Ohio and Florida

[mike777]

It looks like Romney needs to win Ohio and Florida.

 

Lose one ...no chance..

 

Win both he wins.

[billw55]

It looks like Romney needs to win Ohio and Florida.

 

Lose one ...no chance..

 

Win both he wins.

meh polls. Sometimes I don't believe them and this is one of those times. I think Obama is winning this election comfortably, barring a major negative event in the interim.

[jdeegan]

meh polls. Sometimes I don't believe them and this is one of those times. I think Obama is winning this election comfortably, barring a major negative event in the interim.

:P I sorta hope Barry loses, but the chances are slim to none. Romney will have to come up with an economic plan that makes sense in today's situation. If he is that smart, more power to him. He might prevail.

[kfay]

Ohio sucks!

[cherdano]

:P I sorta hope Barry loses, but the chances are slim to none. Romney will have to come up with an economic plan that makes sense in today's situation. If he is that smart, more power to him. He might prevail.

So you think voters will analyze Romney's economic plan, decide whether it makes sense, and base their decision on that?

[cherdano]

According to 538, it's Virginia (30%) or Ohio (20%) that are most likely to swing the election. If Romney loses Florida he is doing badly enough that he isn't winning anyway.

[JLOGIC]

According to 538, it's Virginia (30%) or Ohio (20%) that are most likely to swing the election. If Romney loses Florida he is doing badly enough that he isn't winning anyway.

 

If you like free money Obama dropped to low 50s on intrade and nate has him at like 63 % to win lol

[Phil]

I think Obama is winning this election comfortably, barring a major negative event in the interim.

 

Like the May jobs report?

[BunnyGo]

If you like free money Obama dropped to low 50s on intrade and nate has him at like 63 % to win lol

 

I like free money...

[USViking]

It looks like Romney needs to win Ohio and Florida.

 

Lose one ...no chance..

 

Win both he wins.

 

There are numerous reasonable scenarios by which Obama could lose both Ohio and Florida

but still win 270 EV.

 

See the following excellent, data-rich site which among many other things will summarize

and map state-by-state Presidential preference poll results every week for several months

prior to the general election:

 

The Votemaster

 

In the most recent summary Obama is only 7 EV short without six states he won in 2008:

Ohio, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana and Iowa; either Michigan (16EV), North Carolina (13EV)

or Indiana (11EV) would put him over.

 

NC might be a tough one to win again given that it had gone Republican in every general election

1968-2004, and given Obama's tiny 2008 popular vote margin over McCain of only ~+14k/0.32%

 

Similarly, the Republican presidential candidate won Indiana 1968-2004, and Obama's 2008 margin

over McCain there was only ~+28k/1.03%

 

However, Michigan is another story, having gone Democrat 1992-2008, and delivering a whopping 57-43%,

+800,000-vote margin to Obama last time around.

 

Another thing to consider is that Obama trailed McCain in Missouri (10EV) by only 3,903 votes out of

more than 2.9 million cast, and Missouri is seldom a safe bet for either party.

 

So Romney must almost surely need to win both Florida and Ohio to win the general election, but neither

is essential for Obama, although you can bet he is going to devote a lot of attention to both.

[mike777]

There are numerous reasonable scenarios by which Obama could lose both Ohio and Florida

but still win 270 EV.

 

See the following excellent, data-rich site which among many other things will summarize

and map state-by-state Presidential preference poll results every week for several months

prior to the general election:

 

The Votemaster

 

In the most recent summary Obama is only 7 EV short without six states he won in 2008:

Ohio, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana and Iowa; either Michigan (16EV), North Carolina (13EV)

or Indiana (11EV) would put him over.

 

NC might be a tough one to win again given that it had gone Republican in every general election

1968-2004, and given Obama's tiny 2008 popular vote margin over McCain of only ~+14k/0.32%

 

Similarly, the Republican presidential candidate won Indiana 1968-2004, and Obama's 2008 margin

over McCain there was only ~+28k/1.03%

 

However, Michigan is another story, having gone Democrat 1992-2008, and delivering a whopping 57-43%,

+800,000-vote margin to Obama last time around.

 

Another thing to consider is that Obama trailed McCain in Missouri (10EV) by only 3,903 votes out of

more than 2.9 million cast, and Missouri is seldom a safe bet for either party.

 

So Romney must almost surely need to win both Florida and Ohio to win the general election, but neither

is essential for Obama, although you can bet he is going to devote a lot of attention to both.

 

 

so if I follow you, he has to win Michigan and Virg.

 

I dont see alot of paths if he loses both ohio and florida.

 

I see alot of paths if he wins one.

 

I guess I am saying if he wins both fl and ohio then michigan and virg are going to be really really tight.

 

I dont see a blow out for the President then.

[USViking]

so if I follow you, he has to win Michigan and Virg.

No, I was saying any one of Michigan, or North Carolina, or Indiana, or Missouri would win it for him.

 

Michigan alone is the most likely, based on prior historical results.

 

 

 

I dont see alot of paths if he loses both ohio and florida.

Four paths are listed above, and there are others.

 

 

 

I see alot of paths if he wins one.

IMO he can't lose if he wins Florida's 29EV.

 

 

 

I guess I am saying if he wins both fl and ohio then michigan and virg are going to be really really tight.

Not sure what you mean here.

 

 

 

I dont see a blow out for the President then.

IMO it will be much closer than in 2008.

[billw55]

Like the May jobs report?

Not nearly enough. I'm talking Watergate level here, or at least Iran-Contra. Lewinsky might be enough but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

What I see in this country is more partisanship than ever before. The large majority of voters are voting their party no matter what moron is the candidate. Donald Trump? Yep, gets all the republican votes. Tim Robbins? Yep, gets all the democrat votes.

 

On top of that, we have reached a point where the presidency is basically an eight year term, barring something really extreme. This a token election, the real one comes in 2016.

 

No, I'm not armed with a bucket of facts to back all this up. It's just my own observations and sense of the situation.

[mike777]

1) dont know what a token election is

 

 

2) fwiw I see around the world they seem to have fast short elections which no one knows anything. today see greece and egypt

 

----

 

 

I still see Ohio and florida as bell weathers......no posts seem to say other....

[Gerben42]

Strange system - if you live in Texas, your vote doesn't matter because it's going Rep anyway, and if you live in Alaska you get to vote after someone has already been declared winner. So if you want to change something, move to Florida ?

 

Not that it is easy to have an ideal system. In Germany they are discussing about the voting system at the moment. Apparently in the old system, in some weird constellations your vote for a party could lead to your party doing WORSE.

[kenberg]

The electoral system is indeed a bit strange, but I don't think I really mind. Maybe I even like it. I live in Maryland which I presume will go for Obama but I don't really know that and I will be voting. I grew up in Minnesota, and I think the choice is usually a closer call there.

 

Our system of primaries worries me more, as it seems to give too much power to zealots. And I guess what bothers me the most is that, in my view, a person has to be nuts to even consider running for president. If, for example, I did something stupid with Monica Lewinsky it would not make the national news. I have no plans for Monica, but I do like the anonymity.

 

Anyway, I think that it is way too early to predict the course of the election. Obama was our first Black president. Been there, done that, it won't be working for him this time. Obama, it was said, gives inspiring speeches. People get tired of inspiring speeches. Romney seems downright weird, and the primaries put him in league with the even weirder. What will be the decision? Beats me.

[blackshoe]

I'm going for "none of the above is acceptable". Either that, or I vote for Cthulhu. B-)

[y66]

Strange system - if you live in Texas, your vote doesn't matter because it's going Rep anyway, and if you live in Alaska you get to vote after someone has already been declared winner. So if you want to change something, move to Florida ?

 

If you want to make a difference in November, move to Virginia, currently the most likely state to decide the electoral vote in November. You can have my apartment at the end of July. It is conveniently located one block away from Obama's northern Virginia campaign headquarters and 4.7 miles from the White House.

[billw55]

Strange system - if you live in Texas, your vote doesn't matter because it's going Rep anyway,

Agree! I am very strongly in favor of abolishing the electoral college in favor of a straight popular vote. That way, my vote will actually matter .. along with millions of others in the numerous landslide states.

 

 

 

[billw55]

The electoral system is indeed a bit strange, but I don't think I really mind. Maybe I even like it. I live in Maryland which I presume will go for Obama but I don't really know that and I will be voting. I grew up in Minnesota, and I think the choice is usually a closer call there.

 

Our system of primaries worries me more, as it seems to give too much power to zealots. And I guess what bothers me the most is that, in my view, a person has to be nuts to even consider running for president. If, for example, I did something stupid with Monica Lewinsky it would not make the national news. I have no plans for Monica, but I do like the anonymity.

 

Anyway, I think that it is way too early to predict the course of the election. Obama was our first Black president. Been there, done that, it won't be working for him this time. Obama, it was said, gives inspiring speeches. People get tired of inspiring speeches. Romney seems downright weird, and the primaries put him in league with the even weirder. What will be the decision? Beats me.

I really hate the primary system too. Basically we have a minority of voters in the early-vote states who are deciding for the rest of the nation who their candidates are. I want nationwide primaries, on a single day.

[Bbradley62]

Agree! I am very strongly in favor of abolishing the electoral college in favor of a straight popular vote. That way, my vote will actually matter .. along with millions of others in the numerous landslide states.

Since I don't see the small states approving abolishing the electoral college (since they get more weight than popular vote would provide) I'd love to see something like this: each state's electoral college spots are assigned proportionately based on popular vote... (1) there would be no such thing as a swing state; there would be one or two electors (maybe a couple more in California) in play in each state... (2) third party candidates would be much more likely to win electors, which could be key if neither of the majors gets 270 on the first ballot... (3) it would eliminate the situation where many electors hang in the balance of a statewide recount; "problems" would have minimal effects.

[blackshoe]

Hell, let 'em all run. The more the merrier. :ph34r:

[mike777]

the counter claim is popular vote or one day nat primary makes your vote count alot less in smaller states.

it really becomes a tv race even more influenced by big money and tv ad buys.

 

It makes minorities(define anyway) even more irrelvant

 

--

 

 

In any event go back and see why they created the electoral college, at this point I think your debate points are pretty weak against it.

 

---

 

 

there may be stronger points out there but not presented so far.

 

--

 

 

the problem with a third party winning the president's office is how do they govern?

[cherdano]

the counter claim is popular vote or one day nat primary makes your vote count alot less in smaller states.

it really becomes a tv race even more influenced by big money and tv ad buys.

 

It makes minorities(define anyway) even more irrelvant

Just goes to show what kind of stupidities people will say to defend the system they are used to.

[Mbodell]

the counter claim is popular vote or one day nat primary makes your vote count alot less in smaller states.

it really becomes a tv race even more influenced by big money and tv ad buys.

 

It makes minorities(define anyway) even more irrelvant

Just goes to show what kind of stupidities people will say to defend the system they are used to.

 

There is no doubt that, compared to the current system, going to nation wide would same day primary would make people's vote count a lot less in many smaller states. That is because in today's system voters in the primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa count many hundreds or thousands or more times as important as the voters in California or Texas. It is a dumb system, no doubt, but there are winners and losers in changing it and the losers are the ones who influence who can run successfully for President. Nearly no politician can afford to offend those voters by speaking out against the current system, since in the current system those voters carry so much weight.

 

The same day at once idea also makes it difficult to have a long campaign, and would be quite ruinous if done through "first past the post" voting. If there was STV then it could work.