Thursday, March 06, 2008

Barack Obama And Electoral College Math

There are a few interesting posts over at DailyKos, dealing with the Electoral Map and how Barack Obama stacks up.

Here is the National Matchups

Bottom Line:

Obama ---- 280
McCain --- 258

Let's look at some notable states:

Arkansas: Clinton +11, Obama -20
Colorado: C -6, O +9
Florida: C +9, O -2
Hawaii: C +4, O +30
Idaho: C -36, O -13
Iowa: C -5, O +9
Michigan: C even, O +1
Minnesota: C +4, O +7
Missouri: C -4, O -6
Montana: C -20, O -8
Nebraska: C -27, O -3 (and splitting the EVs of the state)
Nevada: C -8, O +5
New Hampshire: C -8, O +2
New Jersey: C +5, O even
New Mexico: C even, O +7
North Carolina: C -8, O -2
North Dakota: C -19, O +4
Ohio: C +10, O +10
Oklahoma: C -8, O -23
Oregon: C -5, O +8
Pennsylvania: C +1, O -5
South Carolina: C -6, O -3
South Dakota: C -12, O -4
Tennessee: C even, O -16
Texas: C -7, O -1
Utah: C -38, O -11
Virginia: C -10, O even
Washington" C -2, O +14
West Virginia: C +5, O -18
Wisconsin: C +4, O +11
Wyoming: C -33, O -19

It's amazing how many non-swing states will suddenly be, well, swing states this year, like Texas, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Some of these states become competitive depending on the candidate, like Arkansas and Tennessee for Clinton, and just about everything west of the Mississippi for Obama.

And you may be wondering why I included states like Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho in this list since both candidates get crushed. Well, because we'll have important races in those states at the House and Senate level, as well as state-level races. It's clear that in those states (and many others like it), Obama will be a dramatic help at the top of the ticket versus Clinton, who will play the traditional role of top-of-the-ticket albatross.

In all, Obama outperforms Clinton in 33 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Clinton outperforms Obama in 15 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

They are even in: Kansas and Ohio.

Now New Jersey, Washington, and maybe even Pennsylvania are teases to the GOP. They seem to consider flipping, then never do. Obama getting North Dakota is so implausible that I'd never count on it.

Ohio gives Obama and Clinton even numbers, so the notion that her victory there makes her "more electable" there is pretty silly. The same way that Obama winning Missouri doesn't make him "more electable" in that state.

Here is more on the state Point Spreads.

Here is one on how Obama Expands the Playing Field

Obama's strategy of not only going for Democrats, but Republican and Independents right now, in the primaries is a smart one. Building upon this base, he would be able to expand going into the general election, instead of going into the GE looking for Independents and Republicans. It's about building for the future. The Obama Campaign is one of the 50 State Strategy - no state is dismissed, because there are Democrats everywhere, and we just have to find them, and more that would like to become Democrats. The Clinton Campaign is one of 50%+1, and if you have to dismiss 40 states, as she has done, then so be it. The Obama Campaign is about building the larger Democratic Party; the Clinton Campaign could care less if the larger Democratic Party grows. After all, Bill Clinton oversaw the loss of CONGRESS to the Republicans in 1994, so he liked being the only Democratic game in town. It's why the Clintons and their minions were so hellbent on keeping Howard Dean OUT of the Chairmanship at the DNC.

If Barack Obama is the nominee, he comes from the vantagepoint of EXPANSION of the Democratic Party. The Democrats would be fighting in more states, and even if they don't win those states, the DOWNTICKET beneficiaries will help build a stronger Democratic Party overall. 2010 is a pivotal year, because whomever controls those STATE LEGISLATURES will control reapportionment in the Census. A State Representative here, a State Senator there could wind up meaning control of apportionment and all that would come from it.

Barack Obama would force the GOP, already cash-strapped, to fight in places they never thought they'd have to waste resources. Hillary Clinton is the only thing that can truly unify the GOP. Sure, they'd be behind their candidate, but Hillary makes them stick together like glue - she's the only common thread. She's a vote getter FOR THE GOP.

Barack Obama is about the possible re-alignment, politically, of this country. And why, he's the better nominee for the Democratic Party.

1 comment:

The Angry Independent said...

I don't know about Texas being a swing State... wishful thinking.

But there will be several States that Democrats could possibly win this time around.... Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, North and South Carolina, New Mexico, Tennessee (long shot), and Iowa (seems to be more enthusiasm on the Democratic side...and the last two governors have been Democrats).

I believe that Republicans will hold onto Florida, racists Ohio (they can have it), Indiana, and Texas...and most of the South...although Georgia could swing Obama's way by some strange miracle...(he would only need about 1/3 of the White electorate). There are a lot of young, new generation, college educated Whites there now...

However, there are a few States that will be slightly more in play for Republicans... (and Dems must watch out). Those States are California, & Pennsylvania. But I don't think that the Republicans will get enough cross overs... Dems should carry those States. But it might get scary as the counts come in....scarier than usual.

Unfortunatately, it still shows too much of a resemblance to 2000 and 2004.... a fractured country.

The Country is so broken ideologically and spiritually, that I don't know if it can be fixed or healed in our lifetimes. Bush did major damage... but it's also due to the failure of the American education system...which has given us a largely uneducated electorate that bought into the Bush/Cheney/Republican/Neo-Con and Religious Right propaganda on everything from war, religion, dirty politics, terrorism & how to deal with it, fear, the economy, healthcare, you name it.

I doubt if any Democrat can heal all of that damage.