mathwhiz
(57 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-02-08 06:14 PM
Original message |
Obama is going to win the popular vote, but that doesn't guarantee victory |
|
He's doing what no democrat has ever done in recent memory: run a 50 state campaign.
This has 2 immediate benefits: It will lower McCain's margins in the states he will win compared to Bush in 2004 and 2000. Where Bush won states like Indiana by 20, McCain will be lucky to win by 5. Where Kerry won states like California by 10 points, Obama will probably win by 20 or more. This also increases the likelihood of landslide gains in the House and Senate.
But with the electoral college, a win is a win even by a little. And a loss is still a loss whether you lose by 2 points or 30.
It would be interesting how the country would react if Obama wins the popular vote by 10 points yet still loses the electoral college because of squeaker losses in states like FL, Oh, MI, VA.
|
zanne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-02-08 06:15 PM
Response to Original message |
1. We already had that scenario in 2000. nt |
FrenchieCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-02-08 06:17 PM
Original message |
That's what some CNN Media Hoe was trying to say today. |
|
Obama will win.
But thank you for playing, once again.
|
slick8790
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-02-08 06:17 PM
Response to Original message |
2. An electoral college loss and popular vote win of +10 is nearly impossible. n/t |
mathwhiz
(57 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-02-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Obama may win California by 30 points with 1/8th the population of the country. But what good does that do him? He still gets the same electoral votes. Do the math. If Obama significantly overperforms in base blue states and narrows margins in red states but not enough for him to win, it is possible.
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-02-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. But he is already doing better in several red states that Kerry didn't win. |
|
Colorado and New Mexico, for instance. Also Montana. There are some real possibilities out there.
|
nsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-02-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Sure, it's technically possible to win CA by 30 and still lose OH, but it's really unlikely. |
|
Voters in California aren't *that much* different than those in Ohio. A candidate so popular in California that he'd crush his opponent 2-1 is very likely to be popular enough in Ohio and other swing states that he'd at least win there too.
|
FrenchieCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-02-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. You are repeating word for word that CNN Hoe. |
|
What's his name? Snyder or something?
Why?
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-02-08 06:20 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Since we are already ahead in states that Kerry lost in 04, we are doing very well |
|
in the Electoral College, if not in the overall popular vote. I take the popular vote increase to be the fact that McCain is running up his votes in red states that we didn't count on anyway. So if he delivers the states that are the states that Kerry won plus what Ohio would have given him, we would have it, right?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:06 PM
Response to Original message |