Obama wins

The Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff supposes three electoral outcomes

  • Follow Editorials

Much can change in the next month, particularly as close as the polling is in this race. And the debate Wednesday night seems to have done just that.

But up until the debate, most analyses pointed to an Obama victory in November.

National polls are nearly meaningless. What’s important is how the candidates stand in each state, particularly the swing states of Florida, Virginia, Ohio and several others. Voters elect our president state-by-state through the Electoral College. It takes 270 electoral votes to win.

As of last week, Moody’s Analytics had Obama winning 303.

Based on pre-debate polls in seven swing states from RealClearPolitics.com, political website Politico.com had Obama winning 332 electoral votes.

Counting the sure votes and those in the “leaning” category, The New York Times has Obama at 237 votes – needing only 33 more from any combination of nine toss-up states containing a total of 110 electoral votes.

Examiner.com argues that Obama starts with a base of 251 “safe” electoral votes, if you include Pennsylvania, which isn’t certain but seems likely. Romney starts with a base of 181 red-state votes.

The Huffington Post website notes that even if Romney gained in the polls enough to win the closest “lean Obama” states, he’d still lose to Obama 271-267.

In the Huffington Post scenario, the map of the United States is roughly three-quarters red, or Republican. And Romney still loses.

In short, this election seems to be Barack Obama’s to lose over the next month.

Given that he hasn’t lost it already – with record-high unemployment, the worst recovery in American history, billions thrown away on bankrupt energy startups, security scandals on our border and at our embassies, record deficits now and mammoth taxes on the horizon, massive foreign policy upheavals and more – it’s hard to see what might get in his way now.

At this point, the numbers are still on his side.

Comments (20) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Conservative Man
5578
Points
Conservative Man 10/06/12 - 11:30 pm
5
2
Whah???...

..."Obama wins?"....Thanks for the info....I guess I can stay home on Nov. 6th now...

Way to rally the "base"....

Young Fred
20840
Points
Young Fred 10/07/12 - 02:16 am
3
3
Polls? What Polls?

Far be it from me to second guess the pros, ….. but they seem to base their samples on the 2008 election.

2010 is not in their radar because it was a non-presidential election, never mind the historic nature of said election.

They also don't take into count the new voter registrations, now versus 2008,

They don't take into count “voter enthusiasm” (whatever the heck THAT is). Polls in 2008 showed a “enthused” factor of plus 18 for dems, currently they're showing a plus 16 for reps.

I could go on and on. I'm predicting Obama will take no more than 7 states. Write it down, and call me when the election is over. I'll respond for a small fee of course.

carcraft
28444
Points
carcraft 10/07/12 - 02:38 am
4
2
I do take polling seriously.

I do take polling seriously. I do think the polls have been a little skewed over sampling Democrats. Obama did have a lead and looked like he was going to march into the White House. Obama now has two BIG problems. The problems are the last debate and Libya. Obama has to do well in the next debate, or he is on the way out. The Obama administration has to start answering questions about Libya and every indication is that the answers are going to hurt Obama. I am not sure the press can roll over on this. Paul Ryan debates Joe Biden and Ryan did very well confronting Obama in the health care discussion. Ryan should do very well against Biden. Two weeks of incompetent debate performance and the Libya hearings followed by Romney vs. Obama debate will probably control 3 weeks of the news cycle. Not much room for Obama to spin.

Techfan
6462
Points
Techfan 10/07/12 - 04:49 am
5
6
The electoral college is an antiquated system that needs to go

The electoral college is an antiquated system that needs to go. It reminds me of some convoluted system in a third world country. "We know we'll lose in a direct vote, so let's come up with a system that will count our votes disproportionately higher." The folks in Wyoming have it made. One vote there counts as much as little over 5 votes here in Georgia, and as much as almost 6 votes in California. While it won't happen, theoretically it is possible (using voting age population by state) for a candidate to lose 101,339,000 to 11, and still be elected president. Talk about a stupid system that take the concept of one man(or woman), one vote, and turns it on its ear.

Young Fred
20840
Points
Young Fred 10/07/12 - 05:17 am
5
3
I tend to think of the electoral college as elegant.

We wouldn't be having this conversation now if not for the “antiquated system”.

Those that would have us shoe-horned under big brother's heel may think it antiquated. To think that “lil “ol South Carolina may have just a little bit of influence in the scheme of things makes me quite happy.

I would hate to think of a nation, that would force squirrely mercury laden light bulbs, cars that sound like sewing machines and are dangerous to my wife and daughter, and how much TP I should use, having equal footing from Southern California citizens as my neighbors in SC.

But hey, that's just me.

CobaltGeorge
175416
Points
CobaltGeorge 10/07/12 - 06:41 am
10
1
"OBAMA WINS"

I almost had the big one when I read the title. May God help us to never see that in print again.

Techfan
6462
Points
Techfan 10/07/12 - 06:47 am
2
8
Elegant? Yeah, a system that

Elegant? Yeah, a system that derived from the slave states wanting more influence so some people's votes count more than others, and that keeps candidates concentrating on a handful of states instead of everyone, is a lot of things. Elegant is not one of them.

soapy_725
44110
Points
soapy_725 10/07/12 - 06:49 am
1
0
It is not who votes,
Unpublished

but who counts the votes -- Joseph Stalin

We have a one party system and the candidate the "one party" wants to move us forward to world domination will be elected. Neither flawed human candidate has the ability to lead the world in peace and justice.

Young Fred
20840
Points
Young Fred 10/07/12 - 07:07 am
7
0
Elegant most assuredly

Sorry Techfan, I'm going to have to respectfuly disagree. Look up “the great compromise”. I believe it was sponsored by Delaware, and pushed forth by less populous states that wanted “equal” representation, and also were expecting significant population growth. Put forth very early in our nations founding, way before slavery became an issue. Why would a sovereign nation subordinate itself to others without certain “assurances”?

Originally it had not a whit to do with “slavery”, but I'm always aware how you people try to turn everything into a racist issue.

omnomnom
3964
Points
omnomnom 10/07/12 - 07:27 am
8
0
yeah, i think the electorial

yeah, i think the electorial college system was to help balance the power between poor rural areas and more affluent urban areas.

early polling and voter projection i believe is harmful to the election process.

and those pesky independent Americans are either fickle or not really enamored with either party's offering.

goodness I hope America survives the next four years so we have a chance to hear what third parties have to offer on the national level.

Riverman1
93467
Points
Riverman1 10/07/12 - 08:26 am
6
1
Why Even Include Pre-debate Polls???

Rasmussen on Saturday is 49 Romney, 47 Obama for Likely Voters . On Friday, FL 49/47 Romney, OH 50/49 Obama, VA 49/48 Romney.

Gallup shows 49/47 Obama up on Registered voters, but his job approval is down to 48%.

The polls show trends, not one day swings. When something has changed as dramatically as it has, don’t expect it to reverse in a day or so. All polls show trending in Romney's direction. The trend to Romney had actually started before the debate.

KSL
143478
Points
KSL 10/07/12 - 08:27 am
2
3
Techfan, I am giving you a

Techfan, I am giving you a points down on your last post without actually hitting the "button."

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 10/07/12 - 08:46 am
5
1
If Obama wins, and I believe

If Obama wins, and I believe that he will, it will prove to me that our Presidential elections are more of a popularity contest than a reasoned, thoughtful look at the issues and outcomes. I believe that he will be the first President to win re-election while overseeing a horrid economy, soaring deficits, weak GDP and massive unemployment.

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 10/07/12 - 08:54 am
0
0
If I poll 100 union
Unpublished

members and ask them; "Will you throw a tantrum and strike if I don't give you 90% of my profits"? The new york times and huffington post will report; " Major corporation threatens union employees". Polls are run to get the desired result of the pollster.

Young Fred
20840
Points
Young Fred 10/07/12 - 09:21 am
4
0
Old, old, problem

Bruno, I do believe it's been a popularity contest for decades. The nature of the beast you might say. Albeit a beast that's been coddled, pampered, and fertilized.

bubbasauce
24260
Points
bubbasauce 10/07/12 - 09:50 am
4
1
Well Young Fred, seems to me

Well Young Fred, seems to me you are much more familiar with History and political facts than ole Techfan. Well said!

carcraft
28444
Points
carcraft 10/07/12 - 12:05 pm
1
1
Who would care about Iowa

Who would care about Iowa with out the Electoral College?

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 10/07/12 - 03:00 pm
2
3
Young Fred, I have to

Young Fred, I have to respectfully point out that Techfan is correct, and you are incorrect, even if you did try to distract by inserting the race card.

Electoral College votes per state equal the number of Congressional representatives per state. This is equal to a proportion of state population (House) plus 2 (Senate). Thus, small states are given no electoral advantage by the Great Compromise, as the two Senate votes are apportioned across the board -- they essentially cancel out. Instead, it was the Three-Fifths Compromise, which WAS about slavery, that inflated the slave-holding states' electoral votes by counting populations that were ineligible to vote.

The 7 thumbs up to your post indicate you are not alone in this misunderstanding of American civics and history. It's a shame that with all the billions of dollars the private sector can throw around to buy a candidate, they couldn't support community-level civics refreshers for American voters.

socks99
250
Points
socks99 10/07/12 - 03:49 pm
3
0
A winning vote for Romney may

A winning vote for Romney may or may not lead to a much-improved U.S. economy, and rebirth of economic opportunity for the average American; if Obama wins, likely things will stay about the same perhaps with some volatility associated with European and even U.S. state defaults and loan restructurings; at some point, either U.S. interest rates must turn up, or the USD much devalue appreciably;

In a sense, Romney's strategic business acumen stresses keeping ones' cards close to the vest; with Obama, we get the same old thing; with Romney, we have to wait until he unveils his grand scheme.

Curtain number 2 seems the better choice at this point!

Willow Bailey
20605
Points
Willow Bailey 10/07/12 - 04:22 pm
5
2
What we do know to be an

What we do know to be an undisputed fact is this administration is not working. Next, please.

Gage Creed
19385
Points
Gage Creed 10/07/12 - 05:59 pm
1
0
"It's a shame that with all

"It's a shame that with all the billions of dollars the private sector can throw around to buy a candidate, they couldn't support community-level civics refreshers for American voters."

Well at least the private sector has enough money to buy both candidates...They have to have some way to hedge their bets.

Young Fred
20840
Points
Young Fred 10/08/12 - 01:49 pm
0
0
burninater

"Young Fred, I have to respectfully point out that Techfan is correct, and you are incorrect, even if you did try to distract by inserting the race card."

I'm afraid you've gotten comments mixed up. I was merely responding to techfan’s insertion of race into the issue. Further you didn’t mention one thing that I asserted incorrectly, because I made no incorrect assertions.

kohler
36
Points
kohler 10/08/12 - 02:25 pm
0
0
The National Popular Vote Bill - 49% of the way there
Unpublished

Presidential elections don't have to be this way.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

kohler
36
Points
kohler 10/08/12 - 02:28 pm
0
0
71% of South Carolina Voters Support a National Popular Vote
Unpublished

A survey of South Carolina voters showed 71% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 64% among Republicans, 81% among Democrats, and 68% among others.

By gender, support was 81% among women and 59% among men.

By age, support was 81% among 18-29 year olds, 71% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 63% for those older than 65.

NationalPopularVote

kohler
36
Points
kohler 10/08/12 - 02:31 pm
0
0
Now 80% of States and Voters are Ignored
Unpublished

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree, that, at most, only 9 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 80% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs