<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fifth presidential ratings: Florida&#8217;s first move</title>
	<atom:link href="http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/07/30/fifth-electoral-ratings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/07/30/fifth-electoral-ratings/</link>
	<description>Obsessive political analysis</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:49:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dannity</title>
		<link>http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/07/30/fifth-electoral-ratings/comment-page-1/#comment-2955</link>
		<dc:creator>dannity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:54:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaigndiaries.wordpress.com/?p=1330#comment-2955</guid>
		<description>I was one of those people, but it wasn't so much NH as Missouri.  I was curious why NH was rated a tossup with a string of polls showing a solid if small lead in the state for Obama, while Missouri was rated lean McCain with polls showing the lead fluctuating back and forth between the candidates.  \

And &lt;a href="http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/07/02/3rd-electoral-ratings/" rel="nofollow"&gt;looking back&lt;/a&gt;, the reason you changed the rating in the first place was off a single poll (that was conducted during the flooding) and the report that McCain was airing more ads in the state than Obama.  Yet we still get polls that disagree on who is in the lead there.

It's clear Missouri is going to be interesting, as is NH.  Obama has already dedicated a &lt;a href="http://www.kansascity.com/775/story/697394.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;huge grassroots organizational effort&lt;/a&gt; in the state.   My point last rating was that you're underestimating the organizing that's going on there, and that I'm not sure that Missouri is quite as safe (or lean) as you do.

But again, like last time, nobody should be sweating this much, as we're just now about to enter August and there's still a lot of work left to be done.  Just trying to challenge your assumptions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was one of those people, but it wasn&#8217;t so much NH as Missouri.  I was curious why NH was rated a tossup with a string of polls showing a solid if small lead in the state for Obama, while Missouri was rated lean McCain with polls showing the lead fluctuating back and forth between the candidates.  \</p>
<p>And <a href="http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/07/02/3rd-electoral-ratings/" rel="nofollow">looking back</a>, the reason you changed the rating in the first place was off a single poll (that was conducted during the flooding) and the report that McCain was airing more ads in the state than Obama.  Yet we still get polls that disagree on who is in the lead there.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s clear Missouri is going to be interesting, as is NH.  Obama has already dedicated a <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/775/story/697394.html" rel="nofollow">huge grassroots organizational effort</a> in the state.   My point last rating was that you&#8217;re underestimating the organizing that&#8217;s going on there, and that I&#8217;m not sure that Missouri is quite as safe (or lean) as you do.</p>
<p>But again, like last time, nobody should be sweating this much, as we&#8217;re just now about to enter August and there&#8217;s still a lot of work left to be done.  Just trying to challenge your assumptions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: susan</title>
		<link>http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/07/30/fifth-electoral-ratings/comment-page-1/#comment-2958</link>
		<dc:creator>susan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:34:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaigndiaries.wordpress.com/?p=1330#comment-2958</guid>
		<description>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 21 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine,  North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland,  Massachusetts, 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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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 &#8212; 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).</p>
<p>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 &#8220;battleground&#8221; 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.</p>
<p>Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.</p>
<p>The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine,  North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland,  Massachusetts, 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.</p>
<p>See <a href="http://www.NationalPopularVote.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.NationalPopularVote.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jaxx Raxor</title>
		<link>http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/07/30/fifth-electoral-ratings/comment-page-1/#comment-2957</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaxx Raxor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaigndiaries.wordpress.com/?p=1330#comment-2957</guid>
		<description>Taniel you forgot to explain why you moved Maine's 1st district from likely Obama to Safe Obama. The most recent poll I have seen shows Obama getting slightly weaker in Maine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Taniel you forgot to explain why you moved Maine&#8217;s 1st district from likely Obama to Safe Obama. The most recent poll I have seen shows Obama getting slightly weaker in Maine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kavalor</title>
		<link>http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/07/30/fifth-electoral-ratings/comment-page-1/#comment-2956</link>
		<dc:creator>Kavalor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://campaigndiaries.wordpress.com/?p=1330#comment-2956</guid>
		<description>Hi Taniel,

thx for the Work you are doing here - one off the best sites to the Elections i have found so far. keep up the good work.

But i think you have two mistakes in the map you made. Georgia is colored Safe McCain but according to the ratings it is likely McCain. Delaware is colored Safe Obama but according to your Rankings list is likely Obama.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Taniel,</p>
<p>thx for the Work you are doing here - one off the best sites to the Elections i have found so far. keep up the good work.</p>
<p>But i think you have two mistakes in the map you made. Georgia is colored Safe McCain but according to the ratings it is likely McCain. Delaware is colored Safe Obama but according to your Rankings list is likely Obama.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
