How to win the election without Florida or Ohio

Email Print posted by Nick86 05/06/2008 07:18:08 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Assuming that Obama wins the nomination, the chances of him winning Ohio and/or Florida are lower than Clinton, according to the polls so far.

This does not mean that he cannot win the election, in order for him to do it we have to look at which states are reliably Democratic:

270 electoral votes needed to win:

Washington
Oregon
California
Hawaii
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Michigan
New York
Vermont
Maine
Mass.
Rhode Island
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
DC

= 215 votes, 80% of votes needed to win

Crucially Obama would need to win Pennsylvania, but that would only boost him to 236 votes meaning he would need an additional 34 votes to clinch the nomination. Assuming he cannot win Ohio or Florida, I suspect he can win Ohio easier than Florida due to the economic malaise. Obama would have to make the argument to the super-delegates that he can win non-traditional states.

It is within the realm of possibility that Obama could win Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico would would net him another 19 votes. This would boost his total to 255 votes, these states will probably go to Obama by razor thin margins, so it is a real gamble for the Democratic party to put their cards on that game. Additionally, these states are near Arizona where pro-McCain propaganda will be intense. Also another possible negative for the Democrats is that in this region there is a large latino community, which has not warmed up to Obama.

Thus, Obama will have to probably push the immigration debate hard in order to get those crucial latino votes in the region. This will cause a reaction from McCain which could very well end McCain's chances of getting the latino vote. Thus, it is wise for Obama to push the immigration debate as hard as he can, because McCain will lose either way. Either McCain will lose the Republican base if he panders to the latinos, or visa vera.

Iowa looks like a state that is really trending towards Obama as well, so that would net him another 7 votes, giving him a total of 262 votes, leaving eight votes left. This means that Obama would have to make a make or break for either Virginia, North Carolina, or combine New Hampshire and West Virginia, or even South Carolina. I personally believe that the most realistic scenario will have Indiana shift to the Democratic column, if Indiana does so then the election is over.  


< Follow this logic | Reality Has Well-Known Obama Bias >

Poll

Assuming 262 votes, which state can Obama win to clinch the nod?
Indiana 50%
North Carolina 0%
South Carolina 25%
New Hampshire + West Virginia 12%
Missiouri 12%

Votes: 8
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
How to win the election without Florida or Ohio | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden)
Vs Hillary (none / 0)

The problem with Hillary's "electibility" is that sher really needs BOTH Ohio and Florida in order to win and as you pointed out, Obama has the possibility to with with NEITHER.

I think state polls showing Obama leading or competitive in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas (yeah, BUSHLAND, for God's sake) shows that Obama dispite losing to Clinton among Hiispanics in the PRIMARIES, has their backs in the General. 

Could you IMAGINE putting Texas into play?  McCain has to DIVERT resources from OH and FL to TX and four of the five states that border his Home state that it seems even likely he may lose to Obama.

Meanwhile Hillary has to pour nearly all her resources into OH and FL and divert resources into Gore/Kerry states like Washington, Oregon and Iowa.

Hillary stands to lose the General by using the exact same strategy that is losing her the nomination, by focusing on "The United States that Matter."™  Blow off a bunch of states, lose a couple upsets and suddenly she's way behind.

Obama's "Go for Everthing" strategy is more likely to leave McCain fire-fighting all around the country, enabling Obama to eak out a few that Gore or Kerry coundn't dream of.  If he wins Ohio OR Florida, he wins.  If he wins BOTH, it's a LANDSLIDE.  And if he can take TEXAS, John McCain is ALF LANDON. 

by sunsawed on 05/07/2008 03:59:16 AM EST

Obama competitive in TX and SC? (none / 0)
I've heard whiskey talk before, but this is ridiculous.

You've already conceded OH and FL, and now you know you're in big trouble.

I agree that the four corners (NM, CO, NV) are your best targets, but Hispanics don't like Barack. You better start considering Bill Richardson for VP. It's your only hope.

by KenTX on 05/07/2008 05:37:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWNNNN (none / 0)
"Yeah, most popular candidate in at least a decade can't possibly win election, blah, blah, blah...."

"Yes he can see he beats McCain by double digits..."

"That's meaningless, here let me show you a chart I pulled off a right wing website that's only slightly relevant....

Viva OBAMA!"

bobo1: makes some crazy comment ":)"

Prof Rich: "Quit being a troll with your 75 accounts."

and so on, and so on


by richardshort2001 on 05/07/2008 11:57:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Serious question (none / 0)

I completely agree with your premise.  I am curious as to what kind of posts and discussions you find most interesting and worthwhile on the TYT forums?

Anyone else want to weigh in I would love to know. 

by ProfRich on 05/08/2008 12:16:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm pretty cynical.. (none / 0)
so I often wonder if any of it is "worthwhile" as far as actually making a difference.

As far as interesting, it just kind of depends on the day and my mood.  At first I liked the election stuff, but I guess the primary has just gone on too long and the arguments have all recycled themselves.  I still keep up, I just don't comment as much. 

To answer your question, I like discussion of the media coverage of the campaign a little more than the actual discussion of the campaign.  Also I have to admit I enjoy the fun posts.

by richardshort2001 on 05/08/2008 12:26:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have to disagree (none / 0)

First I think you forgot CT which gives the Dems 7 more votes.

That and I think there is either another forgotten state or a math error.  I have that list plus CT as 227 not 215. 

PA is close but ultimately Dem.  Has gone Dem for decades actually. That is 248.  Iowa should go Dem.  That is 255 without any Southwest states.

CO plus either NV or NM gives us a tie.  I think NM is Dem and I suspect NV and CO are too.  A tie is a Dem win, by the way based on state House delegations.  NH would give the Dems an outright win even losing NV or NM.

VA and NC are interesting but by the time the Dems win either the election will have been decided by other closer states.  IN is, in my opinion, ridiculous.  It is one of the most conservative states in the Union.  Obam could win in a landslide and lose IN.

TX is interesting.  I have been saying for a month the GOP might have to spend money here.  (Guess you missed all those posts).  There have been two polls in TX, one had McCain by 1 and the other by 5.  This is curious.  Texas has a HEAVY Hispanic population and is much more urban now than it was in 1996 (when Dole won it by 5).  2000 and 2004 might be skewed a bit by the fact that Bush claimed TX as his home state,  In fact, TX has been much less Republican than the rest of the South in elections without an (alleged) Texan at the top of the ticket.  I know most people think suggesting anything might change is considered insanity in the mainstream narrative but there, I did it.
And lets be clear, I am not calling for a Texas win for Obama, but it might run 3-5 points for McCain and of all the states there is none he needs more than the Lone Star.  If there is a month of polls showing McCain with a sub-5 lead down here, he is going to go broke trying to shore it up.

Anyway, I don't think we will have a 50/50 election so I am not that worked up about this anymore.  I think Obama will win by 4+% which will create a EV win of 100+ easy.
 

by ProfRich on 05/07/2008 10:56:01 AM EST

put down that crack pipe! (none / 0)
You can't get to 270, so you declare a 4 point victory. We're going to concentrate on the four corners, and then try to pick off PA, MI, MN, WI, where stupid people desperately cling to their guns and religion. How do you like the sound of "Vice President Tom Ridge"?

by KenTX on 05/07/2008 11:31:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whatever you say, man (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 05/07/2008 12:26:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Texas (none / 0)
You are right I forgot CT, and that brings things up to 222 not 227. Texas is in play this year, you are right and although it may (it feasibly could) not go this year for the Democrats, the state may be trending towards the Democrats in the future. There are lots of reasons for that, including the increasing proportion of Latinos, the urbanization, and the immigration of liberals from the Northeast into Texas due to higher economic growth. If Texas, California, and New York are in the Democrats corner then Republican hegemony is OVER. If Obama does manage to win Texas, I would argue that this election would be a major realignment election. The end of the Reagan consensus, finally, and a new era of Democratic politics.

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

by Nick86 on 05/07/2008 01:15:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If a Democrat wins Texas... (none / 0)
I will look for vacation homes in Hell, because the weather will be acceptable and the beach there is nice this time of year!

I suppose I'll have to move my secret bunker location out of Texas if the Dems take over - Utah, here I come!!!!

You are delusional if you think that Texas will go blue this year - maybe later, but not now...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/07/2008 01:20:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How far will you go? (none / 0)

I agree the GOP will win Texas in a 50/50 election.  Probably in a 52/48.  But how much will you gaurauntee the win by?  10%, 20%.

What will the closest one week poll average in TX between the conventions and elections be?

My argument is not the GOP will lose TX but I think there is some chance they might have to spend money here.  That will kill them. 

by ProfRich on 05/07/2008 01:49:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
dont crawdad on me now! (none / 0)
Nick says Obama will carry Texas, and he's an expert on Texas politics. He says all the new people moving into Texas are Democrats. You and I know better, don't we Rich? Ever been to Ft Bend Co. Or Collin Co.? I've lived in both places. Everybody is from outside Texas, and there's not a Democrat to be found. When is the last time Texas voted for a Democrat for president?

by KenTX on 05/07/2008 02:11:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Two answers (none / 0)

1) 1976

2) the people moving here are Republicans from California

I do think it is interesting that Texas has been rabidly GOP when Bush runs but less so for other candidates.

Margins of victory for Texas

Cloumns: first is actual margin, second is margin minus national margin.

2004- 22.86      20.40

2000- 21.32      21.84

1996- 4.93        13.45

1992- 3.48         9.04

1988- 12.60       4.87

1984- 27.50       9.28

1980- 13.86       4.12

 

by ProfRich on 05/07/2008 02:23:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Texas redux (none / 0)
@Ken

I never said that Obama will win Texas, far from all I said was that its in play as the latest polls suggest.

http://www.electoral-vote.c om/evp2008/Obama/Graphs/tex as.html

It is trending Republican at this moment, but nowhere near expectations. The Republican brand is so damaged that its theoretically possible that if Iraq or the economy tanks further Texans may go for a Democrat, but unlikely.

Secondly, Texas is one of the states in the union that is growing the fastest and this will draw people from the NE and other Democratic areas as time goes on, this is why I suggest in the future that Texas may indeed be trending towards Democrat. But the real reason I say that is simply the growing Latino vote, the Republican party has lost that vote for a generation if it continues with its anti-amnesty agenda. The long term trend in Texas is not favourable to the Republicans. I am NO expert on Texas, or Texas politics, nor do I desire to be.

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

by Nick86 on 05/07/2008 02:35:46 PM EST

Nick says (none / 0)

"I am NO expert on Texas, or Texas politics, nor do I desire to be."

Trust me, brother, you really don't. 

by ProfRich on 05/07/2008 07:12:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich and Ken know Texas politics. (none / 0)
“Texas is one of the states in the union that is growing the fastest and this will draw people from the NE and other Democratic areas as time goes on, this is why I suggest in the future that Texas may indeed be trending towards Democrat.”
True and false. There is rapid influx from all areas of the country. However, people are relocating to Texas for high paying jobs, not low paying jobs. Nobody relocates their family across country for a low paying job. (Illegal aliens are a different subject, but they don't vote.)

People are coming to Texas because they are ambitious and already accomplished in their profession. They are bringing skills and a Republican outlook on life.

There are Republicans living in blue states. By and large, these are the people who are moving from blue states to the red states. The net result of this massive exodus is that blue states are becoming bluer and red states are becoming redder.

Larry Sabato is the head of UVA's Political Science department, and he's is a partisan Democrat. He says that population shifts are working in favor of the Republican Party and against the Democrat Party. This article reports that in the coming years, red states will gain 17 electoral votes, and blue states will lose 17 electoral votes. That's a 34 point swing, which is huge, given the results of recent elections. Such a shift would turn a 286-251 margin, like the 2004 election, into a 303-234 margin.

It just goes to show what union bosses and Democrat Party bosses working together can do to destroy the economy in the northeastern blue states.

by KenTX on 05/08/2008 01:36:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
CA? (none / 0)

I guess this argument explains why California's economy is collapsing so pathetic, huh?

I will agree a huge part of TX growth is suburbanite Republican's but don't put my name on any of the rest of that. 

by ProfRich on 05/08/2008 01:46:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich, pray tell. (none / 0)
"Don't put my name on any of the rest of that."

Thank you for supporting my assertion that the millions of "New Texans" moving into towns like Round Rock, Plano, Sugar Land, McKinney, The Woodlands are Republicans.

If you have any disagreement with the rest of my post, I welcome your rebuttal. You're not known in this forum as a shy, retiring, wall flower.




by KenTX on 05/08/2008 02:16:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I rebutted (none / 0)
The existence of California and its economy destroys your agrument.

by ProfRich on 05/08/2008 08:56:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
california (none / 0)
Has a GOP governor, and a high tech workforce that is non-union. Its the state that gave us Reagan and Nixon. I'm on my BB right now, so I can't hunt and link. But it would be interesting to compare the number of electoral votes in 2008 and 1928 in Democrat strong union states like NY, PA, NJ, MI; and compare this with GOP states in the south.

by KenTX on 05/08/2008 09:51:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
CA's GOP Gov (none / 0)

yeah, because that was a reasonable and fair electoral process.  Definitely the only factor to weigh in deciding if CA is conservative.

Oh and Arnie, actually a Democrat on every national issue. 

by ProfRich on 05/08/2008 11:10:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How to win the election without Florida or Ohio | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: