MyDD :: My read on the states that matter in 2008

My read on the states that matter in 2008

by dtaylor2, Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:41:34 PM EST

Here is my read on states that matter

Senario 1

States I think Obama wins
Michigan

States I think McCain wins
Florida

States that will decide the election
Pa
Oh
Indiana
Virginia
New Hampshire
Colorado

McCain needs to win

Ohio
PA
Indiana
Virgina

and New Hampshire or Colorado.

Senario 2

If Romney were to bring Michigan

McCain wins
Michigan
Florida

McCain needs
Colorado
Ohio
Virginia
Indiana

From my reading I take the following to be true in my thought process

Leaning states that are traditionally GOP are hard to take
Indiana
Virginia
Possibly colorado

Leaning states that are traditionally democratic should be easier
Pa

Toss ups that we can gain major traction in
Michigan
Ohio

In closing Obama is in a very strong position and if he could lock up

Ohio
Pa

There aren't any winning solutions for McCain that are likely.

If Obama can lock up
Michigan in addition there are literally no likey senarios where McCain wins short of massive massive upsets in New Jersey or California or some such currently unlikely situations.

So short of a november surprise that causes Obama to lose Ohio, Pa or Michigan or some form of McCain miracle that causes him to win California or New Jersey, Obama will become president in Jan.

Because he is in such a commanding lead if he can lock down Ohio, Michigan, Pa his choice of VP will be tailored to these states and these states alone with the possible addition of Florida.

In addition because he is in such a commanding position barring surprises I predict that he will act to avoid surprises and choose Clinton as his VP, because she plays well in Ohio, Pa and not too poorly in Michigan as well as bringing Florida into play.

A lesser calculation will be that without unity with Clinton loyalists he will not face a majority in the house and senate and after his honeymoon may find himself unable to exert political power after his shine has worn off. In a 6 month horizon this is a non issue, in a 48 month horizon this is a very large issue. Bill Clinton was unable to get his issues made law in his first 2 years with a democratic house and senate and once Obama makes his first mistake in office he may find himself in the same boat unless true unity is achieved. I believe Obama is already looking ahead to the 2010 elections and the 2012 elections and as such needs unity more than a power play.

Barring some form of Scandal he has won the election but now what?

Poll

Votes: 5
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Election. (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

i dont understand the last part (2.00 / 1)

"A lesser calculation will be that without unity with Clinton loyalists he will not face a majority in the house and senate and after his honeymoon may find himself unable to exert political power after his shine has worn off."

Do you think there are congressmen/women that would be less likely to work with Obama if he doesn't pick Hillary as VP?

by highgrade on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:55:38 PM EST

Re: i dont understand the last part (2.00 / 2)

Well, I can think of one... ;)

by username on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Politicians are going to do what's best for them (none / 0)

It won't matter to most of them whether Clinton gets on the ticket, even if they backed her. Fairly or not, she's not likely to get another shot at the presidency, so even if she feels snubbed, her politician backers will want to be on Obama's good side, and Obama could bring about the biggest Democratic year since 1964. They aren't going to want to get shut out when they need his help, so they won't make a big stink over Clinton not getting V.P; they'll get behind him whoever he picks.

ÞÞÞ

by Mumphrey on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama lest not forget (2.00 / 1)

that the Clintons do have a well oiled machine with a lot of money, problem in the primaries is that they didn't actually think Obama was gonna take it to states like Utah, idaho, and wyoming, which a Democrat will never win. But they still have tons of power, money behind them, and Chelsea may go into politics herself, maybe her husband, and perhaps their kids, and I hope they do. The dynasty must continue. I want to rival the Bush dynasty to show those fuckers up so bad. But the Clintons are powerful, and if Obama thinks he's gonna just go by them without consequences, he oughta think again. They have plenty of congressional friends, and there are many districts where the Clintons are popular, but Obama is not, which is what the primary showed. He would be wise to not try to snub them.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:42:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The dynasty must continue? (none / 0)

that's a terrible reason to support Clinton. What are we a monarchy? You support her because you think she's the best person for the job, not because you want to show up the Bushes.

Dynasty is what destroyed the Republican Party. I'm not saying the same existed here, but how about showing up the Bushes by showing the Republicans our candidates don't have to come from the same family?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that post made me barf (none / 0)

Are you serious? You need to lay off the computer for a while.

by highgrade on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My read on the states that matter in 2008 (none / 0)

Interesting analysis. (Although, unless you live in Indiana, I'm not sure why it is listed here in this context? What about Nevada or Missouri?) In any event, my guess is that Ohio--and, possibly Michigan, if Romney is McCain's VP pick--will again be the focal point.

by christinep on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:45:17 PM EST

Re: My read on the states that matter in 2008 (none / 0)

Indiana's been trending as a possible pick-up for a while now. Since the middle of April, there's only been one poll (some local outfit) that's had anything closer than plus or minus one (McCain plus 9, IIRC). The rest are all McCain +1 or SUSA's been showing Obama+1 for a while now.

If they're statistically tied for support, McCain's screwed. Across the top of the state, Obama's wheelhouse, there will be ridiculous GOTV. Gary, IN? That'll go Obama by nearly triple digits. Going across the top, then you hit IN-02, which went blue in 2006.

If the gubernatorial election isn't close (Repub incumbant is up by... 15ish?), then voter motivation will be low for McCain's strongholds.

It's all about get-out-the-vote in Indiana.

by TCQuad on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The last Survey USA was Daniels +5 (none / 0)

by conspiracy on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The last Survey USA was Daniels +5 (none / 0)

Fair enough!

The last poll I remembered seeing was mid-to-end of June, and I hadn't seen any major news stories on it, so I went with the very unofficial "-ish?" figure.

I'd still be surprised if Jill Long Thompson pulled it off, but she will get the Obama bump in Indiana.

by TCQuad on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:02:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now what? (none / 0)

Work to make sure it happens. That means GOTV, especially in leaning states. Don't get complacent with July predictions.

And reject those hovering aroung our party who do little else than single-mindedly attack our nominee while carrying McCain's water for him.

Know Your Rights!

by BobzCat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:29:19 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.