Electoral Map shows why Obama has a MUCH better chance against McCain.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I made these myself, didn't get them off any site. I'm basically improving on electoral-vote.com's model by using Pollster's averages of all polls, rather than just the very latest poll in each state (many of which can be wildly out of whack).

For additional discussion please see this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5521515&mesg_id=5521515

All poll numbers are from pollster.com which averages all polls, so there is no cherry-picking and outlier polls are mitigated. The numbers reflect Obama vs McCain and Clinton vs McCain in each state - not Obama vs Clinton. Darkest colors mean ahead by 5.0% or more. Medium colors, ahead by 2.0-4.9%. Lightest colors, ahead by less than 2.0%.

The picture on the right shows how the final electoral map would look.




As you can see, if the election were held today, both would lose to McCain. But the election's not being held today.

All Obama would have to do in order to win would be to take either PA or OH, two states he is within range in. If he won PA, he could afford to lose 8 EV's elsewhere and still win the election (assuming he carried all the other states in which he's leading).

Clinton, on the other hand, would lose even if she carried WA, NM and WI -- 267 to 271 (that sounds familiar!) Therefore FL would be a must-win for her, plus any other state. I think we've already seen what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket...

Also, Obama leads in 23 states while Clinton leads in only 20 - narrowing the contest and making it easier for McCain to put more of his resources in FL to prevent her from winning.

[Syrinx]

1. I support Obama

I live in Alabama. Is there anything I can do?

I'm joking, of course. But, seriously, Obama is the kind of candidate that really could change history. Stranger things have happened. Maybe.

[FlyingSquirrel]

2. We'll see.

As usual his task is much more difficult than it would be for a white guy and I'm just stating facts here. He's ahead by every measure, most would agree he's locked it up mathematically, but somehow it's "still anyone's to win or lose" and the media just piled every attack which most of us recognize for what they are on him last night.

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. Somehow... nothing to do with fixed election processes

The media "keep it close" propaganda is just window-dressing
designed to persuade people that the election was indeed close
and remove any suggestion that it would not have been without
organized manipulation of the process...

[FlyingSquirrel]

3. Well shucks, ya spend half a day on somethin...

I guess I picked a bad time, everyone's too interested in discussing the debate to pay attention to electoral maps.

:cry:

[woolldog]

4. Great analysis, Squirrel

You're absolutely right. That's why I've been saying that Hillary needs to win Ohio, Penn, and Florida.

Obama only needs one of those three, given his electoral strength elsewhere.

It's risky to have to count on winning OH, FL, and PA. OH and FL especially.

I appreciate how you didn't cherrypick polls for either candidate.

[ieoeja]

5. Good analysis.

Obama needs either 1 of the 2 that are currently leaning McCain.

Clinton needs Florida plus 1 of the other 3 that are currently leaning McCain. And winning Florida is going to be pretty tough after the Florida Democrats have spent the past year telling everyone how horrible Democrats are.

Plus there are currently more solid Obama states than Clinton. So she not only needs to "steal" more, she also to put more effort into defending what she has.

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. Exactly. Thanks for reading it -

I know with all the post-debate stuff this is just sinking constantly, but I did put a lot of work into it so I'll keep kicking a few more times.

:freak:

[progressoid]

8. Well shit. That depressing either way!

This shows me that my country is filled with fucking morans!

McCain at 281 is outrageous.

[FlyingSquirrel]

13. That's true.

Of course there are a lot of Red states. I wonder how he'd be doing against a generic challenger, some kind of composite between Hillary and Barack. Maybe I'll see if I can create something like that just for fun.

[NM Independent]

9. K&R

This is pretty depressing.

There are some truly clueless people in this country. Well, clueless or fascist and approving, either way it isn't good.

It's okay people, go back to your TV and watch some more American Idol/Dancing w/the Stars or whatever else you've used to make yourself blissfully ignorant and stupid as hell.

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. What happened to Obama doing well in Virginia?

Kerry made it close until late in the campaign.

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. Well, he's keeping it way closer than Hillary is --

She's behind by 17.2% according to Pollster, while Obama's behind by 7.4%.

[knixphan]

11. O can do this.

Add the X facor = US

working our friends back from the dark side.

Let's get out there. No spectating allowed.

Donate and speak at the water cooler.

[FlyingSquirrel]

14. Oops, Hillary leads in 19 states not 20. So four fewer states than Barack

at this time 'cause he leads in 23 states.

[liberaldem4ever]

15. K & R

[Texas Hill Country]

16. i cant see your map, but I can see theirs and they show Obama winning Texas... That will NEVER

ever ever ever happen. period.

it makes the rest of the map completely suspect.

[ExPatLeftist]

17. The maps above shows Texas in red in all cases

IMO posting about the pic without seeing it is a bit suspect itself... ;)

[Texas Hill Country]

23. i followed the link and responded to the pic at the other site and said as much

:smile:

[FlyingSquirrel]

18. True dat.

Mine shows them both losing Texas by 6-10% right now since I have to go by the same procedure for each state (using Pollster's averages). In reality TX is more like 15-20% although it would certainly be nice to see that start moving the, um, left direction.

[BenDavid]

19. excuse me but give hrc florida & wash. and you have the win

least you have it right that obama will lose...hrc has more of a range in many of these states where Barry does not.

All you got to do is have o lose pa. and you all can go to bed early on november 4th.

[FlyingSquirrel]

20. Shaded states with a bit more precision - same numbers.

[JCMach1]

21. We must not be looking at the same map... They BOTH lose to McCain

However, look at the states that are close on the map. The only one's that Obama is anywhere near close are the ones that are in the Hillary column.

Then, look at the leaning red states on the Hillary map. Hmmmmmm. FL,WA,WI and she carries Arkansas.


It could be spun either way. Either Dem candidate can win, but they both have weaknesses. That's the NO SPIN answer.

[FlyingSquirrel]

26. How 'bout this way...

Obama's currently ahead of McCain in 23 states totalling 257 EV's, and close in 3 others totalling 56 EV's. (Looking at the second map I posted which shows the states with a bit more precision).

Hillary's currently ahead of McCain in 19 states totalling 241 EV's, and close in 4 others totalling 53 EV's.

So Obama's competing well for 313 EV's in 26 states, and Hillary's competing well for 294 in 23.

Perhaps not a decisive advantage when examined that way, but still clearly an advantage.

There's also the matter of how close they each are to McCain.

We start them both out with CA, DC, NY, RI, VT, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, ME, MA = 157 EV's each. (MA is strangely low for Obama right now but let's face it MA will vote Democratic.)

Give AR, WV, to Clinton, 11 EV. Sure, that's an advantage. Let's leave FL, PA, OH out for a minute and see what's left.

NV, CO, NM, IA, WI, NH: 40 EV's -

Obama leads McCain by average of 3.1%,
Clinton trails McCain by average of 6.6%

WA, OR: 18 EV's -

Obama leads McCain by average of 7.2%,
Clinton ahead in OR by only 0.7% and behind in WA by 1.0%

MI: 17 EV's -

Obama leads McCain by 1.3%, Clinton trails by 5.2% (thought she was their champion!)

There's 75 EV's where Obama is currently leading McCain, and the only state in which Hillary's ahead is OR by the barest of margins. She'll have to fight much harder than Obama for every one of those states with a smaller war chest and don't forget, she's competing in fewer states so McCain has an easier time competing with her.

NJ, MN: 25 EV's -

Essentially tied, both candidates doing about the same.

MO: 11 EV's -

Hillary's doing about 10 points better there.

NC: 15 EV's -

Barack's doing about 10 points better there. Advantage, BO by 4 EV's in MO/NC.

-----

So at this point we have Obama with a 75 EV advantage plus 4 = 79, compared to Hillary's 11 EV for WV and AR. True, he may not win them all, but she might not either and he has a head start of 6-9% over her numbers.

-----

So now we come to PA, OH. 41 EV's.

Hillary leads McCain by an average 3.2% while Obama trails him by an average 1.5%.

What's gonna be easier - for Obama to overtake McCain in those two states, (while McCain has to fight him for all those other EV's in states where he's currently ahead) or for Hillary to hold that small lead and also overtake McCain in at least four other states?

This is why the difference between Obama's 257 and Clinton's 241 is so big of a deal. Because for her to do much better than that, she has to overcome big deficits in several states, whereas he only has to overcome a small deficit in one or two states.

-----

And then there's FL. Well, good luck is all I have to say about that. This was the whole point of the OP. Yes, she's doing better in FL. No, she's not guaranteed to win the state, and if she's already having to fight so hard on all other fronts for EV's, plus she's competing in fewer states, we could see a repeat of 2000.

NO thanks.

[JCMach1]

27. All speculation until there is a nominee... I stand by my statement

that both have vulnerabilities at this point. Also, running mates will make a difference. If Wesley Clark is Obama's VP, that could put Arkansas, TN, MO and perhaps VA as competitive for Obama.

IF he took John Edwards, NC would become a swing state. Ditto VA if he took Webb.

Really just speculation at this point... but fun speculation.

Could get really difficult if McCain takes Tom Ridge, or Charlie Crist as a running mate. Crist would be a helluva of a maverick choice and would deliver FL whoever the Dems nominate. Ridge would be the wildcard... he could swing PA if he is Mc's VP

[terrell9584]

22. So Clinton now leads in Arkansas

and no Democrat has been elected President since that state became a state without posting a win in Arkansas.

Then again, polls are somewhat meaningless right now, and the nomination fight is not even over. This is something that will be looked at in the next month, is useless at this time. Though, that precedent of Arkansas holds true. No Democrat has ever assumed the office of the Presidency as a Presidential candidate without winning Arkansas.

[FlyingSquirrel]

24. First time for everything. :-)

[featherman]

25. I am sorry but NO DEM will lose either PA or OH this year

Both have Democratic state governments which Ohio did not have last two times out. Those familiar with on the ground organizing understand the importance of this critical difference. This is also one of the main reasons Florida is not in play

In case people have not been paying attention, the GOP brand name is so damaged in Ohio not only by Bush but by the previous crooked, incompetent GOP administration that the entire state GOP party is in chaos and disarray and the Democrats are ascendant. This is the word that I get from those very, very close to the political climate in Ohio.

Head to head polls v. McCain are for entertainment purposes only until we settle on a nominee and throw the weight of the Democratic Party behind him. Then we'll take a look at some of these maps a little more seriously.

[JCMach1]

28. Exactly, McCain is leading by sitting on his ASS

LOL, I saw more Ron Paul signs in PA than I have McCain.

[BlooInBloo]

29. Well the Clinton supporters will do everything that can to change THAT!

Can't have a Democrat win, after all, if it's not Clinton.