Skip to comments.Vanity: In polls, what about electoral college?
Posted on 02/03/2012 6:35:28 AM PST by raccoonradio
The headline news item on Drudge report says "RASMUSSEN: Obama 45% Romney 45%... Developing... "
What I'm wondering is why is this significant overall, because...what about the electoral college? Obama could just barely beat Romney or Gingrich in the popular vote, yet lose the election. Just ask "President Gore".
"Gore Got More" was one of the sayings, and he did.
According to Wikipedia, Al Gore got 50,999,897 votes. 48.4 per cent. Bush got 50,546,002 votes or 47.9 per cent.
If this country elected a President on popular votes, Gore would have been sworn in on 1/20/01. But we use electoral votes. Wiki. said Bush won 30 states. Gore won 20 states plus D.C. (Obama is probably wondering how the other 7 states voted.)
No wonder they argue for a "National Popular Vote" on the Left.
Anyway, you see polls like this but isn't what matters the state-by-state vote?
"The election was noteworthy for a controversy over the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes, the subsequent recount process in that state, and the unusual event of the winning candidate having received fewer popular votes than the runner-up," says Wikipedia.
And as I like to point out, Gore COULD have won by electoral vote if he had ONE more state, one won by Bush.
His home state of Tennessee. Bush won 271 EV, Gore 266. If Tenn. went for Gore it would have been Gore 277, Bush 260.
Electoral college...what really should matter in these polls. Yes, popular vote is a good indication of how the race is going, but not the only one.
HC list ping
For the record in ‘04 Bush did win the popular as well as the electoral vote. W got about 62 million, Kerry about 59 million. W got 31 states, Kerry 19 states plus DC
>>Click on a state repeatedly to change it between gray (tossup), red (Republican victory), and blue (Democrat victory). The total number of electoral votes won by either party will update automatically. When you are done creating your forecast you can share it with your friends by sending them the URL shown below the map.
You can use Dave Leip’s website, which has the proper colors for the parties, not the Orwellian newsspeak ones.
On the link above you can go back and forth between 2004 and 2008 and see what states changed their political
colors. The following states went from red to blue:
NV, CO, NM,IA, Ind., OH, NC, VA, FL.
There is also a page for an “Intrade forecast” and it mentions states that gained or lost electoral votes since 08.
MA lost one; FL gained two, Ohio lost two etc.
We are a representative republic.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Under the left’s plan, how would they have liked this scenario:
Gore wins 49 states with a 50,000 vote margin in each one, Bush wins Texas with a 3,000,000 vote margin. Bush wins!
That’s one reason we have an electoral college.
You can thank Section 8 housing used to import Democrat voters.
That is the entire purpose of Section 8.
Exactly—I think YouTube has some old election night footage and you can see “Democrat red” and “Republican blue”. (Did they switch because they wanted the Dems to be associated
with “blue collar workers”?
>>This unofficial system of political colors used in the United States is the reverse of that in most other long-established democracies, where Blue represents right-wing and conservative parties, and Red represents left-wing and social democratic parties...According to another source, in 1976, John Chancellor, the anchorman for NBC Nightly News, asked his network’s engineers to construct a large illuminated map of the USA. The map was placed in the network’s election-night news studio. If Jimmy Carter, the Democratic candidate that year, won a state, it would light up in red; if Gerald Ford, the Republican, carried a state, it would light up in blue. The feature proved to be so popular that four years later all three major television networks would use colors to designate the states won by the presidential candidates on Election Night, though not all using the same color scheme. NBC continued to use the color scheme employed in 1976 for several years. NBC newsman David Brinkley famously referred to the 1980 election map outcome as showing Ronald Reagan’s 44-state landslide as resembling a “suburban swimming pool”. CBS, from 1984 on, used the opposite scheme: blue for Democrats, red for Republicans.
Most of the states will stay in the “as is” column. There are only a few “in play” states, Florida, Ohio, etc.. that have to change in order to sway the election one way or the other.
Electoral College is REALLY bad when the “wrong” man wins.
Other than that, people don’t seem to care or mind it.
The idea of the EC is to give a bit more power and say to the smaller states. Otherwise, the candidates would just campaign in the states with high EC votes, right? A candidate can
win with a coalition of small states—or more likely one with some big states and a whole lot of small ones. “Flyover
In some elections it looked like the Northeast/East and California/West Coast went solid Dem. These “red states”
were often scoffed at as “flyover country”. What was interesting was a county by county map of the U.S. In
2000 it was a sea of red with some blue splotches.
In my song parody of “Massachusetts” (Bee Gees) about the 04 election, I wrote:
(Kerry) Got a lot of votes in San Francisco
New York and L.A., they loved you too
But you’re still going back to Massachusetts
The Swift Boat hero, left Democrats so blue.
I have brought up your argument before: it could backfire
on the Dems in the way you say.
THOSE red states, I meant
Kind of like how the national debt only matters when a Republican is in the White House.
And American military deaths don’t happen during Democrat administrations.
Interesting that he shows Virginia as a red state.
That and voter fraud.
Think also of the illegals in Calif. who must somehow get on the voter rolls...and how they’d vote. And, voter ID? You must be joking, eh?
Ever notice the Occupy movement seems to go to Dem-leaning cities? Boston, NY, Oakland, Portland (both ME and OR),
etc. Mostly Dem leaning cities, it would seem, likely lefties.
Exactly but unfortunately the media will stick with it. The networks will have their maps: “So we color Texas in red...Vermont in blue...” They try to use a bit of a mnemonic
device to shove it in: “The state turns Republican Red” (OK,
so R, R, I guess we’re to be told it’s a good way to remember the color scheme...)
If Willard hijacks the GOP nomination AND presuming no 3rd party Conservative runs (and his coronation may almost ensure one does), this is about what I expect him to carry (although I may be being generous)... slightly better than McCain, maybe, but do the math and he still loses to Zero by 280 to 258 EVs. I may be being too generous here. If a 3rd party candidate runs, Zero will carry a large number of states with pluralities (a la Woodrow Wilson in 1912).
It is, in so much as that Zero won Virginia in ‘08.
Oh yes; Boston’s Howie Carr had a column recently about that.
Dem in office, we don’t hear about the homeless...the war
>>Did you know that our elite military units like the Navy SEALs are now examples of America at its absolute finest? Why, wasnt it just a few years ago that Sen. Dick Durbin was comparing these very same troops to the Khmer Rouge and Joe Stalins Red Army?...Since January 2009, natural disasters are no longer the personal fault of the president...On Jan. 20, 2009, all the homeless people went home. Inflation ended that same day. No longer do dying Americans have to travel to Canada to buy affordable prescription drugs. Unemployment rate of 4.5 percent under Bush jobless recovery. Unemployment rate of 8.5 percent under Obama the new normal.
And of course a reminder to others who didn’t see your post earlier that you use the “real” colors here—thus MA is
red, Florida and Texas blue
The media can and will do whatever they please, but it is up to us to not swallow whatever they throw at us. We can take it back, if we have the guts.
That graphic is from Dave Leip’s site, where you can program the states this way or that. There is also the added feature of choosing what % a GOP/Dem candidate will take, which can lighten or darken the shade of red or blue (I don’t much mess with that, though).
btw I mentioned the 2000 election. I think W did win Tenn. but it wasn’t by a huge margin as he did the other Southern
states. However it came down to Fla. which I believe was orig. called for Gore, then called back. Its 25 EVs decided the election and ultimately it was called for W.
What I mean of course if even if Gore lost Florida, which he did, a win in his home state of Tenn. WOULD have put him
over the top.
That’s pretty close to what I would expect Romney to carry if (God forbid) he were the GOP nominee. But I think that Romney would carry OH and Obama would carry NV, which would give Romney a razor-thin 270-268 victory; Romney would cost us PA and WI, where Santorum would likely win.
As for your shading, I wouldn’t have IN, MT, MO and NC in light blue; Romney would get over 50% in those states (easily exceeding it in the first three).
I think we can win whether Romney, Santorum or Newt is our nominee, so I don’t give any thought to the Romneyite argument that he’s “more electable” and “the only one who can win.” But neither do I believe that Romney can’t win, since Obama has a very tough road to 270.
“There is also the added feature of choosing what % a GOP/Dem candidate will take, which can lighten or darken the shade of red or blue (I dont much mess with that, though).”
Libs in gereral have a problem with federalism. The would prefer a unified state with States surviving as quaint legacies of our ever receding past . . . like provinces in France. Every Frenchmen refers to his province (Normandy, Provence, etc.) though they haven't existed for 200 years.
Fortunately, the “compact” is among ‘blue” states, so far.but they do have a cumulative 132 electoral votes.
seems to me, it would be in the RATS best interest to always have a "Ross Perot" type run as a 3rd party candidate.
Sorry, I don’t see any way Obama carries OH this cycle. Nor do I think he can win CO this time around. That’s your victory right there, I think.
Sorry, I didn’t adjust the % shadings, I was just going for a rough estimate of the states he’d carry under the best of circumstances. I don’t think Willard will carry Ohio, because he is just the sort of ultrarich elitist that will viscerally turn off the working class, ones whom would ordinarily support us. He’s a walking media stereotype of an out-of-touch “Republican.” If McCain couldn’t pull it off in 2008, there’s no way someone to his left will this time, and why would we want to ? If we have a Conservative run third party (if and only if he is coronated), the whole map will take on a very different shade.
I hate looking at that county map because of my state, CA. All those conservative counties, but winner take all and we lose. :(
BTW, latest polls here in OH showed Romney with a lead over Zero.
These polls matter because the popular vote winner will likely win the electoral college. Yes in 2000, Gore did win the popular vote - but that election was razor close at 48.4 Gore to 47.9 Bush.
If Obama wins by a percentage point or more he would almost certainly win the electoral college tally, and the same goes for the GOP nominee. So yeah, these polls matter - particularly when you use something like the RCP average.
Oops, meant to say that McCain carried MO and MT with under 50% and Obama carried the other two with under 50%.
It’s February. Anyway, hopefully this abomination will be stopped soon, or at the floor of the convention at the latest.
The Bee Gees spelled that M-a-a-a-a-s-achusetts.
Nor will he carry Virginia.
True story: The Bee Gees had never been to the Bay State but liked the sound of the word/place name they had heard ABOUT. And that’s why the lights...all went out...in Massachusetts...
Very good point, there. The Left though would rather make it a purely popular vote—they don’t want another Gore scenario.
But yes, popular vote winner likely wins the EV too and indeed the ‘00 election was razor close.
1968 was razor close too
Nixon R 31,783,783
Humphrey D 31,271,839
Wallace Amer. Independent 9,901,118
States won: Nixon 32, Humphrey 15, Wallace 5 (in the
Nixon 43.4 per cent
Humph. 42.7 per cent
Wallace 13.5 %
One faithless elector from NC voted for Wallace not Nixon
Total electoral votes:
It didn’t seem close if you look at elec. votes, but note
how close it was in popular vote. What if Wallace were
not in the race? Anyway, pop. vote margin win by about
500,000 or so for Nixon. Close.
>>he must be the president of the Union, not just a majority of Americans.
Libs in gereral have a problem with federalism
Right you are.
Indeed, re: Tenn. (Gore really from D.C.)
>>when he held his “victory party” outside here in Nashville’s downtown, we had a rare November thunderstorm that evening.
Ah. In 05 I spent a day or so in Nashville area and walked around the general area of the Capitol bldg—Jackon and Johnson monuments, etc. I thought this was where they all gathered for what was to be the Gore victory party (in 04, a big crowd gathered in Boston for what was to be Kerry’s
victory party, complete with a broadcast by then-Air America talker Al Franken. An article from CNS News
Online: “Kerry party turns to tears, bitterness”...
Wikipedia entry on Tenn.: “In the 2000 presidential election, Vice President Al Gore, a former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, failed to carry his home state (sic; as you say, he was more from D.C.), an unusual occurrence”.
W won it 51 to 47 per cent.
Flip Massachusetts (could happen) and your map is 269-269. Throw in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Colorado and it could be interesting. If the Electoral College cannot decide, the House selects the president, each STATE delegation getting exactly one vote.
One of the reason they want a national popular vote is because they want to nationalize vote fraud. Vote fraud is most prevalent in states the Democrats are likely to carry anyway, so another 2000 votes in a ballot box in Philadelphia do not cancel votes cast in New Hampshire or Alabama. With a national popular vote, they would.
The compact only applies, as I understand it, if it is adopted by enough states such that their total electoral votes constitute a majority of the electoral college. Hasn’t happened yet.
you’re exactly right. thanks for cleaning that up for us.
At the present time, it is infested by "Occupy Nashville" vermin round the clock, for whom are being protected by an ultraliberal Democrat federal judge. State legislators are working to get a bill through to clean the scum off the plaza.
Except Willard won’t win MA. If McCain couldn’t carry those other states, Willard certainly won’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.