2008 with No Financial Crisis

[Siloch]

McCain would have won the electoral college, Obama would probably have won the popular vote.

[Siloch]

so you're saying that a Republican who loses the PV wins Michigan, Pennsylvania, "New Virginia", and Colorado?

Yes, my opinon is without the financial crisis, McCain does better with blue collar whites in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, he also narrowly wins Florida and North Carolina.

Virginia was a mistake, I should have made that 40% Dem.

Obama still gets huge minority turnout (which gives him Nevada and New Mexico) but in Michigan and Pennsylvania without winning as much blue collar whites he loses those states.

I think without the terrible economy more blue collar whites would have stuck with what they knew instead of going for Obama's change.

[Siloch]

Ohio I can understand since that was a bush 2004 state, but Michigan and Pennsylvania are pretty reliably Democratic, and Pennsylvania especially is an "inelastic" state, so I don't see it flipping except in the case of a true landslide.

And Bush was unpopular anyway at that point, since Katrina.

Bush seriously underperformed in Michigan (he only got 52% in Macomb and 49 in Oakland) but he still got 47 percent of the vote, he came pretty close in Pennsylvania 50 to 48 I think. His approval ratings in 04 were pretty bad aswell.

McCain (more like Specter in 04) would be a much better candidate in Pennsylvania, he is more moderate and would have done better than Bush in the Philadelphia mainline suburbs, while the western part of Pennsylvania trended heavily to him even with the financial crisis.

I don't think these would have been landslide wins in either state, he would just have won enough of the blue collar vote to win them.

[Siloch]

Thing about Pennsylvania is that it is an inelastic state, meaning there's not too many voters to swing. There's a reason why it's "fool's gold" for the GOP. A Republican can easily get 48-49 percent of the state's vote, but it's much, much harder to get 50%.

And any semblance of McCain's moderation would be offset by Sarah Palin, who he picked before the crash.

Pennsylvania's traditional political makeup is changing though, for the past few cycles the western part of the state has been getting more Republican (Westmoreland County is good indicator of this), this area used to be staunchly Democratic, it didn't swing. Democrats have compensated by gaining in the mainline suburbs but these suburban voters can more easily be wooed to a more moderate GOP than the blue collar appalachians can to the increasinly liberal DNC.

I think PA is ripe for the taking for the GOP, they just need to appeal to suburban women more and they will easily win 50% of the vote in PA.

[Siloch]

I don't see the "increasingly liberal" DNC that you're talking about. I really don't.

With all due respect that is probably because you are a 17 year old Green Party supporter.

Appealing to suburban women won't help when you have Palin on the ticket, espousing views that are certainly not moderate. Pennsylvania might find itself in a position where it is more Republican than the country, for whatever reason, but 2008 is just not that year.

Without starting a whole debate about Palin because that is not what this is about. I gave my reasons for giving Pennsylvania to McCain and I stick by them. In an election where the economy was ok, confronted with Obama's change or McCain a guy they knew, a guy with experience blue collar workers would have went with McCain and many did but the poor economy gave enough of them to Obama to win him the state.