April 23, 2008
Now Wouldn’t This Be Fun?
Here are a few interesting hypothetical John McCain-Barack Obama general election matchups, given what we know today, using OpinionJournal.com’s Electoral Vote Calculator.
These are possible! Think of the fun that this would be — although we’d still lose, since the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, barring a faithless elector. (Sorry, Kavon, I couldn’t find a plausible 269-269 scenario with a red Minnesota!)
http://race42008.com/2008/04/23/now-wouldnt-this-be-fun/trackback/
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
No, this would not be fun. If McCain can overcome the anti-GOP sentiment and get 269, it will be heartbreaking if he can’t get 270.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 am
That’s the difference in this election. McCain’s people are counting to 270. Obama’s are counting to 269. If it ties, it goes to the house, and we lose.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 am
That’s funny, because Dave and I were talking about map #2 last night.
I think J-Mac will pull out NH though…
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
I second Kavon on that. Barack Obama didn’t even win New Hampshire in the primary. What would be really wild would be if Barack Obama won the popular vote but the electoral college added up in such a way to give McCain a victory. Even though I’d rather see McCain win the popular vote too, it would be kind of fun to see how miserable and angry the liberals would be for four years that this happened in two of the last three elections.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Winning in the primary has nothing to do with whether they’d be viable in the general election.
The dynamics are totally different.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
Alex, I disagree that it has nothing to do with it. While it isn’t conclusive, the two are closely related. Most states that went for Hillary in the primary are places she would also be stronger in a general election and the same is true for Obama. There are exceptions though.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
To put things in perspective regarding New Hampshire, only one liberal Democrat has won a statewide election in this state in the last 60 years. That was John Kerry. He won by 1 point in 2004. In Presidential races, we have gone Republican everytime from 1948 on with the exception of once for LBJ (moderate), Clinton (moderate), and Kerry (liberal). All Democrats elected Governor or U.S. Senator from this state in the last 60 years have been moderates, not liberals. Those odds don’t look good for Obama. While you can debate that LBJ, Clinton, or some of our Governors have actually been liberals, they presented themselves as moderates. The only one to not present himself as moderate and still win a statewide race was Kerry.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Clarence, Obama only lost by 2% in New Hampshire!
It’s not as if he got wiped out like he did in Ohio (where Hillary is indeed stronger — but it still says little about whether Obama is viable there, which he is).
Clinton doesn’t run significantly stronger than Obama in New York or California, though, even though the primary results should bear that out, in your estimation.
I definitely was too overbearing when I said that primary results have nothing to do with general election strength, though.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
270-268 whomever wins, the other side will be up in arms about something that wasnt fair or whatever (most likely the dems who will do the majority of complaining). It would really give McCain some sort of mandate and leave no doubt with anyone if he at least clears Bush’s 286 EVs of 2004.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
Well, J-Mac wasn’t nicknamed the “President of New Hampshire” for nothing.
He’ll pull out the Granite State in the Fall. You couldn’t build a better prototypical candidate to win NH in a laboratory.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 am
Alex,
If you really wanted to make Kavon happy, just switch WI with MN in number #3. MN/WI have the same number of electoral votes. Plus, I believe we on the left side of the St. Croix are a little more englightened than our cheesehead neighbors.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 am
The only thing is - realistically if the GOP wins in MN then they are probably already winning in WI. While both MN and WI have been tantalizingly close in the past two cycles, MN has been running about 1 or 2 points to the left of WI.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:17 am
It wouldn’t take much to swing the House into equipose as well which would make things even more interesting.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Are we certain that the House would vote for a Democrat? It’s not a straight-up vote; all the states vote together for a candidate and each state only gets one vote. So our single Representative in South Dakota and Wyoming counts as much as all the Democrats in New York and California. Even though we don’t have as many members, we might have more states.
I’ll do some research real fast.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Alex, I was just saying that Barack Obama is not necessarily a perfect match for New Hampshire. In an open Democratic primary (allowing Independents to vote), in a large turnout (meaning lots of young people), he still could not overwhelm Hillary Clinton.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Yep, Democrats just barely control the majority of state delegations, with a few split down the middle. And SD has a Democrat too. Wow, 2006 *sucked* for us.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
If you go to electoral-vote.com, it has competitive states where Obama does better in brown and competitive states where Hillary does better in pink. The pink states are Massachusetts, West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, and Florida. Clinton has won all those that have voted except Missouri (which she narrowly lost), and she will win Kentucky and West Virginia also. Most of the brown states also went for Obama in their caucuses or primary. It should be noted that New Hampshire is brown despite being a Hillary state, but there is only a small difference.
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Good catch, Andrew!
You saved me the trouble!
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
All three scenarios are plausible. It could happen.
If I were McCain, I would be identifying states with tied or narrowly divided delegation, and trying to identify vulnerable Democratic House members in those states — just to be safe.
Andrew: Do any states fit that description?