McCain’s Road To POTUS Goes Through WI, MN Or PA?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in McCain, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

That’s right. The McCain camp actually thinks they can win Wisconsin, Minnesota or Pennsylvania. Failure to win any of these states means he loses.

Huh?

“Our ability to pick off one of those three states is where our fortunes are largely held,” a McCain official said. “These are states where Barack Obama is on the defense.”

McCain has very limited ways to win, with no room for error. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) still has many routes to the White House and so can afford to campaign on a much broader playing field. [...]

McCain figures that winning one of those three big remaining swing states, plus those he considers safe, would put him 10 shy of the 270 electoral votes he needs to win.

“We can dig up an additional 10 electoral votes in Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire,” the official said.

Well, it’s definitely a “maverick” move, but so far this political season that has meant ill-informed and horribly executed.

But let’s get real folks. Pennsylvania is out. Republicans always think they can capture this one, but they always fall short. What’s more, the latest polling shows Obama pulling away significantly.

Minnesota and Wisconsin are definitely closer, but as mentioned earlier, Obama took Wisconsin by 17 points over Hillary so there’s not really a “blue collar” problem there.

So that leaves Minnesota, which is trending closer but is still a stretch. And my guess is that when the new state polls come out next week they’ll show a jump for Obama there too, effectively putting the state out of reach.

I guess we’ll see…


This entry was posted on Thursday, October 2nd, 2008 and is filed under McCain, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “McCain’s Road To POTUS Goes Through WI, MN Or PA?”

  1. Joshua Says:

    Well, considering that McCain apparently just gave up on Michigan, he must figure he’s still got to spend all that campaign money somewhere, and continue to put up a brave front.

    I still prefer McCain and intend to vote for him in November, for the sake of divided government if nothing else. But it’s not hard to see the score. For Wall Street to tank and possibly take the U.S., if not the global economy with it, just as the general campaign was heating up, for Obama that’s basically the political equivalent of winning the lottery. Palin may be able to salvage her own political future in tonight’s debate, but it’ll be all but irrelevant to a campaign that now begins and ends with the Wall Street mess.

  2. susan Says:

    The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — 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).

    Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated 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 have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

    Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

    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

  3. John Carpenter Says:

    One of the dirty little secrets of the 2008 presidential election which may be the “October Surprise” is the fatally flawed methodology of the 26 or so polling organizations that have weighed in and which weigh in regularly on the national and statewide voting.

    It would take a lengthy “white paper” to spell out the systemic flaws and almost inconceivable irrationality that is the foundation of American polling, but it is real, known in academia, and for obvious reasons is quashed by major networks and newspapers.

    Put simply, even the most highly-regarded pollsters manufacture polling numbers based on samples that are not randomly collected and which are often biased in favor of one party or another by as much as 10 points. This can be proven to any open-minded, reasonable person.

    By way of example a major U.S. polling organization had Obama up by seven points. The organization, however, did not report that the sample was biased
    in favor of democrats.

    Historically, the electorate can be assessed as roughly 38% democrat, 36% republican, and 26% independent. The aforementioned poll was weighted with
    roughly 40% democrats (bias: +2), 32% republican (bias: -4) and independant
    28%.

    The slanting towards democratic participants thus accounted for a 6-point margin favoring democrats with a +/-2 margin of error.

    Thus, with a randomly collected group that has never participated in a poll before by this organization (which was not the case) and an evenly weighed
    number of voters from each party, established not on the basis of a three-month rolling average(a serious flaw in this group’s sampling), but on national exit polls that precisely identify party affiliation rather that arbitrarily assigning a respondent to a party, McCain could in reality be up by one point or down by three. Ignoring random sampling and knowingly weighing the sample heavily in favor of democrats Obama appears to be running away with the election.

    Again, this is fact, not conjecture. Is there then any reason to believe that this poll–one of the most “reputable” in the nation–is the ONLY polling organization knowingly weighing samples in a biased manner and is a six-point bias the largest employed?

    The answer is a definitive “No!”. Some pollsters have slanted surveys as mush as
    20 points in favor of one party.

    This is why Obama and McCain each employ private pollsters.

    Voters are in the dark, forcefed grossly misleading polling numbers, which give them a false feeling of either confidence or dispair.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: