McCain's position in Texas today. We have to be honest with ourselves and realize that Bush won by the margins he did because he's from Texas. McCain is not going to have the same sympathy vote, and his job is going to be a great deal more difficult because he's dealing with a very unpopular incumbent and a faltering economy to boot.


The first part of what you're saying makes sense, but I don't think it's playing out that way. I think that by June 2004, the sympathy factor was already built in. Nobody who was being polled in 2004 saying they supported Kerry was breaking hard for Bush late in the game. They already knew they were voting for the governor they loved. What might have happened was that the undecideds broke for Bush on that basis (he ended up with 61% of the vote in Texas, while Kerry stayed at 38%, meaning that Bush basically picked up the entire June undecided vote) (US Election Atlas (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2004&fips=48)). While that undecided vote might split more evenly between McCain and Obama, as I said before, the entire undecided vote could go to Obama and McCain would still win. At best, what might happen is that we'll see numbers closer to Clinton vs. Dole in 1996 (49 to 44, Dole), but adjusted for the fact that Ross Perot isn't around to grab 7% of the vote (Federal Elections Commission (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/presge.htm#TX)). If you correct for the Perot factor, even by splitting that, too, down the middle (again, this biases unfairly against McCain), then you'll end up with 52 to 48, which is about the best I think Obama can do. That's in line with Obama grabbing all of today's undecided vote without eating into McCain's--I don't think the people who support McCain today in Texas are going to change their minds in huge numbers. And remember, Clinton did quite well in the 1996 election, beating Dole by 9 points, so if he couldn't pull off Texas as a well-liked incumbent, it's harder to imagine that Obama would (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996)). That is, unless the demographic ***** you mentioned make a difference.

The second part of what you say above is a bit contradictory. Sure, McCain won't get as much of a sympathy vote, but if Bush is popular in Texas because of roots, McCain won't be punished as much for a connection with Bush.


The reelection of Texas's current governor in 2006 demonstrated the potential weaknesses of the Republican party. The incumbent governor won with barely more than 39% of the popular vote; hardly as secure as one would imagine.


Perhaps, but that election was a little crazy anyway. Remember that there were six candidates and that between Grandma and Kinky, the independent candidates picked up 30% of the vote (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006)). If they hadn't been running, the Republicans would have gotten well over 50%. Compare Rick Perry's 39% to Democratic candidate Chris Bell's 30% (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006)). Now it's true that the Republicans had a larger point drop from 2004 than the Democrats did, but the independent field leaned to the right. Grandma is, after all, Scott McClellan's mom (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Keeton_Strayhorn)), and while Kinky is probably more "liberal" (not that I know much about his politics), he got 12% to Grandma's 18% (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006)).


If Obama can find out why the voters retaliated against Rick Perry as they did in 2006, he'll likely be able to tap into that and close the gap quite a lot.


They retaliated because they had more choices, and because people like Kinky's music and people just like Grandma. (I'm sorry, but I really am enjoying the fact that there two gubernatorial candidates in Texas were known as Kinky and Grandma.)


Like I said, I doubt he'll Texas this year, but as Texas becomes more and more diverse, the Democrats will be able to retake the state. I'd bet that in 2012, Texas becomes a battle ground state the likes of which we now attribute to Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

You're more optimistic than I am.


The biggest thing to remember about polls now is that there have been no debates at this point. I doubt the debates will do a lot for boosting McCain, of course I could be wrong.


I agree with you, but I think their biggest impact will be on the undecideds. If Obama were to win Texas, he'd need the entire current undecided vote, plus some, as I pointed out before.


what bothers me is that Obama has said he will compete for votes in all 50 states... which sucks because some states are republican locks and winner take all when it comes to electoral votes.


A fifty state strategy doesn't mean that you devote equal time/equal money per capita to each state. But it's a smart thing to pursue when you've got a financial advantage. It forces your opponent to start spending money in lock states, thus disadvantaging him in more important states. And Obama is competitive in more states than, say, Kerry was, so that combined with his extra money makes a fifty state strategy smart. It also fits in with Howard Dean's approach to the DNC and with the possibility of expanding Congressional majorities using Obama for down-ticket support (though it's been said that could backfire in some parts of the country).

[yg17]

what bothers me is that Obama has said he will compete for votes in all 50 states... which sucks because some states are republican locks and winner take all when it comes to electoral votes.


All he needs are the states Kerry won, plus a couple more. There are several combinations that will work. I think he'll take the Kerry states with relative ease. There are a bunch of other states that did go to Bush in 2000 and 2004, however, they're not "republican locks" and can very easily go to Obama. I think he's going to have a smaller presence in the Kerry states, just stay there enough to hold on to his advantage, and in the red states where polling is in his favor (IA, NM, VA, CO, MO, OH. Hell, he's even within 10 points in AZ) is where the heavy campaigning will be. The states that are true republican locks, he'll probably stop by every now and then so he doesn't alienate the Democratic base there. But, he won't waste a whole lot of time or money. 50 state strategy doesn't mean spending equal time in all 50 states.

[themadchemist]

All he needs are the states Kerry won, plus a couple more. There are several combinations that will work. I think he'll take the Kerry states with relative ease. There are a bunch of other states that did go to Bush in 2000 and 2004, however, they're not "republican locks" and can very easily go to Obama. I think he's going to have a smaller presence in the Kerry states, just stay there enough to hold on to his advantage, and in the red states where polling is in his favor (IA, NM, VA, CO, MO, OH. Hell, he's even within 10 points in AZ) is where the heavy campaigning will be. The states that are true republican locks, he'll probably stop by every now and then so he doesn't alienate the Democratic base there. But, he won't waste a whole lot of time or money. 50 state strategy doesn't mean spending equal time in all 50 states.

Absolutely. All Kerry needed was Ohio. My worry is that Obama won't be able to hold on to Michigan and Pennsylvania, which would make things much harder.

[nbs2]

Sure this thread was disappearing, but the ObamaMcCain thread has taken some wierd tangents and is no longer exploring the actual election.

I gound it difficult to forecast without wanting to tweak the numbers, but I found that resizing the window allowed me to come up with interesting results. Please note that all of my forecasts were unintentional.

I'm going to refrain from posting a map at this time, as I think it is a little early to speculate on what states will be carried. It seems to me that the the VP nominee could have a profound impact on the winner of this race. Looking at what I consider the two strongest picks from each each party (Romney, Palin; Webb, Clinton), I opine that this is the choice that will swing everything.

Without the benefit of mapping, I give you my results (listed by VP candidate):
JW vs. MR - 266-272
HC vs. MR - 273-265
JW vs. SP - 272-266
HC vs. SP - 269-269