Obama wins the same states as last time, minus Omaha and Indiana. Someone else can do the math on that.
That'd be Obama 347, Romney 191, I think.
326 212 Obama 326, Romney 212
335 Obama, 203 Romney
I wonder if it fracking matters.JzB
Obama 295, Romney 243
A few months back, you asked us about the percentage chance we thought there was of Obama winning. I put it at 40-45% at the time. My confidence that Obama will be reelected has increased since then--now I think he's a slight favorite.What I find interesting is that a lot of people are expecting Obama to win reelection with a smaller share of the electoral vote than he got the first time around. That hasn't happened to any president since Woodrow Wilson, and before him there was only one other president it happened to--James Madison. If it happens again this year, I suspect it has to do with the weird nature of the current economic crisis.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying in your second paragraph. Re-elections have been all over the map recently. GW Bush had two very close victories. Clinton had two landslides. Nixon went from a nail-biter to a landslide. GHW Bush went from a landslide victory to defeat.As for me, I think Obama would win the election if it were held today. So the question to ask yourself is: Will the economy be better or worse come November? I think the odds are that it will be improved to some degree, which indicates that Obama will win by Clinton-like margins. I'm thinking 347-191.
I meant exactly what I said: presidents rarely have won reelection by a smaller margin in the electoral vote than the first time around--though in recent history the difference has been relatively narrow. Clinton got just 9 more electoral votes in 1996 than he did in 1992. Dubya got 15 more. Still, they did win noticeably more strongly during their second run, and no presidents except for Madison and Wilson have won reelection with a smaller share of the electoral vote than their first times. I think there is something to that, and there's something odd about the current election.
That's the kind of statistic that has absolutely no predictive power. The fact is that no two elections are likely to produce the exact electoral college result. Therefore all presidents should be expected to either improve or decline in their electoral college standing. Granted that the window to decline and not be defeated can be rather small (though not necessarily so with Obama), it does not at all mean it won't happen. In fact as you said it has - the last occurance with Woodrow Wilson.
Obama by 3-4 dozen.
Obama 280 - Romney 258
Just to be contrarian to all you liberals, I wanted to find a route for Romney to win. Using 2008 EV totals, I gave Romney 8 pickups vs. 2008: Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, Michigan, Colorado and Iowa. I gave Obama nothing. I got 271-267 for Romney.Even though the general election polls look pretty close as of now, its a bit of an uphill climb for Romney to win in November.
Going off of CSH's response, I could see Obama holding at least one of MI, CO, NV or PA. I hadn't sat there and done the math on the EC; looks better for Obama than I had hoped.However: did you do the math with the post-census EC #s?
A slightly (slightly!) less razor-margined map might shuffle New Hampshire and its four EVs off to the Republican column. The thing is I have a hard time seeing Colorado (nine EVs) or Michigan (eleven, I think) going for Romney. Colorado's purple days belong to a demographic transition that's now settled in one direction. And Michigan is a fed-level very Democratic state that right now is full of people fully aware of their reliance on the Federal government and probably the most willing in the country to take "it could have been much worse" seriously. I'd switch in Florida myself. I'm sure that would still take Mitt over the top.
Obama needs: WI, MI, PA, IA, CO, NM, and either one of the following: OH, VA, FL, NC, IN, or both NV and NH.Assuming that IA, MI, WI, CO, NM, PA go Obama, Romney must take OH, VA, FL, NC, IN, and either NV or NH.
@Matt Jarvis - take this with the same grain of salt as for everything I write, but using this map from Real Clear Politics, it looks like my proposed split would go from 271-267 Romney to 275-263 Romney using 2012 EV totals, because the McCain states are worth 6 more EV than in 2008, and then Romney loses 2 EV in the 8 states he hypothetically gains v. McCain totals.I think the classicist is right about the importance of FL and OH, which seems always to be the case in close elections. Providing some hope to the half-dozen Romney supporters reading this, the RCP link shows that both FL and OH are tossups (I guess that's no surprise).
My prediction: BHO 369, WMR 169.
I don't see the path by which Obama increases his electoral count. I think 2008 is pretty close to his ceiling, or that of any other Northern Democrat. The only states he lost closer than 5 points were Missouri and Montana. Missouri, North Carolina and Indiana were essentially ties in a wave year for Democrats. So if he does just as well and all the ties break his way, he only picks up Missouri. That might be the best case scenario. The only state where I can see him doing better than 2008 is Arizona. On the other side, I think it's hard to picture Obama taking the 1 NE vote and Indiana. Romney could possibly improve on McCain's vote in NH. Missouri seems to be moving from purple to red and Florida was disturbingly close in 2008, given the overall popular vote. Obama won the popular vote by 7% and Florida by 2%. Florida shifting right could be a big problem for Democrats for years to come.
I think the real question is....who did you get in your rotodraft?!?
Since you asked...I came in with what I thought was a very weak team, and came out not completely convinced it was a rebuilding year. Anyway, I got Mariano Rivera, first time in his carer that I've had him on my team, so that's nice. OF of Upton, Crawford, Brantley, Gordon, and Grady Sizemore might work out. I have Pedroia returning. Downside: very iffy starting pitching.Also, as a charter member of the Rob Deer Fan Club, I'm proud to have both Mark Reynolds and Adam Dunn on my team.
I see the following as Obama's firewall: Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire. If he loses any of those three, he's probably toast, but if he holds them all, he should at least squeak out an Electoral College victory.My reasoning is fairly straightforward: Start with an optimistic scenario for Romney where he gets every state McCain carried, plus every state where Obama won by a smaller margin than his overall seven point lead in the national popular vote. That flips Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida over to Romney, along with Nebraska's Second District, and makes for a tight race in the Electoral College but one where Obama still prevails 272-266 (and yes, I'm using the new numbers after redistricting).So Romney needs one more state, which is where we get to Obama's "firewall". The three I listed above (IA, CO, NH) are the only three states Obama won by more than seven points but still less than double digits; but he still won them by between 8.5 and 9.5 points. And the lowest of the three is Colorado, where the burgeoning Hispanic vote makes it a real uphill climb for Romney.So really, if it's at all close (and I'm not sure it will be), it may actually come down to Iowa and New Hampshire and whether the president can hold both of them. How weird is that?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
At The Washington Post
At The American Prospect