Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike KeliherAt the risk of being accused of jumping the gun, I spent some time this evening with an electoral map looking at the battleground states. After divvying up the safe Red States (169 electoral votes) and safe Blue States (214), I came up with 155 electoral votes in play this November in these states:
- Colorado 9 votes
- Florida 27
- Indiana 11
- Iowa 7
- Louisianna 9
- Michigan 17
- Missouri 11
- Nevada 5
- New Mexico 5
- Ohio 20
- Pennsylvania 21
- Virginia 13
Some of these are probably not truly in play; I doubt the Dems can actually take Indiana and Louisianna, for example. That said, the GOP is going to have to work extra hard to keep these normally reliable states in their column and that will be a challenge in and of itself (in an interesting role reversal, it’s the GOP that’s short cash this cycle). Others, though, like Virgina and Nevada, are truly contestable.
In truth, though, the election will probably come down to a couple of big states – Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio – as it did in 2000 and 2004. The winner will probably need to take 2 out of those 3 to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. The latest polling I’ve seen on head-to-head matchups in those states between Senators Obama and McCain has McCain slightly up in Ohio and Florida and Obama up in Pennsylvania. All, however, are within the margin of error and there remains a sizeable number of undecideds, others, etc.
I’m a nerd and old so I spent hours creating my own map which is too big to be easily viewed here. Nonetheless, since I managed to color so neatly in the lines, I’m posting it here. If you click on it, it should take you to a larger version where you can actually read it. In battleground states where I was able to find recent (i.e. from May) head-to-head McCain-Obama numbers, they’re displayed in a McCain/Obama/Other format.
Those of you who want to play “what if” using your own assumptions can do so much more easily by using the interactive electoral map at a web site called 270 to Win. The interface is very slick and there’s lots of historical data on the site in case you want to review – say – the electoral results for 1828 when Andrew Jackson kicked ass in the popular vote (and brought home the most electoral votes) but because no candidate won a majority of electors, the House of Representatives picked John Quincy Adams.
1828 makes 2000 look legitimate by comparison and the 2008 debate about the role of superdelegates seems like a tempest in a teapot.
- Austin
PS – For some reason, I can no longer see the map I pasted into this post (I see a little empty box instead). Since I can’t figure out how to fix this, here’s a link to the map.
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: Andrew Jackson, Barack Obama, electoral college, Florida, John McCain, John Quincy Adams, Ohio, Pennsylvania
Come stop by and say “Hi”.
I have some other interesting stuff here, including links to potential VPs & cabinet positions.
Hans -
Very cool. You’re a couple steps ahead of me. I’m still trying to digest the Times article from a couple days ago about Obama’s body man and you’ve already got a pretty good line on a possible cabinet!
- Austin
Jon, you are on a roll. Shock and Au, baby.
We should get you an electronic map gizmo, like CNN John King’s. One can only imagine what obscene things you would draw with your fingers.
I think you’re right at this stage to forecast MN as blue, but I imagine some in the crowd will dispute?
Problem is, Obama couldn’t/didn’t win many of those states in his own party’s primary.
I’d bank on losing at least 1/3 of Hillary supporters after Obama is selected (not elected) by the party apparatus.
The devil is in the assumptions. It’s going to be a hell of a lot closer than your map suggests.
Congress’ most liberal senator v. an old war vet. The country will have a clear choice.
Having referenced John Quincy Adams and the election of 1824 twice in two weeks, we may have now reached levels of nerddom previously unknown to blogging.
Jon,
Ed beat me to the argument, but you’re essentially outlining the Clinton case to the superdelegates.
Of your states in play, she won the four largest (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan – yeah, I realize there were issues with two of them), lost #5 Virginia, won a close race in Indiana and lost a close one in Missouri, which are the other two double-digit states.
DJ
First, a nod to Hornseth who reminded me why the 1824 election has been bouncing around in my head for weeks; he put it there. I knew it was too deep a cultural reference to pull out on my own resources.
Second, in all of the battleground states I looked at recent polling numbers McCain vs. Obama and McCain vs. Clinton doesn’t produce different impressions. In fact, they’re almost identical. Also, I’m not ready to buy the “Dems will stay home for Obama” argument.
Third, these numbers also don’t reflect any real Dem work to position McCain (yes, I know Obama has moved in that direction in the last week but that is a small effort and began after most of the polling.
Fourth, in response to Ed, I like my party’s chances this year.
Let’s have a nice, long national debate over the next 5-6 months about the “clear choice” between a man who represents the best chance for meaningful positive change in Washington in a generation or more, who has demonstrated an ability to summon people from both sides of the aisle to support him and a man who is the antithesis of change in terms of age and political philosophy, who is the inheritor of a failed administration at home and abroad (one already in contention for the title of “worst ever”), running as the incumbent party in the worst economy since the depression.
You paint the choice in whatever terms you think best – inexperienced ultraliberal versus experienced independent veteran – and I’ll do likewise.
Everything I’m seeing – the recent special elections (where the GOP went 0-3 in contests they should have won), the record low approval numbers for the current administration, the record high numbers of voters who think the country is off track, the turnout disparity between GOP and Dems in the primaries and caucuses, the fundraising disparities at the party and campaign levels, the split between cultural and economic conservatives, a Libertarian candidacy and the impression that Senator McCain – who I think is a decent and honorable man who has earned our respect and thanks a thousand times over for his service to the country – is a temper tantrum waiting to happen – everything tells me I like our chances this year.
Bring it, Ed.
- Austin
The Dems have controlled both chambers of Congress for 4 years now and –even with a huge supporting cast of RINOs — they still haven’t been able to pass any legislation to either defund the war or schedule a troop pullout.
If America was so “pro-change,” why hasn’t the change occurred?
I think liberals are once again headed down the path to surprise – either a neck-and-neck finish, or perhaps even a loss.
There liberal is a tendency to think that because 70,000 birkenstocks in Oregon show up to see Obama that the rest of the country is equally energized by him. No so.
This will be a tight one.
Todd -
As an aside, the Dems got control in both houses in 2007, less than 2 years ago when the current 110th Congress convened.
You’re right, though, that the leadership switches have produced relatively little in terms of policy change but I attribute that more to the narrowness of their majorities (particularly in the Senate) and to the fact that we have a split executive and legislative branch. Give the Dems control of those two branches – which the Republicans have enjoyed for most of President Bush’s time in office – and let’s see what happens.
And, believe me, I worry about my tendencies all the time. I live in the most liberal corner of the most liberal city of the (arguably) most liberal state in the country. My neighborhood makes Oregon look like Utah.
That said, it’s more than 75,000 Oregonians. Obama has produced huge crowds consistently since Iowa and the Dems overall have turned out in far, far greater numbers that GOPs across the country. Not everyone is energized for Obama but as a party we’re as energized as I can remember. And, as I noted above, I’m not convinced that significant numbers will say “Oh, never mind” once the Democratic nomination is decided.
Still, six months is a long, long time and plenty will happen between hither and yon. Races – no matter how lopsided – usually close up as the election rolls around. And, as noted in another post about Al Franken, it’s possible for a Democratic candidate to screw up even in this environment.
- Austin
To Dr. Austin’s point.
Especially those “$200 and under” totals.
————
Presidential campaign contributions as of 4/30/2008
(source: http://www.fec.gov)
OBAMA: $265 million
$200 and Under $122,000,647
$200.01 – $499 $25,751,691
$500 – $999 $22,607,462
$1000 – $1999 $34,008,416
$2000 and Over $64,492,547
MCCAIN: $91 million
$200 and Under $27,712,139
$200.01 – $499 $4,379,068
$500 – $999 $7,753,582
$1000 – $1999 $15,954,391
$2000 and Over $38,324,868
Don’t put to much faith in primary results as a determining factor in the general election. Comparing Hillary v. Barack to either candidate v. Johnny Mac is irrelevant.
And seriously: Can we all agree the District of Colombia does not deserve three electoral votes?
Democrats will get VA one of these days, but I think they are still 1-2 cycles short. I dont think they have the numbers in NoVA yet to offset the rest of the state.
Bush hasn’t even had to veto an Iraq bill – that’s how gutless and unprincipled the Democratic congress has been.
There is no mandate for change, or we would have seen it by now.
Todd -
I don’t know if that’s the right issue to judge on; there’s plenty of Dems – me included – who don’t believe we can cut and run (even slowly and spun as “peace with honor” or whatever we might call a timetable).
In fact, that’s one of the things I’m most pissed about: President Bush put us recklessly and incompetently into a war we shouldn’t have started and now that we’re there I’m in the infuriating position of having to agree with the notion of staying longer to “finish the job.” We – the collective we who elected this administration and returned it to office – now bear the responsibility of fixing the mess we helped create. The costs are enormous in terms of lives, our standing in the world, our security and money but I believe the costs of the alternative are actually higher.
And, what really, really, REALLY pisses me off is the possibility that I’m losing more sleep over this than the President. I don’t see any sign that he’s ever suffered a moment of uncertainty that what he’s doing is right. That sort of certainty is not a quality I’m looking for in an elected leader. I want people who don’t see absolutes and who ask themselves – and others – a hundred times, “Is this right?” before committing the lives of men and women to a battle.
- Austin
Post 9/11 we needed to deliver shock therapy (targeted bombing missions) to a few key agitants in the Middle East.
But the ground invasion was a dumb ass idea. Everyone knows that fundamentalist towel-heads are incapable of self-governance and liberty.
My greatest fear is that a glassy-eyed idealist liberal president will think that we will be respected if we withdraw.
News alert: Fundamentalist zealots hate American liberals with equal venom.
JA,
you are the only one that speaks truth here. I have slept 2 or the last three nights and prior to that less than 4 hours per night for the previous week. all mainly due to this fucked up situation in Iraq and an egomaniacal family that thinks they are inherent replacements to power in the WH.
safer? which president is it exactly that has been on vacation more than any other in history? January 20th, 2001 assured us we would be in a war, 9-11 was a bombshell we did not foresee, but Iraq was an abortion in the making Jan 2001.
call liberals what the hell ever you want to, but don’t point fingers too far when the national debt has doubled over the period of republican dominance of Congress and the Wh without looking in the mirror first.
Austin: “And, what really, really, REALLY pisses me off is the possibility that I’m losing more sleep over this than the President. I don’t see any sign that he’s ever suffered a moment of uncertainty that what he’s doing is right.”
But he quit golfing!
And with the golf industry in a slump already! I would have loved to have been in the conference room at the PGA headquarters for the meeting to deal with this latest “crisis.”
A thousand bucks says some PR type put some ideas on the table to “make playing golf an act of patriotism.” A portion of every PGA-branded item sold gets donated to some vet-related cause, a program to use golf as part of the physical rehabilitation for injured soliders, VIP passes for active-duty soldiers.
- Austin
Austin’s map says Obama should choose Bill Richardson as veep. He’d help in New Mexico, Colorado and Florida. He’s also the right person in terms of experience — governor, cabinet secretary, UN Ambassador. He’s the right guy for the election and for the position.
And, Brother Hornseth, let’s remember the election of 1824 brought “the corrupt bargain” into the political lexicon. JQ Adams was accused of getting Henry Clay’s support to beat Andrew Jackson by appointing Clay secretary of state. (Jackson came back to win four years later.) The corrupt bargain of this year would be Obama naming Hillary Clinton VP — resorting to the old politics he claims to disdain just to get elected. Let’s hope Obama is no John Quincy Adams.
Richardson should be named Sec of State early for the reasons you mention. I’d love him as VP, but we need a non “minority” strong on defense & military (not hawk, put responsible military) as VP to consolidate middle america voters.
Richardson, due to the huge influx of illegals, into small town america might push away voters who feel the direct affects of the “Mexification” of Small Town, America. (this is not said from a Lou Dobbs’ perspective, but rather reality for those whose schools are “overwhelmed” by hispanic ESL students, non paying emergency room visits for a minor cold, etc.)
Richardson consolidating Latinos is important, but would give the “excuse” for middle America to swallow the bitter pill of McCain. I am not implying we’d win Kentucky, but it does have an huge impact on the bread basket states west of the mississippi.
Hans’s response brings up another third rail — can we talk about the fears people have, and the prejudices, of people who are different from them, whether Hispanic, Asian, Native American, black, whatever. And not just on economic bases, such as “they’ll take my job…” or “my taxes will go up for social services,” but just plain old prejudice and fear.
I’m probably naive, but I didn’t think about Richardson in terms of this. Hans says “due to the huge flux of illegals into small town america…” Prejudice is triggered not just by illegal immigration, but by legal immigration, and by American citizens who move into towns or neighborhoods previously all Caucasian. Delicate stuff to talk about, but maybe a Richardson candidacy would get us talking about another variety of prejudice.
[...] on July 20, 2008 by Jon Austin Faithful readers will recall that back at the end of May, I posted my first cut of how the general election contest was shaping up looked. Back then, I posted a short list of [...]
huh, this got pinged, and I read Todd M’s comments on 70,000 birkenstock wearers in Oregon not mattering much.
I doubt Todd was there in Oregon amonst all the people, but I was and got to say I didn’t see too many Birkenstocks or dreads for that matter. Apparently, Todd has absolutely no idea about the breakdown in Oregon (a 50/50 state for Senators & population). Hopefully, we’ll be rid of Gordon Smith this fall. Pretty boy, who voted in lockstep with Bush, uses Obama in his ads to claim “Obama supports him [Smith]“. What a pathetic Republican! Claims the enemy supports him to try to hold his seat! What’s next the Gay & Lesbians support Larry “Wide Stance” Craig?!
rofl!
A new Presidential Election Map allows you to see exactly how and why the election is so close. This map ignores land mass in favor of one dimension only – how many people live in each state.
Each of the map’s grid squares represents 250,000 people. On the map is the exact population of the larger states along with each state’s electoral votes. The bigger the state on this map, the greater the electoral clout. This type of map demonstrates the power & importance of the toss-up states. See article at http://www10.giscafe.com/nbc/articles/view_article.php?articleid=601182 Map and images are at: http://odtmaps.com/detail.asp_Q_product_id_E_pres-map-2008 GIF files from ODTmaps.com are downloadable and free between now and the election. ODT grants gratis permission for any non-profit use of the maps.