<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 9 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This could be a dangerous election. The electoral college is going to be close, but Obama has the popular vote locked up already imo, and it will be a pretty significant margin. Gore won by 500,000 votes or so, Obama is going to crush that number. Breaking it down....start with Texas. Gore/Kerry both got slaughtered in Texas, in part because George W. was the governor there. Using the most recent poll data, I think somewhere along the lines of a McCain 53 Obama 46 seems about appropriate for Texas. Say Texas has the same 7.41 million votes. This would give McCain 3.93 million Texas votes, and Obama 3.41 million. This would net the Democrats 1.18 million votes just from Texas over the last election. I don't think Obama can come close to winning Texas, but the gap is definitely going to be a whole lot thinner than last election. Looking at the deep South, Obama is doing on pace with Kerry from 2004...might do a little better depending on how well his organization can bring out the black vote (remember, they didn't do too well during the primary rallying that). If he rallies the blacks, he can maybe get up to 39% in Alabama. Maybe net 60,000 votes here. Arkansas you can't tell yet until he gets out of this divisive campaign with Clinton...could probably lose votes here canceling out Alabama. Could pick up 140,000 or so in Georgia. Obama will run up the score in big population areas like New York, Chicago, and LA more so than Kerry could. He'll make Indiana somewhat competitive, while still losing...He'll pickup votes in the Southwest, in New Mexico, Colarado, and Nevada...possibly winning all three. He'll do better in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, but not necessarily win. He is more popular in Wisconsin/Minnesota than Kerry was, so he'll run up some extra votes there. He'll win Iowa, doing better than Kerry. I think Obama will definitely have at least a 1 million popular vote lead, I think 2 million is definitely likely as well...but I'm still not sure that he will win the presidency, even with that. Then we will once again be a laughingstock for the rest of the world...denying the possible first black president, who won the election by plenty...it could be a shame. Rioting will occur.</div> What's your overall prediction of the EC then BG7? Great analysis though.
No amendment will ever be voted for to change the electoral college. The democrats only whine about it because of one election they lost while winning California big and losing most everywhere else. Bill Clinton won the electoral college twice. The first time with 43% of the popular vote, the second with 48%. Not even a majority, and that 43% is pretty pathetic, eh? But the system worked and the right guy got the office, given how the people voted. Your ideas on what's fair to elect the president gives new meaning to "fly-over country."
Also, didn't Maryland and New Jersey both pass laws that their electoral college voters are to vote for the winner of the popular vote? More states may move in this direction.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No amendment will ever be voted for to change the electoral college. The democrats only whine about it because of one election they lost while winning California big and losing most everywhere else. Bill Clinton won the electoral college twice. The first time with 43% of the popular vote, the second with 48%. Not even a majority, and that 43% is pretty pathetic, eh? But the system worked and the right guy got the office, given how the people voted. Your ideas on what's fair to elect the president gives new meaning to "fly-over country."</div> We can screw the EC in the states like BG7 said. Whether or not the Democrats get screwed is not my concern, if I lose I'd like it to be in a more decent manner. I don't care about Bill Clinton, I want the right guy to win; even if it's McCain.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 9 2008, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Also, didn't Maryland and New Jersey both pass laws that their electoral college voters are to vote for the winner of the popular vote? More states may move in this direction.</div> So just to clarify, you have McCain getting to 270 in your analysis, or you're saying it is close?
^^^ The constitution states that the LEGISLATURES of the states determine how their electors are chosen. They can, in theory, just vote for them themselves or give the governor the power to appoint them. Thus, a state legislature like MD's or NJ's can choose their electors by national popular vote.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^ The constitution states that the LEGISLATURES of the states determine how their electors are chosen. They can, in theory, just vote for them themselves or give the governor the power to appoint them. Thus, a state legislature like MD's or NJ's can choose their electors by national popular vote.</div> That's not the point Denny. I'm not arguing the legalities exactly. Plus it is great that some states seem to have the right mentality.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ev/ You might start with the 2004 results and see which states you think will flip for Obama and for Hillary.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^ The constitution states that the LEGISLATURES of the states determine how their electors are chosen. They can, in theory, just vote for them themselves or give the governor the power to appoint them. Thus, a state legislature like MD's or NJ's can choose their electors by national popular vote.</div> That's not the point Denny. I'm not arguing the legalities exactly. Plus it is great that some states seem to have the right mentality. </div> The bigger states obviously would have your "right mentality" since it gives them way more power in the elections and deprives the smaller states of power in the process.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^ The constitution states that the LEGISLATURES of the states determine how their electors are chosen. They can, in theory, just vote for them themselves or give the governor the power to appoint them. Thus, a state legislature like MD's or NJ's can choose their electors by national popular vote.</div> That's not the point Denny. I'm not arguing the legalities exactly. Plus it is great that some states seem to have the right mentality. </div> The bigger states obviously would have your "right mentality" since it gives them way more power in the elections and deprives the smaller states of power in the process. </div> Your mentality deprives in it's own sense. Worse I would say.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>http://americanresearchgroup.com/ev/ You might start with the 2004 results and see which states you think will flip for Obama and for Hillary.</div> Ah well, thanks for that sir.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May09.html http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clin...Maps/May09.html That site is run by a staunch democratic party supporter.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May09.html http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clin...Maps/May09.html That site is run by a staunch democratic party supporter.</div> Yep that's exactly what I meant about this year.
I have: Alabama- McCain (9) Alaska- McCain (3) Arizona- McCain (10) Arkansas- McCain (6) California- Obama (55) Colorado- Obama (9) Conneticut- Obama (7) Delaware- Obama (3) Florida- McCain (27) Georgia- McCain (15) Hawaii- Obama (4) Idaho- McCain (4) Illinois- Obama (21) Indiana- Obama (11) Iowa- Obama (7) Kansas- McCain (6) Kentucky- McCain (8) Louisiana- McCain (9) Maine- Obama (4) Maryland- Obama (10) Massachusetts- Obama (12) Michigan- Obama (17) Minnesota- Obama (10) Mississippi- McCain (6) Missouri- McCain (11) Montana- McCain (3) Nebraska- Obama (5) Nevada- Obama (5) New Hampshire- McCain (4) New Jersey- Obama (15) New Mexico- Obama (5) New York- Obama (31) North Carolina- McCain (15) North Dakota- Obama (3) Ohio- McCain (20) Oklahoma- McCain (7) Oregon- Obama (7) Pennsylvania- McCain (21) Rhode Island- Obama (4) South Carolina- McCain (8) South Dakota- Obama (3) Tennessee- McCain (11) Texas- McCain (34) Utah- McCain (5) Vermont- Obama (3) Virginia- McCain (13) Washington- Obama (11) West Virgnia- McCain (5) Wisconsin- Obama (10) Wyoming- McCain (3) DC- Obama (3) So that would make it: Obama 280 vs. McCain 258
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 9 2008, 09:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I have: Alabama- McCain (9) Alaska- McCain (3) Arizona- McCain (10) Arkansas- McCain (6) California- Obama (55) Colorado- Obama (9) Conneticut- Obama (7) Delaware- Obama (3) Florida- McCain (27) Georgia- McCain (15) Hawaii- Obama (4) Idaho- McCain (4) Illinois- Obama (21) Indiana- Obama (11) Iowa- Obama (7) Kansas- McCain (6) Kentucky- McCain (8) Louisiana- McCain (9) Maine- Obama (4) Maryland- Obama (10) Massachusetts- Obama (12) Michigan- Obama (17) Minnesota- Obama (10) Mississippi- McCain (6) Missouri- McCain (11) Montana- McCain (3) Nebraska- Obama (5) Nevada- Obama (5) New Hampshire- McCain (4) New Jersey- Obama (15) New Mexico- Obama (5) New York- Obama (31) North Carolina- McCain (15) North Dakota- Obama (3) Ohio- McCain (20) Oklahoma- McCain (7) Oregon- Obama (7) Pennsylvania- McCain (21) Rhode Island- Obama (4) South Carolina- McCain (8) South Dakota- Obama (3) Tennessee- McCain (11) Texas- McCain (34) Utah- McCain (5) Vermont- Obama (3) Virginia- McCain (13) Washington- Obama (11) West Virgnia- McCain (5) Wisconsin- Obama (10) Wyoming- McCain (3) DC- Obama (3) So that would make it: Obama 280 vs. McCain 258</div> Ah good, there's still hope. I thought I had seen some other pro-Obama tallies like that too.
The popular vote is well represented. Obama wins two states, California and New York, and gets 86 electoral votes, or 32% of all the votes needed to win the electoral college. There's absolutely no way Obama wins if he loses Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. That'd put McCain near 300 electoral votes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The popular vote is well represented. Obama wins two states, California and New York, and gets 86 electoral votes, or 32% of all the votes needed to win the electoral college. There's absolutely no way Obama wins if he loses Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. That'd put McCain near 300 electoral votes.</div> Not measuring the magnitudes of wins and losses is dangerous. He won't lose Penn, I heard he might even cover up for that state with the appropriate VP. Obama's surged in head to head match-ups against McCain for the last week.
Rasmussen has the Democrats having 260 leaning democrats to 240 leaning republican, with 4 toss up states (Nevada, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Colorado). Under this scenario, Ohio would be the best route, since that single state wins it. Then the second scenario to go after would be Colarado + 1. New Hampshire/Nevada or just Colorado would yield a freaking tie. I would actually kind of want to see that NH/NV scenario happen, just to see how it plays out. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._college_update In the 4 tossups: Colarado: Obama 46 McCain 43 Nevada: McCain 48 Obama 43 New Hampshire: McCain 51 Obama 41 Ohio: McCain 47 Obama 40 So they actually have the tie scenario playing out on Rasmussen right now! Although there is one fatal flaw in this. They have Nebraska as strongly Republican (they didn't do any polling for this set...I'm pretty sure it is not strongly rRepublican), but they ignore the fact that Nebraska chooses EC's by congressional district as well, and most polls show Obama winning 2 EC's out of Nebraska at least, so that would make Obama the winner, 271 to 267.
