CQ Says Only Four States Would Swing

I’m a former National Journal Group writer, so I never give those turkeys at CQ too much credit, but their analysis of battleground states is worth a look:

“In 2004, Kerry won Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire for a total of 69 electoral votes. Bush won Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and New Mexico for 46 electoral votes.

“Looking now at polls of these same states, Obama leads McCain in Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa which have a total of 64 electoral votes. McCain leads in Nevada, Ohio, Michigan and New Hampshire which have a total of 46 electoral votes. This time around, the latest poll shows New Mexico as a toss-up.”

In this made that I made, the lighter shades represent states that CQ predicts are likely to flip and the yellow means up for grabs.

CQPolitics.com’s Electoral Map

CQ\'s Electoral Map

Advertisements

6 responses to “CQ Says Only Four States Would Swing

  1. Can someone please tell me why the two states, Ohio & Michigan, that have suffered the most by industrial working class jobs being lost and shipped overseas are increasingly on board with the Party that has drastically fallen away from fiscal conservatism?

    Nostalgia of decades past when Republicans actually stood for small government and fiscal conservancy can only be claimed for so long, but let’s wake up and look around your immediate surroundings people.

    “God & Guns” Ideology is winning out over “Jobs & Food”Reality! This is the tragedy of modern decisive “buzz word” politics.

  2. Don’t hold your breath about NM being a swing state. The only reason it swung to GORE by something less than 500 votes in 2000 was because of a massive blizzard in Lincoln County. We had a minimum of 24 inches of snow on election eve. Some 3000 – 4000 Republicans were unable to get to their precincts to vote. It would have swung the election the other way. Lincoln County is strongly GOP.

    SJR
    The Pink Flamingo

  3. If Obama loses the union-heartland of Michigan, it will be a sign of trouble far beyond 2008. Even in a year where Democrats should be a shoe-in, they’re finding it to be a close-run thing after all. Are they losing the moderate union/blue collar voters in their rush to embrace the Left? That’s a demographic they cannot afford to lose long term.

    At this point, we are on the verge of the UK’s three-party system… the Tories behind McCain, Labour behind Hillary, and Liberal Democrats behind Obama.

  4. the CQ “analysis” selectively ignores polls from Ohio and NH showing Obama ahead in those states. They include SUSA polls for PA, OR, WI, IA, MI and NM, but ignore one from Ohio from the same time periodwith Obama up by 9.
    They include Rasmussen polls from MN, OR, WI, CO, IA, NV, OH and MI, but ignore one from NH with Obama up by 5, and one from NM with Obama up by 9 (while including a much older poll from NH which is less favorable to Obama). It seems like CQ simply wanted to have the storyline read a certain way, ie. “Obama performs as well as Kerry” ignoring all the polling evidence that shows Obama is doing significantly better than Kerry at this point.

    http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002886157

  5. The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.

    Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

    The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  6. Wait, it’s been enacted into law already in those four states? So if McCain ekes out a popular vote win, are MD, IL, NJ, and HI really going to give their electoral votes to him?

    Personally, I like the electoral college. LA and NYC already dictate the direction pop culture goes in (with dismal results at best). Why should we give them control of our political futures as well?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s