Comments on: Fourth electoral ratings: The battle of the Mountain West

By: Omaha Bob

Omaha Bob — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:37:33 +0000

I live in Omaha, the second district of Nebraska, and can tell you first hand that people are excited about Obama. I see Obama bumper stickers quite often, and more surprisingly, I am not seeing any McCain bumper stickers. Usually, the Republicans in our district our pasting their cars with the Republican nominee by now… and that they haven’t shows they are not happy about McCain. Nebraska’s Second District is definitely going to be a close race!

By: dannity

dannity — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:55:22 +0000

While not pressing this too much, as like I said earlier, polls don’t mean too much right now, the last McCain poll leads in NH are from April/May. Clearly, everyone is aware of how polarized the Democratic electorate was at that time, and NH was already a heavily polarized state between Clinton Democrats and Obama Democrats and independents.

There have been other polls that realclearpolitics haven’t chosen to pick up on for some reason. I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen more than what pollster is tracking, but I don’t care enough to go look for them. Just saying that Democrats are nowhere near as divided right now as they were in May. It’s something to look at as we move forward.

By: Taniel

Taniel — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:03:23 +0000

There is very little information coming out of New Hampshire, making it very difficult to give any candidate an edge. In fact, Obama has a “clear and consistent edge” only in Rasmussen has been giving a “clear and consistent edge, but McCain has been leading in the two most recent polls released by non-Rasmussen institutes. They date back to early May, sure, but as I said there is very little information about this state.

I was much closer to moving Indiana to lean McCain column, as you asked me bout Felipe. You are right that Obama has been running some ads here and the one poll released over the last 3 months stunningly showed the Democrat up by 1%. But Indiana’s solid Republican nature make me reluctant to change its color without more data (there is much more data about Alaska, for instance, and Montana has shown some signs of being open to Democrats in recent cycles). But I am certainly aware of Indiana’s competitiveness and am paying close attention to it.

By: susan

susan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:33:34 +0000

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 20 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:16:42 +0000

I agree with dannity that if NH is considered a tassup so should Missouri. Although I would have faith that NH could be considered lean Obama. The Obama campaign is working to hold more house-meetings which is what helped him win in some primary states.
And I think that with NH being so small that having people talk/campaign one-on-one will certainly help.
I also think that felipe is right in saying that Indiana could become a battleground state. Especially if he picks Bayh as VP, but just the idea that this is being discussed in Indiana is probably making some people there who have voted Democrat for congress (look at 2006) think that it might be good to do it for President as well.
And I just have to say that even if the Dakotas or the Nebraska districts don’t keep moving toward battleground it is just the concept, the idea that they could that is so exciting. I have talked to quite a few people (here in Michigan) who are just shocked at the idea of part of Nebraska being “blue” and it has inspired them to want to work harder.
If McCain wants to win he has got to do something about organization because it seems to be weak everywhere I’ve looked at.

By: dannity

dannity — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:33:20 +0000

If NH with a prolonged and consistent string of polls showing Obama with a moderate lead is still considered a tossup, I don’t get why Missouri, which has had a string of polls fluctuate between McCain and Obama with the lead is a “lean McCain” state. Not that anyone should really care right now, as no poll, nor any interpretation of a poll in July means anything in November. Still, the consistency isn’t there, and I have no idea why Presidential polls coming out of NH aren’t being taken at face value just because McCain beat a bunch of weak Republicans there.

And I agree with felipe. Indiana is very much going to be one of the real battleground states this time around.

By: felipe

felipe — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:12 +0000

in that sense, Mikeel, you would have to put CO, OH to lean Obama… I think polls haven’t settled down yet to be conclusive that the states are leaving the toss-up column.

Taniel, what more info do you need to put IN to ‘lean McCain’? recent polls and the vicinity of IL makes it a battleground state as well.

By: mikeel

mikeel — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:24:49 +0000

I would move New Hampshire and New Mexico to Lean Obama and Nevada to Lean McCain.

That would mean it’s 265-232, with Obama needing only to one of the three tossup states.