ELECTION PROJECTION- 6/9: McCAIN 282 OBAMA 256
By theoneandonlyfinn Posted in 2008 — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Note- recent data out of Missouri by Rasmussen skews the average to just +1.5 McCain- Obamas best performance since his February high.
We may very well face the possibility of Obama racking up huge numbers in the traditionally Democratic states, enough to give him a substantial lead in the popular vote - yet unless he can swing back the blue collar voters in states like Michigan and Ohio, he could still lose the electoral vote and the election.
Watch Ohio...in about a week all but Quinnipiacs polling data will expire and lose its full standing in the polling average (that would subsequently push Ohio further back into McCain territory). Im sure Research2000, SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, SV, etc will release fresh data in the Buckeye state.
I never thought i'd see it so localized geographically.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I thought that the blue areas were charting mental problems and the red showed reasonable intelligence.
With Pawlenty as VP Minnesota could have potential. I would have thought Wisconsin would also trend red but the poll must be accounting for the mass of Chicago voter fraud coming across the border.
Vote Early. Vote Often. Bring some Cheese Back to Chitown.
---------------------------------
Oil: Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.
But it shouldn't last. These "bumps" are almost always one-week wonders.
As an Obama supporter, I am encouraged by the fact that though this shows us losing, there are more "lean Republican" states than "lean Democratic" states. I think that we are likely to pick off at least one of Ohio, Virginia, Michigan.
Another site that does these electoral projection things, is this site. It has a percent chance of each state going to Obama versus McCain (examples: Florida it has at 79% chance McCain, Wisconsin it has at 66% Obama). It has a projected Electoral vote total, which my guess is is derived from taking the sum over all states (+ DC) of the chance of each candidate winning it * its number of votes.
It gets an estimate of 271.9-266.1 for Obama - in other words, absurdly close. Even this estimate is pretty close - slightly closer than 2004. 2004 was the closest election from an Electoral Map standpoint since 1916, excluding 2000, so close is the norm these days (only once in the period 1920-1996 inclusive did nobody get 300 Electoral Voters, when Jimmy Carter got 297, and now it has happened twice in a row and 2008 might be three times).
and HominidViews.com are the projection sites I frequent most often. Usually if a poll flies under the radar, both sites pick them up. FTE's polling methodology is nearly identical to my own (hence we both show Ohio and Missouri going to McCain while Electoral-Vote.com and ElectionProjection.com give both to Obama).
He holds onto some older polls though in his calculations, hence his showing New Hampshire as slightly McCain...
For all the talk about how the electoral map would change with two entirely different sorts of candidates from President Bush and Senator Kerry, the map is really pretty much the same.
Kerry and Obama are both the most liberal senators the Democrats could nominate. Bush and McCain are both conservatives "with a twist" (compassionate conservative, or maverick conservative). I really don't think it's too surprising.
I've been betting Democrat friends that McCain will get at least 350. I've been very surprised by the number of them who won't put actual money on the table at 350 despite being very partisan, pro-Obama Dems.
Try it yourself.
Here is CNN's latest electoral map. It seems to be a very cautious map, tending towards lots of tossups (Florida and Minnesota, for instance), and some odd choices (Indiana and Georgia only leaning McCain, but New Mexico also leaning McCain), but still interesting to compare.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Let's look at Obama's best-case scenario (based on this map):
- He holds every "Blue" state on the map: 256 EV
- He adds every "Weak GOP" State (MI,MO,OH,NC,VA): +76 EV
- He adds most* "mod. GOP" states (AK,IN,MT,NV): +22 EV
* I don't care what anyone says - Obama will never win ND, MS or SC.
This would give Obama exactly 350 EV, and would be trumpeted by the Left-Wing Press as giving Obama an "irrefutable mandate".
If that happens, let's hope he and his Administration take it as a license to try and pass every hair-brained Left-Wing scheme and program they can come up with. For that will be their undoing...
This would give Obama exactly 350 EV, and would be trumpeted by the Left-Wing Press as giving Obama an "irrefutable mandate".
You say this like 350 Electoral votes would not be a mandate. Bush got 286 in 04, and it was called a mandate by the press. Why wouldn't 350 electoral votes be a mandate?
Also, what about Florida?
And on the map, FL is listed as strong GOP. (Recent polls have McCain up about 9% or so in FL.)
Personally, while I expect FL to tighten, I do not expect McCain to lose FL (baring a *huge* Obama win), so my analysis would be the same.
As to your claim, my recollection is that Bush's '04 win was *not* declared a "mandate" by anyone in the Press, outside of maybe people like Fred Barnes. That word certainly never passed the lips of anyone on CNN or MSNBC to the best of my recollection.
Here are some examples I found of the media saying it's a mandate after 2004, which I just found searching online quickly so it isn't the most exhaustive list ever:
Weekly Standard (not sure if this counts though)
I remember it being all on the news also, but of course can't pull that up online.
Anyway, these all use the m-word.
Moderate DEM? Really? What poll created that result?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”