Evidence that Obama is pulling ahead in Indiana continues to mount as MSNBC reports today that it's moving the Hoosier State into its growing "toss-up" category:
The most surprising move in our map is Indiana, a state that no one believed was a new battleground -- even when Obama's team was first laying out its 25-30 state strategy. Indiana, in fact, is probably the surprise of the cycle. It's a state that probably is somewhere BETWEEN Lean McCain and Toss-up, but because the state's poll numbers look more like a Toss-up state than a Lean McCain state, we're tipping it into the Toss-up category for now, especially since the RNC has decided to ad the state to its TV buy list.
Following reports of a $100,000 ad buy last week, the Republican National Committee announced over the weekend that it's in fact buying $740,000 worth of airtime in Indiana. Their spots will air over eight days, beginning tomorrow. (H/T Blue Indiana)
MSNBC also moved Florida and North Carolina into the toss-up category today. Under the changing landscape, the Illinois senator's delegate lead over McCain has shifted from slim to significant. That has the MSNBC political team predicting that the election could actually end at midnight this time around:
With the Toss-up list expanding at this point in the campaign, it gives the opportunity for either candidate to end up winning somewhat comfortably in the Electoral College. In the last two elections, the candidates basically split the final Toss-up states in half. Two weeks ago, we appeared to be on a similar trajectory. Today, that doesn't seem to be the case. The one thing the public may have learned about the candidates is that the two have VERY divergent worldviews. There's a bright line between these two candidates; it's not a case where both are trying to blur their views.
Also of note, the FiveThirtyEight simulation engine is currently putting Obama's chances of winning at over 80 percent.
susan (not verified) on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 19:37
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Post new comment