| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: BIG State Strategy |
 |
|
You need 270 electoral votes to win. Here's where they are:
1. California 55
2. Texas 34
3. New York 31
4. Florida 27
5. Illinois 21
6. Pennsylvania 21
7. Ohio 20....................209 Seven states and you're almost home.
8. Michigan 17
9. Georgia 15
10. North Carolina 15
11. Virginia 13................269 You only need one more state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Saxiif
Joined: 15 May 2003
Location: Seongnam
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who the *beep* could possibly win both California and Georgia? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta, can you explain the rules of the game a little more? I understand the delegate system, but I'm not getting the premise of what you have outlined.
(My mind is putty from overwork (I like to think that's the reason).)
Can you explain a little more for the knuckle-draggers amongst us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Saxiif wrote: |
| Who the *beep* could possibly win both California and Georgia? |
Obama would have a shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Saxiif wrote: |
| Who the *beep* could possibly win both California and Georgia? |
Bill Clinton did it in 92, as did bush in 88, Reagan in 84, Nixon in 72, Truman in 48 and FDR in 4 elections. It wouldn't surprise me if a democrat did it in 2008. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| "So goes Ohio...", right? I'll take Ohio. (Is this like RISK? I'll put 5 armies on Ohio right now. Who's got the dice?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: BIG State Strategy |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
You need 270 electoral votes to win. Here's where they are:
1. California 55
2. Texas 34
3. New York 31
4. Florida 27
5. Illinois 21
6. Pennsylvania 21
7. Ohio 20....................209 Seven states and you're almost home.
8. Michigan 17
9. Georgia 15
10. North Carolina 15
11. Virginia 13................269 You only need one more state. |
Lets see. Either Obama or Clinton could win CA and NY, and each would lose TX. Obama has an advantage in IL, but I don't see Clinton losing it in the general. Clinton has an advantage in PA, but I don't see Obama losing it in the general. Now, Clinton performs much better in FL and OH, and I could see Obama floundering there. Those states are important.
MI would be a close Dem/GOP contest, and Obama might actually do better there, although its hard to say. Obama is the only one who can put GA into play, same with VA. NC is tough, but I doubt either Clinton or Obama could win it in a general.
So, for Clinton we have FL and OH for 47 electoral votes and for Obama we have GA and VA for 28 electoral votes.
You're missing WA. Clinton is weak there, but I think she could still win it. But Obama also can take IA (yes, little IA matters somewhat), and Clinton can't.
But Clinton is not assured FL, although neither is Obama assured GA, but we'll give him VA. So Clinton only has a hard 20 electoral pick-ups, with a soft 27. Obama gets a hard 24 electoral pick-ups between VA and IA, and a soft 15.
Electability result: inconclusive.
-----------
Edit: Here's another interpretation, more favorable to Obama, when small states are put into play.
In terms of small states, I agree that Hillary would pick up AK and WV, and Obama CO and IA and OR.
I call B.S. on WA, PA, and NJ, as both candidates could win each state.
McCain would have a tough time in NH and MI against Hillary, and I'm not confident either is much easier for the Democrats should they field Obama.
I would not count out KY for either Obama or Clinton.
In short, I think either candidate would beat McCain come fall. Obama can make up for losing FL with some Western states and VA, and Clinton can make up for the loss of some Western states and VA by securing OH and FL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was just curious about the minimum number of states needed to win the presidency. That list is just the list of the states' electoral votes. I hadn't realized that New York had slipped to 3rd and that North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia were so near the top. Our population has shifted geographically much more than I was aware of.
Part of the reason I was curious was that Mdave made several comments amounts about Clinton's Big State strategy and I wondered what the extreme of it would look like. It begins to make sense when you look at the numbers.
Real Clear Politics has both Obama and Clinton beating McCain in national polls, but those polls are worthless. Worse, they are misleading. Total number of votes nation-wide mean nothing. I want to know who is likely to win in each state so we know the electoral college count. Those are the only numbers that matter. Those maps Kuros provided are what I've been hoping to see, although I don't know where they came from or how accurate they are.
| Quote: |
I understand the delegate system, but I'm not getting the premise of what you have outlined.
|
caniff,
The numbers by each state are their number of Electoral College votes (number of representatives in the House + 2 for their Senators). The way it works presently is on Election Day, the candidate that gets the plurality of votes in each state gets ALL of that state's electoral votes. Whichever candidate gets 270 electoral votes wins the presidency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yes, a game "like RISK" but doing the US presidential election system would be great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
