Presidential predictions, 26 September 2008
Every Friday through the general election I will lay out my prediction as to how I think the presidential race will shake out.
As most of you know, national popular vote is irrelevant in presidential elections. The presidency is awarded based on votes in the Electoral College, which are apportioned according to popular vote within states. The magic number is 270; either candidate that attains that number of Electoral College votes will have achieved a majority and will win the presidency.
My prediction as of 26 September 2008:
Obama 286 McCain 252
Colorado is back in Obama’s column after a one-week stay in McCainland. Likewise, Ohio moves back into McCain territory after I gave it to Obama last week. Ohio is very tight, with most polling within the margin of error. I’m giving it to him based on a +4 Fox/Rasmussen poll. Lastly, Virginia moves back into Obama’s camp after a string of favourable polls.
This has been a hard week for the McCain/Palin ticket. Poll after poll shows that Americans just don’t trust John McCain with the economy, and the economy’s been the big bad news day after day. And Palin’s unfavourables continue to climb each time she ends up in front of a camera.
Palin sat down earlier this week with CBS News’ Katie Couric. Boy, was it funny:
Couric
Explain to me why [being governor of Alaska] enhances your foreign policy credentials.Palin
Well, it certainly does because our– our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They’re in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia–Couric
Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?Palin
We have trade missions back and forth. We– we do– it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is– from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to– to our state.
Battleground States
These are the states which are seriously in play and could go either way. I’ve awarded them above based on trend data and gut feeling.
CO FL IN MN NC NH OH VA
Among these states, Ohio, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Virginia are razor thin. Indiana has really tightened up and is now classified as a “battleground state” in my book, up from “competitive for McCain” last week. Obama has caught up in Florida after McCain opened up a bit of a lead in the last couple weeks; McCain realistically is about +2 in Florida right now.
North Carolina has tightened up really fast, McCain having a sizeable lead just 7-10 days ago. Recent polling is all within the margin of error.
Competitive States
Obama is competitive in: MO NV WV
Nevada is pretty tight. Any tighter and I’d move it to battleground.
I’ve removed Montana from this list as the latest polling has McCain with an 11-point lead.
McCain is competitive in: MI PA NM WA
Pennsylvania is back here as the PA Biden bump seems to have worn off and McCain has made up some ground.
While he’s polling within ten points in each, Michigan and Washington are both longshots for McCain.
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com