This is the map from the McCain website's "strategy briefing":
This is pretty interesting viewing. What's tricky about it is that it at once seems to be an exercise in expectations-setting (i.e. lowering them) and an effort to reassure potential donors about McCain's electability (i.e. raising expectations). This produces a map that isn't particularly internally consistent. Arizona is described as a "Lean GOP" state while Virginia is described as "Solid GOP". Florida is described as a "Toss-Up" -- and so is Connecticut.
However, I don't know that this can entirely be dismissed as an exercise in spin, because so far McCain's travel schedule has pretty closely matched this map. For example, McCain made four campaign appearances in Florida over the past month, but none in Virginia or Indiana. He's visited both Kentucky and Tennessee in the past month, two states that might be competitive against another Democrat, but are gimmes against Barack Obama. McCain has made four appearances in California, two in Washington, and one in Oregon, none of which look like they'll be especially close.
Of course, choosing to campaign in a particular state is not purely about getting the locals to vote for you. Early in the campaign, it can also be an exercise in branding. McCain wants to set some low hurdles for himself in states like Kentucky, Tennessee and Louisiana where he should continue to maintain strong leads in the polling. He's supposed to be strong in the Western states and strong among independents, so he makes pretenses about competing in California, which is Western and has a lot of independents. But he seems to think it dangerous to concede, for instance, that Virginia is a swing state, since Virginia is a state that Republicans are supposed to win, and McCain is supposed to be an above-average Republican.
6.08.2008
Briefings, Branding, and Bravado
@ 1:11 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments
How come the numbers don't add up? I only see New Jersey as light blue, but there are 66 lean DEM electoral votes.
That's a question for Rick Davis.
Obama should counter this strategy by going after McCain's home state of Arizona. The recent polls have McCain leading by around 10 points there.
McCain is vulnerable in AZ because he has moved to the right of his normal positions in order to secure the nomination. Remember that McCain received less than 50% of the primary vote in AZ on Super Tuesday.
Arizona has a long history of being very libertarian within the Republican Party. I would be interested what the polls would say if Bob Barr was added to the choices. My guess is that McCain's lead would shrink to 6-8 points.
If McCain still won AZ in the general election, but was forced to defend it with money and on the ground resources, he would look very weak to voters in the other 49 states. This is the same strategy that Bush used on Gore to secure the southern states in 2000. Obama can use the same strategy to sweep all of the western states in play this year.
Nate - Those California appearances were probably fundraisers. McCain is doing a lot of fundraising right now and not very much actual campaigning. Check out his schedule and you'll see what I mean.
And yeah, that map is screwy. The numbers don't match the states they've colored in.
That scenario analysis is really cool. Are you saving that data? I would love to see how it changes come November. In pretty graph form.
I watched the whole plan from Rick Davis and I was underwhelmed. Also, there are key weaknesses in this strategy for resource allocation. For example, in North Carolina he shows that as a solid "red state," yet the latest PPP poll has him only up 3 points over Obama and as you note the 538 regression model fits him at just under 8 points. Very much in play, especially with the strong GOTV efforts by Obama there just last month.
The map is partly over-confident, partly under-confident? Partly spin, partly genuine projections?
Nahhh. No need to over-analyze here. The map is wrong; the McCain team hasn't done their homework; and their campaign is proceeding accordingly.
I'm guessing there are more leans democratic states that are colored as toss-up. As have been pointed out above, the numbers don't add up. Throw Oregon, Washington, Minnesota and maybe Pennsylvania into light blue and the numbers get a lot closer to adding up.
Colorado is not a tossup state.
1. Governor is popular and a Democrat.
2. State House is solidly Democrat. It will remain that way after November.
3. State Senate is Democrat. It will be after November.
4. 4/7 of US Reps are Dems. CD4 is the only district where a party change is even remotely possible. It could change from Republican to Democrat.
5. The next US Senator will likely be Mark Udall (Dem) who will beat Bob Schaffer (Repub) and replace the current Republican (Wayne Allard).
6. The voter registration advantage is shifting away from the Repubs. http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1786
In short, Obama will beat McCain in Colorado.
Dave...you are dead on with your analysis of CO. Unless Obama totally screws up in the GE, Colorado is pretty much in the bag.
I don't see a relistic scenario where Obama can lose if he wins 2 out of 3 between OH, PA, and MI along with winning in CO, NM, and NV.
If ME and WA count as tossups, we've got this in the bag.
Is this internal polling? When they showed the regional breakdown, and it had McCain at 49% in the Pacific Northwest, I almost spat out my drink. Maybe that explains why he made an "eco-tour" up here. I don't buy it though, not for one instant.
I like how they assume that all money raised by the Republican National Committee will be spent on McCain and not on any Senate or Congressional seats.
If that was the case the Democratic Senate and Congressional committees would have $82,839,394 to spend on the coming Senate and Congressional elections, whereas the Republicans would have $26,104,610.
Actually the map only have 537 electoral votes.
I wouldn't label this a branding exercise unless his map gets picked up untouched by the media. And that would just be sad, because the numbers don't even add up.
I definitely think they are trying to appear confident (more so than they really are) by showing states like Virginia as solid red. It's got to be about fundraising.
I tried to assign leaning states to Obama and McCain based on the numbers on the map (75 Toss-ups). The most plausible I could figure out was NJ, CT, ME, RI, PA, MN and NM for Obama, FL, WI, NV, MO and the pink ones for McCain.
This is not how I read this map after listening to the presentation. I think the indication was that Red/Blue states are states that one candidate has already taken off the map, and the Pink/Pastelblue states are states that the campaign thinks will be taken off the map over the course of the campaign.
This reading makes the map make slightly more sense and makes it a lot more interesting. McCain expects that not only are Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana not battleground states, they won't become battleground states. They expect (probably correctly) that McCain's home state and the Appalachian states will be effectively taken off the map for Republicans, and only Jersey will be co-opted by the Democrats. The gray states aren't where there's currently a battle, but where they see a battle in, say, October. The fact that they expect Oregon to be a battleground is flabbergasting, but whatever. I think they took a "traditional battleground map from 2004" and didn't consider that both Obama and McCain can change the "safe" states, not just the leaning/tossup states.
On the other hand, the numbers seem completely disconnected from the map - I think they represent some other concept (like current polling).
And isn't it strange to put this much strategy just out there on the web? Do they not realize that there are Democrats on the web too, or did they fall for the classic "if we don't link to this no one can find it" fallacy?
I would correct the map to say the folloing...
Solid Dem: WA, MN, NJ, CT
Lean Dem: OR, NM, CO, IA, WI, PA, ME
Toss UP: NV, MI, OH, NH
Lean Rep: MT, ND, MO, VA, NC, FL
The rest of the map seems to be accurate for the most part. McCain is dreaming if he really believes the analysis of his advisors.
I am trying to decide if this is McC camp spin or if they are just incredibly stupid. So far I have been taken aback by the number of just plain dumb things camp McC has done (i.e. trying to give the lime-jello-salad speech on the same night Obama was giving his 'I won' speech) and this seems like another one. The 'lean GOP' states look like they would be the lean states if Clinton won the nomination . Are they working off an old map? Given the shear number of amazingly stupid things he has done over the last few weeks, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. I can only hope for another 5 months of this stuff.
It's a bit of a head-scratcher.
Do they seriously believe they've got a shot in WA, MN, MA, ME or RI?
I mean, Minnesota hasn't vote for a Republican President in my lifetime. Starting now doesn't seem likely.
Bill B. to all. Has anybody figured out that race is going to be an issue in this election no matter how hard the Democrats wish it away. Maybe Rick Davis is paying attention to the polls that said, no matter which party they represented, many wouldn't vote for a black. The question than becomes how many blacks wouldn't vote for a white, if they had a choice. Add to this the number of blacks and whites who said race was an issue they would be using in making their decision. This is clearly a racial issue not a partisan issue. Nate, you are the numbers guy, put together a graph that takes this into consideration. You have the poll numbers so it shouldn't be that hard.I won't blame you if you don't, but you are a numbers guy, how can you just ignore numbers at 7% and above when many of the tossup states went for less than 7% in the last election? Does any one truly believe that if McCain wins the election Democrats won't blame Obamas loss on racism? I am waiting to see the red and blue states than, and am betting they will come closer to the map Rick Davis has on the web site.
This is not a strategy session; it's a pep talk.
There are three possible explanations for this talk:
1) Davis is trying to rally the troops (most likely).
2) Davis is just engaging in some self-promotion (bad sign for McCain.)
3) Davis is more adept at spin than honest analysis, and he is sticking to his strengths (McCain is toast.)
An addendum to my 2:07 post:
Those of you who have not seen the whole presentation should watch it. Davis justifies the "solid GOP" states by claiming that they are "historically Republican."
It's a neat way to avoid discussing these states in the context of 2008, but it's so intellectually dishonest that I'm fairly sure he was deliberately trying to hide the truth. Coupled with other clearly misleading segments in the presentation, it's a good bet that Davis knows this is BS.
The map colors are WRONG WRONG WRONG. I added up the states colored Solid GOP, and they do add up to 153.
But the only states colored Lean GOP are AZ LA AR TN KY WV. This adds up to 49 EVs NOT 102.
What's more PA, FL, OH, and MI are colored tossup. But these alone add up to 85, and the total of all the ones colored tossup are MUCH MORE than 74.
Like another poster pointed out only New Jersey is colored Lean Dem. But they have 63 EVs leaning dem.
This is either a silly mistake or a deliberate attempt by the McCain campaign to mislead his fundraisers.
I was originally concerned once I saw the solid GOP and lean GOP states added up to 255 and couldn't find any of those states I felt confident about except VA. But then I realized *their math is way wrong* Based on the map, they *actually show*
solid GOP: 153
lean GOP: 49 (not 102)
That's a total of 202 compared to the 161.
Their map has 175 in tossup states, even though underneath it says 74.
Hopefully the McCain campaign will use this level of math skill going forward.
>>And isn't it strange to put this much strategy just out there on the web? Do they not realize that there are Democrats on the web too, or did they fall for the classic "if we don't link to this no one can find it" fallacy?<<
No, it is not strange at all - realize they put this out for a REASON. Rather than try and analyze the data for accuracy, you should ask yourself WHY they put out this information in the first place.
It's all spin, spin, spin.
lol, this is an insult to us stat buffs,I don't know to laugh or be disgusted, how come they have so many democrat states as toss-ups? also, the numbers don't add up for repub leaning states ...
LOL! This map is laughable, if Arizona a state that Bush won by 11 points and which is McCain's home state only "leans GOP" then McCain is in big big trouble. Needless to say this is an exercise in spin.
The map is BS.
As for his recent campaign stops, they serve two important purposes: raise funds for later when McCain needs to really campaign in other states and allow McCain to clain he truly campaigned in all fifty states. You can tell which states he is using like an ATM by him only visiting them now that the dems wrapped up their primary and later after each of the conventions.
Don't want to repost the whole thing, but here are some bullet points from Custos:
- Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and Left Coast- top issue is Iraq
Rest of the country- top issue is the economy.
- Republicans 87-8, Independents even, Democrats 80-13. Since there are more Democrats than Republicans, I'm pretty sure they're admitting that McCain is getting creamed in their internal polling here.
- They don't quite drop the A-bomb, as in Appalachia, but they come close. Landslide Clinton counties in PA and OH = landslide McCain counties.
-The ideological maps don't make sense. Sure, if the 40% of moderates are the 40% saying McCain is a moderate, that's great. But they're not- the conservatives are saying he's a moderate, and a big chunk of the moderates are saying he's a conservative.
-it's okay that McCain isn't raising as much because he's also spending less- yes, that would be why raising less money is bad.
the map they're using looks like something out of political strategy from the 1990's ! could the McCain campaign be that clueless ?
Watch the presentation. It's clear to me that this is a combination pep rally/fund raiser appeal. It seemed somewhat overoptimistic, IMHO.
One more thing. The presentation describes how McCain is stronger than expected in Connecticut, cherry picking one favorable poll to cite. It then attributes this surprising strength to the association with Lieberman! I thought Lieberman is not particularly popular in CT.
The geography miscues on this map have pretty much all been pointed out. Putting on my electoral Geography hat bad maps equal either lack of knowledge, lack of skills or lack of candor- others will be the judge of this. Speaking as a California Geographer McC Campaign is clearly out of touch. I do not know the mood of Latinos nationally but in CA McC has lost all credibility by backtracking on Immigration. CA Republicans have a bad reputation with Latinos on this issue - probably why Ca is so solidly Blue after 1994. Arnold is not all that popular as Gov and will be no help. There will be no silent majority of Marriage voters that will come
out to save Reps and turn CA Red. The Marriage Prop will be close put will bring no new voters. CA
does have a lot of Decline to State voters but most are Left of Center and the Conservatives are moving away from the Reps not toward them. Dem registration has been up since 2006 as have DTS
but Reps have lost significantly.
Another related point is that most of the growth in Nevada comes from exCa people. Up until the last few years it has been a conservative flow- now it is more progressives and they are leaving the Bay Area for Reno(&Oregon) changing those voter preferences and trends. Washoe went strong for Obama in Jan 08 and Kerry came close in 2004. If
Obama carries Clark Co big as Dems usually do and
Washoe by any amount than McC is toast in NV.
This pitch may be the natural progression of detaching Republican politicians and donors even more from the reality-based community. This mythical analysis does have the same fantastical quality as an energy lobbyist's pitch that the US can end its reliance on MIddle Eastern oil by opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Preserve to drilling for oil.
The best result of McCain's lobbyist-led flight even further from the reality-based community is that - statistically - it might reduce the probability of a Bush III (McBush) term to virtually zero.
I almost wonder if he accidently got the "leans" and "safe" reversed. And He's delusional if he thinks WA, MN, are "tossups".
Also, Joe won't help you in CT. Sorry McCain.
IMHO this map was deliberately constructed for spin purposes.
Notice that the solid-Dem states are colored almost the same hue as the black background, which makes them almost invisible when they are positioned along a coastline or the US/Canada borderline (except for the black hole where IL used to be which stands out like a sore thumb).
The visual weight that one gets from using this color scheme provides a very misleading sense of the Dem vs. GOP strength even if the underlying poll data was honest.
Somebody was using an anti-Edward Tufte approach to visual communication in coloring this graph, probably with intent to mislead the audience.
Anonymous: "I don't see a realistic scenario where Obama can lose if he wins 2 out of 3 between OH, PA, and MI along with winning in CO, NM, and NV."
Obama can easily lose if he gets MI and PA, but loses OH.
Don't count on NM or NV yet, either. NV went red in 2004, and Republican dirty tricks pushed NM red too. Maybe in a month or two the polls there will improve, but until then they should be regarded as iffy.
PA on the other hand is almost a gimme for the Dems. Dem governor, Dem Senators, and Philadelphia.
Given that, I'd like to see Nate do some more analysis on the OH, MI, VA triptych (maybe adding NH). I suspect they are more likely to be the relevant swingstates in the east this election. In the west, it looks like CO, NM, and NV are the most relevant.
Sorry, Dave, I think you're probably right about CO swinging strongly Dem this year, but I can't get optimistic about it yet - not until we see stronger or more consistent numbers there - given the fact that CO went R in nine of the last ten presidential elections.
.
Exhausted Pennsylvanian: "The fact that they expect Oregon to be a battleground is flabbergasting, but whatever."
First, hail and well-met fellow traveller. I'm in NY now, but grew up in NE PA.
Second, Oregon was very close in 2000 and 2004. So, to the R POV, a win there is not as unlikely as we see it.
Frankly, I find it flabbergasting that they think *Minnesota* will be a battleground state. They've gone D in 9 of the last 10 elections, more than any other state.
Maybe they expect Pawlenty to help with the dirty tricks. Or they plan on giving him the VP slot. Either way, Obama should keep an eye on the voting machines there. The R's may be planning something for MN, possibly a shortage of voting machines in the minority urban areas.
I can't think of any other plausible reason why they would think they have anywhere near a shot in MN.
.
Newfapalooza: "The 'lean GOP' states look like they would be the lean states if Clinton won the nomination."
Unlikely. Davis's map has Arkansas as a Lean R state. That would be a heavy Lean D if Clinton were the nominee.
I think the whole map is representative of 'old' battle strategizing. For instance, it looks like they can't possibly even conceive of a universe where VA and Indiana could be competitive.
It also looks conceived as a 50% + 1 strategy. They don't seem to be taking Obama's and Dean's 50 State Strategy very seriously.
That's good for the Dems.
.
Don: "Their map has 175 in tossup states, even though underneath it says 74."
It's a weird map. As someone else noted above, the allocated votes only add up to 537. And the shortchanged vote is always in the Dem side of the analysis.
I suspect Davis thinks DC only has 2 EV's rather than three.
Whatever. His math skills suck. Either that, or Davis is trying to lower expectations of his competency.
If the latter, he's done a flawless job.
.
Custos: "Republicans 87-8, Independents even, Democrats 80-13. Since there are more Democrats than Republicans, I'm pretty sure they're admitting that McCain is getting creamed in their internal polling here."
Shh. They're trying to obscure that.
.
JGabriel: "Obama can easily lose if he gets MI and PA, but loses OH"
Obama could lose if he ended up with an electoral map that is basically just like Kerry's was in 2004. However, I think it is fairly unlikely. Kerry had to work his tail off to keep WA, OR, MN, WI, MI, PA, and NH in the Dem column. He barely lost OH, IA, and NM, but only OH would have given him the victory anyway.
Obama has a much broader map to work with than Kerry did. NH, WI, and MI are the only Kerry states that Obama has to really campaign in at all.
Jon,
I largely agree with your analysis. However, that's not showing up in Nate's analyses yet.
Anyway, I've been gaming out a lot of close race scenarios using the interactive electoral map at 270to win.com.
What I'm seeing in those maps is that if Obama wins Ohio or VA, then he has a pretty easy victory, otherwise, it becomes uncomfortably reliant on NH, IA, MI, CO, NV and NM.
Likewise, if Obama loses MI, or especially PA (the latter of which I consider unlikely), then he'll have a difficult path to winning; i.e, he'd pretty much need MT, ND, and VA.
Nate's analyses are showing a similiar pattern, but with greater emphasis on PA than VA. No doubt he's right, but - and here my biases are showing - I think PA is much less likely to flip R than VA is to flip D. Thus I'm seeing VA as the more important swing state to analyze, even though it represents fewer EV's than PA.
No doubt a Republican would feel just as confident about VA as I do about Pennsylvania, but given that Dems now control the governor's office and a Senate seat in VA - and look set to pick up the other Senate seat and several House seats there this autumn - the R's would be foolish to count on a McCain win in VA come November.
.
JGabriel: "What I'm seeing in those maps is that if Obama wins Ohio or VA, then he has a pretty easy victory, otherwise, it becomes uncomfortably reliant on NH, IA, MI, CO, NV and NM."
Your analysis is spot on here. I have done the same analysis with various combinations on 270towin.com.
If McCain can pull off a victory in MI somehow, then Obama is probably toast. The only hope at that point would be a miracle in VA where the demographics are less favorable than MI or a combination of CO and NH which is very dicey in a close election.
I really hope that Obama can put Florida in play over the next few months. Having a realistic chance at a win there with 27 EV really opens up a lot of possibilities. Right now Obama is a little too reliant on the upper midwest and southwest in my view.
JGabriel: "PA on the other hand is almost a gimme for the Dems. Dem governor, Dem Senators..."
Ouf, I'm a doofus. How could I forget Spector? That should be 'Senator' not 'Senators'.
Anyway, it doesn't really change my opinion on PA being highly likely to go Dem, but I just wanted to correct the error before someone else pointed it out.
.
Jon: "Right now Obama is a little too reliant on the upper midwest and southwest in my view.
I agree, with the caveat that that's not Obama's fault.
That's just the way the swing states swing this year.
Earlier you suggested that NH, WI, and MI are the only states Obama needs to campaign in. I'm afraid he needs to throw a much wider net:
SouthWest: NV, CO, NM
Northeast: NH, PA
North Central: OH, MI, WI, IA, MO.
South: VA
And to provide a margin of error: IN, ND, MT, NC, FL, and TX.
Florida is probably not in the cards; its state leadership is, I suspect, too corrupt and too likely to rig the results. That said, it's too big to ignore. As is Texas.
Outside of that, I don't really think Obama has much of a chance in the South or Appalachia, but there's a huge symbolic importance to campaigning in those regions anyway. The Appalachian region, because it's an opportunity to ameliorate some of the persistent racial antipathy in that region, and in the deep south because it's symbolically important for the first viable African-American candidate to visit and campaign in the region with the highest African-American populations.
Finally, add in his family roots in Kansas, and it makes sense to campaign in the Plains states too.
Add it all together, and you're not far shy of a 50 State Strategy. It's kind of interesting, and fortuitous, how Obama's candidacy plays into a strategy that Dean was already building at the DNC, or vice versa.
Quite the historical confluence...
.
Actually, JGabriel, Jon said that NH, WI and MI are the only *Kerry* states that Obama needs to campaign in. Judging by your list you largely agree with him, adding only PA. The point was that not needing to shore up the blue states will enable Obama to devote resources to all those other states you mention that went red last time.
Is that an actual total from McCain's website?
If so, what a joke. It's inaccurate on two levels. Pathetic, actually.
1. There are 538 electoral votes, not 537.
53 + 102 = 255 (safe/lean GOP)
255 + 74 (toss ups) = 329
329 + 66 (lean Dem) = 395
395 + 142 (solid Dem) = 537.
That's right folks, McCain can't add. Remind me, what's the name of this site and why?
But wait, its worse.
2. McCain can add his own base states.
Again, taking that picture as the truth, we have the following states in each category.
A. Solid GOP. McCain math = 153 (via McLame) 18 states.
We'll go East to West, with the total in parenthesis for each new state.
VA-13 + NC-15(28) + SC-8(36) + GA-15(51) + AL-9(60) + MS-6(66) + IN-11(77) + TX-34(111) + OK-7(118) + KS-6(124) + NE-5(129) + SD-3(132) + ND-3(135) + MT-3(138) + WY-3(141) + ID-4(145) + UT-5(150) + AK-3(153).
So far, so good. But wait.
B. Lean GOP. McCain can't add these.
McCain math = 102 EV's. 6 States.
Map Reality = 49 EV's. 6 States.
Difference = +53 EV's.
WTF? Not even close. Again, going by the map.
AZ-10 (home state not solid?) + LA-9(19) + AR-6(25) + TN-11(36) + KY-8(44) + WV-5(49).
That's it. NO more red on the map.
If one adds the numbers (153 + 102) one draws the conclusion that McLame is almost to the magic number of 270, being just 15 EV's short. Win FL and its over. Or MI. Or MO + NH. Lots of ways to get to 270.
But in reality, he's 53 votes short. It's 153 + 49 = 202. He's still 68 short, and that's counting VA and NC as in the bag. Even with FL and MO (27 + 11 = 38), he's still 30 short. Even with OH + NV + NH he's at 269 (assuming ME and NE go all for one). Not quite so rosy.
So where did McAdd go wrong?
C. Toss Up states.
McCain Math = 74 EVs, 16 States.
Map Reality = 175 EVs, 16 States.
Difference = -101 EVs.
Net Differnce = -48 EV's.
FL-27 + ME-4(31) + NH-4(35) + CT-7(42) + PA-21(63) + OH-20(83) + MI-17(100) + WI-10(110) + MN-10(120) + IA-7(127) + MO-(138) + CO-9(147) + NM-5(152) + NV-5(157) + WA-11(168) + OR-7(175).
In reality, FL, MO, NV, and maybe NH lean McCain, for 47 more. McCain needs 20 for a tie and 21 for a win (OH or PA).
But you'll notice, the math still doesn't add up, as the Lean GOP was off by 53 and the Toss up was off by 101. So there's more McCain math to go.
D. Lean Dem.
McCain Math = 66 EVs.
Map Math = 15 EVs. 1 state.
Difference = +51 EV's.
Net Diference = + 3 EV's.
The only light blue I see is NJ.
NJ has 15 EV's. McCain's map has there being 66. Off by 51. But the Net still doesn't total, (+3 EVs).
If one throws DE-3 in here or in Toss-up, it balances out. Truthfully, I cannot tell from the map.
E. Solid Dem.
McCain Math = 142 EV's. 8 States + DC.
Map Math = 143 EVs. 8 + DC
There are on the money here i terms of Net, but still off by one in adding the states up. I don't know which one the messed up. Here's the breakdown.
CA-55 + HI-4(59) + IL-21(80) + IL-21(80) + NY-31(111) + VT-3(114) + MA-12(126) + RI-4(130) + MD-10(140) + DC-3(143).
They are off by one.
Note: The actual presentation gets the EVs correct if you watch it all the way.
It says:
8 States + DC Solid Dem = 143 EVs.
17 States Solid GOP = 153 EVs.
24 States Battleground = 242 EVs.
143 + 153 + 242 = 538.
So the presentation is better, props to Mr. Rick Davis who put it together.
Only one problem Ricky, 8 + 17 + 24 = 49 States.
Yes the same party that once calculated terror stats based on an 10 month year, now gives you our 49 state union and more bad math.
(For the record, there are 18 solid GOP states depicted on the presentation, but they only state 17).
Pathetic.
Oliver: "Actually, JGabriel, Jon said that NH, WI and MI are the only *Kerry* states that Obama needs to campaign in.
You're right, Oliver. Somehow I missed/forgot that he made that distinction. Thanks for the correction.
.
Searching for Pericles: "The only light blue I see is NJ."
It's not clear from the map, but, if you listen to the audio, Davis is also including Delaware in the light blue count.
So that add 3 EV's to the McCain/Davis "Leans Dem" total, for what it's worth.
.
JGabriel: "Earlier you suggested that NH, WI, and MI are the only states Obama needs to campaign in. I'm afraid he needs to throw a much wider net"
I agree that he needs to cast a wide net in order to win. Obama will most likely have more money than McCain to spend, so he has a huge advantage in that respect.
Your wide net seems to be very accurate with the exception of Texas. I have lived in Texas before for several years and I just don't see any way as this time for TX to turn blue. It would take a huge wave of Latino, African-American, and big city votes to swing the state to Obama. If Obama does win TX, then the map for the Dems will look a lot like the map did for Reagan in 1984 with an overall EV count of 450+ for Obama.
However, there can be a danger of casting too wide of a net for the 50 state strategy. There needs to be a balance of shoring up the lean Dem states and trying to pick off red states with the resources available. If Dems don't allocate properly, then they run the risk of McCain picking off the larger states of MI, OH, and VA even though the Dems may win a lot of the smaller states.
My favorite part of this: that McCain apparently considers Joe Lieberman an asset in CT (where, if memory serves, a bit more than half of the voters are now saying that they'd rather have Lamont).
Speaking of money. I thought it was interesting in the presentation that they combined RNC + McCain April fund raising & the DNC + Obama April fund raising but totally ignored the Clinton fundraising. Are they assuming that all of the Democrats who gave to Hillary are simply going to vanish into thin air?
LOL. Add in Hillary's total for April & the picture completely changes. The DNC is down in fundraising due in a large part to the extended primary. Hopefully that will get corrected shortly.
But their whole spin just made me laugh.
I agree that the numbers in the legend don't add up right. Go here for your own EV calculator. http://www.270towin.com/
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
Post a Comment