Democrats: If you lose Florida and Ohio, do you still feel confident of victory?

[agcatter]

LOL.  When you keep having to use the word "if" with regards to your candididate's winning various swing states to get to 270, you do indeed have very little margin of error.

I stick to what I said.  It will be VERY close in the electoral college.  I have to laugh at those of you making fun of hillary's 50 + 1 strategy.  I hate to tell you, but these close scenarios we have been outlining apply to all three candidates.

As far as Dean's 50 state strategy, that's a lot of spin.  Without lifting a finger McCain is within 42 electoral votes of 270.  That's with no Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico, to say nothing of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire.

Hillary, her coalition consists of Gore's states plus Ohio and Pennsylvania (two states she has a better chance of winning than Obama).

As was outlined earlier, Obama has a way to get just over the line by putting together 270 in a slightly different way but losing Ohio will make it mandatory to win Pennsylvania (that is probably 50-50) plus a  majority of swing states - states won by Bush in 04).

In other words, supporters of all three candidates will need to put a lid on the trash talk.  All three are, by the numbers, hanging off the edge of a cliff.

[Sam Spade]

If the Dem loses Florida and Ohio, the chances of the Dem winning fall well below 50%. 

It is, of course, lower with Obama than with Hillary, mainly b/c Hillary has slightly more options at picking up marginal Bush states when I look at the map.  In addition, both have certain marginal Kerry states that could fall, but I consider Obama's to be much more devastating (see PA).

I'll say 15% for Obama.  25% for Hillary.  Or so.

[agcatter]

Sam is right on target.

[Beet]

It's really not that difficult for Obama to win without Florida and one of either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Thank got we didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the 50+1% strategy.

The above map is not my prediction, just one of the (likely) permutations that would result in an Obama victory sans Ohio and Florida.

But that's basically what most of the most vocal Obama supporter's here have been pushing. You guys don't see the irony of attacking Hillary as the 50+1% strategy candidate and then advocating an Electoral College strategy which is the most narrow and specific, with the least room for error, of probably any Presidential campaign in history.

Narrow, specific, and no room for error?  Not exactly.

If Obama wins VA he needs to take only one of CO, IA, NV, or NM to win.
If he wins CO he needs to take VA or take two of IA, NV, or NM.
If he wins IA, NV, and NM then its a tie which he'd win in the House.

So there are multiple combinations with which Obama could win involving those 5 states.  Plus, most people assume IA and NM are leaning strongly towards him so that means he only needs to take one of the other three to win.

I think what it comes down to really is how you define risk.  Most people assume that its safer and easier to just go after Ohio but is it really all that safe to bank you entire campaign on one state?  Before 2000, the most recent election in which switching Ohio would change the outcome was 1916.  2000 and 2004 are anomalies in recent presidential history in that neither candidate receive more than 300 electoral votes.  That means that nearly every president was elected, not because of one crucial "swing state" but rather because he won a multitude of states by building a broad based coalition of voters.  I think that is something which plays greatly to Obama's strengths.  His whole campaign has been about building grassroots support across the country.  Couple that with Dean's 50-state strategy and you have a winning combination.

Hypocrisy doesn't help you 'build grassroots support around the country'. In fact, it doesn't endear you to much of anything. When your supporters dance on the grave of the Florida Democratic party and your candidate makes up excuses to prevent the state of Michigan a chance to vote again, you don't have any credibility to talk about a "50-state strategy". The whole concept is now completely bankrupt, completely regardless of its merits,  based on the actions of this champions. Rather than unite the party, the injection of Deaniac politics in the Democratic party has divided it against itself. The problem with our party today is that our party chairman made his career in national politics not by attacking Republicans but by attacking members of his own party. Rather than expand our reach to all 50 states, it is merely just another attempt to open up a mini "culture war" within the party between "good Democrats" and "bad Democrats", with a kind of unbending orthodoxy that will destroy it.

Buried beneath of all that analysis, which, scarily, mirrors perfectly the "Left Activist Line" that exists online, is the cold hard fact that your candidate is relying on a strategy where at most he could get 278-291 electoral votes, based on the states you mentioned. That is his max, based on this strategy. Your coalition is not any more 'broad based' than the coalition who you seek to replace. The fact that it is based on smaller states does not change that. The "Left Activist Line" takes a very subjective view of the size of states, a kind of bigotry which was born of insecurity but of late has gotten absurd.

[Smash255]

It's really not that difficult for Obama to win without Florida and one of either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Thank got we didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the 50+1% strategy.

The above map is not my prediction, just one of the (likely) permutations that would result in an Obama victory sans Ohio and Florida.

But that's basically what most of the most vocal Obama supporter's here have been pushing. You guys don't see the irony of attacking Hillary as the 50+1% strategy candidate and then advocating an Electoral College strategy which is the most narrow and specific, with the least room for error, of probably any Presidential campaign in history.

Narrow, specific, and no room for error?  Not exactly.

If Obama wins VA he needs to take only one of CO, IA, NV, or NM to win.
If he wins CO he needs to take VA or take two of IA, NV, or NM.
If he wins IA, NV, and NM then its a tie which he'd win in the House.

So there are multiple combinations with which Obama could win involving those 5 states.  Plus, most people assume IA and NM are leaning strongly towards him so that means he only needs to take one of the other three to win.

I think what it comes down to really is how you define risk.  Most people assume that its safer and easier to just go after Ohio but is it really all that safe to bank you entire campaign on one state?  Before 2000, the most recent election in which switching Ohio would change the outcome was 1916.  2000 and 2004 are anomalies in recent presidential history in that neither candidate receive more than 300 electoral votes.  That means that nearly every president was elected, not because of one crucial "swing state" but rather because he won a multitude of states by building a broad based coalition of voters.  I think that is something which plays greatly to Obama's strengths.  His whole campaign has been about building grassroots support across the country.  Couple that with Dean's 50-state strategy and you have a winning combination.

Hypocrisy doesn't help you 'build grassroots support around the country'. In fact, it doesn't endear you to much of anything. When your supporters dance on the grave of the Florida Democratic party and your candidate makes up excuses to prevent the state of Michigan a chance to vote again, you don't have any credibility to talk about a "50-state strategy". The whole concept is now completely bankrupt, completely regardless of its merits,  based on the actions of this champions. Rather than unite the party, the injection of Deaniac politics in the Democratic party has divided it against itself. The problem with our party today is that our party chairman made his career in national politics not by attacking Republicans but by attacking members of his own party. Rather than expand our reach to all 50 states, it is merely just another attempt to open up a mini "culture war" within the party between "good Democrats" and "bad Democrats", with a kind of unbending orthodoxy that will destroy it.

Buried beneath of all that analysis, which, scarily, mirrors perfectly the "Left Activist Line" that exists online, is the cold hard fact that your candidate is relying on a strategy where at most he could get 278-291 electoral votes, based on the states you mentioned. That is his max, based on this strategy. Your coalition is not any more 'broad based' than the coalition who you seek to replace. The fact that it is based on smaller states does not change that. The "Left Activist Line" takes a very subjective view of the size of states, a kind of bigotry which was born of insecurity but of late has gotten absurd.

First off, if anyone who is trying to play the 50% +1 card its Hillary not Barrack, you know all these well his states don't count concept.   The 278-291 number that is mentioned, is not Obama's max no one is suggesting it is.  This thread is about where it would be if the Dems didn't win Ohio and Florida, not the max they could possibly get....


 If Hillary didn't bitch and whine and try and change rules she herself agreed with after the fact we wouldn't be even having this issue.  Hell, the whole re-vote angle on her side is actually relatively new, as she was trying to get the votes counted as it was even though the voters were told beforehand that they wouldn't count.  The whole re-vote angle is a new one, not to mention some of the questions about the re-vote the Obama campaign has brought up is a legit one.  The voters were told the results would not count, because of that some voters likely voted in the GOP Primary which they would not have done if they were told the Dem primary would count.

[Brittain33]

Sam is right on target.

What are McCain's odds if he loses Ohio and Pennsylvania?

[agcatter]

About the same as Barack's if Obama loses Ohio and Pennsylvania - slim and none and slim just left town.

As to the poster's comment that Obama's max is not 291 - that's ridiculous.

Both parties have the same number of immovable electoral votes and unless Obama is going to cut into the solid south or McCain is going to win Connecticut - 290 is about it - max.

Obama does have the ability to lose Kansas by 12 instead of 18.  So what.

[Brittain33]

As to the poster's comment that Obama's max is not 291 - that's ridiculous.

Let's add it up. We can all agree that no Kerry state is completely out of reach for Obama--the definition of max. That gives him 252.

Now, we have the following states where it's reasonably possible Obama *could* win. Not saying it's likely or even probable he will win, but he has at least a 25% chance of winning them.

Nevada 5
New Mexico 5
West Virginia 5
Iowa 7
Colorado 9
Missouri 11
Virginia 13
Ohio 20
Florida 27

Note what's missing: everything in the deep South, including Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Arizona is off the table. So is North Dakota, where a wonky poll showed Obama beating McCain, and Kansas, where I agree that Obama would have a big success to only lose by 12. McCain still has the solid bastion of Texas.

If he wins all of those states--he likely won't, but remember, you said *maximum*--he has 346 electoral votes. Well above 50. You can make the argument that West Virginia is so reluctant to vote for a black candidate that Obama stands *no* chance of winning a state (that voted for Dukakis), or that Virginia simply will *not* vote for him under any circumstances, polling be damned, but guess what, that knocks him down to 328.

Which other states on this list are you willing to argue that Obama simply will not win unless McCain is caught in bed with Charlie Crist? More to the point, which states do you think everyone would agree with you on?

[agcatter]

I see where you're going but West Virginia, Missouri, Florida?

Those are not doable - not for Obama.

[Brittain33]

I see where you're going but West Virginia, Missouri, Florida?

Those are not doable - not for Obama.

To confirm, you are arguing that under no normal circumstances can Obama win Missouri or Florida. None. In his maximum result, he still loses those two states.

I can see why you'd believe that or discuss racism alone as an X factor that overrides everything, but not how you can make a credible argument without explaining away those states' votes in 2000 and 2004 AND the current polling which shows him within striking distance. Missouri is the classic swing state and has voted for the winner of the election every time in the 20th century except 1956. Don't you have any reservations about saying if Obama wins in 2008, it's going to be the second time in modern history Missouri goes against the grain?

[agcatter]

He's down 15 points this morning In Mo. according to Rasmussen poll just released.  I know it's early, but the white vote isn't there for Obama in the border states.  I thought going into this year Mo would be up for grabs.  Just not with Obama.  Race completely changes that dynamic.  Maybe with the loss of a shot with Mo he can trade off and pick up Colorado.

I agree that Mo has been the ultimate swing state.  No doubt about that.  However, I'd argue that the nomination of a black liberal has changed that dynamic.  Obama might indeed win, but he'll have to win with a different combination than the usual. 

[Brittain33]

He's down 15 points this morning In Mo. according to Rasmussen poll just released.

Link to all Missouri polls:

http://www.pollster.com/08-MO-Pres-GE-MvO.php

To cherry-pick some favorable ones:

 SurveyUSA        2/15-17/08       544 RV       43  McCain     49 Obama
 SurveyUSA        12/13-15/07       547 RV       44  McCain     47 Obama
 SurveyUSA        11/9-11/07       543 RV       45  McCain     46 Obama
 Rasmussen        2/12/08       500 LV       42  McCain     40 Obama
 Research 2000        1/21-24/08       800 LV       42 McCain       47 Obama

Now, the Wright scandal did cause Obama to lose points in the most recent Rasmussen polls, and he's slipped in Survey USA. However, you wouldn't argue that poll respondents from November through February didn't know he was Black. He was at 49% in a Survey USA poll, one of the best pollsters out there.

You can not stack this month's polls against the larger number of polls showing a competitive race--some with Obama winning--and state that Obama has no chance to win Missouri this year.

You're welcome to reply and say you still don't believe it, no way does Obama top 290 under any circumstances, etc. I've made my case and people reading the thread can decide for themselves. 

[agcatter]

You are absolutely correct that people knew he was black in November, January etc.  However, they have now been introduced to Reverand Wright.  That scares a lot of whites - not the limo liberal set.  Chris Mathews, NY Times etc think he can make a speech and that's the end of it. 

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Obama loses Ohio, Florida, and Missouri, and meanwhile Democrats hinge all their hopes on Colorado, which--let's face it--will more than likely end up voting McCain anyway?   Meanwhile, McCain makes PA and Michigan competitive.   

Anyway you slice it, the electoral map has never favored candidates like Obama or Hillary.    Democrats don't realize things like this before its too late, which is quite unfortunate, and which is why Republicans have won 9 of the past 12 presidential elections.

[elcorazon]

I like how this thread begins with a hypothetical, and when obama supporters create scenarios where obama can win despite long odds, they are accused of having a 50% +1 strategy.  They will NOT have a strategy of losing Ohio and Florida or Pennsylvania or Michigan.  Could Obama lose those states? yes.  Could Hillary?  absolutely.  Could McCain?  you bet.  that's why they're important swing states that help decide the election.

I repeat - winning primaries is not necessarily a good indicator of winning the state in november.  hillary winning ohio does NOT mean she is NECESSARILY significantly more likely to win in November there than Obama.  Personally I think either will win Ohio and both will lose Florida, but November's still a long way away.

nice straw man though, anti-obama folks.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I see where you're going but West Virginia, Missouri, Florida?

Those are not doable - not for Obama.

Good grief, that is absurd.

Florida and Missouri are entirely doable for Obama. Will he have a tough time winning both of those states? Sure. Will those states lean towards McCain? Sure. But to say that Obama has absolutely no chance to win Missouri and Florida is absurd when within the last few weeks polling has shown that the race is pretty close.

I know what you are going to say: you are going to show me the latest Rasmussen Missouri poll where McCain leads Obama by 15.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election

Two problems:
1) This poll was taken right in the middle of the Reverend Wright "scandal", when Obama was getting bad press from all angles.
2) This poll only has Obama getting 67% of Democratic support. Kerry got 89%. Gore got around the same. I expect Obama to be around the same in 2008. It's pretty clear that the in-fighting between the two Democratic candidates is not doing them any favors in the polling. When the Democrats have a nominee, the polling of this state will be more valid. Obama isn't winning only 67% of the Democrat vote.

To say that Missouri is out of play for Obama right at the start is absurd. Ditto for Florida.

[Brittain33]

which is why Republicans have won 9 of the past 12 presidential elections.

LOL. I missed President Dole and President Goldwater.

[agcatter]

....and don't forget West Virgininia.

[exopolitician]

....and don't forget West Virgininia.

Uh, what about it?