How Obama can lose

[Dakota Kid]

I thught this was very interesting, I think it could happen...

Until 2000, it hadn’t happened in more than 100 years, but plugged-in observers from both parties see a distinct possibility of Barack Obama winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College — and with it the presidency — to John McCain.

Here’s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush’s in 2004 and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11.

One possible result: Even as the national mood moves left, the 2004 map largely holds. Obama’s 32 new electoral votes from Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia are offset by 21 new electoral votes for McCain in Michigan and New Hampshire — and despite a 2- or 3-point popular vote victory for Obama, America wakes up on Jan. 20 to a President McCain.

According to Tad Devine, who served as the chief political consultant for Al Gore in 2000 and as a senior adviser to John F. Kerry in 2004, “it certainly is a possibility. Not a likelihood, but it is a real possibility.”

Some observers, such as Joseph Mercurio, a political consultant and pollster who worked on Sen. Joe Biden’s Democratic primary bid, see this as unlikely given the dramatic increase in Democratic Party enrollment and President Bush’s near record-low approval rating. Also skeptical is Nate Silver, a political cult-favorite blogger whose statistical model — which factors in population change since electoral votes were last allocated in the 2000 census — shows McCain as more likely than Obama to lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote.

But others, pointing to the competitiveness of the past two elections, predict that this will be another such tight race. If they’re proven correct, this would be the fourth in the past five elections, making for the most closely contested run of presidential contests since those spanning the popular vote-Electoral College splits of 1876 and 1888.

Hank Sheinkopf, president of Sheinkopf Communications and an adviser to Bill Clinton in 1996, warns that such a split “is anything but impossible.” While he gives Obama a slight edge in the general election “because he doesn’t have George Bush riding with him,” he predicts that “Obama’s going to get big votes for a Democrat in the Southern states but not enough to win any new electoral votes. So it’s a distinct possibility that he could lose the entire South, split the Midwest” and end up not as president but rather as the second coming of Al Gore. When asked the odds of this playing out, he offers “50-50.”

Devine points out that Bush’s strategy in 2004 “was predicated on massive base turnout” that pushed up margins in safe states. He doesn’t “expect the McCain campaign to be directed the same way — using issues like gay marriage on the ballot to get the base to the polls — so McCain won’t have the same forces at play to drive out the popular vote.”

Recalling the impact of Ralph Nader’s third-party run in 2000, Devine also wonders if Bob Barr’s Libertarian run might play out differently, costing McCain popular — but not electoral — votes, while producing another popular-electoral split.

Lloyd M. Green, who served as research counsel to George Bush in 1988, also rates Obama a slight favorite and predicts that, if the Democrat does win, he’ll do so with “even larger margins in New York and California than in the last several elections [in 2004, Kerry won the two states by a combined margin of a little more than 2.5 million votes], and yet with all that margin run-up in safe states, this will end up a tight general election.”

In a sentiment also expressed by Sheinkopf and Green, Devine sees little chance of this happening if Obama wins the popular vote by more than 4 points. “But if he gets it by 2 or 3 points, it is plausible," he said. "Absolutely.”

Green, who sees “about a 20 percent chance” of Obama winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College, doesn’t expect anything resembling a blowout: “Given that the only clear and clean majorities [since 1992] were in 1996 and 2004, ... this election will have the ferocity of all recent elections.” It’s a tough trend to buck, he argued, noting that “Americans traditionally change their religious affiliations more often than their party affiliations.”

[BigBadBoom]

McCain won't win Michigan.

[Gaolee]

If it does happen, the mood in the country is going to be ugly, very ugly. I hope it doesn't happen because we have had enough ugly. If McCain wins, I want him to win the popular vote, even though I am an Obama supporter.

[Dakota Kid]

Why the hell don't we do away with the electoral college anyway?

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by Dakota Kid

Why the hell don't we do away with the electoral college anyway?

Good question, and my son thought about it after the 2000 election. He was thinking about it a lot, in the kind of way a 10 year old will do, and decided it wasn't such a bad idea. Since the smaller states would be overwhelmed by the larger states if we went to a pure popular vote method of selecting the president, a candidate wouldn't have to spend a whole lot of time thinking about issues important to a place like Wyoming. As it is now, Wyoming matters, and regional issues are as important as demographic or social issues. Take away the Electoral College and regional issues would not be nearly as important.

It is a goofy system and it has more flaws than advantages, but it does have a few advantages. I would still like to see it gone.

[Trash]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

Good question, and my son thought about it after the 2000 election. He was thinking about it a lot, in the kind of way a 10 year old will do, and decided it wasn't such a bad idea. Since the smaller states would be overwhelmed by the larger states if we went to a pure popular vote method of selecting the president, a candidate wouldn't have to spend a whole lot of time thinking about issues important to a place like Wyoming. As it is now, Wyoming matters, and regional issues are as important as demographic or social issues. Take away the Electoral College and regional issues would not be nearly as important.

It is a goofy system and it has more flaws than advantages, but it does have a few advantages. I would still like to see it gone.

Yes no more Republican Presidents ever.

[flylooper]

All you guys can help out. I just sent him $25 - I think it's the 4th time, now.

Am I a "pioneer" yet?

[baldheadeddork]

Here’s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush’s in 2004 and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11.

One possible result: Even as the national mood moves left, the 2004 map largely holds. Obama’s 32 new electoral votes from Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia are offset by 21 new electoral votes for McCain in Michigan and New Hampshire — and despite a 2- or 3-point popular vote victory for Obama, America wakes up on Jan. 20 to a President McCain.

I wish they would offer something to back up this scenario besides "I said so."

There are so many fundamentals in this race that they're not even talking about. Bush was able to match Gore and Kerry dollar for dollar. That won't happen this year and that's really going to hurt McCain in these Bush states where he's running behind or with a much smaller lead. They also don't talk about the difference in the ground game between Gore, Kerry and Obama. Obama is going to be able to put together thousands of volunteers in each of these battleground states, they have experience from the campaigns and they are hugely effective.

Since 2004 the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans has fallen from around 35% to 27%, while those calling themselves Democrats has risen from 34% to 41%. Among independents only 33% have a positive opinion of the Republican party, compared to almost 60% for Democratic party. On the two most important issues for voters, McCain is advocating the policies of a president with a 24% approval rating.

The point of all that is that the electorate is hugely different than it was just four years ago. We can already see that the map is not staying the same. McCain is hanging on to a two-point lead in North Carolina. Bush didn't have to spend a dime or five minutes of his time on North Carolina four years ago. McCain is going to win Michigan, Florida and Ohio, take New Hampshire and keep Iowa? It's possible the way a lottery ticket is possible.

If he's going to do that he better start by getting back into the lead in all of them.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by flylooper

All you guys can help out. I just sent him $25 - I think it's the 4th time, now.

Am I a "pioneer" yet?

No. You are a cheap old bastard.

[Tripped1]

Originally Posted by Dakota Kid

Why the hell don't we do away with the electoral college anyway?

Because the Electoral College is provided for by the Constitution and as such requires an amendment approved by a greater majority in Congress and ratified by 36 of the 50 states of the union.

The Founding Fathers like many ruling elite throughout history were slightly scared of what could happen if "the people" truly had full control over election of the chief administrator of the Government. A concept going back to Plato in ancient Greece.

[Baldrick]

Indeed. Their intent was to avoid a "tyranny of the majority".

[Tripped1]

Originally Posted by Baldrick

Indeed. Their intent was to avoid a "tyranny of the majority".

Indeed. Or by a more modern fantasy writer.

"Wizard's First Rule: Person is smart, people are stupid"

[county]

You are a fcuking idiot. WTF is with dreaming up unusual scenarios where Obama loses. Does it give you a hard on? Are you afraid of having Obama for president?

You just need to pray, or stick pins in dolls or whatever the fcuk you do, that McCain wins... hell Bush won his second term and I didn't think that was possible.

[Gaolee]

Nah, he is trolling. Looks like he caught a fish.

[Tripped1]

Originally Posted by county

Are you afraid of having Obama for president?

Actually yes.