Whatever NRO recommends, I'm sure the opposite is preferable.

In 1988, Florida and New Hampshire voted 61 percent and 62 percent for George H. W. Bush - solidly red states. But in 1992 and 1996, New Hampshire voted for Bill Clinton. And in 1996, Florida did, as well. In 1992, Montana, Colorado, and Georgia voted for Bill Clinton. By 2000, these were solidly Republican states.

Not to mention that California was a pretty red state until 1992.

The maps by state are not as telling as by district.

Here's a hint: Republicans do poorly in populated areas.

If I ever hear the terms "red states" or "blue states" again there will be violence.

Unright: Whatever NRO recommends, I'm sure the opposite is preferable.

I stopped reading after they said it's 95% probable that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Really, NRO? 95%?

Anyone who places that number at higher than 60% has already lost credibility. They're only 157 delegates apart. I wish Obama was the presumed nominee, but until he actually is, it will only hurt his chances among undecided voters to turn him into the "incumbent" option.

El Freak: If I ever hear the terms "red states" or "blue states" again there will be violence.

How about ruby states and sapphire states?

Republicans win the countryside, Democrats win the cities. That's the rule of thumb right now. Doesn't mean it will stay that way.

I think these are the states that could flip in this election.

Democratic--> Republican: Oregon


Republican--> Democratic: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada

Watch out for: Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas.

coolbeans56: Watch out for: Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas.

I really don't see how Minnesota flips to a red state. How do you figure?

coolbeans56: I think these are the states that could flip in this election.

Democratic--> Republican: Oregon


Republican--> Democratic: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada

Watch out for: Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas.

Actually, don't think the deep South might not flip too. I'd say Obama has a fair shot at Alabama or Georgia, at least.

I love how everybody'd ignoring subby's main point about (stupidly) getting rid of the electoral college.

Oops.

Bufu: I love how everybody'd ignoring subby's main point about (stupidly) getting rid of the electoral college.

Oops.

Why is that stupid? The electoral college was necessary when the country was formed, when information took weeks to travel. Its a pointless system now, popular vote should be the way to elect a president.

GAT_00: The electoral college was necessary when the country was formed, when information took weeks to travel.

Your 7th grade Social Studies teacher must be very disappointed in you.

It's to ensure that a president has what appears to be a fully legitimate mandate, no matter what the popular vote, that extends, more or less, all over the country.

It has noting to do with technology and everything to do with our country being a representative democracy. Also, the individual states are granted at least one vote (for how many members of the House of Representatives that state has) and two more (for each senator.)

Throw out the electoral college and you should, logically, throw out the institute of the Senate, as well. Just do it by population alone.

It ensures that the winning candidate is enjoys popularity all the country, not only in densely populated areas, i.e., cities, where political issues tend to be highly polarizing.

No electoral college and 98% (I'm making that up, but you get my point) of presidential campaigning would be in NY, Florida, Chicago, Texas, and, of course, California.

Seriously, if you didn't have to put together a patchwork quilt of winning states that tallies 270 or more electoral votes, why would you go to Idaho, Colorado, Maine, the Dakotas, etc?

The EC nationalizes the election. Going to straight popular vote would regionalize it.

Bufu: Throw out the electoral college and you should, logically, throw out the institute of the Senate, as well. Just do it by population alone.

I always make this point, and it usually shuts people up. If you are against the electoral college ob principle, you have to be for abolishing the Senate.

You have better success than I do, Damn Yankees. Unbelievably, I sometimes get, "What the hell does the Senate have to do with the Electoral College?"

I'm serious.

Bufu: You have better success than I do, Damn Yankees. Unbelievably, I sometimes get, "What the hell does the Senate have to do with the Electoral College?"

I'm serious.

Oh, no, I get that also. I don't mean it shuts them up when I say the sentence. I mean if you stick with the argument, you usually get people to just stop talking to you because they get annoyed.

Sincere question: I understand why we have the electoral college, and of course the Senate. However, I do question if it might be time to modify the system. There are people who live in more than one place during the course of a year now. The people who live half a year in Florida for example. These people will often vote in whichever state they perceive as counting more. Doesn't the fact that people are moving around a great deal more than they used to skew the numbers in the end?

DamnYankees: coolbeans56: Watch out for: Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas.

I really don't see how Minnesota flips to a red state. How do you figure?

If McCain takes Pawlenty (Minnesota's Gov.) there is a shot it could go for the GOP. Also, Minnesota is a fickle state. It has been becoming more and more "purple" in recent elections, and despite Ellison being from Minnesota, he is from the "Sin Cities."

Though, on the flip side. I have two uncles who live in Rural Minnesota, and they are tired of the Republicans... so we will see.

GAT_00: Actually, don't think the deep South might not flip too. I'd say Obama has a fair shot at Alabama or Georgia, at least.

I don't think that he has much of a shot in the south for the General. The only two places I could see him making any headway is South Carolina, or Georgia, because of the Population shift. But, I am unsure about that.

Bufu: No electoral college and 98% (I'm making that up, but you get my point) of presidential campaigning would be in NY, Florida, Chicago, Texas, and, of course, California.

I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, but I would point out that under the current system, candidates rarely visit CA, TX and NY...the three biggest states in the union.

Please recycle!

ThatGuyGreg: GAT_00: The electoral college was necessary when the country was formed, when information took weeks to travel.

Your 7th grade Social Studies teacher must be very disappointed in you.

Why? Do you really think the country's leader should be decided by 534 people, rather than all ~300 million, or the ~120 million who voted in the last presidential election? And besides, a lot of what you learn about government when you are younger has a lot of holes in it. A college level class has less.

A college level class has less fewer.

/sorry, coouldn't help myself!

Bufu: A college level class has less fewer.

/sorry, coouldn't help myself!

I see what you did there.

Only three states changed parties between the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections...

Well duh. The person who won in 2000 also won in 2004. Too bad only three states wised up during the first four years.

El Freak: If I ever hear the terms "red states" or "blue states" again there will be violence.

How about cyan and magenta?

Empanda: Sincere question: I understand why we have the electoral college, and of course the Senate. However, I do question if it might be time to modify the system. There are people who live in more than one place during the course of a year now. The people who live half a year in Florida for example. These people will often vote in whichever state they perceive as counting more. Doesn't the fact that people are moving around a great deal more than they used to skew the numbers in the end?

It's almost as if people feel more allegiance to the country than to the state in which they live in.

Unright: Whatever NRO recommends, I'm sure the opposite is preferable.

I'm actually still in shock over the neutrality of that article. Nowhere did it recommend dropping bombs on Iran, or convincing likely voters that Obama was in fact the anti-christ.

Don't forget Poland.

/window seat, please

FTA Voters have a clear generic preference for the Democratic party, but recent polls show a McCain-Obama race to be close. And don't be surprised if those numbers move around in the course of the campaign.


Poll numbers may move around? This is the insightful political commentary I turn to NRO for.

Always thought Barone was a tool. RIP Mr Buckley

If I were Obama, I *would not bother* with Florida. Too much "we're old, so we don't want to pay taxes". Too much megachurchiness. Too much "But you aren't stroking our special interests on Cuba or Israel". Too much election shenanigans. Screw it.

Obama needs 18 more electoral votes than Kerry got. Win Ohio and you've done it. Or, Virginia+W.Virginia=18. Missouri+Iowa = 18. Colorado+Iowa+N.Dakota (it's entirely possible)=19.

El Freak: If I ever hear the terms "red states" or "blue states" again there will be violence.

How about "cerise" and "lapis lazuli"?

I like it. "Ohio, a cerise and decisive state in the last two elections, has been trending lapis lazuli and appears to be, tentatively, at least, in the Democrats camp."

We should throw out the current electoral system. Average citizens shouldn't vote in presidential elections at all. Since the Federal government has very limited powers in the Constitution, why should the average citizen care about who is President? It's the weakest elected position in the country and has the least impact on the average person's day-to-day life!

Right?

In all seriousness, I'm all for the electoral college, and going back away from direct election of senators- but for that to work, we have to cut down on the power of the Federal government. Limited government is good. This out of control security state has to stop.

El Freak: there will be violence

Leave my milkshake out of this.

coolbeans56: I think these are the states that could flip in this election.

Democratic--> Republican: Oregon


Republican--> Democratic: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada

Watch out for: Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas.

District 1 and somewhat 2 in Nebraska is all over Obama. Everyone else hates Hillary and McCain so much that it's scary. Obama can has a split Nebraska.

/Remember, Nebraska can split...

Lawnchair: If I were Obama, I *would not bother* with Florida. Too much "we're old, so we don't want to pay taxes". Too much megachurchiness. Too much "But you aren't stroking our special interests on Cuba or Israel". Too much election shenanigans. Screw it.

Obama needs 18 more electoral votes than Kerry got. Win Ohio and you've done it. Or, Virginia+W.Virginia=18. Missouri+Iowa = 18. Colorado+Iowa+N.Dakota (it's entirely possible)=19.

Sounds like the reverse 9iu11ani strategy.

video man:
District 1 and somewhat 2 in Nebraska is all over Obama. Everyone else hates Hillary and McCain so much that it's scary. Obama can has a split Nebraska.

/Remember, Nebraska can split...

That is a very good point. I wonder if Nebraska Polling will reflect that?

DamnYankees: Bufu: You have better success than I do, Damn Yankees. Unbelievably, I sometimes get, "What the hell does the Senate have to do with the Electoral College?"

I'm serious.

Oh, no, I get that also. I don't mean it shuts them up when I say the sentence. I mean if you stick with the argument, you usually get people to just stop talking to you because they get annoyed.

Wouldn't the fact that the senate was changed to direct elections mitigate that argument? If it were still indirect election, you would have to be against the senate in principle. Given that it's by popular vote now, it's a totally different animal.

GAT_00: Actually, don't think the deep South might not flip too. I'd say Obama has a fair shot at Alabama or Georgia, at least.

I agree. Southern right wingers don't really like McCain, so turnout will be low for him. And Obama could cause enough excitement to tip the scales.

video man: coolbeans56: I think these are the states that could flip in this election.

Democratic--> Republican: Oregon


Republican--> Democratic: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada

Watch out for: Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas.

District 1 and somewhat 2 in Nebraska is all over Obama. Everyone else hates Hillary and McCain so much that it's scary. Obama can has a split Nebraska.

/Remember, Nebraska can split...

Nebraska splits? Didn't know that. What's the other splitter, NH or VE?

/I understand Obama is out-polling McCain in Kansas as well.
//Thought I'd mention it.

I throw out your electoral map!

I THROW IT OUT!

Bufu: It's to ensure that a president has what appears to be a fully legitimate mandate, no matter what the popular vote, that extends, more or less, all over the country.

It has noting to do with technology and everything to do with our country being a representative democracy. Also, the individual states are granted at least one vote (for how many members of the House of Representatives that state has) and two more (for each senator.)

Throw out the electoral college and you should, logically, throw out the institute of the Senate, as well. Just do it by population alone.

It ensures that the winning candidate is enjoys popularity all the country, not only in densely populated areas, i.e., cities, where political issues tend to be highly polarizing.

No electoral college and 98% (I'm making that up, but you get my point) of presidential campaigning would be in NY, Florida, Chicago, Texas, and, of course, California.

Seriously, if you didn't have to put together a patchwork quilt of winning states that tallies 270 or more electoral votes, why would you go to Idaho, Colorado, Maine, the Dakotas, etc?

The EC nationalizes the election. Going to straight popular vote would regionalize it.

The counter of that argument is that it nationalizes the election by giving the voters in Wyoming more power than the voters of New York and California. Like many people, that does not sit well with me.

And your "then throw out the senate' argument is specious. The idea was: one house representing the people, another representing the states to make a balance. But the Chief Executive is one position, so it needs to be one or the other. And it's clearly more in line with basic principles of democracy for it to be represented by the popular vote.

Neeek: video man: coolbeans56: I think these are the states that could flip in this election.

Democratic--> Republican: Oregon


Republican--> Democratic: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada

Watch out for: Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas.

District 1 and somewhat 2 in Nebraska is all over Obama. Everyone else hates Hillary and McCain so much that it's scary. Obama can has a split Nebraska.

/Remember, Nebraska can split...

Nebraska splits? Didn't know that. What's the other splitter, NH or VE?

/I understand Obama is out-polling McCain in Kansas as well.
//Thought I'd mention it.

Yeah, Maine does too, but differently.

Two automatically go to the popular winner in the state, the other three are determined the the 3 districts(Hicks, Hicks+Lincoln, and Omaha and friends). District 1 may decide the popular and give 3 to Obama, but who knows?
/However, the state hasn't ever split...

Neeek: Nebraska splits? Didn't know that. What's the other splitter, NH or VE?

Maine is the other splitter. Maine has been doing it for longer than Nebraska (which only started in 92), but to date, neither has actually split any of its vote. I don't know about Maine, but in Nebraska the congressional districts are drawn very well to give Republicans a lock on them. The liberals in Omaha are balanced out by the suburbs, and Lincoln (which has voted Democratic since '92 at least) is combined with literally the entire eastern third of the state outside of the Omaha area in order to ensure it goes to the GOP. Then there's the 3rd district, which has far more cattle than people and is about as conservative as you get outside the South.

I haven't seen any polls for Nebraska, but I'd be very surprised if even a single district goes for Obama. Still, it gives me hope that my vote will actually mean something this year.

/Nebraska expatriate

Lawnchair: Obama needs 18 more electoral votes than Kerry got. Win Ohio and you've done it. Or, Virginia+W.Virginia=18. Missouri+Iowa = 18. Colorado+Iowa+N.Dakota (it's entirely possible)=19.

That may be a viable strategy, but it's completely antithetical to the way Obama has run his campaign thus far. Granted, he's been implementing a strategy aimed at winning a different contest -- one where votes are distributed proportionally, rather than the winner-take-all electoral college. However, this strategy of campaigning in all states regardless of their perceived importance has been consistent with his message.

If given the nomination, he may change strategies to accommodate the different challenge. However, aiming for a 51-49 victory just isn't consistent with his rhetoric. I think he's aiming to overthrow the map.

ilambiquated: I agree. Southern right wingers don't really like McCain, so turnout will be low for him. And Obama could cause enough excitement to tip the scales.

Obama has the benefit of being highly educated/knowledgeable about various religions even though he's a very low-key Christian.

Neeek:
/Remember, Nebraska can split...

Nebraska splits? Didn't know that. What's the other splitter, NH or VE?


Nebraska and Maine are the two that split. Whoever wins the total popular vote gets two EVs, whoever wins each House district gets one additional. Obama getting at least one Nebraska EV is far from impossible.

Kansas (my state) seems pretty unlikely. Even if he picked Sebelius (our female Democrat governor) for VP I'd still think it was pretty unlikely. The rest of the upper-middle (Iowa and the Dakotas, maybe even Montana or Idaho) are a little more likely. I'd be very pleased, though, if Kansas went for Obama. This is a state that went against FDR a few times!

States Obama could make a case in: OH, WV, VA, KY, AR, MO, IA, ND, SD, NE, CO, NM, NV?, GA?, SC?

States Clinton could win that Kerry didn't: AR.

States Clinton could lose from Kerry's map (according to polls): OR, MN, WI, PA, NH, possibly one EV in Maine.