An electoral college landslide for McCain?

Even without Sarah Palin on the ticket, John McCain already had the electoral college sewn up just after the Democratic convention.

That’s if the pre-convention polling results of the last 35 years are an indicator.

Let’s look at the data. A Democratic challenger needs at least an 18 to 19 point lead going into a convention.

McGovern had a 17 point lead in 1972.

Mondale had 14 in 1984.

Dukakis had 11 in 1988.

All ended up as landslides for the Republican candidates on election day.

On the other hand, Carter had a 21 point over Ford in 1976 and he barely eeked out a win in one of the closest elections in history.

Bill Clinton had the largest lead in history prior to the Democratic convention in 1992. Then the Democrats got an additional 16 point “bounce” (the largest in history) causing Ross Perot to drop out of the race temporarily. Of course, Clinton went on to win.

Barack’s outlook is dismal if we use this as a precedent.

Obama went into his convention with a 3 point and came out a 6 point lead — the lowest bounce ever.

The Democrat insiders saw the handwriting on the wall. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska both were asked to fill the vice president slot before Senator Biden. They saw the numbers and decided not to go down with a sinking ship. Biden apparently thought he had nothing to lose.

Now McCain is up by three or four points nationally according to the most recent polls and has been gaining a point or two per week in the key counties and states. The momentum is swinging toward McCain in every state.

The liberal media is going to keep saying that it all comes down to Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Mexico. If McCain loses all three, Obama loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral college. If McCain can take just one (which is almost a certainty) he slips in. If he wins all three and perhaps one or two more of the “blue” states, then it is an electoral college landslide. There is the strong possibility that even states such as Washington and New York are now moving toward McCain.

Of course, the media will try to paint it as a horse race and do everything they can to spin public opinion toward Obama, but this is going to be a landslide victory if trends continue — not as big as Nixon over McGovern in 1972 — but still a landslide.

(Thanks to Jeff Ziegler for his historical analysis and insights.)

2 Comments

The current system does not reliably reflect the nationwide popular vote. The statewide winner-take-all rules makes it possible for a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

Nationwide popular election of the President is the only system that makes all states competitive, guarantees that the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide wins the Presidency, and makes every vote equal.

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 would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—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 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

susan
Yes, the current system reflects the wishes of the founding fathers that the least populated states not be ignored in presidential campaigns.

If the popular vote was all that mattered, presidential candidates would spend all their time in large urban areas and states who have less than one percent of the population such as Vermont and Alaska would be virtually ignored.

We got George W. Bush in 2000 based on the electoral college. This is what the founders intended. It protects the interests of rural Americans.

We don't live in a democracy, but in a Republic of 50 states. Our President and Supreme Court are not elected by the democratic majority will of the American people as a whole nor should they be. We live in a republic with a representational balance of power. It keeps both the tyranny of the individual and the tyranny of the masses on check.

Your comments are welcome

Use Textile help to style your comments

Suggested products

DVD

Freedom

The Model of Christian Liberty. This DVD includes “Dawn’s Early Light: A Brief History of America’s Christian Foundations” and bonus features.

Read more

DVD

The Silent Scream

Ronald Reagan changed his view as a result of watching The Silent Scream – a movie he considered so powerful and convicting that he screened it at the White House.

Read more