I've flip flopped quite often as to who I want to be supporting, Clinton or Obama. Truth of the matter is, I don't really care as long as one of them gets into the White house and I feel those are sentiments that I don't hold alone. At this point, I'm leaning towards wanting Hillary but ultimately my support will go behind which of the two I think has the better shot of winning on November 4.

So, I think it's time to have a detailed look at the states by electoral votes and party affiliation. I don't understand any other logical way of choosing the Democratic nominee.

Here are the states that I think the Republicans have (more or less) guaranteed in the November election:

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arizona (10)
Georgia (15)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
N. Carolina (15)
N. Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
S. Carolina (8)
S. Dakota (3)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
Virginia (13)
W. Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)

That's 185 electoral votes. The ones in red are states that had overwhelmingly positive Obama votes in the primaries (even when compared to the top Republican candidates in the respective primaries).

The Democrats have the following states secured (more or less):

California (55)
Connecticut (7)
Delaware (3)
D.C. (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (21)
Maine (4)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (12)
New Jersey (15)
New York (31)
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania (21)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (11)

That's a total of 211 electoral votes.

Here's a breakdown of the remaining states and why I think they're the swing states. I should note that I have, in my assumptions, that McCain is the Republican candidate.

Arkansas (6): There were only 50,000 votes separating Bush and Gore in 2000 and a wider 100,000 votes separating Bush from Kerry in 2004. Both times, Bushed edged out. Why it's not secured as Republican: Hillary Clinton got more votes in the primary for Arkansas than McCain, Romney, and Huckabee combined. Also, McCain only captured 20% of the primary votes. If Hillary gets the nomination, this could be a small but much needed gain for the Democrats.

Colorado (9): Bush won Colorado in 2004 with a small margin. I think it was like 3-4% It was 1.1m vs. 1.0m votes. In the primary this year, Obama collected more votes than ALL the Republican candidates combined. Even Hillary's vote count (as second place) was above the Republican's 1st place candidate. As I will stress below, I know the primary vote counts can't be taken as anything close to guarantees. But the primary vote counts that I have chosen to discuss are quite noteworthy.

Florida (27): In 2004, Bush won by another mere 3-4% and we all know it came down to a few hundred votes in 2000. The primary doesn't make the situation any clearer. Hillary received the most votes of any candidate from either party but I think the Republicans had more votes cast in total. Then again, Bush did have family ties in Florida and there's no bush running this time, so it's definitely a swing state. The fact that it holds 27 electoral votes is why we can't take anything for granted. Florida could again become the decisive state.

Iowa (7): Bush beat out the democratic candidate in both 2000 and 2004 but with less than 1% difference both elections. Plus, McCain ranked 4th in the Iwoa primary this year. Could Iowa finally go to the democrats?

Michigan (17): The dems took this state in both the past 2 elections but both by razor thin margins. Obama took his name off the primary ballot, so more reason to put a big question mark on Michigan. I'd love to put in the democrat list but with so many votes at stake (17) and such close races in the past, I don't want to take things for granted.

Minnesota (10): Clinton came in 2nd in the primary but still managed more votes than all the republican candidates combined. Minnesota probably belongs to this list the least but it also went to the Democrats in 2000 and 2004 by very small differences (less than 2%).

Missouri (11): Bush took Missouri in both 2000 and 2004 elections but with more than a third of all registered voters voting in the primary, both Hillary and Obama received votes more than twice McCain's (1st place) count. There were also more overall Democrat voters than Republicans (by about 200k) in the primary. It could still go to the GOP but I'd say it's a pretty close call.

Nevada (5): Once again, Bush took this state in both elections but with less than 2% difference. Can't tell much from the primary since so few people voted but I'm almost about to declare this a Republican secured state.

New Hampshire (4): Reps took it in 2000 by 7,000 votes. Dems rook it in '04 by 9,000 votes. I'd give the Primary advantage to the Democrats but it's important to note that more 60% of all registered voters voted in the primary. I'm close to also calling this a blue state.

New Mexico (5): Blue in '00 but red in '04. We won't really know till June when the GOP holds their primary. Hillary and Obama seem to both have strong support here (48/49 split).

Ohio (20): Republicans took it in both elections (but not by much). Primary for both parties is on March 4th.

Tennessee (11): Red in '00 and '04 but primary still shows some hope. 2nd place Obama still got more than 60,000 votes over Republican winner Huckabee. McCain came in second.

Wisconsin (10): Democrats BARELY took it in both '00 and '04. Primary is next week.


I know the primaries can't be taken as strong arguments but some of the stats are overwhelming. Some states had a little under 2/3 registered voters voting.

Anyway, I might be overly optimistic but looking at the breakdown now, I see a Democratic victory with EITHER Clinton or Obama. I think Republicans will take Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico with Arkansas (if Obama gets the ticket) and Iowa (if hillary gets the ticket). The rest will go to the Democrats. The one thing I knowingly have not factored in are those rare states that split their electoral votes. I don't know which ones they are and in the long run, I don't think they're going to matter as much as any one of the swing states I've listed.

If Clinton gets the nomination, I'm projecting a 289-249 electoral win. If Obama gets the nomination I'm predicting a 290-248 win additionally with possible upsets in Georgia (15) and South Carolina (8).

What do the rest of you think? I want to welcome any objections and counter-arguments to any of my statements because I know I may be naiive in some cases and not know important information or be totally off on some things.

Edit: I just realized that if a state had a caucus primary then the numbers reported on not actual voter statistics, so I don't know how much that throws off my analyses.

Good analysis. Allow me a few comments in a few states.

First, I think you may want to reconsider Montana (3), which has two democratic senators and a democratic governor, who will be working overtime to get a democratic President elected. And it did vote for Clinton in 1992.

Virginia (13) has also changed tremendously, with a new Democratic Senator beating the incumbent. There is a popular Democratic ex-governor running for the Senate, and the population growth is almost all in the DC suburbs, which is very liberal.

Colorado (9): Colorado was very close last time, and since the last election has become even more blue, based on recent elections.

Iowa (7): Iowa went with Gore in 2000. (You said Bush won it) So this is definitely a winnable state.

Michigan (17): I had to go back to 1988 with the Dukakis fiasco to fins a Republican winning Michigan. In this Democratic year, with the economy on the front burner (a major theme in this state), expect this to be blue.

New Hampshire (4): Yeah, this will go blue. They have changed a lot in a few years, with lots of ex-Massacusetts liberals moving there. In the last election, the state went completely blue (senate, house, governor)

Here's what I think:

States the Republicans have wrapped up:

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arizona (10)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
N. Carolina (15)
N. Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
S. Dakota (3)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
Wyoming (3)

Probable:
Georgia (15)
Louisiana (9)
S. Carolina (8)
W. Virginia (5)


Locked up for the Democrats:
California (55)
Connecticut (7)
Delaware (3)
D.C. (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (21)
Maine (4)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (12)
Minnesota (10)
New Hampshire (4)
New Jersey (15)
New York (31)
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania (21)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (11)

Probable:
Michigan (17)
Wisconsin (10)

And then the swing states:

A Democrat will win in November, no matter who they nominate. I would take Virginia (13) out of the Red column and into the swing. They elected a Democrat senator in 2006 and a governor in 2005. Former governor Mark Warner is running for Senate thus year and is likely to win by a wide margin. With him on the ticket and the Northern Virginia area becoming increasingly democatic, I can easily see this switching in 2008.

New Hampshire (4) is almost a guarantee for the democratic candidate, with a huge anti-republican mood there at the moment. They are also likely to oust one of their current Republican senators.

Ohio (20) will go Democrat, I think, as will Arkansas (if Hillary gets the nomination), Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado.

New Mexico (5) and Nevada (5) are possible if Hillary gets the nomination, considering the latino population there.

Georgia (15) and South Carloina (8), and possibly Louisiana (9) could swing Democrat if Obama gets the nod. After all, LA voted for Clinton both times and Georgia did once.

Then there's Florida (27). If McCain picks Crist and he accepts, it's a no brainer. However if he doesn't, it could swing both ways. If Hillary gets the nod, the Dems have a better shot at picking it up, but it's not out of the question with Obama either.

Maine actually splits its electoral votes...so it is not a done deal, however the Dems have 3 of the 4 locked.

So, basically more votes for Democrats! I feel as though I shouldn't be so confident in this but I can't see how the Dems can lose.

Just like Crist!

Let's hope that comes out in the middle of the campaign if he does infact get Crist. That would be such a blow to the Repub constituents.

Groucho's remarks about Virginia are ringing true with the primary results.

Once the votes are 100% in, about 1/3 of the state's voting population will have cast a ballot and more than a third of all those votes (Republican and Democrat) will be exclusively Obama's.

If Obama gets the nomination, I'm starting to think we could see the bluest electoral map in a long time with more than 100 electoral votes separating the two candidates.

I'm happy but it's a little bittersweet since I think I've finally decided to side with Hillary (a little too late, heh).

Never underestimate the Democrats' ability to lose.

Look guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but focusing on vote totals is not a good indicator of what things will be like in the general election.

The Democratic candidates have a TON more buzz than the Republicans do right now. The Democratic party is energized, there pumped up, and there coming out in force.

BUT

Don't forget which party consistently brings out the voters on election day. Remember 2004? The sad truth is Republican's don't think these primaries matter. They aren't drawn to candidates like people are to Obama and Hillary on the other side of the isle, but DON'T make the mistake of thinking they won't rally around McCain in the general election.

Take Virginia, sure Democrats got about 1,000,000 total votes in the primary, but there energized, excited, ready to go. In 2004, Bush had over 1,700,000 votes in Virginia.

Democrats still have a LOT of work to do to start swinging these 'Red' states you all seem to think are going to magically vote Democrat. I'm not sold, especially not with a center leaning Republican nominee.

I prefer the glass half full.

At some point, expending resources to win over Bush's 28%ers is kind of a waste of time. The fact is that you are never going to be sold on a liberal like Obama - especially during the general election when he starts talking about helping the poor, fiscal responsibility, and responsible foreign policy that elevates our standing in the world instead of grinding it into the dirt.

But is a message that resonates (so far) with moderates and independents in big ways. And that's what it's going to take to win.

Helping the poor is such a broad term. I think the difference between me and many Democrats is that Democrats all want the quick fix.

Let's throw money at welfare! Let's throw money at universal health care! Then let's preach fiscal conservative policy! Puke.

Honestly, it's funny because if I was building a platform to run, my main talking points would be:

1) Immigration. Secure the border. Form a government section to END under the table jobs. HUGE penalties, undercover stings, I mean END it.

2) Education. We absolutely MUST fix the imbalance in the school systems. Say what you want, but at least No Child Left Behind moved us in the right direction. It needs to go further, a lot further, and it needs to do-so with better solutions than it currently employs. We also need to do a better job of regulating the cost of higher education (not just providing loans, but keeping it affordable).

3) Budget. I agree, we need to be more fiscally responsible.

4) Foreign Policy. I totally agree we should try and have a responsible foreign policy. We are not the police of the world, but we also must protect ourselves.

In general, I think we have many similar goals, with vastly different ways of achieving them.

What's funny is that YOU were the one defending Bush's fiscal insanity precisely because it DID throw money at the problem of a looming recession, which you gave Bush single-handed responsibility for staving off. Puke!

And if you think universal health care is a quick fix solution, then you don't know anything about universal health care. Which, of course, you don't. And let's not even get started on all the money you've supported throwing at Iraq.

So it seems the only time you really have an issue with "throwing money" at a problem is when it goes to the poor - which is what makes you a Republican.

If there's been any good thing to come out of the Bush administration, it's been his total and utter undermining of any leg you and other so-called conservatives ever had to stand on in terms of the economy.



Part of what makes Bush's foreign policy so utterly disastrous is that the war YOU supported and continue to support was, ON PRINCIPLE, exactly the opposite of what you claim to advocate. So was Bush's fiscal policy, it is the exact opposite of what you claim to advocate and yet you still support and defend him on the economy AND the war.

So the bottom line once again is that you as a 28%er are never going to be convinced. I think Barack Obama is for a big tent, but it would be a waste to go after that pro-Bush vote. This election is going to be about the moderates and independents.

A war that could have been avoided with a stronger UN. We need international help, we can't alienate each other, but what are we to do when Iraq offers France and Russia oil for their votes, and France and Russia accept?

The UN is an utter joke, it's system is a mess. Blame things in Iraq all you want, but I still think it was the right decision, with a terrible plan of action after the initial war ended. Our rebuilding efforts have been a disaster.


As for spending, I have no problem spending money and throwing money at problems so long as the solutions make sense. I don't mind running a deficit, I think it's a good thing. I'd rather be us than China every day of the week, give me the goods, I'll keep giving you a piece of paper.


As for universal health care, we're just not going to agree. I hate both democratic policies, that's all there is too it. It goes back to my thoughts on Immigration. Fix what's wrong before you start offering Amnesty, in this case, the health care system needs major reforms, THEN worry about providing the fixed system to everyone.

Who cares what Russia and France do with Iraq when IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING US. And the invasions has made the world a decidedly more dangerous place. The invasion itself was the mistake. What the UN did or didn't do is irrelevant.



So is the Bush administration but you still support them.



So we've gone from "puke" to "as long as I agree with the program or the disasterous war policy then it's okay to throw money at problems."

Sure didn't take you long to back down from that little principle. Which is exactly my point.



Oh I know you hate it. It helps the poor. Nuff said.

So you're reply is to:

A) Mock the Bush administration.
B) Accuse me of hating the poor.
C) Typical avoidance.

Brilliant work as always Beeble!

What exactly did I avoid? You're all for throwing billions into the wasteland that is Bush's Iraq policy, you're all for throwing money at the rich because somehow it magically benefits the economy. But when it comes to helping the poor get health care, you suddenly whip out the "less spending" argument as if it's been your principle all along.

As for A), I'm not mocking them so much as I'm mocking you and your utterly ridiculous stances on the UN and Iraq.

There is nothing magic about it. The rich pay more in taxes then you. Ergo, any refund they get (assuming that is what you are alluding to) is going to be more then you get. I don't care if a tax refund benefits the economy one whit, it is not the governments money to confiscate.

Oh, and Mega, you did avoid the thrust of Eagles argument. He said the UN is a "joke" and a "mess" and you responded with a Red Herring (and typical response) "So is the Bush administration."

Let me break it down for you.

I talked about the UN corruption, and how it lead the US to go it's own. You avoid the topic:



Wait, I thought you wanted to act responsibly with other countries. Shouldn't we care about it if the UN, the primary international governmental body, is corrupted? And it was, just bits on Russia and France taking Oil for votes:

Russia:



France:



You really think this had nothing to do with why the US and Britain threw up their hands and said "we're doing this without you"? Really? Considering Russia and France just HAPPEN to hold key votes? You can't be that daft.


And since that wasn't enough, you then totally avoid why I disagree with the Democratic idea of spending. I believe Democratic proposed policies just throw money at a problem. It's like pluging a hold in a dam with a piece of gum. As I said, you need to fix the problem first. Education, Reform Health Insurance, then deal with the democratic plans like Universal Health Care.

One thing I do not understand is the fascination with low taxes. I am by most measures a free-marketer, having an economics degree and all, and firmly believing in free trade, but there is a limit to how low an ostensibly fair society can lower taxes. Laissez-faire is fine and dandy if the advocates thereof openly admit to desiring gaping-wide disparities between rich and poor. Perhaps a bit of relativity is warranted here:

The highest tax bracket was at 91 percent before Kennedy cut it to 70 percent. That should lend some perspective to the issue at hand. There is nothing diabolically left-wing about having the top bracket at, say, 40 percent. Short of anarchy, government does provide essential services of the kind private industry is loathe to dab in.

This is a favorite canard of the right, who will leave no stone unturned to defend tax cuts to the rich. In dollar amounts, yes, they pay more. But as BUSH HIMSELF argued, the rich, as a percentage of income, do not pay more than the middle class in income tax, and a helluva lot less in payroll tax. That's mostly due to tax loopholes, deductions, shelters, and capital gains, which also benefit the rich.

So the Bush tax cut was a tax cut for the rich.



So by that argument, you're against any taxes of any kind? And how exactly do you fund that half-trillion dollar war that you supported and continue to support - a bake sale?

And of course, your stance on the government's ability to confiscate money given your support of the government's ability to TORTURE people is utterly without principle.



First, that's not a red herring. Second, I addressed Eagle's rather criticism of the UN by saying rather plainly that it's IRRELEVANT. He's talking about NOT being the world's police and being FOR protecting "ourselves." And if you believe that, invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do. That makes the criticism of the UN a non-issue - unless of course you're looking to pass the blame, as Eagle is, to anywhere but his own complicity.

Beeble, I do not disagree that the rich did benefit more from the tax cuts then the rich. I never claimed that they didn't.


Which is exactly what you did regarding Eagles criticism. 2x I might add, logical fallacies are somewhat subjective as often more then one fallacy could apply to a situation.