Any word on Missouri and North Carolina?

[Joe Biden 2020]

Where are they on the counting?  Why haven't they been called, yet?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

North Carolina was called for Obama today by the AP. I believe Missouri has been called for McCain. CNN just hasn't updated their map online.

[Ronnie]

North Carolina was called on most networks, for Obama.  Missouri was called for McCain on MSNBC.

All that's left is NE-2, which looks like it will go for Obama.

[MR maverick]

YES.. 365 for Obama making him one of the strongest Democarts in recent history.

[Joe Biden 2020]

YES.. 365 for Obama making him one of the strongest Democarts in recent history.

He's not a Democrat, but what did Ronald Reagan reach in 1980 and 1984?

[Hash]

YES.. 365 for Obama making him one of the strongest Democarts in recent history.

He's not a Democrat, but what did Ronald Reagan reach in 1980 and 1984?

... your point is?

[Serenity Now]

YES.. 365 for Obama making him one of the strongest Democarts in recent history.

He's not a Democrat, but what did Ronald Reagan reach in 1980 and 1984?

... your point is?

He's not a Democrat because he didn't do as well as Reagan??? :$

[elcorazon]

YES.. 365 for Obama making him one of the strongest Democarts in recent history.

He's not a Democrat, but what did Ronald Reagan reach in 1980 and 1984?

... your point is?

He's not a Democrat because he didn't do as well as Reagan??? :$

I think he's saying REAGAN's not a democrat, but he's wondering how many EV's he got in 1980 and 1984.  In '84, he got 525, and in '80 he got 489 (which I did not see as a landslide, so clearly 2008 was not a landslide either).

For the record Clinton got 370 and 379 in his 2 victories, so Obama did NOT outperform Clinton, regardless of your view on the Perot impact.

[J. J.]

YES.. 365 for Obama making him one of the strongest Democarts in recent history.

He's not a Democrat, but what did Ronald Reagan reach in 1980 and 1984?

... your point is?

He's not a Democrat because he didn't do as well as Reagan??? :$

I think he's saying REAGAN's not a democrat, but he's wondering how many EV's he got in 1980 and 1984.  In '84, he got 525, and in '80 he got 489 (which I did not see as a landslide, so clearly 2008 was not a landslide either).

For the record Clinton got 370 and 379 in his 2 victories, so Obama did NOT outperform Clinton, regardless of your view on the Perot impact.

In terms of popular vote, it looks like Obama's margin was slightly bigger than Clinton's in 1992, but the head to head D/R margin was greater in 1992.  Perot was a factor.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

For the record Clinton got 370 and 379 in his 2 victories, so Obama did NOT outperform Clinton, regardless of your view on the Perot impact.

Not to resurrect a four-year-old argument or anything, but the vast majority of Perot voters were disgruntled conservatives.  Take Perot out of the equation in 1992, and Clinton wins 50-48 with 280-290 Evs if he wins at all.

I had a map made at some point of how things would have gone in 1992 without Perot.  Without a doubt Bush would have won OH, NJ, CO, MT, GA, NV, ME, and NH.  That brings Clinton down to 302 Evs.  Arguably, Bush also could have taken KY, CT, and WI (iffy), bringing Clinton down to 275.  MI, PA, and LA are also in the conversation, depending on how many Perot votes you want to give to Bush.

Bush would have been able to concentrate all his firepower on Clinton without Perot around, and that also would have helped him.

So 365 EVs without the help of a third candidate is a pretty good result for a newly-elected Democrat.

[elcorazon]

For the record Clinton got 370 and 379 in his 2 victories, so Obama did NOT outperform Clinton, regardless of your view on the Perot impact.

Not to resurrect a four-year-old argument or anything, but the vast majority of Perot voters were disgruntled conservatives.  Take Perot out of the equation in 1992, and Clinton wins 50-48 with 280-290 Evs if he wins at all.

I had a map made at some point of how things would have gone in 1992 without Perot.  Without a doubt Bush would have won OH, NJ, CO, MT, GA, NV, ME, and NH.  That brings Clinton down to 302 Evs.  Arguably, Bush also could have taken KY, CT, and WI (iffy), bringing Clinton down to 275.  MI, PA, and LA are also in the conversation, depending on how many Perot votes you want to give to Bush.

Bush would have been able to concentrate all his firepower on Clinton without Perot around, and that also would have helped him.

So 365 EVs without the help of a third candidate is a pretty good result for a newly-elected Democrat.

I agree with your last statement.  And I don't intend to look up the numbers on your "without a doubt" claim, but I do say that elections are funny things and there is little that can be said "without a doubt"   The FACT is that Perot ran, republicans WERE disgruntled and DID vote for a candidate who clearly wasn't going to win.  Maybe they would have voted liberatarian or stayed home. Maybe a fair number would have voted for Clinton.  We'll never know for sure.

My only point was to contradict a previous point that 365 was the best dem performance in recent memory, cause you know, it wasn't.  Clinton, got more EV's. 

I will agree that Obama got MORE of a mandate than Clinton, just not much more.

And many felt that Reagan's "landslide" in 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning off Carter votes.  I happen to disagree with that as well, but there's little doubt that Anderson helped make the electoral college a bigger blowout than it otherwise would have been.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

And many felt that Reagan's "landslide" in 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning off Carter votes.  I happen to disagree with that as well, but there's little doubt that Anderson helped make the electoral college a bigger blowout than it otherwise would have been.

I'm not certain Anderson's support was all that lopsided.  He didn't get that many votes from the South, and it was there that Reagan flipped the most Carter states (ten of them, or eleven if you count MO).  Anderson was attractive to a lot of Republicans who found Reagan too extreme (although it's difficult to imagine how any Republican of any stripe would vote for a 50-cent gas tax hike in 1980).

Carter got blown out in the EC because Southern Evangelicals deserted him for Reagan, and the South was his main source of electoral strength.

[elcorazon]

And many felt that Reagan's "landslide" in 1980 was mostly due to Anderson siphoning off Carter votes.  I happen to disagree with that as well, but there's little doubt that Anderson helped make the electoral college a bigger blowout than it otherwise would have been.

I'm not certain Anderson's support was all that lopsided.  He didn't get that many votes from the South, and it was there that Reagan flipped the most Carter states (ten of them, or eleven if you count MO).  Anderson was attractive to a lot of Republicans who found Reagan too extreme (although it's difficult to imagine how any Republican of any stripe would vote for a 50-cent gas tax hike in 1980).

Carter got blown out in the EC because Southern Evangelicals deserted him for Reagan, and the South was his main source of electoral strength.

Reagan won ARkansas by 0.6%, and Anderson got 2.68% of the vote
He won CT by 9% and Anderson got 12.6% of the vote
He won DE by 2.3 and Anderson got 6.9% of the vote
He won KY by 1.4% and Anderson got 2.4% of the vote
He won ME by 3.3% and Anderson got 10.2% of the vote
He won Mas by 0.15% and Anderson got 15% of the vote
He won NY by 2.7% and Andersong got 7.5% of the vote
He won NC by 2.1% and Anderson got 2.8% of the vote
He won TN by 0.3% and Anderson got 2.2% of the vote
He won VT by 5.9% and Anderson got 14.9% of the vote
He won WI by 4.7% and Anderson got 7.1% of the vote

Reagan had 50.75% of the total popular vote (well under Obama's total).

As I mentioned above, I do NOT believe Anderson really hurt Carter that much, however I do think the electoral totals would have been a tad closer if Anderson had not run.  In addition to Republicans unhappy with Reagan, Anderson appealed to a lot of Democrats VERY unhappy with Carter, but who wouldn't have voted Reagan with a gun to their head (including lots of very strong dems I know).  that said, he easily might have cost him AR, KY, TN, MA and ME, and possibly NY as well, which at least would have made the electoral totals more competitive.

Point is I don't like making assumptions about elections based on who was or wasn't in the race.

I don't even blame Nader for causing Gore to lose, even if had Nader not run Gore would have won.  Truth is, we still don't know for sure if that's true.

[opebo]

I heard a rumour that Missouri should have gone for Obama but there was election fraud in North St. Louis County - throwing out 'provisional ballots' from black neighborhoods.  The number I heard was 7,000, from areas that would probably go Obama in the 90% range.