T Nation

Electoral College Math

Means the race between Obama and McCain is going to be closer than a lot of you seem to think.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/print.html

EXCERPT:

If Obama wins the 255 votes in the states where he’s favored, then to get to 270 he needs to choose from the following menu: 1) Win Ohio, which takes him to 275; 2) win in the West – Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, for 274; 3) win the three N’s (Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire) for 269, plus one other state; or 4) win two of the three N’s and either Colorado or Virginia.

This obviously doesn’t mean McCain has it locked up, but just that you folks counting your chickens before they’ve hatched should re-think your certainty…

Also, see these Rovian EC maps:

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/McCainClintonObama051608.pdf

Also note Clinton would probably be a stronger general election candidate ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/roves-latest-el.html ). And this doesn’t even account for any residual bitterness from her supporters over all the warm fuzzies from the Dem Primary (See here for an example of some of that fuzziness in liberal Seattle: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004425727_hillary20m.html - and that’s not just those non-college educated white folks in Appalachia…).

Could the Democrats do the unthinkable and change their default candidate from a year ago and actually lose a race they could have easily won? YES THEY CAN!

Exxxxxxxxxxxxxcellent.

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the Michigan and Florida problem the Dems will probably have:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWRjODhlOTRmM2JhM2UyMDFlZGMxNDQxNWQxNzczYTM=

Obama may not even get the majority of his parties votes and get the nomination. Very unusual.

The Dems will screw the General Election up somehow.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the Michigan and Florida problem the Dems will probably have:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWRjODhlOTRmM2JhM2UyMDFlZGMxNDQxNWQxNzczYTM=[/quote]

In Michigan, the Dems also have the problem of reputation. The Mayor of Detroit is a criminal, but O’bama will win that pesthole (grew up there). The governor is an idiot, and the Dems have run the state into the ground. Also, the Dems will be pissed by being dissed by the DNC.

Michigan is a lot like Ohio, so McCain might just sneak in and snag Michigan, IMHO.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Means the race between Obama and McCain is going to be closer than a lot of you seem to think.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/print.html

EXCERPT:

If Obama wins the 255 votes in the states where he’s favored, then to get to 270 he needs to choose from the following menu: 1) Win Ohio, which takes him to 275; 2) win in the West – Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, for 274; 3) win the three N’s (Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire) for 269, plus one other state; or 4) win two of the three N’s and either Colorado or Virginia.

This obviously doesn’t mean McCain has it locked up, but just that you folks counting your chickens before they’ve hatched should re-think your certainty…

Also, see these Rovian EC maps:

Also note Clinton would probably be a stronger general election candidate ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/roves-latest-el.html ). And this doesn’t even account for any residual bitterness from her supporters over all the warm fuzzies from the Dem Primary (See here for an example of some of that fuzziness in liberal Seattle: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004425727_hillary20m.html - and that’s not just those non-college educated white folks in Appalachia…).

Could the Democrats do the unthinkable and change their default candidate from a year ago and actually lose a race they could have easily won? YES THEY CAN![/quote]

If McCain picks a VP from Colorado, or from Ohio, he’d probably put himself over the top.

Great Stuff, BB! Love the graphics!

Hmmm…I’m still betting against McCain.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hmmm…I’m still betting against McCain.[/quote]

Same. The people are just too pissed off at the GOP and Bush, and McCain will be painted (almost rightfully so) as Bush part deux.

Hilary, however, could easily let McCain win. Depends on how bitter she is.

I dunno - the GOP definitely lucked into picking the one nominee whom everyone knows was seriously on the outs with Bush. Particularly given most people don’t pay attention, McCain should be able to distance himself from Bush, particularly on foreign policy issues.

And if the Dem primary keeps going strong, it just makes it better - there’s the very real possibility Hillary could win the popular vote. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQ4NjU0OGYyMmZkYWNlMTgyYzQxZmRjOGJiNDg2ZDc=

I mean, how could the GOP not like the tone this is taking:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

And if the Dem primary keeps going strong, it just makes it better - there’s the very real possibility Hillary could win the popular vote. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQ4NjU0OGYyMmZkYWNlMTgyYzQxZmRjOGJiNDg2ZDc=

…[/quote]

[i]
But Clinton has made a huge comeback in the fourth quarter. Beginning with her victories in Texas and Ohio and going through last night�??s win in Kentucky, she has won 6,505,231 votes to Obama�??s 5,983,422 �?? a margin of 521,809 votes. That number will likely grow after the remaining contests in Puerto Rico (where she has a significant lead), South Dakota, and Montana. At the moment, counting all four quarters, Obama has a popular-vote lead of 123,033 votes. By the end of the day on June 3, Clinton might well be ahead.

If that happens, she will be the Al Gore of the Democratic primaries: the winner of the popular vote who lost the election. But unlike Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race because of the constitutional requirements of the Electoral College, Clinton will lose because of the Democratic party�??s arcane �?? and changeable �?? rules of delegate allocation. For example, Clinton won Texas in the sense that most of us understand winning an election, but Obama ultimately walked away with more delegates, because of the party�??s idiosyncratic allocation process.
[/i]

This is my favorite part. I hope to hell she wins the popular vote. How could the Dem’s possibly nominate Obama is she does? Talk about hypocrisy!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

And if the Dem primary keeps going strong, it just makes it better - there’s the very real possibility Hillary could win the popular vote. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQ4NjU0OGYyMmZkYWNlMTgyYzQxZmRjOGJiNDg2ZDc=

[i]
But Clinton has made a huge comeback in the fourth quarter. Beginning with her victories in Texas and Ohio and going through last night�??s win in Kentucky, she has won 6,505,231 votes to Obama�??s 5,983,422 �?? a margin of 521,809 votes.

That number will likely grow after the remaining contests in Puerto Rico (where she has a significant lead), South Dakota, and Montana. At the moment, counting all four quarters, Obama has a popular-vote lead of 123,033 votes. By the end of the day on June 3, Clinton might well be ahead.

If that happens, she will be the Al Gore of the Democratic primaries: the winner of the popular vote who lost the election. But unlike Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race because of the constitutional requirements of the Electoral College, Clinton will lose because of the Democratic party�??s arcane �?? and changeable �?? rules of delegate allocation.

For example, Clinton won Texas in the sense that most of us understand winning an election, but Obama ultimately walked away with more delegates, because of the party�??s idiosyncratic allocation process.
[/i]

This is my favorite part. I hope to hell she wins the popular vote. How could the Dem’s possibly nominate Obama is she does? Talk about hypocrisy!
[/quote]

Popular vote including states he didn’t run in and she said shouldn’t count, and factually don’t count, and not counting states he won.

In the states that count and in all measures that could possibly count:
1.popular votes
2.states
3.delegates
4.superdelegates
5.fundraising
6.coat tails

He is winning. Soundly. And has been.

In short, the primary is still over.

Can we please stop pretending in here that there is some kind of chance that Hillary is going to win?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Means the race between Obama and McCain is going to be closer than a lot of you seem to think.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/print.html

EXCERPT:

If Obama wins the 255 votes in the states where he’s favored, then to get to 270 he needs to choose from the following menu: 1) Win Ohio, which takes him to 275; 2) win in the West – Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, for 274; 3) win the three N’s (Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire) for 269, plus one other state; or 4) win two of the three N’s and either Colorado or Virginia.

This obviously doesn’t mean McCain has it locked up, but just that you folks counting your chickens before they’ve hatched should re-think your certainty…

Also, see these Rovian EC maps:

Also note Clinton would probably be a stronger general election candidate ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/roves-latest-el.html ). And this doesn’t even account for any residual bitterness from her supporters over all the warm fuzzies from the Dem Primary (See here for an example of some of that fuzziness in liberal Seattle:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004425727_hillary20m.html - and that’s not just those non-college educated white folks in Appalachia…).

Could the Democrats do the unthinkable and change their default candidate from a year ago and actually lose a race they could have easily won? YES THEY CAN![/quote]

Up in Ohio today, closing on Florida (which isn’t a part of his map) up in Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, over McCain in most polls now…He’s doing pretty good with his expected map.

Of course this means even more viral emails regarding Barry being a muslim, more fakery on talks with enemies, and more concern over his eating of arugala. (Flying around on own private plane less elitist than eating mixed greens apparently)

It ain’t over until the lady in the pantsuit sings - and looks like she’s staying in until the convention. And are the Dems just going to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan, including all of those minority and elderly voters? Shocking! Lots of bitterness yet to bubble up to the surface! Good times!

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Means the race between Obama and McCain is going to be closer than a lot of you seem to think.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/print.html

EXCERPT:

If Obama wins the 255 votes in the states where he’s favored, then to get to 270 he needs to choose from the following menu: 1) Win Ohio, which takes him to 275; 2) win in the West – Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, for 274; 3) win the three N’s (Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire) for 269, plus one other state; or 4) win two of the three N’s and either Colorado or Virginia.

This obviously doesn’t mean McCain has it locked up, but just that you folks counting your chickens before they’ve hatched should re-think your certainty…

Also, see these Rovian EC maps:

Also note Clinton would probably be a stronger general election candidate ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/roves-latest-el.html ). And this doesn’t even account for any residual bitterness from her supporters over all the warm fuzzies from the Dem Primary (See here for an example of some of that fuzziness in liberal Seattle:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004425727_hillary20m.html - and that’s not just those non-college educated white folks in Appalachia…).

Could the Democrats do the unthinkable and change their default candidate from a year ago and actually lose a race they could have easily won? YES THEY CAN!

100meters wrote:
Up in Ohio today, closing on Florida (which isn’t a part of his map) up in Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, over McCain in most polls now…He’s doing pretty good with his expected map.

Of course this means even more viral emails regarding Barry being a muslim, more fakery on talks with enemies, and more concern over his eating of arugala. (Flying around on own private plane less elitist than eating mixed greens apparently)[/quote]

Yes, that’s right - only Barack can distort McCain’s positions and words with impunity. Enforce double standards? YES WE CAN!

This election is going to be a close fight, and McCain hasn’t even started campaigning yet - just a few statements and appearances, but no ads or big targeted campaign tours. Bring it.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

And if the Dem primary keeps going strong, it just makes it better - there’s the very real possibility Hillary could win the popular vote. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQ4NjU0OGYyMmZkYWNlMTgyYzQxZmRjOGJiNDg2ZDc=


Zap Branigan wrote:

[i]
But Clinton has made a huge comeback in the fourth quarter. Beginning with her victories in Texas and Ohio and going through last night�??s win in Kentucky, she has won 6,505,231 votes to Obama�??s 5,983,422 �?? a margin of 521,809 votes.

That number will likely grow after the remaining contests in Puerto Rico (where she has a significant lead), South Dakota, and Montana. At the moment, counting all four quarters, Obama has a popular-vote lead of 123,033 votes. By the end of the day on June 3, Clinton might well be ahead.

If that happens, she will be the Al Gore of the Democratic primaries: the winner of the popular vote who lost the election. But unlike Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race because of the constitutional requirements of the Electoral College, Clinton will lose because of the Democratic party�??s arcane �?? and changeable �?? rules of delegate allocation.

For example, Clinton won Texas in the sense that most of us understand winning an election, but Obama ultimately walked away with more delegates, because of the party�??s idiosyncratic allocation process.
[/i]

This is my favorite part. I hope to hell she wins the popular vote. How could the Dem’s possibly nominate Obama is she does? Talk about hypocrisy!

100meters wrote:
Popular vote including states he didn’t run in and she said shouldn’t count, and factually don’t count, and not counting states he won.

In the states that count and in all measures that could possibly count:
1.popular votes
2.states
3.delegates
4.superdelegates
5.fundraising
6.coat tails

He is winning. Soundly. And has been.

In short, the primary is still over.

Can we please stop pretending in here that there is some kind of chance that Hillary is going to win?

It ain’t over until the lady in the pantsuit sings - and looks like she’s staying in until the convention. And are the Dems just going to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan, including all of those minority and elderly voters? Shocking! Lots of bitterness yet to bubble up to the surface! Good times![/quote]

Actually it’s over when the delgates/super delegates sing. Since they all support Barry, it is over.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Means the race between Obama and McCain is going to be closer than a lot of you seem to think.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/print.html

EXCERPT:

If Obama wins the 255 votes in the states where he’s favored, then to get to 270 he needs to choose from the following menu: 1) Win Ohio, which takes him to 275; 2) win in the West – Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, for 274; 3) win the three N’s (Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire) for 269, plus one other state; or 4) win two of the three N’s and either Colorado or Virginia.

This obviously doesn’t mean McCain has it locked up, but just that you folks counting your chickens before they’ve hatched should re-think your certainty…

Also, see these Rovian EC maps:

Also note Clinton would probably be a stronger general election candidate ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/roves-latest-el.html ). And this doesn’t even account for any residual bitterness from her supporters over all the warm fuzzies from the Dem Primary (See here for an example of some of that fuzziness in liberal Seattle:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004425727_hillary20m.html - and that’s not just those non-college educated white folks in Appalachia…).

Could the Democrats do the unthinkable and change their default candidate from a year ago and actually lose a race they could have easily won? YES THEY CAN!

100meters wrote:
Up in Ohio today, closing on Florida (which isn’t a part of his map) up in Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, over McCain in most polls now…He’s doing pretty good with his expected map.

Of course this means even more viral emails regarding Barry being a muslim, more fakery on talks with enemies, and more concern over his eating of arugala. (Flying around on own private plane less elitist than eating mixed greens apparently)

Yes, that’s right - only Barack can distort McCain’s positions and words with impunity. Enforce double standards? YES WE CAN!

This election is going to be a close fight, and McCain hasn’t even started campaigning yet - just a few statements and appearances, but no ads or big targeted campaign tours. Bring it.[/quote]

Yes, but reading posts in here one would get the sense that democrats are doing badly, Barry doesn’t have a chance, and the country thinks we are on the right track. It’s just a wee bit annoying.

And yes McCain has been campaigning (and running ads, several in fact). Just because 75,000 aren’t coming/ won’t come, doesn’t mean he ain’t doing it.

Also, if he isn’t, then Barry really isn’t.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Particularly given most people don’t pay attention, McCain should be able to distance himself from Bush, particularly on foreign policy issues. [/quote]

So what was that “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” and “100 years in Iraq” all about?