Electoral College Tie Analysis
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:36:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Electoral College Tie Analysis
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Electoral College Tie Analysis  (Read 19672 times)
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2008, 06:37:40 PM »
« edited: April 05, 2008, 06:43:12 PM by Erc »

A Map taking into account switching possibilities:



Switching Possibilities:
D -> R
Decent Probability:
SD, ND, IN
Possible:
TN, NC
Long-Shot:
CO, PA

D -> Deadlock:

Long-Shot:
WI

Deadlock -> R:

Decent Probability:
KS, MS, AZ

R -> D:

Decent Probability:
DE


But, when it comes down to it, you really have to consider this:

If the Republicans do win in the House, they are (most likely) going to win on the votes of one or two defectors.  Can Earl Pomeroy (or any of the others under consideration) really look themselves in the mirror each morning, having known it was them (and them alone) who deprived Obama the White House, by having voted for John McCain?  Most defectors probably won't be able to bring themselves to do it.

The ones who are most likely to defect are the ones who can simply defect by not showing up...i.e. Gene Taylor, Nancy Boyda, and Harry Mitchell.  It might be harder to get the other possible defectors to switch over to McCain (though two of the Democrats in IN abstaining is a possibility).
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2008, 06:41:20 PM »

Boyda would never vote for McCain. The woman is incredibly liberal and has basically told the DCCC to go screw themselves and let her run her campaign. She doesn't really care about re-election, she's completely devoted to her ideology. I would be absolutely stunned if she voted for McCain in this situation.

A question - what if two faithless electors, in an attempt to get a third candidate into the House election, both voted for different people. We'd have like a 268-268-1-1 or 269-267-1-1 race. What happens then with the top three candidates?
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2008, 06:54:00 PM »
« Edited: April 05, 2008, 06:56:48 PM by Erc »

Boyda would never vote for McCain. The woman is incredibly liberal and has basically told the DCCC to go screw themselves and let her run her campaign. She doesn't really care about re-election, she's completely devoted to her ideology. I would be absolutely stunned if she voted for McCain in this situation.

A question - what if two faithless electors, in an attempt to get a third candidate into the House election, both voted for different people. We'd have like a 268-268-1-1 or 269-267-1-1 race. What happens then with the top three candidates?

Boyda wouldn't have to vote for McCain, she'd just have to abstain.  But, if what you say is true, she probably wouldn't.  Of course, Dennis Moore could do the same thing, as well.  Or, she could lose re-election.

The thought that a faithless elector could prove important here had occurred to me.  If one voted for (let's pick a likely scenario) Gore, having a third option there could prove important if there's a serious deadlock.

If there were two candidates with 1 electoral vote each...I don't know what would happen.  The relevant Constitutional provision is "...then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President..."  My bet is, they'll use the "not exceeding three" clause to their advantage and just allow votes for only the top two candidates.  (Remember, the Democrats have control of the House as a whole, and can set the rules, and things will likely happen too fast for the Supreme Court to be involved).

Of course, faithless electors are rare enough, so having two is pretty unlikely.  Though if the thought of being able to put another candidate on the ballot occurs to enough people, some might be tempted.  (If I were a Republican elector, I might be tempted to vote for Mark Warner as a possible compromise candidate).
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2008, 08:27:14 PM »

Gene Taylor is not in danger of losing his seat, regardless if he keeps Mississippi in deadlock.

Now, it's possible that he could vote McCain anyway, but it wouldn't be because of fear for his seat.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2008, 09:05:25 PM »

Yeah, with a true 269-269 tie, I'd expect several faithless electors to vote for other Presidential and/or Vice Presidential possibilities, though you'd need very heavy defections to make someone other than the two VP nominees eligible.  President Colin Powell or Vice President Byrd perhaps?
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 05, 2008, 10:35:14 PM »

Boyda would never vote for McCain. The woman is incredibly liberal and has basically told the DCCC to go screw themselves and let her run her campaign. She doesn't really care about re-election, she's completely devoted to her ideology. I would be absolutely stunned if she voted for McCain in this situation.

A question - what if two faithless electors, in an attempt to get a third candidate into the House election, both voted for different people. We'd have like a 268-268-1-1 or 269-267-1-1 race. What happens then with the top three candidates?

Thinking about it a bit more...it'd probably be pretty easy to get one (or both) of the extra names thrown out on a technicality (see the "John Ewards" vote in 2004...death by bad handwriting?)
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 05, 2008, 11:04:41 PM »

Regarding the "not exceeding three" provision....what if there was a 4 way tie for first place in the Electoral College one day? What in the heck would they do then? Or for that matter, even a three way tie for second place.

I guess the House could do whatever they want, and would probably eliminate whomever finished 4th in the popular vote. Obviously a 4 way tie is almost mind-blowingly unlikely (in fact, it might actually be impossible at least assuming each state is winner take all with no faithless electors...I haven't done the math, but even if it were, hard to fathom 4 candidates being strong enough to make it even remotely possible to begin with, then consider the odds of the states all falling in exactly the right way to get to the 4 way tie scenario....).

Still, interesting to ponder. It is, admittedly, a poorly written portion of the Constitution.

Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 05, 2008, 11:08:04 PM »

I highly doubt Obama would lose in the event of a tie. Regarding potential political backlash for voting the party line, I don't think this would be a big problem for very many members of the House. They would have all just won reelection, and thus would have two years to overcome any negative effects. It is unlikely it would remain a big issue for many voters for two whole years.

As an example, I don't think anyone argues that Republican Senators who represented states that voted for Clinton ultimately put themselves in much of any political trouble by voting to convict Clinton in his impeachment trial, even those who were up for reelection in 2000. I remember it was suggested at the time that it might be problematic for some such as Santorum, but certainly no evidence suggests it really was.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 05, 2008, 11:18:34 PM »

Obama stands for the principle that the majortiy should rule. 
He has repeatedly said that the winner of the most votes in the primaries should be the nominee.  Thus, I'm sure he will stand on principle and tell House Democrats to vote for McCain, should McCain win the popular vote.  Don't you think?
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2008, 01:13:46 AM »

Obviously a 4 way tie is almost mind-blowingly unlikely (in fact, it might actually be impossible at least assuming each state is winner take all with no faithless electors...I haven't done the math, but even if it were, hard to fathom 4 candidates being strong enough to make it even remotely possible to begin with, then consider the odds of the states all falling in exactly the right way to get to the 4 way tie scenario....).

It's exceedingly unlikely, but it's definitely not *impossible*.  There are actually a huge number of combinations that give you a 4-way tie.  Even keeping things along roughly red/blue lines, you could have:

Candidate 1 wins CA, OR, WA, NY, MA, & NJ
Candidate 2 wins IL, PA, MI, MD, MN, WI, DE, HI, DC, CT, RI, NH, VT, ME, NV, & NM
Candidate 3 wins TX, FL, GA, NC, SC, AL, MS, LA, & KY
Candidate 4 wins everything else, except AZ & ID, which go to some 5th candidate

Candidates 1-4 all end up with 131 electoral votes each.  There are countless other scenarios that would give you a 4-way tie....though every single one of them is going to be incredibly improbable.
Logged
classical liberal
RightWingNut
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,758


Political Matrix
E: 9.35, S: -8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 06, 2008, 02:19:37 AM »

Since DC has EV's, do we count Elanor Holmes Norton's vote for Obama?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 06, 2008, 10:18:29 AM »

Interesting stuff. I think the actions of House members would depend very much on who won the popular vote and who generally did well on election night. If it's a good night for the Democrats in Congressional elections, which seems likely, you won't want to antagonize the party that is percieved as controlling things.
Logged
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,740


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2008, 12:57:02 PM »

Interesting thread.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2008, 05:54:10 PM »

Since DC has EV's, do we count Elanor Holmes Norton's vote for Obama?

No.  Though it would be possible for Congress to admit D.C. as a State after the election and then allow Columbia's vote to count if it were needed to reach 26 States.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 06, 2008, 06:12:32 PM »

I highly doubt Obama would lose in the event of a tie. Regarding potential political backlash for voting the party line, I don't think this would be a big problem for very many members of the House. They would have all just won reelection, and thus would have two years to overcome any negative effects. It is unlikely it would remain a big issue for many voters for two whole years.

As an example, I don't think anyone argues that Republican Senators who represented states that voted for Clinton ultimately put themselves in much of any political trouble by voting to convict Clinton in his impeachment trial, even those who were up for reelection in 2000. I remember it was suggested at the time that it might be problematic for some such as Santorum, but certainly no evidence suggests it really was.

I sincerely doubt that McCain has a shot of winning it outright, and I really don't think that defections will make any sort of difference (excepting perhaps Herseth-Sandlin).  The main point of this exercise was to see what sort of gains the Republicans would need to force a deadlock.  The deadlock might force Obama to make some concessions...or might convince a few defectors if McCain had won the popular vote.  In the most extreme scenario, they could simply keep the deadlock going indefinitely, which would mean the VP-elect (presumably, Obama's pick) would act as President come January 20th (though I'm not sure whether such a move would completely shut down the House---although in any case it would be a bad PR move).
Logged
Angel of Death
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,411
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 06, 2008, 06:19:00 PM »

If it ever comes to an Electoral College tie, count on Congress to set the number of Representatives to an even number to prevent it from happening again.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2008, 12:03:31 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2008, 12:08:48 PM by Erc »

As we get closer to November, time for a brief re-analysis of the tie scenario.

Also, apparently, 538.com linked to this thread in its own analysis, referring to the analysis of defection possibilities.

Previous Analysis can be found here.

Alabama: Likely Republican
Cook now rates AL-03 as "Likely Republican."  If the Democrats somehow manage to win there, while Bright wins in AL-02 and the Democrats hold onto AL-05, the Democrats could flip the state.

Alaska: Tossup
Again, whoever wins Young's seat decides the result here.

Arizona: Tossup between Deadlock and Democrat.
If vulnerable Democratic freshmen in AZ-05 and AZ-08 hold on, and Renzi's seat (AZ-01) falls to the Democrats, the Democrats could take the state.  If the Republicans hold onto AZ-03, and take 2 of the three above seats, they could take the state (seems unlikely, though possible).  If the three seats split 2-1 for the Democrats, the delegation remains at 4-4, a deadlock.

Arkansas: Safe Democrat
No change here.

California: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Colorado: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Connecticut: Safe Democrat
As Joe Courtney is now listed by Cook as Safe, Connecticut seems that it will remain in Democratic hands this year.

Delaware: Safe Republican
No change here.

Florida: Likely Republican
The Democrats have a distant possibility of picking up the state here, if Mahoney holds on in FL-16, and they pick up FL-8, 21, and 24, plus one of FL-9,13,18, or 25.  However, such a Democratic sweep seems unlikely if McCain is to win Florida (which is basically required for a tie).

Georgia: Safe Republican
No change here.

Hawai'i: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Idaho: Likely Republican (possibility of a Deadlock)
If Sali somehow loses, this could become a deadlock state.

Illinois: Likely Democrat
If they hold on to all their seats (including IL-10 and IL-11), retake IL-14 and unseat Melissa Bean in IL-8, Republicans can take the state.  Unlikely, though, with Obama at the top of the ticket.

Indiana: Lean Democrat
If the Republicans win the Hill-Sodrel matchup this time around, they can retake the state.

Iowa: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Kansas: Tossup between Deadlock and Republican
All eyes on KS-02 here.  If Boyda holds on, this state remains in deadlock.  Otherwise, Republicans retake the state.

Kentucky: Likely Republican (slight possibility of Deadlock)
If Democrats hold onto both of their seats, and take KY-2, they could throw Kentucky into a deadlock.  No possibility that Democrats lose the state.

Louisiana: Lean Republican
This one's changed a bit since last we talked.  If Cazayoux can hold on in LA-06, and take LA-04, Democrats could flip the state.

Maine: Safe Democrat.
No change here.

Maryland: Safe Democrat.
No change here.

Massachusetts: Safe Democrat.
No change here.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2008, 12:40:51 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2008, 02:08:41 PM by Erc »

Michigan: Lean Republican
If both Walberg (MI-07) and Knollenberg (MI-09) fall, the Democrats could flip the state.

Minnesota: Likely Democrat (slight possibility of Deadlock)
If Republicans hold onto all of their seats and unseat Walz (MN-01), they can force a deadlock.

Mississippi: Tossup between Deadlock and Democrat.
"CD-01 is essentially guaranteed to the Republicans," I said a few months ago.  Well, things have changed a bit.  If the Democrats can hold onto their by-election victory there, they can make the state Democratic come January.

Missouri: Lean Republican
If Democrats can take either MO-6 or MO-9, they can flip the state.

Montana: Safe Republican
No change here.

Nebraska: Safe Republican
No change here.

Nevada: Tossup
NV-03 seems to have become more competitive.  Whoever wins this district wins the state.

New Hampshire: Tossup between Democrat and Deadlock, distant possibility of Republican
If Republicans can take NH-01 (Carol Shea-Porter's seat), they force a deadlock.  If they somehow take NH-02, as well, they can return the state to Republican control.

New Jersey: Safe Democrat
No change here.

New Mexico: Tossup
Whoever wins Wilson's old seat (NM-01) wins the state.

New York: Safe Democrat
No change here.

North Carolina: Safe Democrat
With Heath Shuler looking safe, North Carolina appears to be a lock for the Democrats.

North Dakota: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Ohio: Tossup (could be Democrat, Republican, or Deadlock)

The three seats in question here are OH-01, OH-15, and OH-16.  If Republicans hold on to 2 of these, they hold onto the state.  If they hold on to 1 of these, it's a deadlock.  If they lose all 3, the Democrats take the state.

Oklahoma: Safe Republican
No change here.

Oregon: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Pennsylvania: Lean Democrat
If the Republicans can hold onto all of their own seats, and unseat Carney in PA-10 and pick up either PA-4 or PA-11 (or PA-7 or PA-8), they could take the state.

Rhode Island: Safe Democrat
No change here.

South Carolina: Safe Republican
No change here.

South Dakota: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Tennessee: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Texas: Safe Republican
No change here.

Utah: Safe Republican
No change here.

Vermont: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Virginia: Likely Republican
If Democrats pick up Davis' seat in VA-11, as well as VA-02 and one of VA-05 and VA-10, they could take the state.

Washington: Safe Democrat
No change here.

West Virginia: Safe Democrat
No change here.

Wisconsin: Lean Democrat, possibility of Deadlock.
If the Republicans can take WI-08 from Kagen, they can force a deadlock.  No possibility of the Republicans taking the state outright.

Wyoming: Likely Republican
If the Democrats can take the At-Large seat here, they can take the state.  With Cubin retiring, however, that seems unlikely.
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2008, 12:46:06 PM »

are there any states where a tightly divided delegation might go against the majority party, particularly where the state voted the other way... like a Tennessee or North Carolina or Indiana?

looks good for dems.  of course a tie probably won't happen, but still.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2008, 12:55:59 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2008, 01:03:42 PM by Torie »

The GOP would need to control 26 states. If neither candidate gets 26 votes in the House or the VP selected by the Senate becomes acting president (which of course would be the Dem nominee). That I think would tend to cause the GOP to cave, unless it really like the Dem Veep a lot more than Obama, but even then the political backlash would be huge, so I don't think that would happen.

So in the end, the Dems have the whip hand, unless the GOP takes the Senate, which won't happen. The GOP will almost certainly not be controlling 26 states.   

This is pretty important, because it tends to make Colorado a must win state for McCain, on top of Ohio, unless he can break through in NH, or Michigan, or maybe Pennsylvania, all of which seem heavier lifting than Colorado.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2008, 01:10:39 PM »



Safe D: 20

Likely D: 2
MN*, IL

Lean D: 3
WI*, PA, IN

Tossup: 8
MS*, AZ*, NH*, NM, NV, AK, OH*, KS*

Lean R: 3
LA, MI, MO

Likely R: 6
AL, FL, VA, WY, ID*, KY*

Safe R: 8

* Represents states with a possibility of deadlock.  If the asterik is colored, that means that the best the opposing party can do is force a deadlock (e.g., in Mississippi, Republicans can force a deadlock but cannot win the state, while in NH, they could either force a deadlock or win the state).
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2008, 01:14:34 PM »

dems need 4 of the 14 leaners/tossups to guarantee victory, plus taking the likely dem states.  with 3 states being lean dem, the dems only need one of the tossup states to have the 269 victory.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2008, 01:54:59 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2008, 02:08:02 PM by Erc »

Key Seats to watch out for:

MI-09: Democrats likely win MI if they take Knollenberg's seat.

LA-04, LA-06: Republicans win LA if they take either seat.

MO-06, MO-09: Democrats win MO if they take either seat.

AK-AL: Democrats win AK if they take Young's seat.

NV-03: Democrats take NV if they win the seat.

NM-01: Democrats take NM if they take Wilson's old seat.  

NH-01: Deadlock if Republicans defeat Carol Shea-Porter.

MS-01: Deadlock if Republicans defeat Childers.

AZ-01: Democrats likely take AZ if they pick up Renzi's old seat.

IN-09: Republicans take IN if they defeat Hill.

PA-04, PA-11: Republicans likely take PA if they beat either Altmire or Kanjorski.

WI-08: Deadlock if Republicans defeat Kagen.

IL-08: Republicans likely take IL if they defeat Bean.

MN-01: Deadlock if Republicans defeat Walz.  


How do Republicans force a deadlock?

First, make sure the Democrats don't pull off any surprises on Republican turf.  This means, hold onto AL-03 and WY-AL, and don't have horrendous days in Florida, Virginia, or Ohio (losing 4, 3, and 3 seats respectively would lose the state to the Democrats).  This keeps 16 states from Democratic hands.

Then, hold onto the seats that you should win:  both the Missouri seats (MO-06 and MO-09), MI-09, and either LA-04 and LA-06.  This pushes the count up to 19 states.

Then, win the key tossup seats:  AK-AL, NV-03, NM-01, NH-01, and MS-01.  There are now 24 non-Democratic states.

Then, for a bit of a stretch, win any of the three competitive seats in AZ (AZ-01, AZ-05, and AZ-08) or IN-09.

If the Republicans can somehow pull off all of these seats, they can force a deadlock (it's made easier if they make some less likely gains, such as picking up 2 seats in PA, 3 seats in IL, MN-01, or WI-08).  

How do Republicans win without defections?

This is a much harder goal.  They need to pull off everything mentioned in the prior section (including picking up IN and deadlocking AZ), except that winning in MS-01 is no longer as necessary.  In addition, they must:

Win ID-01 and KY-02.
Defeat Boyda in KS-02 and lose no more than one seat in Ohio.

Doing this puts the total count at 23 Republican states, 25 Democratic states, and 2 deadlocked (AZ & NH), here counting MS-01 for the Democrats.

To pick up the remaining 3 states necessary to win outright would require:

Winning another seat in AZ.
Winning NH-02.
Winning PA-10 and either PA-4 or PA-11.

There is very little room for error here, as the only other possibly accessible state is Illinois, where they would need to win IL-10,11,14, and 08.

So, it seems a very tall order for the Republicans to win outright without defections, though not entirely impossible.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2008, 02:06:55 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2008, 02:12:56 PM by Erc »

Competitive Seats that Republicans need to win to get 26 state delegations:

(where "Competitive" means Lean Republican or worse).

MO-06, MO-09
MI-07 or MI-09
LA-04 or LA-06
Two out of the four of OH-01, OH-15, OH-16, OH-18
NV-03
AK-AL
NM-02, NM-01
KS-02 or KS-03
IN-09 or IN-08
NH-01, NH-02
Two out of the three of AZ-01, AZ-05, AZ-08
Three out of the six of PA-03, PA-10, PA-04, PA-11, PA-07, PA-08

Alternatively, any of the above lines may be substituted for winning:
IL-10, IL-11, IL-14, IL-08
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2008, 05:01:35 PM »

An Absurdly Long List of Defection Possibilities by State:

Boldface indicates an incumbent.
The number in parentheses after the name of the state is the number of seats listed below the Republicans have to get the votes of to win the state.

For each seat: the Democratic candidate is listed, followed by Bush's margin of victory, followed by Cook's rating for the Seat.

Alabama: (1)
AL-02: Bobby Bright, +33.8%, Tossup
AL-05: Parker Griffith, +20.3%, Tossup
AL-03: Josh Segall, +17.1%, Likely R

Even if Democrats do win all three of these seats in November, McCain's large win in the state and in each of these districts makes a defection likely should things go sour for Congressional Republicans.

Alaska: (1)
AK-AL: Some Democrat, +25.5%, Tossup

Should Young (or some other Republican) be defeated, whichever Democrat who wins here may be tempted to vote for McCain anyway, especially if his win was quite narrow.  Of course, if Obama performs much, much better than Kerry (which is definitely possible), this decreases the likelihood of a defection.

Arizona: (2 to deadlock, 3 to win)
AZ-03: Bob Lord, +16.4%, Likely R
AZ-05: Harry Mitchell, +8.8%, Lean D
AZ-01: Some Democrat, +8.3%, Lean D
AZ-08: Gabby Giffords, +6.4%, Lean D

The temptation to defect (or at least abstain) may be larger in McCain's home state, especially for the incoming freshman in AZ-01.

Arkansas: (1 to deadlock, 2 to win)
AR-01: Marion Berry, +4.5%, Safe D
AR-02: Vic Snyder, +3.9%, Safe D
AR-04: Mike Ross, +3.9%, Safe D

These are ultra-safe seats that aren't really primed for a McCain blowout.  Unless Obama is destroyed in Arkansas, or any of these three have a personal fallout with Obama, any defection/abstention is unlikely.

California:
Not Winnable by Defection.

Colorado: (2)
CO-04: Betsy Markey, +16.7%, Tossup
CO-03: John Salazar, +11.4%, Safe D

John Salazar may abstain here, throwing the state into deadlock, but it's unlikely.  Markey may be tempted to defect if she defeats Musgrave, as she would be vulnerable in 2010.

Connecticut:
Not Winnable by Defection.

Delaware: (1)
DE-AL: Sacrificial Lamb, -7.6%, Safe R

Carper is the only Republican whose possible defection has a non-negligible chance of making a difference.  He and Herseth-Sandlin may simply exchange votes, especially if Biden is on the ticket.

Florida: (4)
FL-09: Some Democrat, +13.9%, Likely R
FL-21: Raul Martinez, +13.9%, Lean R
FL-25: Joe Garcia, +12.6%, Likely R
FL-13: Christine Jennings, +12.3%, Likely R
FL-24: Some Democrat, +10.5%, Lean R
FL-08: Some Democrat, +9.3%, Lean R
FL-18: Annette Tadeo, +8.8%, Likely R
FL-16: Tim Mahoney, +8.5%, Lean D
FL-02: Allen Boyd, +8.4%, Safe D

If Florida Democrats somehow do gain a majority of seats here, they would be in rather strong McCain districts...making the likelihood that at least one of them defects rather high.  Though memories of 2000 may complicate matters especially here (Democrats may not want to give up a chance at the state when they have it, or, conversely, they may not want to overturn the elected result).

Idaho: (0 for deadlock, 1 for win)
ID-01, Walt Minnick, +38.3%, Likely R

A prime candidate for an abstention (handing the state to the Republicans), should he somehow defeat Sali.

Illinois: (6)
IL-18: Colleen Callahan, +16.1%, Likely R
IL-08: Melissa Bean, +11.8%, Likely D
IL-14: Bill Foster, +11.6%, Lean D
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson, +7.3%, Lean D
IL-06: Jill Morgenthaler, +6.8%, Likely R
IL-10: Dan Seals, -5.5%, Tossup

Being Obama's home state (and a state which Obama will win by a large margin), the chances that any Democrat doesn't vote for Obama is minimal, to say the least.  More likely, perhaps, would be a Mark Kirk abstention or defection, preventing any chance the Republicans have of taking the state outright.

Indiana: (2)
IN-03: Mike Montagano, +36.8%, Likely R
IN-08: Brad Ellsworth, +23.7%, Likely D
IN-09: Baron Hill, +18.6%, Lean D
IN-02: Joe Donnelly, +12.8%, Safe D

Definitely a state to watch out for in terms of defections (or, at the very least, an abstention, throwing the state into deadlock).

Iowa:
Not Winnable by Defection.

Kansas: (0 for deadlock, 1 for win)
KS-02: Nancy Boyda, +19.7%, Tossup
KS-03: Dennis Moore, +10.5%, Likely D

Only an abstention is necessary to throw the state to the Republicans.  Though I find it unlikely that either will, Boyda may be tempted if she only narrowly squeaks out re-election.

Kentucky: (0 for deadlock, 1 for win)
KY-02: David Boswell, +30.7%, Likely R
KY-06: Ben Chandler, +17.1%, Safe D
KY-03: John Yarmuth, -2.0%, Lean D

Should Boswell somehow win in KY-02, he'd be very tempted to abstain, guaranteeing the state for the Republicans.  Conversely, should Northrup win her rematch, however, she'd be highly unlikely to defect to Obama, even if he should win her district.

Louisiana: (1)
LA-04: Some Democrat, +19.0%, Tossup
LA-06: Don Cazayoux, +18.8%, Tossup
LA-03: Charlie Melancon, +16.8%, Safe D

If Cazayoux and the LA-04 Democrat both win narrowly, there may be serious temptation for at least one of them to abstain, throwing Louisiana into deadlock.

Maine:
Not Winnable by Defection.

Maryland:
Not Winnable by Defection.

Massachusetts:
Not Winnable by Defection.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.096 seconds with 12 queries.