Posts with the tag electoral college

Recession census figures and the 2012 election.

Bryan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:27:20 EDT

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-09-29-income-gap-census_N.htm?obref=obnetwork

The above link is a very good article by USA Today featuring some recent census data. Among other things, it points out something very relevant to the next election:

"Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia had higher poverty rates than the national average, many of them in the South, such as Mississippi (21.2%), Kentucky, Arkansas and Louisiana (each with 17.3%). That's compared with 19 states and the District of Columbia that ranked above U.S. poverty in 2007."

Nothing Is Set in Stone

Kaiser Farooque — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:37:57 EST

NOTE: This post is both on my Xanga site and the smaller blog I've started up on my Kizyr for Obama page.

In 1936, Democrat FDR took every state except for Vermont and Maine.
In 1972, Republican Nixon took every state except for Massachusetts and Washington DC.
In 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the entire South (except Virginia), while Republican Gerald Ford won the West Coast.
In 1992 and 1996, Democrat Bill Clinton took half the southern states.

There's a simple point I'm trying to make here. It's very easy when trying to predict the outcome of an election to assume one state will go one way, and another state will go another. It's easy to assume that, say, Utah, Texas, and the entire Southeast are eternally Republican, and the West Coast and Northeast are eternally Democratic, that cities are always Democratic and small towns are always Republican.

Things aren't set in stone. And the fact that, now, Barack Obama is winning over many supporters across the entire country, that the Republicans are scrambling in places like North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, and Missouri, should tell us something.

And the fact that things can always change should motivate you to vote, even if you're in a so-called "Solid Blue" or "Solid Red" state. KF

Election Predictions and last thoughts before the big day

Adam — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:45:43 EST

This has been a long 2 years, but election day is nearly upon us. Let’s start with the easy states:

In the bank for McCain— Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These states total: 142 ev’s for McCain. The only (remote) upset possibilities here are Arizona where polling is within the margin of error in the last few days, one of the congressional districts in Nebraska (Nebraska is one of two states that actually split their EV’s by district, and Obama has a shot at winning 1 of those), and Louisiana where African-american turn-out is unknowable because it depends on evacuees returning to vote. The early vote numbers look better there than expected for Obama, but I’m still putting this one in the safe McCain column. West Virginia looked like an option earlier, but they lost ground after Obama and Biden campaigned there. In summary, going into election day, I think McCain has 142 EV’s in the bank.

In the bank for Obama—California, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. These states total 227 EV’s for Obama. Remote possibilities for a McCain upset are Michigan and Wisconsin, although it’s almost impossible to realistically consider either of those since McCain and the RNC pulled out of both weeks ago.

With 270 needed to win, I believe the race sits at 227-142 when looking at just the rock solid states. Obviously McCain starts from a tougher position than Obama, but it’s not impossible for McCain to pull it out.

Now for the toss-ups, and I’m listing these on the Strong ObamaàStrong McCain spectrum:

The first 5 I would put in the Likely Obama column: Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Colorado totaling 46 electoral votes. Iowa has been in the bag for Obama for months now, as has New Hampshire. Despite McCain’s efforts there, most polls have both states in double digits. Pennsylvania has been remarkably stable despite the all-out blitz of Palin and McCain of the last 3 weeks. The strategy made sense, but none of the tactics have worked as the race looks to be in the 7-10 point range (should narrow before election day obviously). New Mexico is the second Bush state (after Iowa) that Obama looks poised to pick up easily, primarily on his strength with Latinos (polls have Obama at 2:1 Latino support, so much for the argument during the primaries that hispanic voters would resist supporting an African-american). Colorado had been a battleground up until a few weeks ago, but it looks like Obama has put it away. The state has trended blue recently with a democratic governor and 2 democratic senators, as well as an increasing latino population. McCain basically pulled out of the state 2 weeks ago. Those Likely Obama states total 44 EV’s, and put Obama at 273. Barring an upset in one of these states, with Pennsylvania, because of the resources devoted by McCain and Palin (and some questionable racial attitudes in the western part of the state) and New Hampshire, because of McCain’s history there, being the best two possibilities, this should be enough to give Obama the presidency. The good news for Obama is he has other paths to 270 should Pennsylvania or New Hampshire falter.

The next 2 states I would put in the lean Obama category: Virginia and Nevada totaling 18 EV’s. Virginia has been a target of Obama’s since the primaries, when he overperformed there relative to expectations in February. He has opened a tremendous number of offices here, and with higher than expected turnout among African Americans and northern Virginian (the “fake” Virginia) voters, Virginia should turn blue this year. Obama is helped by a slam dunk for the dems Senate race (Mark Warner) as well as a popular governor (Tim Kaine) who has been working the state hard for him. Nevada is slightly less in the bag, and is probably more of a toss-up state that leans ever so slightly towards Obama. Apparently, the RNC and McCain’s campaign devoted very little resources here, and with a big GOTV operation, this looks like a state Obama should be able to carry, but we probably won’t know these results until late. With those two states for Obama, we’re at 291.

The interesting thing is, if the scenario above holds, he could lose Pennsylvania and still have 270.

The next 5 states are true toss-ups. I don’t think anyone can be certain of who will carry them. I would put Florida a hair closer to Obama, followed by Ohio (right at the 50:50 mark), then North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri. These states total 57 ev’s and McCain can’t lose any of them. Each of them presents an opportunity for both candidates. Florida moved towards Obama after the Palin pick and never moved back. Ohio looks to be dead even, but I think McCain probably has an edge there unless the evangelicals who showed up in huge numbers in 2004 stay home or the voting problems that happened last time disappear in heavily African-american districts. North Carolina should be red unless African-american turnout is overwhelming. Indiana is usually the first state to report results because it’s such a deep shade of red, but Obama has performed better than expected (since it neighbors Illinois). And lastly, Missouri is too close to call. Missouri often votes for the winner overall, and Obama did win the primary here, but I still think it’s a little more likely to go red.

The last three are in the red category, but circumstances in each state could turn them blue—Montana has seen a democratic surge lately with a democratic governor and senator, and the governor is up for reelection and should win big (and Obama is running ads here now); Georgia has seen just ludicrous early voting numbers among democrats and a close senate race, but the state in all likelihood will stay blue, and North Dakota has almost no state GOP structure any more. That, along with same day voter registration, gives a glimmer of hope to the Obama campaign in North Dakota.

So, what do I predict? Obviously, Obama isn’t likely to pull all of these toss-ups into his column, but I do think he will pull a lot. I think 2006 was the beginning of the wave, and this will be the end of it. People forget, but almost no on was forecasting the gains the dems ended up achieving in 2006 (gaining control of the senate, etc).

For comparison:

2004: Bush over Kerry: 286-251; 50.7% to 48.3%
2000: Bush over Gore: 271-266; 47.9% to 48.4%
1996: Clinton over Dole: 379-159; 49.2% to 40,71%
1992: Clinton over Bush: 370-168; 43.0% to 37.7% to 18.9%
1988: Bush over Duke: 426-111; 53.4% to 45.4%
1984: Reagan over Mondale: 525-13; 58.8% to 40.6%
1980: Reagan over Carter: 489-49; 50.7% to 41.0%

You can see how often a race that gets to 5 points or more turns into a landslide.

We should get a good idea of where the race is by 8-9 pm EST. Virginia, Florida, Georgia, and Indiana all close by then (VA is at 7), followed by Ohio and North Carolina at 7:30 PM, and Missouri and Pennsylvania at 8 pm EST. Colorado and New Mexico are closing at 9 pm EST.

The networks will declare a winner if they have enough raw data and the data correlates well with their projection. If the network says “too close to call” it means they don’t know who will win yet. If they say “too early to call” it means they are waiting for confirmatory data to support their projection. It’s a distinction with a difference.

With all of that being said, here’s my best guess after spending entirely too much time on this:

I think we’re going to see 52-47 (ish) popular vote, and electoral vote of around 340-198, with Obama sweeping all the Kerry states (including Pennsylvania), and adding on Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Georgia, and North Dakota should all probably stay red.

I think an Obama win probably has a floor of about 271 and a ceiling of 396. Anyone who predicts above 400 is giving Obama surprise states no one else is seriously considering.

McCain can pull this out, but it really looks like a steep hill to climb for him. If you go back to the 2004 map, keep it at the Kerry-Bush breakdown but move Iowa and New Mexico into the Obama column, and push PA back to McCain. He can do it. Even if you give Obama Colorado, pushing PA red will give it to McCain. If you keep that scenario and give Virginia to Obama, it shifts the winner overall back to Obama. In other words, for McCain to realistically have a shot, he has to hold Virginia and snag Pennsylvania. I don’t see that happening, but that’s been the rationale behind the McCain PA/VA strategy. If Obama picks up Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado and either Virginia or Pennsylvania, it’s basically over, no matter what happens in those other toss-up states.

One other note—I think we’re looking at another 30+ seats in the House (currently 235-199 in favor of the dems), somewhere around 265 dems 169 repubs at the end of the night. In the senate, the dems are going to get very close to 60 seats—they start at 51-49 (including Lieberman and Sanders who are both independents who caucus with the dems). They have easy pick-ups in Virginia (Mark Warner- key note at convention), New Mexico (1 of the 2 Udalls, I can never remember which is which), New Hamsphire (Shaheen ex governor to beat Sununu), Alaska (Begich should beat convicted felon Stevens easily), Colorado (the other Udall). That would get the Dems to 56 seats. 3 other likely pick-ups are Oregon (Merkely), Hagan (should beat Dole after her absurd godless ads—would be the first time a dole or a bush isn’t in office in 50 years!), and Franken who is leading against Coleman and a 3rd party candidate. That gets the dems to 59 seats.

There are three chances for the dems to get one more to hit the magic number of 60—Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi. Mississippi looks to be a safe GOP seat now. Kentucky would be interesting because the GOPer there is Mitch McConnell the minority leader who is suddenly in a dead even race. But most interesting is Georgia, where Martin is looking to beat Chambliss. There is a very good chance that neither Martin nor Chambliss will hit 50%, despite the huge African American turnout. If that happens, we’re looking at a run-off in December, possibly for a filibuster proof majority. That election would look like a national general election, exactly what no one (except crazies like me) wants after this interminable season.

Chance for Change - October 31 Edition

The Kozmic Kid — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:14:40 EDT

Update for October 31, 4 days to Election Day.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN! WHAT SCARES YOU THE MOST?

This was Obama's best week yet in the Chance for Change model, with Barack winning all 10,000 simulated elections with an expected vote total of 366, the highest ever. The fewest votes Barack received in any election was 294, 24 more than the 270 needed to win. The most was 431. But we're not ready to relax yet.

We entered poll results from 45 states this week, of which ten materially affected the outcome. Of these, six were favorable to Obama.

In one of the biggest surprises this week, polls show the race becoming competitive in McCain's home state of Arizona. McCain had a 21 point lead last week, but only a single point lead this week. It does not look like an outlier. This red, red state is now a battleground. Obama is campaigning there, and the Republicans are running robocalls. Imagine that. We think Arizona will likely go for its favorite son, but wouldn't it be delicious?

Obama's one-point lead in Florida last week has grown to four points this week. This crucial state has volleyed back and forth all season but Obama seems to have built a durable lead, either tied or ahead in all of the last twelve polls, leading by as much as seven. Remember, if McCain loses Florida or Ohio, there is almost no possible path to 270 votes.

Obama led by a single point last week in Georgia but trails by three this week. Georgia has had record turnout in the early vote, with more than 1.5 million Georgians casting their ballots as of this week. By most accounts, Democrats have dominated the early voters. If Georgia falls to Obama, it could turn out to be a very long night for the McCain camp.

Indiana remains a squeaker. Obama's four point lead last week evaporated; now the Hoosier state is dead even at 47 all.

Obama had a four point lead in Montana last week but trails by three this week. It's only three votes, but could be highly symbolic. Not as delicious as Arizona, but still sweet.

McCain has hopes for New Hampshire, the state that revived his comatose primary campaign. McCain trailed by one point last week, but trails by eleven in this week's poll. This one is diverging and looks pretty solid for Obama.

New Mexico was tied last week, but Obama has opened up a 17 point lead. This is probably bigger than the actual lead, but it's not out of the question. Another poll this week has him up by ten.

North Carolina will be another state to watch early on election night. Obama trailed by two in last week's poll, but is up by two this week. They've been polling the heck out of the Tarheel state this week, but most of the polls have Obama in the lead.

Obama is hanging onto the lead in our home state of Ohio, up by four this week, down from a twelve point lead last week. It's still close in Ohio, but Obama leads by three to nine points in every poll taken since October 23. That's ten straight polls.

Finally, the surprise development of the election, the movement of the Commonwealth of Virginia from a reliable Republican stronghold to blue-state status appears to be complete. McCain was down by two last week but trails by nine in this week's poll. In what is becoming a familiar pattern, Obama has led in every poll since October 2 - that's 24 straight polls.

We also entered results from 28 senate races this week, of which five showed significant movement. The race in Georgia has opened up a bit, with incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss improving his lead over challenger Jim Martin from two points to five. A recent poll in Louisiana shows incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu's lead over John Kennedy shrinking from ten points last week to a single point this week. It's highly doubtful that the race is actually this close, since other recent polls show Landrieu up ten to twenty points - and the poll showing her up by one was conducted on behalf of the Kennedy campaign. Minnesota continues to entertain, with Al Franken opening up a five point lead over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. The race in Mississippi between Republican Roger Wicker and Democrat Ronnie Musgrove has taken a turn in Wicker's direction. Wicker's one point lead last week has swollen to eleven. In what is becoming one of the ugliest senate campaigns in the country, North Carolina Republican incumbent Elizabeth Dole has fallen behind her Democratic challenger Kay Hagan by six points, after trailing last week by one. Dole ran an ad this week that implied that Kay Hagan, a former Sunday school teacher and Presbyterian church elder, is in fact an atheist. Hagan responded by accusing Dole of "bearing false witness against a fellow Christian." While we've been keeping our eye on the main event, we've forgotten all the entertaining sideshows going on in the senate races. It's a nice break.

The upshot is, there's a much better chance that the Democrats will achieve a 57 seat majority, but less of a chance that they'll get 60 seats.

WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT AND MY ELECTION PREDICTION

Jeremiah — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:16:40 EDT

I have put together a list of my ballot endorsements and predictions for various races around the country and in WV. Given the importance and historic nature of the presidential race, I will post it separately. Enjoy.

PRESIDENT:

You have heard it ad naseum for almost a year and a half that this election is important. Well, damnit, it is the most important election of our lifetime. We live in a tumultuous time, but our nation is still the greatest on earth. We have the strongest economy, strongest military and most innovative and creative citizens. We are a compassionate and practical people. We have our faults, but I am proud to be an American. Regardless of who wins or loses I will support them as President but on the flipside of that token I also retain my right to either man if I feel they are wrong on an issue. Dissent is a sacred right that we should all be more willing to exercise.

Now getting down to business, we have two very different candidates with very contrasting styles and views on how the country should be governed. When voting for President I consider three leadership qualities- intelligence, temperament and political philosophy. Barack Obama is superior in all three areas from my point of view. He is one of the most intelligent candidates we have ever had for President. Obama not only excels at understanding the issues that face the country but he understands what needs to be done in order to put our country back on track. McCain has failed to lay out his vision in this election and instead chose to make his campaign about being anti Obama.

Also, Obama is an intellectual. He is, in many respects, a post modern thinker. He understands that the world is not divided in terms of black and white or good and evil but that we live in many shades of gray. This realization allows him to consider multiple options as opposed to the simplistic nature of someone like President Bush, who appears to make decisions based on an absolutist philosophy that it is either my way or the highway. Bush prematurely follows one course in his mind and sticks to that decision regardless of whether or not it is working out. I think Obama will reflect on his decisions and if something appears to not be working out as previously planned, he will adjust accordingly.

McCain, on the other hand, is unlike either Bush or Obama. Where Obama is reflective and Bush is simplistic, McCain is a reactionary and extremely erratic. His enemies in the GOP have criticized him for this behavior for years. McCain is unpredictable and his positions do not always coincide intellectually with his other positions. In fact, McCain often makes illogical decisions out of anger. For example, McCain came out against the first Bush tax cuts because he said, and correctly so, that they moved the country’s tax burden from the upper class to the middle class. Sounds right, except McCain has always stated he believed in the fundamentals of trickle-down economics, which these Bush tax cuts were implementing. Basically, McCain was still pissed after his loss to Bush in the 2000 primary so he made a decision not based on what he thought but out of vengeance. McCain now supports Bush economic policies that he supported before he was pissed off and didn’t support. Basically, he was wrong before he was right but now he is wrong again.

In terms of temperament, Obama is far the better choice to lead our great nation. Obama has discipline, focus and is steady under pressure. This has been strikingly clear in the campaign. Whereas the McCain campaign has jumped from one theme to another, Obama has consistently delivered his policy positions and contrasted himself with McCain by showing that McCain will only continue Bush policies. You may not agree with either, but you have to admit it that Obama rarely strayed off message.

McCain first made his campaign about his biography. When he realized that he was becoming Bob Dole of 1996 he changed his theme to that of experience. Then he chose an inexperienced running mate so he had to make his campaign about change (the maverick’s mavericky maverick). Once it was obvious that the change mantle couldn’t be wrestled from Obama, McCain made his campaign about attacking Obama’s character. Once the voters responded negatively to that, he made his campaign about Democratic policies, which he calls socialism. McCain’s lack of discipline was only outpaced by his anger. As I mentioned above, McCain lurches from position to position when he is pissed and he gets pissed a lot. All of this makes for a bad leader and a poorly managed campaign.

Contrasted with McCain’s hot temper has been Obama’s calm demeanor. As nasty as the attacks against him have been in this campaign, Obama has been able to remain focused on the task at hand and had the uncanny ability to emotionally brush off the most egregious of attacks. That does not mean Obama does not respond to attacks, he has been as good as Bill Clinton in terms of counter punching, but he has done so with a grace that makes him appear above the political fray. Obama does not lurch from one position to the other like John McCain- Obama thoughtfully approaches each task and carefully constructs the appropriate response- kind of like you would want a President to do.

Finally, I support Obama because he shares my political philosophies. Obama feels that the middle class is the driving force that makes our country great and wants to make sure middle class Americans pay LESS TAXES, have health care and are protected from foreign threats. Obama also recognizes the importance of making college affordable so that our nation can remain economically and intellectually competitive. In addition, Obama will address our nation’s dependence on outdated modes of energy. Fossil fuels are a way of the past and if our country is going to remain self sufficient then we must invest in renewable energy sources like wind, solar, hydro and geothermal. Obama realizes that we cannot achieve this over night so his plan also has a contingency to bridge us to this clean and energy efficient future- he will permit environmentally safe domestic drilling, force oil and gas companies to use their millions of acres of federally leased land and common sense exploration of nuclear power options.

PRESIDENTIAL PREDICTION

This has been one hell of a long election but I do not think election night will be long. I predict Obama will blow John McCain out next Tuesday and he will do so early. Obama will get 338 electoral votes with wins in states like Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa. We will all know that the results in the West are irrelevant after we get the results from Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida. I think McCain will get 200 electoral votes with close wins in North Carolina, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia to name just a few.

Even if McCain were able to close the gap and win in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia he would still not have 270. If McCain somehow pulled those early upsets, he would still need to come from behind in both Nevada and New Mexico or Colorado and one of those two. If McCain did manage to close the gap in the polls in the last few days he would still be up shits creek because he has been getting trounced by Obama’s far superior ground game in early voting states. McCain also lacks the election day get out the vote grassroots to get lukewarm supporters to the polls. McCain is simply too far behind. I will not go to bed Tuesday night until I know Obama has won this election but I have a feeling that I will be well rested come Wednesday morning.

If you want to play with the electoral map and see for yourself then I recommend you go to Politico’s electoral polling map to get a read on where states currently stand and then go to a really interesting interactive map I found on the net.

Politico- http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html

Interactive Map- http://www.270towin.com/

Chance for Change - October 24 Edition

The Kozmic Kid — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:17:04 EDT

Update for October 24, 11 days to Election Day.

HOLDING STEADY - HOLDING MY BREATH

Our model is still predicting an Obama win. Out of 10,000 simulated elections based on the latest state-by-state polls, Obama won all 10,000. The fewest number of electoral votes he garnered was 290, with a median of 351 and a maximum of 430. A comfortable margin. So, why aren't we comfortable?

Maybe because there's so much at stake. Perhaps it's because the last two elections were so close, and yet fell short. Or maybe it's because McCain is really starting to scare us (Palin crossed that line weeks ago).

We entered new poll results from 31 states, of which ten had an impact on the election. Five moved in Obama's direction, and five moved in McCain's direction. But all states are not created equal...

Florida continues to shuttle back and forth between Obama and McCain. Our poll from last week put McCain ahead, 49% to 47%, while this week's poll has Obama up by one, 48% to 47%. That was enough to nearly double Barack's chances, from 32% to 60%.

In an interesting twist, our poll for Georgia has Obama ahead by one. McCain led by six last week. Remember that this state was once considered competitive, but then fell off the battleground list. Should we trust this result? Perhaps not. Other polls taken during the same period have McCain up by a margin ranging from two to six points. So this is probably an outlier.

The reliable Republican stronghold of Indiana is showing signs of edging back into the tossup category. Our poll this week has Obama up by four points, compared with a five-point deficit last week. There is no scenario for John McCain to win that doesn't include Florida, Ohio, and Indiana. I think we can expect to see some campaign stops for the McCain campaign in this usually reliably red state.

Obama had a wide lead last week in Missouri, made all the more believable by the huge crowds he drew in St. Louis and Kansas City. But this week it's back on the tossup list, with both candidates drawing 48% of the poll responses. This is another case of conflicting polls. Others polls from the same period have results ranging from a one-point McCain lead to a six-point Obama lead. So our man probably still holds the advantage.

Montana seems to be back in play. Our poll this week shows Obama ahead by four, up from a five-point deficit last week. In what seems to be a theme, we have conflicting results in this state too, with other polls from the same period showing McCain in the lead by four to five points.

New Hampshire is another state with some hinkiness in the numbers. We used a Zogby poll of 466 likely voters showing Obama up by one. But other polls show Obama up by four to five points. This one still looks good for Obama.

You'll see the campaigns cross paths in New Mexico. While every poll for the last six weeks has shown Obama ahead, this week we have a poll showing the race tied at 46 all. We really believe that Obama is still well ahead of McCain in New Mexico, but this poll gives McCain new hope for these five votes.

North Carolina has been crazy all season and this week continues the trend. Our poll this week has McCain up by two, the first poll in two weeks showing a clear lead for McCain.

Obama's lead in Virginia may be softening, with this week's poll showing him up by just two points. But, guess what? Other recent polls show him with a four- to ten-point lead.

All of these are of secondary importance compared with the poll in Ohio showing Obama leading, 53% to 41%. And there are other polls showing Obama up in our Buckeye state. Obama can win without Ohio, but McCain cannot. As long as Ohio is firmly in the Obama column, the election is his.

The Senate results this week are unremarkable. There's a slight shift in the race in Alaska, as Ted Stevens' corruption trial goes into its final stages. Kay Hagan still clings to a slight edge over Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina. Neither of these affect our projection.

North Carolina is in reach!

Daniel Baker — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:43:36 EDT

Today, for the first time, Obama has a tiny lead in the polling average in North Carolina. Early voting has been overwhelmingly for Obama. That margin will narrow to a few percentage points come Election Day. Obama's average polling lead is only 0.8 points, well within the margin of error, and McCain certainly could still stage a comeback in the state, but Obama's chances in North Carolina are better than even.

This is astonishing. North Carolinians haven't voted Democratic for president since 1976, when they sided with the Democratic governor of Georgia. In 2004, they went for Bush by double digits even though their own Senator, John Edwards, was on the ticket against him. A Democratic African-American Senator from a midwestern state carrying North Carolina would be epochal.

North Carolina is a big chunk of change, electorally speaking. With 15 votes, it's tied for 9th biggest state in the Electoral College. If Obama were to take North Carolina, he would win even if McCain's crazed assault on Pennsylvania succeeded in carrying the state for the Republicans, and even if Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and Missouri all shifted back to McCain. Obama's chances have never looked so good.

Chance for Change - October 17 Edition

The Kozmic Kid — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:47:43 EDT

Update for October 17, 18 days to Election Day.

STILL ON TOP...BUT MY FINGERNAILS ARE BITTEN TO THE QUICK

We entered new poll results from 38 states, only four of which had an impact on the race. Of these, one was favorable for Obama and three for McCain. Bottom line: Obama still wins 99.99% of all our simulated elections, with an average of 332 electoral votes.

Obama gave up a three point lead in Florida to trail McCain by two, 47% to 49%, in the latest poll. We gave Obama a 79% chance of winning Florida last week; this week it's down to 32%. The Obama ground game is formidable in Florida, and the air war is raging to capture the 27 electoral votes at stake.

Obama's lead in Missouri, where he was up by a single point last week, has grown to six points. These are eleven votes once thought to be comfortably in the McCain tally. We're sure that the McCain staffers are looking at the poll numbers and watching the throng of 100,000 cheering for Obama in St. Louis and wondering from where they'll pull resources to fortify the Show-Me state.

Ohio is one of the few states that is still dead even for all practical purposes. Obama led by two last week, but this week's poll is tied at 49% each. That's just two percent undecided or voting for third parties. We're watching the ad campaigns here in the Buckeye state and we can tell you neither campaign will concede these twenty votes without exhausting their last campaign dollar. But it's quite clear that McCain is not fixed for a war of attrition (more on this below the fold). Persuasion is not what will carry this state - it'll go to whoever gets out the vote.

There was some excitement last week with at least one poll showing Obama with an eight point lead in West Virginia, but the latest poll shows McCain up by two. It's only five votes, but taking West Virginia would definitely send a message.

We had twelve new poll results in the senate races. Four showed significant movement. Democrat Mark Udall has lengthened his lead over Republican Bob Schaffer in Colorado, from two points to eleven points. Al Franken, the Democratic candidate in Minnesota continues to lead incumbent Norm Coleman by two, down from six last week. Democrat Kay Hagen's lead over Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina fell from five points to two points. Finally, Jeff Merkley, the Democratic challenger in Oregon is tied with incumbent Gordon Smith, having led in last week's poll by five. The upshot is, the expected number of senators in the Democratic caucus has dropped from 59 to 58, but there is still a 10% chance that the Democrats will pick up a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats, and a 90% chance that they'll capture at least 57 seats.

Editorial Page Victories Clarify: Obama will win 2-1 in Electoral College! 4 part compendium: Endorsements at OpEdNews: Washington Post, Houston, Detroit, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, Salt Lake,Philadelphia, Portland, Bangor, Sacram

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:56:46 EDT

OpEdNews has been the site of choice to post the growing list of major and minor newspaper endorsements for Obama. The Editorials are quoted generally in full, with interspliced commentaries from major editors and commentators, explaining what is behind the Editorials.

Part I Obama's Editorial Endorsements: including Washington Post, Fidel Castro, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, & more!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-s-Endorsements-The-by-Stephen-Fox-081016-633.html

*******

Part II Editorial Page Endorsements of Obama Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, San Francsico Chronicle, Los Angeles Times

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Editorial-Page-Endorsement-by-Stephen-Fox-081017-544.html

********

Part III New Endorsements: Salt Lake City Tribune, Bangor and Brunswick, Maine, Philadelphia, Miami, Portland, Kansas City

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Endorsements-Salt-Lake-Ci-by-Stephen-Fox-081018-476.html

********

More Obama Endorsements IV: Sacramento, Katie Couric, Malaysia, Houston Chronicle, Detroit, Waco Tx (sort of)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/More-Obama-Endorsements-IV-by-Stephen-Fox-081019-492.html

Electoral vs College

liberal — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:52:27 EDT

Chance for Change - October 10 Edition

The Kozmic Kid — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:02:26 EDT

Update for October 10, 25 days to Election Day.

IN THE BAG?

This is a first. In 10,000 simulated elections, Barack Obama won every single time. That's 100%. The number of electoral votes ranged from 272 to 392, with an expected total of 349. I won't belive it until Fox News calls it, but it looks pretty good for our man.

We put in new results from 19 states, of which six had a significant impact on the race. Five out of those six favored Obama.

Obama lengthened his lead in Colorado, from a single point advantage to six points, cracking the 50% barrier. There were two recent polls from Colorado, both with identical 51%-45% results, with a total sample size of nearly 1500 likely voters. That's a solid Obama lead.

Minnesota flipped from McCain (by one point) to Obama (by seven). There were four new polls since last week, all showing Obama in the lead, ranging from one to eighteen points. We feel comfortable that the poll we used was not out of line.

Missouri also flipped from McCain by two to Obama by one. McCain has led consistently, if narrowly, in this state until recently. Several other polls have Obama even with or ahead of McCain.

Every one of four new polls in Virginia has Obama in the lead, by as little as one point and by as much as twelve points. We used a poll of 917 likely voters showing Obama in the lead, 51% to 43%. I would never have predicted it, but Virginia looks very Obama-friendly just 3-1/2 weeks before the election.

In the biggest surprise, and probably the reason for the 100% result this week, is a recent poll from West Virginia showing Obama leading 51% to 42%! This is an exact reversal from last week's poll, and takes five votes out of McCain's tally and puts them reliably in Obama's. It's the first poll I've seen from West Virginia with Obama in the lead, and it could be an outlier, but who knows? This could be a surprise on election night as well. We do know that if they call the Virginias for Obmama early on election night that McCain had better unfold the concession speech.

We entered four new results from senate races, only two of which impacted the overall results. Ted Stevens, indicted senator from Alaska, has taken back the lead from challenger Mark Begich by a single point. We're speculating that the Good People of the North recognize the inevitable outcome of the presidential race, and are planning to cast a vote for Stevens just to prove a point, although what point that might be, we can't say.

In an interesting development in Minnesota, Al Franken has taken the lead over Norm Coleman, benefitting from a strong showing by independent Dean Barkley, who is drawing 17% of the responses. The state that elected Jesse Ventura might just elect Al Franken to the senate.

The bottom line is, The Democrats now have a ten percent chance of achieving a filibuster-proof sixty seat majority, providing independent senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut continue to caucus with the Democrats. But I hear Joe's leading a pretty lonely life these days.

Bush 2004 States Are Tipping to Obama: John Nichols in The Nation

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:10:26 EDT

>>>>>>>>>10/08/2008>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The national polls are instructive early in the fall presidential campaign season. They tell us whether a candidate has strength, momentum, a chance.

But as the campaign enters its final stage -- with election day less than a month away -- the numbers from the states start to matter. That's where the electoral votes start to pile up. So what of the battleground states? Forget about states, competitive or otherwise, that backed Democrat John Kerry in 2004.

The latest polls from all of them favor Democrat Barack Obama this year. (Indeed, the analysts at Real Clear Politics have in recent days moved four 2004 states Kerry states that were supposed to be battlegrounds this year -- Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Pennsylvania -- from "Leans Obama" status to "Solid Obama.")

What of the states that backed Republican George Bush in 2004? Where are they trending. Here's something to ponder:

In 2004, Bush secured the presidency with the electoral votes of: Colorado Florida Iowa Missouri Nevada New Mexico North Carolina Ohio Florida

As of today, the Real Clear Politics poll of polls for each state -- which averages all the recent surveys of voters -- has Obama winning every one of these battlegrounds. If the election were held today, and if the polls proved correct, Obama would win the Electoral College by a margin of 364 votes to 174 -- a split roughly parallel to that in the 1996 race between Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican Bob Dole.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" - Benito Mussolini

Virginia's Democratic Electoral College

Michael Khandelwal — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:15:47 EDT

Virginia's 13 Democratic Electors have set up a website: www.VirginiaElectoralCollege.org. Please visit our site to learn more about the Electoral College nationwide and in Virginia, Virginia's Democratic candidates, your Democratic Electors, voting in Virginia, and upcoming events—and find out how you can help us turn Virginia blue this November!

For polling junkies like me

Christopher Alvarado — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:08:15 EDT

I reckon that most of you folks, being interested in politics like me, are also keeping track of the polls. Rather than click through all of the different news websites to try to figure out where Barack stands in the electoral vote count, try one of these two sites on instead:

Electoral-vote.com is the original (as far as I can tell) website for determining hwo the electoral votes stack up. It is generally on-the-ball.

However, FiveThirtyEight.com (named for the number of electoral votes up for grabs) takes a slightly different (and yet, more elegant) tack. Instead of calculating EVs by the last polls taken, 538 instead gives each poll different weights depending on their methodologies, past performances, and how recently said polls were taken.

I prefer the latter, myself, but I could stare at statistics all day.

Barack Obama set to win the 2008 Electoral College

Dave — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:29:14 EDT

I know that the popular vote for the US election will turn out to be extremely tight. However, I anticipate that Senator Obama will win the electoral college by a narrow margin. Although McCain has selection Sarah Palin, that will not be enough to convince the female voters. God will ultimately choose the right leader for the USA. It's highly likely that that leader will be Senator Obama because he is genuine and his plans for change are believable. The Sarah Palin bubble is set to bust very soon.

Use the Neighbor-to-Neighbor tool!

Fanny — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:07:07 EDT

The campaign knows only the electoral college is important. Phonebanking for me was either calling Pennsylvania voters or calling New York people who had said they wanted to volunteer...in swing states. The tools are still a little buggy but use them and give them feedback: they actually respond in about 24 hours.

We're winning this.

The Real Poll

Arvind Singh — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:25:29 EDT

We hear about the latest polls in the media, which at one time favour Barack Obama and at other times they favour John McCain. Polls give a random snapshot of the mercurial mood of voters but they can be inaccurate predictors of the future, especially in a contest as close as this election.

The First Post

Tim — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:47:19 EDT

Welcome all! I'm excited to be posting this blog for the next few weeks...I will try to update as much as possible but I'm having a busy season. Anyway, on to the topic... The electoral college is fascinating this year.

I'm going to go ahead and get the "For Sure" States (Strong Obama/McCain) out of the way for each candidate:

STRONG OBAMA: Washington, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine (both districts), and Vermont=183 Electoral Votes
STRONG MCCAIN: Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, and West Virginia=120 Electoral Votes

These states listed above will not be going to the flip candidate under any circumstance. No amount of scandal, no amount of campaigning, no amount of attack ads will switch these states to the other side. Each side will probably make a play for one or two on the other side here (McCain=XSSCleanedvoid(0)">Obama=Georgia, Indiana) but it's not going to work.

Now "Likely" Electoral Votes for each:
LIKELY OBAMA: Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire=59 Electoral Votes
LIKELY MCCAIN: Montana, North Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina=80 Electoral Votes

Trends put these states in these columns.
-Pennsylvania has voted Democrat in every election since 1992 and, although it is considered a "swing" state, I don't think McCain takes it unless there is a huge turnout in less populous Western PA or he makes a huge push to register blue-collar voters. Eastern Pennsylvania is going to be reliably democratic so it is up to McCain to counter that with the Western part.
-Oregon and Minnesota are a stones throw away from the Strong Category. I don't care what the latest poll says...these two are reliably blue and will continue that trend in this election.
-Iowa has always been strong for Obama and he is starting to solidify a lead there. McCain's stance against ethanol is well-known in Iowa and it is going to hurt him. Many pundits have taken Iowa's "swing state" status away.
-New Hampshire has always been popular for McCain. But there has not been one poll this entire summer with him in the lead. NH borders two of the most liberal states in the entire union and I think Obama will end up winning there easier than some think.
-Polls have shown Montana and North Dakota to be close. I disagree and think they will end up red no matter how close it is.
-Missouri has trended red for the past 3 elections and I don't think they'll vote for Obama.
-Texas is the big prize for Republicans. McCain will get it this election barring an unlikely amount of supporters for Ron Paul or a Democratic initiative to register Latino voters that actually results in Latinos showing up to vote in Texas.
-Obama is trying to get a large amount of Black voters registered in MS, SC and NC. It won't work.

That leaves us with Barack Obama at 242 and John McCain at 200. McCain needs 70 electoral votes and Obama 28.

7 Remaining States are truly "Swing" states and will be the final decision-makers: Florida, Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.

These 7 decide it. No one will be able to make anything other than a guess on any of these all the way up until election day. It's going to be close...my picks will surely change before then but this is how I see them shaping up as of the first week of September:

McCain: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada
Obama: Michigan, New Mexico

UNDECIDED: Colorado

That gives Obama 264 EVs and McCain 265.

I think Florida and Virginia are the most likely to go red in the swing states. I think Michigan and New Mexico are the most likely to go blue.

Colorado, Ohio, and Nevada....flip a coin. They are definitely 50/50 right now.

Thoughts:
1. Obama supporters in Colorado are very enthusiastic. The state has also trended drastically blue since the 2004 Election. Colorado also has a high-profile senate race between Bob Schaffer (R) and Mark Udall (D). Udall's cousin is running for a Senate seat in New Mexico and is easily going to win. Although his chances aren't as for sure as his cousins, he is the probable winner of this senate race regardless of who wins the electoral votes. BUT if enough people show up to vote for him, Obama has a very good chance.
2. 6 of these 7 Swing States voted for George W. Bush in 2004. This is not a good sign for the GOP. They can realistically only hold on to 5 of the 6 at best. That would be enough to win, which is what they are going for...realism. Obama's camp is expecting no less than 5 of the 7. I think that's generous right now and this could find them in trouble if they don't play it carefully in the next 9 weeks.
3. Virginia has a high-profile senate race this year in which the Democrat is going to romp his opponent from anywhere between 12-22%. If he romps by enough there may be enough there for Obama to ride his coattails to victory in the state.
4. If Ohio goes blue the majority of these swing states will as well. There is no way Ohio goes to the Democrats and states like Michigan and New Mexico go red.
5. A lot of people are writing Florida off because McCain has maintained a lead there. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to see it be close again. Not 2000 close, but within a hundred thousand votes or so. Unlike Texas, the Latino population in Florida has trended steadily Democratic this decade and is gaining a tremendous amount of power in the state.
6. In theory, Obama could win this election and not pick any electoral votes from Florida or Ohio. It would be the first time since 1960 that this has happened.
7. Barack Obama gets no less than 259 EVs in this election. McCain gets no more than 279. To win, Barack Obama needs to hold the states Kerry won and gain Iowa (likely), New Mexico, and one of either Ohio, Virginia, Colorado or Florida to win. Or he could just get Nevada and tie and let the House decide. McCain needs to hold on to OH, VA, and FL, which is entirely possible and wouldn't be surprising in the least. Playing the election game in the EC is harder overall for McCain, though, because he will have a limited amount of funds to spend in each state in comparison to Obama, who will have nearly a bottomless bank account to spend in all the states that McCain can't afford to lose. He has to spend more time defending states Bush won in 2004 than Obama does in states Kerry took in the last election...his campaign must use their funds wisely and look closely at each state and go where the best opportunity is. They are more than capable of doing this.

My outlook today has this race coming down to Colorado, where you can honestly not guess a winner right now. The only swing state that both candidates really "need" is Colorado. The winner of that state is definitely the winner of this election.

In the end, though, anyone thinking that this will be a landslide for either candidate is sadly mistaken. The politically polarized atmosphere that we find ourselves breathing in right now does not permit those kind of things. It will be close.

We Must Help The Swing States!

Robin Z — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:36:55 EDT

I'm as guilty as anyone for using my blog space to spew and cry about the foul tactics of the Republican Party.

In the end, this election is going to come down to the electoral college votes in the swing states. Whether you live in a swing state or not, we must do everything we can to help these states turn BLUE for the Democratic Party.

BARACK AND JOE NEED THESE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES TO WIN THE ELECTION!!

Please, everyone, take action now. If you haven't done so already, go to the homepage on this website for your state. Find your local field office and call them to see what you can do to help. Maybe it's a phone bank or registering voters. Maybe it's a mail campaign, canvassing a neighborhood, hosting an event, or writing letters to the local and national press. Maybe it's driving voters to the polls on election day.

We need to do everything we can to win this election.

Why Sarah Palin? Why Not?

Eddy Tude — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:05:22 EDT

I think that this was a pretty astute pick by McCain. Unlike Obama, McCain really needs to shore up his base heading

into this convention, the Obama team orgainized and executed an energizing and even inspiring message for his supporters

and more importantly his party, and now the pressure is on McCain to follow, and energizing the republican base is best

achieved with a red meat social agenda, i.e. abortion and creationism (creationism?)

Obama -- beginning to pull away.

Andrew Lietzow — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:43:05 EDT

Like teflon, a lot of the negatives seem to slide right off Barack Obama. Why? Because whenever people peel back the veneer by investigating him more thoroughly, his intellect, integrity, values, and ability to find consensus where there is usually great division, shines through.

A thorough vetting of John McCain, on the other hand, shows why he was trailing in the Primary early even among his own Republican base, and for good reason. He seems to talk a good story (and we saw the best of his story-telling at the Saddleback Forum on Saturday) but we have to meander through a field of significant landmines more hazardous to his character than Barack has had time to acquire.

Of course, McCain is adept as a military man, but unless you're in the military yourself, you likely believe the President has to do a lot more than be a good commander-in-chief.

At PresidentElect.org, where I go to find the most objective electoral analysis that I have found on the web, we're beginning to see the benefits of the Democratic Primary fight drawing to a close. It's unfortunate that Hillary and Bill can't get more behind Barack, but inspite of their lackluster joy from having earned the silver, Obama's gold was earned, because he is an extraordinary candidate. He has staying power and can take a Karl Rovian-style, Republican punch.

On March 2nd, Whitson entered as his forecast, a 341-197 victory for Obama. Unfortunately, during the next two months, the train was nearly derailed; Hillary won a few and would not sit down. She continued to attack Barack in anyway she could, desparately in debt but unrelenting in her pursuit.

The logical time for her to have quit? Right after the North Carolina and Indiana outcome. She could have done the honorable thing for the party right then, but she hung in there -- as either a testimony to her strength or to her weaknesses; I could argue either side of that story, and if you're objective, so could you -- but the toll was a loss for Obama' momentum.

Bill is obviously still NOT fully on board, and she only grudgingly so. At least that's my take on it. I'd love to be proven wrong but the Clinton juggernaut is a political dynasty and can we blame them for wanting to stay in the limelight? Of course not, but it is time for them to pass the baton and hopefully that will happen during convention.

In spite of that, Obama is staring to pull away. According to Whitson' analysis of individual state polls (the only ones that count), the momentum is back with Obama.

July 17, 2008: Obama (D) - 293; McCain (R) - 245
June 9, 2008: Obama (D) - 284; McCain (R) - 254
May 5, 2008: McCain (R) - 279; Obama (D) - 259
April 7, 2008: Obama (D) - 275; McCain (R) - 263
March 2, 2008: Obama (D) - 341; McCain (R) - 197

Will the 50-state strategy of registering new voters get our team back to the 341-197, or better, victory? My brain says yes, my heart says for sure, but my gut says maybe.

We'll know a lot more after the conventions, but if there were ever a year when the Dems are positioned for a rout, like the Reagan vs. Mondale results but in reverse, this is it. I think those who are prejudiced against Obama will have to vote their brain and not their gut for it to happen, but there is hope. Why?

Because McCain is stumbling badly. He continues to show mental fatigue (I won't say pre-altzheimers but I have no problem stating physical or mental fatigue) as his multiple gaffes on the campaign trail show. His hot-headed tendencies also remain unfettered. (A man quick to answer is also a man who can be quick to be wrong. George Bush has proved this over and over again).

After the Iraq war, do we want a President who has a hair-pin trigger finger to have access to the nuclear option button? Would he really "bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran?". When it comes to negotiating with Iran, I want someone with a much calmer demeanor to be in charge, and I think 70% of Americans do, too.

Maybe it's just my bias, but are we seeing signs that Obama is beginning to pull away? I predict that once the rest of the populace engages, following the conventions and the selections of veeps, we're going to see his electoral lead expand, into the 300's, as he climbs back to the 341 lead of March.

341, or better, that's my prediction. America is ready for change.

Why I am personally so focused on swing states

Fanny — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:38:41 EDT

Only votes in *swing states* really count. College groups in non-swing states should focus on finding out-of-state students from swing states and get them to register and vote absentee in their home states. College groups in swing states should get everyone attending to vote using their college address. I’m working to get MyBO to post the strategy and the tools to make this happen.

This is also the impetus behind my bumper sticker idea. Registering New York residents won’t affect the Electoral College. It will be important for Obama to have a huge popular vote, but I personally can’t focus on that since I’m not 100% sure he’s going to win. The presidential race is more important to me than any local issues.

It was a horrible disenfranchised feeling, eight and four years ago, when I realized that my vote in New York State had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the presidential race. Four years ago, I and my family went to Ohio for a week in August to help canvass and register college students and other voters. My husband and I went to Pennsylvania the weekend before and the day of the election. That didn’t work out so well, of course, but at least I felt I’d tried where it counted.

Realistically, we’re not going to reform our voting system, so since the presidential election is my top priority, so are swing states.

Platform on Electoral Reform – Let’s Do Away with the Electoral College

Bruce Moses — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:44:27 EDT

Why doesn’t our Platform on Electoral Reform include doing away with the Electoral College? I can sort of understand past arguments made that the Electoral College protects the rights of smaller states, but it does seem inherently undemocratic.

I started thinking about this today when I heard Barack was going to make an appearance in Houston. I thought to myself; “…that’s strange – why would he come here since this isn’t a battleground state?”

At the risk of sounding envious, it doesn’t seem fair to me that the swing states get so much attention (of course, I’m sure to some it is considered a nuisance). Might presidents show favoritism toward swing states after an election in order to shore up the base in a given state - making it easier to win again the next cycle? Their familiarity with the needs of certain states would naturally be much greater than with others.

Bush bullied his way into our collective national disaster (with the assistance of a Conservative majority on the Supreme Court) because of this system. But this wasn’t the first time a candidate receiving the plurality of the nationwide popular votes has lost the election; it’s happened twice before.

If the candidate receiving the majority of popular votes had been elected, we would have had President Samuel J. Tilden instead of President Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), a second term of President Grover Cleveland instead of Benjamin Harrison (1888), and President Al Gore instead of George W. Bush. I’m not sure about the first two, but having a President Gore sure would have saved us all a lot of grief!

I personally believe it would be better if candidates felt free to travel all over this country to gain their support. Why not choose now to eliminate this antiquated system? I’m really curious what others might think.

Electoral College Map

Rob — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:50:55 EDT

As we all know, it is not the popular vote that matters it is the state-by-state electoral map.

It is still early, but right now, things are looking pretty good. If I had to bet, I would also put Virginia into Barack's camp. This would further his lead.

Zogby Poll: Obama Leads McCain in Electoral College: 273 - 158

Rick Minor — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:00:40 EDT

Released: July 06, 2008

Zogby Poll: Building Mo-bama! Democrat Leads McCain in Electoral College Tally, 273-158

The Democrat also leads 44% to 38% in the nationwide horserace test as Libertarian Bob Barr wins 6%

UTICA, New York – As the race for President passes the Independence Day holiday and heads toward the dog days of summer, Sen. Barack Obama holds a 44% to 38% lead over Sen. John McCain in the horserace contest, but also leads by a substantial margin in a state-by-state Electoral College tally, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The extensive national poll of of 46,274 likely voters also shows Libertarian candidate and former Congressman Bob Barr wins 6% support, eating into McCain’s needed conservative base of support.

The online survey was conducted from June 11-30, 2008. It carries a margin of error of 0.5 percentage points. After nearly a decade in development, the Zogby Interactive survey on a state level was remarkably accurate in the 2006 midterm elections. In 18 U.S. Senate elections polled two years ago, the Zogby online survey correctly identified the winner of 17 of 18 races, and in the 18th race – in Missouri, it was still within the margin of error, though it had Republican Jim Talent winning (he was defeated narrowly by Democrat Claire McCaskill).

Zogby’s Electoral College Count

7-7-2008

Obama

273

McCain

158

Undecided

105

This latest extensive survey of all 50 states reveals that while Obama holds a narrow lead in the national preference test, he holds a substantial advantage right now in the Electoral College. Using this survey - and an average of other public state polls in certain states to corroborate the Zogby results – Zogby calculates that Obama leads McCain, 273-158. A total of 11 states with 105 electoral votes are within the margin of error and therefore too close to call. A candidate needs 270 to be elected President.

Neither Obama nor McCain breaks a 50% favorable rating. Obama is viewed as very or somewhat favorable by 49.7%. For McCain, that number is 43.2%.

Pollster John Zogby: “Obama is in the driver’s seat right now, especially where it really counts - in the electoral votes. Bob Barr could really hurt McCain’s chances. McCain can’t afford the level of slippage to Barr we found among conservatives in this polling. While there has been plenty of talk about Obama’s recent emphasis on his centrist positions, he can get away with it during these dog days of the campaign as McCain finds himself still trying to shore up the conservative base. McCain will have to move to the center because right now Obama is clobbering him among independents. But there is the rub for McCain: Bob Barr has some juice among conservatives and is hurting him in several states. ”

Bob Barr receives the support of 7% of voters who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative voters. Barr gets 43% of libertarians and 11% of independents. McCain’s support among conservatives is 74%. On the left, Ralph Nader gets less than 2% nationally.

Obama has the support of 83% of Democrats, while McCain gets 75% of Republicans.

Independents break 39% for Obama, compared with 31% who support McCain.

For white voters, race doesn’t appear to be playing a significant factor. McCain leads Obama, 43%-39%, with Barr at 6%. Among black voters, Obama wins the vast majority of support.

For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1318

Obama wins the 269-269 tie

Dante Atkins (hekebolos) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:56:39 EDT

I posted an entry on DailyKos regarding a possible 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. The end result: Obama's likely to win it.

Follow the link for the full details!

DIY Chuck Todd Analysis

Jerod Poore — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:13:02 EDT

For those who may have missed this site from earlier posts, you can play around with electoral college results here:

Forbes' Interactive Electoral College Map

See for yourself how the 50 State strategy can work, because it's about forcing Senator McCain to spend money defending states where he's marginally ahead in addition to Senator Obama being able to steal those states.

Colorado + Montana + Nevada + New Mexico = 22

Ohio = 20

REPOST => U.S. Electoral College and Presidential Election Process

Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:09:14 EDT

REPOST => U.S. Electoral College and Presidential Election Process
To: "NC for Obama" <NCforObama@groups.barackobama.com>
Date: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 10:47 PM

Some excellent information on the Electorial College sent by Preston.

Obama Family,

I hope all is well. We received multiple emails regarding our initial email regarding the Electoral College process. As a result, we decided to provide you with more information - please find below.

The primary election process ends with the national conventions of the political parties. Once the national conventions have been held, and the candidates from the political parties have been nominated and chosen (the elected and appointed delegates such as myself will vote at the DNC), then the presidential election begins in earnest as a contest between the candidates from the political parties. Some people choose to run for president without being affiliated with a political party. Such independent candidates need not concern themselves with getting nominated by a party, but must meet other requirements. For example, such candidates are required to collect a large number of signatures to support their nominations. The sources of funding used by independent candidates comes from personal funds and loans as well as fundraising campaigns.

The candidates campaign right up until Election Day, when the nation finally votes for its President. The candidates travel throughout the country, making public appearance and giving speeches. The parties and the candidates use media advertising, direct mailings, telephone campaigns, and other means to persuade the voters to choose one candidate over the other(s). Often, these measures also serve to point out the weaknesses of the candidates from the other parties involved in the general election. In this national presidential election, every citizen of legal age (who has taken the steps necessary in his/her state to meet the voting requirements, such as registering to vote) has an opportunity to vote. However, the President is not chosen by direct popular vote. The Constitution requires that a process known as the Electoral College ultimately decides who will win the general election.The Electoral College is a method of indirect popular election of the President of the United States. The authors of the Constitution put this system in place so that careful and calm deliberation would lead to the selection of the best-qualified candidate. Voters in each state actually cast a vote for a block of electors who are pledged to vote for a particular candidate. These electors, in turn, vote for the presidential candidate. The number of electors for each state equals its Congressional representation. After Election Day, on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, these electors assemble in their state capitals, cast their ballots, and officially select the next President of the United States. Legally, the electors may vote for someone other than the candidate for whom they were pledged to vote. This phenomenon is known as the "unfaithful" or "faithless" elector. Generally, this does not happen. Therefore, the candida te who receives the most votes in a state at the general election will be the candidate for whom the electors later cast their votes. The candidate who wins in a state is awarded all of that state's Electoral College votes. Maine and Nebraska are exceptions to this winner-take-all rule.The votes of the electors are then sent to Congress where the President of the Senate opens the certificates, and counts the votes. This takes place on January 6, unless that date falls on a Sunday. In that case, the votes are counted on the next day. An absolute majority is necessary to prevail in the presidential and the vice presidential elections, that is, half the total plus one electoral votes are required. With 538 Electors, a candidate must receive at least 270 votes to be elected to the office of President or Vice President. Should no presidential candidate receive an absolute majority, the House of Representatives determines who the next president will be. Each state may cast one vote and an absolute majority is needed to win. Similarly, the Senate decides who the next Vice President will be if there is no absolute majority after the Electoral College vote. Elections have been decided by Congress in the past. The House of Representatives elected Thomas Jefferson president in the election of 1800 when the Electoral College vote resulted in a tie. When the Electoral College vote was so split that none of the candidates received an absolute majority in the election of 1824 the House elected John Quincy Adams President. Richard Johnson was elected Vice President by the Senate when he failed to receive an absolute majority of electoral votes in the election of 1836.The President-elect and Vice President-elect take the oath of office and are inaugurated two weeks later, on January 20th.
What is the Electoral College?
The Electoral College, administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is not a place, it is a process that began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constituion. The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President.

Who Selects the Electors?
The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.

How did the terms "Elector" and "Electoral College" come into usage?
The term "electoral college" does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to "electors," but not to the "electoral college." In the Federalist Papers (No. 68), Alexander Hamilton refers to the process of selecting the Executive, and refers to "the people of each State (who) shall choose a number of persons as electors," but he does not use the term "electoral college."

The founders appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire (962 - 1806). An elector was one of a number of princes of the various German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had a right to participate in the election of the German king (who generally was crowned as emperor). The term "college" (from the Latin collegium), refers to a body of persons that act as a unit, as in the college of cardinals who advise the Pope and vote in papal elections. In the early 1800's, the term "electoral college" came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."

What are the qualifications to be an elector?
The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. As a historical matter, the 14th Amendment provides that State officials who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies are disqualified from serving as electors. This prohibition relates to the post-Civil War era.

How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?
It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State. Note that 48 out of the 50 States award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does DC). For example, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that State election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.
In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

What would happen if two candidates tied in a State's popular vote, or there was a dispute as to the winner?
A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller States. But if a State's popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, State law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. A tie would not be known of until late November or early December, after a recount and after the Secretary of State had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a State to hold a run-off election. A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under Federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), State law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of Electors. The law provides that if States have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of Electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the Electors meet.

Why do we still have the Electoral College?
The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process. Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Were any measures introduced in Congress to change the Electoral College process by amending the Constitution?
Yes, several joint resolutions were introduced in the current Congress and were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The proposals, all introduced in the House of Representatives, include the following:
- Voting rights for residents of United States territories and commonwealths [H.J.RES.101.IH]

- Direct election of the President and Vice President by the popular vote [H.J.RES.109.IH]

- Right to vote amendment [H.J.RES.28.IH]

- Every Vote Counts amendment [H.J.RES.103.IH]

How do the 538 electoral votes get divided among the States?
The number of electoral votes allotted to each State corresponds to the number of Representatives and Senators that each State sends to Congress. The distribution of electoral votes among the States can vary every 10 years depending on the results of the United States Census.
One of the primary functions of the Census is to reapportion the 435 members of the House of Representatives among the States, based on the current population. The reapportionment of the House determines the division of electoral votes among the States. In the Electoral College, each State gets one electoral vote for each of its Representatives in the House, and one electoral vote for each of its two Senators.
Thus, every state has at least 3 electoral votes, because the Constitution grants each State two Senators and at least one Representative. In addition to the 535 electoral votes divided among the States, the District of Columbia has three electoral votes because the 23rd Amendment granted it the same number of votes as the least populated State.
If a State gains or loses a Congressional district, it will also gain or lose an electoral vote. As a result of the Census conducted in 2000, the number of electoral votes allotted to certain States changed for the 2004 election.

There are 538 members of the Electoral College. How could that number change without amending the Constitution?
The number of electoral votes is set at 538, based on 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 members of the Senate, plus 3 electoral votes for the District of Columbia under the 23rd Amendment. The Electoral College could become larger if a new State were admitted into the union (adding two new Senators and one or more Representatives until the next redistricting), or if the House of Representatives expanded. The size of the House is set by law, not by the Constitution

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which States follow which rule?
There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes. Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a poss ible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.

As we move forward in the process, we will keep you updated. We want all members educated about the election process. If you have any further questions, please feel free to let us know.

Thank you for your support,

Preston L. Harden,
Georgia's 7th Congressional
District Delegate
GO OBAMA!!!!! 2008

You're invited to join our group Georgia Young Professionals for Change on My.BarackObama.com:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/YoungProfessionalsforChange

Turning Red States Blue: What Are the States Kerry Lost That Obama Can Win?

Obama Election Watch — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:51:34 EDT

Here are the important states where strong media campaigns and turn-out-the-vote efforts can swing the election to Obama.

In the 2004 presidential election, George Bush beat John Kerry 286-252 in the Electoral College tally. The switch of just one state — Ohio — to the Kerry column would have given the White House to Kerry.

The task for Barack Obama is to hold all the states won by John Kerry and pick up as well the additional 18 electoral votes necessary to reach the winning number of 270.

If Obama holds all the states won by Kerry, a switch of Ohio alone to the Obama column would give him the necessary electoral votes required to win the White House.

Recent polls in Ohio show a tight race between Obama and McCain. Obama did not do well with low-income white voters in the Ohio Democratic primary. But concentrating efforts on increasing black voter turnout in Ohio’s cities may provide the necessary margin of victory. An estimated 400,000 eligible black voters in Ohio did not bother to vote in the 2004 presidential election. In 2004 George Bush won Ohio by fewer than 119,000 votes.

Electoral college & VP pick won't matter

Chinni — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:32:30 EDT

Exposing The Two Biggest '08 Myths
by Josh Patashnik - May 29, 2008, The New Republic

..At the moment, Electoral College obsession is once again overtaking the punditocracy, so please forgive me if I'm pointing out the obvious: The Electoral College very rarely matters, and our current fixation on it is mostly a product of memories from the Bush-Gore race. Before that year, only once in American history--1888--had a candidate won a popular-vote plurality while legitimately losing the presidency in the Electoral College.. In both 1888 and 2000, moreover, the national popular vote was extremely close--a margin of 0.8 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively..
..any event or trend capable of producing a swing of 60,000 votes in Ohio from Bush to Kerry would almost surely have had some effect outside of Ohio. If the effect had been distributed proportionally throughout the country, a swing of 60,000 votes in Ohio would correspond to a swing of around 1.5 million votes nationally--enough to erase Bush's 3-million-vote lead in the popular vote. Or, in 2000, suppose Al Gore's margin of victory in the national popular vote had been 1.5 percent, rather than 0.5. That amounts to a net gain for Gore of more than 1 million votes, and about 60,000 in Florida, if distributed equally throughout the country. Just a fraction of that figure would have given him the presidency, recount or no recount..
..There's little evidence vice presidential candidates make a difference even in their home states. A 1989 analysis by Robert Dudley and Ronald Rapoport in the American Journal of Political Science found that, on average, a vice-presidential candidate improves his ticket's performance in his home state by only a statistically insignificant 0.3 percent. (Presidential candidates, by contrast, get a sizable four-percent boost in their home states.)..

The McCain Blowout Fallacy

Chinni — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:06:04 EDT

Counterpoint to one of my earlier posts "GOP strategists mull McCain ‘blowout’"

The McCain Blowout Fallacy

By Bob Beckel - May 29 '08

..I'm willing to go on the record saying that, barring an unforeseen scandal, a far more likely scenario is that John McCain will lose by at least 50 electoral votes in November - and possibly as many as 150.
The foundation of the McCain "blowout" scenario rests on the 286 electoral votes George Bush received in 2004...
..Yes, there will be a blowout in November. But it won't be McCain's.

GOP strategists mull McCain ‘blowout’

Chinni — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:54:31 EDT

Not likely; but just to remind us that nothing is to be taken for granted. We need to work tirelessly until the very end.

GOP strategists mull McCain ‘blowout’

By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 5/23/08

..“We have to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania. McCain wins one of those states, we are in trouble. They have to hold Florida and Ohio or they are trouble,” Democratic pollster Paul Maslin said. “The truth about this race [is], this is the year that we shouldn’t lose, and we could lose.”

The GOP scenarios do not rely on some game-changing event but rather the possibility of Obama failing to overcome his own and his party’s weaknesses. Obama has long been thought by analysts to have a higher electoral vote ceiling as well as a lower floor than Hillary Clinton...

Electoral College (2nd try...)

Jim Dietz — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:08:02 EDT

Yesterday, I wrote a long entry on the Electorl College...and had it swallowed up by cyberspace. Grrrr. But...given that someone was paying attention to my rant about it--why not try it again. What's the worst that can happen? --what are the chances it gets swallowed up again? (Thanks to the people who commented--told me to write something up again)

* *
Over the past couple weeks, Hillary Clinton has been complaining about the system being unfair, that she won't rest until every vote is heard--and that our country is built on the foundation of democracy.

Avoiding her switched position and that her staff are the ones who put the rules into place, Hillary is incredibly, horribly wrong about American history and the idea that the Founding Fathers craeted this country as a democracy. Nothing could be farther from the truth--indeed, most of the Founding Fathers would've preferred appointing a monarch to having a democracy.

Why?

Because they studied history. History has had many democracies and attempts to make everyone equal in determining a leader. The most cited examples are the Greek city-states...except of course, citizenship in those was limited. And even then, those states feared the takeover of a dictator and in critical situations almost always voted power to a single person for the duration of a crisis... The biggest failure in democracy in recent times was in France. The French Revolution was built on equality--and wound up quickly degenerated into The Terror and from there fell under the sway of a charismatic leader who made himself emperor (and plunged EUrope into a continent-wide war for 10 years)

Anyways--the Founding Fathers wanted to create a system that AVOIDED democracy and limited a voter's impact on government. And they wanted that combined with a system that prevented a takeover of government by a single person or a powerful army commander (such as was suggested by the Order of Cincinnatus). Thus, we have a system that puts numerous layers between a citizen and real power.

First, we have three different branches of government--diffusing power through the executive, legislative, and judicial branches--each with checks and balances on the others to prevent too much power flowing one direction or the other.

And that works. But it could still be abused--so the Founding Fathers added in another failsafe. Some rights/powers were reserved for the states. So there is balance between the central and state governments...and then the states use the same three branches to prevent centralized state power--yet ANOTHER failsafe to avoid centralized power.

The catch with these things is that it makes efficient government almost impossible. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. Efficiency increases power--and concentrated power was the last thing they desired. (A concept called Whig Ideology--and as an aside, the media has been VITAL to American politics going back well before 1776)

They went further still. Within the legislature, they made two houses--one based on the population of the states and the second house based on the idea that all states are equal (the Senate). Thus, the idea that every vote is equal is shot here, too, because they aren't equal in the senate. And further still, the original system was setup to PREVENT direct election of senators and to leave their appointment in the hands of the states and their legislatures, again placing layers between the voter and control of the federal government.

And so we get to the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers understood that all states are different. They understood that the US was going to expand--probably all the way to the Mississippi!--they knew a President HAD to have appeal across the nation, so that he would not serve a limited constituency or only a small region.

If direct vote was allowed, the Founding Fathers realized that candidates could campaign in only a few select large cities and ignore the wide rural areas across the nation--and by focusing on those city votes, they would sacrifice the needs/desires of rural areas for those of the cities, fearing that would lead to revolt and dissent in the countryside. Since the separation into two houses was an accepted compromise--it is used again in the Electoral College.

Each state has a value equal to its representation in Congress (Reps + Senators)--bigger states ARE worth more, but a quantity of small states is valuable/necessary. This means that a candidate MUST show he has support across multiple geographic regions and constituencies. Limited candidates will not be successful.

But...the argument goes...my vote doesn't count because my state leans one way so far and every election is 'all or nothing'. Yes--and no. BEcause STATES determine how to allocate electors. Nothing says a state must be all or nothing. States can choose to make things proportional. There's actually been a lot of mathwork done to show the EC is a fair system--but opponents never like looking at the numbers (but I digress).

So how does this relate back to CLinton?

Her argument is that she should be the candidate because she's received the most popular votes and that person should always be the candidate/president. And it's not true. Clinton has a limited constituency. She appeals to women over the age of 60 and to lower-income whites in Southern states who are susceptible to motivation by fear/ignorance/racism (look at how many STILL believe Obama is Muslim). And...that's it. Men don't care for Clinton, independents don't care for Clinton, and I know no women under the age of 40 who prefer her to Obama -OR- McCain.

In contrast, Obama has won states in each geographic region of the country. He has shown support from multiple constituencies and has only shown weakness in states where race is an issue of some sort (I'm not naive...gee, is it surprising her biggest victories are in WV and KY?)

Thus, Hillary has no legs to stand on and worse, she is wholly mis-representing the way the system works. And that bothers me. For someone with '35 years of experience governing', you'd think she knows how the system is SUPPOSED to work and why it is set up as it is.

--Hopefully this has not come across as some sort of pro-Republican rant. It's just frustrating when a candidate who has a degree in law, has been in government, etc, has totally forgotten the basics that are in 99% of h.s. civics text books.

Grrr...

Jim Dietz — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:27:47 EDT

Dang it.

I wrote a long blog and hit update--and it's not on here. Pity too--it was a good one on why the Electoral College is a great thing and why Clinton's argument about the popular vote is spurious.

Sigh.

POLICY -- Electoral Schmechtoral College and Delegate Embarassments

Andrew Tipton — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:35:28 EDT

In our pursuit of protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority , we have wrestled with the inequities of the Electoral College ( negating a majority popular vote ) , the two seats / state in the Senate that can sometimes frustrate popular will, and the delegate fiasco we are currently experiencing ( which honestly should not be happening -- the Democratic Party should be mortified over this development ).

The simplest thing that occurs to me might actually circumvent a lot of these problems while preserving minority protections as they are expressed in the voting habits of the populace.

Why not institute a party statute , and eventually a constitutional amendment that awards delegate selections and electoral college votes not on the basis of total population, but rather on the basis of VOTING population in the previous major election years?

It would preserve the notion of popular VOTE being dominant, while also giving a measure of anti-bully protection to the smaller states ( and delegations ). In essence, you could bulk up as much as you wished.

Imagine the levels of voter participation we would finally begin to experience in this country. There would be incentive to vote for all factions. It would TRULY make their vote meaningful, even if their candidate lost. Are we ever embarrassed that the supposed bastion of democracy in this world exhibits the lowest voter turnout of all ?

It wouldn't hurt to make voting a 2-day, weekend holiday process as well ( as in many European countries ). God knows we could do without another questionable national holiday in favor of a voting one.

It is my hope that those responsible for this site and information dissemination in the campaign would respectfully forward these ideas directly to Barack Obama for immediate consideration.

Finis / Andrew Tipton

Campaigns Throw Out Traditional Political Map

Chinni — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:59:09 EDT

Campaigns Throw Out Traditional Political Map

As McCain Targets California, Obama Looks to the South
By LAURA MECKLER
May 8, 2008

..Both presidential hopefuls are also saying they will compete in states that are most likely out of reach. Observers say it is unlikely Sen. Obama would win North Dakota or North Carolina, both of which he's vowed to fight for. For his part, Sen. McCain promises contests in California and New Jersey, states even some of his advisers believe are destined to stay in the Democratic column.

Still, there are plenty of realistic opportunities for both sides...

Electability?

Concerned Citizen, Iraq War Veteran, Equal Shareholder in the American Dream — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:04:44 EDT

It is a hot topic on the media waves, and after a few months of the 2008 Presidential Primary season, we now focus on what the actual numbers say. There has been a challenge that states needed in order to win the General Election are more in favor of Hillary Clinton and John McCain; negating the overwhelming number of states that Senator Barack Obama has won, along with the delegates that his campaign has brought in.

With the help of the running tally listed on msnbc.com, from the exit polls of real voters, the following below facts are laid out. We have analyzed not only the delegates in the states, we have also looked at the Electoral College counts themselves since they ultimate decide the outcome of the office and Florida and Michigan Delegate counts are not counted.

Texas - The state that saw a statistical deadheat between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (Obama took the Caucus, Clinton the Primary, and Obama the delegates by 99-94).

If we further break down the numbers, we have 2,050,000 (rounding down) votes for Barack Obama in a General Election, assuming that only ½ of Hillary Clinton supporters come over for Barack, and the other ½ vote for an alternate candidate. If we get very (Santa Claus) generous, we can give John McCain that ½, raising his total to 1,410,000 (rounding up). This leaves a short-fall of over 600,000 votes, the likes of which cannot even be made up for by Huckabee’s total that rang in at 532,000.

Result? Obama takes Texas, and its 34 EC votes.

California is the big heavyweight, and we’ll go ahead and get it out of the way, right away. An analysis of the Golden State reveals the following; 52% Clinton – 42% Obama – 4% Edwards. Being generous again, we look at a 50% split for the two, giving Clinton 54% and Obama 43%; total vote counts of 2,200,000 for Clinton and 1,830,000 for Obama..rounding them both down slightly. Adding the conservative 50% from Clinton to Obama again gives Barack 2,881,013 total votes to McCain’s 3,564,047 with all the GOP vote + ½ of Hillary’s count. That’s a difference of 683,034.

Result? McCain takes California, and its 55 EC votes.

Florida has been perhaps the single-most controversial state in electoral news over the history of the United States; far eclipsing any vote rigging that ever occurred before (it is the information age, and should be theft-proof and fool-proof) As we all know, the Florida Democrat Primary will not be counted toward the delegate totals. However, it does deserve mentioning here. A breakdown of the actual vote shows that another statistical dead-heat! (word is getting familiar, yes?) With Senator Clinton receiving 50% of the votes cast, Barack Obama took 33% to John Edwards 14%, with an additional 1% left-out. Now, we’ve been more than generous to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain, so let’s give Mr. Obama the benefit in round number three. Even if we add all the votes cast in the Democrat Primary, we have 1,684,390 votes for Democrat Candidates to 1,916,212 for the GOP. It is not likely that either Hillary or Barack are going to pull away nearly 250,000 Republican voters from McCain, which means that the Democrat nominee will need to bring in new voters. Barack Obama has brought out record numbers of new voters by every account given. Can he find more than 300,000? With over 17million people reported as living in the state of Florida, that means that only 21% of the population actually voted. The trends show that there is only one candidate who picks up big clumps of new voters. That candidate is Barack Obama. Adding just 4% of the population to the numbers for Obama, and we get 2,364,390 for Barack; leaving McCain with 448,278 new voters he will need to find in order to just tie. With all eyes on the Sunshine State, not even the Bush machine can hoodwink the population this time. Advantage – Obama.

Result? Obama takes Florida and its 27 EC votes (that makes it 61 – 55 in favor of Obama, so far)

As long as we are speaking about Florida, let’s go ahead and look at her sister Michigan; a state where Barack was not even on the ballot. To keep it simple, and short, let’s look at ½ of Hillary’s totals again, and the rest coming from those uncommitted and the remainder of the field that was on the ballot. Rounding down Senator Obama by a few again, he totals 429,699 with only ½ of Hillary’s voters. McCain draws in more than 2x that number, at about 866,436. However, Democrats have won the state in both 2000 and 2004, and there really was no election held at all in Michigan. Sorry Johnny, we have to give this one to Senator Obama. Romney and the rest of the GOP field creamed you here, and even with all the GOP vote, you simply will not move the Democrat mid-west.

Result? Obama takes Michigan and its 17 votes (while we’re up here, let’s go ahead and throw in MN, IA, and WI, bordering states where Barack easily wins over all with the numbers: EC totals = 27)

So far, we have Obama v. McCain – Big States, with Big Numbers at:

Obama – 105 EC VotesMcCain – 55 EC Votes

As this starts to look like a run-away election, let us go ahead and allow our candidates to go back to their home states to pick up support. Just to pre-face, both New York and Illinois carry a large number of votes; 31 and 21 respectively, while Arizona brings in 11. We will start with Arizona.

McCain takes 480,351 votes with every GOP number cast during the primary (he only won 47% in his own state, far below both what Clinton and Obama brought in from their respective states!)

Looking at the Democrat side, we will give Obama everything from his party for 379,642. The GOP has had this state on lock-down 3 of the last 4 Presidential Elections. And though Mr. Gore did lose his own home –state during the 2000 election, we’re going to give the Cactus State to John McCain.

Result? McCain takes his own state, and its 11 EC Votes.

You have to go back to 1984 to find a Republican Presidential Candidate who won in NY. Most of us are familiar as well with Illinois’ history with Presidential production. Giving both states to Obama, we now have the following EC totals:

Obama – 157

McCain – 66

From here, we will narrow things down to just the states where Democrats have dominated during the last four Presidential cycles; going back to 1992 and forward to look at the total Electoral College votes for the two main candidates for the General Election; Barack Obama and John McCain:

Adding in the states of OR, WA, NH, NJ, CT, RI, ME, VT, DE, and MA, we get 70 more EC votes for Barack (if my math is correct…) That gives Senator Obama 227 votes in the College; just 43 shy of what he would need to secure victory. With 293 votes still on the table, John McCain would need 204 of them to Barack’s 89 in order to come back and secure victory.

Given the numbers where McCain actually won convincingly during the Primary, here is how it should pan out by the trends:

Victories in Miss, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, UT, WV, KY, and Montana, for McCain place him at 133 Electoral College Votes.

With the landslide victories that Barack saw in the following contests, we give those to the respective Illinois Senator: Alabama, Alaska, D.C., HI, Idaho, KS, LA, MD, Nebraska, ND, SC, VA, WA, WY, and he picks up 106 more votes.

Our new totals

Obama – 333

McCain – 133

With 72 votes still on the table, Senator McCain can have all the rest, and will still need 65 back from Barack out of those above numbers!! States where Barack not only won big, but many of which McCain did not do so hot at all.

Elect-ability? What do you think?

Refresher on Electoral Math

Douglass Taft Davidoff — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:58:56 EDT

It might seem a mite early for this, but as someone who is joining the Obama movement late in the primary game -- way, way, too late if this were a normal year -- please forgive me for shifting my focus to the end game. Fear not, I have plenty to say on the events of the present day.

But in two campaigns, 2000 and 2004, we have missed the 270th electoral vote while coming close. The Electoral College article at Wikipedia reminds us how the system works. Personally, I think it works well -- and I'm sure that's a provocative statement.

I don't like the usual deceptive visualization of Electoral College math.

I find the strange-but-correct weighted perspective more realistic, useful, and, frankly, energizing.

Talk About Change!

Gordon Archer — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:09:41 EDT

Talk about change! Here's something that every voter and politician should seriously consider. Senator Bill Nelson (FL, D) has recently indicated in a news interview, and in conversations with both Democratic presidential contenders, that he favors a “new nominating process and presidential elections based on the national popular vote rather than the Electoral College.” Finally, a national political figure has proposed a concept that would help alleviate the recent national election fiascos (2000 & 2004) that the voters have had to endure in past years, and provide each voter with a closer approximation to the “one person, one vote” ideal on which our democracy should be based. How can we any longer allow a presidential candidate to be elected by those who purport to “represent us”, but because of the archaic Electoral College (and party “rules”), actually rob another candidate, with the most popular votes, of the presidency? It is incumbent on all of us who still believe in the “one person, one vote” democratic ideal to support those politicians who see that the system is broken, and that the time to fix it is now. If not, we will once again suffer continued voter disenfranchisement and political chaos. It is time to stand up for our voters’ rights and support those who can make it happen. Please remember that it has already happened to one Democrat in a recent national election (Al Gore), and we don’t want that possibility to ever again darken the election process in this nation. Yes, it will take time, a constitutional amendment, and lots of voters to understand their current predicament, but the alternative is to ignore recent history, and make the same mistakes again and elect the same kind of self-serving president, with his inept administration, and the disastrous consequences that this country has experienced. It is time to request that Barrack Obama, and all other presidential candidates, discuss, and publicly support Senator Bill Nelson’s proposal relative to the Electoral College and his proposal to have six, rotating interregional primaries. Anything less will only exacerbate the chaos that we have witnessed in our recent past national elections. We can not allow this system to continue, unless you can honestly tell yourself that you are satisfied with the current process and your continued potential disenfranchisement as a voter. While these issues will not have any impact on the 2008 election, it would be foolish for us to not begin the process of changing the system to correct the inequities that have become all too evident. Future generations of voters deserve no less.

Trying to change the game...again

Chip Roberson in Sonoma, CA — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:56:28 EDT

I heard one commentator today describe this proposal makes the Clinton campaign look a little desperate but I think it deserves a little examination. The gist of the proposal, floated by Clinton supporter Evan Bayh, is this: “So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” Interesting but perhaps specious.

Fun with the Electoral College

Sean from Seattle, WA — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:56:03 EST

So I had way too much time on my hands today and stumbled across this website: http://www.surveyusa.com/

To Summarize they polled 600 voters in all 50 states 30,000 total to get a state of the race between Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain. They have detailed polling that is way more interesting then the generic "who would you vote for" polls. Thus it translates into actual electoral math. I love this kind of shit so I spent most of the afternoon breaking it down to see who really has the best shot to win in the fall....here is my analysis...feel free to interpret your own way and respond. I would love thoughts comment criticisms....Right now they project Obama to win 280 to 258 and Hill to win 276 to 262...but with very different state lining up for each other.

Basically I tried to categorize each state as it pertains to November and determine where the battlegrounds would be. For the sake of my arguement I put any state that was under 10 point margin in the polling as "In Play" for that matchup...heres what I found.

Dark Blue States (with electoral votes)
Either Obama or Clinton should win these 16 states + DC totaling 212 Electoral Votes...270 needed to win (both 58 votes short)
Washington 11
Oregon 7
California 55
New York 31
Massachusetts 12
Connecticut 7
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Delaware 3
Dist of Columbia 3
Illinois 21
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
Wisconsin 10
Hawaii 4
Polling shows clinton losing Wash, Oregon, Michigan right now but I am leaving them blue for the sake of discussion as they have been Dem wins for the past few elections

Dark Red States
McCain should win these 13 states unless in either matchup (totalling 132 votes):
Arizona 10
Idaho 4
Utah 5
Wyoming 3
South Dakota 3
Kansas 6
Oklahoma 7
Alabama 11
Mississippi 6
Louisiana 9
Georgia 15
Kentucky 8
Indiana 11
Texas 34--polling shows obama down 1 to Mccain right now and hill down 7 but I just don't think that tex goes democrat so I am leaving with McCain

Traditional Battlegrounds
7 States that have been close in the last few elections and are polling close right now for both Obama and Clinton (103 total votes)
Ohio 20   Obama +10 Hill +10
Florida 27 Obama -2 Hill +9
Pennsylvania 21 Obama -5 Hll +1
New Jersey 15 Obama +1 Hill +5
Missouri 11 Obama -6 Hill -5
New Hampshire 4 Obama +2 Hill -8
New Mexico 5 Obama +7 Hill -1

Hillary Battlegrounds
These 4 states are in play for Clinton-McCain matchup ONLY McCain takes them against Obama (with current polling--32 electoral votes)
Tennessee 11   Clinton currently -1
West Virginia 5   Clinton currently +5
Colorado 9     Clinton currently -6
Iowa 7      Clinton curretly -5
Hillary Lock
Arkansas 6--lock for Hill vs Mccain...lock for Mccain vs Obama

Barack Battlegrounds
These 8 states are in play for a Obama-McCain matchup ONLY McCain takes them against Hillary(with current polling--53 electoral votes)
Nevada 5     Obama currently+5
North Dakota 3     Obama currently+4
Virginia 13    Obama currently+1
North Carolina 15    Obama currently-2
South Carolina 8    Obama currently-3
Alaska 3     Obama currently-5
Montana 3    Obama currently-8
Nebraska 3    Obama currently-3

Barack Locks
2 states He wins that are toss ups for her. (16 electoral votes)
Colorado 9
Iowa 7

Summary Clinton McCain matchup
Current Projection: 276-262 Clinton (21 states to 30)
Best Case for McCain vs Hillary 320-218 (33 states to 18)
Best Case for Hillary vs McCain: 337-201 (28 states to 23)

Summary Obama McCain matchup
Current Projection: 280-258 Obama (25 states to 26)
Best Case for McCain vs Obama 326-212 (34 states to 17)
Best Case for Obama vs McCain 384-154 (37states to 14)

If Hillary is the nominee...this is the most likely scenerio as far as I can see...Hillary starts with 212 from the Blue states...give her 6 for Arkansas and 15 for New Jersey. That gets you to 233. She most likely wins Tenn and new hampshire...loses Missou and West Va. and McCain takes New Mexico with the SW ties. that puts her at 248..she needs 22 more for the win and then has to take either
1) win Florida
2) win BOTH Ohio and Penn
It is right back to the Kerry Gore map of the last 2 elections and you are relying on Diebold or Katherine Harris to not screw us one more time. The 3 swing states that Dems blow year in and year out.

If Obama is the nominee...Start with the 212 from our blue states.. Give Barack NJ and New Hampshire and we are at 231. He takes Colorado and Iowa where he has big leads...that gets you to 249. Now if he can take just 1 of the 3 ACC states (Virginia, NC, SC) he gets close. Virginia is the most likely with large African America demos, plus has elected a lot of Democrats lately (mark werner)..that gets him to 262...Now any ONE of these 6 states puts him over the top: Missouri (neighboring Illinios) Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina. Even if McCain wins all 6 he still would be at still on the Defensive. Not only does McCain have to win ALL 6 of Penn, OH and Florida, Missouri, NC, SC...very costly...he has to hold New Mexico, Nevada, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska, Montana...any 2 of those 6 states make Obama the president. So basically McCain would have to hold the entire Mountain region, everything south of Virgina and somehow get both Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama would be able to focus on 2 or 3 states and spend his war chest where victory is most likely and run the old man ragged.

Basically lets put it this way...there are just Way more scenerios for Obama to beat McCain...in fact it is hard to imagine a way for McCain to beat Barack...Essentailly McCain can only lose 1 big state and one small state from a list of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska, Montana in a race where he trails in 7 of those states right now.

For Hillary it is the failed Red-state/Blue state strategy....in fact right now she is even losing to McCain in Washington, Oregon, Michigan and New Hampshire...If she doesnt get them all back she'd have to win all 3 of Penn, Ohio and Florida....

Essentially Obama puts the southeast coast in play (VA, NC, SC maybe Georgia come fall) and opens up the whole map to a big margin of error for victory that doesn't avail itself to her.

Let me know your thoughts.

Winning the “important” states? It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Shaun — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:03:15 EST

Hillary Clinton, in her speech on TX/OH night, pointed out that she has won the states that need to be won if a Democrat is to win in November. She points to OH and TX as examples. But one needs to look deeper to find the real winner on this night and no; it has nothing to do with delegate count.

Help Obama win North Carolina in 08

Richard Corcoran — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:25:11 EST

[This is a copy of an email I wrote and emailed to friends here in NC today, Feb19. Feel free to copy and email any part of it to your friends and contacts!]

I just learned two things tonight. First, Obama won the Democratic primary in Wisconsin, with leads in every demographic, old, young, black, white, highly educated, working class, and almost exactly splitting the white female vote. Nothing against Hillary, but they want Obama as our nominee and so do I! The second thing I learned was that in a Rasmussen Reports poll of likely Electoral College votes, North Carolina, as of now, falls into the "Safe Republican" column. I think that can change by November, and I'm going to work to make it change.

North Carolina has 15 votes in the Electoral College -- hopefully this won't be a close race, but if it is, that could be more than enough to tilt the election to the Democrat. Yes, the Electoral College is an archaic anachronism, but we're stuck with it at least through the next election. The worst thing about the Electoral College system is that national parties tend to allocate most of their resources to the so-called "battleground" states, which are perceived to be close enough to go either way. In other words, no one from either party is going to be spending a lot of time or money on North Carolina.

How can we win those 15 votes for Obama without national party money or attention?...

Unpopular Vote

CapnSassyJas — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:37:24 EST

In discussing the delegate and electoral college systems, I still seem to arrive at the solution of the popular vote. How does anyone stave off disenfranchisement when his/her vote could so easily be dismissed based on the districting and within the state they live? If a blue voter in a red state votes his/her party in an election, then essentially his/her vote is negated by the very fact that he/she is voting in a red state. Sure it’s not automatic that a state will necessarily be blue or red, but let’s face it, all you’re doing is fighting statistics in some of these states. And when you live in a smaller state or in a state that is on the west coast, the rest of the nation often times has already decided the outcome without your participation. A popular vote seems the only means by which a person can have their vote count absolutely. Sure, a candidate may not carry your state, but all the voters within that state are contributing to the overall pool of votes for that candidate. Let’s face it, the electoral college has never really made sense to most of us, even when it was going to be on a test in the 6th grade; and don't get me started on delegates. And with the potential of a superdelegate debacle on top of an already unsettled history of some very close races in our immediate past, this country is due for a serious overhaul of its primary and election systems.

Not for Caucus

Wilfred — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:28:07 EST

Overall, I did not enjoy the caucus process. Too many cars on the road and once I got to my precinct's caucus location, the room was not big enough for all of us to stay. The Fire Marshall was having fits! We were given the option to sign in and write down who we preferred for President and leave. I exercised that option.

It was nice to see the enthusiasm for Barack though. However, no one had any stickers or signs for Obama. The Hillary folks were there with all of their signs, but no Obama stuff.

I would rather that we just have a Primary next time and vote in May and just wait our turn. The weather is better in Nebraska that time of year and...we could have all day to vote.

I do not like the "Delegate" and "Super Delegate" system. One of the reasons I am supporting Obama is that I hope he will do what he can to eliminate that system. I think every American should have one vote and that vote should count! We wound up with Bush because of this "Delegate" and "Electoral College" system.

Had every American's vote counted in 2000, Gore would have been our President. He won the popular vote. The popular vote (the vote of citizens) should be the vote that counts!

Support our Veterans...Check out: http://www.VeteransInRecovery.org

Should fund-raising continue to dominate national politics?

Andrew Lietzow — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:58:23 EDT

In Russ Baker and Adam Federman's article, "Hillary's Mystery Money Men", to be published in The Nation on November 5, 2007, we get a glimpse inside the political money machine that has helped to control the outcome of Presidential elections for far too long.

The time has come for Voter-Owned Elections (VOE) which takes most of the fund-raising antics, influencing shenanigans, and corruption out of politics. That Harken Energy even exists, with all of its business management bungling is one thing. That it can so significantly influence the political elite such that it wins contracts to drill oil in Bahrain without meritorious experience is quite another.

Our political intelligencia, particularly in Washington, would like us to think we are so far out in front in our electoral college methodology for electing a President (which allowed Al Gore to win the popular vote but lose the election) yet the influence of money dooms us to a system of governance more akin to a sophisticated, mafia-controlled, money laundering scheme than a system which elects true representatives of the majority of people. Little wonder our youth are often apathetic and our poor virtually disenfranchised!

Our country really needs a man like Barack Obama to win the office of Presidency -- because we need significant, ethical reform of our election systems. I am proud of his position of refusing money from PAC's and Federally Registered lobbyists and I know he will help address this issue in a serious way, once elected -- that is, if he can get past the impact of the Hillary political fund-raising machine.

I wish, oh how I wish, that we could take the money influence completely out of the race for President and institute some form of VOE. We might then have a media which helps us examine the platforms, issues, and policy statements of the candidates rather than will run the best fund raising campaign this season, or who has the most cash-in-the-coffers at this moment.

A great fund-raiser does not a great President make.

Angry Florida Democrats Weigh Primary Penalty

Lisa Beyer — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:41:14 EDT

Angry Florida Democrats Weigh Primary Penalty

California Ballot Measure: How CA Casts its 55 Electoral College Votes

Lisa Beyer — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:10:26 EDT

Democrats Vow to Fight Electoral College Change, September 6, 2007

Courage Campaign: Say NO To Dirty Election Tricks

Lisa Beyer — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:46:59 EDT

PLEASE SHARE THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE

NY Times Editorial: Stacking the Electoral Deck, August 22, 2007

----- Original Message ----
From: Karen Kostoff, Democracy for America
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007
Subject: Say NO To More Dirty Election Tricks

This message was sent by your Las Vegas Democracy For America organizer, Karen Kostoff.

Hi DFA Member;

Received this email from CA. DFA...please read to be aware of what's going on there and hopefully you will sign the pledge as well...

This message was sent by your California for Democracy organizer, Vicki Cosgrove.

We're taking the unusual step of passing along something from another group: the Courage Campaign, because this is such an important issue to Democrats and Progressives in California: an effort to rig the Presidential elections to permanently favor Republicans - and to marginalize the significance of California in national politics.

Please help by signing this petition!

NY Times: Republicans will use "elaborate dirty trick" to steal White House

Unless we act now, the White House -- and our democracy -- will be hijacked by a Republican "elaborate dirty trick" in June 2008.

So says a powerful editorial from the New York Times titled "Stacking the Electoral Deck".

Last Thursday, we told you about an unbelievable ballot initiative proposed for June 2008 in California -- a right-wing power grab straight out of Karl Rove's "dirty tricks" playbook. If passed, it would dictate that California divide up its electoral college votes by congressional district -- resulting in the Republican theft of at least 20 electoral votes in November's general election.

Game over. You might as well give the keys to the White House to Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney or John McCain right now.

Will you take one simple action now to stop this dirty trick from being pulled on the American public?

Click Here for the Courage Campaign

In a scathingly powerful editorial, the New York Times is blunt in describing how this cynical scheme by a "shadowy group" of California Republicans will "do serious damage to our democracy."

Remember when Karl Rove stole Florida from Al Gore in 2000? What about Tom DeLay's single-handed theft of five congressional seats in Texas?

If California loses its winner-take-all system, the consequences for America will be catastrophic. Iraq. Health care. Global warming. The future of every single issue we care about will be decided in California on June 3, 2008.

But you can stop it. Now. It only takes a second to click this link and sign the "No Dirty Tricks" pledge:

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE "NO DIRTY TRICKS" PLEDGE

This is becoming a national scandal. As the Times said, if the GOP succeeds in this "elaborate dirty trick posing as reform" then they will have rigged the 2008 election to virtually prevent a Democrat from being elected to the White House in 2008. No matter the popular vote.

Click here to sign our pledge to oppose the GOP's plan to steal California's electoral votes.

After you've signed, please forward this to your friends.

In November 2008, we will be voting for a new President in the most important election of our lifetime.

But your vote won't matter if the Republicans steal the California election in June 2008. Please stand up right now to the GOP's dirty tricks and say "No" to this cynical power grab.

Rick Jacobs
Courage Campaign

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid for by Democracy for America
and not authorized by any candidate. Contributions to Democracy
for America are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you,
Lisa Beyer

Precinct Deputy Captain in Las Vegas Precinct 6475
My Barack Obama Display Name: Lisa Beyer
My Space Page
My Silver State Diary
My SNFO Testimonial

Media Chair for the SNFO Media & Blogging Committee
Southern Nevada for Obama - A Grassroots Campaign Effort

Did you know...
On January 19, 2008, Nevada will be the 2nd state in the nation to caucus for a presidential nominee!
Democrats will meet at their designated sites at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008

Click Here for NV Democratic Presidential Caucus FAQs

Clark County Residents: Click Here to Find Your Precinct

Elections system

Alex — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:06:15 EDT

Electoral Colleges must go! They don't fit their purpose no more. We need popular vote to decide which candidate won elections, just like it is in many democratic countries in the World.

Also, we need to improve and replace all voting machines EVERYWHERE - nationwide. They are old, outdated and malfunctioning.