Thursday, July 24, 2008

Zogby: Obama ahead in Electoral votes

McCain's gonna meet with the Dalai Lama while Obama's wowed 'em in Berlin.

Despite what Limbaugh et al say about the lanky, hoop-shootin' African-American candidate, the guy gives a pretty good speech.

Can't wait to see how McCain's photo-op with The Dalai turns out Friday in Aspen. Will he be festooned with flowers?

Anyhow, pollster John Zogby says Obama's beating McCain in the Electoral College by a 273-to-146 count, with 119 votes too close to call. (270 are needed to win.)

Says Zogby:

"For the time being, Obama maintains the edge and has the strength of a majority of electoral votes. His triumphant foreign trip allows him to continue to define this race. But too many of these states are close and a sizable number are undecided or choosing a third party candidate. So there is a lot of fluidity."


Here's what the Z-Man says about some individual states (purple=undecided; red=McCain; blue=Obama) ....

Arkansas - changes from purple to red:

"It may look like a toss-up, but the conservative base is probably too solid for Obama to crack."

Arizona - changes from purple to red:

"The state may be changing, but it is still home turf for McCain. Look for conservatives to come back to McCain."

Florida - changes from red to purple:

"Seniors and whites provide McCain a cushion over Obama. However, no one should count votes here too soon."

South Dakota - changes from red to purple:

"A tough call here, so we'll shade it purple for now."

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The real issue is not how well 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 vote -- 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).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been 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 20 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 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

susan

JD Allen said...

That is not a shortcoming, lady. That is there so that states can have more nearly equal representation even though they are not on the east coast or west coast.

It was designed that way because this once upon a time was the United STATES of America, and the federal government was not all powerful.

But you probably wouldn't know nothing 'bout that, being so much smarter than all the guys that designed the Constitution, and all. After all, why pay any attention to those old guys?