Tossups this November

[Erc]

In a race in which neither candidate breaks 52%, is it safe to say that the grey states are the only real tossups, and that all other states are essentially guaranteed to one candidate or another?



Any other states that should be tossups (the above map is deliberately strict as to its definition of 'tossup'), or any marked tossups that should be placed in one column or the other?

This assumes an Obama - McCain race, of course.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Man, you have no idea how long it took me to figure out the 1896 map was just a mistake. 

I'm not sure I'm convinced all of those will be within 4%, but I think those are all 50% or better to be within 4%, individually.

I might add Michigan.

Edit: In a four-point McCain victory, I'd definitely add MI, no question.

[DownWithTheLeft]

In a 52-47-1 matchup, which is what I guess you are assuming, the following are tossups:

[Reignman]

[Senator Ben]

In a 52-47-1 matchup, which is what I guess you are assuming, the following are tossups:

Not with Obama; by November, all of New England save New Hampshire will be solidly behind Obama, likewise with Minnesota and Oregon.  I actually think McCain is going to be strong in Arkansas, so it would be something like this:

[Josh/Devilman88]

Can't really say Regiman map the most.

[Verily]

Erc's map looks fine to me. I am partial to putting Virginia as a toss-up, but that seems to be a particular bone of contention here. Reignman's and DWTL's maps make no sense. Although I think 52-47-1 might flip a couple of random states that are not marked as toss-ups.

[Erc]

Man, you have no idea how long it took me to figure out the 1896 map was just a mistake. 

I'm not sure I'm convinced all of those will be within 4%, but I think those are all 50% or better to be within 4%, individually.

I might add Michigan.

Edit: In a four-point McCain victory, I'd definitely add MI, no question.

Personally, I don't think MI will still be nearly as close after the conventions, assuming Obama treats MI/FL with some modicum of respect.

[Prez Duke]

In a 50-50 race, there are your tossups in a McCain/Obama race.

[Torie]

Man, you have no idea how long it took me to figure out the 1896 map was just a mistake. 

I'm not sure I'm convinced all of those will be within 4%, but I think those are all 50% or better to be within 4%, individually.

I might add Michigan.

Edit: In a four-point McCain victory, I'd definitely add MI, no question.

With a 4% window, I would be on the cusp of adding Virginia. I had it going to McCain by 3% in an even election. Going the other way, I had Michigan at -4%.  Actually, I kind of like my list. I can't find anything wrong with it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Erc's map looks fine to me. I am partial to putting Virginia as a toss-up, but that seems to be a particular bone of contention here. Reignman's and DWTL's maps make no sense. Although I think 52-47-1 might flip a couple of random states that are not marked as toss-ups.

The question posed was if one candidate got 52%, that is actually a lot and would probably cause a lot of states to flip.  Which ones?  I'm not exactly sure that is why I made almost anything imaginably a tossup, a tossup

[Lief]

Probably gonna be yelled at for some of the western states, but until polls stop showing them within 4 or 5 points, which is basically what this thread is asking about, they'll stay toss-ups.

[Angel of Death]

In a 50-50 race I don't see New Hampshire being a tossup.

[JSojourner]

In a 50-50 race, there are your tossups in a McCain/Obama race.

Good grief, what is going on here?  I actually agree with Duke?

I think he's spot-on about Michigan.  It's going to be bloody close, with Detroit probably pulling it out for Obama.  The only change I would make to your map, Duke is to add Iowa as a toss up.

[Kushahontas]

massachussets people! really?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Obama gets 51.9%, he has a good shot at winning Virginia and Florida.

[Prez Duke]

If Obama gets 51.9%, he has a good shot at winning Virginia and Florida.

Virginia, maybe. Florida, no.

[Gustaf]

Hard to tell this early, but you may want to change some of those Southwestern states to red and replace them with Michigan. Call me crazy.

[Erc]

Hard to tell this early, but you may want to change some of those Southwestern states to red and replace them with Michigan. Call me crazy.

I'm apparently in the minority when it comes to Michigan, I'll accept that.  And, for now, you're all probably right.  But if come August/September Obama starts pulling away there, I get to gloat a bit.

But which Southwestern states would you put in Obama's column?  There may be a case for New Mexico, but I don't think it can be argued at all that Obama is somehow guaranteed to win Nevada or Colorado in a close race.

[Gustaf]

Hard to tell this early, but you may want to change some of those Southwestern states to red and replace them with Michigan. Call me crazy.

I'm apparently in the minority when it comes to Michigan, I'll accept that.  And, for now, you're all probably right.  But if come August/September Obama starts pulling away there, I get to gloat a bit.

But which Southwestern states would you put in Obama's column?  There may be a case for New Mexico, but I don't think it can be argued at all that Obama is somehow guaranteed to win Nevada or Colorado in a close race.

Well, there are polls. The first thing I said was that this is hard to do this early, because there is reason to distrust polling this early. But if you look at the polls they suggest that Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are in the Obama column as at least lean states while Michigan is a pure tossup.

[Senator Sbane]

Hard to tell this early, but you may want to change some of those Southwestern states to red and replace them with Michigan. Call me crazy.

I'm apparently in the minority when it comes to Michigan, I'll accept that.  And, for now, you're all probably right.  But if come August/September Obama starts pulling away there, I get to gloat a bit.

But which Southwestern states would you put in Obama's column?  There may be a case for New Mexico, but I don't think it can be argued at all that Obama is somehow guaranteed to win Nevada or Colorado in a close race.

Well, there are polls. The first thing I said was that this is hard to do this early, because there is reason to distrust polling this early. But if you look at the polls they suggest that Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are in the Obama column as at least lean states while Michigan is a pure tossup.

I dont know if I would trust Michigan polling right now. There are a lot of undecideds in those polls and its hard to predict who they are and how they will vote. As for NV,CO and NM, Barack is strong in these states amongst whites and he would just need to hold Kerry's Margin or increase it a little with Hispanics to win these states. NM will be interesting though and my guess is it will 50-50. NV will be close too but remember this is a state that is growing tremendously and we do not know how these transplants vote. My guess is moderate Californians and they are voting for Obama. CO I feel the suburbs will pull it out for Obama but I do not know too much about the state.

[Harry]

If you're going to say Massachusetts is a tossup, then you might as well say Mississippi is a tossup.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

The most realistic tossups in an Obama/McCain matchup, well in my personal opinion anyway.