How will Obama overcome an Ohio and Florida loss?

[JSojourner]

How can he still win when he loses those, and there's a decent chance he might lose them according to the polls right now. He might win states like Colorado and Virginia that used to go Republican, but that doesn't add up enough to make up for the eventual big losses. So how is he able to?

Excellent question.  Here is one way Obama can win w/o Ohio and Fla.

Here is a different map, still w/o the two states you mention...(less likely, but not ludicrous, either)

And another...

[Torie]

Oddly enough, I think the most likely (barely) result, is that Obama will win while losing Florida and Ohio, maybe via Congress putting him in.

[Warren Griffin]

One possibility:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://tinyurl.com/6czjcy

[HardRCafé]

I'm not sure why everybody expects Pennsylvania to be close.  I think Obama wins it unless McCain runs away with the election, which is not exactly likely.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Scenario 1 (most likely)

Scenario 2 (almost as likely)

Scenario 3 (this is almost impossible, but would be cool)

[MarkWarner08]

IA, CO, NM, and NV = 278 ECVs

Obama could also put Montana, Alaska, one or two of Nebraska's ECVs, and the Dakotas into play. If Obama selects Chuck Hagel as his running mate and if Bob Barr can reach into the high single digits in the plains states and the mountain west, Obama may pick up five ECVs in this nominally Republican part of the nation.

I'll probably later write about the weakness of the GOP advantage in these states and how much more easily these voters are swayed then their Republican counterparts in the South.

[Nym90]

If he loses Ohio and Florida he certainly can win, by taking the Kerry states plus Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico. Or if he really wants to cut it close, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada, with the House electing him.

Now, if Obama loses Ohio, a state where the issues line up perfectly for the Democrats, it will show that the election is not being decided on the issues, which is bad news for Obama. So to that extent, it is highly unlikely that Obama would win without Ohio.

Of course, we could ask the same question about McCain...how can he win without Ohio? I think Obama's chances of winning without Ohio are better than McCain's, as McCain would need to hold all the rest of the Bush states plus win either New Hampshire or Wisconsin, which seems a lot less likely than Obama winning Iowa, New Mexico, and either Colorado or Nevada.

[Verily]

Scenario 3 doesn't need Alaska to flip for Obama to win, in which case it is a reasonably likely possibility for an Obama/Warner ticket (or maybe Obama/Webb or Obama/Kaine, although both combinations are IMO less likely to deliver VA).

[Bogart]

If he loses Ohio and Florida he certainly can win, by taking the Kerry states plus Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico. Or if he really wants to cut it close, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada, with the House electing him.

Now, if Obama loses Ohio, a state where the issues line up perfectly for the Democrats, it will show that the election is not being decided on the issues, which is bad news for Obama. So to that extent, it is highly unlikely that Obama would win without Ohio.

Of course, we could ask the same question about McCain...how can he win without Ohio? I think Obama's chances of winning without Ohio are better than McCain's, as McCain would need to hold all the rest of the Bush states plus win either New Hampshire or Wisconsin, which seems a lot less likely than Obama winning Iowa, New Mexico, and either Colorado or Nevada.

Yeah, Ohio at this point seems to have Obama's name written all over it from an issue perspective. As for McCain, even as a Westerner, it's hard to see him clobbering Obama in Colorado given it's highly educated population (which Obama does well with). New Mexico seems even more dicey for him. The upper Midwest will definitely be Obama's. McCain is going to NEED Ohio.

[auburntiger]

He'll need at least 2/3 of the western states (NV, NM, CO), he'll need to pick up Iowa. Michigan is looking good for us at the moment, and since OH and FL are more Republican than MI, that would be a devestating loss even if Obama carries PA. Here's what could happen:

Ironically, the EV total would be the same as 2004, 286-252 with a few states switched around.

[Inmate Trump]

Obama only wins *if* he can carry all the Kerry 2004 states, plus swing a few Bush 2004 states.  He has a good chance in IA, NV and NM.  He won't carry VA.  As it stands right now, he'll likely lose MI and NH.

McCain goes into the general with a guaranteed 216 EVs to Obama's 186, leaving 136 up in the air (CO, IA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, OH, PA, VA, and WI).  Let's break down the obvious states as to which way they'll most likely go.  For the "obvious" Democratic states this year, Obama carries: CO, IA, ME, MN, NM, PA, WI.  That puts Obama in the lead with 252 to McCain's 216, with 70 undecided.  Likewise, the "obvious" Republican-favored states for this election cycle go to McCain: MO, NV, VA.  McCain is now at 245, with Obama still at 252.  Two states (MI and NH) that could go either way favor McCain right now.

That once again leaves OH as the make or break state this election year.  If I was a betting man, I'd say it'll go McCain, however close the margin, giving him the presidency.  I'd say he wins the state with around the same #'s Bush saw in 2004.

Should this have been a Clinton v. McCain race, it would've been a much easier Democratic victory in OH, PA and MO and she would've even picked up states that aren't currently toss-ups like FL and AR.

Way to go Democrats.  You've just given yourselves another Kerry or Dukakis.

[J. J.]

Here is what I have currently:

Both break 200 EV's.

[J. J.]

Here is McCain/Romney vs. Obama/Rendell:

It's three electoral votes short of a McCain victory.

[© tweed]

because Romney so obviously locks up Michigan for McCain.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

IA, CO, NM, and NV = 278 ECVs

Obama could also put Montana, Alaska, one or two of Nebraska's ECVs, and the Dakotas into play. If Obama selects Chuck Hagel as his running mate and if Bob Barr can reach into the high single digits in the plains states and the mountain west, Obama may pick up five ECVs in this nominally Republican part of the nation.

If you have to play that sort of game then you've lost already. Maybe quite badly. And your attempts at that game will fail in such a way as to make you look rather stupid.

[J. J.]

because Romney so obviously locks up Michigan for McCain.

It takes it from tossup to probably McCain.

[© tweed]

because Romney so obviously locks up Michigan for McCain.

It takes it from tossup to probably McCain.

yup.  absolutely non-competitive.  Romney's 37% in the MI primary (including Democrats who thought it was funny) is stone-cold evidence of this.

[J. J.]

because Romney so obviously locks up Michigan for McCain.

It takes it from tossup to probably McCain.

yup.  absolutely non-competitive.  Romney's 37% in the MI primary (including Democrats who thought it was funny) is stone-cold evidence of this.

It's probably good for a 2% swing, which would be enough.

[© tweed]

Kerry won it by 3.5% while losing nationwide by 2.5%.  so it was 6% more Dem than the National average.  it's not a tossup, sorry.  Romney did not perform well with Independents in the primary, at all.  he isn't going to swing anybody.  I wouldn't even be sure he has a net positive favorability rating in MI...

...but of course you're still arguing that Hillary has a shot and should shift her case to general election viability or some bullsh**t.  so I don't much expect you to understand.

[auburntiger]

the good news for us is that Obama has a much lower ceiling than does Hillary.

With Hillary, Arkansas, Nevada, West Virginia, Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, and Iowa are all in danger of switching...and recent polls indicate Missouri, Kentucky, and North Carolina could be too close for comfort.

with Obama, West Virginia and Arkansas are 100% safe GOP. Florida is increasingly looking non-competitive, which I hope it will stay that way...that's 27 HUGE EV's. If Crist is the VP, Florida is a lock. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be competitive with Obama, wheras hillary would lock up all three.

 and yes, you all can forget VA and NC switching to Obama. Also, all this hogwash about Obama being competitive in Alaska, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas are Democratic pipe dreams.

the only red state that Obama does better against McCain than Hillary is Colorado, which may indeed switch, but even that's not a sure thing especially with its GOP record of POTUS voting.

I don't understand however, with some of the maps showing Michigan colored blue, indicating a sure McCain victory...that is far from certain.

I can honestly see just about anything happening, a 2000-like scenario, even a blowout on both sides.

>90% = absolutely, positively, zero chance that the other candidate will break through
>60% = only in a blowout, or some unforseen circumstances, will these states go for the other candidate
                      if it's a 50-50 election, both of these categories are solidly one way.
>40%  = these states could possibly switch, if the election is clearly swinging one way.
>30% = ever-so-slight advantage to one candidate
gray = completely up in the air

[J. J.]

Here is my initial Obama/Clinton map.

Unknown VP for the GOP.

[°Leprechaun]

He wins Nevada - he wins the election, right?

He doesn't even really need PA!
Colorado and VA give him 270.

[J. J.]

He wins Nevada - he wins the election, right?

He doesn't even really need PA!
Colorado and VA give him 270.

Winning PA is probably easier than winning NV (possible than winning VA).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

He wins Nevada - he wins the election, right?

He doesn't even really need PA!
Colorado and VA give him 270.

Yes because they're in the bag.....?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

4,839,252 votes were cast in Michigan in 2004. Romney won 338,316 votes in the GOP primary. Now assuming that all of these votes were sincere and not crossovers from Dems wanting the weaker candidate nominated, that's about 7% of the votes cast total in 2004.

So a 2% swing would require that around 28.5% of Romney voters are really Democratic-leaning voters who loved Romney so much they crossovered to support him and will only vote GOP if Romney's on the ticket. Uh, yeah right.

Romney'll have close to zero effect in Michigan. Really, the only thing I see Romney doing is boost Mormon turnout, which really doesn't do the GOP much good.