Obama’s Electoral College advantage (Part 2)
August 18th, 2008 at 08:15am Pat Cunningham
Â
One week ago today, I offered HERE an analysis of poll numbers to show that Barack Obama had a big advantage over John McCain in electoral votes.
Using state-by-state figures from the independent Web site Pollster.com, I gave McCain huge benefits of the doubt:
I gave him all 122 electoral votes in the states where he was running strongly and all 35 electoral votes in the states that were leaning his way and all 97 electoral votes in the states that were considered toss-ups and, for good measure, I even gave him 20 percent of the electoral votes in the states that were leaning toward Barack Obama.
But despite those advantages for McCain, Obama still won by a score of 272-266.
Well, the race has tightened a bit in the past week, so this time I’m not giving McCain so many benefits of the doubt. But I’ll still give him a few breaks.
This time, to keep the final score the same at 272-266 in Obama’s favor, let’s give McCain all 122 electoral votes from the states where he’s running strongly and all 47 electoral votes from the states that are leaning his way. Let’s also give him 100 of the 105 electoral votes from the states that are considered toss-ups.
That means we’re giving Obama only five electoral votes from the toss-up states to go with the 224 votes from the states where he is running strongly and the 40 votes from the states that are leaning his way.
As you can see, though the national polls show the race to be pretty tight, the latest state-by-state FIGURES from Pollster.com show Obama with a big lead in the Electoral College.
 [Note: The numbers from Pollster.com may have changed a little by the time you click on the link, but probably not so much as to refute my hypothesis.]
For your entertainment and for wagering purposes, we’ll perform this exercise every Monday between now and the eve of election day in November.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
5 Comments Add your own
1. MVRed.com | August 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Could you explain to me why the Real Clear Politics average have flopped 4 Obama states back to McCain in just one week.
Those being:
NEVADA, COLORADO, OHIO, VIRGINIA.
Obama is falling apart in the polls. McCain will surge come September if HRC is not on the ballot with Obama.
2. Pat Cunningham | August 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Those four states were not strongly for Obama, and they’re not now strongly for McCain. Pollster.com doesn’t even rate them as “leaning” to McCain. His lead in each state is very small. It’s less than 1 percentage point in Virginia, for example. All four states are now rated as toss-ups. By the way, RealClearPolitics reports this morning that Obama is ahead by 3 percentage points nationally. So much for him “falling apart in the polls,” as you put it. The national polls have not changed a whole lot in recent weeks. Nobody’s falling apart yet.
3. Jason C | August 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Of course, this doesn’t count any October Surprise, so huge swings may happen yet. It might be fun to speculate on what surprise is planned by each candidate, not to mention the surprises that no one expects.
4. susan | August 18th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
5. Pat Cunningham | August 18th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Susan: As I’ve said before, I agree with you 100 percent.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed