The 2012 Presidental Election (Electoral College Only)

[AndyLee]

I was visiting a site

http://www.270towin.com/

And they have a USA Electoral College map you can play aroudn with.

President Obama seems so far ahead, I can't work of any way for Mitt Romney to win it.

As a fun exercise I thought it would be interesting to do a scenereo where you could get Mitt Romney enough states to get to 270.

I don't care who you're actually in favor of, I just thought it'd be cool to kind of present a REALISTIC scenerio where he could win

Thanks

[Terr]

Originally Posted by AndyLee

I don't care who you're actually in favor of, I just thought it'd be cool to kind of present a REALISTIC scenerio where he could win

Sure. Start with their map. Then have Romney take FL, NC, PA and OH. VA and IA can be topping on the cake. Quite realistic.

[Gangster Octopus]

While there are scenarios that are reasonable for Romney, the truth is he has a far narrowed window than Obama.

[iiandyiiii]

I don't think there's much of a chance Romney gets PA- PA hasn't gone R since '88.

I feel pretty confident that Obama will get 297 or more electoral votes: PA, OH, VA, CO, NH, WI (Dukakis won WI!!), and NV are pretty solid for him, and I think he might get IA too.

[BrainGlutton]

Anyone know the source of this map or what or who is "270towin.com"? I ask because when I click the link, first thing I see, at the top of the page, is a Newsmax ad saying, "Will this video cost Obama the election?" And I know what Newsmax is.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Terr

Sure. Start with their map. Then have Romney take FL, NC, PA and OH. VA and IA can be topping on the cake. Quite realistic.

I am reminded of the tale of the quarterback, the gymnast, and the economist stranded on a desert island. Searching for food, they came across a coconut tree. The quarterback slammed into the tree truck, attempting to shake some coconuts loose, without success. The gymnast tried to climb the smooth branchless trunk, also without success.

The economist pondered the situation, and finally said, "Assuming that there's a ladder on this island...".

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Anyone know the source of this map or what or who is "270towin.com"? I ask because when I click the link, first thing I see, at the top of the page, is a Newsmax ad saying, "Will this video cost Obama the election?" And I know what Newsmax is.

No idea were 270towin is from, but RealClearPolitics has a somewhat similar map. It lists FL, NC, OH, VA and IA as tossers, and PA leaning Obama. Clicking the make your own map link and giving those states to Romney yields 271 electoral votes for him.

[Jas09]

This is the most plausible route to victory IMO: http://www.270towin.com/2012_electio....php?mapid=lBe

Basically 2008 with IN, VA, NC, OH, FL, and NH swapped. I find it almost impossible to conceive of a situation in which Romney wins PA but not VA. And he basically can't win without three out of four of VA, OH, FL, and PA.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Interesting. IMHO, Pennsylvania will go for Obama, but even with this he needs to win either Florida or Ohio or I don't think he can pull it out. If he wins 2 of these 3, I believe he will take the election, if not, I don't see his path to victory.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Jas09

<snip> And he basically can't win without three out of four of VA, OH, FL, and PA.

This. And Obama can't win without winning two of these states.

[Nametag]

I think Obama can pick up PA, IA, and WI fairly easily; he needs OH, which will be a battleground, or FL, which has a comfortable-looking margin of registered Democrats, but doesn't usually play out that way. I think this election's going to be a squeaker.

[JBGUSA]

Originally Posted by Terr

Sure. Start with their map. Then have Romney take FL, NC, PA and OH. VA and IA can be topping on the cake. Quite realistic.

I expect PA stays Democratic. Otherwise I agree with this post.

[Typo Knig]

The WashPost had an article about this recently. Their point was that Romney (or any Republican nominee in 2012) has a low ceiling for electoral votes, but a high floor. Romney can get to 270 or higher, just not much higher. But he has fewer states to flip than Obama. OTOH, Obama could lose or win or win big.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

Sure. Start with their map. Then have Romney take FL, NC, PA and OH. VA and IA can be topping on the cake. Quite realistic.

If Governor Scott's voter-rolls purge is not stopped and Romney wins Florida, there's gonna be trouble (I'll be making some little of it myself), and Romney's Admin will be tainted with illegitimacy like W's was (yes, both terms, don't get me started on Ohio in 2004). Never again!

[BrainGlutton]

Ohio in 2004. Never again!

[Rhythmdvl]

Yawn. Call us when you find real voter fraud. Oh wait, you can't because upstanding states have passed voter ID laws that retroactively prevented it from taking place.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Yawn. Call us when you find real voter fraud. Oh wait, you can't because upstanding states have passed voter ID laws that retroactively prevented it from taking place.

Are you talking to me? Because I agree with everything you're saying, that was my point WRT to the Florida voter-roll purges, including the one in 2000 and the one going on now.

[Rhythmdvl]

Oops, sorry. I thought the recent exchange in the linked thread plus the idea of "retroactively" preventing fraud--i.e., that's why there is no evidence of it--would have made the intended sarcasm clear. Sorry for the confusion.

Just saw this post on imgur, and though I don't think I agree with its text I think I'll start incorporating it. (percontation point)

[JBGUSA]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If Governor Scott's voter-rolls purge is not stopped and Romney wins Florida, there's gonna be trouble (I'll be making some little of it myself), and Romney's Admin will be tainted with illegitimacy like W's was (yes, both terms, don't get me started on Ohio in 2004). Never again!

That's very pejorative. In 1972 the shoe was on the other foot, and Humphrey won Ohio's primary with fake votes from black precincts, according to Hunter Thompson's book, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If Governor Scott's voter-rolls purge is not stopped and Romney wins Florida, there's gonna be trouble (I'll be making some little of it myself),

Second Amendment remedies?

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Second Amendment remedies?

Oops, I take back what I said upthread. I didn't realize that Brainglutton was a tea partier!

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Oops, I take back what I said upthread. I didn't realize that Brainglutton was a tea partier!

Well, he's threatening/implying violence if he doesn't get his way.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Second Amendment remedies?

I had nothing in mind involving firearms. I'm a lawyer. There's plenty of nonviolent ways to make trouble.

[ultrafilter]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

The WashPost had an article about this recently. Their point was that Romney (or any Republican nominee in 2012) has a low ceiling for electoral votes, but a high floor. Romney can get to 270 or higher, just not much higher. But he has fewer states to flip than Obama. OTOH, Obama could lose or win or win big.

This doesn't seem to make sense. The electoral votes for Obama and Romney have to add up to 538, so if there's a narrow range of outcomes for one candidate, there has to be an equally narrow range of outcomes for the other. Or am I misreading you?

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by ultrafilter

This doesn't seem to make sense. The electoral votes for Obama and Romney have to add up to 538, so if there's a narrow range of outcomes for one candidate, there has to be an equally narrow range of outcomes for the other. Or am I misreading you?

Or I'm mis-remembering the article. I think the point was that likely+probable+possible states for any Republican candidate in 2012 give a narrow range of electoral votes. The scenarios for Obama have a wider range. If Romney has a winning scenario, obviously Obama loses, and vice-versa. But If Romney only gets his likely minimum, Obama wins big in EVs. Whereas Romney's best projection is not far above a minimum victory. Another way to think about it: if Obama keeps all his 2008 states, he wins again. If he flips additional states he gets into landslide territory. Romney must keep all of McCain's 2008 states and flip some more to him. It's not quite that simple - there are some states that are already considered likely to flip this year.

The larger point is it's still anyone's election.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

The WashPost had an article about this recently. Their point was that Romney (or any Republican nominee in 2012) has a low ceiling for electoral votes, but a high floor. Romney can get to 270 or higher, just not much higher. But he has fewer states to flip than Obama. OTOH, Obama could lose or win or win big.

Originally Posted by ultrafilter

This doesn't seem to make sense. The electoral votes for Obama and Romney have to add up to 538, so if there's a narrow range of outcomes for one candidate, there has to be an equally narrow range of outcomes for the other. Or am I misreading you?

When I first read Typo Knig's post, I thought he said Obama could win or lose big, which suggests that Romney could win or lose big. But on re-read, I think he was saying that Obama could win or lose narrowly, or win big. That means that Romney could win or lose narrowly, or lose big. Is that a correct summary? so there is symmetry there, but it doesn't mean that both have the same range of outcomes.

[ultrafilter]

That does make sense. The issue I was getting at is that even though there are two numbers being reported in the electoral vote totals, we know their sum has to be 538, and so there's really only one. As a result, every possible outcome for Mitt Romney corresponds to a unique possible outcome for Barack Obama, and it's impossible for there to be more variability in one set of outcomes than the other, which is what I thought was being claimed.

I agree with the more general point that it's still an open election.

[Fiddle Peghead]

FWIW (absolutely nothing), I used the RealClearPolitics map toss-up data to set the 270towin map as if the toss up states would be won by whichever candidate currently has a lead in that state, no matter how small. The RCP map is a bit more conservative, with more toss-ups than 270towin. Obama wins by a comfortable margin of 313-225.

Toss-ups for Obama from RCP: NV, CO, WI, IA, MO, NH, OH, VA
Toss-ups for Romney from RCP: AZ, FL, NC

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

I am reminded of the tale of the quarterback, the gymnast, and the economist stranded on a desert island. Searching for food, they came across a coconut tree. The quarterback slammed into the tree truck, attempting to shake some coconuts loose, without success. The gymnast tried to climb the smooth branchless trunk, also without success.

The economist pondered the situation, and finally said, "Assuming that there's a ladder on this island...".

Heh.

Three pollsters go hunting. A deer runs through a clearing nearby. One pollster shoots just ahead of it, one shoots just behind it, and the third shouts, "We got it!"

[septimus]

"Republican Party candidate to win 2012 Presidential Election" is offered today at Intrade.com for a whopping $45.60. The price is even higher at University of Iowa's Electronic Market. (I've lost the bookmark to see the odds at various Sportsbooks.)

Why the recent surge? Jobs report or Wisconsin election?

In any event, the news is depressing.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by septimus

"Republican Party candidate to win 2012 Presidential Election" is offered today at Intrade.com for a whopping $45.60. The price is even higher at University of Iowa's Electronic Market. (I've lost the bookmark to see the odds at various Sportsbooks.)

Why the recent surge? Jobs report or Wisconsin election?

In any event, the news is depressing.

Intrade still has Obama at 54% to win.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Intrade still has Obama at 54% to win.

Yeah. 54+ plus 45+ = 99.9. It balances.

Obama is the favorite but only slightly so. The "only slightly" part depresses me. (It only matters only slightly but I check Demo/Repub not Obama/Romney. Accidents do happen.)

BTW, the Repub graph shows that that contract was selling, briefly, above $50 some months ago.