USA Today has a really cool electoral college tracker where you can assign states to Obama and McCain and see where each has to win in order to reach 270 electoral votes and win the general election.
I assigned states based primarily on history voting patterns, which resulted in several Bush states from 2004 swinging back to their historical Democratic-leaning trends.
My result? It all comes down to Missouri.
I gave Obama the following states: Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and the entire Northeast (from Maryland north, including D.C.). The result is 269 electoral votes.
Everything else I gave to McCain, including Missouri. The result - 269 electoral votes. A dead tie.
(I have no idea what happens in the event of a tie, and don't recall seeing that covered in the Constitution).
In 1992 and 1996, Missouri went for Bill Clinton. In 2000 and 2004, it went for Bush.
Now, I'm going to borrow a oft-cited (but substantively sophmoric) argument used by Clinton - that she has won the states Dems need to win the general election. On my map, the only legitimate battleground state is Missouri - a state that Obama won by a mere 10,000 votes (1% difference). Thus, Obama wins the only state that matters - the only state in contest. Giving Missouri to Obama results in a 280-258 win for Obama. Notably, it also results in the complete political marginalization of the South, which for years has been considered "must-win" territory for either party to win the White House.
Some states, like Michigan (which isn't really included in the primary results), California, Pennsylvania and New York all went for Clinton. But those states are unshakable Democratic locks, and have all gone that way for the past four presidential elections. Obama will win those without breaking a sweat.
Clinton's argument loses more luster when you view my map and realize that I have given McCain Ohio and Florida, both of which were obviously pivotal in the past two elections. Those are two of the big states that Clinton says she can win, and that Dems have to win. 'cept they don't have to win them (at least not on my map).
This year, as goes Missouri, goes the White House. And Missouri goes to Obama.
Showing posts with label electoral college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral college. Show all posts
Monday, June 02, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Iowa Caucuses - Who cares?
Tonight a bunch of people representing a minority of whatever political party in which they claim membership will join with others in a state of absolutely no political importance whatsoever and "vote" for who they believe their party should nominate for president.
And my interest in their opinions is far less than the length of the above sentence. In a state that reflects absolutely nothing about any part of America I am familiar with, in a state with only seven electoral votes, the major political parties will decide which candidates are worthy of continued support.
Why is this so ridiculous? Aside from the fact that, seriously, does anybody outside of Iowa care what people in Iowa think?, wouldn't it make more sense to ensure that the candidates being supported are capable of winning the states that actually matter come general election time?
A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to become president. That total is reached with just the 11 following states: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (15), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and any one of the remaining 39 states.
Yes, that's right - to become president a candidate must win a grand total of 12 of the 50 states. So why, I ask, does anybody give a crap about the other 38? Seriously, wouldn't the wise candidate focus on the states that matter and win those primaries? If you can carry the states that would get you elected in the general election, then it would seem that your party would have a pretty good incentive to fund your campaign.
Instead, over the next few weeks we'll hear about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - states that account for a mere 19 electoral votes. States of absolutely no individual political relevance.
Why not simply run a six week primary system where you start at the top of the list and hold primaries in two states per week, with the remaining 38 states holding their primary on the last week - allowing each candidate to pick whatever camel-back-breaking-state they choose (since they only need one, it doesn't really matter). Then, based on those results, decide what two candidates you'll send to the convention and let the remaining states battle it out on the convention floor - the way it used to be.
UPDATE:
Iowa caucuses are over, and, best I can tell, Kansas pulled it out over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. In a game full of turnovers and big plays, it became more and more clear that if Oregon had remained healthy, they would truly have been a juggernaut. Nobody in the country could have laid a hand on them.
Oh, and I think Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee won something tonight too.
And my interest in their opinions is far less than the length of the above sentence. In a state that reflects absolutely nothing about any part of America I am familiar with, in a state with only seven electoral votes, the major political parties will decide which candidates are worthy of continued support.
Why is this so ridiculous? Aside from the fact that, seriously, does anybody outside of Iowa care what people in Iowa think?, wouldn't it make more sense to ensure that the candidates being supported are capable of winning the states that actually matter come general election time?
A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to become president. That total is reached with just the 11 following states: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (15), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and any one of the remaining 39 states.
Yes, that's right - to become president a candidate must win a grand total of 12 of the 50 states. So why, I ask, does anybody give a crap about the other 38? Seriously, wouldn't the wise candidate focus on the states that matter and win those primaries? If you can carry the states that would get you elected in the general election, then it would seem that your party would have a pretty good incentive to fund your campaign.
Instead, over the next few weeks we'll hear about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - states that account for a mere 19 electoral votes. States of absolutely no individual political relevance.
Why not simply run a six week primary system where you start at the top of the list and hold primaries in two states per week, with the remaining 38 states holding their primary on the last week - allowing each candidate to pick whatever camel-back-breaking-state they choose (since they only need one, it doesn't really matter). Then, based on those results, decide what two candidates you'll send to the convention and let the remaining states battle it out on the convention floor - the way it used to be.
UPDATE:
Iowa caucuses are over, and, best I can tell, Kansas pulled it out over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. In a game full of turnovers and big plays, it became more and more clear that if Oregon had remained healthy, they would truly have been a juggernaut. Nobody in the country could have laid a hand on them.
Oh, and I think Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee won something tonight too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
