New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Romney versus Obama: Electoral Vote totals

Romney v Obama Nov 12: Electoral Vote?

  • Romney in landslide: > 400 electoral votes

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Obama in landslide > 400 electoral votes

    Votes: 8 11.8%
  • Romney solid victory 300-400 electoral votes

    Votes: 10 14.7%
  • Obama solid victory 300-400 electoral votes

    Votes: 30 44.1%
  • Romney in squeaker 270-300 electoral votes

    Votes: 10 14.7%
  • Obama in squeaker 270-300 electoral votes

    Votes: 9 13.2%

  • Total voters
    68

fairsheet

Senator
The American political science cognescenti seems to agree that the definition of "electoral vote landslide" has probably evolved a bit, since the Reagan days. Due to subsequent redistricting and red/blue polarization, there are probably at least 10 states a GOP couldn't win under any circumstances and as many that a Democrat could never win.

So....it may be more useful for us to focus on the possibility of a popular vote landslide, with the winner taking somewhere around 60% of the vote. And on that note...I'd like to see Obama and the Democrats pursue a robust "50 state strategy".

For instance...sure, there's virtually nothing Obama can do to "win" the State of Utah. So, the Obamans could just write off Utah. But, in terms of a possible popular vote landslide and the mandate it would suggest - it all adds up. Therefore, losing Utah 40-60 rather than 30-70, could be of more longterm value than we might assume.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
Interesting theory.

The one thing that you could do is translate an electoral vote total into an expected "popular vote equivalent." So, for example, in 2008, Obama got 365 electoral votes and 53% of the popular vote. One way to do that is to look at the electoral votes and popular vote in each of the states in 2008 and ask how would Obama get from 365 to 400 or more in 2012. (One problem in comparing 2008 to 2012 is that I believe the totals for the states will be a little different. For example, I believe that our state, Washington, will have one more electoral vote than in 2012 than they had in 2008.) One way for Obama to get close to or just over 400 would be to win Texas. If you look at his performance in 2008, in a rosy scenario, it is not totally beyond reason that Obama could win all the states that he won in 2008 and take Texas which just on its own would bring him close of take him over. Here is a link where you can play thought games.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/presidential-election-vote-summary.html

(Alternatively, you might see Montana, Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, and South Dakota flipping given the margin of McCain's victory in those states in 2008.)

Another thing to consider is Reagan's victory in 2004. He won 59% of the vote but got 525 electoral votes.

My guess is that a "landslide" for Obama would be achieved if he won something around 56 or 57% of the vote. Personally, I think that that is overly rosy. But perhaps the Mittster will be as good a candidate as Walter Mondale (or Mike Dukakis for that matter).

The American political science cognescenti seems to agree that the definition of "electoral vote landslide" has probably evolved a bit, since the Reagan days. Due to subsequent redistricting and red/blue polarization, there are probably at least 10 states a GOP couldn't win under any circumstances and as many that a Democrat could never win.

So....it may be more useful for us to focus on the possibility of a popular vote landslide, with the winner taking somewhere around 60% of the vote. And on that note...I'd like to see Obama and the Democrats pursue a robust "50 state strategy".

For instance...sure, there's virtually nothing Obama can do to "win" the State of Utah. So, the Obamans could just write off Utah. But, in terms of a possible popular vote landslide and the mandate it would suggest - it all adds up. Therefore, losing Utah 40-60 rather than 30-70, could be of more longterm value than we might assume.
 

fairsheet

Senator
As "they" say, it's all about the turnout!

For the Obamans, the question will be how to drive not so much "winning" turnout, as "mandate" turnout. That's tough. I can see scenarios under which it would be in their interest to campaign that the election's going to be close, so people BETTER vote! But, I can also see scenarios under which they might campaign that they're winning going away and that people should be sure and vote to magnify the win.

For the Mittsters though...I see problems. I'm not seeing much of anything they can do, to get voters excited about Mitt himself. ALL they have, is Obama-hate/fear. And we'll note that even in the several days since Mitt became their "official" candidate, all they've done is try out more Obama-hate/fear themes - with virtually nothing in terms of Mitt-positivity. But with each passing month, people look to be becoming less and less fear/hateful of Obama. And as per the '84 Reagan election, there comes a point where spewing fear/hate becomes counterproductive and starts driving more people TO the target of the fear/hate, than away from him.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
I have a feeling that it would be tough for Obama to run on "It's Morning Again in America." However, it is becoming at least as tough for Mitt to run on "It's Unending Despair in America." In other words, Obama won't be able to run a "Reagan v. Mondale" campaign but Romney won't be able to run a "Reagan v. Carter" campaign.

The one thing that I think might work for Obama which is a takeoff on one of the Reagan themes in 1980 I believe: "Are you more hopeful now than were four years ago?" I am sure that the righties would LOL at the suggestion. But I am not so sure. And it fits with "hope and change." Hope does precede change. Hope is necessary but not sufficient for real change. I think that this angle might work with my kids. I may have to test it out.

As "they" say, it's all about the turnout!

For the Obamans, the question will be how to drive not so much "winning" turnout, as "mandate" turnout. That's tough. I can see scenarios under which it would be in their interest to campaign that the election's going to be close, so people BETTER vote! But, I can also see scenarios under which they might campaign that they're winning going away and that people should be sure and vote to magnify the win.

For the Mittsters though...I see problems. I'm not seeing much of anything they can do, to get voters excited about Mitt himself. ALL they have, is Obama-hate/fear. And we'll note that even in the several days since Mitt became their "official" candidate, all they've done is try out more Obama-hate/fear themes - with virtually nothing in terms of Mitt-positivity. But with each passing month, people look to be becoming less and less fear/hateful of Obama. And as per the '84 Reagan election, there comes a point where spewing fear/hate becomes counterproductive and starts driving more people TO the target of the fear/hate, than away from him.
 

fairsheet

Senator
I've said it before..and I'll probably be saying it until I'm proven wrong!....but, I think the Clint Eastwood/Chrysler/Super Bowl commercial is a pretty good blueprint for this year's Obama/Democratic Party campaign. And, that actually IS a version of "Morning in America".

Democrats are handicapped - even by their own - in that they can NEVER suggest that "things are good". GOPs can get away with it. Democrats can't. For as soon as a Democrat says "things are good", he'll be hated on by not just the GOP - which they can weather - but by some aspect of the Democrats who'll let it be known that things aren't good for EVERYBODY, and therefore, the Democrat who suggests it, is a "sell out".
 

bdtex

Administrator
Staff member
Yeah. 300-238 in the EC is not what I would call "solid". 338-200? Maybe. The closeness of 2000,271-266, and 2004,286-252,makes 300 seem solid to some folks I guess.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
I can't accurately predict the outcome of an election that will not occur until November, but I can say this much with some degree of certainty: PJ posters who claim to be conservatives tend to actually be partisan Republicans, and partisan Republicans tend to be idiots. I would like to note that this statement of fact is not intended to be taken as a personal insult by any particular idiot (or idiots). It is, instead, simply an objective and unbiased assessment of the available evidence.

Regarding the relevance of my comment to your top post, I would posit that the outcome of the upcoming election will depend largely upon the ability of the vast GOP propaganda machine to excite the limbic systems of the various individuals making up their idiot base, thereby prompting them to show up at the polls come November. While the rank and file Republican base may not like nor support their Presidential candidate, the leaders of the party understand that if they can manage to somehow get them into the voting booth, their conditioning will kick in and they will invariably cast their vote for whomever has the "R" next to their name on the ballot. It really is just that simple. After all, they are idiots.


Cheers,
NS
 
At this point, I am willing to take-it-for-granted that Romney will be the Republican nominee and that there won't be a significant third party candidate. It will be Mitt versus Barack mano a mano. So it seems like a good time for a poll to get everyone on record early on. However, rather than using percentages of the popular vote, I am going to set up the poll by electoral votes. If anyone has forgotten, there are 538 electoral votes and in 2008, Obama got 365 electoral votes and McCain got 173 electoral votes.

For my poll:

>400 electoral votes is considered a landslide
300-400 electoral votes is considered a solid victory

270-300 electoral votes is considered a squeaker (where it is possible that the popular vote winner does not win the electoral vote).
I've seen too many things happen in recent decades to make any kind of bet on elections, but I will say that the support that Romney has is largely from the upper percentage of the weallthy in this nation who may possess a great deal of wealth, but by way of a lesson of sorts, because their numbers are small, do not have the votes by virtue of their numbers and despite all the frantic and numerous efforts to suggest it was Obama that tanked the nation's economy, ran up its debt to the point of that collapse and presided over a government that failed the nation, January 2009 (When Obama took office was only 3 years and 3 months ago and while things are not nearly back to "normal" (whatever that is now) a number of things are looking up, not down as they were when the last president left office, just after headlines that described the economic state of the nation as the "worst crisis since the 30's, no end in sight".

While the hope of some might have been that memories are short or could be wiped out by repeated pounding of rhetoric, I just don't believe that has happened and too many people still remember the root of and whose (if the political party of the president is responsible) party had the reins of the nation when what we're still working our way out of hit us full on.

I think Obama is going to begin to point out all the concessions he has made since he took office and point to how those concessions have not worked and where he was supported has worked and simply ask Americans if they want to go back to the same headline carried by the Wall Street Journal on September 18, 2008 and if they would, to please vote for Mitt Romney.
 

MaryAnne

Governor
You are not alone on the bet,Knot. I did not vote. But one thing is for sure,from the looks of the vote I do not see a lot of faith in Romney.
 

Number_58

I'm one of the deplorables lefty warns you about.
I think A LOT of this election and Obama's chances to win will hinge on his ability (or lack there of) to inspire the base that came out for him in 2008. I have read mixed reports on the possibility of some of those groups waning support of him this time around. If Obama isn't able to rally the 18-30 year old base and get the African-American base to the level of excitement they had last Presidential election...that, combined with the factors you just added, COULD spell disaster for Obama.

My prediction is based on the possibility that he will enjoy the same benefits he did in 2008. I think the entire election is going to boil down to states like Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida swinging in his favor.
 

degsme

Council Member
I think A LOT of this election and Obama's chances to win will hinge on his ability (or lack there of) to inspire the base that came out for him in 2008. I have read mixed reports on the possibility of some of those groups waning support of him this time around. If Obama isn't able to rally the 18-30 year old base and get the African-American base to the level of excitement they had last Presidential election...that, combined with the factors you just added, COULD spell disaster for Obama.

My prediction is based on the possibility that he will enjoy the same benefits he did in 2008. I think the entire election is going to boil down to states like Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida swinging in his favor.
Well the demographic data collected in the exit polls and also reflected in the 2010 results show that that it is about turning out the 18-33yo base. Where they turned out at 15% and above (of the electorate) in 2010, the GOP went down in flames despite spending tens of millions

Where the same group turned out at average off year numbers (9%-11%) The GOP won. OWS has some to do with this. So does Romney's alienation of the women's vote (I don't have sources on this, but my experience is that women are MORE active voters in the 18-33yo age group than men).
 

justoffal

Senator
Romney will win either way....despite voter fraud....despite massive misinformation campaigns...despite the total insanity that will precede the final vote counts....

It's gonna be ugly in the streets after that......they are not going to take this defeat well at all.

JO
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
I think that the 9/18/2008 headline gambit is an excellent strategy. I suspect that we might see ads along those lines.

I've seen too many things happen in recent decades to make any kind of bet on elections, but I will say that the support that Romney has is largely from the upper percentage of the weallthy in this nation who may possess a great deal of wealth, but by way of a lesson of sorts, because their numbers are small, do not have the votes by virtue of their numbers and despite all the frantic and numerous efforts to suggest it was Obama that tanked the nation's economy, ran up its debt to the point of that collapse and presided over a government that failed the nation, January 2009 (When Obama took office was only 3 years and 3 months ago and while things are not nearly back to "normal" (whatever that is now) a number of things are looking up, not down as they were when the last president left office, just after headlines that described the economic state of the nation as the "worst crisis since the 30's, no end in sight".

While the hope of some might have been that memories are short or could be wiped out by repeated pounding of rhetoric, I just don't believe that has happened and too many people still remember the root of and whose (if the political party of the president is responsible) party had the reins of the nation when what we're still working our way out of hit us full on.

I think Obama is going to begin to point out all the concessions he has made since he took office and point to how those concessions have not worked and where he was supported has worked and simply ask Americans if they want to go back to the same headline carried by the Wall Street Journal on September 18, 2008 and if they would, to please vote for Mitt Romney.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
Well, as usual, you seem to have a doom and gloom scenario - Romney wins and a race-war ensues. I assume that Romney then declares a state of emergency and jails Obama and all liberal leaders. He suspends habeas corpus and removes all Democrats (except for a handful of collaborators) from Congress. The 5-4 Supreme Court declares Romney's actions to be Constitutional. The rump Congress impeaches the four "liberal" judges and replace them with Republican stooges. Martial law is declared in the blue states and in urban areas in the red states. This scenario is typical of righties with vivid imaginations.

In any case, I think that your imagination is a little too vivid. Obama will win a solid victory fair and square and Romney will concede with grace and go back to his house in California (with the elevators for his automobiles) and hang out at his country club with his CEO friends.

Romney will win either way....despite voter fraud....despite massive misinformation campaigns...despite the total insanity that will precede the final vote counts....

It's gonna be ugly in the streets after that......they are not going to take this defeat well at all.

JO
 

moddem38

Council Member
And if Obama wins by either of the margins that you mentioned, it will be because he and his minions told enough lies (autistic people will be on their own, old people will be pushed off a cliff in their wheel chairs, poor children will go hungry, etc etc)
U Reps have the nerve to complain about lies? How about: 1.death panels 2. people will go to jail for not getting health insurance. 3. birther b.s. 4. And my favorite--Romney sayng the President refuses to address entitlements--and in the same speech, no less--wants to cut Medicare!
 

moddem38

Council Member
Anybody who's confident on their prediction should go to intrade.com; there's money to be made (or lost) on political futures. Right now, Obama is favored to win, 60%. (Odds are made by gamblers, not by the website owners).

http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/
 
Top