Talk Elections

I think it's simple math: There are more D+1-5 PVI states out there than R+1-5 states. (using national average based on 2008)
D+ 1-5: PA, NJ, MI, WI, MN, IA, NV, CO, NM, OR, WA, NH, ME= 143 ev

R+1-5:MO, IN, NC, FL (these are conclusively R+) , for 2008 purposes OH,AZ, VA=118 ev.
 VA could easily flip to D+ this year and OH will be near the average, without those two the GOP would only have 76 ev from those states.

The GOP has a ton of likely 60% Romney/ R+8-13 states such as WV, AR, TN, LA etc. Obama's electoral votes are more efficiently allocated. If NC goes from R+3 to R+1-2, he could win nationally by 3-4 points but win 347 electoral votes.

It is simple. President Obama is winning by smaller margins in most of the states that he is winning than Romney leads in most states in which Romney leads. There just aren't that many states that are R+5 to R+10 in (AR, GA, MO, MT)  recent President elections but there are lots of them in the states in the D+5 to D+10 range (IA, MN, MI, NH, PA, WI). This time the President seems a good cultural match for most states in the R+0 to R+5 range (CO, FL, IN, NC, OH, VA)  even while he is a horrible match for states that Clinton won twice but Obama got clobbered in (AR, KY, LA, TN, WV). What he loses in the Mountain South (AR, KY, TN, and WV and southern MO) he more than gains elsewhere.

Maybe it is not that different than 2004 when Bush, if he had narrowly lost Ohio, would have lost the EV, but had a >2.5 million PV lead.

Yes, it is hardly news that the regional strength of the Republicans leaves them with their support over-concentrated in states with certain ahem.. unique.. historical and cultural characteristics.  While obviously Democratic support is also regionally over-concentrated in CA/Eastern Seaboard, it is considerably less so than the GOP.  That the Democratic tent is much bigger and encompassing seems the obvious explanation - however its my opinion this is only by default.  The GOP is hoist on its own petard.

I don't think that's the case. Bush won Ohio by nearly the same amount as he won nationwide, over 2%, so if Kerry had won Ohio he probably would've also been receiving enough votes elsewhere to win the PV.

True. Dubya was racking up huge vote totals all over the South while losing by small margins in a bunch of states. But shift the election 2% in favor of Dubya and he would have picked up Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire and 68 electoral votes creating a near-landslide.

...If Kerry had picked up enough votes with which to win Ohio he would have probably also picked up Iowa and New Mexico as well.

But today is different than 2000,2004. AR, TN, WV, KY, LA etc have moved from R+3-5 to R+10 or more.

I was thinking we could have another situtation like in 2000 where the guy who wins the popular vote doesn't win the election. Romney is in trouble I mean he is down in Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Thanks to Jan Brewer the Dems have Arizona in play for them(Not entirely Romney's fault there.) In my opinion if Romney can't nab Colorado he will lose the election automatically. You have to win Colorado to win the election in my opinion for this year and for years to come.

Well then Romney's screwed because he's not winning Colorado. A candidate polling at 53% at this point in the election ain't gonna lose the state unless he completely collapses.

I think Obama's resource advantages in 2008 helped him win swing states by greater than average margins. Romney looks to close this gap this year, so that may decline.

Colorado is like Ohio Part II now if you will. You have to win both states in order to win the election. Of course that might change in 20 years. I mean Ohio is losing population like crazy and barely gained more population in the last 10 years than the state of Connecticut did in the 2010 US Census. Meanwhile Colorado is gaining a whole lot of population and will probably gain a House Seat in the 2020 Census.

The states that Obama carried in 2008 by a double digit margin= 253ev. This includes
CA-55,NY-29,IL-20,PA-20,MI-16,NJ-14,WA-12,MA-11,MD-10,MN-10,and WI-10.  
The states that Bush43 carried in 2004 by at least a high single digit margin=248ev. This includes AZ-11,AR-6,FL-29,IN-11,KY-8,LA-8,MO-10,MT-3,NC-15,TN-11,VA-13,and WV-5= 248ev.
The states that are in play in CO-9,IA-6,NH-4,and OH-18.
OH-18 is always a tossup state. If Obama-D wins OH-18 he wins re-election. If he loses OH-18. he will need to carry CO-9,IA-6,and NH-4.
CO-9 has went from a Lean Republican State (2000/2004) to a Lean Democratic State(2008/2012).  After 2012- It will be a likely DEM state.  262ev.
NH-4 is only competitive because Romney-R is from the neighboring state of MA-11.
Obama-D is going to win narrowly win IA-6 and NH-4.

Guess it must be because the electoral college is made to measure.

Well I don't think Obama will win NC this year but who knows because the Democratic National Convention is in Charlotte this year. The Democrats have an unpopular governor in the governor's mansion who won't seek a second term. The State's Democratic Chair recently resigned too so the state's Democratic Party is maybe at a crossroads right now.

I think the accelerated collapse of the Roman Catholic Church is hurting the GOP with social issues, thus PA and OH are increasingly more Dem.

Yes Obama has an advantage in the Electoral College. 
In 2008 he won nationally by 7.3% but he still would have won in the electoral college even if he had lost the popular vote by 2.5%. 
I think this is because he has the superior ground game and again this year has invested very heavily in local offices int he swing states

Oh my... this is interesting on so many levels.

PA and OH aren't increasingly Dem. If anything OH has become more Republican over the last ten years (right now it's more Dem than it would otherwise be because the state GOP decided to tick off the unions, not because of social issues). PA may have become increasingly Dem in your lifetime, but it hasn't really been a swing state in a long time. If you're expecting the rust belt Catholic areas to suddenly become Republican bastions, that's not about to happen. You have to understand the union/protectionist mentality of these towns to get it. The GOP can make inroads into the blue collar Catholic vote, but will never win it since the workers are mostly yearning for a byegone era of economics that isn't coming back and isn't about to be provided by the GOP in particular. You will see some Republican trend in places like the Youngstown metro area or Monroe, Michigan that fit this bill well, but it would take at least a generation for those areas to become solidly Republican if everything else in the nation remained the same.

The Catholic Church does have a whole lot of problems and certainly isn't on the rise right now, but also bear in mind its members started off very, very Democratic to begin with. Most of the social fragmentation within didn't happen recently; it happened during the 1960s "spirit of Vatican II" era and is just now becoming increasingly obvious. The Catholic Church is going to slowly shrink for a while still, especially in the Midwest, and slowly become more conservative as people either fall inline with the bishops or leave altogether. And to be entirely honest, most of the recent social issues polling out of the rust belt hasn't been all that bad for the GOP to begin with.

If the Catholic Church was in better condition across the rust belt, the GOP would definitely be in better shape, but it's a lot more complicated than that.

The main reason why Obama has an advantage in the electoral college is that so many states that used to be safely Republican, like NC, VA, NV, and CO are now swing states while no Dem states have really become swingy.

I have nothing agaisnt mormons. But the GOP is about to nominate a mormon to try to win these crucial  states. The gop should have nominated mike huckabee

Is the Catholic church really shrinking that much? It probably is in the Midwest and the Northeast to a certain extent but certainly not in the West. And I think it's expanding in the South as well, even beyond Texas. Are Hispanics also leaving the church now, because if not I think the Catholic church will remain strong, but with different demographics.

My impression is that the Catholicism (ala mainline Protestantism, as a sort of mainline kind of outfit itself these days) is losing whites in the US in droves, and the increase in Hispanics net of those who convert to Protestantism substantially but not totally offsets that, resulting in a slow overall percentage decline.

I suspect that conversions to Catholicism just about match conversions from Catholicism.

Catholics tend to be much more liberal than Protestants in general -- much more liberal than white fundamentalists and evangelicals and much more liberal than Lutherans. If it is 'losing' white members, its members used to go from fitting a culture that well served the expansion of Catholicism (large families often with a son dedicated to the Priesthood and a daughter to the convent) to the much smaller family. The Catholic priesthood used to be an attractive career to an intellectual with few chances of getting a college education; that is over. The demands are too high and the rewards are too slight.

Catholics may still be 'practicing' in the sense of attending weekly mass, but most are very secular at all other times.  Priests may preach whatever the Pope tells them to preach, but parishioners are more pragmatic these days. If they have to have contraception to prevent abortion... then so be it. 

In the US, Catholicism is losing more people in conversions from than it is gaining in conversions to, which is being offset by immigration such that the overall percentage of the population in the US remains roughly stable (I think it did drop a fraction of a percentage point over the last 10 years). Losing whites "in droves" is probably something of an overstatement since roughly two-thirds of Americans raised Catholic remain so (I remember reading 68% somewhere though I'm not sure I can find the source easily; anyway it seems about the right number to me). But yes, the Catholic Church is shrinking in most of the northeast in particular and shrinking but less noticeably in the rust belt.

This is also really important to keep in mind. Catholics, while we may have similar moral views as Evangelicals in many respects are less overtly political in announcing them, especially on the local level. The Catholic Church will mostly organize anti-abortion rallies, speak out against abortion, and that's about it. Maybe there will be a mention of some other issue once every four or five months if it comes up in the news in some way that affects the Church. I think I've heard a reference to gay marriage from the pulpit a grand total of once in 23 years of attending Catholic Churches. While the bishops may speak out on occasion to the press, most Catholics don't read the religious news all that closely and most aren't going to pay much attention anyway.

Catholics also are culturally distinct from Evangelicals in how we approach religion in the public sphere. We are generally not as eager to publically announce our religious beliefs at the drop of a hat in real life. I was raised in an atmosphere where we did not often discuss religion much. It was assumed that I would go to Mass every Sunday, and we always did, but it wasn't a question. It wasn't something we talked about, rather something we just did. One thing that becomes obvious in every seminar I've been a part of in education is that the Evangelical members tend to identify and declare themselves very quickly, while Catholics seem to divulge their beliefs only if directly asked. It's a cultural thing.

How can you nominate somebody(Huckabee) that announced he didn't want to run in the first place in this cycle?  He does have a nice gig over at FOX after all.

Huckabee was the Santorum of the 2008 cycle in my opinion with ties to the religious right.

Add to that, the Catholic Church has made plenty of statements that have no connection to sexuality. The Catholic Church is more consistently 'pro-life' than evangelical Protestants, as shown on the death penalty, gun control,  nuclear proliferation, and poverty on which evangelicals can be clearly or at least implicitly 'pro-death'.   

I tend to disagree with the highlighted part. The largest group of Lutherans are the ELCA, and they are generally more liberal than the white Catholics in the suburbs. ELCA like other mainline protestant denominations tends to attract a more liberal segment of suburbia/exurbia than the Catholics who rely more on family allegiance for their membership. Protestant families have the ability to segregate politically between the mainline and evangelical churches, which is not an option for Catholics.