Posted on 05/28/2012 12:19:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Not too long ago pundits were arguing that Mitt Romney’s path to 270 electoral votes was “narrow.” We didn’t buy it.
Lo and behold, conventional wisdom has now changed. The Associated Press writes: “Warning signs for Obama on tight path to 270.” The AP explains:
Obama’s new worries about North Carolina and Wisconsin offer opportunities for Republican Mitt Romney, who must peel off states Obama won in 2008 if he’s to cobble together the 270 electoral votes needed to oust the incumbent in November.
Iowa, which kicked off the campaign in January, is now expected to be tight to the finish, while New Mexico, thought early to be pivotal, seems to be drifting into Democratic territory.
If the election were today, Obama would likely win 247 electoral votes to Romney’s 206, according to an Associated Press analysis of polls, ad spending and key developments in states, along with interviews with more than a dozen Republican and Democratic strategists both inside and outside of the two campaigns.
Seven states, offering a combined 85 electoral votes, are viewed as too close to give either candidate a meaningful advantage: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia.
Among that group, you have to like Romney’s chance in Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia, with Iowa and Colorado going to the President Obama. That puts Romney’s total at 276....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You don’t mention Clinton in ‘92 and ‘96. Prior to 1888 there were several, most notably Lincoln.
Clinton had a plurality in the popular vote both those years, i.e., he led in the popular vote, and did so by a comfortable seven points, IIRC.
You misread my post. First of all, I was referring to to essentially two-candidate races (third party candidates not strong enough to have any impact). Secondly, I didn't say that the winner of the popular vote needed an absolute majority, only that he have a 2 point or more margin in the popular vote to be virtually certain of winning the Electoral College.
As for Lincoln, he won four-man race in 1860 and he also won a strong plurality of the popular vote, though not a majority. His three opponents divided the opposition vote quite evenly.
Oh. Late at night. Brain at less than full performance. Sorry.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
Nice analysis!!!
Exactly. Which is why I’m not overly concerned about states polls right now.
After going Republican in 28 of the previous 33 Presidential Elections, Iowa has gone to the Democrat in 5 of the last 6 (and GWB's '04 victory was only 50%-49%).
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.