Electoral College Outlook: McCain 270, Obama 268
An UPDATE of the Electoral College Outlook Can Be Found In This Link.
The country can argue about politics and theory all it wants, but eventually it comes down to solid, old fashioned arithmetic. The problem that the Democratic Party is facing – and would have also faced with Hillary as the nominee – is, what States can they win that Gore and Kerry could not carry in 2000 and 2004?
Tim Carney is a long time friend of mine and one of the best political forecasters in Washington D.C. – he’s nailed all of the recent elections to the wall. In a recent Evans-Novak Political Report Tim predicts the Electoral College going to McCain over Obama by 270 to 268. Granted, that is a razor thin margin, but it seems to represent the current political climate.
Carney sums up the Presidential race:
The electoral map looks nearly identical to 2004, with Iowa and Colorado swinging into the Democratic camp. Beneath the surface, however, we see Michigan and Pennsylvania becoming more competitive for Republicans.
The election will hinge on two regions: Lake Erie and the Mountain West. An Obama win in New Mexico or Nevada would be enough to tip the scales, but a McCain win in Pennsylvania could put the race out of reach. In the end, as always, it comes down to Ohio, where Obama’s weakness among rural whites could send McCain to the White House.
Written by thismodernage
June 14, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Posted in Election 2008
Tagged with Barack Obama, Electoral College, Evans-Novak, John McCain, Tim Carney
10 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
This Modern Age 
I don’t know how to respond to “My friend says McCain is going to win”. I mean whats the point?
Keegan Sparks
June 21, 2008 at 2:43 am
And not to mention that its not that hard to predict the winner when there is a fifty-fifty chance. My bad I forgot about Nader that really throws a wrench into the mix.
Keegan Sparks
June 21, 2008 at 2:58 am
Keegan,
Sorry for the delay on posting your comments. I checked with my blogging consultant and he said that I should post comments even when not posting them would protect the commenter.
So to answer your (somewhat asinine) points:
The point on “my friend” picking McCain is actually significant. Common thought now is that Obama wins this thing in November. Listening to Tim Carney on elections is the next best thing to looking in a crystal ball. He isn’t just a random blogger. He’s a stellar bottom-up political analyst, whether he’s my friend on not. And at this point he is willing to go against commonly accepted norms. That should strike everyone – especially the Obama campaign.
Further, Nader or not, it’s not really a 50/50 shot on the predicition because the analysis that goes with it is at least as important as the end prediction itself. So if Carney is calling the regions that are most important to the race and predicting a small spread on the Electoral College, that is beyond the scope of an ignorant coin flip.
I’m looking forward to your future comments.
thismodernage
June 23, 2008 at 4:07 am
I heard from Tad that you are a new to the blog world… welcome. You have thought provoking posts and content (though it seems like we disagree on a lot). My main comment though is that berating your commenters probably is not the best way to encourage thoughtful dialog. Just a thought.
Lewis Cash
June 29, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Lewis –
New to the blog world? Sort of… I’ve been reading blogs for ages and I have used a blog with my consulting business for over a year now.
But personal blogging seems like a better sport overall, so here I am. Thanks for the welcome.
As far as my “berating” of Keegan (I assume that is what you are talking about here), I’m not under the impression he sent his comments to me with the best of intentions so I cracked back on him a bit. Also, Keegan knows me well and I generally believe, on things like this, he has thick skin. I would never respond to “normal” commenter in that manner.
thismodernage
June 30, 2008 at 12:32 am
Thismodernage,
Interesting post! The Bush-Gore election should have taught Democrats that elections are won by electoral votes, not the popular vote. Alas, they have obviously not learned their lesson. (You would think that self-professed intellectuals would be smarter).
All one has to do is look at the ridiculous methodology implemented in selecting their current Presidential candidate. If they had a winner-take-all system of assigning states’ electoral votes, Hillary Clinton would have won in a landslide. One day, they might learn to have their primaries mirror the process utilized in the general election. Perhaps then, they will understand how to win an election.
Let’s just hope that the mainstream liberal media continues to emphasize the popular vote. Let the blind lead the blind. It’s tough to see the forest when you are hugging a tree, after all.
Incidentally, I, too, am “new” to the blogging world, although I have been writing articles and web content for years. I have been looking for a decent site to add to my blogroll that is politically right and have just added yours.
Keep up the good work!
scottymck
July 9, 2008 at 3:43 am
Scotty –
You know I have heard both sides of the Democratic Primary on who would have won with “reasonable” rules. I haven’t taken the time to do that math myself.
Obviously the Electoral College system points directly to our federalist roots, which simply escapes the Left’s DNA. I believe that is the crux of their issue in focusing on the “popular vote.”
BTW – Welcome the blogging world. I am actually an Internet Marketing analyst by trade so I have done a little consulting around blogs before I started a personal one for myself.
Thanks for adding me to the blog roll. I’ll add you as well. Keep checking in, it looks like I may be able to secure some guest contributors that will keep things lively around here.
thismodernage
July 9, 2008 at 5:43 am
thismodernage,
I had pretty much assumed that Hillary would have won in a landslide because she had taken all of the larger electoral college states. Because of your comment, I finally decided to do the actual math and here are the results:
Not counting any delegates from Florida or Michigan: Hillary – 267; Barack – 227
If you count Michigan but not Florida (which probably wouldn’t be fair, since Obama took his own name off of the ballot), Hillary would have 284 electoral votes.
If you count Florida but not Michigan (which certainly sems fair, since both candidates were on the ballot), Hillary would have had 294 electoral votes.
Counting both Florida and Michigan, Hillary would have 311 electoral votes.
Because Barck lost both Florida and Michigan, his electoral college total would remain at 227. So, no matter which scenario you use, Hillary would have won by 40-84 electoral votes.
Thanks for prompting me to finally do the math. I have a funny feeling, however, that if the primaries were to begin anew, both political parties would have an entirely different candidate representing them in the general elction.
scottymck
July 11, 2008 at 2:41 am
Thanks for the intellectual beating. Mr. Cash seems to be a bit on the touchy feely side but he did defend me so I’ll be nice and keep my comments on him to myself. I am aware that my comment was asinine but you weren’t giving me much to work with at the time and there was the whole thing about not linking to me. But I still think this prediction is less than a great revelation of the future. Honestly I think your friend was just trying to mix up some controversy over an already controversial issue.
By the way I decided to be the bigger man and I linked to you.
Keegan Sparks
July 11, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Cash leaves Florida in the Republican column. Don’t be so sure! The economy here is terrible, there are increasing signs that there will be a huge vote for Obama of the black and young. Florida could turn it the other way.
tony in st. petersburg
August 5, 2008 at 3:16 pm