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

[Smash255]

The Dems have a MUCH better chance of winning VA than the GOP does of winning Minnesota.

I'm reluctant to believe that (on the Virginia end) because we keep seeing Virginia overpoll Democratic in federal races and then not come through in the end. Much like NJ. I think the situation in Virginia is changing rapidly because NoVa has shifted so much, so quickly, but the starting point was so far from the mid-point that it's hard to say Democrats can reach that 50%.

If you look at a 50/50 midpoint Virginia, in 04 it was 5.74% more GOP than the national average.  based off the trend from 2000, a similar trend would put it at 3% more GOP than the national average in 08.  If anything the trend in Virginia has picked up even more steem than it had previously in the last couple of years.  A swing of 4-5% against the national average or even slightly more is a very distinct possibility, and a swing of at least least 3% compared to nationally is almost certain.

Considering where the state was compared to the national average in 04, its current trend if the Dems win nationally by 3% they are almost assured to win the state and have a very good chance of winning the state with a 1-2% win nationally.

MN on the other hand was slightly further from the national average than VA was (though not much) about 5.9%, but the state is showing no signs of trending GOP at this point, if anything its drifting back towards the Dems a bit more. 

Anyway my main point was its going to take a much larger national win for the GOP in order to take Minnesota than it would for the Dems in order to take Virginia.

[jesmo]

The Dems have a MUCH better chance of winning VA than the GOP does of winning Minnesota.

I'm reluctant to believe that (on the Virginia end) because we keep seeing Virginia overpoll Democratic in federal races and then not come through in the end. Much like NJ. I think the situation in Virginia is changing rapidly because NoVa has shifted so much, so quickly, but the starting point was so far from the mid-point that it's hard to say Democrats can reach that 50%.

If you look at a 50/50 midpoint Virginia, in 04 it was 5.74% more GOP than the national average.  based off the trend from 2000, a similar trend would put it at 3% more GOP than the national average in 08.  If anything the trend in Virginia has picked up even more steem than it had previously in the last couple of years.  A swing of 4-5% against the national average or even slightly more is a very distinct possibility, and a swing of at least least 3% compared to nationally is almost certain.

Considering where the state was compared to the national average in 04, its current trend if the Dems win nationally by 3% they are almost assured to win the state and have a very good chance of winning the state with a 1-2% win nationally.

MN on the other hand was slightly further from the national average than VA was (though not much) about 5.9%, but the state is showing no signs of trending GOP at this point, if anything its drifting back towards the Dems a bit more. 

Anyway my main point was its going to take a much larger national win for the GOP in order to take Minnesota than it would for the Dems in order to take Virginia.

Smash, you can not expect every single presidential election to be based on uniform swings from 2004. It will not work every time. The Media has set these stupid maps in people's heads, and no one believes anything can change.

[Aizen]

I agree with Naso about Virginia. Not yet I think. I could be wrong but I'm not going to count on it. I'm expecting the Dems to lose Florida anyway so losing that state doesn't bother me that much. If we lose Ohio, then no of course the Dems should not feel confident of victory. To make up for Ohio, the Dems need Iowa (Which they pretty much have in the bag), Colorado and either Nevada or New Mexico. In addition, they'll have to hang on to PA, MI and WI. So it isn't a long-shot for the Dems to win without Ohio, but McCain would have the edge. As of now, McCain probably is the favorite to win the election. Of course, now is irrelevant. This election season has a long way to go.

[Brittain33]

If you look at a 50/50 midpoint Virginia, in 04 it was 5.74% more GOP than the national average.  based off the trend from 2000, a similar trend would put it at 3% more GOP than the national average in 08.

I don't think you can safely extrapolate swings that way... to do a reductio ad absurdum, by 2020 you'd have Virginia voting 6% more Democratic than the country as a whole, and no one thinks that's going to happen without a realignment that makes current meanings moot. We do have observable conditions that have led to the shift in Virginia that have continued to take place post-2004, but then on the other hand, Virginia is a state where McCain could actually outrun Bush, and I certainly expect him to in PVI terms.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I think they could lose Florida and still have a comfortable shot at winning, as long as they don't lose PA.  However, if they've lost Ohio, then they've already lost FL and PA, and the game will be pretty much over.

I just can't see them losing such huge states that are usually good indicators of a 50/50 country (IE: Florida, Ohio) and then have western states that went for George Bush NOT go for John McCain.

That's why I think they can lose Florida but still carry PA and OH.  They are all close to the center as far as voter turnout.  I think in this current match-up, Ohio is leaning more Dem, PA is on the balance, and Florida is leaning Rep.  So as long as the Dems carry OH and PA, they can afford to lose FL if they pick up something in the Great Lakes or midwest areas.  However, they can carry OH and still lose the election if the Reps can claim PA.  And of course, if the Reps get OH, it's all over.

That's just my theory as of late. If George Bush can win those states...why can't John McCain win AND THEN SOME?

Bush was still somewhat popular in 2004, and Obama is a far stronger candidate than Kerry.

[Brittain33]

Bush was still somewhat popular in 2004, and Obama is a far stronger candidate than Kerry.

It's a 2004 mentality. They consider 2004 to be the baseline in electoral geography, and as long as they don't screw up too badly, they expect that the Republicans' natural 52% majority will carry them to a win.

There may be eccentricities due to scandals that cause wobbles from the mean, but the natural home of America is at 52% Republican, in the House and in the electoral college.

2006 showed that this isn't the case. It demonstrated a solid realignment in the northeast and a shift in the Ohio Valley and the Mountain west whose durability is to be proven. Because Dixie did not shift at all, people who focus on the Republican base will assume that the 2004 calculus still holds, Democrats are still viewed as widely unacceptable and kind of gay, and every election is the Republicans' to lose.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I think they could lose Florida and still have a comfortable shot at winning, as long as they don't lose PA.  However, if they've lost Ohio, then they've already lost FL and PA, and the game will be pretty much over.

I think that pretty much sums up my feeling.  Pennsylvania seems more likely to go Republican than Ohio does, so it honestly wouldn't be too outlandish to see McCain win even if he loses states like Virginia, Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado.

Especially considering I think he has a darn good shot at playing in Michigan, too.

[Smash255]

If you look at a 50/50 midpoint Virginia, in 04 it was 5.74% more GOP than the national average.  based off the trend from 2000, a similar trend would put it at 3% more GOP than the national average in 08.

I don't think you can safely extrapolate swings that way... to do a reductio ad absurdum, by 2020 you'd have Virginia voting 6% more Democratic than the country as a whole, and no one thinks that's going to happen without a realignment that makes current meanings moot. We do have observable conditions that have led to the shift in Virginia that have continued to take place post-2004, but then on the other hand, Virginia is a state where McCain could actually outrun Bush, and I certainly expect him to in PVI terms.

Actually I don't tgink that 6% figure is much of a stretch.  Obviously trends one way or the other can come and go, even out or even back track the other way.  However, their is absolutley no indication that VA's Dem trend has slowed down let alone reversed itself.  If anything the evidence would seem to point to the VA's Dem trend even picking up even more steam than it has shown in the past as northern VA is in full out steamroll mode.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I think they could lose Florida and still have a comfortable shot at winning, as long as they don't lose PA.  However, if they've lost Ohio, then they've already lost FL and PA, and the game will be pretty much over.

I just can't see them losing such huge states that are usually good indicators of a 50/50 country (IE: Florida, Ohio) and then have western states that went for George Bush NOT go for John McCain.

That's why I think they can lose Florida but still carry PA and OH.  They are all close to the center as far as voter turnout.  I think in this current match-up, Ohio is leaning more Dem, PA is on the balance, and Florida is leaning Rep.  So as long as the Dems carry OH and PA, they can afford to lose FL if they pick up something in the Great Lakes or midwest areas.  However, they can carry OH and still lose the election if the Reps can claim PA.  And of course, if the Reps get OH, it's all over.

That's just my theory as of late. If George Bush can win those states...why can't John McCain win AND THEN SOME?

Because you can't take all of the good that George W Bush provided electorally and then automatically project that onto McCain. Bush appealed to some demographics that McCain won't. And vice versa. For example, McCain will have a bigger problem courting evangelicals than Bush did. He'll have a harder time courting the hardcore conservative vote.

[Brittain33]

Because you can't take all of the good that George W Bush provided electorally and then automatically project that onto McCain. Bush appealed to some demographics that McCain won't. And vice versa. For example, McCain will have a bigger problem courting evangelicals than Bush did. He'll have a harder time courting the hardcore conservative vote.

Yes, I don't think we'll ever see a documentary with parents making their kids pray to a cardboard cut-out of McCain like we saw of George W. Bush.

[Reaganfan]

I think they could lose Florida and still have a comfortable shot at winning, as long as they don't lose PA.  However, if they've lost Ohio, then they've already lost FL and PA, and the game will be pretty much over.

I just can't see them losing such huge states that are usually good indicators of a 50/50 country (IE: Florida, Ohio) and then have western states that went for George Bush NOT go for John McCain.

That's why I think they can lose Florida but still carry PA and OH.  They are all close to the center as far as voter turnout.  I think in this current match-up, Ohio is leaning more Dem, PA is on the balance, and Florida is leaning Rep.  So as long as the Dems carry OH and PA, they can afford to lose FL if they pick up something in the Great Lakes or midwest areas.  However, they can carry OH and still lose the election if the Reps can claim PA.  And of course, if the Reps get OH, it's all over.

That's just my theory as of late. If George Bush can win those states...why can't John McCain win AND THEN SOME?

Because you can't take all of the good that George W Bush provided electorally and then automatically project that onto McCain. Bush appealed to some demographics that McCain won't. And vice versa. For example, McCain will have a bigger problem courting evangelicals than Bush did. He'll have a harder time courting the hardcore conservative vote.

But it is you democrats who keep saying how he is a "George Bush clone".

[MODU]

But it is you democrats who keep saying how he is a "George Bush clone".

You've got to look past ignorant talking points and look at reality.

[Nym90]

Confident? No. If McCain wins Ohio and Florida, I'd give him about a 60 percent chance of winning the election. Obama would need all of the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico, and either Nevada or Colorado (Colorado gives him an outright victory, while Nevada enables him to win in the House).

However if Obama wins Ohio, McCain's chances are looking pretty grim. He'd have to win at least one Kerry state such as Wisconsin or New Hampshire to win the election, plus hold all of the rest of the Bush states.

The idea that McCain in 2008 is a better or even equal candidate in overall strength to Bush in 2004 is laughable. It's all about the political environment of the day.

[Smash255]

I think they could lose Florida and still have a comfortable shot at winning, as long as they don't lose PA.  However, if they've lost Ohio, then they've already lost FL and PA, and the game will be pretty much over.

I just can't see them losing such huge states that are usually good indicators of a 50/50 country (IE: Florida, Ohio) and then have western states that went for George Bush NOT go for John McCain.

That's why I think they can lose Florida but still carry PA and OH.  They are all close to the center as far as voter turnout.  I think in this current match-up, Ohio is leaning more Dem, PA is on the balance, and Florida is leaning Rep.  So as long as the Dems carry OH and PA, they can afford to lose FL if they pick up something in the Great Lakes or midwest areas.  However, they can carry OH and still lose the election if the Reps can claim PA.  And of course, if the Reps get OH, it's all over.

That's just my theory as of late. If George Bush can win those states...why can't John McCain win AND THEN SOME?

Because you can't take all of the good that George W Bush provided electorally and then automatically project that onto McCain. Bush appealed to some demographics that McCain won't. And vice versa. For example, McCain will have a bigger problem courting evangelicals than Bush did. He'll have a harder time courting the hardcore conservative vote.

But it is you democrats who keep saying how he is a "George Bush clone".

Two of the issues Bush is most unpopular on the war, and the economy McCain is a clone on, and while some of the hardcore conservative might not love him as much as Bush and brainwash their kids in having them pray to McCain like they did with Bush, McCain trying to cozy up to the extreme right will only hurt more than it helps.

[Lief 🗽]

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

[Reignman]

I would be a little worried if Obama lost both Ohio and Florida, but I think Obama has a good chance of winning a lot of other swing states (like Missouri). And anyhow, I would be very surprised if Obama lost Ohio.

[agcatter]

Nope, not that difficult at all.  All Obama would need to do is hold every Kerry state and sweep every swing state.  Piece of cake.

[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.

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[Boris]

Nope, not that difficult at all.  All Obama would need to do is hold every Kerry state and sweep every swing state.  Piece of cake.

lol, this is basically true. Without Ohio, Obama needs victories in NH, PA (although this is more or less a given, regardless of the scenario. If the Democrats don't take Pennsylvania, they won't win the election), CO, IA, NM, and NV. You figure Obama is favored in NH and IA. PA is probably 50/50 at this point. And I have no clue how the western states will turn out. So basically, Obama has no room for error.

I really wish this campaign hadn't been turned into a racial war. If Obama had been able to transcend his race, he would have the clear advantage over McCain. Now, I'm not so sure.

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

What is another permutation?

[Gustaf]

Basically, if we look at the big 4 close states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan (yes, I include Michigan - it was closer than Florida in 2004 and it seems to be the kind of state where Obama would do relatively badly) it used to be the norm that the Democrat needed to go 3/4 to win the GE. In 2000 Gore failed at Florida and in 2004 Kerry failed in Ohio. This year it seems like the dynamics have changed so that the Democrats can go 2-2, putting pressure on the Republican to take 3/4 instead.

[Lief 🗽]

Nope, not that difficult at all.  All Obama would need to do is hold every Kerry state and sweep every swing state.  Piece of cake.

lol, this is basically true. Without Ohio, Obama needs victories in NH, PA (although this is more or less a given, regardless of the scenario. If the Democrats don't take Pennsylvania, they won't win the election), CO, IA, NM, and NV. You figure Obama is favored in NH and IA. PA is probably 50/50 at this point. And I have no clue how the western states will turn out. So basically, Obama has no room for error.

I really wish this campaign hadn't been turned into a racial war. If Obama had been able to transcend his race, he would have the clear advantage over McCain. Now, I'm not so sure.

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

What is another permutation?

Any combination of Kerry states plus enough of IA, NM, NV, CO, MO, and VA to get Obama over 270. I guess you could also possibly point to the SUSA 50-state polls, where Obama could maybe pick-up 2 EV from the districts in Nebraska, or win in North Dakota, South Dakota or Montana; those SUSA polls of the western states haven't been backed up with other polls yet though.

[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.

[Padfoot]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

How about narrow, specific and almost no room for error? Frankly if the election comes down to that scenario, McCain's won already.