Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Challenge - the prediction

Further to my challenge to ASwaS, here's how I think the swing states will go in November. I should preface it by saying that I think the result of the 2004 Electoral College will largely be repeated - with only 5 states switching from one candidate to the other.

12 Swing states:

New Mexico
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES: 5
Margin of victory in 2004: Republican, 0.8%
Recent election history: 1992 1996 2000 2004

Epitome of a close call – in 2000 it was DEM by just 366 votes, last time REP by less than 6,000. Swinging DEM again with the congressional delegation and the Governorship – Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama. High population of Hispanics – marginally – calling this one for Obama.
NEW MEXICO – DEM (+5)

Colorado
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES: 9
Margin of victory in 2004: Republican, 5%
Recent election history: 1992 1996 2000 2004

While the Democrats have seen a swing towards them in recent congressional elections (2 congressmen, one senator) and the gubernatorial due to the growing Hispanic population, Colorado is a Republican stronghold. DEMs last won the state when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, but that may change in November.
COLORADO – DEM (+9)

Iowa
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES: 7
Margin of victory, 2004: Republican, 0.8%
Recent election history: 1992 1996 2000 2004

Historically the Democratic candidate has won Iowa. However, on his way to a second term in 2004, George W. Bush edged a close victory for the Republicans. With Iowa bordering Obama’s home state (Illinois) and his decent polling in the state, it could switch back to DEM.
IOWA – DEM (+7)

Ohio
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES: 20
Margin of victory in 2004:
Republican, 2%
Recent election history: 1992 1996 2000 2004

Ohio is a key state, not least for the fact that 20 electoral votes are available to the winner. Democrats now have the Governor, a Senator and a Congressman – all elected in 2006 mid-terms, but Barack Obama had failed to win over Ohio’s blue-collar workers in the primaries. John McCain’s choice of running mate may swing the state back to the Republicans, enough to hold off Obama’s charge here.
OHIO – REP (N/C)


Virginia

ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES: 13
Margin of victory in 2004: Republican, 8%
Recent election history: 1992 1996 2000 2004

Virginia has been solidly Republican since the 1970s but now, like many of the swing states, has a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Senator was elected in the mid-terms in 2006. However, it will require a large change for Barack Obama to win here. If he does, it is game over for McCain. But I don’t think that will happen.
VIRGINIA – REP (N/C)

Florida
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES: 27
Margin of victory in 2004: Republican, 5%
Recent election history: 1992 1996 2000 2004

Florida proved the controversial winning post for George Bush in 2000 when a Supreme Court decision was required to decide the election. However, 2004 saw the Republicans win back the state more comfortably. John McCain won a hard-fought Republican primary here, and should replicate that victory in November.
FLORIDA – REP (N/C)

On the basis that they border Obama’s home state (or, at least, the state he represents) of Illinois, I’d suggest that Minnesota and Wisconsin will remain with the Democrats. New Hampshire voted Bush in 2000 but will probably stay Democrat this time out. Michigan, with 17 electoral votes and Pennsylvania with 21 are two states which I think could go either way. If Obama loses either – and there is potential given his lack of appeal to blue-collar workers – then the game is over. I’d expect Pennsylvania to remain blue but won’t be surprise if Michigan (+17) turns red. I'm also - at the last minute - deciding to give Obama Nevada (+5).

And in those 12 states, the 2008 Presidential Election will be won and lost. I only expect 5 states to change hands – New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa to go for Obama while Michigan turns for McCain. That’s the ballgame there – and John McCain will win by 277-261.

4 comments:

Malc 23 September 2008 at 16:31  

Previous predictions:

STEPHEN GLENN

MCCAIN: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

OBAMA: California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey , New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

OBAMA WINS 312-226

Malc 23 September 2008 at 16:32  

Previous prediction (2):

SAM

MCCAIN: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

OBAMA: California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

OBAMA WINS 311-227

Susan 23 September 2008 at 20:09  

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Sam 23 September 2008 at 22:40  

Susan,

The election process is constitutionally determined by Article Two.

Wouldn't you therefore need a constitutional amendment to change that process rather than using the unfair system you don't like to change the um, unfair system you don't like?

Actually you have a point, like virtually every election system it is unfair. But so is yourmmethod for enacting your proposed solution.

At least its more unfair than the necessary two-thirds majority in both Houses and the ratification of three-quarters of state legislatures required to change the constitution.

Or you could try a Constitutional Convention. Good luck with that.

Post a Comment

Contact

Feel free to get in touch with me if you have an issue with something you've read here... or if you simply want to debate some more! You can email me at:

baldy_malc - AT - hotmail - DOT - com

Comment Policy

I'm quite happy - indeed, eager - to engage in debate with others when the topic provides opportunity to do so. I like knowing who I'm debating with and I'm fed up with some abusive anonymous comments so I've disabled those comments for awhile. If you want to comment, log in - it only takes a minute.

Disclaimer

Regrettably, this is probably required:
This blog is my own personal opinion (unless otherwise stated) and does not necessarily reflect the views of any other organisation (political or otherwise) that I am a member of or affiliated to.
Related Posts with Thumbnails

  © Blogger template The Business Templates by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP