Electoral Map (3/31)

47 Responses to “Electoral Map (3/31)”

1. Kavon W. Nikrad Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 6:58 pm

   Awesome!

2. MellowFellow Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 7:16 pm

   If Romney can really put MI, CO, NV, and NM in play, as some suggest, he is tailor-made for this scenario.

3. marK Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 7:29 pm

   MellowFellow,

   Don’t forget WA and OR as well.

4. www.act-blog.co.nr Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 7:40 pm

   Its very likely that Romney could pull MI and NV, NM and CO might be more difficult, but still very possible.

5. Illinoisguy Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 7:54 pm

   I continue to say Mitt on the ticket means we win MI, CO, NV, NM, WA, OR, MI, and possibly others currently not shown as red. Can you say landslide victory for the GOP????

6. Gary Matthew Miller Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 8:34 pm

   And if you believe ND is going to Obama I’ve got a bridge in Fargo to sell you…

7. Jonathan Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 8:43 pm

   If North Dakota is even somewhat close, I’ll send everyone on this blog a crate of Florida Oranges

8. IR-MN Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 9:11 pm

   Maybe Pawlenty might make the critical difference in the upper midwest–especially in the critical swing state or North Dakota. WI and MN are within the margin of error. Did anyone else read that Sanford article in the Wall Street Journal? He’s finished–one thing McCain cares about is loyalty and Sanford has none of that. Pawlenty truly stuck with McCain when he went through hell last summer and while everyone was hoping on the Rudy 9iu11ani bandwagon. Still, I think two white men will not pull it off this year. Palin will still be a gamechanger.

9. David Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 9:24 pm

   What pull exactly would Mitt have in New freaking Mexico? I’ve seen explanations for most of the states you mention, but I never heard this one before.

10. Jonathan Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    #9 Simply put, there isn’t one. McCain is from neighboring Arizona and he is more in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, which will help with Hispanics. If McCain can’t win New Mexico on his own, then Romney will not help him in the slightest

11. grandma T Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    #8 Except that Palin is having a baby and said NO.

12. IR-MN Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    #11, Palin herself said that having a baby should not disqualify someone from being VP. She certainly has not said no. See palinforvp.blogspot.com

13. Kevin Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    I know the map is early, but I just don’t see the Dems being able to destroy McCain enough. His image is so solidified, and Obama’s so malleable. This could be one of the biggest blown elections in history.

    I thought 2004 would be in the bag for the Democrats, and 2008 even more so. If they lose, it will easily be the most disappointing defeat in their electoral history, which is long and storied. How do you have an outgoing president of the opposing party with a 30% approval rating, and then elect the next in line?

    By having the most inept party this country has seen since the end of the Whig era, that’s what.

14. Matthew E. Miller Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    IR-MN,

    The “two white men” thing isn’t going to matter in the slightest. By the time the general rolls around, the public is going to be so sick of the “first-battle”, that they’ll happily settle on the right “two white men”.

    If North Dakota actually ends up being a swing state, Pawlenty makes even more sense. Minnesota and Wisconsin would likely both flip if they’re actually +1 Obama without considering running mates. He’d assure us North Dakota, and Iowa was red enough during the last election, that I think it’s probably a mistake to completely count it out. So that’s 30 potentially useful electoral votes Pawlenty helps us with, just counting states that immediately border Minnesota. But, I’d virtually guarantee that Pawlenty plays well in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, states that are extremely receptive to blue collar politics and light populism. So that’s a potential net of 87 electoral votes in genuinely competitive states. All but 21 of those electoral votes were Democratic states in 04′.

15. jim Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Does the VP even really matter all that much when it’s all said and done?

    Look at recent VPs. Cheney, Edwards, Lieberman, Kemp, Gore, Bentsen, Quayle. Did any of them really deliver any states, let alone the multiple states that people think a Pawlenty, Romney or whoever would bring.

    In fact, going back the last 25 years or so, VPs are around 50% at even delivering their HOME state, let alone a bunch of others. Edwards, Kemp, Bentsen, Ferraro all lost their home states. And I don’t think Cheney is the reason Bush won Wyoming. It can be argued that Gore helped Clinton win TN, but Gore himself couldn’t win TN so I think those wins had more to do with Bill than Al.

    These polls are all early and I’m sure we’ll see them change a buch between now and August when McCain makes his pick.

    Give it a few months and let the dem race settle out and we’ll be in a much better position to see who would be good VP.

16. Gary Matthew Miller Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    Jim, you are exactly right. All this obsessing about veeps actually carrying states is absurd. The #2, at best, does one thing: shore up a part of a base constituency that feels neglected.

17. Ogrepete Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    Jim.

    Well said, man.

    In most cases, I’d say VP’s don’t bring states with them. VP’s help solidify the ticket, nothing more, nothing less. If the top guy isn’t palatable to voters in a state, the bottom guy isn’t going to help.

18. Ogrepete Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    My main problem is actually with the job of VP, itself. It seems to be a “commander-in-chief in waiting” position where the #1 makes all the decisions, on occasion after listening to #2. I think Bush actually did well to make the position of #2 somewhat meaningful by giving a larger piece of work to Cheney than most Presidents give to the Veep. This is based on what I’ve read recently, so I may be up in the night.

    So, given this job description, what self-respecting “leader” will take it? It takes either a large, large desire to be #1, or a sufficient amount of humility to be #2, or both.

19. Illinoisguy Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm

    I disagree! I think the conservatives will come out in droves with Mitt on the ticket, and be complacent with most others mentioned as possible VP’s. Why, because they see Mitt being in a great position for President in four years if McCain wins. They will campaign like crazy and will give willingly of their money, because they see it as an investment in the future.

20. MiddleSnu Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Illinoisguy,

    I assume by “conservatives” you mean “Romney fanatics such as myself?”

21. Matthew E. Miller Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    jim,

    I think you’re both right and wrong. I actually tend to think that, oftentimes, certain types of VP’s are more helpful in areas OUTSIDE of their home state. Part of this is due to a certain weariness that hometown electorates have for their homegrown products. Tim Pawlenty is a terrifically natural politician and he excited an awful lot of Minnesotans 6 years ago because of that. And while they still like him quite a bit, and he has strong favorability ratings, some of the luster has worn off; precisely because the luster was largely a stylistic thing that they’ve now acclimated themselves to.

    It’s my opinion that politicians who are popular largely because of their policies make somewhat weak VP choices outside of their home region, because it’s difficult to translate those successes in a national campaign, from the diminished platform a VP has. They often help the ticket in their home state, but have little additional effect. I’d suggest that this is partly the reason haven’t seemed to make much of a difference in the past; because, almost without exception, the VP choices have been fairly dull characters on the one hand or already fairly well-known nationally on the other. Sometimes both.

    On the other hand, I’d suggest that politicians who are popular because of personal qualities, are considerably more likely to transfer whatever electoral appeal they might have had they been running on their own steam, to the ticket. It’s hard to test this theory, because we have very little data and very few past VP candidates with real personal appeal. But, it makes an intuitive sort of sense. If you don’t view the VP as very important, you’re less likely to pay attention to them. To extent that you do pay attention to them, you’re going to be noticing the sort of surface qualities that dominate even Presidential comparisons; are they friendly, engaging, charismatic, attractive? If the answers to these questions are “no” or “sort of” you’re probably not going to pay much attention to them (both a good and bad thing potentially).

    It seems to me that the one test case for this is Geraldine Ferraro. She excited an awful lot of people and is widely thought to have been one of the lone bright spots for Mondale. It’s true, she didn’t bring New York or any other state into the fold. But, Mondale won his own home state by 3700 votes, so she can hardly be faulted. The ticket did see some of it’s greatest strengths in blue collar states and states with serious Catholic populations (there’s obvious overlap here), the demographics that Ferraro ostensibly appealed to. I can’t prove that she swung these voters, but it’s as likely as anything else.

22. Henry Heavner Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Romney makes little difference here in NM. Frankly none of the names that have been mentioned would make a difference here in NM. Maybe Colin Powell would a little just because he’s relatively known and liked.

23. Henry Heavner Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:18 pm

    Simply put, there isn’t one. McCain is from neighboring Arizona and he is more in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, which will help with Hispanics

    That Hispanic thing is the only thing that might even matter, and I doubt that matters very much. The Hispanics here that vote have mostly been here for 400 years and they could give a damn about immigration reform. McCain being from Arizona makes about as much difference as if he were from the backside of the moon. He’s never gotten any press in this state that he didn’t get everywhere else in the country. The Arizona media markets are about 400 miles from our population centers so we don’t get them.

24. jim Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    This idea that the Rombots have that McCain is going to serve one term is ludicrous.

    The notion that John McCain, after having spent 5.5 yrs in a North Vietnamese prison, much of it in solitary, after having ran for the nomination in 2000 and having been destroyed by the Bush forces, after seeing his stock plummet to Bear Sterns levels in the spring and summer of last year and pulling off arguably the most miraculous and amazing run to the nomination in the history of the Republican Party and perhaps even the nation itself, and presumably after having pulled off what would arguably the most unexpected and amazing general election victory in modern times against the Golden Child from Chicago, after all that…he’s going to willingly step aside after for years to let a Vice President take over?

    Not bloody likely, as the Brits are fond of saying.

25. MattyZ Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:44 pm

    I like Romney - I voted for Romney. However, choosing Romney would undercut the McCain “brand” of consistency and straight-talk. We would see endless loops of Romney and McCain attacking each other. Yes, Romney might make a small difference in states with high Mormon populations and possibly Michigan, but it would hurt McCain overall. I think Giuliani may be the best pick — I still think Giuliani carries some currency with PA and NJ voters and although he’s white, Giuliani’s image and background is not patrician. Unfortunately, I think being pro-choice is probably going to prevent that - which is stupid since VP doesn’t nominate judges and Giuliani had ton of support from conservative jurists and campaigned on appointing strict-constructionists

26. marK Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:47 pm

    VPs do affect the ticket. The exact manner is difficult to determine, especially since one cannot just rewind history ala “Groundhog Day” and experiment by substituting another person for the job and observe the results. About the only thing that can be said with certainty is that people vote for the person at the top of the ticket, not the bottom. The bottom can “sweeten the pot”, but little else.

    And in what ways can the “pot be sweeten”? Well, VPs might be chosen for some identity-political reason. Choosing a Southerner to help bring in the South is tried and true example. Kennedy-Johnson springs to mind as a good example. Some VPs provide an ideological balance. For example Reagan-Bush brought unity to the GOP after the bruising 1980 campaign. Others bring a balance of experience, such as that Dick Cheney provides to Bush-II.

    To pick just one possibility, Mitt Romney would help with identity-politics by helping to shore up Mormon support in the Intermountain West. He is also very popular in Michigan, Washington state, and Oregon. He might even be able to bring MA into play since Obama leads McCain only by a handful of points at the present moment. No predictions here, but stranger things have happened.

    Romney also will help provide an idealogical balance to the ticket. And as to experience — there isn’t a national political figure with comparable economic chops, and this in a time of economical uncertainty. And his executive and leadership resume is impeccable.

    Other candidates can be analyzed the same way. And that is exactly what McCain and his people are doing right now.

27. grandma T Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 12:05 am

    #12 I watch a video about a month ago and Palin was asked if she would accept the VP slot and she answered ” No, not now”.

28. grandma T Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 2:39 am

    mark do you agree with these articles? http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/mccain-romney-ticket-getting-more-likely/

29. marK Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 3:54 am

    grandma T,

    The articles have merit. The objective points they make are pretty much all true. Romney would indeed bring many things to the ticket. The subjective one are debatable, I’m afraid. Is Romney the ONLY running-mate that can help McCain win the Presidency? Well, maybe. I’m not all that convinced.

    Of those GOP leaders that are known nationally, Romney is probably the best. There certainly may be someone less well known who is better, but I would be leary of putting up an unvetted question mark for Vice President. The Democrats have the edge this year on money and resources. Do we really want to spend the time, talent, money, and effort selling an unknown VP candidate to America? If we have to do that, then why choose the guy in the first place? For McCain to prove he is a maverick one more time?

    I think John McCain has to have a running mate who is Conservative. McCain has just spent eight years sticking it to the Conservatives every chance he got and relishing it every time. If he doesn’t throw them the VP bone at least, he can kiss their support goodbye. That makes his task of winning the Presidency that much harder. Not only does he have to woo the Independents, but he has to convince enough of them to support him to make up for the dispirited GOP base. That is a tall order. He also throws away any possible advantage of the Clinton/Obama civil war with the Democrats.

    If he did that, I would *really* have to question his judgment and emotional maturity.

30. marK Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 4:06 am

    Matty Z#25:“However, choosing Romney would undercut the McCain “brandâ€? of consistency and straight-talk. We would see endless loops of Romney and McCain attacking each other.”

    My biggest, absolutely most serious concern about McCain is that mean, petty, vicious streak of his. This is a guy known to hold grudges. Why would anyone want such an emotionally instable man in the Oval Office?

    Putting Romney on the ticket — a man for whom McCain made no secret of his dislike — would go a very long way in easing my concerns of McCain’s emotional stability. It would prove that he is willing to let bygones be bygones for the better good. That is far more important to me than any reputation for so-called straight talk.

31. OHIO JOE Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 7:11 am

    In a strange way, having an emotionally unstable man in the White House may not be a bad thing. It would keep the Europeans and the Middle East in line. Nobody wants to mess with a Mad Man. The rest of the world would think twice before messing with us.

32. me again Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 8:04 am

    I like Romney too. He’s competent. However, he’s not cut out of VP cloth - he’s an executive by nature, and a conservative. Therefore, pairing with McCain might hurt his chances for the next election cycle, especially if McCain raises gasoline tax, opens borders, runs with a liberal agenda as usual and likely damages the economy further. I would prefer to have Romney let McCain reap his own consequences and come in pristine as a true conservative in 2012. McCain should run with Lieberman, or someone his heart tells him too, maybe Streisand (hee HEE!) and leave Romney for the next cycle.

33. me again Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 8:07 am

    I’m not voting for McCain. UNLESS he chose ROMNEY AND stated that he is handing the affairs of the economy exclusively over to Romney to handle. And that’s not likely, ’cause McCain is one mean, jealous little man. Who despises Romney. At least during the debates he did. And I did NOT find that attractive, because I know he despises conservatives like me, TOO.

34. OHIO JOE Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 8:32 am

    While Mr. McCain is not quite as Conservative as most of us, I think it is extreme to say he hates Conservatives. I have never met him so I don’t know what is in his heart. He has done things that many Conservatives and Republicans do not like, but to say he hates Conservatives is a bit strong.

35. Illinoisguy Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 8:47 am

    I’m going to revise my statements regarding helping in NM. The only reason I had listed it as one in which Mitt could help swing was because it was very close last time, only a few thousand votes, and the fact that even though the Mormon percentage of population is not as big as in other Western states, it would be enough to energize them not only as voters, but as GOTV workers. That is the only reason I had added it, because from past history, it didn’t look like it would take that much. I could be wrong. One thing most people do not realize is that besides Utah and Idaho, the LDS faith is the has the 2nd most constituents in 9 other states, including California. When you energize them, it is very significant.

    Grandma, those were very good points in that link. Personally, I think it will come down to Romney and Pawlenty. I much prefer Mitt because his credentials make him significantly more qualifed, I think he helps swing a lot more states, and he is fully vetted with much greater name recognition.

36. OHIO JOE Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 9:01 am

    You are correct Illinoisguy that New Mexico is one of the country’s biggest swing states because it is so balanced between the two main parties. However, we don’t know which way it will swing. Keep in mind, the demographics of that state is different from Nevada, Colorado and so forth. So will all these battleground states could be crucial, there are different elements pushing and pulling in New Mexico.

37. Henry Heavner Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 9:59 am

    This idea that the Rombots have that McCain is going to serve one term is ludicrous.

    McCain *ought* to serve just one term. You’re right that he is probably too stubborn to do it. But his age is a problm now and will be a real problem in four years.

38. Henry Heavner Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 10:01 am

    Unfortunately, I think being pro-choice is probably going to prevent that - which is stupid since VP doesn’t nominate judges

    Giuliani as VP is the heir apparent.

39. grandma T Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 11:50 am

    Henry did you read the articles about Giuliani running for GOV of NY?

40. MattyZ Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    A VP doesn’t have to be the heir apparent - Dick Cheney was never considered an heir apparent. A VP can serve many purposes — by picking Giuliani, McCain can address his age by selecting someone who people would feel confident with if McCain dies — Giuliani is no stranger to crisis. Secondly, picking Giuliani can appeal to Reagan Republicans in PA, NJ, MI who may be turned off by the racial/gender politics of the Democrats. Lastly, Giuliani defuses all the “2 White Guy” characterizations since Giuliani and McCain have not led country-club lives.

41. Denny Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    I pretty much like marK’s comments.

    I like this one: “Of those GOP leaders that are known nationally, Romney is probably the best. There certainly may be someone less well known who is better, but I would be leary of putting up an unvetted question mark for Vice President. The Democrats have the edge this year on money and resources. Do we really want to spend the time, talent, money, and effort selling an unknown VP candidate to America?”

    And this one, too: “I think John McCain has to have a running mate who is Conservative. McCain has just spent eight years sticking it to the Conservatives every chance he got and relishing it every time. If he doesn’t throw them the VP bone at least, he can kiss their support goodbye. That makes his task of winning the Presidency that much harder. Not only does he have to woo the Independents, but he has to convince enough of them to support him to make up for the dispirited GOP base. That is a tall order. He also throws away any possible advantage of the Clinton/Obama civil war with the Democrats.”

    Read all the reasons why I think John McCain would be wise to pick Romney as his V.P. choice.
    http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/reason-27-why-john-mccain-should-pick-gov-romney-as-his-vp-now/

42. marK Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Matty Z#40,

    Giuliani has three things going for him: 9/11, national recognition, and executive leadership. McCain has 9/11 covered. With 9/11 receding further into the background, it is not likely we need two strong 9/11 people on the ticket. It would certainly be good, but unnecessary.

    As to national recognition, Giuliani spent the better part of 2006 and 2007 in the lead only to totally collapse when the campaign actually started. In the end, he didn’t win a single primary, not a one. I could be wrong, but I don’t think he even placed third, let alone second anywhere, did he?

    Why would McCain want someone who crashed and burned so spectacularly as his running mate?

43. Pete from Staten Island Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    I maybe looking into this way to much, but will John McCain be a one term president? As a former Rudy supporter and long time Republican I will be casting my vote for McCain in November. I do disagree with him on a few issues. However, he is certainly more qualified that BHO and HRC.

    If McCain is successful I certainly want him to run for a second term.

44. marK Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Pete #43,

    Two things we know:
    (1) He ain’t getting any younger.
    (2) The Presidency ages people.

    Beyond that, who knows?

45. MattyZ Says:
    April 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am

    Mark #42 writes of Giuliani “Why would McCain want someone who crashed and burned so spectacularly as his running
    mate?” — I think because in the fall, McCain is running in a general election and needs crossover and independent
    support against Obama — especially from Reagan Democrats for which Giuliani I think still would have great appeal.
    Believe this, the media will make McCain’s age and health history an issue — and I think Giuliani as VP would
    ease the minds of many Democrat and independent voters who might consider MccCain — I do not think the same is true with Pawlenty, Sanford, Crist, Romney and even Ridge.

46. OHIO JOE Says:
    April 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 am

    While many Indepedents like Mr. Giuliani, many Reagan Democrats do not, in fact, it could scare a few away.

47. marK Says:
    April 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Matty,

    John McCain and Rudy Giuliani essentially went after the same voters. John McCain won.

    Why would McCain pick someone as VP who only serves to appeal to the same voter base as he, himself covers?