Democrats: If you lose Florida and Ohio, do you still feel confident of victory?

[Brittain33]

Most Dems seem to have already moved Florida into the lean Republican camp and are not counting on it for a victory, since it seems to be more Republican than average.

If we lose Ohio after it went only narrowly for Bush in 2004 AND in 2000, yes, that's a problem. It can be compensated for with solid wins in Iowa and New Mexico and with suburban support in Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia bringing those states over. It is not something I'd like to count on, though.

[Brittain33]

Yes, if Obama loses both Ohio AND Pennsylvania, he would have to run the table with no margin of error.  Unlikely to say the least.

If Obama is the first Democrat to lose Pennsylvania since Michael Dukakis, that is a problem.

If he loses New York or California, it's even worse. I don't see how he can win.

Similarly, if McCain can't carry Tennessee and Georgia, he will have to run the table to win.

[Brittain33]

Please quit saying Virginia. Infact...if you guys quit about Virginia, I'll quit about Minnesota.

Why quit talking about Minnesota? I think it's unlikely, but it could happen.

Pennsylvania, on the other hand, I can't promise to stop harping on.

[Brittain33]

The Dems have a MUCH better chance of winning VA than the GOP does of winning Minnesota.

I'm reluctant to believe that (on the Virginia end) because we keep seeing Virginia overpoll Democratic in federal races and then not come through in the end. Much like NJ. I think the situation in Virginia is changing rapidly because NoVa has shifted so much, so quickly, but the starting point was so far from the mid-point that it's hard to say Democrats can reach that 50%.

[Brittain33]

If you look at a 50/50 midpoint Virginia, in 04 it was 5.74% more GOP than the national average.  based off the trend from 2000, a similar trend would put it at 3% more GOP than the national average in 08.

I don't think you can safely extrapolate swings that way... to do a reductio ad absurdum, by 2020 you'd have Virginia voting 6% more Democratic than the country as a whole, and no one thinks that's going to happen without a realignment that makes current meanings moot. We do have observable conditions that have led to the shift in Virginia that have continued to take place post-2004, but then on the other hand, Virginia is a state where McCain could actually outrun Bush, and I certainly expect him to in PVI terms.

[Brittain33]

Bush was still somewhat popular in 2004, and Obama is a far stronger candidate than Kerry.

It's a 2004 mentality. They consider 2004 to be the baseline in electoral geography, and as long as they don't screw up too badly, they expect that the Republicans' natural 52% majority will carry them to a win.

There may be eccentricities due to scandals that cause wobbles from the mean, but the natural home of America is at 52% Republican, in the House and in the electoral college.

2006 showed that this isn't the case. It demonstrated a solid realignment in the northeast and a shift in the Ohio Valley and the Mountain west whose durability is to be proven. Because Dixie did not shift at all, people who focus on the Republican base will assume that the 2004 calculus still holds, Democrats are still viewed as widely unacceptable and kind of gay, and every election is the Republicans' to lose.

[Brittain33]

Because you can't take all of the good that George W Bush provided electorally and then automatically project that onto McCain. Bush appealed to some demographics that McCain won't. And vice versa. For example, McCain will have a bigger problem courting evangelicals than Bush did. He'll have a harder time courting the hardcore conservative vote.

Yes, I don't think we'll ever see a documentary with parents making their kids pray to a cardboard cut-out of McCain like we saw of George W. Bush.

[Brittain33]

Sam is right on target.

What are McCain's odds if he loses Ohio and Pennsylvania?

[Brittain33]

As to the poster's comment that Obama's max is not 291 - that's ridiculous.

Let's add it up. We can all agree that no Kerry state is completely out of reach for Obama--the definition of max. That gives him 252.

Now, we have the following states where it's reasonably possible Obama *could* win. Not saying it's likely or even probable he will win, but he has at least a 25% chance of winning them.

Nevada 5
New Mexico 5
West Virginia 5
Iowa 7
Colorado 9
Missouri 11
Virginia 13
Ohio 20
Florida 27

Note what's missing: everything in the deep South, including Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Arizona is off the table. So is North Dakota, where a wonky poll showed Obama beating McCain, and Kansas, where I agree that Obama would have a big success to only lose by 12. McCain still has the solid bastion of Texas.

If he wins all of those states--he likely won't, but remember, you said *maximum*--he has 346 electoral votes. Well above 50. You can make the argument that West Virginia is so reluctant to vote for a black candidate that Obama stands *no* chance of winning a state (that voted for Dukakis), or that Virginia simply will *not* vote for him under any circumstances, polling be damned, but guess what, that knocks him down to 328.

Which other states on this list are you willing to argue that Obama simply will not win unless McCain is caught in bed with Charlie Crist? More to the point, which states do you think everyone would agree with you on?

[Brittain33]

I see where you're going but West Virginia, Missouri, Florida?

Those are not doable - not for Obama.

To confirm, you are arguing that under no normal circumstances can Obama win Missouri or Florida. None. In his maximum result, he still loses those two states.

I can see why you'd believe that or discuss racism alone as an X factor that overrides everything, but not how you can make a credible argument without explaining away those states' votes in 2000 and 2004 AND the current polling which shows him within striking distance. Missouri is the classic swing state and has voted for the winner of the election every time in the 20th century except 1956. Don't you have any reservations about saying if Obama wins in 2008, it's going to be the second time in modern history Missouri goes against the grain?

[Brittain33]

He's down 15 points this morning In Mo. according to Rasmussen poll just released.

Link to all Missouri polls:

http://www.pollster.com/08-MO-Pres-GE-MvO.php

To cherry-pick some favorable ones:

 SurveyUSA        2/15-17/08       544 RV       43  McCain     49 Obama
 SurveyUSA        12/13-15/07       547 RV       44  McCain     47 Obama
 SurveyUSA        11/9-11/07       543 RV       45  McCain     46 Obama
 Rasmussen        2/12/08       500 LV       42  McCain     40 Obama
 Research 2000        1/21-24/08       800 LV       42 McCain       47 Obama

Now, the Wright scandal did cause Obama to lose points in the most recent Rasmussen polls, and he's slipped in Survey USA. However, you wouldn't argue that poll respondents from November through February didn't know he was Black. He was at 49% in a Survey USA poll, one of the best pollsters out there.

You can not stack this month's polls against the larger number of polls showing a competitive race--some with Obama winning--and state that Obama has no chance to win Missouri this year.

You're welcome to reply and say you still don't believe it, no way does Obama top 290 under any circumstances, etc. I've made my case and people reading the thread can decide for themselves. 

[Brittain33]

which is why Republicans have won 9 of the past 12 presidential elections.

LOL. I missed President Dole and President Goldwater.