tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post3143858589659542739..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: The Electoral College Map (8/14/08)Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-42157984498823430542008-08-15T14:55:00.000-04:002008-08-15T14:55:00.000-04:00Well, the new poll in Minnesota has pushed it over...Well, the new poll in Minnesota has pushed it over the line into lean territory now. It will now show a potential move toward Obama on the Watch List.<BR/><BR/>...a move that won't necessarily happen if a trend emerges there. <BR/><BR/>From the looks of things in parts of the country, the Democratic convention can't come at a better time for Obama. Well, I suppose this coming Monday may be better. Of course they do have the VP selection at their disposal (the timing of which Allen seems to have nailed).<BR/><BR/>Ohio's electoral votes are correct in the Spectrum now. Thanks for the heads up, Scott. I'm still moderately shocked that I made it through all the Kerry/Obama and Bush/McCain name-switching without a mistake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-52821890909042416052008-08-15T08:03:00.000-04:002008-08-15T08:03:00.000-04:00Josh and Jack,Sure I would rather be on the plus s...Josh and Jack,<BR/><BR/>Sure I would rather be on the plus side of a close situation than be on the minus side. Having said that, the possibility of McCain making a significant pickup in 10 of 12 states could signal a trend to him. As Paul pointed out in our discussion group, general trends at the state level are likely to be similar across the nation (with the exception where there are important local issues such as Nevada and Florida). If several of those on the Watch List start trending to McCain, that points to serious trouble for Obama. Also, As we saw from the RCP poll data in 2004, the first week in September could decide the election.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-45264833058093297202008-08-15T00:13:00.000-04:002008-08-15T00:13:00.000-04:00Scott, yes, I did find some scenarios in which the...Scott, yes, I did find some scenarios in which there was a tie but discounted them as they would go to Obama. I'll take a "messy" win.<BR/><BR/>And while I think the 50-state strategy is great and all, I also desperately want Obama to win this election. Yes, it would be great to take Montana and, as you said, "terrify the Republicans," but that is far secondary to winning.<BR/><BR/>I've been trying to remember, though, when people (not just here, but anyway) started to realize that Montana would be competitive. I don't think people saw this coming, and I think most discounted the early polls showing it close. It was only when a few more came in that people started to believe it, right?<BR/><BR/>Tomorrow, I'm leaving for the place that gave Al Gore two electoral votes in 2000; I'll be there until Sunday. But I'll be checking out this site from time to time.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-58540752796316079672008-08-14T23:27:00.000-04:002008-08-14T23:27:00.000-04:00jack--Here's a not implausible scenario where Mont...jack--Here's a not implausible scenario where Montana (sort of) matters:<BR/><BR/>McCain picks Romney, and manages to pick off Michigan, and also Ohio and Nevada. All the other states above the partisan line go for Obama. That leaves him at 256. He manages to get Virginia, which gives him a tie. Now although a tie means Obama wins in the end, it's much less messy if he wins outright: Montana.<BR/><BR/>In any case, winning Montana in a close election, even if it wasn't needed, would terrify the Republicans for several election cycles to come, as it opens up a whole new area of the country.<BR/><BR/>P.S. Josh--you have a typo in the table. The first number under Ohio should be 293.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690577323454357276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-17190906019925022982008-08-14T21:44:00.000-04:002008-08-14T21:44:00.000-04:00I don't doubt for a moment that Obama has a shot t...I don't doubt for a moment that Obama has a shot to swing Montana. I just wonder if it can matter. It's very hard to concoct a realistic scenario in which it matters. One of the few I can see (playing with the 270towin map) is: Obama wins NH, PA, CO, IA, MI, MN, and WA, plus the safe states, but loses Ohio, New Mexico and Virginia. Unless something else odd happens, like ND swinging (which could happen), MT really can't matter that much. But it's worth a try, I suppose.<BR/><BR/>Just curious; which other states do you feel are underpolled?Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-86809869794889325612008-08-14T20:21:00.000-04:002008-08-14T20:21:00.000-04:00You've both pointed out the drawbacks to the Watch...You've both pointed out the drawbacks to the Watch List and that more than anything gave rise to the Electoral College Spectrum. There's is a good amount of overlap between the two, but they work together to give us a clearer idea of what's going on.<BR/><BR/>I don't know though Rob. Even if all the states on the list made those moves McCain would still trail in the electoral college (even if Virginia held firm where it is). Now sure, such a statement is made in a vacuum. If those moves were all happening close to simultaneously, it would be indicative of some larger pattern.<BR/><BR/>And yeah, Alaska is a pipe dream for the Obama campaign right now, Jack. They know the history there. Montana isn't one I'd write off just yet. At least It has voted for a Democratic candidate within the last 20 years. <BR/><BR/>Now, bring on those underpolled states.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-29788524495380958382008-08-14T16:09:00.000-04:002008-08-14T16:09:00.000-04:00Then again, if those changes went to McCain, then ...Then again, if those changes went to McCain, then those states might well wind up on the watch list to tip towards Obama, and then one could make the very opposite comment.<BR/><BR/>I'd rather have states just barely on my side than the other.<BR/><BR/>Some of the changes towards McCain would happen in states that aren't really as important - Alaska, Georgia, or Washington, for example.<BR/><BR/>Josh, I don't think Obama has any reason to stop in Alaska. Just as I find it hard to see how winning Montana would make a big difference, so it is with Alaska, and AK will be much harder to swing than MT. He does have going for him the fact that neither candidate favors ANWR drilling, which is probably the biggist issue in AK, as well as Stevens' problems, but it is such a red state.<BR/><BR/>I'd also comment about underpolled states but that's too much to get into in one comment.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-70600650489972306012008-08-14T15:55:00.000-04:002008-08-14T15:55:00.000-04:00In your Watch List, ten of the twelve changes favo...In your Watch List, ten of the twelve changes favor McCain. Unlike the steady Obama national totals, your data suggests that a small change in perceptions by the electorate could easily tip the balance to McCain. Very interesting!Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.com