Ohio
Official McCain campaign memo:
Ohio and Pennsylvania – Everyone knows that vote rich Ohio and Pennsylvania will be key battlegrounds for this election. Between the two: 41 electoral votes and no candidate has gotten to the White House without Ohio. Senator McCain and Governor Palin have been campaigning non-stop in these key battleground states and tonight Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has pumped up our campaign at a rally in Columbus. Our position in these states is strong and undecided voters continue to have a very favorable impression of our candidate.
JFK lost Ohio in 1960, FDR lost Ohio in 1944, Grover Cleveland lost Ohio in 1892. The Ohio trivia fact is that no Republican has ever taken the White House without Ohio.
At the moment, the Pollster.com average gives Obama a 6.3 percentage point lead in Ohio. But even if McCain were to gain 6.5 percentage points on Obama in every state, thus carrying Ohio, he’d still be losing in all the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Virginia and thus lose the election.
25 Responses to “Ohio”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 1st, 2008 at 2:33 am
That’s the genius — sorry, Petey — of an Obama strategy, built during the primaries, that banks IA/NM and basically says ‘everywhere you try to compete, we can beat you six other ways’.
I’m so pleased that this election has not had idiot ‘forums’ with idiot undecided voters in Idiotsville, OH. For that, I sort of thank Gail Collins, who said early on what needed saying: people who cannot decide between McCain and Obama need to ‘get a grip’.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:55 am
This business about putting this state in play or that state in play really applies only to close elections. In fact, the history of the Electoral College indicates that once a candidate gets a lead of over 10% in the popular vote, they have a real chance of sweeping the table. The EC magnifies large popular vote margins as well as potentially throws the election to the popular vote loser in close races.
Losing campaigns have a tendency to go for the inside straight, try to swing a half dozen close states, and go for the Electoral College win popular vote loss, this is what Dukakis was trying towards the end of 1988 and ironically there were some signs in 2000 that the Gore campaign, which was behind in the polls at the time, was doing this. Maybe someday it will actually work, but its a dumb idea. McCain needs to find something that has him doing seven percentage points better nationally than what the polls are saying, then he gets back into this.
November 1st, 2008 at 4:30 am
This is the thing to worry about:
It’s not so much people lying to the pollsters, it’s people who refuse to participate and just hang up. Are they evenly divided between the parties? They weren’t in New Hampshire.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:26 am
But if the votes are rigged, he can make up the ground in every state. Don’t even bother with this election…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
November 1st, 2008 at 8:34 am
Fluctuations in the last week are meaningless noise and fluff. The % has gone up and down for both candidates over this time: there’s no solid Reagan-1980 hurdle going on.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:50 am
The most important thing to worry about is not a 6.5-point McCain gain, nor even statistical error, but methodological error. Pollsters may be failing to contact certain McCain voters, overestimating the number of young people that will actually turn out, or making some other sort of error.
The proper response is to phone bank, or knock on doors, for Obama between now and Election Day. I’m going to go make some calls.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am
It is true, however, that no candidate (but one) has gotten to the White House without Missouri since 1904.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am
So does that make Missouri a leader or a follower?? Show me.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:49 am
Re: Pollsters may be failing to contact certain McCain voters, overestimating the number of young people that will actually turn out, or making some other sort of error.
An it’s just as likley the methodological bias cuts the opposite way. One of the consistently closer polls for example only polls people on weekday evenings, Mon-Thu. That automatically leaves out everyone who doesn’t work a traditional 9-5 job.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
A big methodological error, such as polling Pennsylvania while two million Philadelphians are at a parade, like Rasmussen did.
November 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
That automatically leaves out everyone who doesn’t work a traditional 9-5 job.
On the other hand, people who work 9-5 or 9-6 jobs have trouble getting to the voting places and waiting hours to vote — especially single mothers who cannot afford child care, people with long commutes, and people with health problems that make it problematic to wait in line for a long time after a day at work. Voting on a workday creates a significant bias against the working poor.
November 1st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Re: On the other hand, people who work 9-5 or 9-6 jobs have trouble getting to the voting places and waiting hours to vote — especially single mothers who cannot afford child care, people with long commutes, and people with health problems that make it problematic to wait in line for a long time after a day at work.
I work 8-5. I will be at the polls right when they open at 7 (probably in line by 6:30) and will go in to work afterwards. I don’t have a long commute nowadays (just a two mile bike ride) but two years ao I did. Still voted first thing in the morning.
I do however agree that early voting should be allowed everywhere. We actually have a proposal on our ballot this year to allow it. as for people with disabilities I believe they are eligible for absentee ballots in every state.
November 1st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
It´s also true that no Republican won the Presidency without California until 2000.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Gee JonF, you get a cookie AND a pat on the back!
Meanwhile, the insistence on making voting a gigantic pain in the ass is CLEARLY done to limit progressive voter turnout.
There is absolutely no good faith reason to make Election Day NOT a national holiday. Either participatory democracy is important, or it’s not a participatory democracy.
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 am
I fucking hate this “no candidate has ever won without winning X” logic. It’s not really relevant. The idea is to get 270 electoral votes, not Ohio plus whatever other states get you to 270. Winning Ohio isn’t inherently crucial to anyone’s prospects.
It’s like arguing that no black man has ever been elected president, so it can’t happen this time. Or conversely, no woman has ever been elected vice president.
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 am
Re: Meanwhile, the insistence on making voting a gigantic pain in the ass is CLEARLY done to limit progressive voter turnout.
Drop the “progressive” adjective and I will agree. Our current voting schedule is an annoyance (and a deterrent) for everyone, the Right as much for the Left. This is why early voting and lenient absentee ballot rules are growing in popularity.
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:42 am
buy viagra online
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 5:45 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra