Skip to main content

I will do this analysis using the following criteria
1.  Obama won 365 EVs last cycle.  This time those states have 359 EVS.  From that I subtract the 2nd CD in NE and IN (each of which Nate has % of Obama winning <15) for a base of 347.

2.  There are 9 states considered battlegrounds, containing 110 electoral votes:  FL (29), OH (18), NC (15), VA (13), WI (10), CO (9), NV (6), IA (6), NH (4).  For Romney to win outright he needs 79 electoral votes, for a 269-269 tie and sending it to the house he needs 78.

Starting with states 85% or more likely for Obama

NH   4   86%
NV   6   86%
WI 10   85%     Total of 20 EVs, leaving 90 up for grabs

States at 77%
VA 13    77%    20 +13 =33 EVS, leaving 77 EVs, and election would be over

States at 76%
CO  9    76%
IA   6    76%     33 + 15 = 48 EVs,  leaving 62 EVs

State at 75%
OH 18   75%    48 + 18 = 66 EVs, leaving 44 EVs

At this point, without Florida, which Nate as at 67% for Obama, the electoral vote would be Obama 303  Romney 235

Throw in Florida and it would be 332-206.

That would leave NC as only one of competitive states Romney would carry.

But Romney now has to defend NC.  He is already fighting like hell in FL and VA.  It seems almost pointless for him to be spending resources in NH and NV, but I am glad to see it.

Yes, this is based on polling data containing "bounce" from DNC, but also note we have not yet had full round of state polls since DNC in battleground states.  The situation could be even worse that Nate shows.  And Romney people have admitted to Politico a situation in OH which may be worse than the 5 point margin in PPP.

Remember, the name of the game is the electoral college.

If Romney loses NV, NH, Wi & VA the election is over unless he can find unfaithful electors.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (40+ / 0-)

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 06:40:10 AM PDT

  •  Imagine (0+ / 0-)

    what the elections would be like if we used a better election method. Loony, dishonest politicians would be over.
    Check the poll in my signature: vote and appreciate the difference! :)

    Our community is against the use of the electoral vote:
    http://minguo.info/...

    •  Having said that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      carver

      I am happy that Obama has such a clear Electoral path to victory. But still, I am looking beyond 2012 and that's why I am involved with this project:
      http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  We should keep the electoral college. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tampaedski, Odysseus

      With a pure national popular vote, no state except CA, NY, TX, MA, IL, FL, PA and OH would ever see a presidential candidate.

      The Electoral College was designed to avoid a tyranny of the majority, and to give residents of smaller states a voice in selecting the President.  It works.

      •  Of course if you live in CA, NY, TX (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PinHole, sdf, buckeyed

        You never ever see a presidential candidate, except at fundraisers.

        It kinda sucks watching OH and FLA dominate elections every single year of my adult life.  CA hasn't been competitive in over 20 years (although without Gov Pete Wilson-R alienating the entire Latino electorate permanently in the mid 90s, that might not have been true).  What that means is nobody spends any money or time here except for CA specific races.   It's just too expensive to do anything much here, and the odds of changing an outcome are too low.

      •  No, the electoral college was designed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sdf, frosti

        to strengthen small states against large states. It has nothing to do with the tyranny of the majority and in fact creates an inequality that empowers a small, small minority over the majority. It has long out-lived its usefulness and value and is nothing but a detraction from our electoral system.

        It works alright. It works to undermine democracy.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 09:40:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Smallest States Support a National Popular VOte (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Andrew C White

          Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states.  More than 2/3rds of states and voters are ignored.

          Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states),  presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

          Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group.  Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%,  NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%,  SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%,  and WY- 69%.

          In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

          Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.  Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) -   got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states.  In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

          In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

      •  Now 2/3rds of States and Voters Ignored (0+ / 0-)

        The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

        Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

        More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

        The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.

        Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

      •  Now 11 Biggest States Could Decide By Themselves (0+ / 0-)

        With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!

        But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question.  In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey).  The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country.  For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.  

        Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
        * Texas (62% Republican),
        * New York (59% Democratic),
        * Georgia (58% Republican),
        * North Carolina (56% Republican),
        * Illinois (55% Democratic),
        * California (55% Democratic), and
        * New Jersey (53% Democratic).  

        In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally.  Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
        * Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
        * New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
        * Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
        * North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
        * Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
        * California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
        * New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

        To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000  "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).  Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

        •  11 states is an improvement (0+ / 0-)

          at one point it took only 8 states

          "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

          by teacherken on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 05:48:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The National Popular Vote Bill (0+ / 0-)

        The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states.  12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.   9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia).  Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. At most, 12 states will determine the election.

        The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

        Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

        When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

        The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

        In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

        The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

        NationalPopularVote   
        Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  •  Same problem Democrats faced in 2000, 2004 (11+ / 0-)

    That is that they had to run the table. Flipping NH, as Kerry did in 2004 wasn't enough. Democrats had to play defense to hold their states. Obama has changed the electoral map. Period.

    Of course I would be remiss in not pointing out that Florida stole the election in 2000 and Ohio did the same four years later.

  •  PPP is out with their NC poll: (5+ / 0-)

    Obama up by 49-48% !!!


    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous..........got me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 06:57:04 AM PDT

  •  maybe I'm disremembering (0+ / 0-)

    but wasn't the common wisdom that the post convention numbers indicate the hard ceiling?  that the bounce is indicative of the elasticity of potential new support.

    Have you hugged your Boeuf Bourguignon today?

    by wretchedhive on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 06:58:44 AM PDT

  •  teacherken, in your last line... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight
    If Romney loses NV, NV, Wi & VA the election is over
    One of the NV's should be NH.

    Nice summary of where we stand.

    "Safety and security are the result of collective consensus. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear." - Nelson Mandela. Donate to TREE Climbers

    by TX Freethinker on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 07:08:29 AM PDT

  •  Excellent summary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian S, PinHole, wonderwhy

    We can be optimistic but a lot can happen in two months.  Plus we really need these votes for Obama to also go for  the Senate and House!

  •  glad you turned this... (0+ / 0-)

    ...into a diary.

    Cartography is 27% art. - Steve Demers

    by Jeffrey L Albertson on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 07:22:29 AM PDT

  •  Hopeful but (0+ / 0-)

    It is not over till November.

    I don't want 'just a win', I want to see an unquestionable landslide across the board - President, Senate, Congress, States.  

    The USA deserves better.

  •  The big picture is simply that (0+ / 0-)

    Romney has to do something which shifts voters in a number of states, not just one or two.

    I think that means he has to do well in the debates.

    Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

    by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 09:28:28 AM PDT

  •  Pre-DNC/RNC the situation was the same (0+ / 0-)

    only very narrowly so. Now however we are seeing the very narrow lead of Obama getting set firmly.

    The fact is that Romney has to run the table of large battleground states AND win one of the small ones in order to win. Obama need only hold the remaining small ones or take only one of the big ones and Romney is done.

    But the fact is that Romney really only holds a chance in North Carolina while the others are slipping even further away post-DNC.

    In fact, if the bounce is as big as it is looking then Romney now has to worry about holding states like Missouri, Arizona and Montana as well as fighting for North Carolina before trying to make the above climb through the large remaining battleground states.

    Here's the catch... most of the Senate battleground states are also presidential  battleground states... Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Nevada... and more marginally battleground states like Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Arizona, Montana, North Dakota.

    For Republicans to have a chance at taking the Senate they need to be transcendent in all those states while keeping us from being competitive. With this post-DNC bounce we are now at least in the somewhat-competitive category in each of those states and very-competitive in several.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 09:38:21 AM PDT

  •  lots of voter turnout effort in NC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    teacherken

    I see a lot of OFA folks around, registering people, asking people to make sure they are registered. We have the votes to win but in 2010 we did not turn out and were rewarded(by Satan) with a seriously regressive state house. The state is more and more progressive in many ways, but Obama carried in 2008 by five votes per precinct, so we really want to do that again.

    I am busy with a teen son and husband working in another state, but took banana bread to the OFA volunteers last week, and I will help drive people when early voting starts here, Oct.18th.

    George W. Bush: the worst Republican president SO FAR.

    by Chun Yang on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 10:04:28 AM PDT

  •  Things have been looking pretty good for Obama (0+ / 0-)

    for a while now. There's more focus on the margin, but I think it's been there a while.

    What I'm more worried about is the Congress; can we capture the house, or at least, protect the Senate?

    We need both, to get anything done at all.

    -5.38, -2.97
    It's too big a world to be in competition with everyone. The only person who I have to be better than is myself. - Sherman T. Potter

    by ChuckInReno on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 12:52:27 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site