Adding It Up

[mishalak]

Right now (and keeping in mind that this is only right now, lots of months to go) based on state-by-state polling both Sen. Obama and Clinton will take CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, ME, MD, MN, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, PA, RI & VT. That's (55+7+3+3+4+21+12+4+10+10+15+5+5+31+20+21+4+3=) 233 electoral votes, with 270 needed to win where are the other 37 for each candidate? Clinton probably will get Florida and West Virginia for another 32, five shy of winning using today's polls. Using the same methodology Obama does not get those states but does get Iowa, Oregon, North Dakota, and Washington, for 28 and nine short. But he comes close or ties in polls in Colorado, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. Both candidates come close to a win in Michigan against McCain and that would handily win it with 17 EV.

So each has a viable path to victory even though the polls have both of them losing or at best tying (impossible in an actual election) right now, but Obama's path to victory looks more likely given the larger number of states he is close in and has the possibility of being a blowout victory should he actually manage to take Texas (there is absolutely no way that a Republican can win without Texas. Impossible. And right now the polls are showing him just 1% down there.) And even if each race shakes down exactly as the polls predict right now Obama still has a chance by winning Colorado where he is tied with McCain.

Clinton on the other hand probably has Ohio and Pennsylvania solidly where Obama just barely takes them. So she's a sure bet for getting close, but the election will look a lot like 2000 all over again. It will come down to one or two states (in the end, it will be one or two of a list of five right now) with the rest being sure fire wins for one or the other.

Can McCain win? Totally possible by the numbers at this point he actually wins or comes very close in an EV match up rather than a nationwide poll. On the other hand he's weak in a lot of places and the campaign has yet to really get started. And how he hurts will depend on who he faces. With Obama he'll have to campaign all over the place and money is likely to be a problem. With Clinton it will come down to Washington, Minnesota, Nevada, Michigan and Florida (mostly likely). But only two of those are in the Republican column so he's got a better chance against her.

Clinton's Map on Electoral Vote.com.
Obama's Map on Electoral Vote.com.

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

So each has a viable path to victory even though the polls have both of them losing or at best tying (impossible in an actual election)...

Why is a tie impossible? There are 538 EVs in play, so is there no combination of states that results in both candidates getting 269 votes? I admit to not having looked over the EVs per state, and I ask merely from curiosity.

I also admit to being mildly attracted to a tie scenario, on account of it would throw the election into the House of Representatives and give the country a well-needed civics lesson. I am pretty sure that there would be lots of people yelling, "Whoever gets more votes than any other candidate should win!" because that is of course the simple answer. I also wonder if it such a into-the-House election would finally see a move to abolish the Electoral Collage get enough traction to go through Congress.

(I don't see any such constitutional amendment ever getting ratified, even if it does clear Congress.)

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Clarification: A tie at the state level is not possible. Either McCain would have Colorado's 9 or Obama would and that would be the game as it adds to 270 for Obama or 277 for McCain.

I have not juggled the states much lately, but it also seems that an exact tie of 269-269 is unlikely. Somewhat more likely with Obama as he could win S. Carolina and lose Colorado (possible, but improbable). Or lose Nevada, but pick-up Colorado and New Hampshire (more complex to say, but more likely). Even less plausibly lose Ohio, but pick-up Wisconsin, Nebraska, Colorado, and New Hampshire. And so on.

The Clinton tie scenario I would believe seems less likely, though not impossible. Lose Florida, Nevada, and West Virginia. Then pickup in Washington, Oregon, Michigan, and Arkansas. Then Wisconsin can flip with Minnesota or not, a minor second variant.

It's possible to find all sorts of exact tie solutions, but it is not easy for them to actually happen.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Ah, I understand. It may be technically possible, but it's politically extremely unlikely.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Exactly so. Every cycle I come up with a number of possible tie scenarios, but none of them have ever come close to happening. If it ever does everything will go higgity-piggity for a few months.

[ckd]

A tie would go to the House (for President) and the Senate (for VP), with the House vote being one-per-state. (Amendment XII.)

At that point, I would expect the various state delegations to vote as their states had gone, simply because of the likely response if they didn't—especially if doing otherwise would result in a split decision between President and Vice President.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I doubt that. There would be a lot of squawking about it. For one thing it would mean that the Republican would almost undoubtedly be elected since the Republicans have more states due to their rural/small state base. Plus DC does not get a vote in the house.

I would expect a largely party line vote with lots of tears and yelling before it happened.