[justiceseeker93]

It's interesting to talk about the electoral map, and we all like to do so. But in an essentially two-candidate national presidential race, if you win the popular vote by two percentage points or more, you have almost a lock on the electoral vote. In other words, the electoral vote becomes dicey only when the candidates are within a couple of points of each other nationally.

If you look at all the presidential elections since 1888, only in one race did a candidate win the electoral vote without gaining a plurality of the popular vote (if we include fraud): that, of course would be George W. Bush vs. Al Gore in 2000, who trailed in the popular vote by a mere half a percentage point.

In the current race, although we still have more than five months until the election, the educated guess is that Romney will beat Obama by more than a couple of points nationally. So, should that occur, Jennifer Rubin need not waste her time figuring out how Romney will win the Electoral College. It will almost surely follow by the rules of probability and statistics.

[Clintonfatigued]

“So, should that occur, Jennifer Rubin need not waste her time figuring out how Romney will win the Electoral College. It will almost surely follow by the rules of probability and statistics.”

True, but if Obama is defeated for reelection, we want the electoral vote victory to be as wide as possible, so that a mandate can be claimed.

[Eleutheria5]

You don’t mention Clinton in ‘92 and ‘96. Prior to 1888 there were several, most notably Lincoln.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks justiceseeker93.

[GOPsterinMA]

Nice analysis!!!

[Impy]

Exactly. Which is why I’m not overly concerned about states polls right now.