How Dems can win the electoral college without OH and FL

[usregimechange]

These are the 04 election results with three differences. NV, NM, and CO have been switched to Dems.

We can win by winning what Kerry won and by flipping NV, CO, and IA also.

Or by flipping NV and VI and losing NH.

Or by flipping IA and MO.

Obviously, winning OH or FL would make it very likely for Dems to win but there are a number of plausible scenarios where Dems could win without either.

Play around with the map yourself at wp:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/

[one800progress]

1. Electoral College and the Two Nominees

It's certainly appropriate to focus on the Electoral College. 
But let's look at 2008, not 2004.

If we do, I believe we'll see that Hillary has she got some
grounds for thinking the super-delegates might choose her over
Barack...even choose her over Barack “for the good of the
Party."

Like it or not, the next President WILL be selected by vote of
the Electoral College, and the Party’s super-delegate
mechanism is partly an attempt to bias nominee selection to
reflect this reality.  “Blue state” / “red state” nomenclature
captures the fact that over three-quarters of the states
(including DC, of course) reliably vote one party or the other
except in unusual circumstances, leaving fewer than a quarter
in play.  Different handicappers may differ and the pattern
will change over time, but the Rasmussen organization, for
example, as of March 28 identifies just 12 states in marginal
– the famous “purple” – categories of “leans Democrat,” “leans
Republican,” or “toss-up” (their website describes variables
used in the methodology).  Now, assuming Hillary wins
Pennsylvania, she will have been the Democrats’ choice in 60%
of these “purple” contests; and these account for 66% of the
Electoral College votes potentially in-play.  That should give
the super-delegates pause before simply endorsing the popular
vote when deciding who to make the Party nominee.

In Rasmussen’s “toss-up” states – Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and
Colorado – Hillary’s advantage is sharper.  There, she’s
already won 3 out of the 4 contests, accounting for 82% of the
Electoral College votes in-play.  Was Ohio, at least,
“Operation Chaos-ed” by Limbaugh and company?  Maybe, but will
the super-delegates care to bet “the good of the Party” on
that?

Naturally someone will ask, “OK, but what about all those
primaries that Barack actually won? – weren’t there a lot of
them?”  The answer is, yes, indeed; Barack won 3 out of 4 of
those contests in states that the Rasmussen characterizes
“safely Democratic,” “likely Democratic,” “safely Republican,”
or “likely Republican.”  But so what?  The Electoral College
outcome from those states is likely or very likely going to be
the same, regardless of either party’s nominee.  (Those who
still insist that Barack’s 72% sweep of those contests must
signify something, might find themselves uncomfortably
reminded by Hillary’s partisans that that the “sweep” amounts
to a bare majority of just 55% of the possible Electoral
College votes from those states, so Hillary’s 45% also counts
for something, the contest between candidates is actually much
closer, etc.  But both positions imagine significance where
none exists, because in these states it unlikely to matter
whether Barack or Hillary is the party’s eventual nominee.)

That Michigan is a “toss-up” state and Florida a “leans
Republican” – both potentially in-play – incidentally
underscores the importance of resolving the disposition of
those states’ Party delegates.

Hillary’s got an argument to make.  

[thesubstanceofdreams]

3. Hillary has no argument whatsoever

Winning the primary is not any kind of indicator of likelihood of carrying the state in the GE. If this is the best argument Hillary has, she's in big trouble (by the way, she is).

[one800progress]

4. At least one super-delegate would disagree with you.

See Mario Cuomo in this morning's Boston Globe:
"Recent polls of all Democrats show the two leaders virtually tied and indicate Clinton is more likely than Obama to win the states the Democrats must take in order to succeed."

[Benhurst]

5. Link to Cuomo's "How to Avoid a Democratic Disaster" in today's Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/29/how_to_avoid_a_democratic_disaster/

[LibDemAlways]

2. The electoral map is really quite daunting. We have

no chance in the south, and some of our Blue State victories in 04 were uncomfortably close if you examine the state-by-state totals. And this was against a total moron who had already been screwing up for 4 years.

It's a toss up at best, and will depend to a large extent on Iraq and the economy over the next 7 months.

[LisaL]

6. Dems better figure how to win without FL and OH, cause I don't think

Obama would win those states.

[featherman]

7. The GOP brand name is so damaged in Ohio that it woud take a miracle

for any Republican to win that state. This is the word from close friends in the state who are well connected politically. It is true that McCain would be the strongest candidate that the GOP could run in Ohio demographics but please remember that the entire state government is now Democratic and that will help Obama a great deal.
Just saying.

I am writing off Florida for a similar reason: the Democratic brand name is damaged there and the state government remains GOP. We should campaign hard there nonetheless a go after it strongly so McCain has to keep using his resources there. Dems should have an overal money advantage for the GE and use it wisely.

[msallied]

10. I agree completely

From my time living Ohio, the pulse there right now is purely Democratic. And with the way that Obama has been turning out young people, Columbus kids from OSU will likely turn out in droves.

[Cosmocat]

15. Yep ...

Bag on Fl, especially with the primary flap ...

Ohio is in play with any dem, and with Obama any number of states beyond what Kerry won are in play ... Virginia, some of the midwest states ...

[bain_sidhe]

8. I really don't think you can count on Michigan

How can Obama replace those EVs?

I also think he can take Iowa and maybe MO, which would more than do the job (-17 for MI, +18 for IA & MO).

[msallied]

12. Michigan typically goes blue.

There is no reason why he won't be able to count on it this time, even with the current primary fiasco. The people who go out and vote will stick to their party guns, I think.

[AZ Criminal JD]

13. Michigan typically has their primary votes counted.

So throw whats "typical" out the window. People have memories and they will be reminded I'm sure.

[bain_sidhe]

18. I don't think it's that so much as the fact that Obama

took his name off the ballot, thereby "declaring" that Iowa and New Hampshire voters were more important to him than Michigan voters.

I don't think a lot of people other than us junkies follow the arcane nominating rules, but a slap in the face like that... that we notice.

And let's not get into the old argument about what "participate" means. That's too deep in the weeds for the non-junkies. The fact that most people remember is that he didn't *have* to do that, and he did it anyway, to pander to IA/NH.

That'll hurt him among the "outstaters" (what we in southeast MI call people not from SE Michigan) who might otherwise be inclined to give him a chance.

[SoCalDem]

27. Hopefully in Nov, MI will throw out those state reps who screwed you this time

:)

[bain_sidhe]

14. But it's always very close

And McCain has a lot of support here. The primary fiasco is just another push that might put us over the edge, but we're very close to it even without that.

Michigan has always been two states, much like NY - except in NY the "liberal" population is much larger than the "conservative" population. That's not so, here. The two are much more evenly balanced. You have the "liberal" Detroit-Ann Arbor areas, and the rest of the state is pretty much red.

Again, it's *possible* that Obama could take it, but I don't think you can count on it.

[featherman]

16. I agree that Michigan is never a "gimme" for the Dems

I sure wish Gov. Granholm had thought through the consequences before she and the state Dems acted so foolishly and carelessly and got us all into this mess.

[bain_sidhe]

19. I don't blame Granholm

I blame the DNC for allowing IA and NH to retain their "first" status, after promising reform after the 2004 election. I understand that small states should go first. I just don't think it should be the same small states all the time.

After that reform-that-wasn't, Granholm and some of the other Dem leaders looked at the calendar and believed that MI - a state which is hurting far more than most other states - would have NO influence without doing something to shake up the status quo.

Just about everyone believed that the race would be decided by the primaries on the earliest "sanctioned" date, Feb 5. If we went on that date, we'd be ignored in favor of campaigning in NY and CA, if we went after that date, our primary would be meaningless.

They were all wrong, of course. But that belief wasn't unreasonable, given what happened in 2004.

[TeamJordan23]

9. McCain will not win Ohio with his trade/NAFTA positions. nm

[blogslut]

11. Ahem

One of those states may just turn blue this year if things continue the way they're going. It's kind of a big state. I'll let ya'll guess which one. ;)

[SoCalDem]

17. ..Mine ..without Ohio or PA

concentrate on Virginia, Colorado & a few small places within Nebraska..cede the rest to Mccain & there's even a 15 point cushion

[Tatiana]

20. I like this map. If we GOTV and make a big enough push, MO is ours. n/t

[SoCalDem]

25. and the other marginal states I included, are smaller population states

those 3 small areas of nebraska would be easy to "work" and VA is almost blue now..

then if Ohio & PA came along it would all be gravy:)

and I really think that Colorado is DO-able

[SoCalDem]

26. Pick up PA and lose Michigan.. = 289

.lots of flexibility

[bain_sidhe]

29. Yep, I think PA is ours

Been wrong before, of course, but I really don't see losing it, with either candidate as our nominee.

Question, why did you take PA off the table.

(edited to take out incorrect referrent)

[SoCalDem]

30. Just to show that it was POSSIBLE to win without it

:)

[bain_sidhe]

32. Ah. Good.

Yes, I think it's possible without it too. Just have to jigger the map correctly.

[bain_sidhe]

21. Again, don't count on MI

I really mean it. I honestly am convinced the MI will turn red this election.

[SoCalDem]

23. I doubt it..but we'll see

:hi:

[mckeown1128]

24. It won't unless McCain picks Romney for VP. then it might. nt

[bain_sidhe]

33. I don't think he needs Romney

Remember, MI went for McCain in the 2000 primaries even after South Carolina. Romney has a good name in MI, enough to give him the primary win this time, but even so, I think a lot of people were beginning to realize that Mitt is not cut from the same cloth as his dad. My dad was a big George Romney fan, and even he said something to that effect.

[featherman]

28. Thanks for noting 1/2 of NE. Obama might surprise by

running strong in ND and MT. Don't forget that Bill Clinton won MT in '92. Obama polls well in both.

Iowa should go Dem again. I'll never concede PA to the GOP. The state government of both is Democratic as is MI. Not something that should be overlooked.

NC could be back in play as well as VA. Demographics there are changing and our son says there is a lot of excitement about Obama in his (heavily military base) area of NC.

GA is not out of the question. KA with Sibelius and home ties might be worth a shot.

Some of this is a bit rosy but I am all for the 50 state approach and making strong stands in many "red states" to help change the party identification map away from the Gore/Kerry formula.

[mckeown1128]

22. You forgot Virginia... Obama will win Virginia...

it will be the BIG pickup this year. Obama/Webb 08

[bain_sidhe]

31. Oooh! Yes!

I like that idea! (Both picking up Virginia, and Webb as VP. Even if he is a sexist. ;-) )