The 2008 Presidential Electoral College Map

I advise fellow LiberalOC.com readers to check out an excellent website, www.FiveThirtyEight.com. The 538 signifying the total number of electoral college votes for president. Editor’s Note: The data from fivethirtyeight.com came from http://3bluedudes.com/ProjectDatabase.htm which has an election projection database that combines projections from multiple sources.

Since our friends at Red County have twice used the phrase “Senator-elect Mimi Walters,” even thoguh she faces an outstanding State Senate candidate in Gary Pritchard, and have pretty much dmissed Debbie Cook’s candidacy against Rep. Dana Rohrabacher because the voter registration numbers just aren’t there, I plan to start using the poll numbers on this site to justify using the phrase “President-elect Barack Obama.”  Because the individual state by state polls show Obama would win the election if it were held today by a margin of 335.5 electoral college votes to 202.5 for Senator John McCain.

And going from Red to Blue in 2008: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada.

Of course a lot can change between now and election day, and thebiggest change will be the positions John McCain holds on issues like immigration, trade, the war in Iraq, tax cuts, social security etc. etc. etc.  So by all means, bookmark the site above and keep checking back.  Its very thorough.   

  11 comments for “The 2008 Presidential Electoral College Map

  1. Steven Greenhut
    June 19, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Dan: While the presidential race is up for grabs (with Obama the favorite at this point), redistricting has made it impossible for a party switch in almost every state legislative race. At the congressional level, Cook does have a real chance, though, even if it is a longshot one. No one is Senator-elect until after the general election, as a matter of politeness. But you know that Walters is de facto senator-elect.

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    June 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Steve – as a matter of politeness, perhaps the Register could actually interview Gary Pritchard to show voters the start difference between him and Mimi? Disclosure: I have contributed to Gary’s campaign. Perhaps we should be asking Walters to debate Gary

  3. Rob
    June 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    NO BS NO BO

    Mac in 08

    Hillary in 12

  4. June 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Declining the use of the designation Senator-elect at this point is not a matter of “politeness.” Neither is it de facto because there’s no fact about it. It’s patently false because the election that awards the designation has yet to occur. If tomorrow, God forbid, Mimi Walters is hit by a bus, would her obituary in the Register list her as the Senator-elect? No. Because it is factually incorrect. Using this logic, it would be appropriate for Sen. Barack Obama to be referred to as President-elect. And that’s equally ridiculous. Walters being called Senator-elect is inappropriate, inaccurate, and arrogant and for a serious journalist to justify or rationalize it is unprofessional.

  5. Steven Greenhut
    June 19, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Don’t get me wrong. I do think that the newspaper should interview the challengers, even though they have ZERO chance of winning. I don’t think senator-elect should be used until Walters is indeed senator-elect. My point: redistricting has made most races a pre-ordained conclusion, which is why we don’t get debates or serious coverage of contenders. Even if a candidate died during the election, that candidate would still win if he or she had the right party affiliation for the district. It’s true. You know it. That’s why California needs redistricting reform. That’s my point.

  6. Dan Chmielewski
    June 19, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    If California gets redistricting reform, there will be even more Democrats. Republican affilitation is in the low 30s. What’s turning OC from a Red County into a Purple one are new residents. Democratic voters registration is way up. Not enough to knock off Republicans, but time is on our side.

  7. Dan Chmielewski
    June 19, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Steve — Mimi got 40,000 votes out in a district with 520,000 registered voters. A little more than 7-1/2 percent in what was one of the more hotly contested primaries.

    With Barack Obama on the ballot and defeating the Protect Marriage initiative, the blues are coming out in force. Mimi had some strong statements against the new gay marriage right which is going to motivate a lot of people to vote against here. I think this race is going to be a lot closer than you think.

  8. June 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Yes, Dan, you’re correct. This is, after all, California. Stranger things have happened….

  9. June 20, 2008 at 10:10 am

    The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, 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).

    The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are 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 been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  10. cook
    June 21, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Susan I read someplace that a popular election by vote counts for president since 1960 would have produced 12 republican presidents and zero democrats.

    Don’t you think the 5 demo’s and 7 repub is a better split?

  11. June 21, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Cook – just off the top of my head – what about Al Gore getting the popular vote in 2000?

Comments are closed.