Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 28th, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog, Election Referee
Election Referee has developed an interactive point-and-click electoral vote calculator map to let you easily explore election scenarios. You can see that many states are currently “toss-up” swing battleground states. This map calculator also shows the electoral map for the last five elections. You can easily see which states have consistently voted as Democratic blue states and which have been Republican red states.
One interesting scenario: click on 2004, click on Obama, and then click on Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada. This results in a 269-269 tie between John McCain and Barack Obama. Although unlikely, this scenario would force a vote of the U.S. House of Representatives to decide the next president.
You can embed this electoral vote calculator map into your own website or blog. Simply copy the “Embed” code above and paste it into your web page or blog post code.
For more in-depth analysis tools for the 2008 presidential election, visit these excellent resources:
Also, read our article U.S. Presidential Election Rules and the Electoral Map. This includes many interesting details and some important history with good reference links.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 25th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Comic Relief, Talk Radio, Mainstream Media, John McCain, Blog
The 2008 general election battle between John McCain and Barack Obama is starting to take shape. This election is a critically important referendum on the future direction of the United States. We have very serious decisions to make about both our bad economy and problematic foreign policy, including the Iraq War.
Meanwhile, much of mainstream media and talk radio focus on unfounded, meaningless, and downright stupid attacks on candidate spouses Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. I cannot possibly find a better way to address this than to include some comic relief with this video from The Daily Show’s John Stewart:
I hope that this video is final word on candidate spouse controversies. This election should be about the policies and character of the candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. The attacks against both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama are ridiculous and frustrating distractions from important issues. People perpetuating these attacks are shameless.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 21st, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
Reference: see Wikipedia’s article - Electoral College (United States) for more information.
The rules for the election of the President of the United States are quite simple and clear. Unlike the rules of political parties, these general election rules are laws based on the U.S. Constitution and Amendments.
The Electoral College has 538 Electoral Votes:
The President is NOT elected by the popular vote, but rather by the electoral votes of the “electoral college”.
All fifty states plus Washington, D.C. have at least three electoral votes. The total number of electoral votes is 538. This is known as the “electoral college”. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes, which is the “magic number” of 270. (538 divided by 2 equals 269, and 269 plus 1 equals 270).
The presidential election focus between now and November 4th is on analyzing the electoral map and attaining this number.
Below is the electoral map of the 2004 Presidential Election:
(See our Free 2008 Presidential Electoral Vote Calculator Map. This includes a point-and-click interactive map that enables you to explore election scenarios. The map shows the 2008 red, blue, and toss-up states based on recent polls. You can also quickly see the electoral map results of the last five presidential elections.)
The number of electoral votes for each state is based on adding the number of U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of U.S. Representatives, which varies according to population (each state has at least one Representative, and California has the most with 53). For example, Missouri has two U.S. Senators and nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives, so Missouri has a total of 11 electoral votes. Washington, D.C. gets 3 electoral votes based on the Twenty-third Amendment adopted in 1961.
Winner-Take-All vs. Maine and Nebraska Exceptions:
Each state legislature determines the rules for how the electoral votes of the state are awarded to candidates. All the states and Washington, D.C. have a “winner-take-all” system, except for Maine and Nebraska. Under “winner-take-all”, the candidate who gets the most votes (the “popular vote”) in the state wins all of the electoral votes of the state.
Maine and Nebraska award the electoral votes based on each congressional district. Maine has four congressional districts and Nebraska has five. The candidate who wins the most votes in a congressional district gets the one electoral vote for that district. Therefore, Maine and Nebraska could split their electoral votes among the candidates, but this has never actually happened.
What if no candidate wins the majority of electoral votes?
If no candidates wins the majority of electoral votes, the U.S. House of Representatives votes on who will be the next President. This can happen and did happen in 1824.
There is an important difference between who wins the most votes and a “majority”. A majority is 50% plus one. Sometimes a candidate wins the most votes but does not win a majority, especially when more than two parties have strong candidates. This is called a “plurality”, not a “majority”.
In the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes, but won only a plurality, not a majority. Jackson also won the popular vote (which never officially matters). The decision went to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the House elected President John Quincy Adams. This was one of the most controversial elections in U.S. history and led to the emergency of the Democratic Party as the first “modern” political party in the U.S. In 1828 Andrew Jackson won the presidency with a majority of electoral votes.
The presidential elections of 1824, 1876, and 2000 were especially controversial and well worth studying.
The Electoral College must Certify the Election
Technically, the Electoral College is comprised of 538 people who are designated officials representing the electoral votes from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. These 538 representatives must officially certify the election. They are “expected” to vote in accordance with the electoral vote of their states (or congressional district in the cases of Maine and Nebraska). However, these 538 electors legally can vote for whomever they wish.
This electoral college body has never overturned the electoral map results, but this possibility exists. If you look at Minnesota in the map above, you will see a little circle with the number “1″. All ten of Minnesota’s electoral votes were “expected” to go to John Kerry, however, one of Minnesota’s electors voted for John Edwards instead of Kerry.
Implications of the General Election Rules: Red States vs. Blue States:
General election strategy necessarily focuses on attaining the 270 magic number. In recent presidential elections, the electoral map has been fairly static. News media have standardized the map discussion by always displaying Republican states in red and Democratic states in blue.
The map (above) of the 2004 election is essentially the “strategic starting point” for the 2008 election between John McCain and Barack Obama. Many states are considered “solidly red” or “solidly blue” (a.k.a., “safe” states). Recently, Republican candidates have won most of the Southern states and also the Western states between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Coast states. Democratic candidates have won most of the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Pacific Coast states.
General election campaign strategy focuses on trying to win the “swing states”. These may be states that recently voted for the Democratic candidate, but in other recent elections voted for the Republican. Some swing states consistently voted for one party, but only by very narrow margins. Also, some states change over time and come into “play”. Demographic changes and other internal political changes can move a state’s allegiance from one party to another. Any state that is in “play” for whatever reason is a swing state and also called a “battleground state”.
For the 2000 and 2004 elections, the following states were among the swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire. Most analysts expect these same states to be battleground states in 2008.
Barack Obama’s campaign hopes to put additional states in play. The Southwest may be changing enough for the Democrats to win at least one of these: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada. Also, Obama hopes to win at least one of these Southern states: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and maybe others. Obama could also win one or more Western states, such as South Dakota or Kansas.
John McCain’s campaign strategy involves winning most of the swing states from the last two elections and also trying to put Oregon and New Jersey into play.
Visit Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. This is a great resource and shows the electoral map of every presidential election in history and includes many details.
Quick History Lesson - the Election of 1876:
The Samuel Tilden-Rutherford Hayes election of 1876 was the ultimate political controversy with four disputed states, including Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. With no agreement on how to count the electoral votes of the disputed four states, Tilden had a plurality but not a majority. Think of the Gore vs. Bush Florida controversy in the 2000 election, then multiply it by four. The result was the infamous “Compromise of 1877″ or “Tilden-Hayes Compromise”, worked out via back-room deals. Republican Hayes was given the presidency over Democrat Tilden in exchange for a railroad in the South and Southwest. Most importantly, the Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction, thus opening the flood gates to extend Jim Crow laws denying civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 15th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
Last week the Obama campaign announced the opening of a new website: FightTheSmears.com.
The unfair and ridiculous attacks against Barack Obama are numerous and frequent. The new Obama website addresses some of the smears against Obama and directly and convincingly refutes them. FightTheSmears.com as a web-based rapid-response tactic is an interesting and significant development in the election campaign.
Political attacks come in all shapes and sizes. Of course, political smears are nothing new and I think go back to the first cave council elections in 56,742 B.C.
Often candidates directly attack their opponents in debates, official statements, and campaign commercials. This is a legitimate and above-board tactic because the candidate who is attacking must be accountable for the message. Sometimes the message is unfair, but at least it is out in the open for discussion, and the attacked candidate can choose how to respond directly to the attacker.
Barack Obama and John McCain have already engaged in some good clean “debate” on substantive issues. Both campaigns will do plenty of “spinning” to paint their opponent negatively and themselves positively. No doubt, some of their statements will be unfair and perhaps even blatantly false. But, I have some faith that both McCain and Obama want to run clean campaigns and will not tolerate smear tactics by their official surrogates.
A political smear is when people (often anonymous) create a lie about a candidate and aggressively spread the rumor. A smear campaign (focused in South Carolina) against John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries possibly impacted the contest enough to guarantee that George Bush would win the Republican nomination that year. That was an example of an effective “whisper” campaign because no one was accountable yet the disgraceful rumor spread widely.
Swift-Boating is a new verb:
During the 2004 presidential election campaign, a political group ironically named “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SWVT)” sponsored a $546,000 advertising campaign to air television commercials attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.[ref] The ads focused on undermining the reputation of Senator Kerry’s military service as a highly decorated officer and veteran of the Vietnam War. Right-wing radio talks shows picked up on the SWVT message and repeatedly perpetuated this line of attack on Kerry. Many analysts believe that John Kerry and his campaign failed to recognize the seriousness of this smear. Kerry and his campaign were slow to respond and this may have cost Kerry the election.
527 Political Groups:
SWVT was one of many 527 political groups, as described by Wikipedia:
A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Although candidate committees and political action committees are also created under Section 527, the term is generally used to refer to political organizations that are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission or by a state elections commission, and are not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs.
527s are key in recent presidential elections. They legally can (and do) pour unlimited millions of dollars into attack ad campaigns while operating as officially separate from any candidate’s campaign. 527s fly beneath the radar of campaign finance reform. Expect to hear much more about 527s as we approach the general election.
One argument is that a campaign should not respond to smears because doing so simply helps advertise the falsehood. The Obama campaign decided that it is better to respond. Barack Obama has been and will be smeared. “Swift-boating” is the spreading of the lies, but a candidate is “swift boated” only if the smear works. FightTheSmears.com helps prevent Obama from being “swift boated”.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 13th, 2008 — in Mainstream Media, Blog
News media giant Tim Russert died today from a heart attack. Russert was 58 years old.
Russert was best known as the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press” and a frequent commentator on other NBC and MSNBC news shows.
Tim Russert played an important role in this 2008 presidential campaign, including being a moderator of one of the final debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which took place in Cleveland, Ohio on February 26th, 2008. Here is the entire transcript as printed in the New York Times.
Watch this short video excerpt of perhaps Russert’s most memorable and widely quoted statement in the 2008 campaign.
Some news analysts pointed out that once Tim Russert declared that Obama would win the nomination, the race was effectively over. Russert’s opinion was perhaps the most respected in all of election news media.
News junkies will greatly miss Tim Russert. He has been an outstanding analyst and intelligent voice in television news for decades.
Russert had unparalleled insight into presidential election campaigns as demonstrated by this excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
Russert calculated possible United States Electoral College outcomes on a marker board on the air during NBC’s coverage of the 2000 presidential election and memorably summed up the outcome as dependent upon “Florida, Florida, Florida.” Russert again accurately predicted the final battleground of the presidential elections of 2004: “Ohio, Ohio, Ohio.” On the MSNBC show Tucker, Russert predicted the battleground states of the 2008 presidential election would be New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada, saying, “If Democrats can win three of those four, they can lose Ohio and Florida, and win the presidency.”
I find it unfortunate that so many people casually bash the news media. Tim Russert provided a great service to the public and he will be sorely missed.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 7th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Hillary Clinton gave an important speech today to thousands of her supporters gathered at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C.
Senator Clinton said:
“The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.”
“Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulated him on the victory he has won . . . I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.
Clinton’s speech was powerful and moving, perhaps one of the greatest concession speeches in U.S. history. I cannot recall a more important one.
Watch Hillary Clinton’s full speech:
For months many have wondered “What will Hillary Clinton Do?” Some suggested that she would not concede and would take the fight for the nomination all the way to the Democratic Party National Convention in Denver, August 25-28.
Today Clinton’s speech for Obama ended all speculation as she echoed a mantra of the Obama campaign: “Yes we can!” Clinton fulfilled an important campaign promise that she would give full support to the Democratic Party nominee once all the votes were counted.
Democrats must be ecstatic to see yet another extraordinary event in the 2008 Presidential campaign.
I am especially moved by this line from Senator Clinton’s speech:
“Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it has about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before.”
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are essential for an Obama and Democratic Party victory over Republican John McCain in November, 2008.
Some pundits suggested the Hillary Clinton’s speech today was an audition to be Barack Obama’s running mate.
Vote in Our Opinion Poll about the Obama/Clinton “Dream Ticket”.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 5th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Here is the full text of Hillary Clinton’s email to her supporters:
Subject: I want you to know
Dear John,Â
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party’s nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you — and everyone who supported me — a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I’m going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 5th, 2008 — in Libertarian Party, Bob Barr, Comic Relief, 3rd Party Politics, John McCain, Blog
Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr appeared on the Colbert Report last night. Stephen Colbert questioned Barr’s consistency with Libertarian principles.
Watch this video:
Bob Barr may have an impact on the presidential election. Some speculate that Barr will take away enough votes from John McCain in swing states to enable Barack Obama to win those states.
Vote in Our Opinion Poll about Third Party candidates!
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 4th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Today a number of Hillary Clinton’s supporters in the U.S. Congress had a conference call with Senator Clinton and urged her to end her campaign and to endorse Barack Obama. Clinton agreed with this advice, and she is expected to endorse Obama in the next few days. The plan is to have a closed meeting on Friday with her close allies and then have a public announcement on Saturday.
This development is a major step in the direction of party unity and healing for the Democrats.
Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, some of the most fanatic supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have visceral hatred for their rival Democratic Party candidate. Some staunch Hillary Clinton voters are so angry that they say they will vote for John McCain in November. Likewise, some Obama voters vehemently oppose the suggested Obama/Clinton “dream ticket” and may not even vote for Obama if Clinton is his running mate.
This level of animosity strikes me as unhealthy. If you really think either Obama or Clinton is so great, why not listen to what they are saying? Both Clinton and Obama have expressed admiration for each other and have urged their supporters to unite for the Democratic Party and its presidential nominee, who is Obama as of yesterday. Is this just a cult of personality or do the issues matter too?
People have their reasons and we have the right to vote how we want without providing reasons.
Almost all Democrats will vote for Barack Obama in November. Obama will also need many votes from independents, especially in “swing states”. Clinton voters who vote for McCain are ultimately disrespectful of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is passionate about the issues and also about her Democratic Party. “Obamaniacs” must respect Barack Obama’s choice for running mate, especially if his choice is Hillary Clinton.
“Obamaniacs” and “Clintonistas” must unite or John McCain is the next president.
The Democratic Party must do some “political triage”. Many people are already onboard the Obama train. Democrats must energize and mobilize these voters. A few people are so angry that they are hopeless. It’s best to isolate and ignore them. The Democrats must focus on winning over the group of voters that is still undecided but open to voting for Obama and the Democratic Party in 2008.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can accomplish more now that they are united than they ever could do separately.
Vote in Our Opinion Poll about the Obama/Clinton “Dream Ticket”.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 3rd, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Blog
Tonight we witnessed history as Barack Obama became the first African-American presidential nominee of a major party in the United States.
The historic and epic battle for the Democratic Party presidential nomination is over. Barack Obama finally emerged as the “presumptive” nominee of the Democrats. Today a wave of super delegates announced their support for Obama. These additional Obama delegates along with the South Dakota and Montana primary results put Obama’s numbers over the top, exceeding the necessary “magic number” of 2,118 delegates.
Barack Obama gave a rousing speech to an enthusiastic crowd of over 17,000 supporters in St. Paul, Minnesota. Watch Obama’s speech:
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Loading ...