WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
With all the numbers flying around, it sometimes gets pretty hard to answer a simple question: What does Obama need to do to win the election?
But it's really not that difficult to answer if you make a simple assumption: If Obama loses Pennsylvania or Michigan, then Ohio is already a lost cause, and Obama has lost. (Which means McCain, if he was smart, would focus on PA and MI. Win either and he's home free).
But since Obama is improving his status in PA and MI, we have to assume he wins both. And with his other safe states, that gives him 252 Electoral Votes. So he needs 18 more Electoral Votes from the following states:
Colorado 9
Indiana 11
Iowa 7
Missouri 11
Nevada 5
New Mexico 5
Ohio 20
Virginia 13
So if he wins Ohio, he wins the election. (538 says Obama wins 99% of the time when winning OH/PA/MI).
But if he loses Ohio, here's where the "map expansion" comes into play. First, lets ignore Indiana and Missouri, because if he wins them, he's probably won enough other states to be over the top anyway. And lets give him Iowa, where's he's now up by 10 points, moving him to 259 EVs. So he needs 11 EVs from:
Colorado 9
Nevada 5
New Mexico 5
Virginia 13
Giving him NM leaves him 6 EVs short, so he would need CO or VA to win, and NV to tie.
Lose NM, and he needs 11 EVs from CO (9), NV (5) and VA (13).
So I think here's the combinations of states that will win for Obama:
1) Ohio
2) Iowa, New Mexico, and (Colorado or Virginia)
3) Iowa and Virginia or (Colorado and Nevada)
Let us know what you think.
ChrisSD · 874 weeks ago
Matt 75p · 874 weeks ago
Dan in upstate NY · 874 weeks ago
There is one major "fly in the ointment" yet to be determined: McCain's running mate. If he chooses Pawlenty, then it could put MN at risk. (I still think Obama can win MN in that scenario, but it becomes harder.) If he chooses Romney, then it puts MI at risk as well as (potentially) CO and NV (both of those states, especially NV, have larger-than-average Mormon populations). Other potential running mates pose a threat to Obama, but not as big a threat as Pawlenty and Romney. (E.g., Obama can afford to lose Florida [Crist].)
One other oddity that's worth noting: the one electoral vote from Nebaska's 1st CD could go to Obama (even more so if he picks Sebelius from neighboring Kansas as his running mate). We're not likely to see any polling from that lone CD, though, so we won't really know it plays out until election day.
Matt 75p · 874 weeks ago
Joe · 873 weeks ago
Dan in upstate NY · 874 weeks ago
tmess2 · 874 weeks ago
However, if the Industrial Midwest as a whole stayed competitive, the results in individual states would be dictated by local phenomenom -- namely local advertising, local issues, and local organizing efforts. A bad GOTV effort in MIchigan does not necessarily imply a bad GOTV in Ohio. If the margins in Michigan and PA were around 1%, Ohio would not be a completely lost cause.
tmess2 · 874 weeks ago
The real kicker in doing any serious analysis is the question of how much has Obama changed the game. Most polls use screening of likely voters that discounts the possibility of record turnout. If Obama succeeds in a dramatic increase in youth and minority voting, that would change which states he is most likely to take.
My own hunch has the Bush states in play in this order: 1) Iowa; 2) Colorado and New Mexico; 3) Ohio; 4) Florida, Nevada, Virginia, and Missouri; 5) North Carolina, Montana, and Indiana. There are other states that could be put in play (e.g. Georgia, North Dakota, Mississippi, and Texas) but if those states come into play enough of the above states should be locks that we are only talking about the margins.
Matt 75p · 874 weeks ago
evie · 874 weeks ago
Matt 75p · 874 weeks ago
ollie · 874 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 874 weeks ago
Mike in Maryland · 874 weeks ago
I think you are seriously overestimating the Mormon influence in Colorado. According to the LDS site http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html, Colorado is not in the top 10 states with LDS population, and in terms of per cent of population, it is 9th, with just over 70,000, about 2.13% of Colorado's population. Washington state and Oregon have both a higher number of LDS adherents, and are a greater per cent of population who are LDS than Colorado.
You are more correct on the LDS influence in Nevada. The LDS site says there are almost 90,000 adherents in Nevada (8th in number), and they comprise about 7.41% of the state's population (4th in per cent).
I don't have the numbers handy, but if I remember correctly, the fundamentalist, right-wing 'Christian' population around Colorado Springs alone greatly exceeds the LDS adherents (by number and by per cent) in Colorado.
Mike
Ivanv · 874 weeks ago
IA has gotten to know Obama, they're swing but they value respect from their candidates and they'd be proud to send him to the House. CO might go to Obama because with Ken Salazar and others, he's getting a lot of Latino support. It's a very 'military' state though, so if McCain's POW pitch and 'win the war' diatribes fall positively, it'll be tight.
OH will probably go to Obama. A lot is made of the primary result, but remember that in Rodham Clinton's strongest attacks (and with the Gov. for her), Obama still made it a close race. He's smart by knowing that she was monetarily on the ropes and every day she spent in Ohio was a victory for him. McCain doesn't have much strength there.
NV will be close but go to Obama. Somewhat Republican in the past, NV is not an ideologically conservative state. It'll break his way.
VA I give to McCain but Obama has a good chance here. Not quite a 'southern' state, VA has been moving Democrat recently (example, Sens. and Gov.) so it'll be within Obama's reach.
I think FL is McCain's to lose, but he's doing so with his silly oil-drilling plan. I'll give it to him anyway but I think Obama won't need their 27 to win.
Even If McCain keeps TX and most of the other available states, he won't make the 270.
The VP picks can make a difference but only slightly. If McCain picks Pawlenty, that still doesn't put MN into play. At most it's a neutral pick. Romney? The conservatives will be more suspicious and he doesn't pull much in MI (he won there because most barely campaigned). He'd be a bad pick for McCain. If some say, "Ooh, yeah, the economy," Romney the millionaire and Cindy will turn off a lot of people, not to mention he'd make McCain look even worse than he already does (if that's possible) because of his supposed business acumen. Obama? Many choices, that's good for his candidacy.
Ivanv · 874 weeks ago
I'd have my people keep their ears on the ground for potential shifts so few states would go uncontested. For example, my wife's from AK and though she hasn't lived there for 5+ years, she's excited that Obama might go there. Visiting places rarely visited is 'news' in itself, isn't it a goal to stay in the news (and control it if possible)? She doesn't expect AK to go Democrat but just the idea that Obama will go there makes her more supportive of him.
Leah 85p · 874 weeks ago
He listed: AK, CO, FL, GA, IA, IN, MI, MO, MT, NC, ND, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI.
SarahLawrence Scott · 873 weeks ago
I think there's a good chance this election won't be close. But this thread is about what would be likely Obama win scenarios if it is close, and while I think Matt's analysis is mostly right on, I do think it overestimates the safety of Michigan and underestimates the role the sparsely populated states in the West may play. Michigan has a lot of things that could go wrong that are specific to it. Romney as VP would be a start. And with the traditional concentration of the auto industry in Michigan, I think it's possible for either candidate to shift the race there on policy grounds. (Nevada also has that potential vis a vis Yucca Mountain, although there it's a little more clear than if it comes into play it will hurt McCain.)
Speaking of Nevada, I could envision Obama winning Montana (3) and maybe even North Dakota (3) while losing Nevada and/or New Mexico (if he weakens with Latinos, for example). That really expands the possibilities, since scenarios like Matt's states + Iowa + Colorado + Montana also give a win.
DocJess 71p · 873 weeks ago
I enjoy reading your insights, and agree with a bunch of what you say. But you've crossed a line here. Keith Olberman is proof positive that brilliance exists in the MSM, and often (for me) watching him is the one safe island of sanity I see all day....so, PRETTY PLEASE -- next time say "Although Keith is the best political journalist on TV, this was not my favourite segmet."
THANKS!!! (biggest grin -- I'm just a fawning fan.....)
Jessica
Chad_Nielson 57p · 873 weeks ago
One more note: Rachel Maddow is one of the greats as well. Probably why Keith trusted her to stand in for him on countdown.
Leah 85p · 873 weeks ago
SarahLawrence Scott · 873 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 874 weeks ago
Chad_Nielson 57p · 874 weeks ago