Wednesday, July 11, 2012

2012 Presidential Election: Projected Electoral Map (as of 7/11/2012)

2012 Presidential Election: Electoral Map: This map displays the electoral collection projections of the Paul Ogden as of July 11, 2012 and does not reflect the opinions of 270toWin.

Note:  I made these predictions after considering state polls, historical trends, and my own hunches about how the states would play out given the issues each candidate is touting and the candidates' strengths and weaknesses.

It looks to me like the states of the Big Ten, including states such as Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and even Pennsylvania are the keys to Romney scoring an upset.    While Obama won Virginia and North Carolina last time, I don't think that will happen again.  Believe it or not, Obama is even ahead in South Carolina, which he didn't win last time.  I don't buy he will win that state...or Indiana for that matter.


Bill said...

It looks like all roads lead through Ohio. If he can win there - picking Portman certainly helps - if Romney could win Iowa and New Hampshire, which is doable, he would pull of a slim victory.

Paul K. Ogden said...

I think that's a good scenario. Iowas has become a solidly D state but this time it appears to be in play. Romney actually has a shot at PA too. I think the key though is states like Ohio, Iowa and New Hampshire.

Unigov said...

Paul - iirc several Democratic states have altered the way they award their Electoral votes, so that the votes go to the presidential candidate that gets the most 'popular votes' nationwide. Can you comment on the impact of this on the 2012 election, and the constitutionality of one state awarding electoral votes based on a factor outside the state.

Cato said...

Good map. I don't know if I can disagree with it.


Even though I vote Republican more often than not, and I was a delegate at the GOP convention, there is no way I am voting for Romney, likeable as he is.

The bottom line is this. Both Romney and Obama are in the pockets of the elites (i.e. Goldman Sach). The elites win regardless of who we pick. I see practically no difference.

I refuse to vote for Obama or Romney. And I am not alone.

If enough of us don't vote for either, it will swing the election to Obama.

And that's what the GOP gets in return for its very biased treatment of Ron Paul. Do you remember how little time he got at the debates? I went to Iowa to work the caucus and saw first hand how the GOP wielded the field against Ron Paul. It was disgusting.

We are big enough that we matter.

I predict this election will go to Obama. And quite frankly, that's what America deserves right now.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Unigov, I know several states discussed changing their electoral college allocation method from a winner-take-all system, but I don't think any actually went through and made changes. I know Colorado and California were two of those. CA changing would have really helped Republicans out because, the GOP can't really win that state. But winning 40% of the electoral votes would be good.

Colorado talked about going to a proportional system. You get 55% of the popular vote, you get 55% of the electoral vote in the state. I don't think they made the change. Colorado is historically Republican but leaning more and more Democrat of late. Basically whatever party is more likely to lose a state is the party that's helped when you move from a winner take all system.

As far as I know Nebraska and Maine are the only two that don't do winner-take-all. Both states award two electors for winnign the states, then one for each congressional district the candidate wins.

Paul K. Ogden said...

I would add that the Colorado proportional method would almost certainly ensure that a presidential candidate never come to the state again regardless of how competive it is. At best, the candidates be fighting over one, maybe two electors.

Unigov said...

Paul - thank you. It's more widely adopted than I had thought, see:

About 1/4 of all electoral votes are included in this thing.