Recently I made my own prediction of what I think will happen come November in the General Election. As you can see, I have Obama winning without even the swing states of Ohio and Florida. Some may think this is crazy, but I believe this math (depending on the future) is a very possible scenario, especially after the bump Obama gets now that Clinton has left. I will update this as time goes by…
The swing states I gave Obama were CO, NM, IA, MN, WI, MI, and NH.
The swing states I gave McCain were NV, IN, VA, NC, SC, GA, and MO.
Any of these states could go to the other candidate, but looking at polls and history, I think this is a very logical result. The Vice Presidency choice will also possibly effect the math, but not necessarily. I should also mention that Nebraska is divided by congressional district, so its possible Obama could lose the state, but still get a few electoral votes.
Ohio and Florida are currently just too close to call. But if I had to guess, I would give Ohio to Obama and Florida to McCain. Once again though, I think this math is very fair to both sides. And Obama has a very good chance of picking of Nevada, Virginia, and maybe even Georgia/South Carolina/North Carolina. With Libertarian Bob Barr running, McCain may lose enough votes in those states to be crippled…
Here are the results from the 2004 election:
Here was a map recently created based on current polling data:
What do you think?
The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
By: mvy on May 30, 2008
at 4:55 pm
I agree with you that something definitely needs to be done about the current way we elect the President through the electoral college.
However, there are issues with the National Popular Vote as well. I don’t want to get into a debate about it, mostly because I truly agree with you, but there definitely are some difficulties that arise with that plan. I do think we should AT LEAST make it so its not a winner take all system. There is no reason that we can’t elect in the General Election a President like we elect a nominee in the primary for the Democratic race. Its more difficult and complex and longer, but its also far more democratic and fair to the voters as a whole…
By: Politics In Moderation on May 30, 2008
at 5:46 pm
The popular vote means nothing. Why? Because the States elect the President, not the people.
The Presidency is an office to head the Federal Government. The Federal Government is the result of the several States pooling their resources and creating a singular government for dealing with foreign powers and internal disputes.
The Presidency is not an office to represent the citizens of the several states. The reason that our government was structured this way was to prevent the large urban centers from dominating the political process. Large populous states could not take over and run roughshod over small rural states.
By electing a President through a popular vote you ensure that the President will govern only by whats good for the urban voters and at the expense of rural ones. That’s why we have an electoral college, to balance the power of Federal Government and prevent mob rule.
By: R. Ford Mashburn on June 10, 2008
at 3:40 pm
I agree with you as well.
However, would you agree that we should no longer have a winner take all electoral college system in the states? It allows voters to have a greater say, while still ensuring that the states decide who wins. I think the recent Democratic race, having Obama and Clinton heavily campaigning in such states as South Dakota and Indiana, proves that this could be a better system…
By: Politics In Moderation on June 10, 2008
at 3:56 pm
Realistically, you should keep in mind that leading bellwethers Missouri, Nevada, and Ohio are typically in agreement from one election to the next. Over the past 25 elections (1908-2004), the three agreed 20 times. In each of those 20, they picked the winner. When they didn’t all agree, two of them selected the winner. (Proof: Missouri has voted for the winner in every election since 1904 with exception of 1956; Nevada since 1912 with exception of 1976; Ohio was wrong only twice in the 20th century—in 1944 and 1960. A recap: Nevada was wrong in 1908 and 1976; Ohio in 1944 and 1960; Mo. in 1956. Each time they infrequently made a mistake, the other two backed the winner.)
Look for Obama to win the election, and pick off the following: Missouri, Nevada, Ohio (no Republican has ever won the election without it!). He’ll win back Iowa and New Mexico. Look to Montana, which has voted identially with Colo. in the ten past elections (from 1968-2004, it has voted for the Dems just once—Bill Clinton’s first election, 1992, and Colo. has steadily held in the polls as a Dems pickup. Don’t be surprised if Montana—revealed July 3 by Rasmussen Reports as 3 points up for Obama—goes along).
Also look for Florida or Georgia (won by Jimmy Carter in 1976, Clinton won them both as well—but in separate elections, picking up the latter in 1992 and the former in 1996). Also keep an eye on West Virginia. Yeah, they may insist on not voting for Obama (according to polls), but it is less than ten points, lately, for McCain—and, historically, ever since its statehood in 1863, every Democratic president we’ve ever had won the state (with just one exception: Woodrow Wilson’s 1916 re-election; then again, Wilson prevailed there as well…in his first try, in 1812).
There’s lots more potential for Obama to expand the electoral map. McCain—due to the issues over economy and war—will be on defense, trying to preserve Bush’s 2000 and/or 2004 (where three states didn’t vote the same in both—Ia., N.M., and N.H. My prediction, of course, is all three will go back to blue in ‘08).
In conclusion: I predict Obama will win the election with over 300 electoral votes. If he’s modestly successful, he’ll be in the 301-325 range; 326-350 for hearty success; 351-375 for a really decisive victory; 376-400 for a defining victory; and 401-plus along the lines of a landslide.
By: D on July 4, 2008
at 12:09 am
This is a response to mvy. I’m not really big into politics seeing that i just turned 18 and this will be my first major election. I see where your coming from in saying that it should be by popular vote and not electoral, but i have to disagree. the electoral votes of a state come from the number of members from a state in the house and the senate from that state. the house was set up to give a vote by popular vote (by representatives) but the senate is set up so that everyone can get a voice, even the smaller guys, so that it can be more balanced out. the electoral collage combines the two in harmony. It is not an electoral collage that is flawed, but in how some states are “all or nothing”. I dont know everything, especially about politics, but just think about it.
By: ben on July 4, 2008
at 6:14 am
LOL….texas a swing state?….give me a break…thats the biggest load ever…michagan hates the DEMOCRATIC senator in office right now so im pretty sure michagan will roll republican….let me explain something to you people that no one seems to understand…Obama doesn’t have a stand on any issues what so ever…yes …he is a wonderful speaker….and yes he speaks good for the democrats but no of those are his ideas….its his campaign staff…and arent they the same ones making all those radical comments……Palin is the one who is qualified….and McCain picked perfect. If we were to be attacked by anyone, she could handle it, McCain would tire and Obama has no expertise…sorry.. Palin has guts and the ability/motivation to kick ass. I love how people are so quick to associate one person with the entire party….John McCain and George Bush….but should it also be the other way around?…..John Edwards having extra marital affairs when his wife has CANCER….WHO DOES that? or how about Bill Clinton signing NAFTA making us lose all our jobs setting up the next president for failure and then not caring by having relations with his staff, or better yet… John Kerry bashing our troops in Iraq. People die defending this country and all people can do is complain how they are over there….it wasnt a draft, nobody gets paid just to sign up for everything, if u enlist you shoudl be ready to serve and it was not forced…imagine serving your country by force? OH WAIT, they did that, and they were proud to do it. Wanna know what America is today….a bunch of sissys who put to shame what people defend and gave up their lives for so long ago.
By: quenton kidder on September 14, 2008
at 4:28 am
I’m hearing now that the elector votes are at 269 each making it a tied race and I think it will now come down to the debates and which one does the best on the issues and John McCain should win the debates hands down because Obama is having to study for them and should have knew what to answer without studing for it!
By: goodtimepolitics on September 23, 2008
at 4:08 am
This election will come down to race. Obama is the superior candidate in every way. He will fix the problems of the last 8 years and give working and middle class people a better life. The rich and lobbyists will surely lose in an obama presidency. However, Obama is not white and as such this will be a race because ignornace and racism still prevail. It will all come down to white kids and voters in the box. If they can live with a black prez, your lives will be better, if not, 4 more years of Bush and wars (Iraq for sure and Iran i think.)
By: Ed Vedder on September 30, 2008
at 8:34 am
R. Ford Mashburn said it very well. Let’s not be bitter about past losses and change the constitution because of a few lost elections.
By: teecee on October 7, 2008
at 8:10 pm
Texas a swing state? What crack are you smoking? Texas is a SOLID Republican state. We’re not stupid like the rest of the country.
By: James Kingsmill on December 23, 2008
at 5:20 am