A look at the electoral map for McCain v. Obama…

Because it is never too early to project how people are going to vote on November 4th, let us take a look at the electoral map.  Remember, it takes 270 to win.

This comes from MSNBC’s First Read:

Base Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (153 electoral votes)

Lean Obama: ME, NJ, MN, OR, WA (47 votes)

Toss-up: CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NM, NH, OH, PA, VA, WI (138 votes)

Lean McCain: AR, GA, IN, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NC, ND (84 votes)

Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, ID, KS, KY, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (116 votes)

The MSNBC people have compiled these states and categories and they are a little different from what some pollsters project.  According to some pollsters, Connecticut is a toss up state because McCain is polling really well there against Obama.  But still, Obama has an electoral college edge just because his base states have some many electoral votes.  It will be interesting to see if the “toss up” states remain that way all the way to November

I hate when the media uses the term “too close to call” even one minute before polls open on election day.  Of course it is too close to call because you can’t call anything until there are votes to count.  Polling data between now and November 4th is not something than can or should be “called”.  They can say “tight race” or “polls show a virtual tie” or something along those lines, but not “too close to call“.



2 Responses

  1. 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 votes—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).

    The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are 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 been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  2. Nope, just can’t get behind the popular vote movement. I think the electoral college works well in giving small states that lack big cities a chance to courted and counted. West Virginia matters in the electoral college, but not in the popular vote.

    With a popular vote, a candidate can spend all of their time in the really big cities (where Democrats do really well, by the way) and ignore the more rural among us.

    I’ve always thought that if a particular group or state didn’t want to be taken for granted by one party or the other, they should spread their money, support and votes around.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: