Obama Map

Email Print posted by Nick86 05/13/2008 05:14:34 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!

This is my Obama map, how he can win without pandering to those "blue collar white vote" a.k.a. racist vote. The dark blue states are secure Democratic states, and the baby blue are states where he can win by over a 50% probability. The Obama map!
< Hagee Apologizes & MSNBC's Contessa Brewer Fails Miserably | Meanwhile--The Dems take ANOTHER seat from GOP >
 Display:
Obama Map | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden)
The numbers (none / 0)
I concur with your map.

If you go to fivethirtyeight.com, they have calculated the probabilities of Obama and Clinton winning every state.

They use polls, demographic analysis, historical data and plug it into a computer program that runs 10,000 simulated elections.

I have plugged those numbers in, (those states that Obama has a 50+% chance of winning and here are the EV numbers when you count OH, FL for McCain and PA, CO, NV and NM for Obama.

Obama: 274
McCain: 264

So indeed, Obama need not worry about the likes of WV, because they are a small minority of the country that represents the past. The larger states that are thriving and growing, (western states like CO, NM, NV, OR, WA) are with us.

Oh and lets not forget, Obama has no problem winning working class white votes, (ND, ID, KS, MN, WI anyone?)  It's the votes of  racists that he will never win, (a poll in KY found that 56% claimed race had no meaning for them, while 44% it had some, and 20% said it was very important, and those are the people who admitted they were racist to a pollster, you know the real number is higher and that's KY, WV is even more ignorant than KY, ie, least educated state in the nation).

I say screw the bigots, (who told reporters that Obama was an america hating muslim with an atheist wife who wants to take their guns away and doesn't wear a flag lapel pin and that's why they won't vote for him, Oh, hear's an actual quote, "McCain is a real blooded American") we can drag their sorry asses into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if need be.

by adamg on 05/13/2008 07:06:51 PM EST

Pregunta (none / 0)

"(western states like CO, NM, NV, OR, WA) are with us."

How "with us" are CO, NM, and NV? Realistically speaking, how reliable are these states come November. If Obama loses those states and does not gain a Ohio or Florida its over. If those states shift to the D column, does this represent a secular shift towards the Democrats in those states?
 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/13/2008 07:18:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Answers (none / 0)

a) not very

b) likely to go Dem, not reliably

c) pretty much

d) no.  NM went blue in 04.  CO and NV have trended to the left for a while.  Increased Mexican pops seem to be the cause.  But they could also go in 08 simply because GOP support is at an all time low.  Could be right back in 12 or 16 if the GOP reinvents itself and makes nice with the mexicans

Bonus E) Keep in mind this analysis is all based on a 50/50 scenario which I find increasingly less likely.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 11:15:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
CO should be in the bag (none / 0)
I'm not sure about NV.  NM is iffy, pretty rural for the most part, but has trended blue.

CO has really skewed blue big time in the last four years.  The dems swept into the state house, state senate, and governor's seat in 2006.  The only thing I can see that would keep CO from voting dem is if there is trouble from the convention.  And I'm not talking about delegate trouble or a brokered convention.  I am worried that if the convention causes a huge hassle for everyone that lives here, they will be pissed at the dems and take it out on them at the voting booth.  I'm not sure how real that fear is, and I wonder if anyone knows if that type of response has happened in previous years.  I know I am not looking forward to the convention and getting around the city that week.  Of course, it won't keep me from voting Democrat, but I am not on the fence. 

by jawill11 on 05/14/2008 02:56:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think (none / 0)
Having the convention in a state makes it MORE likely that party will win the state.  Not less.
Plus the inconvenienced will be Denveronianites (or something) and they will vote Dem anyway.

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 03:52:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you guys are amateurs (none / 0)
Here's how a pro analyzes the current race.
obama



If you give me Ohio, I don't see how Obama gets to 270. In fact, I am now willing to predict that the candidate who wins Ohio will win the election. (And I'm not saying that McCain is guaranteed to win Ohio.)

Here's an interesting trivia question: In the last 100 years, how many times has a Democrat won the presidency without winning West Virginia's electoral votes?

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 07:59:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Say, isn't he the guy who said... (none / 0)

...that the Republicans would continue to hold a majority in both the House and the Senate in the '06 election? How'd that turn out for ya? What was his prediction? 10 seats? He was only off by forty, counting the 30 the Dems DID pick up (to take the majority).

How was it the NY Times worded it when Turdblossom took his leave?

"Instead he stayed on, through the midterm elections last fall, which put Democrats in control of Congress and tempered Mr. Rove’s reputation as a political genius..."

That sounds soooo much better than "trying to stay two steps ahead of Congressional indictments."

As far as his powers of prognostication, keep these words close at hand in the following years and refer to them often. For comfort.

"He predicted that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings would rise again, that Iraq would “be in a better place” and, perhaps most significant for his own legacy, that a Republican candidate had “a very good chance” to win the 2008 election because the Democrats would nominate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton."

I mean, as if 8 years of Bush in Texas and 8 years of Bush in D.C. aren't enough to convince you of this guy's utter incompetence at getting things done, by all means hire him as your next Public Relations director. Just think! What he did for America, he can do for YOU!

by MedfordTim on 05/13/2008 08:27:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Testament (none / 0)
...of how usually the most incompotent get the best positions.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/13/2008 08:31:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim, you're missing the point. (none / 0)
"I mean, as if 8 years of Bush in Texas and 8 years of Bush in D.C. aren't enough to convince you of this guy's utter incompetence at getting things done."

Karl Rove got Bush elected Governor of Texas twice, and President twice. When Karl found George, he was sitting in Rangers Stadium, eating a bag of peanuts and whooping it up.

Now then, would you like to reconsider Rove's capability as a political kingmaker?

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 08:33:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Barely, both times (none / 1)
And his stock has been moving steadily down.

Yesterday's news is only good for wrapping fish...

by MedfordTim on 05/13/2008 09:48:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 0)

That is interesting. Texas is only +4% and 1 point away from being yellow. Sign of things to come I would say.

Thanks W. 

by z1p101 on 05/13/2008 09:57:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
LMAO (none / 0)
The Map says KARL ROVE right on it.

Try again.

by richardshort2001 on 05/14/2008 12:39:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Didn't Hot Karl also predict a landslide (none / 0)
for the Repubs in 06?

How did that turn out?

by richardshort2001 on 05/14/2008 12:41:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey (none / 0)
he had "The Math".

by z1p101 on 05/14/2008 11:02:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
that is hilarious (none / 0)
I am sure Senators Allen and Santorum read that every day and feel all warm and fuzzy.

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 11:58:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I was gonna riff on Rove (none / 0)

But Tim did it better than I could.  (Tim is on fire lately, btw)

You know this map is legit when it has Nebraska as a toss-up state. What a joke.

How do we win without Ohio? Easy.  We win all the blue above + NM, CO, MI and PA.  You didn't really think that out did you?

As for your trivia question, I don't think you know the answer.  I do.  Judging by the media spin on this I might be the only person in America who does though.  But then my hobby is making massive comprehensive spreadsheets of data so nothing to brag about.  How many time have the Dems won without WV in the last 100 years, Ken?

How many time has the GOP won without Colorado in that span? Nevada? 

What two states has the GOP never won the general when the dems carried? Ever? 

What three other states has the GOP had in every win since 1900?

Just to show how much any of that actually means- The GOP had never won an election without IL, PA and VT until 2000. (which they actually lost).  They lost IL, PA and VT in 2000 and 2004.

NJ, CT  and DE were necessary from 1896 to 2000 when the GOP lost them both.

CA went for every winning Republican from 1888-2000. 

This shit means nothing.  (Its interesting though).

OH is on an 11 election win streak, so are KY and TN (were wrong on JFK), LA is at 10, AR and MO are the active leader at 12.

Taking a quick look at the 20th century the longest win streak I found was TX with 16 from 1912-1988.  IL and NJ had streaks of 14

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 12:58:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
forget about history (none / 0)

It's really not relevant to this election... new, unexpected things happen all the time.  Ohio and Florida may not be very important this year if Obama can pick up Kansas, Colorado, and Mississippi.  The 50 state strategy will be in full effect for the first time this year. 

 

I don't think any plan that relies on New Mexico or Nevada is a winning one, though.  Too many shenanigans in NM and NV has relatively unknown demographics.   

by schmoab on 05/14/2008 01:37:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
obscure (none / 0)
"How many time have the Dems won without WV in the last 100 years, Ken?"

I can think of 1916. Which one am I missing?

by KenTX on 05/14/2008 05:36:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That is the one (none / 0)

By your logic Colorado is at least as important if not more to the GOP.  So is Nevada.  So lets start watching those if this means anything. 

Now the other questions?

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 09:50:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
1916 is interesting (none / 0)
Woodrow Wilson was a Virginian. I can't understand why WV would not support him? Did it vave something to do with the split of the state during the Civil War?

by KenTX on 05/14/2008 10:43:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That makes sense (none / 0)

Of course that election was all about war and peace.  Could be WV was wanting to enter WWI. 

Although the hatred of Virginia seems reasonable. 

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 11:27:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What I see on your map (none / 0)
Is a big fat spoiler down there in the form of Texas.  I think Obama can pull out Texas, and if he does, you can have Ohio, WV, NV, NE, and NH. 

There is also no chance in hell that Obama doesn't win PA and MI over McPander.

by jawill11 on 05/14/2008 03:02:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great LGreat liink (none / 0)
Great link to fivethirtyeight.com. Thanks.

by Verified1 on 05/14/2008 02:55:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Like I have been saying (none / 0)

That is the clearest path to victory with one caveat.

Obama can lose one state with five or fewer EV and still win.

SO he can lose NV, NM or NH and still win.

All that I understand.  Now I need someont to explain where the notion that Obama will win KS, MS or IN in anything but a landslide comes from.  Those are some deeeeeeep red states, man.

After those on the map, the next to fall are OH, VA and NC according to the data I'm looking at.

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 01:50:45 AM EST

Hey Rich!! Read this!!!! (none / 0)
Laugh this off.

"More worrying for Obama is that a breakdown of the polling exposed divisions in the party. The exit polls showed that 35% of Clinton supporters would vote for the Republican John McCain in the November general election rather than Obama."

Another 22% said they would simply stay home and not vote. So how many Clinton fans need to make good on this promise to give the election to McCain? Probably only need to flip 5%.

by KenTX on 05/14/2008 06:20:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I keep telling you (none / 0)

"So how many Clinton fans need to make good on this promise to give the election to McCain?"

Answer: Significantly more than Republican McCain haters (like Limbaugh et. al) need to make good on their promise to give it to Obama.

Do you have the memory of a goldfish?  THIS HAPPENS EVERY PRIMARY.  It just happened in the GOP primary.  Of course, it is particularly bad for Grampa Death.  He won the nomination on Super Tuesday and still loses 25-35% of his own parties vote in primaries and has yet to be able to run to the center because his base problems are so bad. 

You should follow both parties.  You might be shocked at what you learn. 

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 08:23:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Limbaugh supports McCain (none / 0)
You never listen to his show, so you're uninformed on the subject. Ann Coulter says she will vote for Hillary over McCain, but she's a nut, and she'll reverse course before the election. My wife hates McCain over immigration, but she will vote for him. I personally know a few Hillary lovers who will vote McCain out of protest. But I don't know what they would do if Hillary is VP. That might change things.

by KenTX on 05/14/2008 10:55:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
they'll be back (none / 0)

Obama is going to move to the center now.  Since Hillbots are to the right of Obama, he can pick them up on the way.

When will McCain move to the center?  Don't you find it strange he won the nomination months ago and is still listing to the right so bad? 

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 11:29:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
He better start running to the center.... (none / 0)
If Obama wants to salvage any of the middle ground, he better show us some of that athleticism and RUN to the center and away from the loony left fringe that he is so comfortable with - and he better leave his meddling wife behind - she is going to bring him down with the majority of non Leftist voters - I hear shes already putting the Kabosh on a possible Obama Clinton ticket - shers gonna be worse than Hillary in 92!!!


Sheesh :I

by bobo1 on 05/14/2008 11:36:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0)

Obama sure is running a terrible campaign.  I mean all he has done so far is pull a stunning upset victory (rather easily it turns out) over a team of acknowledged political juggernauts and lead a pillar of American politics in polling despite being crippled by being the candidate of a still divided party.

He better change what he is doing and fast! 

Obama is trending upward as people get the message he is the nominee (strangely he trends upward as fast as Hillary trends down).  The day she drops out and gives him a big ol' hug for the cameras then we will begin to see the true starting point of this race.

I would be terrified if I were a McCain supporter.

Luckily for y'all the media worships at the altar of St. McCain and they desperately want a super tight race so when Obama shoots up in the polls, they will tear his ass down. 

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 12:30:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rush may support McCain now (none / 0)

But lets take a stroll down memory lane.

McCain is no better than Obama or Clinton on national security.  From the pink Weekly Standard

McCain will destroy the GOP.  From his own website. 

Here he is mocking McCain's time as a POW. 

Heres more. 

Here he is refusing to support McCain because McCain won't "answer to" Limbaugh.  Creepy 

Maybe its all lies.  Here is some video proof 

Now he supports McCain huh?

THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT.  What is said in the primaries is like what you say to a girl late Saturday night.  You don't mean it.  You just say it to get what you want.  Whether it works or not, its back to business as usual come daylight.  McCain had the support of just over 50% of Republicans when he tied up the nomination.  What has happened since then?

Quit deluding yourself that the Dems will be any different. 

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 12:41:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX's world (none / 0)
KenTX lives in a very weird world. I'm kind of fascinated by it.

David

by yturks on 05/14/2008 12:44:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks Dave (none / 0)
I'm just here to entertain the peeps and make 'em laugh.

by KenTX on 05/14/2008 01:02:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The dark side (none / 0)

I have always assumed Ken's world is just Right Wing talk radio/blog world.

There are definitely some modifications.

Ken knows (or thinks he knows, I don't really know) a lot about oil and energy so there is an emphasis there.

Ken has a Texas slant that he injects himself.

Ken tailors the spin to us Turks since he "knows" us.

He also seems to filter out some of the really stupid of super-easy to knock down stuff either because he respects (some of) us too much to bring that weak-ass shit or because he is only 90% drunk on Kool-Aid himself. 

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 01:23:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I get it.. you dont ken troll (none / 0)
Hillary can run all the way to china and its not going to work in the repugs favor this time.

Regardless what that Wall Street Journal article says.

"when challengers refused to concede and instead pursued the nomination into the convention," their party's nominee got beaten in November. She cites Ronald Reagan's 1976 challenge to Gerald Ford, Senator Edward M. ('Teddy') Kennedy's 1980 bid to unseat Jimmy Carter, and Senator Gary Hart's insurgency against Walter Mondale in 1984."

Of course those scenarios didnt include one candidates support for a very unpopular occupation of Iraq.

4 dollar a gallon gas that can be blamed on the republicans.

The economy in general

a 72 year old presidential candidate..

The massive damage Bush has done to the repug party cant be underestimated.

and the strength of the Democratic opponent all add up to one thing...and its not a good thing for conservatives.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/14/2008 09:50:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Really, that argument again? (none / 0)
I guess I will repeat what myself and Rich have already explained to you.

Those same people who say they would vote for McCain would surely answer the question "Who would you vote for between Obama and McCain?" with the answer "McCain".  Right?

Since, in that poll McCain is 7 points behind Obama counting the bitter Hillary voter factor, and you just acknowledged that a number of them will flip back to the Democrat, this shows McCain will get trounced.

Understand yet?

by richardshort2001 on 05/14/2008 01:18:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama Map | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: