Electoral College Projection: O 256, M 205
As I promised, I’ve outlined my own Electoral College projection to accompany my Senate projections from last week. I’ve tilted states as much as I thought they’d go, to minimize tossups. But anything in “tossup” or the two “lean” categories could conceivably be considered “the battleground states”.
Safe Republican (65) – AL, AR, ID, KY, NE (except NE-02), OK, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY
The only thing to write about here is that Nebraska’s Lincoln area is worth watching – otherwise, none of these states are going for Obama short of a massive landslide. But don’t be surprised if the southern states on this list give McCain more than votes than they did for Bush (racist DINOs) while the western states could see Obama improve on Kerry’s showing.Likely Republican (89) – AZ, GA, LA, MS, KS, NE-02, SC, TX
Many of these red states are on the list for Obama targeting, or are showing weakness for the Republican Party. If Obama starts picking up steam in the popular vote, I could see an upset or two from this list. But I don’t expect any of these to go blue this time. (For example, I put Texas here instead of in Safe because of recent polling, but Texas is big and expensive to play in, so I doubt Obama will push to win there.)Lean Republican (51) – AK, FL, MT, NC, ND
The polling here has had Obama tied or even ahead, even those these red states should go to McCain as long as he’s not losing too badly in the overall vote. Still, upsets here are possible even in a close contest. And yes, I put Florida here – it’s only voted Democratic twice since 1964 (Carter in 76 and Clinton in 96), and an expected tossup governor’s race in the Democratic year of 2006 ended in a solid romp for Charlie Crist, a rumored-to-be-gay “moderate” who is rumored-to-be on McCain’s VP short list.Tossup (77) – IN, MI, MO, NV, OH, VA
If it weren’t for the polls that consistently show the state tied, Indiana would be in the “lean Republican” category. Michigan and Ohio are almost “lean Democrat” states, but polling and Obama’s primary experiences show weaknesses here that the post-2006 dynamic isn’t helping to totally erase. Missouri is the site of a rare McCain advertising advantage, reportedly as much as 3-1, as he tries to move the state out of contention. Nevada was a tossup the last two elections, and seems to only be getting closer. Virginia, down-ballot, is moving to the Democrats, but as Kerry proved in 2004, the margin in the presidential race still tilts Republican – add that up and you’ve got a classic swing state, possibly THE Ohio or Florida of 2008.Lean Democratic (49) – CO, NH, NM, PA, WI
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are currently part of McCain’s top 4 targets (i.e., where he is spending the most advertising dollars). However, all of these states give Obama the current edge, although all are within single digits. A McCain victory would probably result in a winning a couple states in this category, but for now are not his top priority.Likely Democratic (43) – IA, ME, MN, NJ, OR
McCain would love to win any of these states, but the public polling has put them out of reach for his campaign. New Jersey has particularly been tantalizing but disappointing for Republicans (see 2006 Senate). However, if Obama starts to stumble, an upset in any one of these five can’t be ruled out.Safe Democratic (164) – CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, NY, RI, VT, WA
Some states on this list might end up within single digits, but are still not likely to be targeted by McCain (despite his public daydreams about competing in California or Lieberman’s Connecticut). Particularly for California, the state is simply too huge and too expensive for McCain to make a play there that would risk him losing support in the battlegrounds.
.
Of course, this map could change depending on the Veep selections and movement in the polls. I will revisit this projection in early August. So, do you agree or disagree?
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. 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 been approved by 20 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 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
I am not sure this plan will be enacted, as the fear becomes candidates will focus solely on the population centers of the country and ignore the smaller towns that might get attention as part of a swing state.
Short of your goal, I’d personally like to see:
1) Puerto Rico get at least as much say in the presidential election as D.C. gets.
2) Eliminate the 2 add-on electoral votes that distort the influence of the small states. (Which in the past has allowed more easily for the possibility of a popular-vote loser winning the Presidency.)
3) Decouple electoral votes from the House of Representatives. Make one electoral vote worth the population of the the smallest state (or D.C. or Puerto Rico). If I recall correctly, this would more accurately value certain states (California would get 70 EVs instead of 55, Montana would get 2 instead of 1, etc.).
While my 3-point plan would be far from perfect, in such a big country that doesn’t like change, this Electoral College “reform” could prove more acceptable.
But even my plan would be opposed by the small states because of their loss of disproportionate influence.