270 Electoral Votes

[greiner3]

Using NBC's take on what states are what I think there will be a decent road trip to re-election.

NBC has 196 in the Democratic side and 195 in the Republican. That leaves 147, at least according to them, in the leaning category. Those states are;

OH, PA, MI, IA, WI, VA, NC, FL, NM, CO and NV

My take is that we need to win FL, WI, PA and MI. This would give us FL with 29 Electoral votes, WI with 10, PA with 20 and MI with 16 votes. This total is 75 and added to the 196 is 271

OK, that's enough smilies.

Now, I think NV and FL will be easy targets for several reasons; Mitt's announcement that he would let underwater mortgages run their 'natural' course and be foreclosed. Secondly, with a high Latino vote, Mitt's immigration stance will bring this voting block out in good numbers. There was a third reason but my cats distracted me.

WI, in my opinion, should be a shoe in for the Koch Brothers/recall election turnout. Nuf said.

MI will be a good play for Mitt's announcement that it was not a good thing to bail out the auto industry.

As for PA I think that the economy will improve just enough that a good number of independents will end up voting Democratic.

I think VA could be added to this list. Their state government sucks and has a pretty low approval. This will bring out the vote.



If the economy improves more and more I think Obama's chances will bring in IA, NC, CO.

I leave out OH just because I live here, just send flowers as condolence, and I don't trust these voters. With that said, a lot of people really DON'T like Kasich and the way the Republican led congress critterdom has been passing laws.

There are a lot of ways Obama can get to 270 but I think the 4 I first listed could be the 'easiest' way for this to occur.

[limpyhobbler]

1. Guessing Ohio is probably going to go for Obama. Everybody was pretty geared up to overturn SB5.

I'm guessing people are going to want to finish the job and dump Kasich, so that should help boost the right kind of turnout. Knock on wood.

[yellowcanine]

21. Ohio will be easier than VA imo. McDonnell (R Gov) is relatively popular still.

[deaniac21]

2. Shoo-in

[trof]

63. Thank you. Beat me to it.

[surfdog]

3. All the swing states are blue

Obama won all of those states in 2008 I think not too sure about New Mexico

[LonePirate]

5. NM was solid blue in 2008. It will be solid blue in 2012. Same for CO.

The list of swing states is greatly exaggerated by almost everyone. The media needs a horse race even though there is not going to be one.

I honestly do not see how MI or PA are swing states either. I think the same could be said for VA.

AZ and MT should be added to the toss-up list. I think both are possible Obama pick-ups this year.

[joshcryer]

52. Colorado was blue in 2010, too. Colorado is a blue state now.

No going back.

[Proud Public Servant]

9. Not exactly

They all did go to Obama. But I think it's too early to call NC and VA swing states; they may just be red states that turned blue during a world-historic election (like Indiana). Also, I'd bet a modest amount of cash on the prediction that VA Gov. Bob O'Donnell will be Romney's choice for veep, which will make it very hard to keep VA in our column.

[Proud Public Servant]

4. Different take

I also think Obama's sitting in a pretty good place, and agree that MI, WI, and PA should go his way.

But FL? I think that's going to be very, very tough.

I think he has a better shot at OH than FL, especially against Romney. But OH is only 18 votes, so he would need to pick 10 more to get to 270. I don't have a good sense of NV; it should be open to the OWS-style rhetoric Obama's using, but there are an awful lot of Mormons there. But IA, CO, and NM should all be leaning blue; surely he can pick up two of those three and grab 12-16 more votes that way.

[BlueDemKev]

13. Here's my calculation....

The way I see it, our must-win states are PA, OH, MI, WI, MN, IA, and IL.

Assuming we win all of northeastern states (including NH) and the three pacific coast states, then we carry PA, OH, MI, WI, MN, IA, and IL, we'd have exactly 270 electoral votes. However, if we lose NH, then we'd need to win one of the three remaining western battleground states: NM, CO, or NV.

Now, if we can win FL, NC, VA, or IN again, that's great, but we can't count on winning any of those this year. They are are traditionally red states which went blue in '08 because it was such a huge year for the Democrats.

[gopiscrap]

17. I don't see us winning Indiana again

VA possible, NC maybe and FL is the big if! IMHO

[BlueDemKev]

24. I think IN and VA are out of reach this year.....

....NC and FL are on the table, albeit the "far side".

[surfdog]

37. I don't think you have to worry about Illinois

[BlueDemKev]

42. I know, I was giving you a complete itemized listing of how can reach 270 EV's

[Bok_Tukalo]

6. It all will come down to NE-01

Scary.

[OmahaBlueDog]

53. IIRC, after last time, the unicam re-bundled our EVs.

I think we're all or nothing now.

[Nye Bevan]

7. Florida is so critical, can't help thinking it will influence the VP choice (nt)

[BlueDemKev]

10. Yeah, and if/when Marco Rubio is selected as Romney's running mate.....

.....don't expect to hear a peep out of the "birthers", then!

[LostinRed]

27. The birther will have a two fold problem with a Romney/Rubio tickeet

According to their logic neither is qualified to be President. Willard's dad was born in Mexico when his family fled the US to be free to be polygomist. Rubio's parents of course are Cuban.

[BlueDemKev]

8. I don't think we'll get Florida this year

Florida is always a VERY tough state for us to win. We've only carried it in 2 of the last 8 elections (or 3 if you count Gore).

Even in 2008, the great year for Democrats, Obama only carried the state by about 4,000 votes. Florida is hurting badly because of housing prices and unemployment there is still very high. I hope I'm wrong, and I'm not saying we should write it off, but we cannot count Florida as a "must-win" state. We did that in both 2000 and 2004--with disastrous consequences.

[LonePirate]

11. Obama won FL by 240,000 votes and by 2.8%.

I think the state could be closer so Obama should send Biden down there for the entire month of October. He should force the Rs to spend time and money down there.

[BlueDemKev]

15. My mistake.

Yes, we should at least force the Rethugs to spend time and money in Florida so they'll have LESS time to spend in the midwestern states which we MUST win.

[OmahaBlueDog]

54. One thing to consider - Gov. Rick Scott is wildly unpopular

Other than that, I agree -- Florida will be very tough.

[BlueDemKev]

60. The problem with Florida is.....

...we don't have the heavily-populated liberal areas offsetting the sparsely-populated conservative areas (like we do in PA and MI).


....While the heavily-populated areas in south Florida (Broward, Palm Beach, and much of Miami-Dade counties) are solidly Democratic, the also heavily-populated areas in central Florida (notably Orlando, Tampa and along the entire I-4 corridor) are very conservative as they are packed with wealthy retirees who migrated down to Florida from the northern states (and bringing some electoral votes with them). The entire panhandle from Jacksonville to Pensacola is solidly red, with the exception of the Tallahassee area which is split about 60/40 towards blue.

Florida's geographical demographics are such that, while they do give us a shot at winning the state, it's always an uphill climb to reach 51%.

[trof]

64. Yep, and FL Hispanics aren't southwest Hispanics.

I believe FL Hispanics are mostly Cuban, anti-Castro, and very right-wing.
And they have the 'wet feet/dry feet' thing going for them.

Southwest states Hispanics are mainly Mexicans and Central Americans.
Big difference in situation and perspective..

[JoePhilly]

12. I think Obama has many paths, the GOP, far fewer paths.

[jpljr77]

14. Michigan, against Mitt Romney, will be a lot harder to win than you think. n/m

[BlueDemKev]

16. That's true, however.....

....the unions are very galvanized now plus the auto industry has rebounded. I think we can pull out a win in Michigan.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. I'm afraid of that too.

Many seniors remember his father fondly.

I think the auto unions will be active enough to help get out the vote and keep MI blue, but it isn't a sure thing.

[blue_onyx]

23. Older people...

also tend to vote Republican anyway. The majority of voters probably don't even know who George Romney is.

[blue_onyx]

22. Why?

Most people don't even remember his father was governor. Anyone who did vote for his father is 67 or older.

I find this argument about Romney being strong in MI annoying. He hasn't lived here in over 40 years. His mother lost in the race for the US Senate in 1970. His former sister in law lost the GOP nomination for the US Senate in 1994 and lost to Levin in 1996. Mitt's brother wasn't able to get the GOP nomination for Attorney General in 1998. Not sure why people think the Romney name is so strong in MI

[fujiyama]

28. He has little to no association with the state anymore

and besides unlike his father, Mitt has absolutely no core principles whatsoever. His father actually had a conscience and was a fairly moderate republican - even bucking the Mormon Church on the issue of civil rights.

But that was some 40 years ago...

[jpljr77]

35. Well, he won Michigan in the 2008 primary

I find this argument about Romney being strong in MI annoying.

Then the results are annoying. After losing to Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire, Romney got 39% of the vote in the Michigan primary, held uncharacteristically early in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Michigan,_2008).

Of course, Obama destroyed McCain in Michigan in the general election, 57-41. But I think dismissing MI with "Unions! Auto industry! Blue! Yay!" is a bit naive.

Romney does have name recognition in the state, and he does have campaign infrastructure there. And he will have millions upon millions of dollars spent on his behalf, and unemployment is really high.

Obama will probably win Michigan this year. But it will cost him. And that's all I was trying to say. This state will be a resource drain.

[blue_onyx]

40. No...

People saying Romney is particularly strong in MI because it's his "home state" is annoying because it's inaccurate.

Romney won in 2008 by 39% vs. 30% for McCain. You seriously think that's a big win for someone who is supposedly so strong in MI? He couldn't even break 40% in his "home state."

Romney has no more name recognition in MI than he does in any other state.

I'm not saying Obama won't have to fight for MI. I'm saying that it being closer election has NOTHING to do with the fact that his father was governor 40 years ago or the fact that he was born here.

[Denninmi]

36. I agree. Anyone I've spoke with who is conservative-leaning isn't enthused about Romney.

For the most part, no one in my circles is a radical fringe fundamentalist, more old-style fiscal conservative types.

They aren't enthused about any of the lot.

I think Obama can pull out the win in Michigan.

[SaintPete]

25. I disagree - saving the Auto Ind

helped immensely - Romney's recorded remarks on letting them fail should seal it

[AlinPA]

19. PA will be very tough. Teabaggers are all over W. PA. This state put in a teabagger senator and

governor in 2010 plus the state house and senate.

[yellowcanine]

20. Of course it is not 2010. PA is more blue in Presidential elections than off year.

PA Democrats are notorious for not turning out for non Presidential years and allowing Republican governors to get elected.

[Yupster]

39. Penn 1988 was one of the worst calls ever

Two of the networks called Penn for Dukakis and the map behind the anchor colored it Dem

Next morning it was called for Bush.

I watched the news that evening just to see how the network would handle the big, big flub.

The map behind the anchor on the evening news had Penn turned to Bush. No explanation or apology ever made.

[BumRushDaShow]

34. PA hasn't gone repuke for Prez since 1988. n/t

[PRETZEL]

47. I would think that there are a great many issues

effecting us that could easily work in the President's favor.

Gov. Corbett's is dividing the state very quickly with some of his policies. The lagging of the gas extraction fees, internet sales tax, asset tests for SNAP, budget cuts to many social and educational programs are hitting alot of people very hard very quickly. And it's not just the urban areas surrounding Philly and Pittsburgh that are effected. So, where the Republican nominee may have it's base in the center of the state, those same people will have to judge him against Corbett's endorsement which should be inference be support for the governor's policies.

That, at least in my opinion, is why I believe the President has advantages is states like PA, OH and WI in particular.

[Dawson Leery]

26. Michigan and Pennsylvania are looking good for Obama.

Romney's position on the auto bailouts is already sinking him in Michigan.
Florida is going to hard to win again, though doable.

[fujiyama]

29. This year will feature many of the same swing states as the last few years

Unfortunately, I don't see anymore red states up for grabs really - and Obama's path is much narrower than last time. This election may be about just 3 or 4 states in the end.

The real swing states will be: FL, OH, NC, VA, NV, and NH. NV has a considerable Mormon population and Romney spends a lot of time in NH. VA and NC will be much tougher this time though I think Obama will be spending a lot of resources in both states. He likely has a better shot in VA than NC.

Indiana is gone and forget fantasy states like GA. They're not going to flip.

I think CO and NM lean Dem but they are vital to what I would call a western firewall. I'd add NV, but it'll be tougher than NM. I'd be really surprised if any of the other Kerry/Gore states were lost. OH should be easier than FL this time.

[Scuba]

30. You call Wisconsin a lock, but discount Ohio???? ...

I do not think Wisconsin is a lock. Voter suppression here and elsewhere is a very real threat.


We must keep working hard and remain vigilant.

[Obamacare]

31. If WI isn't a lock

we are in trouble. All the states Kerry won are a must, no ifs and or buts. Obama, should have no problem winning the states Kerry won. All other states, NC, VA, OH, FL, NM, CO, were going to have to work our asses off to keep blue. IMO, PA and MI have to be a lock, losing one of those is dangerous, because the harder to win states, (traditional swing states) become must wins if he looses any of Kerry's states.

[BlueDemKev]

62. Wisconsin is NEVER a lock, but....

....we usually have solid, organized GOTV efforts by progressive groups in Madison and Milwaukee which are able to tip the state in our favor. This is why pissing off the unions wasn't such a smart idea on Scott Walker's part!

[SoCalDem]

32. My three ways he wins

or



or

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

33. He'll win a Clinton - Dole style victory.

Reagan - Mondale is out of reach, but he's another personally popular President up against a boring stiff. If Romney didn't 'look' like a President, we'd definitely be in Mondalian territory. You don't unseat an incumbent in improving circumstances without being an extremely likeable candidate and magnetic personality. You just don't.

It won't come down to scrapping for one or two states. This is going to be much more comfortable than people are fearing; just don't get complacent.

[Proud Public Servant]

38. Unlikely to be that level

Clinton's victory over Dole in the EC was actually a wider margin than Obama-McCain -- and I don't think anyone is expecting a repeat of Obama-McCain, though it is very, very remotely possible (lose Indiana, but pick up Arizona and Montana).

[Yupster]

41. Election Quiz

Only two presidents in US history that have won reelection, won fewer states the second time than they did the first time.

Can anyone name them?

On edit - be bold - guess without looking it up first.

[Proud Public Servant]

43. Ooo, great question!

I have no idea (which embarrasses the presidential-trivia nerd in me) but will guess:

Lincoln (since 1864 was really just a contest within the states he had won in 1860)

Grant (because the scandals had already started to become public in 1872, plus -- iirc -- some Southern states were back in the hands of the Dems by then)

And now I'm off too look it up.

EDIT: Gah! Wrong on both counts...but the latter (in time) of the two right answers was the first one I thought of. Clearly, I have forgotten the great lesson of SAT test prep -- don't change your answer!

[Yupster]

44. Good guesses

Guess not too many guessers on DU. I'll leave it up for another day or so before giving answers.

By the way, those southern states voting after the Civil War probably weren't the most honest elections, or are we to believe that South Carolina's first ever popular vote for President (SC never held popular vote for prez until then) was for US Grant. Seems unlikely three years after the end of the Civil War.

And another thing - there is kind of an similar explanation for both of the answers as to why they may have won more states the first time.

[WI_DEM]

46. Well, Wilson is one of them in 1916 and I'm not sure, but maybe Clinton in 1996?

In 1912 Wilson won more states because the split within the GOP which he didn't have in 1916. In 1996, Clinton still was up against Perot as a third party candidate, but a much weaker Perot who got 19% in 1992 and only about 9% in 1996 and so Montana and maybe one other state that Clinton won (was in Georgia) went back to the GOP.

[Proud Public Servant]

48. The other one (spoiler)

was Madison in 1812. The War of 1812 basically split the country north-south, and cost him NY and NY, which he had carried in 1808 (oddly, though, he picked up Vermont; no idea why).

[Yupster]

51. Very good

And the thing they share is that they both benefited the first time by Republican splits.

Wilson would have lost to either Taft or TR.

Clinton would have beaten Bush even without Perot, but he would have won a few less states.

[Proud Public Servant]

58. Huh. Then there are actually 3.

Madison carried 12 states in 1808, 11 in 1812.

[Yupster]

61. Uh oh

Press Release:

The Rules Sub-Committee of the Trivia Question Judges Committee has been hastily assembled, and in a private, yet formal vote has decided that James Madison was not a President.

Though some may disagree with our decision, please understand it was fairly decided by formal vote.

The committee thanks all for their attention.

[WI_DEM]

45. Actually Obama has a good chance to win NC and VA--polls have always showed this

and if he can win those two states he can afford to lose a big state like Florida.

[Proud Public Servant]

50. True, except for the McDonnell factor

He's being touted -- sensibly, I think -- as a running-mate for Romney, and if he is it will make VA much tougher; he's a very popular governor who was elected in a 60-40 landslide.

[LynneSin]

49. Pa will easily go for Obama

First, there will be a huge increase in voters from the Philly region that are predominently democrat.

Second, the state is getting fed up with Tom Corbett who

a.) Is trying to bust the unions and Pennsylvania is a huge Union State
b.) Won't tax the people who want to destroy the Pennsylvania environment - the people who want to frack on the Marcellus Shale, which runs thick thru this state.
c.) Made huge cuts to education including the state colleges. Told the state colleges if they want to earn money they should lease their land to the drillers (many of the state colleges have their campuses on the Marcellus Shale).
d.) (and this is HUGE!) Has questionable ties to Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State coach accused of molesting several underage boys. Corbett was the AG at the time someone finally started doing the investigation (back in 2008) but yet nothing ever happened with the case until after Corbett left the AG office and became governor. Plus, Corbett accepted donations from the Second Life charitiy (the one run by Sandusky) even AFTER Corbett knew that Sandusky could possibly be a pedophile AND once Corbett was elected Governor he was automatically added as a member of the PSU Board of Trustees and yet 11 months later NOTHING was said or done.

[rufus dog]

55. 300 to 370 EV for Obama

Bookmark this.

[OmahaBlueDog]

56. I have it 276-262

...for the reigning champion, Barack Obama

..but some states in both columns could go either way.

I have Obama with ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, PA, OH, IL, WI, MN, IA, CO, NM, CA, WA, OR, HI

There are obvious variables. I could see losing Iowa, but getting Michigan. Maybe we take Virginia. Another variable -- today's same-sex marriage vote in the Washington legislature will likely end up on the fall ballot. Will that bring out the Eastern Washington fundies in droves?

No matter how it shakes out, I see it being really close.

[DCBob]

57. Florida will not be "easy".

In fact I would bet its likley going red especially if Rubio is VP. The more favorable path is with OH, WI, PA, MI, plus some of the following: CO, NM, IA and/or NC.

[craigmatic]

59. MSNBC is hedging like they did in 08. They don't want to admit we're further ahead than we are.

They refused to say that Obama was at 270 by October to try to set up a horse race and they're doing the samething again. Does anyone here really think Obama can't win WI, MI, IA, and PA again? Those states have gone dem since at least Clinton '92 if not before. We'll win FL (repub turnout is down), NM (large hispanic population), NV (Reid won it in 2010), and CO (an unexpearienced campaigner for Senate won it in 2010). That should be enough right there. The only states Obama may lose that he previously won are IN, NH, NC.