MyDD :: Obama needs to win Ohio, Colorado, or Virginia

Obama needs to win Ohio, Colorado, or Virginia

by enthusiast, Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:27:10 PM EST

Now that Michigan, Iowa, and New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico and Oregon seem to trending blue, we appear to be heading toward a likely 264 electoral votes (270 needed).

So the question is this: which "red" states does Obama have a shot at winning?

Yes, there are many possibilities, but let's be super-realistic.

We have 3 good shots at it: OH, CO, and VA, maybe 4 if you include Indiana. Florida and Nevada are also possibilities, but Obama's been polling behind there overall.

Obama's best shot seems to be CO (9EV) or Ohio (20EV). He's currently ahead in both states, but only by a small margin. He's tied in IN and VA.

We can expect the past history in all the red states to indicate that their numbers in November will probably be higher than the current polls indicate (something like what's called regression to the mean).

Thus, we can't feel comfortable about our chances unless Obama starts to poll consistently more than 5% higher than McCain. If Obama is ahead in Ohio by 4%, the past trends in Ohio will probably pull the number closer to 0%. Even a 5% lead in the polls isn't safe, but a 6% lead would probably be reason to start becoming more relaxed about things.

The bottom line is that Obama won't win the election without 5 more EVs that we currently seem to have lined up (if we stay strong in MI, IA, NH, WI, MN, NM, and OR). NV and FL look tough. IN and VA are possible, but it's tied there now, and those are red states historically.

Thus, our best chance is in CO or OH, and we're only a couple of points ahead in both states - actually, the most recent polling suggests that Obama and McCain might be tied in Ohio now.

Put that together with McCain's big advantages ($50 million that the RNC will pump into the election, and the 527s that have already started trying to trash Obama, and inevitable Rovian dirty tricks, October surprises, etc.), and factor in that the RNC convention comes after the DNC convention once again, and it appears that this election is anything but locked up.

Until the past 2-3 days of polling, there seemed to be room for a tiny bit of complacency, but the most recent data suggest that it's going to be a very difficult challenge to win in Nov, even though LA Times/Bloomberg poll now has Bush at only 23% approval.

Tags: ohio, colorado, obama, mccain (all tags)

Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment

You are neglecting... (2.00 / 1)

Missouri and North Carolina, both of which are in play. There's no need to be complacent at any time, but I think you're being a bit overly pessimistic concerning the present picture.

by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:38:52 PM EST

Re: You are neglecting... (2.00 / 1)

There are so many 'or's to choose from, and so much money and man and womanpower to do it with.

That's what's so great about this year - in 2000 and 2004 they put everything into one big electoral rich state, trying to reach 270 with a sledgehammer when a screwdriver would do.

This year we can go over the top in any one of like 10 states. Or all of them.

by GenaMeana on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MO and NC probably out of reach (none / 0)

MO and NC may be in play, but they are long shots at this point.

The latest MO poll puts us 7 pts behind, and Mo hasn't gone Dem for a long time now. It'll be close, but I ain't countin' on MO if you know what I mean...

And NC, sorry, but if we win NC, it's not going to be the swing state that puts us over. If we win NC, we'll also win half a dozen closer states (OH, CO, VA, MO, IN, NV).

Bottom line is that we can't get our hopes up over states like Alaska, NC, MO to be the states that are going to make the difference. We don't have the resources to compete everywhere and win. The smart move is to focus on the 6 or 8 states that are within reach, and hold our base.

by enthusiast on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:38:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

as a Missourian (none / 0)

I'm sorry but you just have no clue how Missouri turns.

Missouri has always turned on GOTV, turnout and volunteer work.

Mostly what happens is it will depend on how big Obama whens St. Louis, it's counties (or how closely he loses a couple of the counties) and KC compared to how he does in the rural areas.

That said, McCain's selling out of Boeing will hurt him in the fall as that effects at least the St Louis area too. Not to mention that McCain's first ad buy here was just so pathetic it was funny, it was like McCain was trying to run as the war but anti war candidate and his second one has one of the most annonying introductions I've ever seen.

MO is very much in play and given the large AA populations and youth vote in KC and St. Louis you're just plain wrong.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a Missourian (none / 0)

'how big Obama whens' should be 'how big Obama wins'

and as a ps, NC is in play the GOP ignores NC at it's own risk.

Even if we don't win it, McCain will have to defend it.

Really it's a win win for us, because no matter what McCain does there he has to either take a risk or spend time and money. Neither of which are good choices

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the Convention is actually TIMED this year (2.00 / 1)

and is not a month and a half before the GOP convention like in 2004. That was part of the disaster. By the time Bush's convention rolled around, everyone forgot about the good from ours. kerry barely got any bounce. he announced his veep too early. Most announce it at the convention. If Obama gets a big bounce, it could outlast the GOP convention which starts only 3 days after the Democratic one ends, which is amazing. I think Iowa is likely to switch, especially because of the floods and the President/GOPs non-response. Ohio is also most likely, because it was so close in 2004, and its where the Clintons could campaign, and this isn't the choice between Hillary and Obama, but Obama and John McCain. Colorado could switch, but itsn't as likely. We can get Florida if there is seriously depressed turnout in the redneck riviera, and another state where the Clintons could help in Miami, and Obama will have enough money to blitz all of these states with ads. Virginia, its a rough shot, but isn't impossible, but not as likely. Warner and Kaine could help us, but history suggests VA will be a tough nut to crack, and hasn't gone Dem since 1964, even went GOP in 1976. Ohio went Clinton twice, and along with Wisconsin put Jimmy Carter in the White House.

by Lakrosse on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:58:52 PM EST

Kerry did get an 8-10 pt bounce (none / 0)

from the DNC convention, but it wore off by Labor Day.

by enthusiast on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:49:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this also doesn't factor in (2.00 / 1)

the Paul factor.

It's nothing to count on but Paul and his supporters could very likely embrass McCain both in the GOP convention and in the one Paul is holding.

So any 'bounce' McCain could get would be in doubt.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm afraid you're a little off base. (2.00 / 1)

Have a read over at Five Thirty Eight. Current polling, weighted for past performance, indicate an 80+ EV lead. This is backed up by similar projections at electoral-vote.com and Real Clear Politics, which also average state polls.

States polling positive for Obama include CO, NM, MN, WI, IA, MI, OH, NH, and PA. States within striking distance include NC, MO and IN.

Five Thirty Eight

And the summer has only begun. Obama's voter registration machine is firing up even as we write this. McCain is toast.

by spunkmeyer on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:14:35 PM EST

Re: I'm afraid you're a little off base. (none / 0)

There's something interesting going on at 538. They've tweaked their algorithms to show the projected result in November instead of current polling results. That's why there was such a big change downward in Obama's numbers in their charts yesterday or the day before even though the polls were positive for Obama. I really like that site.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:25:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm afraid you're a little off base. (2.00 / 2)

They've always projected November. But he's made several single tweaks to the algorithm over the past few months. It's had a sizable change each time. He seems to think the model is pretty close in its current formulation, which still has Obama ahead by about 80+

Agreed about 538. It's the best statistical analysis out there. I don't know if you're familiar with Nate Silver (aka Poblano), but he created a wildly successful projection model for Major League Baseball called PECOTA. It projects with cray accuracy the future performance of baseball players and teams.

There's a great write-up about him here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/140469

by spunkmeyer on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm afraid you're a little off base. (none / 0)

The article I read on their site about the latest changes seemed to say they were factoring in the trend that has the race narrowing the closer it gets to November. I guess that's only one factor, but it seems to have been a big one. That was a big change yesterday. They cut Obama's popular vote lead nearly in half.

I do know Poblano came out awhile ago and let the world know his real name. I'm also familiar with PECOTA. I had a lot of fun playing fantasy baseball quite a few years ago. I developed some projection models of my own for use in our league, but never did anything else with them. They helped my brother and I (we were co-owners of the fantasy team) to win twice and come in second twice in four years.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:53:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm afraid you're a little off base. (2.00 / 1)

I can only imagine how well Poblano's fantasy baseball team performs!

by spunkmeyer on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

538 is way too "trend" focused. (none / 0)

I know my regression analyses as well as probably anyone around here does, and the TWEAKING is very, very problematic.

There's tweaking and then there's TWEAKIN.

Ok, yes, 538 is on target with most of their basic projections, and it's an interesting site.

The problem with 538 is that he doesn't take into account the states previous history, relying far too much on polling data and not nearly enough on who the people are in those states and what their well established tendencies are.

He's had VA and MO and IN and OH colored blue for along time when they should have been colored light red or white. His predictions are markedly different than the poll averages, and usually in Obama's direction.

The Obama "trend" is silly stuff. A trend in June means diddly. A trend in October, ok, that's different. But to sway all the predictions far from the polling averages based on a June trend is pretty ridiculous, or shall we say, far-fetched.

by enthusiast on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:43:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 538 is way too "trend" focused. (none / 0)

then you should read the 'why' on what Nate did.

If you're knowledgable as you say, then you'll understand what was done and why.

As for as I know Nate makes almost all of his math and model avaible so frankly if you think it's wrong, why not put your money where you mouth is and detail why you think so?

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama needs to win Ohio, Colorado, or Virginia (2.00 / 1)

I don't know how you did it, but you turned what is really positive news for Obama into a negative. To put what you're saying in proper perspective, Obama has 264 "safe" or leaning safe electoral votes, and needs to win only one of a dozen or so battleground states to win the election.

The fact that this is good news for Obama becomes clearer when we look at all of this from McCain's perspective. Basically, for McCain to win the election, he has to win ALL of the following battleground states:

Nevada
Colorado
Ohio
Florida
Missouri
Virginia
Indiana
North Carolina

Tell me, would you rather be in Obama's shoes or McCain's shoes? Especially since Obama has been ahead in Colorado for awhile, and has a solid lead in Ohio since the primaries ended.

And this is assuming that McCain can hold onto previously safe red-states like Georgia, Alaska, Mississippi, Arkansas, states that look like they may be in play in November.

by ProfessorReo on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:53:14 PM EST

Re: Obama needs to win (none / 0)

McCain certainly can win at this point. I would not, however, bet a dime on it.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

from one prof to another... (none / 0)

I agree with you that McCain has to defend a hell of a lot of expensive territory, so the challenge is great, especially in a change election.

But for Obama to win, he has to get a red state to turn blue, and that is not easy, not easy at all.

Mind y'all, I do think he takes Iowa and New Mexico, NH and all the blue states. But none of the other red states are going to swing blue without a hell of a lot of hard work and some good luck with the VP choice and everything else.

by enthusiast on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:46:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama needs to win Ohio, Colorado, or Virginia (none / 0)

Professor Reo, Bush was able to win all of those states, so McCain has a good chance of keeping them all. Also, we can't get too cocky over some Kerry states, especially Michigan but also New Hampshire and Pennsylavania. The other Kerry states, such as light blue Wisconsin, Oregan, Minnesota, and Washington I'm more comfortable with.

by Jaxx Raxor on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:00:06 AM EST

Re: Obama needs to win Ohio, Colorado, or Virginia (none / 0)

Pennsylvania is the tough one, IMO. Michigan is pretty bankable.

by MeganLocke on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama needs to win Ohio, Colorado, or Virginia (none / 0)

This is why we have campaigns. The polls are where they are for today not necessarily where the actual results will end up come November. In 1980 Carter versus Reagan was tight all the way until the debates. In 1992 Clinton was languishing in third in national polls about now. In 2000 Gore had leads in state polls for Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee but went on to lose them all. In the final analysis it could still go either way but if I was a neutral I would much rather be Barack Obama right now.

by conspiracy on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:58:14 AM EST

Ohio (none / 0)

Obama will win Ohio. The polls don't mean shyt right now. Ohio has probably suffered more than any other single state under Bush. The republican party is in shambles here. Gov. Strickland is very popular and he will criss cross this state for Obama.

by highgrade on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:42:36 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.